On 6/17/2017 8:07 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
I believe the theory of the "expanding universe", as well as the "Big
Bang" is disproved through empirical evidence.
There is certainly evidence that contradicts them, and also that that supports
them. Neither proved nor disproved, I'd say.
Both are directly related and intrinsically linked.
Yup
Newton theorized that the universe is mostly static, with standard
soup-stirring activity moving stuff around. Newton's theory didn't
really accommodate the concept of the Big Bang.
Never thought of such a thing, to be for or against.
The Big Bang is a theory designed to make us feel good about how everything had
a beginning.
That seems a little unfair. It's a fairly straightforward conclusion from the
assumptions about the speed at which the Universe is expanding. Assuming that
is correct, gotta come up with a plausible reason and the math to back it up.
Not that I understand the math, but I think it's good, based on it's
assumptions. I don't think the physicists and mathematicians were consciously
making up a nice creation story.
OTOH, Jung used alchemical texts to investigate the contents of the human
unconscious, as he believed that, absent empirical evidence, we project our
internal material onto the outside world, assuming it is both actually out
there and accurate. Rather than, or in addition to, internal investigation with
his Depth Psychology, he could study our psyches in those writings.
So sure, psychologically, finding a Creation Story for Scientism different from
those of the many religions, and reflecting the internal psychological Big Bang
of birth and/or the birth of my individual consciousness, seems likely. That my
internal process may have led to looking in that direction doesn't make the
theory itself right or wrong.
Einstein, Hubble, and others have built their theories
around the concept of expansion and observable limits.
Muddled. Hubble didn't believe in an expanding Universe. Others took his
discoveries to mean that, but not Hubble.
However, in order to DISPROVE Newton,
I don't think anyone wants do disprove Newton. His laws of motion are correct at all speeds less than a significant % of
the speed of light. OTOH, there has been empirical proof of the different results of Einstein's Theories that obtain at
higher speeds, but only there.
From Wikipedia:
"Albert Einstein kept a picture of Newton on his study wall alongside ones of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell.
Newton remains influential to today's scientists, as demonstrated by a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society
(formerly headed by Newton) asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Einstein. Royal
Society scientists deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution. In 1999, an opinion poll of 100 of
today's leading physicists voted Einstein the "greatest physicist ever;" with Newton the runner-up, while a parallel
survey of rank-and-file physicists by the site PhysicsWeb gave the top spot to Newton."
Does that sound like folks who want to DISPROVE Newton?
we have to fudge things with Cosmological Constants
More muddle. "Earlier, in 1917, Albert Einstein had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity
indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were
telling him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant (a "fudge factor") to the equations to avoid this "problem".
When Einstein learned of Hubble's redshifts*, he immediately realized that the expansion predicted by General Relativity
must be real, and in later life he said that changing his equations was "the biggest blunder of [his] life. . . .
Einstein apparently once visited Hubble and tried to convince him that the universe was expanding."
* Wikipedia muddle: They weren't "Hubble's redshifts". "In 1929, Hubble examined the relation between distance and
redshift of galaxies. Combining his measurements of galaxy distances with measurements of the redshifts of the galaxies
by Vesto Slipher, and by his assistant Milton L. Humason, he found a roughly linear relation between the distances of
the galaxies and their redshifts, a discovery that later became known as Hubble's law."
and Dark Matter. Neither of which exist, except to fudge the numbers to make
things fit.
As I said, I tend to agree about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Hubble did, too, in effect: 'To the very end of his
writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion
exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."', about which I
speculated.
Who Knows Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|