Over the past couple weeks out of curiosity I have been studying some of the current theories of the universe.

Not that I claim to be a cosmologist but here is what I think. We do not yet have the technology or the knowledge to truly discover how the universe formed, if it will end, how big it is how old it is, etc.

Since we have never been outside of our own solar system and still have much to learn about our own sun and planets, I think cosmology itself is a waste of time With all of the current theories about the origin and the state of the universe, many of them conflicting, my feeling would be that given time most of these theories will be proven wrong.

I think astronomy is a better science, learning through observation, instead of sitting billions of light years away from an object an theorizing about what it is that is going on with the object.

Just as theories like the earth was the centre of the universe were proven wrong I beleive that most if not all of the current theories will be dismissed over the coming decades and centuries, and that we will not truly begin to understand the universe until we are able to travel to the other stars and galaxies to observe and study first hand what is going on.

Everything has a weakness, not even a theory ... so for me I rather spend sometime study the solar system, but not the entire Universe... because a tiny system has a lot of secret still undicover, this is what I think, Science is basically depend on guess and fate, therfore, theory is the same which is depend on prove or realty....

Hope I don't write something off topic...
Cheers

__________________
We come without a thing and gone without a thing. We need simple life. A cup of teas and a couple of meals per day, that is good enough. And this is my standard of living.

Bluewolf,
I think you are probably right, but I guess cosmologists don't want to hear their work being called a waste of time.
About astronomy being a better science, it is the old "observational science" versus "theoretical science" discussion. I think both are valid, but I'd always put my money on observational science if there are conflicting views.
There is a strong need for people to connect the dots, and right now I share the feeling that there is a misplaced confidence about how the Universe works. Some people are even telling us that we have reached the end of science and there is only very little left to discover. I hope those people are wrong and I hope there is still a lot to learn about the Universe.
Cheers

Cosmology is directly linked to the theory of everything (TOE) which itself is linked into the know forces, gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak. The more we know about these forces, then the more we know about the universe in which we live. This knowledge helps us in space travel, orbital mechanics, photon propagation and such. Sadly there is probably much more effort being spent on learning to beat casinos than in learning to live in the universe. I am impressed by what the cosmologists have accomplished and I hope they continue their hard work.

Lunarbase

The the many branches of the theory of everything and the string theory contradict each other. The String theory itself is based on ideas that can not yet be proven and was formulated to support other theories which we still do not know enough about...

My point is not really that cosmology is bad science, no science is bad science, just that we are not yet advanced enough to understand the universe. If we do not yet truly understand the forces at work and the elements in our own solar system how can we honestly expect to know what is going on with the entire galaxy or the entire universe. Some scientists say the Universe is expanding and will continue to expand, others say that it is finite, some explain the redshift seen in the stars that are farthest from us by saying they are moving away from us at a very fast rate, others say that it is gravity that explains the redshift.

In my opinion instead of making broad theories that we have no chance of proving or disproving we are better to observe what we can about the universe and learn what we can about the forces at work and apply those forces in ways that we may learn to travel to the stars and then truly learn what is happening in the universe.

Of course that is just my opinion. I am sure there are many who will disagree

My guess is that the religions of the world were formulated and have been evolved by and through the efforts of proto-cosmologists. They were pursuing explanations of what and where they were and how to control those things that enhanced their survival. The cosmologists are continuing this effort to the benefit of us all. They stand on the shoulders of many more giants and now have much better equipment which is continually evolving along with better and better theories aided and abetted by the knowledge feedback loop. The more we know about the cosmos and the many ways by which it can terminate us, the more apt we are to survive. Only those who deserve (mostly by the luck of the draw) to survive, will.

Evil = chaos; virtue = order!!

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

__________________
"We are all on our backs in the gutter... Only some of us are looking at the stars."

Most of the teenagers(including me), they don't understand the feeling, but later after they turn 30 - 50, they will eventually understand, and probably can tell you the answer for that question : Is cosmology as waste of time?

Hope I don't write something off topic
Cheers

__________________
We come without a thing and gone without a thing. We need simple life. A cup of teas and a couple of meals per day, that is good enough. And this is my standard of living.

Lest we forget, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Mach, Einstein, et al - Cosmologists, every one. Our current understanding of the nature and behavior of the world, from the very small to the unimaginably large, is reliant on the work of cosmologists. Any valid theory, cosmological or other, must be disprovable, and our leaps in knowlege have been the result of one theory (or set of theories) superceding their predecessors. Certainly the current, occasionally competing theories, will in their turn be replaced by others that agree with observation more completely. And observational astronomy must always remember the debt of understanding owed to cosmology and to theory. Urbain LeVerrier and J. C. Adams were both theorists whose work led directly to the discovery of Neptune. We humans, by our nature, are given to inventing stories to account for the experiences we encounter in the world. Now our tools allow us to experience the world in ways vastly more sophisticated than those of even our close ancestors, and our stories have become more complex and detailed. But now and always, in the words of the late J. B. S. Haldane, the world, both large and small, will remain "not only queerer than we imagine, but queerer than we CAN imagine."

Clear skies,

Starrman

Sure, but I don't think any theory would last very long at all if it conflicted with observation!?

I don't see how the current cosmological model conflicts in any way with astronomical observation. The cosmology might not be complete...there are still shadow areas we need to clear up...but I think generally it's a very good interpretation of astronomical data. Not only that, but new data coming in seems to reaffirm the theory (not contradict it).

Also let's not forget that the THEORY quite often makes predictions (eg black holes, gravity lensing, etc) that are later confirmed by OBSERVATION!!

I'm optimistic we're on the right path. I don't think it's all one big convoluted daisy-chain of hot air!? (Then again, maybe it is...!?)

__________________
"We are all on our backs in the gutter... Only some of us are looking at the stars."

I agree with you guys in a way Faulkner, Starman, and TheAstronomer. You need theories as they are a part of science as is the proving or disproving of the theory. But the theories that you guys are bringing up are all observable and have been formed, proved or disproved by observation. The theories that I disagree with and the ones that many of the cosmologist's around the web whose papers I was reading were focused on theories that are not formed by observation, and not observable. Take for example the the theory that the universe is expanding we can not possibly prove or disprove this theory in our lifetimes as it would take millions of years of observation to do so. This theory was actually formed from the observation of redshift in distant stars. I can also name two other theories that were formed by the same observation. Then you take theorys like the string theory, the supersting theory, the m-theory. We do not have the technology to come even close to proving or disproving these theories nor were any of them formed from anything that is observable. I am not saying that people shouldnt theorize, its just my opinion that since we are just beginning to learn about our own solar system, that making broad generaliztions about that which cannot be studied is a waste of time, it will be decades or centuries before we gain a true understanding of the universe as a whole.

Hi everybody,

I think that theory and observation are complementary to each other.
We observe the universe to check our theories. If we had not theories, our observations would be nothing but a database, and we wouldn't know what's next.
About the 'theories being disproved ' thing, I can say that the new theories based on earlier disproved theories are new steps on the path to knowledge. Theories tested, proved/disproved, new theories based on the more accuratre observational data,... this is a cycle, which we ride on this path.

Cosmology is not a waste of time, but if you think that astronomy and knowledge themselves are unnessecary , then you might not agree. Theories are neeeded, very, very much.

__________________
Limericks, written by me: http://limericker.blogspot.com

Just because some of the theories can't be disproved at the moment, it doesn't mean that they can't be tested by observational means in the future. For the question of whether the universe is closed, flat or open - it *might* be possible to measure this more accurately (so that everyone agrees rather than disagrees) and the important thing is to try. Science progresses in surprising directions and it's difficult to decide ahead of time what the most useful direction is.

The important thing, I think, is balance. Observational science is crucial but you also need the big ideas and wild theories to make the giant leaps of understanding. I think cosmology is interesting at the moment because there are so many unanswered questions so it's important that we keep thinking about them, to give us ideas about how we can use observations to support or disprove them.

