Social Networks & Galaxy Rotation

[CraigS]

Found this today. Not quite sure what to make of it, but it seems legit:

"Can Social Networks help the progress of Astrophysics and Cosmology? An experiment in the field of Galaxy Kinematics. By Paolo Salucci"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1190 Submitted: April 2010.

"This paper is crucial part of an experiment aimed to investigate whether Social Networks can be of help for Astrophysics. In the present case, in helping to eliminate the deep- routed wrong misconception of Flat Rotation Curves of Spiral Galaxies, more rapidly and efficiently than the traditional method of publishing peer-reviewed papers and organizing a number of international conferences. To reach this goal we created the Facebook Group "Rotation Curve are not Flat " that we filled with all the evidence necessary for an immediate and definite confrontation with the above fallacious legendary belief. In this paper, we solicit the interested Astrophysicist/Cosmologist FB users to join this group. Finally, the paper informs the Astrophysical Community that a widespread belief is instead an hoax, whose consideration may slow down the progress of science and that must be taken care by innovative means of communicating scientific advances. This test case may anticipate the future in which Web n.0 will become an effective scientific tool for Astrophysics."

and then ...

"In addition, the presumption of perfect flatness of the RCs was incorrectly considered as a consequence of the nature itself of particle dark matter. It was later realized, after the measurement of thousands of high-quality RCs that these rotation curves actually show large variations with radius, and that a similar outcome is predicted within ΛCDM theory the commonly-accepted scenario of galaxy formation. In the early 90s, the FRC paradigm was abandoned by researchers studying galaxy kinematics, but not entirely by the community at large. These more accurate observations came too late, however, the legend had 15 years to spread among the larger scientific community of cosmologists and extragalactic astrophysicists, and has left in it a strong permanent mark. Of course, several papers describing the correct observational scenario were published, but they were outnumbered by works in which the old paradigm was maintained as a generic and casual statement."

i) Do we have any legend believers out there ? and;
ii) I can think of a faster way to test the Social Networking hypothesis ...

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

You would have to define what flat was....no rotation curve on any galaxy is completely flat. Just a quick sample of a few galaxy rotation curves will see that this is not the case. They're not entirely flat to begin with, even if the average velocity of the rotation curve produces a relatively flat line outside of the nuclear regions. The flat line is a "typical" idealised rotation curve. Most spiral galaxies do follow it to a degree. But then again you have to remember that universe is made up of more than just spiral galaxies. However, most galaxies do not show a Keplerian rotation curve and the rotational velocities do not drop off in accordance with Kepler's 3rd Law. That means there must be either more mass outside of the orbit of the Sun (in the case of our galaxy) or the spiral arms of the other galaxies...and/or...gravity isn't working in they way we'd normally predict and has to be modified to account for the rotation curves seen.

As for the social networks, I think they're a good idea but facebook isn't the way to go. Not for this type of discussion and not in that sort of forum. They would be hounded by all sorts of crackpots and nutters and nothing fruitful would come of the network.

[CraigS]

I've just been pouring through the facebook page.

It seems that there's a legitimate discussion going on amongst scientists about the curves. The curves are published there, also.

I agree with you about the probability of the discussions getting side-tracked. !!! 346 members !!!
Should be interesting to monitor it to see how they moderate it.
I suppose if the 'experiment' gets too disorderly, they could always end it and shut down the site.

Good to see real science in progress .. in real time ... about a highly controversial issue !

The curves are really interesting ...

The guys who set up the site must be pretty confident.

Very Interesting !!!

Cheers
PS: I haven't found that any documentation which actually uses their data (4000 Rotation Curves) to disprove dark matter. That may have been a lure to get their peers to join the site. I wouldn't expect one, yet. This appears to be an experimental competitor to the 'journal peer review' system. Interesting. Cheers.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'd say that was what it was, a lure. Get some guys all worked up and they'd go there to find out what this was all about

[CraigS]

In the paper, Paolo Salucci, the author states:

"we ask all scientists studying theoretically, observationally or by computer simulations the fields of Dark Matter, Galaxy Formations, Properties of Galaxies, Alternatives to Dark matter, Detection of Dark Matter, Cosmology and similaria, who are in FB to join the group "Rotation Curves of Spirals are NOT Flat"
...
and we ask the same kind of scientists who are not on FB, and any astrophysicists interested, to browse the above group, but especially to seriously consider the claim around which such group has been built and, if it is the case, to look at the supporting evidence in the papers provided below.
This paper sets the experiment, the results will be published in due time."

I found another 'blog' page by a 'Sarah Kendrew' - a postdoc astronomy in the Netherlands, (my sources are goin' downhill fast, folks ), who says this about the whole experiment:

"So yes, I do cautiously believe social networking can have an effect on science policy – maybe not for astrophysics on its own, but on broader issues we do have a voice.
I think Salucci’s idea is really good. But the way it’s currently outlined, it won’t allow us to conclude anything. If Salucci would like this to be considered a real experiment, I’d like to see it described as one."

I agree. Good words.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

I agree with Sarah. It will be good for science as a broad issue canvassing medium and for general discussion in all the disciplines, but as a clearing house for papers, no. That still needs a peer review process with careful consideration of the articles and the science that's in them. However, I can foresee the network being a lively arena for debate, though.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I agree with Sarah. It will be good for science as a broad issue canvassing medium and for general discussion in all the disciplines, but as a clearing house for papers, no. That still needs a peer review process with careful consideration of the articles and the science that's in them. However, I can foresee the network being a lively arena for debate, though.

Just to balance up my original post with some other views, Sarah's take on all this is at:
http://sarahaskew.net/2010/04/11/spr...ook/#more-2057

A graph of the Rotation Curves which sparked all this, is also at the top of her article.

Cheers
PS: This is the 'take-home' for us, at IIS:
"That’s the fantastic thing about social networking: anyone can connect and participate, everyone has a voice, and everyone’s voice is equal. As for control, yes, some moderation is required. But from what I’ve seen on, say, the Galaxy Zoo forum (surely a great attractor for crackpottery!) this is perfectly manageable for a small number of people." ... Hmm ... perhaps we should have a look into that ... Cheers.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

As far as Social Networking goes I have seen many times the amount of distruction it can cause. IMHO social networking is a bad idea so my opinion is biased.

A highly moderated site like this is far superior.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

As far as Social Networking goes I have seen many times the amount of distruction it can cause. IMHO social networking is a bad idea so my opinion is biased.

A highly moderated site like this is far superior.

That would be one of my concerns with something like this. And, with a bunch of highly intelligent, highly learned, opinionated and argumentative people on the one site it could be cause for all sorts of barneys!!!!

[DJDD]

surely there are forums already in place that would include discussions of this nature, without resorting to "facespace". facespace discussions usually degenerate or are difficult to follow when threads split off.

"social networks" are no substutue for peer-reviewed journals.

[renormalised (Carl)]

No, they're not and I wouldn't go replacing them with social networks. Like I said earlier on, things like facebook would invariably attract quacks, cranks, crackpots and people trying to push ideas that have no basis in fact. The place would be overrun with them and it'd ruin the whole experience. One or two of them on a site like this is bad enough, let alone having them all turn up on your network and raving on like a bunch of lunatics.

[CraigS]

They seem to have been fairly cunning about the way they've structured the site (& hence, the conversation). It seems that one is limited to discussing only the Rotation Curve graphs and there are six or so moderators, (all gurus, it seems).
There is a general section where a general comment about the whole thing can be made but most interactive discussions seem to be about the RCs. And the content is pretty intellectual without any mud slinging ..

Still, if we were to try it here ... ??? !!!
!! Not !!

Cheers
PS: The guy who created it is attempting to speed up the peer review process. Apparently it can take >1 year to get a paper published. He may be onto something, here. Can't stop progress. Good to see someone having a go (even if it results in a 'barney'). And we get to be voyeurs !!
Cheers & Rgds.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Being restrictive like that wouldn't stop some of the nutters from making a meal of things there.