22 Aug 2014
What does it look like to dig up space fossils? How do astronomer’s discover evidence that tells us about the past of the universe?
In paleontology, fossils are discovered that are able to be classified into a predictable, and verifible 6-10 year, *recorded* history. Anything that goes beyond that timeframe has much less validation because no proof of a human written record exists. But Earth fossils can be given a placement in the history of man with reasonable supplemental evidence. On the otherhand, how does one verify the history of the stars? Can science really articulate what is going on out there? Is mathmatical theory really enough to claim something as solid as a fact? While of course there is telescopes, and deep space camera’s, moon rock samples, and space shuttle observations – what do human’s really know about the Milky Way, let along the universe-at-large?
It is my humble opinion that these predictions, which are brought forth due to a pressured endeavor to define our universal heritage, are about as accurate as the Ancient Greeks and their philosophical statements. They had not been experimenting with matter, testing their ideas, or peer-reviewing tested results. Their predictions were taken as gold, because they sounded good. While we should respect the imaginative curiosity of the Greeks, we should not follow this method’s proportioned heritage by simply implementing numbers and hd camera’s into the mix. These stars cannot be seen with our eyes, and that means that our perception of them lays at the mercy of the precision of the camera’s, telescopes, and math equations our feeble little minds have constructed. How do we know how to calibrate the instruments of Earth to measure the heavens?
Light year history
Since the stars we see are really the light that has traveled from the original star, what we are seeing is not necessarily what is out there. A careful method of pattern measurement first has to be implemented to predict the pattern of the decay of the star it’s gasses (which is subject to error), and that’s just to take our perception to the original object itself. And then to reconstruct the chemical and structural makeup of the object, or the structure of a galaxy, we are at the mercy of many things. How many filters does it take to tell us that our measurements cannot give us an accurate means of predicting the origins of the universe?
I did some study on the evidence for the Big Bang theory last night (as all theory’s must have evidence, and be tested) and I came across a couple of items. One was the expansion of the universe, another was the mixture of the elements. A third was Microwave radiation, and a fourth was comparison with the Steady-state theory. I found a couple of problems with these points. The first, and most obvious, is the question of where did the tiny particle that expanded all-of-the-sudden come from, and why was it under such tremendous pressure? For the second point, while the mixture of elements could point to an original spontaneous big bang event, it could certainly point to others as well, and since the first point seems to be inconclusive, I have some problems with trusted it. As for the Microwave radiation, I am a bit skeptical of the instruments used to measure radiation that is supposedly from that long ago. If it is still present, could it have changed some chemical properties along the way? And Forth, the comparison with the steady-state theory is simply trusting that only two theories exist, and choosing the or reasonable of the two.
Pondering the cosmos is fine, but when it has gotten to the point of teaching theories (tested guesses) to young adults, it has has to be objective. All known theories need to be addressed if we are to be using actual science, and an exaggerated expression of the interments used to collect the data we rely to resolutely on needs to be stated. The heavens are vast, and our feeble minds can’t be expected to explain what happened with at least some kind of written record to corroborate our guesses…