__________________
Spike
:)

(Wish this forum had a spellcheck) To be honest, we believe the only reason the observationalist extend theories is to get their name in print, the old publish or perish concept. The observationalists and cosmologists have chosen their means of producing income, the more they write the more they make. To earn their income their offerings have to be spectacular, or at least greater than the other guy's. Thus, ignoring the laws they know exist, they develope theories that they know themselves can't be proven. The known laws are very boring, having to apply them is even more boring, and not worth one penny in income. Science would be very poor without theories! Proof? Look at the botched attempts at proving human evolution, the false skulls, the phoney linage and embrio charts, all done to obtain or retain a grant to a "great" scientist or institution. The fact is, they publish, or they perish!

JoAnn & Bob

I would have to disagree with your last statement. My opinion would be that 98 percent of people are honest. I think it would be wrong to attribute the dishonesty of the other 2% to the scientific community as a whole. Im sure you could provide 100 examples of falsified claims, or fake evidence. But I think that is the exception not the rule. It is my faith in people in general would lead me to disagree with your statements. What you are saying could be attributed to almost any part of society - take police officers for example - their are stories of prejudice, drug dealing, etc within their ranks but once again I would say that this is the exception not the rule, and I wouldnt make broad claims to say that the police community are all prejudice and they all deal drugs to further their own incomes as i know most of them to be honest caring people.

For sure, I think the "publish or perish" pressure exists...but that doesn't excuse any ol' crackpot theory appearing in some journal. The peer-group thing that exists is very conservative & stringent, very rigid editorialship. I think you need theoretical models to make human sense out of the plethora of observational data. And if one tiny piece of data is proved to be contradictory to that theoretical model, the model collapses. It is definitely not frantically kept together with chewing gum. For example, the orbit of Mercury contradicted Newtonian mechanics, so a new theory (relativity) had to be devised (or, rather, the old theory had to be extended) - and relativity seems to work & be irrefutable & a be a REAL portrayal of things. But even relativity has a thorn in its side - quantum mechanics. They both need to be reconciled. Doesn't necessarily mean they're both false representations of reality...just not complete.

In summary, I believe science moves forward. I think in this aspect we are lucky to be alive at this time in history. (In most other aspects, we are extremely unfortunate! )

Well I just watched "Serpico" on TV and I'm convinced that corruption infests the corridors of power right to the very top of the pyramid! ^_^

__________________
"We are all on our backs in the gutter... Only some of us are looking at the stars."

Then again, it could mean exactly that. Alan Sokal showed us how the peer-review system can be fooled and there are numerous examples where even after the review process, the publishers had to admit the contents of some articles didn't hold up to scrutiny.
I think that good science also means that you can explain to anyone who is interested what the theory or model is all about.
Cheers.

__________________
"We are all on our backs in the gutter... Only some of us are looking at the stars."

That's a very good question. I know of a guy here at my university who has many theories about the origins of the unverse etc. He's had these theories written up for years and years. In the past he was constantly and consistently shunned by peer reviewed journals etc and his theories were said to be the stuff fruitcakes are made of. Then some guys at NASA did some research and observed exactly what this guy had been saying all along. These NASA guys came up with peer reviewed papers and only after that was he accepted. He was on the news a while back and said something to the effect of it being because they were NASA people that they were listened to and that the truth finally came out. Understandably .. he was a little sore at the establishment.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

I'm sure most scientists would not have the patience to try, and most probably could not do it even if they did try. But that inability has nothing to do with the level of understanding attained by the scientist, or with the probability that the theory is valid. It has everything to do with the communication skills of the people involved, the ability of the scientist to clearly say what they mean, and the ability of the listner to understand it. This kind of communication is really hard. I think I'm pretty good at it, and I've been working on that ability as a public speaker for many years. But I still find myself sometimes unable to communicate ideas that are just too mathematical, or too technical, to translate into plain English.

