The limitations of the scientific method and scientism

Yes, I believe Ole Romer utilized this method to determine the speed of light in 1676. And quite successfully given the solar system data he had to work with.
However as with the rest of your post, which I truly thank you for, it failed to address the question asked.
I am not asking how the distance is derived or the age of the data is derived. Nor am I asking about "why" light travels at an invariant 'c' across a vacuum [ your first link ]

The image provided by Grumpy is a snap shot of events that occurred 2645 million years ago and I am asking how this is deemed to be relevant to today's universe given that the image is depicting events that are 2645 million years into the past.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am not presuming anything about the competency of the scientists who consider this image to be relevant.

I am asking what method they use to determine that it is relevant to today's universe.

If you are referring to the belief that light travels across a vacuum at 'c', you need to be aware that the belief is founded on the limitations of the scientific imagination and not necessarily the reality of the universe.
However your point is taken accepted and appreciated.
You will also notice that the answer given to the question about invariance of light totally avoided, the question as to why is light invariant, not that it is.

A damn good question too I might add and one that has yet to be answered, IMO.
What we really have is a failure to communicate properly.

I ask a question that is simple and straight forward. I place a qualifier on it that suggests that light traveling across a vacuum is only a belief [ suggesting by implication that I may believe that this has yet to be verified according to the scientific method.]

I have since stated that the a lack of alternative to "traveling across the void" may in itself be insufficient excuse, for the existing model to pass the scientific method.

So I have upset you and others by implying that the scientific imagination of 1600's right through until the discovery of Quantum Entanglement was some how deficient? Is that it?

I acknowledge your point and accept it's intent to educate me as well intended.

but even I know that even the most clever of us regardless of profession, can be found to be over confident and mistaken when dealing with (scientific) premises that have not been fully assessed or subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The fact that science has an issue with this Dark matter/Energy conundrum could very well be because they accept Ole Romer's presumptions of a traveling photon with out questioning too deeply it's fundamental correctness.
To me the image of Abel 502 is a current image of events happening today. [ as light does not travel across a void of vacuum as the light effect is a quantum entanglement phenomena generating surface resonance ]..to you the events are 2645 million years ago. Proving my hypothesis according to the scientific method though is another thing....

This doesn't imply that I believe scientists are somehow stupid, which you appear to be inferring, it simply means that the limitations of the light effect model need to be looked at thoroughly. IMO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fascinating post , thanks...

There is also a possibility if I am not mistaken that residual radiation has indeed "landed" on Earth in real time to confirm predictions made of events in the past?
And if those residuals landed in the way they were predicted to, then this would indeed be further evidence to support a "today" view of the universe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack

It is of great relevance in understanding the Universe. As are all such observations, no matter how far in the past the events occurred. In fact the current struggle is to see all the way back to just after the Big Bang, to see what happened at the birth of the Universe and the very first stars. Does it tell you anything about what Abel looks like today? No. But it is one among many such observations , some earlier, some later, and as you build a data base you can start understanding what should come next(probability)based on what came before in similar conditions(as in your numerous observations), even if you have to wait a while to see it. We call that data base knowledge. You might as well be asking what the use of fossils is in studying the evolution of life on Earth today. Dig one up and you have a wonder, dig ten up and they are a curiosity, dig a thousand up and you have a mystery, dig a million up and you have a pattern, dig several hundred tons of them up and you start to get a picture. But their just old bones, right?

Photos like these are the bones that tell us the history of the Universe, when it was born, it's early childhood, the toddler phase, etc. They also allow us to work out the rules the Universe always abides by, it shows us similar star systems to our own in all phases of the birth, life and death of those stars. It let's us understand the chemistry of the Universe, how elements are cooked out of hydrogen, how those metals are scattered by novas, how a metal rich cloud of gas could become a sun just like our own, with planets and possibly life. None of this is affected in the least by the fact that all observed events are seen as they were, not as they presently are. Even if we are talking about a fly on your nose. The Universe has changed and evolved over time, but the laws it follows have not changed. So the laws we observe the Universe following in the past is the way it follows them today. If we know position and vector of an object in the past we can predict it's undisturbed path into the future. If we also know the positions of all possible influences on that trajectory, we can compensate and reconfigure our projection. Haley's comet has been successfully tracked for centuries this way. That is using information from the past to predict the future course of that object, something you say isn't valid. But it works.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am never said it isn't valid.... I said that it is limited due to the fact that we are now talking about making very qualified predictions on ancient data. The test statement: No matter how qualified they are still predictions.

...until something goes wrong [ an anomaly or natural? ] and you get a massive acceleration of expansion...to the point where you can say that the universe is literally"ripping" itself apart due to unknown factors...[ unless of course you know why the accelerated expansion is occurring and what events on a universal scale, started it]
If as you say, everything appeared to be on track and the universe was slowing is expansion rate as per expectation, then with out expectation started to expand and accelerate it's expansion showing evidence of Dark energy and Dark Mass, would you consider these events to be in accord with the known laws of the universe or in accord with laws yet to be known?

 

Quantum Quack

Dark energy's effects were just recently discovered, but it is in accord with the Universe's laws, whether we know those laws or not. Hubble only discovered the Universe was expanding less than a century ago.

It's very simple, you know. Things in motion continue in motion unless acted on by a force. You cannot get a massive acceleration of the Universe without a force. We already know about the Dark Energy force, that force represents ~75% of the mass of the Universe(E=MC^2)and is what is accelerating the expansion. As there is no unaccounted for mass or energy of that magnitude left to affect that expansion, any sudden or dramatic change in that situation is not going to happen. Yes, the Universe is being torn apart, but you would have to wait several hundred billion years before the effect goes above several percent and the Universe will last for trillions of years before we have anything to worry about from that trait.

Our ignorant expectations of what the Universe will do are driven by what we know(and let down by what we don't). It is only in the last couple of decades that we discovered the increase of the expansion rate and named it's cause(named, not explained). The observations give us the whole story without explanations, if they don't meet our expectations, it is our expectations that are false. You will never get "a massive acceleration of expansion", it is a smooth curve on a graph, not a sudden thing at all. In fact the effect is so subtle it wasn't until recently(in the Universe's timeline)that the effect was observable, new instruments and telescopes also increased our accuracy by several orders of magnitude and in new spectra unavailable to Earth bound instruments. Things don't change in these things on a whim, they rarely change suddenly at all. The effect of negative energy was always there in our observations, we just didn't have accuracies or instruments to measure the expansion in fine enough detail to see it. It's really a very subtle effect in the present day Universe, it was overwhelmed by gravity in the early Universe, balanced itself gradually against gravity throughout the middle era and has only begun to accelerate in the last few billion years as it, not gravity, slowly becomes the dominate force. It is in the future of the Universe where it will have a major effect, then the Universe will be ripped apart, eventually the only things we will be able to see will be within our own galaxy, the rest of the Universe will be over our light horizon at that point. Some scientists think this expansion will continue until the atoms come apart, but I think that anywhere you have a tightly gravity bound system that gravity will always be dominate(as it was in the early Universe)and the Dark energy only overwhelms gravity on intergalactic scales. Of course, it's all moot, we're doomed to fall into a Black Hole eventually, anyway.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am sure the notion of that the strength of the gravitational constant weakening whilst momentum of mass universally remains bound by inertia has been considered. I wonder what their outcome was and why they chose to discount the idea so quickly and resorted to "only" dark energy and dark mass solution instead. [ Dark energy and Mass being a natural outcome of a universal constant (G) weakening uni-formally, universally - taking up the slack between momentum and loss of G universally]

Yet I feel that because gravity is seen by most scientists as an outcome of mass and not the source of mass the idea above would seem ludicrous.

I view the action of gravity as being the manifestation of "dimensional collapse" from 4 to 0, the 4 dimensions remain "open" due to inherent momentum and energy in the system. Thus spacial expansion due to weakening of G would be predicted as an outcome of fragmentation of the source of gravity [ zero ]. The effect this would have on mass would be that mass would loose it's solidity, it's density would lessen yet due to it's inherent internal momentum of inner particles maintain it's outward dimensions [ size]. ""


However if continuity of source the universal constant G is interrupted and fragmented uni formally, then 1g will be no longer = 1g [universally]...but suffer significant reduction accordingly. [over the entire universe simultaneously.
As the universe is held together [ gravity bound system ] and if that source of uniformity to the gravitational forces lost continuity that gravity bound system would literally explode outwards due to built in energy of momentum and other factors

**I remember thinking when I first realized ZPT in 2006 that if this expansion continues we will eventually be able to poke our finger through a solid steel wall with out a problem as the mass looses it's solidity. [of course by then we will all be well and truly deceased and the universe would be finished...
Zero point theory would actually predict cosmic metric expansion if the universal constancy of "the zero point" became fragmented or split in two - there would be two Centers of mass instead of one. If one looks at the evidence in the sky and thinks about double [ and or possibly triple ] Center of gravities when there should only be one and think of this in universal terms then cosmic expansion is inevitable due to the culminate effect of a weakening G. Issues such as Dark Flow, the mysterious Great attractor, the Eridanus Void etc suddenly make sense.


Another prediction would be that all magnetic fields would demonstrate an increased inherent instability with a slight bias in attractive strength to one or the other pole.


For the conspiracy theorists reading this , the evidence of magnetic field instability may have for the first time [April 1986] manifested in a way that could not avoid publicity in the containment systems of the Chernobyl Nuclear facilities and promoted a power surge the was catastrophic

Fears of a cross the board Soviet nuclear melt down [including WMA's] were well founded IMO.
Funding for the Hubble telescope project was expedited.
[ eventually making it into orbit with a "supposedly" flawed and "untested" mirror in 1990]
All this after the tragic accident of the space shuttle Challenger killing 7 on board in January 1986. [ which R Feynman of all people was assigned to head the investigation. ]

There is a massive amount of anecdotal, circumstantial evidence once you know what to look for... including the oil rig disaster in the Gulf ~ 2010, oceanic dead spots (>405 globally), and the strong indications of growing Planetary internal [core] temperature increases [check seismic records for evidence.] super storm development, climate change, and so on... all attributed to the same causation. IMO - that being the existence of multiple centers of gravity [zero point] in a given mass simultaneously

 

A few points:

1. The Big Bang Theory is complicated, but the basic issues are not. The questions of if the Big Bang happened and if the universe is now and has always been expanding are very simplistic, basic parts of it that are extremely well established. These are the questions we are discussing in the thread and they are what my rating applies to.

2. The big bang theory is more a model and collection of observations than an explanation. The collection of observation builds a profile of what the expansion looks like, but the only theory that exists that predicts it independently is General Relativity, so really it is General Relativity that the book is after. Not sure if that's a logical error in the book's writing or if it is just a title created to sell books, since I didn't read it (I suspect that title sells more books than "General Relativity is Wrong" would). In either case, making the observations fit with GR is where the problem lies. But since both have pretty strong backing, the conclusion being drawn is that neither are wrong, we're just missing something else (matter we can't see). In short, the issue isn't that our observations don't show an expanding universe (and thus a Big Bang), the issue is that the expansion rates don't match GR's predictions. So the existence of dark matter and dark energy would not have as high a rating on the scale I made even though GR and the BBT in general do. [edit] Actually, the wiki on the subject lists both as hypotheses, not theories.

3. That book is considered crackpottery by most scientists in the relevant field. And petitions don't mean anything.

You're welcome. I try my best to keep my responses civil, but admit I'm not always able, when discussions get heated.

 

So ultimately, did you find that the lost inventory was real?

 

Yes, there is clear visual and electromagnetic (similar things) evidence of expansion.

To put a finer point on it, there is no question among scientists about whether expansion is happening because that's not a matter of theory, hypothesis or opinion. It is observational fact.

 

I already answered that question. You don't use that one galaxy as your only evidence, you use thousands and assemble the data like they were individual frames of a movie.

If one galaxy 2.6 billion light years away was our only piece of evidence, we could not conclude with any reliability that the universe was expanding.

Saying that implies you are - as does the snide remark about the speed of light above. Imagine walking into a business meeting and saying "Hi, nice to meet you - I'm not presuming anything about your competency." How do you think you'll be received?

Condescending nonsense. You started this thread, and it is supposed to be about the scientific method, yet you use decidedly unscientific labels to describe well established theory/observations. That's that anti-science chip on your shoulder showing through again.

No, it isn't a good question, it is one borne of near total ignorance of the historical origin of SR. And it is as stupid as it is insulting to believe a 16 year old has anything useful to say about the state of science. You must truly believe that all scientists are idiots. Moreover, this issue has also been explained to you in this thread, so at this point I must assume you are purposely evading. But still, I'll explain again for the benefit of others who might be reading:

The speed of light was measured and found to be constant before it was incorporated into Special Relativity as an assumption. And the finding was a surprise at the time.

Oy, that's a doozie of a twozie!

 

@Russ,
So you are prepared to castigate and ridicule a 16 year old, simply because he asks a question that you can't answer? is that it?
The fact that a 16yo can ask a question u can't answer, says a lot more about the kids intelligence that your ego driven ridicule will ever allow you to see.

"idiot is what idiot does"
from mobile

 

Really?

1. I answered the question. It is an easy question.
2. It wasn't the 16 year old who I was castigating, it was the one who was elevating the 16 year old above professional scientists.

 

I suggest you reread his question ...hint key word=WHY.

Do you seriously have such an ego problem that is so bad that when someone questions your authority u presume that they are implying a superiority to you?

 

yep to both. and when I get back to my desktop I'll even tell you the story about how the outcome unfolded.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

edit: as it is not relevant to this thread I wont post how a senior executive of this blue chip got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

 

There were two parts to the quote:

1. The part you bolded, with the "Why". "Why" is not a scientific question, so has no relevance. One could answer with a discussion of the permeability and permittivity of space, but as any 6 year old knows, you can always respond to any explanation with another "why?".

2. The rest of the question was about whether it was a legitimate assumption to put in SR. There were no question marks, but the issue the assumption of SR is quite distinct from "why".

You misunderstand. I didn't say you were elevating a 16 year old above me. I'm not a professional physicist, just a learned amateur. However, if I was a professional physicist, it would be a reasonable complaint. You're saying in essence 'this 16 year old is smarter than you are'. You don't seriously think that's reasonable and not insulting, do you?

 

I happen to know many young people that are smarter and I find that rather exciting to be honest.
The adults of tomorrow have to be smarter and certainly more clever than the adults of today if the world is to have any future what so ever...

My son at the age of 14 could perform Beethoven, piano after 4 years of training heaps better than me after 15 years.
My grandson aged 6 is a math genious compared to me at age 54.
I don,t find any problem working with smarter people.
your a smart guy too .. not a problemo

 

There is a difference between having a high IQ and having knowledge. One is age dependent, the other is not and it should be abundantly clear which we're dealing with here: This particular 16 year old has demonstrated an age/experience-based lack of knowledge(and there is nothing wrong with that, by the way) - in this case, knowledge that anyone who has read more than a few paragraphs about SR should know.

And that's what's so insulting about your statement. You're not claiming an IQ difference, you're claiming that a 16 year old knows more than thousands of people who have spent decades apiece accumulating knowledge in the subject.

 

yes..... that would be the typically sane thing to do wouldn't it? Just answer the question... yep no doubt about it, except when some scientist wants to feel insulted and misread the remainder of the question and become defensive accordingly.

Here is the question:

He isn't attacking Relativity IMO [ although not entirely true to be honest as he uses SRT as an example instead of some other theory.] he is simply saying that the SRT explanation is limited, because it assumes that light speed is invariant with out offering a ration-al as to the mechanism that generates that invariance. As to whether it may feel like he is attacking SRT or not depends on the reality of the readers own "awe" of the work of Einsteinian science he holds to.

I do not believe he is questioning the legitimacy of the assumption, he is simply wanting to ask why light speed is invariant. The fact that you feel the 16 year old is presuming to be smarter than a "professional physicist" is preposterous and a sad indication of your own ego footing and not that of the 16 year old.
The answer permeability and permittivity of space as concluded/defined by "Maxwell's equations" [perhaps] was the answer that the respondent should have given the lad. But the SRT defensiveness meant that the lad got a belly full of ego loaded useless information instead. Not good science....
I'll bet you one thing [I'm an Aussie and Aussies like to bet] the lad will be much more reluctant to ask any questions with reference to SRT in the future... and that is also not good science
The other problem is that the validity of the electrical constant across a vacuum is unable to be tested with out circular self justifications and even though it is probably spot on it can not be tested in a way that can expose how a void of nothingness [ vacuum ] can somehow restrict/govern/regulate electrical energy movement but only that it appears to do so in a manner that generates invariance. Remember NO aether allowed... and vacuum is like wise excluded from being an aether.
Quantum Foam, zero point energy etc are all plagued by the same dilemma. When you get down to the fundamentals the mechanisms must become self justifying....and the ability to pass the scientific method test becomes even more difficult. IMO

As an aside there is also an assumption that Mass is invariant as well as is gravity.
At this time, if it were not for the "observation by deduction" of what is called dark mass and energy those two invariants [mass and gravity] would not come into question.

Is it possible that those two presumed invariants have somehow uniformally changed in some way that produces the accelerating expansion of the universe and observable areas that we call dark mass and energy?
If a gravity bounded universe inexplicably starts to expand [accelerated] and starts displaying weird phenomena such as "dark mass and energy" wouldn't you normally point the finger at that gravity bond first?

 

It's not a derivation. It's a measurement - a key ingredient of the scientific method - by which the distance and age of distant objects is ascertained.

Again, this is a measurement. And look again, you called this aspect of science a belief.

As I've said several times now, no one but you is claiming that the word "today" has any meaning to a person who is studying the sky. Astronomists are studying nature, and filling the libraries with their findings. Why do you keep ignoring what the facts are and what they actually tell us - and then go on to attack the methods used to collect the information?

None, since on one is trying to do that. It's meaningless. Define what you mean.

It's the other way around. You apparently believe that facts proven true are false. As I said before, science is not founded on belief but on evidence, unlike your system, which is akin to superstition.

You mean light speed. Above you accuse me of giving you the reason that light speed is invariant, so I guess this question has been answered.

Yes I thought the 16 yr old's question paralleled yours. But the answer was given just below the question.

Your problems in communication include the problem immediately above. You returned to the question rather than the answer given. You seem to have no capacity for processing answers.

That simply means you haven't bothered to learn what your question means and the wealth of information available simply by reading the answers.

That's simply an absurd claim based on ignoring the answers to your concerns.

No that's just another false assumption.

So far all the errors due to overconfidence are on your side of the court. You're arguing that something you never studied (such as invariance of light speed in a vacuum) must either be false/might be false/is improperly investigated/etc. It's absurd at the get go. For some reason you simply resist learning facts, always returning to the cynical position that the facts are either false, impossible to prove, or inconclusive. You're trying to force shortcuts into every point at issue so you don't have to accept the fact that your methods are utterly invalid.

I think you should drop the more complex issues of the day and try to return to first principles. Once you've disputed the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, you've rendered the more complex issues moot.

You might as well believe that light fairies are putting the images in our heads while we sleep in the matrix. What does this have to do with the facts of nature?

In earth time, yes that is what the measurement says. So what?

[quote[Proving my hypothesis according to the scientific method though is another thing....[/quote]
It doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. It's a random fantasy, unconnected to evidence. Science is what it is. It reflects the state of actual discovery. No one, not even you, gets to erase the work already done simply because you think you have a better "imagination". This is why you have to keep returning to first principles.

No, that's absurd on its face.

Then look at it instead of constantly returning to the question. Simply respond to the answer the scientist gave to the 16 yr old.

 

I tell you what Aqueous Id, I will give you $500 usd if you can do one simple [according to you] thing. You interested?