That Rascal Poof
6th April 2007 - 01:35 AM
When Science is Popularly Displaced by Falsity
The much applauded and controversial 'Big Bang Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
The much applauded and controversial 'Super String Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
(Please refer, Webster's dictionary, or, any dictionary of scientific terms.)
These importantly expansive misunderstandings negatively influence and handicap the entire world of contemplation at the foundations of objective thinking. These endlessly repeated misnomers sustain themselves. Calling hypotheses 'theories' is unscientific and misleading, digressive and harmful. Would I be banned - or omitted from posting - for tactfully pointing this out? (In some cases I already have been).
Is there no room for a cordial fireside chat about such - very important, fundamental, symptomatic - 'misunderstandings' (Resting comfortably in the center of 'Standard Theory'; expanding tolerance thresholds on the foundations of academia) ? Are they not plaintively germane to the influence of scientists on public acceptance, controversy, tolerance, perspective, science, art, fiction and culture?
6th April 2007 - 02:36 AM
Both the big bang and even string are theories in their own right. Both provide sufficient evidence and predictions to be called theories and not just mere hypothesis'.
6th April 2007 - 05:34 AM
That Rascal Poof, There is no misunderstanding. I have participated in real scientific discoveries and read about others enough to know that ImmortalCoil is 100% right. You won't be banned - or omitted from posting, just questioned like the rest of us. We teach each other or lead other's toward better understandings of our world. Some prime examples of "When Science is Popularly Displaced by Falsity" are science fiction and creationism. At least the former is entertaining! The latter has an agenda to stifle true science and allow falsity into our schools. Thankfully, it has failed every time it rears its ugly head, in school boards and in the courts! We don't need any more "Monkey Trials."
That Rascal Poof
7th April 2007 - 02:16 AM
The ‘expanding universe’ took the ‘scientific community’ by surprise in 1927 - 1929.
. An - ad hoc - explanation was hurriedly put together by Lemaitre, Gamow, and others - if the expansion of space in the universe was back tracked, it was reasoned, it would eventually converge at a point of intersection (since estimated to have been some 13 billion years ago), where all the matter in the universe must have been compacted, causing intense pressures and heat which resulted in and caused the ‘big bang’ explosion, resulting in the spatially expanding universe, as it is spectroscopically (‘red shift’) observed today. There are more recent variations on this theme, but the described dynamics are the origin of the ‘Big Bang’ perspective.
Problem: There is no common - big bang - center from which the observed expanding universe expands. The expansion is astrophysically established as dynamically expanding in direct line of sight, away from a given observer, from any location. This is not the signature of an explosion from a common center.
It is the signature of a repelling force acting across space out of all material bodies, paralleling all the characteristics of conventional gravity, while acting in the opposite direction. Namely, what Einstein called ‘the cosmological constant’ - a force unlike any other known, because it increased - instead of decreased - with distance.
Einstein’s Unified Field theory of 1919 predicted an expanding universe - a prediction that Wilem de Sitter foresaw (in Einstein’s equations) as early as 1917. A decade before the expanding universe was spectroscopically discovered between 1912 and 1922, by, Dr. Vesto M. Silpher, and translated in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, and 1929 by Edwin Hubble as proof of a spatially expanding universe, observing (by way of spectroscopic ‘red shift’) that the speed of a receding galaxy increases with distance (‘Hubble’s “red shift”).
Einstein - under much influence by Wilem de Sitter - had predicted an expanding universe, and that it is the result of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, just like gravity, except, in the opposite direction. This is the force that Einstein proposed prevented the universe (full of mutually impelling bodies) from collapsing on itself - a problem that Newton himself called attention to, for which there was no previous explanation.
When the spatially expanding universe was discovered, it was resolved that this explained why the universe didn’t collapse on itself, and for this reason, under much ensuing controversy, Einstein was persuaded to abandon his previously submitted Cosmological Constant repelling force....
Recent data is accumulating, finding that the spatial universe is not only expanding, but that it is also picking up - increasing in - rate of speed of expansion. Again, this is not the signature of a big bang originated universe, whereas, it is the signature of the abandoned Cosmological Constant: a force which increases with distance...
It is well known that Einstein abandoned his Cosmological Constant repelling force (designated with the Greek sign ‘Lambda’ - an inverted V, like this /\ ; calling it his ‘biggest blunder’ ), due to the discovery of the spatially expanding universe. It is not so well known and no issue of controversy that Einstein went back to working on his formerly abandoned unified field - cosmological constant - theory, at Princeton, before he died in 1955...
Besides the ‘red shift’ established expanding universe, there is one other evidentiary phenomenon in particular, which is said to support (if not ‘prove’) the big bang ‘theory’, and that is the issue of cosmic microwave background radiation predicted in 1949 by George Gamow and confirmed (via satellite) in 1963, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. In the interest of keeping this post from being further extended, the issue of background radiation will be with held in this particular post and resumed in a post soon to follow. (Thank you for reading this missive.)
That Rascal Poof
7th April 2007 - 05:32 AM
'Big Bang', 'String Theory' & the 'out dated' Cosmological Constant
(In lieu of a dialogue on background rediation)
“It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation’)...
“In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein’s proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.
“Thus Einstein’s original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder’, rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again.” - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270
The ‘ugly head’ Of The 'outdated' Truth:
“The cosmological constant has now a secure position... Not only does it unify the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, but it renders the theory of gravitation and its relation to space-time measurement so much more illuminating and indeed self evident, that return to the earlier view is unthinkable. I would as soon think of reverting to Newtonian Theory as of dropping the cosmological constant.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE, p. 24
“I can see no reason to doubt that the observed recession of the spiral nebulae is due to cosmic repulsion, and it is the effect predicted (in 1919) by Relativity Theory which we were hoping to find. Many other explanations have been proposed - some of them rather fantastic (* ‘tired light’, ‘the big bang’,’dark matter’, ‘gravitons’, ‘super strings’ ‘anti-matter’) - and there has been a great deal of discussion which seems to me rather pointless. In this, as in other developments of scientific exploration, we must recognise the limitations of our present knowledge and be prepared to consider revolutionary changes.”
- Sir Arthur Eddington, pp. 89 - 90, A TREASURY OF SCIENCE (Harlow Shapley publishers)
There are other scientific disagreements with the so called Big Bang theory:
"The Mt. Wilson astronomer, Carl Sandage, found that stars in a cluster called NGC 188 appeared to be at least 24 billion years old. 'We are in trouble', said Sandage... for the earth could certainly be younger than the universe, but if the universe has been expanding at the present rate for 24 billion years (instead of 13 billion, as submitted by big bang acolytes), it would seem that it should be more spread out than it is. So the astronomers have a new problem to resolve." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49-50
Asimov states in the same discussion on the only recently discovered 'expanding universe':
"Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49