A dark future for cosmology

On Dec 17, 9:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:

Space is void. Not much we can do about that other than
accept it. Of course there are local pockets of "matter" and
"fields" that occupy some of the space. Investigating those
is called "physics".

Hyup. Dark future it is. :-) oc

oldcoot wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:
Space is void. Not much we can do about that other than
accept it. Of course there are local pockets of "matter" and
"fields" that occupy some of the space. Investigating those
is called "physics".

Hyup. Dark future it is. :-) oc


....only in the minds of those who prefer fantasy over science.
See 'Dingbat' and the saucerheads, for one example.

D. Ismay wrote:

oldcoot wrote:
On Dec 17, 9:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:
Space is void. Not much we can do about that other than
accept it. Of course there are local pockets of "matter" and
"fields" that occupy some of the space. Investigating those
is called "physics".

Hyup. Dark future it is. :-) oc


...only in the minds of those who prefer fantasy over science.
See 'Dingbat' and the saucerheads, for one example.

The problem with your statement is, it doesn't take into consideration that
often science is pure fantasy too.

Cyber Trekker wrote:
D. Ismay wrote:

oldcoot wrote:
Hyup. Dark future it is. :-) oc

...only in the minds of those who prefer fantasy over science.
See 'Dingbat' and the saucerheads, for one example.

The problem with your statement is, it doesn't take into consideration that
often science is pure fantasy too.

and you have an example?

"D. Ismay"
oohoo.Woohoo.Woohoohoo
wrote in message ...
Cyber Trekker wrote:
D. Ismay wrote:
oldcoot wrote:

Hyup. Dark future it is. :-) oc

...only in the minds of those who prefer fantasy over science.
See 'Dingbat' and the saucerheads, for one example.

The problem with your statement is, it doesn't take into consideration
that
often science is pure fantasy too.

and you have an example?

There are many examples in history...

Flat Earth -- There was a time when a "round"
Earth, though not that difficult to "prove", was
a very hard idea to believe in. BUT, the idea
that Earth was flat or cylindrical and not a
sphere was indeed a FANTASY.

Geocentric Theory -- Earth as center of the
Universe. FANTASY

Heliocentric Theory -- Sun as center of the
Universe. FANTASY

The Milky Way Galaxy is the whole Universe,
and everything we see in the sky is inside our
Galaxy -- it wasn't until the Great Debate of
Shapley and Curtis (1920) that this idea really
began to fade. Then Hubble (1925) provided
evidence that there were other great galaxies
that were *outside* the Milky Way. Since then,
the old idea that our Galaxy was the whole
Universe has been accepted as FANTASY.

(I've always thought it interesting that this all
took place *after* Einstein's stuff hit the fan.)

Since history abounds with science housing
ideas that have since been shown to be utter
FANTASY, it has to make you wonder how very
deeply FANTASY continues to remain a part of
our science. Let me be quick to note that this
is not meant as a cut or slight toward science.
Science is and has always been an important
set of disciplines looking for reality and truth.

And yet, for many reasons, we all must still
accept that there is much to learn, and still a
good bit of FANTASY to overcome...

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

....and not just these old ideas that hang on for
dear life, but also existing ideas, especially in
cosmology and particle physics, ideas that
might very well turn out to be FANTASY in the
coming years!

happy holidays and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Here are some secret sites... shhh
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org/
http://home.secretsgolden.com

On Dec 21, 1:38*pm, "D. Ismay" wrote:
Cyber Trekker wrote:
D. Ismay wrote:

The problem with your statement is, it doesn't take into consideration that
often science is pure fantasy too.

and you have an example?

Not all of science per se, but "fantasy" certainly describes the hydra-
headed fantasmagoria spawned of cosmology, astrophysics and
theoretical physics. 'Dark matter', 'dark energy', 'eleven
dimensions'(or whatever number is currently in vogue), 'gravitons',
'virtual' particles, are just a few examples of kludgery and ad hoc
fixes necessary to sustain the grandest and most audacious **Fantasy**
of them all: the Void-Space Paradigm(VSP), the doctrine of 'no
medium'.. hatched out of whole cloth scarcely 80 years ago, and now
entrenched as the bedrock axiom of science.
By comparison, it's as if the science of oceanography were predicated
on the doctrine that there is "no ocean". Hrrmph. oc

oldcoot wrote:

On Dec 21, 1:38Â*pm, "D. Ismay" wrote:
Cyber Trekker wrote:
D. Ismay wrote:

The problem with your statement is, it doesn't take into consideration
that often science is pure fantasy too.

and you have an example?

Not all of science per se, but "fantasy" certainly describes the hydra-
headed fantasmagoria spawned of cosmology, astrophysics and
theoretical physics. 'Dark matter', 'dark energy', 'eleven
dimensions'(or whatever number is currently in vogue), 'gravitons',
'virtual' particles, are just a few examples of kludgery and ad hoc
fixes necessary to sustain the grandest and most audacious **Fantasy**
of them all: the Void-Space Paradigm(VSP), the doctrine of 'no
medium'.. hatched out of whole cloth scarcely 80 years ago, and now
entrenched as the bedrock axiom of science.
By comparison, it's as if the science of oceanography were predicated
on the doctrine that there is "no ocean". Hrrmph. oc


It, contrariwise, extends to all areas of science to varying degrees. That
is to say, it is a matter of the degree of the outpicturing of fantasy in
any particular branch of science. No branch of science, therefore, is
entirely free of participating in some form of fantasy. Cosmology,
astrophysics and the gamut of theoretical science are merely the tip of the
iceberg. Science is no different to any other area of human endeavour, no
matter how ardently the science proponents present otherwise.

