Law of phisics always break down, on the double slit experiment, black holes, particles and so on, it can't even prove the existance of some particles, they are just theory. Not that I think phisics are not intresting, it just that you can't know how the whole thing works. This are just theories, next another better improved one will pop up.

Originally posted by tyranny22

They go on to state that they believe Dark Energy doesn't actually exist and that what we observe as an "accelerating Universe" is actually the slowing of time when it begins to break down.

Interesting. I haven't heard that one before.. I always feel a little uncomfortable when science sticks to just one theory. It seems incredibly narrow minded.

IRM

I vaguely remember reading that although the universe is expanding, the clusters of galaxies are contracting; and that this phenomenon contradicts our understanding of the Big Bang and the potential Big Freeze.

Essentially the distance between galaxies is becoming shorter when the distance should be getting larger; and the contraction is accelerating. Seems almost like a paradox.

The word Theory in it's normal use and the word Theory in it's scientific use are not the same thing..

Theory... Scientific use

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

Please bare in my the Falsifiable and testable bit.

Theory .... Philosophical use

The elementary theorems that comprise a philosophical theory consist of statements which are believed to be true by the thinkers who accept them, and which may or may not be empirical. The sciences have a very clear idea of what a theory is, however in the arts, such as philosophy the definition is more hazy.[1] Philosophical theories are not necessarily scientific theories, although they may consist of both empirical and non-empirical statements.

Event though the topic of the theory in the OP is a scientific one this does not mean it is a scientific theory as it is neither testable or falsifiable

For thirty six years I've studied and lived Physics. I know people who have worked on particle accelerators, designed packages for rocket launch to orbit, invented new classified materials that stop bullets, teach in Paris, worked in observatories from Australia to Arecibo to Greenland. Being raised on the drafting table and spending summers surveying I can architectural construct or deconstruct any building I'm looking at instantly. I use physics in gymnastics, stunt work, dancing, trick dives, and adventure sports. And that's not mentioning any of the cosmogony which we have all been working on the whole period.

And from this experience I can tell you without a doubt, that there is a huge gap between what matters and what has been popularized about physics. Our understanding of applied physics is barely good enough to reach another orbiting body, let alone get outside of the solar system. Each system could have it's own rules of physics. Not that it is likely to vary by much, but it's just another way of describing how not only do we not know, but we have few tests to even help us guess.

On topic,
I was just rereading Hans Alfven's "Atom, Man, and the Universe" when I saw this thread.

The stuff so far away, that it seems the colors indicate that time breaks down, could also be the result of that light having it's own speed adjusted up or down as it enters or exits various media throughout the cosmos, on it's long journey to us.

On the cosmic scale an entire solar system could have an effect on a ray of light similar to a drop of water on a window we are looking out of. The drop of water right next to it could be an entire Galaxy. Oh and I have yet to see a use for either black holes, or dark matter, and no one I know has shown any interest in those two popular theories for decades.

There seems to be an intentional omission of scale in all popular physics and sci-fi. I've actually had a lot of experience explaining this gap in our knowledge to a lot of people, and have found an analogy that works particularly well. The problem with Star Wars, and Star Trek.



The problem with Star Wars, and Star Trek.

Ever noticed that in Star Trek they are always going to another solar system. Every episode, it's always another system. They don't do much there, just go to the one planet they are interested in, but it's never the same system over and over. Well I have a question about that. Do you know how many earth sized bodies we have in our own solar system, right now? The TV science is always teasing us with hints of finding a planet in another system. There are like, four, orbiting Jupiter right now. If I made a computer game and used the real solar system, no one would play it. I would have to do some stupid repackaging and call everything a "Galaxy" to get the vaguest interest. The Mars Galaxy, The Titan Galaxy, The Venus Galaxy, the Io Galaxy, and deep deep in space is The Sedna Galaxy.

Seriously, every single episode of Star Trek, and Star Wars could have been done in this one Solar System, there are just that many interesting and different bodies orbiting our sun. And where are all the interesting space fights. Low orbit, the earth spinning underneath at rapid speed, the fightercraft playing at the edges of the atmosphere and the ionosphere, this TV sci-fi they are feeding us is making us dumb and unambitious. Why do I know more about carpeting and interior decorating from TV sci-fi than I do about thrust to fuel ratios, docking, or orbital resource acquisition.

Now I don't have a problem with media popularizing science, but they are not producing any fans that I can work with. They have got everyone looking so far away that no one is interested what is happening in our own neighborhood. Kind of like how our society behaves here on Earth.

But I don't know how to reenchant the public so everyone sees the moon as The Moon Galaxy, or even their neighbor as a galaxy unto themselves. Maybe everyone is waiting on permission from the Governor, or Einstein, I don't know. Even David Ike is more useful to me than the latest sci-fi movie. At least he has gotten a few people curious about our own moon.

the earth is 12.7 thousand kilometers in diameter. The Moon is 384.4 thousand kilometers away. If we had one copy of the earth for each day of time that passed, and stacked those copies from here to the moon, and jumping from earth to earth like stepping stones took us back in time one day, we would go back in time 30 days and then reach the moon.

If we spiraled these earths around us like coiling up a rope, we could go back 916 days, or 2.5 years in time before we reached the moon. There is just _that_ much space right here between the center of the Earth and the perimeter of the Moons orbit.

Heinlein had the same problem. His first published book "Rocket Ship Galileo" was initially rejected because it was too far fetched, being about a trip to the moon. So bug eyed aliens and trips to other Galaxies are believable but what we possibly can really do is "too far fetched." /facepalm



So yeah, that's the spiel and it gets people to accept the premise that maybe there is a conspiracy theory behind this rant, without mentioning any conspiracies or spooking away any normal people listening. At least after the rant, usually I have a person who is willing to hear one or two new ideas without instantly becoming bored and changing the channel on me.

Oh and sorry for the massive ego dump.


David Grouchy