|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Thanks, I believe that awnsers my question. In other words, cosmologists can refute the electric cosmos model based on electrical knowledge and observations alone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Now I'm confused. If Arp is such a bad scientist, and Max Plank Institute is such a prestage facility, how is it possible that he found work there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Arp may well be a very good scientist who unfortunately has fallen in love with a pet theory. The late Sir Fred Hoyle did some excellent work, but got stuck on the Steady State theory and eventually fell to advocating some very strange ideas. And I certainly would not suggest that Arp is as far out of it as Hoyle became in his latter years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
In other words, cosmologists can refute the electric cosmos model based on electrical knowledge and observations alone? I don't know enough about the model or the observations to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Sylas in Message 114 provided the most detailed information about Arp. There is apparently a minority of cosmologists who believe that some significantly red shifted objects are not distant. Although it is fairly long, I found this link provided by Sylas to be riveting reading: The Redshift Controversy: Exposing the Boundaries of Acceptable Research. It's full of details about the Arp red shift controversy, including the manner in which Arp's research efforts were curtailed, and on the dim view the scientific community takes of someone who insists on bringing scientific controversies to the public.
One detail of this controversy seemed very familiar to me. When Arp could not be persuaded that his statistical methods were flawed, the debate shifted to other arenas. Other scientists expressed puzzlement at Arp's inability to comprehend how he had gone wrong, and since Arp continued to push his agenda anyway they felt forced to confront his views on other grounds. Something like this happens here all the time. For example, there's a thread begun by someone who believes he's invented a perpetual motion machine. He had some equations, and when it was pointed out that he had the units wrong we discovered that this point carried no weight with him - he didn't seem to understand it was a fatal flaw. And so the discussion was forced into other areas, though we kept pushing this point, too. There was another member who didn't understand conversion between measuring systems, in this case between English and metric. He had measurements for the Great Pyramid in a unit called pyramid inches. We challenged his measurements by taking measurements in metres or feet off the Internet and converting them to his inches. He thought this completely invalid, and so the discussion was forced to shift to other aspects of his pyramid claim, though some little progress was ultimately made concerning measurements. Halton Arp appeared to frustrate the cosmological community by doing the same thing. Unable to understand or concede on the primary point about statistical methods, other scientists were forced to confront him on more secondary points, thus extending the controversy far longer than necessary and acting as a distraction from other research efforts. Everyone's in favor of fairness and due diligence in the examination of claims, but most people understand that groups cannot argue at the fork in the road forver. At some point a decision must be made, and if one of the roads turns out to be a dead end it will be discovered sooner by picking one than by arguing endlessly. Arp's road was the one not chosen, and whether or not the decision was right or wrong, he has certainly made them pay. By the way, be sure to view the Hubble photo Sylas provided of the controversial celestial objects: NGC4319 and Markarian 205. There's obviously no link between them, and Arp's decades long argument that there was a link is now clearly shown to be just what astronmers originally suspected: it's an artifact of lower resolution images. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, 02-03-2005 20:09 AM Admin Sylas has corrected the title of the link. This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-03-2005 21:23 AM This message has been edited by Percy, 02-04-2005 15:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Now I'm confused. If Arp is such a bad scientist, and Max Plank Institute is such a prestage facility, how is it possible that he found work there? You are assuming that Arp is a bad scientist. Well, he's not the greatest, that's for sure, and he's made some mistakes of fact and some errors of judgement; but he's done some good work and appears to be continuing to do some good work. It's also possible (just off the top of my head, and I have no idea if it's true) that the Max Plank Institute is purposefully employing him to ensure that alternative viewpoints are investigated and heard. The "monolithic and dogmatic" scientific establishment is a myth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
On talk.origins I and others spent over a year discussing isochron dating with a lady who had a laudable facility for generating excellent questions and fresh viewpoints, and a regrettable religious blind spot that prevented her from accepting or even acknowledging the answers to her questions.
We spent a couple of months on a sticking point that turned out to be her inability to accept or understand why five divided by zero is undefined rather than being five. I think we eventually persuaderd her but it's possible that we didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5291 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Percy writes: Sylas in Message 114 provided the most detailed information about Arp. There is apparently a minority of cosmologists who believe that some significantly red shifted objects are not distant. Although it is fairly long, I found this link provided by Sylas to be riveting reading: On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis. It's full of details about the Arp red shift controversy, including the manner in which Arp's research efforts were curtailed, and on the dim view the scientific community takes of someone who insists on bringing scientific controversies to the public. I’m glad you like it. I also found that link very interesting. But I think you’ve mixed up links. You’ve given Tim Thompson’s technical summary of the various errors and confusions in physics in the electric-cosmos page. It has no mention of Arp at all. You may have been meaning The Redshift Controversy: Exposing the Boundaries of Acceptable Research. These are week 10 notes for a course at UC Irvine in history of astronomy, and it goes into to more historical (non-technical) detail concerning the Halton Arp controversies than I have ever seen in one place before. It is fascinating reading. Important reminder here for all readers. Halton Arp has no association with the electric-cosmos ideas discussed in this thread. It is perhaps regrettable that Arp has so little comment on the quality of many of his supporters, but it’s understandable. He is not responsible for them, and like most astronomers he apparently mostly ignores the really pseudoscientific fringe. Arp himself is a maverick scientist with real ability and unusual ideas. He publishes regularly in the scientific literature, and in collaboration with colleagues. His ideas, though they have not been persuasive and are often subject to blistering criticism, are examined by mainstream scientists and debated. Halton Arp is not nearly a fruitcake to the extent of the electric-sun page, which has no redeeming merits at all that I can see. As an aside, one good way to troll the net looking for crackpot astronomy is to search for laudatory mentions of Halton Arp. It is quite funny. He is the major example for anyone who wants to portray the scientific community as hide bound insular morons who lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the vision and breadth of my theory of [insert private crackpot notion here]. Cheers — Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-03-2005 17:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Sylas, link fixed, thanks for noticing!
I'm glad you mentioned that the electric-cosmos pages have much that Arp wouldn't agree with. It helps people to assess the website if they know that it's a pastiche of views not necessarily consistent with one another. --Percy This message has been edited by Percy, 02-03-2005 20:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5291 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Hi Sylas, link fixed, thanks for noticing! Argh. Much worse! Now you have the link to one page but the title of the other. I've fixed it myself with my awesome admin alter-ego. Hope that is okay. Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-03-2005 21:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5291 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Hanno2 writes: Lets take the statement : "Solar 'wind' is accelarating as it moves away from the sun. the electric model explains this, mainstream is at a loss." An accurate response to this, ten years ago, would acknowledge that science does not have a clear explanation. That is no longer the case. The other point to make and underline is that the electric model definitely does not explain this. In fact, it does not even stand the most passing amateur scrutiny, once the data is pointed out. The model proposes acceleration of the wind by an electric field. But the wind has both positive and negative particles! Oops. This and many other basic errors of the electric-sun model are shown in more detail in On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis, by Tim Thompson. The electric sun model is basically supported by hand waving, and not real calculated details or accurate examiniation of the phenomena allegedly explained. Scientists are far more exacting about their models, which makes it very difficult to get one that is accepted. As far as mainstream science is concerned, the acceleration of solar wind is now pretty much solved; though not completely. There are, as in any active area of science, new questions openned up as old ones are answered. See Surfing the Solar Wind, A NASA Space Science Update held on July 8, 1999. Extract:
quote: There is a more detailed press release available there, and many images. By the way, I see you have acknowledged that the original post was a little ... rash. No problem. Most folks won't hold that against you. Pages like the electric-cosmos page can look superficially plausible to a beginner, and it can be embarassing to discover how misleading it all is. But that's okay; and looking into it seriously is a great way to learn about astronomy. It can be hard to locate more accurate information or to judge which sources are really reliable, but most people here will be happy to help, and to justify our estimations of what is reliable and what is not. In the end, you will have to judge that for yourself; and you are not obliged to rush into it. Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-03-2005 23:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Hanno2 writes:
Here is a reference: The nuclear model for stars do not explain how the solar wind ACCELERATE as it moves away from the sun. Home | Southwest Research Institute quote: I don't know if this has anything to do with a nuclear model, but...
Hanno2 writes:
Right, we don't know why the sun's corona is so hot. It does not explain why the surface of the sun is only 6000 'c, while the cronona is millions of celsius degrees. Well, here is a likely explanation. http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm It says that it's not the corona that's abnormally hot, it's the photosphere that's abnormally cool. Hanno2 writes:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/sunspots.html It does not explain why depresions in the sun (sunspots) are actually COOLER than the rest of the sun.This explains it pretty simply. Ok, so you are right, none of these processes are nuclear, so nuclear physics does not explain them. That's the shell game played by your website.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024