Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

There are a number of proposals for GUTs - in math terms, gauge groups which encompass those of electroweak & QCD (quantum chromodynamics - strong interaction) - but none are generally accepted. Among other things, proton decay hasn't been detected, which kills some theories. Similarly for theories that try to incorporate gravity. (There are a number of theories that unify gravitation & electromagnetism - Weyl introduced the 1st back in 1918 - but all are either just math formalisms with no observable distinctive predictions or run into observational problems.)

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: John Walley
  To: George Murphy ; David Clounch ; Murray Hogg
  Cc: ASA
  Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:11 PM
  Subject: 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 14:49:13 2009