CHAPTER 3
Globular Clusters
In the preceding chapter we saw that galaxies (small
ones, called globular clusters) condense out of diffuse material, grow
by accretion and capture, and finally at an advanced age reach the limiting
size, that of a giant spheroidal galaxy. This is the essence of the large-scale
evolutionary process in the material sector of the universe, the subject
of the first half of this volume. The next several chapters will be devoted
to examining the most significant details of this process. We will first
turn our attention to the galaxies, junior grade, the globular clusters.
It should be noted, in this connection, that current astronomical theory
has no explanation for either the formation of the clusters or their existence
in their present form. It is generally assumed that the clusters are products
of the process of galaxy formation, but this provides no answer to the
problem, in view of the absence of anything more than vague and tentative
ideas as to how the galaxies were formed.
The clusters are spherical, or nearly spherical, aggregates containing
from about 20,000 stars to a maximum that is subject to some difference
of opinion, but is probably in the neighborhood of a million stars. These
are contained in a space with a diameter of from about 5 to perhaps 25
parsecs. The parsec is a unit of distance equivalent to 3.26 light years.
Both of these units are in common use m astronomy, and in order to conform
to the language in which the information extracted from the astronomical
literature is expressed, both units will be employed in the pages that
follow.
The structure of these clusters has long been a mystery.
The problem is that only one force of any significant magnitude that of
gravitation has been definitely identified as operative in the clusters.
Inasmuch as the gravitational force increases as the distance decreases,
the force that is adequate to hold the cluster together should be more
than adequate to draw the constituent stars together into one single mass,
and why this does not happen has never been ascertained. Obviously some
counter force is acting against gravitation, but the astronomers have
been unable to find any such force. Orbital motion naturally suggests
itself, in view of the prevalence of such motion among astronomical objects,
but the rotations of the clusters, if they are rotating at all, are far
too small to account for the outward force. For example, K. Cudworth,
reporting on a study of M 13, says that ”no evidence of cluster rotation
was found. 24 It is recognized that this is a
problem that calls for an answer. ”Why then is the rotation of globular
clusters so small?“ 25 ask Freeman and Norris. Those who
dislike having to concede that there is a significant gap in astronomical
knowledge here are inclined to make much of the fact that a few clusters
do show some signs of rotation. For instance, Omega Centauri is slightly
flattened, and some indication of rotation has been found in the spectra
of M 3. But a showing that some clusters rotate is meaningless.
All must be rotating quite rapidly to give any substance to the
hypothesis that rotational forces are counterbalancing the gravitational
attraction. If even one cluster is not rotating, or is rotating
only slowly, this is sufficient to demonstrate that rotation is not
the answer to the problem. Thus it is clear that rotation does not provide
the required counter force.
The suggestion has also been made that these clusters may be similar
to aggregates of gas molecules, in which the individual units maintain
a wide separation, on the average. But such an explanation requires both
high stellar speeds and frequent collisions, neither of which can be substantiated
by observation. Furthermore, the existence of the gaseous type of structure
depends on elastic collisions, and the impact of stars upon stars, if
it were possible, would certainly not be elastic. Indeed a rather large
degree of fragmentation could be expected. Together with the large kinetic
energies that would be required to counterbalance the weight of the overlying
layers of stars, this would result in a physical condition in the central
regions of the clusters very different from that existing in the outlying
regions. Here, again, no such effect is observed.
The astronomers are reluctant to concede that such a
conspicuous problem as that of the structure of these clusters is without
an acceptable solution, and the general tendency is to assume that the
possibilities mentioned in the preceding paragraphs will somehow develop
into an answer at some future time. It is therefore significant that exactly
the same problem exists with respect to the observed dust and gas clouds
in the Galaxy, and here, where the processes suggested as possible explanations
of the cluster structure clearly do not apply, the theorists are
forced to admit that this is ”a major unanswered question.“
The dust cloud situation will be discussed in Chapter 9.
As in so many of the phenomena previously examined, the answer to this
problem is provided by the outward progression of the natural reference
system relative to the conventional stationary system of reference. Because
of the way in which the cluster is formed, every constituent star is outside
the gravitational limits of its neighbors, and therefore has a net outward
motion away from each of them. Coincidentally, all of the stars in the
cluster are subject to a motion toward the center of the aggregate by
reason of the gravitational effect of the cluster as a whole. Near this
center, where the gravitational effect of the aggregate is at a minimum,
the net motion is outward. But in the outer regions of the cluster, where
the gravitational motion exceeds the progression of the reference system,
the net motion is inward. The outer stars thus exert a force on the inner
ones, confining them to a finite volume, in much the same way that the
fabric of a balloon confines the gas that it encloses. The immense region
of space around each star is thus reserved for that star alone, irrespective
of the stellar motions. Whether or not the cluster acquires a rotation
is immaterial. It is equally stable in a static condition.
This question as to the structure of the globular clusters
is only one of many physical situations in which an equilibrium exists
between gravitation and a hitherto unidentified counter force. Because
of the lack of understanding of the nature and origin of this force, the
general tendency has been to ignore it, and either to grope for some other
kind of answers, as in the globular cluster case, or to evade the issue
in some manner. One of the few authors who has recognized that an ”antagonist“
to gravitation must exist is Karl Darrow. ”This essential and powerful
force has no name of its own,“ Darrow points out in an article published
in 1942. ”This is because it is usually described in words not conveying
directly the notion of force. 26 By this means, Darrow says, the
physicist ”manages to avoid the question.“ In spite of the clear exposition
of the subject by Darrow (a distinguished member of the Scientific Establishment),
and the continually growing number of cases in which the ”antagonist“
is clearly required in order to explain the existing relations, the physicists
have ”managed to avoid the question“ for another forty years.
The development of the theory of a universe of motion has now revealed
that the interaction between two oppositely directed forces plays a major
role in many physical processes all the way from inter-atomic events to
major astronomical phenomena. We will meet the ”antagonist“ to gravitation
again and again in the pages that follow. Like gravitation, this counter
force, which we have identified as the force due to the outward progression
of the natural reference system relative to the conventional system of
reference, is radial in the globular cluster, and since these two are
the only forces that are operative to any significant degree during the
formative period, the contraction of the original cloud of dust and gas
into a cluster of stars is accomplished without introducing any appreciable
amount of rotation. This is the answer to the question posed by Freeman
and Norris. As noted in Chapter 2, consolidation of two or more of these
clusters to form a small galaxy usually results in a rotating structure.
The same result could be produced on a smaller scale if the cluster picks
up a stray group of stars or a small dust cloud. Some such event, or gravitational
effects during the approach to the Galaxy, probably accounts for the small
amount of rotation that does exist in some clusters.
The compression of the cluster structure reduces the inter-stellar distances
to some extent, but they are still immense. Current estimates put the
density at the center of the cluster at about 50 stars per cubic parsec,
as compared to one star per ten cubic parsecs in the solar vicinity,27 This corresponds to a reduction
in separation by a factor of eight. Since the local separation exceeds
112 parsecs, or five light years, the average separation in the central
regions after compression is still more than half of a light year, or
3 x 1012 miles, an enormous distance.
For general application to the inter-stellar distances,
the term ”star system“ has to be substituted for the word ”star“
as used in the foregoing paragraphs, but star systems in this sense are
rare in the globular clusters. The origin and nature of double and multiple
systems will be discussed in Chapter 7.
In assessing the significance of the various available items of information
about the globular clusters, to which we will now turn our attention,
it should be kept in mind that all of the conclusions that have been reached
in this work concerning these individual items are derived from the same
source as the foregoing explanations of the origin and structure of the
globular clusters; that is, from the postulates that define the universe
of motion.
As indicated in the preceding chapter, the observations of the globular
clusters add materially to the amount of evidence confirming the theoretical
conclusions as to the growth of the galactic aggregates by the capture
process. On the basis of this theory, each galaxy is pulling in all of
the clusters within its gravitational limits. We can therefore expect
all galaxies, except those that are still very young and very small, to
be surrounded by a concentration of globular clusters moving gradually
inward. Inasmuch as the original formation of the clusters took place
practically uniformly throughout all of the space under the gravitational
control of each galaxy (except for a very large-scale radial effect that
will be discussed later), the concentration of clusters should theoretically
continue to increase as the galaxy is approached, until the capture zone
is reached. Furthermore, the number of clusters in the immediate vicinity
of each galaxy should theoretically be a function of the gravitational
force and the size of the region within the gravitational limit, both
of which are related to the size of the galaxy.
These theoretical conclusions are confirmed by observation. A few clusters
have been found accompanying such small galaxies as the member of the
Local Group located in Fornax; there are several in the Small Magellanic
Cloud and two dozen or more in the Large Cloud; our Milky Way galaxy has
150 to 200, when allowance is made for those which we cannot see for one
reason or another; the Andromeda spiral, M 31, has the same or more; NGC
4594, the ”Sombrero“ galaxy, is reported to have ”several hundred“ associated
clusters; while the number surrounding M 87 is estimated to be from one
to two thousand.
These numbers of clusters are definitely in the same order as the galactic
sizes indicated by observation and by criteria previously established.
The Fornax—Small Cloud—Large Cloud—Milky Way sequence is not open to question.
M 31 and our own galaxy are probably close to the same size, but there
are indications that M 31 is slightly larger. The dominant nucleus in
NGC 4594 shows that this galaxy is still older and larger, while all of
the characteristics of M 87 suggest that it is near the upper limit of
galactic size.
Observation gives us only what amounts to an instantaneous
picture, and to support the validity of the theoretical deductions we
must rely primarily on the fact that the positions of the clusters as
observed are strictly in accord with the requirements of the theory. It
is significant, however, that such information as is available about the
motions of the clusters of our own galaxy is also entirely consistent
with the theoretical findings. In the words of Struve, we know ”that
the orbits of the clusters tend to be almost rectilinear, that they move
much as freely falling bodies attracted by the galactic center. 28 According to the theory of the
universe of motion, this is just exactly what they are.
We see the globular clusters as a roughly spherical halo extending out
to a distance of about 100,000 light years from the galactic center. There
is no definite limit to this zone. The cluster concentration gradually
decreases until it reaches the cluster density of intergalactic space,
and individual clusters have been located out as far as 500,000 light
years. This distribution of the clusters is completely in agreement with
the theoretical conclusion that the clusters do not constitute parts of
the galactic structure, but are independent units that are on the way
to capture by the Galaxy. Both the spherical distribution and the greater
concentration in the immediate vicinity of the Galaxy are purely geometrical
consequences of the tact that the gravitational forces of the Galaxy are
pulling the clusters in from all directions at a relatively constant rate.
On the basis of the theoretical findings described in the preceding pages,
the globular clusters are the youngest of the visible astronomical structures,
and the stars of which they are composed (aside from an occasional older
star or a small group of stars obtained from the environment in which
the cluster condensed) are the youngest members of the stellar population.
One of the observable consequences of this youth is supplied by the composition
of the matter in the cluster stars. Inasmuch as the build-up of the heavier
elements, according to the theoretical findings, is a continuing process,
offset only to a limited extent by the destruction of those atoms that
reach one or the other of the destructive limits, the proportion of heavy
elements in any aggregate increases with age. It can be expected, then,
that the stars of the globular clusters, with only a few exceptions, are
composed of relatively young matter, in which the heavy element content
is low.
The evidence concerning the stellar composition is somewhat
limited, as the observations reflect only the conditions in the outer
regions of the stars, and are influenced to a substantial degree by the
character of the material currently being accreted from the environment.
”Detailed studies of the composition of stars,“ says J. L. Greenstein,
”can he made only in their atmospheres. 29 However, the differences in the
reported values are too large to leave any doubt as to the general situation.
For example, the percentage of elements above helium in the average globular
cluster is reported to be lower by a factor of 10 or more than the corresponding
percentage in the sun.30
Current astronomical theory concedes that the matter in the stars of
the globular clusters is matter of a less advanced type than that in the
spiral arms, but to reconcile this fact with the prevailing ideas as to
the age of the clusters it invokes the assumptions (1) that the heavier
elements were produced in the stellar interiors, (2) that they were ejected
therefrom in supernova explosions, and (3) that the stars with the greater
heavy element content were formed from this ejected material, This is
an ingenious theory, but it is being called upon to explain a situation
that is decidedly abnormal. The normal expectation would, of course, be
that the youngest matter would be found in the youngest structures. A
theory that postulates a reversal of the normal relationships is not ordinarily
given serious consideration unless some strong evidence in its favor can
be produced, but in this case there is no observational evidence to support
any of the three assumptions. Indeed, there is some evidence to the contrary,
as in the following report:
The relative abundance of these [heavy] elements in the supernova is
not very different from their abundance in the sun. If the supernovae
synthesize heavy elements out of lighter ones in the course of their
explosion, none of that material is initially seen in the rapidly expanding
debris.31 (Robert P. Kirshner).
This is an example of the way in which, as noted in Chapter 1, the astronomical community is disregarding
or distorting the evidence from observation in order to avoid contradicting
the physicists conclusions as to the nature of the stellar energy generation
process. The failure to find any evidence of the predicted increase in
the concentration of heavy elements in the supernova products is, in itself,
a serious blow to a theory that rests entirely on assumptions, but it
is only one of a long list of similar conflicts and inconsistencies that
we will encounter as we proceed with our examination of the astronomical
field.
As will be demonstrated in the pages that follow, all of the relevant
astronomical evidence that is available is consistent with the theoretical
identification of the course of galactic evolution outlined in the preceding
pages, and is more than ample to confirm its validity. In fact, the available
data concerning the globular clusters are sufficient in themselves to
provide a conclusive verification of the theoretical conclusions set forth
in this work. The remainder of this chapter will review these globular
cluster data, and will indicate their relevance to the point at issue.
The various items of information that have been accumulated will be described
briefly. Each description will then be followed by a short discussion,
indicating the manner in which this item is related to the point that
is being demonstrated: the validity of the new conclusions with respect
to the place of the clusters in the evolutionary sequence.
Observation: The globular cluster structure is stable.
Comment: The explanation of the hitherto inexplicable structure
of the clusters has already been discussed, but it should be included
in the present review of the evidence contributed by the observations.
The fact that the explanation of the cluster structure is provided
by the existence of the same hitherto unrecognized factor that accounts
for the recession of the distant galaxies is particularly significant.
Observation: The proportion of heavy elements in the stars
of the globular clusters is considerably lower than in the stars and
interstellar material in the solar neighborhood.
Comment: Like item number 1, this fact, already discussed,
is being included in the list so that it will appear in the summary
of the evidence.
Observation: Some globular clusters contain appreciable numbers
of hot stars.
Comment: This observed fact is very disturbing to the supporters
of current theories. Struve, for example, called the presence of hot
stars an ”apparent defiance“ of stellar evolutionary theory.32 But it is entirely in harmony
with the theory of the universe of motion. Some stars, or groups of
stars, are separated from the various aggregates by explosive processes,
and are scattered into intergalactic space. As the globular clusters
form from dispersed material they incorporate any of these strays
that happen to be present. Others are captured as the clusters move
through space. The presence of a small component of older and hotter
stars in some of the young globular clusters is thus normal in the
universe of motion. On the other hand, if the clusters have always
existed in the outer regions of the galaxies, and are composed of
very old stars, in accordance with conventional astronomical theory,
the hot stars (which in this theory are young) should have disappeared
long ago.
Observation: Some clusters also contain nebulous material.
Comment: Helen S. Hogg, writing in the Encyclopedia
Britannica, says, ”Puzzling features in some globular clusters
are dark lanes of nebulous material.“ It is difficult, she says,
”to explain the presence of distinct, separate masses of unformed
material in old systems. 33 Quite true. But it is easy to
explain the presence of such material in young systems, which the
clusters are, according to the findings of this work.
Observation: There is an increasing amount of evidence indicating
that very large dust clouds are being pulled into the Galaxy.
Comment: This observed phenomenon has not
yet been fitted into conventional astronomical theory. It is part
of the cannibalism that is contrary to the premises of that theory,
but is not yet clearly recognized in that light. In the universe of
motion, the significance of these incoming dust clouds is clear. They
are simply unconsolidated globular clusters, aggregates that have
been, or are about to be, captured by the Galaxy before they have
had time to complete the process of star formation. Considerable information
concerning the structure of these unconsolidated clusters, and the
nature of the processes that they undergo after entering the Galaxy,
is now available, and will be examined in Chapter
9.
Observation: Aside from the somewhat exceptional instances
where nebulous material is present, the globular clusters show little
evidence of the presence of dust.
Comment: Current astronomical theory ascribes this to age,
assuming that over a long period of time the original dust will have
been formed into stars, or captured by stars. Our finding is that
the nature of the globular cluster condensation process results in
almost all of the dust and gas of which the cluster was originally
composed being brought under the gravitational control of the stars.
In this condition the dust is not observable as a separate phenomenon.
Evidence of the existence of dust aggregates is observed only where
the normal condensation process has been subject to some disturbing
influence, or where a dust cloud has been captured.
Observation: Globular clusters exist in a zone surrounding
our galaxy that extends out to a distance of at least 100,000 light
years from the galactic center, and in similar locations around other
galaxies. The existence of a substantial number of clusters in intergalactic
space is also indicated.
Comment: The crucial point in this connection is the number
of intergalactic clusters. According to conventional theory, the formation
of the Globular clusters was part of the formation of the galaxies,
and there should be no clusters between the galaxies other than a
few strays. In the universe of motion intergalactic space is the original
zone of formation of the clusters, and the concentration around each
galaxy is merely a geometric result of the gravitational notion toward
the galaxy from all directions. On this basis there should be no definite
limits to the cluster zone. The clusters should just thin out gradually
until they reach the approximately uniform density in which they exist
in space that is free of large aggregates of matter. The total number
of' intergalactic clusters should thus be very large The amount of
information currently available is not sufficient to produce a definitive
answer to the question as to how common these intergalactic clusters
actually are, hut the increasing number of discoveries of distant
clusters is highly favorable to the new theory.
The growing realization that dwarf' galaxies, not much larger than
globular clusters, may he ''the most common type of' galaxy in the
universe'' is a significant step toward recognition that intergalactic
space is well populated with globular clusters. Indeed, some of the
aggregates that are now being identified as dwarf galaxies may actually
be globular clusters. Current estimates of the size of these dwarf
galaxies, which put the average at about one million stars, are within
the range of the estimates of the sizes of the globular clusters that
have been made by other observers.
Observation: The number of clusters associated with each galaxy
is a function of the mass of the galaxy.
Comment: Either theory can produce a satisfactory explanation
of this fact. On the basis of conventional theory the material from
which the clusters are formed should constitute a fairly definite
proportion of the total galactic raw material, and a larger galaxy
should therefore provide material for more clusters. The Reciprocal
System of theory asserts that the clusters are being drawn in from
surrounding space, and that the more massive galaxies gather more
clusters because they exert stronger gravitational forces throughout
larger volumes of space.
Observation: The distribution of clusters around the Galaxy
is nearly spherical, and there is no evidence that the cluster system
participates to any substantial degree in galactic rotation.
Comment: This is difficult to reconcile with conventional
theory. If the formation of the clusters was a part of the galaxy
formation as a whole, it is hard to explain why one part of' the structure
acquired a high rotational velocity while another part of the same
structure acquired little or none. B. Lindblad has suggested that
the Galaxy is composed of sub-systems of different degrees of flattening,
each rotating at a different rate. This, however, is simply a description,
not an explanation. The Reciprocal System of theory provides a simple
and straightforward explanation. According to this theory the clusters
arc not part of the Galaxy, but are external objects being drawn into
the Galaxy by gravitational force. On this basis the reason why the
clusters do not participate in the galactic rotation is obvious. The
nearly spherical distribution is also explained by the theoretically
near uniform distribution of the clusters in the volume of space from
which they were drawn.
Observation: Interstellar distances in the outer regions of
the globular clusters are comparable to those in the solar neighborhood.
Present estimates are that the distances in the central regions are
less by a factor of about eight.27
Comment: The significant point about the foregoing is that
the variations in interstellar distance are relatively minor, and
even in the locations of greatest density the distances between the
stars are enormous. Conventional theory has no explanation for this
state of affairs. In fact, the observed limitation on the minimum
distance between stars is ignored in current astronomical thought,
and close approaches of stars are features of a number of astronomical
theories. The finding of this work is that the immense size of the
minimum distance between stars (other than that between members of
binary or multiple systems) is not accidental; it is a result of the
inability of a star (or star system) to come within the gravitational
limit of another. The stars do not approach each other more closely
because they can not do so.
Observation: The ”orbits“ of the clusters are rectilinear.
As expressed by Struve in the statement previously quoted, the clusters
”move much as freely falling bodies attracted by the galactic center.“
Comment: Our findings are that this is exactly what they are,
and that the observed motions are therefore just what we should expect.
Conventional theory can explain such motions only by assuming extremely
elongated elliptical orbits with relatively frequent passage of the
clusters through the galactic structure. In view of the liquid-like
nature of this structure, as deduced from the postulates that define
the universe of motion, such passages through the galaxy are clearly
impossible. Even without this information, however, it should be rather
obvious that there is some reason why the observed minimum
separation between the stars in the solar neighborhood (the only region
in which we can determine the minimum) is so large. There is no justification
for assuming that this reason, whatever it may be, is any less applicable
to the stars of the globular clusters. The factors that determine
this minimum separation bar the passage of any stellar aggregate
through any other such aggregate, irrespective of what their nature
may be. The conventional explanation of the observed inward motions
of the clusters also conflicts with the following observation.
Observation: Clusters closer to the galactic center are somewhat
smaller than those farther out. Studies indicate a difference of 30
percent between 10,000 parsecs and 25,000 parsecs.34
Comment: If the ”elongated orbit“ theory were correct, the
present distances from the galactic center would have no significance,
as a cluster could be anywhere in its orbit. But the existence of
a systematic difference between the closer and more distant clusters
shows that the present positions do have a significance. Since the
visible diameter of the average cluster is in the neighborhood of
100 light years, and the actual overall dimensions are undoubtedly
greater, there is a substantial gravitational differential between
the near and far sides of a cluster at distances within 100,000 light
years. We can therefore deduce that the clusters are experiencing
an increasing loss of stars as they approach the Galaxy, both by acceleration
of the closest stars and by retardation of the most distant. The effect
of slow losses of this kind on the shape of the aggregate is minor,
and the detached stars remerge with the general field of stars that
is present in the same zone as the cluster. The process of attrition
is therefore unobservable in any direct manner, but we can verity
its existence by the comparison of sizes as noted above. From the
observed differences it appears that the clusters lose more than half
of their mass by the time they reach what may be regarded as the capture
zone, the region in which the gravitational action on the cluster
structure is relatively severe.
The loss of stars due to gravitational differentials is substantially
less in the case of a cluster approaching a small elliptical galaxy.
Thus we find that an elliptical galaxy in Fornax, a member of the
Local Group with a mass of about 2 x 109 solar equivalents,
”contains about five globulars that are bigger than those in our galaxy.
Observation: There is also an increase in the heavy element
content of the cluster stars as the distance from the galactic center
decreases.
Comment: This is another systematic correlation with radial
distance that contradicts the ”elongated orbit“ theory. It is also
inconsistent with the currently prevailing assumption that the globular
clusters are component parts of the Galaxy and were formed in conjunction
with the rest of the galactic structure.
Observation: The globular clusters range in size from a few
tens of thousands to over a million stars. No stable stellar
aggregates have been found between this size and the multiple star systems
consisting of a few stars separated by very short distances comparable
to the diameters of planetary orbits.
Comment: This is a very striking situation
for which present-day astronomical theory has no explanation. A study
of the problem by S. Von Hoerner was able to conclude only that ”the
reasons must lie in the original conditions under which the clusters
were formed. 35 This is true, but it is not an
explanation. What is needed is the information derived from theory
in Chapter 2, the nature of those ”conditions
under which the clusters were formed.“ As brought out there,
no star can be formed within the gravitational limit of an existing
star or multiple star system, since the gravitational pull of that
star or star system prevents the accumulation of sufficient star-forming
material. (Division of existing stars, as we will see later, forms
Binary and multiple stars, not by condensation of new stars.) Stars
formed outside the gravitational limit of an existing star are subject
to a net outward motion. The cluster is held together only by reason
of the gravitational attraction that the cluster as a whole exerts
on its constituent stars. A cluster must therefore exceed a certain
minimum size in order to be gravitationally stable. Such clusters
originate only where large numbers of stars are formed contemporaneously
from dust and gas clouds of vast proportions.
The foregoing discussion has considered 14 sets of facts,
derived from observation, that represent the most significant items of
information about the globular clusters now available, aside from a few
items that we will not be in a position to appraise until after some further
background information has been developed. The deductions from the postulates
of the universe of motion that have been described supply a full and detailed
explanation of every one of these sets of facts. The performance of conventional
astronomical theory, on the other hand, is definitely unsatisfactory,
even if it is given the benefit of the doubt where definitive answers
to the questions at issue are unavailable. Evaluation of the adequacy
of explanations is, of course, a matter of judgment, and the exact score
will differ with the appraiser, but an evaluation on the basis of the
comments that were made in the preceding discussion leads to the conclusion
that conventional theory provides explanations that are tenable, on the
basis of what is known from observation, for only three of the 14 items
(1, 6, 8). It supplies no explanation at all for five
items (2, 7,
9, 10,
14), and the explanation it advances
is inconsistent with the observed facts in 6 cases (3,
4, 5,
11, 12,
13). Five more sets of observations
that are pertinent to this evaluation will be examined in Chapter
9, and with the addition of these items the total score for conventional
astronomical theory is 4 items explained, 7 with no explanation, and 8
explanations inconsistent with observation. The significance of these
numbers is obvious.
|
