the universe and space....?

Frank,

I am slightly biased, but I have a deep respect for the accomplishments of the human study of science.

I don't feel that most scientists are overly smug.

Of course we have seen only a very small part of the Universe. You are right that the vast amount of things are beyond our knowledge.

Science gives us a rational way to define what we do know. Every scientific "fact" is supported by logic experiments and observation. Each fact is reviewed by the best minds who have dedicated themselves to this study. What it means to "prove" a fact is well defined and followed by all scientists.

Your statement about earlier scientists being "wrong" is a gross oversimplification. Factually scientists were able to show that the Earth was round over 5000 years ago and an early Egyptian astronomer calculated its size with amazing accuracy. He had very convincing "proof" in that there was no other way to explain his observations concerning the sun.

Six hundred years ago Newton's laws were "proven" in that they past all of the scientific criteria for fact, and were accepted by the scientific community.

Einstein "corrected" Newton's, but in order to do this he had to show that Newton's laws were a subset of Einstein's "new" theory. Of course this happened and now his is an exersize done by every physics undergraduate student.

Newton's equations proved themselves as able to predict how objects move in the Universe. Einstein's laws were developed as an "extension" for cases that Newton's could not forsee. Even though they have been supercided by Einstein, Newton's laws are still used exclusively for everything from airplains to Martian probes.

Likewise Einstein's laws are quick able to predict an even larger class of circumstances, and of course most of the time Einstein and Newton agree. Likewise when the future scientists you speak of develop an even more advanced theory it will be the same. It will extend rather than replace. Because if it contradicts the observations which Einstein and Newton explain perfectly well, it is undoubtably wrong.

The power of science is twofold. First it has a strong ability to make predictions. Einsteins theories predicted that a clock would lose time if it were put in an airplane (this of course is counter-intuitive). But when we tried it, Einstein was right.

These theories have also been used as technology. The computer you are now seated in front of is based on semiconductors that were designed using Scroedinger Equations.

Schroedinger's Equations predict very strange behavior that can not be explained by human experience. For example, matter can jump from one point to another point in space without pass through the space inbetween.

This is very strange and has no analog in our everyday experience, but your computer would not work without it.

This is the the advantage of science. It is not canonical "truth" in the philosophical sense. But it is a very powerful way to understand the Universe, to make predictions and to use this knowledge in ways that benefit us.

ebrown, re your post of Jul 13-9:18 AM
1. Not proven. The cosmic microwave background radiation (see CMBR probe) occurs with very little variance from every point in space.
The microwave emissions are simply "light" which has been "red shifted into the microwave spectrum". Thus THERE IS light emanating from every point in space as required by an infinite Universe.

1a. Until someone does the arithmetic properly there is no proof that the Universe is expanding. The math is very difficult. Trust me!

2. "There is no place outside the Universe. (IMO a simple definition of an Infinite Universe)

3. Not proven. Neither the Expanding Universe, the Big Bang, or Original Sin.

Ican and I have been hashing out the math for nearly a year now. The latest if you are interested is outlined near the end of the Abuzz thread entitled-- A Proposed Lawsuit.
I have presented a Mechanical Universe that seems so far to agree with both observations of the CMBR probe, relativity, and seems as though it would probably work.
I would be glad to outline the problems if anybody's interested .

Frank, I know youv'e been there since its inception. Inception of the conception, that is! . Best wishes, M.

aka,

That we have an expanding finite universe has been "proven" according to all standards of conventional science.

This is now accepted as fact by conventional scientists beacuse there is an incredible amount of evidence for it, starting with Hubble and proceding to current work in cosmology. The observations in background radiation have confirmed the predictions made by this view.

This gets back to the more interesting discussion of what is science. There are many who want to forego the scientific process with its body of procedure, logical protocol and mathematical rigor.

After all 12 years in graduate school learning how to do science is too hard. We should be able to come up with new theories on our own without needing to learn about previous work -- right?

But the fact is, our system of science has been very successful. In addition to these esoteric observations about our universe, conventional science has brought you medicine, the microwave and nuclear power.

To use the internet to attack conventional science is a bit ironic don't you think...

eB;

I'm afraid I agree with Mechsmith re: expanding universe etc. There are too many brilliant people questioning the "accepted truths".

As per your comment
"Factually scientists were able to show that the Earth was round over 5000 years ago and an early Egyptian astronomer calculated its size with amazing accuracy. He had very convincing "proof" in that there was no other way to explain his observations concerning the sun."
It might be appropriate to point out that current wisdom at that time considered him to be a blithering idiot!

It is always important to keep on top of both "our best current information", and the most cogent of new "unproven" concepts and hypothesies, just to keep us (I use the term "us" pretentiously)
on our toes.

If you'd like a good chuckle; I think the "big bang" is still happening, and the missing "dark matter" has not yet occurred (happening out of nothingness)!

BoGoWo,

Please explain. Who are these "brilliant people"?

