Mainstream/ alternative science discussions and arguments

[pantheory]

There have been, and will continue to be a number of discussions in this X-Ch forum concerning the validity of science theories and hypothesis for all the natural and social sciences. This thread involves discussions and different opinions concerning the validity of mainstream or alternative science theories and hypothesis, when arguments are involved. Note that arguments are not simply disagreements. Disagreements are stated but not continued like arguments.

 

Example: Falsification of theories.:

“Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry…”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

Example: Cosmology:

 

Although cosmological theories and hypotheses in general are difficult to disprove, whether mainstream or alternative,  strong evidence against them might be found. Maybe one or two years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline radio-scopes are fully functional, expected to be about 2023, if it were discovered that at the farthest observable distances some old, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicity, this would be in accord with predictions of cosmological models of an older or infinite-age universe. This would also be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. On the other hand, if only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity were instead be observed at these farthest distances (with no old appearing large galaxies or clusters), then all theories and hypothesis proposing an older or infinite age universe seemingly would also most likely be wrong — which would include nearly all of the alternative cosmologies today.

 

Or scientists could discover a very old star, that according to their calculations appears to be considerably older than the estimated BB age of the Universe, even much older than the "Methuselah star" and contrary to the BB model etc. 

 

 

 

 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

11 hours ago, pantheory said:

Note that arguments are not simply disagreements

Yes they are. (obligatory Monty Python reference...) 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Fuego said:

Yes they are. (obligatory Monty Python reference...) 

 

I was up in Vancouver Wa. just a few weeks ago. I flew into Portland and drove up and back, then back to L.A. No snow on the ground at that time. Daytime temperatures averaged about 45 degrees with light rain almost every day for the week I was there. Very beautiful as usual I expect.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Most of the time, yes it is pretty here. Though the recent warmth and sunshine has been absolutely wonderful after months of rain, the ice storm (still a few piles of snow where it was plowed up in parking lots), and the 2020 fires-from-hell. 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Fuego said:

Most of the time, yes it is pretty here. Though the recent warmth and sunshine has been absolutely wonderful after months of rain, the ice storm (still a few piles of snow where it was plowed up in parking lots), and the 2020 fires-from-hell. 

 

 

Yeah, I hadn't heard of the fires from hell up there. There are fires every fall in the mountains surrounding southern California. More and more homes are getting destroyed each year since more building continues in those hilly and mountainous areas.

[WalterP]

23 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

 

Example: Falsification of theories.:

“Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry…”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

Example: Cosmology:

 

Although cosmological theories and hypotheses in general are difficult to disprove, whether mainstream or alternative,  strong evidence against them might be found. Maybe one or two years after the James Webb space telescope and the Atacama long baseline radio-scopes are fully functional, expected to be about 2023, if it were discovered that at the farthest observable distances some old, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, maybe with observably high metallicity, this would be in accord with predictions of cosmological models of an older or infinite-age universe. This would also be strong evidence that the universe is much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong. On the other hand, if only small young, blue-appearing galaxies with minimal metallicity were instead be observed at these farthest distances (with no old appearing large galaxies or clusters), then all theories and hypothesis proposing an older or infinite age universe seemingly would also most likely be wrong — which would include nearly all of the alternative cosmologies today.

 

Or scientists could discover a very old star, that according to their calculations appears to be considerably older than the estimated BB age of the Universe, even much older than the "Methuselah star" and contrary to the BB model etc. 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

When the data from Atacama and the JWST comes in, will you interpret it according to your own alternative physics or will you interpret it according to mainstream physics?

 

I ask because of two posts from March 2016 where you took data presented in a mainstream framework and interpreted it according to your alternative physics.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71959-outragiosly-bright-galaxies/

 

In both cases you interpreted data about distant galaxies according to your alternative physics and not in the framework of mainstream physics, in which they were presented.

 

Will you do the same thing again with the 2023 data?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

On 3/3/2021 at 8:28 AM, WalterP said:

 

Pantheory,

 

When the data from Atacama and the JWST comes in, will you interpret it according to your own alternative physics or will you interpret it according to mainstream physics?

 

I ask because of two posts from March 2016 where you took data presented in a mainstream framework and interpreted it according to your alternative physics.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71959-outragiosly-bright-galaxies/

 

In both cases you interpreted data about distant galaxies according to your alternative physics and not in the framework of mainstream physics, in which they were presented.

 

Will you do the same thing again with the 2023 data?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Hi Walter,

 

Remember, if I think modern mainstream physics is wrong in many ways it's because I have different interpretations of what is being observed.

 

In the case of the James Webb, if they state that all that they can see at the farthest distances is young and small appearing blue galaxies with little form to them like irregular galaxies, then my own related theory, model, hypothesis will have been disproved and I will concede defeat. But instead if they observe very red, large appearing spiral and elliptical galaxies,  and especially large galaxy clusters at the farthest observable distances, then the BB model would be proven wrong concerning the age of the universe. This will not stop the BB theory, as I said before, since there are many ways that they can alter the theory to make the universe much older to allow for such observations. But if they do, others will then be investigating alternative theory to eventually replace the BB model in its entirety IMO.

 

And of course my interpretations of observations could be different from mainstream interpretations since I believe their interpretations are sometimes wrong based upon the evidence and my own model. But in the case of the James Webb, I'm pretty sure that even mainstream astronomers will realize that something is wrong with the age of the universe according to the BB theory. But you are right,  if it is not obvious what the James Webb is observing I may have a different interpretation of what is being observed than the mainstream based upon the evidence presented.

 

As far as the double slit experiment and science forum is concerned, I made one last stab at trying to explain how my hypotheses could be disproved, if you wish to look. Disproving and falsification of theory, and related methods, is not barmaid physics since explanations can be more involved. 

[WalterP]

49 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Walter,

 

Remember, if I think modern mainstream physics is wrong in many ways it's because I have different interpretations of what is being observed.

 

In the case of the James Webb, if they state that all that they can see at the farthest distances is young and small appearing blue galaxies with little form to them like irregular galaxies, then my own related theory, model, hypothesis will have been disproved and I will concede defeat. But instead if they observe very red, large appearing spiral and elliptical galaxies,  and especially large galaxy clusters at the farthest observable distances, then the BB model would be proven wrong concerning the age of the universe. This will not stop the theory, as I said before, since there are ways they can alter the theory to make the universe much older to allow for such observations. But IMO others will then be investigating alternative theory to eventually replace the BB model in its entirety IMO.

 

And of course my interpretations of observations could be different from mainstream interpretations since I believe their interpretations are sometimes wrong based upon the evidence. But in the case of the James Webb, I'm pretty sure that even mainstream astronomers will realize that something is wrong with the age of the universe according to the BB theory. But you are right,  if it is not obvious what the James Webb is observing I may have a different interpretation than the mainstream based upon the evidence presented.

 

As far as the double slit experiment and science forum is concerned, I made one last stab at trying to explain how my hypotheses could be disproved, if you wish to look. Disproving and falsification of theory, and related methods, is not barmaid physics since explanations are necessarily involved. 

 

Yes, that's exactly what I thought you would say, Pantheory.

 

That you choose to 'interpret' data in your own way.

 

And in those two cases I cited, you 'interpreted' data from mainstream physics to make it seem as if it supported your alternative physics.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/

 

Here's what BAA had to say about the size, mass and star production rate of the galaxy in question.  

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy is not twenty-five times smaller than the fully-formed, mature and evolved Milky Way.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not have 1% of the the Milky Way's mass.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not produce new stars at 20 times the rate of the Milky Way.

 

Is that is an example of your 'interpretation' of data?

 

You 'interpret' the galaxy to be 25 times larger than the data says it is?

 

You 'interpret' the galaxy to have 99% more mass than the data says it has?

 

You 'interpret' the galaxy to have a star production rate of 1/20th than the data says it has?

 

Pantheory, please explain to me why your 'interpretation' of the data diverges so far from what the data actually says? 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

12 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Yes, that's exactly what I thought you would say, Pantheory.

 

That you choose to 'interpret' data in your own way.

 

And in those two cases I cited, you 'interpreted' data from mainstream physics to make it seem as if it supported your alternative physics.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/

 

Here's what BAA had to say about the size, mass and star production rate of the galaxy in question.  

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy is not twenty-five times smaller than the fully-formed, mature and evolved Milky Way.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not have 1% of the the Milky Way's mass.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not produce new stars at 20 times the rate of the Milky Way.

 

Is that is an example of your 'interpretation' of data?

 

You 'interpret' the galaxy to be 25 times larger than the data says it is?

 

You 'interpret' the galaxy to have 99% more mass than the data says it has?

 

You 'interpret' the galaxy to have a star production rate of 1/20th than the data says it has?

