GAMOW, GEORGE, One Two Three…Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science
Get the original version—prior to being revised.
In his book, as I recall, he said, and he assumed, if you were to have a large enough telescope, all you would see is stars and therefore light and he called it the optical or horizon of light.
I am not afraid of being wrong. I ordered a copy of the book to prove myself to be correct. I have stated this as a concept for years so I believe Gamow said it.
Blessings
Refusing to debate is not refusing to learn from another. I refuse to allow others to call me names etc. and I will not respond to debate in that sense. I will discuss, I will not debate.
Blessings
Let me get this straight: a guy who does make assumptions, contrary to scientific practice, makes a guess that is contradicted by the overwhelming majority of the astronomical community (who are using observation and analysis instead of assumptions) and you are using his comments as a starting point to make observations about science including the odd claim that it builds on assumptions?
Should we drag out a few of Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s comments and assert that they are representative of Christian belief?
True, sort of. It seems like there will be some who don’t have to go through the first death (what we consider death, body/spirit seperation), those alive during the second coming of Jesus.
:rolleyes:
Let’s get one thing straight here: when posters of the SDMB use the word “debate”, they are not using it in a I’m-gonna-call-you-names-until-you-agree-with-me way. Debate, discuss, converse, argue… you can safely use these words interchangeably here. Just thought I’d clarify.
If you cannot provide evidence to back up your claim, then you are incorrect. You said it yourself:
We’re asking you to provide some kind of evidence for your claims. If you cannot, then they’re nothing more than assumptions.
No self-respecting scientist thinks that a theory is the end all. So we can toss that idea out the window right now.
LilShieste
Was this an interpretation of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or something different that Gamov “worked” on?
ETA: Scare quotes used only to acknowledge the work of Ralph Alpher.
“Debate” and “discuss” are synonyms. If you won’t do one, by definition, you will not do the other. How are you using the word “debate” that makes it materially different than “discussion?”
I’m curious, as well, as to what you mean by “name-calling,” which is forbidden by the rules of this forum. Since you’re already using at least two terms in a way that’s clearly at odds with the accepted popualr definitions (specifically, “debate” and “optical horizon”) I wonder if this is a similar instance of unique nomenclatura on your behalf. Does disagreeing with you constitute “name-calling?” Does pointing out your basic misunderstandings of modern science and the scientific method constitute name-calling?
First, I happen to have a copy of the 1947 text. You do realize that this book is 60 years old and lots of things in science, especially in areas like astronomy or astrophysics, become out of date in that span of time and citing (and I use the term very loosely for what you’ve done so far) a popular work, especially one that old, is to risk making an argument on possibly-discredited hypotheses? Hell, I could say that it is possible to keep an artificial wormhole open by getting it close enough to a black hole so that the extreme time dilation of 38 minutes on the black hole’s end is essentially forever on our end, and I know that it’s true because I saw it on Wikipedia, but I’d hope people here would actually know what I was referring to and then come in and tell me I was full of shit.
Now, I assume you’re talking about chapter 10 (which starts on p. 253 in my paperback printing) or maybe 11. But just saying “I believe Gamow said it” doesn’t mean anything. Tell me exactly where in the text to go look and then I’ll go look and post the text myself within reason (the mods tend to be picky on the limits of fair use, and I don’t want to go retyping pages and pages of text anyway.)
You know, I’m not sure lightwait has actually read the book he’s telling us to go read. Because there’s a nice illustration (Figure 127, p. 310 of my copy) of exactly that and plenty of text as well saying exactly what you just said.
Please read post number two (2) and following for a ways and you will see what I think debate on these boards is like.
Most of you seem to think debate/discussion is to belittle the content of anothers post, instead of helping them come to the truth.
Go ahead and ask me why I continue on these boards when I think this is so? I do it to help myself understand why we treat others the way we do.
In the Bible there is a term, “I am…” the Greek words are “ego eimi” and they mean (transliterated) “ego have been” and translated “when there is no ego”. So, “I am the way”, in the Greek would mean “When your ego is gone, that is the way.”
I am seeing how the world works. I see why there are wars and fightings and cultural strife among us–instead of our helping each other to come together.
