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

[Kwalish Kid]

The question that I really would want answered is whether or not Jerry would have supported the cosmological constant, say ten to twenty years ago, when the constant was not part of the mainstream.

[JonClarke]

Bjoern wrote with respect to Jerry's claim that continental drift was discovered by someone on the periphery, namely Alfred Wegener, a meteorlogist.

Summary: you got exactly one right, as far as I can see.

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

[hhEb09'1]

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.

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.

[JonClarke]

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.

I am saying he did was trained in the relevant fields, geology, and geophysics.

[hhEb09'1]

I am saying he did was trained in the relevant fields, geology, and geophysics.

I didn't think he was. His geophysics background was mostly meteorology, and I don't remember any mention of geology.

[JonClarke]

No, his original degree was general science. This would ahve included geology His PhD was in astronomy. he published extensively in geology and held a chair in geophysics. He was a member of professional geological associations and published several books and many papers on palaeoclimate, tectonics, and palaeogeography. He was not just a meteorologist (although he was a very influential one) any mre than he was just a polar explorer. he certainly was not someone on the periphery, Wegener was a multipdisciplinary earth scientist.

Jon

[hhEb09'1]

he certainly was not someone on the periphery, Wegener was a multipdisciplinary earth scientist.

I'm not saying that he wasn't a scientist--a meteorologist is a geophysicist, but that doesn't mean he's not on the periphery of the science for which he is known. I'm not sure, how many of his geological publications were related to his theory?

[JonClarke]

I will see if I can find a bibliography tomorrow. But Wedner did publish extensively on global tectonics and on subjects such as palaeoclimatology, so he was not a one-shot wonder.

Jon

[Coldcreation]

The question that I really would want answered is whether or not Jerry would have supported the cosmological constant, say ten to twenty years ago, when the constant was not part of the mainstream.

I'll take that question. Without reserve, yes, I have always supported the cosmological constant, and would have since its inception, had I been around that long; make that resounding yes.

That the cosmological constant was abandonded in the first place was Einstein's biggest blunder, not its introduction into the field equations as history would have it.

There are many reasons why lambda should never have been discarded Einstein's equations. That there is some mechanism inherent in space in relation to mass, energy and pressure is obvious. That the mechanism is responsible for the stability of self-gravitating bounded systems (whether they be planet-satelite or moons, solar systems, stars in a galaxy, galaxy clusters, superclusters) is directly related to that mechanism can be argued convincingly. That the mechanism inherent in space is resonsible can also be shown to be the case. It can easily be demonstrated that lambda is responsible for stability on all scales. In another way, it can be shown, too, that lambda is directly involved in the gravitational mechanism.

Gravity without lamba is like the Kelvin temperature scale without absolute zero degrees.

My point, though, is that lambda is not "dark energy," as current theory would have it. So, the so-called resurection of lambda is really no resurection at all.

Do the physical aspect of the cosmological constant need to be elucidated in order to understand what is happening in the universe? Absolutely.

Is Coldcreation willing (able is another question) do take on the challenge of defending the above contentions? Absolutely.

Is a full-scale remodeling of the standard model obligatory in order to advance in the domain cosmology? Absolutely.

Is there a need to replace Einstein's general theory of relativity with another better, more apt, more precise theory of gravity? Absolutely not. Einstein's postulate of GR is perfectly suited for the affair.

Is Einstein's cosmological term equal to zero for all times? It certainly is.

Does the probability that lambda is equal to zero for all times make Einstein's cosmological term (aka "greatest blunder") a fundamental constant of nature? It most definitely does.

Should such an important issue be the topic of another thread authored by Coldcreation? It should certainly. And it will be as soon as I'm back on my own computer.

Is Coldcreation sorry for highjacking this thread? Yes, but jerry brought up the subject on 16-February-2007 at 11:30 PM Universal Time (see above).

To finish this post on-topic (kind of), it could be argued (rather than claiming great ideas come from those on the periphery) that there are great ideas that come from the periphery of science (regardless of whom introduced them, though, part of the appeal of lambda is that it came from Einstein) that ultimately make their way into the mainstream.

Lambda, of course, is a prime example of a great idea on the periphery of science that has become mainstream. That is indeed a curious thing since know one has any idea what lambda really is.

Oh, by the way, dark energy (a negative pressure, i.e., below the absolute zero value pressure of empty space) is no solution for the cosmological constant problem. Since the concept of negative energy, or negative pressure in this case requires a large step (a hop-skip-and jump perhaps) outside of physics, a place Coldcreation needs not venture: there is no outside of physics.

We've already seen that according to QM, at least, the value of lambda was off by over 120 orders of magnitude. That was the greatest scientific blunder of all times.



Coldcreation

[hhEb09'1]

I will see if I can find a bibliography tomorrow. But Wedner did publish extensively on global tectonics and on subjects such as palaeoclimatology, so he was not a one-shot wonder.

I don't think anyone is saying that he was a one-shot wonder, I think he was someone from outside the discipline who latched onto an idea, and came up with supporting evidence from a lot of different fields. I'm sure he wrote extensively about it, and was an advocate for it for a long time--after all, he wasn't the first to come up with the idea, but he became the most well-known for it.

[Kwalish Kid]

Oh, by the way, dark energy (a negative pressure, i.e., below the absolute zero value pressure of empty space) is no solution for the cosmological constant problem.

As Einstein knew, the cosmological constant is the negative pressure that one finds in the idealized dust model one uses to illustrate the behaviour of the model. The physical meaning of the pressure is the acceleration that the constant brings into effect.

Dark energy is a term coined by the popular science press. There may be scalar or other) fields that mimic the activity of the cosmological constant and thus are better described as dark energy, but it is important to identify what truly belongs to the cosmological constant.

We've already seen that according to QM, at least, the value of lambda was off by over 120 orders of magnitude. That was the greatest scientific blunder of all times.

There are two problems here: 1) Whether or not the calculation of vacuum energy density was well founded. 2) Whether or not the calculation was the density associated with the cosmological constant.

Really, though, Colddreation's anwers are entirely inconsistent, though perhaps predictable from an ATM point-of-view: In favour of the constant until its effects can be measured. Then, once the measurements can be made, opposed to the constant.

I'd still like Jerry to answer the question.

[Coldcreation]

As Einstein knew, the cosmological constant is the negative pressure that one finds in the idealized dust model one uses to illustrate the behaviour of the model. The physical meaning of the pressure is the acceleration that the constant brings into effect.

Nope, that was de Sitter's empty world model not Einstein's spherical model. And even theen, what you describe came years later.

Dark energy is a term coined by the popular science press. There may be scalar or other) fields that mimic the activity of the cosmological constant and thus are better described as dark energy, but it is important to identify what truly belongs to the cosmological constant.

Well guess what, now dark energy is mainstream.

Really, though, Colddreation's anwers are entirely inconsistent, though perhaps predictable from an ATM point-of-view: In favour of the constant until its effects can be measured. Then, once the measurements can be made, opposed to the constant.

CC is consistent, across the board. Dark energy is not lambda.

What is this another 'defend dark energy thread?'

[JonClarke]

I think he was someone from outside the discipline who latched onto an idea, and came up with supporting evidence from a lot of different fields.

But he was not outside the field! In addition to being a first rate meteorologist and climatologist Wegener was also a geophysicist - he held a chair in the discipline for crying out. You can't get less periphery than that. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Jon

[hhEb09'1]

But he was not outside the field! In addition to being a first rate meteorologist and climatologist Wegener was also a geophysicist - he held a chair in the discipline for crying out. You can't get less periphery than that. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

A meteorologist is a geophysicist, there's no "in addition to". The work he did with continental drift was outside his area of expertise, meteorology (and, astronomy, his PhD). At least, that's my understanding of it.

[Kwalish Kid]

Nope, that was de Sitter's empty world model not Einstein's spherical model. And even theen, what you describe came years later.

To be clear, only with a negative pressure could Einstein create his static model. But let's put the issue aside and see if Jerry would like to answer.

[Jerry]

The question that I really would want answered is whether or not Jerry would have supported the cosmological constant, say ten to twenty years ago, when the constant was not part of the mainstream.

Ten - twenty years ago I was mainstream. No, it was the COBE data reduction that didn't pass my sanity check...and the Supernova data reduction that pinned my ears back.

[Jerry]

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?

Just last Summer Jim Peebles was quoted as saying that we do not have a working model of the early galactic formation period – from first light through the inflationary epoch – he then went on to say this is probably because our computers are not powerful enough. I think he is wrong: It will not be possible to build good models until fundamental errors are addressed. Even Ned Wright is wondering out loud if we have missed something.

I have theories on the table, but they are not important. What is important is to realize that we do not need a basic theory of how the universe functions in order to have a valid field of scientific study. We are free to admit there are fundamental attributes of the universe we do not understand without deferring to god, or inventing Dark Energy and inflation to fill the knowledge gaps.

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.

This is a false dichotomy. We all have to defer to others – I consider myself poor at astrometry but I still understand the principles. I oppose the theories of Einstein and Newton, but I don’t consider them peers: They did not have anything close to the volume and depth of data or the computational tools we have to work with today. I/We should do much better.

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.

It’s painfully ironic that you would prefer a philosophical patch to a highly precise mathematical patch

This is not a theoretical patch, it is application of a basic scientific principle: When data are at odds with a theory, either the theory or the data should be rejected. Auxiliary theories are only allowed if there are independent tests of the auxiliary hypothesis. I think the best way to interpret today's astrophysical data is by deep sixing a lot of theories.

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.

Precise? A better description is that cosmology has painted itself into a corner. The supernova type Ia magnitudes are ending up all over the map. The CMB is loaded with red flags indicative of local contamination – more on this later in the post.

I hate to drag out the old saw, but the students of Ptolemy had a much better mathematical model than Copernicus; and Ptolemy was well-supported by the lack of an observable parallax. Good numerical solutions have often led to misplaced faith in bad theories, and that includes a sun-centered universe and Newtonian gravity.

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?

Peer review is NOT part of the scientific principle. Peer review should be used primarily to reject observational results if there is evidence of uncontrolled variables, poor methodology, and so on.

A basic tenant of the scientific method is that existing theories may be false. Substitute theories which are consistent with the data should always be welcome.

If the conclusion of your experiment conflicts with prevailing theory, additional testing is often necessary to determine which solution is more likely false. You cannot simply hold up the hand of the oldest theory and declare it the winner. It has been thirty years since the Pioneer 6 mission returned
Doppler shifts near they sun that were inconsistent with general reletivistic theory. Why has it take us so long to return? Are we afraid of what we might learn?

Originally Posted by Jerry
Very specifically, you cannot normalize about the midpoint of a limited distribution with uncontrolled independent variables to test for selection effect bias;.

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?

Absolutely. Phillip’s 1993 ‘Magnitude in blue after 15 days’ method normalizes about the midpoint in supernova light curve widths after 15 days, then he plots residuals verses the midpoint and uses the fact that the averaged residual is the same at all redshifts to declare victory.

Goldhaber does the same thing in the development of the 2002 stretch method. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0104382 But if you directly compare these two methodologies, you will find that there is a distance bias in the 1995 method if you bump it up against the 2002 sample, and likewise, if you bump the 2002 data up against the 2007 data.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0701041

In the tables in the back of the Wood-Vasey paper, There is a clear negative bias in the stretch factor methodology. I placed charts demonstrating this Here: (Click on the little blue arrow)

The attached graphs are from stretch factor data tabulated in the Wood-Vasey paper: http://<br /> <br /> http://arxiv....01/0701041.pdf

Goldhaber’s claim that there was no residuals in the 2002 sample is completely undermined in the extension of his method to a greater sample of more distant supernova. It would be possible to remove the slope by renormalizing the stretch factor at a higher redshift, but that is my point: normalizing about a mid point when there is no control of the endpoints will mask selection effects.

you cannot assume the spectral contributions of complex foreground objects do not contaminate the spectral energy distribution from an unknown, unquantified source.

Here, I am describing the techniques used by COBE and WMAP analysts to remove foreground contamination from the CMB:

Researchers assume the CMB contamination from galactic sources is directly related to higher spectral bands with ‘known’ causality within these galactic sources. Therefore the galactic and local cluster contamination can be correctly subtracted, based upon the calculated spectral distribution.

At best, this is an optimistic assumption and many researchers have found systemic evidence foreground contamination remains in the sample.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0609188

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0408385

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0310601

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0605269

As the Galactic cut is increased, the error bars Delta-a_lm on low multipoles go from being dominated by foregrounds to being dominated by sample variance from other multipoles, with the intervening minimum defining the optimal cut. Applying our method to the WMAP quadrupole and octopole, we find that their previously reported "axis of evil" alignment appears to be rather robust to Galactic cut and foreground contamination.

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.

Yes, there is a couple of threads on Jerry’s theory: Rather outrageous claims by today’s standards, and as I have implied, I don’t expect everything I am predicting to pan out. But at least I am looking at the Mar’s harmonic orbital degeneracy, the peculiar Bouguer anomalies, the fickle atmosphere during aerobraking, the Mars landing probes always falling faster than they should and saying, “There is a trend here that is way outside of expectations – something very basic is wrong.”

[JonClarke]

A meteorologist is a geophysicist, there's no "in addition to". The work he did with continental drift was outside his area of expertise, meteorology (and, astronomy, his PhD). At least, that's my understanding of it.

Meteorology is normally considered to be separate to geophysics. That is why Wegener had a chair in both, because they are regarded two separate disciplines. Meteorology deals with atmospheric structure and phenomena, geophysics (in the early 20th century) would have focused on geomagnetism, the aurora, seismology, isostasy, and gravity.

Wegener had a a general science degree from the University of Berlin. This would almost certainly included a grounding in mineralogy, palaeontology, and stratigraphy, as well as physics, chemistry and other sciences. With this grounding, and his doctoral work in planetary astronomy, he had the broad background required to underpin his diverse research interests in glaciology, palaeoclimatology, the origin of lunar craters, and global tectonics, as well as meteorology.

With an understanding of geology, geophysics, planetary astronomy, meteorology, palaeoclimatology (his father in law was the famous climatologist Vladimir Koppen, and they coauthored at least one book), and glaciology he was as well qualified as anyone else in the world to write on global tectonics.



Jon

[Gillianren]

I hate to drag out the old saw, but the students of Ptolemy had a much better mathematical model than Copernicus . . . .

I'm pretty sure this is wrong, actually. In fact, I'm fairly sure that one of the things that led to heliocentrism in the first place is that the Ptolemaic model was so clunky and imprecise.

. . . tenant . . . .

"Tenet."

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by Jerry
I hate to drag out the old saw, but the students of Ptolemy had a much better mathematical model than Copernicus . . . .
I'm pretty sure this is wrong, actually. In fact, I'm fairly sure that one of the things that led to heliocentrism in the first place is that the Ptolemaic model was so clunky and imprecise.

Quote:
. . . tenant . . . .
"Tenet."I'm pretty sure this is wrong, actually. In fact, I'm fairly sure that one of the things that led to heliocentrism in the first place is that the Ptolemaic model was so clunky and imprecise.



"Tenet."

Let's be nice to Jerry.

Based on his posts, there appear to be enough problems understanding Physics 101, so please don't pick on a lack of understanding English grammar, et al.

Meanwhile, re the rhetorical arguments occurring in this thread, the first scientists were definitely working on the periphery of the discipline that was then known as "science". But, in part due to the inadequacy and dogmatic nature of what they were breaking free of, their work established a new discipline, which rejected inadequacy and dogmatism, and incorporated into its tenets that it should always be subject to doubt, criticism, and change, all supported, of course, by objective, verifiable evidence.

[Kwalish Kid]

Just last Summer Jim Peebles was quoted as saying that we do not have a working model of the early galactic formation period – from first light through the inflationary epoch – he then went on to say this is probably because our computers are not powerful enough.

He can't possibly have said this, since the inflationary period would be before the first light of the CMB and galaxy formation would have happened after that. Perhaps he said something about structure formation in the pre-CMB period.

A basic tenant of the scientific method is that existing theories may be false. Substitute theories which are consistent with the data should always be welcome.

No. Consistency is simply not enough. To be a serious rival, the theories have to gain at least as much evidence from the available observations. Anyone can cook up a theory that is consistent with the data, but this theory shouldn't be taken seriously based on consistency.

This returns us to the topic at hand, which is whether or not the periphery of science is somehow more valuable than ordinary science.

[Jerry]

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

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

[Kwalish Kid]

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

Are you trying to make a sociological point or a point about the reasoning behind scientific theories. The computational needs for code breaking and artillery are places where the practical demand lead to the application of ideas already in the science. The much maligned and misquoted Al Gore quote, come from another example of the economic or practical needs that drove technology. In that case, the needs of the US military drove the development of telecommunications. (And, following that, legislative effort turned the military network into a civilian network.)

Of course, little of this applies to cosmology, where there is little practical application. Additionally, the economic or practical needs of a society that may spur research do not necessarily create the theories that are applied. We might all want a theory that will allow us to solve pollution problems cheaply, but that doesn't mean that any theory that promises such a solution is reasonable.

[Jerry]

I'm pretty sure this is wrong, actually. In fact, I'm fairly sure that one of the things that led to heliocentrism in the first place is that the Ptolemaic model was so clunky and imprecise.

It is correct. Copernicus was working with circular orbits. He had to use epicycles to address the eccentricies caused by elliptical orbits, and this was rather more messy than perturbations are today. Keplar's elliptical orbits greatly reduced the complexity, but it was not until the abberations in the spectrums of distant stars were observed that there was definite proof the earth is not the center of everything.

He can't possibly have said this, since the inflationary period would be before the first light of the CMB and galaxy formation would have happened after that. Perhaps he said something about structure formation in the pre-CMB period.

Here is an interview given by Peebles to Kreistler after a related speech:

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/peo...bles-con5.html

And is the concern only peripherally how it all started?

Oh, of course you'd love to answer that question. You make it peripheral if you can't give it a good answer, and it's debated whether we have a good answer. To me, as an old-fashioned theory-and-observation type guy, we don't have yet a definitive answer. We have some very good ideas that people are working hard on, and remarkably enough they're developing tests, perhaps clues too, to what the universe was doing before it was expanding. That's the next great generation of experiments in this subject.

There are ideas, as I said, about what the universe was doing before it was expanding; they go under the name of inflation. Inflation is not a theory because there are so many options within it, so many hypotheses to be made and considered. So far, we have very few firm predictions out of inflation, and unfortunately, most of these predictions were, in effect, "post-dictions," the theory constructed to fit ideas that are now confirmed.

The rest of the interview is a good read.

No. Consistency is simply not enough. To be a serious rival, the theories have to gain at least as much evidence from the available observations. Anyone can cook up a theory that is consistent with the data, but this theory shouldn't be taken seriously based on consistency.

If a major theory is propped up with unjustified auxillary hypothesis; an alternative is facing a lot of grit in the gearing.

Look at this observational chain: There is Doppler shifting in distant galaxies, and under current theory this is attributed to relativistic expansion. Relativistic expansion includes a time dilation attenuation factor of 1/(1+z)^4, but since surface brightness measurements return an attenuation of only about (1+z)^2.6, a galactic luminosity evolution power function is also included in calibration of digital sky maps. So there are at least three correction factors, based upon current theory, that must be extracted and rescaled from published data before the data can be examined under alternatives to GR expansion.

The point is, if a fundamental assumption is incorrect; it is very difficult to back-out all of the correction factors inthe tabulated data and look for comprehensive alternative theories. If these relativistic assumptions are wrong, the dust and other forms of attenuation must be greater, and this has major implications for how much we should expect to see at greater distances.

The recent high redshift supernova studies found far fewer supernova events than expectec (~15%). Are there fewer distant supernova that predicted, or is the sky not as clear as expected? The only way to develop a viable alternative may be to start over.

[Jerry]

Are you trying to make a sociological point or a point about the reasoning behind scientific theories. The computational needs for code breaking and artillery are places where the practical demand lead to the application of ideas already in the science. The much maligned and misquoted Al Gore quote, come from another example of the economic or practical needs that drove technology. In that case, the needs of the US military drove the development of telecommunications. (And, following that, legislative effort turned the military network into a civilian network.)

The point is, someone did not go to a National Science Foundation, and say, I want money to develop a digital computer, or a windows interface, or a yellow post-it pad. The advances were, as you said, need driven, not the results of targeted research in academia.

In the 1950's, National Cash Register was making money hand over fist, not by developing better digital technology, but by preditary marketing - using their huge cash reserves to undersale any fledgling competitors. It was one of those hungry upstarts that created the first explosion in computer technology.

Academic researchers are slightly handicapped by the need to submit proposals that are acceptable in 'peer' review, and very likely to succeed. This usually leads to a conservative approach. That means basing proposals on demonstrations of existing theory.

Why was there a quick follow-on to COBE (WMAP) While it has taken three decades to do a follow-up mission near the sun, where Pioneer 6 returned highly ambiguous results on the GR experiment? Why haven't the Pioneer 10 and 11 probe anomalies lead to missions that could resolve the descrepancies between theory and observation? Such missions have been proposed for decades, why has the peer review process shot them down?

[stutefish]

It seems to me that in the NCR example Jerry gives, it's not as if NCR had their janitorial staff work on computing technology. They probably had their applied computing technology staff work on computing technology. I.e., far from conducting peripheral research, they probably hired--"targeted", if you like--qualified people to conduct research that was central to their goals, and central to the expertise of the people they hired.

Einstein was funded by the patent office, but the research so funded was central to his expertise and area of scientific focus.

Anyway, so what? It seems that most of the time, scientific breakthroughs are achieved by someone who is trying to understand in full what they already understand in part, or to improve upon something they already know to be needing improvement, or to investigate previously un-investigated implications of an idea they have otherwise investigated at great length.

Sometimes their sponsor shares this focus--someone making a science grant to a university, for example. Sometimes their sponsor has a peripheral focus--NCR hiring computer scientists to develop technology to help them gain wealth, fro example. And sometimes the sponsor has no idea what they're sponsoring, nor do they even care--the patent office paying Einstein so he can put a roof over his head and food in his belly while he pursues his scientific "hobby", for example.

But in all three scenarios, it's still the case that the person actually making the breakthrough is usually doing work central to their area of expertise, not peripheral to it.

Anyway, so what? Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of greater tolerance and perhaps even provisional acceptance of ATM claims, on account of their proponents generally NOT being experts in the area the ATM claim relates to? If so, I consider this argument thoroughly discredited.

Sorry, Jerry: history shows that real scientists--whatever the focus of their sponsors--are much more likely to make real scientific breakthroughs, central to their focus, than people whose knowledge is peripheral to the idea they're trying to propose (or refute).

[Gillianren]

It is correct. Copernicus was working with circular orbits. He had to use epicycles to address the eccentricies caused by elliptical orbits, and this was rather more messy than perturbations are today. Keplar's elliptical orbits greatly reduced the complexity, but it was not until the abberations in the spectrums of distant stars were observed that there was definite proof the earth is not the center of everything.

The Ptolemaic model uses epicycles, too, you know. Quite a lot of them. It has to.

[Nereid]

FYI, this thread will be one of the ATM threads still open on 7 March ... though only for a few days ...

[Nereid]

This thread will be closed at noon (GMT) on Saturday, 10 March.

[Jerry]

Sorry, Jerry: history shows that real scientists--whatever the focus of their sponsors--are much more likely to make real scientific breakthroughs, central to their focus, than people whose knowledge is peripheral to the idea they're trying to propose (or refute).

I agree completely - as I have stated several times, what I said was
somebody working in a peripherial field of research; who is, almost by definition (having made a great discovery), a true scientist:

The discovery of Neptune is a textbook case:

In 1843, John Couch Adams calculated the orbit of an eighth planet that would account for Uranus' motion. He sent his calculations to Sir George Airy, the Astronomer Royal, who asked Adams for a clarification. Adams began to draft a reply but never sent it.

According to Abell, Adams was a mathematician who was quite taken aback by what he figured was a condescending response from Airy - the message was relayed to Adams at the door by Airy's butler!

In 1846, Urbain Le Verrier, independently of Adams, produced his own calculations but also experienced difficulties in encouraging any enthusiasm in his compatriots. However, in the same year, John Herschel started to champion the mathematical approach and persuaded James Challis to search for the planet.

After much procrastination, Challis began his reluctant search in July 1846. However, in the meantime, Le Verrier had convinced Johann Gottfried Galle to search for the planet. Though still a student at the Berlin Observatory, Heinrich d'Arrest suggested that a recently drawn chart of the sky, in the region of Le Verrier's predicted location, could be compared with the current sky to seek the displacement characteristic of a planet, as opposed to a fixed star. Neptune was discovered that very night, September 23, 1846, within 1° of where Le Verrier had predicted it to be, and about 10° from Adams' prediction.

Breakthrough science usually involves a new approach, a challenge to an accepted idea; in this case using planet perturbations to find a new one. It sounds odd to us today that astronomers in France and England were not enthusiastic about looking for planets this way, but such is the hard hat often worn by experienced researchers - the kind you are most likely to find with their hands on the purse strings.

It chills me to read paper after paper 'confirming GR'; when what they have really accomplished is new constraints upon possible alternatives. There is a hyperbolic parallel in the gravity wave studies which year after year are reported to have 'constrained the local population of gravity wave sources' when what they have really constrained is General Relativity: When does decades of null results at higher and higher precision become probable nullification of the root hypothesis?

'Real Scientists' should constrain their enthusiasm for the body of scientific knowledge; and instead concentrate upon the regions of doubt. This should be reflected in the proposals, the abstracts, the statements of the problem and in the modesty of the conclusion. It is the only way to truly weed out bad ideas.