November 27th, 2006
Anyway, theories on the mutability of time and space become interesting to me when they explain previously observed phenomena - or when a satisfactory test can be designed. But the type of thing that is frustrating to me is, for example, white holes. While I understand the question "Where does everything that falls into a black hole go?" white holes are, if you'll forgive the pun, an idea from whole cloth. They have never been observed, no indirect evidence has ever been observed, and the explanation is, frankly, unnecessary because black holes aren't actually holes.
So maybe time is an approximation. So be it. F=GMm/(r^2) is an approximation - but it's a useful one. Kepler's laws are approximations - but useful ones. Maybe my irritation is a function of incomplete information. Because what I frequently hear is "This new cool thing we think might be so!" without any application. My first reaction is "How is that useful to anyone?" It feels like someone (oh, the ubiquitous "someone") is trying to take what could be valid and useful information and using it to show other people how little they know. This is NOT inherently wrong, but when they are doing it not to encourage people to learn but to encourage them to be fearful, I get a little cantankerous. When one says the rules we know are wrong but don't replace them with something else, it leads to an excess of unease.
So, meh. Apparently I felt like ranting.