1Heidegger1!
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2021
- Messages
- 219
- Basic Beliefs
- Theoretical Agnostic / Pragmatic Atheist
-
Features
Maybe The Universe Isn't Expanding?
- Thread starter 1Heidegger1!
- Start date
DBT
Contributor
Looks like an amendment:
"Editor's note: This article was corrected at 1:30 p.m. ET on June 20, to reflect that redshift is evidence of cosmic expansion, but not evidence of accelerated cosmic expansion."
"Editor's note: This article was corrected at 1:30 p.m. ET on June 20, to reflect that redshift is evidence of cosmic expansion, but not evidence of accelerated cosmic expansion."
Shadowy Man
Contributor
I’d have to see the actual science paper but I wonder if they address all the other evidences besides redshift for the expansion of the universe, like the cosmic background radiation and its redshift-dependent temperature.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
An expanding universe is a way of explaining observation, observation limited by our ability to detect photons. Phenomena we can not detecT we can not know.
Someone argued with me the BB is absolute truth and if we wrere at the bounds of observation we would see what cosmology predicts.
It would appear some who consider themselves grounded in science can have a faith similar to religion. Faith in an unprofitable scientific hypothesis.
I am a skeptic. From Popper that which can be called objective science is that which can be experimentally demonstrated and tested. Cosmology is not testable. Newton's Laws and asects of QM can be tested.
After a long period of debate on the forum I came to believe science, religion, and philosophy converge on cosmology.
Science shows have differnt spins on what expanding universe means.
One spin is the universe is not expanding into something, the space between points is expanding.
The BB was not a centralized event, it was everywhere.
Some take science as reality as theists take supernatural religion as reality.
From an obscure group General Semantics i picked up 'The map is not he countryside.' I see science as a map, not realiy.
Someone argued with me the BB is absolute truth and if we wrere at the bounds of observation we would see what cosmology predicts.
It would appear some who consider themselves grounded in science can have a faith similar to religion. Faith in an unprofitable scientific hypothesis.
I am a skeptic. From Popper that which can be called objective science is that which can be experimentally demonstrated and tested. Cosmology is not testable. Newton's Laws and asects of QM can be tested.
After a long period of debate on the forum I came to believe science, religion, and philosophy converge on cosmology.
Science shows have differnt spins on what expanding universe means.
One spin is the universe is not expanding into something, the space between points is expanding.
The BB was not a centralized event, it was everywhere.
Some take science as reality as theists take supernatural religion as reality.
From an obscure group General Semantics i picked up 'The map is not he countryside.' I see science as a map, not realiy.
DBT
Contributor
''The observation that the universe appears to run slower in the past was made by scrutinizing the light emitted by gigantic quasars.''
Astronomers have peered back to the dawn of the cosmos to observe time ticking five times more slowly in the early universe than it does now — finally proving a prediction that Albert Einstein made more than a century ago.
Researchers spotted the extreme slow-motion effect in data taken from bright cosmic beacons known as quasars dating to when the universe was just 1 billion years old — less than one-tenth its current age. The researchers published their findings July 3 in the journal Nature Astronomy.''
www.livescience.com
Astronomers have peered back to the dawn of the cosmos to observe time ticking five times more slowly in the early universe than it does now — finally proving a prediction that Albert Einstein made more than a century ago.
Researchers spotted the extreme slow-motion effect in data taken from bright cosmic beacons known as quasars dating to when the universe was just 1 billion years old — less than one-tenth its current age. The researchers published their findings July 3 in the journal Nature Astronomy.''
Celestial 'fireworks displays' show the mind-binding effect of time dilation — proving Einstein right again
The observation that the universe appears to run slower in the past was made by scrutinizing the light emitted by gigantic quasars.
www.livescience.com
Science is a method of using our guesses about the nature of reality to create technology, via engineering?
Elixir
Made in America
Science is not the truth, it is a methodology for converging on the truth.
There are no guarantees that applying the scientific method will deliver pat answers to all questions - or ANY specific question, but it will enable one to eliminate much of what is NOT the truth. Whatever is left, per Einstein, must include the truth.
Cosmology is as legitimate as any other so-called “branch” of science, insofar as it makes predictions (e.g. CMBR) that can falsify or support hypotheses. It is just another facet of physics, at the end of the day.
There are no guarantees that applying the scientific method will deliver pat answers to all questions - or ANY specific question, but it will enable one to eliminate much of what is NOT the truth. Whatever is left, per Einstein, must include the truth.
Cosmology is as legitimate as any other so-called “branch” of science, insofar as it makes predictions (e.g. CMBR) that can falsify or support hypotheses. It is just another facet of physics, at the end of the day.
Exactly Elixir.
All people make up philosophy to help "center" themselves. We all do it. Its just that some of us say "Why don't we use what we do know to make up stuff." With the understanding that we can change our minds when new data is presented.
Scientist are people first. People that record events and try to make sense of them. They have the exact same flaws, as a group, that everybody else does. 'xept we just use what we "think" we know to make up stuff.
All people make up philosophy to help "center" themselves. We all do it. Its just that some of us say "Why don't we use what we do know to make up stuff." With the understanding that we can change our minds when new data is presented.
Scientist are people first. People that record events and try to make sense of them. They have the exact same flaws, as a group, that everybody else does. 'xept we just use what we "think" we know to make up stuff.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
When I say the BB is a good theory not necessarily the absolute truth some react like a theist defending creationism.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
We all philosophize to one degree another,we all need a working paradigm of how reality works to be able to function.And we all compartmentalize, categorize, and pigeonhole things to get our arms around complex things. Reductionism.
There is theatrical science, like an AE in front of a black board working out a new idea.
There is applied scince like industrial chemistry, biology, and so forth inclusive of engineering. But the line betwen theoretical and apllied science is not hard and fast. It is fluid.