No Big Bang

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Jon, the next time I hear any request for funding of a science project, I know where my vote will lie. Your and KN attitudues about non physicists is nothing less than appalling.

This was the main difficulty I came across during my PhD: trying to explain (and more importantly to convince) people who don't have the means of understanding what it is you are trying to do. Annoying as hell, I can tell you.

I don't blame Ned for this however. Everybody has his limitations and strong points. I am sure in court he could kick my ass any way he wanted.

However, people need to understand that even though scientific work needs to lead one way or the other to something practical it makes no sense whatsoever to try to explain the theory at a level where it is practically becomes meaningless. It is not that we don't want to, but where we went a non educated guy can simply not follow.

[Lul Thyme]

I kind of don't understand your new approach Ned.
Take cryptography.
It is clearly very important, even practically and such research would be deserving of funding.
Yet some approaches in the field would require many years of study on your part to understand even the terms they are using, yet alone the concepts.

How is that a contradiction?

Why is the fact that something cannot be explained satisfactorly at your level of knowledge a reason it should not be funded for example?

EDIT:
I guess dannubis has made more or less the same point.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

We generally assume that functions are (to quote a professor of many-bodied QFT) not "pathological"...

Pfff...

Pussies

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Bull. It is your attitude about non physicists and explaining things that is way over the top and beyond the pale.

I can tell you that you have created an enemy.

Actually I think some of KH's notorious impatience and patronising might just have been a bit justified in this thread.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Jon, the next time I hear any request for funding of a science project, I know where my vote will lie. Your and KN attitudues about non physicists is nothing less than appalling.

Knowledge starts with humbleness. I'm smart, I'm a scientist-in-training, I'm a biochemist. And I fully admit that my grasp of physics will probably never go much beyond a basic understanding and a rough understanding of the simple analogies of the more complex stuff.

I don't have the time, training or maybe even the brain structure to get the apex of physics as KH terms it. I accept the consensus of physicists because they've put in over a decade of training and work within a scientific framework where, even if I don't understand what they're going on about, their ideas are peer-reviewed and tested to the breaking point. The ideas aren't just random musings from lotus eaters unlike a lot of theories put forward by people (perhaps like you and I) who don't understand the maths and history.

Its fine and great and good for people to question and try and understand modern science but its not productive to try and poke holes in theories when we don't understand the theory to begin with.

[Ned]

Starchild, as I have repeated here, in this thread, many times, I posted the "tired light" theory to find out what our esteemed physics majors thought of it, etc. What I got was a long series of ad hominem attacks and boasts, and very little in terms of intelligent responses. For example, KH flatly stated IIRC, that GR does not provide for redshifting of light as it passes through space and time. When I pointed to a NASA experiment that proved the contrary, KH began his rants that only became worse as I delved deeper into the subject. He wouldn't say more on the topic, just that he was the greatest and everyone else was not qualified to listen to his musings.

But simple searches on the web show that others, presumably fellow physicists, have had the same idea as mine in that "tired light" is, in fact, consistent with GR and actually accounts for the dark matter problem.

See this:

"There is a serious error in the use of Newton's law of gravity. It is
due to the ASSUMPTION - without proof - that the law of gravity (based
upon observation in our solar system and our galaxy) is also valid
without change at much greater distances. My analysis of the rotation
curves in spiral galaxies has shown that the flat rotation curves can
be explaned by generalizing the gravitaional constant by adding a term
linear with distance - and without needing the puzzeling dark matter.
This term is comperable to the usual gravitaitional constant at
distances greater than about about 3 parsacs, about the size of spiral
galaxies.
Thus dark matter need not be invoked to explain rotation curves of
spiral galaxies, nor the motion of remote galaxies as decribed by Fred
Zwicky. Aa a byproduct, the extension of the therory of gravity for
large distances can explain the concept of "tired light" suggested by
Zwicky.
It also provides a new view of the ASSUMPTION by Hubble and others
that the red shift is only due to velocity and can be used to measure
the velocity of remote galaxies, and questions the concept of the
acceleration of the expansion of the universe. There are many other
surprising consequences.
A detailed presentation of my analysis is available at

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-universe.htm.

Comments will be appreciated."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=47670

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ned
Starchild, as I have repeated here, in this thread, many times, I posted the "tired light" theory to find out what our esteemed physics majors thought of it, etc. What I got was a long series of ad hominem attacks and boasts, and very little in terms of intelligent responses. For example, KH flatly stated IIRC, that GR does not provide for redshifting of light as it passes through space and time. When I pointed to a NASA experiment that proved the contrary, KH began his rants that only became worse as I delved deeper into the subject. He wouldn't say more on the topic, just that he was the greatest and everyone else was not qualified to listen to his musings.

If you actually read, you will see that Starchild's response was directed at your comment concerning ANY science research funding.
Thus, your discussion with KH is not really relevant to Starchild's response.

My point is if you want to ***** about KH's attitude, you would find at most mild disagreement.

But if you somehow try to establish a general science funding protocol out of this, you will get a lot more disagrement which is exactly what happened (See Dannubis, LulThyme and Starchild's response).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


If you actually read, you will see that Starchild's response was directed at your comment concerning ANY science research funding.
Thus, your discussion with KH is not really relevant to Starchild's response.

My point is if you want to ***** about KH's attitude, you would find at most mild disagreement.

But if you somehow try to establish a general science funding protocol out of this, you will get a lot more disagrement which is exactly what happened (See Dannubis, LulThyme and Starchild's response).

Lul, you will note that I said what I said when Miller said he agreed with KH that physicists could not and should not dumb down any discussion of physics with the layman. I then asked myself how in the world could they justify their request for research dollars to Congress if that was their attitude. No one simply gets a blank check just because they say so. Their attitude was akin to, "Congressman, please shut up and stop asking stupid questions. Just sign the check."

Outrageous!

That

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Ned
But simple searches on the web show that others, presumably fellow physicists, have had the same idea as mine in that "tired light" is, in fact, consistent with GR and actually accounts for the dark matter problem.

Two key problems here. First, the assumption that the people posting on the web are physicists. Or even if they are, they've been trained in the same field and to the same degree as the known physicsts on Poly or the established physics community.

Two, the validity of a novel physics solution that's been published on the web and not in a peer-reviewed journal. Its very easy for someone to get a domain name, expound upon a theory that they have come up with and possibly even use some math or data to support it. However, unless its been vetted by the wider community, its not worth the bandwidth. There may be a flaw in the maths, an assumption made that shouldn't have been or experimental fluke. Science doesn't preach eternal truths that are unquestionable. If this stuff was a good challenge for the established consensus, people would be diving all over it. Scientists are never so excited as when they think they can overthrow the current dogma and verifiably and repeatedly prove it.

And yes, KH is an arrogant twunt. That's why we him. He's also, probably, a very good and well trained physicist, which is why I respect his opinion on matters like this. A respect, I assume, he would extend to me and the other Poly biologist/chemists/biochemists if he ever had a question that entered into our field of expertise.

[Ned]

No doubt, Starchild, the Web does promote dissemination of wild conjectures.

Btw, just checking on Wikpedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshif...nsion_of_space), it appears that reshifting due to expansion of the universe is generally accepted. I don't know whether this is the same as reshifting (blue shifting) due to changing gravational fields. Both may be going on as a photo travels across the universe, the universe expands and gravitational fields presumably weaken.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ned


Lul, you will note that I said what I said when Miller said he agreed with KH that physicists could not and should not dumb down any discussion of physics with the layman. I then asked myself how in the world could they justify their request for research dollars to Congress if that was their attitude. No one simply gets a blank check just because they say so. Their attitude was akin to, "Congressman, please shut up and stop asking stupid questions. Just sign the check."

Outrageous!

That

Actually often these things are decided by peer review.
Sure it may sound like circle jerking but in a way, that's unavoidable at some point.
How do you think the Nobel Committe awards the Phyics Nobel Prize?
They have to consult panels of physicists.
And then non physicists will see you have a Nobel Prize and give you grants.
Same happens in math.
Whoever controls the money usually relies on a trusted insider (or a group of them) to help guide decisions...

To take your example, to reach decisions, Congress probably relies on some sort of generic scientific panel which in turn relies on expert in whatever field is under discussion.

Now I will state for the record that I disagree with KH to the EXTENT to which explaining scientific ideas to lay people is impossible.
I agree with him with the principle that a lot is usually lost in the process, nevertheless I feel at some point it is an important process.
Layman science books are important in getting new generations of scientists interested in the subject, for one.

Now I probably agree that someone who thinks he's an expert based on reading such books is deluded.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You are stupid.

Light "falling" deeper into a gravitational well gains energy and is blueshifted. Light "rising" out of a gravitational well is redshifted.

Why do you bother attempting to postulate or defend wacko theories of cosmology if you don't even understand basic physics?

Ned is just repeating articles he finds on those wacko rightwing websites he visits. Basically the Christian fundimentalists feel they have to fight evolution and they think making stupid papers attacking the big bang will strengthen peoples' desire for religion. Those people want to believe that god created everything so as science explains ever more of the universe they get more and more desperate. The OP is an example of that desperation.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There are only 40000 of us in the whole world, and we're the smartest single group of people around.

I know scientists in a number of fields who would take issue with your characterization of physicists being the smartist people in the world. Scientists in general are smart and the hard sciences are a cut above the soft sciences but that's about as far as I will go with generalizations.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ned
Starchild, as I have repeated here, in this thread, many times, I posted the "tired light" theory to find out what our esteemed physics majors thought of it, etc. What I got was a long series of ad hominem attacks and boasts, and very little in terms of intelligent responses. For example, KH flatly stated IIRC, that GR does not provide for redshifting of light as it passes through space and time. When I pointed to a NASA experiment that proved the contrary, KH began his rants that only became worse as I delved deeper into the subject. He wouldn't say more on the topic, just that he was the greatest and everyone else was not qualified to listen to his musings.

But simple searches on the web show that others, presumably fellow physicists, have had the same idea as mine in that "tired light" is, in fact, consistent with GR and actually accounts for the dark matter problem.

See this:

"There is a serious error in the use of Newton's law of gravity. It is
due to the ASSUMPTION - without proof - that the law of gravity (based
upon observation in our solar system and our galaxy) is also valid
without change at much greater distances. My analysis of the rotation
curves in spiral galaxies has shown that the flat rotation curves can
be explaned by generalizing the gravitaional constant by adding a term
linear with distance - and without needing the puzzeling dark matter.
This term is comperable to the usual gravitaitional constant at
distances greater than about about 3 parsacs, about the size of spiral
galaxies.
Thus dark matter need not be invoked to explain rotation curves of
spiral galaxies, nor the motion of remote galaxies as decribed by Fred
Zwicky. Aa a byproduct, the extension of the therory of gravity for
large distances can explain the concept of "tired light" suggested by
Zwicky.
It also provides a new view of the ASSUMPTION by Hubble and others
that the red shift is only due to velocity and can be used to measure
the velocity of remote galaxies, and questions the concept of the
acceleration of the expansion of the universe. There are many other
surprising consequences.
A detailed presentation of my analysis is available at

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-universe.htm.

Comments will be appreciated."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=47670

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Pfff...

Pussies

We had a math grad student in my class when I took QFT II

The prof said "now we divide by the volume of the gauge group" and wrote down a (sqrt(pi))^inf on the bottom, cancelling it with the same term up top.

The math kid shuddered. We never saw him again.