Order of Kilopi
[Moderator Note]
This thread has been created by splitting posts from the SN 1a data ruling out "all" cosmologies? thread
[/Moderator Note]Originally Posted by Cougar
These divisions are on the same floor in the same building. It is an historical fact that major breakthroughs in scientific theory are most likely to be the result of someone working in a peripherial field of research.
Established Member
Please support that claim. E. g. by listing what you consider to be "major breakthroughs", who made them, and showing that most of those people worked "in a peripherial field of research".
Order of Kilopi
(my bold)
Even if you could successfully defend this claim, why do you think something like this might be happening in this case?
To ensure that we have all relevant facts to hand, please give an indication of how you would estimate how many times "somebody working in a peripherial field of research" has failed to result in a "major breakthrough in scientific theory".
Order of Kilopi
I started by looking at Discovery's top 100 discoveries in a half dozen areas - Here is an example of Items in the top ten:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (1824 – 1850) - (Engineers)
Electromagnetism (1807 – 1873)
Oersted - teacher - was actually demonstrated electricity and magnitism are not related!
Special Relativity (1905) - Patent Office clerk
Superconductors (1911 – 1986) - Chemists - after physicists said it was not possible
Rules of Heredity (1850s) - A monk
Evolution - a boat's Botanist
Anesthesia (1842–1846)
The earliest experiments with anesthetic agents — nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and sulfuric ether — are performed mainly by 19th-century dentists - not doctors. Dentistry evolved in the 1700's from barber's.
Germ Theory (1800s)
French chemist Louis Pasteur - chemist, not a biologist or physician, most of whom dissed his theory for decades.
Sulfa drugs
Gerhard Domagk - dye chemist
Continental Drift (1911)
Alfred Wegener – Meteorologist
Oxygen: Joseph Priestley –clergyman
Periodic Table
Dmitry Mendeleyev - Director of the Bureau of Weights and Measures
Structure of DNA - Watson and Crick obviously deserve some credit, but so does the physicist who produced the first X-rays of the double helix
Voltic battery – Mining engineer George Stevenson - stolen by "Nobelman" Davy
Television’s Image Dissector and raster scan: An Idaho Farmer - Stolen by RCA and credited to Vladimir Zworykin.
Radio Astronomy: Bell Telephone engineers
CMB: Robert Wilson & Arno Penzias : Radio Engineers
Copernicus: Doctrate in Canon Law
Microorganisms: Microscope lens grinder Anton Van Leeuwenhoek
Obviously, where specialized instruments like big telescopes, super colliders or electron microscopes are required, breakthroughs have occurred most often within the developed community - but a lot of fruit cakes have also logged a lot of wasted scope time - including Lowell, and possibly Arp - the jury is still out on that one.
...And a few fruit cakes have made important discoverys: Tesla, Edison...
Order of Kilopi
This is indeed an interesting list.I started by looking at Discovery's top 100 discoveries in a half dozen areas - Here is an example of Items in the top ten:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (1824 – 1850) - (Engineers)
Electromagnetism (1807 – 1873)
Oersted - teacher - was actually demonstrated electricity and magnitism are not related!
Special Relativity (1905) - Patent Office clerk
Superconductors (1911 – 1986) - Chemists - after physicists said it was not possible
Rules of Heredity (1850s) - A monk
Evolution - a boat's Botanist
Anesthesia (1842–1846)
The earliest experiments with anesthetic agents — nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and sulfuric ether — are performed mainly by 19th-century dentists - not doctors. Dentistry evolved in the 1700's from barber's.
Germ Theory (1800s)
French chemist Louis Pasteur - chemist, not a biologist or physician, most of whom dissed his theory for decades.
Sulfa drugs
Gerhard Domagk - dye chemist
Continental Drift (1911)
Alfred Wegener – Meteorologist
Oxygen: Joseph Priestley –clergyman
Periodic Table
Dmitry Mendeleyev - Director of the Bureau of Weights and Measures
Structure of DNA - Watson and Crick obviously deserve some credit, but so does the physicist who produced the first X-rays of the double helix
Voltic battery – Mining engineer George Stevenson - stolen by "Nobelman" Davy
Television’s Image Dissector and raster scan: An Idaho Farmer - Stolen by RCA and credited to Vladimir Zworykin.
Radio Astronomy: Bell Telephone engineers
CMB: Robert Wilson & Arno Penzias : Radio Engineers
Copernicus: Doctrate in Canon Law
Microorganisms: Microscope lens grinder Anton Van Leeuwenhoek
Obviously, where specialized instruments like big telescopes, super colliders or electron microscopes are required, breakthroughs have occurred most often within the developed community - but a lot of fruit cakes have also logged a lot of wasted scope time - including Lowell, and possibly Arp - the jury is still out on that one.
...And a few fruit cakes have made important discoverys: Tesla, Edison...
However, it did not answer my questions.
Should I restate those questions? Which part, or parts, of them are unclear?
Order of Kilopi
Ah, the good old days. Doesn't much happen like that anymore.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
Engineers did not really "discover" this law - their experience merely told them that such a statement is probably true. The law was finally formulated by physicists.
Additionally, the engineers did in no way work in a "peripheral field of research" - they worked in exactly the field where the 2nd law is most important!
First, your "not" here makes no sense.
Second, Oersted was not merely a teacher, but a professor of physics and chemistry, who worked extensively on electricity and magnetism. Again, this was not someone who worked "in a peripheral field of research".
Einstein had studied physics and even published papers before he began work at the patent office. So this was not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Superconductivity was discovered by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, a physicist (not a chemist!), whose specific area of research was the behaviour of matter at very low temperatures. Again not someone working in a "peripheral field of research".
Whose main area of research was the variation of plants So Mendel was not working in a "peripheral field of research" when he discovered these rules. (and, BTW, Mendel had studied science, he was not merely an ignorant monk, as you try to imply here).
Er, and how does this make evolution a discovery by someone who worked in a "peripherical field of research"?!? Is this supposed to be a bad joke???
BTW, Darwin was not the "boat's botanist" - he went on board as a "naturalist" and studied lots of things during the voyage beside botany - e. g. also zoology and geology. Could you please get your basic facts right?
So what??? Nevertheless, dentists are still a kind of physicians. Again, not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Pasteur studied science in general, not merely chemistry. He also was a professor for physics for a short time. And his discovery of germ theory came from the time when he did extensive research on biological topics - this did not came as a chance discovery while he examined something totally different. So yet again, this was not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Domagk studied medicine and did a lot of research in medicine. He was decidedly not a dye chemist - he discovered the usage of dyes as antibiotics while working at the Bayer's Institute of Pathology and Bacteriology! Again, this is not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Additionally, I would not call this a "major scientific breakthrough".
I suppose you are right on that. First point for you.
Who had studied scientific topics (then called "natural history") extensively on his own (because it was not taught in school back then), taught (among other things) anatomy and went on field trips with students to collect fossils and botanical species. Yet again, not someone working in a "peripheral field of research".
He was also a professor of chemistry. Again, not someone working in a "peripheral field of research".
Yes. But that does nothing to prove your point.
You consider the development of a battery (long after the original one by Volta!) to be a major scientific breakthrough???
And what exactly do you even mean with "voltic battery"?
BTW: according to Wikipedia, Stevenson and Davy invented miner's safety lamps, not batteries, and the inventions were independent of each other. Stealing is not mentioned. Please provide evidence for that claim.
Again not a "major scientific breakthrough". And again a claim that the idea was stolen - without providing evidence for that.
Jansky worked on radio transmission. Yet again not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Actually, both worked on microwave receivers intended for radio astronomy. Yet again, not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Copernicus studied lots of astronomy, math etc. at the university and devoted a lot of his time to astronomical studies - which were his main interest, not the law. Yet again not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
The discovery of something microscopic by someone who works on building microscopes can't be called work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Summary: you got exactly one right, as far as I can see.
Order of Kilopi
It was not researchers who established the relationship, it was engineers performing a peripherial activity.
He was teaching - demonstrating that there was NO connection between electricity and magnitism when he proved the currently accepted scientific rule was wrong. Teaching is not research, it is a closely related peripheral activity.
True, but high temperature superconductivity was discovered by unfunded chemists - because everyone knew high temperature super conductivity is theoretically impossible. Likewise lasers and masers were invented by chemists who did not know any better.
At the time, monks were amoung the most educated. Screwing around with plants was peripherial to his doctrinal studied.Whose main area of research was the variation of plants So Mendel was not working in a "peripheral field of research" when he discovered these rules. (and, BTW, Mendel had studied science, he was not merely an ignorant monk, as you try to imply here).
Taxonimist observe and classify. Darwin was expected to do descriptive bean counting, not shake the foundations of civilization. Darwin was highly cross-trained in religious philosophy.
So there was not a great deal of pain in hospitals? Why didn't doctors say, "gee, we ought to be able to make this easier on the patients". Dentists at the time were not trained in physiology or human anatomy or pharmicology; they worked out of mainstreet offices, and realized they could attract more patients if they could make their work less painful.
Pasteur's bold assertion was completely out-of-step with prevailing theories of human physiology - and he was not trained as a physician. He came at the descipline broadside, and torpedoed it.Pasteur studied science in general, not merely chemistry. He also was a professor for physics for a short time. And his discovery of germ theory came from the time when he did extensive research on biological topics - this did not came as a chance discovery while he examined something totally different. So yet again, this was not work done in a "peripheral field of research".
Bayer WAS a dye chemical company that started dabbling in medical research in 1888:
http://www.bayer.co.jp/byl/english/aboutus/history.html
They introduced aspirin in 1889 - so once again, a peripherial field of experts entered the medical arena and made a great breakthrough.Bayer was originally founded in Germany as a dyestuffs company in 1863, and its pharmaceutical division was established in 1888.
http://inventors.about.com/library/i.../blaspirin.htm
Not my list, either, Discovery's list.Additionally, I would not call this a "major scientific breakthrough".
That depends on how much you limit the scope of "peripheral". I think it is fair to say individuals with broad backgrounds and/or a fresh prospective are more likely to do breakthrough science than well-established experts. This is true of Michelson and Morley, Einstien, Bohr, Darwin, Pastuer and on and on.
Like many geeks in the 50's, I grew up with my head in the back side of a television set. The arcing and sparking and general chaos I raised there was similar to much of what we see in the cosmos, but as an undergraduate in the 60's:
I was assured NONE of the cosmic phenomenon we observed were electrical in nature, because electric currents could not flow through space. We now know this is blately false. I wish I would have stuck to my guns, and wrote all kinds of papers about how it all seemed to work to me. They would have been ignored then, but seen as visionary today...maybe, there is still a lot of harrumping about how wrong the astrophysical world was about electromagnetics for decades...
Member
This is completely false. The theoretical groundwork for lasing was laid by quantum mechanics, and physicists explicitly set out to apply this theory in optical pumping and the laser. Einstein, Lamb, Kastler, Townes; all physicists. You're just making up facts to support your assertions at this point.
I am only passingly familiar with the electric universe discussions on this board, but from what I've read, this is par for the course. You correlate "arcing and sparking" with "what we see in the cosmos" and conclude that somehow, everything is "electrical in nature" (what does that even mean?). Astrophysicists are well-accustomed to working with plasma physics and electrodynamics, so I don't know what you're accusing them of doing here. I can't process what you mean when you say you were told "electric currents could not flow through space;" I can only interpret it as a naive understanding of electric current as anything that "arcs or sparks."Like many geeks in the 50's, I grew up with my head in the back side of a television set. The arcing and sparking and general chaos I raised there was similar to much of what we see in the cosmos, but as an undergraduate in the 60's:
I was assured NONE of the cosmic phenomenon we observed were electrical in nature, because electric currents could not flow through space. We now know this is blately false. I wish I would have stuck to my guns, and wrote all kinds of papers about how it all seemed to work to me. They would have been ignored then, but seen as visionary today...maybe, there is still a lot of harrumping about how wrong the astrophysical world was about electromagnetics for decades...
Order of Kilopi
Bjoern wrote with respect to Jerry's claim that continental drift was discovered by someone on the periphery, namely Alfred Wegener, a meteorlogist.
Nope, he did not even get this one right.
Wegener had a broad natural science education, which would have included geology. He earned a PhD in astronomy and then became interested in meteorology. Wegener occupied a joint chair in geophysics and meteorology. His research interests included astronomy, meteorology, geophysics, palaeogeography, biogeography, climatology, palaeoclimatology, ands glaciology. Wegener was also a member of a number of learned societies, including geology. Hardly someone on the periphery.
Jon
Order of Kilopi
Weirdly, that almost defines someone on the periphery. He didn't have training nor expertise in the field for which he is famous--which is why he didn't have the mindset that would have told him that what he was proposing was impossible. It also meant that he was capable of making errors that were easily refuted, and reflected badly on his other pronouncements, rightly or wrongly.
Order of Kilopi
Astronomy and meteorology is not on the periphery of geology? I wasn't arguing non-scientists, or tea readers or what-have-you - are responsible for breakthroughs. I was arguing major breakthroughs often occur when someone enters the field broadside.
Digital computers were not invented by the National Cash Register company, they were invented by Polish mathemeticians trying to crack German codes, and US navel artillery targeters. Windows operating systems were invented by Xerox engineers - copy makers. Oh, and the Internet was invented by Al Gore
Established Member
Bjoern has already dealt with most of Jerry's misrepresentations, but I wanted to correct a few of them myself. First off, the era before the 1800's was before the establishment of professional training for scientists. Heck, physics, as a field by that name, really only dates to the 1850's or so. Before that was the age of the amateur. By the standards of their day and in their fields, Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Darwin, Priestly, and Copernicus were part of the scientific mainstream. (addition: I'm surprised Jerry didn't include the discovery of oxygen (Lavoisier, tax collector) in his list. Of course, Lavoisier falls under the same category as Copernicus as being part of the mainstream in the pre-academic age of science. Then again, his career caught up with Lavoisier when he was beheaded during the French Revolution.)
Bjeorn has also dealt with Jerry's mistakes related to Onnes and the discovery of superconductivity. I'd like to point out one more.
Penzias and Wilson, discoverers of the CMB were not radio engineers. Both were Ph.D. physicists (Penzias from Columbia, Wilson from Cal Tech) as one can find in their CV's on the Nobel prize website. Yes, they were working at Bell Labs, and yes, they were working on radio comms with satellites. However, when they found the CMB they were taking advantage of Bell Labs then policy of allowing their staff to conduct "pure" research and were using the radio horn as a radio telescope. For the background check out Wilson's Nobel lecture. It makes it clear that they were doing radio astronomy with the apparatus. It wasn't a case of two engineers stumbling onto something by accident while they were doing something else.
So we have yet another case of Jerry not understanding the history of the field he claims to criticise.
Last edited by Eta C; 2007-Feb-08 at 10:09 PM. Reason: Add another example
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin
"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli
Order of Kilopi
[Moderator Note]
The post which Nereid is quoting is this one, in the thread from which this thread was created (by splitting out posts):[/Moderator Note]Do you mean by this, how many cracker-jack theories have been proposed?
I once knew a babble-mouthed technician who proposed a constant stream of stupid, ill-informed ideas which where quickly rejected. But every once in a while he would propose something ingenius, and an engineer would grab the idea and run it. So who should get credit for the idea? The creater of the idea, the scientist who proved it would work, or the politician who funded the project?I don't think this answers either of my questions ... would you please answer them?Do you mean by this, how many cracker-jack theories have been proposed?
I once knew a babble-mouthed technician who proposed a constant stream of stupid, ill-informed ideas which where quickly rejected. But every once in a while he would propose something ingenius, and an engineer would grab the idea and run it. So who should get credit for the idea? The creater of the idea, the scientist who proved it would work, or the politician who funded the project?
[snip]
On your "babble-mouthed technician", would it be fair to say that a direct implication of this is the more nonsense we generate, the greater the chances of finding some incredible breakthrough somewhere in amongst it would be?
Also, when your "babble-mouthed technician" did "propose something ingenius" [sic], did the tech (the author) recognise that it was in any way any different from any other of "stupid, ill-informed ideas" he'd proposed before?
Order of Kilopi
Bumping this post, as I can't see that Jerry has answered it.
Would you please answer the questions Jerry?
Order of Kilopi
I thought they were rather rhetorical, but it will be fun to answer them.
Would we have discovered penicillin if someone had not left the window open?
Vulcanized rubber if Goodyear would not have been a sloppy cook?
Recognizing patterns in what appears to be chaos is the very heart of the discovery process. Our theories do not jump out and tell us when they are wrong; and if the analystical process is always tailored around the assumption that they are right, we won't find the cracks in the theories.
Just the other day I was ask to help debug an infrared measurement system that was being kludgy. I got frustrated with the messy peripherial lab cords and stuff in my way, and took the device to my office to get it working. It worked almost immediately, but when I took it back to the lab, even after the lab was cleaned up, it still wouldn't work. With just a little more detective work we found the automatic lights in the room used an infrared beam to detect motion, and this was scrambling the reciever. In this case chaos indirectly contributed to the solution - who knows how long I would have been stuck if the lab hadn't been messy and I never moved the device.
I can give many more examples - The scientist who was trying to make antifreeze and produced a goo that plugged his drain so bad he realized he had invented the first synthetic rubber.
The fact that an engineer grabbed the idea and ran with it made it obvious. In this case, he did NOT give the technician credit, which I think was extremely callous; but it would be wrong to give more credit to the 'random idea generator' than the engineer who made the system work. If he ran with every idea suggested by the tech, he would have run himself out of a job before the good idea emerged.Also, when your "babble-mouthed technician" did "propose something ingenius" [sic], did the tech (the author) recognise that it was in any way any different from any other of "stupid, ill-informed ideas" he'd proposed before?
Much of the time, we give more credit to those who carefully log and descibe a new discovery that the often unorganized genius (or fool - sometimes it is hard to tell the difference) who spawned the discovery, such as the greater credit given to Marconi than Tesla for the development of radio transmission.
One of the most important discoveries in the development of the atomic bomb was the observation that if neutrons are slowed down, they engage in more collisional reactions. This surprising development was the result of careful experimentation, but also a willingness of the investigators to expect and inspect unexpected results; and use these results to prepare a new list of expectations.
I don't think (many) astrophysical researchers were prepared to look at the failure of supernova to demonstrate the expected slowing in the rate of expansion of the universe; and conclude there may be fundamental flaws in both theory and methodology. They simply threw in a new variable and started writing proposals to study Dark Energy. This has to change.
Order of Kilopi
They were not intended to be rhetorical; my apologies for not having made that clear at the time.[snip]
I thought they were rather rhetorical, but it will be fun to answer them.
Would we have discovered penicillin if someone had not left the window open?
Vulcanized rubber if Goodyear would not have been a sloppy cook?
Recognizing patterns in what appears to be chaos is the very heart of the discovery process. Our theories do not jump out and tell us when they are wrong; and if the analystical process is always tailored around the assumption that they are right, we won't find the cracks in the theories.
Just the other day I was ask to help debug an infrared measurement system that was being kludgy. I got frustrated with the messy peripherial lab cords and stuff in my way, and took the device to my office to get it working. It worked almost immediately, but when I took it back to the lab, even after the lab was cleaned up, it still wouldn't work. With just a little more detective work we found the automatic lights in the room used an infrared beam to detect motion, and this was scrambling the reciever. In this case chaos indirectly contributed to the solution - who knows how long I would have been stuck if the lab hadn't been messy and I never moved the device.
I can give many more examples - The scientist who was trying to make antifreeze and produced a goo that plugged his drain so bad he realized he had invented the first synthetic rubber.
The fact that an engineer grabbed the idea and ran with it made it obvious. In this case, he did NOT give the technician credit, which I think was extremely callous; but it would be wrong to give more credit to the 'random idea generator' than the engineer who made the system work. If he ran with every idea suggested by the tech, he would have run himself out of a job before the good idea emerged.Also, when your "babble-mouthed technician" did "propose something ingenius" [sic], did the tech (the author) recognise that it was in any way any different from any other of "stupid, ill-informed ideas" he'd proposed before?
Much of the time, we give more credit to those who carefully log and descibe a new discovery that the often unorganized genius (or fool - sometimes it is hard to tell the difference) who spawned the discovery, such as the greater credit given to Marconi than Tesla for the development of radio transmission.
One of the most important discoveries in the development of the atomic bomb was the observation that if neutrons are slowed down, they engage in more collisional reactions. This surprising development was the result of careful experimentation, but also a willingness of the investigators to expect and inspect unexpected results; and use these results to prepare a new list of expectations.
I don't think (many) astrophysical researchers were prepared to look at the failure of supernova to demonstrate the expected slowing in the rate of expansion of the universe; and conclude there may be fundamental flaws in both theory and methodology. They simply threw in a new variable and started writing proposals to study Dark Energy. This has to change.
I note that you did not answer either question - perhaps they are unclear?
If not, then please answer the questions.
Also, I see that Kwalish Kid has recently asked a very similar question about your babbling example:This gets back to the question of babblers. Why should we not simply hook up a computer to spout out random theories and spend our time investigating those?
Order of Kilopi
The answers are rhetorical.
The idea that lead to laser eye surgery was spawned by Woody Allen's sci fi spoof Bananas. A Russian eye surgeon, visiting New York, was struck by the fact Woody Allen was wearing horn-rimmed glasses. He thought that this was silly, because in the future, vision would surely be correctable. Then he started figuring out how.
Yes, I agree: The more nonsense we hear about inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy; the more likely a time will come when everyone will reject these obsurdities and a breakthrough will occur.On your "babble-mouthed technician", would it be fair to say that a direct implication of this is the more nonsense we generate, the greater the chances of finding some incredible breakthrough somewhere in amongst it would be?
Another way of stating the the thesis of this thread is: Dogmatic approaches are less likely to lead to new discoveries than creative approaches.
Dogmatic approaches are more likely to be funded. Peer review is by definition a dogmatic process: Bumping up a new idea against prevailing theory. Without evidence, if a new theory just explains everything we already have an explanation for, the new theory has no hope in a peer reviewed process; and little hope of obtaining funding to perform differentiating tests of the two theories.
Creative approaches include using fantasy and abstractions. Assuming right up-front something fundamental is wrong and examining the consequeces. Going through the garbage can to see if someone threw out a good idea. No one can define the limits of creative processes.
If we could figure out a natural selection process for theories; and I think we could teach a computer to do a lot of sub-sorting, that might be a good, creative approach.This gets back to the question of babblers. Why should we not simply hook up a computer to spout out random theories and spend our time investigating those?
I once came across (stole) a computer solution to the game "Mastermind", where all the computer did was create random solutions, then logically eliminate the bad ones. It always solve the puzzle in no more than the minimal logical solution set, and it was more likely to guess random configurations sooner than strictly logically seeded codes. (I won a contest in a computer class competing against other, more dogmatic, coders.)
Member
Jerry, I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit short in response you your points. It is because I am interpreting your posts as saying "Mainstream scientists get their degrees and sit on their patushkies waiting for the next grant, while the real breakthroughs are made by people not even working on the science." IOW, that most scientists either "don't have what it takes," or willingly suppress discovery and advancement.
If you mean something different by your posts, could you please clarify your position? If this is basically what you're saying, then, well, wonderful.
Order of Kilopi
No. But I still deserve some scolding - I am not diplomatic.
I know mainstream researchers grind out difficult proposals and pray that their funding will not be cut. I know they work their tails off to meet expectations (and work as much as they can on more speculative approaches than they publically propose). I also know there is a tendency to be careful and conservative in proposal writing for the very same reason. It is too easy to be labeled a kook, too easy to get funding cut if a paper or proposal ventures too far.
I don't blame researchers for this - it is a handicap of the funding system, driven by the fact that there are a lot of kooks out here. And a few prostitutes: I have seen a lot of money diverted from much more productive energy work into W's stupid hydrogen fuel gambit. Good, ethical scientists shouldn't do that.
Two examples:
A research team headed by Nilsson published a paper in ~1985 where they concluded that a certain type of supernova produced a certain type of gamma ray. This was herasy at the time, and their funding was pulled. Twenty years later, they have been entirely vindicated.
About two years ago a group of kooks said, 'I think we can use the buzzword nanotubes to extract another round of space elevator funding'. Even though space elevators have been proven engineering impossibilities time and time again, the ploy worked.
So how is funding controlled in a manner that encourages innovation and increases the potential for breakthroughs without opening the zoo? I don't think it should change - I don't have a better answer than professional funding boards like the NSF. But we should scream and holler if and when there is evidence of bad science.
I scream and holler about the interpretations of the data by supernova researchers. But at the same time, i appreciate and admire the hard work that they do - I think they are totally blindsided by bad basic theory. No, I would not advocate pulling funding for supernova studies; but we should challenge the interpretive data.
Bad Post-Doc
Jerry, I think you need to do a little study of history. There has been a fundamental shift in how humans do science in the last century or so, and it's largely because of a lot of those people you cite.
Darwin couldn't have gotten a research grant, because at the time, there was no such thing. In his day, there was only a very small handful of people doing research for a living, and I believe all of those were in the medical field. At that, most discoveries in medicine were still being made by doctors who did lab work in their spare time, after seeing patients all day.
Of course discoveries in the 19th Century and before weren't made by professional scientists; there was still, largely, no such thing as a professional scientist. Edison wasn't really a professional scientist; he was a professional inventor. He didn't care much about the theory behind things, just that it worked.
Some of the new "pharmaceutical companies" started hiring researchers in the 19th Century. This is, I think, the catalyst for the beginnings of professional science. Before then, discoveries were made by those who could afford to spend time tinkering. If you'll notice, almost all of the Great Discoveries of Science before then were made by the rich--who didn't need other jobs!--or those whose professions, such as being preachers, gave them lots of spare time and a steady income.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Member
I'll address those points, but would rather not degenerate into an electric universe discussion, if only because of its reputation on this board.
The bare answer is "neutral on scales significantly larger than the debye length of the plasma." The debye length is a scale which is related to the thickness of a sheet of plasma needed to completely shield a potential in the plasma. If you take any volume of plasma which is significantly larger than this length^3, the plasma will be neutral at equilibrium. This all depends on the plasma parameters: how we characterize the plasma.
I can't really say much on the high voltages between objects, because I don't understand what you're asking really. Do you mean potentials between systems like two stars? A start and the ISM? The sun and the earth? I have to say no in any of those circumstances. Any large potential invites processes that would bring it to equilibrium, I would think.
No, not at all. All three of those examples are incomplete ionizing of neutral gas by a large potential; the sun's plasma processes are much, much more complicated than that. You can't just say all plasmas are equal; there's a world of difference, as I noted before, in temperature, density, B field, everything. The processes giving rise to arcs and solar flares are very different, like saying that since fans blow air around, all the wind on the earth is made by giant fans somewhere.The sun does arc and spark, in the same way as lighning, Van deGraph generators and Jacob's ladders.
This must be more of the electric universe terminology I'm not familiar with. You're using "currents" and "discharge" in an oversimplified and inaccurate sense here. Yes, we know there's x-ray emitting plasma in the comet coma; how does that have anything to do with discharge?There are a lot of hair brained ideas out there, but the impact of electric currents in space can no longer be discounted. We cannot even exclude the possibility that electric discharge contributes to comet activity.
I'm sorry, but I have to step back and state, this is the last I will discuss "electric universe" ideas in this thread. I need to go read the other threads and get an idea of how you're using these terms before I can even asses them.
Member
This is spot on. My electrodynamics professor told some great stories about how E.O. Lawrence funded his research in what became Lawrence Berkeley Labs. He was able to get federal funding to build a cyclotron on the basis of using it to produce Uranium (this was during or after WWII). In reality, the amount of uranium it could produce was minute, a fraction of a fraction of what they needed to build a bomb, but he was still able to slip it past the committees.
Order of Kilopi
And the one question still not answered:Would you please answer this?Also, when your "babble-mouthed technician" did "propose something ingenius" [sic], did the tech (the author) recognise that it was in any way any different from any other of "stupid, ill-informed ideas" he'd proposed before?
Order of Kilopi
I think that that question is essentially unanswerable, since you are asking whether or not someone else (not Jerry) recognized something. Or are you asking whether or not Jerry thought that the someone else recognized that? I thought the answer to that was clear from Jerry's presentation, that they did not recognize the difference.
Jerry?
Order of Kilopi
That's what I thought too ... but I've learned, through many, many exchanges with Jerry, here in the ATM section of BAUT, that one should also try to clarify ambiguities in his posts.
Established Member
The difference, of course, is that the parameters of the standard model were relatively unknown before the SN1a data. The core of the standard model, as laid out again and again in books and papers, was the applicability of General Relativity, the Robertson-Walker metric, and the hot early universe. Including Lambda (a value of Lambda within a certain range) preserves all of these.
It is the height of sophistry to quote, in the service of a point about the scientific value of a position, an argument about the consistency of a scientific position with a religious position. Creation science and intelligent design fail on scientific grounds whether or not they are part of a religious belief.
Established Member
The parameters have been known for decades. What was not known was how far off the predictions of the standard model would be the value of the parameters when compared to high resolution observations. As it turns out the predictions were about 20% off target.
But this is not the point of this thread.
Yes, true, I have done so myself on many occasions, corolate the BB with God. Both are thought to have created the universe. Oh yes, it is true that the BB is defended on scientific grounds by the mainstream, something that cannot be said of the corolary, however, with the injunction of 'dark' stuff into the BBT, the gaping fissure that until recently separated the two world-views each into its own domain of applicability has now fused creating one gargantuous blunder.
Einstein's general postulate of relativity is not responsible for this mess.
CC
Established Member
Honestly, how can you make this claim. Can you provide one source that definitively sets out the parameters of the model?
No, but it is responsible for giving us measurements of this "dark stuff".Einstein's general postulate of relativity is not responsible for this mess.
Established Member
The parameter lambda, for example has been around for alsmost a hundred years. That's not decades? Sure the value had not been determined. But it still has not, FYI. More to come on that later.
GR has nothing to do with dark stuff.
Posting Permissions
