Assumptions, Inferences, science theory.

[pantheory]

Assumptions and Inferences of science are often used in some sciences to create theory and to interpret observations. Assumptions and Inference in science relate to what can be called apriori foundations regarding the Scientific Method.

 

The Scientific Method defined: There is no longer any agreement in astronomy or cosmology as to what the scientific method is. Here is one definition of it.  If a definition of the Scientific Method does not include an initial hypothesis, many would say that it is not the scientific method being used.

 

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Definition apriori:

 

"The terms a priori (Latin; “from former”) and a posteriori (Latin; “from later”) refer primarily to species of propositional knowledge. A priori knowledge refers to knowledge that is justified independently of experience, i.e., knowledge that does not depend on experiential evidence or warrant. In contrast, a posteriori knowledge is justified by means of experience, and depends therefore on experiential evidence or warrant. The distinction between apriori and a posteriori knowledge may be understood as corresponding to the distinction between non-empirical and empirical knowledge. Mathematical knowledge is a paradigmatically a priori, whereas, the truths of physics, chemistry, and biology are instances of a posteriori knowledge. This apriori / a posteriori distinction has been blurred by Catholic theologians such as Karl Rahner who have constructively adopted Immanuel Kant's understanding of apriori in anthropology and theology."

walterpthefirst said:

"It's my current understanding that the likes of Newton, Einstein, Hawking and other notables all made use of a priori assumptions in their work."

"So I would be fascinated to learn how you do not need to do what they did. Thank you."

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

 

Newton was one of the first scientists since the Renaissance not to follow the scientific method, even though he was one of its originators and is considered the father of classical mechanics and physics. Concerning his theory of gravity, Newton was asked why his inverse-square-law of gravity was a pulling force. He said that he would not say anything as to the cause of gravity since that would be an hypothesis. He then said "hypotheses non fingo -- which means I do not propose hypothesis. He went straight from observations to the math, and formed his mathematical conclusions. He probably knew that if he formed an hypothesis first, his conclusion could be correct while his hypothesis could be wrong. More than 30 years after his original gravity proposal, Newton did propose an hypothesis of pushing gravity  and the aether to justify his equation, which he thought was necessary for his gravity equations to conform to the scientific method, right or wrong. Since models of pushing gravity were not popular at that time, few listened to or remember Newton's related aether proposal.

 

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

 

In my opinion, Hawking was not comparable to Newton or Einstein concerning his theories None of Hawking's theories have been enduring IMO. Most of Hawking's ideas and  theories were based upon the Engineering Method rather than the Scientific Method. The Engineering method never requires any hypothesis, instead a great deal of calculations following observations are required instead.

 

https://sites.tufts.edu/eeseniordesignhandbook/2013/engineering-method/

 

Einstein knew the difference between theory formed by hypothesis and those not. This is why he continuously criticized quantum mechanics as being an incomplete theory. He knew that practically none of the theory was based upon the scientific method. Again Quantum Mechanics (QM) was solely developed based upon the Engineering Method for its creation and for its existence. Since its development, there have been many hypothesis concerning QM theory. They are called Quantum Theory, but there is no consensus version of them. Even if such proposals were all wrong, these proposals are still all science in that they all have been attempts to conform to the scientific method

 

Einstein always followed the scientific method. Although he probably didn't follow the scientific method to begin with when creating his General Theory of Relativity (GR), his theory of gravity, after its creation he did propose the hypothesis of "space-time" to explain his equations. Although many then and now consider space-time a new theory, it is simply just a new definition suited for Einstein's equations. Right or wrong, there is nothing at all complicated about the concept of space-time. But because of the non-linearity of GR, Einstein had one more necessary hypothesis to propose to conform to the scientific method. This was his proposal of warped space. Although it did not originally have the required math for a separate proposal, the verbiage of warped space fit well with his use of Riemann geometry which was non-linear. At the time, Einstein did not elaborate on the meaning of warped space, but after his paper of gravity he worked on a proposal to explain the meaning of warped space for a number of years and came up with a good hypothesis IMO to explain it. The hypothesis was a very long aether-based proposal having kinship with a similar proposal by Paul Dirac the famous math theorist. Einstein's theory was simply called Einstein's aether theory, but he himself called it his Atheory. The very detailed theory was based upon a background aether flow surrounding matter, with a large amount of theoretical physics as its bases, which today we call the warping-of-space (or space-time) surrounding matter. The formal aether proposal was Einstein's basis for his theory of warped space.

 

Both Newton and Einstein finished their theories of gravity with aether theory. Both theories related to aether influencing, or causing gravity.  Neither seemed to involve assumptions or inferences to create their theories of gravity.

 

Although nearly all theories identify and require some assumptions for their existence, most of these assumptions are not objectionable to most practitioners. Most also know that theoretical inferences are not a valid bases for theory formation,  they do form a major part of many hypotheses however. My own theories start with hypotheses and make no assumptions or inferences in their path to theory.

 

Although my theories are very long, you can read about them and follow their course and source of theory creation in the links below, if interested: You might realize that neither assumptions or inferences are mentioned within them, and none that I can recall involve implications either to justify themselves.

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

 

http://www.pantheory.org/

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

What do I think?

 

Three things, actually.  First, a vote of thanks to Pantheory for creating and starting this thread off.

 

Second, since I have a long-standing interest in astronomy and cosmology, I propose that we select, for example, the Andromeda galaxy (M 31) and use that to discover how science goes about studying it.  Being over two million light years away, we are seeing it as it was two million years ago.  This means that real-time observations are impossible.  It also means that visiting it is impossible and direct interaction with anything but its radiated energy is also impossible.  When it comes to the making of assumptions, I'd like to better understand how mainstream scientists study this object.

 

Lastly, I'd like to see the same exercise performed from Pantheory's p.o.v. as an alternative theorist.  He can then describe his methodology for us.  We can then compare and contrast that with mainstream science's approach.

 

Please note that I have been careful not to assign any preferences either way.   I consider this to be an exercise in learning.  If conclusions are to be drawn, then I believe they should be drawn after the learning process, not before or during.  We must endeavour to keep our minds open and pre-judge anything.

 

I hope my proposals will be acceptable.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

18 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

What do I think?

 

Three things, actually.  First, a vote of thanks to Pantheory for creating and starting this thread off.

 

Second, since I have a long-standing interest in astronomy and cosmology, I propose that we select, for example, the Andromeda galaxy (M 31) and use that to discover how science goes about studying it.  Being over two million light years away, we are seeing it as it was two million years ago.  This means that real-time observations are impossible.  It also means that visiting it is impossible and direct interaction with anything but its radiated energy is also impossible.  When it comes to the making of assumptions, I'd like to better understand how mainstream scientists study this object.

 

Lastly, I'd like to see the same exercise performed from Pantheory's p.o.v. as an alternative theorist.  He can then describe his methodology for us.  We can then compare and contrast that with mainstream science's approach.

 

Please note that I have been careful not to assign any preferences either way.   I consider this to be an exercise in learning.  If conclusions are to be drawn, then I believe they should be drawn after the learning process, not before or during.  We must endeavour to keep our minds open and pre-judge anything.

 

I hope my proposals will be acceptable.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Thanks walterpthefirst,

 

quote from above:

 

".....I'd like to see the same exercise performed from Pantheory's p.o.v. as an alternative theorist.  He can then describe his methodology for us.  We can then compare and contrast that with mainstream science's approach.

 

Please note that I have been careful not to assign any preferences either way.   I consider this to be an exercise in learning.  If conclusions are to be drawn, then I believe they should be drawn after the learning process, not before or during.  We must endeavour to keep our minds open and prejudge anything."

 

I will start by a simple explanation and definition of the scientific method. All that study it now realize that there is no consensus version of this method. My preferred method is generally the classic method and others involve other possible steps that are not classic.

 

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology

 

Let's look at the steps involved:

 

---Ask a question or define a problem

 

1)  Make observations

 

Since most theorists are also not observationalists,  they only work from the observations by others.

 

2) Ask related questions about this and related observations.

 

For this step, research is required to find and put together all related observations of the same type.

 

3)  Form a related hypothesis,  after extensive evaluations of this and related observations, to explain observations.

Of course one can often think of more than one hypothesis to explain a set of observations but usually only one can be evaluated or tested at a time.

 

4) Developing, looking for experiments, or different kinds of observations to test the hypothesis.

Again, in astronomy cosmology you will have to rely on observations by others. If you have prominence in your field you could make a proposal for telescope time to test your experiment if possible, if not you must rely on observation research -- where what you are looking for could be somewhat hidden by wrong theory interpretation by others.

 

5) Analyze and interpret the data, then Draw conclusions if they seem obvious.

Draw conclusions.  If conclusions do not seem obvious, research must be resumed via step 4. When conclusions seem obvious one can finish step 5, if observations are contradicted go back to step 3, form a new hypothesis and resume testing the new hypothesis via step 4.  Conclusions must continuously be questioned and tested.

 

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

 

Let's look at the Big Bang (BB) model as an example of theory formation and development, and the development of my alternative, The Pan Theory. It is not a straight-up comparison since the BB theory is very well known and supported by more than 95% of cosmologists, while the Pan Theory, my own theory, is little known -- where possibly less than 100 theorists in the whole world have ever read the detail of its whole, partly because the theory spans nearly the all of modern physics, not just cosmology.

 

https://papers.pantheory.org/

 

The BB started as a rather straight-forward theory in cosmology. The observational support for it was the red-shift of distant galactic light that correlated with their distances.  Because of contradicting observations, the BB has become quite a different theory. Because there were contradictions to the real motion of galaxies away from a central point, the expansion of the universe has been replaced by the expansion of space (whatever that means). Galaxy rotations were contradicted by the mathematics of gravity so dark matter was invented but never directly observed. The expansion rate of space was contradicted by observations so dark energy was proposed but also cannot be tested or directly observed. The distribution of matter in the universe contradicted theory so a different speculative beginning was proposed called Inflation. These kinds of changes to theory are all called 'ad hoc' changes. Such changes are made after theories are believed to be contradicted.

 

In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. ... Scientists are often skeptical of scientific theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them.

 

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

 

There are a great many assumptions and inferences of the Big Bang model that have evolved from the original theory. Here is a list of 26 that are not based upon science.

 

http://living-universe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/26-Big-Bang-Assumptions.pdf

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Don't want to make this posting too long, so my next posting tomorrow will concern when and how the Pan Theory (alternate to the BB model) was developed based upon the scientific method in the 1950's, and how it has progressed since then with little or no changes to it based upon more than 6 decades of new observations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

Thanks for this, but can I forestall you and request that you hold off on your planned posting so that we can back up a little and actually apply the five steps of the scientific method to the Andromeda galaxy, as per my request?

 

I believe that doing this will generate pertinent questions that will need answering and clarifying.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

Thanks for this, but can I forestall you and request that you hold off on your planned posting so that we can back up a little and actually apply the five steps of the scientific method to the Andromeda galaxy, as per my request?

 

I believe that doing this will generate pertinent questions that will need answering and clarifying.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Of course I can. This thread was made at your request, right?

 

Cheers

[Joshpantera]

On 2/2/2022 at 6:51 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Second, since I have a long-standing interest in astronomy and cosmology, I propose that we select, for example, the Andromeda galaxy (M 31) and use that to discover how science goes about studying it.  Being over two million light years away, we are seeing it as it was two million years ago.  This means that real-time observations are impossible.  It also means that visiting it is impossible and direct interaction with anything but its radiated energy is also impossible.  When it comes to the making of assumptions, I'd like to better understand how mainstream scientists study this object.

 

Lastly, I'd like to see the same exercise performed from Pantheory's p.o.v. as an alternative theorist.  He can then describe his methodology for us.  We can then compare and contrast that with mainstream science's approach.

 

Please note that I have been careful not to assign any preferences either way.   I consider this to be an exercise in learning.  If conclusions are to be drawn, then I believe they should be drawn after the learning process, not before or during.  We must endeavour to keep our minds open and pre-judge anything.

 

 

This has been left hanging. And it needs to be addressed and answered if anyone is to take the tread seriously. 

 

Making myriad and necessary assumptions and inference like everyone else, while claiming that no assumptions or inference is made - isn't an intellectually honest start to any personal opinion, working hypothesis, or theory, IMO. 

 

 

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This has been left hanging, and it needs to be addressed and answered if anyone is to take the tread seriously. 

 

Making myriad and necessary assumptions and inference like everyone else while claiming that no assumptions or inference is made, isn't an intellectually honest start to any, personal opinion, working hypothesis, or theory, IMO. 

 

 

As to yours and my comments in the previous thread, the beginning of the universe does not require assumptions according to my own model.

 

quotes Josh:

 

"You, like everyone else in the game, has no choice but to begin modeling the universe on the "assumption" that existence was already in play and then pick up from there.

 

And I'm sure that that's not the end of the assumptions that you must make, like everyone else has to. Walter has outlined many more. Which should be obvious and apparent. 

 

What it looks like you're doing is applying the same "assumptions" that anyone else has to make as well, but carefully trying to avoid typing the word "assumption" as you do it. In order to claim that you don't make any assumptions. When you do. " 

 

The beginning of the universe from the Pan Theory, starts with two logic-based postulates. A logic based postulate is like a hypothesis in that its basis is logic, but it is generally believed to be untestable but the common sense of it must be understandable by many or most readers.

 

The first logical postulate is that something cannot come from nothing.

 

 

The second logical postulate is called the "Singularity Principle."  The principle involves the logic that when population numbers go up in size and volume going forward in time, when going backward in time one comes to a single point or entity, or two individuals involving sexual procreation. For the BB model this was the postulate that if the universe was expanding at a generally constant rate, if you followed the expansion backward in time one would come to a singularity, whereby nothing existed before that. This was the prevailing BB beginning and theory for many decades. This beginning was called a singularity. This supposedly was the beginning of a singularity involving General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity.

 

Although this postulate is no-longer the  preferred explanation, it had a number of logical advantages. It proposed that all of reality came from this singularity beginning -- that both time and space were created from this beginning. There would have been no such thing as time or space before the beginning.

 

The Pan Theory beginning is similar but far simpler. It is based upon the creation of new matter in the universe, like other steady state models. Hawking proposed creation of new matter surrounding black holes, and steady state models proposed a much greater creating of matter surrounding galactic black holes. Greater quantities of matter now, and less in the past, can also lead us back to a singularity of matter of some kind, many trillions of years, instead of 13.8 billions years ago. The constant density of the universe past and present would explain the creation of new matter, as per explanations by nearly every steady state proposals. Like the original BB model it proposes the beginning of time, space, and matter and the singular beginning of the universe.

 

https://www.pantheory.org/Technical-Papers.pdf

 

So no assumptions for the beginning of the universe, nothing before it, not time, space, or matter. It started as a simple entity that had the potential energy to change.

 

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.

— Albert Einstein

 

This quote explains the essence of matter, gravity, time and space as simple integrated dependent entities.  This ties all together to a much simpler singular beginning that very slowly evolves (trillions of years) instead of an explosion or Inflation of only 13.8 billion years.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

Would you accept the logical postulate that every effect requires a cause?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

As I've just explained in the other thread, I didn't express my request with sufficient clarity.

 

What I didn't make clear enough in it was that I'd like you to actually apply the five steps of the scientific method, when it came to the study of M31, the Andromeda galaxy. 

 

Then we could see how this is done and that would generate the pertinent questions I mentioned.

 

So, if you would please be good enough to oblige?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

Would you accept the logical postulate that every effect requires a cause?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Yes, but the initial cause could have been the potential energy (a forth dimension causing change and the passage of time) of the initial entity itself that existed, like the Primeval atom or singularity of the BB model. In my own model it's called a Pan. There would have been no such thing as something before that, and no other source cause. This was the idea of the original BB theory, and my own theory has a very similar beginning, just that the universe would be thousands of times older than present theory -- no Big Bang, no Inflation, no dark energy, no dark matter, no expansion of space, wrong distance formula, nothing complicated,  etc.

[pantheory]

42 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

As I've just explained in the other thread, I didn't express my request with sufficient clarity.

 

What I didn't make clear enough in it was that I'd like you to actually apply the five steps of the scientific method, when it came to the study of M31, the Andromeda galaxy. 

 

Then we could see how this is done and that would generate the pertinent questions I mentioned.

 

So, if you would please be good enough to oblige?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Yes, I will try  to do it tonight PST, and maybe you will see it tomorrow.     Cheers               

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, but the initial cause could have been the potential energy (a forth dimension causing change and the passage of time) of the initial entity itself that existed, like the Primeval atom or singularity of the BB model. In my own model it's called a Pan. There would have been no such thing as something before that, and no other source cause. This was the idea of the original BB theory, and my own theory has a very similar beginning, just that the universe would be thousands of times older than present theory -- no Big Bang, no Inflation, no dark energy, no dark matter, no expansion of space, wrong distance formula, nothing complicated,  etc.

 

Thank you for this, Pantheory.

 

Of the following three options, which one does your Pan model mostly closely agree with?

 

1.  The universe is eternal, requiring no cause.

2.  The universe had a cause separate to itself.

3.  The universe caused itself.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for this, Pantheory.

 

Of the following three options, which one does your Pan model mostly closely agree with?

 

1.  The universe is eternal, requiring no cause.

2.  The universe had a cause separate to itself.

3.  The universe caused itself.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

The potential energy of the beginning entity very slowly changed it over countless trillions of years into what we see today. The answer would be the potential energy created the universe from something very simple to start with, which I call a Pan. None of your questions closely fit, but maybe the closest answer would be #3.  -- the potential energy of the beginning entity caused very slow changes in it -- resulting in today's universe. We see exactly the same thing and potential energy today as we see in particle spin.

[Joshpantera]

52 minutes ago, pantheory said:

The potential energy of the beginning entity very slowly changed it over countless trillions of years into what we see today. The answer would be the potential energy created the universe from something very simple to start with, which I call a Pan. None of your answers closely fit, but maybe the closest answer would be #3.  -- the potential energy of the beginning entity caused very slow changes in it -- resulting in today's universe. We see the exactly the same thing today in particle spin.

 

Does Pan mean "All," or are you using it as an acronym for something else? 

 

P?

A? 

N? 

[pantheory]

20 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Does Pan mean "All," or are you using it as an acronym for something else? 

 

P?

A? 

N? 

 

Yeah, Pan in Greek means all or everything. In the Pan theory it also  means the only thing there is. According to this theory, pan are the underlying particles that make up all matter and all of the Zero Point Field. Its unwinding character perpetuates change and time, and time is considered the 4th dimension.  It's also a single physical force theory. There is nothing complicated to understand about this theory.

 

It's never been contradicted by observation in 6 decades and makes many dozens of unique predictions that have been, and can be tested in time.

[pantheory]

The subjects of this thread are Assumptions and Inferences which are often used in the formation of scientific theories.

Although questions and answers can be made concerning specific theories, I will try to stay on track concerning Assumptions and Inferences of theory. If you wish to ask extensive questions about a specific theory, another thread should be started for that.

Now I will try to answer walterpthefirst’s question and request:

Quotes by walterp:

 

".....I'd like to see the same exercise performed from Pantheory's  p.o.v. as an alternative theorist.  He can then describe his methodology for us.  We can then compare and contrast that with mainstream science's approach. “

“…..but can I forestall you and request that you hold off on your planned posting so that we can back up a little and actually apply the five steps of the scientific method to the Andromeda galaxy, as per my request?

 

"I believe that doing this will generate pertinent questions that will need answering and clarifying.” Thank you”.

 

There is no scientific consensus as to an exact scientific method because science involves a number of different disciplines, but there is a general agreement concerning the main steps of this method and the order of use.

 

1)      Ask a question(s) (concerning a quandary or anomaly in science)

2)      Form a hypothesis/ hypotheses to explain the quandary

3)      Plan an experiment(s) or observation(s) to test the hypothesis

4)      Perform the experiment(s), observation(s), or related research

5)      Are the results of the experiment(s) consistent with the hypothesis? if not drop it and form another hypothesis, step 2 and continue. If the hypothesis is consistent with testing, draw preliminary conclusions and plan further experiments to further test your hypothesis and your conclusions. Publish results as needed.

 

https://quizlet.com/25604525/5-steps-of-the-scientific-method-flash-cards/

 

In accord with the request to apply the scientific method to the Andromeda Galaxy, I can think of generally one test. Andromeda is the closest large spiral galaxy to us, about 3.2 million light years away, so it’s relatively easy to observe it via a telescope than more distant galaxies.

 

Comparison of methods of theory, regarding Assumptions and Inferences

 

Back in the early 1970’s it was assumed that the inverse-square law of gravity applied to spiral galaxies just as it applies to our solar system. The closer a star is to the center of the galaxy the faster its velocity compared to the velocity of the outermost stars was assumed to be. Because of this assumption, the actual speed of stars was not measured for quite a while. Back in the 1970’s such stellar velocities were also difficult to determine. Since we are inside our own galaxy, such comparative velocities are still very difficult to make for our Milky Way galaxy– and therefore the results of such are questionable even today. But this is not the case for the Andromeda spiral galaxy. In the early 1970’s the instrumentation to accurately determine stellar velocities had become available. One of the first astronomers to make what was then considered “mundane” observations and calculations of these, was the woman astronomer Vera Ruben. A problem of theory soon arose in that all the stellar velocities they observed in the Andromeda galaxy seemed to have the same velocities. Others followed with the same observations and came to the same conclusion. All stars had generally the same velocities regardless of their position in the galaxy, whether close to the center of the galaxy or on its outskirts.

 

Soon thereafter they examined other spiral galaxies. In time they realized that nearly all they observed seeming to have what they called “flat rotation curves;” nearly all stars of the galaxy had the same velocity as the other stars of the galaxy. Through the scientific method, they came up with a hypothesis. They proposed that there was much more matter in the galaxy that was not luminous. They called it dark matter. But even if valid, this would still not explain velocities if this matter was equally distributed like the observable matter of the galaxy. In accord with the Big Bang model, they proposed that nearly all this unobserved matter had to be in a sphere outside the observable galaxy. Even if valid, there were still a great many theoretical problems that seemingly could not be overcome. But it seemed that was the best the mainstream theorists could come up with - and it still is the only considered mainstream explanation.

 

Others outside the mainstream came up with almost countless other explanations, the most well known of these were alternative theories of gravity. Although these alternative gravity models nearly always made better predictions concerning spiral galaxies, these models had their own problems at even larger scales of the universe. Here is a link explaining many of these problems. This study was based upon my own research with others at the time.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C

 

When this discovery of the flat rotation profiles of spiral galaxies was made during the 70’s, the discovery was also a surprise to me also. My theories were completed long before then, so I also had to look at my own theory to explain these observations. But I had a big advantage over the mainstream theory in that my theory could more easily explain these observations with little addendums to the theory, as I will explain. The mainstream was well aware of zero point energy that had been observed in labs since the 1920’s. But maybe less than 5% of theorists proposed this field as being physical, the rest just thought of it as an energy field. I was in the 5% that thought this field was also physical.

 

For the cosmological principle to be valid, that the laws of physics would be the same and look the same everywhere in the universe, the zero point field would have to follow matter around everywhere. Therefore in a spiral galaxy it would have to spiral around the galaxy following its stars which was a tenet and realization of the Big Bang model and nearly all other models including my own Pan Theory. The difference was that my theory was also a model of pushing gravity. That the zero point field pushed into all matter and was the source of gravity. There were and are many models of pushing gravity, but they are a small minority of gravity theories.

 

So from this perspective, I could propose the hypotheses that the zero point field not only followed the matter of the galaxy, but that is led the galactic stars by flowing to the gravitational center of the galaxy like gravity. And it was possible to exactly test this hypothesis, by new Newtonian style equations and exact predictions of the velocities and all spiral galaxies which I and others have calculated via the Pan Theory.

 

The point concerning this thread is that no assumptions or implications were made to make this happen. Only a hypothesis that could be tested was proposed, which was confirmed according to my related research papers. The confirmation was generally of the non-existence of dark matter or modified gravity, replaced by increased zero point energy flow. Even if this proposal is totally valid, it will take the mainstream many years to acknowledge it because the proposal of dark matter is deeply entrenched in mainstream cosmology. My job now will be to travel around the US to show how this theory exactly calculates velocities of spiral galaxies, where dark matter, on the other hand, is a very poor predictor of spiral galaxy rotation profiles.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C

 

A somewhat similar process occurred concerning the mainstream claim of dark energy. Based upon observations of type 1a supernovae and calculations of their distances based upon the assumption that the Hubble distance formula was 100% correct, they claimed the existence of dark energy. In a similar study that followed with a much greater number of observations and using a different distance formula that I derived, our study showed that there was no accelerated expansion of the universe, aka dark energy – since our calculated distances matched the supernovae data without variation, as their analyses did.

 

The question then arises: What is more likely, that the expansion of the entire universe is now changing, or simply that the Hubble distance formula could be a little off by about 10% at designated distances?

 

Although dark matter, dark energy, and Inflation are mainstream hypothesis in cosmology that some claim to be valid theory because they believe there have been discoveries concerning some of these, however there is no consensus concurrence that any have been discovered.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you for this, Pantheory.

 

 

There is no scientific consensus as to an exact scientific method because science involves a number of different disciplines, but there is a general agreement concerning the main steps of this method and the order of use.

 

1)      Ask a question(s) (concerning a quandary or anomaly in science)

2)      Form a hypothesis/ hypotheses to explain the quandary

3)      Plan an experiment(s) or observation(s) to test the hypothesis

4)      Perform the experiment(s), observation(s), or related research

5)      Are the results of the experiment(s) consistent with the hypothesis? if not drop it and form another hypothesis, step 2 and continue. If the hypothesis is consistent with testing, draw preliminary conclusions and plan further experiments to further test your hypothesis and your conclusions. Publish results as needed.

 

https://quizlet.com/25604525/5-steps-of-the-scientific-method-flash-cards/

 

In accord with the request to apply the scientific method to the Andromeda Galaxy, I can think of generally one test. Andromeda is the closest large spiral galaxy to us, about 3.2 million light years away, so it’s relatively easy to observe it via a telescope than more distant galaxies.

 

 

So, a question generated from what you say above has to do with necessary assumptions.  This is also true of Vera Rubin's observations of the rotation profiles in M31 and it is also implicit in the cosmological principle.

 

 

When it comes to step 3 of the method, what necessary assumptions accompany any observations of M31?

 

Or, putting it another way, given that M31 is 2.5 million (not 3.2) light years away, what must we necessarily assume about it and then factor in to our observations?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Thank you for this, Pantheory.

 

 

There is no scientific consensus as to an exact scientific method because science involves a number of different disciplines, but there is a general agreement concerning the main steps of this method and the order of use.

 

1)      Ask a question(s) (concerning a quandary or anomaly in science)

2)      Form a hypothesis/ hypotheses to explain the quandary

3)      Plan an experiment(s) or observation(s) to test the hypothesis

4)      Perform the experiment(s), observation(s), or related research

5)      Are the results of the experiment(s) consistent with the hypothesis? if not drop it and form another hypothesis, step 2 and continue. If the hypothesis is consistent with testing, draw preliminary conclusions and plan further experiments to further test your hypothesis and your conclusions. Publish results as needed.

 

https://quizlet.com/25604525/5-steps-of-the-scientific-method-flash-cards/

 

In accord with the request to apply the scientific method to the Andromeda Galaxy, I can think of generally one test. Andromeda is the closest large spiral galaxy to us, about 3.2 million light years away, so it’s relatively easy to observe it via a telescope than more distant galaxies.

 

 

So, a question generated from what you say above has to do with necessary assumptions.  This is also true of Vera Rubin's observations of the rotation profiles in M31 and it is also implicit in the cosmological principle.

 

 

When it comes to step 3 of the method, what necessary assumptions accompany any observations of M31?

 

Or, putting it another way, given that M31 is 2.5 million (not 3.2) light years away, what must we necessarily assume about it and then factor in to our observations?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Thanks for the correction of the distance to Andromeda. As to your question, I can think of no necessary assumption we must make to factor into our observations of Andromeda.  But I expect you are referring to an assumption of the Big Bang model.

Its second assumption is called the cosmological principle, which states that an observer's view of the universe does not depend on the direction of the observation or his own location.

 

My own model does not make this assumption but considers it generally a good rule to follow, with possibly very few exceptions.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Thanks for the correction of the distance to Andromeda. As to your question, I can think of no necessary assumption we must make to factor into our observations of Andromeda.  But I expect you are referring to an assumption of the Big Bang model.

Its second assumption is called the cosmological principle, which states that an observer's view of the universe does not depend on the direction of the observation or his own location.

 

My own model does not make this assumption but considers it generally a good rule to follow, with possibly very few exceptions.

 

Ok Pantheory, here are the assumptions that need to be made.

 

1.  It is necessary to make the a priori assumption that the laws of nature we observe here on Earth, also hold good in M31 and everywhere else in the universe.

2. It is necessary to make the a priori assumption that these laws held good at all times in the past and will also hold good in the future.

3. On the basis of both of these we make make the further a priori assumption that we can make inferences and predictions about what we will observe.

 

Yes, these are part and parcel of the cosmological principle, but they still need to be explicitly stated and acknowledged.  Even if the wording of your alternative theory doesn't have any assumptions within it, you are still obliged to make them whenever you apply your theory to the universe.  Which was my end point of this post.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/85991-where-did-everything-come-from/page/2/#comments

 

Finally, about the scientific method.  If we abandon the twin principles of assumption and inference, because they do not qualify as being part of the scientific method, then we can say nothing about the universe as a whole.  Any and all theories about it's origins or how it works must also be abandoned.

Including Pantheory’s own, alternative theory.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

The question therefore needs to be asked, Pantheory.  Even if your alternative theory does not, according to you, contain any assumptions, to use it you must make a priori assumptions in order to make inferences and predictions on the back of those assumptions.

 

Isn't that so?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok Pantheory, here are the assumptions that need to be made.

 

1.  It is necessary to make the a priori assumption that the laws of nature we observe here on Earth, also hold good in M31 and everywhere else in the universe.

2. It is necessary to make the a priori assumption that these laws held good at all times in the past and will also hold good in the future.

3. On the basis on both of these we make make the further a priori assumption that we can make inferences and predictions about what we will observe.

 

Yes, these are part and parcel of the cosmological principle, but they still need to be explicitly stated and acknowledged.  Even if the wording of your alternative theory doesn't have any assumptions within it, you are still obliged to make them whenever you apply your theory to the universe.  Which was my end point of this post.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/85991-where-did-everything-come-from/page/2/#comments

 

Finally, about the scientific method.  If we abandon the twin principles of assumption and inference, because they do not qualify as being part of the scientific method, then we can say nothing about the universe as a whole.  Any and all theories about it's origins or how it works must also be abandoned.

Including Pantheory’s own, alternative theory.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

The question therefore needs to be asked, Pantheory.  Even if your alternative theory does not, according to you, contain any assumptions, to use it you must make a priori assumptions in order to make inferences and predictions on the back of those assumptions.

