The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[SkyWriting]

So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.

If your looking for "Mom", Christmas dinner does not
explain "Mom", but there is nothing wrong with using
your fork and doing a careful analysis.

After a couple of hours, you'll have some good insider
tips on what life is about.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is not a belief. It is a hypothesis.

Often we have to wait for the tools to falsify the hypothesis. The hypothesis of the existence of atoms had to wait 2500 years for the tools to find.

It seems you need to study definitions.

A hypothesis has to be testable.

So far all you have is cosmology equations that don't work - for which one conjecture is dark matter - a sticking plaster so big it is way bigger than the body of observable matter.

It is just conjecture for those who are not sure, and Pure belief for those who assume it is true. It is also the only game in town, but that doesn't make it the solution.

Until there is a specific form for dark matter that can be tested it isn't a hypothesis. All you have is a hole in the theory of cosmology, not yet a valid hypothesis. Most conjectured forms cause violations of other physics, so just finding a dark matter model that could exist with rest of physics has so far evaded physics,
( Or that was the case last time I looked at it-maybe something has changed)

 

[Mountainmike]

If you had read what I said attentively it was a massive philosophical distinction.

What I said was " it models what the universe DOES"
( and being more precise - what it is normally OBSERVED to do - because limitations of senses, projections, and repetition matter)

The point of the thread is to wholly CONTRADICT your phrase
" it models what the universe IS" It most surely does not!
It abstracts only what it is seen to do. It cannot know what it IS.

Try to understand the distinction. It is the point.

Your point on the philosophical context of religion is also not correct, but that's a different discussion.

Of course, scientific knowledge is incomplete. I'm sure it always will be. But that's what makes it so exciting. There will always be gaps to fill in, and new discoveries to make. The thrill of science is not so much in the destination as it is in the journey.

This is also what makes good science superior to religious belief. Religious doctrine is static. It doesn't change and it will never (or hardly ever) admit it was wrong. Good science will readily concede that all knowledge is tentative. And it will self-correct when the evidence demands it.

Science models the universe as it really is. Religion models the universe as it hopes it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But that does not make the model the universe.

Who says it does?
I'ld say that the current models at any given time, is humanities best attempt of approximation of what the universe is.

Scientific progress, the refining of the models, is humanities effort on zero-ing in on the true nature of the universe. Will we one day get to that point? Maybe, but I consider it unlikely. I think there will always be more to learn and I also think that there are things that we simply will never know.

Physics is a suit of clothes on a body. It is not the body. And in places, (like armpits) , it doesnt fit very well!

And the scientific mission, is to continue to work to make it fit ever better.
And it is the best we can do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science models the universe as it really is. Religion models the universe as it hopes it is.

 

[Radagast]

I have a good friend who is one of those. Conducting a symphony orchestra is his part time job. Running the library computer network at a major university is his day job.

I think I've met him. He's from Germania, isn't he?

 

[Dave-W]

I think I've met him. He's from Germania, isn't he?

No, He is from (originally) Cincinnati.

He plays first chair bassoon in the Lansing, Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids (MI) symphonies; and part time fills in as conductor in the Grand Rapids organization.

 

[Radagast]

No, He is from (originally) Cincinnati.

OK, that joke fell flat.

 

[jayem]

The point of the thread is to wholly CONTRADICT your phrase
" it models what the universe IS" It most surely does not!
It abstracts only what it is seen to do. It cannot know what it IS.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand what you're getting at. I suppose I have to paraphrase an ex-President: What do you mean by "IS?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It seems you need to study definitions.

A hypothesis has to be testable.

So far all you have is cosmology equations that don't work - for which one conjecture is dark matter - a sticking plaster so big it is way bigger than the body of observable matter.

It is just conjecture for those who are not sure, and Pure belief for those who assume it is true. It is also the only game in town, but that doesn't make it the solution.

Until there is a specific form for dark matter that can be tested it isn't a hypothesis. All you have is a hole in the theory of cosmology, not yet a valid hypothesis. Most conjectured forms cause violations of other physics, so just finding a dark matter model that could exist with rest of physics has so far evaded physics,
( Or that was the case last time I looked at it-maybe something has changed)

Agreed, It is pseudoscience - Fairie Dust.

But it isn't the only game in town. It is only the game they will consider while ignoring a universe 99.9% plasma and instead treating it like a planetary system of non-ionized solids, liquids and gasses with the wrong physics......

Galaxy formation - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

[1806.05001] The galactic rotation curve of a magnetized plasma cloud

"The rotation curve of a magnetized plasma cloud orbiting in the gravitational potential of a galaxy is calculated by statistical arguments. The working assumption is that a mild magnetic field, decreasing with distance from the galactic center, permeates space. It is shown that the resulting probability density is compatible with a flat rotation curve."

Magnetic fields as an alternative explanation for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies

"Here we argue that an azimuthal magnetic field can carry slightly ionized gas with the general galactic rotation, rendering dark matter unnecessary (a related idea was first proposed by Nelson1). For the illustrative case of M31, a magnetic field of 6 μG is required, and the synchrotron emission of relativistic electrons in this field is compatible with the observations."

So as soon as the rest stop ignoring a universe 99.9% plasma and start using the correct physics, we can do away with all that Pseudo-scientific Fairie Dust.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is not Manhattan:

View attachment 245186

It's a street map of Manhattan. It's a graphic representation that's useful for predicting a location. If you want to find Trump Tower, which is on 5th Avenue, south of 57th St., this will accurately show you where to go.

Am I missing the point? Seems to me this thread is just stating the obvious.

Except your example backs the OP.

That map is woefully inadequate in describing the reality as neighborhoods change. Buildings demolished and new ones built.

It is but a poor substitute of the reality which contains living creatures, cars and constant change.

Yes, you might find an address to a business, or find it has moved or the building even torn down.

The model is not the reality....

 

[jayem]

Except your example backs the OP.

That map is woefully inadequate in describing the reality as neighborhoods change. Buildings demolished and new ones built.

It is but a poor substitute of the reality which contains living creatures, cars and constant change.

Of course. That's why maps are updated to account for changes. Which also happens in science. As I said, good science admits when it's inaccurate and will correct itself when new findings demand it. As opposed to religious dogma which will never admit to error, no matter how much change occurs.

The model is not the reality....

Agreed. And the religiously informed model is far, far more removed from reality than the scientific one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course. That's why maps are updated to account for changes. Which also happens in science. As I said, good science admits when it's inaccurate and will correct itself when new findings demand it. As opposed to religious dogma which will never admit to error, no matter how much change occurs.

So you keep saying, yet in 80 years of null result after null result after null result, the pseudo scientists refuse to give up their Fairie Dust Dark Matter. But I do agree with you, “good” science corrects itself, while dogmatic adherents refuse to give up their “bad” pseudoscience.

Agreed. And the religiously informed model is far, far more removed from reality than the scientific one.

Except it fits all observations......

Oh, you mean if we ignore that “God stretched out the heavens”? That part?

Or that every fossil remains the same for each type of creature across millions of years? That part?

Orbacteria always remain bacteria and fruit flies always remain fruit flies? That part?

Which reality do you see it as removed from, the one where “missing common ancestors” exist to connect separate creatures that were never connected? That reality?

Or the reality where Hubble’s Law demands that recessional velocity be directly correlated to redshift to determine distance, but now the redshift is caused by expanding nothing and so distances can not be determined by Hubble’s Law? That reality?

Or the reality that GR is 99.8% accurate inside the solar system without Fairie Dust, yet that accuracy is then ignored and 95% ad-hoc theory is added to it outside the solar system? This reality?

I’m not sure you occupy the same “reality” as the universe does.....

 

[dgiharris]

I really am not sure what the point of this thread is???

As near as I can tell, the main point is simply that science does not describe the reality of the universe with 100% accuracy.

OK. Agreed, the universe is billions of years old, mankind's science is only a few thousand years old so we have some catching up to do.

However, the real question is? Is science useful? And if so, how useful?
And I would argue that science is very useful and responsible for our species' domination of this planet.

The next point I want to discuss is the disdain those in this thread feel towards cosmology and the inaccuracies of cosmology...

I am willing to give cosmology all the leeway in the world because cosmology uses science, scientific principles, and scientific methodology in its pursuit of truth... Obviously there are limits to the experiments that can be done and the observations that can be made, but with time we will develop better tools enabling said experiments... But in the mean time, I have no problem "trusting" cosmology. But why? Why trust and believe in all that Farie Dust?

Simple. Science has earned that trust.

Take a look around you. No, literally look around you. See that pencil? See that pen? See that paper clip? See that plastic bag, that Smart Phone, that adjustable chair, that television... We are surrounded, nay, inundated with millions if not billions of man-hours of scientific research and development. Every single thing in our lives is in some way, shape, or form linked to science.

So it has earned my trust, especially since science is self correcting and has very little problem admitting when it is wrong in the face of a better model or evidence or data...

SO does science get the universe 100% right 100% of the time in 100% of all circumstances? No, not even close.

However, that isn't the proper question.
--The proper question is "Is Science Useful and if so how useful?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I really am not sure what the point of this thread is???

As near as I can tell, the main point is simply that science does not describe the reality of the universe with 100% accuracy.

OK. Agreed, the universe is billions of years old, mankind's science is only a few thousand years old so we have some catching up to do.

However, the real question is? Is science useful? And if so, how useful?
And I would argue that science is very useful and responsible for our species' domination of this planet.

The next point I want to discuss is the disdain those in this thread feel towards cosmology and the inaccuracies of cosmology...

