Winsor Crosby wrote:
> You have to realize that cosmology is composed of provisional
> hypotheses by some very smart people. Some of them are widely
> accepted because they seem provide a logical explanation for
> phenomena that can be measured. If some genius came up with a more
> satisfactory explanation that could be verified it would be jumped
> on. It would not be much fun if we understood everything. Might as
> well pack it in then.
>
> Those are not the only ideas out there. I personally don't like the
> idea of dark matter either and am rooting for the hypothesis by Joao
> Magueijo at Imperial College in London that the speed of light is
> only constant now and was different at the beginning of the universe.
> Some of the latest data seems to shoot that down though. It is all
> very exciting stuff.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
It wouldn't be so bad, if the provisional hypotheses did provide
consistent, logical explanations. The essence of the scientific method
is falsifyability, any theory should be testable and capable of being
falsified. Inventing things you can't see or test for negates that
method. And to get your ideas discussed, far less accepted, you pretty
much have to get published in the right journals. Pity the journals are
all controlled by Big Bang enthusiasts. I give you Halton Arp and Eric
Laithwaite...
As to the speed of light, Ralph Sansbury's work on the structure of
subatomic particles seems to suggest that the speed of light is no
barrier, action at a distance is just a fact of life (consistent with
Newtonian Gravity) and the speed of light is not a constant, but is
dependent on the nature of the carrier medium.
Interesting times indeed.
D.
--
Donald MacDonald BA DipLIS
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Robert Frost.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|