Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arjuna
I agree. Back to SCIENCE!! Because whatever you believe the results are always fascinating and bring you just one step closer to finding out the truth.
|
Depends on the scientists. Sometimes, a theory becomes subject to knee-jerk-thinking and is then represented as fact, rather than the best conclusion given the available evidence.
When this happens, then the basic premise of the theory can suddenly become "holy". A month ago, the CBC radio show "Quirks and Quarks" presented a physicist who reminded us that the basic premise of a geocentric universe was thought to be "fact". When it was discovered that some celestial objects were not showing up "on time" in the sky after having circled the sphere-at-the-centre-of-the-universe (Earth), observers didn't question the basic premise of the geocentric universe...they worked in some "extra loops" and such in the orbits of the less-than-punctual celestial objects. That "crutch" restored consistency to the geocentric-universe theory.
The physicist then fast-forwarded us to the "big bang theory". He related that the discovery that the rate of "universal expansion" was accellerating, rather than slowing down, had to be explained away or the basic premise of a big bang would be on much shakier ground. The answer: the concoction of "dark energy"...a phenomenon which has yet to be observed--but which
must be present, or the premise of a big bang is suddenly on shakier ground.
Hearing this, I wondered. When Hubble's red-shift-related findings indicated this universal expansion, people then said: "So, if we set time on a reverse-course, everything will crunch toghether--so, in forward time, there must have been a time when everything was in one singularity which then went 'boom'."
What I wondered was, when it was discovered that everything was becoming more distant from everything else
at an ever-accellerating rate, did people subject
this finding to the same "so-if-time-were-reversed-what-would-happen" test? If one does this, everything comes back together at an ever-decelerating rate. How, then, does one even know that it all crunches together at the "beginning of time"? Maybe the universe, in time-reverse, would only contract so far, but not all the way to an "original singularity".
It doesn't seem that this question is being asked--as if the big bang were a fact rather than a currently-widely-accepted theory. Insead of challenging the basic premise, theoreticians invent "dark energy" to prop it up.
Dark matter is another, um, matter. It seems only observable via its effects on light from distant stars trying to get through it. Apparently, there are distortions. Given the lack of knowledge regarding the basic nature of "dark matter", it is reasonable to assume we know little about the light that does manage to pass through it. Maybe Hubble's red-shift has an explanation that does not involve celestial objects which are receding from us. Maybe the light-distortions attributed to "dark matter" are caused, not by any kind of near-unobservable "matter", but by swirls and eddies in space-time itself. Perhaps these distortions prevent light from anything farther than thirteen billion light-years away from getting to our instruments. If there is anything further out, then the "vast-but-finite" observable universe--whether caused by an initial big bang or not--may be nothing than a local phenomenon in an infinite universe. One theory, so many questions.
I've always wondered why some of the same people who were ready to accept a big bang also rejected evolution. Obviously, the former is consistent with "fiat lux" and so on, but not the latter. This may also be a cultural bias that worked its way into the current prominence of the big bang theory itself.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that any notion of an infinite universe must be incorrect because "it is inconceivable". The same organisation sees no such trouble with a deity which "surpasseth all understanding". One is believable, it seemeth, while the the other is not.
In any case, a theory--no matter how well-accepted--is still a theory. Even basic premises can be open to question when phenomena arise which call them into question. That's what makes science so objectionable to those who seek comfort in some kind of a "firmament"--and that's what makes science such a joyful adventure for the rest of us.
