The Sociology of Cosmology

[CraigS]

Here we go .. a paper by a mainstream scientist who seems to have spent a career dancing around, (& legitimately researching), the controversial topic of possible non-cosmological origins of Redshift.
This paper, (see attachment), analyses the 'ins and outs' of taking the path of non-standard cosmology thinking (as opposed to the mainstream current):

"Sociology of Modern Cosmology"
Martin Lopez-Corredoira. Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2).
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537
Some great stuff in here. A sample follows:

Introduction:
"Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology."
....
"There are two main psychological profiles of cosmologists, with gradations of grey between them:

Heterodox: possessed by the complex of unappreciated genius, too much “ego”, normally working alone/individually or in very small groups, creative, intelligent, non-conformist." His/her (mostly males) dream is to create a new paradigm in science which completely changes our view of the Universe. Many of them try to demonstrate that Einstein was wrong, maybe because he is the symbol of genius and defeating his theory would mean that they are geniuses above Einstein. Most of them are crackpots.

Orthodox: dominated by the groupthink, following a leader’s opinion as in the “Naked king” tale, good workers performing monotonous tasks without ideas in large groups, specialists in a small field which they know very well, conformist, domestic. His/her dream is getting a permanent position at an university or research center, to be leader of a project, to do astropolitics (see Lpez-Corredoira 2008). Most of them are like sheep (or geese), some of them with vocation of shepherds too."

Which type are YOU ? :P

Have fun ! :)
Cheers
PS: Oh yes ... even addresses ... "Plasma Cosmology (Lerner 1991)". The author has been known to associate with Lerner !!

[higginsdj]

Orthodox. I have my favourite 'kings'

[CraigS]

Are they big spuds floating out there in space ?
:):P

Cheers & Rgds

[CraigS]

This is great !! A juicy bit for everyone !! ...

"Methodology of Science:

Basically, there are two different methodologies to study Nature, both inherited from different ways of thinking in ancient Greece:

The mathematical deductive method: This is the method thought by Pythagoras and Plato. The pure relations of numbers in Arithmetic and Geometry are the immutable reality behind changing appearances in the world of the senses. We cannot reach the truth through observation with the senses, but only through pure reason ...

The empirical inductive method: This is the method thought by Anaxagoras of how to know Nature. Aristotle uses both inductive and deductive methods, and he says that “the mathematical method is not the method of the physicists, because Nature, perhaps all, involves matter” (Meta- physics, book II). Matter and not numbers or mathematics. Nature should be known through observations and extrapolations of them."


Hehe ... hehe ....
:P:)
Cheers

[CraigS]

The final bit about assimilating knowledge of the past ...

"Do we live in a fortunate golden age of Cosmology that allows us, thanks to our technical advances and our trained researchers, to answer questions on eternity, finiteness of the Universe, etc.? We could reply as the XIXth century German philosopher Schopenhauer did with the Know-alls of his time:

"Every 30 years, a new generation of talkative candid persons, ignorant of everything, want to devour summarily and hastily the results of human knowledge accumulated over centuries, and immediately they think themselves more skillful than the whole past.”"

Hmmm .. a bit of an axe to grind there, methinks !!

I don't mind devouring the knowledge of the past ... but that's only a tiny slice of what there is gain in the present .. and take into the future. And perhaps what we do with that knowledge enables us to define our own personal 'wisdom'? (see Bert's comments on the EU thread).

Cheers

[renormalised]

And here's the clincher....you can't do science without either of them....you need both.

Corredoira fancies himself as some kind of philosopher, when he should stick to doing science.

He most certainly has an axe to grind....a rather large one to be precise. Corredoira has had a number of papers rejected, not because the subjects were controversial but because the science wasn't sound enough. Like Arp and some others, he's been known to jump the gun on certain topics.

He's only a young guy (only had his PhD for 13 years), still needs some seasoning:):P

Being Spaniard...maybe a dash of tabasco and a few chillies:):P

[CraigS]

Yes. I mentioned in my opening thread that this guy has been known to collaborate with known "Heterodoxes" (?). He definitely is one himself.

I thought it would be fair to have a look into these guys' worlds to get where they're (really) coming from.

He organised a workshop in 2006 called "International Workshop on Redshift Mechanisms in Astrophysics and Cosmology". The minutes of that workshop were published in 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701061

The presenters were:
Observational facts were presented by Tom Van Flandern (the guy who believes in the Face of Cydonia - Meta Research, Sequim, WA, U.S.A.), Chris Fulton (James Cook University, Australia; in collaboration with Halton Arp, MPIA, Germany), William M. Napier (University of Cardiff, U. K.) and myself (Mart ́ın L ́opez-Corredoira, IAC, Tenerife, Spain, in collaboration with Carlos M. Guti ́errez of the same institute).

Others were in attendance and they presented their alternative theories on Redshift, some of which sound pretty reasonable to me (that's not saying that much, I guess).

