Julian Leviston wrote:
> Hi :-)
>
> True that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to things that
> aren't heat-expansion related in terms of expansion.
> I'm only talking from my own practical experience, as that's the only thing
> that I know is true. Most of the ideas that are in current science courses
> are based on theory. Theory in my definition of the word is unverified ideas.
You can spout your opinions of the scientific method all you want, but evidence from experiment and observation is verification. Its all the verification we can get of anything. Theories which have been exhaustively verified by experiment with little to no contradictory evidence are referred to as Natural Laws. The Law of Gravity, for example, and the Gas Laws, Ohm's Law, Bernoulli's Law, etc.
A gas undergoing expansion actually will cool down, which is why when you heat a gas it wants to expand.
>
> I don't understand how scientists have arrived at the fact that the
> universe is expanding if not simply from theory.
>From observational evidence. Red shift (doppler shift) of spectral lines tells us
that every mass on a galactic or super galactic scale in the universe is
generally moving away from all other masses. The further away an object is from
us the faster away from us it is going. The furthest obervatble objects are going
away at a smidgen below light speed.
>
> And theory is guessing. I'd rather not accept guessings.
A theory that has not been tested by experiment or observation is guessing. When it has passed extensive testing, it is regarded as a Natural Law.
>
>
> If you're going to look at new ways of doing things, you can't think in a
> mode of thought common to the old. It requires a complete, quick, snap
> turnaround. You can't keep the old if you want the new.
You need to figure out that just because a cause leads to an effect does NOT mean that an effect will cause a cause. Your muddle headed sloppy thinking at the hands of modern educators needs refinement.
Mike Lorrey