Major science breakthroughs most likely from periphery someone (Jerry ATM idea)

[Gillianren]

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.

[Jerry]

[jk mode]
Sorry Eta C, your first attempt will earn you no more than a C.
[/jk mode]

Eta C is being completely sarcastic.

As others have pointed out, the solar wind may consist of charged particles, but is neutral overall. Yes, the cosmos are largely plasma, but neutral plasma on a large scale.

I don't think it is quite that simple - for one thing - neutral over what scale? The whole universe? Do we really know that there are not high voltage differentials from object to object? How could we even test that? It there really evidence that the net solar wind is neutral?

Depending on the hemisphere and phase of the solar cycle, the magnetic field spirals inward or outward; the magnetic field follows the same shape of spiral in the northern and southern parts of the heliosphere, but with opposite field direction. These two magnetic domains are separated by a two current sheet (an electric current that is confined to a curved plane). This heliospheric current sheet has a similar shape to a twirled ballerina skirt, and changes in shape through the solar cycle as the Sun's magnetic field reverses about every 11 years.

The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.

These are concepts that were proposed by Alfvin many decades ago, but rejected and ridiculed until our space probes proved otherwise. The sun does arc and spark, in the same way as lighning, Van deGraph generators and Jacob's ladders.

The word magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) is derived from magneto- meaning magnetic field, and hydro- meaning liquid, and -dynamics meaning movement. The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.

The idea of MHD is that magnetic fields can induce currents in a moving conductive fluid, which create forces on the fluid, and also change the magnetic field itself...

MHD applies quite well to astrophysics since over 99% of baryonic matter content of the Universe is made up of plasma, including stars, the interplanetary medium (space between the planets), the interstellar medium (space between the stars), nebulae and jets.

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.

[shatdow]

I'll address those points, but would rather not degenerate into an electric universe discussion, if only because of its reputation on this board.

I don't think it is quite that simple - for one thing - neutral over what scale? The whole universe? Do we really know that there are not high voltage differentials from object to object? How could we even test that? It there really evidence that the net solar wind is neutral?

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.

The sun does arc and spark, in the same way as lighning, Van deGraph generators and Jacob's ladders.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[shatdow]

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.

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.

[tusenfem]

I don't think it is quite that simple - for one thing - neutral over what scale? The whole universe? Do we really know that there are not high voltage differentials from object to object? How could we even test that? It there really evidence that the net solar wind is neutral?

These are concepts that were proposed by Alfvin many decades ago, but rejected and ridiculed until our space probes proved otherwise. The sun does arc and spark, in the same way as lighning, Van deGraph generators and Jacob's ladders.

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.

As shatdow already mentioned, the only scale which is important for neutrality is the deBye scale. Inside the deBye scale there is quasi-neutralilty, but any excess charge in a plasma cannot influence outside the deBye sphere. Read up on in in any basic MHD or plasma book.

Ah, and then lovely Wikipedia again, a treasure for info, albeit not always reliable.

Depending on the hemisphere and phase of the solar cycle, the magnetic field spirals inward or outward; the magnetic field follows the same shape of spiral in the northern and southern parts of the heliosphere, but with opposite field direction. These two magnetic domains are separated by a two current sheet (an electric current that is confined to a curved plane). This heliospheric current sheet has a similar shape to a twirled ballerina skirt, and changes in shape through the solar cycle as the Sun's magnetic field reverses about every 11 years.

The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.

Indeed there is a cross field current in the heliosphere, which makes that in the different hemispheres of the heliosphere the magnetic field is pointed in opposite directions. The magnetic field of the sun is dragged along with the solar wind, but the magnetic field is frozen into the plasma. Therefore the whole last sentence of this wiki piece does not make any sense. There is no differential motion of the plasma with respect to the magnetic field. (We test this over and over again in space weather. We take the magnetic field at e.g. ACE and the flow velocity of the solar wind and then calculate by time of flight when the disturbance at ACE will reach the Earth. This works very well, and we would not be able to do that if there was a differential flow of the plamsa and the field.) (clearly I do not agree with user MilleauRekiir at wiki)

Oh, here we go again, poor Alfven did not immediatly get credit for what he discovered, been there done that.

The sun does not arc and spark, as shatdow also commented on. These arcs and sparks are electric phenomena, whereas solar flares are magnetic phenomena. Arcs and sparks are ionizations of air.

