Science - Cannot be decided by Popular Vote - Post 4 today @ 4:11 PM CST - 2/8/17 - logging out @ 4:46 PM CST
02/08/2017 16:37
Science - Cannot be decided by Popular Vote
Whether this be by pop-scientists like Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, or by the general public, a vote does not decide science.
Prior to Copernicus, the pop-vote would be for an Earth-centered Universe. The court of public opinion would have agreed.
How ridiculous this would be today. But a majority believed it pre-Copernicus.
Its similar to the classic Big Bang theories - which go along with the Expansion theories now.
The 'proof' that these theories offer - is the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and the Red-shift observations of galaxies at our visible horizon.
However, these observations have alternate explanations - primarily that light waves erode over billions of light years of distance (via the fog of space) - and that distant galaxy clusters are pulling galaxies at the visual horizon away from us.
...
Recently, Ive heard several mentions of "singularities at the center of what scientists call black holes". They claim these can be proven. However, they are using the same mathematical formulas used for General Relativity.
Yes, as Ive said many times, General Relativity works quite well for our Cosmic neighborhood. The mathematical equations - did not come first for Einstein. They came after the theory. So its not the math that drives the reality, but the theory of reality - which the math must conform to. A lot of pop-scientists like Neil DeGrasse-Tyson try to sell the mathematical equations as absolute truth. Thats a myth.
The mathematical equations used for General Relativity do not account for (unaccounted-for gravitational forces which scientists call dark energy).
General Relativity (and its conforming mathematical equations) works for our Cosmic neighborhood, because our Cosmic neighborhood is stabilized by the "atmosphere of the Milky Way Galaxy".
The stars of the Milky Way - revolve around the galaxy center (cosmic recycling center or why scientists call a black hole). They revolve at relatively the same rate - whether out near the edges or nearing the center.
Space-Interaction theory sees this - as being due to all of the stars essentially being tied together by what I dubbed Collective Gravity - which acts like a web of forces acting through each other (including gravity and magnetic fields) - essentially making all of the stars act as one mass.
Collective gravity - equalizes the Milky Way Cosmic Neighborhood. And everything within that Cosmic neighborhood - conforms to the mathematical formulas which describe General Relativity.
However, as you approach the event horizon - or quantum smallness - which are at the ends of the relative change spectrum -General Relativity and its equations - run into problems.
I see this problem - as due to the fact - that the gravitational force - really is exponential (which accounts for what scientists call dark matter) - and not as Newton saw it (but which does work for Earth and our Cosmic neighborhood). Newton and Einstein's laws work well for our Cosmic Neighborhood (the equalized area in the Milky Way Galaxy).
However, outside of our Cosmic neighborhood, these mathematical formulas do not work. Again, the mathematical formulas always come after the theory, and not the other way around. So you cannot disprove a new theory - with equations from theories that do not work everywhere in the Universe.
The puzzle fits better as a Cosmic recycling center - with (eroding light waves (over billions of light years) + distant galaxy clusters pulling away galaxies at the visible horizon, and a flux of expansion and contraction in the Universe
- than it does with the classic Big Bang theory and Expansion theories (where the CMB is microwaves bouncing around since the start of the Universe) and General Relativity applying to all areas of the Universe.
Space-Interaction theory really makes more sense than General Relativity applying everywhere in the Universe. Space-interaction sees General Relativity - as a tool - which works for our Cosmic neighborhood, but not for the entire Universe.
There will never be an equation that describes Nature in its exact detail. We can only approximate nature with equations - because numbers are absolute - and Nature never is.