The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu..

In article
<1ij7rt6.1khw9ad170ol5sN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>,
real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard.DeleteThis@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> >
> > >> So what is your proposed research? What do you wish to measure or
> > >> observe? What kind of equipment do you need? What will it cost?
> > >> What else might you discover when you test this?
> > >
> > >I'm not proposing doing any research myself.
> >
> > You complain that the research isn't getting funded. But you don't
> > seem to be able to define that research that you want funded.
>
> <puzzled> But I'm not a worker in the field, so when I was asked what
> research *I* propose doing, my answer is of course `none'.
>
> Likewise, since I'm not any kind of expert in the field, I couldn't
> possibly define what research needs doing.

So you don't know enough to know whether the kind of work you vaguely
imagine has already been done.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

J. J. Lodder <nospam DeleteThis @de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> > Just read up on the tale of cold fusion. Fleischmann and Pons might
> > well have been talking through their hats, might well have failed to
> > come up with the experimental results that they claimed, but they were
> > on to something: a cold fusion lab benchtop fusion source is now
> > available, commercially.
>
> Buy me a 10 kW plant please. My house needs heating.

Rowland is dissembling (by his standards, telling lies). He's not
talking about "cold fusion" what he is describing is pyroelectric
fusion, a technique which can be used to create a compact neutron source
with extremely low (10-8 Joules) energy. The team that achieved
pyroelectric fusion have been vocal critics of cold fusion and of
sonoluminescent (bubble) fusion. I doubt they'd be happy to see some
bozo claiming that they had developed cold fusion.

They use a pyroelectric crystal to generate a strong electrical gradient
which is used to accelerate euterium ions into an erbium deuterate
target. The real trick in this technique was the creation of an
electrical field of several gigavolts per metre sufficient to accelerate
a deuterium ion to have enough energy to fuse in a D-D reaction.

The physics is entirely conventional. The device does not generate net
energy and at present it has two potential uses, as a benchtop source of
a weak neutron flux and (possibly) as a thruster for spacecraft.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibbons.TakeThisOut@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:

> real-address-in-sig.TakeThisOut@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> > Howard Brazee <howard.TakeThisOut@brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> > > real-address-in-sig.TakeThisOut@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > >
> > > >> So what is your proposed research? What do you wish to measure or
> > > >> observe? What kind of equipment do you need? What will it cost?
> > > >> What else might you discover when you test this?
> > > >
> > > >I'm not proposing doing any research myself.
> > >
> > > You complain that the research isn't getting funded. But you don't
> > > seem to be able to define that research that you want funded.
> >
> > <puzzled> But I'm not a worker in the field, so when I was asked what
> > research *I* propose doing, my answer is of course `none'.
> >
> > Likewise, since I'm not any kind of expert in the field, I couldn't
> > possibly define what research needs doing.
>
> So you don't know enough to know whether the kind of work you vaguely
> imagine has already been done.

<puzzled>

There's nothing remotely vague about my notions, and I know that what I
imagine needs doing is *not* being done because I know for sure that the
researchers have terrible trouble getting funding.

The matter is often discussed in the science press - as you surely would
know as well as I do if you actually read the science press.

You see, this is all about the funding, not about the details of the
research.

I've no idea why you took the line that you could read my mind well
enough to tell that my ideas were vague - perhaps you're suffering from
a case of hubris? Or is it just plain arrogance? I couldn't possibly
tell since I don't think I can read minds.

Yes, yes, I know I'm replying to a troll, but sometimes it's
entertaining to do so.

Rowland.


--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell.TakeThisOut@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

In article
<1ij7roy.61hsjk1moju7fN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>,
real-address-in-sig.RemoveThis@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard.RemoveThis@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > <timstreater.RemoveThis@waitrose.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Problem here is there's no such thing as international law.
> >
> > It's not obvious that is a problem.
>
> The problem is more that some people are detatched from reality.
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> <http://www.un.org/law/>
>
> and then tell me what you think.