There is a valid point in all of this (from the thread paper):

"In my opinion, alternative models are not rejected because they are not potentially competitive but because they have great difficulties in advancing in their research against the mainstream. A small number of scientists cannot compete with the huge mass of cosmologists dedicated to polishing and refining the standard theory".

Putting myself into their position, I'm not sure I could see how a reasonably valid alternative theory could go forward, given the system they're working in.

This is a difficult topic for professionals (& budding ones) to engage in. I'm nothing more than an Amateur trying to learn stuff and hence, I'm not bound by funding requirements or the need to 'toe the line'.

Cheers.
PS: It'll be interesting to see whether there are any more posts to this thread after that clanger !! :)

[renormalised]

The reason why their work doesn't get the sounding board they think it deserves is because for the most part it their theories don't match the empirical data. They make assumptions which aren't supported by the evidence or only have circumstantial proof. You can't expect everyone to just drop their bundles and go follow the "pied piper" just because he plays a merry tune. Look at Einstein...when he first brought out SR and then GR, there were only 5 or so physicists in the world that could even come close to understanding it. But, fortunately, those physicists were the guys who forged modern physics....Bohr, Dirac etc. It wasn't long before most of the others saw through the complexities and then Einstein became the buzzword for "mad scientist":):P And uber famous:):). But that's what it takes....you need to be really on your ball if you're going to propose something radical and even then you won't get 100% support. You never do. But, you need to have dotted all the "i's" and crossed all you "t's" before you can expect to be accepted. That's what most of these guys haven't done, and very few of them (if any) are in the same calibre as Einstein, or even Witten, Susskind, Hawking, Guth etc. They are good scientist (Tom van Flandern is an electrical engineer), but they haven't come up with anything startling, despite what may have been written in that article....which devolved into some rather flowery metaphors and nostalgic "yesteryear" nonsense on more than one occasion.

Most of their work would sound reasonable, it has to otherwise they'd just be complete crackpots and not scientists. However, because it sounds ok doesn't make it right. No does everything that "mainstream" says is correct. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about theory matching observation and making sense in both. Or, in some cases, observation matching a previously proposed theory (or not). If the theory doesn't match the observations, no matter which way they're interpreted, it doesn't matter how "pretty" the theory is....it's wrong!!!. You either go back and play around with it or discard it. If it does match, then you can say that given what we know, the theory is correct.

People get the misguided idea that because these guys come up with a better sounding idea or whatever, they must be right and everyone else is wrong...and/or they've discovered something different no one else knows about. It's not that at all. A careful look at their theories and the observations will show quite clearly that all they have done is reinterpret the data that's already at hand....nothing more or less, and added some of their own ideas to this. Most of them don't work because their is, at the very best, only circumstantial evidence for their interpretations. They also bring up previously discredited ideas or processes/procedures in order to justify their ideas....or invent new ones. That's OK, however it doesn't mean they get a tick for being right again...things get discarded for a reason, procedures/processes don't always apply to every situation or have fallibilities which are well known.

It can be hard to get past the consensus of the general scientific community with new ideas, but it's not impossible. If those new ideas make sense and can be verified.

[Jarvamundo]

News to me there....



B.S. in Mathematics, June 1962, from Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH. Attended onGeneral Motors scholarship, 1958-1962.
Graduate work in astronomy for one year at Georgetown University, Washington, DC1962-1963, on a teaching fellowship.
Ph.D. in Astronomy from Yale University, New Haven, CT, June 1969, specializing in Celestial Mechanics. Dissertation: "A discussion of 1950-1968 occultations of stars by the Moon". Adviser: G.M. Clemence.

Feb. 1963 - Dec. 1983: Research Astronomer, Nautical Almanac Office, U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, DC. Title: Chief, Celestial Mechanics Branch
(yes that's 20 years as a professional research astronomer with USNaval)

Jan. - Apr. 1971: Consultant, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.

Oct. 1997 - Oct. 1998: Contractor for Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, MD on Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver performance and the inclusion of relativity in the GPS.

Carl you continue to grossly misrepresent both the science and these men. You show you haven't the foggiest of Flandern's work.

Again this is another advertisement to read for yourselves.

"the guy who believes in the Face of Cydonia"

Again... if you actually knew the history, Tom was a skeptic who designed tests to falsify the Mars theory.... if the Mars idea upsets you, that is ok.... but the method and reasoning used can be found from the Horses Mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkXsQbaDg5g

Unfortunately this is just an easy thing to "fling" at someone, for those who seek to dismiss a career. Quite sad really & relevant to some of the insulating points you raise in this thread Craig.

[KenGee]

Another observation is the heavy use of youtube to prove their points... Anyway Alex I will be interested in how your going to spin this...http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp

[avandonk]

I vaguely remember a story told to me about Einstein. One of his very keen students got him alone and boldly stated there were only three people in the world that understood quantum mechanics and one of them was in the room they were in. Eistein dryly replied 'apart from you who are the other two?'.

Bert

[CraigS]

Yeah ... you're right Bert.
If I'm gunna put on my Heterodox hat on, I should take more time out to learn up on the Cydonia face thingy.
:sadeyes:
Cheers
(:P:))

[CraigS]

By the way ...

Here's another one I'm having difficulty with ..
Does anyone (incl Alex) know the origin of, and hence the validity of this:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

??

Should we accept the signatures on it as support for the statement ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

I wouldn't worry about it...it doesn't have much to do with science, at least not as the story of that object unfolded. More to do with conspiracy theories and such. But, still, it is a fascinating story and object.

[Jarvamundo]

Craig that statement was published in New Scientist with the signatures.

The scientists who published that statement (including Halton Arp, why not email him again?) continue to investigate alternative models. You will notice most of the "cosmology quest" documentary interviewee's are on that signature list, and many other scientists with links to their university pages.

http://www.cosmology.info/

But hey, that's only if you like to read stuff for yourself...

[Jarvamundo]

I don't believe in the face of mars.

I understand tom's reasoning though (and have actually read his books), and i can't disagree with the reasoning, but maintain a skepticism.

I am however able to separate this very small part of Tom's work and actually learn something from him about celestial mechanics, for which he is a well respected expert.

This was my only point. The irrelevant "crack pot" jibes just advertise *how* you approach your readings.

It's called *pseudo-skepticism*.... an example of this is to go read the book reviews on Amazon for Halton Arps "Seeing Red"... the ONLY negative reviews are from people who acknowledge they did NOT read the book.

but of course they "know all about this crack pot"

As we have now seen the Halton Arp V Plasma Cosmo V EU argument implode (Carl might not know but Thornhill presented together with Arp at University College in London). You've also (maybe) now seen the documentary produced by him, and the conference papers where he continues to publish, and the New Scientist published letter.

How did we? well just buy reading for yourself, from the horses mouth.

The mis-information from establishment can at times be rather disappointing. In my brief experience, this is not uncommon.

[sjastro]

[SIZE=2]

The signers of the document should take a crash course in basic physics and how mathematics is applied.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I'd be very wary of that statement. There's no way to verify it unless you're a subscriber....although Alex will say it's genuine and look at all the signatories.

Just checked their archives....there are a few articles on the Big Bang, one by Lerner (that maybe it...it's dated 22 May 2004). That being the case, I wouldn't be too worried about it. It's just an article preaching to the converted and in any case, New Scientist isn't the paragon of scientific virtue or probity, it's just a popular magazine. What's more, when were most of these signatures entered...unless you went deliberately looking for it, you'd be unaware of its existence, so I'd say most of these were written around the time of the article.

[renormalised]

In any case, the BB was already in existence, in its basic form, long before any of these so called "fudge factors" existed, so what's the problem. None of their competing theories can adequately explain the observations made (especially the Horizon problem and the flatness of spacetime, for a start), so where's their great answers.

[Jarvamundo]

It's a conspiracy!!!

Why not email Arp again, ask him if he signed it?

Email Narlikar to take a basic physics course & math (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJayant%20V.% 20Narlikar&field-author=Jayant%20V.%20Narlikar&page=1) too.... maybe he could start by buying one of his own texts

hahah... man you guys are funny....

[sjastro]

Sorry that the sarcasm went over your head.

OK explain to me why Narlikar's work is any "less fudged" than BB theory.

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Hah... got me...

Re: "less fudged" Just a few photos he didn't ignore: http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905

I'm surprised you didn't get a copy in exchange for your brilliant Arp Catalog photos?

I'm still puzzled on the mechanism for the intrinsic redshift tho and continue to explore mechanisms for it.

Current BBT affords me no avenues to pursue here, hopefully it may someday.

We both know if the developing galaxies end up at a non-redshift distance, then much of BBT falls over.... I'm not convinced of the 'chance alignment' explanation and continue to follow the identification programs developed by Fulton at JCU.

Cheers,

[renormalised]

Now we're resorting to trying to be funny are we Alex??

You can't even get the context of people's statements correct, so how do you expect to understand anything being said here...I'll give you a hint....Cydonia.

[sjastro]

Fudge factors are an anathema to science.

For example if I have a theory that gives the following theoretical predictions (a, b, c, d) but Joe Bloggs finds the experimental values to be (a+1, b+1, c+1, d+1), then according to our fudge factor friends all I have to do is add +1 to the theoretical values and hey presto theory agrees with experiment!

If science was only that easy.
Adding a fudge factor tells me absolutely nothing why the theory was wrong in the first place or the physical significance of adding "+1".

When comments are made that Inflation theory is nothing more than an elaborate fudge factor shows either a degree of ignorance or a distortion of the facts.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

I'd say it's a combination of both....ignorance and distortion.

Alex can't explain the so called "fudge factors" because he doesn't understand them in the first place and won't explain anything he's been challenged on for the same reasons. How often have you challenged him to explain Narlikar, for example??? I've lost count.

[Jarvamundo]

I just find it hard to believe you carl, since most of what you said on Arp, Flandern, Lerner, Thornhill, upon inspection, is patently false.

Unfortunately your pre-emptive psuedo-skeptic-jibes, when inspected only reveal gross-misrepresentation, these have only created skepticism when listening to the sites 'self-proclaimed expert' speakings.

I resided here (IIS) for almost a year, before checking things for myself. Funny thing is, it was Arp in the first place which lead to PC.

So the absurdity of your "something about EU/PC" rant made me fall off my chair.:lol:

SJ on the other hand, although we clash heads on relativity, often sticks to details, something i at times try in vein to do, whilst dealing with your grossly misleading 'crackpot-rants'.

It'll pass tho... i hope...

[sjastro]

I think the number must be approaching the values discussed in the thread on Archimedes.:)

Steven

[renormalised]

What's this....hit and run tactics, Alex. One minute I'm here, next I'm not. We're still waiting on all these explanations........

[renormalised]

At the rate things are going, they'll approach asymptotic proportions very shortly:)

[Jarvamundo]

Steven knows very well the problems i have with the Sagnac experiment. I'm happy to discuss these.

The straw man is to then bring in the relativity transforms, that work, to try and setup a conflict with my interpretations of Narlikar Vs Sagnac experiment.

As i mentioned regarding intrinsic redshift i continue to investigate models for it: Narlikar's variable mass being the first (obviously, since it's the one Arp worked with).

BBT on the other hand flat out ignores intrinsic redshift as "chance alignments"....

I don't know where to go from here?

If you look at the photo and say.... well yep... thats clearly infront of the galaxy, or connected to it.... then what option do you have?

The only option offered up is to pump me full of sky survey results to cloud out the relevance.... unfortunately if "1" quasar is infront of a galaxy... it needs to be addressed for me to take you seriously.

[renormalised]

Still waiting Alex, or are you just hiding behind your own ignorance, hoping we'll forget or it just goes away. If you can't explain the "fudge factors", if you can't explain the challenges then why bother posting at all. All you're doing is making a mockery of this forum and yourself. It's no skin off our nose because we're not the ones having to justify ourselves. You've made statements to the contrary of accepted, mainstream science and now we're asking you to back them up yourself...not post umpteen links to this or that...especially YouTube vids and crackpot sites like Thunderbolts and Holoscience. That's not backing them up. You may have read some journal articles (or given that impression...you did talk about "polling" articles over at thunderbolts because you found reading the actual articles tedious and time consuming...meaning you didn't understand them), but there's a big difference between reading something and understanding it.

No, you back up your statements with your own explanations. Give us the theory and the workings behind it...now you're going to be put under the same scrutiny as any scientist would. As both Steven and myself have on many occasions...and as quite a few of the others here as well have been in their degrees. If you want what little credibility you actually have to remain intact, then you'd be wise to either put up or shut up.

[CraigS]

I agree with Steven in that the statement contains some pretty extreme wording and some fairly blunt reasoning.
Even I was surprised by the incongruity of what the signatories' life work stands for, and the spin of the wording.

Which is why I'm questioning its legitimacy !
One of the signatories - Thomas Gold, must've been on his death-bed when his name was associated with it. (Within a month or so).

The ownership of the site has also changed exponentially since it was published. Those who created it seem to have intentionally covered their tracks extremely well. Which is strange when others are prepared to declare their support by disclosing their vitals for all to see.

Why would they do this if the 'system' persecutes them in the first place ?

It's like the Monty Python knight ... I'm OK .. I can still fight on !!

Cheers

[renormalised]

It's precisely that, Craig.....a Monty Python skit.

I doubt it is legitimate.

Or, if it was, there's a few people there willing and wanting to risk their careers and reputations on what is basically poor science at best.

[CraigS]

The other option would be to research the anomaly to see if it can be explained within the context of current thinking. There are lots of other options to explore before 'jumping ship'.

I haven't seen anyone really trying to do this although, the scientist who wrote the paper that started this thread has published some serious observational studies about NGC 7603 etc. AND made the point that he's not going to step into static space theories etc to explain it.

I actually like that approach, myself.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

Yeah...Fair call Craig.... i have tried that... and will continue to...

Unfortunately this one represents a death blow to current theories.

Which is why you get the LOUD "it's a chance alignment" rant, "so just ignore it".... "here look heres a million quasars that are not related to that galaxy"....

Fortunately for us inquisitive laymen there is no financial repercussions to jumping ship. For that reason we form impartial observers.

As it turns out... from sometime absorbing PC is actually quite well down the path of investigating these ejections and quantized redshifts.... so hey maybe BBT will meet up with it somehow... although i doubt it.

We would not expect to receive any wisdom on this from establishment rants, they have clearly revealed to be misleading.

