Errors in Science!

"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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Yes, GD. Good summary.

 

TC,

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

 

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.

 

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, 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.

 

If you say so. All theories involve postulation.

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