Looks to me mostly like treaties and conventions. Laws are made by
national bodies. Breaches of same are handled by national courts; no-one
else has jurisdiction. And don't tell me that we have signed up to the
ICC or whatever; I'm not interested.

Governments, you see, are elected to govern, not give away bits of
national sovereignty because they happen to feel like it (whether in
their manifesto or no).

Whether it be the Single European Act, Maastricht, Lisbon, or the ICC,
all these should have been put to a referendum.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

In article <1ij6c9d.yq3m4eu3fkq7N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>,
real-address-in-sig.TakeThisOut@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater.TakeThisOut@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
> > real-address-in-sig.TakeThisOut@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> >
> > > Howard Brazee <howard.TakeThisOut@brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Our duty is to fight it, and maybe we can win some battles.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that it's our duty to put a lid on the fighting and
> > > killing and violence.
> > >
> > > A good first step would be to persuade all governments that they do not
> > > have the right to kill /anyone/ - not ever, no matter what.
> >
> > Well, since you're volunteering,
>
> Where did I do that?

Whenever anyone comes up with a bright idea with the expectation that
someone *else* will do the work, that is my reaction.

> > I suggest you go to Zimbabwe first and
> > have a word with that nice Mr. E-ba-gum.
>
> <shrug> The job has to be done at the UN level, and then the UN needs
> to be given teeth.

Like in Srebrenitza, you mean? Or Darfur? Of course, lots of countries
talk like that and are then curiously unavailable when it comes to
sending troops.

Having said that, I *do* think the UN is a good place for people to
start talking. But it takes two to make peace. It only takes one to make
war.

> > > Get the UN working properly, doing its job as it was meant to and we
> > > *could* put a stop to most wars. The rest of it is down to civilised
> > > laws - no judicial killings at all (no excuses: no killings by the
> > > police, none by the courts - nothing).
> > >
> > > And then do something about road safety, water supply, poor farming
> > > practices, poor public health measures, and all the other really bad
> > > killers.
> >
> > Ah. Was it you on that Blue Peter sketch that Monty Python did then?
>
> Ah. You're just sneering randomly.

No, very specifically. At a whole list of dopey Blue-Peter-MP style
suggestions.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Tim Streater <timstreater RemoveThis @waitrose.com> wrote:

> real-address-in-sig RemoveThis @flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> > Howard Brazee <howard RemoveThis @brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> > > <timstreater RemoveThis @waitrose.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Problem here is there's no such thing as international law.
> > >
> > > It's not obvious that is a problem.
> >
> > The problem is more that some people are detatched from reality.
> >
> > Take a look at this:
> >
> > <http://www.un.org/law/>
> >
> > and then tell me what you think.
>
> Looks to me mostly like treaties and conventions. Laws are made by
> national bodies.

Yes, that's right.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law>

`is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and
explicit agreements that bind together nation-states in adherence to
recognized values and standards, differing from other legal systems in
that it concerns nations rather than private citizens'

What else could be the case?

If you're still in denial about this aspect of reality, I suggest you
read this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law>

> Breaches of same are handled by national courts; no-one
> else has jurisdiction. And don't tell me that we have signed up to the
> ICC or whatever; I'm not interested.

I see - so you're telling me that whatever I might come up with, if it
contradicts your existing ideas, you're going to disregard it?

Never mind. You know about the International Criminal Court and deny
that it's got any link to international law because you want to claim
that there's no such thing. Fair enough: you're mad, but there's
another angle I can take.

How about the International Court of Justice, established in 1946?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice>

It seems to have been busy in that time:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Court_of_Justice_cas
es>

All those cases allegedly heard, but I suppose it must all be purely
imaginary since you tell me that there's no such thing as international
law and you don't want to know about international courts.

> Governments, you see, are elected to govern, not give away bits of
> national sovereignty because they happen to feel like it (whether in
> their manifesto or no).

So you state - shame that that's not how the world actually *works*,
though. That's not what govenments actually *do* in practice.

And it's got nothing to do with international law in general.

International law, which you still deny exists, comes in three different
flavours (ibid):

======================================================================
* public international law, which involves for instance the United
Nations, maritime law, international criminal law and the Geneva
conventions.
* private international law, or conflict of laws, which addresses
the questions of (1) in which legal jurisdiction may a case be heard;
and (2) the law concerning which jurisdiction(s) apply to the issues in
the case
* supranational law or the law of supranational organizations, which
concerns at present regional agreements where the special distinguishing
quality is that laws of nation states are held inapplicable when
conflicting with a supranational legal system.
======================================================================

Only supranational law over-rides national sovereignty; `normal'
international laws are passed by each state agreeing to uphold them.

But of course you're not interested in reality, are you? No, you don't
want to know

> Whether it be the Single European Act, Maastricht, Lisbon, or the ICC,
> all these should have been put to a referendum.

Whatever you might *want* has nothing to do with *what is*.

Never mind your opinions, you know damned well that they were not put to
a popular vote, and governments did in fact hand over sovereignty. Even
joining the UN is based on a loss of power: the UN charter makes war
illegal, unless it's carried out in self-defence or with UN
permission[1].

As far as I'm concerned, all laws and all governments are illegitimate
and all governance should be by the people and for the people in the
absence of government.

That's the only decent way to run things.

[Failing that, I'd like to see democractic government rather than the
`allegedly democractic but actually not remotely based on the will of
the people' forms f government that we suffer from in almost all
nations.

Anarchism's only ever worked in modern times on St Kilda as far as I can
tell. Makhno's lot had a good go in the Ukraine, but failed due to the
fact that when you're up against groups people who like to run things
via government, they'll put aside their differences for long enough to
crush you before getting back to bickering amongst themselves.

Rowland.

[1] Rather entertainingly, it turns out that Germany is currently a bit
miffed because it's still legal for any of its Second World War enemies
to attack it without UN permission - that was part of the deal when
setting up the UN. So any time Norway wants a bit of lebensraum... ;-)

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell RemoveThis @dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Tim Streater <timstreater.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote:

> real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> > Tim Streater <timstreater.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote:
> >
> > > real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Howard Brazee <howard.DeleteThis@brazee.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Our duty is to fight it, and maybe we can win some battles.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that it's our duty to put a lid on the fighting and
> > > > killing and violence.
> > > >
> > > > A good first step would be to persuade all governments that they do not
> > > > have the right to kill /anyone/ - not ever, no matter what.
> > >
> > > Well, since you're volunteering,
> >
> > Where did I do that?
>
> Whenever anyone comes up with a bright idea with the expectation that
> someone *else* will do the work, that is my reaction.

<puzzled> Well, that's a very strange attitude to take from start to
finish.

The job that needs doing is one that I am incapable of doing for two
main reasons: firstly, I don't have the ability to do much any more; and
secondly, it's a job that needs to be done by high-level negotation at
the international level, for which one needs a set of established
political negotiatiors.

I'm not established - so I'm not in the running.

I'm incapable of running negotiations - so I'm not in the running.

I can't do political wrangling - so I'm not in the running.

- so your idea that I'm volunteering is very silly, really. It's
utterly impossible for me to be able to do the needful. Not just
impossible, but *OBVIOUSLY* impossible, and impossible cubed.

So I have to say that your sneering here is just as silly as the rest of
your ill-bred ignorant sneering.

> > > I suggest you go to Zimbabwe first and
> > > have a word with that nice Mr. E-ba-gum.
> >
> > <shrug> The job has to be done at the UN level, and then the UN needs
> > to be given teeth.
>
> Like in Srebrenitza, you mean? Or Darfur? Of course, lots of countries
> talk like that and are then curiously unavailable when it comes to
> sending troops.

