Is the Big Bang Theory Debunked?

[phoenixthoth]

I came across this and was wondering if it was just hot air or if it was serious:

http://www.rense.com/general61/bbang.htm

 

[Grogs]

I can't speak for the site the story is posted on, but yes it is a serious issue, although from what I can tell, Arp is considered a maverick in cosmological circles. Look at the Non-Cosmological Redshift thread in the General Astronomy and Cosmology forum.

Personally, I think that even if this is found true (and that's far from a foregone conclusion) the Big Bang will survive, just as Newton's laws survived Relativity. The Big Bang has a lot more legs to stand on than just quasars.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From Rense's source.

For those twenty years Talbott and Thornhill remain outsiders, at odds with the scientific establishment. Each longs for confirmation of his discoveries from other disciplines.

1994. Talbott and Thornhill meet in an elevator. And each discovers in the work of the other the confirmation he has been searching for. Ancient mythology and leading edge astrophysics are telling the same story. [] That story will shake up our collective assumptions both about the Earth’s not so distant past and about how deep space and the universe actually function. [continued]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tb-authors.htm

Any questions?

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Not commenting on the big bang one way or the other but hasn't it long been known that there is basically dust floating in space? Over a vast enough distance that dust would build up an effect quite similar to the atmosphere's effect on sunlight at sunset?

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but it seems that redshift of incoming light from distant parts of the universe should have never been a concept of any consequence other than a mere expectation.

... further away, more dust in between, photons lose energy... yadda yadda.

 

[Nereid]

I came across this and was wondering if it was just hot air or if it was serious:

http://www.rense.com/general61/bbang.htm

It's nonsense.

For example: "The Big Bang was dismantled by direct observation-including a highly redshifted quasar in front of a nearby galaxy!" note that Reese doesn't give you any info on which one (so you simply have to take his word for it) - not a good sign (and, AFAIK, there isn't any such 'direct observation').

If Reese is serious about this: "For many years it has been known that the map of the universe acquires a bizarre appearance when you let redshift determine distances. Suddenly galactic clusters stretch out in radial lines absurdly pointing at the earth. The effect is called "the fingers of God," and the earth-directed "fingers" span billions of light-years." he's either extraordinarily ignorant, or disingenuous (to put it mildly) ... a) the effect has been well known for a long time (look up 'virial theorem'), b) the fingers of god
don't stretch over such distances, and c) there is a lot of voids, strings, and sheets ... just what is predicted in the concordance model (of cosmology).

Note that there's not a single concrete, specific, testable prediction on his website ... so we are to abandon the mainstream astronomy community - with its millions of observations - in favour of Reese, simply because he says we should?

 

[Overdose]

Seems like the big bang theory should have never attained the status and credibility it did. But as useall the majority are more interested in preserving their sacred doctrines than the truth. Seems like a common theme throughout the scientific world.
Here's to preserving the status quo..

 

[russ_watters]

Seems like the big bang theory should have never attained the status and credibility it did. But as useall the majority are more interested in preserving their sacred doctrines than the truth. Seems like a common theme throughout the scientific world.
Here's to preserving the status quo..

You don't see any contradictions in that post, do you...? How about:

-"the big bang theory should have never attained the status and credibility it did"
is contradictory to:
-"But as useall the majority are more interested in preserving their sacred doctrines"
and:
-"Here's to preserving the status quo"

So I ask: how did the BBT attain status and credibility if the scientific community likes to preserve the status quo? How did Relativity become the 'dogma' some people call it today, if in 1900, pretty much every scientist supported ether theory?

The science-is-dogma opinion is self-contradictory at face value.

 

[Chronos]

It's hot air. Rense is spouting off a lot of nonsense that was debunked 20 years ago. WMAP sent a bunch of his kind underground. Now they are re-emerging under the under the umbrella of CREIL and other unprovable intrinsic redshift crap. Believe it if you like. You will notice they always explain why it makes the same predictions as GR. You will also notice they fail to mention the predictions that do not match GR. It's all cowpies to me.

 

[NeutronStar]

I came across this and was wondering if it was just hot air or if it was serious:

http://www.rense.com/general61/bbang.htm

For established science the greatest embarrassment could come from public realization that, for decades, astronomers suppressed the warning signs.

Anytime you see this kind of garbage stated about scientists you can bet your sweet bippy that it was written by a crackpot!

If any credible scientist has a so-called "warning sign" that there was something wrong with the Big Bang Theory they would quickly jump on that evidence to see where it could lead. Scientists aren't a group of secret conspirators attempting to support someone else's theory at all cost. On the contrary they are ruthless cut-throat competitors who would jump at any chance to make a name for themselves by proving anything at all! Especially if it flew in the face of some traditional theory!

They would instantly be seen as another Einstein if they had a credible theory that would upset conventional wisdom. So the idea that they are somehow trying to cover their tracks because they know they are wrong is the most absurd crackpot idea anyone could possible suggest.

That's not to say that the Big Bang Theory might not be incorrect. Personally I think it will be discovered to be incorrect someday actually. But the idea that scientists are suppressing warning signs to avoid embarrassment is absurd!

There's nothing embarrassing about recognizing that any particular theory has other explanations that might actually be more compelling. That's what science is all about!

But astronomers ignored or dismissed Arp's work, insisting that his conclusions were either erroneous or impossible.

If the scientific community looked at this work and dismissed it as being invalid, then who wrote this article? And why should we believe them? Sounds like disgruntled complaining to me. "Nobody believes us but we're right! You just wait and see! The entire scientific community will be embarrassed about being dumber than we are!"

 

[TheAntiRelative]

The conspiracy theorist tone and lack of evidence does seem to contribute to the characterization of the site as crackpottery...

So I ask: how did the BBT attain status and credibility if the scientific community likes to preserve the status quo? How did Relativity become the 'dogma' some people call it today, if in 1900, pretty much every scientist supported ether theory?

I've got no axe to grind with BBT. I couldn't care less if it is right or wrong but I don't follow your logic here.
It's a little like saying: "How did protestantism become the 'dogma' some people call it today, if in 1500, pretty much every believer in Jesus supported catholicism?"
And I'd say that the catholic church does like to preserve the status quo..

The science-is-dogma opinion is self-contradictory at face value.

Can you elaborate? I'm certain that the troubles that Einstein faced when trying to convince proponents of ether would have seemed to be dogma to him. The fact that a very great many scientists held on to ether for the next 20 years I believe he would have called dogma.
How is it that you believe there is no dogma in current science? Are people 100 years later that much further evolved that we are above turning scientific understandings into belief systems as has been done down through the ages?

1905+ proponents of relativity could have seen many of the seeming contradictory evidence produced by the scientific community as almost a conspiracy to hide the truth. The problem with conspiracy theorist then and now is that they don't properly understand group psychology. Things can happen on a fairly large scale without any specific conscious effort on the part of any of the participants.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's Razor


My question is this:
1) Is it well known fact that there is dust in space or am I remembering some faulty data I picked up somewhere?
2) If so, then there would be a compton effect right?

Okay, if I haven't assumed something wrong in those two statements then there is a redshift that must be expected in any light that travels a great distance. All light from a given source would be redshifted an equal amount so that if the redshift is factored out we can still study the spectral lines of distant stars and galaxies.

I don't know a ton about BBT but surely redshift is not the only leg it stands on. I doubt proving redshift happens in a different manner would cause the theory to totally fail...

Edit:Oh! One question that just occurred to me.(left field) If plasma is known to redshift light and gravity is known to redshift light then wouldn't the light from denser stars be more and more redshifted by their own intense gravity fields? Wouldn't that make it exceedingly hard to determine if a star was so cool that it produced red light or if it was so dense that the light was simply redshifted an amount that makes its color the equivelent to a cooler star?

 

[russ_watters]

Can you elaborate?

Certainly:

I'm certain that the troubles that Einstein faced when trying to convince proponents of ether would have seemed to be dogma to him.

Well that's exactly the point: there were no such troubles. As is usual for the scientific community, it recognized Einstein's work for what it was: correct.

The fact that a very great many scientists held on to ether for the next 20 years I believe he would have called dogma.

It really wasn't that many scientists who disputed Einstein's work. There were no such controversies.

How is it that you believe there is no dogma in current science? Are people 100 years later that much further evolved that we are above turning scientific understandings into belief systems as has been done down through the ages?

No, its an intrinsic property of science itself that it is anti-dogmatic.

edit: More on Einstein. It is is a common misconception that Einstein's work was not well received. In THIS thread, I posted excerpts from THIS biography:

Of note:
-In 1900, Einstein graduated from college at age 21 like his peers.
-For the next year+, he tried, but failed, to get a teaching job. This fact says nothing at all about the "acceptance" of his work.
-After a couple of temporary teaching jobs, Einstein took his famous patent office job in 1902 at about age ~23 (note: he was not a "clerk" as is often said - he was a "technical expert"). He gave up looking for a teaching job. Stopping here is where the erroneous perception comes in. Continuing, for proper context:
-He earned a pHd in 1905 - yes, that's right, he was still a student when he first started working at the patent office.
-Over the next few years, he did a significant amount of his scientific work in his spare time. 1905 is when he first proposed Special Relativity.
-In 1908, he became a lecturer at Bern
-In 1909, he quit his patent job having now, at age 30, been recognized for what he was.
-In 1912 he became a full professor.
-By 1919 following a solar eclipse prediction, the revolution was complete: "The London Times ran the headline on 7 November 1919:- Revolution in science - New theory of the Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown."

To summarize: in his 20s, in between earning a living and putting himself through school, Einstein laid the groundwork for his main works. By age 30, he was recognized for what he was and by age 40, he had essentially completed the rewriting of much of physics. After that, the "only" thing he did was lay much of the groundwork for QM...

Basically, Einstein's ideas were accepted while he was still developing them. It took only 15 years to complete the revolution, and then only that long because it took him 15 years to do the work!

 

[TheAntiRelative]

It really wasn't that many scientists who disputed Einstein's work. There were no such controversies.

Well then I've read a tremendous amount of fiction trumped up by those gawd-awful historians.

Apparently, what was believed and understood by the entire scientific community was totally changed overnight by one students paper... There's was no strife. No misgivings. They all just looked at it and said. Yup! We've all been wrong our entire lives and we're so glad that at a glance, this extremely hard to conceive, and counter-intuitive theory is so self evident.
All it took was just sending the paper around a bit...

That sounds like the plot from the first Blade movie where the blood-god could just look at someone and they'd become a vampire. lol

No I think that any psychologist might tell you that the unlikelihood of that borders on the impossible.

edit: By the way, you know SR wasn't just concieved in '05...

 

[russ_watters]

Apparently, what was believed and understood by the entire scientific community was totally changed overnight by one students paper... There's was no strife. No misgivings. They all just looked at it and said. Yup! We've all been wrong our entire lives and we're so glad that at a glance, this extremely hard to conceive, and counter-intuitive theory is so self evident.

Now c'mon, that's a gross mischaracterization of what I said and the quote I was responding to. A lot happened in those 15 years, but it does not imply any dogma.

I have never heard of any complaint Einstein ever had about the way his theories were received (by all means, feel free to find me some) Contrast that with guys like Arp who is about as famous for his complaining as for his theories. Any controversy (if you want to call it that) was just healthy, normal debate over the scope and implications of an extrordinary, new, still-under-development theory.

edit: I'm searching for controversy...

What I'm seeing is that following the publication of his 1905 paper, he was surprised by how little criticism he received. His most likely critic, Lorentz, the author of the very theory SR was to replace, agreed with him!

There was somewhat more controversy over GR, but that didn't trouble him much because one of the prime pieces of evidence (at the time) hadn't come yet: his prediction on the 1919 solar eclipse.

 

[Phobos]

Note: Rense is just the hosting website (full of crackpottery if you care to check out the homepage). David Talbott is the author of the cited article.

Like Nereid said, the article is all claims/rhetoric and no evidence.

TheAntiRelative - Off the top of my head, I seem to recall some astronomer's discussion that there is not enough dust to cause the amount of redshifting that is observed (the amount of dust needed would totally obscure viewing distant objects). But I'll have to dig around to find the reference on that...

 

[MonstersFromTheId]

Cheers Neutronstar!

Re: Anytime you see things like claims that scientists are "hiding the truth!" to protect the "status quo" it should send up red flags.
I'm sure a LOT of people are likely to scoff at new theories, though you DO have to ask what's really wrong with scoffing when a theory is presented with either little or no evidence to back it up, or a single point current theory has admitted difficulty explaining is offered as "proof" that everything currently accepted is mere "dogma" while everything the "dogma" apparently gets right that the new theory doen't bother to address is ignored, (which seems to account for around 90% of debunking theories), and I REALLY have trouble with people that interprit any attempts to debunk their debunking as an "attack".

"Wait a minute, wait a minute. How do you account for this, this, this, and this?"
"Umm, ah,.. Help! Help! I'm being surpressed!"

It reminds me of the old Woody Allen routine from Casino Royal.