 

Pantheory, please explain to me why your 'interpretation' of the data diverges so far from what the data actually says? 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Walter. Youi're just too cynical, I promise.  If one has an alternative theory then everything related is interpreted according to that alternative theory, not interpreted according to mainstream theory. Briefly, my cosmology asserts a much older universe, that cosmological distances are presently miscalculated, and that galaxies in the past can appear much brighter than they really were.  Here's a link of mine.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348973177_WHETHER_TO_FOLLOW_HUBBLE'S_LAW_OR_CHOOSE_AN_ALTERNATIVE_WAY#fullTextFileContent

 

 

[WalterP]

Just now, pantheory said:

 

Walter. Youire just too cynical, I promise.  If one has an alternative theory then everything related is interpreted according to that alternative theory, not interpreted according to mainstream theory.

 

In which case, we come back to something I mentioned recently.

 

Your alternative theories can only be falsified within terms that are only acceptable to you.

 

And since you 'interpret' mainstream data to confirm your alternative physics, I'm sure you can also 'interpret' data that would falsify your theories to appear to confirm them.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

In which case, we come back to something I mentioned recently.

 

Your alternative theories can only be falsified within terms that are only acceptable to you.

 

And since you 'interpret' mainstream data to confirm your alternative physics, I'm sure you can also 'interpret' data that would falsify your theories to appear to confirm them.

 

 

 

Your assertion is obviously wrong for reasons I have just explained here, and other postings a great many times. For whatever reasons you do not want to grasp the simple concepts that I've just explained above.

[pantheory]

9 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

In which case, we come back to something I mentioned recently.

 

Your alternative theories can only be falsified within terms that are only acceptable to you.

 

And since you 'interpret' mainstream data to confirm your alternative physics, I'm sure you can also 'interpret' data that would falsify your theories to appear to confirm them.

 

Again, way too cynical. My personality and character are nothing like what you have described.

[WalterP]

2 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Again, way too cynical. My personality and character are nothing like what you have described.

 

The evidence from your encounters with BAA say different.

 

 

[WalterP]

If you can 'interpret' mainstream data to appear to support your alternative physics, how are you so very far from this?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

[WalterP]

This article is a satire, but it gets the point across.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/2017/01/23/whats-all-this-fuss-about-having-alternatives/

 

 

[pantheory]

8 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

The evidence from your encounters with BAA say different.

 

 

 

Look at the dates of those encounters. Before our agreement, yes, some encounters were abrasive. After that they were not.

[WalterP]

The issue isn't the degree of abrasiveness, Pantheory.

 

It's the way you freely 'interpreted' the data to mean something radically different from what it actually meant.

 

BAA nailed you.

 

So, let me repeat my earlier question.

 

 

 

Pantheory, please explain to me why your 'interpretation' of the data diverges so far from what the data actually says? 

 

 

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, WalterP said:

The issue isn't the degree of abrasiveness, Pantheory.

 

It's the way you freely 'interpreted' the data to mean something radically different from what it actually meant.

 

BAA nailed you.

 

So, let me repeat my earlier question.

 

 

 

Pantheory, please explain to me why your 'interpretation' of the data diverges so far from what the data actually says? 

 

 

 

"It's the way you freely 'interpreted' the data to mean something radically different from what it actually meant." You do not seem to understand that there can be big differences between theories. The theory we presently believe can be completely wrong in almost every way. Different theories interpret observations differently.

 

Observations are often unrelated to fact. In astronomy observations are often not clear as to what is being observed, or what it means. For this they use theory such as the BB theory to interpret what is being observed. Since my own theory proposes a much older universe, for instance, I could interpret certain cosmological observations as being much older than the limited age of the BB model. Different models often interpret observations differently than other models. Here is my paper concerning problems with the BB model, some of it can be better understood based upon the differences between interpretations related to theory.

 

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

 

[WalterP]

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

"It's the way you freely 'interpreted' the data to mean something radically different from what it actually meant." You do not seem to understand that there can be big differences between theories. The theory we presently believe can be completely wrong in almost every way. Different theories interpret observations differently.

 

Observations are often unrelated to fact. In astronomy observations are often not clear as to what is being observed, or what it means. For this they use theory such as the BB theory to interpret what is being observed. Since my own theory proposes a much older universe, for instance, I could interpret certain cosmological observations as being much older than the limited age of the BB model. Different models often interpret observations differently than other models. Here is my paper concerning problems with the BB model, some of it can be better understood based upon the differences between interpretations related to theory.

 

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

 

 

Pantheory,

 

Yes, you could interpret a galaxy to be 25 times larger than another theorist.

 

You could interpret the galaxy to have 99% more mass than another theorist.