As to Painius's most revealing response, I am currently preparing a reply to
his most thought out post that should appear on the newsgroup whenever I
have the time to complete it. I but add a few things and highly relevant
points not generally appreciated he left out.

On Dec 22, 3:09*pm, Cyber Trekker wrote:


It, contrariwise, extends to all areas of science to varying degrees. That
is to say, it is a matter of the degree of the outpicturing of fantasy in
any particular branch of science. No branch of science, therefore, is
entirely free of participating in some form of fantasy. Cosmology,
astrophysics and the gamut of theoretical science are merely the tip of the
iceberg.

However, science by and large is empirically self-verifying. The
predictive power of the Scientific Method 'works' phenomenally well in
most all applications in all branches of science.. EXCEPT in the arena
of cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics. 'Science-as-
Fantasy' (SAF) is certainly the name of the game here, predicated as
it is on the space-as-void mandate. In this respect, SAF is the
'iceberg', not the 'tip of the iceberg'. oc

oldcoot wrote:

On Dec 22, 3:09Â*pm, Cyber Trekker wrote:


It, contrariwise, extends to all areas of science to varying degrees.
That is to say, it is a matter of the degree of the outpicturing of
fantasy in any particular branch of science. No branch of science,
therefore, is entirely free of participating in some form of fantasy.
Cosmology, astrophysics and the gamut of theoretical science are merely
the tip of the iceberg.

However, science by and large is empirically self-verifying. The
predictive power of the Scientific Method 'works' phenomenally well in
most all applications in all branches of science.. EXCEPT in the arena
of cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics. 'Science-as-
Fantasy' (SAF) is certainly the name of the game here, predicated as
it is on the space-as-void mandate. In this respect, SAF is the
'iceberg', not the 'tip of the iceberg'. oc

Science is not of itself empirically self-verifying - if you think it is,
then you don't have a realistic understanding of the empirical method.
Science, as humanity has developed and understands it, is the human
interpretation of nature containing facts, theories, suppositions and
half-truths. The so-called scientific method is open to the foibles of
humanity and has to be corrected over time by humanity itself.
Consequently, it's not self-correcting. The correction process is often
stultified by the blinkers that humanity wears, imposing an interpretation
onto nature and refusing to let go of that conception.

Your supposition that the self-correcting nature of the scientific method
works phenomenally well is often a belief drawn from the interpretation of
nature that has been incorrectly interpreted, defined and placed into a
category of which appears to be correct. There is no exception in
actuality, even though it may appear that there is one to human perception,
conception and that which humanity designates as reality. In effect, your
reliance on cosmology, astronomy and theoretical physics in relation to
this is symptomatic of and affects your viewpoint. It constitutes, then, a
component of that science-as-fantasy of which you speak. Your mistake is
limiting it to only a few branches of science. And this constitutes a
perceptible weakness in your argument.

Your limiting scientific fantasy to cosmology, astronomy and theoretical
physics has you drawing the erroneous conclusion that your conception of
science-as-fantasy is the iceberg, not the tip of the iceberg. Your
statement is wrong, as those branches of science are not the totality of
the science of which is affected by the science-as-fantasy concept, it is
as I've stated only the tip of the iceberg.

On Dec 22, 10:13*pm, Cyber Trekker wrote:
oldcoot wrote:
On Dec 22, 3:09*pm, Cyber Trekker wrote:

It, contrariwise, extends to all areas of science to varying degrees.
That is to say, it is a matter of the degree of the outpicturing of
fantasy in any particular branch of science. No branch of science,
therefore, is entirely free of participating in some form of fantasy.
Cosmology, astrophysics and the gamut of theoretical science are merely
the tip of the iceberg.

However, science by and large is empirically self-verifying. The
predictive power of the Scientific Method 'works' phenomenally well in
most all applications in all branches of science.. EXCEPT in the arena
of cosmology, astrophysics and theoretical physics. 'Science-as-
Fantasy' (SAF) is certainly the name of the game here, predicated as
it is on the space-as-void mandate. In this respect, SAF is the
'iceberg', not the 'tip of the iceberg'. *oc

Science is not of itself empirically self-verifying - if you think it is,
then you don't have a realistic understanding of the empirical method.
Science, as humanity has developed *and understands it, is the human
interpretation of nature containing facts, theories, suppositions and
half-truths. The so-called scientific method is open to the foibles of
humanity and has to be corrected over time by humanity itself.
Consequently, it's not self-correcting. The correction process is often
stultified by the blinkers that humanity wears, imposing an interpretation
onto nature and refusing to let go of that conception.

Your supposition that the self-correcting nature of the scientific method
works phenomenally well is often a belief drawn from the interpretation of
nature that has been incorrectly interpreted, defined and placed into a
category of which appears to be correct. There is no exception in
actuality, even though it may appear that there is one to human perception,
conception and that which humanity designates as reality. In effect, your
reliance on cosmology, astronomy and theoretical physics in relation to
this is symptomatic of and affects your viewpoint. It constitutes, then, a
component of that science-as-fantasy of which you speak. Your mistake is
limiting it to only a few branches of science. And this constitutes a
perceptible weakness in your argument.

Your limiting scientific fantasy to cosmology, astronomy and theoretical
physics has you drawing the erroneous conclusion that your conception of
science-as-fantasy is the iceberg, not the tip of the iceberg. Your
statement is wrong, as those branches of science are not the totality of
the science of which is affected by the science-as-fantasy concept, it is
as I've stated only the tip of the iceberg.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Cyber Sci-fiction today helps us in our view of good science theories
in the future. Bert+Sunbeam