Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Travelling through a wormhole in space
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6641480" data-attributes="member: 13107"><p>Edit: Sorry, a bit of a ramble. I'll try to clean this up tonight.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In detailed literature, there are collations of explanations for phenomena (what we observe), with an exporation of different explanations, and the necessary adjustments to current known laws for a particular explanation to work. Those necessary adjustments can lead to predictable results in associated phenomena, which can pretty much wreck a candidate explanation.</p><p></p><p>I found this sort of collation googling explanations for the red shift a while back. All sorts of explanations have been explored, and discarded due to solid evidence, leaving, more or less, universal expansion as the current best explanation.</p><p></p><p>I would think that that exhaustive searches are ongoing for explanations, with folks looking in all sorts of directions. For example, one might try to explain unexpected measurements of radial velocities of observable matter in galaxies by postulating a modification to the inverse square law of gravity. That would have a measurable consequence in other areas, which will be looked at, and the scientific community would, over time, make a judgement of whether the explanation was compelling.</p><p></p><p>At this level of detail, there would end up being an enumeration of explanations, with qualifications attached to each as the quality of each explanation, with a sense of "this is it" applying to one or another explanation only after enough evidence was gathered.</p><p></p><p>I would guess that all of the following, and more, are or have been considered:</p><p></p><p>Measurement errors (somehow, we aren't measuring the phenomenon accurate);</p><p></p><p>Analysis errors (we measured it correctly, but aren't reasoning through the data correctly)</p><p></p><p>Errors in currently accepted physical theories (some equation which is being used has a necessary modification which we aren't making)</p><p></p><p>Errors in our understanding of the underlying physical reality (our basic idea of what is there to explain is missing an important detail)</p><p></p><p>I'm thinking that a modification to a widely held law (say, the inverse square law of gravity) would be looked at pretty hard, since an observably provable modification would be a very big deal, but somewhat on the fringe, since fundamental changes are pretty rare things.</p><p></p><p>These provides a little information:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would be very very careful before accepting the above quotes as being mainstream within the the scientific community. This is, I'm thinking, one of several areas where non-scientific literature does a poor job of representing the general scientific viewpoint, at least so far as presenting the current prevailing thoughts. A particular exciting alternate theory can garner a lot more attention than it deserves, and because of the extra attention, seem to have a lot more support than it really does.</p><p></p><p>Thx!</p><p></p><p>TomB</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 6641480, member: 13107"] Edit: Sorry, a bit of a ramble. I'll try to clean this up tonight. In detailed literature, there are collations of explanations for phenomena (what we observe), with an exporation of different explanations, and the necessary adjustments to current known laws for a particular explanation to work. Those necessary adjustments can lead to predictable results in associated phenomena, which can pretty much wreck a candidate explanation. I found this sort of collation googling explanations for the red shift a while back. All sorts of explanations have been explored, and discarded due to solid evidence, leaving, more or less, universal expansion as the current best explanation. I would think that that exhaustive searches are ongoing for explanations, with folks looking in all sorts of directions. For example, one might try to explain unexpected measurements of radial velocities of observable matter in galaxies by postulating a modification to the inverse square law of gravity. That would have a measurable consequence in other areas, which will be looked at, and the scientific community would, over time, make a judgement of whether the explanation was compelling. At this level of detail, there would end up being an enumeration of explanations, with qualifications attached to each as the quality of each explanation, with a sense of "this is it" applying to one or another explanation only after enough evidence was gathered. I would guess that all of the following, and more, are or have been considered: Measurement errors (somehow, we aren't measuring the phenomenon accurate); Analysis errors (we measured it correctly, but aren't reasoning through the data correctly) Errors in currently accepted physical theories (some equation which is being used has a necessary modification which we aren't making) Errors in our understanding of the underlying physical reality (our basic idea of what is there to explain is missing an important detail) I'm thinking that a modification to a widely held law (say, the inverse square law of gravity) would be looked at pretty hard, since an observably provable modification would be a very big deal, but somewhat on the fringe, since fundamental changes are pretty rare things. These provides a little information: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve[/url] And: I would be very very careful before accepting the above quotes as being mainstream within the the scientific community. This is, I'm thinking, one of several areas where non-scientific literature does a poor job of representing the general scientific viewpoint, at least so far as presenting the current prevailing thoughts. A particular exciting alternate theory can garner a lot more attention than it deserves, and because of the extra attention, seem to have a lot more support than it really does. Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Travelling through a wormhole in space
Top