 

You could interpret it to have a star formation rate many times less than another theorist.

 

But if the data allows you that much interpretational freedom, then formulating an overarching theory to explain the data simply becomes a matter of personal choice.

 

Is that really how science works?

 

Scientists can allow themselves a virtually free hand to interpret the data as they see fit?

 

Which means that the interpretations of Young Earth Creationist scientists are just as valid as those made by the USGS.

 

And the interpretations of the Flat Earthers are just as valid as mainstream scientists.

 

Surely you jest?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Pantheory,

 

Yes, you could interpret a galaxy to be 25 times larger than another theorist.

 

You could interpret the galaxy to have 99% more mass than another theorist.

 

You could interpret it to have a star formation rate many times less than another theorist.

 

But if the data allows you that much interpretational freedom, then formulating an overarching theory to explain the data simply becomes a matter of personal choice.

 

Is that really how science works?

 

Scientists can allow themselves a virtually free hand to interpret the data as they see fit?

 

Which means that the interpretations of Young Earth Creationist scientists are just as valid as those made by the USGS.

 

And the interpretations of the Flat Earthers are just as valid as mainstream scientists.

 

Surely you jest?

 

Walter.

 

 

Yes, you have the general idea of it. But in your scenario the cart comes before the horse. Instead the horse pulls the cart. That means the theory comes first. Based upon the theory you interpret what is being observed, not the other way around.  Observations must be consistent with theory, whether it is my theory or the Big Bang theory. Otherwise it is called an observation anomaly. There have been countless observation anomalies concerning the Big Bang model, but generally none for my own model and interpretations based upon my model for more than a half century now, as the link below explains.

 

The basis and explanations for this were in the last link I posted showing the differences between observations and theory, and different interpretations based upon different theoretical models. Here's the link again.

 

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

Also the basis of the Big Bang model

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that you realize that there is no such thing as "Young Earth Creationist scientists." Even the idea of it is just a joke.

[WalterP]

No Pantheory, I'm not joking.

 

These men are properly accredited scientists, but they are first and foremost Biblical Literalists and Young Earth Creationists.

 

http://commonsensescience.net/scientists.html

 

The horse they put in front of the cart is their Christian faith.

 

But, in every other respect they are doing and thinking exactly like you.

 

They see the same data as mainstream scientists, just as you do, but they interpret it according to their personal agendas, just as you do.

 

The fact that their motivation is religious and your motivation is secular doesn't disqualify the comparison.

 

The bottom line is that both you and they are playing fast and loose with the data, for reasons outside of professional scientific inquiry.

 

You are both putting the horse of personal agenda in front of the cart of objectivity.

 

 

This is the danger of allowing yourself the freedom to interpret data from a personal viewpoint, rather than agreeing to use a common standard.

 

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

I'm glad you liked that piece by Matt Strassler, Pantheory.

 

Here's the sequel to it.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/2017/01/24/keeping-track-of-alternate-futures/

 

Here's the section that's particularly relevant to this thread.

 

If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

 

If instead you give up evidence-based reasoning, then soon you have politics instead of science determining your decisions on all sorts of things that matter to people because it can hurt or kill them: food safety, road safety, airplane safety, medicine, energy policy, environmental protection, and most importantly, defense. A nation that abandons evidence is abandoning applied reason and logic; and the inevitable consequence is that people will die unnecessarily.  It’s not a minor matter, and it’s not outside the purview of scientists to take a stand on the issue.

 

 

If Strassler had written...

 

"If facts can be interpreted at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function."

 

...then he would have been writing about your approach the facts, data and evidence, Pantheory.

 

 

Also, do you see what he says about evidence?

 

There is only one type.

 

There are no alternatives.

 

 

Those people who give themselves license to peddle alternatives to the evidence invariably do so for subjective, personal reasons.

 

They have lost their grasp of professional objectivity.

 

If they ever had it at all.

 

 

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

7 minutes ago, WalterP said:

No Pantheory, I'm not joking.

 

These men are properly accredited scientists, but they are first and foremost Biblical Literalists and Young Earth Creationists.

 

http://commonsensescience.net/scientists.html

 

The horse they put in front of the cart is their Christian faith.

 

But, in every other respect they are doing and thinking exactly like you.

 

They see the same data as mainstream scientists, just as you do, but they interpret it according to their personal agendas, just as you do.

 

The fact that their motivation is religious and your motivation is secular doesn't disqualify the comparison.

 

The bottom line is that both you and they are playing fast and loose with the data, for reasons outside of professional scientific inquiry.

