Announcing ... 'Dark Flow'

[CraigS]

So, Robh posed the question:


Well, here's one answer …
Dark statistics (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-dark-statistics.html)


So, now we have to contend with 'Dark Flow', the uneven expansion of the Universe !!
The saga continues !!
:)
Cheers

[marki]

Oh Crikey,what next dark fairytales :rolleyes:.

[renormalised]

I'm half expecting Darth Vader to turn up with all this talk of "Dark......".

I can just hear him now, "The ability of your telescopes to find dark energy is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force" <<<raspy breath>>> :):P

[renormalised]

Everything is becoming "dark" this and that. Now, dark statistics. Well that's only natural considering that the statistics is only as good as those that perform it, the input parameters and the methods they use. Now it's "dark" they'll really stuff it up good and proper:):P

[alpal]

**

[alpal]

There is a video on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTna9D3nIY

Also Wikipedia:

Dark flow is an astrophysical term describing a possible non-random component of the peculiar velocity of galaxy clusters. The actual measured velocity is the sum of the velocity predicted by Hubble's Law plus a possible small and unexplained (or dark) velocity flowing in a common direction.
According to standard cosmological models, the motion of galaxy clusters with respect to the cosmic microwave background should be randomly distributed in all directions. However, analyzing the three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data using the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, astronomers Alexander Kashlinsky, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Kocevski and H. Ebeling found evidence of a "surprisingly coherent" 600–1000 km/s[1][2] flow of clusters toward a 20-degree patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.

[Dave2042]

Interesting. I think the idea has been around for a while, but this seems to put some more substance to it.

I'm not an expert at all, but I think one potential counter to this is the suspicion (on the part of some), that the whole universe is actually much, much bigger than the visible universe, and so the characteristics of the visible could be an entirely misleading picture of the universe as a whole, which would seem to make this issue go away.

Fire away at my half-baked thoughts.

[tempestwizz]

My simple understanding has it that the galaxies are not MOVING further apart. It's just that the space between them is increasing, hence there is no 'flow' as such.

[alpal]

From my limited understanding of the video -
there must be a very large mass beyond the area in question pulling the galaxies towards it.
The mystery of the universe deepens.

[Dave2042]

Yes and no, as I understand it. Generally speaking, cosmic expansion is indeed space getting bigger, and not anything actually moving within space.

However at smaller scales, things definitely move within space.

I thought that the anomalous flows here are indeed things moving towards large but unidentified masses. Any experts out there want to weigh in on whether I'm right?

[xelasnave]

Dave I think you are correct.
I seem to recall it is movement in space.
Google the great attractor.
That should bring up a diagram of the "flow" of the local group.
Alex

[xelasnave]

here is a wiki link for starters

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

[alpal]

Thanks for that link.
There is something going on that scientists don't understand.
Dark matter & dark energy really mean that we don't know what they are.
Dark flow is just the same -
another unknown.
The universe is stranger than we could ever have imagined.

cheers
Allan

[xelasnave]

Dont worry I know what is going on but in the interest of avoiding mass panic will keep the truth an absolute secret.
Alex

[alpal]

Thanks - better we don't know. :D

[graham.hobart]

so this is distinct from inflationary movement (Hubbles Law?) and the peculiar motion of galaxies in a cluster or super cluster (accounted for by gravity of dark matter?)
Maybe it's time to revise the warm matter hypothesis?!!
Or maybe someone just pulled a giant plug out???!!
:ship2::screwy:

[el_draco]

Or drank to much home brew... Thats how I find the bedroom some days....:rolleyes:

[alpal]

[QUOTE=graham.hobart;1248996]so this is distinct from inflationary movement (Hubbles Law?) and the peculiar motion of galaxies in a cluster or super cluster (accounted for by gravity of dark matter?)
Maybe it's time to revise the warm matter hypothesis?!!
Or maybe someone just pulled a giant plug out???!!
:ship2::screwy:[/QUOT

E]




I have heard so many explanations for dark flow -
the most far fetched was another universe unlike ours except
that it has a huge gravitational attraction in the direction mentioned & is pulling
that whole part of the sky towards itself.

Also - could it be an anomaly caused by a large area of empty space making so much dark energy
that it's pushing that area of the sky away from us?

I will try not to lose too much sleep about it.

cheers
Allan

[DarkArts]

I've said this all along: the universe sucks! What's has recently become apparent is that some parts suck more than others. :P

[alpal]

But is the question of dark flow causing you to lose sleep?

[Dave2042]

Yes. Great attractor is exactly what I was thinking. Thanks.

[Dave2042]

Not sure if I agree. Certainly there is something we don't fully understand here. But it doesn't strike me as particularly unimaginably strange. As I see it, the most likely explanation is simply that the entire universe is much larger than the visible universe, and consequently has larger inhomogeneities than we can see in our little bit.

Interesting, wonderful, but hardly unimaginable.

[alpal]

Dark matter, Dark energy & now dark flow -

it's certainly hard to imagine & then you have to wonder what the universe is expanding into?
It seems to be expanding into itself.

If you can imagine & explain that then you need to get a Nobel prize.

[Dave2042]

Actually, this is reasonably well understood. The universe is not expanding into anything. It's just expanding. And several of the people who contributed to the understanding did indeed get Nobel prizes. So a mediocre intellect such as myself can just read up on as much of it as I want to understand.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting it is perfectly understood by anyone, let alone myself. But it is not a complete mystery.

[xelasnave]

I cant get my head around the Universe expanding but there is no outside so I dont even try but such a situation would not offend the concept of infinite is so far as you can double infinite but it is still infinite.
I do find however when I think of the Universe I am on the outside which does not help.
I look at the structure, filimentary nature of galaxies and their line up, and wonder if it could be a giant nervous system or similar and we are less than a virus...
Thank goodness I do not form beliefs about stuff that last one is very odd.
Alex

[alpal]

I don't think anyone understands it really -

it's outside our normal 3 dimensional world of senses.

Space time - adding that extra dimension of time -
is hard enough to understand - it's bizarre but real -
yet alone a universe expanding into itself.

[markbakovic]

I spent about 4 hours writing an attempt at clarifying some of these topics on Saturday night but TL;DP. It's not that unusual: we deal with more than 3 dimensions all the... time :)

[alpal]

TL;DP ? please write in English.

cheers
Alpal

[markbakovic]

Too long; didn't post. Related to TL;DR "too long; didn't read" which would have been the expected response. I just wanted to say expanding universe isn't hard to imagine if you just... and there didn't seem much point since what I had in mind was simple but seemed to require too much explaining what I meant (cos I don't know how much cosmology is assumed knowledge). The extremely short version is "think of time as a spatial dimension", but that statement on its own is probably unhelpful. Sorry.

[alpal]

OK - when you've worked out how to explain a universe expanding into itself then please let us all know.

[markbakovic]

k, be careful what you wish for:

Howdy all, long time lurker, first time poster (sorry for the lack of further introduction), but I might be able to help a bit here.





Think of the surface area of a (perfect) balloon: at different pressures its surface is stretched by different amounts, but never needs to expand into some other area. Don't get too hung up on the balloon as a 3d object with a 2d surface; the point is that the surface forms an unbounded (it has no edge) but finite (anyone with a pi key on their calculator can tell you its area) space, and some underlying property (the air inside the balloon) would cause it to increase, moving points on it further apart, and some other property (the air outside the balloon) would cause it to decrease.

I'm sure most of you have heard this analogy before, but maybe there are some ways in which it seems the analogy simply falls down (it is only a simple analogy after all) and it's easy enough to wave away questions (like "so is the universe expanding because it has one less spatial dimension than the space it resides in?") with an instruction to disregard that part of the analogy, just like I did a few lines ago. But we don't always need to.

The surface is 2D, the volume of the balloon is 3D, and this is what allows the surface to curve back on itsself and have no boundary. Do we need the universe to reside in a container, perhaps with a greater number of spatial dimensions? No. If you imagined yourself as an inhabitant of the balloon surface, maybe the surface is conductive and you're an electron moving freely, but only along the surface lattice, then you could circumnavigate the balloon and end up where you started without finding the edge of your 2D universe. But you'd have traced a circle in the 3 dimensions an observer of the balloon sees, right? Well I don't think its helpful to try and imagine a viewpoint external to the universe, as that's the whole problem we want to avoid (since we keep being told it's not possible). More importantly, we don't have to if we want to relate the 2D analogy to 3D reality: we have another dimension available and that is time. Lets say the universe is not expanding and you set off in one direction to circumnavigate it, like the electron in the conductive balloon. Will you get "back to the same place"? No, because you will have taken so long to go anywhere (relatively speaking) that no part of the universe you travel through will ever bear any resemblance to the place you started out from, even though you may actually wind up meeting the same protons (unless they turn out to have a half life too) several times. Time is the dimension in which the space of our universe is curved.

Does it sound as if I've cheated a bit? I mean, you may be familiar with the lycra-sheet demonstration of "spacetime curvature by massive bodies" where a physics teacher plonks some weights on a stretchy surface and makes marbles "orbit" them, and this is a great way to visualise why, say, massless photons follow curved paths around gravity wells, but extending this (other, but related!) analogy to the "real" universe and saying you can circumnavigate the entire universe but you won't know when you've finished sounds a bit... unfulfilling, right? Well, that's exactly why it's not a bad analogy. The universe, in this respect, is rather mundanely exactly as strange as we imagine (i.e. a little bit). The mass around which the spacetime of the universe is curved is just all the matter in the universe, the paths of all photons form closed orbits of the mass forming this gravity well (a better way to put it is the universe fits inside its own event horizon for the simple reason that the constants and relationships that define an event horizon are the properties of exactly this universe). I don't even need to point out that in a universe expanding as rapidly as ours seems to be the "circumnavigation" part is a total non-issue, as the balloon is being inflated faster than it is possible to travel along its surface (the observable universe is about 93 billion lightyears across but only 13.8bn years old).

I'm going to leave that there, as the "what's it expanding into?" query is all I really wanted to address, but there are a whole host of ways to relate cosmology to strechy fabric that can be quite informative. Distance is one I would gladly touch on in much less detail: galaxies are getting farther away from us as the universe expands, but it is the space expanding and not them moving through space. A distinction is usually made between ("proper") motion due to the object moving through space and an observed receding motion due to the expansion of the universe (which are not always trivial to disentangle): "redshift" can mean many things in different contexts. But if you try to use texta marks on a balloon to illustrate this: how do you know they're "further apart" when the balloon is inflated? with a ruler? c is the ruler? But if space is expanding and space is really spacetime so time is expanding and c should be useless to measure this, right? But there are other rulers, like energy states and binding energies of hydrogen atoms, which don't depend on how long a meter or a second is. In fact if you think of redshift not as a doppler effect due to relative motion, but as a decrease in energy (not that energy is lost, you're just observing less of it) of the photons you can see how its possible to quantize everything, even expansion rates, distance and, ultimately, time, in terms of energy: the one yardstick that's (afawk) invariant under all known universe topology modifications...

OK, so finally to the reason for my post: "Dark". Specifically flow, but generally energy and matter too. It just means as-yet-not-directly-detected-but-predicted, which is important to remember. It made sense with dark matter (we see all other matter by its emitted/reflected/absorbed "light", even if it's just reradiated as IR etc. but there seems to be this matter, without any light)... Now why you'd expect a flow to emit light... I mean if the galactic centre mass excess ("dark matter", pre hypestorm) had *somehow* come before general relativity gravity waves would probably have been called "Dark Waves(TM)". My point is that half of cosmology is predictions of effects that haven't been observed directly (yet), but then the same is true for most of science. Yet the popsci press often gives a lot of weight to ideas and calculations that may be related to other work which gets no press. The one I'm thinking of here is that the fine structure constant is strongly suspected to vary across the universe (spatially and/or temporally) and it's embedded in G, remember, so we don't need to suppose a differently inhomogeneous universe beyond what's observable to get clusters of things behaving noticeably differently to "the norm". That's not to say that discoveries of same wouldn't be momentous achievements, but just that we don't need to go supposing radically different bizzarro universe just beyond what we can see because of them. That's actually as valid a conclusion to draw as that we see every galaxy moving away from us not because the universe is expanding, but because the earth sits exactly at the epicentre of our universe and we have always been the centre of everything. Our patch of sky is big enough to be a representative sample, especially since there are secondary effects of almost any extreme solution to these sort of unknowns which are the reason they remain unknown (so eg dark flow: if it's real and due to vast mass concentration outside our observable universe we should expect everything in the observable universe to be orbiting it, but orbital motion would result in galaxy redshift being polarised: we'd be orbiting in a plane so the galaxies above and below us would be systematically more redshifted than galaxies ahead or behind us and galaxies closer to/further from the mass concentration would have elongation-dependent redshifts relative to us, none of which is observed (afaik), and in fact these sort of systematic trends would be very obvious in things like CMB, which is such an old, low energy signal that anything affecting galaxy speed in an isotropic way should show up there... and we're back to "dark", again...). Personally I think it's just a rather spectacular supercluster in the early stages of formation, quite interesting from a "population statistics on non-rotating black holes" perspective potentially, etc. etc. but not exactly requiring a rewriting of "what we thought we knew about the universe"...

Also, you can't actually double infinity. Mathematical manipulations that involve such things are just placeholders for "so large it no longer changes the result of this calculation (appreciably)"

Can I pick up my prize in January? I'm busy in December.

</copypaste>

It should be interesting to dig this up in 5 years and see if I still agree with myself...

[xelasnave]

Thank you Markbacovik, may I call you Mark?
I am glad you decided to post and I thank you for taking the time.
I hope we can look to you for guidence in the future.
Most of all may I welcome you to the forum.
Alex

[Dave2042]

It really depends what you mean by explain.

I think there are three broad things you might mean.

1. We have a set of equations that describe the process pretty well. Essentially the idea is that the metric, which tells you how far apart things appear to be, is changing, so that things seem to be getting further apart without moving. The metric is internal to the manifold of space-time and requires no 'background space' to be meaningful. This is all 'just' maths (sometimes referred to as the 'shut up and calculate' view of physics), but I think it counts as a real form of understanding/explanation. The description is good, and we can calculate and observe all kinds of interesting consequences.

2. We can interpret the equations as meaning that the universe is expanding, though not into anything, and that the universe is 'curved' or 'warped'. This is fairly removed from our day-to-day experience, but it seems a fairly reasonable conclusion from where I stand. You can see light curving - this is the warpedness. Blowing up a balloon while standing on the surface is a reasonable illustration of the expansion with fewer dimensions. As to what the universe is 'in', I don't see the need for anything 'outside', particularly since no one has ever glimpsed it. If you can't visualise 4-D spacetime, or a non-embedded manifold, then fair enough - they are difficult abstract concepts. But generations of maths and physics students have successfully absorbed the concepts to a reasonable degree, self included. I find this personally to be a good 'explanation' that I 'understand'.

3. Finally you can ask what is 'really' going on. Here you are outside physics, and indeed science. The generally accepted reality is that you can do maths and experiments and just leave it at that (point 1 above), or you can come up with a useful way of visualising or interpreting the maths and experiements (point 2 above), and that's it. There is no way I've ever heard of to meaningfully understand physics, other than to do maths and experiments and try to sum it up in a useful interpretation. If you insist that 'really' is what you need, then I'm not sure anyone can help, and I'd suggest your bar may be set a bit too high. Or maybe you are doing philosophy, which is not a field I really know a lot about.

[markbakovic]

I think taken to an extreme philosophy comes to the conclusion that in the end the only reality is what we perceive, and there are fairly low limits on even the degree to which we can truly agree on a collective perception of reality. So point 3 boils down to points 1 and 2 anyway: consensus and distribution of their results amounts to the "global" perception and hence is as real as anything can get for us. This of course can be taken to imply that reality changes over time, but the philosophical argument would run "prove that it doesn't then..." which is exactly what 1 and 2 try to do: rewrite past perceptions in light of new information.

To me that's not troublesome at all; small children have a hard time coping with a world without absolutes (when is it ok to lie? never! but then why did mummy say daddy doesn't look like a potato now that his hair's falling out? mummy is a Bad Person because she LIED!) but we become comfortable with an uncertain world eventually. Asking the questions is illuminating, needing the answers to be absolute is just a great way to be disappointed. So I guess a "complete explanation" should be a recasting of the question to include as much as possible that is currently known and thus better point to what is currently unknown. That would mean a mix of both point 1. (the part with assumed knowledge) and point 2. (ideally with as little assumed knowledge as possible) in repeated iteration. The result of doing this as many times as possible either approaches point 3. given infinite time, infinite grad students on typewriters and infinite episodes of Cosmos/youtube videos with a physicist named Brian in them (if you take "reality" as external), or is, by definition, point 3. if the definition is as I've wished for above.

To me that way preserves more of the "sense of wonder" and is thus motivating to keep asking questions. But otoh I can see how the whole "you can never be sure anyway" realisation can make the whole thing seem futile if you dwell on it, though I like to think that as a species a lesser reliance on absolute truth as the carrot to motivate critical thinking is the more helpful direction.

(and thanks for the welcome Alex: of course! It just seemed silly to do the brackets thing given my not-so-pseudo-nym)

[xelasnave]

So what is going on with the attractor?
Alex

[alpal]

Thanks Mark,
a nice attempt & it shows our current knowledge & theories.

It's all quite strange.
Consider that when we look out from our galaxy - no special place -
there are galaxies receding faster than light which we will never be able to see.
Anyone in those galaxies would see the same as us - other galaxies
receding at close to the speed of light & obviously theorise others they couldn't see
moving faster than light.

So - the universe is expanding faster than light!

cheers
Allan

[billdan]

Well we have Dark matter, Dark Energy, Dark Flow, now we have also Dark Radiation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-03/dark-radiation-may-be-speeding-up-expansion-of-the-universe/7472074

All very confusing.

Bill

[alpal]

Nice post - thanks.

[avandonk]

I reckon Andrei Linde has a few good ideas. Not all cosmologists agree with him.

This is one of his lectures


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9MVVPmApt4&list=PLx-Oo_jv5d9cHazEQhgRpWSQ3oXCPprj-&index=53



It is just one of many on cosmology lectures in this set looking at all the knowns and unknowns.

I have been attempting to get up to speed on all of this. I will most probably die not being too much the wiser.

This is real Physics folks not philosophy.

This is also worth a long look.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hIao4I4vsE&index=26&list=PLx-Oo_jv5d9cHazEQhgRpWSQ3oXCPprj-







Bert

[alpal]

There are plenty of ideas:
here's a recent short paper:

An Explanation for Galaxy Rotation
Rates without Requiring Dark Matter

http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0218v2.pdf

[Eratosthenes]

The author (Declan Traill) just manages 3 pages, inserts a one sentence conclusion and includes a massive list of references numbering two, both of which are authored by Declan himself. There is even a URL reference to some Wikipedia data.

I didnt realise that this article existed.

I am convinced - totally :)

[alpal]

You are not required to be convinced -
you only need to know that there are about 200 different theories
about dark matter including some which
say that it doesn't exist at all.

[Eratosthenes]

there are also many theories concerning the geometrical shape of the earth

Do you sieve through them one by one before you settle on the most plausible or scientifically supported theory?

I really need to know this alpha

[alpal]

No - I just post a link to something which may be of interest in this thread.

[xelasnave]

Hi Peter it is so nice to have you back.
I sincerely hope you are well and life is good for you.
I can answer your question but it is probably not very mainstream.
Of course you sort thru and pick your favorite "theory" particularly if it supports your view of cosmology.
I know a chap who has a paper using an ether and because I have always liked the ether idea if I was to refer to any paper it would be his.
The only trouble is his idea on ether is different to mine but what do you do.
He has shot himself in the foot really calling his "theory" an ether theory because mainstream dont need it and dont like it because the current model did away with the need and I think it causes frame problems but I dont understand so dont ask me to comment.
I have been hanging out at sciforums of late where they get all types, it is different to here.
Here we are nice to each other but over there they throw mud as if the world had unlimited supply. They get many folk who get to be called cranks who attack mainstream and then the mainstreamers attack them anger is common insults common and bullying common.
It is indeed a fun place. And you can discuss religion and politics and even ghosts and ufos.
So you get some strange folk.
If you like to question the unquestionable it is the best.
There is one guy who holds ligo was fake, gravity b probe was fake and another who thinks we never went to the Moon. But they put up a lot of science news.
Anyways when you select your favorite "theory" in a too selective way it is called "cherry picking" and really it is the way to go because with it and the net you can gather "facts" to support anything you like or attack anything you dont like.
Over there they were getting into a ligo is isnt thing but the main opponent just got banned for continued insults to me. Does not like me and I think he is a sock puppet of a guy who believes I am the anti christ. So it takes all types I just never thought I would find them all in the one place.
Good to see you back I hope things are better this time around.
Alex:thumbsup:

[Eratosthenes]

so Alex, you seriously gave the Flat earth theory some rigorous attention before you decided to dismiss it as a plausible theory to include in your final top 3 candidates?

I dismissed the tetrahedral Earth geometry right off the bat, but gave the cone shaped earth theory some consideration - about 3 minutes. Both these theories didnt make my op 3 though Alex.

You have a lot of explaining to do my friend.

I leave the joint for 5 minutes and you run amok with metaphysical and surrealistically distorted nonsense.

:D

[xelasnave]

Well the problem is this Peter.
I understand cosmology better than other humans and given I am so far ahead of the current mainstream concensus it would seem arrogant on my part to present models which probably wont be embraced by main stream for at least three or four centuries.

But I will give you a hint.
The model that has the Universe atop of a giant turtle supported by massive piers is closer to the reality than you may imagine.
But keep that to yourself, I only returned to this century because I forgot my glasses on an earlier trip and now I cant find my keys to my phone box.
I just want to leave before the..... Opps I cant tell you the fate of the planet you would only find that depressing.
Xela

[Eratosthenes]

...deep down inside, everybody knows the fate of the planet

[xelasnave]

Have you asked everybody or are you extrapolating upon a unpublished survey?

Try thinking "Independence day" with an unhappy ending or the turtle going well er going turtle up.
Alex

[alpal]

Upon re-reading -
do you have your own theory which we can all put to the test
or do you just want to criticise other people?

[Eratosthenes]

some things are just innate - science isnt really needed for validation. In fact science sometimes hinders the emergence of truth and contaminates the reality ether to the point where it is totally unrecognisable.

The truly important properties and aspects related to awareness and truth are independent of the scientific process.

Scientists, especially Physicists aren't fooling anyone. They should admit the religious aspects of their church and apologise to their congregations and to the public in general.

:D

[xelasnave]

Science is not about truth upon my understanding, it is better than that.

It may seem well hidden but the idea is that science is never really sure about anything in so far as, unlike religions, it is allways ready to embrace a new model.

Now we could be harse and critisize our physisist friends but it is their task to develop the existing models and what may flow from them and demand any proposed new model answer the unanswered problems in the old model and make better testable predictions and ensure we will need more physicists to run the new model.

Well I threw in the last bit to make you happy but you can believe that part if you wish.

And of course we can to a degree parallel the institution of science with the institution of the church in the regard that science has rules, and proceedures which can be treated as somewhat sacred in so far as if we do not follow certain rules and proceedures we will be cursed in that we will lose a system that slowly but surely enables us to peel back the layers of ignorance and show a reality which without science would always remain hidden from us.

And I certainly agree physicists are not fooling anyone because they publish their findings, which means their peers will expose all and any mistake, so their work ultimately is entirely exposed to the public.

And indeed they should appologise for being so demanding of any model presented and cause progress to be slowed just because they see fit to insist upon everything being as correct as possible.

As always Peter we are in complete agreement but your hero worship I say is not misplaced.

Alex

[Stonius]

I think one of the most revealing properties of religion is that over time, it tends towards divergence in what is considered 'true', where over time, science tends towards consensus.

