I see where you’re coming from but imho the problem with saying that something is in principle inexplicable is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as we then don’t even try to explain it.
Agreed
.He does agree with me on the multiverse. The fact he does no mention the 1978 paper means nothing. Come on, how many papers has he written in his career!Come on now, I was right on all those counts, if you think I was in error then please give evidence.
Anyway, I’m glad we agree that Ellis’ piece of speculative math was not published recently but 35 years’ ago. It’s falsifiable too, if you read it. I didn’t check to see if subsequent measurements disprove it, as I couldn’t spot many citations and anyway he sketches a bifocal, not geocentric, universe.
35 years is a long time in cosmology, and he looks to have only be dreaming of a what-if anyway, so I looked at a generalist lecture he gave recently, to a select little audience at the Copernicus
Interesting for anyone who likes philosophy and science btw.
youtube.com/watch?v=tq8-eLGpEHc
It’s titled On The Nature Of Cosmology Today. He starts by summarizing what is known for certain. Those of a nervous disposition should look away now. He says we definitely know the universe is expanding. And there’s dark energy. And dark matter. And the big bang. And the CBR vindicates physics now is the same as back then. Which for sure must have been 13 billion years ago. And, a bit later, biological evolution. And so on.
Then he talks about what is hypothetical, and how muliiverse proponents want to downgrade science to accept untestable hypotheses. He thinks that’s a huge step backwards “to the pre-Galileo times”. Because, he says, that would take us back to when speculative, untested and possibly untestable hypotheses were accepted as true. And “If you abandon testability you have left science and are in the realm of philosophy.”
He then goes into how the claims by Dawkins, Hawking and Krauss that quantum field theory somehow explains why there is something rather than nothing are not science
He comments on the nature of existence and even the limits of free will, then he makes some claims about the existence of the physical law, math, and ethics, and the sum of the parts being greater than the whole, and (his belief) in the existence of God.
He rattles along on all kinds of stuff.
But wait. He never mentions that 1978 paper.
Earth has the right circumstances to sustain life not form it. God did the “forming” of both. God Bless, Memaw
It means that in talking about cosmology today on a world stage, he never mentions geocentrism. He takes the opportunity to say he’s a Christian. But not a geocentrist.
Was that an attempt at sarcasm, or is there a point behind the comment?Not sure about the Earth, but I’m certain that our world is ‘very flat,’ as the Church once taught.
LOVE!
Here, “inexplicable” means “not explicable via empirical studies”.
It means that in talking about cosmology today on a world stage, he never mentions geocentrism. He takes the opportunity to say he’s a Christian. But not a geocentrist.
He does say that going back to the pre-Galileo times would be a step backwards, so he obviously doesn’t support the OP.
Now whether an inflation model works or not is hardly a crisis. Laypeople can’t get upset about every tiff in every branch of academia. What are we supposed to do, choose which model is true by phone-in?
Although personally I’d like the team with the beige shirts to win. Beige is the new black.
Except the anisotropies are aligned to the earth, and at the largest scales of the universe (the lowest multipoles). This is a disaster for The Copernican and Cosmological Principles, as well as the standard model, and inflation theory. The Planck team is already talking about needing “new physics” to explain it.
Inflation not working is a disaster! The big bang theory almost was jettisoned in the 1980s and was only saved by inflationary theory. The disaster now is that the only inflationary theories available that potentially fit the data imply a multiverse, and are not falsifiable.
Just my way of saying that this world isn’t that great, except that it provides salvation.
According to the narrator for The Principle (Kate Mulgrew, aka Captain Janeway of Start trek), Orange is the New Black!
Personally, I want the team with the black shirts to win. Black is the new beige.
Ok. It did not really sound like sarcasm.Just my way of saying that this world isn’t that great, except that it provides salvation.
LOVE!
It will be interesting to see what comes of this, though it may take some time, of course. I think the OP’s claim is premature.
Oh, the movie “The Principle” is a piece of junk! No one I know wants to pay for junk.According to the narrator for The Principle (Kate Mulgrew, aka Captain Janeway of Start trek), Orange is the New Black!
In Genesis 1: 10, God names the dry land “earth” and then He said, verse 11, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: …” – Are those the Genesis 1 verses you are referring to? I do know that the Catholic Church considers Genesis 1:1, as the doctrine that God created the earth.
So, when/where did you see the movie?Oh, the movie “The Principle” is a piece of junk! No one I know wants to pay for junk.
Yes, for instance:In Genesis 1: 10, God names the dry land “earth” and then He said, verse 11, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: …” – Are those the Genesis 1 verses you are referring to? I do know that the Catholic Church considers Genesis 1:1, as the doctrine that God created the earth.