Looks Tasty...
Posted on 12/28/2002 4:46:38 AM PST by The Raven
That's an easy one. The democRAT party.
They did. His name is Robert Reich.
I would say that we actually do, though not everyone is on board at this moment. There has been a lot of really good grounding work in this area over the last few years. The real problem is that even fairly smart people can get really stupid when they approach this particular problem (e.g. Penrose), so it is almost like arguing religion for many people. Fortunately, there is a small contingent of individuals who don't go brain-dead when working on things like this and can keep things strict and rigorous without waxing eloquent about vague abstractions in the utter absence of evidence.
We can learn many interesting things from this, but it isn't an answer in the big scheme of things. At best it gives us the proper perspective on the nature of the computational mechanics of the universe.
Who's to say that a Creator doesn't use randomness.
I would have used the word, God....but that's a rather simplistic, man made term for something that is well beyond our ability to comprehend.
I did a quick Google search. This work seems to be mentioned only by creationist-oriented websites. No peer-reviewed journal seems to have heard of the authors. So I'm skeptical.
It's even worse. Lambert Dolphin is the the primary funder of Barry Setterfield and his C-decay model, which is the advancement of the Montgomery & Dolphin paper. The C-decay model is a primary exhibit of what happens when people don't pay attention to significant figures in their work. Garbage in, Garbage out.
I figured. If the speed of light were discovered to be variable, I'm certain I would have come across it in a mainstreem publication. Actually, it would be headlines, worldwide. Nobel Prize stuff, not hidden away in cultish websites.
There isn't observed quantization of redshift, no matter how much Tifft can massage the data. Why hasn't he released a new catalog in the past 11 years?
12. If quasars are supposed to be unbelievably bright objects out on the edge of the universe, how to explain their unmistakable association with relatively close, low redshift galaxies?
So unmistakable that none of the associations have ever definitively been shown to actually be anything more than line of sight projections. Not only that, the number density of "associations" aren't indistinguishable from the number density of "associations" that are generated from an isotropic and homogeneous population of quasars and galaxies. Strange, eh?
13. Given 11 and 12, how to explain their distribution by quantization values and non-random alignment across these galaxies?
Since 11 and 12 are not given, why bother with the rest?
15. Based on 11-14, why are such findings regularly suppressed by reviewers for major astronomy journals and by their editors?
Maybe because the findings are not good science, and never will be good science? Having worked within the current paradigm (MA, astronomy), I can say that the BB interpretation has a lot going for it. I always wonder how Arp etal would interpret the findings of the Gunn-Peterson trough, a prediction of the BB paradigm that was found to exist in a distant quasar recently. Unfortunately, they appear to be silent on the issue...
These points are detailed in a book titled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. IMHO, Arp makes some very good points about the distribution of quasars around active galaxies, and the quantization of red shifts. On the other hand he devotes a significant portion (perhaps justified) of the book bitterly complaining about the treatment he has received from the scientific mainstream.
You can find the book here: Seeing Red
It's also a mystery that could kill the human species eventually, if they don't kill each other first.
Earth has very limited resources as our populations steadily increase. Eventually, Earth will be completely overcrowded and it's resources depleted. If the human race doesn't start cracking some of those mysteries, the human race will be doomed within the next thousand years or so.
If our state of knowledge of the tools available to science [math, mainly] is viewed as the skin of a balloon, a bumpy balloon with us inside, then imagine we can see the "mechanics" of the universe only from where we look through the skin of the balloon. Then through modern math research we are steadily pushing the skin of the balloon outward but only at certain points. Eventually, --here is an article of faith,-- part of the skin of the balloon will be pushed out far enough that we can see the "mechanics" in a new and more useful way. The view still won't be correct, it can never be, but it will at least answer our trivial questions of today while posing new questions we lack the math to ask today.
A couple of generations of cannibalism would go a long way to reducing the pressure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.