Crisis in Cosmology

Les non-inscrits qui veulent poster un message, c'est ici (pré-modéré). Seuls les modérateurs peuvent répondre.

Message par gerard_wegan » 25 Nov 2005, 22:44

... Retour du Caupo masqué ? :-P
gerard_wegan
 
Message(s) : 2
Inscription : 31 Oct 2002, 08:32

Message par gerard_wegan » 25 Nov 2005, 23:04

Possible d'avoir les références de l'article ? Google ne donne rien...
gerard_wegan
 
Message(s) : 2
Inscription : 31 Oct 2002, 08:32

Message par com_71 » 25 Nov 2005, 23:53

(gerard_wegan @ vendredi 25 novembre 2005 à 23:04 a écrit : Possible d'avoir les références de l'article ? Google ne donne rien...
L’intérêt ne pense pas, il calcule. Les motifs sont ses chiffres. K. Marx, « Débats sur la loi relative au vol de bois » 1842.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
com_71
 
Message(s) : 5984
Inscription : 12 Oct 2002, 00:14

Message par gerard_wegan » 26 Nov 2005, 23:56

Un mot pour notre "unregistred guest" : quand tu postes des articles ou des extraits, peux-tu donner les références ? Valable aussi pour le pdf en lien : quelle revue, quelle date ?
gerard_wegan
 
Message(s) : 2
Inscription : 31 Oct 2002, 08:32

Message par com_71 » 01 Déc 2005, 16:30

http://www.marxist.com/mexican-reason-in-revolt171105.htm

(extrait de la nlle préface de "Reason in Revolt" a écrit :The big bang

One of the more controversial aspects of the book was our criticism of the Big Bang theory of cosmology. This is undoubtedly a model that is said to answer many questions about the universe. But we must bear in mind that it remains a hypothesis, and that it certainly does not answer all the questions. Indeed, as time goes on, ever more questions and discrepancies appear. This process was exhaustively discussed by Kuhn, and it is equally applicable to the present situation in cosmology.

The big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities  things that we have never observed. The big bang theory cannot survive without assuming all kinds of things such as the inflation field, dark matter and dark energy. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

The history of science shows that even such an apparently secure and all-embracing theory as Newtonian classical mechanics, which was universally accepted as the last word by scientists for a very long time, was eventually shown to be incomplete and one-sided. At a certain stage small discrepancies emerge that cannot be explained. These are initially dismissed as trivial or irrelevant, but eventually lead to the overthrow of the established theory and its replacement by a revolutionary new theory, which remains in force until in turn new discrepancies emerge, and so on.

There is no reason at all to suppose that the present situation in cosmology and theoretical physics will be any different. Especially if we bear in mind that the study of the universe involves a tremendous number of unknown factors. We are basing ourselves of necessity on partial observations of the visible universe, and many errors may creep in as a result of lack of information. To some extent this can be made up for by resorting to abstract mathematical models and the results provided by particle physics etc. But in the last analysis these results must be checked by experiment and observation. They cannot serve as a substitute for the latter.

There have been many theories in the past that were accepted unquestioningly by scientists because they appeared to explain things, but turned out to be false – for example phlogiston and ether. There is a striking comparison between these theories and the idea of “dark, cold matter” which has been posited by the supporters of the big bang theory in order to explain away the fact that there is simply not enough matter in the visible universe to fit in with the theory.

According to Eric Lerner and others, the big bang theory’s dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method. Dissident scientists recently met to review the evidence at the first ever Crisis in Cosmology conference in Monção, Portugal. The theory of the universe fails to explain certain crucial observations. Recently 33 eminent scientists submitted an Open Letter to the New Scientist magazine attacking the fact that alternate approaches are not being researched. This indicates that there is dissatisfaction in some circles about the present state of affairs in cosmology. This really should not surprise us.


Remarquons le ton mesuré de l'auteur qui n'affirme plus : "The big bang never happened", mais présente la théorie comme un stade de la connaissance envers lequel, naturellement, il reste sceptique.
L’intérêt ne pense pas, il calcule. Les motifs sont ses chiffres. K. Marx, « Débats sur la loi relative au vol de bois » 1842.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
com_71
 
Message(s) : 5984
Inscription : 12 Oct 2002, 00:14

Suivant

Retour vers Section invités

Qui est en ligne ?

Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 6 invité(s)