 

You are both putting the horse of personal agenda in front of the cart of objectivity.

 

 

This is the danger of allowing yourself the freedom to interpret data from a personal viewpoint, rather than agreeing to use a common standard.

 

 

Walter.

 

Looking at your link, nowhere did I see that any of these scientists are young-Earth creationists. Just because some scientists are religious does not mean that any in the physical sciences are stupid enough to be young-Earth creationists. It looks to me like you made that up

 

Here are a few links showing scientists, astronomers, and theorists contrary to the Big Bang model:

 

http://www.ptep-online.com/2005/PP-03-03.PDF

 

http://quasars.org/postings/michael-disney-slams-cosmologists(thread).htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

Then you really are a sloppy and impatient researcher, Pantheory.

 

Here, this is what you would have found if you'd done your research properly.

 

http://commonsensescience.net/speakers.html

 

Charles W, Lucas, Jr.
Click for Resume

• Evidence for a Young Earth – Radiometric Age of the Earth.
• Evidence for a Young Earth – Polonium Radiohalos.
• Evidence for a Young Earth – Recent Expansion of the Earth with Stretch Marks
• Evidence for a Young Universe – 2.7 K Cosmic Background Radiation, Hubble’s Law and Quantized Redshifts
• History of the Earth According to Science and the Bible – includes creation, flood, separation of the continents, genealogies, radiometric age, etc.
• Derivation of Universal Electromagnetic Force Law (technical, for physicists/scientists)
• Mechanism By Which God Created from Genesis 1 and Science
• Finger Prints of the Creator (Electromagnetic theory of everything with God's symmetry evident at every level or scale of creation)

 

David L. Bergman Click for Resume Conflict of Atomism and Creationism in History Common Sense Approach to the Atom A Creationist Cosmology Creation Worldview (Lecture without PowerPoint Slides) Forms Of Real Molecular Structures (FORMS). A computer simulation of sub-atomic structure and internal motions     Glen C. Collins Click for Resume Atomic Structure – Why do we Care? Common Sense Physics – Physical Model of the Atom Evidence for a Young Earth – Radiometric Age of the Earth. How Philosophy Drives Scientific Models & Vice Versa CSS Atomic Models vs. Standard Models Creationist Inconsistencies and Biblical Principles Wholescale Replacement for Modern Physics Scientific Evidence – The Facts Support the Bible   So, please retract what you said about me making things up.   Thank you.   Walter.

[pantheory]

26 minutes ago, WalterP said:

I'm glad you liked that piece by Matt Strassler, Pantheory.

 

Here's the sequel to it.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/2017/01/24/keeping-track-of-alternate-futures/

 

Here's the section that's particularly relevant to this thread.

 

If facts can be chosen at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function. Science — a word that means “evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works” — depends on the existence and undeniability of evidence. It’s not an accident that physics, unlike some subjects, does not have a Republican branch and a Democratic branch; it doesn’t have a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish branch;  there’s just one type.  I work with people from many countries and with many religious and political beliefs; we work together just fine, and we don’t have discussions about “alternative facts.”

 

If instead you give up evidence-based reasoning, then soon you have politics instead of science determining your decisions on all sorts of things that matter to people because it can hurt or kill them: food safety, road safety, airplane safety, medicine, energy policy, environmental protection, and most importantly, defense. A nation that abandons evidence is abandoning applied reason and logic; and the inevitable consequence is that people will die unnecessarily.  It’s not a minor matter, and it’s not outside the purview of scientists to take a stand on the issue.

 

 

If Strassler had written...

 

"If facts can be interpreted at will, even in principle, then science ceases to function."

 

...then he would have been writing about your approach the facts, data and evidence, Pantheory.

 

 

Also, do you see what he says about evidence?

 

There is only one type.

 

There are no alternatives.

 

 

Those people who give themselves license to peddle alternatives to the evidence invariably do so for subjective, personal reasons.

 

They have lost their grasp of professional objectivity.

 

If they ever had it at all.

 

 

 

Walter.

 

Although somewhat humorous, your link has nothing to do with science IMO. Remember, astronomical observations are not facts. Neither are their interpretations. Examples of facts in science are atoms and molecules, since both observation and a mountain of supporting evidence exists. Examples of theory which may not be fact at all (and which are totally wrong IMO) are the existence of quarks and gluons, called quark theory.

 

In astronomy the non-factuals (wrong theory and non-existent IMO) are dark matter, dark energy, Inflation, expanding and warped space, the big bang beginning, interpretations of the microwave background, etc.