Posted on 08/08/2002 9:06:23 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
That pretty much sums up the genre and its adherents.
Current wisdom is that Neptune's "Dark Spot" and Jupiter's "Red Spot" are different phenomena. I wouldn't place too much credence on "explanations" of either, though, because neither is yet well understood!
The Great Red Spot of Jupiter is thought to be a hurricane which has been raging on Jupiter for at least 400 years. The Great Dark Spot, seen here by Voyager in 1989, disappeared (either dissipating or being masked) in 1994, and was replaced very soon by a similar "Spot" in a similar place, but in the north instead of in the south.
Try reading it and understanding it. That's as good a begin point as any.
Let's see now.
They lack the proper means to explain a "bad" observational result, so we must revamp all known physical laws to explain it?
I propose that they examine the reality that what we don't know about the universe is many many orders of magnitude greater than what we do know.
Perhaps the answer is as simple as a little more humility, and a lot more patience and research.
LOL Exactly! Someday when we all get to go home, God will sit us down and draw out the physics on a black board and say, "See?" and we will. :-)
The cosmos is full of comedians...
Assuming that the universe is expanding and has been doing so for some 12 to 15 billion years does this mean that space itself is expanding or just that this space bubble we call the universe is spreading out into, well into what?
Assuming that space itself is expanding it would seem to me that this should have some effect on the speed of light in the medium. We define the index of refraction for a vacuum as our reference and we can calculate the speed of light in any dielectric medium if we have a dielectric constant or equivalently the index of refraction for the material. The dielectric constant for a pure vacuum is 1.0 and for any other medium it is greater than 1.0. Bigger dielectric constant, slower speed of light.
So the question is: As space expands does the dielectric constant (or the index of refraction) change?
If the answer is yes then do we know if this is taken into account by those who think the speed of light is changing?
If the answer is no. How do you know that?
Food for thought. I won't be able to sleep until I have an answer.
It's that damned CO2 again.
If we had signed up for Kyoto, this would not be a problem.
At various points in history, an eminently convenient and exploitable assumption.
History is not over yet.
Nor will it be after you and I are gone.
Did you shoot video?
Or are you simply relying on memory?
Without corroborating evidence, yes, it is safe to assume that the Bible and similar tracts are works of fiction. However, should you show me a magic beanstalk or an anthropomorphic pillar of salt, I might be forced to reevaluate my position.
History is not over yet.
Francis Fukuyama to the contrary notwithstanding.
Nor will it be after you and I are gone.
Yet Ted Holden's great great grandchildren will inevitably deconstruct works of pulp science fiction from the early 21st century, looking for evidence of cataclysms not otherwise supported in the scientific record.
My personal memory of what transpired more than a few hundred million years ago is rather foggy, so I've had to rely on what Senator Thurmond has told me, in many cases.
Could you imagine what they'd do with Red Storm Rising?
"Well, we know for a fact that the countries of the United States and the Soviet Union existed, so they must have fought a limited war in the 20th century. Why else would anyone have written about it?"
Nah. I'd go whole-hog. Holden's descendents will look at such works as On the Beach as clear and convincing evidence that the human race was extinguished in global thermonuclear war at some point during the 1960s. These descendents will be puzzled by the undeniable fact that they are, afterall, alive, but will quickly come up with a creative and universally satisfactory solution for that minor theoretical discrepancy.
Will any answer do, or do you want a correct answer?
I mean, what kinda BS is that? What's fifty feet gonna expand into in a hundred years? Fifty one feet?? You gonna tell people you haven't really gained any weight since college days, it's just the space expanding around your midsection??
The notions of a "big bang" and an expanding universe are total BS, based on nothing more than a fundamental misinterpretation of redshift data. Those ideas have been coercively disproven.
I would guess not.
If the answer is no. How do you know that?
Because even a tiny index of refraction would induce a gigantic chromatic aberration in the light of distant sources such as quasars. An index of refraction doesn't just slow the speed of light; it slows it in a frequency-dependent way. If that dispersion accumulates over cosmological distances, I don't see how we'd miss it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.