Science and Inquiry discussion

I'm not sure what the first question even means. What is the 'background of life', and in what sense does it have a sky? I'm not at all sure, right off the cuff, if you're asking a serious question, badly phrased, or a metaphorical question, which I probably don't care about :)

The second question: Are they? I'm not aware of this. Is this a garbled restatement of the fact that rotation curves don't fall off as they were expected to, several decades ago? Or a reference to MND (which attempts to answer the previous without resorting to dark matter)? This I would be HIGHLY interested in; please send link to paper, etc. detailing this observation.

You're right James, no-one's interested in your self-published armchair philosophising.

James, you seem very confused about basic physics. First, anything rotating is accelerating towards the centre of rotation. That's not the same as saying the perimeter is accelerating as the latter is a surface not a single object.

Regarding your question about the "background of life" your explanation is equally meaningless. Outer space is just defined as what is "out there". Ludicrously, NASA define "outer space" as an altitude above 100 km above the Earth's surface. I used to do research on that part of the atmosphere! I suppose the NASA definition is just to pretend that we have more astronauts than we do have.

Essentially, though, outer space does not have a perimeter. General relativity implies that space could curve back on itself: if you travel for say 40 billion years at the speed of light in one direction you might end up back where you started. Is the universe closed? This would be the case if the mass exceeded a certain limit. Is the universe open? Then expansion continues forever. So as you can't go faster than the speed of light, you can never get to any edge, so it can't be thought of as existing in any meaningful way. Ultimately, you can't apply commonsense notions of living inside a closed sphere as if this is any representation of reality. The universe is too large.

Perhaps.

Philosophising is perfectly good English, you can spell it philosophizing if you like. I really wouldn't try a grammar flame. And besides which, it's still from an armchair.

My observation that no-one is interested is based largely on the number of reads and reviews your book has garnered, which is to say, none, zero, nadda, zilch. I add my personal interest to that, and I dare say Dan's as well, to give a grand total of none.

But well done on becoming a self-published philosophy author; only the mere fraction of humanity with a working computer and Internet connection, could publish such a work - ability to write coherently is a bonus but probably not necessary.

Meanwhile, congratulations too on watching a Horizon documentary. I fully expect that from this starting point in your education, with the addition of several years' worth of serious study, including some fairly heavy mathematics, you could understand physics on the same level as a physics undergraduate! I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say I hope that you come back once you have attained this level of understanding.

James wrote: "Daniel

It wasn’t metaphorical. It was a serious question. By "background of life" I meant what surrounds outer space..."

James, I support your interest and enthusiasm. I don't want to squash those. That said, you are, as John points out, making some very basic mistakes re: space. Think about it this way: if the universe is all space (and time) what does it mean to ask what is 'outside' it? The question just doesn't make any sense.

This is all covered in a very large number of programs; BBC and PBS (in the US) programs, as well as any number of introductory lectures on these topics, and all (or nearly all, in the case of BBC/PBS/Science Channel/etc.) available on YouTube, just to start. Watch some of those (from reputable sources!!!) Then maybe read a book like Hawking's "Brief History of Time" (I don't remember is this is discussed in that... been a long time since I read a pop-physics book.) You should really go through some of those materials, very easily accessible, before asking too many questions... and certainly before theorizing on your own :)

I'm not sure if, as John surmises, you mean centripetal acceleration re: the edge of galaxies. Maybe. Maybe not. The problem here is you say you heard something, on some program, from the BBC. What can I do with that? :) Not a whole lot. You need to be a bit more precise and detailed, otherwise how can anyone know what you are talking about, and whether they can take it seriously?

Should a forum like this be a place of scorn and vitriol ? Are not we all armchair philosophers in a forum like this? Do arguments ad hominem advance scientific knowledge - does scorn? Rather than attacking the man , attack the problem and at least give the benefit of the doubt to James as a courtesy to fellow contributors. The original questions have been attacked as banal or misconceived but perhaps they do raise worthwhile topics. As to why the sky is black in the background of life James may have been prompting why 'life' ie our eyes do not see the other important spectrum of radio waves which would expand our vision - was this an evolutionary necessity or it could have meant to question whether the sky is not black because light is absorbed by dark matter (in some unknown way - or is that a misconceived question also!) or that immense turbulence of matter in the vast reaches of the universe has distorted light so much we do not see the light that was there ? As to the second question I took the perimeter of a galaxy to mean the outermost stars or planets of the galaxy spinning around the center of the galaxy (rather than the imaginary line of a perimeter) . If that is the question then it does make one wonder because acceleration requires constant force to accelerate away from the center so it could not be the center of the galaxy applying force (for what repulsive force could that be?) but something else - so that is an interesting question. I hope that wiser contributors here than me can answer that question - could dark matter surround a galaxy and be the source of such accelerating force ? (or is that another misconceived question!)

Wow, I would hope we can all choose to discuss what we like. If someone is not interested or finds something annoying, they can just stay away from the thread. There is no need to be mean or tear someone down unless they are being horrid in some way. The person who started this thread wasn't being horrible to anyone. They were asking a question. If people don't like the question, just move on. If you feel you need to be mean, maybe move on to a therapist's office to deal with anger issues.

R.J. wrote: "Should a forum like this be a place of scorn and vitriol ? Are not we all armchair philosophers in a forum like this? Do arguments ad hominem advance scientific knowledge - does scorn? Rather than ..."

I generally agree. But... :)

I think the benefit of the doubt should be given; I tried to respond accordingly.

It can be difficult, however. I know for a fact that DrosoPHila has dealt with others on Goodreads who initiate threads with ill-conceived ideas, advertising books expounding their personal "superior" philosophical understanding of life, the universe, and everything. I don't have even that passing familiarity with John, that I remember at least, but his response seems to me to reflect a broadly similar experience.

And so, fairly or not, posts like James' trigger a strong immune reaction. Direct personal attacks are uncalled for, but... there is truth in what is said. I truly hope James interest and enthusiasm is not squashed by this; but to paraphrase DrosoPHila, he needs to start by investing some of his time in learning what he is talking about before writing an essay and asking people to read it. (Full disclosure, I have agreed to read his since it is short.) Physics and astronomy suffers from the need to keep the money rolling in, which is done by popularizing the subject; the downside to this is that every party has someone who just saw a documentary on X and wants to argue with me about it when I tell them, "No, that's not quite right..." Goodreads is the same, but with the added 'bonus' of people promoting their own books with their own pet 'Theories of Everything.'

Turn the tables. No one, and I mean no one, is interested in my thoughts on 12th century Indian art. Why? Because I know nothing about it. Why should a group of historians, art historians, collectors, etc. --or even just a group of 'art buffs'-- humor me and take a book I'd written seriously when I know nothing about the subject? Should they humor me?

Or what if I roll into a shop and start telling the mechanics all about how the carbonator in the head gasket needs to be lubed, should they humor me, stare at me in horror, laugh, or just ignore me? Can I expect that one or more of them will stop what they are doing and spend the next several years personally tutoring me about cars?

Not perfect analogies, but is the standard here **that** different? *Should* it be?

Perhaps I was a little forthright. Freedom of speech is important. And most 3rd year physics undergrads seriously know their stuff. And maybe a handful of people will read the book.

Nevertheless, I think though the author should have posted this question into the "author self-promotion" subsection of the forum.

Secondly, some humility on the part of the author would be appropriate. Rather than post vague philosophical questions and then offer to meaningfully answer them, acknowledge that views are personal and therefore probably unimportant, and also acknowledge as Dennett points out, that philosophy is primarily about questions rather than answers.

A wider point for science is that scientists should welcome criticism of their ideas, and present their ideas humbly. "We suggest that... but further research is needed in this area" is rather a cliché in paper writing.

As for books, I think most of us indeed read books by experts. In some areas an expert can be an amateur and have little formal training, but this tends not to apply to science, nor indeed philosophy.

DrosoPHila wrote: "Perhaps I was a little forthright. Freedom of speech is important. And most 3rd year physics undergrads seriously know their stuff. And maybe a handful of people will read the book.

Nevertheless, ..."

Actually I think this was my misunderstanding. I didn't click on the person's name. If I had, I would have realized they were an author engaging in self-promotion. I agree with what you are saying about more optimal ways to go about promoting a book.