This is a strange subject for the List, but quite in keeping with its
traditions, I reckon.
And that is my inclination, Ken. It would be OK to call it a hypothesis,
perhaps.
Chris
> On 20 Jun 2017, at 20:26, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Remember, we are only talking about this observable universe. A beginning
>> and end are only comforting thoughts for the religious among us. As far as
>> this universe goes, continuously expanding or expanding and then
>> contracting. Big question. Depends upon the total mass of the universe which
>> is currently an unknown.Scientists aren't "fudging" anything. They are
>> plugging in numbers to see what fits observations. The math is only a tool
>> to help explain data and as a basis to hypothesize and then test. Right now
>> they are looking for evidence of dark matter. However the tools are yet too
>> crude.
>
> I may be a simpleton, but when you can't account for 95% of the
> universe and have to call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy, in order to
> fit your assumption, then just maybe your assumption is wrong. It just
> doesn't pass the cosmic smell test. I can understand fudging 10%, but
> 95%? That's where I think that the assumption of expansion or
> contraction isn't cutting it. The math is just an explanation and when
> you have a 20:1 fudge factor to make the math work, then something is
> blatantly wrong. But the scientists' new clothes look so good.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|