First assumptions

This video at podblack should convince anybody they should not always trust their first assumptions. It depends on many different aspects of the mind and combines them in a unique way.

The |first assumption| I am questioning today is universal expansion. It would seem to me that the data fit for the red shift data in the universe is better explained by an 'optical' illusion. It is tempting to solve the universe to make it have some significance for the individual. Once a solution has been accepted it is very difficult to undo that perception for most people. I never assign a stupidity quotient to my own understanding. I simply assume I am stupid, in the whole, and any valid permanent solutions are the exception.

Because of how the information is judged, there is a very large degree of variability in the position, velocity, and red shift. Because the universe is analyzed on mixed methods it can be even more variable as new data is combined. Assumptions are made that stars follow a path of evolution and this is likely true in the large.

If we assume the universe is exactly as we perceive and is completely understood and correct, there is no motivation to search or question what we see and assume. And nothing to be learned. Maybe, in the Year 276,398,102,784,921,887, I will consider that all is reasonably well explained and investigated.

And for those who want to know more about Fourier analysis this link is interesting, however it uses Java and so Java must be installed and enabled to see some of the examples. It comes from MIT and is associated with the OCW initiative. I am afraid I am going to have to buy Strang's book ("Computational Science and Engineering"), just because it will be a good thing to have and I can draw little notes in the margin. There is just something about papyrus and a .5mm graphite pencil that can't be beat by any technology.