troly@CS.UCLA.EDU (01/24/88)
I'm somewhat loathe to enter this discussion since I do not have much time on my hands and since my scientific postings will probably not be appreciated in this rather unscientific newsgroup (talk.origins) Also I have already addressed most of the issues being raised in this group. But some postings misrepresent the platygaean programme and I wish to set the record straight. For example... In article <1867@wiley.UUCP> chris@wiley.UUCP (Chris Stassen) writes: >markh@csd4.milw (Mark William Hopkins) writes, in article <4238@uwmcsd1.UUCP>: >> I'm playing a lawyer in the cosmic court. The flat-earther is at the stand >> to testify for the belief in the earth being flat. It's time for cross- >> examination. > >A most interesting idea. In that position, my first question: > > "You admit that the evidence favors a round-earth view. Your own ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Where the heck did this come from??? I have always maintained that the evidence renders the round-earth view untenable. And no other platygaean that I know of has ever said that the round-earth was favored by the evidence. (Marginal note: not all members of the LA Platygaean Society are platygaeans). > statement (`mathematical consistency does not imply truth') indicates > that you believe a round earth to be mathematically consistent." > > "So, you basically accuse `round-earthers' of believing that the > earth is round because they `want' it to be for the sake of > `mathematical consistency.'" Golly, it must be easy to win arguments when you get to write the texts for both sides. Sort of like South African chess: the black pieces outnumber the white by ten to one, but they have to go where the white player tells them to move! :^) :^) :^) This statement (of mine) was in response to an illogical round-earther argument which claimed the contrary. Let me say it again. *Mathematical consistency does not imply truth.* In addition to mathematical consistency a correct scientific theory must also agree with reality. Notice the word *correct*.(A theory may be useful and still not be completely correct). Agreement with reality requires a coherent semantics assigning phys- ical objects to mathematical objects. And observed physical results must correspond to the mathematics of the theory. The first stage of round-earth science culminated in two beautiful and very useful theories: classical mechanics and the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. These theories were internally consistent, but they were not consistent with each other. The problem was solved by Einstein's special theory of relativity, but this only postponed the round-earth debacle. Einstein's theory was revised and expanded to include gravity. This general theory of relativity is the ultimate word in large scale round- earther dynamics. Modern round-earther views of the cosmos are based on this theory, or slight modifications of it. This theory seems a bit strange even to dedicated round-earthers. Time and space are all mixed up in something called "space-time". This space-time is equipped with an indefinite metric, that varies from point to point. Thus "distance" in space-time may be negative or zero! Gone forever are the easily visualized euclidean three-dimensional models of the primitive round-earth theories. The other main development of round-earth physics is quantum mechanics. This is even more bizarre than relativity theory. In this theory *no path* may be assigned to the motion of an electron in between interactions. (Cf. _The Feynman Lectures On Physics_ vol. 3, the first few lectures.) All efforts to patch up the fundamental indeterminacy of quantum mechanics within a general round-earth based framework have failed, and the task appears to be hopeless (ibid, op. cit.). Both of these theories have proved to be quite successfull in their experimental predictions. (Rivals to the general theory of relativity were effectively disposed of by experiments with the Viking spacecraft near solar conjuction. The Brans-Dicke theory contains a parameter which can be tweaked to make its predictions arbitrarily close to those of the GTR, but it has been tweaked enough times so that few people take it seriously nowadays.) However these two theories are not consistent. One problem lies in the concept of energy. In classical mechanics potential energy is only defined to within an arbitrary additive constant. In the GTR energy is associated with the curvature of space-time. The fundamental equation is G=8*pi*T where G is a tensor related to the curvature and T is the "stress-energy tensor". The zero-point of the potential energy now has direct geometrical (hence physical) consequences. In quantum mechanics energy is identified with the eigenvalues of a certain eigenvalue problem. The minimum eigenvalue gives an (indeterministic) motion even in the lowest energy state. Thus the zero-point of potential energy again has physical consequences, *which are different from those of the GTR*. Thus GTR and quantum mechanics are inconsistent. They are sometimes used in tandem, but the inconsistency is still there. The Great White Hope of the round-earthers is the so-called string theory, which has yet to attain a coherent mathematical formulation. But it already reveals the desperate situation of round-earth science. Particles have 10 or 26 dimensions wrapped up inside of them! And while some platygaean models involve the use of things like Riemann surfaces, we don't apply them on the subatomic scale! What a mess! It's ironic that round-earthers argue that their theories are simple, and that they have Occam's razor on *their* side. Perhaps the problem is that most round-earthers don't know what the current round-earth theories are? ? Bret Jolly (Bo'-ret Tro Ly) Mathemagus LA Platygaean Society . troly@MATH.UCLA.EDU
tracer@stb.UUCP (Jeff Boeing) (02/11/88)
In article <10731@shemp.UCLA.EDU> troly@MATH.UCLA.EDU (Bret Jolly) writes: >argument which claimed the contrary. Let me say it again. *Mathematical >consistency does not imply truth.* In addition to mathematical consistency >a correct scientific theory must also agree with reality. Notice the word >*correct*.(A theory may be useful and still not be completely correct). Hmmm, well, I hate to burst your bubble, but to the best of our experimen- tation, most of the good mathematically-consistent theories do agree with reality. Like the idea of a (nearly) flat 3-space with a big ball in it, where matter attracts matter. You know, the stuff they taught you in junior high school? If matter attracts matter, by spacetime-curving or by gravitons or by whatever method, it is GOING to have a natural tendency to fall together into a big round ball. Spherical shape is lowest possible potential energy state and all that. Now, of course, where's the agreement in reality with that? I mean, have we actually tried to sail around the world, or launch missiles over the south pole and not have them go off The Edge into the Forbidden Void Beneath the World? And have we actually measured the distance to the horizon and put vertical tent-pegs in the Earth to measure the angles of their shadows from different points? Naw, why would we do anything like that. The bottom line is that whether or NOT the Earth is actually a physical ball or is really a plate warped in Rotund Space to APPEAR as a ball to us poor confused mortals, it DOES appear to our eyes and our measurements to be roughly spherical. That's what really matters. That's all a spherogaeanist (or whatever we're called) is trying to say. But then, what do I know? I believe in gravitons and not in gravitational space warping. (After all, is there such a thing as electromagnetic space warping?) -- Jeff Boeing (which is not my real name) | uunet!stb.uucp!tracer ------------------------------------------|------------------------ "All right, you weak bosons! You're not dealing with some obscure 9th-level by-the-book paladin anymore!" -- Sick Sword