Also, unless you provide a link, I must assume that you pulled the stuff about people considering Eratosthenes a "blithering idiot" out of your head just to make your point.

It is historically incorrect according to everying I have read. Eratosthenes was very well educated and well respected. His work was well enough regarded to have been preserved since his time.

I offer this link for your information:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Eratosthenes.html

In history as well as in science you should back up claims with fact. It helps that you take the time to understand "accepted truths" before you can presume to challenge them. This is the beef I have with most people who challenge conventional science.

But, perhaps you know some "brilliant" historians who can back up your claim.

ebrown, You propose a very difficult task; to "back up claims with facts." Even many scientists condition their findings when what they propose are actually "guesses" with the information available at the time of their claim. Subsequent findings may refute their 'claim' or 'fact.' Much information provided by scientists, physicists, paleontologists, mathmaticians, archaeologists, are often times "current information" which may or may not stand up to subsequent scrutiny and findings. To that extent, I'm a skeptic of scientific finds probably 90 percent of the time, even though I have no background in science. c.i.

Science provides a very strict set of criteria before something is accepted as fact. Yes, scientists do make guesses, but if they are good scientists they will identify when what they are proposing are "guesses".

A scientist that makes a claim as "fact" that can not be backed up according to the very strict rules of science will quickly lose their credibility, their funding and their livelyhood.

The "current information" that is accepted as "fact" has *already* stood up to subsequent scrutiny. To be accepted as fact there must be no other plausible explanation or interpretation for a large set of observations. This scrutiny is undertaken by a large number of people who have taken the time and done the hard work to become scientists.

Let me put it this way. If Steven Hawking tell you something about the nature of space, you should listen. He has earned his Phd. He has studied advances of the last 6000 of human civilization. He has publish work that has been critically scrutinized by his peers. His work is completely in line with observation and the current models of science.

Someone who questions Mr. Hawking should at least have a good graduate level understanding of General Relativity. If you haven't taken the time for this detail, you don't have much credibility.

Science is something that is based on hard work. It builds on the work of previous and contemporary scientists. You can't just pull ideas out of the air.

I am a student of science and am not near the level of Mr. Hawking. I have done the work necessary to understand modern physics. I have also seen the work and understand the ideas and math that lead to these conclusions.

To people with my background, the fact that the Universe is finite is extremely well documented, backed up by observation, explained with mathmatics and accepted by the brilliant minds who are truly udnerstand the theory.

I am sorry, but I get upset when people question science without doing the work required to understandit .

Science is accessible to all, but only with a good deal of study. You should show some respect to the people who have done this work.

After all, you depend on their work more than you know.

ebrowne, Please don't get upset. One expects that the religious amongst us do get upset when one questions their very reasons for existing. We, the great unwashed, hope that our scientists can explain things so as we can understand them. Other people brighter than I have questioned many things.
May I state as fact that The Big Bang-Expanding Universe theory is the prevalent BELIEF of our times.
Nils Bohr (I think) once said that if your theory is good you can explain it to a barmaid. Personally I find that a valid observation.
BUT as far as I have been able to find out .... Nobody (except possibly DeSiter) has done the math that is required to absolutely pin down the "red shift". Personally I have been working on it for over a year with little success.
Nobody has been able to determine the "Hubble Constant". IF it should exist then I suspect that it would be accurate to within a few percent, but we find a broad range of guesses.
The "red shift" figures for several celestial objects that appear to be gravitationally bound are in serious disagreement.
I do not disagree, even slightly with Mr. Einstein. Matter of fact I tend to regard his theories as mostly astute observations.


IN order to PROVE the BB-EU with its attendant finite universe theory you need to.
Quantify the "gravitational red shift"
Quantify the dimensional increase in size of particles associated with their observed decrease in energies over time? and distance.
Quantify the "Doppler Effect"

Then tell me the amount that the light will be "red shifted" to us (the observer) from the celestial object of my choice.
If you can do that then IMO (for what it's worth) we can safely say that the Universe is expanding. And rest assured I will concur.
If you cannot do that, and aparently nobody has, then we may as well talk about virgin births, original sin, and indulgences.

I sincerely respect Steven Hawkings. After all I have bought four of his books. Along with most (not all) theoretical physicists Mr. Hawkings starts from a basic "premise". That the Universe and Time have had a beginning. With this premise to begin with then all his, and our subsequent assumptions must reflect this.

For a good example of how possibly erroneus assumptions can affect all future conclusions click on this .
http://www.kofc.org.catechism/catechism.cfm

There is no sense in boring everybody with my reading list. I posted some thirty eight titles that I have read on" Abuzz's thread named "describe and discuss some of your Bibles books". Ican's thread
In NONE of these was the mathematics required to obtain a red shift figure discussed. I will be glad to explain how to do it if you think it's possible. If you could point me somewhere where someone has translated "z" into absolute distance and time, or even space-time I'd love to see it. If the Universe is indeed expanding somebody must have done the math. If the math is has not been done then Cosmology simply becomes another religion. I hope that you will be able to disabuse me of my strange notions. If you cannot then try this.
http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/20000413.qso.q.html

It's easy to confuse the peasants-- As I recently explained, a rainbow does not exist, it merely looks like one due to the nature of light. I suspect that the Expanding Universe merely looks like one due to the nature of light. ( light, in this context being electromagnetic radiation regardless of wave length as reputedly used by Einstein.)
Whew, Let's have a beer--- M.

