The limitations of the scientific method and scientism

[Quantum Quack]

Actually it could be a great exercise to indicate how you would rate a scientific theory or law on a scale 1-10. IMO. [ 10 being highest conforming to the scientific method. Where as "1" would be the lowest bordering on crack pottery]

edit: try this link for a quick over view... [ I am still reading it btw]
http://mathbabe.org/2012/04/13/should-we-have-a-ratings-agency-for-scientific-theories/

In this week’s Nature, Abraham Loeb, the chair of the Harvard astronomy department, has a column proposing the creation of a web-site that would act as a sort of “ratings agency”, implementing some mathematical model that would measure the health of various subfields of physics. This would provide young scientists with more objective information about what subfields are doing well and worth getting involved with, as opposed to those which are lingering on despite a lack of progress.

as a web designer this idea poses some interesting thoughts...[chuckle]
If a mathematical method was developed to test a theory according to the scientific method any overall rating derived could become consistent at least.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I wondering
Do you ever go to any site that refutes the " scientific method " ?

If you mean the anti-science Creationist liars, no, they refute nothing. All they do is parade their stupidity, laziness and dishonesty, to compensate for the math and science they were too lazy to learn in school. They've found sanctuary in their pretense of divine justification for refusing to challenge the intellect and to stimulate natural curiosity. It's a huge, deeply ingrained form of denial. So I guess my answer is yes and no.

 

[Russ_Watters]

actually that is well put.

Thanks, but....

It is the fact that this phenomena can not be directly observed that casts doubt on the whole issue which continues to frustrate Big Bang theory enthusiasts. [as far as I can read]

I can't imagine after absorbing what I said why you would say such things. The phenomena is directly observed, in the same way that any observation is direct. Using a ruler, measuring mass with a scale, whatever. And "Big Bang theory enthusiasts" sounds pretty derogatory. Big Bang Cosmology is pretty much universally accepted in the scientific community because it is so well grounded in observational evidence. They would no more call themselves "enthusiasts" than anyone would consider themselves to be a "Newton's first law enthusiast".

The scientific method is thoroughly tested with this issue of cosmic metric expansion and all other theories that are directly related.

Yes. Which is why it is utterly wrong for you to have brought it up here as if it shows a limitation of the scientific method or its application.

The issue here though is that the scientific method has been applied rigorously yet regardless of how well it is applied science is unable to rule out the possibility of unknown and unknowable factors that could mean that the universe of today defies currently held belief. [not knowledge or fact but belief]

That's a fundamental feature of science, not limited to the Big Bang Theory. By definition, all theories are provisional/no theory is ever considered 100% proven. Is that a limitation? I don't think it is. I think it is a strength. Why? That's the very thing that separates science from religion. In religion, once an idea is established as true, it becomes un-challenge-able doctrine. As a result, religion can never be wrong -- even when it clearly is. That's a big problem. In science, there is no such problem.

Being able to challenge what is Known To Be True is the primary driver of the scientific revolution. It is what brought us out of the dark ages and caused the modern age to happen. That's what's so wrong about you creating this thread: you see science's greatest strength as a weakness!

The apparent issues of missing mass and energy and the existence of "Dark Flow" immediately casts serious doubts on any thing to do with our understanding of what the universe is actually doing today.

So says you. Tell me: what percentage uncertainty does that issue cause in the history of M51's motion over the past 23 million years?

The issue of missing mass is one of explanation, not data. See, your objection is perhaps even worse than previously stated: the question of what happens next is a matter of a mathematical model. Curve fitting of the data. That's not even really a matter of theory, which is an explanation of how/why expansion happens at the rate it does. Saying that expansion is happening at a certain rate, to within a few hundredths of a percent, is just a curve fit of the data and doesn't require an understanding of why it is happening: You don't have to understand General Relativity to calculate the trajectory of a ball that is already in your glove!

I know you will say no doubt that I am being overly pedantic and that my attitude is being too precise in what the difference between fact and theory [belief] is, but that is basically what I am wishing to discuss and how the scientific method is limited to that which can be directly observed.

Good Lord, no!!!!! *I* am pedantic. I am such a stickler for adherence to definitions I piss off my friends on a fairly regular basis when they get loose with their talk. Your problem here is quite the opposite! You don't understand the definition well enough to even have a workable utilization of it, much less school others on it!

Possibly all scientific "knowledge" need a rating scale:
for example:
Newtons Laws of universal gravitation : rated : 9/10
Einsteins General relativity: rated : 8/10
Einsteins Special relativity: rated : 7/10
Ohms Law: rated : 10/10
Big Bang Theory : rated : 6/10
Cosmic metric expansion: rated : 6/10
The existence of Dark Flow anomaly : rate : 6/10

"Out of Africa" evolution Home Sapiens: rated: 6/10
[evidence has emerged that currently challenges this previously considered "fact" by some members of the scientific community]

and so on...depending on degree of conforming to the scientific method...
and not just lumping them all under the rating of 10/10 or 9/10 etc which appears to be the way they are presented upon publication etc.
What do you think?

Well, your ratings are wrong and my perception of such things has always been that people stick with the last thing they learned formally. And most people learn Newton's laws in high school but that's as far as they go. That's why crackpots always fixate on them as the Ultimate Laws.

So, Newton's Law of gravity: 9/10? Not bad if we're on a linear scale. But Newton's Law was supplanted by GR because even with 19th century technology it was known to be pretty obviously flawed. So while it retains a level of relevance in its domain of applicability, GR has supplanted it with an accuracy orders of magnitude better. For example, GR's accuracy with respect to the precession of Mercury is on the order of 0.1% whereas Newton gives us an error of 7%. So if Newton's "rating" by your scale is 9.3 (you were pretty good on that one), GR's would have to be 9.99. And that's only because Mercury's precession isn't all that easy to measure. Other tests give better results.

Special relativity is also at least that good.

Big Bang cosmology? At 9.98 by my previous estimate that's not as good as SR/GR, but still an order of magnitude better than Newton's Law.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thanks, but.... I can't imagine after absorbing what I said why you would say such things. The phenomena is directly observed, in the same way that any observation is direct. Using a ruler, measuring mass with a scale, whatever. And "Big Bang theory enthusiasts" sounds pretty derogatory. Big Bang Cosmology is pretty much universally accepted in the scientific community because it is so well grounded in observational evidence. They would no more call themselves "enthusiasts" than anyone would consider themselves to be a "Newton's first law enthusiast".
Yes. Which is why it is utterly wrong for you to have brought it up here as if it shows a limitation of the scientific method or its application. That's a fundamental feature of science, not limited to the Big Bang Theory. By definition, all theories are provisional/no theory is ever considered 100% proven. Is that a limitation? I don't think it is. I think it is a strength. Why? That's the very thing that separates science from religion. In religion, once an idea is established as true, it becomes un-challenge-able doctrine. As a result, religion can never be wrong -- even when it clearly is. That's a big problem. In science, there is no such problem.

Being able to challenge what is Known To Be True is the primary driver of the scientific revolution. It is what brought us out of the dark ages and caused the modern age to happen. That's what's so wrong about you creating this thread: you see science's greatest strength as a weakness! So says you. Tell me: what percentage uncertainty does that issue cause in the history of M51's motion over the past 23 million years?

The issue of missing mass is one of explanation, not data. See, your objection is perhaps even worse than previously stated: the question of what happens next is a matter of a mathematical model. Curve fitting of the data. That's not even really a matter of theory, which is an explanation of how/why expansion happens at the rate it does. Saying that expansion is happening at a certain rate, to within a few hundredths of a percent, is just a curve fit of the data and doesn't require an understanding of why it is happening: You don't have to understand General Relativity to calculate the trajectory of a ball that is already in your glove!
Good Lord, no!!!!! *I* am pedantic. I am such a stickler for adherence to definitions I piss off my friends on a fairly regular basis when they get loose with their talk. Your problem here is quite the opposite! You don't understand the definition well enough to even have a workable utilization of it, much less school others on it!
Well, your ratings are wrong and my perception of such things has always been that people stick with the last thing they learned formally. And most people learn Newton's laws in high school but that's as far as they go. That's why crackpots always fixate on them as the Ultimate Laws.

So, Newton's Law of gravity: 9/10? Not bad if we're on a linear scale. But Newton's Law was supplanted by GR because even with 19th century technology it was known to be pretty obviously flawed. So while it retains a level of relevance in its domain of applicability, GR has supplanted it with an accuracy orders of magnitude better. For example, GR's accuracy with respect to the precession of Mercury is on the order of 0.1% whereas Newton gives us an error of 7%. So if Newton's "rating" by your scale is 9.3 (you were pretty good on that one), GR's would have to be 9.99. And that's only because Mercury's precession isn't all that easy to measure. Other tests give better results.

Special relativity is also at least that good.

Big Bang cosmology? At 9.98 by my previous estimate that's not as good as SR/GR, but still an order of magnitude better than Newton's Law.

Did you miss the word "Example" regarding the ratings I put up?

I really wouldn't have the foggiest as to what rating would be appropriate given that there are no ratings system available at present.
GR could well be only 7/10 as far as I know...

just an example is only just an example is only just an example......

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Russ, can I ask?
If Dark flow is considered as observed and meeting the scientific method what impact does this finding have on just about all other cosmological theories?

The dark flow was determined to be flowing in the direction of the Centaurus and Hydra constellations.[5] This corresponds with the direction of the Great Attractor, which is a gravitational mystery originally discovered in 1973. However, the source of the Great Attractor's attraction was thought to originate from a massive cluster of galaxies called the Norma Cluster, located about 250 million light-years away from the Milky Way.

In a study from March 2010, Kashlinsky extended his work from 2008, by using the 5-year WMAP results rather than the 3-year results, and doubling the number of galaxy clusters observed from 700. The team also sorted the cluster catalog into four "slices" representing different distance ranges. They then examined the preferred flow direction for the clusters within each slice. While the size and exact position of this direction display some variation, the overall trends among the slices exhibit remarkable agreement.[5] "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.[6]

the above is from an apparently obsolete [pre 2012] wiki article currently published at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

and,

The Great Attractor is a gravity anomaly in intergalactic space within the range of the Centaurus Supercluster that reveals the existence of a localized concentration of mass equivalent to tens of thousands of galaxies, each of which is the size of the Milky Way; this mass is observable by its effect on the motion of galaxies and their associated clusters over a region hundreds of millions of light years across.

These galaxies are all redshifted, in accordance with the Hubble Flow, indicating that they are receding relative to us and to each other, but the variations in their redshift are sufficient to reveal the existence of the anomaly. The variations in their redshifts are known as peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s, depending on the angular deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor.

wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

How does it effect the Big Bang theorising?
How does it effect GR?

Why do they think of these two issues as being an anomaly?
An anomaly because our scientific methods can't cope or an anomaly because the universe is in trouble?

etc...
If founded they could cause a major upset I believe.

 

[Lakon]

By definition, all theories are provisional/no theory is ever considered 100% proven. Is that a limitation? I don't think it is. I think it is a strength.

Big Bang cosmology? At 9.98 by my previous estimate that's not as good as SR/GR, but still an order of magnitude better than Newton's Law.

Though I'm no scientist by any stretch of the imagination, I too think that all theories, in fact all knowledge is provisional. I've always had some doubt about BB. Years ago I read a book 'Big Bang never Happened' by Eric Lerner.

Your post and comment above, and giving BB certitude amounting to 99.8% piqued my interest in the book again, so I googled it. E lerner has a web site ..

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index1.htm

and on it, is found ..

http://cosmologystatement.org/

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions .......

and after reading the entire letter, you will note it is endorsed by over 200 scientists, and hundreds of others - independent researchers, etc.

You are probably more aware of this than I am, and I am wondering, doesn't this give you reason for some increased doubt ? Perhaps raise that 'provisional' factor by a few percent ?

BTW, I appreciate the moderate and informative manner of your recent posts and responses to QQ. It's a pleasure reading them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Though I'm no scientist by any stretch of the imagination, I too think that all theories, in fact all knowledge is provisional. I've always had some doubt about BB. Years ago I read a book 'Big Bang never Happened' by Eric Lerner.

Your post and comment above, and giving BB certitude amounting to 99.8% piqued my interest in the book again, so I googled it. E lerner has a web site ..

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index1.htm

and on it, is found ..

http://cosmologystatement.org/

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions .......

and after reading the entire letter, you will note it is endorsed by over 200 scientists, and hundreds of others - independent researchers, etc.

You are probably more aware of this than I am, and I am wondering, doesn't this give you reason for some increased doubt ? Perhaps raise that 'provisional' factor by a few percent ?

BTW, I appreciate the moderate and informative manner of your recent posts and responses to QQ. It's a pleasure reading them.

You know Lakon,
It is the failure of all theories that lead to the need to fudge with that dark stuff that is the most embarrassing thing.
They say the universe is missing mass, and do not question the mathematics/theories that leads to that outcome...

Years ago prior to my little health problem I was contracted by a major international heavy manufacturing blue chip to Audit lost inventory. For over 9 months I had to tolerate "diversions", "distractions", and blatant lying by executive management far superior to myself, in the quest to find out who fudged the books the best. I guess I got pretty good at picking a fudge...
Here we have a few posters who will almost put their lives on the line for a dark energy and matter fudge, simply because for them not to they would have to admit that something is wrong with their baby.
The calculations required to calculate universal mass and energy are directly related to E=mc^2 or some derivative, relying on ancient information and to be blunt the absence of 84% mass is a 84(+-)4% damnation of the theories that lead to that missing mass/energy outcome.
It is staring them in the face but they will not debate it. As to do so threatens the very foundations of modern physics. [hence the need for the fudge factor of such significant proportions.] and constant credibility attacks against anyone daring to bring this out in the open.

So the only real limitation of the scientific method is that it has become a method that is being applied at the whim of some scientists and not as a discipline that is utterly essential for good science. [ and good auditing too I might add ]

 

[Aqueous Id]

It is the failure of all theories that lead to the need to fudge with that dark stuff that is the most embarrassing thing.

I can see why you might feel embarassed.

They say the universe is missing mass, and do not question the mathematics/theories that leads to that outcome...

The problems go just a little deeper than that. But even at the level you think, it ought to be pretty obvious that certain axioms of math have to be preserved. Have you ever had a math class? When you increment a number, it becomes larger, not smaller. Parallel lines remain parallel, they never intersect. Just because the operations of the laws of math get more complicated the deeper you get into the subject, does not mean that the laws might be wrong and ought to be questioned. What you're really saying is that you simply don't understand math or science because you never bothered to study it.

The calculations required to calculate universal mass and energy are directly related to E=mc^2 or some derivative, relying on ancient information and to be blunt the absence of 84% mass is a 84(+-)4% damnation of the theories that lead to that missing mass/energy outcome.

Energy-mass equivalence is just one of many laws, it just happens to be one you're familiar with. You're not in a position to "damn" the math or science since you don't understand either one of them. Nor do you understand how axioms, postulates and theories play a vital role in the life of human knowledge and advancement. All of your anti-science rhetoric is a statement about yourself, not about the external world, which will continue to make discovery, to theorize, and to progress to new technology without coming to you for your blessing.

It is staring them in the face but they will not debate it. As to do so threatens the very foundations of modern physics. [hence the need for the fudge factor of such significant proportions.] and constant credibility attacks against anyone daring to bring this out in the open.

Hah hah hah. That is so ridiculous. You should consider doing a stand-up comedy routine; maybe you can find a stage across the street from a university physics building.

