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 mathematical > > statement. > > In that case I can't agree that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are > "postulates". They both have no lack of mathematical expression, the > problem is that we don't really know which one describes them fully or > 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 available > 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 others. > That is already the case, for example, when you compare the WMAP data > 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 much > conviction. Conservation laws are associated with global symmetries > and even these can be broken (think of Parity and CP for example), and > 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