TED Conversations

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Is the role of the non specialist in technical matters useful?

As as geologist when people talk about an expanding earth in the National Philosophy Alliance seriously, my immediate reaction is that it is "crackpottery". I have stood on the floor of an ocean that predated the Atlantic Ocean and know beyond a reasonable doubt that an expanding earth beyond a fraction of a percent is impossible---no mineral assemblage will support it.

When I am told that there are at least 30 data sets that require adjustable parameters to explain the Big Bang Theory what do I think as a non-specialist?

The Big Bang Theory has proven to be perhaps the most spectacularly maladjusted predictive theory ever; it has predicted practically none of the major feautures of the universe from dark energy to dark matter to inflation, etc. Instead the theory is so malleable that any set of facts (data) are simply required to fit the theory with some ad hoc suggestion. While it is true that some of these unexpected phenomenon received support later, it does not alter the fact that they were not predicted.

This is a dangerous precedent. What if other branches of the sciences started formulating theories without substantial support, and never made testable predictions that came true?

The single greatest criticism of the BBT is that according to an opponent, it has never made a prediction that would falsify the theory if proven true and that is a damning indictment of the theory.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 26 2014: Richard,

    What about reclaiming the Moon for mineral assemblage or pumping air into the core and creating more surface area. Would you mind an Earth with a hollow core. I am not clear on why anyone would want to expand the Earth.

    My observation of the Universe as a non specialist is to try to grasp the patterns of movement to gain a view of transforming energy and try to understand. It seems movement must occur prior to anything occurring. Did something move out of nothing or has something always been moving and I misperceive it came from nothing? The plot of the mystery thickens, am I in a layered dream where the moving conscious mind is moving a static universe somewhat like driving and everything appears to move outside. Then we have the concept of the multiverse where things no longer explode big bang like from nothing but gently percolate into existence from something.

    Digging into ones mind is much like digging into the sentiment you can only go so far until it disappears into the core erased in time and you're left holding supposition.
    • Mar 27 2014: The expanding earth hypothesis holds that the position of the continents is due to the expansion of the earth and not due to plate tectonics. But to get the present situation of 70% ocean and 30% continent, you would have to expand the volume of the earth over 30 times!
      • thumb
        Mar 27 2014: Thank you for being clear on the details. At first I thought you were talking about a group who were looking to make the Earth bigger and then were going to ask me to drink their special Kool-Aid.

        As a layman I don't find the expanding earth hypothesis to appear that far out. We are sitting on top of a molten thermal core. Heat energy gives rise to expansion, expansion gives rise to pressure, pressure gives rise to movement. If I have got any of it correct so far it's only the tip of the iceberg. I could see where there are many, many other factors at play such as surface thickness, material, temperature and so on. I don't see where expansion being a driving force to move the plates necessarily would mean expanding the total volume of the Earth. Our little blue planet is quite the system. If nothing else I have gained a new found respect for what it means to be a geologist and what they do.

        BTW: I do not believe you think the idea is "crackpottery".

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.