SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ed Mazza writes that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum says he loves Pope Francis, but he wants the pontiff to stop talking about climate change and "leave science to the scientists." Santorum's comments come as the Pope, who holds a degree as a chemical technician and worked as a chemist before turning to the priesthood, has become increasingly vocal about climate change. "The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think that we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists," says Santorum, "and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality, When we get involved with political and controversial scientific theories, I think the church is not as forceful and credible."
But Santorum's not a scientist either so using Santorum's own logic why is Santorum more qualified than the Pope to discuss climate change? "I guess the question would be, if he shouldn't talk about it, should you?" asked Chris Wallace of Fox News. "Politicians, whether we like it or not, people in government have to make decision with regard to public policy that affect American workers," answered Santorum, adding that while "the pope can talk about whatever he wants to talk about," he questions the Pope's use of his moral authority to combat the issue of climate change.. Santorum — a devout Catholic — disagrees with the Pope's stance that climate change is man-made and has often called climate science "political science," arguing that a scientific consensus on climate change underscores this point. "All of this certainty, which is what bothers me about the debate, the idea that science is settled," says Santorum. "Any time you hear a scientist say science is settled, that's political science, not real science."
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 09 2015, @09:48PM
It may well be so. For example, the -exp(-k*R)/R [wikipedia.org] is still a potential function (conserves the energy on closed trajectories) and if the k is very small you aren't going to notice the variation except at huge scales.
I wonder if "dark energy" isn't actually an artefact attempting to provide an explanation to a decaying gravitational interaction at galactic distances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @06:45PM
That might explain a lower deceleration of expansion than expected, but it certainly does not explain an acceleration of expansion, as observed.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:41PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday June 10 2015, @08:49PM
???
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 10 2015, @11:12PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday June 11 2015, @06:45AM
Ah, OK, it's your reading comprehension that failed:
Wrong. Here's the relevant quote, with emphasis added:
That is, the lower the gravity, the less the expansion is slowing down. Assuming the same initial expansion rate, a lower deceleration means a faster expansion. However, a lower gravity cannot cause an accelerated expansion.
A car analogy:
If you press the brake less strong, you car will decelerate less, and therefore it will still be faster after a given time. However it will not accelerate; to accelerate you need to press the accelerator. What we've observed is an accelerating car; this cannot be explained by just assuming the driver is putting less force on the break pedal. There must be something that accelerates the car; that something is what we call dark energy.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 11 2015, @08:50AM
Right. On top of it, I made the mistake to use "dark energy" when in fact I intended to put a blame on "dark matter" as a possible artefact introduced to explain a screened potential gravity law, detectable only at galactic distances . Of course, all just speculations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford