Maybe an asteroid didn't wipe out the Dinosaurs after all

Nemesis is literally a rather far-out theory.

LOL. Pun intended?

Whether or not he finds evidence for Nemesis in Moon dust, it's clear that Muller won't stop looking. He is a man of enduring confidence. But he is also a remarkably conservative scientist, quick as anyone to point out that there is no proof until there is proof.

"I'm realistic," he said. "I may be wrong."

Reality is what is still there when you stop believing in it.
Mind you I thought it was faily much debunked. But it appears like some Planetary scientists when quizzed on ALH 87001 and the possibility of life on Mars said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Ironically, this is supporting of a point I was making elsewhere about science not having to be based on fact and evidence. It is fairly likely Nemsis does not exist, in which case there will never be any scientific evidence to support it. However I still believe it is a creative concept and good science!

The full article is here:
Bart.

thanks for that Ill read it if and when I get time.

Reality is what is still there when you stop believing in it.
Mind you I thought it was faily much debunked. But it appears like some Planetary scientists when quizzed on ALH 87001 and the possibility of life on Mars said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Ironically, this is supporting of a point I was making elsewhere about science not having to be based on fact and evidence. It is fairly likely Nemsis does not exist, in which case there will never be any scientific evidence to support it. However I still believe it is a creative concept and good science!

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence. That's a fundamental principle of science.

Nemesis is a hypothesis. Nothing more. Science does NOT say that it is true. It also does not state that it is NOT true. Because, until there is evidence, science does not accept that Nemesis is real. Until someone goes out and actually starts making some observations to test the hypothesis science doesn't have anything to say on Nemesis apart from "that's an interesting idea".

Dreaming up new ideas in an integral part of science. Without that creative and imaginative part science would stagnate. However, that does not make science faith based.

Bart.

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence. That's a fundamental principle of science.

But apparently not of Politics ! For example I am not aware of evidence of WMD in Iraq

Nemesis is a hypothesis. Nothing more.

Are not "black holes," "wormholes," "parallel universes" "dark matter" ?

Indeed even everyday concepts like "Atoms" or "biological cells" can be put under the microscope

Science does NOT say that it is true. It also does not state that it is NOT true.

As i have stated before I have a problem about saying "science" says anything. Usually "scientists" say things. I am not being facietious. the point is that iof one appeals to an objective entity called "science" then 1. one is subscribing to a particular mindset and philosophy of science and
2. How can a body of knowledge "say" things. Surely it is only re itteratng what PEOPLE put into it in the first place?

Because, until there is evidence, science does not accept that Nemesis is real.

Scientists accepted the CMB as real and Relativity in the absence of evidence maybe because the theory was so tidy. True it hasn't been CONFIRMED. but that does notmake the theory real science even iof the object of that theory does not exist!

Until someone goes out and actually starts making some observations to test the hypothesis science doesn't have anything to say on Nemesis apart from "that's an interesting idea".

But IIRC people HAVE tested this and have not confirmed Nemsis. that does not mean it is NOT real either.

Dreaming up new ideas in an integral part of science. Without that creative and imaginative part science would stagnate. However, that does not make science faith based.

Yes but it does mean that some science is done BECAUSE scientists have a belief in something without any evidence for that belief. Indeed the theory may not even be testable or confirmable for hundreds of years if ever. Which brings nme back to worm holes and Occakms Razor. what is the point in discussing other parallel universes if we can never communicate with or through them? Maybe we are better sspending money looking for non - existant stars?

*Moved to the Cosmology & Physics forum*

Scientists accepted the CMB as real and Relativity in the absence of evidence maybe because the theory was so tidy. True it hasn't been CONFIRMED. but that does notmake the theory real science even iof the object of that theory does not exist!

Really? Relativity was accepted in the absence of evidence? Which Relativity, special or general?

This better not be the standard claim that scientists accepted General Relativity after the solar eclipse of 1919, because journal articles from that period will show they didn't. General Relativity wasn't truly accepted until the mid 50s.
Unless you are talking about the acceptance in the mid 50s being unjustified.

what is the point in discussing other parallel universes if we can never communicate with or through them?

Nobody researches parallel universes. The closest anybody comes is Deutsch and even then he still isn't researching them.