Bites the stardust? Or it may be one of those theories whose supposed disproving is later disproved itself.
You know how astronomers used to think planets were made up of asteroids (or bits of asteroids, called chondrules) that collided with each other and glommed together, with increasing mass and gravity attracting even more asteroid which added their mass, and so on?
 |
| Searching for meteorites in the desert |
Frontline Desk reports that researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and Purdue University have "proved through computer
simulations" that chondrules "are actually a byproduct of
planetary formation, not the building blocks as once believed."
 |
| Artist's depiction of asteroid impact |
I don't see how a computer simulation actually "proves" this, but it's
an interesting story. And it does make sense that chondrules could be
the "by-product of planetary formation," existing long before the
planets and moon did.
 |
| Meteor shower |
I doubt, though, that this is the last we'll be hearing about how the planets were formed. Some budding astronomer out there is going to come up with the next bit of "proof" of some other way the planets were formed, and his "proof" will be enough to set his own career in motion, which is good for him, good for us, and good for science. Go for it, Young Galileo!
1 comment:
And so it continues. A new computer simulation becomes the latest theory du jour - until displaced by yet another "proof" of some scientific conclusion.
OK, this is fine - it's exactly how we learn more and progress in our understanding - and that's my point: we progress in our understanding.
To make something that is evolving into your RELIGION, however (scientism) would seem to be a remarkable example of muddy thinking... in other words, very unscientific.You are worshiping something made by the hand of man.
Wait a minute. Where did I read about this before? Ummmm. A Golden Calf seems to stick in my mind...
Post a Comment