Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Disparate Theories

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on February 6, 2003 19:05:27 UTC

It is commonly done, that people see or choose a given package of observations, then build a theory to explain it. And the theory is almost always at least somewhat out of context, simply because some basic information is inadvertently missing, or the theorist has been intentionally selective in order to boost his particular ideas. So one must be careful to try to include all raw-data information available. And be very wary of including the theories of others.

At best, this is merely daunting; at worst, impossible. However; it is still incumbent upon the theorist to defend against attack. This is again tricky, because one can never be quite sure if he has legitimately answered the attack, and invalidated it, or if he is merely pugilistic and dismissing of the attack. Ego, vested interests in status quo, and hidden agendas are very serious problems.

Often, the attempt, as in our adversarial courtrooms, is not to establish the Truth of a matter, but only to win the argument, simply by power to get one's way, regardless of right and wrong. If Truth and Justice are served, it is actually incidental to the greed for Wealth, Power and Prestige. This is not cynicism; it is reality in a competitive society.

One should never be so naive as to think an answer to a query comes from an objective source.

For instance: Electons are said to orbit the nucleus, and there is also something called "nucleon spin". But don't be fooled. "Nucleon spin" is not a descriptive term, but merely a label for something not understood. No one has any idea just how electrons could ACTUALLY orbit the nucleus in the patterns described in Quantum Mechanics. Scientists commonly talk about gravity as if they know what they're talking about. They most assuredly do not. They don't even have a proper theory for light. So when reading information, be very careful how you evaluated it, and where it's coming from.

The suggestion you make re the universe orbiting about its own center of mass is a completely valid one, but for reasons other than "orbiting" electrons. In fact it is the only valid theory. All others: of Expanding Universe, Einstein's Cosmological Constant in a static universe, Arp's Continuous Matter Creation, etc., are right out in left field, and against both common sense and Earth-bound physics. They all have glaringly fatal flaws.

However, you must invalidate the other theories, and then show support for your own.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins