How much can we trust science?

[Polymath257]

Via my participation for many years on cosmological fora, It is my opinion that it is mostly impossible to convince debaters who have settled with the squared box consensus way of thinking and understanding cosmos.

Therefore I recommend you to make the detailed calculations, predictions and observations yourself - if you dare.

I am quite aware of the equations of E&M. But even a basic calculation shows them to be completely inadequate to the task you suggest.

If you disagree, please give details. Like I said, until such are given, this is just pure speculation with no basis in reality.

Just forget the contradicted "gravity"; include the E&M qualitative attractive and repulsive motions and calculate which amount of E&M powers are needed in order to make the Milky Way to revolve as it does, beginning with the plasma E&M formation in a cosmic cloud.

Good Luck - if you dare

I dare. But when I look at the details, nothing comes close to corresponding with the actual observations. E&M simply doesn't produce the effects you claim on the scales you claim without providing tons of other effects that are not observed.

So, unless you can provide details, there is nothing else to say.

 

[Native]

I am quite aware of the equations of E&M. But even a basic calculation shows them to be completely inadequate to the task you suggest.

I dare. But when I look at the details, nothing comes close to corresponding with the actual observations. E&M simply doesn't produce the effects you claim on the scales you claim without providing tons of other effects that are not observed.

Well, what is it you´re observing and according to what, then?

And why is it that "E&M provides tons of other effects"? Is it because "it is not observed"? Or just not taken into account in the test calculation?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, what is it you´re observing and according to what, then?

The motions of the stars in a galaxy, for example.

And why is it that "E&M provides tons of other effects"? Is it because "it is not observed"? Or just not taken into account in the test calcuation?

No, it is those very calculations that *predict* the existence of these other effects. Then observation shows they don't happen. That shows that E&M is not sufficient for the observed phenomena.

In fact, the E&M calculations are so far off what is observed, that your criticism of the failure of Newtonian gravity is a joke in comparison. if the E&M calculations were even as accurate as the gravity calculations (without dark matter), then they would be taken seriously, as a first approximation at least. But they aren't.

So, maybe what you need to do is provide specifics. Say *precisely* what the strengths are of the E&M fields and how *precisely* the equations of E&M predict the observed motions of the stars. Not something vague like 'swirls and rotations', but actual, detailed calculations of the size of the E&M fields that would produce the observed effects and what *other* effects should be observed if such fields exist.

Again, good luck.

 

[gnostic]

Your description and explanation of the method is OK fine, but I don´t care with your theory of Scientific Method since the initial assumption in the question of "dark matter" is based on pure speculation and not on a direct observation of the such "dark matter".

You do realise that any time we use devices or equipment that observe/detect, quantify or measure phenomena, this is indirect observation?

There are many thing that we cannot observe or measure directly, hence our reliance on technology.

For instance, you yap on about how ancients knew a lot more than us about the Milky Way, and talking about them being able to see the centre, when that’s not true at all.

The spiral arms are filled with gases, dust and stars block all direct view of the centre. And the only mean of detecting the centre, Is through radio source of Sagittarius A*...hence indirect observation.

The most distant single star (I am talking about “star”, not “galaxy”) that anyone can possibly see via naked eye, is Rho Cassiopeia, which is a measly 8200 light years away.

The most distant that anyone can see unaided, is the Triangulum Galaxy at around 3 million light-year, but for most people they cannot observe this galaxy. So most people would be able to view the Andromeda Galaxy at around 2.5 million light-year.

So to see more distant stars than Rho Cassiopeia, you would need telescope. And if you want galaxies further away than Andromeda and Triangulum, again you would need a telescope.

Hence, any time you need a optical telescope, then that would constitute as being not direct observations.

So any time use device of any kind, then it is indirect observations.

Anytime we use microscopes to see small objects...indirect observations.

Anytime we use multimeters to measure electricity...indirect observations.

Anytime, we use scanners, like ultrasound or X-ray...again, more indirect observations.

So you are making a huge fuss, over misunderstanding about what cannot be observe directly.

 

[Native]

The motions of the stars in a galaxy, for example.

Obviously they don´t move according the ideas of gravity which is directly contradicted.
I asked:
And why is it that "E&M provides tons of other effects"? Is it because "it is not observed"? Or just not taken into account in the test calcuation?