So the only real limitation of the scientific method is that it has become a method that is being applied at the whim of some scientists and not as a discipline that is utterly essential for good science. [ and good auditing too I might add ]

The only whims demonstrated so far are your own.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I can see why you might feel embarassed.


The problems go just a little deeper than that. But even at the level you think, it ought to be pretty obvious that certain axioms of math have to be preserved. Have you ever had a math class? When you increment a number, it becomes larger, not smaller. Parallel lines remain parallel, they never intersect. Just because the operations of the laws of math get more complicated the deeper you get into the subject, does not mean that the laws might be wrong and ought to be questioned. What you're really saying is that you simply don't understand math or science because you never bothered to study it.


Energy-mass equivalence is just one of many laws, it just happens to be one you're familiar with. You're not in a position to "damn" the math or science since you don't understand either one of them. Nor do you understand how axioms, postulates and theories play a vital role in the life of human knowledge and advancement. All of your anti-science rhetoric is a statement about yourself, not about the external world, which will continue to make discovery, to theorize, and to progress to new technology without coming to you for your blessing.


Hah hah hah. That is so ridiculous. You should consider doing a stand-up comedy routine; maybe you can find a stage across the street from a university physics building.


The only whims demonstrated so far are your own.

is there anything else you wish to add to and for the record?

You probably don't realize this but you are a terrific asset to the creationist cause. Your unscientific approach just reinforces the creationists position every time you post.

snip: http://cosmologystatement.org/
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

where does the funding come from to maintain such an absurd position?

 

[Aqueous Id]

is there anything else you wish to add to and for the record?

How shocking to think that this thread becomes part of that ambiguously indelible record.

You probably don't realize this but you are a terrific asset to the creationist cause.

Yes, like you I am just playing devil's advocate.

Your unscientific approach just reinforces the creationists position every time you post.

Well, when I tried to offer science you rejected it. Geez now I really feel cornered.

where does the funding come from to maintain such an absurd position?

Didn't you know? SciForums is sending you a bill for the loss in membership.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How shocking to think that this thread becomes part of that ambiguously indelible record.


Yes, like you I am just playing devil's advocate.


Well, when I tried to offer science you rejected it. Geez now I really feel cornered.


Didn't you know? SciForums is sending you a bill for the loss in membership.

Well I guess it comes down to a question of value doesn't it?
Another "thing" that can not be tested according to the scientific method.
Yet you know it is value that makes those that fund absurdities such as perpetuating a scientific fraud using dark energy and matter.
It is also values that you use to promote "bad science " due to your obvious hatred for anything of value... [chuckle]

Some one, group or organization values keeping science in the dark ages, with deliberate funding directed primarily to such a theory that they know can not be supported by the scientific method.
The value of the scientific method therefore is severely compromised.
If you valued the scientific method you would post differently.

 

[Lakon]

You know Lakon,
It is the failure of all theories that lead to the need to fudge with that dark stuff that is the most embarrassing thing.
They say the universe is missing mass, and do not question the mathematics/theories that leads to that outcome...

Years ago prior to my little health problem I was contracted by a major international heavy manufacturing blue chip to Audit lost inventory. For over 9 months I had to tolerate "diversions", "distractions", and blatant lying by executive management far superior to myself, in the quest to find out who fudged the books the best. I guess I got pretty good at picking a fudge...
Here we have a few posters who will almost put their lives on the line for a dark energy and matter fudge, simply because for them not to they would have to admit that something is wrong with their baby.
The calculations required to calculate universal mass and energy are directly related to E=mc^2 or some derivative, relying on ancient information and to be blunt the absence of 84% mass is a 84(+-)4% damnation of the theories that lead to that missing mass/energy outcome.
It is staring them in the face but they will not debate it. As to do so threatens the very foundations of modern physics. [hence the need for the fudge factor of such significant proportions.] and constant credibility attacks against anyone daring to bring this out in the open.

So the only real limitation of the scientific method is that it has become a method that is being applied at the whim of some scientists and not as a discipline that is utterly essential for good science. [ and good auditing too I might add ]

I'm not accusing anyone of fudge factor. I don't deny that it exists, here, there, everywhere, and I've certainly seen monumental doses of it in my walk of life, but to accuse anyone here of fudge factor (and I'm not saying you're doing that) is not conducive to discussion, and certainly drags it down.

Interestingly, in his post a couple up, Russ Waters said;

..my perception of such things has always been that people stick with the last thing they learned formally.

Ain't THAT the truth. It applies to bakers, economists, candle stick makers, scientists ..

Anyway, on to more important things. There is something concerning BB that I'm now more confused about, than before I read this thread.

Is there physical, observational (visual, electromagnetic, etc) evidence of expansion, or is it just theorised as a result of mathematics ? I had always thought there was, but after having read the posts of both sides here, I'm now not sure. If anyone can give me an uncomplicated answer to this, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm not accusing anyone of fudge factor. I don't deny that it exists, here, there, everywhere, and I've certainly seen monumental doses of it in my walk of life, but to accuse anyone here of fudge factor (and I'm not saying you're doing that) is not conducive to discussion, and certainly drags it down.

The posters to this thread have to be wanting to enter into discussion about this important issue for your concern to be justified. So far it has not been possible to discuss anything outside of the extreme defensiveness of what appears to be an untenable position. [ dark matter and dark energy - Big Bang cosmology - cosmic metric expansion - scientific method - limitations]
There is no accusation necessary as the evidence of "scientific method" side stepping is obvious.

 

[Grumpy]

Lakon

Is there physical, observational (visual, electromagnetic, etc) evidence of expansion, or is it just theorised as a result of mathematics ? I had always thought there was, but after having read the posts of both sides here, I'm now not sure. If anyone can give me an uncomplicated answer to this, I'd appreciate it.

There is direct observational evidence that makes the expansion plain to anyone who has actually studied the facts. It started 13.7 billion years ago, slowed as it expanded until about 9 billion years ago and started accelerating in it's expansion`about 5 billion years ago. If charted on a graph the rate fell at first as would be expected due to gravity alone, then it began to fall less as time went by and, in the last 5 billion years the rate of expansion is actually rising. That is the direct evidence of what the Universe is doing. The first era is called "gravity bound expansion" as gravity was the major factor in slowing the rate of expansion to that we would expect for a gravity only situation. The middle era is a transition between gravity dominated expansion slowing to a neutral rate between gravity and Dark Energy, the latest era is becoming more and more under the effect of Dark Energy, and the rate of expansion is no longer slowing, it is actually speeding up. The Universe does not do these things on a whim, it follows natural law at all times. So Dark Energy, even though we don't know what it is or understand it yet, is an observed fact, something is ripping the Universe apart, causing it to expand faster and faster over time. This amount of energy is equal to ~75% of the measured mass in the Universe. Dark Energy, whatever it is, certainly has a real effect that makes it's presence undeniable(at least by sane and informed individuals). Dark Matter was found to exist by similar observations. It cannot be seen directly, it produces no radiation for us to see. But we know it is there by several lines of evidence. The first line was the rotation of galaxies. The observed rates did not match the observed mass. It took nearly four times the visible mass for the rates to work out to what was seen. We called this missing mass Dark Matter because we still don't know what it is. But a second line of evidence has confirmed it's existence, mass distorts light that passes through it(gravity lensing)and these distortions can be seen in light that passes Dark Matter, IE Dark Matter has a shadow and it can be seen...

This(and similar images)has been processed to highlight those subtle distortions to indicate where the distortion is occurring in the Galaxy Cluster Abell 520. The vast majority of the mass in Abell IS Dark Matter, not the galaxies(it's about 4 to 1). The various collisions in the cluster has separated the DM from those galaxies and it's effect on light indicates it's location in the blue/green areas. This is not a direct photo of the DM, it is a map of the distortion of light by mass and shows that the most mass is not in the visible matter, but it is still there, thus Dark Matter.

As to the "posts from both sides", there are no "sides", there is what science says and then there is what those who know little or nothing about science say. There is no question among scientists about whether the Universe is expanding, the evidence that it is is overwhelming. The question is coming from ignorance, mostly. This isn't "alternative interpretations" of the evidence, it is complete ignorance of it. It takes more than a lab coat to make a scientist, you know.

Grumpy

 

[Quantum Quack]

deleted

 

[Quantum Quack]

Grumpy and others, I wish to formally with draw, retract and apologize for any inferences of incompetency I have made in this thread.

The issue for me is that you refer to something I am familiar with howeevr I do not refer to it as Dark matter or Dark energy. It has just dawned on me what it is you are calling thus.
The fact that scientists have "seen" what isn't there by "deductive observation" is truly remarkable.
The problem from my perspective is that the phenomena science is describing would be best left unlabelled and not thought of in terms of Dark Mass or Dark energy as this precludes and prejudices the understanding of what "it" is.

However there is no doubt that "something" is generating the distortions that science is currently referring to as Dark Energy and Dark Mass.

A bit like trying to prove the existence of zero [ as a void ] by using an infinitesimal sphere to do so. Zero or nothingness can only be evidenced by default.

e.g.
Inverse Sphere:
"If you take a sphere and reduce it so that it is the smallest it can possibly be [infinitesimal], what is inside the sphere?" The answer can only be "a volume of nothing" thus proving the existence of nothing by default.
"What is outside the sphere?" The answer can only be "everything"

Dark energy and Dark mass are of the same observational "class". IMO. ~ "Deductive observation".

 

[Quantum Quack]

Galaxy Abel 520 is apparently 2,645 Mly. That means that any information about this galaxy is at least 2645 Million years old. [if one believes in the speed of light across a vacuum.]

How can you justify this ancient data and state that it relates to today's universe and therefore complies with the scientific method?

btw I am not disputing the fact that the universe is expanding. If I had to I would only be disputing the way the age of the data is interpreted.

I am primarily concerned as to how science can justify the data which it believes is ancient history according to the scientific method.

 

[Lakon]

Grumpy #94; Hi, and thanks for the informative post. I need a bit of time to get into it. Thanks again.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Galaxy Abel 520 is apparently 2,645 Mly. That means that any information about this galaxy is at least 2645 Million years old. [if one believes in the speed of light across a vacuum.]

It not about belief. It's about knowledge. However, be careful what you ask. You tend to embed assumptions in the questions, and the assumptions tend to be incorrect. Be careful that the answers are almost always complicated, and you will often get the simplified or generalized answer until you are able to understand more complex concepts. However, you are committing a recurring fallacy, which is, you assuming false the facts already proven true (and vice versa) and you are doing so arbitrarily without trying to learn the underlying facts that explain how scientists have arrived at these fundamental concepts.

How can you justify this ancient data

There are several techniques to justify its "age". One is by parallax. However, you're barking up the wrong tree. This is not an issue except in your mind. This is not how nature works. Science is concerned with describing how nature works, not how you think nature should work. No one but you is claiming anything about star light from distant objects in the Earth time frame as you seem to think. It's well understood that a survey of the sky is a view of the universe over a panorama of both space and time.

and state that it relates to today's universe

No one is saying that except you. That is not a premise of any scientific teaching. No scientist tries to force the round peg of actual observation (over all visible space and time) into the square peg of today's time frame. Is absurd to assume that the way you think, without training, is the way experts in astronomy think. It's even worse to assume that they're simply mistaken, simply because your own opinions tell you so.

and therefore complies with the scientific method?

The method complies with the method when the investigators are in compliance. There are many ways to confirm compliance. If you don't know how this is done, you shouldn't assume that it's not being done. That's just a arbitrary decision with no facts or evidence to support it. Two suggestions. One is to read. Buy a few textbooks, get a decent telescope and learn a little astronomy. There are plenty of free lectures on places like You Tube and TedTalks. Subscribe to a few astronomy journals. Another is to sign up for a university course in astronomy and try to get some telescope time. Somewhere in the middle of that take a class in geometry and try to learn some basic axioms and how to derive their proofs. Eventually you will be in a position to know that the concepts you now believe to be true are not only false, but fallacious. Eventually you will learn to estimate the age of a distant object yourself.

btw I am not disputing the fact that the universe is expanding. If I had to I would only be disputing the way the age of the data is interpreted.I am primarily concerned as to how science can justify the data which it believes is ancient history according to the scientific method.

You can start by learning what parallax is and what it tells us.

 

[Grumpy]

Quantum Quack

Galaxy Abel 520 is apparently 2,645 Mly. That means that any information about this galaxy is at least 2645 Million years old. [if one believes in the speed of light across a vacuum.]

"Believes in the speed of light"? No, I don't believe in the speed of light in a vacuum, I know that speed exactly. I also know it is always measured to be the same, no matter what frame of reference it is measured in. And light does not get old, it's information is transferred from it's creation to it's absorption instantaneously in the frame of the photon, no matter how far that photon travels. So, though the events we see are from 2.625 billion years in the past and from 2.625 billion light years away, the information that light contains is as fresh as if just picked from your garden. And it tells us how that small part of the Universe worked back then. When we look closer at similar masses, that tells us how the Universe was behaving then. Build up many such observations of many sectors near and far and you build up a knowledge base you can use to predict future events(like Andromeda and our galaxy will collide in about 5 billion years, count on it). That it has many events that happened long ago doesn't preclude our knowing how the Universe operates and it in no way violates the scientific method, those events are still seen, the information is still collected and you can falsify my prediction in about 5 billion years(though I doubt that there will be any "Andromeda Deniers" left after the 3 billion year mark as Andromeda will be the biggest naked eye object ever by that time).

But let's look at an example closer to home and in a time frame you might understand. There is currently a comet on it's way into the inner solar system. It was found by an amateur and the light he used to detect it took well over an hour to travel from where the comet was to his telescope. Was it good information even though it was time delayed? Of course it was.

Later another photo was taken, this time it was only delayed 50 minutes. Was that information in any way superior to the information in the first photo? Of course not, the time delay can be worked out, the positions verified and the orbit computed. It might hit Mars, it will be a close thing, but the rovers are likely to get a fairly good view. We'll know by July. All that was determined by using old light, yet it is still valid. Even the light from our sun takes 8 minutes to reach Earth. Everything we see is some distance in the past. Is it your argument that because light is old that we can know nothing? If we see two stars of identical size and mass act similarly, how is that changed because one is ten light years away and the other 1000 ly away.

This star, Eta Carinae, is only 7,500 ly away, in 1828 it was the second brightest star in the sky as it expelled over 10 solar masses in a violent explosion. Yet both stars still survive(to our present knowledge, anyway). One is a type O Wolf-Rayette star of about 50 solar masses, the other is a blue supergiant of ~75 solar masses. Are they still there? Probably, what we know of similar stars tells us the supergiant probably has another million years or so to burn, but it also could have detonated yesterday(personally, I hope it detonated about 7500 years ago, that will be a sight to see). The O type has a few 10s of millions of years left if it doesn't get blown apart by it's big brother. But at only 7500 ly, we will have a front row seat(we really don't want to be close to these things when they blow), and it will outshine the moon and be visible at high noon. And we will get to watch every second of it. We know all this because we have seen these types of stars in every stage of their lives at different places and times throughout our Universe. These types of stars can be seen in galaxies billions of light years away when they go boom, their spectrum reveals the size and type of stars they were. Some novas are so regular in spectrum and output that they are called standard candles. If we see these novas, match their spectrum and measure their apparent brightness we have a distance to the nova and it's parent galaxy that is only a few percent vague in precision. Oh, the nebula you see is about a half light year across, if you put a period at the center of the brightest blob in the center, that would be about the size of our planetary system out to Neptune. The neighborhood out to near 100 light years would be sterilized by the radiation of these stars, and that's before they go nova.

Grumpy