From: Stirling Westrup (sti@cam.org)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 07:39:08 MST
On 11 Feb 2003 at 19:05, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
> At 08:30 AM 2/10/2003 -0700, Terry Colvin forwarded:
> >When one wonders about "reputable" theories versus "fringe" theories, it
> >helps to consider the current STRENGTH of the consensus that modern science
> >has on a given topic. At the moment, the Big Bang theory is THE theory of
> >the evolution of the universe.
>
> That's because it's now so strongly supported by evidence, that not to
> believe it would be perverse.
>
Untrue. Lets just take ONE recent discovery that contradicts the standard
theory: Dark Energy expansion of the universe. According to the 'standard'
big bang theory, it shouldn't exist. As far as anyone can model, to be
consistent with the big bang theory, you have to assume that the repulsive
effect of dark energy was initially very small and has only recently (the
last billion years or so) started to cause accellerating expansion.
Sure, there are ways to reconcile this with the old theory, but that just
creates a new theory which is still incompatible with some dozen or other
observations I can pull out.
Now, AGAIN, I will reiterate that this DOES NOT MEAN that all of the fringe
theories are automatically correct. It means (deep breath) WE DO NOT
CURRENTLY HAVE A THEORY OF THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH IS CONSISTENT
WITH *ALL* CURRENT OBSERVATIONS. That, pure and simple, is my point, and the
fact that it makes some folks uncomforatable, bothers me not one bit.
> It isn't wrong and it isn't fatally flawed. What's fatally flawed are all of
> the alternative theories, which have now all been falsified by the
> observational evidence of the past several years.
Bullpoop. Most alternative theories are so crackpot that they could never be
tested, never mind falsified. Of those which DO sucessfully account for some
of the observations which the big bang fails to account for, I know of none
which successfully accounts for them all.
> >This makes such questions as "would 20% of scientists agree..." a poor
> >measurment of theory credibility, since (most) scientists do not
> >independantly hold opinions, but do so in consensus.
>
> You obviously don't understand how science works. Emotion, prejudice, and gut
> feelings may play an important role early on, but eventually, all of that gets
> burned off in the crucible of science. Solid (and preferably replicable)
> evidence is absolute king in the scientific world. NOTHING stands against that
> for very long.
I know that that is the "myth" promoted by the sciences. You obviously don't
work with real scientists doing real research. As I've said before and will
say again: 90% are dull witted (by extropian standards) sheep who follow the
current consensus and couldn't innovate if you set them on fire. Trying to
find one who is willing to look at things entirely from a logical and
evidential viewpoint is difficult.
Now, much of research is dull, tedious, monotonous work which is well suited
to be done by dull-witted sheep. The ability to create radical new paradigms
and viewpoints when data are found to be contradictory is an ability of a
depressingly small percentage of the scientists, but they account for most of
the new ideas out there.
> They
> include time dilation in the decay curves of distant type Ia supernova,
Some measurements of which would have us conclude that some stars are older
than the universe.
> an
> increase in temperature of the cosmic background radiation (CMB) in the
> distant and early universe compared to today's universe,
But said observations of the CMB show no sign of either the expected
temperature increase due to energy dissipated during the gravitational
collapse of galaxies from random dust, or of the gravitational effects that
one would attribute to dark energy, if it was active in the distant past...
> and its acoustic harmonic overtones in the anisotropy spectrum of the CMB,
> including the predicted dampening tail, and partial polarization of the CMB of
> just the right kind that the big bang predicts.
This I agree with completely. Then again, I never claimed the Big Bang wasn't
the BEST theory we have, just that its wrong.
> NASA will release findings from the Microwave Anisotropy Probe that are
> sure to strengthen these findings even more.
Which I look forward to.
-- Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit | endorsement of Western Technological | Civilization or its appurtenances.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 12 2003 - 07:41:45 MST