|
Well Mill you mention the magic word.. theory.
In science it has certain definite requirements.
It requires prediction to be backed up with experiment or prediction.
I say the "theory of inflation" not comply with the requirement.
I say that "string theory"does not comply with the requirement.
I say both are therefore not theories in the scientific sense as demanded by science itself but mere "ideas".my view but reflecting my understanding of scientific requirement.... the hypothesis point only has been reached.
I feel the theory followed by prediction method is dangerous and open to abuse, as it would seem to lead folk to look for what they expect to find.. if they find a result that matches the prediction then the theory lives.. I feel such an approach means that only limited interpretation of results can follow.(do follow in fact) and it is hard to argue with that without offering a better way to manage the building of facts. I have no alternatives but that's always the way of a critic..good at tearing apart things but offering no meaningful contribution.. but that's the job requirements I feel.
Its like if you say "there are too many young people drinking".. all one will notice are the young drunks and seize upon them to say .."there I told you so".
Will one recognise the young folk who are not drinkers.. needless to say the way around the problem in that regard is to offer all the facts, and all I can say in the area of Universe understanding how can anyone pretend to have all the relevant information.
I would not have this difficulty if not for the demand of science as to "theory", we say I have a theory..it is like saying I have a view without much more... for the lay man theory holds the meaning of ..well a theory..an idea which may be right or may be wrong.. the word "theory" in science could almost be substituted for the words "fact established beyond a fair or reasonable doubt".
So if you call "the "string" idea a theory what you are in fact saying is this is very close to fact..well its not really.
and "string theory" even fails to provide the matters that science itself demands.
String idea, or String maths maybe but never "string theory" ..unless there is something I miss and it has in fact provided ..predictions that have been observed.. and I don't know that it has. They try to grab hold but never seem to manage that feat. I feel that after 20 years a little more could be expected and certainly after twenty years could be moved back to..string idea or string maths.. but there in now an establishment who decry such a notion.
Gravity rain predicts that the space craft that have left the solar system will slow (so far they are) stop and speed up to 350 klms approx per second..if they do gravity rain can move from an idea to theory status... but it still will not prove the existence of gravity rain..if you see my drift.
I started corresponding with a chap who has come up with an idea almost parallel to the gravity rain idea.. not a fool on any other observation .. clever in math, an engineer, a judge at a science show, and heads a large "Department" .. he wants it kept a secret because he feels that if his employer was to know of his views his job would not be safe.
That sort of supports your view of just how free views can be.
Or being an atheist and working for the church may see problems as it were.
If working on inflation for example I doubt if opposing views would be welcomed by the folk who gave you the job.
Still the facts are the current system of hypothesis, observation, prediction and experiment is the best we have at the moment.
I am being unkind with all of this really and I recognise that.. but is it not great be a critic.. one has to do nothing and simply call everything else wrong.
An infinite Universe is really big, there are no fractions in an infinite Universe that can be applied to it..you cant take something away from infinite and can not be left with anything less than infinite.
Some say the big bang grew stuff to infinite.. well I say if that is the case explanation at to how many times something must be doubled to reach infinite comes up... well of course something can never be doubled and doubled to reach infinite..something doubled a trillion trillion times will still not approach a fraction of infinite.
So the big bang model will always be stuck with a dimension not matter how long or how great inflation can extrapolate.
Still most who subscribe to the big bang take the view the Universe is finite.. which then leaves the question ..in what does this finite Universe exist in.. nothing?
I one takes the Universe as approx 14 billion years old what existed for the previous 27 trillion years? the previous 100,000 trillion years...nothing? so although an infinite Universe seems on the face of it unreasonable I say it provides simpler answers than to deal with a finite Universe.
Again great minds call for the razor to vet ideas..which is simpler is the problem.
Mind you either proposition is so far beyond human comprehension, we dont , we cant adequately deal with either outcome I feel.
By the way the focus er is fitted, the worst job of my life, scratches on the focuser and the tube, cut more metal than needed ...nothing followed my perfectionist demands.. however I took some star test shots (static mount just to get a feel) and its brilliant.
So much better.
The old focuser if you moved past the focus and sought to come back it was really starting again because the thing "jumped" ..no such problem now so I can move back and forth with no problem.
Thanks again for that.
alex
|