Cart before the horse ?

[Ceedee]

The more I learn the more i realise how much i don't know. Granted I haven't begun yet to explore the depths but I am stumbling at an early stage which disheartens me somewhat.

From what i have gleaned so far, it seems to me that cosmology is putting the cart firmly before the horse and in fact is putting it so far in front that the poor horse has lost sight of the cart altogether.

When i started gettin interested in cosmology I was impressed at first with how much we knew. So many people saying great things like we are close to the answer of everything ,unified theories etc etc. I was intrigued and dug deeper. Alas I had been hoodwinked.

I started at the top, maybe a mistake, string theory, M theory etc wow. were we really that close and then reality check. Big holes everywhere and fudge factors bouying up all these nice theories. So i started to work my way back. Rolling back the theories one after another finding more fudge than a chocolatier could imagine until i finally eneded up back at the start.

All these great ideas and theories masquerading to the layman as "facts" where in fact nothing of the kind. All these things based on other things taken for granted but not nescessarily understood or prooved in any way.

"is this really science ?" I asked myself.

I am now stuck in a hole and need some old fashoned kicking in the pants to re awaken my interest which i hope someone here can provide.

I have waffled abit here and i apologise for that, but in a nutshell my main concern is this. Whilst i understand the need for theory and wild hypothesis, is it only me that is worried that we too easily jump to the next question without actually prooving the former.

Most cosmology theories I have read seem to take for granted that we know certain things which we dont. Simple basic building blocks. For example. A lot of thoery is based on red shifts and standard star candles and such. What i have read so far tells me that these standard candles are by no means standard. We don't for sure know how bright they are or how far. These simple things are used to build huge theories on and yet these basic things are actually just guesses.

How can anyone take seriously a theory as grand as M theory ( just one theory of many anyone of which will suffice ) when if you extrapolate back to its basic basic roots comes up with distances to stars and galaxies and such which are just guesses.

I think the brakes must be applied so that the horse can catch up with the cart then maybe something meaningful might appear.

 

Sorry for rambling a bit and if you bothered to read all this please dont judge me harshly. I in no way intend this to be a dig at anything.

[Tormod]

Well, this post really belongs in the philosophy of science forum.

 

What do you think science is unless it is about creating hypothesis and theories? It does not profess to be a religion where you get all the answers. Science is about asking "what does this mean" and finding an explanation.

 

Even if you started at the top does not mean that everyone else did. I would recommend reading up on the history of science. Understanding *why* the theories we have today exist is essential in the understanding of science at all.

[Qfwfq]

Welcome Ceedee.

 

The more I learn the more i realise how much i don't know.

That's a good thing!!! :eek2: Sure better than some folks who think they know everything.

 

CD, natural philosophy has always been like that. If we hoped to prove each thing before going on we'd never get anywhere at all. Most things can't just be proven directly by themselves apart from the time it might be before we have the means. Usually it's necassary to build up our card houses and eventually we see if they collapse or hold up, or need fixing and adjusting.

 

Of course, divulgation often distorts things and we can't expect to give the layman an exhaustive explanation anyway. The mistake is often made of not saying how sure or unsure things are, in divulgation, that's more to blame on journalists and other divulgative authours. When researchers write, they can overlook this about most "facts" as they are writing for other researchers in the field.

[TheBigDog]

Most cosmology theories I have read seem to take for granted that we know certain things which we dont. Simple basic building blocks. For example. A lot of thoery is based on red shifts and standard star candles and such. What i have read so far tells me that these standard candles are by no means standard. We don't for sure know how bright they are or how far. These simple things are used to build huge theories on and yet these basic things are actually just guesses.

Howdy Ceedee!

 

I have been wondering pretty much the same thing, but I have just not dedicated the time to go in and question it. I would appreciate it if you could pose your questions about what you term the basic building blocks so we can get some discussion on those foundational items, and once we have answered those questions we can work our way up to the theories that are based upon them.

 

You will find other threads dedicated to some of those questions already, and I am sure you will find the discussions interesting. You may even find your answers. That being the case you may not need to continue this thread. But you may wish to circle back and answer your own questions here later from what you have read.

 

Take your pick. Have fun. I will follow along.

 

Bill

[Ceedee]

Thank you for the replies and all are valid points.

I agree that it is nescessary to thoerise and build on possibly unsound facts in order to see where it takes us, this is human nature, however my concern is just how far these theories have progressed. they seem to me to have left the realms of science and wandered into the realm of hyperbole.

Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this it appears that so much time and resources are being invested in these areas and the basic building blocks are mostly ignored with little time or energy devoted to them.

The basic blocks i refer to are many and i will take the advice and research them in this forum, which i had overlooked to my shame.

A few that spring to mind in the interim are as follows.

Practically all cosmology theories i have looked into are based upon the fact that we know how big, how old, how far way everything is. Eg precise figures are given for distance to the nearest star, how bright it is and the same with galaxies etc. From this we extrapolate to the further stars and galaxies etc.

My recent reading has led me to discover that far from being exact figures they are hazy. They say star X is 1.45 lightyears away when in reality the figure is given as between 0.8 and 2.6 light years. Thats a lot of fudge.

once extrapolated it can go off the chart. ( this is purely for illustrative purposes and star X bears no resemblance to any star)

Another is gravity. I know we dont understand gravity at all but if you listen to these theories it would appear that they think they do. I was convinced we had worked out gravity already barring the little things, but to my surprise i discovered that we dont even understand the big things. What led me to this was that gravity predictions all fit nicely in our solar system. The planets are where they should be, rotate around the sun at the speeds they should do and have corresponding masses that all fit neatly into how gravity should work. However recent discoveries suggest that something is very wrong with this view. galaxies dont follow this gravity. They rotate as if it where a solid entity with the outside edges of the galaxy going as fast as the inside.

Another is redshift the cornerstone of cosmology. Everything more or less has been extrapolated from redshifts. But now serious misgivings are being raised about them and what causes the redshift.If infact some other mechanism is at work and it isnt purely a function of velocity that turns our whole universe map on its head.

Basically then my concerns are that we should be devoting more effort towards these fundamental yardsticks that we use to measure our universe because without confidence in those what use are grand theories. I read that according to the latest information and theories we are now left with a situation where we have stars and galaxies in the universe that are older than the universe is itself. Science has lost its way a little and neads to do a bit more basic spadework instead of building theories which more rightly belong in a sci-fi film or novel.

I will post back again after thoroughly reading through this forum and apologise if this ground has already been covered.

[Tormod]

my concern is just how far these theories have progressed. they seem to me to have left the realms of science and wandered into the realm of hyperbole.

 

How exactly do you experience this? Where? What books are you reading that are giving you this feeling?

 

Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this it appears that so much time and resources are being invested in these areas and the basic building blocks are mostly ignored with little time or energy devoted to them.

 

I think this is a common misconception (no offense). Most scientists work with basic science. Not everyone can be on the edge. And not everyone have the time (or skills) to write popularized books for lay people.

 

It's like sports - what we see on television does not resemble what we see on the local football field. There is a difference between bleeding edge and everyday activity.

 

Lots of people are studying particle physics, for example, at university. you can't become a physicist today without learning all the basics (and there is a lot of ground to cover). It is not to be expected however that a scientist writes that "we know that planet X is between 20 million and 25 million lightyears away" when she can write "the planet is approximately 20 million lightyears away". Everything in science should be read as a hypothesis, a theory. In order to enjoy science, it is important to learn this!

 

Practically all cosmology theories i have looked into are based upon the fact that we know how big, how old, how far way everything is. Eg precise figures are given for distance to the nearest star, how bright it is and the same with galaxies etc. From this we extrapolate to the further stars and galaxies etc.

 

Again, what scientists tell you are what they are able to explain with the models and calculations. Do not take it as religion.

 

recent discoveries suggest that something is very wrong with this view. galaxies dont follow this gravity. They rotate as if it where a solid entity with the outside edges of the galaxy going as fast as the inside.

 

Where have you read this? It is a physical impossibility. Either I am misinterpreting you or you are not quoting your sources right. If a galaxy rotated as a solid entity, the edges would rotate much faster than the inner parts (just imagine the differences in distance a point on the galaxy edge would have to cover to complete one orbit, as opposed to a point close to the edge).

 

Another is redshift the cornerstone of cosmology. Everything more or less has been extrapolated from redshifts. But now serious misgivings are being raised about them and what causes the redshift.If infact some other mechanism is at work and it isnt purely a function of velocity that turns our whole universe map on its head.

 

No, redshift is not the cornerstone of cosmology. It is however an important part of the big bang model which is the cornerstone of *modern* cosmology. It may be completely wrong. But it is the best model we have as of today (others here will contest this) and it is being turned inside out every day by cosmologists. This is how science works.