"Yeah but the-the-the (hic!), the (hic!), they (hic!), they called Einstein c-crazy didn't they?"
"That's not true. Nobody ever called Einstein crazy."
"Well they ah wa-WOULD have if,.. (hic!) if - if he'd (hic!),.. if he'd carried on this way!"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

TheAntiRelative - Off the top of my head, I seem to recall some astronomer's discussion that there is not enough dust to cause the amount of redshifting that is observed (the amount of dust needed would totally obscure viewing distant objects). But I'll have to dig around to find the reference on that...

Have we accounted for dark matter? I have been wondering what effect dark matter and dark energy may have on the expected red shift.

 

[arildno]

There has been a few comments on the reception of Einstein's theory of relativity in 1905; I recently read a book, which among other stuff, dealt with the reception of special/general relativity in the Cambridge milieu at the start of the 20th century.
I thought it could be interesting to add a few comments in that connection.

At Cambridge, Joseph Larmor had developed a theory ("Electron theory of Matter") in the 1890's, which to the theorists at Cambridge seemed as a natural development of Maxwell's theories, and seemed to hold great promise as a general theory of physics.
(Experimentalists, however, diverged on this point).

The theory included, amongst other things, what is now known as the Lorentz transformations (but with a subtly different interpretation).
(Lorentz noted his transformation in 1904, some ten years after Larmor)

When Einstein came with his theory in 1905, then, the Cantabrigians were involved in their own (ether-based) research project, and to the extent that they bothered with Einstein, they thought him too philosophical, and that his ideas didn't contain predictions beyond those that their own pet project seemed to promise.

This changed radically about 1915/1916, when GR came to the fore; now Einstein had provided a theory which sought to explain gravitation as well, and was able to predict the required correction in Mercury's perihelion.

If Larmor's theory were to be a truly rival theory to GR, it would have to be able to address such issues as well.
However, Larmor's theory received its death-stroke when Lodge, in collaboration with Eddington showed that the theory made completely wrong predictions in calculating planetary orbits.


The main reason, therefore, of the lacklustre reception of Einstein's theory in 1905 in Cambridge, was that they were already involved in a theoretical project which looked very promising at that time.

When it was shown that Larmor's theory couldn't compete with GR, the theorists at that time at Cambridge finally realized that they needed to adjust their ideas accordingly.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Now c'mon, that's a gross mischaracterization of what I said and the quote I was responding to. A lot happened in those 15 years, but it does not imply any dogma.

I have never heard of any complaint Einstein ever had about the way his theories were received (by all means, feel free to find me some) Contrast that with guys like Arp who is about as famous for his complaining as for his theories. Any controversy (if you want to call it that) was just healthy, normal debate over the scope and implications of an extrordinary, new, still-under-development theory.

edit: I'm searching for controversy...

What I'm seeing is that following the publication of his 1905 paper, he was surprised by how little criticism he received. His most likely critic, Lorentz, the author of the very theory SR was to replace, agreed with him!

There was somewhat more controversy over GR, but that didn't trouble him much because one of the prime pieces of evidence (at the time) hadn't come yet: his prediction on the 1919 solar eclipse.

Hehe, okay I'll admit I was taking things to extremities just as I thought you were but here is some stuff I picked up searching around. I don't vouch for validity...

"Controversy started to rise when Einstein released his second paper called "General Relativity." The controversy was so great that in 1922 when he received his Nobel Prize in physics, it was explicitly stated that the award was not for the Special and General theories. The controversy died down in the late 20's and early 30's when technology was evolved enough to prove Relativity true."

"In 1905 Albert Einstein wrote his famous Special Theory of Relativity. It was published in a scientific journal that same year, but took many years to gain general acceptance. In fact, it was not proven by actual experiment until 25 years later.
Two years after that paper was published, Einstein wanted a job as assistant professor of mathematics. This job required the applicant to submit a thesis paper, so Einstein submitted his Special Theory of Relativity. The university rejected it."

Russians apparently had some problems:
http://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?BookId=4396


Additionally there was the controversy about plagiarism

Lorentz (realtivity components)
Poincare (relativity)
De Sitter (I don't remember)
David Hilbert (Completed field equations)
Paul Gerber (Equations for the perihelion of mercury)


And don't forget that Michelson and Miller (Morley seemed to drop off the map) were very well respected scientists that paved the way for Einsteins revelations with their interferometer work but they still did not agree for many many years afterwards.


People in general (scientists included) have a tendency to turn everything they've "known" for a long period of time into dogma. Even in the face of mountains of evidence, even logical minds can find the areas of doubt and focus on them.

Theories almost always have room for doubt, the difference is that typically it is not reasonable doubt...

 

[TheAntiRelative]

"Wait a minute, wait a minute. How do you account for this, this, this, and this?"
"Umm, ah,.. Help! Help! I'm being surpressed!"

Come see the violence inherent in peer review!
Help help, I'm being repressed!

 

[Phobos]

Have we accounted for dark matter? I have been wondering what effect dark matter and dark energy may have on the expected red shift.

Certainly, there's a lot still to be learned about DM & DE.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is this significant? Since we don't know the true nature of either one, I would think that there must be some question about this in both cases. No?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

On the topic of scientific discovery being supressed...
I can only reference two instances myself.
1) Nikola Tesla/alternating current: Tesla fought tooth and nail for his discovery/invention. Edison et al more or less waged war against him and Westinghouse. Admittedly there was a very definite financial motivation. Even when Tesla first arrived in the US and obtained a job with Edison Edison would not allow Tesla to do work that may rival his own and even stole one of Tesla's inventions which led Tesla to quit his employment with Edison.

2)Lotfi Zadeh/fuzzy logic: Zadeh published his original paper on fuzzy logic in the sixties. Due to it flying in the face of aristotalian logic, the dogma of the field ;-p, and it also being reminicent of so many other multivalued logic systems that had not done so well it gained no acceptance. For decades it had what you might call a "cult following" and that was it. It wasn't until a Japanese foriegn exchange student took the concept back to Japan and they started working with it there which led to a major technological in the nineties that it began to gain acceptance here in the US where the idea originated from in the first place.

Not exactly the same as physics and astronomy but I'm thinking that stories like these are where people get the idea that science is so very stodgy when it comes to new ideas.

 

[Overdose]

100 years later that much further evolved that we are above turning scientific understandings into belief systems as has been done down through the ages?

thanks antirelative that's basically what i was trying to say in my post, but you put it much better than i did. Yes it does seem that as a race we still find it hard not cling to theories as beliefs in an almost religious manner.
Russ says this isn't the case but i strongly disagree, i could list 100's of people who've ideas have been rejected not because their ideas are not valid but simply because the ideas fly in the face of a great deal of 'accepted thought/scientific dogma'.

Not only that but on a personal note I for for one will admit that i sometimes get lazy and fall into a bad habit of forgetting that a lot of the central tenants of science are in actuality JUST theories and working models no matter how well proven. But it somehow just seems easier to treat theories such as the big bang as absolute truths in an almost quasi-religious mindset, prehaps are brains have yet to fully evolve beyond our 'god in the sky' worshipping days...

 

[phoenixthoth]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55862

Do you believe the big bang theory is correct or do you believe it is incorrect?

 

[Nereid]

My question is this:
1) Is it well known fact that there is dust in space or am I remembering some faulty data I picked up somewhere?

My response is that the question is a good one, but it takes quite a lot to answer comprehensively.

So, at the risk of leaving out lots that you are interested in, here goes:
- there is indeed a great deal of 'dust in space' ... several thousand (million?) tonnes of it enter the Earth's atmosphere every day; the Zodiacal light is just 'space dust'; Barnard 68 looks black largely because of dust; IRAS discovered http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/Guess/img9.html all over the sky; edge-on spirals show lots of dust bunnies
- however, there is apparently little or no dust between galaxies

2) If so, then there would be a compton effect right?

Can you say more please? Certainly viewing an object through lots of 'space dust' makes the object look redder than it would if there were no dust.

Okay, if I haven't assumed something wrong in those two statements then there is a redshift that must be expected in any light that travels a great distance.

OK, you've lost me here ... 'reddening' is a very different kettle of fish from 'redshift'; the former is simply a greater absorption of shorter wavelengths (any lines in the spectrum of a reddened object remain at the same wavelenghts they'd appear if there were no dust); the latter is the whole spectrum being moved to longer wavelengths. Are you confusing the two perhaps?

All light from a given source would be redshifted an equal amount so that if the redshift is factored out we can still study the spectral lines of distant stars and galaxies.

what?

I don't know a ton about BBT but surely redshift is not the only leg it stands on. I doubt proving redshift happens in a different manner would cause the theory to totally fail...

Yes and no ... 'redshift' itself isn't one of the pillars, it's the Hubble relationship - the greater the redshift, the further away an object (galaxy, quasar) is. The Hubble relationship is critical to the BBT; since 1927 millions of hours of work and observation have gone into testing it, and it's been refined considerably. The most difficult part of the testing was establishing 'the distance ladder' ... means to reliably estimate the distance of an object in the sky.

Edit:