Dewey B. Larson - The Mythical Universe of Modern Astronomy

Transcript

for the past two or three years I've been spending all of the time that I could make available for the purpose on the preparation of additional volumes of the revised edition of my first book structure of the physical universe as I think most of you know the first volume of that revised Edition has already been published with the shepherd titled nothing but motion and I'm now working on the next two volumes concentrating mainly on volume three which will probably be completed and published ahead of volume 2. that may seem like the wrong way of going about it and perhaps it is but there are good reasons for it which I won't go into now well you have three is the astronomical volume in that I am taking the physical laws and principles developed in volumes one and two and applying them to the astronomical situation the results that I've obtained and so doing are quite different from what you find in the astronomical literature so much so in fact that you might almost wonder if if we were talking about the same thing and I'm quite sure that those who read the book will want to ask a question that goes something like this if your results are correct how in the world did the astronomers arrive at such totally different conclusions since that question is going to be asked I think that I should answer it right in the book itself and I'm planning on putting in a chapter for that purpose and what I propose to do this evening is to give you a general idea of the contents of that chapter what the astronomers have done is essentially the same thing that I've done that is they have taken the physical laws and principles to which they subscribe and I've applied them to the astronomical situation the difference is that I have had the benefit for they General physical Theory one in which all conclusions in all fields are derived from the same set of basic premises so that when I make the assumption that the laws and principles that I am using are correct that's something all of us have to do in order to establish The Logical foundations of our results I can do the whole thing with one Ascension the astronomers can't do that because conventional physical theory has no General structure as described by one prominent physicist Dr Richard Feynman in a quotation that I have given many times before the laws of physics are a multitude of different parts and pieces that do not fit together very well so when the astronomers assume the validity of the laws and principles that they are using they have to make a assumption as to the validity of each one individually and they have to make a multitude of assumptions thousands of them almost all of those laws and principles are in fact valid I would estimate that not more than one in a hundred or even one in several hundred as anything significantly wrong with it and on that basis the astronomers have at their disposal a system of laws and principles that is at least 99 valid so it might be assumed then that the results that they obtain ought to be at least somewhere in the neighborhood of 99 correct but that's not the way that things work on the contrary it can easily happen let us play basic premises are only 99 correct the results made will be 99 wrong that's the principle on which much of our science fiction is based particularly the better grade of Science Fiction and to illustrate how it operates I want to discuss briefly a science fiction story of that time the money is chosen for the purpose is Isaac asimov's story of the remarkable properties of the substance that he calls diatomaline as he tells the story a group of investigators who are working on a project the objective of which was to produce a substance with a very short solution time that is one that would go into solution very rapidly and they succeeded by decidedly they produce substances with shorter and shorter solution time until eventually they were able to synthesize a substance with a negative solution time one that went into solution somewhat before it was placed in the solvent now I imagine you can readily understand that that led to some very interesting practical optic applications for example it enabled the construction of an instrument to measure willpower obviously the material would not go into solution as long as there was any doubt about whether it would or would not be placed in the solvent so that the maximum possible theoretical negative solution time could only be developed by a person with strong willpower one whose determination was such that once he had decided upon putting it in the material in this solvent you would be sure to carry out the operation on the other hand an individual who is hesitant or undecided would only be able to develop a fraction of the possible negative solution time so that by a proper calibration of the instrument a measurement of negative solution time could be interpreted in terms of willpower now you can see that that instrument would have a wide application for instance it was not only a valuable tool for measuring willpower but it also uh enabled a diagnosis a quick and accurate diagnosis of schizophrenia a person where they expect personality would naturally have two different levels of willpower so that when he was tested with the instrument there would be a period of time during which one portion of the material would go into solution while the other portion remained on the zone now that was not only a valuable diagnostic tool it also enabled the investigators to discover some different types of the Affliction that were previously unknown to the psychiatrists for instance there was horizontal schizophrenia in that type one layer of material dissolved while another layer remained on the zone and then there was vertical schizophrenia in which the same difference was noted between the right and left hands of the container and there was mixed schizophrenia in which the undissolved material was scattered at random throughout the solvent thank you oh Asimov goes on to describe a considerable number of other applications of a similar nature the things that I have given you are all that we need for present purposes because what we're interested in is the structure of the story as Asimov himself explains in his discussion of the story there is only one assumption contrary to fact introduced into that sorry everything else is strictly according to Ohio and the lines of reasoning are sound so that what we have here is the kind of thing that I've been talking about a situation in which 99 of all that goes into the story is correct but the whole thing turns out to be nothing but entertaining nonsense and it culminates in such uncertainties as vertical schizophrenia I have Illustrated map structure of the story in the diagram at the bottom of the page that has been passed out I could read it better if I turned it upside side up you will note that the one contrafactual assumption identified by letters and then the lines of reasoning lead out to the successive conclusions the astronomers structure of the universe is exactly the same kind of a structure except that they introduced many assumptions contrary to fact and there Universe structure of their universe is therefore much more complex when I talk about structure and that connection what I'm actually talking about of course is the framework of the structure the astronomical Universe includes many entities and processes such as stars planets galaxies and so on but I have to enter into any version of the structure but they claimer those entities and processes are like the side panels and ornamentation on a building they're just heard on whatever framework may exist and it's the framework that determines the character of the structure as that framework that I have indicated here I have shown the assumptions contrary to fact by letters just as in the lower part of the diagram lower diagram and some of them the lines of reasoning generally sound lead out to the numbered conclusions with arrows showing the direction of the reasoning why are they numbered conclusions referred to entities or processes that are totally non-existent I have also shown the names those numbered conclusions that are not accompanied by names refer to entities or processes that actually do exist but that differ in some significant way from the description that we get from the astronomers for example over on the right of the diagram conclusion number nine refers to what are known as x-ray starters they are discrete sources of X-ray emission in the galaxy those are actually binary star systems as the astronomers say they are but one member of the binary each binary system is a quite different object from the one that's portrayed by the astronomers and the process by which the x-rays are emitted is totally different now there's one more feature of the diagram as a whole that I want to call to your attention before I start tracing the lines of development and that is the cumulative effect of more of these assumptions contrary to fact if you look over on the upper left of the diagram you'll see that the numbered conclusions there are subject to the effects of only one of these contrafactual assumptions and as a result none of those is listed as totally non-existent actually some of those conclusions are wild enough in themselves as we'll see when we come to look at them individually but the real delis are over on the other side of the diagram where the effects of three four or five of these contrafactual assumptions converge the first of the assumptions contrary to fact that I want to call to your attention the one marked a on the diagram is the assumption that the basic entities of the universe are Elementary units of matter that assumption seemed very reasonable and it was first made but we now know definitely and positively that is wrong because we now know that there are processes for by matter can be converted to non-matter and vice versa and obviously that means that matter cannot be basic for example radiation is not a form of matter the matter is not a form or radiation but matter can be converted to radiation consequently it necessarily follows that both matter and radiation must be forms of some underlying entity some common denominator we may say the that's not a matter of opinion or judgment that's a necessary consequence of The observed facts the relevance of that point in this present connection is that it sets a limit on the extent to which units of matter can be subdivided into simpler units of matter for example if we start for the Rock and examine that structure we find that it is composed of identifiable material subunits what do we call crystals if we examine the crystals we find that they are composed of identifiable material subunits that we call molecules but if we continue that process we eventually come to a material unit that is clearly not Elementary but for which we cannot find any subunits theological conclusion there is that we have arrived at the point that we know exists the point where the material unit is not composed of material subunits but is composed of the common denominator whatever that may be That's The Logical conclusion not the physicisters and the astronomers cannot accept that logical conclusion because they are committed to Ascension a which says that the basic units are units of matter consequently they have to go out and invent the units that they cannot find that is the essence the basis of the Quark hypothesis number one on the diagram many prominent scientists have recognized the fallacies in the Quark hypothesis Warner Heisenberg for instance was a very critical of it and he also recognized the necessity for a common denominator between matter and lung matter he suggested that it might be energy but he admitted that he couldn't see how energy could meet the requirements in a universe of motion become a denominator is of course motion but strangely enough these scientists who have been so able to see the shortcomings of the Quark hypothesis have not usually seen that exactly the same considerations apply to the particles that are supposed to be constructed of quarks the hypothetical constituents of the atom no one was able to been able to find them either of course the situation is confused to some extent in this case by the practice of calling those hypothetical constituents by the names of observed particles but as I pointed out in my talk at the conference last year that practice is totally unscientific identity cannot be established by similarity in names it has to be established by identity of descriptions in scientific terms two properties are identical our two entities are identical in nature if all of their properties coincide if the bird that we see quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and so on all the way down the line then it's a book if it grows like a rooster and can't swim then it's not a dark and it doesn't make any difference how many people insist on calling it a diet or how nice it would be for somebody's theories if it were a dark it still isn't a duck the same identical principle applies to these particles they observed Neutron for instance is an unstable unstable particle it has a life of less than 15 minutes and it's gregarious and as a strong tendency to combine with almost anything that comes along the hypothetical Neutron constituent of the atom on the other hand has to be stable and it has to maintain its identity even in places where the tendency toward combination is very strong the your fact is that there are two totally different particles of course papers tell us Neutron is an accommodating thing and if we put it in the atom it will accommodate their theories by becoming stable and by discontinuing this awkward habit of combining with other things but that's pure nonsense that's in the same category as saying that if we throw a roost in the water you inquired them start swimming thank you the situation with respect to the other hypothetical particles in the atom is no different in fact Herbert Dingle does this that we can't even imagine a particle with all of the properties that are required of the hypothetical electron constituent but with these imaginary particles number two on the diagram but there is some constructed and imaginary atom number three but even with all of the leeway that they have had for making assumptions as to the properties of these particles of which they wanted to build an atom they could not construct a plausible Theory without making another assumption contrary to fact the mon Mark B on the diagram that is the assumption that the atom does not conform to the normal laws of physics that's a drastic assumption and because of that drastic assumption the people who put this structure together in the first place and had to make the admission that their atom is not a real particle that's number four on the diagram as Heisenberg puts it it is in a way only a symbol Urban Schrodinger tells us if the question is asked do the electrons actually exist in these orbits within the atom the answer has to be a decisive no and Heisenberg specifically questions us that we must not think that the physicist atom is a material particle in space and time that exists objectively in the same sense that stones and trees exist doesn't exist in while he tries to explain that and he says this the atom of modern physics can only be symbolized they by a partial differential equation in an abstract multi-dimensional space now when we translate that from the professional jargon and the physicists to the vernacular and we find that it says exactly the same thing that I've been saying the physicist Adam is an imaginary atom constructed of imaginary particles and in this connection I want to point out that these people that I have been quoting are not scientific Heretics like the present speaker they are eminent members of the group that put this thing together in the first place when the present-based physicist wants to apply a quantum theory to his problems is shreddinger's waves equation that he tries to solve but when he gets into difficulties it's Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty that he calls on to get him out of those troubles in order to go any further along this line of development that I've started tracing the astronomers have had to like still another assumption contrary to the fact like the first two this one was borrowed from the physicists it's their assumption as to the nature of the process whereby energy is generated in the Stars the physicist attitude on this subject has never changed they have contended from the very first but whatever the most energetic process known to them might be that must be the Stellar energy generation process regardless of how much evidence might exist in any other field of Silence going number five the fact that they've had to change their ideas as to the nature of that process twice already once the last time under very embarrassing circumstances has not changed their attitude in the least today there is ample astronomical evidence to show that they're present assumption is wrong assumption C just as there was ample Zoological evidence in the 19th century to show that they're then current assumption was wrong but they are physicists are no more willing to listen to the astronomical evidence today than they were willing to listen to the geological evidence during the long and acrimonious dispute with the geologists during the 19th century and since the astronomers are not willing to put up the kind of a fight that the geologist did they have ignored or rejected the evidence from their own field and have accommodated their evolutionary theories to the physicists assumption C I will have some more to say about the astronomers but the astronomical evidence when we come back to this side of the diagram and start up the lion guard conclusion 15. but for the moment I want to continue along the original line of development very first conclusion that is derived from assumption C is the Assumption what is the conclusion that they supply of energy in the Stars will eventually be exhausted that's conclusion five astronomers have then taken at conclusion five and put it together with conclusion three the conclusion is to the nature of the atomic structure and they have arrived at the further conclusion that the result will be and it collapse of the atom I said earlier that the lines of reasoning represented by the lines on the diagram are generally sound the reason for putting in that qualifying word generally is that I have some reservations in some cases and this line of reasoning leading to conclusion sex is one of them there one of the results of the application of thermal energy to a material aggregate is to introduce additional space between the atoms or between the molecules of the aggregate and if we eliminate that thermal motion by exhaustion on this fuel supply it's logical to assume that that additional space will also be eliminated but the astronomers are going a step farther and assuming that that exhaustion of the fuel supply also eliminates some further space in the interior of the atom that the thermal motion had nothing to do with in the first place the justification for that kind of an assumption is very hard to see of course some of the theorists tell us that when the support given by the thermal pressure is eliminated the aggregate collapses of its own weight but that is equivalent to assuming that material is heavier when it's cold than it is when it is not and there again that's an assumption that's very difficult to swallow in the real world the atoms at the bottom of the pile are subject to the weight of all of the overlying layers regardless of whether they are hot or cold in one of the books from which I and my contemporaries learn to read there's a story about a man who was going home with a heavy sack of flower in those days and I might say we bought flour and hundred pound sacks not in these little bits of things that they sell in the supermarkets and this man was afraid that the heavy weight would be too much for the horse that he was riding so in order to relieve the weight on the horse he picked the flower up and held it in his arms on the way home now when we were children we laughed at that story but now we're presented with exactly the same proposition by the astronomers uh in a little different language and we're expected to keep straight faces a month after all uh I suppose we'll have to remember that I watch your eye and I think about this situation uh is not relevant in the present connection what we're trying to do is to examine how the astronomers arrived at these conclusions and this is their conclusion number six and they have concluded them that they material of the star collapses into a weird condition that they call degenerate matter and which all of the hypothetical space in the hypothetical atom has been eliminated and these hypothetical constituents are in a close-packed condition since this degeneracy starts from a condition in which the material is cold and therefore solid at the same natural to assume that the degenerate matter should be some sort of a super solid in some strange way it requires reacquire some of the properties of a gas particular it requires a substitute for the thermal motion that it can no longer have so other than instead of the cold matter what we have is an aggregate of hot degenerate matter that's conclusion number seven and they have identified that aggregate the hot degenerate matter with the white dwarf star conclusion number eight I have already mentioned number nine which is the X-ray star you'll also note that the white dwarf number eight on the diagram is connected with item number 23. but that's an incoming line that refers to the effect of contrafactual assumption D on the white dwarf now let's assumption d has an effect that is quite different in its nature from the effects of the other contrafactual assumptions that I am discussing so it will be convenient to defer the effect shown by number 23 until we're ready to talk about the situation and the conclusions along the top of the diagram so let's move on then to conclusion number 10. there's that seat of the white dwarf is supposed to be radiated away in the same way as really although nobody's explained why that should be true and since that's radiated away the white dwarf is presumed to gradually cool off and eventually to become a black dwarf a cold lifeless object that plays no further part in physical activity these black dwarfs are purely hypothetical there's no evidence whatever of the existence of any such thing and there's no definite evidence that the evolution of the white dwarf is in the black dwarf Direction on the contrary there's a great deal of evidence showing that some stars and perhaps all of them and their lives in gigantic explosions the astronomers have had to recognize that evidence of course and they've compromised they've decided that the small Stars collapse quietly and end their lives as black wolves and the big stars explode and they have identified that explosion with the Absurd phenomenon known as the Supernova that's number 11 on the diagram the effects of the gigantic explosion of that kind is to pulverize the material of the star and to eject it out into space in the form of a rapidly expanding cloud of dust and gas but the astronomers have concluded and they have some evidence to support that conclusion that a residue remains at the scene of the explosion and they have identified that residue as degenerative matter what they have decided that because of the force of the explosion this matter is more degenerate than the degenerate matter of the white Florals and in some strange way and it sounds like magic to me all of the hypothetical constituents of that degenerate matter are converted to neutrons so that what we have left is a star composed entirely of neutrons a neutron star number 12 on the diagram on the basis of some mathematical conclusions the astronomers have further concluded but there's a limit to the size of a neutron star and they've decided that when the residue exceeds that size the contraction under the influence of gravitation goes on until the surface gravity of the aggregate is so strong that no radiation at all can escape what then exists they say is a black hole conclusion number 13.

and some theorists are not even willing to stop there they contend that that contraction under the influence of gravity goes on and on until there's nothing left of the whole star but a single point and singularity in scientific jargon that's conclusion 14. all of the as you can see from the diagram all of these desire conclusions as to the products of the Supernova explosion are subject to the effects of all four of the assumptions contrary to fact that I've already mentioned and in addition they are subject to one more which I have identified by the letter e on the diagram this assumption involves some very basic issues and I won't be able to explain it in detail in the time that I have this evening but I can say that in essence what it emerges to is an assumption that the astronomers understand the mechanism of gravitation which obviously they don't again I want to call on Dr Feynman he says no one has given us the Machinery of gravitation all we have is the mathematical form now Dr Feynman is evidently not familiar with the theory of the universe of motion because we have given the machinery but his statement is correct in application to the conventional physics that the astronomers are using now here's a little gem for your collection of all the conceptions of the human mind perhaps the most fantastic is the black hole like the unicorn and the gargoyle the black hole seems much more at home in science fiction for an ancient myth than in the real universe if you were not told otherwise you would probably think that that came from me or from some other hard-boiled skeptic but no those are the words of Kip Thorne one of the most enthusiastic Advocates of the black hole hypothesis of course he contends that if black holes must exist anyway no matter how fantastic they are and after making that statement he goes on to say this the laws of modern physics virtually demand that black holes exist that's absolutely correct the whole point of my presentation tonight is that all of these absurdities the black holes and the rest of them are required by the laws of physiques the current laws of physics and the current interpretations of those laws by these universe and that is because those laws and those interpretations have not been purged of the effects of these assumptions contrary to the fact that I've been talking about the black hole is not science fiction it's fictional science the difference is that the science fiction writer knows and admits that he's using assumptions contrary to fact the practitioner of fictional science neither of us know or is not willing to admit that he's doing exactly the same thing the black hole is the astronomical equivalent of vertical schizophrenia moving back now to the other side of the diagram we note that one of the results of the conclusion number five the conclusion as to the exhaustion of the fuel supply is that the hot massive stars must be young because they are using their fuel at such a prodigious rate that the exhaustion must come relatively soon astronomically speaking this is an in the improbable conclusion and the great many of sodomers have recognized that Mark J Bach for instance tells us this it is no small letter to accept is proven the conclusion that some of our most conspicuous supergiants like rigel or form so very recently on the cosmic scale of time measurement and indeed this is not a small matter what bark evidently realized is that the product is inconsistent with the process natural building processes are slow and gradual the rapid processes the catastrophic processes are destructive some new combinations May emerge from those processes but they are no more than incidental the general effect to those processes is to tear down not to build up it's generally agreed that the raw material from which stars are formed must be diffused matter in the form of dust and gas clouds and as stars are currently forming those must be cold clouds the only known force that is capable of growing the particles of those clouds together perform stars as gravitation and because of the immense distances involved the force of gravitation is very weak and it takes a long long time to operate the formation of a star is therefore a long slow process and the initial product because it is formed from a coal material is a cool star not a hot one in order to form a hot messy star another long flow process is required so that the hot messy star cannot be young it's an old star there is plenty of astronomical evidence to support that funding most of it comes from observations of the star clusters if they not massive stars Are Young as contended by be fine the conclusion 15 is an erroneous result of an assumption contrary to fact the same considerations also apply to conclusion number 16 and they show that the astronomers have their age sequence upside down now they will protest that they have evidence to support them a sequence but if you examine that evidence you will find that most of it is evidence only of the existence of a sequence and it has nothing to do with Direction and those items that do prefer to the direction of the sequence contradict the astronomers conclusions they are most conclusive of that kind of evidence comes from the small clusters that are located in the Galaxy rather than around it those clusters they Galactic or open clusters can be divided generally into two groups in one group The constituent Stars resemble those of the globular clusters in the other group they are more like the general run of stars in the galactic arms such as those in the Solar neighborhood these clusters or both groups are all expanding at measurable rates and their star density the number of stars per unit volume is therefore decreasing yeah follows that they since they're no reason that we know of why the initial conditions would be any different it follows that who stars of the Clusters with the greatest greater average density are the younger than those with the smaller average dose of them are the older here then we have something that is very rare in astronomy an opportunity to determine the direction of evolution from direct observation now according to studies