UA and Space Travel

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 07, 2009, 03:51:03 AM

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

But here, Michael, conjecture IS being used as a basis for belief. This is what I am taking issue with. The entire notion that the UA is a mysterious gravity-analog (i.e. a force which works by magic) is a belief, which is founded on conjecture.

As long as they're just speculating, I don't think there's any harm in it. To be fair, he did just ask a 'what if' question. Now, if he wants us to accept it, he needs evidence, but I don't think he said anywhere that he 'believes' in this theory- he was jsut putting it out there.

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 06:39:02 AM

The UA isn't a magical force? How does it work, then? The only explanations I have heard is "dark energy" or "dark matter", simply some force that accelerates objects for some reason, and continues to follow the objects it accelerates to keep accelerating it. How gravitation works (warping of spacetime) can't be proven, but I have yet to hear how the UA works except that it accelerates objects. What makes UA less magical than gravitation?

The UA is an object. If it was a force, it wouldn't have the epithet "Accelerator" which suggests "a thing which accelerates". As far as I am concerned, the very notion that the UA is a force has apparently been smuggled into the current discourse by clumsy devil's advocates who have simply not properly comprehended what is being proposed.

Explaining why the Earth moves upwards at the same accelerating rate as the UA scarcely requires more explanation than why my keyboard doesn't fall through my desk. The Earth is resting on the UA, and the UA is accelerating upwards. It's really very simple, explicable by observable scientific laws, and makes no appeal to magic forces. That is what makes it less magical than gravitation.

What is driving the UA?
Where does the UA stop and the earth begin?
What is causing this perpetual force which is driving the UA which is earth is "resting" on?
There has to be a force exerted somewhere, caused by something, otherwise there must be a some form of gravitational field. 

Is it less magical than gravity?  The UA provides a better real-world explanation, but hides its problems underneath.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 07, 2009, 03:51:03 AM

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

But here, Michael, conjecture IS being used as a basis for belief. This is what I am taking issue with. The entire notion that the UA is a mysterious gravity-analog (i.e. a force which works by magic) is a belief, which is founded on conjecture.

No, I base my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics.

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 06:39:02 AM

The UA isn't a magical force? How does it work, then? The only explanations I have heard is "dark energy" or "dark matter", simply some force that accelerates objects for some reason, and continues to follow the objects it accelerates to keep accelerating it. How gravitation works (warping of spacetime) can't be proven, but I have yet to hear how the UA works except that it accelerates objects. What makes UA less magical than gravitation?

The UA is an object. If it was a force, it wouldn't have the epithet "Accelerator" which suggests "a thing which accelerates". As far as I am concerned, the very notion that the UA is a force has apparently been smuggled into the current discourse by clumsy devil's advocates who have simply not properly comprehended what is being proposed.

Explaining why the Earth moves upwards at the same accelerating rate as the UA scarcely requires more explanation than why my keyboard doesn't fall through my desk. The Earth is resting on the UA, and the UA is accelerating upwards. It's really very simple, explicable by observable scientific laws, and makes no appeal to magic forces. That is what makes it less magical than gravitation.

If it is an object, what accelerates the UA?  Your just shifting the question of what accelerates the Earth to what accelerates the UA.  The source of the Earth's acceleration remains unknown.  There has to be a force involved.  What force is that?

No, I base my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics.

Something is amiss here, Euclid!!

Sometimes conjecture is necessary to break from traditional methods of thought to discover a better representation of reality.

I disagree, quite simply.  Conjecture and imagination have undeniable roles in discovering truth.

The UA is a magic force.

I make conjectures because one of them might turn out to be true.

Woops! Somebody is not using logical deduction from observed facts of physics. Don't lie. You're not using deduction. You're not even using induction. You're just making it up as you go along.

If it is an object, what accelerates the UA?  Your just shifting the question of what accelerates the Earth to what accelerates the UA.  The source of the Earth's acceleration remains unknown.  There has to be a force involved.  What force is that?

