The Mess In Modern Cosmology

[Native]

OP: Mythical, medieval and modern cosmology.

Video Abstract:
Today we find ourselves in a state of impasse in cosmology, a state very reminiscent of the early Greeks who conducted though experiments in favour of doing practical work. In this episode we will follow the evolution of cosmology through the eyes of Hannes Alfven. Hannes Alfven won the nobel prize in 1970 for his work on plasma physics. We will exploire his ideas on why we find ourselves in such a state and understand his vision for the future of cosmology.

My comment:
The authors argument of the first cosmological stories and "the further the story travelled, the more uncertain a story became", doesn´t really hold waters. The first human cosmological stories are basically STILL very similar and certain.

It´s more the later historic and modern humans who are being more and more uncertain of the cosmological extends and meaning in the ancient cultural Stories of Creation, which all were and still are very similar. If the meaning in these old stories frequently have been retold and remembered, I bet the standing cosmological confusions never would have taken place.

All the ancient stories had LIGHT = Electromagnetic Frequencies to be the creative and cyclically recreative power, so an "Electric Universe" isn´t a modern invention at all.

BTW: Our ancestors didn´t have any stories of a beginning of the entire Universe, as their telling "only" concerned the pre-conditions and factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy and the Solar System, and besides this, they had the creation cycles to be eternal everywhere.

Sarcastic excerpt: Mathematics can be used to describe not understood cosmological observations, thus leading the scientists and everyone else further and further astray without having any logical connections to the real world.

Regards
Native

 

[F1fan]

I'm not sure what the "mess" is, but I'm confident in modern cosmologists in doing competent and expert work in understanding what is true about the universe. They will report their findings, and we will defer to their expertise.

 

[icehorse]

Welcome to science.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the biggest problems in cosmology is connected to Einstein's theory of Relativity, and how frames of reference are relative. What that means is, since we have to observe the universe; cosmology, from the earth, which is only a relative reference, we can never do a universal energy balance to prove any theory. A difference frame of reference in space and time may add things differently in their frame.

This is the reason we have had to add dark matter and dark energy, even though these things are not yet been proven in the lab. The energy balance was off based on new relative observations, from our relative reference, which then needed a bandaid for the standard model.

Einstein also showed us how to overcome the limits of relative reference and get this done. The speed of light is the same in all references. This means the speed of light, is the universal reference, from which we can close the universal energy balance and come to universal truth, and not stay stuck at relative opinion.

If you viewed the universe from a speed of light reference, the universe would appear to be collapsed into a point-instant. This is handy, since everything is all there in one point-instant place in space and time. This is a good place to add things up.

The actual universe is not really compressed to a point-instant. It is still spread out over space and time like we see it on earth. It is our speed of light reference that gives the universe this point-instant appearance. We are in a reference, that allows us to see the spread out universe as a single thing; singularity. This unique frame is where space-time is not appropriate. A different model needs to be used. This allows us to break relative deadlock.

Say I took out a special microscope, to look at the point-instant universe, from our speed of light reference. With this microscope we can expand the view of point-instant, without altering our time scale in speed of light reference, or the time scale of the spread out universe, that we see as contracted because of our speed of light reference. Space and time are no longer connected in our speed of light reference of the universe.

If space and time were no longer connected, one could move in space without the constraint to time. This is easy since the universe looks like a point, so I am everywhere in an instant; omnipresent in my reference. As the microscope zooms in to examines the universe, without altering my time scale; still at the speed of light, it sort of looks like the universe is expanding but it is still only a point representation of something that is already spread out.

 

[Native]

I'm not sure what the "mess" is, but I'm confidnt in modern cosmologists in doing competent and expert work in understanding what is true about the universe.

You have about 5 % sort of scientific order - and 95 % black scientific invented mess.

And above all this, you have an invented, unexplainable or testable beginning of the Universe.

They will report their findings, and we will defer to their expertise.

Granted, they are some 5 % scientific experts - and some 95 % messed up scientists and theorists.

 

[Native]

Einstein also showed us how to overcome the limits of relative reference and get this done. The speed of light is the same in all references.

As far as I know, nobody have ever directly measured the speed of light and I´m sure it isn´t constant.

If it was/is considered not to be a constant, the need of an extra exponential expanding dark energy wouldn´t have been a problem at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Welcome to science.