that have been made the astronomerado stew tells us the average density of the group composed of the stars of the globular cluster type is the Gatorade this is therefore identified as the younger group which is the opposite of the conclusions reached by the astronomers now this is not the only astronomical evidence that shows that they have their sequence upside down there are quite a number of other items that I won't be able to discuss tonight because we just simply haven't enough time but there is one item among them and I do want to call your attention because it has a particular significance this item has to do with the age and origin of the globular clusters if the stars of those clusters are old as contended by the astronomers conclusion number 16 then they clusters themselves are presumably old that's conclusion 70. and the astronomers have therefore decided that they must have been products of the original process of Galaxy formation and are part of the galactic structure that's conclusion 18. this new encounters some very serious difficulties one of the most obvious of them is that the Clusters do not participate to any significant degree in the galactic rotation and that is very hard to explain if they are part of the galactic extension but since conclusion 18 is a logical result of this line of reasoning stemming from assumption C to which they astronomers are committed they have continued to hold on to this conclusion in spite of all the difficulties hoping that they will ultimately go away but alongside this orthodox evolutionary view of the astronomers there has in recent years Growing Up A New Concept that contradicts the whole setup and since that New Concept is accepted quite widely in the astronomical profession that profession is now in the awkward position where they or at least a substantial segment of their profession accepts two contradictory explanations for the same thing this New Concept is the concept of Galactic cannibalism quoting astronomer Wallace Tucker the majority of Galaxy clusters are dominated by a single massive elliptical galaxy apparently these monster Galaxies have eaten dozens of their smaller companions now obviously if the giant galaxies can swallow the ellipticals in their vicinity I mean some of the spirals in their vicinity the big spirals like ours have the capability of swallowing dwarf galaxies and gabular clusters and in the light of that information the presence of large numbers of globular clusters surrounding every one of the major galaxies takes on a new significance in the light of that information it's evident that those lobular clusters are not part of the Galaxy there are external objects that are being drawn in where they can be conveniently swallowed now in that connection it's worth noting that this emotions of those clusters that are so difficult to explain on the basis of the astronomers conclusions fit in very nicely with the cannibalism hypothesis again I want to quote astronomerado's true he says they move much as freely falling bodies attracted by the galactic center of course on the basis of this New Concept that's just exactly what they are returning now to conclusion 15. another one of the consequences of the astronomers age sequence conclusions 15 and 16.

here's the stars must be currently forming in the galaxies because there are great many here of these hot messy stars in the galaxies particularly in the galactic arms and according to the astronomers Viewpoint those must have been formed fairly recently and close to their present locations God confronts the astronomers with a very difficult problem as I mentioned earlier the force of gravitation is capable under appropriate circumstances of pulling the particles of the dust and gas clouds together to form Stars the difficulty arises because those appropriate circumstances do not exist in the galaxies in order to enable the force of gravitation to do the job on the system the dust and gas clouds in the galaxies would either have to be very much larger or very much denser than anything that now exists in the galaxies so that the astronomers in order to maintain their theories I've had to try to find some auxiliary process that could work in conjunction with gravitation to produce these results and they have examined quite a number of processes that they thought might work but so far they have been unable to produce anything that could stand up to critical squiggling so the result is as described by an astronomer Simon Lipton the process of star formation is almost a total mystery when we correct The evolutionary Direction return the sequence upside down the problem disappears it comes on that basis there are no stars in the galaxy that are young in absolute terms it's true that the centers on that basis the stars of the globular clusters of the globular cluster type are younger than the hot massive stars but that doesn't mean that they are young in absolute terms it does not preclude there having been formed in some region where the the appropriate circumstances for Star formation do exist and having been brought into the Galaxy by the capture process well essentially astronomers accept this conclusion that the stars are currently being formed in the galaxies they have had to like arrive at another conclusion number 20. the conclusion that the galaxies are older than the stars that they contained as it's expressed in one textbook according to current ideas in astrophysics the galaxies were born first in the universe and the Stars within the galaxies were born afterwards the main reason for believing this to be true is the fact that stars can be seen forming in the galaxies at the present time out of gas and dust of course they can't be so informing he merely means that the conditions are such the theory says that that or what that's where they're formed these ideas as to Galaxy formation conclusion quantity here are very vague John B Irwin describes them in this manner the Milky Way system like other galaxies is thought to have originated from a condensation or collapse of The Intergalactic medium the reason for the collapse is not known and the details of the process