The proof is in how many on these boards treat each other–with distain and distrust.
I believe, for the most part, this is brought on by the Christian community telling the world they are going to hell, etc. I am a Christian. However, I believe the Christian community, by and large, is out of place in this respect.
I say these things to ask you to not lump me in with the majority of “Christians” in this country.
I love God and Jesus Christ and think they are the answer.
I refuse to respond personally to those who treat me with a disrespect that is called debate.
Blessings
Countering one of your viewpoints - which you have not made any attempt to verify - is not disrespectful.
Accusing other posters of engaging in dishonest debating tactics, however, is.
LilShieste
The ego corrupts all. It becomes a struggle, a grand competition vying for righteousness, not truth. Truth will be found only with humility and cooperation.
Can there ever be right or wrong in theories, or assumptions, what difference does it make whether the telescope sees stars or light, will that change anything in this world, I think not. I understand how debating on this board becomes fulfilling ego and not seeking truth. Twisted words, pieces of thought from snipped sentences spun into webs of deceit only ghosts of their original meaning. Do you wish to learn or do you wish to be right. That is the difference between discuss and debate.
lightwait are you claiming what you stated about the optical horizon as prophecy?
I am not a prophet.
I am not a crackpot.
I believe that every star shines on every other star, except when there is something in the way—and not necessarily with luminescent light. I believe there is a structure in the heaven of the suns/stars. In the Greek language the word for heaven is kosmos.
I believe that the life that is in every individual is “light”. The Bible calls the Lord the “Sun of righteousness”. I believe there is and can be a giving structure, a sharing of the light, in all of man. However, this concept must be introduced to man and sought after. The Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God and I believe this concept is a way for man to come together and serve each other in all of our needs.
That is it—nothing more.
Blessings
Again, I am not a prophet. I do not claim to be. The optical horizon is a concept that I believe I read about 40 years ago. The concept has stuck in my mind. If I am using the wrong terminology—fine—that does not make me all bad. Whatever the term is that would define the concept is what I am after. I know the book One Two Three …Infinity has been revised but I will find the proof text.
In the 1961 preface to his book One Two Three …Infinity, Gamow says, “It was written just after a number of important scientific advances, which were included in the text, and in order to bring it up to date relatively few changes and additions were necessary.”
There have been changes in Gamow’s book. I will search it out. In the physics community, there is constant growth and new understandings and many changes in the meanings and/or connotations of words and phraises. Whatever, I will call my understanding the optical horizon until proven incorrect.
I am not afraid to accept the truth. I refuse to be verbally bludgeoned for any error I might make.
Blessings
George Gamow died in 1968, almost 40 years ago, and only four years after Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic background radiation, validating Gamow’s prediction. Obviously his 1961 update couldn’t take this into account.
In science (and programming) you have to accept being wrong. The real world has a nasty habit of telling you that your precious hypothesis is full of hot air. if you are debating anything scientific, you need to be open to learning something new.
I’m curious as to which astronomers you have read for 15 years. Are you starting from Ptolemy and working forward? It makes sense to work backwards from today. My library is full of books on cosmology and the Big Bang, all more recent than Gamow. Have your read any of them? Unlike theology, cosmology changes rapidly.
I’m not knocking Gamow, who was a great guy. But he’d be the first to admit that his understanding was deficient. I suggest you might try practicing the similar virtue of humility.
No, it isn’t. The word means “order.”
Yes it is — look it up!
Yes it is — look it up!
2889 \~kosmov~\ kosmos {kos’-mos}
probably from the base of 2865; TDNT - 3:868,459; n m
AV - world 186, adorning 1; 187
I have never suggested Gamow or anyone else is correct or incorrect. I suggested that the physics community is growing in understanding. I say as a truth that to accept assumption as truth is that which misleads our societies. To express to the masses that the “big bang” is a truth—is a falsehood.
My attitude is in a correct posture—I am not here to mislead anyone, nor am I here to practice humility.
Where did you look it up? That’s the definition I’m familiar with, and I checked Dictionary.com. I’ve since looked at a few others, none of which agree with you. Several of them say precisely what I said:
“Middle English, from Greek kosmos, order.”