Quote:
|
Originally Posted by korjik
Lastly, the allegation that most 'mainstreamers' are simply attached to orthodoxy and resistant to change is really an ad-hom. Most of the physicists I know are more than willing to accept new ideas, just as long as they work. We are also more than willing to attack an idea just to see how well it is defended, simply because it has to have the holes plugged to make it work. I again refer to my opening statement: When the evidence for DE was first discovered, it was the most insane thing you could try to propose. They had to make their evidence bulletproof. When they did, DE when from ATM to mainstream, so the system does work.
|
No
ad-hom against the 'mainstream' scientific community implied. Rather, if there is a built-in bias towards a firming orthodox view of the universe, such as you described so well, then it warrants an awareness that what had become acceptable is what is acceptable by the community, and that alternate ideas are viewed with a 'built-in' suspicion. This is not a statement of condemnation but one of fact.
What you describe regarding DE has such a bias built-in of necessity, which is predicated on distant light redshift as a function of expansion of space, without which 'acceleration' becomes meaningless. But what if redshift is from another unknown cause? I know 'tired light' had been beaten to death, for example, but not so with potential 'gravitational' redshift, if such is a function of light coming out of a very deep well of high G gravity. This parallel hypothesis might be validated, but not under current assumptions about DE and space expansion. The BBT would likewise become jeapordized if an alternate reason was found for redshift, since rolling backwards the film on the universe does not necessitate a point of origin in time. (I personally always felt 13.7 billion years for a universe to form and produce all life as rediculously restrictive, but that's my personal bias, not scientific fact.) The reason I brought up Matsumoto is that perhaps it is time to go back into the lab and do some new studies, not predicated on the existing math, but from scratch. In the large
Hydron Collider at CERN there is evidence of a self-forming 'micro black hole' when gold molecules are smashed together. New physics may be just around the corner. Will BAUT participate as 'guardians of the gate' or will they be the new 'openers' of new ideas? So... what if they're not great ideas? That's how ideas start out, as pretty dumb and sometimes lousy ideas, but then something happens from a vast interrelation, through discussion, of what appear as 'unremarkable' ideas... it's called
Emergence. What's wrong with that, if a new emergent idea forms from unremarkable ideas, but in the end prove to be quite remarkable indeed?
