"Visibilities of countless stars is no argument against the invisibility of countless others.." ~astronomer Fridriech Wilhelm Bessel, 1844.
German mathematician and astronomer has predicted that the 'wobble' of Sirius (Dog Star) could be explained by an invisible star, that astronomers eventually called Binary Systems of Stars. He then penned a letter to Humboldt saying that being 'invisible' is far no less than being 'visible'. Prof. Walter Lewin stated during his lecture in MIT that it was not only that it was a scientific statement, it was also a philosophical one, since Science has held on to 'To see is to believe' sort of motto, along with the rest of what the other senses can perceive, as the basis of most of the discoveries that Science had and have. Prof. Lewin, then continues, that this was the start of the Astronomy of the Invisible. It was pretty interesting to hear this since there are a lot of complexities in our cosmos that cannot be explained just yet by Science. And it was, and is, never yet its last resort to put God as part of their Abstract in any scientific journal which might say, "Therefore, in the complexities of the said universe, we have arrived to a conclusion that it was a Higher Being that fine-tuned our universe." Physical Review, Volume (?), Issue (?). This is far from ever happening (just yet).
Blackholes, Electrons, Protons, Nuceus, and even wind are other examples of invisibility in the our cosmos and nature. Scientists do not really see these with their naked eye. But there are experiments and data have been gathered that affirmed their presence such as the bending of a tree in the presence of blowing wind.
Brian Greene, host of a tv series by NOVA, have shown one time how 20 (or more) different constants of our Universe has have to be calibrated to some certain and discreet numbers in able for the whole universe to just maintain stability and not blow up. So, I decided that one of the Essential Questions that I am putting up in my whiteboard as I teach on Monday is:
"If these 20 constants are to be calibrated and fine tuned to maintain stability of the cosmos that we now lived in, WHO is calibrating them?"
If I may be speaking as a scientist, i might change it to WHAT rather than WHO?
But that itself is already philosophical.
But then again, a lot of the things that we do, or say, or even believe can be philosophical. Otherwise, not knowing the purpose for which we do, say or believe, puts one in a very nihilistic state of mind.
And that is exhausting, or even dangerous for a thinker.
Just look what happened to Nietzsche.
I am truly excited for Science though. It keeps on discovering cosmos, that each discovery is an interesting one that leads to more questions, and more researches that polishes the previous one.
Me, as a person with a different pair of 'Eyeglasses' on, see their researches as something that only a Higher Being could come up with.
For them it could be 'To see is to Believe'.
For me it might as well be 'To believe is to See.'
~The Educator
References:
Delehanty, Marc. Black Holes, invisible bodies and Intense Gravity. Astronomy Today, Last Accessed November 22, 2011 at http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/blackholes.html .
Greene, Brian. The Fabric of Cosmos: Illusion of Time. NOVA. Last Accessed Novemenber 20, 2011 at http://youtu.be/xLgo4zd5NhI
Lewin, Walter.The Birth and Death of Stars. MIT World. Last Accessed November 22, 2011 at http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/158.
See, T. J. J, Researches on the System of Prycon.Astronomical Journal, vol. 19, iss. 439, p. 57-61 (1898). Last Accessed November 22, 2011 at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1898AJ.....19...57S.