[CraigS]

You know, I could be accused of throwing petrol on a smouldering fire by creating this thread. And I notice that Alex only chooses to 'strike' (and agitate) on these types of threads.

Why didn't you do the same to Carl's EU thread, Alex ? That was the best place for you to 'duke it out', surely ?

All I want to do is to explore some of the fringes to gain an appreciation of how mainstream theories stand up (or otherwise) in the eyes of those who do real science and explore the solidity of current thinking. I'd like to understand the science behind their perspectives.

I could stop creating such threads but I've chosen not to. There is a lot of value which comes from this approach, not only for me, but many others too, I'm sure of that. The value devolves rapidly when ideological arguments dump all over them.

Sorry for the bluntness but I'm in a hurry.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

FYI - This site is operated by Professor Hilton Ratcliffe - SA

http://www.cosmology.info/

The same statement can be found there.... the group is active and runs a newsletter... this is where Arp, Hawkins etc present.

[CraigS]

Thanks for that. Will look into it later.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

Why? He mislead over Flandern in this thread.

Have also corrected Carl on the EU-Arp thread too.

[sjastro]

I'm highlighting the logical fallacies of your own arguments. If it's a staw man then why don't you refute it. You have been given so many opportunities.

Here is something else to ponder. Narlikar's model like any steady state model is based on a metrically expanding Universe which conflicts with PC.
So how does Narlikar support PC? Yet another massive contradiction.

Steven

[renormalised]

Well, then Alex, we want to see your derivations of the experiment and why you have the problems you do. You're always "happy to discuss" the theory, but when you're challenged to explain yourself (as above, in Steven's last post) you run away in the opposite direction. The only person putting up strawman arguments here is you. Like said, all the links to wherever are not going to absolve you from the argument. It's clear from all of this, including the vast majority of the same things happening in every other post here, that you do not have the capacity to back your arguments up. We are not interested in anyone else's arguments about the matter, we know what some of the other scientist are saying because that's what we've studied (you seem to think we haven't studied this stuff ourselves) in our own degrees. What we want to know is your own knowledge of all of this....can you explain what you're on about. You have been the person making the "alternative" views the poster boy for these threads by barging in on our conversation and making grand pronouncements. So it's all in your court. Make your case.

There is no relevance to your "arguments" you have put up and the sky surveys and the subsequent work done on and from them have shown this quite clearly. You have been told umpteen times why the results of Arp's work and others on this have been found wanting, yet you persist in thinking otherwise. You don't know where to go from here because you don't know where you've come from to begin with.

[avandonk]

As this is called the sociology of cosmology I want you all to contemplate how our ancestors did it.

The ancient Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians, Australian Aboriginals and very early Europeans all did the experiments.

The evidence was clear for all to see! The Sun and Moon went around the Earth. The stars did as well. There were a few wandering stars that moved relative to the other stars in quite a bizarre pattern.

Epicycles were invented to explain the motion of the planets. These perfect spheres of glass carried the ever more complicated motions that were observed.

The one paradigm that blinded even the best thinkers was that we were the centre of the Universe! It was obvious as it was in the scriptures.

You all know how many were burnt at the stake or forced to recant for even stating that the Earth was not at the centre of the Universe.

We are most probably just as limited in our understanding. This does not mean any whacky idea is better than the slow progress of peer reviewed science.

Peer reviewed science is not based on assumptions given to us by ignorant goat herders. Nevertheless even our basic mathematical assumptions are a bit dodgy as Godel pointed out in the 1930's.

I find it remarkable that a random system can throw up complexities to the stage where elements of the system can contemplate itself!

We are just beginning to understand how order can come from so the so called chaos of non linear interactions. The fact that the Universe is fractal helps. Patterns can evolve from very simple systems.

These are just the musings of a bloke who thinks we can and should do better given enough time.

At the rate we are destroying our spaceship Earth by wasting it's resources and destroying the very environment that gives us all life. I do not think we will get much further.

It is impossible to survive when we have destroyed all the natural ecosystems that have and should be nurturing us.

The cockroaches will take over!

We must be better than cockroaches or are we?

Bert

[Jarvamundo]

I was pointing out that your argument of my interpretation of Sagnac seemed unrelated Narlikar? If this understanding ("3rd observer") of apparatus sets up a contradiction, i am not yet aware?

Yes - my understanding is that Narlikar's cosmo requires matter to be created and hubble expansion continue.

PC (to my knowledge) would be exploring energy/resonant structures of matter, ie plasma buckyballs, nanotubes as a mechanism. Also variations in mass (not matter) due to environments. Yes, ENE would suit.

The thread you mention, where i raised Narlikar as an alternative, is the absence of Quasar Time Dilation, this seems consistent with both of the above... Narlikar & ENE PC.

Big Bang (current form) does not at all.

[renormalised]

Too right Bert......if we were to entertain every wacky idea that came along, we'd be living in some sort of fantasy world where nothing was really understood and everything goes. Even the Church dominated Ptolemaic world order would've made more sense than that!!!!.