 

Basically then my concerns are that we should be devoting more effort towards these fundamental yardsticks that we use to measure our universe because without confidence in those what use are grand theories.

 

I don't understand this sentiment. Gravity is not a fundamental yardstick, nor is redshift. These are difficult things to both measure and understand. that we do not fully understand them does not mean that nobody is working to solve it. Do not expect science to have all the answers!

 

I read that according to the latest information and theories we are now left with a situation where we have stars and galaxies in the universe that are older than the universe is

 

This depends on which version of cosmology you subscribe to, and has been explained away many times now. you will find more information about this elsewhere at Hypography.

 

Science has lost its way a little and neads to do a bit more basic spadework instead of building theories which more rightly belong in a sci-fi film or novel.

 

I don't know...it's an extremely pessimistic view. Science is very exiting, even basic science (for example the study of stellar evolution, solar cycles, the mystery of the Sun's warm chromosphere etc). You seem to think that science is all about cosmology. Very, very few scientists work in the field of cosmology. But the magazines and publishers tend to publish books and articles on this because it IS exciting! But again, do not take it as religion.

 

As for sci-fi...a lot of what scientists are able to do today was science fiction fifty years ago. The geostationary satellite was first suggested by Arthur C Clarke. Launching rockets to the moon was suggested by Jules Verne in the 19th century. The idea that life exists elsewhere in the universe is old, as is the idea of an infinite cosmos. Science fiction is not science, and science is not fiction. But they are not mutually exclusive either, when we talk about cosmology, which is basically a philosophical grouping of physics, mathematics, astronomy, astrophysics, and many other fields.

[Ceedee]

I appreciate your reply and will take some points on board. I am quite new to this and i apologise if i make what seems to be rash posts. I am not new to science but I am new to actually trying to put my thoughts down in writing in a way that makes sense. I will try harder to not make silly errors.

 

I can not put my finger on any specific text that has caused me to feel this way and that as the main thrust of my initial post. I was reading a few things and watching a few documentaries where they where discussing big bang and m theory etc and felt a little out of my depth. So i worked backwards a bit and started to read between the lines and it was as if i suddenly noticed all these areas where fudge factors had been added to bolster theories.

I then thought lets see how far back down the scale they go and traced back finding that most if not all theories and things i had assumed where solved where actually far from it. I'm not tryin to tear holes in things its just an uneasy feeling that i thought i would share in case it was just me that was feeling it.

 

No offense taken. there is no room for offense in science i think.

My point on the distance issue was the scale of the uncertainty. I accept that these are hard things to measure i just question the logic of basing huge designs on innaccurate data. Its hard for me to explain, but this one point is a major sticking point for me. if we dont actually know the distance to the nearest star say. how can we have faith in any measurements using that distance as a basis to infer from. Its like sayin 2 & 2 is 4, from that we can say 4 & 2 is 6 and from that we say 6 & 6 is 12 but then when we have gone on and on someone says oh by the way 2 isnt really 2 its between 1.5 and 4.

I know its not the same thing exactly im just tryin to make an analogy to explain my gut feeling.

 

I apologise for the galaxy and gravity mistake my error. What i meant to say was that galaxies do not behave as a solar system does. the outer edges of the galxies in question rotate at the same speed as the inner edges not faster. but this is strange because gravity weakens over distance so why dont the outer edges just fly off into space. The source for this was a documentary called horizon in which a woman discocvered this anomaly. i think it was called most of our universe is missing but i may be wrong.

 

i agree cornerstone was a bad choice of words.

 

I dont expect science to have all the answers. i do however expect science to be accurate with the answers it chooses to reveal. all my life i have it seems been under a mistaken idea that science was aa way of explaining what we observe in a manner that can be proven or at minimum be plausible by that i mean not easily disproven. an example of what i mean is in the missing mass debate. if i understand it correctly the latest news is that the universe is not only expanding but this is accellerating. This has led to fudge of grotesque proportions ie dark matter and dark energy. yes these 2 items fit the bill and let us explain it but my uneasiness raises its ugly head once more.

would i be correct if i made an opposing theory which says the 20% or so dark matter and the 70% dark energy dont actually exist. the missing mass is actually billions of klingons in cloaked war birds. sorry for the inane analogy but is not one theory as good as any other in this respect.in fact a better analogy could be no dark matter or dark energy instead there is 90% invisble fudge. This theory is actually better than the dark energy / matter theory by virtue of occams razor and as such should it not be adopted.

a clumsy way to make a point i know but has it any validity.

 

totally aggree on your last points. i didnt mean to sound pessimistic rather was trying to appear cautionary. i am very excited about science still and now that i have discovered this forum i look forward to it even more as to be honest i dont get to discuss things like this in real life.

[Doctordick]

Hi Ceedee! That handle reminds me of the marketing agent I had when I was very young (they weren't very competent and I ended up marketing my invention myself). They called themselves "C D Sales Incorporated" (two guys whose last names began with "C" and "D"). I had the habit of referring to them as "C and D sales" and my wife always corrected me. One day she got a little aggressive and said, "it's C D sales, not C and D sales; repeat after me ten times 'C D sales'". So I said, "C D sales; C D sales; C D sales; ... " and about that time the concept "seedy sales" popped up in my head and I started to laugh at the aptness of the reference. Wondering if they were still in business I just googled "C D sales" and discovered a new organization with the same name in London (organized in 91 with different names and different interests). ;)

 

In reading your post, I was very much reminded of myself when I was young. Since you do not offer any information concerning your technical background, I am curious as to whether your judgment is based on emotional impressions gained from publications directed towards the lay community or is based on an intimate technical understanding of the details of the relevant issues. Lay publications often present a somewhat distorted view of the real issues concerning themselves more with the final conclusions than with the details of the technical arguments which led them there. ;)

Granted I haven't begun yet to explore the depths but I am stumbling at an early stage which disheartens me somewhat.

From this I presume your youth. When I was a child, my mother told me that one learns a lot more by listening than by talking (my father was somewhat of a blow hard) so I kept my mouth shut and tried to learn. I ended up in physics because they seemed to be the only people who gave serious thought to defending their assertions; however, the further I got, the more nebulous their defenses got. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and carried forth under the assumption that someday those problems would be decently considered. They weren't but at least I got a decent education in the process. What I am getting at is that the education itself is worth the effort even if the paradigm of the educator is invalid. You cannot start from scratch and expect to get anywhere worth being. Forget their conclusions and learn the details of the mechanisms they use to defend those conclusions; that is where the real power resides. :rant:

Sorry for rambling a bit and if you bothered to read all this please don't judge me harshly.

Your "ramblings" are what I would expect from any rational person; my only criticism is that your energies might be misplaced. In my opinion, the worst thing a student can do is memorize all the conclusions the academy has generated (and I am afraid many students do exactly that). But you should very seriously learn all the arguments used to reach those conclusions as there is a great wealth of thought behind those arguments. Learn to think for yourself; that is the most important outcome of an education. :rant:

What do you think science is unless it is about creating hypothesis and theories? It does not profess to be a religion where you get all the answers.

Oh, I don't know about that. It seems to me to "profess" a lot and their "beliefs" in their conclusions are as strong as any religion I have ever incountered. ;)

When researchers write, they can overlook this about most "facts" as they are writing for other researchers in the field.

Yes, they can pretty well assume that the "beliefs" of their contemporaries are pretty much identical to their own. ;)

I have been wondering pretty much the same thing, but I have just not dedicated the time to go in and question it.

And I don't think you should. Just take everything the authorities say with a big grain of salt. But learn all you can about the details of their chains of thought. Knowing how to connect the dots is the real issue, not the dots. The dots have changed in the past and will change in the future. ;)

... they seem to me to have left the realms of science and wandered into the realm of hyperbole.

That is because you are concerning yourself with the conclusions and not with the much more important issues, the thought processes leading to those conclusions. And lastly, resources are never invested in the area of fundamental foundations as the people who have the power to control such investments operate from the position that the current authorities know what they are doing: i.e., that their conclusions are well founded (that the basics they are working with are correct). There is also the issue that "thinking about fundamentals" is notoriously unproductive; who in the world would invest in an unproductive approach. :rant:

... the missing mass is actually billions of klingons in cloaked war birds.

I love it; and no, it is really not much different from the "dark matter" hypothesis except that you are claiming you know what the dark matter is made of. ;)

i am very excited about science still and now that i have discovered this forum i look forward to it even more as to be honest i dont get to discuss things like this in real life.

What? This isn't part of "real life"? ;)

 

Seriously, if you want to talk about "fundamental issues", read my paper, An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself. Don't try to read it through; just read it until you reach a sentence which does not make sense to you and then point out why you find that sentence confusing. It is probably a simple misunderstanding of what I am saying and something easy to clarify. If you just read it through, I am sure you will misinterpret a lot of things and read things into the presentation which are not there (which will result in interminable confusion). ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Ceedee]

Thanks DoctorDick for a very useful reply.

 

I will take on board what you have said although i smiled when you assumed i was young. i am 42 years old. no science background but very curious since i was a child. interested and active in astronomy from a young age but never progressed beyond simple observing etc.

i have followed astronomical and cosmological developements tho for over 30 years but could never claim to understand most of it but i try hard.

 

i do i confess glean a fair amount of what i "know" from layman materials

or things written with the layman in mind. books like stephen hawkins brief histories and bill brysons short history of everything etc. serious texts tend to lose me and as such i struggle. i have an 8 year old son whose mission in life seems to be to disturb me whenever i pick up a book or try to think about anything :lol:

 

good point made about being too concerned with conclusions. will have to think on that for a bit. maybe i am uneasy about things that dont actually matter all that much. that is an angle i hadn't considered.

 

sorry about the real life statement :) i think you knew what i meant though.

 

will read your paper although on reading some of your other posts i believe it will be way over my head but im not ashamed to say it or to have a try...

 

(edit because i re re read the post as i should have before i posted..)

 

your remark about the klingons sort of slipped by me when i first answered but has just dawned on me. this is the kind of mistake i try so hard not to make but it makes me look like i dont think.

the subtle difference between them saying dark matter "but we dont know what it is" (fudge) and me saying i know what it is, its klingons ( which i dont know at all), is such a good point. just thought i need to post a qualification there while i think more on how to post properly.

[Doctordick]

I will take on board what you have said although i smiled when you assumed i was young. i am 42 years old.

Believe me, 42 is young, if you are careful you probably have well over half your life left to enjoy. Youth is not appreciated by the young! When I was fifty, Wall Mart sent an offer for a free photograph. My wife and I dressed up in our best outfits and had our picture taken. When we got called back to look at the result we were quite disappointed. The picture was of two old people so we took the free one and no more; bought a cheap frame and hung it on the wall in the family room. It has gotten to the point where every year that picture gets better looking! Only now do I realize how delightfully young we were. :D

good point made about being too concerned with conclusions. will have to think on that for a bit. maybe i am uneasy about things that don't actually matter all that much. that is an angle i hadn't considered.

I don't think the schools expend much effort trying to get people to think. They spend all their time trying to fill them with supposed facts. Your comments about the unsupported evidence behind most of those facts is actually much deeper than you think. I am reminded of a story I often tell grade school students when they ask me about Newton's gravity (which they usually do; I think it confuses a lot of kids). The schools always seem to merely point out the conclusions without ever talking about the thought process behind those conclusions. :hyper:

 

I start by explaining how a bullet goes farther if the muzzle velocity is higher and then point out that if the earth were a perfect sphere and there was no air to slow the bullet down I could increase the muzzle velocity to a point where I could shoot myself in the back of my head. At that point the bullet would essentially be in orbit around the earth. One can then use a little geometry and algebra to estimate that velocity (from the bullets perspective the earth has to drop away at exactly the same rate the bullet is dropping) which is usually well within the comprehension of a seventh or eighth grader. For younger kids just point out that it's a arithmetic problem which can be solved. :hyper:

 

So then, if Newton tried to use this same argument to explain why the moon didn't fall to the earth he would get the the wrong answer. In order for the moon to stay at the same radius it would have to circle the earth about once every four days. (You can work out the right answer if you wish, it's pretty straight forward). Ah, but the moon is roughly 64 times as far away from the center of the earth as we are. If the force of gravity were less out there (by a factor of one over r squared) he would get the right answer. Wow, that's something worth thinking about. :cool:

 

So how about the earth going around the sun? Again, if Newton tried to use this same argument to explain the earth's orbit he would get the wrong answer. In order for the earth not to fly off into interstellar space, one orbit of the sun should take around 300,000 years (the length of the year is way too short for this explanation to work). But he could have noticed that the volume of the sun was quite close to 300,000 times the volume of the earth. If one assumes the density of the sun is roughly the same order of magnitude as the density of the earth, then that factor might very well be the mass of the sun. If, likewise, the force on the moon had to be proportional to the mass of the earth, it is only reasonable that force of gravity is given by a very symmetric function: the product of masses. All that needs to be done at that point is to insert the required constant, G, to yield up the acceleration of gravity which started the whole thing. (Think about F=ma if the force is proportional to the mass, a must be a constant!) :cup:

 

So how about the rest of the solar system? From here on out, everything works quite well. In fact we have since turned the whole thing around and now use Newton's theory of gravity as defining the masses of the bodies. :D

 

Now, I don't know that any of that or anything even similar ever went through Newton's head. The first time I heard this it was introduced with the comment, "well, put yourself in Newton's shoes, knowing about artillery and having just discovered calculus when that apple fell on his head". What do you think you could deduce from that? I think that is much more educational than just putting the equation on the board and saying, "this is the relationship Newton discovered!" Where does that rather common approach leave the student? For the most part they seem to get the impression that "geniuses just pull these things out of thin air and turn out to be right". That's not the way it is at all. :)

 

That is what I was talking about when I said that the thought processes leading to the conclusions was much more important than the conclusions. In fact Newton's results were initially inconsistent with a number of the data points he was using. He presumed his calculations were in error when, in fact, it turned out some of the data he thought was valid was not. The point being, the data behind the idea needn't be that accurate; it's the argument that counts. :hyper:

I will read your paper although on reading some of your other posts i believe it will be way over my head but im not ashamed to say it or to have a try...

I don't think the logic is at all difficult if approached one line at a time. As I said, you should stop the moment you reach a sentence which is unclear. :lol:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Racoon]

Well done DoctorDick!

 

Your Post should be in Journals.

 

I agree with what you mentioned early in your post. age 42, living 2 X (times) that,.. youth.

 

I cant help but think of the Dichotemy;

 

You spend your Youth aquiring Wealth,

and then your Wealth aquiring Youth!.

 

Who knows?

[Doctordick]

Your Post should be in Journals.

Well thank you. That is a very nice comment. :hyper:

I cant help but think of the Dichotemy;

 

You spend your Youth aquiring Wealth,

and then your Wealth aquiring Youth!.

How about spending your youth trying to understand the universe, succeeding and then realizing it will die with you. Now that is what one could call a wasted youth. Think about it for a while. :hyper:

 

No, to be honest, I have utterly no regrets. Life has been fun and I would enjoy living forever but I am ready to go tomorrow if need be. :hyper:

 

Have fun, I know I will! :cool: -- Dick,

 

PS, it's saturday night and I am going to log off and get myself a good drink! :lol:

[Biochemist]

...education itself is worth the effort even if the paradigm of the educator is invalid.

This is absolutely true. If it were not, there would be no utility in education. Everyone is wrong about something. Most folks are wrong about most things. And finally, some folks are wrong about everything.

 

Folks in the latter category usually end up in politics.

[Turtle]

This is absolutely true. If it were not, there would be no utility in education. Everyone is wrong about something. Most folks are wrong about most things. And finally, some folks are wrong about everything.

 

Folks in the latter category usually end up in politics.

 

Amen Brother(s).:lol:

[Doctordick]

Folks in the latter category usually end up in politics.

And you got that one right. :cup:

 

I have gotten into history for the last ten years. My major interest is in events from around 1000 BC until about 1300 (a lot of stuff is available that I never learned in school). I have come to the conclusion that the world has always been run by idiots and always will be run by idiots because only an idiot thinks he is capable of handling the position. :D

 

The problem is, mankind will never follow someone who isn't sure what should be done. :D

 

My favorite admonishment is "God save me from the guy who knows what ought to be done!" :)

 

Have fun -- Dick :lol:

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed." :lol:

by Anonymous

[HydrogenBond]

The observation that science often creates the illusion of knowing more than its knows, especially in fringe areas, is right on. I remember some data I read, that got me into the cosmology train of mind. The data was about spiral galaxies with too many turns and superstructure, both of which needed to be much older than the age of the universe predicted by current theories. The machine was broken. I figured science would throw out the old broken prototypes into the circular file and go back to the old drawing board. Instead, nothing really changed and the encumbant ideas remain beyond the reach of logic and common sense.

[Tormod]

Everyone is wrong about something.

 

Except me. I am never wrong. Or did that fall out of our forum rules??? :lol: