Exoplanets Multiverse News Science

Buzz Aldrin hopes to ramp up space program

Spread the love
Aldrin.jpg
Aldrin in 1969

After SpaceX’s “loss of mission.” But are we missing something here?

Aldrin, lunar module pilot for Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission here:

True, the ripple effects from SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster going boom in the Florida skies are many. But the take-home message given the NASA-private sector bond is one of striving for reliability, safety, but also affordability.

Joining me in this view is my longtime friend, Norm Augustine, retired Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin. “Successes in commercial space transportation are not only important in their own right, they also free NASA to do that which it does best … namely, push the very frontiers of space and knowledge.”

So let’s press ahead beyond a failure to future successes. Cultivating new capabilities that drive down costs and further secure a private sector toehold in low Earth orbit is a clear window to see our space future.

Sounds great, but nagging questions linger: As Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute noted recently,

… the “large bandwagon” of the last 30 years has not found experimental support. The bandwagon in question is the Standard Model of particle physics established in the 1970s, which, he says, people have been elaborating ever since. “Grand unified theories, supersymmetry, string theory, M-theory, multiverse theory,” he lists. “Each is not particularly radical, but is becoming ever more complex and arbitrary.”

To illustrate the lack of experimental support for these ideas, Turok describes how many people were hoping string theory would represent a radical development; but since string theory – as currently interpreted – leads to the multiverse, Turok describes it as the “least predictive theory ever”. More.

That is, outer space is still out there, but inner space may now be somewhere else. To the extent that the true commitment is to exotic, evidence-free theories that support naturalism, one fact soon becomes apparent: The multiverse is way cheaper than the exploration of actual existing space.

And budgets are tight. Readers?

See also: How it got so crazy?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “Buzz Aldrin hopes to ramp up space program

  1. 1
    daveS says:

    Are there any non-naturalistic, falsifiable proposals which are supported by evidence?

  2. 2
    ppolish says:

    Space Travel is a lot like NASCAR – exciting to watch. Even the crashes sometimes admit it.

    But Man was designed for 1G. Not 0G of space nor 5-6g of repeated right hand turns. Although 0G is more of a problem, along with space radiation. It is exciting though. Gave us Tang too.

  3. 3
    Box says:

    daveS: Are there any non-naturalistic, falsifiable proposals which are supported by evidence?

    … asks a non-rational happenstantial soup of particles in motion.

  4. 4
    daveS says:

    Box,

    … asks a non-rational happenstantial soup of particles in motion.

    Still a fair question, no? And it’s what the OP is calling for, presumably.

    Such a candidate theory is going to have to be even more successful than the Standard Model of particle physics, which is a very high hurdle to leap.

  5. 5
    chris haynes says:

    You’re in luck.
    Here is an answer to your question:

    “Are there any non-naturalistic, falsifiable proposals which are supported by evidence?”

    Here’s such a “proposal”.
    Its called the Creationist Law of Abiogenesis:
    “Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life.”

    1) Its supported by all empirical evidence.
    2) And it can be falsified, in principle.
    To do that, just make some life in a lab.

    In fact Scientists have been trying to do just that, for almost a century. And that should save you wasting time, cause they’ve found a ton of stuff that don’t work.

  6. 6
    daveS says:

    Thanks, chris haynes. Just to clarify, I was referring to a non-naturalistic replacement for the Standard Model, which is what I assume that the second to last paragraph of the OP is talking about.

    I don’t want to take off on a tangent, but supposing that life was created in the lab, couldn’t someone object that it actually was the result of divine intervention? How is it possible to build an enclosure free from God’s influence?

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    daveS:

    Are there any non-naturalistic, falsifiable proposals which are supported by evidence?

    The color red exists in neither the environment nor the brain. Can you see red? If yes, you’ve just falsified materialism. If you can explain the color red in terms of physical particles, you just falsified non-naturalism.

  8. 8
    Mapou says:

    The biggest problem with the space program is the rocket. Rocket propulsion is the most primitive form of transportation there is. It consists of throwing things out the back in order to move forward. Pathetic.

    We are not going to conquer the solar system with a bunch of cockamamie rockets, that’s for sure. Don’t even think interstellar.

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    daveS: How is it possible to build an enclosure free from God’s influence?

    You mean like the atheist mind?

  10. 10
    daveS says:

    Mapou,

    The color red exists in neither the environment or the brain. Can you see red? If yes, you’ve just falsified materialism. If you can explain the color red in terms of physical particles, you just falsified non-naturalism.

    I should have been more specific in my post #1: Are there any non-naturalistic theories which could replace the Standard Model?

    Regarding the color argument: I would dispute the last sentence. There could be a naturalistic explanation for “red”, but at the same time, naturalism could fail to explain other things.

  11. 11
    daveS says:

    daveS: How is it possible to build an enclosure free from God’s influence?

    You mean like the atheist mind?

    Hiyooo…

Leave a Reply