What are you blathering about?

I'm talking about the UN having its own army, navy, and air force as it
was supposed to have when it was set up.

I've no idea what your mindless sneering was supposed to indicate, but
it's entirely unconnected with anything I'm on about.

> Having said that, I *do* think the UN is a good place for people to
> start talking. But it takes two to make peace. It only takes one to make
> war.

Yes, that's why the UN is supposed to have three armed forces to put an
end to wars when they happen. It's in its charter, apparently[1].

Thing is, Stalin (yes, it was him) didn't want the UN to work properly;
so for that and various other reasons the UN never got its military, its
navy, or its air force.

Do you understand what I'm on about yet? Are you even trying to
understand, or are you just looking for a chance for more low-grade
mindless jeering and sneering?

> > > > Get the UN working properly, doing its job as it was meant to and we
> > > > *could* put a stop to most wars. The rest of it is down to civilised
> > > > laws - no judicial killings at all (no excuses: no killings by the
> > > > police, none by the courts - nothing).
> > > >
> > > > And then do something about road safety, water supply, poor farming
> > > > practices, poor public health measures, and all the other really bad
> > > > killers.
> > >
> > > Ah. Was it you on that Blue Peter sketch that Monty Python did then?
> >
> > Ah. You're just sneering randomly.
>
> No, very specifically. At a whole list of dopey Blue-Peter-MP style
> suggestions.

What are you blathering about this time? I'm making deadly serious
hard-nosed politico-military suggestions.

Your mindless sneering remains mindless.

Rowland.

[1] I've not read it myself, but it's what Alistair Cooke told me, and
I'm inclined to believe him.


--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell.DeleteThis@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:11:34 +0100,
real-address-in-sig DeleteThis @flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

>> You complain that the research isn't getting funded. But you don't
>> seem to be able to define that research that you want funded.
>
><puzzled> But I'm not a worker in the field, so when I was asked what
>research *I* propose doing, my answer is of course `none'.
>
>Likewise, since I'm not any kind of expert in the field, I couldn't
>possibly define what research needs doing.

But you don't see the results you want, so obviously there's something
wrong with the process.

If I want a grant to prove that the Big Bang didn't happen, I need to
write up a paper and explain what experiment(s) I propose to run. If
I don't think my aim is politically acceptable, I don't publicize my
aim. But regardless - I need to describe what I'm going to test,
and account for how I propose to spend the money.

Sort of like most everything else in life.

Your ultimate motives can be hidden without much problem. Maybe
you're interested in proving that Noah's flood hit the whole world on
the same date. You don't need to mention it - as you find different
reasons to analyze drillings around the world.

But if you can't come up with an experiment that will test the Big
Bang theory, maybe it's possible that nobody else has been able to
come up with such an experiment. Certainly the money is out there.
Certainly there are people smart enough to get around Atheistic
Conspiracies to stop them.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Howard Brazee <howard DeleteThis @brazee.net> wrote:

> But if you can't come up with an experiment that will test the Big
> Bang theory, maybe it's possible that nobody else has been able to
> come up with such an experiment. Certainly the money is out there.
> Certainly there are people smart enough to get around Atheistic
> Conspiracies to stop them.

But that's all nonsense anyway; there are plenty of funded experiments
on the large scale structure of the universe, and the background
radiation temperature, which are going on all the time. All of them are
testing the basic concept of the Big Bang theory. In general, it has
failed at the fundamental level, so they had to invent inflation to
cover it; the reason being that it explains a great deal very well and
all the proposed alternatives are even stranger, and require a battery
of experiments to confirm them, which is proving even trickier.

