Open minded?

It seems that a number of posters are going on trying to attack current physical theories in cosmology. They think that only they as outsiders are going to do this because, like the religous minded, the scientists 'on the inside' don't want to throw out sacred cows.from: Page Not Found | Science Mission Directorate

quote:

---

Sooner or later, the reign of Einstein, like the reign of Newton before him, will come to an end. An upheaval in the world of physics that will overthrow our notions of basic reality is inevitable, most scientists believe, and currently a horse race is underway between a handful of theories competing to be the successor to the throne.

---

and

quote:

---

A new concept for an experiment to test the predictions of Einstein's relativity more precisely than ever before is being developed by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Their mission, which effectively uses our solar system as a giant laboratory, would help narrow the field of vying theories and bring us one step closer to the next revolution in physics.

---

One of the things that has come from the Pioneer 10 and 11 and Ulysses satelllites is anomalous gravity behavior on the (approximate) scale of the dark matter effect within our solar system:http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1998/09/10/54.asp
http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/gravnew.html
Pages perso Orange - Domaine obsolteEither dark matter exists in our solar system or some other mechanism is responsible for the effect that is not part of the standard model of gravity. And if dark matter exists this close, we should be able to find it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

The Pioneer results are far more likely due to effects associated with the probes themselves than dark matter or alternate gravity theories.

My understanding is that those effects have been eliminated.

No they have not. In fact they never probably will be. I saw a paper on this a few months ago (sorry cannot remember who by) and it talked extensively about radiation effects on the structure of the probes and some other tiny physical effects and that they might account for the anomaly.By the way, from what I have read - the deviations from GR needed or 'dark matter' required would have easliy shown up in other observations.Certainly the 'dark matter' one is not the cause.GR probably is not the cause. And this will be put to rest soon when Gravity Probe B is launched.That leaves the more obvious and more likely cause to be minor, unforeseen dynamical effects on the probes by radiation, internal stresses/outgassings etc etc of the probes themselves.

System Unavailable This paper seems to conclude no new physics required.I would note that one of the problems of using the Pioneer (or Ulysses and Voyager) probes for investigating new physics in this manner is that they were not dedicated missions designed for this work. It was known all along that such measurements of their dynamics would place constraints on existing physics BUT it was not a mission priority. They were designed primarily for planetary observation and as such included gas thrusters for attitude adjustments etc. and their odd shapes. The problem is that this complicates things due to having to take account of many possible
effects that could contribute to their motions.A dedicated mission for this work would have eliminated these factors and would make analysis much more straightforward.I guess the lesson to be learned is that although the idea of using the probes post observation mission was a good idea - it is difficult (dangerous) to infer things for which they were not really designed for. And to propose new physics for the anomalies is on shaky ground to say the least.

So we'll have to wait for the gravity probe. okay.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

so only another couple years and we might have some questions

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've lost track, did they ever get the gyro's repaired?

they better havehttp://www1.nasa.gov/...ns/highlights/launch_update_gpb.htmlit's up there ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

come from two totally opposite mind sets.There are those who would like absolutes. "Okay, we know that and now let's move on", vs "Well that explains what I see and so let's use that explaination until we find something it doesn't explain".No matter what branch of Science you are dealing with, there simply are no absolutes. Any tool, any theory we use is simply the best, simplest explaination for what we see around us available today. If someone comes up with something simpler, or someone comes up with something that the current toolset cannot explain, then we either adopt the better toolset or develop a new toolset that will explain what is seen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am certain that few would agree that what we are really discovering from input data available through only five senses is the iron frame of our own minds. Thinking. Thinking about these absolute abstractions will absolutely lead to understanding the "operating system" of our mind. Probably, though, not understand that which we abstractly examine with the dark closed intraneural black box in our skull.Mathematicians might agree. Some of the best admit to the errie feeling that the "new" theorems which occur to them have resulted as "uncoveries" of the framework lattice of mathematics, rather than some invention of a way around problems. The math theoroms are already in their mind, hardwired. Finding the way the "program" works is the "enlightenment" of their discovery.If they are correct, and if all we can ever do in science is limited by an Uncertainty Principle operating in our mind, then GUT has been mathematical formulated by and with Euler's Equation. That equation contains the five basic mathematical constants and is the foundation for all the mathematical language by which we understand and communicate our science.Is this reasonable, or as far out as religion?Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us, the Universe, as in a Microcosmos of his mind, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and mathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.

Nosy - I think we need a more descriptive title for this topic. Can't come up with one on my own, so I'm looking to you for suggestions.Adminnemooseus

You're right, of course,Now what to pick? The topic is, like most, heading off on it's own course. My original intention was to point out how our understanding moves at the fuzzy edges of knowledge and show how our understanding is not cast in concrete.
Here are some suggestions:Science At The Leading Edge
New Areas of Exploration in Science
Ezamples of Scientific Controversy
How Science Corrects Our UnderstandingDo any of those seem to catch anyone as suitable?

but I have always seen it in the other direction. How understanding corrects our Science.Is Science the driving force is it the result of understanding?Do Scientists discover something NEW, or do they simply observe something and then try to understand HOW that came to be?[This message has been edited by jar, 04-23-2004]

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion