The Andromeda Galaxy And The Truth

TO THE ALT.ASTRONOMY NEWSGROUP

I have an enquiry which people in this Astronomy Newsgroup may wish
to ponder upon if they so wish:

This question is in two parts:

1 The Andromeda Galaxy has been stated as having the following
distances in millions of years : 2.2mly, 2.5mly, 2.9mly, or whatever any
other figure.What is the "current distance?"

2 Following on, much more seriously,can human beings ever truly
know The Absolute Truth when discussing The Universe and all that is
within it? The Revisionist Instinct is truly alive and well in astronomy.



Thank you.

Brian
Devonald

BRIAN DEVONALD wrote:
TO THE ALT.ASTRONOMY NEWSGROUP

I have an enquiry which people in this Astronomy Newsgroup may wish
to ponder upon if they so wish:

This question is in two parts:

1 The Andromeda Galaxy has been stated as having the following
distances in millions of years : 2.2mly, 2.5mly, 2.9mly, or whatever any
other figure.What is the "current distance?"

The value is roughly 2.6 to 2.8 million lightyears within experimental uncertainty.


2 Following on, much more seriously,can human beings ever truly
know The Absolute Truth when discussing The Universe and all that is
within it? The Revisionist Instinct is truly alive and well in astronomy.

It is not the province of science to explore "Absolute Truth" (whatever that
means - and in means different things to different people). That is the
province of philosophy. Science attempts to discover the underlying principles
of how the universe works and operates on the assumption that if we discover
laws here that work that they also work throughout the universe.

Brian Devonald wrote:

1 The Andromeda Galaxy has been stated as having the following
distances in millions of years : 2.2mly, 2.5mly, 2.9mly, or whatever any
other figure.What is the "current distance?"

There has been some potential revision of the older 2.2 million light year
distance from Hipparcos data on some "standard" stars (like Cepheids), but
last year's Observer's Handbook lists the distance as 730 kiloparsecs (about
2.4 million light years). This distance is probably uncertain by at least 10
percent. A more recent attempt at measurement by Stanek and Garnavich using
HST and Hipparcos data indicated a distance of 784 kiloparsecs (2.56 million
light years) with a claimed accuracy of about two percent or so.

2 Following on, much more seriously,can human beings ever truly
know The Absolute Truth when discussing The Universe and all that is
within it? The Revisionist Instinct is truly alive and well in astronomy.

We probably will never know every single thing about the universe, but we are
able to gain a considerable insight into its structure and evolution through
the science of Astronomy. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 02:54:55 -0000, "BRIAN DEVONALD"
wrote:

TO THE ALT.ASTRONOMY NEWSGROUP
snip



2 Following on, much more seriously,can human beings ever truly
know The Absolute Truth when discussing The Universe and all that is
within it? The Revisionist Instinct is truly alive and well in astronomy.

The scientific method requires a theory not only to have a way of
being confirmed, but more importantly, to be able of being disproved.
That is why religious beliefs are not scientific. That said,
scientists may have a theory of the universe that will not be
disproved in a million years, but like any good scientific theory, if
someone makes an observation or discovery that refutes such theory,
then it goes out the window. Newton's theory fo gravitation stood the
test of time until Einstein. Tomorrow, someone could develop another
theory to supplant Einstein. Absolute Truth has no business in
science. It is for philosophers and theologists to argue.

Kapella

'Kapella' wrote,

Newton's theory fo gravitation stood the
test of time until Einstein. Tomorrow,
someone could develop another theory
to supplant Einstein.

Einstein did not 'supplant' Newton. He built on and expanded on Newton's
mechanistic model. A new theory will not 'suppant' Eintsein nor would it
ever seek to. Rather it would expand on Einstein just as he expanded on
Newton.

Absolute Truth has no business in
science.

The _assumption_ of absolute truth has no place in science. Rather, real
science recognizes there is always another horizon to ponder and
eventually cross.

oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
'Kapella' wrote,

Newton's theory fo gravitation stood the
test of time until Einstein. Tomorrow,
someone could develop another theory
to supplant Einstein.

Einstein did not 'supplant' Newton. He built on and expanded on Newton's
mechanistic model. A new theory will not 'suppant' Eintsein nor would it
ever seek to. Rather it would expand on Einstein just as he expanded on
Newton.

Bill!!?! Bravo! Well said!

Newtonian Gravitation is a wholly owned subsidiary of GR.

"Whether abstract, profound, or just mystic,
Or boring, or somewhat simplistic,
A theory must lead
To results that we need
In limits, nonrelativistic."
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/limericks.htm


Absolute Truth has no business in
science.

The _assumption_ of absolute truth has no place in science. Rather, real
science recognizes there is always another horizon to ponder and
eventually cross.

oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:44:40 -0800 (PST), (Bill
Sheppard) wrote:


Einstein did not 'supplant' Newton. He built on and expanded on Newton's
mechanistic model. A new theory will not 'suppant' Eintsein nor would it
ever seek to. Rather it would expand on Einstein just as he expanded on
Newton.

I stand corrected. Einstein's theory encompasses Newton's. However,
for a while Newton's theory was the only theory of gravitation we had
that explained observed phenomena. Einstein's theory is more
accurate, but may not be the ultimate gravitational theory. My choice
of words was poor.



The _assumption_ of absolute truth has no place in science. Rather, real
science recognizes there is always another horizon to ponder and
eventually cross.


That was implied, or so I thought, by using the words Absolute Truth.
It is an assumption, but Absolute Truth cannot be proven.

We are actually in complete agreement, we are just expressing it in
different form. In the late 19th century, some scientists speculated
that they were close to complete knowledge, and felt sorry for the
scientists who would follow in their steps. It seems that as soon as
we have a reasonable answer for one problem, we get another bunch of
questions, and there seems to be no end in sight. Scientists will be
unraveling the mysteries of our universe for a long,long time.

Kapella