[Jarvamundo]

nice post

[CraigS]

I know that Ned Wright is one of those who is 'on-the-nose' over there at EU however he seems to have provided a reasonably current update (Jan 2010) of Narlikar's QSS vs the CMB findings:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

It would seem appropriate to counter Ned's counter, wouldn't it ?

We wouldn't have to take the quantum leap of faith into EUs world, if we stick to the mainstream BBT/CMB arguments against a key mainstream theory underpinning the EU/PC ideas.

I'll start it off ... at the end of Ned's paper, he states:

"It is very clear that the QSSC CMB angular power spectrum model proposed by Narlikar et al. does not fit the CMB data."

(Mind you, I'm not sure I'll understand the answer .. I'm having a hard time understanding the Graph axes, but I'm willing to play catch-up).

And so ... ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

Your blind devotion to a "3rd observer" which was brought up on an anti relativity website by an individual who stated that Sagnac was right despite admitting to having no understanding of the maths that indicated why Sagnac was wrong says it all....

The "3rd observer" has been demonstrated to be a nonsensical argument.

All you have succeeded in achieving by justifying the "3rd observer" and endorsing Narlikar in the same post, is to be more contradictory.

Steven

[CraigS]

Ok, so I'd like to see Alex's response to Steven's (& my) last posts. I don't want to let this post interfere with the flow of that one however, I might be waiting a long time, so I submit this one in getting back onto the main flow ..
I followed up on Alex's lead yesterday:



What a menagerie ! Following some posts Prof Ratcliffe's board, I found the following: (Fyi, as background 'arXiv' is where I go to find quality science papers which sometimes result in my threads):

"The stringent rules now applied for arXiv candidate papers are impacting ever more seriously on the listing of papers by new authors or on topics that are even slightly off-centre. There is a definite “old boys’ club” emerging in the arXiv hierarchy, and this is reinforced by the requirement that any submission be endorsed by approved endorsers in the specific category in which the paper is to be archived. Where would an author gain access to such endorsers? At the suggestion of Chuck Gallo, We would like to appeal to those of you who are approved endorsers to let us have your names, contact details, and categories in which are permitted to endorse. We will display these in a list, and authors trying to get onto arXiv can make direct requests for endorsement to the relevant persons. If you are willing to participate, please send your details to the editor."

"Old Boys' Club", eh ?... Sounds suspicious, to me.

So then I also found a site created by one of his 'Alternative Cosmology Group' colleagues. It is intended to be a place where alternative science papers can be published without the 'discrimination' cited in the above quote. It is called 'viXra'.
Note: viXra.org is not connected or affiliated in any way with arXiv.org

"It is the stated purpose of viXra to accept all reasonable submissions of scientific papers. However we reserve the right to reject or withdraw papers and we are likely to do so if we become aware of the following:

Vulgarity, Racism, Potential libel, Plagiarism, Misleading information that could be dangerous, Commercial Marketing Hype, Copyright violation, Multiple submissions of essentailly the same work"

And that's about all they do to scrutinise these seemingly legitimate 'Science' papers. It contains about about 228 papers over the one year, for which it has been up & running (lots of revision papers included in this figure, also).

They go on about how they don't discriminate on a scientific basis etc, etc. I looked thru some of their papers. Some are rubbish .. half completed studies, ideas only, etc. Some might be legitimate having some scientific basis, but who knows which is which ?

Then I found another site .. 'snarXiv.org' .. and then 'snarXiv vs arXiv'. It turns out that snarXiv.org papers are generated by a kind of artificial intelligence software which results in almost nonsense papers but written in such a way that an unwary reader might accept its contents as legitimate ! The 'snarXiv vs arXiv' site is a test to see if you can pick the bogus paper generated by snarXiv - not as easy as it sounds !

My point with this one is: how easy it is to find easy access to (sometimes), seemingly legitimate research, and then go blindly forward with 'believing' it.

How does one separate the deception from the fraud ?
... Alex ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

I took the test a while ago. I think I was ranked as potential PhD material but it included a lot of guesses.:)

Steven

[CraigS]

I was doing well but because of the small sample size, I decided to push it a bit further and go to 20 questions ... and because I'm not so good at adding up, I overshot and did 21 questions (its also kind of addictive !).

My result?

7 correct of out of 14 .. Good as a monkey !

:sadeyes::(
:):P
I hate science !! I hate PhDs !!!
Phooey !

PS: The site is: http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/

[sjastro]

50% right and being classified as a monkey seems rather tough:).

Steven

[renormalised]

Got 70 out of 113 right...62%....I'm an undergraduate according to it:):P

There's a pattern to where the right and wrong answers will turn up.

[CraigS]

I ain't givin' up yet !!! I'm a gunna beat this puppy !!

40 correct out of 62 (65% - Undergraduate).

Tah dah ... !!
:D

That's enough ! Phew !

(I'm not sure it adds the numbers of questions up correctly, either !)

