Re: meta research
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 18:24:56 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, there were steady state universe theories that were very compatable with red shift being due to relative speed. The problem with the steady state universe was, at first, how is matter being created continuously, in violation of all natural laws that we know of? If matter isn't/wasn't created, where did it come from? Why don't we see the ramification of this happening? How are you sure we don't? Alternatively, how do you know we could detect the ramifications? The second is when we heard the echos of the big bang, right at the energy it was supposed to be at. As you see, the website doesn't attempt to discuss this. Do you mean like this? http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp 2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared to radio intensities of radio galaxies. [[7]] The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct. None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [[8] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 8:47 PM Subject: Re: meta research On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 18:24:56 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, there were steady state universe theories that were very compatable with red shift being due to relative speed. The problem with the steady state universe was, at first, how is matter being created continuously, in violation of all natural laws that we know of? If matter isn't/wasn't created, where did it come from? The freezing of the vacuum. Why don't we see the ramification of this happening? How are you sure we don't? Alternatively, how do you know we could detect the ramifications? It requires the non-conservation of energy for which dEdt are many many orders of magnitude greater than Planck's constant. If you are interested, I could do the numbers, but I get the feeling that you are not really impressed with calculations in physicsand give equal weight to verbal descriptions. The second is when we heard the echos of the big bang, right at the energy it was supposed to be at. As you see, the website doesn't attempt to discuss this. Do you mean like this? http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp I didn't find that, but that still isn't what I would expect from serious research. What I was thinking of was a numerical analysis of this statement by Cornell: quote When we observe the night sky we see an excess of radiation which is called the CMB radiation (cosmic microwave background radiation). It is a perfect black body with a temperature of 3 Kelvin. Taken with the expansion of the universe, this radiation says that the universe must have been much hotter in the past and also opaque to radiation. It turns out that the CMB radiation fits in perfectly with being from the first photons to escape after the universe became transparent. The universe became transparent for the first time when atoms first formed (in an event known inexplicably as recombination). end quote 2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. How is space heated? Further, let us assume that star light formed the basis for the background radiation. Why is it almost perfectly isotropic, since stars are not? The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum. Just a note, since that time, we have learned a great deal about matter in space. Non-dark matter is mostly hydrogen, just as the sun is mostly hydrogen, and then helium, etc. The absorption spectra of these are fairly well known. The only way to argue the way he does is to assume that intergalactic matter is inherently different than interstellar matter. Offhand, I don't think of any elements that would absorb photons as he suggests. Now, water has a window, right around the visible spectrum, I know that, but even that won't work. Again, if you want, I can look for the calculations to back up Cornell's astronomy department statement. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts on the accuracy of any Cornell physical calculation than this meta site. If you are 1) interested 2) willing to accept numerical calculations over paragraphs of general descriptions, I can look for some of the calculations. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:32 PM Subject: Re: meta research A website that goes a bit more into depth is at: http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/cmbr.1.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Dan wrote: The freezing of the vacuum. Freezing nothing turns into something, or did the vaccum have something in it? If so, what, and where did it come from? It requires the non-conservation of energy for which dEdt are many many orders of magnitude greater than Planck's constant. If you are interested, I could do the numbers, but I get the feeling that you are not really impressed with calculations in physicsand give equal weight to verbal descriptions. No, I'll take your word for it. So matter can only be created when a vacuum full of plasma freezes? The second is when we heard the echos of the big bang, right at the energy it was supposed to be at. As you see, the website doesn't attempt to discuss this. 1) interested I was pointing out that they did have something to say about it and also that, acording to them, CBR was predicted to be between 5 and 50 K with 50 K being the most recent guess prior to it's discovery. So that if they are correct (you tell me) then it wasn't right where it was supposed to be. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:31 PM Subject: Re: meta research Dan wrote: The freezing of the vacuum. Freezing nothing turns into something, or did the vaccum have something in it? If so, what, and where did it come from? Symmetry breaking dropped the vacuum to a lower energy state. No, I'll take your word for it. So matter can only be created when a vacuum full of plasma freezes? Energy was not createdit was just a state change. The second is when we heard the echos of the big bang, right at the energy it was supposed to be at. As you see, the website doesn't attempt to discuss this. 1) interested I was pointing out that they did have something to say about it and also that, acording to them, CBR was predicted to be between 5 and 50 K with 50 K being the most recent guess prior to it's discovery. So that if they are correct (you tell me) then it wasn't right where it was supposed to be. Gammov said under 10 Kev...when the Bell Laboratory researches who found the COMB (cosmic microwave background) saw that, they then knew what they found. Now, with a bit more work on expansion after the time the universe became transparent, the numbers fit closely. There are other problems with the meta explanations. Scattering doesn't produce a red shift...it produces a broadened lower energy spectrumlike the COMB spectrum, for example. :-) What is seen is not a general broadening, but shifted emission lines. In fact, that kind of downshifting is what I cut my professional teeth on in gamma-gamma logging, so I'm embarrassed it took me a bit to put my finger on what was wrong there. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Dan wrote: http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/cmbr.1.html Thanks, helps a bit. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Dan wrote: Symmetry breaking dropped the vacuum to a lower energy state. Symetry of what and what caused it to break? No, I'll take your word for it. So matter can only be created when a vacuum full of plasma freezes? Energy was not createdit was just a state change. What change state? Can you point me in the direction of a more definitive explanation? Dumbed down if possible. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:56 PM Subject: Re: meta research Dan wrote: Symmetry breaking dropped the vacuum to a lower energy state. Symetry of what and what caused it to break? of the vacuum No, I'll take your word for it. So matter can only be created when a vacuum full of plasma freezes? Energy was not createdit was just a state change. What change state? The vacuum Can you point me in the direction of a more definitive explanation? Dumbed down if possible. Try http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/ssb.html for starters. You can move forwards and backwards from that point in the history of the universe. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Robert J. Chassell wrote: But that was not the question. The question was more basic. There were two hypotheses: 1. the universe did not begin 2. the universe began (...) Please tell me of other hypotheses besides `no-beginning' and `a beginning'. 3. Many beginnings 4. Some parts began, other parts didn´t. 5. ´Begin´ does not make sense when we talk about the universe If there is people now, and if there was a time when there were no people, how does it happen that there is people now? -- Bernardo when 5 years old Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
-Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:57:24 -0200 Subject: Re: meta research Robert J. Chassell wrote: But that was not the question. The question was more basic. There were two hypotheses: 1. the universe did not begin 2. the universe began (...) Please tell me of other hypotheses besides `no-beginning' and `a beginning'. 3. Many beginnings 4. Some parts began, other parts didn´t. 5. ´Begin´ does not make sense when we talk about the universe If there is people now, and if there was a time when there were no people, how does it happen that there is people now? -- Bernardo when 5 years old evolution Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:15 AM Subject: Re: meta research evolution So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? I actually think there is an answer to this. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan wrote:
Second, he misses the sociology of science completely. If he
were to
make the more limited claim that states that there increased
number of
anomalies that have to be explained in an ad hoc manner indicates
that
there may be serious limitations to our present theory, then
he'd have
a
very strong case.
OK, I know I'm way out of my league when discussing this stuff with
you,
but if the above is true, why spend any time at all trying the
patch the
theory up with fantastic ideas like inflation and dark matter?
Or Planck's constant, or the Bohr theory of the atom? Inflation is
certainly not an elegant theorybut it is at least a decent
phenomenological model of the very very early universe. It is a way
of
expressing the parameters.
Dark matter is used to explain the rotation of the galaxies. If one
does
General Relativity (which I think can be well approximated by good
old
Newtonian gravitation for the cases we are considering), we find that
the
rotation of the stars in the galaxies do not match the mass of the
observed
stars. If there were dark matter, then the rotation would be
consistent
with what we know about gravity. If not, then we have to find a
fudge for
gravityone we have no real basis for. Of the two, dark matter
was
considered a bit more conservative.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0507619
General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark
Matter
Abstract:
A galaxy is modeled as a stationary axially symmetric pressure-free
fluid in general relativity. For the weak gravitational fields under
consideration, the field equations and the equations of motion
ultimately lead to one linear and one nonlinear equation relating the
angular velocity to the fluid density. It is shown that the rotation
curves for the Milky Way, NGC 3031, NGC 3198 and NGC 7331 are
consistent with the mass density distributions of the visible matter
concentrated in flattened disks. Thus the need for a massive halo of
exotic dark matter is removed. For these galaxies we determine the mass
density for the luminous threshold as 10^{-21.75} kg.m$^{-3}.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Please tell me of other hypotheses besides `no-beginning' and `a beginning'. Expanding, not expanding are two. Cyclic states, vs. one big bang. Single universe vs. muliverse. That should do off the top of my head. Expanding or not expanding does not deal with whether or not the universe had a beginning. Nor does single universe vs. multiverse. Cyclic states suggest no beginning, or multiple beginnings, which is another way of saying `no beginning'. On the other hand, one big bang suggests a beginning. Those are additional questions. They are not unimportant, but they are additional. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? I actually think there is an answer to this. :-) Yes. The answer must be the egg, if you figure that only changes in blueprints (i.e., in the genes of living organisms) are passed on from one generation to another. The entity was conceived by a proto-chicken, its genes changed, and its changed genes are got passed on. This supposes that in biological evolution there are no Lamarkian changes, as in human learning. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:03 PM Subject: Re: meta research So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? I actually think there is an answer to this. :-) Yes. The answer must be the egg, if you figure that only changes in blueprints (i.e., in the genes of living organisms) are passed on from one generation to another. The entity was conceived by a proto-chicken, its genes changed, and its changed genes are got passed on. This supposes that in biological evolution there are no Lamarkian changes, as in human learning. Glad I read ahead, because that it pretty much what I wanted to say. A chicken egg and the chicken that hatches from it are the same entity to a great degree. So the first chicken was once an egg laid by a Proto-Chicken. (Bob uses the exact term I was thinking of using) xponent The First Chicken Was A Mutant Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked, ... why spend any time at all trying the patch the theory up with fantastic ideas like inflation and dark matter? But that was not the question. The question was more basic. There were two hypotheses: 1. the universe did not begin 2. the universe began (People observed that the universe existed, at least for themselves.) As far as I can see, the two hypotheses covered all possibilities. The question was which hypothesis is true? It seems like by the time you need to invent stuff out of whole cloth that it might be time to step back and entertain some new ideas. But there were no other possibilities, at least none that I can see. Other questions, like how to explain the rotation of galaxies came after deciding which of the two hypotheses is more likely. Galaxies' `anomolous rotation' was discovered in the 1930s, but did not become a central issue until better observations and more concern in the late 1960s or 1970s. Help in judging which of the two hypotheses is more likely came from several sources, one of which was observations which can most readily be understood as the echo of a beginning. (The results of the observations were predicted more than a decade ahead of time by Gamow, I seem to remember, although his predictions were ignored until re-predicted at the same time as the actual observations.) Please tell me of other hypotheses besides `no-beginning' and `a beginning'. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:12 PM Subject: Re: meta research Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked, ... why spend any time at all trying the patch the theory up with fantastic ideas like inflation and dark matter? But that was not the question. The question was more basic. There were two hypotheses: 1. the universe did not begin 2. the universe began (People observed that the universe existed, at least for themselves.) As far as I can see, the two hypotheses covered all possibilities. The question was which hypothesis is true? Actually, there were steady state universe theories that were very compatable with red shift being due to relative speed. The problem with the steady state universe was, at first, how is matter being created continuously, in violation of all natural laws that we know of? Why don't we see the ramification of this happening? The second is when we heard the echos of the big bang, right at the energy it was supposed to be at. As you see, the website doesn't attempt to discuss this. Other questions, like how to explain the rotation of galaxies came after deciding which of the two hypotheses is more likely. As this website points out http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm2.html the calculation that leads to the existance of dark matter is, in essence, just Kepler's law. That's really old. :-) It is not dependant on whether one accepts the big bang or steady state universe. Help in judging which of the two hypotheses is more likely came from several sources, one of which was observations which can most readily be understood as the echo of a beginning. (The results of the observations were predicted more than a decade ahead of time by Gamow, I seem to remember, although his predictions were ignored until re-predicted at the same time as the actual observations.) Please tell me of other hypotheses besides `no-beginning' and `a beginning'. Expanding, not expanding are two. Cyclic states, vs. one big bang. Single universe vs. muliverse. That should do off the top of my head. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
meta research
Anyone know anything about this organizeation? Care to critique? http://metaresearch.org/home.asp From the Viewpoints page of that site, from the Meta Philosophy essay on that page: It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity. Even when it is not effective directly, it is usually successful at ensuring that the contrary person or idea gains few allies, and remains isolated. In short, those who may suspect the need for a radical change in an accepted theory have no interests or motivations as strong as those supporting the status quo. And members of the former group usually lack the background and confidence to challenge the latter group, who are the recognized experts in the field and well-able to defend their own theories. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: meta research Anyone know anything about this organizeation? Care to critique? http://metaresearch.org/home.asp I have not heard of them before, but they sound like a lot of what I have heard. I read what they said about the Big Bang, and they sound an awful lot like the alternate thinkers who I've debated with on sci.physics. They also sound a lot like creation scientists. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Dan wrote: I have not heard of them before, but they sound like a lot of what I have heard. I read what they said about the Big Bang, and they sound an awful lot like the alternate thinkers who I've debated with on sci.physics. They also sound a lot like creation scientists. I'm guessing you didn't read much. Creation scientists explain light from sources more than 10,000 light years away as being created on the way. There's nothing that brain dead here, I don't think. Let me ask how you would respond to this quote from the site: Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 6:34 PM Subject: Re: meta research Dan wrote: I have not heard of them before, but they sound like a lot of what I have heard. I read what they said about the Big Bang, and they sound an awful lot like the alternate thinkers who I've debated with on sci.physics. They also sound a lot like creation scientists. I'm guessing you didn't read much. Creation scientists explain light from sources more than 10,000 light years away as being created on the way. There's nothing that brain dead here, I don't think. Actually, some use techniques very similar to the ones used in that website. Let me ask how you would respond to this quote from the site: Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. Uh-huhwhere do they consider the wealth of data supporting the big bang? The tremendous links between astrophysics and high energy physics? The sucesses in dealing with black holes? The observation of neutrino oscillations (explaining the relative lack of solar neutrinos)? There is a lot The arguements given have been given a number of time on sci.physics. Physicists have patiently tried to explain the problems with the various tired light hypothesis. Off the top of my head, I can easily think of data that would be quite different if the graviton drag theory were true. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. He really doesn't know what is going on in science, that's clear to me. First of all, the present theory is well validated over a vast range of observations. Thus, it will not fall to the wayside, like the caloric fluid theory of heat. Instead, when and if a superior theory is developed, it will remain as a special case of the more general theory...they way Classical Mechanics is still kept (and taught in graduate schools). Second, he misses the sociology of science completely. If he were to make the more limited claim that states that there increased number of anomalies that have to be explained in an ad hoc manner indicates that there may be serious limitations to our present theory, then he'd have a very strong case. But, it appears that he doesn't read the general physics magazines, such a Physics Today. I regularly read articles that discuss the difficulties with our ability to accurately model observations in astronomy. The big bang itself isn't often brought into question, because of the wealth of supporting data. But, the anomalies are regarded, hopefully, as an indication that additional observations will allow us to develop a better theory. The gut level reaction of physicists to well verified anomalies is the game is afoot. But, these folks are not actually coming up with real theory (at least as far as I have found on the websiteif you see examples of what you consider real physics, I'll look at it). Instead they present retread old theories...which have run into insurmountable difficulties decades ago. And, if you look elsewhere on the website you will see gems like: On Tuesday, May 8, 2001 at 1PM, Meta Research released findings that provide compelling evidence for the presence of artificial structures on the planet Mars. The press conference was held at the New Yorker hotel in Manhattan, New York. or The Exploded Planet Hypothesis – 2000 Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research followed by a whole lot of arm waving. In what way is this superior to creation science? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 7:48 PM Subject: Re: meta research Uh-huhwhere do they consider the wealth of data supporting the big bang? The tremendous links between astrophysics and high energy physics? The sucesses in dealing with black holes? The observation of neutrino oscillations (explaining the relative lack of solar neutrinos)? There is a lot of work that has been done that is consistent with the big bang. If it didn't exist, why do we still hear the echoes from it, for example? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
Dan wrote: Second, he misses the sociology of science completely. If he were to make the more limited claim that states that there increased number of anomalies that have to be explained in an ad hoc manner indicates that there may be serious limitations to our present theory, then he'd have a very strong case. OK, I know I'm way out of my league when discussing this stuff with you, but if the above is true, why spend any time at all trying the patch the theory up with fantastic ideas like inflation and dark matter? It seems like by the time you need to invent stuff out of whole cloth that it might be time to step back and entertain some new ideas. Are there serious efforts to propose and test alternative ideas or is there a tendency to look upon anyone that doesn't go with the flow as a crank? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meta research
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 8:45 PM Subject: Re: meta research Dan wrote: Second, he misses the sociology of science completely. If he were to make the more limited claim that states that there increased number of anomalies that have to be explained in an ad hoc manner indicates that there may be serious limitations to our present theory, then he'd have a very strong case. OK, I know I'm way out of my league when discussing this stuff with you, but if the above is true, why spend any time at all trying the patch the theory up with fantastic ideas like inflation and dark matter? Or Planck's constant, or the Bohr theory of the atom? Inflation is certainly not an elegant theorybut it is at least a decent phenomenological model of the very very early universe. It is a way of expressing the parameters. Dark matter is used to explain the rotation of the galaxies. If one does General Relativity (which I think can be well approximated by good old Newtonian gravitation for the cases we are considering), we find that the rotation of the stars in the galaxies do not match the mass of the observed stars. If there were dark matter, then the rotation would be consistent with what we know about gravity. If not, then we have to find a fudge for gravityone we have no real basis for. Of the two, dark matter was considered a bit more conservative. It seems like by the time you need to invent stuff out of whole cloth that it might be time to step back and entertain some new ideas. And the candidate new theories are? If someone were to come up with a new theory that simplifed cosmology and replaces the ad hoc patches with a simple theory he/she would be virtually guaranteed the Nobel prize and the title greatest physicist of the early 21st centory (unless the person who comes up with quantum gravety takes that title. Even a modest simplification would be worth a great deal (assured tenure at a first line school for example). A key part of the divide between our perceptions can be explained by my experience in graduate school. Most decent sized physics departements have been approached by crackpots. On at Wisconsin actually got to present he problem to some of the best theorists there. He ideas were wacky (lines of magnetic force were like likes of chalk with nothing in between), but the problem she set up was hard to solve. One of the more esoteric theorists finally came up with the explaination, to her dismay. It had to do with subtle interaction of magnetic and frictional forces that were counterintuitive, but there when you worked out the theory. A real theory is not a few general discussion paragraphs, pages, or even books. It is a serious attempt to fit data (usually with numerical predictions). Are there serious efforts to propose and test alternative ideas or is there a tendency to look upon anyone that doesn't go with the flow as a crank? Actual new ideas are welcome. If someone came up with a new theory and showed how much of the old theory can be derived as a special case of the new theory, people would take notice. If there were an alternative to inflation that match the observed density distribution of galaxies, was consistent with GR and QM to the levels at which they've been well tested, even if it was merely just as simple, it would be accepted as another way to work out the problem. It would be considered a real contribution because it would give more information to later theorists: somewhat in the sense that the Heisenburg and Schrotenger (sp) formations of QM led to Dirac's beautiful general formulation of QM. One way to look at things like dark matter and inflation would be as stepping stones. It is much easier to fit a general model when some of the parts are already modeled. Even ad hoc fits, such as the Bohr atom, provides a means of organizing the data in a way it can be thought of. This allows a different, or even the same, physicist to find a more elegant solution later. But, pages and pages of arm waving generalities rarely produces anything useful. It's more akin to an all night bull session in the dorms than it is to science. I know when I started grad. school Electroweak moved from quite understandable mocking (they insisted that two unseen things really existed), to becoming the standard theory in less than 5 years. It took only 1 year for it to be well accepted. The reason was clear, those two things were found within a year. I've been asked about my work in terms of a potential 5th force, I've seen arguments for monopoles, I've seen searches for proton decay, I've seen first rate physicists who talk how they come up with 2 or 3 ideas a day...but only one a month worth publishing. One said he ran it through a gauntlet before publication...even if he already had a Nobel prize. I've seen arguments for radically
