Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Should we explore the universe?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Mark Davis Commentator Mark Davis says we should:

This week is a perfect time to stoke the dormant embers of the wonder we once felt. A vehicle crafted by human hands has just left the solar system after visiting Pluto, sending us crisp photographs of a world 3 billion miles away. Just 50 short years ago, we had never sent anything out of Earth orbit.

But on a sunny morning in Florida 46 years ago this week, three Americans left our world to set foot on another. I was 11 for the launch of Apollo 11. Neil Armstrong’s July 20, 1969 footprint on the moon’s Sea of Tranquillity was in the middle of my summer between sixth and seventh grade. More.

I remember those times too. Science was about doing stuff, not imagining stuff.

I’d sure rather explore the universe than the multiverse. At least we know the universe exists somewhere outside our own minds.

For why the multiverse probably exists only in our minds, go here. Hint: Why did it need to be true in the first place?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Thanks, 55rebel. I actually did read the part about the Sagnac effect, but assumed you were referring to something else, because it is incorrect. Max von Laue actually predicted this phenomenon using special relativity two years before Sagnac observed it. No knowledgeable person today interprets the Sagnac effect as being evidence against relativity. I have no idea why Amesbury included this stuff in his paper. Regarding the VSL theories referred to by Magueijo, even he refers to them as "scientific speculation". There are also a lot of them, some of which he even calls "Lorentz invariant" (!) If one of these theories is developed further and finds experimental support, fine, but currently it's out on the fringes. I also noticed the late Tom Van Flandern's name in the paper in connection with the speed of propagation of gravity. Amesbury fails to mention that the 18th century theory of gravity that Van Flandern subscribed to was rejected long ago. (Not to mention Van Flandern was a Cydonia crackpot toward the end of his life). It looks like Amesbury has no idea what he's talking about, and is motivated only by hatred for Einstein, along with the anti-Semitism, unfortunately.daveS
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
daveS: "Can you please point to the specific passage where he does this?" "2. In 1913, French physicist Georges Sagnac (1869-1926), used a rotating interferometer to conclusively establish experimentally that the speed of light is not constant to all observers. The Earth at its equator is like a large rotating disk with a speed of 463.8 m/s to the east. Many tests have proven that, because of this Sagnac effect, the velocity of electromagnetic radio signals from GPS satellites is unequal in east-west directions. This irrefutably invalidates the hypothesis that c is constant to all observers.39" And... Not that there is any such thing as a Black Hole, but... "5. Generally accepted by astronomers, modern black hole theory also discredits this postulate. A black hole is hypothesized to be an extremely dense, compact interstellar object which has such a powerful gravitational field that even light cannot escape from it—hence it is black.46 Wherefore, if a light beam were to enter the gravitational field of a black hole, it would not be able to exit. According to the calculations of Cambridge-trained theoretical physicist Joao Magueijo, PhD and his VSL (varying speed of light) model, at the horizon of a Black Hole c may be reduced to zero—light photons may stop entirely.47 It is reasonable to assume that before gravitational attraction of the Black Hole stops a light beam, it must slow it down first. Hence, the velocity of the light cannot be constant." Also... "In 1851, Fizeau also found that when a beam of light is passed through flowing water, the velocity of light is greater when it is flowing downstream with the flow, and lesser when it is flowing upstream against the flow." daveS, stop being lazy, and just read the article, because it spells this out in more ways than one--directly and indirectly, via demonstrative evidence by various researchers.55rebel
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Mapou 49 Hey, Mapou. The history of Muslim thought is a fascinating subject, especially how it relates to their cultural development. The best book I've read on the subject is "The Closing of the Muslim Mind" by Rick Reilly. He points to the victory of Asharite theology over the Mutazalites around 1,000 AD as hugely significant in why Muslim societies eventually became cultural and scientific backwaters. The Asharites emphasized the idea that God was Power and Will. Thus, He controls and dictates all things; secondary causes do not exist. What we call "natural laws" are just God's habits ("ada"); today striking a match is followed by a flame, tomorrow it could be frost. it's totally up to the whim of Allah. Thus, there is no such thing as cause and effect, and no reason to assume the universe is a rational place of uniform laws. Reilly points out this idea stems from a fundamentally unknowable and irrational God. Indeed, a rational, law-giving God is "shirk", blasphemy, because He would then be bound by rationality, and God is bound by nothing. Without rational, uniform natural laws, science cannot be done. Doubly so since in Islam we are not created in God's image so cannot be expected to think the thoughts of God after Him, as Kepler put it. The very idea is shirk, which is why Pakistan banned weather forecasts for a time in the 1980s.anthropic
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
rebel55,
If you had read the critical introduction to relativity, you would now know why, and that it wasn’t just an assertion. It’s pretty much spelled out for you, within. Is this how you assert all your confused replies, by randomly picking out a paragraph and responding based upon that single paragraph?
Can you please point to the specific passage where he does this?daveS
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
kf @34, "it is also reasonable to recognise that there is a reason behind the generally accepted framework." Yeah, just like the generally accepted framework in Galileo's time! An accepted framework based upon a flawed foundation.55rebel
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
daveS: "Any relativity skeptics want to explain why it’s nonsense, rather than simply asserting so?" If you had read the critical introduction to relativity, you would now know why, and that it wasn't just an assertion. It's pretty much spelled out for you, within. Is this how you assert all your confused replies, by randomly picking out a paragraph and responding based upon that single paragraph? And... "The last two paragraphs of the paper that 55rebel linked to are quite revealing: " Nothing like throwing out the baby with the bathwater...55rebel
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
anthropic:
Mapou 46 ” Objects that appear to be moving at ordinary speeds are actually not moving at all most of the time. Movement consists of tiny quantum jumps interspersed with rests. Why? Because the universe is discrete.” This sounds very much like occasionalism, a doctrine of orthodox Sunni Muslims. Basically they argue that motion is an illusion; when a man “throws” a ball, God (Allah) destroys and recreates the universe at every instant with the ball in a slightly different location.
Very interesting. I would not dismiss it out of hand just because it came from Sunni Muslims. Understanding motion is not nearly as simple as you think. Modern physicists have no clue as to why a particle in inertial motion remains in motion. Think about it. If a particle moves it must go from one state to another. How does a particle transform itself from A to B. Somehow A must disappear and make room for B. Change is necessarily the process of destroying the old and constructing the new. It makes sense to suppose, however, that nature must have access to both states. My own preferred theory is slightly different than the one you mentioned in that both A (the before) and B (the after) exists simultaneously. I call this dual state the present or the now. During a transformation, B becomes A and the old A is replaced by a new B. The problem is that no particle can create or destroy itself. Something else must do it. What could it be? I have an idea but this is not the forum for it.
If true, cause and effect are severed. Science is dead.
I don't see why this is true. If anything, it gives them a plausible mechanism for cause and effect. A change is nature's way of correcting a violation to a conservation principle. Something must be responsible for the change.
Which, of course, it has been in Muslim societies for centuries.
Muslims were not always like this. They used to be much more liberal and very much in love with knowledge and the arts. But all organized religions eventually degenerate into crap.Mapou
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Mapou 46 " Objects that appear to be moving at ordinary speeds are actually not moving at all most of the time. Movement consists of tiny quantum jumps interspersed with rests. Why? Because the universe is discrete." This sounds very much like occasionalism, a doctrine of orthodox Sunni Muslims. Basically they argue that motion is an illusion; when a man "throws" a ball, God (Allah) destroys and recreates the universe at every instant with the ball in a slightly different location. If true, cause and effect are severed. Science is dead. Which, of course, it has been in Muslim societies for centuries.anthropic
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
kf @34,
It is rational to consider limitations and issues as well as alternatives, but it is also reasonable to recognise that there is a reason behind the generally accepted framework.
Just out of curiosity - given all the problems with all current cosmological models including the 10-20By Big Bang model (e.g. quantized redshifts, CMB horizon problem, lack of any evidence of "young" galaxies or star formation in process, Arp's quasars, etc., etc.), wouldn't you agree that this is a bit like saying "the accepted framework is the worst theory, except for all the others"?drc466
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
daveS @45, That site is obviously anti-semitic. While I agree that Einsteinian physics will one day disappear (most of it is BS) and that Einstein did become a sort of hero/savior for Jews worldwide, I understand why they did it: self-preservation under persecution. I have no problem with Zionism for this reason. It's a form of self defence. But I think Jews should put their faith elsewhere, IMO. Einsteinian physics is bad because nothing can move in Einstein's spacetime and relativists still can't understand that time is not a variable by definition. Among other equally awful things. PS. I also disagree with that page about the speed of light limit. In fact, I don't think it's a limit at all. It is the only possible speed in the universe, period. Nothing can move slower or faster. Objects that appear to be moving at ordinary speeds are actually not moving at all most of the time. Movement consists of tiny quantum jumps interspersed with rests. Why? Because the universe is discrete.Mapou
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
The last two paragraphs of the paper that 55rebel linked to are quite revealing:
"Einstein's theory of relativity" is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy, and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists' jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact. Scientific theories come and go. It is about time "Einstein's theory of relativity" went. Special Relativity and Zionism will fall together because they are inseparable. The day will come when nobody even mentions either of them anymore. Physicists need only scrap the erroneous hypotheses of length contraction, time dilation, mass distortion, the c speed limit, space-time and curved space, and science will be reasonable and back on track again.
:|daveS
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Wow. That's good stuff. Random quote from page 11:
Now imagine yourself as the pilot of a jet aircraft with a horn and a headlight in its nose cone. You are flying at 650 mph. If you sound the horn, because sound travels at about 700 mph, the sound is only traveling 50 mph faster than you are. Yet, according to relativity theory apologists, if you turned the headlight on, because c is supposed to be constant within any reference frame, the light beam would travel at c ahead of you, not c minus 650 mph. This is patent, unmitigated nonsense.
Any relativity skeptics want to explain why it's nonsense, rather than simply asserting so?daveS
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
A critical introduction to Einsteins theory of relativity, written by a non-scientist for other non-scientists who have some intellectual curiosity about this famous theory, with pictures in it and 140 references and citations to authority. 30 pages: http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf Trust me.... well worth the read. An excerpt... "Thirdly, the reader should know that this equation had been derived before, and is hence not dependant upon, special relativity. Albert did not derive this formula from his special theory of relativity, but from Maxwell?s equation for electromagnetic radiation pressure, which was published in the 1860s. Thompson, Heaviside, Hertz, Lorentz, and Poincare derived this equation for the kinetic energy of an electron, also without reference to relativity theory. Both Carl Zapffe in 1982 and Milan Pavlovic in 1994 have meticulously and independently demonstrated that this equation can be derived by classical means a without reference to special relativity.[80] Wherefore, this equation cannot be considered a product of, or even a part of, relativity theory. The relationship E=mc 2 “arises just as readily from Maxwellian field theory and the momentum conservation law—as Einstein himself admitted in a generally overlooked essay written during his later years.”[81]55rebel
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Mung, you are absolutely correct. However, nature is a little bit more complicated than that. It is impossible to measure superluminal speeds by any means. Why? It's because the speed of light is already factored in the physics of our measuring instruments. It's like using a ruler to measure itself. You always get the same answer regardless of the actual length of the ruler. Therefore, our interpretation (accelerated expansion) of the redshift data is wrong. It has nothing to do with speed. It's probably a good measure of distance, though. As Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, "Well, Mung, it just goes to show you, it's always something — if it ain't one thing, it's another."Mapou
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Mapou: You obviously believe in superluminal travel. Good luck with that. No, I just don't believe that if you and I start at the same location on I-10 and you head east at 60 mph and I head west at 60 mph that I should pay any particular attention to someone who says it's just not possible for either of us to travel faster than 60mph, therefore we can't be 120 miles apart after an hour. But then, I'm no cosmopolitan.Mung
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
55rebel, This paper explains how the fact that we can observe galaxies receding at velocities greater than c does not violate either SR or GR.daveS
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
"Mapou: …accelerated expansion would mean that the farthest stars/galaxies are moving away from us as speeds greater than the speed of light." Mung: "So?" So, can this be replicated here on planet earth? If not, then Why not? We create explosions all the time: tiny ones, little ones, medium ones, big ones, and ungodly huge ones. If space is expanding--exponentially so, as you/they claim, then it would be logical to expect, that it would be happening right 'here' also; but alas, they all fizzle out-- inversely so.... Please, Do explain the discrimination. Thanks55rebel
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
"and ion effects happen, but..." It's amazing how you can brush aside 90% of what this universe consist of, as being insignificant in its effect.... Funny *giggles* Allllrightly-then.55rebel
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
KF:
Mung, the expansion is of space itself;
I have heard this before. There is no science in it, of course. Space is made of what again? What is the composition of space and has anybody succeeded in isolating the particles that comprise space? The answer is no, of course. Why? Because space is abstract. It does not exist except as a figment in the imaginations of eternally delusional relativists. To Mung: You obviously believe in superluminal travel. Good luck with that.Mapou
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Mung, the expansion is of space itself; hence my expanding, baking raisin-laced bun comparison. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Mapou: ...accelerated expansion would mean that the farthest stars/galaxies are moving away from us as speeds greater than the speed of light. So?Mung
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
55R: I have already pointed to the core issue on any scattering model, its stochastic character and implications for spectral lines and definition of distant objects. That starts with things as familiar as dust or smoke. The observations indicate that the dominant effect is sharp, red-shifted spectral lines and sharp images of extremely distant objects. Yes, some "dust" cloud and ion effects happen, but the dominant pattern far better fits Doppler-like red shifting due to relative motion. I have also pointed to the HR framework, the physics of large H-rich gas balls, and their further implications. The case of the HR diagrams of clusters. Those support a stellar age framework of on the order of 1 - 10 BY, fitting the 10 - 20 BY framework for cosmological age. Which fits the Hubble expansion framework. It is rational to consider limitations and issues as well as alternatives, but it is also reasonable to recognise that there is a reason behind the generally accepted framework. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
"I suggest you ponder diverse views on the tired light thesis. For instance: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html also: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm" Yeah, I'm way ahead of you on that one; been there done that. Nothing but outdated, and in many ways just plain blatantly false info. Good Luck with that. Instead of trying to debunk those sites here, I'll just hand you over to Michael, who is much better than I at this sort of thing. Follow some of his links.... you'll soon begin to get the picture.... if, of course, you aren't one of those who are blissfully content on being willfully ignorant of reality. Once you gain a basic understanding of plasma physics, and the fact that our universe is something like 90% plasma, and the Huge role it plays in what we observe out there, you'll never return to BB land again, and you'll actually see it for what it really is... just plain silly. http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6305&sid=d68d7dba3ce95ebf806762d790d3e436&start=75 I'll just stick with what I know to be closest to reality--PC/EU/TL, and pass, on the metaphysics--BB, inflation, dark matter/energy, etc... Thanks for that Mapou.... glad to see, that you see some light in my madness :P55rebel
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
I now realize that I had earlier misunderstood 55rebel's position. I agree with 55rebel that the evidence for accelerated expansion is flimsy and even contradictory. For one, accelerated expansion would mean that the farthest stars/galaxies are moving away from us as speeds greater than the speed of light.Mapou
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Thanks for your posts KF.Mung
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
55R: Once light goes through a medium with scattering centres, such as dust, molecules, electrons etc, it will scatter, and in scattering there will be loss of direction [thus blurring and breakup eventually of images . . . think smoke or fog as a low end case], also the definition of spectral lines will suffer, and there will be frequency-/ wavelength-sensitive effects. A common case is the blue sky and the reddish sunrise/sunset. Red, being scattered less than blue. So, indeed, there will be an issue that if scattering effects are dominant, there will be an expected loss of definition of increasingly distant objects. But as you noted, we do not see this. Likewise, the spectral lines that show red shifts are still fairly crisp rather than showing the degree of stochastic smearing out that would be expected of a random scattering process. I suggest you ponder diverse views on the tired light thesis. For instance: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/kierein.html also: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm and here vs here: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/ On balance, an expanding universe framework, though not itself without challenges is the best explanation of the pattern of phenomena we have. And, whether or no you are inclined to accept it, there is a significant body of evidence that backs a stellar lifespan- mass-luminosity- spectrum- HR model, which then matches a lot of things, most strikingly the branch from main sequence to the giants branches seen for stellar clusters. Which, supports the 10 - 20 BY framework for cosmological age, consistent with the ~ 14 BY frame that expansion patterns have long pointed to. So, while it is rational to ponder alternatives, we must also reckon with the pattern of observations out there that have led to the dominant cosmological view. This one is not a case of ideology imposing itself on evidence. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
55rebel @27, Your reasoning is something special. I'm wasting your time and mine. See you around.Mapou
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
"One word: scattering." One word: ignorance. If that was the word kairosfocus, then we could not see, with any clarity, much beyond our own galaxy, let alone, within this galaxy....do the math. There is only one logical solution to this dilemma, and that would be... that the ultra-cold plasma is acting like a glass....transmitting the photon in the same direction as received, without scatter.55rebel
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
that's funny, I could have sworn that the law of probability, within the scope that we are analyzing here, was NOT a level playing field. Please, do a Google search on the "probability curve". Sorry, but your logic is severely compromised here. Is there other reactions going on, besides photon > electron reactions? Wow, no shit Sherlock, but what does that have to do with the fact of the photon > electron event and its byproduct?! This is NOT an opinion. Sorry if you don't get the analogy, but it IS a valid one. Simply put... your statistics suck. Meaning... No connection to the observed reality/facts, period.55rebel
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
55rebel:
“This mean that the redshift will be the same for all photons over a very long distance.” But yet… the evidence–the observed photon redshift spread, and probability curve, state otherwise. BTW, this isn’t an argument…. only facts. It is correct to say, that every photon has the same chance, but this Does not mean that every photon will. This is like saying/claiming that “every man is created equal”….. BTW, how is that working out for you/us?
I don't get the analogy. Sorry. It does not make sense to me. And it's more than just facts. The interpretation is that the spread is caused by unequal electron interactions among photons. This is an interpretation, not a fact. There are many more things in empty space than electrons. EM waves are all over the place and photon-photon interactions are also possible. Statistical averages over huge distances are pretty solid. It's like flipping a coin a trillion times. Over the long run, there will be an almost equal number of heads and tails. The difference will be insignificant. The laws of probability guarantee this. So, at least in my opinion, the accepted interpretation of the cause of the redshift spread is likely mistaken.Mapou
July 18, 2015
July
07
Jul
18
18
2015
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply