LightHeavyW8

Res ipsa loquitur. LHW 89, count 'em, 89 astronomers feverishly searching the heavens for evidence of gravitational lensing - I can't wait to reap the benefits... LHW

To quote Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven: "In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure.[2]" Alfvén's work was disputed for many years by the senior scientist in space physics, the British-American geophysicist Sydney Chapman. Alfvén's disagreements with Chapman stemmed in large part from trouble with the peer review system. Alfvén rarely benefited from the acceptance generally afforded senior scientists in scientific journals. He once submitted a paper on the theory of magnetic storms and auroras to the American journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity and his paper was rejected on the ground that it did not agree with the theoretical calculations of conventional physics of the time. He was regarded as a person with unorthodox opinions in the field by many physicists,[3] R. H. Stuewer noting that "... he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel Prize..."[4] and was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals. Alfvén recalled: "When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.[5]" Alfvén believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena. He also considered the Big Bang to be a scientific myth devised to explain creation.[7] LHW

Gladly - A couple of dozen is 24, but the number of authors to the article I linked is 89. That's not a collaboration, nor even a committee - it is a CONVENTION! Are MY tax dollars financing this boondoggle? Meanwhile, Halton Arp, Hubble's assistant, is denied access to major observatories for daring to question Cosmological Red Shift... LHW

My theory is that astronomers have to eat, just like the rest of us - MY PROOF! LHW

You know, with three of you waiting to pounce on me, please try and avoid the hazards of a circular firing squad. I gather, Swansont, that you will not be signing the petition... LHW

I am reminded of the Kosovo resident who who voiced his optimism for the future to a reporter as they huddled behind a barricade to evade small-arms fire. "How can you be optimistic in the middle of this?" asked the reporter. "Well, the heavy shelling subsided yesterday!" was the response... LHW

So help me out a little here, Mr. Mod - hypothetically now, if I were to start a thread asking readers to go HERE and sign it if they agree, where should it go? I assume you would make your editorial position known, for sure... LHW

Spyman's last post implied that theoretical cosmologists are all a harmonious bunch of elves merrily reconstructing the history of the universe in Santa's workshop - but it is NOT so. Hubble was not so certain about what red shift actually represented. I attempted to offer proof more substantial than merely my personal opinion, but it seems this approach is not well-tolerated here. Pity, that... LHW

Ah, but what do we have HERE? Dissidents? Crackpots, I say - every #@*& one of 'em! LHW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YBPcoI4OE9Y That's all I want, EVERYONE HAPPY!

What seems to have disappeared in public discourse this millenium is any capacity for self-criticism. If my repartee somehow manages to delay Armageddon by a single moment, it will have been a worthwhile effort, no? LHW

I was, and still am, happy to leave it at THIS! LHW

The point I take issue with is your interpretation of "closing speed", which is bottom-line real for both collider operators and the EO. They both know when the experiment ends as well as, if not better than, any traveling "observers". Even Janus grudgingly acknowledged that my claim that EO observes information exchange between A & B at 1.7c is valid, even though light is only travelling through space at c. LHW

OK, since nobody else seems to have any real solutions, let me take care of it with a few epithets - To the Arabs: Enough children, already! To the Israelis: Enough mikvahs, already! To the Americans: Enough socialism for the elite, smiley-faced fascism for the masses, and right-wing demagoguery for everyone - already! LHW

How can we tell which phenomenon we are observing? LHW