Electric currents in space have not been discounted since before I became a student in plasmaastrophysics in 1984. Just because you wish that in order to feel victimized as an EU proponent and are not up to date with the current plasma(astro)physics, does not mean that it is so. And the electric comet idea does not even have the beginnings of a model, so we can safely discard the notion that the comet is arcing and sparking.

[Nereid]

[snip]

I don't think this answers either of my questions ... would you please answer them?

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?

Bumping this post, as I can't see that Jerry has answered it.

Would you please answer the questions Jerry?

[Kwalish Kid]

???
If you are referring to the 'evolutionary' contributions of Lyell and Malthus, you are quite right, but they were two of a very small small contingency of precursors.

Actually, I'm referring to a lot of work done before Darwin on evolutionary theory. Including that done by his ancestor, Erasmus Darwin and by Lamarck, who died well before the publication of Darwin's theory.

Darwin's thoery of evolution was so "out there" that another scientist, Wallace, came up with almost exactly the same theory.

I consider the definitive work on Evolution Ernerst Mayr's One Long Argument, but this specific statement is best supported in James Burkes 'The Day the Universe Changed' (Strongly recommended for anyone who feels so absolute about the rightness of today's scientific theories.)

If you pay attention to everything Burke writes, you see the interconnectedness of new developments with earlier science and other science going on at the time. Burke cites many examples of things that earlier inventors or theorists devised that could not be implemented (or taken seriously) because there was not enough scientific knowledge in that area for the idea to gain empirical support.

So if you want to argue Darwin was a professional theologen, and therefore a professional philosopher, you have a problem with the fact that he was working in a peripherial field, as an UNPAID naturalist who majored in theology after failing medicine, he is the very definition of the creative scientist who made a major discovery while working in a peripherial field.

As others have pointed out, this ignores the system of scientific education of the time. Darwin advanced his theory off of established science of the time, of which he was well aware.

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?

[Jerry]

Bumping this post, as I can't see that Jerry has answered it.
Originally Posted by Nereid
I don't think this answers either of my questions ... would you please answer them?

I thought they were rather rhetorical, but it will be fun to answer them.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Nereid]

[snip]

I thought they were rather rhetorical, but it will be fun to answer them.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

They were not intended to be rhetorical; my apologies for not having made that clear at the time.

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?

[Jerry]

They were not intended to be rhetorical; my apologies for not having made that clear at the time.

I note that you did not answer either question - perhaps they are unclear?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

[Nereid]

And the one question still not answered:

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?

Would you please answer this?

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

Yet these things only seem to be absurd because you hold an opinion of them to be so. There is no reason to believe that they are absurd for a scientific reason. Let's just limit the discussion to this thread: 1) Are you saying that ideas from outside of the mainstream are a priori more valuable, or less absurd, than those from inside the history of the scientific communitiy?

Let's turn to a related matter. You claim that researchers simple "threw in a new variable", but even cursory reading will reveal the history of that variable within the scientific tradition of cosmology. Actually, many would claim that including the cosmological constant was an idea against the mainstream. 2) Do you object to the cosmological constant because you happen to be writing ten years after it rose to prominence? Would you be arguing in favour of the cosmological constant ten years ago?

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.

What is the problem with rejecting ideas that have no evidence?

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.

Isn't the ability to stand up to the evidence a natural selection process for theories?

[hhEb09'1]

And the one question still not answered:Would you please answer this?

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?

[jamini]

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 [sic] and a breakthrough will occur.

Can you produce a complete, workable alternative model or are you dismissing these various peer-reviewed and well-established concepts out of hand simply because you don't like them? Do you consider yourself a peer to the authors of all the published papers defining the concepts you are rejecting?

Thinking like this in the 1930’s would have set back classical and quantum physics by decades; and by this kind of logic, people like Einstein and Bohr would have been regarded as a charlatans, with such “obscure” notions like GR and QED.

[Nereid]

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.

[snip]

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.

[Jerry]

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?

Sometimes, a creative inventor can be persuaded an idea is goofy; and in this case, the tech's prospective was quickly confirmed -

Can you produce a complete, workable alternative model or are you dismissing these various peer-reviewed and well-established concepts out of hand simply because you don't like them?

I don't think they are scientifically sound concepts. I don't think anyone has a complete, workable model period.

Do you consider yourself a peer to the authors of all the published papers defining the concepts you are rejecting?

This question needs to be answered on at least three levels:

1) Philosophically, I think the concept of dark energy lacks scientific validity. Like inflation, it is an ad hoc theoretical patch necessary because observations did not agree with fundamental theoretical constraints.

As a student of the scientific principle, and especially the Popper extension which requires auxillary hypothesis be testable, I have every right to jump up and claim these extension of theory are not scientifically supportable. Everyone else should, too.

2) As an scientific analyst with thirty years of experience in the development of analytical methods and techology, I can state with reasonable authority that the data reduction techniques employed by supernova and CMB researchers would not survive careful peer review in most fields of analytical research.

Very specifically, you cannot normalize about the midpoint of a limited distribution with uncontrolled independent variables to test for selection effect bias; and you cannot assume the spectral contributions of complex forground objects do not contaminate the spectral energy distribution from an unknown, unquantified source.

3)As a theorist, I fit squarely the category of Babbler: I can't tell a good idea from a bad one. But then, who can?

Thinking like this in the 1930’s would have set back classical and quantum physics by decades; and by this kind of logic, people like Einstein and Bohr would have been regarded as a charlatans, with such “obscure” notions like GR and QED.

(????)
Einstein were rather create and imaginative, and even though their theories have been quite successful, that does not make them right. Einstein was a charlatan, he spoke quite openly about the correctness of his theories when it is my humble opinion that all theoriest should recognize there is no devine right to the truth. Even worse, the way Einstein is eulogized today, the entire physical science community is guilty of hero worshipped on an unacceptable scale; given that it is our highest charter to test theories, not glorify them.

I think it is pathetic, actually pathelogical, that when the measured supernova magnitudes did not produce the appropriete evidence of a slowing rate-of-expansion, researchers called 'dark energy' a reintroduction of 'Einstein's cosmological constant' rather than admitting something is horribly wrong. Appeals to authority are not scientifically appealing.

[hhEb09'1]

Sometimes, a creative inventor can be persuaded an idea is goofy; and in this case, the tech's prospective was quickly confirmed -

Boy, that's the truth. I don't know how many times I expressed ideas in math class that were dismissed by a wave of the hands, only to find out days later--through laborious effort--that I'd been correct in the first place. 'Course, the laborious effort was necessary whether or not they had been dismissed.

Einstein was a charlatan, he spoke quite openly about the correctness of his theories when it is my humble opinion that all theoriest should recognize there is no devine right to the truth.

Eh? Einstein openly criticized his own work, re-working and re-visiting it. A charlatan? That's a nutty thing to say.

[Coldcreation]

...snip...
I think it is pathetic, actually pathelogical, that when the measured supernova magnitudes did not produce the appropriete evidence of a slowing rate-of-expansion, researchers called 'dark energy' a reintroduction of 'Einstein's cosmological constant' rather than admitting something is horribly wrong. Appeals to authority are not scientifically appealing.

This is a fundamental point. It was equally pathelogical that the WMAP project would be, too, fiddled and tweeked with the same dark enegy (along with the nonbaryonic stuff) in order to save the model.

And that's not all. The detrimental SNe Ia redshift-light curve data would later be called stong 'evidence' in favor of the model (not of the old standard model, but of the new L-CDM model), when, in reality, this is strong evidence that modern cosmology has finally flipped its cork.

That is exactly like this type of argument:

As with evolution, BBT is often tagged by Young Earth Creationists as yet another theory invented out of thin air by atheists looking to deny that God created the universe and everything in it. Obviously, this is not a scientific argument by any stretch of the imagination, and, like the similar charge leveled at evolution, the claim is false on its face.

BBT is not only accepted by most mainstream Christian (and other religious) denominations, but also even by Old Earth Creationists like Hugh Ross. Some Christian philosophers even try to use the BBT as evidence for the existence of a creator - they point out, e.g., that this scientific theory agrees with the Bible on the point that the universe had a beginning, that light came first (although this is a crude misrepresentation of what the BBT actually says), etc. For articles containing discussions of this type of arguments, see, e.g., the page Physics and Religion.

Finally, it should be pointed out that Lemaitre, one of the originators of the BBT (the central equations of the BBT are often called the "Friedman-Lemaitre equations"), was actually a Jesuit priest! Source

Nice scientific discourse....(not).

That the Monk co-created the BB is unquestionable, that there is a gross similarity with the primeval atom and the Fiat Lux is beyond boubt, that the big bang theory agreas with the bible is no crude misrepresentation, that 'something' dark (DE, CDM, GOD) remains elusive in both models may not be a coincidence. In another way, the argument that 96% of the universe is thought to be dominated by a form of 'energy' and 'matter' that exists nowhere in the solar system (nowhere in the Galaxy) is not a scientific argument by any stretch of the imagination.

If this is the kind of 'great discovery' (new physics) to which the mainstream is going to grasp in order to save the BB (Gods Creation) then I will remain on the fringes, perfectly in tune with nature, within the domain of known physics.

Coldcreation

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

[Nereid]

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?

Sometimes, a creative inventor can be persuaded an idea is goofy; and in this case, the tech's prospective was quickly confirmed -

[snip]

That may be so (or it may not be) ... however, it still does not answer the question I asked.

Let's say the "babble-mouthed technician" proposed 100 things. Let's say two were "something ingenius", and the other 98 "stupid, ill-informed ideas".

What were the "babble-mouthed technician's" own views on the relative merits of the two vs the other 98?

[hhEb09'1]

What were the "babble-mouthed technician's" own views on the relative merits of the two vs the other 98?

How the h*ck can anybody here possibly know that???

[hhEb09'1]

Besides, we're taking Jerry's opinion of those relative merits at face-value--Jerry judged their value based upon someone else's opinion, whoever grabbed those few gems and ran with them.

It's quite possible that they all had merit, and no one was able to recognize it. At this point, it's impossible to tell.

[Coldcreation]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Jerry]

Besides, we're taking Jerry's opinion of those relative merits at face-value--Jerry judged their value based upon someone else's opinion, whoever grabbed those few gems and ran with them.

It's quite possible that they all had merit, and no one was able to recognize it. At this point, it's impossible to tell.

Actually, it was the engineer who told me the story - explaining how he 'stole' a rather ingenius manufacturing idea from one of his technicians, and his justification for the theft. I think it is an interesting science morality question.

Someone on this board quoted Einstein as saying words to the effect the key to being a good theorist is to steal good ideas and hide the source. (This could be just as incorrect as my statement about lasers, also from a board source). Was Einstein a charlatan? That is probably way harsh, but in later life he certainly enjoyed his reputation for infallibility.

My mentor taught me that now you have found obvious flaws, and the authors have admitted the interpretations are iffy (they have), now you have to go through all the odd-ball literature and look for good ideas that were discarded for one reason or another and find something that works.

That the Monk co-created the BB is unquestionable, that there is a gross similarity with the primeval atom and the Fiat Lux is beyond doubt.

The source of an idea is irrelevant, although it can be argued the wide acceptance of the BB is in part, due to the biblical parallels. I think the BB was a good idea 55 years ago and consistent with most of the evidence at that time. But it is an idea that has long outlived its usefulness; it has proven to be a stubborn fallacy.

[hhEb09'1]

Actually, it was the engineer who told me the story - explaining how he 'stole' a rather ingenius manufacturing idea from one of his technicians, and his justification for the theft.

I guess that answers Nereid's question, then. It's impossible to tell, since you had no direct contact with the "babbler" (coincidence? I think not ).

Someone on this board quoted Einstein as saying words to the effect the key to being a good theorist is to steal good ideas and hide the source. (This could be just as incorrect as my statement about lasers, also from a board source). Was Einstein a charlatan? That is probably way harsh, but in later life he certainly enjoyed his reputation for infallibility.

Not only harsh, but out and out false. And, as I said, it definitely starts looking nutty.

I wasn't even aware that Einstein had a reputation for infallibility. I thought his famous back-and-forth with Bohr removed all possibility of that.

[jamini]

I don't think they are scientifically sound concepts. I don't think anyone has a complete, workable model period.

What are you talking about? Black holes, dark energy and inflation have been modeled extensively by the world’s leading theoretical physicists for decades. What exactly are you bringing to the table besides saying that you don’t like them?

This question needs to be answered on at least three levels:

No, it really doesn’t. Either you consider yourself a peer of the people whose theories and concepts you oppose or you don’t.

1) Philosophically, I think the concept of dark energy lacks scientific validity. Like inflation, it is an ad hoc theoretical patch necessary because observations did not agree with fundamental theoretical constraints.

Philosophically, I believe we exist in a multi-verse with at least 4+t dimensions – that doesn’t make it science, and this is after all a science forum. It’s painfully ironic that you would prefer a philosophical patch to a highly precise mathematical patch, such as the CC.

As a student of the scientific principle, and especially the Popper extension which requires auxillary[sic] hypothesis be testable, I have every right to jump up and claim these extension of theory are not scientifically supportable. Everyone else should, too.

How can you claim to be a “student of the scientific principle” and then use everything but science to try and dispute the prevailing peer-reviewed published theories and replace them with your own strictly philosophical views?

2) As an scientific analyst with thirty years of experience in the development of analytical methods and technology[sic], I can state with reasonable authority that the data reduction techniques employed by supernova and CMB researchers would not survive careful peer review in most fields of analytical research.

Assuming that “analytical research” professionals are qualified to falsify scientific papers, specifically how would you go about doing that? All philosophy aside.

Very specifically, you cannot normalize about the midpoint of a limited distribution with uncontrolled independent variables to test for selection effect bias; and you cannot assume the spectral contributions of complex forground[sic] objects do not contaminate the spectral energy distribution from an unknown, unquantified [sic] source.

Who’s doing that? If you are disputing the red shift and SN1 data, do you have any evidence to support such claims or are these just more examples of things you simply don’t like?

3)As a theorist, I fit squarely the category of Babbler: I can't tell a good idea from a bad one. But then, who can?

It’s called peer review. The prevailing theories have all passed that, your hypothesis reside strictly in philosophical realms. Who do you propose would pay for all the research to model and test every wild hair-brained idea that people such as yourself ponder? Certainly not the tax payers. If you can produce a viable working model or at least start a foundation on some existing models along with some observational data, then you may be on to something. In the mean time, all we have is indeed “babble”.

(????)
Einstein were[sic] rather create and imaginative, and even though their theories have been quite successful, that does not make them right. Einstein was a charlatan, he spoke quite openly about the correctness of his theories when it is my humble opinion that all theoriest [sic] should recognize there is no devine [sic] right to the truth. Even worse, the way Einstein is eulogized today, the entire physical science community is guilty of hero worshipped on an unacceptable scale; given that it is our highest charter to test theories, not glorify them.

Where are you getting your information? Einstein did say he wanted to “know the mind of god”. Is that what you are referring to? He never implied that he was god and as far as I remember, he corrected and changed his models numerous times. I don’t know if “eulogized” is the correct term but don’t you think at least some recognition should be given to the founders of the theories that paved the way for everything from computers to the space shuttle?

I think it is pathetic, actually pathelogical,[sic] that when the measured supernova magnitudes did not produce the appropriate[sic] evidence of a slowing rate-of-expansion, researchers called 'dark energy' a reintroduction of 'Einstein's cosmological constant' rather than admitting something is horribly wrong. Appeals to authority are not scientifically appealing.

There was a lot more to it than that but I doubt explaining it would have any benefit. So again, do you have anything to add to the table besides libeling the last century of work by the worlds leading physicists? I mean besides your philosophical views.

[Kwalish Kid]

The parameters have been known for decades.

Honestly, how can you make this claim. Can you provide one source that definitively sets out the parameters of the model?

Einstein's general postulate of relativity is not responsible for this mess.

No, but it is responsible for giving us measurements of this "dark stuff".

[Coldcreation]

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".

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.

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

Sorry, I think we have a miscommunication here. I meant to say that the exact values of the parameters were unknown. The way to measure the parameter Lambda was known: find a certain kind of discrepancy in distant redshift. That was found and, unsurprisingly, the non-zero value of the parameter was adopted. That seems like pretty vanilla science to me.

GR has nothing to do with dark stuff.

GR, as a theory of gravity, has to do with everything that has an energy density, dark or not. Various GR methods give measurements of the amount of dark matter in different parts of the universe.

But this is beside the point of the thread. I guess a question for you would be why we should trust a theory that abandons GR completely?

[Nereid]

[snip]

But this is beside the point of the thread. I guess a question for you would be why we should trust a theory that abandons GR completely?

Because any such (so-called) theory must be better than GR, if there's no 'dark stuff' in it?

Because the primary criterion for judging whether a theory is any good is "it has no 'dark stuff'"?