I am willing to give cosmology all the leeway in the world because cosmology uses science, scientific principles, and scientific methodology in its pursuit of truth... Obviously there are limits to the experiments that can be done and the observations that can be made, but with time we will develop better tools enabling said experiments... But in the mean time, I have no problem "trusting" cosmology. But why? Why trust and believe in all that Farie Dust?

Simple. Science has earned that trust.

Take a look around you. No, literally look around you. See that pencil? See that pen? See that paper clip? See that plastic bag, that Smart Phone, that adjustable chair, that television... We are surrounded, nay, inundated with millions if not billions of man-hours of scientific research and development. Every single thing in our lives is in some way, shape, or form linked to science.

So it has earned my trust, especially since science is self correcting and has very little problem admitting when it is wrong in the face of a better model or evidence or data...

SO does science get the universe 100% right 100% of the time in 100% of all circumstances? No, not even close.

However, that isn't the proper question.
--The proper question is "Is Science Useful and if so how useful?"

Billions of years old based upon what assumption????

An initial hot dense state accelerated outwards (in which clocks and decay rates slow)? So would have been faster in the past, not the slow rate of today which is used to calculate age?

The red and blue shift of the CMB? Yet no radiation beyond our local cluster shows any blue shift at all, but is instead systematically shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Showing that the CMB is a local event, since only local radiation is ever blue shifted due to our motion.

They were simply unaware of the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere when they proposed the CMB. A deceleration according to quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics which would be in the microwave region and would show both blue and redshift due to our motion.

And science is only useful if it accepts the observations and corrects itself.....

Ignoring an observation that becomes more and more evident with each new and better data sample the theory is wrong isn't useful at all.

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

Nor is continuing with claims of Dark Matter despite 15 null results because it's a cash cow for easy money.....

 

[dgiharris]

Billions of years old based upon what assumption????

An initial hot dense state accelerated outwards (in which clocks and decay rates slow)? So would have been faster in the past, not the slow rate of today which is used to calculate age?

The red and blue shift of the CMB? Yet no radiation beyond our local cluster shows any blue shift at all, but is instead systematically shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Showing that the CMB is a local event, since only local radiation is ever blue shifted due to our motion.

They were simply unaware of the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere when they proposed the CMB. A deceleration according to quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics which would be in the microwave region and would show both blue and redshift due to our motion.

And science is only useful if it accepts the observations and corrects itself.....

Ignoring an observation that becomes more and more evident with each new and better data sample the theory is wrong isn't useful at all.

The (Cosmological) Axis of Evil

Nor is continuing with claims of Dark Matter despite 15 null results because it's a cash cow for easy money.....

Your attempt to refute the accepted scientific theory the the universe is billions of years old is impressive, throw around some psuedo science and terms like CMB and quantum electrodynamics and mechanics and yeah, sounds like you know what you are talking about but you don't.

I'm a few decades away from when I was in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and EM theory so I will not be able to do a point by point breakdown untangling the cherry picked science you list as refutation that the universe is billions of years old???

The atomic processes as we understand them today do align with hypotheses that the universe is billions of years old. Looking at the formation of various elements as well as their decay rates....

*sigh* I'll just stop there. I don't want to counter your pseudo science babbling with that of my own when i'm not prepared to get into a scholarly debate about the age of the universe. What I will say is that when I was well versed in science, cramming for upper level physics finals, etc, I recall quite vividly that everything seems to align.

Given the apparent size of the universe, what we can observe, rates of acceleration and deceleration, star formation and destruction, etc etc I feel very comfortable with the estimate that the universe is billions of years old. Then couple with our understanding of radiology and radioactive decay, geology, and yes evolution... again things seem to align.

It is a lot of alignment from separate independent scientific fields that support the case that the universe is very old. Thus, with every "alignment" i feel that our collective degree of confidence can rightfully grow.

Sure, maybe we are wrong, but it really doesn't appear to be so.
Our science and technology is a giant house of cards. If we were fundamentally wrong about our core sciences, then shouldn't our technological progression have been impossible?

Instead, we constantly see the reverse happening. We constantly discover new things that come about from old scientific principles.. that is, we keep reaffirming that "this constant" has this value or can be derived from yet another equation that describes yet another process in nature...

So sorry, I really do have a hard time believing in arguments that our entire scientific understanding of the universe and things therein is "wrong". Sure, we have a lot of holes in theories and sure, science is far from complete and perfect... but to say "Meh, the universe isn't billions of years old and the science that says it is is a sham..." sorry, I can't buy that argument.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your attempt to refute the accepted scientific theory the the universe is billions of years old is impressive, throw around some psuedo science and terms like CMB and quantum electrodynamics and mechanics and yeah, sounds like you know what you are talking about but you don't.

I'm a few decades away from when I was in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and EM theory so I will not be able to do a point by point breakdown untangling the cherry picked science you list as refutation that the universe is billions of years old???

The atomic processes as we understand them today do align with hypotheses that the universe is billions of years old. Looking at the formation of various elements as well as their decay rates....

*sigh* I'll just stop there. I don't want to counter your pseudo science babbling with that of my own when i'm not prepared to get into a scholarly debate about the age of the universe. What I will say is that when I was well versed in science, cramming for upper level physics finals, etc, I recall quite vividly that everything seems to align.

Given the apparent size of the universe, what we can observe, rates of acceleration and deceleration, star formation and destruction, etc etc I feel very comfortable with the estimate that the universe is billions of years old. Then couple with our understanding of radiology and radioactive decay, geology, and yes evolution... again things seem to align.

It is a lot of alignment from separate independent scientific fields that support the case that the universe is very old. Thus, with every "alignment" i feel that our collective degree of confidence can rightfully grow.

Sure, maybe we are wrong, but it really doesn't appear to be so.
Our science and technology is a giant house of cards. If we were fundamentally wrong about our core sciences, then shouldn't our technological progression have been impossible?

Instead, we constantly see the reverse happening. We constantly discover new things that come about from old scientific principles.. that is, we keep reaffirming that "this constant" has this value or can be derived from yet another equation that describes yet another process in nature...

So sorry, I really do have a hard time believing in arguments that our entire scientific understanding of the universe and things therein is "wrong". Sure, we have a lot of holes in theories and sure, science is far from complete and perfect... but to say "Meh, the universe isn't billions of years old and the science that says it is is a sham..." sorry, I can't buy that argument.

Of course real science sounds like pseudoscience to those who claim accelerated expansion of nothing......

Reject null result after null result after null result.....

Can’t get any of their models to work without adding 95% Fairie Dust........

Can’t tell you what any of it is, but insist it’s real.....

Reject experimental results of time dilation.....

One expects nothing less......

And why do people always ask shouldn’t our technological advancement be impossible?

Just what does expanding nothing, the CMB or Fairie Dust Dark Matter have to do with scientific advancement? In fact, what do they have to do with computers, cars, food processing, medical advancements, or any “science” at all?

Answer: absolutely nothing...... such a straw man you all always resort to because you can’t defend your Fairie Dust with real science..... your avoidance of why the CMB would show blue shift when no other source of radiation beyond the local group does so simply shows how flawed your theories are.... and that you know it.....

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy

 

[Radagast]

It was there because when we defined "field " and "permeability" it was just a consequence of our definitions. no more or less. Nothing to do with the universe. Which is why you dont need to measure ANYTHING at all, to calculate the permeability of free space.

As of 2019, the permeability of free space is an experimentally determined constant. So that last sentence will no longer be true.

The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!

Well, nature fits the elegant model extremely well (that's not quite so true outside physics).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, nature fits the elegant model extremely well (that's not quite so true outside physics).

Quite; just as we'd expect, given that the model is based on, and refined using, our observations of nature.

Even our personal experience of reality is 'just' a model, corrected by empirical information from our senses; but it performs sufficiently well that we can, for all everyday purposes, take it to be reality - at human scales.

I don't see how we can ever know the 'true' nature of reality, given that there is no external perspective from which to judge; we observe the 'substance' of reality with tools that are made of the same 'substance', and interpret the results in terms of interpretations of other observations of it.

 

[dgiharris]

....
And why do people always ask shouldn’t our technological advancement be impossible?

Just what does expanding nothing, the CMB or Fairie Dust Dark Matter have to do with scientific advancement? In fact, what do they have to do with computers, cars, food processing, medical advancements, or any “science” at all?

Answer: absolutely nothing...... such a straw man you all always resort to because you can’t defend your Fairie Dust with real science..... your avoidance of why the CMB would show blue shift when no other source of radiation beyond the local group does so simply shows how flawed your theories are.... and that you know it.....

The answer is not absolutely nothing, the answer is absolutely everything.

The Technology we have today and that we use trillions of times per day as a species is a testament to said technology being real. That technology was born from scientific principles that again are reaffirmed every day over and over again...

So, when a group tries to use said principles and technology to explain the unknown, their postulations, hypotheses, theories, etc are going to have some credence to them.

I will 100% agree that cosmology models have some fairie dust in them, sure... If you look at the history of science, this has happened plenty of times-- one example that comes to mind is the plum pudding model for atomic theory. We now know that model was completely wrong however the model was disproved by using the scientific method and it helped lead us to better more accurate models.

I feel that cosmology is similar, they will keep modeling the universe using the principles we have learned on Earth and they will refine the model every time things are proved or disproved... eventually they will build more accurate models.

but in the mean time, meh, I'm not ready to completely through the baby out with the bath water and declare that the universe is not billions of years old...