But a conspiracy it ain't. It's just *difficult*.
--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Howard Brazee <howard.DeleteThis@brazee.net> wrote:

> real-address-in-sig.DeleteThis@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >> You complain that the research isn't getting funded. But you don't
> >> seem to be able to define that research that you want funded.
> >
> ><puzzled> But I'm not a worker in the field, so when I was asked what
> >research *I* propose doing, my answer is of course `none'.
> >
> >Likewise, since I'm not any kind of expert in the field, I couldn't
> >possibly define what research needs doing.
>
> But you don't see the results you want, so obviously there's something
> wrong with the process.

Umm. There's something wrong with your thinking here. I don't have any
preferred results.

What I want to see is the freedom for people to follow up plausible
scientific leads in their research - and they do not have that freedom,
since in most fields, one can only get funding for following up the
/conventional/ leads.

> If I want a grant to prove that the Big Bang didn't happen,

I don't think you understand the nature of the beast. No-one's `proven'
that the Big Bang happened in the first place. It's a purely
hypothetical event and researchers so far have been unable to come up
with an agreed evolution from their proposed `Big Bang' to the universe
we see to day.

The Big Bang hypothesis is very weak.

(`Hypothesis' is what one must call `a scientific idea before it's been
verified by experiment' - after that stage, it's a theory, but the Big
Bang ain't a theory because no-one can verify the start of the universe
- we don't have the ability even to conceive of an experiment to verify
the hypothesis)

Alternative cosmologies aren't interested in `proving' that the Big Bang
hypothesis isn't true. What they're about is developing a model that
fits the available evidence - just like the `Big Bang' cosmologists are
*trying* to do. But all cosmologists have failed so far, no matter what
their religion.

One problem is that unless you accept the orthodox view that the `Big
Bang' hypothesis (not even a theory, since it cannot be tested) is The
Truth, it's almost impossible to get research funding.

Do you see the problem here? `Big Bang' is unproven, unprovable, but
it's orthodoxy, and you can't get funding to challenge the orthodox view
in this field.

> I need to
> write up a paper and explain what experiment(s) I propose to run.

How about trying to come up with an experiment to `prove' that the Big
Bang happened at all? No-one's managed to do that yet - but somehow,
unless you accept that the Big Bang is true, you can't get your
cosmological work done.

Cosmology doesn't involve much in the way of experiments, you know -
it's almost all about analysing astronomical data and developing
mathematical models.

(Some experiments, yes - but almost all the data is just plain
astronomical observations)

> If
> I don't think my aim is politically acceptable, I don't publicize my
> aim. But regardless - I need to describe what I'm going to test,
> and account for how I propose to spend the money.
>
> Sort of like most everything else in life.

A bit of a shame that if you try to `do science' like that, you prevent
progress. It's a big problem at the moment.

If you look around, you'll see that `most things' are run pretty badly.

But what you're talking about has nothing to do with the practice of
cosmology, which involves getting a group of researchers together to
develop new models.

It's mostly deskwork: pure brainwork with pencil and paper, blackboard
and chalk, and the ubiquitous computer.

> Your ultimate motives can be hidden without much problem.

Like hell they can. My wife's a working academic scientist. Unless you
can predict what your results will be in advance, and unless you can
show that there is good reason to think that your predictions are
correct, it's hard to get research funding in the UK at least.

And if you think about it, those constraints on research funding are
such that they make doing the research a bit pointless, really - why do
an experiment if you know what's going to happen?

> Maybe
> you're interested in proving that Noah's flood hit the whole world on
> the same date. You don't need to mention it - as you find different
> reasons to analyze drillings around the world.

Eh? But plenty of people have done research into that one. I've got a
a book about one such body of work (reckoned by one Bulgarian - and
maybe his son - to be the breakthrough of the Med into the Black Sea,
turning it from a low-level fresh water lake to a `world ocean level'
sea[1]. <shrug> It's pretty easy to get funding for trying to track
down Noah's Flood. Just normal oceanography is what you need to be
doing to gather the evidence you need.

> But if you can't come up with an experiment that will test the Big
> Bang theory, maybe it's possible that nobody else has been able to
> come up with such an experiment. Certainly the money is out there.
> Certainly there are people smart enough to get around Atheistic
> Conspiracies to stop them.

Huh?

That's mad, that is. And I have no idea what this `Atheistic
Conspiracy' you mention might be, nor do I have a clue what it's got to
do with the matter under discussion.

Rowland.

[1] And something like that looks like it did happen from the results
I've read - but that's not the same as convincing me that the event had
anything to do with Noah.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell.DeleteThis@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Peter Ceresole <peter.RemoveThis@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard.RemoveThis@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > But if you can't come up with an experiment that will test the Big
> > Bang theory, maybe it's possible that nobody else has been able to
> > come up with such an experiment. Certainly the money is out there.
> > Certainly there are people smart enough to get around Atheistic
> > Conspiracies to stop them.
>
> But that's all nonsense anyway; there are plenty of funded experiments
> on the large scale structure of the universe, and the background
> radiation temperature, which are going on all the time.

<puzzled>

And all those experiments are designed to test the Big Bang hypothesis,
based on the assumption that it's more or less right.

> All of them are
> testing the basic concept of the Big Bang theory.

It's not a theory: it's a hypothesis, but if you don't accept that it's
a solid theory, you find it very hard to get funding if you want to `do
cosmology'.

> In general, it has
> failed at the fundamental level, so they had to invent inflation to
> cover it; the reason being that it explains a great deal very well and
> all the proposed alternatives are even stranger,

Not really. Inflation is one of the most bizarre and inexplicable fudge
factors I've ever met - a fudge factor with absolutely no reason for
accepting at all, beyond `this model won't work without it'.

> and require a battery
> of experiments to confirm them, which is proving even trickier.
>
> But a conspiracy it ain't. It's just *difficult*.

Huh?

You've all gone completely insane. I'm talking about the political
problems with getting funding into cosmological research unless you
accept the Big Bang hypothesis (not theory) as `more or less proven'.

I don't have a clue where all this other stuff comes from.

Rowland.


--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell.RemoveThis@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig RemoveThis @flur.bltigibbet> wrote:

> You've all gone completely insane. I'm talking about the political
> problems with getting funding into cosmological research unless you
> accept the Big Bang hypothesis (not theory) as `more or less proven'.
>
> I don't have a clue where all this other stuff comes from.

Oh lord, here we go again.

'All this other stuff' is aspects of the Big Bang hypothesis and its
alternatives that are testable. So they are being tested. Considerable
funds are going into these tests. Scientists applying to do these tests,
such as the background radiation temperature studies, don't have to sign
up to a belief in the Big Bang; some of them are specifically designed
to potentially falsify the Big Bang hypothesis. That's the way people do
science.

The reason that those experiments are based *around* aspects of the Big
Bang is that so far it's the hypothesis that best explains the nature of
a lot of the observed universe. But to find a better one, with less
fudges, you have to find some alternative- something better than saying
'Gosh, isn't it pretty, I wonder how it works? Well, never mind..."

So these scientists are being quite well funded to find those
alternative explanations.

Which means that you are as wrong as wrong can be.
--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu.. 

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:39:06 +0100, peter.DeleteThis@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter
Ceresole) wrote:

>'All this other stuff' is aspects of the Big Bang hypothesis and its
>alternatives that are testable. So they are being tested. Considerable
>funds are going into these tests. Scientists applying to do these tests,
>such as the background radiation temperature studies, don't have to sign
>up to a belief in the Big Bang; some of them are specifically designed
>to potentially falsify the Big Bang hypothesis. That's the way people do
>science.

And the scientists who get famous are the ones who find something new
in the tests. They have no desire to simply confirm old assumptions.
No glory in that.

But a test that shows anomalies to established theories can be a
career maker.
 >> Stay informed about: The next iteration of Mac OS X to be announced at WWDC, bu..