Errors in Science!

[UTEOTW]

"I will restate for you the intent of this thread:

'Since science has been presented on this forum as the infallible truth I thought it might be worthwhile to point out some of the errors that have been propounded as truth in the history of science.'"

So when no problems can be demonstrated with the state of the art, you decide that maybe pointing out things that were once problems but that have been overturned by the scientific method will convince people that there is a problem with the method. Good luck with that. It has no relevence on the validity of current theories but I suppose some might enjoy the stroll.

"You are redefining Singularity saying it is by definition a singular point. My ball point pin has a singular point; my ball point pin is not a singularity. A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply."

You are equivocating different meanings of the word, a fallacy. In the context in which the discussion is taking place, a singularity is a specific point in space. A point does not have length nor width nor breadth.

And it is not ALL laws that break down in a singularity, but the known laws. Specifically general relativity and quantum mechanics. Usually you can savely use QM for very small objects and GR for very massive one. But in the case of a singularity you must use both. And they are not compatible with one another. Pay attention to your quote. That the known laws break down is a strong indication that they are not fundemental and that a deeper understanding of the universe is necessary to understand such realms. It also should be pointed out that while the known laws break down in a singularity but the opposite, as you tried to suggest, is not necessarily true. I believe the fallacy is known as affirming the consequent.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
I will restate for you the intent of this thread:

"Since science has been presented on this forum as the infallible truth I thought it might be worthwhile to point out some of the errors that have been propounded as truth in the history of science."

Response posted by UTEOTW:
So when no problems can be demonstrated with the state of the art, you decide that maybe pointing out things that were once problems but that have been overturned by the scientific method will convince people that there is a problem with the method. Good luck with that. It has no relevence on the validity of current theories but I suppose some might enjoy the stroll.

First UTEOTW you are a couple hundred posts late in whining over the clearly stated purpose of this thread. Also to blindly believe that the scientific method is always dutifully used in current "science" is ostrich like behavior.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
You are redefining Singularity saying it is by definition a singular point. My ball point pin has a singular point; my ball point pin is not a singularity. A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply.

Response posted by UTEOTW:
You are equivocating different meanings of the word, a fallacy. In the context in which the discussion is taking place, a singularity is a specific point in space. A point does not have length nor width nor breadth.

You are just flat wrong. "When a physicist refers to a singularity he or she is generally referring to a quantity which is infinite. Specifically, a quantity which approaches infinity as another parameter goes to zero, such as: limit 1/x=infinity as x approaches zero."

Response posted by UTEOTW:
And it is not ALL laws that break down in a singularity, but the known laws.

Please read my statement again: "A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply."

Response posted by UTEOTW:
Specifically general relativity and quantum mechanics. Usually you can savely use QM for very small objects and GR for very massive one. But in the case of a singularity you must use both. And they are not compatible with one another. Pay attention to your quote. That the known laws break down is a strong indication that they are not fundemental and that a deeper understanding of the universe is necessary to understand such realms. It also should be pointed out that while the known laws break down in a singularity but the opposite, as you tried to suggest, is not necessarily true. I believe the fallacy is known as affirming the consequent.

UTEOTW you say:

It also should be pointed out that while the known laws break down in a singularity but the opposite, as you tried to suggest, is not necessarily true. I believe the fallacy is known as affirming the consequent.

I said “ A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply.”, nothing else so your tawdry remark “but the opposite, as you tried to suggest, is not necessarily true”, is unfathomable and flat out false.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
I was watching tv last night and caught Simon Singh discussing his latest book, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. His discussed the theory, and Sir Fred Hoyle's disdain for it in favor of the "steady state" theory. After his comments were concluded he opened the forum to questions. One man asked, regarding the fact that about 75% of matter in the universe is hydrogen, and about 25% is helium, which Singh says is what would be expected if the big bang were true, "If 25% of the hydrogen present at the big bang fused into helium within seconds of the big bang, where did the hydrogen come from a second before the big bang?"

Singh spent about 10 minutes talking about seconds after, a millionth of a second after, a millionth of a millionth of a second after, and finally admitted that, at the exact moment of the big bang, the theory breaks down and becomes a virtual impossibility. He then spent another 10 minutes explaining how other scientific theories had suggested things were impossible (he mentioned a respected scientist of the 19th century who dogmatically stated it was impossible for stars to be made of hydrogen) which were later proven to be true.

But, finally, after about 20 minutes of beating around the bush, he admitted nobody knew. I looked at my wife and said, "I know."

It might be because he is not a very articulate speaker but I think that more likely it is because he is not a scientists! According to his website, he is "an author, journalist and TV producer." If you read reviews of the book, you will see that the book is about the history and the personalities involved in the development of the theory more so than about the theory itself.

In fact, a scientist involved in the field would have no trouble with the question from the audience, though he might have a hard time articulating to a lay audience.

In the very early universe, there was nothing but energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, sub-atomic particles become to form due to the well known E=mc^2. Some of these particles then came together to makes larger particles. Say quarks to protons and neutrons. Some of these then came togther to form atoms. Inflationary theory predicts specific abundances of the various atoms produced by this process. Observation has verified these predictions.

It is another example of the triumph of science in explaining such things and in the predictive power of the theories. YE on the other hand has no ability to predict such things and must arbitrarily accept whatever it cannot cast sufficient doubt upon.

 

[UTEOTW]

"First UTEOTW you are a couple hundred posts late in whining over the clearly stated purpose of this thread. Also to blindly believe that the scientific method is always dutifully used in current "science" is ostrich like behavior."

Vacation. Apologies. Just trying to figure out what can be proved by teliing us things were wrong that others have already pointed were wrong.

"You are just flat wrong. 'When a physicist refers to a singularity he or she is generally referring to a quantity which is infinite. Specifically, a quantity which approaches infinity as another parameter goes to zero, such as: limit 1/x=infinity as x approaches zero.'"

I do not disagree with that. In the context of the discussion, the simple answer is that you get an infinity because the mass becomes infinite as the volume goes to zero. Division by zero is not possible. No width nor height nor depth yields a volume of zero. You divide this into any mass and you get an infinity. This is a singularity. If the volume does not go to zero, your density does not go to infinity and you do not end up with a singularity.

I am still not sure what the purpose is in splitting hairs over sucha definition.

"Please read my statement again: "A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply.""

and

"I said “ A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply.”, nothing else so your tawdry remark “but the opposite, as you tried to suggest, is not necessarily true”, is unfathomable and flat out false."

I was not trying to be offensive, I was merely pointing out a flaw in your logic in the way in which your phrased your statement.

I think that we agree that in a singularity tha the known laws break down. I was merely trying to expound a bit and be sure everyone understands that this is because of limitations in the known laws. The underlying laws, which are still being search for, do not break down.

The logicalerror was affirming the consequent. It takes the following form. If A then B is made the same as if B then A. An example. If I am in Atlanta then I am in Georgia. Reprasing it as if I am in Georgia then I am in Atlanta is obviously not true. The way you phrased the statement was that a place where the laws break down is a singularity. That is not quite right. The laws DO break down in a singularity but there may be other cases in which they also do so.

Apologies if that was offensive.

 

[OldRegular]

My posts regarding the definition of a singularity:

posted May 31, 2005 12:45 PM
Thermodynamicist Roy E. Peacock in his A Brief History of Eternity defines a singularity as "a point at which all known laws no longer apply; they break down." If that is true we really can't say much about a singularity can we?

posted May 31, 2005 12:54 PM

Steve Nelson, Grad student, nuclear astrophysics Ph.D. program, Nuclear Lab, Duke University states the following about a singularity:

"Singularity" is a term which we physicists borrow from mathematics. It's a coordinate where we can no longer understand what a function does (such as a place where a denominator becomes zero and the function goes to infinity, or the tangent of 90 degrees is involved).

So in truth we cannot really say that infinite density is "nothing" regardless of what.


posted May 31, 2005 02:22 PM

A singularity occurs when the known laws no longer apply.

Steve Nelson, Grad student, nuclear astrophysics Ph.D. program, Nuclear Lab, Duke University, whom I quoted earlier states:

So, in short, a singularity is our way of sweeping what we don't yet understand into a convenient word. The laws of physics may hold up very well in the center of a black hole, we may just not know exactly what those laws are yet.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I think that we agree that in a singularity tha the known laws break down. I was merely trying to expound a bit and be sure everyone understands that this is because of limitations in the known laws. The underlying laws, which are still being search for, do not break down.

I have a feeling our pal, OldRegular is going to trip up over this one so if you don't mind UTEOTW, I'll try to rephrase this. Correct me if I do an injustice to any of the ideas you are trying to present.

Scientists believe that the universe is governed by physical laws. All our known laws of physics (ie GR,QM) are imperfect attempts to describe those physical laws and are open to correction when new evidence comes to light.

Singularities are points that follow the physical laws that govern the universe. However none of our current descriptions of those laws work in a singularity because those descriptions do not account for the unique conditions found in a singularity.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul33:
So perhaps, our little Hebrew boys and girls understood Genesis 1 in a completely different way than YEC. And their understanding would have been literal and consistant with inerrancy.

Interesting theory, except for one minor point. The Rabbis don't mention this theory.

In the Chumash, in the introduction to the commentary on Genesis, the Rabbis say, "the Torah relates the story of the six days of Creation ex nihilo to establish that God is the sole Creator and to refute the theories of those who claim that the universe is timeless or that it came into being through some massive coincidence or accident."

