Cosmologist in Lederhosen Spouts Nonsense!
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 19 May 2010 23:28 On May 19, 11:18 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Wow, we seem to have hooked a couple of crabs. Time to change the bait.
From: Hayek on 22 May 2010 06:54 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 16, 8:49 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Oh, I agree with you. I just remember that >> example from some physics book. It would >> never happen in the real world. But our >> mathematics is able to calculate the number >> of years it would take with some probability >> to occur if there were that many years left >> in the Universe. But there aren't. What does >> this all say? It gives people writing in usenet >> something to fill their white space with. And >> these transactions form the Global Brain. > ------------------------------------------ > > One problem with these arguments is that they assume that physical > systems are "ergodic", which means they visit all possible states in > their temporal evolution/motion. > > This is a nice fiction and makes the math simpler, but anyone familiar > with nonlinear dynamical systems/chaos/fractals, which is the physics > of real physical systems, knows that real systems are not ideally > reversible and ergodic. They only act that way in Platonic fantasy- > land. > > A great example is taking a canister of high pressure gas and > releasing the gas into a very large concert hall. Deluded Platonists > will tell you that you have an ergodic system and that one of its > possible states is "all the gas molecules back in the canister", and > that because of the ergodic theorem there is a finite positive > probability that this state will occur if you wait a trillion years, > or travel to Platonic ElseWhen. > > It is a lie! The gas molecules will never go back into the canister > without a huge amount of effort because the system is not ergodic and > the statistical arguments of the Platonists are wrong, if applied to > the real world. They are "mathematically correct". It's just that > the assumptions do not apply to the real world of nature. > > Thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss this. I clicked on this message and thought is was from Gisse. I started reading and said to myself, well this is the first time I see Gisse writing something rational. And then I saw the signature, I clicked on Oldershaw's message...ahum. I have been laughing all morning at Sean Carroll texts... then I noticed he lectured at the PI. http://www.q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture_id=7731 I proposed the PI to lecture at their QtoC festival, but they preferred the crank. The PI is more like a fashion show. Names, Names, Names, darling. Uwe Hayek. > Best, > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: eon on 22 May 2010 10:55 On May 16, 6:07 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 15, 10:48 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > > Regarding the "Boltzmann Brain" revised "paper" (i.e., piece of @#$%) > > > by Linde, Guth , Vilenkin, et al recently placed on the arXiv.org > > > archive, the mad Zeppelin commander, wearing lederhosen and carrying > > > an ice pick, spouted the following complete falsehood: > > > > " It's like a kettle of water on a hot stove---there is a small but > > > finite probability that it will > > > freeze. " > > > > What utter nonsense! > > > You are too stooooopid to understand that the bulk behavior of a fluid is > > statistical in nature. > > > [snip rest of stupidity] > > It's the same effect as the fact that all the air in your room could > simultaneously move to the half which you are not in, suffocating > yourself. But the deal is that it's so unlikely you'd not expect it > to happen for many trillions of years. 100% for sure this never would happen it will violate all other laws of nature statistics are manipulatory capitalistic inventions, violated all the time
From: eon on 22 May 2010 10:57 On May 16, 5:48 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > Regarding the "Boltzmann Brain" revised "paper" (i.e., piece of @#$%) > > by Linde, Guth , Vilenkin, et al recently placed on the arXiv.org > > archive, the mad Zeppelin commander, wearing lederhosen and carrying > > an ice pick, spouted the following complete falsehood: > > > " It's like a kettle of water on a hot stove---there is a small but > > finite probability that it will > > freeze. " > > > What utter nonsense! > > You are too stooooopid to understand that the bulk behavior of a fluid is > statistical in nature. > > [snip rest of stupidity] erica gissela, you seems not to be stoopid in some other areas
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 22 May 2010 13:33
On May 22, 6:54 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > I have been laughing all morning at Sean Carroll > texts... then I noticed he lectured at the PI.http://www.q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture_id=7731 > I proposed the PI to lecture at their QtoC festival, but > they preferred the crank. The PI is more like a fashion > show. Names, Names, Names, darling. > > Uwe Hayek. ----------------------------------------- Sean M. Carroll wrote an incredibly good text on General Relativity and is a highly competent mathematical physicist. However, he (like Mach) is (was) a dismal natural philosopher. The mistake that has been made in theoretical physics in the 1950-2010 period is that they have assumed that people who are excellent mathematical physicists (think Steven Weinberg)are automatically the best natural philosophers. VERY BAD ASSUMPTION! In fact people like Weinberg, Sussman, Carroll, Linde, Baez, Witten, etc. do not seem to have more than a sophomoric talent for natural philosophy. That is why we have "Boltzmann Brains", unobserbvable 'magnetic monopoles', unobservable "axions", unobseravble "quarks, 10^500 multiverses, Quantum Cartoon Dynamics, Two decades of undetected "WIMPS", fantasy theories like SUSY, unparticles, etc. ad nauseum. One fine day the towering house of cards is going to come crashing down. Then people will open their eyes and say: "oh, I see, it's a discrete fractal world. In the meantime, keep on laughing and calling out the inanities of the false prophets. Best, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |