| Previous page of Issue |
Formalising The Heavens (Part 2)
| SERIES: Formalising The Heavens AUTHOR: Jim Schofield |
STRANDS: PHYSICS |
ABSTRACT: This series was elicited by an article in New Scientist (2682) in which the author was putting forward a new explanation for the finding of supernovae “beyond” the extent of the Big Bang Universe. The previous “fix” for such anomalies had been the idea that the expansion of the Universe was increasing in speed the further out it extended. Obviously, such acceleration was the opposite of what had been expected, for the only possible and known force was gravity. But if the opposite was true it needed a force to propel it, and so the idea of a Dark Energy or Force had been “revealed”. Clearly, an unknown force from an unknown source, which does not diminish with the vast extension of the Universe, is an obvious frig. But, when you are totally wedded to equations, an alternative would be hard to come by. The author suggest a “lens” of greater gravitation around our piece of Space, which distorts the seeming position of these supernovae, and makes them seem much further away or earlier in time, or indeed whatever will paper over the cracks. This paper, in response, spends little time on the frig, but a great deal of time on the authors' philosophical and methodological standpoints, explaining their exit from a materialist scientific standpoint and method, and their entry into one that sees everything driven by formulae alone. And of course such a switch puts them into an entirely different category. Indeed, it positions them squarely into an idealist standpoint, in which as long as you can find the mathematical scaffold, you have explained everything. I’m afraid not! |
SYNOPSIS: 1. Now, in addition to becoming as similarly maths-led as Physics, Cosmology also has also taken Phase II of this retreat from explanation. Its theorising jumped even quicker than Physics into maths-led speculation. Data taken from the heavens are only those that are for confirmation of “theories” discovered (?) by only studying the equations alone. 2. Now, this, as you can see, could only become a circle of confirmation! The real data was the basis for the mathematical formulae, aspects of which were “earmarked” as entirely new entities, and these were then looked for by again studying the Heavens. The question is, “Why would such a circle ever fail? But, fail they certainly do in spite of this circle! 3. Now, not all scientists in every discipline subscribe to this approach. The truly great contributions to Cosmology concerned with the creation of the heavier elements by fusion in stars were and remain real Science. 4. Let us be absolutely clear – equations are merely Forms. They do not and cannot explain anything. Hoyle’s explanation of the creation of the heavy elements within stars was not derived from a formal equation. 5. In step with their colleagues in Physics, the “modern” Cosmologists have become Mathematicians – idealists of Form alone, and the stream of impossible conceptions from Physics is constant and proving more and more debilitating to Cosmology. 6. Of all the Science, Cosmology is indeed the most likely to slip into total Laplacian mechanism, because of the extreme isolations of its participating objects. The current Universe is seen as merely a complication of eternal basic laws. 7. Yet, even these idealists have to admit that the Universe has evolved! Indeed, they couldn’t piece together any narrative of the Universe without labelling the crucial stages in development. 8. But, can such methods explain the most significant event in the history of that Universe – the Origin of Life? The answer is, of course, “No!” Also did Thinking exist in the early Universe? The answer is, again,”No!” Do short period revolutions of change – termed Emergences, happen in this history, and can you explain them? By now you will know the answers! 9. Idealist Science is no basis for Cosmology, and will not, via its present trajectory explain “What happens next?” Though to read the various tracts by its supporters, they seem to “know everything” all the way to the Universe’s ultimate and certain demise. |
| Left click to open in browser window, right click to download. |
| Previous paper in series |