What is the difference between complex models and the average man or woman on the street when it comes expectations of what we should be observing in space? John Johnson has a pretty amazing job which consists of locating new planets around other stars, which are known as exoplanets. He was interviewed in Caltech’s latest edition of it’s magazine.
“We’re interested in how the solar system formed. We’re interested in our immediate environment and describing its origins. And beyond that, we’re interested in general in how planetary systems formed. There are some very specific questions that arise at every turn. There are so many surprises in this field—almost nothing is turning out as we expected.”
“There are Jupiter-mass planets in three-day orbits. There are planets with masses that are between those of the terrestrial planets in our solar system and the gas giants in the outer part of our solar system. There are Jupiter-mass planets with hugely inflated radii—at densities far lower than what we thought were possible for a gas-giant planet. There are giant planets with gigantic solid cores that defy models of planet formation, which say there shouldn’t be enough solids available in a protoplanetary disk to form a planet that dense.”
“There are planets with tilted orbits. There are planets that orbit the poles of their stars, in so-called circumpolar orbits. There are planets that orbit retrograde—that is, they orbit in the opposite direction of their star’s rotation. There are systems of planets that are in configurations that are hard to describe given our understanding of planet formation. For instance, some planets are much too close to one another.”
“But a lot of those surprises have to do with the fact that we have only one example of a planetary system—our solar system—to base everything on, right? What’s interesting is that we’ve found very little that resembles our example.”
So what is the difference between complex models and the average man or woman on the street when it comes expectations of what we should be observing in space? Cosmology has more funding, and work into their complex models but in reality the guess of the average man or woman would not be that far off from what scientists predicted in space. Cosmology has the luxury (like many other areas in evolutionary science) of bragging how wrong they are time after time, again and again in their expectations which doesn’t expand knowledge! Only the discoveries themselves do and yet, still have people admire their work and the funds keep rolling in. No other job has this luxury!
This is the problem of mandating science through government funds in a particular direction! Before extrasolar planets were discovered, astronomers it was certain that other solar systems would resemble ours. They focus on a particular framework which is approved by their group then it fails many times to produce results. In any other theory, red flags would arise. This is because it lacks competition which would create better science in exploring nature and in this case the universe. Evolutionary science is not true, it’s been falsified quite a number of times and this is why their models are useless with real observations and lack understanding of planet formation and and the origins of the solar system.