Ask John Galt... Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask John Galt...

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: John Galt who wrote (1128)	1/18/1997 4:29:00 PM
From: Ignacio Mosqueira	of 4006

I will start by an analogy to make sure that we are not lost in the details. Then I will explain why the boundaries issue as you pose it is meaningless (and I am talking science here not philosophy). And finally I will make a few comments about your counter-evidence. Of course this is quite a lengthy subject so I will have to make it brief. Your comments about the Big Bang are like those of the OJ Simpson jury when they claimed that OJ did not kill Nicole because there were inconsistencies in the timeline, in the police reports, or because of unexplained substances in the blood, or because there was not sufficient blood as one would expect for a crime, or quite simply because their intuition told them that oJ was not guilty. One can go on endelessly and convince many in the process about supposed or even actual discrepancies but I have news for you. OJ killed Nicole. The preponderance of the evidence makes that very clear and the alternatives are virtually nil and far-fetched. Well the situation is very similar in regards to the Big Bang. Its success is not only qualitative but quantitative. There is little doubt that a Big Bang did in fact take place which accounts for the relative abundance of the light elements. Of course carbon was not made during the big bang so here you are talking about another process. I understand that you are claiming that it can not fit the framework of the big bang but that is where you are wrong. You have no alternatives really. The reality of the situation is that one must work within that overall framework like it or not. Perhaps it would be more fun to be able to throw out all previous theories but that has nothing to do with reality however much John Galt is bothered by the notion. As for boundaries. Space is curved. If you were to travel out in a straight line much as light does you would never reach a boundary you would simply return. Gravity curves space which is why light bends close to a large mass. As you approach the big bang the universe becomes smaller and smaller. The concept of time and space before the big bang or outside the universe are undefined because there is no outside the universe and not time before the big bang. Well this obviously takes some background in relativity theory Ii am only trying to point out that your comments far from profound are simply naive. The analogy with the earth applies because the shortest distance between two points (a geodesic) has a close analogue to the descritption of space and like for the universe there is no boundary. Of course the analogy is not perfect but very instructive. In regard to your comment about structures I suppose that you are telling me that your intutition says that such structures can not be formed out of a nearly homogenous soup in thermodynamic equilibrium. Problem is that your intuition is worthless because it has not experience with what gravity can do. It is gravity that cahnges any approach to equilibrium quite dramatically. But really you should just keep an open mind and look into this if it really interests you. Otherwise it is you who is seeing what you wnat to see.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next