 

Isn't that so?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Neither of these assumptions are needed to observe Andromeda. But there is nothing wrong with making these assumptions IMO because they are not part of the scientific method, and not part of the theory.

 

According to the Big Bang theory we can see all the way back to the beginning of the universe and thereby make assumptions based upon what has been observed. According to the Pan Theory the observable universe is just a tiny fraction of the whole, but it's not infinite. Since the universe would accordingly be vastly larger and we could never observe a larger fraction of it, there could  be exceptions to almost any assumption one might make based upon the Pan Theory, and probably many infinite universe models also.

[walterpthefirst]

16 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

The Pan Theory makes no such assumptions, and neither of these assumptions are needed to observe Andromeda. But there is nothing wrong with making these assumptions IMO because they are not part of the scientific method, and not part of the theory.

 

According to the Big Bang theory we can see all the way back to the beginning of the universe and thereby make assumptions based upon what has been observed. According to the Pan Theory the observable universe is just a tiny fraction of the whole, but it's not infinite. Since the universe would accordingly be vastly larger and we could never observe a larger fraction of it, there could  be exceptions to almost any assumption one might make based upon the Pan Theory.

 

Pantheory,

 

You are correct that these assumptions aren't needed to observe M31 today.

 

But if you don't make the assumptions I mentioned, then all that can be said about that galaxy today is that it was the way it was 2.5 million years ago.  Nothing more.  We do not see as it is today, we see it as it was, 2.5 million years ago.

 

So, if we don't make those necessary assumptions then we can say nothing about how it was prior to 2.5 million years ago and nothing about how it was in the 2.5 million years it took that light to reach us.  Which leaves us with just one data point on the graph - how M31 was 2.5 million years ago.

 

This was the point I made in the other thread.  Unless we make these a priori assumptions, we can say nothing meaningful about the universe.  This goes for mainstream theories and your alternative theory too.

 

Assuming that you now understand that your alternative theory is obliged to make these a priori assumptions Pantheory, would you please confirm that this is so?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Pantheory,

 

You are correct that these assumptions aren't needed to observe M31 today.

 

But if you don't make the assumptions I mentioned, then all that can be said about that galaxy today is that it was the way it was 2.5 million years ago.  Nothing more.  We do not see as it is today, we see it as it was, 2.5 million years ago.

 

So, if we don't make those necessary assumptions then we can say nothing about how it was prior to 2.5 million years ago and nothing about how it was in the 2.5 million years it took that light to reach us.  Which leaves us with just one data point on the graph - how M31 was 2.5 million years ago.

 

This was the point I made in the other thread.  Unless we make these a priori assumptions, we can say nothing meaningful about the universe.  This goes for mainstream theories and your alternative theory too.

 

Assuming that you now understand that your alternative theory is obliged to make these a priori assumptions Pantheory, would you please confirm that this is so?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

yes, I see your point concerning the time delay and an asumption.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

yes, I see your point concerning the time delay and an asumption.

 

Indeed.

 

These a priori assumptions are the bedrock upon which ALL extrapolations into the past and predictions about the future are built upon.  This being a well-known example, that also features M31.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

 

Scientists work with today's data about M31 (even though it's actually 2.5 million years old) and then assume that the laws of nature applied back then in the same way that they apply now.  In the same way, they use the same set of assumptions and then extrapolate billions of years into the future to make their predictions about Milkomeda.

 

So Pantheory, if you were extrapolating into the deep past using your alternative Pan theory, wouldn't you also be obliged to make the same a priori assumptions?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

[pantheory]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Indeed.

 

These a priori assumptions are the bedrock upon which ALL extrapolations into the past and predictions about the future are built upon.  This being a well-known example, that also features M31.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

 

Scientists work with today's data about M31 (even though it's actually 2.5 million years old) and then assume that the laws of nature applied back then in the same way that they apply now.  In the same way, they use the same set of assumptions and then extrapolate billions of years into the future to make their predictions about Milkomeda.

 

So Pantheory, if you were extrapolating into the deep past using your alternative Pan theory, wouldn't you also be obliged to make the same a priori assumptions?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

 

Yes, but for science, I do not like the word assumption. I would prefer to say unstated logical probabilities. But 'assumptions' is not an incorrect way to describe such conclusions IMHO.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, but for science, I do not like the word assumption. I would prefer to say unstated logical probabilities. But 'assumptions' is not an incorrect way to describe such conclusions IMHO.

 

Ok, so it's a matter of personal preference, Pantheory.

 

That's cool.

 

 

Walter.