৩ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২৩
"According to the standard model, which is the basis for essentially all research in the field, there is a fixed and precise sequence of events that followed the Big Bang."
"First, the force of gravity pulled together denser regions in the cooling cosmic gas, which grew to become stars and black holes; then, the force of gravity pulled together the stars into galaxies.
The Webb data, though, revealed that some very large galaxies formed really fast, in too short a time, at least according to the standard model. This was no minor discrepancy. The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.... Physicists and astronomers are starting to get the sense that something may be really wrong. It’s not just that some of us believe we might have to rethink the standard model of cosmology; we might also have to change the way we think about some of the most basic features of our universe — a conceptual revolution that would have implications far beyond the world of science.... [W]e may need not just a new story of the universe but also a new way to tell stories about it."
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
১১২টি মন্তব্য:
Newton’s laws of gravitation held accurate for over 200 years. In the late 1800s, more accurate instruments began detecting anomalies in extreme cases that showed problems with Newton’s equations. In time, that led to Einstein’s relativistic equations that provided more accurate than Newton’s. The James Web Space Telescope is doing the same thing to cosmology, and that might have more wide ranging implications for physics. This is how real science is done. Anyone who says “the science is settled” knows nothing about science.
We already have such a story.
Yah- been rassling with this for too long. Either that or some government agency needs a different narrative.
I hate that that is the story on just about everything.., but I didnt think Trump was too weird.
No, no, no. The science is SETTLED. Thousands of experts agree. Who is the NYT to question these experts? They who were awarded, and have refused to return, a Pulitzer Prize for a fake news story (Russia collusion).
Real Scientists never say science is settled.
Frank and Gleiser have been vocal advocates of the necessity of empirical confirmation of the regnant orthodoxy of astrophysics. That's great, but this little essay is awfully vague about the numbers that are causing them to suggest a reconstruction of astrophysical theory. I'd welcome an informed response. Why aren't there more people talking about this?
LOL. I did a bit of research on the authors of that opinion piece.
Writer cannot bring himself to say cosmology must morph into theism.
If it happened as described, and that sequence of gravitational events caused "the" Big Bang, shouldn't there be the possibility that there have been "many" Big Bangs with more to come? And if all the banging stuff is atomic matter, and "the science" says all atomic matter has a half-life, then what was the very first atomic stuff and how and where did it start to exist all by itself with nothing else to bang into?
"Physicists and astronomers are starting to get the sense that something may be really wrong."
Is there anything more exciting than new physics?!?!
No, there is not.
Ah, yes, science. This is the way it's conducted, no? State a theory, test it, revise if required, and move on one step at a time with open discussion. Sort of the complete opposite of climate change/global warming or whatever the hell else it's called these days.
Italo Calvino, come back!
Uh, maybe God had something to do with it and he doesn’t have to follow the standard model.
Somebody's after a budget allocation.
What? The 'science' is not settled?
Trust me folks... it is all by design and it all works as intended.
Uh, maybe God had something to do with the creation of the Universe and he doesn’t have to follow the standard model.
The devil you say!
Further research will show that global warming on earth and especially in the USA is degrading the harmony of the spheres and hastening the end of the cosmos.
"First, the force of gravity..." wait, what? Where did the force of gravity come from?
"All models are wrong. Some models are useful."
[W]e may need not just a new story of the universe but also a new way to tell stories about it.
According to the standard model, which is the basis for essentially all research in the field, there is a fixed and precise sequence of events leading to the global warming that followed the discovery of fire.
And next year we may need not just a new story of our climate but also a new way to tell stories about it.
"[W]e may need not just a new story of the universe but also a new way to tell stories about it."
For the life of me I can't imagine what that sentence is supposed to mean. It's just a garbage comment, as far as I can decipher.
The title of the article, "The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel" is certainly garbage. As with climate change, MSM "science" writers just can't seem to wrap their head around how science works.
i.e "We know nothing"
The standard model is only standard because (a) they need a model and (b) they decided this one was good enough for now and they successfully beat down all dissenters. Now they can’t hide the anomalies so they openly admit that they are in a world of chaos.
Not to worry. Soon they’ll coalesce around a new model, rewrite the history of science, and resume pretending that all their work has inevitably and inexorably led them to their new “truth.
(And we’re shamelessly told to follow the science. Follow it to where? The next limited modified scientific truth hangout?)
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The Times story is behind a paywall. Here is a good description of the issue. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.10606.pdf
What? The Science is not settled?!?
Who could have imagined such a thing?
Science practiced outside of a limited frame of reference from the observer. An article of faith and evolutionary creationism inconsistent with reality: the big dud.
Wait, so the settled science is not so settled?
The science is not settled nor is it what the narrative demands.
The idea of time is an interesting thing. Our lives start and stop, so we see time as finite. That span of time is fairly short, but it is all we have as a measure, so we try to measure all time using it. We then think that all time must be finite and measurable. We feel that the estimate we provided is fairly good, because we know it seems about right for our measurement. Could it be that the universe isn't based on a human timescale and events that happen in the universe are not centered around humans?
Maybe we are living in a simulation...
Here's a link to the article for us NYT non-subscribers.
And it looks like the author has a series of articles on the topic at Big Think. Here's a link to the first one.
" The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.... "
Simple: the universe is a ghetto
The story of our universe unraveled in Genesis.
The story of our Universe is starting to unravel??
In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of GOD moved upon the face of the waters.
And GOD said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And GOD saw the light, and that it was good..
Seems pretty tightly woven to me!
Bilge. There are (at least) two kinds of science, experimental and observational. To the extent that "scientific" findings are valued and respected, it is because they have been refined by very extensive trial and error, to the point that they are technologies. By their very nature, "scientific" fields like cosmology and climatology are observational, not experimental. They are "Just So" stories. They could easily be right. Or not. No way to tell.
But climate science is still totally settled.
Nothing’s gonna change my world!
Maybe we are done going down the simplicity and elegance rabbit hole.
So scientific consensus can be wrong? Who knew?
We know zero about how things work.
We can't even come up with a Unified Field Theory.
And science® has been long-corrupted by liberalism, so God is never discussed.
He's literally the 'Big Guy.'
From "The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel" (NYT).
Have you checked around your newsroom?
That wasn't very helpful.
There are eddy currents in specetime that fold back on themselves?
I suspected something was not quite right with the SM when I first saw the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image back in 2004 -- galaxies and quasars as red-shifted as a SanFran progressive after being beaten to a pulp by an undocumented Senegalese crack addict, but otherwise looking remarkably like our local neighborhood. Maybe physics will become interesting again.
"And if all the banging stuff is atomic matter, and "the science" says all atomic matter has a half-life, then what was the very first atomic stuff and how and where did it start to exist all by itself with nothing else to bang into?"
And what are its pronouns?
Advocates of the various creation myths will rejoice over this possible glitch in what is the best yet scientific theory about that subject. Theories come and go and this one is far from gone, though it might yet go. But this will be for them a bolstering of the "evidence" that the magic man in the sky created everything. Wait, including the sky?
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word said, "Send money."
Yeah, this part of physics has been way out over their skis for a long time. Too many physicists, not nearly enough information to test any of their theories. Cosmology, particle physics.
This is how you end up with "dark matter". Something we can't explain and don't have enough information to figure out.
So are we inching towards the Biblical “created all at once” model per chance? And yes that sentence purposely ends in an ironic word.
About time.
My now 16 yo son was extremely interested in astronomy, astrophysics, the cosmos, etc at a fairly young age (which was the impetus that got me into astronomy and astrophotography). We have read a couple dozen books, mostly in layman’s terms and both my son and I have a pretty good foundational knowledge on the standard model and its challenges. Most of the books we’ve read have noticed the flaws and maybe it was Brian Cox who likened it to a 100,000 piece jigsaw puzzle in which we only had about 100 of the pieces put together, not necessarily contiguous, and none of which were border pieces and the little clump of interlocked puzzle pieces is all the we know. The dark matter and dark energy are the pieces that we just sort of have to make up. But the standard model by itself is mostly sound, it is just woefully incomplete!
I was stunned by the first images the James Webb Telescope released and that also included some of the galaxies that aren’t supposed to be as “young” as they appear but the general consensus, *had been* that there are explanation as to why. I haven’t read anything “major” recently that would shake up the standard model other than we may have new discovered a 5th (or 4th is we still call the new first the Zeroth Law) Law of Thermodynamics. This is really exciting stuff at it’s core however and quite frankly, and as opposed to climate science and epidemiology, this is how science works. We should always be skeptical and continue testing out new hypotheses in our quest for knowledge. It’d be a significant event in human history were the standard model to be found mostly null, but when you are in a simulation, someone else makes all the rules and all we can do is follow them!
One big problem with the Big Bang theory they kept waving away when challenged is that it violates the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics, which can be credibly paraphrased as entropy.
Our existence….?
…. as William Blake put it in 1794:
Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies,
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare sieze the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!
When the stars threw down their spears
And water'd heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
In honor of Iman's allusion- my favorite version of the song.
Mike @12:21, - Claiming nothing here about the depth of my knowledge about physics, this does not seem right. Presumably whatever preceded the big bang was all matter and all energy in a small place, for some bizarre meaning of "all" and "place", but in any case from the perspective of the instant of the big bang, a very high entropy state. Presumably "all" entropy? Well, lots of presumption there. Nonetheless, from the 3d law perspective, wouldn't things proceed pretty much as expected? High entropy followed by continuous decrease? Or perhaps you're referring to how the initial state got that way? But I don't think there's any particular claim that it comprehends what preceded it. Happy to hear what I'm missing, which is usually something.
"One big problem with the Big Bang theory they kept waving away when challenged is that it violates the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics, which can be credibly paraphrased as entropy."
Entropy is a useful concept when applied locally and for limited periods of time, but it's probably of little use when applied to the evolution of the universe.
Yancey - neat video...but the grayscale seems to be badly screwed up.
"experimental and observational"
It's never so cleanly divided. Observational also involves a kind of telling, one that can be predicted and applied, usually, but as has happened quite a bit, then that telling is extrapolated and assumed at various scales, hence the 19th century assumptions about all science could do in the future.
Only reality isn't so cleanly organized as it seems so we have things like quantum physics, which was proposed before it was observed as a way of explaining various curiosities in the reality we lived in. Absurd, said even Einstein, God doesn't play dice! Well after, it was then observed that as crazy as it is, the proposals of quantum physics actually did describe the universe as a tiny level where the rules there are extremely different than what we were able to observe.
Then the ability to observe caught up, and now we have amazing technology built on what was proposed but not observed, and went against what is observed, because what was observed was wrong and limiting what could be done with what was proposed.
Stop telling God what to do, is the lesson. But also, be humble and stay curious either as a proposer or as an observer.
The obligatory "Some Learned Fables, for Good Old Boys and Girls" link.
Physical constants may not actually be constants. Our window of measurements is 0.00000087% of the universe's figured age. We would not even be able to tell by measurement, for example, that the gravitational "constant" G, 6.6743 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 as measured today wasn't 10.0000 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 1 minute after the Big Bang. It might take us thousands of years of measurements to determine that it isn't a constant at all. Same applies to the speed of light, the various constants that go into the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force etc. Even time might not behave the way we think it does. Additionally, we may well be misinterpreting the data the Webb telescope is giving us.
Or God is just amusing himself as the ants run around.
“Physicists and astronomers are starting to get the sense that something may be really wrong. It’s not just that some of us believe we might have to rethink the standard model of cosmology; we might also have to change the way we think about some of the most basic features of our universe — a conceptual revolution that would have implications far beyond the world of science.... [W]e may need not just a new story of the universe but also a new way to tell stories about it."
May, might, might, may…etc. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe the other. This kind of vapid vaporing has nothing to do with science. Scientific understanding will inevitably progress…or not. The joy is in the journey.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Precise, for a given definition of precise. We're talking about something really, really powerful that go really, really big. Some complications leading to imprecise processes might be expected along the way.
So long as it isn’t a lean in to all those messy strings. Like the inside of a pumpkin that all is…
Ice Nine,
If I am understanding you, you might want to look into the Wiki page of "Pleasantville", the movie for which Apple recorded the song.
Now I wished I’d reviewed the laws of thermodynamics before relying on memory.
Correction: It is the 2nd Law that covers spontaneous events and entropy. And in fact it is the claim specifically that Life itself arose after and from the Big Bang that would violate this law. That so much energy was “created” via an explosion would violate the 1st Law. Look at all the potential energy that exists on this planet alone. Where did it come from? The Bang Theory assumes there was nothingness. Energy cannot be created from nothing according to physics. Thus there is no explanation for the energy that set the Big Event in motion. And even less evidence for all the potential energy that exists in the inertia, the nuclear reactions or the fossil fuels on our little planet. From a bang? One must determine from where that bang originated.
Humans can't think outside of beginning and endings. Perhaps the Universe has just ALWAYS existed...and will ALWAYS exist.
Something we can't understand.
Yancey - it was a reference to the mayhem and the players.
"The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves."
So "Open Range" on Amazon Prime.
Or "Papergirls" on Amazon Prime.
"One must determine from where that bang originated."
It is said that over the course of billions of years, the universe has been expanding and at some point, that will reverse. In other words, over the course of billions of years, it will compress back into nothingness. And then it will start that process all over again, forever expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting...ad infinitum.
A case can be made that the universe, is nothing more than G-d breathing.
"Writer cannot bring himself to say cosmology must morph into theism."
Why would the writer have a reason to do so? Cosmology does not morph into theism.
One must determine from where that bang originated.
The divine domain... by way of a black hole... whore h/t NAACP or some other esoteric calculus. Meanwhile, the human perspective is derivative from signals of unknown fidelity and creative consciousness.
"It is said that over the course of billions of years, the universe has been expanding and at some point, that will reverse. In other words, over the course of billions of years, it will compress back into nothingness. And then it will start that process all over again, forever expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting...ad infinitum."
Seems plausible. Now, go into your lab, and try it a couple thousand times, varying the initial parameters slightly.
@Mike (MJB Wolf) - You ascribe too much authority to the concept of physical "Laws". I saw this point made more than once in my studies, and encountered it again recently in Richard Fenyman's celebrated 1961 freshman physics lectures. Many "laws" are better thought of as observations. These are principles that we have not seen violated so far, but we have access to only a very limited span of space and time. This is especially true of the "Laws" of thermodynamics which were developed, after all, to explain the workings of steam engines and the like.
"Energy cannot be created from nothing according to physics."
Feyman addresses this one specifically. He says 'we don't even know what energy "is"'. It's a bookkeeping entry. We call this stuff "energy" and then we keep track of it in our experiments, and so far no one has seen its conservation violated, but that is the totality of this "law". We have no theory from which we can deduce that energy is conserved. In fact, the conservation of energy is known to be problematic in the context of general relativity (and thus cosmology). No one considers that a basis to throw out either (i.e. general relativity or conservation of energy).
"The Bang Theory assumes there was nothingness."
The standard model of cosmology is generally mute when it comes to what existed at or before the Big Bang, though of course there have been some who have speculated what came before (Hawking and Penrose come to mind). Most cosmological work runs time backward to an instant before t=0 and then says, basically, "here there be dragons".
"One big problem with the Big Bang theory they kept waving away when challenged is that it violates the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics, which can be credibly paraphrased as entropy."
The problem I have with The Big Bang Theory, is that they use a laugh track. And why do they use one? Because the show isn't funny.
"Where did it come from? The Bang Theory assumes there was nothingness. Energy cannot be created from nothing according to physics."
According to the "Oscillating Universe Theory," (which is considered possible by many but certainly not all theorists), there is a repeating sequence of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches," (the collapse of each universe). (This is essentially the Hindu view. They call this ever repeating death and rebirth of existence the "Brahmanda.") This doesn't answer questions as to when or how this repeating cosmic birth and death came to be--if it is eternal, without a beginning or end--or if there was once a "first" Big Bang, or how either circumstances came to be.
There are also theories positing multiple parallel universes existing simultaneously.
However, a lack of answers to such questions does not mean there are no answers, it just means we don't know them yet, (and we never may, given our own almost certainly brief "walking shadow upon the stage" of our current universe).
One possibility ....... is that the laws of physics can evolve and change over time. Different laws might even compete for effectiveness.
...sort of like the living Constitution.
- Krumhorn
Look, the whole thing is simpler than people are making it appear. That the standard model doesn’t fit the latest data means that theoretical physicists must develop a new model which does explain the data. The contrast with climate “science” couldn’t be more stark — when the data doesn’t match the models, it is taken as a failure of the data, which must be “adjusted” to better match the models.
Yes, it is called science. You come up with a hypothesis, you test the hypothesis, if the testing goes well it gets upgraded to theory. Theories can and are wrong, some on the edges, some in whole. Lather, rinse, repeat. The point of science is we want to know more than we know, and the process to get there will involve a sizeable amount of failure.
Anyone who says the "science is settled" hates science.
"A case can be made that the universe, is nothing more than G-d breathing."
All references to a god or gods are merely human personifications, makeshift explanations filling in the gaps of our ignorance about the universe.
In potentially depressing news, ESAs Euclid spacecraft, currently being commissioned out at L2, is experiencing problems with its fine guidance sensor. Euclid is a mission to collect data directly impacting this question (evolution of the universe from the very earliest times) and is complimentary to Webb. It would be a huge blow to the field if this mission fails.
Pins and needles, bated breath.
This is the kind if thing space exploration budgets should go into. Not keeping humans alive farther and farther away on space ships
“Cosmology does not morph into theism.”
You are claiming THAT as an absolute truth? It may be axiomatically true to you, but axioms are never proven, i can make a case that theism “morphed” into cosmology, but you claim that the process is not reversible? Without evidence?
Perhaps every right thinking person believes your axiom is true, does that make it true?
"Fixed and precise sequence"?
Written by a scientific illiterate.
Mike Wolf,
It is possible that the sum total of the mass-energy and positive/ negative energy of the universe is Zero. If so, perhaps it didn't have to come from anywhere, n'est ce pas?
"All references to a god or gods are merely human personifications, makeshift explanations filling in the gaps of our ignorance about the universe."
'Cause you're the kind of man you know.
Who likes what he says.
I wonder what's it's like to be so far over my head.
- Neil Young
There are also theories positing multiple parallel universes existing simultaneously.
This to me is more plausible than the Big Bang.
"It is possible that the sum total of the mass-energy and positive/ negative energy of the universe is Zero. If so, perhaps it didn't have to come from anywhere, n'est ce pas?"
The ultimate free lunch.
makeshift explanations filling in the gaps of our ignorance about the universe.
In reality, as man always does, invents "facts" (big bang) to fill in (explain) Gaps in their Faith.
"This to me is more plausible than the Big Bang."
Actually, those theories are from the inflationary big bang model. A problem with them is they are (probably) untestable.
"In reality, as man always does, invents "facts" (big bang) to fill in (explain) Gaps in their Faith."
I don't have Gaps in my Faith. I have no Faith. Why is it assumed there is this baseline condition called "Faith" that I have Gaps in?
iowan2 at 6:03 gets it.
Reading suggestion for Robert Cook:
"Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy" by Michael Polanyi.
https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Knowledge-text-Corr-Polanyi/dp/B004FTE0DK/ref=sr_1_4?crid=3NSP3J5YB2KXC&keywords=personal+knowledge+polanyi&qid=1693787146&sprefix=personal+knowledge%2Caps%2C200&sr=8-4
Chemist/Philosopher Michael Polanyi was a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship Genius Grant. The MacArthur Fellowship is a $800,000, no-strings-attached award to extraordinarily talented and creative individuals (read, not Robert Cook) as an investment in their potential. There are three criteria for selection of Fellows:
- Exceptional creativity.
- Promise for important future advances based on a track record of significant accomplishments.
- Potential for the Fellowship to facilitate subsequent creative work.
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
- Funkadelic
Science conflicts with materialism, not with theism, but this is another issue. Interesting developments in cosmology here; I'll look forward to what the data indicate next.
As a scientist, this kind of "gee whiz, we need to rethink everything" article annoys me, especially when written by scientists who should know better. There are numerous possible explanations for the James Webb measurements and the supposed revolutionary ones "throw out the standard model" are very far from the most likely.
The standard model is 'standard' because there are no known measurements that contradict it. Many physicists would very much like to find a contradiction, because that would be interesting. People are searching diligently for any deviation from that.
It is more likely that astronomers have difficulty measuring the ages and distances of galaxies than that this is evidence for some exotic new theory. It is still possible that it is the latter, but it hardly justifies opinion articles in the Times "ScIeNtIsTs MaY bE WrOnG aBoUt EvErYtHiNg!!!!11", which only makes science look ridiculous and confirms the ignorant in their suspicions.
I saw this point made more than once in my studies, and encountered it again recently in Richard Fenyman's celebrated 1961 freshman physics lectures. Many "laws" are better thought of as observations.
