Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Science and Speculation [was "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" @ AG

Subject: [OM] Science and Speculation [was "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" @ AGO in Toronto]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:42:29 -0700
On 6/12/2017 8:37 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
. . .
Reality is a bitch. Not meaning to go all Neil DeGrasse Tyson*

What's with this guy? He's personable, and perhaps a great physicist, but he's also drunk the kool-aid of a belief system which is NOT science. At least that's what he said:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in 
it."

If you look at the history of science, the unavoidable conclusion must be that at any given time, the "science" has been at best partially true, and more often just plain wrong. Why would one assume that is no longer true today? Because most people, including most who self-identified as scientists did so at all those past times - and I want to join them?

Newton has fared rather well, his laws of motion turning out to be highly useful and applicable to an important (to us) subset of the conditions that obtain in the universe as a whole.

Just in the last few days, the "science" (more like guesswork) of human origins has been completely thrown for a loop by the publication of new discoveries. Perhaps NG can just reuse the cover from their 10/15 issue, ALMOST HUMAN - A new Ancestor Shakes Up Our Family Tree.

The "engine" of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, genetic mutation, has been quietly going away for some years. Studies of the rate of genetic change show that it's simply WAY too slow to explain the rate of change observed in species. Now that some folks have found a biological explanation, they've started to make noise about it. I suppose that earlier it didn't go outside specialized publications because it was so embarrassing to admit that Lamark was right, without at least a biochemical explanation of what's going on.

That's right, that fellow in the dustbin of science history, Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, mentioned only derisorily, if at all, in science classes - was right! He observed and reported something simple, that individuals of a species experienced morphological change in reaction to their environment - AND - those changes occurred and persisted in their descendants. I clearly recall the way his idea was put down in HS biology class.

One could go on pretty much forever. The point is that true science is a collection of theories, not facts. As soon as one believes (yes, Neil) that the theories are facts, one has left pure science for scientism. Not that he is alone, by any means. Max Planck famously said "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I notice even then, he uses the term "truth" (even in the original German.)
--- End Rant --- start speculation ---

You know, our whole cosmology, Big Bang and all, depends on unproven theory. Edwin Hubble showed that redshift is a good measure of the distance of galaxies. He did not believe in the quick assumption by others of a Doppler-like effect causing the redshift, and that the galaxies are therefore receding from us at speeds that increase with distance. As I understand it, current theory isn't Doppler-like, but an effect of the space through which the light is passing expanding as it passes through, thus stretching it.. (Yes, Virginia, the æther does exist in current physics theory, they just don't call it that, out of embarrassment.)

Sounds circular to me. We decide the universe is expanding based on redshift as analogous to Doppler Effect on sound, then use that expansion to explain the redshift. I'm probably missing something?

So, what if there is a field, as yet unknown and unnamed, that shifts light frequencies as light passes through space? The further it travels, the greater the shift. We found anomalies between calculation based on our model/theories and observation, so we invented an unknown, unobservable "thing" called Dark Matter, to balance the equations. Same problem again, Dark Energy. (The symbolic and psychological association of inventing a Dark Mother (Mater, etc.) and Dark Father (Darth Vader) is hard to miss.)

So, why not an invented field that explains redshift and why it is based on distance? Occam's Razor might suggest just such a simple theory. Then, the Universe may not be expanding, at least not at the currently theorized breakneck speed, and all the need for Dark Stuff goes away.

Or maybe travel through the æther has a tiny energy cost, only significant at or near light speed, that shows up as movement toward lower energy wavelengths.

Calling Halton Arp! Bring out your cigar shaped galactic clusters.

Lost in the (B)ozone Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz