On 3 Nov 2003 at 10:18, Joao Leao wrote:
> Wow Ron! That is a lot of answer for me!
> I will have to split mine in two installments
> if you don't mind.

My apology for the length of the answer. The answer was for the most 
part a restatement of something I wrote and was aired on radio over a 
decade ago, a "Billy <something> Show" that was out of Nevada (I had 
to string a long wire to receive it!) and which was very similar to 
the now very popular CoastToCoastAM.com related international radio 
show that airs nightly in most cities (and which sometimes guests 
very respectable scientists).. Although I claim absolutely no credit 
for any or the ideas expounded upon by myself then or now, I do not 
find much in the way of  inconsistancy with the general ideas 
expressed by the very qualified people who came up with the ideas 
that I merely attempt to assemble into understandable arrangement.

> > By "postulate" I mean the
> > expression of an idea not yet represented by a defining 
> > statement.
> In that case I can't agree that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are
> "postulates". They both have no lack of mathematical expression, 
> problem is that we don't really know which one describes them fully 
> integrates with what else we know.

I certainly accept that any idea set forth within a peer review 
scientific community will almost certainly be accompanied by math. 
But math at a postulate level is not a requirement unless it purports 
to rise to the level of a theory (in which case it is no longer 
merely a postulate). Restated, a postulate by general definition is 
"To make claim for; demand. To assume or assert the truth, reality, 
or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument. To assume as a 
premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume."

> > By theory I mean an idea supported by mathematical
> > statement but not yet verified in all possible ways by apparent
> > empirical evidence.
> Again there are serveral many theories (called "scenarios") that
> try to account for either one, and they all aim to match the 
> empirical evidence. 

In this we seem to fully agree, in that a theory is an attempt to lay 
a math foundation that fully describes empiracal evidence. But it 
remains untested by peer review (experimentation and observation), or 
at least not as fully tested as be practical. Until that type of peer 
review has completed it is but a theory that does not rise to the 
level of being considered to be a law.

> But, as data from better probes comes along, the
> small disparity between the scenarios should favor some over 
> That is already the case, for example,  when you compare the WMAP 
> with the Type Ia supernova surveys, for dark energy evidence...

Thank the universe for the apparent consistency of exactly how some 
supernova do their thing. They were at the root of a problem where 
some seemed to be older than the expected age of the universe! But 
when the universe went from a slowing down type of expansion to a 
speeding up type of expansion the redshift data made sense and seems 
to have reconciled that age problem. Basically a phase shift 
occurred, but only in the sense that as the universe expanded the 
weakening of gravity as felt by objects in the universe reached a 
point where it started becoming less attractive than be the what 
until then was the less powerful repulsive (inflationary) force that 
is being referred to as dark energy.

> > By law I mean an idea supported by a mathematical
> >
> > statement that can not be ruled out by empirical evidence.
> I am not sure that you can say that about any law of physics with 
> conviction. Conservation laws are associated with global symmetries
> and even these can be broken (think of Parity and CP for example), 
> consequentially ruled out by empirical evidence.

It was a red flag that called for re-evaluation of our basic 
assumptions. If a "law" can be broken then the breakage is not part 
of the law and it follows that the law is not a law nor even a valid 
postulate - because it has been disproven by empirical evidence.

> Will get to the other part later...
> -Joao


Ron McFarland

Reply via email to