(my bold)Originally Posted by korjik
I have no doubt that they would.
And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.
Established Member
(my bold)
I have no doubt that they would.
And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.
Order of Kilopi
incorrect (and insultingly so). If his math is correct, there isnt anything that can be done. You dont have to have any credentials to be right.
Or are you really saying that every scientist here would participate in a fraud just because they didnt like the truth?
Order of Kilopi
You avoided my question. You assume that all scientists willingly participate in fraud to have to keep from admitting they are wrong. You accuse them up just pulling numbers out of air to sound good. You go on irrelevant tangents.
And you wonder why you dont get listened to?
Order of Kilopi
I think the answer here is not so black and white. I don't think all ideas can fit into a simple "mainstream" or "against the mainstream" dichotomy. When Reiss et al (1998) provided supernova results that suggested an accelerated expansion, many cosmologists were already well prepared to make the jump to a universe with a non-zero cosmological constant. It was well established by 1998 that there were observational difficulties for the standard inflationary CDM cosmology that could be alleviated by the re-introduction of a non-zero cosmological constant (lambda).
For example Efstathiou (1995) discussed several problems that persist for the CDM cosmology if the cosmological constant is zero. The biggest of these problems was that the ages of the oldest stars (in globular star clusters) were difficult to reconcile with a Hubble constant of ~70 km s-1 Mpc-1 - the old age crisis whereby the universe would be younger than its oldest stars. This problem was also discussed by Krauss in 1998 among numerous other authors during the 90's. Another problem that had come to a head by that time was that observations indicated a matter density too low to account for Omega=1 as required by inflation (see for example Carlberg et al 1996 study on the matter density of the universe from galaxy clusters).
A nice review of the Cosmological Constant was provided in 1992 by Carroll&Press In their conclusion they state:
The point here is that the cosmological constant term has always been in the equations and whether or not its value is zero had been a topic of serious discussion in mainstream journals long before 1998.
In the end, the supernova results were the final piece needed for cosmologists to abandon the occam's razor excuse and adopt the cosmological constant as a means of saving CDM cosmology from other observational difficulties.
So I don't buy the argument that has been made here in the past that cosmologists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to dark energy. It's not that simple. Were they cautious? Yes. Were they hoping they could get away without it? Probably. Are they concerned about the fine-tuning problem it presents? Certainly. But when the time came, the community of cosmologists readily accepted the cosmological constant and dark energy because observations suggested it exists and not inconveniently it provided a means of rescuing CDM cosmology from other troubling observations.
I don't think there will be agreement on this thread regarding the issue of whether or not cosmologists are dogmatic or open minded where new ideas are concerned. People have well staked out positions on that matter. The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it. The reason ATM ideas are often taken less seriously is that they typically require more dramatic modifications to what is accepted than the cosmological constant did (for example).
Order of Kilopi
No, I answered your question, and so did Dgruss.
Do you know what the 'Magnitude in Blue 50' technique is or what it means? You calculate how many days after the peak magnitude it takes a supernova to lose one magnitude in blue, subtract fifteen days and invert the answer. So if it takes 18 days for a 'type Ia' supernovae to lose one magnitude from the peak in the at-rest blue light band, the value is -3, (I think, it has been a while).
Why subtract 15 days? At the time the method was established (~1995), the average supernova 'type Ia' took fifteen days to lose one magnitude. It should be an easy matter then, to determine whether or not the population observed today has the same average light curve profile as supernova did in 1995. But it is not, and the reason is that even though they are still tracked, the Magnitude in Blue 50 values are rarely published today. Why not? I really don't know. It seems like a useful parameter to follow.
Since then, at least four new techniques have been developed that normalize about one thing or another. What I do know for a fact, is that the scale has been sliding - the normal distribution ten years ago was different than it is today: supernova vary more than was expected. You can't apply Occur's razor when you do not know how long the field is. It is very hard to tell what is happening when everytime the field is ruled off, a different standard is used. Whether or not changing rulers is fraudulent is generally tied to motive. If the motive is to keep the answer as simple as possible without raising eyebrows, I couldn't call it fraud. I couldn't call that good science, either.
Established Member
Are you arguing that anyone who has math correct, is right? If someone presents a correct math of turtles all the way down -scenario, then that scenario is right?
Order of Kilopi
And I would criticize Him for self-publishing His work in the popular press instead of submitting it to Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review, or General Relativity and Gravitation.
Established Member
And I have no explanation for the dreams of Mary Shelley.And I would criticize Him for self-publishing His work in the popular press instead of submitting it to Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review, or General Relativity and Gravitation.
Wikipedia article here
"I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world".
Established Member
My mistake my friend I failed to acknowledge that you are indeed 'trained' in the language of mathematics and I am not. I am saying that "every" conceivable option would be most thoroughly and exhaustively undertaken to be absolutely certain to ensure that His mathematics does prove to be correct. In fact it is my belief and just that my humble and unimportant belief that He would be made to wait to ensure that full and exhaustive testing of His hypothesis and predictions could be carried out before the Absolute Theory Of Everything could receive approval from the properly appointed discipline of scientific endeavour and then He could be properly in the running, as He might be for consideration in the nominations for a Nobel Prize.
To the best of my knowledge I do not remember saying that the scientific community would participate in a fraud, just due process. However if I have made an error of judgement then I will again humbly submit that I am mistaken and will dutifully offer a full and unconditional apology.
Now to return to an earlier question I have so far failed to answer.
In the non capacity of lacking credentials I will offer this:-(snip)
To answer your question tho. 2+2=5: can you point out where the math is wrong? Basically, all of the leading edge of physics is approximations. To try to figure out almost any problem exactly would requre more computing power than exists on the planet. All of classical physics is the low velocity, many state averages of GR and QM. In many places you make assumptions to make the math simpler. Maybe you assume that the pressure gradient is small across the area looked at. Maybe you say that the magnetic field is changing slowly. There are many others.
It depends on the absoluteness of the operand '=' because if in the ordinary simple mathematics it is immutable then the left and the right side of the equation are not in balance. Nature even at co-ordinate points of singularity does 'seem' to fail the laws of mathematical immutability.
If the operand '=' is a barrier and is not immutable then as in nature various situations of flow can exit to balance the left and the right sides, be it a flow or a storm or destruction of an excess on one side or the creation of new material on the other. There is some excellent reading to be had with regards to tipping points.
If on the other hand it is missing some of the required information to explain the nature of why 2+2=5 such as the left and the right sides also being described by the appropriate logarithmic or exponential equations at the point of 2, 2 and 5 respectively then it is through the lack of inside knowledge that the equation loses meaning ... much like 6*9=42 in base 13.
But you are right as others on this forum have so kindly informed me, I do not have the mathematical training and required credentials to identify the simple equation of 2+2=5 under the limited understanding of the rules of mathematics (such as I have) as anything other than wrong.
In many ways mathematics can be viewed with the same degree of awe as the beautiful language of the French. It is to be admired and appreciated and above all respected and so to dare to use it without full knowledge of the absolute beautiful precision of the language is to commit an utterly vulgar act indeed.
Established Member
I'd like to add my experience as a fairly recent contributor to the ATM forum. On the 30th August 2007 I posted "Terry's Simultaneity-Time Cosmology". Despite the fact that this was obviously posted by an amateur, a strong discussion followed, but by the 5th September 2007 it was all over.
It seems to me, in retrospect, that it died because I over-blew my claims. What I had was not a cosmology, but a novel framework for a cosmology. Also it seemed that no one saw any significance in that framework. So the 30 day rule did not limit discussion. I learned a lot, and have since presented the ideas on other forums. But, conversely, nowhere has it received the feedback that it did here.
So I, for one, do not believe that the ATM forum on BAUT is dead. Nor do I feel that the 30 day rule is unreasonable.
Bad Post-Doc
Let's forget the DE/DM discussion. Let's pick something nice and noncontroversial. Meteorites. Was the idea that they fall from the sky once ATM? Was the idea (incorrect, of course!) that they didn't, which Thomas Jefferson believed, once ATM? Before now, of course.
_____________________________________________
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!"
Order of Kilopi
Wasn't the Big Bang theory (its name even coined by one of its detractors) originally ATM? IIRC the mainstream view was very much Steady State.
Perhaps Steady-Staters are just trying to guard an older orthodoxy?
Order of Kilopi
First:
Does not equal this:And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.
The first is an ad-hom dismissal of the presenter. The second is what is supposed to happen.I am saying that "every" conceivable option would be most thoroughly and exhaustively undertaken to be absolutely certain to ensure that His mathematics does prove to be correct. In fact it is my belief and just that my humble and unimportant belief that He would be made to wait to ensure that full and exhaustive testing of His hypothesis and predictions could be carried out before the Absolute Theory Of Everything could receive approval from the properly appointed discipline of scientific endeavour and then He could be properly in the running, as He might be for consideration in the nominations for a Nobel Prize.
Second:
The rest of your post is correct, I did not define the problem completely.
Using base 10 integers where is the mistake in 2+2=5
there is no time evolution or space evolution so = is the absolute definition.
Not really important now tho.
Order of Kilopi
Not implicitly stated is that the math fits observation and observation fits the math. My terminology gets sloppy when I get annoyed.
If someone has the math correct, and can show the earth on a turtle on a turtle, then yeah, he should be accepted.
Order of Kilopi
I think you are looking too much at semantics. My point is that DE was ATM but isnt now. You are correct about the how, but it was still a major change to the thinking of the day.
Your last paragraph has it correct, and is what I have been trying to say. I would change:
generalizing it toThe lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it.
The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that scientists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it.
I would also say that ATM idea are less accepted for more reasons than yours. First is a refusal by many to give a straight answer to a straight question. Second is the inability to admit errors. Third is the mainstreamers are out to get me paranoia. Fourth is the oddball ideas.
Established Member
Then as stated I offer a full and heart felt apology to you korjik my intention was not to dismiss you or offend. I had wished to present a case fairly and with strength, the idea that I had made an ad-hom attack did not occur to me at the time of writing.
Michael.
Order of Kilopi
no problem. The way you put it at first can be a pretty nasty insult and I didnt realize that you didnt mean it that way till later. I have seen a couple physicists get a bit irate with one another when one of them basically said the same thing.
Established Member
My appologies if this has been covered already, I haven't read the whole thread yet. But WIMPs have most certainly not been ruled out yet. The detector that has failed to detect them can currently only detect WIMPs that are more than 100x the mass of a proton. My understanding is that they are expected to be in the range of 40x the mass of a proton. So the null result does not rule out WIMPs, it places an upper limit on their mass. We'll need more sensitive detectors to see them if they are smaller than 100 proton masses.
Order of Kilopi
I can live with that. My thinking was more that the ATM ideas often being advocated would require the abandonment of much more theoretical structure than the acceptance of DE required. For that reason I think those on the ATM side and those on the mainstream side of these debates are often talking past each other.
To the mainstreamer, DE was a major change, but to the ATM'er proposing the Big bang is wrong, universe is not expanding, universe is contracting, universe is electric ... DE was not that big a change because pretty much the entire mainstream framework the ATMer is challenging is still in place after the mainstream adopted DE.
And thus the ATM'er genuinely believes that the mainstream is close minded and the mainstreamer's genuinely believe they are open minded. I think a lot of time could be wasted arguing who is right on that because the two points of view are looking at two very different scales of what it means to change opinion.
So it is really just a difference in perspective - what the mainstreamer sees as a major change, the ATM'er sees as a minor change. So DE is held up as an example of the mainstream scientist being open minded and willing to change view, but the ATM'er sees that change of view as a grain of sand on the beach rather than the big deal mainstream cosmologists view it as.
And in the end it still boils down to the observational evidence - which people on both sides of the debate agree should be the deciding factor - they just don't agree on what level of evidence is needed to make any given ATM idea compelling enough to discuss seriously.
Order of Kilopi
Adapting 'maths' as a standard of whether or not a theory should be considered viable begs the question: Is the math used to reduce astrophysical data that is supportive of mainstream positions superior to mathematical solutions that suggest otherwise?
No one would expect the data reduction tools to stand up to a Food and Drug administrative audit, but cranking and recranking the data until something close to what was expected falls out has very harmful potential.
It is reasonable to ask the questions:
Why haven't the comets we have observed been icy snowballs? Does solar theory need a major revision, and how do we decouple long established hypothesis that no longer appear to be true from the theory that produced them?
Why do supernova researchers reinvent the wheel every time they reduce supernova data?
Why is it acceptable for the WMAP teams to release data years after the original deadlines, and what peer review process allows pixel-by-pixel after- the-fact baseline corrections? (Contrast WMAP with Gravity probe B scientists, who are taking a similar approach, but they are also being much more open and candid about why the data release has been delayed.)
When does the thought process in such endeavors stray so far from acceptable statistical guidelines the the interpretive process should not be sanctioned?
The anticipated threshold at which we are likely to observe gravitational waves has been revised many times in the past four decades. At what junction should the confidence level drop in the underlying theory?
Is it reasonable to wait until a more likely theory weighs in before abandoning one that is inconsistent with observational evidence?
Order of Kilopi
I will go point by point
What comets are is going through a change. From the dirty snowball to snowy dirtball, to whatever develops from here. You seem to forget that we have only gotten a good look at a few comets and a few asteroids, and we really dont know what or how they are made. The dirty snowball hypothesis was developed from spectrographic data from millions of km away. It isnt particularly suprising that it isnt holding up well.
cause doing statistics on small numbers of hard to see objects is, well, hard. Besides, invent the wheel is a bit strong of language. Or should we also throw out all the observational data because the universe got 10% larger a few years ago?
Why do supernova researchers reinvent the wheel every time they reduce supernova data?
partly personalities, partly cause there aint alot of peers to go around. If you think there are nefarious deeds afoot, get the raw data and reduce it yourself.Why is it acceptable for the WMAP teams to release data years after the original deadlines, and what peer review process allows pixel-by-pixel after- the-fact baseline corrections? (Contrast WMAP with Gravity probe B scientists, who are taking a similar approach, but they are also being much more open and candid about why the data release has been delayed.)
When someone does the math and finds out that the results violate statistics. Then someone shows where the statistics goes wacky. You do have to do the math tho.When does the thought process in such endeavors stray so far from acceptable statistical guidelines the the interpretive process should not be sanctioned?
After the sensitivity of the experiment can unambiguosly read down to sensitivities less than the minimum theory allows. We arent there yet with current sensors. By the way, there is some grumbling about this in the mainstream. If the current experiments fail, some people will be taking serious looks at alternatives.The anticipated threshold at which we are likely to observe gravitational waves has been revised many times in the past four decades. At what junction should the confidence level drop in the underlying theory?
Maybe. If the current theory does a decent job, but has problems, then generally it will stick around until a better one comes along. Dosent mean it is right, just that we dont have anything better. Look at basically all of classical physics. It was known it was wrong for quite a while before relativity and quantum were developed.Is it reasonable to wait until a more likely theory weighs in before abandoning one that is inconsistent with observational evidence?
Order of Kilopi
I'm quite certain the model predates spectral analysis of comet plumes - and that is was originally based upon the theory that the outer planetary enviroment is primarily water and other light elements. In any case, the clays and pyroxenes were not expected.
There are better reason for throwing out many assumptions that were based upon a relatively small universe. I don't think the language is strong, because supernova researchers do keep changing their methodologies; and it makes it difficult to impossible to compare the old data with the new....doing statistics on small numbers of hard to see objects is, well, hard. Besides, invent the wheel is a bit strong of language. Or should we also throw out all the observational data because the universe got 10% larger a few years ago?
Nefarious is a bit strong, but there IS an acceptance of techniques used when the results agree with expectations that would not possibly be acceptable if someone used the same techniques to try to prove an alternative theory.partly personalities, partly cause there aint alot of peers to go around. If you think there are nefarious deeds afoot, get the raw data and reduce it yourself.
I have been hearing this for decades...but the bandwagon keeps marching.After the sensitivity of the experiment can unambiguosly read down to sensitivities less than the minimum theory allows. We arent there yet with current sensors. By the way, there is some grumbling about this in the mainstream. If the current experiments fail, some people will be taking serious looks at alternatives.
If you look at all the big money proposals that are funded, they are generally very conservative - difficult attempts to push existing theory another decimal point, and they often fail to do so. That said, it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise, because there are a LOT of wacko paths out there - more on this, when there is time.Maybe. If the current theory does a decent job, but has problems, then generally it will stick around until a better one comes along. Dosent mean it is right, just that we dont have anything better.
Order of Kilopi
Which is why the methodology used during the reduction of observational data should be blind to what the current theory is. This is absolutely not the standard used in the reduction of supernova data.Maybe. If the current theory does a decent job, but has problems, then generally it will stick around until a better one comes along. Dosent mean it is right, just that we dont have anything better.
I don't agree - I don't think relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally 'more correct' than physics developed in the 19th century, in spite of their greater predictive power. Engineers are completely aware that the inclusion of none empirical terms can improve a calculated prediction.Look at basically all of classical physics. It was known it was wrong for quite a while before relativity and quantum were developed.
If better predictability does not equate with better fundamentals, what does?
That's a tough question.
Established Member
Established Member
somethin's not right in space
Thinking by Anderson it might have something to do with Earth's rotation would be a natural place to start, but it may not be the end solution if something is happening in space, away from Earth's known 1 AU, especially if outside this "local terrain" the value of G were to be different. Still, this is merely anecdotal evidence, not yet real science. What is heartening is that the 'mainstream' is beginning to tackle this "Pioneer" type problem with some real questions, that perhaps we don't have gravity right 'out there' even if it looks right here. I believe Anderson et al had approached ESA in the past with the idea to launch a probe to specifically measure for gravity anomalies in the outer solar system. Here is one more possible reason why such a test, to empirically test for inertia related factors (or Newton's G per Equivalence) outside our known "local terrain" of 1 G, is a darn good idea, even if still ATM for now. ... Things change, as korjik pointed out earlier, where ATM one day becomes MS.The researchers looked at six deep-space probes — Galileo I and II to Jupiter, the NEAR mission to the asteroid Eros, the Rosetta probe to a comet, Cassini to Saturn, and the MESSENGER craft to Mercury. Each spacecraft flew past the our planet to either gain or lose orbital energy in their quests to reach their eventual targets.
In five of the six flybys, the scientists have confirmed anomalies.
"I am feeling both humble and perplexed by this," said Anderson, who is now working as a retiree. "There is something very strange going on with spacecraft motions. We have no convincing explanation for either the Pioneer anomaly or the flyby anomaly."
In the one probe the researchers did not confirm a noticeable anomaly with, MESSENGER, the spacecraft approached the Earth at about latitude 31 degrees north and receded from the Earth at about latitude 32 degrees south. "This near-perfect symmetry about the equator seemed to result in a very small velocity change, in contrast to the five other flybys," Anderson explained — so small no anomaly could be confirmed.
The five other flybys involved flights whose incoming and outgoing trajectories were asymmetrical with each other in terms of their orientation with Earth's equator.
For instance, the NEAR mission approached Earth at about latitude 20 south and receded from the planet at about latitude 72 south. The spacecraft then seemed to fly 13 millimeters per second faster than expected. While this is just one-millionth of that probe's total velocity, the precision of the velocity measurements was 0.1 millimeters per second, carried out as they were using radio waves bounced off the craft. This suggests the anomaly seen is real — and one needing an explanation.
The fact this effect seems most evident with flybys most asymmetrical with respect to Earth's equator "suggests that the anomaly is related to Earth's rotation," Anderson said.
Thanks for the heads up 'madman'!
Bad Post-Doc
Guys? Rocks from the sky ATM in the 19th Century?
_____________________________________________
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!"
Order of Kilopi
Anderson & Company massaged the Pioneer data for almost a decade before they published it, and the flyby anomalies were first noted in 1996, but not published until 2004. It is really hard to release data that doesn't make sense.
We are still waiting for results of the Gravity B Probe; and the MS bias of the scientists working the problems is spilling all over the place - ('we are still confident we can extract the frame-dragging values that we were expecting from this mess'.)
Wrong turns have been made; and it will take more than a century of backtracking to sort this all out.
Established Member
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to spend 8 to 12 months or longer studying an equation that hasn't been proven in the first place. Just because someone "important" writes an equation and says that's the way it is, and no one has found a flaw in it, doesn't mean it's not flawed. I'm going to spend my time with nature, nature doesn't lie. People just have different views of what they saw in nature. Michael Noonan is so right when he posted "When God Himself turns up to explain to mainstream science that He did it differently, you can be quite sure their mathematics will prove Him wrong too."
You can make the simplest things complicated so as to confuse anyone!!!!
Order of Kilopi
Yes rocks falling from the sky was ATM, at least in the western world (not in China though AFAIK).
Jon
Order of Kilopi
Supernova researchers have argued that there is 1) NO selection bias; 2)Little if any dust reddening and 3)A very tight distribution in the magnitude of supernova type Ia.
None of these assumptions are statistically supportable, if fact just the opposite. But these assumptions are necessary to draw the conclusions supernova researchers have drawn about the expansion rate of the universe.
More to the point: They do not deny that the assumptions are not generally supportable! In head to head discussions! What the argument comes down to is 'when you find a better solution, (that meaning a cosmology that is supported by a different set of assumptions), then we will abandon this approach. Don't you see the falacy this creates? When each subgroup of cosmic researchers (CMB, Supernova, X-ray, gamma ray) is allowed to use data reduction techniques that produce results that are consistent with the other methodologies, the supportive structure of mainstream cosmology can never be successfully challenged. This is a non-scientific posture, and it should not be tolerated.
On the other hand, the anomalous accelerations noted by Anderson et al are entirely consistent with a Non-Newtonian hypthesis. A lot of other data are not. What I do not have a good feel for is how much of the data collected in the 20th century has been hand-tailored to conform with expectations. I don't know how to nail down the subtle differences, to re-exhume what has been filtered out under the assumption that the standard model is correct.
Posting Permissions
