On 1/24/2012 6:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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.
Such as?
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?
I think what you refer to as the Big Bang Theory is called the concordance theory in the
literature. It includes the hot Big Bang, inflation, and vacuum energy. The reason Dark
Energy (so called in parallel with Dark Matter) was so readily accepted is that it was
already in General Relativity in the form of the cosmological constant. It didn't have to
be amended; just accept that a parameter wasn't exactly zero.
It is not possible to prove that something exists in an absolute sense, for who is the
ultimate arbiter of that question?
There is no ultimate arbiter. What is thought to exist is model dependent and it changes
as theories change to explain new data.
Brent
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
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4764 - Release Date: 01/24/12
--
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.
--
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.
