[QUOTE=davar55;390705]Now might be a good time to check out my alternative new cosmology.[/QUOTE]
I did reread it. I'm a big believer in thinking about foundations and allowing space for mavericks but I didn't notice anything in it that I might have missed before.

Yesterday I listened to Lee Smolin's [I]Trouble with Physics[/I] on audiobook. I've read this before but like to experience things in different ways to round out my assimilation. I think I got more out of it this time. There is a very recent blog post on him in [I]Scientific American[/I]:
[URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/01/04/troublemaker-lee-smolin-questions-if-physics-laws-are-timeless/"]Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics—and Its Laws—Must Evolve*[/URL]
By John Horgan | January 4, 2015

[QUOTE=only_human;391793]I did reread it. I'm a big believer in thinking about foundations and allowing space for mavericks but I didn't notice anything in it that I might have missed before.

Yesterday I listened to Lee Smolin's [I]Trouble with Physics[/I] on audiobook. I've read this before but like to experience things in different ways to round out my assimilation. I think I got more out of it this time. There is a very recent blog post on him in [I]Scientific American[/I]:
[URL="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/01/04/troublemaker-lee-smolin-questions-if-physics-laws-are-timeless/"]Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics—and Its Laws—Must Evolve*[/URL]
By John Horgan | January 4, 2015[/QUOTE]

I won't comment fully on the article until I've completed it, but the idea that it takes cosmological evolution to
produce the measurable numbers that define the laws of nature is at odds with my monograph and its version
of the steady-state principle. LAWS of physics are eternal; such values as the constant vacuum speed-of-light
cannot have evolved; the (approximate) number of stars in the Universe remains (approximately) constant BECAUSE
of laws that remain eternal plus the (empirically discoverable) steady-state principle.

As to cosmo4.txt, its primary new value is the re-organization / structure of the argument / presentation.
There are, however, a few additions to the discussion which improve (but not complete) its comprehensiveness,
as basically a first step in a new direction.

[QUOTE=davar55;391820]I won't comment fully on the article until I've completed it, but the idea that it takes cosmological evolution to
produce the measurable numbers that define the laws of nature is at odds with my monograph and its version
of the steady-state principle. LAWS of physics are eternal; such values as the constant vacuum speed-of-light
cannot have evolved; the (approximate) number of stars in the Universe remains (approximately) constant BECAUSE
of laws that remain eternal plus the (empirically discoverable) steady-state principle.

As to cosmo4.txt, its primary new value is the re-organization / structure of the argument / presentation.
There are, however, a few additions to the discussion which improve (but not complete) its comprehensiveness,
as basically a first step in a new direction.[/QUOTE]The blog post title is too clever by half, especially since evolve is quite a loaded term in some circles. This was the blog post's original title:
[QUOTE]*New, revised headline is much, much, much better than original: Troublemaker Lee Smolin Questions If Physics Laws Are “Timeless”.[/QUOTE]Both titles are cute, however especially once one knows a bit about what Lee Smolin is intending to to say. The article has context enough to explain both titles. Furthermore in his books he spends some time comparing how science progress is actually made versus how we often act, believe or assume it is done.

Another book I mentioned in this thread, [I]Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth[/I] by Jim Baggott, also spent considerable time on this topic.

I'd rather hear your perspective on these two than read their works first.

The two writers have a lot in common that they say but are approaching the issue from different directions. The physicist is looking closer at the lives and careers tied up in popular groupthink and conformity with stifled creativity while the science writer is more focused on hype, fads and deceptive thinking.

I, of course am purely a spectator and have lost my taste for armchair analyzing about what is going wrong with so much toil and time for so many people.

[QUOTE=only_human;391862]The two writers have a lot in common that they say but are approaching the issue from different directions. The physicist is looking closer at the lives and careers tied up in popular groupthink and conformity with stifled creativity while the science writer is more focused on hype, fads and deceptive thinking.
I, of course am purely a spectator and have lost my taste for armchair analyzing about what is going wrong with so much toil and time for so many people.[/QUOTE]

Such as the time wasted by "studying" quantum space and time (they're not quantized but continuous),
the multiverse (nonsense), quantum parallel universes (there's only the one), the "start" of the universe
sometimes explained as the "big bang" (wrongo, the universe has always existed), the big crunch in
the future (ridiculous), etc. etc. ?

I know you've read my monograph, maybe they should too.

[QUOTE=davar55;391968]Such as the time wasted by [blah blah blah].
I know you've read my monograph, maybe they should too.[/QUOTE]
This isn't a mixed martial arts cage match with a declared winner and a failed rival leaving in disgrace. This is a bunch of sincere people trying to apply scientific principles in a recalcitrant subject while simultaneously dealing with impediments and other issues of merely being human.

I've gently suggested two books that talk about the difficulty of advancing scientifically in this field but rather than turning that mirror on yourself, you make remarks like this one.

Just for that I'm not sharing my recipe for Triple Rich Doubly Special Relativity With Nuts. No soup for you. Next!

[QUOTE=only_human;391982]This isn't a mixed martial arts cage match with a declared winner and a failed rival leaving in disgrace. This is a bunch of sincere people trying to apply scientific principles in a recalcitrant subject while simultaneously dealing with impediments and other issues of merely being human.

I've gently suggested two books that talk about the difficulty of advancing scientifically in this field but rather than turning that mirror on yourself, you make remarks like this one.

Just for that I'm not sharing my recipe for Triple Rich Doubly Special Relativity With Nuts. No soup for you. Next![/QUOTE]

Quite right, I deserved that. If I don't read theirs, why should I expect them to read mine?
But are their books on-line and free?

Anyway, I might like some of what they have to say. And in the end it's the science that matters, not egos.

(How did you know how I liked my Special Relativity?)

[QUOTE=davar55;392001](How did you know how I liked my Special Relativity?)[/QUOTE]
Lee Smolin's book talks a bit about doubly special relativity. It has to do with loop quantum gravity, or maybe causal chains, or both; I don't pretend to be even slightly conversant of these lesser travelled estuaries.

As for enjoying relativity with nuts, from Einstein onward, people have been both passionate and mystified; it makes for a very heady brew.

[QUOTE=only_human;392770]Lee Smolin's book talks a bit about doubly special relativity. It has to do with loop quantum gravity, or maybe causal chains, or both; I don't pretend to be even slightly conversant of these lesser travelled estuaries.
As for enjoying relativity with nuts, from Einstein onward, people have been both passionate and mystified; it makes for a very heady brew.[/QUOTE]

Cosmology is indeed heady stuff; Einstein, even in his greatness, did not have the last word.