Well Euclid, unlike you, my colleagues and I have carefully brought empirical evidence to bear on the question. I am not content to speculate as you are, inventing some wild hypothesis without grounds, which is why I hold that the UA's acceleration has been caused by the Big Bang itself, the inception of the universe which is attested by incontravertible evidence. Observable, palpable facts which are found in reality, in the real world. Background radiation in the sky above us suggests a massive explosion of universal magnitude. That, Euclid, is "bas[ing] my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics". There is a difference between making up a hypothesis, and basing a conclusion on observable evidence. You are quite happy doing the former, as you have many times admitted. I am only satisfied doing the latter.

Well Euclid, unlike you, my colleagues and I have carefully brought empirical evidence to bear on the question. I am not content to speculate as you are, inventing some wild hypothesis without grounds, which is why I hold that the UA's acceleration has been caused by the Big Bang itself, the inception of the universe which is attested by incontravertible evidence. Observable, palpable facts which are found in reality, in the real world. Background radiation in the sky above us suggests a massive explosion of universal magnitude. That, Euclid, is "bas[ing] my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics". There is a difference between making up a hypothesis, and basing a conclusion on observable evidence. You are quite happy doing the former, as you have many times admitted. I am only satisfied doing the latter.

How exactly does the big bang result in a constantly accelerating object under the earth? How is it any more "attested by incontravertible evidence" than gravitation?

Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 07, 2009, 04:39:38 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 07, 2009, 03:51:03 AM

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

But here, Michael, conjecture IS being used as a basis for belief. This is what I am taking issue with. The entire notion that the UA is a mysterious gravity-analog (i.e. a force which works by magic) is a belief, which is founded on conjecture.

No, I base my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics.

Now I'm not sure that's true Euclid. If that were the case, it wouldn't be conjecture, would it? I don't think there's any harm in conjecture, as it's a useful thought excercise, but the moment you start refering to it as based on fact, you are on dodgy ground.

How exactly does the big bang result in a constantly accelerating object under the earth? How is it any more "attested by incontravertible evidence" than gravitation?

The background radiation which allows us to learn about the Big Bang is easily observable. Gravitons, the explanatory Panacea of the theory of gravity, cannot be (or at least, have not been) observed, by the very admission of their inventors.

Quote from: cdenley on July 08, 2009, 06:08:44 AM

How exactly does the big bang result in a constantly accelerating object under the earth? How is it any more "attested by incontravertible evidence" than gravitation?

The background radiation which allows us to learn about the Big Bang is easily observable. Gravitons, the explanatory Panacea of the theory of gravity, cannot be (or at least, have not been) observed, by the very admission of their inventors.

How does this background radiation relate to the constant acceleration of the UA? How did you come to the conclusion that "gravitons" are the "explanatory Panacea of the theory of gravity"? The effect of gravitation has been observed and proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Quote from: cdenley on July 08, 2009, 06:08:44 AM

How exactly does the big bang result in a constantly accelerating object under the earth? How is it any more "attested by incontravertible evidence" than gravitation?

The background radiation which allows us to learn about the Big Bang is easily observable. Gravitons, the explanatory Panacea of the theory of gravity, cannot be (or at least, have not been) observed, by the very admission of their inventors.

I'll also repeat the question: How does this background radiation relate to the constant acceleration of the UA?

I'll also repeat the question: How does this background radiation relate to the constant acceleration of the UA?

It provides evidence for the Big Bang, which caused the inception of the acceleration.

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 08, 2009, 01:42:57 PM

I'll also repeat the question: How does this background radiation relate to the constant acceleration of the UA?

It provides evidence for the Big Bang, which caused the inception of the acceleration.

How was the UA created by the Big Bang?

It was a massively powerful explosion, of the sort which would cause acceleration.

It was a massively powerful explosion, of the sort which would cause acceleration.

A constant acceleration for thousands of years? Explosions accelerate objects only for a moment. Is it still exploding directly below the earth?

Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 08, 2009, 04:41:23 AM

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 07:44:02 PM

No, I base my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics.

Something is amiss here, Euclid!!

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 07:35:22 PM

Sometimes conjecture is necessary to break from traditional methods of thought to discover a better representation of reality.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 03:51:57 AM

I disagree, quite simply.  Conjecture and imagination have undeniable roles in discovering truth.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 03:06:59 AM

The UA is a magic force.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 03:35:55 AM

I make conjectures because one of them might turn out to be true.

Woops! Somebody is not using logical deduction from observed facts of physics. Don't lie. You're not using deduction. You're not even using induction. You're just making it up as you go along.

Ok, you misunderstand me.  My belief is that the mechanism of the UA lies outside the known laws of physics.  This is what I mean when I say the UA is a magic force.  I base my claim on my knowledge of physics.  I know the observed forces of physics and their properties.  I know some of the properties the UA must have.  I have deduced that the current laws of physics are consistent from the properties the UA must have.  (Please ask for details.)  Therefore, my belief is not based on conjecture, and my previous statement stands.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 07:44:02 PM

If it is an object, what accelerates the UA?  Your just shifting the question of what accelerates the Earth to what accelerates the UA.  The source of the Earth's acceleration remains unknown.  There has to be a force involved.  What force is that?

Well Euclid, unlike you, my colleagues and I have carefully brought empirical evidence to bear on the question. I am not content to speculate as you are, inventing some wild hypothesis without grounds, which is why I hold that the UA's acceleration has been caused by the Big Bang itself, the inception of the universe which is attested by incontravertible evidence. Observable, palpable facts which are found in reality, in the real world. Background radiation in the sky above us suggests a massive explosion of universal magnitude. That, Euclid, is "bas[ing] my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics". There is a difference between making up a hypothesis, and basing a conclusion on observable evidence. You are quite happy doing the former, as you have many times admitted. I am only satisfied doing the latter.

The evidence for the Big Bang is very controvertible in FE theory.  You completely ignored my questions.  I am trying to point out to you that your explanation has problems and does not logically flow from the available knowledge of physics.  

I am quite happy to make speculations.  But I never believe them unless they are uniquely supported by available evidence.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 07, 2009, 04:39:38 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 07, 2009, 03:51:03 AM

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

But here, Michael, conjecture IS being used as a basis for belief. This is what I am taking issue with. The entire notion that the UA is a mysterious gravity-analog (i.e. a force which works by magic) is a belief, which is founded on conjecture.

No, I base my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics.

Now I'm not sure that's true Euclid. If that were the case, it wouldn't be conjecture, would it? I don't think there's any harm in conjecture, as it's a useful thought excercise, but the moment you start refering to it as based on fact, you are on dodgy ground.

Quote from: Euclid on July 07, 2009, 07:44:02 PM

Quote from: J. McIntyre on July 07, 2009, 04:39:38 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 07, 2009, 03:51:03 AM

To be fair James, I don't think there's anything wrong with conjecture as long as it isn't the basis for belief. Sometimes conjecture allows us to consider the same evidence in a new light, simply because it shifts the borders of our thought. There's none of us perfect, and sometimes we may unwittingly exclude certain possibilities, simply because we are so used to thinkig within certain perameters. Conjecture can help us break down these barriers.

But here, Michael, conjecture IS being used as a basis for belief. This is what I am taking issue with. The entire notion that the UA is a mysterious gravity-analog (i.e. a force which works by magic) is a belief, which is founded on conjecture.

No, I base my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics.

Now I'm not sure that's true Euclid. If that were the case, it wouldn't be conjecture, would it? I don't think there's any harm in conjecture, as it's a useful thought excercise, but the moment you start refering to it as based on fact, you are on dodgy ground.

See above.