|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I have no idea where you got that from but it is actually incorrect. When I click on the wiki link I see the statement of Occam's razor is exactly as AlphaBob presented. Of course there is also this:
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Ok you are correct but his explanation is a perfect example of quote mining.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
When a journal publishes a paper, it means that the results are correct and current (for the majority of cases at least). No it does not mean that. You really ought to know better. What would you say now about all of those pre 1992 papers?
The paper says Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 0-0 (0000) Printed 1 February 2008 and when a paper is printed it means that it was published. What would be your response, Alphabob, if I were to demonstrate conclusively that the article in question was published in a journal in 1998? ABE: http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/298/2/483.full.pdf Edited by NoNukes, : Why be coy?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Ok you are correct but his explanation is a perfect example of quote mining. Summarizing Occam's Razor as
quote: is certainly not quote mining.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Alphabob writes: I was accused of being a crank by just saying that my paper was available. So your definition of a crank may differ from the usual meaning. You're really going to cherry pick a definition of crank in order to claim that you're not a crank? Really? Would the genius who solved the most pressing cosmological conundrum of the day really find himself in the middle of an argument about whether he is or is not a crank at a creation/evolution discussion board? By the way, you screwed up Occam's Razor. You want the simplest hypothesis that explains all the evidence (that's the "necessity" portion from Occam's original formulation). You think your hypothesis explains more of the evidence than currently accepted theory, so if you're determined to stay here then you should be focusing your efforts on how to make the issues both understandable and convincing for laypeople. My advice hasn't changed. Stop acting like a crank. You can start by taking down your comment at arXiv about censorship. Start your science career with some short well-written papers and build some credibility. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1132 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
I would say that someone has a typo in their article .
There's nothing wrong with the pre-1992 articles; for example, some contain irrefutable observations such as spectroscopic redshift of the FBGs and their characteristics. The problem is that many have proposed theoretical solutions that can be ruled out from later observations. Mergers between galaxies for example were not fully constrained until just recently (2011+), which is an important aspect in the FBG problem. Some suggested that drastic mergers took place around 0.3z - 1.0z, but new results demonstrate the amount of mergers is insignificant. Others purposed that the FBGs were blue dwarfs or dE, but 300% brighter than the local populations. Observations have shown that they perfectly match the characteristics of common irregulars and disk, i.e. they are fully consistent with no evolution in terms of color and redshift distribution. This is why the two papers posted are in disagreement with not only each other, but also the direct and conclusive observations from earlier studies. Then again these were never actually published in scientific journals. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1132 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
Unless you have another accepted definition for a "crank", I do not see how I fit any of the qualities listed. As I said before, I'm currently taking a break from work until my tendonitis heals. In the mean-time I'm simply getting some perspective on the average persons opinion and beliefs.
The definition of Occam's razor is correct due to the word competing, implying the relevant theories have similar explanatory power. For example, both theories fit the observed redshift distribution of FBGs and SNIa. Mine however requires only classical assumptions derived from experimentally verified physics. My redshift equation also relies on a single variable rather than lamdba-CDM's three. Beyond this, my theory predicts the inferred excess of FBGs at the observed redshift; lamdba-CDM does not. The change in apparent size (angular scale) of clusters and FBGs with redshift are also equivalent. So the other aspect of Occam's razor would apply here, where "one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power". My theory is simpler and has greater explanatory power. I also stick with my comment on Arxiv censoring my paper. "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." They refused to provide a specific reason for the censorship, refused to send my request to their over-sight (scientific advisory board) and admitted that they filter papers based upon personal interest rather than content. The thing is that I'm not down with corruption, greed or censorship and when I directly experience these types of things I'm going to make sure everyone knows about it until the problem is resolved. "Nineteen scientists, for example, Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, testified that none of their papers are accepted and others are forcibly re-categorized by the administrators of the arXiv either due to the controversial nature of their work, or it not being canonical to string theory, in what amounts to intellectual censorship." I am also planning on writing much shorter papers and publishing them. However, it is crucial that I make my research available to the general public and scientific community; mostly in terms of ensuring no one attempts to steal credit from me. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Alphabob writes: "Nineteen scientists, for example, Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, testified that none of their papers are accepted and others are forcibly re-categorized by the administrators of the arXiv either due to the controversial nature of their work, or it not being canonical to string theory, in what amounts to intellectual censorship." Brian Josephson's current area of research is telepathy and other areas of parapsychology. He is now a crank like you, and like Robert Gentry who was described in the very next paragraph of the article you quoted from the New World Encyclopedia article on arXiv:
New World Encyclopedia writes: "Robert Gentry, a Seventh-Day Adventist, submitted papers on the Big Bang written from a creationist perspective. The arXive administrator removed his papers and revoked his posting rights in 2001. Gentry filed a lawsuit in the district court of Knoxville, Tennessee. Gentry noted, "I'm a creationist and a believer in the Bible, but I want to know the truth. I want these papers to be tested by the scientific community." This incident is similar to others that involve censorship of papers that support the intelligent design theory in life science fields. These cases raise questions about academic freedom in the areas of academia and academic publishing that are supposedly value-neutral." If Josephson and Gentry are really the kind of company you identify with then you'll continue to be treated like a crank by the mainstream scientific community, and deservedly so.
I am also planning on writing much shorter papers and publishing them. However, it is crucial that I make my research available to the general public and scientific community; mostly in terms of ensuring no one attempts to steal credit from me. Tendinitis notwithstanding, if you can respond to messages here then you can write papers. Better start now, because if the evidence is really in your favor then that evidence is out there for anyone with more sense than you to examine and take advantage of. But I doubt you'll do that, because your need to feel like the object of discrimination is overwhelming your desire to make legitimate scientific contributions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1132 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
I suppose that demonstrates the current state of science when a noble laureate is considered a crank. Arxiv has admitted censorship by itself "'to accommodate the interests of people within the research community' and not 'outsiders'"; keyword interest.
"He is now a crank like you" Once again a baseless accusation. You argue in circles and ignore basic proofs and logic. The proofs are simple, the discussion already exists from conventional literature and all you can do is repeat the same crank line over and over again. Please contribute something productive or nothing at all... Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Alphabob, I'm calling you a crank because you're acting like a crank. Instead of working assiduously to join the ranks of the scientific community and fulfill their requirements you instead sit on the outside making accusations while promoting your ideas to a community unqualified to evaluate them, including extravagant claims of genius, of a "Theory of Everything", of 15,000% error in the Big Bang theory, and of nefarious behavior by sinister scientific forces.
If you're really interested in contributing to scientific knowledge, then do it and stop wasting your time here. If you're really interested in helping laypeople understand your theory, then explain it in language we can understand. If you're a crank, then just keep doing what you're doing. We get lots of cranks here, you're fitting right in. --Percy PS - Josephson isn't the first top-class scientist to become attached to ideas with little scientific support in his later years, as witness Fred Hoyle and James Watson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Well I have no skin in this game and no comprehension of the subject but I've been reading this thread with interest.
I suppose it's possible that a genius can come out of nowhere and show all contemporary physics to be wrong - and there are obvious precedents, or at at least one - but i really can't imagine why someone who is seemingly capable of proving modern physics wrong would try to do it here. Surely some part of this mighty work is worthy of it's own publication? Is it necessary to attempt the proof in one bite? As we all seem to be saying, it strikes me that better tactics would be to win a few battles before claiming victory.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2561 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I can't think of any precedents, at least within physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Well there was a fairly famous patent clerk who managed to come up with an idea or two.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2561 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
Einstein didn't have an academic position, but he was still operating from within the professional world of physics in 1905, his annus mirabilis. He completed his PhD early in that year, and he'd already published several papers by then; he had enough of a reputation that he started writing reviews for Annalen der Physik the same year as well. Also, his revolutionary papers were more a matter of reinterpretation of existing physics, rather than a wholesale replacement of existing theories. Special Relativity, in particular, has clear antecedents in the work of Lorentz and Poincare. In contrast, the paper in question here would completely gut the prevailing theories in both cosmology and particle physics.
Edited by sfs, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1132 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
Some act as if I haven't tried to publish the paper (and nearly succeeded), work in cooperation with universities or make my research available to the scientific community. Although I agree that this isn't the best place for a scientific debate on the theory, that was never my intention in the first place. That doesn't mean I won't respond to reasonable posts or questions however.
I just think the use of "crank" should be left to those studying telepathy or drawing random shapes on paper and saying it's "the theory of everything". Cranks do not get accepted to publish in conventional journals, let alone be asked to resubmit at a shortened length. There are many wackos out there purposing absurd theories in the first place and they are not usually considered cranks. Yes, the odds of a recent graduate solving the theory of everything and proving the big bang theory wrong are astronomical. But I'll let the facts and evidence speak for themselves. 1. There are 200%-300% more faint blue galaxies (FBGs) at 0.3z - 1.0z than predicted by lambda-CDM.2. These FBGs are 200%-300% smaller than expected relative to lambda-CDM. 3. It is known from published articles that the distribution and properties of these galaxies are consistent with no evolution, i.e. the actual sizes cannot be changing. 4. The apparent (angular) sizes of galactic clusters and FBGs are observed to change by identical amounts with respect to redshift (with an error of about 6% up to 0.7z). This is the main focus of the video and only takes 2 minutes to cover. 5. My theory resolves all of these problems with a single constant and redshift equation derived from classical physics (Doppler and gravitational redshift). It doesn't take a genius to understand the problems with the big bang theory. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024