Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That’s a good point, David. Perhaps we should encourage the astrologers to rename their activity ‘astromancy’, which appears to be a synonym, and an accurate one, for astrology – “divination by means of the stars”.
AlanA reversion to the Steady State Theory is an interesting possibility.
On the issue of ‘whether the Universe is losing weight’, surely the Universe can be neither losing nor gaining weight because it, by definition, contains everything there is. There is nowhere for any additional weight to come from, and nowhere for it to go.
Simplistic, I know. But sometimes Occam’s Razor comes in handy, especially in the face of quantum entanglement.
On a personal note, I still haven’t lost any weight which perhaps is evidence of the plausibility of my contention and a good reason for me to give up trying!
AlanOn a slightly more serious note, and writing as a non-physicist, there seems to me something rather suspect about saying ‘Our model works – but only if we invent entities x and y.’ Might it not be an alternative to say, ‘The anomalies are so great that it looks as if our model doesn’t work. Perhaps it’s time to re-examine fundamental axioms and buil a new model.’ Could we perhaps be heading for an exciting ‘paradigm-shift’?
Alan
(paradigm shift – see T.S.Kuhn, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ for anyone unfamiliar with that language.)Thanks Duncan. I always suspected that cosmology would come to nought – or close to nought – in the end.
AlanPretty depressing stuff, the more so because efforts to reduce light pollution appear to be failing . . .
AlanA fascinating discussion – and I am looking forward to the conclusion as I try to lose weight every year around this time and would like some tips on how to do better in future!
AlanThe latest Journal arrived here in Warrington today – along with a batch of Christmas cards!
Happy New Year.
AlanMany thanks Steve. All very interesting, and I am certainly better informed now than at the start of this thread.
I am reminded of Dr Samuel Johnson’s response to Bishop Berkeley’s claim that everything is an idea without material substance – Johnson kicked a large stone, saying “I refute it thus!” On a pragmatic level, so long as I can continue to see the light, that will do for me!
Merry Christmas
AlanHello Andrew
Many thanks indeed for your reply.
I read the abstract of the paper you mentioned and that was enough to convince me that our discussion is moving into the realms of metaphysics, Heisenberg etc.
Rather than get lost there (I am not a Physicist), I am happy to live with the conclusion so aptly stated by the late Patrick M: “We just don’t know.”
Like most things, if you look too closely they disappear!
AlanThanks, Steve. That is a very helpful clarification.
I hardly dare pursue the question of the non-corporeal character of photons as I suspect this may be taking us ever-closer to the dreaded feline. Nor to delve into further questions about how the brain processes signals to yield images.
The general topic of the ‘mechanics’ of observing (what happens after the inputs are received from the object by the eye) are perhaps not as frequently highlighted in discussions of observational astronomy as they might be, at least among amateurs. So there is a lot about observational instruments, techniques, etc. but rather less about the observer, whose status within the observing process seems largely taken for granted as a kind of unproblematic sensor. (An exception is Norman Davidson’s (1985) Astronomy and the Imagination)
With your permission, I will pass on what you have told me to my grandson. Also, I wonder if you might want to post something on this topic under the ‘Tutorials’ banner. Surely other members would be interested? Of course, I have no influence on this nor the Christmas Quiz – if only I did I might get more of the answers!.
Regards
AlanThank you very much Paul and Steve for taking the time to tackle my query. That has made a grand start to the Christmas festivities. Are you involved in setting the Christmas Quiz?
We had speculated that the photons, as bundles of energy, must be absorbed by the body, but were unclear about how that takes place. I am somewhat clearer now, although that cat reference almost confused the picture!
I take it then that we do, in a sense (the philosphers’favourite caveat – though I am not a philosopher), ’embody’ every star, galaxy, planet, meteor, etc that we ever observe in that we receive some miniscule parts of them – photons – and incorporate them into ourselves. I think that’s quite an interesting thought.
What happens to the photons that are not absorbed, such as those hitting my hand? Or are they absorbed by a different mechanism?
However, I notice the quotation marks around “absorbed”, Steve, which perhaps indicates that you don’t want this word taken too literally . . .
Am I heading for a singularity?
Alan
System has switched to my full name yet again – and the web profile page does not exist (according to Sheep) … thank goodness it s not running the nuclear alert system . . . or is it?? Eek!
On the bright (?) side, many of the purchasers complain about poor packaging and damage. So you may not have missed anything.
Many thanks for the review. It looks very interesting, and as someone who followed the Apollo missions I am tempted.
AlanI see it’s currently available from a well-known on-line retailer with Brazilian connections for £49.99.
Alan