@Original Mike, my take is a little different, and I think is closer to what Feynman was saying. The “laws” are mathematical model that explain the observations. And if observations are recorded that do not match the mathematical model(s) then the model(s) are broken and new ones must be formulated that (1) continue to explain all the observations that the old model(s) explained, and (2) explain all the observations that the old model(s) didn’t. As Quayle suggests upthread, there may be more than one mathematical model which explains the observations, and a consensus will develop as to which to go with, usually based on which is simpler.
And the process repeats.
In the beginning …
In the beginning God …
Scott Adams suggests that maybe God was curious as to what would happen if he wasn’t there to run things, so he blew himself up in a big bang. Gods debris remained as a probability hidden in the dust which forms a life force through which God will reassemble.
And this is why I love the Althouse commentariat.
“Scott Adams suggests that maybe God was curious as to what would happen if he wasn’t there to run things, so he blew himself up in a big bang. Gods debris remained as a probability hidden in the dust which forms a life force through which God will reassemble.”
Poetry is not truth, it is best read as observational psychology. It shows you what humans desire.
“Scott Adams suggests that maybe God was curious as to what would happen if he wasn’t there to run things, so he blew himself up in a big bang. Gods debris remained as a probability hidden in the dust which forms a life force through which God will reassemble.”
Poetry is not truth, it is best read as observational psychology. It shows you what humans desire.
"The Universe's story is starting to unravel."
Under such relentless interrogation, that's no surprise.
And I expect it'll keep changing.
@Big Mike - Thanks, that's an improvement on my comment.
After reflection, I have a refinement of my comment "the conservation of energy is known to be problematic in the context of general relativity (and thus cosmology). No one considers that a basis to throw out either (i.e. general relativity or conservation of energy)." The problem is with energy conservation and the cosmological constant (lamda) in the standard model. IF lambda is non-zero and IF it is associated with an energy field which is a constant per unit volume of space, then the expansion of the universe, which is the creation of more space, necessarily results in the creation of energy. Now, maybe the conservation of energy is an iron clad law and thus rules out a non-zero lamda, but we are too early in our investigations to come to this conclusion based upon a couple centuries of science limited to our tiny corner of the universe.
As I posted upthread, the author of the NYT article, Adam Frank, has a short series at Big Think on the problems with the concordance model of cosmology and in it he references a paper, A Candid Assessment of Standard Cosmology by Fulvio Melia. I'm only part way through it, but Melia provides quite a list of problems. Here's a link
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/aca51f
but it's behind a journal paywall and thus not easily accessible.
'Laws' and 'theories' are entirely ideational. Whether they have anything to do with observed reality is the function of hypotheses derived from those theories (the empirical component), which is what differentiates science from philosophy.
This is the point of exploration. Unravel? No, reveal.
Whoa.
Even if science is wrong about measurements of ancient galaxies, or even their ancientness, this strongly suggests that science is wrong about some assumption on which the theory of the measurement was based, so claims that it is only a measurement problem beg the question.
I suppose that it’s possible that some hidden assumptions that were wrong will turn up in the math, rather than the physics, but clearly the current theory in its current form failed a test.
I don't have Gaps in my Faith. I have no Faith. Why is it assumed there is this baseline condition called "Faith" that I have Gaps in?
People like you are so engrossed in your own pedantry, and definitions of words, to convince yourself that people that have discovered faith are wrong, you slam the door shut on all thought.
You are not justifying your own life, but are laser focused on convincing yourself you have ALL the answers to life. But you have left yourself only a single path. YOUR FAITH that there is no God. Thus your forced crusade to convince others, that people of faith are wrong....NOT that you are right.
I don't have Gaps in my Faith. I have no Faith.
Why does the word 'faith', so incite you. Use 'knowledge', or 'understanding',' answers'. Why the 24/7-365 crazed crusade to belittle people of faith.....IF you have all the answers.
You can refuse reality and claim there is no gaps in your knowledge, but it only illuminates how little thought you have put into this debate.
Wow, iowan2, you put so many words in my mouth I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.
Except this one, "to convince yourself that people that have discovered faith are wrong,"; I never said that nor do I believe. I don't know if you are right or wrong, and I certainly have no desire to convince you or anyone else of anything.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন