No, not a pretentious jerk. Someone willing to join in a philosophical argument. You disagree with the big bang because you don’t believe in a physical singularity. I pointed out to you that there are probably other things you have not seen but believe. Why, then, do you believe in those things and not the other, is the question I intended to provoke.
One of my standards for “pretentious jerk” is an individual’s readiness to assume, by his own invention, the ideas and beliefs of others and their personal bases therefore.
The worst way to signal one’s willingness to join in any argument is to begin with your assertion of what and why another is thinking. That approach only signals a determination to be rigidly dogmatic, and always right.
My reason for disbelieving in the Big Bang has nothing to do with my disbelief in physical singularities, as you presuppose. I disbelieved in the Big Bang back when nitwit cosmologists were calling its precursor a very, very, very , very…etc. tiny thing smaller than a proton that contained all the mass-energy in the universe. (I.e. before it became transformed, by words (read science fantasy spin) into a “singularity.”)
I did not believe in the Big Bang because we live in a cause-effect universe. Whether you want to label the miniscule blot of cosmological mindlessness a micropea, tiny little embodiment, or singularity makes no difference. What made the little bugger blow up?
If you say, “God did it,” then trot out your Bible, Quran, ummin and thummin, or bag of goat entrails, and start thumping along with the crowd, but don’t ever pretend to be a serious scientist.
As per
dictionary.com: round can mean circular, but also spherical or globular, as well as having a circular cross section (such as a cylinder). So yes, the earth is round. It is more specifically an oblate spheroid, but for a forum such as this, I didn’t feel the need to get into specifics. You want to play semantics, that is fine. I don’t. I gave a sufficient description of our planet, and you attack a particular choice of a correct word and use insults. That is awfully kind of you.
You used a sloppy word, writing as an astrophysicist not as a kindergarten teacher. Of course your dictionary includes common, sloppy definitions. You are supposed to know better. Semantics has nothing to do with it. I don’t believe that the earth is round, as you presumed I would. I don’t believe that it is spherical— that would amount to a semantic quibble. I believe that the closest non-mathematical description of the earth’s shape is “oblate spheroid.” I use the word “believe” deliberately because I’ve not personally taken the measurements.
I make distinctions in thought and speech, and expect the same from intelligent others Round is a two-dimensional term, applicable to circles drawn on paper or blackboard. The earth is not round. Nor is it spherical, the three-dimensional equivalent of round. If you want to be an astrophysicist, write like one. If you want to be a duck, quack like a duck.
What’s with “kind?” I’m not posting here to be well regarded, liked, whatever. Are we exchanging ideas or massaging egos?
I am curious about what you think an atom and and electron are. I use the proper definitions of both: an atom is the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of that element and is made up of protons, neutrons (which constitute its core) and electrons. An electron is a subatomic particle with a negative charge and weighs ~1/1000 of that of a proton.
Either way, the fact still remains that you are likely to have not seen either of these particles, but you still believe in their existence.
Thank you for the Physics 1a model descriptions. You do know that they are limited, yes? And that Werner H. says, various physicists agreeing, that we cannot describe the components of atoms in the context of classical measurements, such as position and momentum? They also have spin, charge, parity, strangeness, and who can guess what else?
If the LHC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider ever works, it will follow in the footsteps of the cyclotron, getting atoms to explode into new, tinier, and more mysterious things which may not necessarily be their actual components. I want the next micro-subatomic particle property discovered by the LHC to be named after me—
go whizz.
I can do the math and pass the tests but I do not have to believe the nonsense.
When I put my offsprings’ drawings on the refrigerator, it was with the recognition that they were drawing something, not that they were drawing pictures of something I needed to believe in. Physicists models of atoms are in the same category as my kids’ 'fridge paintings. I figured that my kids would grow up. Thought the same about physics, alas.
My personal ideas about the nature of atoms are outside the scope of this thread, but I’ll be published soon.