Howz about it, Alex ?

[renormalised]

It's a case of the further you get off the well beaten track, the murkier things get and the less reliable they become. In most of these "alternative" sites there's a great deal of absolute rubbish and you'd be surprised how much of it comes from scientists...just tossing wild ideas out onto the wind. There's also a hell of a lot of nonsense from "amateurs" who have little or no idea of what they're doing or on about. But very occasionally you get a gem in amongst the dross...very occasionally, mind you (they're exceptionally hard to pick, though).

[renormalised]

It's a "video game" for scientists....."spot the dodgy paper":):P

Should have a gun or something you can shoot the choices with!!!:):P

[renormalised]

Don't ask Alex to have a go....he'll think it's serious!!!:):P

[CraigS]

The "Alternative Cosmology Group Monthly Notes" site make it very murky. They take a mix of arXiv peer reviewed papers, (which seems to be how Arp, Hawkins, etc, get quoted as giving support to them), viXra non-scientifically reviewed papers and a new one: "Prespacetime Journal" and roll it all up to look like its all coming from a reputable peer-reviewed source.

Prespacetime Journal's charter reads:

"Note that this journal has a policy of willingness to publish controversial work as-is, along with open peer review (in the same or ensuing issue), for authors who elect this option. However; the editors do reserve the right to require reasonable scholarship in all submissions, to be considered for publication."

... So in this case, what's the difference between this and good 'old-boy-networked, discriminatory', arXiv ? The process repeats itself and ends up being from another 'old-boy-networked' perspective - just a different bunch of 'old-boys' !!

Come on guys ... this approach is just plain old subterfuge !

I started out this thread making the point that these guys, perhaps, deserved a chance ... but all this approach will do is dilute funding without providing any value in resolving any Astronomical/Cosmological issues and allow spin-doctors to have a field-day !

Cheers
PS: Apologies if you're left saying 'told-ya-so' Craig. I have investigated with an open mind and yet again .. it has led to nothingness ! It was worthwhile 'having a go', none-the-less.

[renormalised]

This sort of thing is precisely why we have very rigorous peer review processes in journals such as MNRAS, ApJ, A&A etc. It's to keep the science honest and to make sure that what science gets into journals has some oversight, is sensible and backed up by not only theory but also strong empirical evidence. It's not about weeding out alternative views or theories, it's about making sure those views and theories make sense and are verifiable. It's not about allowing any old wild, speculative idea to be published, especially when it has little or no backing on any front. And it's not about allowing science (of any sort) to be debased.

There's a time and place for speculation and wild ideas, but it's not the recognised journals.

[CraigS]

Ok....so;
I've launched the thread, played the Heterodox, investigated Hilton Ratcliffe's site (South Africa), interacted with Alex about Narliker, Sagnac, etc looked into 'Alternative Science' archives and journals, tested ourselves (a quick delusion check), asked a few questions of Alex (no answers yet .. that's OK .. we'll wait).

There's only one thing left that's a bit scary ... Alex's message from way back ..


Ok, so here's the stats (remember it was published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004, so its been open for signing for 6.5 years):

Original Signers: 34 (6.3% of Total)
Scientist & Engineers (since originals): 218 (40.1% of Total)
Independent Researchers: 187 (34.4% of Total)
Others: 105 (19.2% of Total)
Grand Total: 544 (That's over about 6.5 yrs .. 84 signings per year).

Observations:
i) Many URL links seem to lead to dead-ends.
ii) Some lead to some really way-out types (even Alex might agree with this classification).
iii) Some signatories cover areas other than Cosmology/Astronomy. Eg: medical - alternative medicine, etc.

Conclusions
i) It would seem that 544 signatories over 6.5 years wouldn't represent a very large proportion of the total Cosmo/Astro related scientific population.
ii) Its likely that the 'Others' category have no scientific background and are unlikely to understand what they signed.
iii) Almost by definition, 'Independent Researchers', must also not have either a 'Scientific or Engineering' background.
iv) That leaves 252 'Scientists, Engineers' and 'Originals' who would have a very widely varying understanding of the statement and includes some from other than a Cosmo/Astro background. 252 out of all the Engineers and Scientists would probably represent a very thin slice of the total Engineers and Scientists working in Cosmo/Astro related areas world-wide, anyway.

I am now comfortable in saying that the majority of Scientists and Engineers are probably happy with the Big Bang and Cosmology where it stands today, or they are unaware of 'Alternative Organisations' or their Open Letter, which would seem unlikely also.

Cheers

[renormalised]

And in any case, how many engineers v scientists.....and what are engineers doing making statements about a subject very few (if any) of them would have a good enough understanding of. It's much like a biologist telling a mechanical engineer that he's wrong about finite element analysis of stressed metals in gears. Next to no engineer works in a scientific field such as astronomy, and especially astrophysics/cosmology etc. They're not trained in that field to begin with. About the only connection they would have is in designing the mechanics for the instruments.....mountings, buildings etc. Or, if they were electrical engineers, they'd help design the instruments themselves. But that's as far as it goes. It's only the likes of Peratt and Scott who think they have some sort of unique insight that allows them to come over all "expert" about other fields they have little experience in.

[CraigS]

Most Engineers are versed in classical Newtonian/Keplerian Physics - static, dynamics, etc. Others such as Electrical Engineers are also trained in classical sub-atomic physics: EM & particle theory, photonics, semi conductor physics, high voltage plasma physics, etc. Then there's signal processing theory topped up with pure and applied maths training including various data processing theory such as Fourier Analysis, z & Laplace transforms, etc. And that's just Undergraduate stuff.

Whilst this thread isn't about Scientist vs Engineers (been done at IIS before), I wouldn't dismiss the background or competence of Engineers who move into pure research and theoretical Science. Admittedly there's a learning curve but not one that's going to take long.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Cheers

[renormalised]

I'm not saying they don't have good physics or maths training, they don't have the necessary astronomical theory behind them. If they went and did astrophysics, quantum mechanics, relativity etc etc, they could handle it, but that would mean another 18 months to 2 years of undergrad just for starters...or they could do a combined coursework/research masters degree to catch up with the undergrad stuff and to get the required research training, and then do a PhD. Your "joe average" engineer doesn't have the background to be able to do research in astrophysics/astronomy etc. Not until they do more study. Like yourself, if you wanted to really get into this, you'd need to do whatever bits of a BSc in Astronomy or Physics you needed to get the background (have your BE credited towards your BSc...you'd probably only need to do 18 months) at the very least, or a Masters before you went on further. Your Masters will take 2 years or so. Then it's your PhD, which is nominally 3 years. So, by the time you finish, you're 90 years old and $100K in debt:):P:P

[renormalised]

Then you spend the next 10 years paying everything off!!!:):P

[CraigS]

The cost and the net age at the end is the same, regardless of whether you pitch from a BSc or a BE.
:)
Cheers
PS: The spin applied by the Perratts, Scotts, etc however, is the real issue.

[renormalised]

Precisely, and it's spin that has little scientific basis, when you really take a close look at it. Like I said, he maybe an electrical engineer, but he's no astronomer or theoretical physicist.

[xelasnave]

What a neat thread...most enjoyable and entertaining:thumbsup:.

We all like to put things in boxes and organize stuff to fit our beliefs etc. but it there any point to trying to box humans such that they fit our predetermined stereotypes.?

It may or may not suit reasonable purpose to define folk as belonging to one camp or the other however when one looks at the folk who have caused and driven change in science (and many other areas) I think the individual under scrutiny hardly fits into either of the boxes provided in the original post herein.

Often humans have a mix of qualities that makes quantifying their ability difficult..they may be intelligent but have terrible flaws such that you would not take them home to meet Mom...;) few humans are perfect and not subject to differences, as perceived by others, which may bring casual negative judgment.

Looking at all the great men thru history I think it would be hard to fit any of them in a box so as to label them this or that for they all are individuals with abilities and flaws that simply make them unique.... I for one refuse any box and find it somewhat a trivial approach.

AND qualification is subjective... I have no doubt that some would have ranked Dr A as a crackpot whereas others ranked him as the smartest man to date (that date and later no doubt:D)... who was he:shrug: ...a man ...no greater or less than another:eyepop: ... he would have found the boxing of a human as distasteful as I find it to be.

The determination of folk to be the next Dr A on the one hand or to seek whatever recognition they deem relevant will always be a given... thats the human male thingy happening..simple... but such pointers to character are not relevant to the assessment of the correctness of their idea.... a smart man can have a bad idea and belief it worthy just as a stupid man can have a good idea and believe it irrelevant.

Men will always hunt the top gun for a show down and therefore in the area of science why should it be difficult to accept that anyone may wish to be better than the top gun of the business...it is silly but understandable given the nature of human males...

It takes all types and there is not enough boxes to differentiate the subtle differences that exist between humans.
AND so I find it quaint that even in science the argument is so often against the proponent of the idea and his character rather than the merit of the idea... so often folk attack the character of the person presenting a dubious idea rather than debate the issue upon its merit.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

And so, recognising that's what humans do, would it not behoove the presenter of an idea to adapt their stance, (change their box), if not to at least appear as though they are agile enough to understand the stance of others, before soliciting their feedback or support for their ideas ?

I don't see that agility all that often from 'ideas men'.

And yet human BEings are able to BE anything they choose (and least intellectually, that is).

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Hi Craig I think you hint at the necessity to consider the politics and the presentation ... no doubt one would find it hard to act on professional advice if the giver of advice is unshaven poorly dressed and half drunk even if that advice would prove to be sound...also one must walk the walk and talk the talk fitting to the profession one represents... and so I think your comment valid.
Continue posting thought provoking and informative material.:thumbsup:
alex:):):)