No, it is those very calculations that *predict* the existence of these other effects.

What? Don´t your E&M calculations show "these other effects" or what do you mean?

if the E&M calculations were even as accurate as the gravity calculations (without dark matter), then they would be taken seriously, as a first approximation at least. But they aren't.

Well your calculations - even without the "dark matter" was wrong in the first place when the galactic rotation curved was observed.

Don´t you get it? Gravity is false and you have to exclude everything connected to this assumed force before taking on alternative calculations.

Explain to me on which premesis you make your E&M calcualtion of the motion in our galaxy.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Your description and explanation of the method is OK fine, but I don´t care with your theory of Scientific Method since the initial assumption in the question of "dark matter" is based on pure speculation and not on a direct observation of the such "dark matter".

You do realise that any time we use devices or equipment that observe/detect, quantify or measure phenomena, this is indirect observation?

What kind of argument is this? Do you suggest we forget all cosmological observations made by telescopes and so on - and at the same time rely on observations which don´t show a direct "dark matter"? This is nonsense.

For instance, you yap on about how ancients knew a lot more than us about the Milky Way, and talking about them being able to see the centre, when that’s not true at all.

As you automatically refuse everything mythical, you´re not the right person to answer anything mythical.

Waht you need is a spontaneous out-of-body experience to set your mind in the right intellectual mode

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously they don´t move according the ideas of gravity which is directly contradicted.
I asked:
And why is it that "E&M provides tons of other effects"? Is it because "it is not observed"? Or just not taken into account in the test calcuation?

What? Don´t your E&M calculations show "these other effects" or what do you mean?

For example, if there are strong E&M fields, we would see much stronger synchrotron radiation than what we actually observe. This is easily identifiable with our instruments and is predicted for the intense fields required for your proposal. But they are not actually seen.

We would also expect strong alignment of interstellar dust along those E&M fields, which is detectable via polarization of light going through that dust. Again, this is a direct effect of such strong E&M fields and such polarization is not actually seen.

In other words, the intense E&M fields your model predicts are simply not there.

There *are* weaker E&M fields, but those are taken into account in the ordinary theory and are not nearly strong enough to produce the effects you want on rotation curves.

Well your calculations - even without the "dark matter" was wrong in the first place when the galactic rotation curved was observed.

The rotation curve is there. We can measure the velocities of the stars. ANY model has to be able to fit that data. And, the E&M model simply doesn't fit. The fields that exist re simply not strong enough to produce those curves.

The prediction of the model that has E&M and no gravity is even worse than the model that uses Newtonian gravity.

Don´t you get it? Gravity is false and you have to exclude everything connected to this assumed force before taking on alternative calculations.

And when that is done, the model is even worse than the one with gravity.

Explain to me on which premesis you make your E&M calcualtion of the motion in our galaxy.

And if you omit gravity, the correspondence in the rotation curves is *worse*.

The 'premise' is that the E&M fields are strong enough to produce the observed rotation curves. But that premise has other consequences as listed above. Those consequences are NOT observed, showing the model is flawed. And, in fact, it is worse than the gravity model.

 

[Native]

For example, if there are strong E&M fields, we would see much stronger synchrotron radiation than what we actually observe. This is easily identifiable with our instruments and is predicted for the intense fields required for your proposal. But they are not actually seen.

We would also expect strong alignment of interstellar dust along those E&M fields, which is detectable via polarization of light going through that dust. Again, this is a direct effect of such strong E&M fields and such polarization is not actually seen.

In other words, the intense E&M fields your model predicts are simply not there.

Or just not recognized into the correct context?

The 'premise' is that the E&M fields are strong enough to produce the observed rotation curves. But that premise has other consequences as listed above. Those consequences are NOT observed, showing the model is flawed. And, in fact, it is worse than the gravity model.

Nothing can be worse than the "gravity model" when it comes to galactic matters and it is illogical to use this model at all since it is contradicted by direct observations. It is obvious that the "gravity model" cannot produce the starry orbital motion in galaxies.

Anytime the initial gravity model is used fully or partly in calculations of the galactic rotation, it logically will produce false predictions and this model has to be completely abandoned.

When measuring and calculating the E&M field formation and motion in galaxies, it is important to begin with the strong fundamental E&M force taking place in and around the galactic center from where strong gamma rays are beaming out of the galactic "poles" and this E&M force is graduately decreasing from being the strong E&M force to be the weaker fundamental E&M force further out in the galactic surroundings.

In this way all three actually devided fundamental E&M forces are at play as 1 force working with different charges, frequensies and ranges.

The stronger helical E&M motion in the galactic center provides the very Faraday rotation and the assembling formation of gaseous molecules and "metallic particles" which becomes stars and planets in the galactic disk.

That is: The nuclear process in the galactic center produces initially the stars and and secondarily the planets and moons. The central strong E&M force also provides starry rotations and all orbital motions in galaxies.

All this has NOTHING to do with gravity at all.
--------------------
Polymath257 - Are you sure you´re fully updated on the latest observed E&M conditions and measurements in galaxies? And are you sure you´re handling the E&M issues open minded and without any consensus bias? (I have my doubts here)

A couple of links here:
Galactic magnetic fields - Scholarpedia
https://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/rbeck/springer.pdf

(These links speaks of galactic E&M Faraday rotation - but they also mention the gravitational "black hole" assumption)

 

[cladking]

Which? That galaxies are separate? yes, indeed.

That the ancients believed in a sky that was a dome or a sphere? Just read some of the ancient texts. They had NO concept of a deeper space. Their concept of the stars were point sources of light on a dome arching over the Earth.

There's little doubt that later Egyptians, those who wrote the "book of the dead" were highly superstitious and lacked scientific knowledge. It is quite apparent they didn't understand astronomy.

There is no such evidence to support our belief that earlier Egyptians were so ignorant. Indeed, the actual evidence such as the orientation of the Great pyramid and that it still functions as a clock and calendar implies a great deal of astronomical knowledge. The SOLE evidence we have for our belief that they were highly superstitious is a book of what we believe to be incantation. We can't show it is incantation but merely that it bears a striking resemblance to the "book of the dead" after the language of the "book of the dead" is imposed on the far older work.

But I have not seen any evidence of any knowledge that would be impossible to obtain from simply looking up and recording the observations. Nothing 'special' in that.

Proving they had a great deal of scientific knowledge is quite difficult for me because everything they said about science is taken out of context and assigned to the category called "superstition", butr they did describe rainbows in great detail calling them "sky arcs", "light scatterers of the sky", that they generated "steps of light", and that they separated light into its components. They even described "Alexanders Band" which is the dark area between the primary and secondary rainbows. The angle of the Great Pyramid is the color red in the secondary rainbow and the angle of the corners is red in the primary rainbow.

Yes, I can show the astronomical knowledge as well in the writing but it is more deeply buried so will let the pyramid itself stand to show it. While many attributes of the pyramid might demonstrate such knowledge the fact that the ascending passage points directly at the north pole (within a mile or two anyway) certainly suggests that they had a great deal of knowledge about astronomy. This is not the only subject that they show complex knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

There's little doubt that later Egyptians, those who wrote the "book of the dead" were highly superstitious and lacked scientific knowledge. It is quite apparent they didn't understand astronomy.

There is no such evidence to support our belief that earlier Egyptians were so ignorant. Indeed, the actual evidence such as the orientation of the Great pyramid and that it still functions as a clock and calendar implies a great deal of astronomical knowledge. The SOLE evidence we have for our belief that they were highly superstitious is a book of what we believe to be incantation. We can't show it is incantation but merely that it bears a striking resemblance to the "book of the dead" after the language of the "book of the dead" is imposed on the far older work.

Note really. If they aligned with the equinoxes or the north star at the time, those alignments would still be in place (but pointing to the new equinox and pole star).

Again, that doesn't take a great deal of observation or even real knowledge.

Basic astronomical knowledge would consist of knowing the phases of the moon, the path of the sun through the sky (equinoxes, solstices), the existence of planets (wanderers) as points of light, the direction of north in the sky, the basic patterns of naked-eye stars in the sky, some of the cycles that the moon and planets go through (so eclipses, especially lunar ones, could be predicted), etc.

ALL of this would actually be ancient knowledge, probably from before the development of writing. Nothing beyond what ordinary people can see on a clear dark night is in this material.

So, the Milky Way as a band of fuzziness across the sky, encircling the sky, would have been common knowledge to ALL ancient cultures.

That is *very* different than an awareness that the fuzziness is made of stars and that there are many, many more stars than what we can discern without a telescope.

Knowledge of fuzzy places in the sky (like the Orion Nebula) would have been common. Knowledge that they are regions of gas and dust would not have been. Knowledge of the fuzzy patch that we now know as the Andromeda Galaxy would have been probable. Knowledge it was a different galaxy would not have been.

Proving they had a great deal of scientific knowledge is quite difficult for me because everything they said about science is taken out of context and assigned to the category called "superstition", butr they did describe rainbows in great detail calling them "sky arcs", "light scatterers of the sky", that they generated "steps of light", and that they separated light into its components. They even described "Alexanders Band" which is the dark area between the primary and secondary rainbows. The angle of the Great Pyramid is the color red in the secondary rainbow and the angle of the corners is red in the primary rainbow.

Nothing here that requires any great abilities. Simple observation of a good rainbow would give all of this.You can also see these effects in many waterfalls.

Yes, I can show the astronomical knowledge as well in the writing but it is more deeply buried so will let the pyramid itself stand to show it. While many attributes of the pyramid might demonstrate such knowledge the fact that the ascending passage points directly at the north pole (within a mile or two anyway) certainly suggests that they had a great deal of knowledge about astronomy. This is not the only subject that they show complex knowledge.

That really isn't a great deal of astronomical knowledge. Knowing which way is north is hardly 'a great deal of astronomical knowledge). Even knowing which direction north is *in the sky* was almost certainly there long before writing in almost every culture. it was easily figured out by anyone actually looking at the sky on a regular basis.

 

[gnostic]

There's little doubt that later Egyptians, those who wrote the "book of the dead" were highly superstitious and lacked scientific knowledge. It is quite apparent they didn't understand astronomy.

There is no such evidence to support our belief that earlier Egyptians were so ignorant. Indeed, the actual evidence such as the orientation of the Great pyramid and that it still functions as a clock and calendar implies a great deal of astronomical knowledge. The SOLE evidence we have for our belief that they were highly superstitious is a book of what we believe to be incantation. We can't show it is incantation but merely that it bears a striking resemblance to the "book of the dead" after the language of the "book of the dead" is imposed on the far older work.

Just because ancient Egyptians have some knowledge of stars, sun and moon patterns, alignments and motion based on repeated observations of seasonal and annual cycles, and based some of their construction on these alignments, they don’t really mean they have understood everything about astronomy.

Their understanding are very limited, and the Old Kingdom Egypt astronomy were no more advanced then their contemporary Sumerian astronomy (Early Bronze Age, 3rd millennium BCE).

The problem with Old Kingdom Egypt is the large volumes of writings, resided in the interiors of pyramids, the Pyramid Texts, imparted not absence writings on the maths to calculate these alignments of stars and planetary motions.

So all we really have, are buildings that face precise directions in certain times of the year. The problem here, since there are very little actual writings that contained astronomical details, we are relying on modern interpretations of building/engineering, which at best pure speculations, and whole lot New Age woos, from the like of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, both well-known conspiracy theorists in pseudoscience and pseudo-history. Quacks.

The Babylonian astronomy of Middle Bronze Age (coincided with the 1st dynasty in Babylon) that have inherited from Sumerian astronomy, made further advancement with maths, geometry and astronomy. The Babylonian maths and astronomy were more more advanced than their contemporary Middle Kingdom Egypt.

The problems that plagued ancient astronomy and even medieval astronomy is they continued on the long line of mixing astronomy with astrology. Even the ancient Greek mathematicians and astronomers, who started Natural Philosophy, some still fallback to mixing astronomy and astrology together.

 

[Native]

Subject: "The Egyptian astronomy".
It is important to underline that any ancient astronomy was an embedded part of the cultural mythology which is much more than "just" noticing the scenario of the celestial objects and their motions.

Maybe our ancestors didn´t have the specific astronomical knowledge as in modern astronomy, but they had an overall knowledge of the creation as such which should be seriously considered as a complementary explanation to modern cosmology.

The Egyptian Story of Creation, the Ogdoad.
Quotes from - The Infinite Ogdoad: The Creation Pantheon of Ancient Egypt and Predecessor Gods of the Old Kingdom

“The Ogdoad, also called the Hehu or Infinites, were the celestial rulers of a cosmic age. Considered to have come long before the Egyptian religious system currently recognized, the Ogdoad were concerned with the preservation and flourishing of the celestial world, and later—as well as indirectly—the formation of the human race.

Considered to have come into creation before the world did, the Ogdoad consist of four couples—eight individual deities—who balance one another and the nature of the cosmos. Each pair correlated with one of the primary elements of the universe in the Egyptian belief system, i.e., water, air, light, and time.

In the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt, it was believed Nu and Naunet were responsible for the development and continued renewal of the primordial waters of the universe. Amun and Amaunet were the care takers of air, while Kuk and Kauket were the harbingers of darkness. And finally, Huh and Hauhet, the last pair, were weighted with the responsibility of maintaining eternity and infinity.

These four celestial couples existed before the creation of man, and were considered by the ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom to have been directly responsible for the creation of the world as well as its upkeep”.
-------------
Note my bolded words and sentences which all point towards quite another world perception than the modern cosmological theories of the Universe and it´s "Big Bang ideas. It gives the impression that the creation is thought in ancient times to be eternal and cyclical of nature and that these conditions also were at stage before the creation of humans.

Similar Stories of Creation are found in other cultures all over the world and they all more or less confirms each other on the very basics.

Links:
Creation myth - Wikipedia
List of creation myths - Wikipedia

To me these myths shows a huge cosmological knowledge which, at some levels, is more logical than the speculations in modern cosmology - apropos the OP in this thread: "How much can we trust science":

 

[cladking]

Note really. If they aligned with the equinoxes or the north star at the time, those alignments would still be in place (but pointing to the new equinox and pole star).

It's true. Even Egyptologists are aware of it now. The pyramid is an eight sided structure that suddenly changes from having one half of a face lit and then the other on the equinox. The three Giza pyramids have a shadow of their SE corners that line up on the solstice. The ancients apparently referred to these as the pyramid swallowing its shadow and making the way of twilight mount up. I believe there are probably other such alignments as well and that the Great Pyramid was the gnomon of a sundial. Some people believe that they are representative of specific stars on earth but there's no convincing evidence for this currently.

I contend any system to organize knowledge that is logically consistent and self correcting is a science. We use reduction and induction extensively in language and the science of observation > experiment that derives from it. But the ancients lacked vocabulary of reduction as well as taxonomies and the concept of "categories". They didn't even experience thought as we do and had no words to express it or belief. They used logic > observation where the logic was the very wiring of the human brain manifested as language. This idea that language can be metaphysical is anathema to modern people but that's because we can't think at all without reduction, taxonomies, and our beliefs expressed as models and we certainly can't think without "thought". Ancient people used deduction to progress but we have induction as well which can help at every stage of the scientific method.

A science so radically different is simply going to progress in a wholly different way on a wholly different path. The nature of every tool defines what jobs can be done and ancient (animal) science does a different job that leads to bee hives, termite mounds, and great pyramids.

Who knows what could have been deduced by 40,000 years of scientists working without telescopes? Animals don't have language that is complex enough to pass complex learning from generation to generation but humans did. Each generation surpassed the last and added their deductions to language. Since metaphysical language can not be translated or passed down in modern language it survives only in artefacts, myths, and the nagging belief most of us have that things have changed and there used to be something very different. It seems obvious we are too superstitious to have invented agriculture and cities but without them we'd still be living in caves hunting and gathering. We'd still have short lifetimes and be dominated by dangerous predators. It's not the opposable thumb, fire, tools, or trial and error that lifted us up out of the cave; it was complex language which arose suddenly because that's the way all change in life at all levels and types occurs.

 

[cladking]

Just because ancient Egyptians have some knowledge of stars, sun and moon patterns, alignments and motion based on repeated observations of seasonal and annual cycles, and based some of their construction on these alignments, they don’t really mean they have understood everything about astronomy.

They most assuredly did not "understand everything about astronomy". Their understanding was wholly different but equally correct. Ironically while understanding today is probably far more complex and more complete, each individual has his own model and even trained individuals, even astronomers, have flaws in their model (usually). Every ancient person understood all of astronomy to the degree he understood the language. There were no models and no flaws. I'm quite confident that for many practical purposes the ancient understanding surpassed ours. For things like understanding why the day starts and ends when it does I'd ask a Sumerian iff I could understand him at all (I couldn't really).

 

[cladking]

It is important to underline that any ancient astronomy was an embedded part of the cultural mythology which is much more than "just" noticing the scenario of the celestial objects and their motions.

Indeed!

It was all part of a language that can not be translated and will never be translated. The closest we could come would look like a flow chart.

In the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt, it was believed Nu and Naunet were responsible for the development and continued renewal of the primordial waters of the universe.

I don't intend to get into this in detail but we wholly misapprehend the nature of their "Gods".

Actually "gods" were mere placeholders for for theory that were used as the subject of a sentence. "Nu" was actually the "waters of the abyss" (water under the ground coming from the south, and nunet was the water above ground flowing north. "Amun" was reality and "amunet" was, for lack of a better word, metaphysics. Sentences, words, and meaning were all different in Ancient Language and it simply is incompatible with the pidgin languages that sprang from it. Words were representative and meaning was expressed in context from a stated perspective.

If Ancient language were translatable we'd still have the knowledge it contained but it became too complex over a 2000 year period and had to be jettisoned. Of what use is a language that most people can't learn?

 

[Native]

Since metaphysical language can not be translated or passed down in modern language it survives only in artefacts, myths, and the nagging belief most of us have that things have changed and there used to be something very different.

The ancient conception of everything was not divided into "physics or metaphysics" as they stated everything to be connected. The reason modern humans take something to be "metaphysical" is that they´re having troubles of interpreting and placing ancient texts and symbols in it´s correct context.

Native said: ↑
It is important to underline that any ancient astronomy was an embedded part of the cultural mythology which is much more than "just" noticing the scenario of the celestial objects and their motions.

Indeed!

It was all part of a language that can not be translated and will never be translated. The closest we could come would look like a flow chart.

Well, IMO lots of the ancient symbolic language CAN be interpreted when interpreting an actual symbolism and text in the corrrect astronomical and cosmological context.

Native said: ↑
In the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt, it was believed Nu and Naunet were responsible for the development and continued renewal of the primordial waters of the universe.

I don't intend to get into this in detail but we wholly misapprehend the nature of their "Gods".

Actually "gods" were mere placeholders for for theory that were used as the subject of a sentence. "Nu" was actually the "waters of the abyss" (water under the ground coming from the south, and nunet was the water above ground flowing north. "Amun" was reality and "amunet" was, for lack of a better word, metaphysics.

When focusing on the cosmological terms of "primordial"; "eternal" and infinite" in the Egyptian story of creation, I think you have to interpret "primordial waters" not just as "waters on the Earth flowing south and north" but more as in the modern term of "the gaseous clouds in cosmos", i.e. the Cosmic Ocean , quote:

"In ancient creation texts, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters".

IMO "Amun" is not "metaphysical" but represents the "watery-life-giving quality"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you are unaware science is considered to be in a state of crisis. Replication is one of the foundations of science, but scientists are having problems reproducing results.

Here is an article about it, but you can also Google the replication crisis if you want more information.

In this survey of 1500 scientist they found



1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility


There have been a number of studies on this replication crisis, so feel free to investigate more if you like.

Given the current state of the replication crisis, how much can we trust science?

With all its flaws, science remains - by far - the best method we have to investigate reality.
The proof is in the pudding.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

With all its flaws, science remains - by far - the best method we have to investigate reality.
The proof is in the pudding.

And here we go again. Evidence for that "we" and "best"?

 

[Polymath257]

Who knows what could have been deduced by 40,000 years of scientists working without telescopes?

A fair amount. But nothing dependent on seeing things that require telescopes. For example, there are about 7000 visible stars unless you have some sort of optical enhancement. The fact that other galaxies have stars in them cannot be determined without telescopes. The nature of the Milky Way as a collection of stars cannot be determined without telescopes.

The fact that some things simply could not be detected at all without telescopes limits the amount of astronomy any society without telescopes can develop. it really is that simple.

Of course, the same thing can be said about bacteria and viruses and microscopes. Until the optics was developed, the existence of these was simply not something that could be detected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And here we go again

No. There YOU go again.

Evidence for that "we" and "best"?

We = humanity
best = producing of the best results.

1 scientist working accomplishes more then 1000 people on their knees praying.