It's more interesting that science is "messy".
If all were known, & no theories were ever
changed, how boring would that be, eh.
Instead, we discover that the universe & reality
are more complex than previously thought.

 

[Native]

It's more interesting that science is "messy".
If all were known, & no theories were ever
changed, how boring would that be, eh.
Instead, we discover that the universe & reality
are more complex than previously thought.

Well, in this case modern cosmology fulfills your "not knowing criteria" quite well and it will for a long time too

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, in this case modern cosmology fulfills your "not knowing criteria" quite well and it will for a long time too

More & more becomes known (ie, data).
And yet it becomes more & more complex.
Theories change & improve.
This is good.

 

[sun rise]

You have about 5 % sort of scientific order - and 95 % black scientific invented mess.

You might benefit from this Science 101 introduction: How science works - Understanding Science

 

[ChristineM]

As far as I know, nobody have ever directly measured the speed of light and I´m sure it isn´t constant.

If it was/is considered not to be a constant, the need of an extra exponential expanding dark energy wouldn´t have been a problem at all.

There have been many direct measurements of the speed of light going back to 1676. Over the years the results have been refined. The advent of lasers allowed very high precision measurements.

How is the speed of light measured?

And yes its constant in vacuum but slows down by different amounts when traveling through different mediums.

Scientists Slow Down Speed of Light

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the-mess-in-modern-cosmology

Another science in crisis thread? They're usually from theists about evolution, but we also see it from other people, like the ones who see the ancients as superhuman or extraterrestrial - basically anybody not getting the support they want from science.

There is no crisis in science, and unanswered questions are not a "mess." Competing perspectives like creationism are in crisis and are a mess, but not cosmology or any other aspect of scientific investigation.

Scientists experience new, paradigm-challenging discoveries as exciting, and as challenges. This is what they do - look for manifestations in reality not already explainable in order to modify the narrative to incorporate these new observations. That's why we have dark matter and energy. Each was proposed to account for otherwise unexplained observations. Do you watch the popular science shows like How The Universe Works? I do. They interview a host of prominent astronomers and cosmologists (Plait, Tegmark, Filipenko), who effervesce with enthusiasm in contemplation of these mysteries. None seem to be experiencing their field as a mess or in crisis.

 

[cladking]

There is no crisis in science, and unanswered questions are not a "mess." Competing perspectives like creationism are in crisis and are a mess, but not cosmology or any other aspect of scientific investigation

Really!!!?

You don't think that a theory that holds there are an infinite number of pyramids all built with ramps shows cosmology in chaos?

Why have we been waiting over a century for the unified field theory?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't think that a theory that holds there are an infinite number of pyramids all built with ramps shows cosmology in chaos?

I suppose you mean the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. My answer to your question is no. Why would I consider that chaos? It's an interesting speculation that causes no problem for science beyond an unanswered question, the answering of which is what science is for.

Why have we been waiting over a century for the unified field theory?

The problem is apparently especially difficult to solve. Do you think that is a source of chaos or crisis in science? It's not.

 

[cladking]

I suppose you mean the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. My answer to your question is no. Why would I consider that chaos? It's an interesting speculation that causes no problem for science beyond an unanswered question, the answering of which is what science is for.

I'm sorry but universes popping out of points and created from nothing at all is very disturbing to me. They seem obviously to be an artefact of mathematics and have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Who knows maybe there really are an infinite number of pyramids and infinitely more every microsecond and maybe they were each built with ramps but these are still highly nonintuitive theories. This goes many times over for me since I don't believe there are any pyramids at all built with ramps.

It hardly stops with an infinitely accelerating creation of realities since there are other just as "crazy" theories out there now days.

The problem is apparently especially difficult to solve. Do you think that is a source of chaos or crisis in science? It's not.

I believe it is so difficult because our definitions and axioms are all wrong. Across the board we simply don't understand the most basic things so we can't see that our theories and facts are based on erroneous and confused terms and axioms. The problem might not be soluble in the terms and mathematics we have chosen to use. Science is merely a tool and experimental science might not be the right tool for this specific job.


I believe we need to go back and examine everything from the get go. We need a standard scientific language where many words have a fixed definition. We may need to examine other means of getting by this problem.

It is quite apparent that we do have a mess.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm sorry but universes popping out of points and created from nothing at all is very disturbing to me. They seem obviously to be an artefact of mathematics and have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Who knows maybe there really are an infinite number of pyramids and infinitely more every microsecond and maybe they were each built with ramps but these are still highly nonintuitive theories. This goes many times over for me since I don't believe there are any pyramids at all built with ramps.

OK, but how does this translate into a crisis for science? Where's the mess? Quantum theory and relativity are also highly counterintuitive, with time dilating and particles popping out in points for no apparent reason.

Across the board we simply don't understand the most basic things so we can't see that our theories and facts are based on erroneous and confused terms and axioms.

I don't see that, either. The existing scientific theories work quite well at anticipating nature. Robotic probes rendezvous with celestial object at the same time and place after years of each traveling through space. That wouldn't be possible if science and its assumptions weren't on a strong foundation, unlike the pseudosciences, which cannot predict outcomes at all. That's how we know the former is correct and the latter, like astrology, which astronomy replaced, is not.

It is quite apparent that we do have a mess.

You feel that way, but science doesn't, and I don't. Even if we never learn another thing, the science we have now is and will remain one of the greatest of human achievements. We will always have electricity and anesthesia, for example.

 

[cladking]

OK, but how does this translate into a crisis for science? Where's the mess?

Cosmology might be stuck in 1920. that's a mess.

Quantum theory and relativity are also highly counterintuitive, with time dilating and particles popping out in points for no apparent reason

Yes, some of the stuff that is apparently real is counterintuitive but my guess is that it will be more intuitive after we learn more.

I don't see that, either. The existing scientific theories work quite well at anticipating nature.

Up to a point, yes.

But we still don't even know what causes gravity and have only a rough estimate of its speed.

unlike the pseudosciences, which cannot predict outcomes at all.

I did not and do not suggest we switch to pseudoscience.

You feel that way, but science doesn't, and I don't. Even if we never learn another thing, the science we have now is and will remain one of the greatest of human achievements. We will always have electricity and anesthesia, for example.

Progress is necessary.

It is required economically and for the human spirit.

Sometimes you simply have no choice but to turn around and find the detour.

 

[Native]

More & more becomes known (ie, data).
And yet it becomes more & more complex.
Theories change & improve.
This is good.

If more and more cosmological data results in more and more questions, it´s most likely the cosmological theories and interpretations of the data which are wrong.

 

[Native]

You might benefit from this Science 101 introduction: How science works - Understanding Science

Thank you, but I prefer to judge that from how it works by examples from the real life.

If it cannot provide logical answers, they just invent black holes, dark matter and dark energy.

When Newtons "universal law of celestial motion" was contradicted by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve, scientist just added "dark matter" to patch the contradiction.

If obeying the "Scientific Method" and "How science works", they should have revised and even maybe discarded Newtons contradicted ideas but they didn´t and this isn´t science.

 

[Native]

Another science in crisis thread? They're usually from theists about evolution, but we also see it from other people, like the ones who see the ancients as superhuman or extraterrestrial - basically anybody not getting the support they want from science.

So you´re taking all new angles of cosmological approaches but the conventional as being of no values? May I remind you that new ideas in cosmology and other were mostly come from alternate and independent thinking?

There is no crisis in science, and unanswered questions are not a "mess." Competing perspectives like creationism are in crisis and are a mess, but not cosmology or any other aspect of scientific investigation.

I haven´t promoted or mentioned "creationism" and I know for sure that the video author don´t promote it either.

Scientists experience new, paradigm-challenging discoveries as exciting, and as challenges. This is what they do - look for manifestations in reality not already explainable in order to modify the narrative to incorporate these new observations. That's why we have dark matter and energy. Each was proposed to account for otherwise unexplained observations.

No, we have dark matter because the conventinal scientists only include 1/4 of the fundamental forces and the weakest one too.

Do you watch the popular science shows like How The Universe Works? I do. They interview a host of prominent astronomers and cosmologists (Plait, Tegmark, Filipenko), who effervesce with enthusiasm in contemplation of these mysteries. None seem to be experiencing their field as a mess or in crisis.

Of course the participants are happy to be invited in those shows. "Popular shows" just shows off what is conventionally polular, and it take decades and centuries for popular science to change its usesless paradigms.