Along the same lines, I disagree here too. In fact, I think the opposite is likely to be true. Really good science is really hard to understand if you have no experience or expertise to draw on. How can somebody explain, for instance, string theory, to people who have, at most, completed high school algebra? Brian Greene did about as good a job as one could with Elegant Universe, but it's way short of the mark for really explaining what string theory really is. That's because, no matter how many spiffy drawings we make, visualizing a compact Calabi-Yau space is just not in the cards for any non mathematician, and probably not for most who are mathematicians. Understanding theories at any real level requires an understanding of the fundamental principles involved, which in turn requires an education & experience relevant to the question. The ability to explain a theory, in practice or in principle, has nothing to do with the validity of the theory, or with its scientific value.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Rahuldandekar, I agree with you fully. Observational astronomy helps Theory which, in its turn, helps astronomy to understand what it observs and what should be observed before everything else.

I fully disagree with JoAnn&Bob. Astronomy and cosmology are mostly filled with enthusiasts working in their fields not just for money (although exceptions are possible). It is exactly astronomy and cosmology which are farthest removed from practical greed and self serving egotism. If I were an astronomer and lived in the 19th century I would have challenged Bob to a duel (not JoAnn of course).

Now to cosmological ideas. I agree with most people here that cosmology is still in its infancy. In the beginning of the 20th century Rutherford came up with his planetary model of the atom: nucleus in the center (like a star) and electrons around it (like planets). Since that time the model has of course been subjected to numerous revisions. But when it was introduced it struck the imagination of lots of people. And here is what wrote then a Russian poet named Briusov:

Who knows? Perhaps those small electrons
Are worlds with continents and life,
With wars, great leaders, suspect thrones,
And forty centuries of strife.

Of course with modern ideas about atoms and electrons, no cosmologist would subscribe to the idea that electrons are whole worlds. But who knows? Sometimes poets and philosophers see deeper than scientists. Where is the end to the succession of smallness? First atoms were elementary, then subatomic particles, then quarks, then what: strings? Then what? Humans know so little. But we are learning more and more, that's what is important.

o o
deflation (.) > (O) inflation >> (OO) infinity >>> o 8 o = time, space, speed
o o


life is sweet,
but life is short
so open your mind
to the truth in your heart

for in a fleeting moment
that no one can hold
tomorrow is gone....
behold!

__________________
"We are all on our backs in the gutter... Only some of us are looking at the stars."

Thanks, TheAstronomer, your enthusiasm is very rewarding to us all.

Can't say I like this very much, science is doing a bad job if it keeps all it's knowledge and discussions in little "knowledgeable" circles. It has to be communicated, and if people are unable to do this properly, it is just bad science. The fact that science has a specific language (math and jargon) that is not mastered by all, is a weak excuse when it comes to explaining what a theory or discovery is all about. Saying it is difficult is just a cop-out. We should demand clarity from the scientists, otherwise it is really elitist behaviour. I'm actually convinced that most scientists are striving to achieve this communication, if only so they can explain why they need funding from their grant-suppliers.
Cheers.

How very sanctimonious of you, VanderL. Tell me just what are your scientific credentials? What makes you so qualified to judge the professionals?

Exlucidating some scientific concepts in terms that laypeople can understand is difficult. I'd like to see you explain the mathematics involved and the reasoning behind the concepts in something as relatively straight forward as the two body problem -
http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/celmechs/celm9.pdf - to someone who knows nothing about astronomy and physics and who has never studied algegbra, geometry, and calculus.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Quote David Mitsky:
"How very sanctimonious of you, VanderL. Tell me just what are your scientific credentials? What makes you so qualified to judge the professionals? "

You have not done credit to your usually thoughtful and knowledgable posting, David, by this personal attack.

You may not be aware of this - but many of us, in private communications, have commented on the objectivity, courtesy, restraint and professionalism demonstrated by VanderL.

It is your, and our, right to disagree with the opinion of others; but PLEASE show personal respect for the other gentleman involved with whom you disagree.

Thank you.

PS And I am not a bloody Moderator <_< .

Well, that is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. But making a veiled attack on me by mentioning that the fact I'm a moderator on these forums certainly doesn't call for any criticism about your actions, now does it?

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.