From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>

Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 14:09:20 EDT

Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 14:09:20 EDT

----- Original Message -----

From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>

To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; <asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:17 AM

Subject: RE: Moorad's assumed timeline

*> The best example to illustrate what I am saying is forensic science. Here
*

one collects data that are studied by means of experimental sciences and

used as evidence provided to the district attorney for possible prosecution.

The district attorney forms a historical timeline wherein he fits in the

evidence he has. It is on the basis of that timeline that the prosecutor

seeks to indict a person by presenting the case in court.

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> In cosmology, the timeline is provided by mathematical models based on the
*

Hilbert-Einstein equations of general relativity and solved assuming

symmetries by the Russian meteorologist and mathematician Aleksandr

Friedmann. In historical geology, evolutionary theory, etc. there are no

mathematical models and so the workers in those fields fit the data also in

an assumed timeline.

Not exactly. A timeline can be established with much simpler models -

i.e., ones using Newtonian gravity or even neglecting gravity entirely. If

one puts Hubble's relation v = Hd in the form v = d/t then t = 1/H ~ 14 x

10^9 yr. The Einstein equations are needed for a more detailed model but

not for establishing the order of magnitude of what one may cautiously call

"the characteristic time of the universe."

By bringing in the Einstein equations you exaggerate the difference

between the sophistication of what's needed in cosmology & in historical

geology. Furthermore, there are mathematical models which deal with a

crucial aspect of the age of the earth, radioactivity & the relative

abundances of various isotopes.

& even furthermore, those models are not completely disjoint from our

cosmological models because determination of ages from isotope abundances,

at least for things like U235/U238, depend on understanding the formation of

nuclei in supernovae and other cosmological data.

Furthermore, while the simplest procedure is to assume spatial symmetry

& isotropy of the universe, as Friedmann did, there are plenty of

cosmological models - both exact solutions of the Einstein equations and

approximate ones which are perturbed versions of the Friedmann models -

which don't have all those symmetries.

Moorad, I can argue as strongly as anyone that physics is "harder" than

other sciences. But this doesn't mean that those other sciences aren't

sciences at all or that they can't tell us anything about the past. You

have tried to make such a case several times in the past but it just won't

work. As a physicist I appeal to you to give it up.

Shalom

George

http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

Received on Thu May 20 14:10:00 2004

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Thu May 20 2004 - 14:10:01 EDT
*