Post
by jjohnson » Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:12 pm
In the article, I think the term "misidentified" is the operative verb. What they posit as dark energy and matter, and black holes "hiding" at the center of galaxies and other popular places is just that - something which they posit, or hypothesize, as causing effects nearby, some observable, and most not. The numerous contradictions and revised theories should indicate that there's trouble in River City with that model.
Just because things are not observable in physics doesn't mean that they do not or cannot exist (nor that they do or can, either), if you take observable to mean observable by us using our own senses and the senses we have constructed to upshift and downshift other parts of the EM spectrum to the part that we can see (i.e., to images visible to us.) We draw conclusions all the time from secondary effects of the agent itself - such as, say, gravity or eletromagnetism. We do not "see" gravity except by observing things which "fall" or appear to obey orbital mechanics, and we have yet to observe any effect at all, however subtle, of the hypothesis of gravity waves or gravitons. One cannot take a picture of a galaxy, say, in "the gravity end of the spectrum". One can make graphic depictions of gravity and magnetic and electric fields once some basic observations are made on how their strength appears to vary by position coordinates. We can even turn it into a movie by making a time-ordered sequence of how those strengths vary over time. Such depictions are plausible as long as they follow the rules by which we think physics operates, and are extremely useful so long as they describe what is REALLY going on, and can predict a consequential effect at a later time (which should be objectively measurable in order to see if it "followed the rule"). But beware. There are completely believable movies showing humans walking with dinosaurs, too. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "For every physics question there are solutions which are neat, plausible, and wrong."
With black holes and the standard model and string theory, almost nothing seems to predict properly, almost everything is unobservable and therefore not falsifiable. These conditions tend to place black holes into the faith category because there is a large body, or congregation, of working scientists who sincerely have faith that this is the way things work. We all really, really want to know how things work. Some of us have gotten a little dissatisfied and disappointed with the multiple and conflicting interpretations of how things work among cosmologists and most astrophysicists and probably NASA, too. So, we're just looking in other places. Just because the light is better under the corner street lamp, and all your friends are searching there, doesn't mean that's the most likely place to find your lost your wallet! So far, the EU and plasma cosmology approach seems to jibe better with what we perceive as reality, whatever that is. These EU concepts will become increasingly powerful and persuasive only if we can enlarge our repertoire of successful, accurate and totally surprising and unexpected (by the congregation) predictions of "how things work". Most of physics, and science in general, is doing pretty well in this department. As has been written many times, the astronomical parts and possibly the relativity and red shift parts, took the wrong switch (or set of points, as railroad fans say) and the buffaloes are heading for a cliff.
A final quote from H.L. Mencken (an avowed racist, unfortunately, who nonetheless got a lot of his observations on the state of minds of men and women correct) is as follows: "Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice." Or, as Filp Wilson asked, "Do de name Ruby Begonia ring a bell?"
Black holes are objects of faith, not observed entities. As such, they are solely supported by faith and one does not argue with those of that faith, or any other faith, for that matter. Faith is not subject to argument, which is where the creation scientists (oxymoron alert!) got off their track. Science IS subject to argument, and should suffer skeptics gladly so long as the skeptics argue by presenting something plausible and observable and falsifiable as rebuttal and alternative. Faith and science are far more different than apples and oranges. They need to be kept in separate pockets or drawers, and never be trotted out at the same time. Neither is wrong in light of the other; they should have nothing to do with one another. In a perfect world (which this ain't, I hypothesize) scientists with a given set of working hypotheses and theories would be interested and eager to entertain and examine alternative competition, so long as it is presented as a plausible alternative. If they can falsify it, it eliminates an avenue of fruitless research that they can then safely ignore, and continue working on their own stuff. If they cannot falsify it, why, there might be something there which is a better paradigm of how things work, and they can stop barking down their former trail and adopt something which turns out to be the better model. This is scientific theory selection and appraisal in action; sort of the evolution of science itself.
Sounds simple in concept, like Darwin's origin of species and subsequent developments in clade theory and then molecular biology (Read Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is" for a cogent and beautiful exposition of scientific history and evolution of evolutionary science itself.) But it has become terribly hard to change the vector of high-inertia astro-cosmological science today, with even the most attractive and plausible ideas formulated over decades by serious scientists, engineers and bright observers. So, we just have to keep chipping away at this, and hope the dam will break one of these times. Preferably in my lifetime. A sense of humor always helps, as well as making the case that these ideas are presented humbly as helpful alternative paths to consider. Remember, today's humans are just the members of the family that managed to do things right, under the circumstances. -and the Neandertals weren't.
Improvise. Adapt. Overcome!
