LightHeavyW8 Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 <br /> ! Moderator Note This is a thread for <b>QuIcKPoInT</b>'s speculation. Hijacking it with <i>other</i> objections to the Big Bang is <a href='http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules' class='bbc_url' title=''>against the rules</a>.<br /><br />If you wish to discuss what a crock of excrement that letter is, start a new thread <br /> 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 -1
swansont Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 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 ! Moderator Note Your misplaced cries of persecution are nothing new here. I will reiterate: if you want to discuss something other than the topic of the OP, OPEN UP A NEW THREAD. I hope I have made myself clear. It's not a difficult concept.
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 ! Moderator Note Your misplaced cries of persecution are nothing new here. I will reiterate: if you want to discuss something <i>other</i> than the topic of the OP, <b>OPEN UP A NEW THREAD</b>. I hope I have made myself clear. It's not a difficult concept. 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
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 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 Speculations. Further thread hijacks will result in your suspension.
swansont Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 ! Moderator Note I moved this, but cannot help but be reminded of the movie My Cousin Vinny.Judge Haller: If I hear anything other than "guilty" or "not guilty", you'll be in contempt. I don't even want to hear you clear your throat. Now, how do your clients plead?Vinny: I think I get the point.Judge Haller: No, I don't think you do!Now, let's proceed …
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 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
swansont Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. Yeah, so true. Oh, wait, except for particle physics. You know, the people that deal with all the particles. The neutrino was hypothesized based on a gap between theory and observation. So was the Omega-minus particle. Is that all? No. All six quarks. The still-unconfirmed Higgs boson.
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 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
insane_alien Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 You know, with three of you waiting to pounce on me, please try and avoid the hazards of a circular firing squad. as three is an odd number, a circular firing squad is perfectly acceptable. <what you know when you apply logic to a situation. 1
Mr Skeptic Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 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 Only 3? As for the petition, what's this about funding for a specific result (observational contradictions of the BB), or the suggestion that peer review should be done only by non-experts in the field? How about you convince the experts, if you have a better theory?
insane_alien Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 i refuse to sign anything when i can spot three factual inaccuracies in the first sentence alone. 1
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 My theory is that astronomers have to eat, just like the rest of us - MY PROOF! LHW
swansont Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 My theory is that astronomers have to eat, just like the rest of us - MY PROOF! LHW And your point is what? That having a couple of dozen scientists collaborate on a project means, um, help me out here.
ydoaPs Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 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 You've convinced me. I'm gonna go sign that petition now.
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 And your point is what? That having a couple of dozen scientists collaborate on a project means, um, help me out here. 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
D H Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Yeah, so true. Oh, wait, except for particle physics. You know, the people that deal with all the particles. The neutrino was hypothesized based on a gap between theory and observation. So was the Omega-minus particle. Is that all? No. All six quarks. The still-unconfirmed Higgs boson. Experimental physics has also pushed theoretical physics. The discovery of the muon (To quote I.I. Rabi, "Who ordered that?"), along with a growing zoo of exotic particles, played a big role in leading Gell-Mann to develop the concept of quarks. Astronomy has also pushed theoretical physics. Explaining how stars works was a major success of theoretical physicists and earned Hans Bethe the Nobel Prize. One problem with this work: The measured flux of electron neutrinos produced by the Sun did not match theory, not by a long shot. The solution of the solar neutrino problem required a modification to the standard model.
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 Experimental physics has also pushed theoretical physics. The discovery of the muon (To quote I.I. Rabi, "Who ordered <i>that</i>?"), along with a growing zoo of exotic particles, played a big role in leading Gell-Mann to develop the concept of quarks.<br /><br />Astronomy has also pushed theoretical physics. Explaining how stars works was a major success of theoretical physicists and earned Hans Bethe the Nobel Prize. One problem with this work: The measured flux of electron neutrinos produced by the Sun did not match theory, not by a long shot. The solution of the solar neutrino problem required a modification to the standard model. 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
swansont Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 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 You haven't shown it's a boondoggle, that was just a bald assertion on your part. You just linked to a paper. Your tax dollars, UK tax dollars, French, German, Spanish, South African, Greek, Belgian and Dutch, by the look of the affiliations. Pharmaceutical companies employ thousands of scientists. Some science jobs require large collaborations.
lemur Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 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... I don't understand why people complain about tax money financing science. If the government wants science to cost less, why don't they find something for scientists to do to make money that won't interfere with their scientific work? I'm sure it would not be that hard for scientists to fund their own research given the opportunity? Besides, what non-science forms of labor would you want scientists to contribute to the productivity of an economy? What do you want them to do, make fast food? Build houses? Fix infrastructure? No, you're just complaining because GDP growth isn't as big as you'd like so you want to harass anyone and everyone until your income increases. If you want scientists to somehow contribute to GDP, you have to first scientifically analyze the very possibility of increasing GDP and how.
LightHeavyW8 Posted February 5, 2011 Author Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) You haven't shown it's a boondoggle, that was just a bald assertion on your part. You just linked to a paper. Your tax dollars, UK tax dollars, French, German, Spanish, South African, Greek, Belgian and Dutch, by the look of the affiliations. Pharmaceutical companies employ thousands of scientists. Some science jobs require large collaborations. Res ipsa loquitur. LHW I don't understand why people complain about tax money financing science. If the government wants science to cost less, why don't they find something for scientists to do to make money that won't interfere with their scientific work? I'm sure it would not be that hard for scientists to fund their own research given the opportunity? Besides, what non-science forms of labor would you want scientists to contribute to the productivity of an economy? What do you want them to do, make fast food? Build houses? Fix infrastructure? No, you're just complaining because GDP growth isn't as big as you'd like so you want to harass anyone and everyone until your income increases. If you want scientists to somehow contribute to GDP, you have to first scientifically analyze the very possibility of increasing GDP and how. 89, count 'em, 89 astronomers feverishly searching the heavens for evidence of gravitational lensing - I can't wait to reap the benefits... LHW Edited February 5, 2011 by LightHeavyW8
lemur Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 89, count 'em, 89 astronomers feverishly searching the heavens for evidence of gravitational lensing - I can't wait to reap the benefits... Your sarcasm is witty but totally averts the question of what you think these people could be doing with their time that is more productive AND that prevents them from simultaneously doing this research, which THEY seem to consider valuable regardless of how politically dominant you believe your opinion should weigh.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 5, 2011 Posted February 5, 2011 Moving this, as per speculations rule 1. If you'd like to discuss the subject again, I'd suggest bringing physical evidence and mathematics.
Recommended Posts