</font>[/QUOTE]I'd like to know more. When was the Chumash written? What Rabbis are you talking about?

 

[UTEOTW]

Yes, GD. Good summary.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Singularities are points that follow the physical laws that govern the universe. However none of our current descriptions of those laws work in a singularity because those descriptions do not account for the unique conditions found in a singularity.

Is that what is called "blind faith"?

 

[Paul33]

TC,

Just read Rashi on Genesis 1:1. Very weak. I'm glad I'm not limited to his interpretations.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Singularities are points that follow the physical laws that govern the universe. However none of our current descriptions of those laws work in a singularity because those descriptions do not account for the unique conditions found in a singularity.

Is that what is called "blind faith"? </font>[/QUOTE]As with all science, there is an element of faith in the evidence involved. But blind is a poor descriptor.

Are you looking for evidence of singularities?

Black holes have been indirectly observed and singularities are theoretically at the centre of a black hole as predicted by general relativity.

If you take legitimate issue with the evidence Einstien used to propose general relativity that has been challenged and confirmed over this past century by more evidence, the scientific community would be very interested. If successful, you would be quite famous.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
In the very early universe, there was nothing but energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, sub-atomic particles become to form due to the well known E=mc^2. Some of these particles then came together to makes larger particles. Say quarks to protons and neutrons.

You left out leptons. And of course the double quark mesons and triple quark baryons would be intermediate. The triple quark baryons, if up and down, would make up the protons and neutrons. Not to mention the newly discovered five quarks together forming a pentaquark.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Paul33:
I'd like to know more. When was the Chumash written? What Rabbis are you talking about?

Mine is Stone's. A reprint, of course. It follows the text or Rashi, which dates to about 1000-1100 AD. Of course, Rashi draws from texts going back into antiquity.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Paul33:
TC,

Just read Rashi on Genesis 1:1. Very weak. I'm glad I'm not limited to his interpretations.

Rashi was who I quoted. And by "very weak" do you mean he disagrees with you?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Black holes have been indirectly observed and singularities are theoretically at the centre of a black hole as predicted by general relativity.

Isn't "theoretical" a little strong when speaking of singularities in black holes. Conceptually or hypothetically might be better. For something to advance from a hypothesis to a theory generally requires some supporting facts. There is not even general agreement on the existence of black holes. Some unexplained phenomena have been observed and black holes postulated as an explanation; sort of like the big bang.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Black holes have been indirectly observed and singularities are theoretically at the centre of a black hole as predicted by general relativity.

Isn't "theoretical" a little strong when speaking of singularities in black holes. Conceptually or hypothetically might be better. For something to advance from a hypothesis to a theory generally requires some supporting facts. There is not even general agreement on the existence of black holes. Some unexplained phenomena have been observed and black holes postulated as an explanation. </font>[/QUOTE]If you have better alternative postulations that address the evidence of both the indirect phenomenon attributed to black holes and the evidence that supports general relativity, please stop hoarding your research and share it with the rest of the scientific community. The impact of these new theories could have far reaching implications for humankind.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Black holes have been indirectly observed and singularities are theoretically at the centre of a black hole as predicted by general relativity.

Isn't "theoretical" a little strong when speaking of singularities in black holes. Conceptually or hypothetically might be better. For something to advance from a hypothesis to a theory generally requires some supporting facts. There is not even general agreement on the existence of black holes. Some unexplained phenomena have been observed and black holes postulated as an explanation. </font>[/QUOTE]If you have better alternative postulations that address the evidence of both the indirect phenomenon attributed to black holes and the evidence that supports general relativity, please stop hoarding your research and share it with the rest of the scientific community. The impact of these new theories could have far reaching implications for humankind. </font>[/QUOTE]Your use of postulations sounds much better than theories!!!!!!!

 

[Gold Dragon]

OldRegular, it is interesting that you chastise Deacon and others for questioning Creation Scientist PhDs who nobody has ever heard of, while you question Albert Einstein who most consider to be one of the greatest scientists in human history.

 

[OldRegular]

It is enlightening to converse on a thread with experts in Einstein's general theory of relativity and also quantum mechanics, with a little string theory and worm holes thrown in. If my memory is correct Einstein did not accept quantum mechanics, remarking something like "God didn't play dice". Of course I could be wrong since I am not an expert in either of these fields. In fact it was my impression that until recently no one had found application for Einstein's general theory of relativity, assuming they do now. But then I could be wrong since I am not an expert in either of these fields; but if this thread last long enough maybe something will rub off. There is always hope!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Your use of postulations sounds much better than theories!!!!!!!

If you say so. All theories involve postulation.

Some postulations and theories are supported by large bodies of good evidence while others are not.