Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

I thought electroweak and strong were already unified? We are only on gravity right? JOhn ________________________________ From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> To: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>; Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> Cc: ASA <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Fri, October 30, 2009 12:45:48 PM Subject: Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy GUTs in the original sense would unify the electroweak & strong interactions but not gravity.  A TOE would include gravitation.   Shalom George http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm ----- Original Message ----- >From: David Clounch >To: Murray Hogg >Cc: ASA >Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:51 AM >Subject: Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy > >My layman's view on physics: > >It is the theory there is an energy level (temperature) where the strong force, weak force, gravity, and electromagnetic force  are all one force.  After cooling  the force breaks down into individual forces.  So immediately after the big bang there was one force and with expansion (inflation?)  came cooling, the four forces, and then eventually particles.  > >My guess is this is an over-simplification because it is an english description of an idea that can only be expressed mathematically. > >It is loosely related to TOE (Theory of Everything).  > >This all came up because I mentioned Grand Unifying Principle (GUP)  which  is the idea that state science standards committees in the USA  put in curriculum standards.  This idea says that evolution is a unifying concept that explains everything from the formation of particles at the big bang to  cosmic evolution to chemical evolution (abiogenesis) to  biological evolution to social evolution - therefore they want to teach our children that evolution explains everything.  That "evolution" unifies all of science. > >This is EXACTLY what Gregory is complaining about.  So, Ted, if you don't believe in the grand unifying principle of evolution, well....... be aware  that your government is  being subverted to  teach  something different than  what you believe.  Once these standards are in place all teachers must teach that concept or lose their jobs. > > My opinion is the "grand unifying principle of evolution" is a fabrication.   If that is true then we  may possibly be seeing  a consitutionally problematic situation arise in the state science standards committees.  My question then becomes  "whose side are the ASA members on, anyway?"  If one doesn't believe the fabrication is true, then why support it rather than correct it?  Do we want accurate science or not? Do we want  materialism taught as science?  Is the fabrication scientism?  Do we politically support that?  Every person must ask themselves that question.  > >Yes, materialists believe the fabrication is  true. But do we?  Gregory is right on target with this. > >Thanks, >Dave C > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote: > >GUT = "Grand Unified Theory" - properly refers to theories in physics which unify the various forces into a single unified field. Used by analogy to refer to "meta-narrative" >> >> >>Cameron Wybrow wrote: >> >>This is the second time in the last couple of days that I've seen the abbreviation "GUT", without explanation.  I've never seen this abbreviation before.  Could people please refrain from using it, unless they are going to say what it means after the first usage? >>> >>>Cameron. >>> >> >>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with >>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. >> >

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 30 14:11:43 2009