Age Of Universe

Dr. Mary Ruwart wrote:


The idea itself has within it the possible seeds of its own
destruction. We correlate actual distance to the redshift.


Yes, a bit more clearly, that is the question, "what does
the redshift mean?"


Progress deems it necessary that the theory be proved incorrect
in at least some aspect or another.


Oh yes!


As well as aging light and a host of other ideas.


However acceptance is often based on very unscientific
reasons, including the place an individual has in the
scientific community (as was true in this particular
instance.)


Time? How long did it take, from first observation, to
resolve geocentricity? Some questions can probably never
be satisfactorally answered



That models appear to work for the duration is what keeps us going.



("Mitch")



There is probably no way for humans to test the truth of such
a theory, let alone possible variations within arm's length
of many theories.


In real tests (not the just the human created paper ones) there
are more questions than there is time available to answer them.
My universe began when I was born and will end when I die. In
someone else's universe some answers will doubtless be
discovered, though it is doubtful that all the questions
(which themselves manifest at an ever greater rate) will
ever be answered. Might it be said that knowledge has become
a lifeform?



Which is what "Mitch" promotes and which he calls "doing
science."

Dear Sanforized:

"Sanforized" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:e85f3$484a826d$49e5d02$[Only registered users see links. ]...

We also correlate distance to intensity, changes in duration of
"characteristic" distant events, even evaluating distant
processes. They are all in agreement.


A host of different (non-exclusive) flavors, including
"expansion".

David A. Smith