OOPs, Sorry,

http://www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/catechism.cfm


Even Athiests can make mystakes

eB;
"guilty as charged"

If Eratosthenes was understood, believed, and highly thought of for his remarkable perspicacity, I am amazed but totally willing to take your word for it since I would not have the least interest in seaching historical musings to verify otherwise.
I think you understand what I meant in general as other visionaries were less than lauded for their efforts.
If you wish to pick nits, you may label me "nit"!
As for who are these brilliant people; would a string of names make an obvious concept any clearer; there is more good work being done today because the facilities available outstrip anything in the past asymptotically, and as Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants" the shoulders are getting bigger daily.
Quite frankly I didn't think there was anything here worth arguing about;
I was merly pointing out that if a long hard effort to learn the science that has surfaced to date, results in a lack of willingness to "look at" new theories which could do a little applecart jiggling, then it is time to turn out the lights and go home!

I can only say that if most scientists think this -- then science is in much more trouble than I thought.

My guess is, most scientists do not think this at all.

Most, I think, will readily acknowledge that they are talking about this blob that apparently resulted from the Big Bang. It more than likely is finite -- and may be expanding.

But is it the UNIVERSE -- or is the universe?

That we do not know -- and without knowing that, we cannot say anything about the UNIVERSE.

The rapidly, and acceleratingly expanding thing we call the universe may be a tiny speck in the real UNIVERSE...but there is no way we can know anything about that currently.

We do not know anything about what came before the Big Bang -- and the conjecture that there was nothing -- and that the "nothing" was a special kind of nothing that had the capacity to become something -- and that time and space and timespace all came into being blah, blah, blah...

...is just that CONJECTURE.


Scientists don't really know appreciably more about the reality of existence than do religious leaders -- and the guesses of scientists, while admittedly based on much more study and open-mindedness -- are not appreciably better -- or more reliable -- than the guesses of the religious leaders.

Yeah! None'a y'all know NUTHIN'!

Frank, You and I and several others have attempted to run this through several times before.

We can easily define Our Observable Universe. It's as far as we can see; period.

That makes it finite in dimensions and possibly time. But there is no evidence that it ever began. There is also no evidence that that is all there is. But there is some indication that there may be a bit more to it.

The evidence that it is expanding requires math that I seem unable to do now. Perhaps nobody can do it. I have not found anybody that has done it.

Hopefully ebrown knows somebody that has figured it out and will share that information with us.

Since, in your post, you seem to assume that there was a Big Bang, and that Our Observable Universe is Expanding, may I assume that you are getting religion

Chaiyah and Greenlee will be so pleased.
Best all.

P.S. Frank, Maybe we'd ought to scratch that "openminded " remark of yours. M.

I have a quesiton for all you scientific types out there. If our concept of time on earth is based on the rotation of earth, but we see other plants and galaxies, is time based on 'our' concept of time, or are there other concepts of time beyond ours? Can it be that our millions of years is only a fraction of what we perceive time to be? c.i.

I have a quesiton for all you scientific types out there. If our concept of time on earth is based on the rotation of earth, but we see other plants and galaxies, is time based on 'our' concept of time, or are there other concepts of time beyond ours? Can it be that our millions of years is only a fraction of what we perceive time to be? c.i.

I have a quesiton for all you scientific types out there. If our concept of time on earth is based on the rotation of earth, but we see other plants and galaxies, is time based on 'our' concept of time, or are there other concepts of time beyond ours? Can it be that our millions of years is only a fraction of what we perceive time to be? c.i.

I have a quesiton for all you scientific types out there. If our concept of time on earth is based on the rotation of earth, but we see other plants and galaxies, is time based on 'our' concept of time, or are there other concepts of time beyond ours? Can it be that our millions of years is only a fraction of what we perceive time to be? c.i.

you really do want an answer! don't you C.I. (you just keep on asking)

Actually the "time" we use on earth (sidereal) is merely a convenient series of celestial events worked down mathematically to define the "second". I should say "was" as this basic unit is now defined via the speed of vibration of an atom ( not sure which one) at a specific set of defining environmental criteria.

But one must remember, it means nothing; it is merely a measuring device!

As a foot, or 30 cm. +/- has no magical importance, but helps immeasurably to discuss "size"

I posted at a time when either my isp or A2K was having some problems. I didn't mean to post it more than once, but it got out of my control - so it seems. Thanks for answering my q. c.i.