Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

Richard Blinne writes:

>Note to Cameron: SU(2) is a special unitary group that is a real matrix Lie group of dimension 3 (n^2 -1). QCD is SU(3). The Higgs Boson is known popularly as the God particle not because of what Rush Limbaugh presumes but because its existence confirms the SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) standard model gauge group at spin 0. Normally, the integration of electroweak and QCD is considered a GUT while the addition of such things as LQG (loop quantum gravity) and SUSY (supersymmetry) makes it a TOE (Theory of Everything). LHC is the Large Hadron Collider.

It is interesting to learn that in between reviewing patents (which Mr. Blinne has said is his profession), Mr. Blinne has picked up a wide knowledge of popular science and reads up on the Higgs Boson and the Large Hadron Collider. Good for him. However, I did not request this (in my view) pompous display of technical knowledge, and have no idea why he addressed it to me. Nor do I know why he would mention Rush Limbaugh to me, as I know nothing about the man, other than that he is some American TV personality with a reputation (whether deserved or not, I do not know) for vulgar and extreme opinions.

What I am missing from Mr. Blinne is not technical factoids about hypothetical subatomic particles, but a list of his peer-reviewed papers on climate change. It is surely the case that no one would take it upon himself to declare, so often and with such intransigence, which climatological specialists are correct, and which incorrect, on the subject of complex mathematical models of global warming, unless he himself was a peer of those specialists. And anyone who was a peer of those specialists would have published on the subject. But I suspect that the Arctic icecap will have melted by another 30% (or increased by another 30%, as the case may be), before I am given the name and location of any such publications.

Regarding Mr. Blinne's other post, he mentions, or appears to mention, some non-scientific publication of his on the relation of Christian theology to global warming theory. I followed up his link, and found a number of papers written by others on the list there, but none with his name attached. I am puzzled. I thought he was directing me to something that he had written on the subject. But perhaps I misunderstood. Maybe he meant only: "Read all 20 of these papers; I agree with them." If that is the case, I must decline. I was interested in reading his own exposition, not three or four hundred pages of the writings of others.

In any case, since Mr. Blinne is so kind as to have pointed out to me a large number of papers on the Biblical view of the environment, in return, I will indicate to him my own (peer-reviewed) work on the subject: *The Bible, Baconianism, and Mastery over Nature: The Old Testament and its Modern Misreading*. If I am not mistaken, it is still the most extensive discussion of the Old Testament understanding of nature. He might enjoy reading it, as it touches on a number of issues important to Christian thinking about nature. I think I managed to say something of substance, though he may think that I somewhat short-changed the topic of global warming.

Cameron.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: John Walley ; David Clounch ; Murray Hogg ; ASA ; Cameron Wybrow
  Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:42 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] plea for acronymical mercy

  On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

    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

  Even the electroweak SU(2) group is not fully verified. That's the whole point of trying to find the Higgs Boson at the LHC.

  Note to Cameron: SU(2) is a special unitary group that is a real matrix Lie group of dimension 3 (n^2 -1). QCD is SU(3). The Higgs Boson is known popularly as the God particle not because of what Rush Limbaugh presumes but because its existence confirms the SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) standard model gauge group at spin 0. Normally, the integration of electroweak and QCD is considered a GUT while the addition of such things as LQG (loop quantum gravity) and SUSY (supersymmetry) makes it a TOE (Theory of Everything). LHC is the Large Hadron Collider.

  One final note. To ID proponents God's design is shown through complexity but to high energy physicists it's shown through simplicity, symmetry and thus beauty and elegance. That's why they search for ever increasing symmetry and unification (and trinification! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinification) in the Universe. This approach better undercuts Richard Dawkins argument against God based on complexity because it is simplicity and elegance that leads to God.

  Rich Blinne
  Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 31 08:54:29 2009