|
Tim,
this is about the logic of your post, - if I got
it right<G>.
Judith's text you reply to is so perfect that I
could have written it myself, maybe not in so good English. There is one word
missing - and this is what I missed in your post as well: ASSUMPTION (in
your text: in lieu of (seemingly by you accepted) 'phenomenon'.
You 'assume' that dark matter etc. etc. are
phenomena, while IMO they are assumptions to explain some hard-to- understand
calculational results of measurements on models formulated to explain certain
assumptions. PHEW
that was weird, but so is 'our' science.
IMO your last sentence seems to need be
reversed (unless I understood it reversed) and the burden of proof remains to
ascertain that there ARE phenomena behind those 'relational effects' we try to
apply to them.
"?dark matter?
and ?dark energy? are suspiciously ad hoc,"? genial assumptions
rather?
Have a happy Easter
John
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:26
AM
Subject: Re: What science doesn't
know...
Judith,
I agree that ?relational
effects? can explain some phenomena. In my view, it remains to be proven that
the missing explanation in these cases is due to such relational effects and
not due to other causal factors (such as ?dark matter?). While I agree
that ?dark matter? and ?dark energy? are suspiciously ad hoc, the burden of
the proof still remains for an assertion that relational effects are in fact
the causes of these phenomena.
Regards,
Tim
From: ROSEN
Forum [mailto:*** On
Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:36
AM
To:
***
Subject: Re: What science doesn't
know...
(This is delayed due to my preoccupation elsewhere
recently.)
How do you see that 5,9,7 "can easily be
explained by principles of relational causality"?
Both "dark matter" and "dark energy" are attempts to
explain phenomena that are outside previously observed behavior of the
universe. Let's assume, for the moment, that these phenomena are being
interpreted correctly and aren't simply the result of flawed models, mental or
otherwise, or flawed instrumentation, etc. In that case, what they are
actually reporting is that the behavior of the system is not explainable via
an analysis of all the components and all forces learned from
investigation of those components. My response is that what these observables
derive from are interactive relational effects. We know that interactions can
cause new phenomena to "emerge" as observable behaviors, right? Such
interactions are merely revealing entailments that we didn't know
existed.
Life cannot be explained via an analysis of all the
components, etc, either, and it doesn't require us to invent something called
"dark matter.dark energy" to explain life. It only requires an understanding
of relational causality. How could anyone predict that sodium and chlorine
will interact and the result will be salt? Salt is as different in properties
and behaviors from sodium as chlorine is-- and vice,
versa!
The third subject; "tetraneutrons", is a similar
situation, although once again I suspect at least part of the problem has to
do with the models and the modes of analysis. According to the description of
the experiment (all three descriptions are copied in, below), I can come up
with several explanations for their results. One is that "neutrons" aren't
single entities, but are subsystems which behave as if they were single
entities when the system is intact.
|