The Sociology of Cosmology

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....s/viewpost.gif
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.

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 (Alex)]

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 (Carl)]

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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

nice post

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

At first glance it looks like an average webpage from the arXiv preprint server – a website where researchers upload their papers before publishing them in a scientific journal.
But with article authors including “C H Fermi”, “S C Boltzmann”, or “L Heisenberg” you could be somewhat suspicious whether it is indeed authentic.
The website is snarXiv and has been created by David Simmons-Duffin, a PhD student in high-energy physics at Harvard University. It randomly generates titles and abstracts in high-energy physics taking into account the latest trends in the subject and presents them in an identical way as the arXiv server does.
Simmons-Duffin writes on his blog that he does not remember exactly why he decided to set up the website. However, he claims that it does serve some purpose.
For example, Simmons-Duffin notes that if you are a graduate student you can “gloomily read through the abstracts, thinking to yourself that you do not understand papers on the real arXiv any better”. And if you are a post-doc then you can keep reloading the webpage “until you find something to work on”.
Simmons-Duffin has even made a game where you have to spot the real title from the randomly generated one (the real one being a title from an arXiv paper and the random one a title from a snarXiv paper).
Try it for yourself. I managed to get 5 out of 8 correct, which ranked me rather unkindly as an “undergraduate”. (Other ranks include “better than a monkey” or “worse than a monkey” and it seems the top rank is “Nobel prizewinner”.)

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 !



I hate science !! I hate PhDs !!!
Phooey !

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

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by 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 !



I hate science !! I hate PhDs !!!
Phooey !

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

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

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

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

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 ... !!


That's enough ! Phew !

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

Howz about it, Alex ?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

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

Tah dah ... !!


That's enough ! Phew !

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

Howz about it, Alex ?

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

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

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

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by 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).

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ..

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...

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 (Carl)]

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.