From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 00:53:56 EDT
Glenn wrote:
> Wayne, it is hard to see, at least for me, what other explanation could
> account for such a solution other than MWH. Could there be something? Of
> course, but that is doing what the YECs do and hoping that the future will solve
> today's theo-scientific problems.
OK, I agree that just holding out hope for future discoveries is a
problematical position.
However, I reflect that whereas the Copernican system
seems so "obvious" to me now, it would have challenged any competent
mind to think of an earth whirling around the sun and spinning on its
axis to boot. We should fall off shouldn't we? Where is the "glue" to
keep us sticking to the earth? At this point in time, I am simply not
willing to take a position on the issue. The MWH may be the proper
analogy for the Copernican system, or it could be the epicycle upon
epicycle nonsense that confounded everybody with the geocentric
model.
I reserve the option to admit that I simply don't know. However,
I suppose I should be more charitable in my criticism of such
speculation.
As to the particle issue, however. The experiments you cite are for
photons. It does indicate the entanglement must be taken seriously.
Therefore, the "hidden forces notion", a sexy notion for physicist
to which I have lusted in my heart on some occasions, is just plain
wrong. I humbly accept the nose rubbing in the dog pooh for my
fallen ways.
That being said, real particles tend to have a very limited range of
correlation. The largest correlation in matter would be in
superconductors. But even they have a correlation length that
is extremely small (by astronomical length scales). So making
wild hand waving arguments and extrapolations ignoring gravity and
all sorts of other "small things" and building gargantuan "particles"
really troubles me as a scientist working on the comparatively
"small (and sometimes smelly) things".
Let's just say, I feel like a caveman trying to understand the
aurora borealis. Other people have their persuasive proposals,
but so what? None of them have much reasonable possibility
of being correct. So why should I really take any of them
seriously? Maybe better to just enjoy its beauty and wonder.
And even if the parallel universe version of the MWH is true, with
such a limited range of correlation of matter within our own
universe, what do Glennq230-fasdasehiopewi;12347pasdfn;
and Glenn123uyasdlwheroihio@ have to do with each other?
I would also see problems with our caveman Og, who
wins the Darwin award for the whole human race. It simply
becomes a big mess. The only advantage I can see with the
parallel universe version of the MWH is that I can say "Judge,
I just couldn't help myself, you see, it's because of my evil copy...."
By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 00:54:59 EDT