[Eratosthenes]

"nothing else matters" (Metallica)

[xelasnave]

Dependable wisdom from a rock band from the eighties.
Kill em all

Alex

[xelasnave]

Kill em all (metalica)
Just to clear up any confusion there Peter.
I have been thinking maybe we could start a new thread and discuss the "issues" surrounding mainstream science.
You seem to be a blinkered supporter of mainstream so it would be good to have you participate and defend the possible criticism .
I have been following a discussion in which the point has been raised that maths has been wrongfully elevated. And concern was expressed that "science" is difficult to get into and the person presenting that view hinted that if you did not "toe the line" you would have no chance.
Look to prevent us causing this thread to go off topic I will open a new thread so I hope you can join me.
Alex

[xelasnave]

I have started a new thread.
Alex

[Eratosthenes]

not a bad idea

however, it is far more effective when a global approach is taken and any objections to science and its methods and conclusions are inserted in the appropriate thread, within the appropriate forum section at the appropriate time....in the fullness of time.

we wouldn't want to isolate this very critical narrative to an obscure section of this fine establishment now would we xelA? A form of cognitive sterilisation

(that's what religious organisations do)

:D

[xelasnave]

Actually Peter the thread I referred to at the other forum has raised very interesting points, some reminds me of things you have said in the past.
It does not upset me but science has changed over the years from the individual working away all alone to finally come up with something really great whereas these days it seems only big teams who are funded have a chance.
Alex

[Eratosthenes]

have a chance to do what?

Do you know of a single idea that has emerged from more than one person?

Even in the team and partnership environment ideas emerge from individuals. The advantage of teams is that complex problems requiring different skill sets and disciplines can be tackled.

My issue is not with the scientific method or the techniques used but rather the politicisation and especially the corporatisation of scientific funding leading to mediocre goal settings and avoidance of Big Ideas and dream type challenges.

The CD laser disk was invented over 40 years ago by a researcher in a Philips lab even though there was no use for it. The Researcher (James Russell) was often asked "why would anyone need so much memory capacity on an expensive thin disk spinning so fast?"

In today's environment not many projects are funded that dont have short to medium term applications. Too much risk - and when I say risk I mean stock-market-corporate risk to share holders. And this mentality has transferred itself to government policy, academia and other research bodies.

Of course there are exceptions and individual researchers and inventors working independently - but there is only so much that can be done without proper funds and access to equipment/laboratories etc.

Generally I find the scientific community a little boring these days and need to dig very deep to find interesting research.

Paul Dirac gets a Nobel prize over 80 years ago for work done in a PhD completed in his early 20s (Dirac actually predicted the existence of an anti-electron purely based on theoretical work). Compare that to a recent Nobel Prize won by a few scientists for inventing the blue LED.

Countries such as China and India are more likely to fund radical scientific research projects than countries like the USA. Ironically, this may motivate Western nations to be a little bit more bold in scientific funding (like they used to be)

cheers

:D

[xelasnave]

Very interesting Peter and I thank you for taking the time to present such a well considered post.
I doubt if there is much we can do to get past the politics etc other than maybe some fund that gives out without expectation of a return.
That has been done in the past but I ca not remember who or what they came up with but stuff came from folk just being able to explore things with no pressure to make a buck.
But even if we had such a fund do you think it would work the way would like, maybe maybe not, so I just dont know.
I complained to a crank that it is one thing to bag GR but he needed a model or at least direction before he sort to throw out the current model.
And heck in this day and age what do you do. The rent has to be paid and those holding the money need to have some idea that mo ey invested comes back somehow with a profit.
And although profit sounds like a dirty word it is probably better to think of it as a term that is an easy way to measure benefit for time, effort and materials used.
Its not art where all you expect is something that has only the object of letting us stand back and say... er yeh thats cool it reminds me of that time I lost my socks in the car park... I dont get art so I find the benefit to effort ratio unsatisfactory.
But science who really is happy with Edisons throw away line that he had worked out 1000 things that dont work.
And I doubt if he would have been happy with one single failure because he was firstly a business man so he would have been very aware of money in money out rules.
But I dont know, what would you change or would you resist change such that science should be like it was in the old days.
We may be the only folk concerned, so we better come up with some workable ideas.
Alex

[Eratosthenes]

The problem is not specific to the professions of science and engineering etc. Corporatism has permeated most areas of the community and social infrastructure. The political system, charity groups, churches, education, health etc.

Science was one the first to be infiltrated by the short term unaccountable corporate and banking ethic (if you want to call it an ethic - scam is probably more apt a description).

What can we do about the direction Science is heading?

IMO you cant tackle the directional problems in science in isolation. There are institutional and structural problems within society and the way the economy runs and is set up that need attention. Politicians call it reform - a code word for making the elite Oligarchs even richer and more powerful whilst making the middle and lower classes pay for everything and have their security and standards of living diminish over time.

Classic class warfare....and you can see how it operates by the funding mix and ideological interference in basic scientific research and development. What projects are funded, where the money is coming from, who pays, who benefits, who takes the risks, who pays for financial and environmental disasters when they occur....etc...etc

who cares right?

:D

[xelasnave]

I dont know how to respond Peter other than to say that corporation approach is probably better than say human dictatorship as corporations are built from laws and although they get away with a lot they are proba ly more accountable than say a human dictator.
A compa y is somethingbuilt out of law. It must define itself under the law setting out what it can do or cant do, and many corporations have share holders to spread things out as opposed to a dictator.
However corporations yield their own problems. Getting to call any company now has one listening to a list of options with an invitation to press a number which represents the box into which you must fit.
I spent hours trying to speak to a real person at telstra, I got the number thing, but I could not talk to a human.
I am not sure how I finally got one but I think it was because I a swered a survey.
However the human solved my problem in under a minute.
If one ran a small business in such a fashion you would not keep customers but a corporation says to itself this approach saves money and reduces the need for wage taking humans so computers are now all you can talk to... But what do we do? What can we do? I do think things are probably better and certainly there are those at the top who get more than us at the opposite end believe they deserve but finally they are paid to be human. If not for them the machine would have all the power.
I trynot to let things upset me so I say there are things that I dknt like but really I dont know how I would run the world if put in charge.
Free gaming machines maybe.
How would you manage a world full of humans.
And sorry to Craig the op author for being off topic in your thread.. Are you there Craig?
Alex

[CraigS]

No.
:P :hi:

[xelasnave]

I didn't think you were there.:hi:
Alex

[xelasnave]

I am going bush so I may not be here when I get back.
Alex

[Eratosthenes]

Actually there were three forms of fascism to emerge from the 20th century. Boslhevism, Nazism and Corporatism. They all control the flow of information within their societies.

Have you seen the documentary The Corporation? In the words of Charlton Heston "you may not like what you find"

Have a look at some of these statistics concerning the good old USA

Corpocracies in the USA.

The Crown’s Corpocracy (until 1776).
…………..Pseudo Democracy (89 years)
The Robber Barron’s Corpocracy (1865-1901)
…………..Pseudo Democracy (20 years)
The Flapper Era Corpocracy (1921-1933)
…………..Pseudo Democracy (17 years)
The Cold War Era Corpocracy (1950-1980s)
The Current Corpocracy (1970s – ongoing)


Corpocracy 5
Democracy 3

Corpocratic fascist Rule in the USA since 1776: 112 years
Pseudo-Democratic Rule in the USA since 1776: 126 years

In the USA there has only been 37 years of Pseudo Democratic rule in the past 150 years.

And within this period, slavery and segregation based on gender, race and skin colour has existed.

.....things are not what they appear to be xelA

:D

[xelasnave]

I agree Peter that things are not the way they appear in the sence that each of us constructs our own reality.
I have no doubt that folk like myself can only guess at what really goes on in the world.
I have noticed that the only way I can get a hint of what is going on is to apply my "follow the money" rule.
Also I don't fool myself that fairness prevails but rather vested interests all compete to protect their own interests.
I am happy that the world functions somehow with out me having to help out.
Alex

[Eratosthenes]

I am more interested in the focus and direction of resistance within society and the dissemination of facts and important issues via a truly independent media that values the profession of investigative journalism, rather than rambling on about some Utopia or social paradise were everything in perfectly just and fair. The very least that we can do as a society is to uphold the values and morals most people know to be important. They tend to be innately understood by humans and on the surface very simple, but nevertheless are very powerful in collective effects.

I suppose the issue is deeper than just politics or psychology - more a huamanist imperative for survival.

:D

[xelasnave]

We can't really talk about this stuff here, its off topic, and a full discussion will cover, I expect religion and politics.
We will breach the rules.
But keep vigilant and switch off your GPS.
Alex