Welcome to the News and Discussion section of CosmologyScience.com
Cosmology Dynamics DeMystified
If you haven’t been able to clearly understand Cosmology principles so far – its not your fault.
After studying hundreds of cosmology books and countless articles, it is my considered opinion that most cosmology is written in gratuitously (needlessly) opaque or obscure language, typically disguised with mathematics; generally by academics apparently trying to impress or intimidate other academics.
That’s pretty much the exact opposite of a recipe for helping others understand. Anyone could be excused for suspecting that at least some of that was intentional.
I have a different idea.
I want to let every Cosmology enthusiast to be able to understand the principles involved.
The resources here can help you understand how to distinguish between genuine science knowledge — from ideas that are not based on experimentally derived observations, which is useful because there are more than a few science-fiction ideas in cosmology masquerading as fact.
You might even find some ideas that get you to stop and think.
“the hallmark of scientific behaviour is a certain scepticism even towards one’s most cherished theories. Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime.” – Imre Lakatos, Leading Philosopher of Science
No Math Needed
The articles here are written for a Scientific American reading level. Most math is removed, any math remaining you can safely ignore. Nor will you get slowed down by insider phrases such as “Newton’s 3rd law.” Instead you should always find explanations in plain English; as in this case “every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”
For further research you can find abundant links here with references to the best available cosmology and astrophysics science.
And Gosh Darn It, People Like This
In terms of a horse race, I am rather delighted to report that as of August 2015, this Cosmology blog passed Scientific American’s Cosmology Blog in popularity !
Indeed, it comes in reliably at least third (and first in Google, Yahoo, Bing and most other search engines) in a clean web search (no-cache, no-cookies) for “best Cosmology Blog.”
Be my guest, go ahead, try it. (It also comes up reliably ahead of Cosmology Blogs by Discover magazine, Kavli Institute, Sean Carrol, Peter Woit, and Ned Wright.
We’re Number One !!! That’s just too flipping cool !)
The website is free, has no popups or spam and we seriously protect your privacy; we do NOT sell your private personal information.
We are now slowly adding relevant ads for high quality books and other things helpful to understanding and enjoying science-based cosmology in part because it may help defray some expense of maintaining this website for you.
If this sounds appealing, you can subscribe – currently for Free.
Copyright 2006-2022 David Dilworth — ScienceBasedCosmology.com
2. The colors, while lovely, are not quite natural. They are (beautifully) adjusted to dramatize the phenomena, typically by Hubble Heritage staff or volunteers.
3. I’m pleased to report that in August 2012 the article (“International Astronomical Union has no Definition for Big Bang“) reached its 75,000th reader (75,000 different IP addresses — that were not bots or crawlers). As of January 2017, more than 20 articles on this site have been seen by more than 5,000 distinct readers. Maybe that’s why a web search for “best cosmology blogs” this one shows up reliably ahead of Scientific American !
Amusingly, sometime April, 2015 the not-exactly-a-cosmology-article “Stars or Sand? Are there more Grains of Beach Sand or Stars in our Visible Universe?” had its 100,000th reader ! What a nice landmark. (Only a couple of months later, as of Sept 2015, the article rapidly increasing in popularity, now has over 200,000 reads/views ! That’s just too cool.) Similarly, a web search for “what is an electron made of” the microphysics article “Electron No Longer a Fundamental Particle ?” shows up above the Wikipedia article on Electrons and most of the physics blogs !
More satisfying for me is the groundbreaking expose “Cosmic Microwave Radiation Surprise” article has had more than 30,000 distinct readers.
This website itself now attracts well over 20,000 page views per month.
4. I realize a few scientists in other fields may consider demystification a threat to their field —
However cosmology seems to have much nicer characters. I have yet to hear a “discouraging word.” To the contrary, I’ve had lots of encouragement – both inside and outside the field.
Thank you for your interest and support.