are uncircled what are one is in effect telling us is that the astronomers know all about the galactic formation process except the general nature of the process and the details Ellen's John what's the situation in the perspective in this statement the encyclopedias and popular astronomical books are full of plausible Tales of condensation from vortices turbulent gas clouds and the like but the sad truth is that we do not know how the galaxies came into being so these astronomers I'm coding they're not scientific Heretics the reason for the difficulty and the astronomers are having can be easily understood if it is recognized that their conclusions about the galaxies number 22 on the diagram are derived not only from this conclusion 20 which is the result of the line of reasoning we have been following but also from a country from a conclusion number 21 that directly contradicts conclusion number 20. this conclusion 21 was derived from another assumption contrary to fact that's the astronomers assumption that the universe or at least the present stage of the universe originated in a gigantic explosion the Big Bang as it is called if they implied the same reasoning that they use in determining their ideas as to the consequences of the Supernova explosion then the explosion that they call the big bang would have ejected one part of the material of the universe out into space at high speeds in the form of an expanding cloud while another part of the material would have been left at the scene of the explosion in the form of a gigantic black hole but they are already having serious difficulties in accounting for some reason that is finding some reason why the universe is so isotopic and if they put a black hole out in the middle similar that would compound the difficulties so they conveniently ignore what they decided over on the other side of the diagram and on this side of the diagram they decide that the entire context of the universe as one textbook posted all of the matter and all the radiation of the universe is rejected out into space in the form of an expanding cloud well they problem comes in to explain how these particles could have been moving Upward at high speeds ever since the Big Bang as required by conclusion 21 and at the same time aggregating into galaxies as required by conclusion 20. if you stop to think about that for a little bit you'll understand why the astronomers are having such difficulty and why they're ideas about the formation of galaxies all right as vague as these statements of shown them to be we've now arrived at the point where we need to take contrafactual conclusion B into consideration as I said earlier the effects of that conclusion are exerted in a manner that is somewhat different from those of the others those other conclusions that I have mentioned tear down the barriers that separate thank from fiction and they permit the astronomers to extend their theories Andrew regions that do not actually exist they affect the conclusion D on the other hand is to set up barriers that prevent them from extending their theories into areas that actually do exist and they force them to invent various kinds of substitutes the effects of this conclusion be which is Einstein's conclusion let the speed of light is an absolute speed limit are expressed in the form of three prohibitions number 23 number 24 and number 26 on the diagram number 23 decrees Thou shalt not think of things greater than that of light in connection with the high density of the white dwarf and the products of the Supernova explosions it is this prohibition that forces the astronomers into the strange contortions of thought but result in black holes and singularities number 24 similarly dictates Thou shalt not think of speeds greater than that of light in connection with the intermittent nature of the radiation from the pulsars the pulsars are number 25 on the diagram and you note that the pulsars get a double dose they are subject to the prohibitions both 23 and 24. the result of this double prohibition can be seen in the present state of knowledge in the field according to Dr F K Smith one of the leading investigators in the area The Miner in which the pulsars are produced is not understood and little is known about the mechanism of the radiation that's the result of being prohibited from entering the field of higher speeds item 26 is another edict Thou shalt not think of speeds greater than that of light in connection with the quasars and since almost all of the observable features of the quasaras are a result of stage greater than that alike the result is that the astronomers are almost completely baffled by the quasars there is no better fundamental understanding of the quasars now than there was when they were first discovered 20 years ago there has been a great deal of empirical information gathered but the there is no understanding of that information the general tendency in astronomical psychology is to blame the physicists as expressed by one prominent astronomer Gareth very sure the existence of quasaras strongly suggests that we are dealing with phenomena which present-day physics is at a loss to explain well that's true but the astronomers can't evade all responsibility they did not have to accept all of these Central factual assumptions that the physicists are made when the first Pulsar was discovered the irregularity of the Pulsar of the pulses suggested that they might be artificially created and for a time it was functionable to refer to them as messages from Little Green Men when more pulsars were found it was realized that the pulsars must be natural objects and the little green men were dropped that may have been a mistake this universe that the astronomers have worked so hard to construct is not of must use to us except for entertainment because we are so constituted and we cannot deal physically the things that are not physical we have to have things which is Heisenberg says exist in the same sense that trees and Stones exist but this universe that they are built would be a very appropriate home for the little green men perhaps even degenerate Little Green Man foreign [Applause]