Hi John,
1. I see the Big Bang theory as a theory, an explanatory model that
attempts to weave together all of the relevant observational facts
together into a scheme that is both predictive and explanatory. It has
built into it certain ontological and epistemological premises that I
have some doubts about.
2. Dark energy is nothing more than a conjectured-to-exist entity until
we have a better explanation for the effects that it was conjectured to
explain. We have never actually detected it. What we have detected is
that certain super-novae seem to have light that appears to indicate
that the super-novae are accelerating away from us. This was an
unexpected observation that was not predicted by the Big Bang theory so
the BBT was amended to include a new entity. So be it. But my line of
questions is: At what point are we going to keep adding entities to BBT
before we start wondering if there is something fundamentally wrong with it?
It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense,
for who is the ultimate arbiter of that question? So, I can present you
with a box that I claim contains a coin weighing so many grams and blah
blah, but you have to observe it to know for yourself and you might just
happen to be under the influence of some psychoactive substance that
prevents you from seeing clearly... Or worse case scenario, you might be
a victim of a brain-in-a-vat situation... We have to go through our
epistemology and ontology theories to be sure that they are at least
consistent.
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/24/2012 3:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, you wrote to another John - I barge in with my sidelines.
1. I do not 'believe' in the Big Bang, the theory has flaws and errors
as concerning past lit already worked it out. My main objection is
*_not_* the linearity in going back to zero in an expansion that is
non-linear and *_not_* the phantasm in 'originating' a world upon
partial input (as a total one at the end), it is the underlying
physical thought of explaining (mostly mathematically) a totality of
which we only know a part yet ALL OF IT(?) plays into the changes. We
learn new details continually and forge them into the obsolescence to
make it 'fitter'.
Dark energy (etc.) are postulates of 'must be' since otherwise our
image does not fit. It may be applied after we tried EVERYTHING (most
of which is still hidden - o r nonexistent at all. We live in a model
of our present model-base and consider it ALL. We learn new aspects
(mostly: make them up for explanation) and fit them into our
conventional sciences. These, however, started way before "The Big
Bear" and still include origins of the ancient obsolescence galore.
Math is a good soother. If in trouble, a constant can make wonders -
and we can explain its meaning ("it must be"). Or a new chapter in our
calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.")
Agnostically yours
John Mikes
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Hi John,
What is "dark energy" other than a postulated or conjecture
entity that is part of an attempted explanation of observations of
how light from supernovae appeared to be streached as if the
supernovae are accelerating away from us.... Do we give such
"entities" the status of existing on so frail a foundation? The
same critisism applies to scalar fields and dark matter. Until we
actually find them experimentally, then it is helpful to keep them
firmly in the "conjectured but not proven to exist category". :-)
My attitude is that we need to be sure that our beliefs are
backed up by empirical evidence before we declare them justified.
This is not an easy task as many entities, such as numbers, are
forever beyond the realm of experience but we can still reason
consistently about them...
Onward!
Stephen
Onward!
Stephen
On 1/23/2012 11:10 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net
<mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
" How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a
strong "believer" in the Big Bang?"
If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the
Big Bang did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop
the Big Bang like a hot potato and embrace that new theory with
every fiber of my being, until the instant a even better theory
came along. I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
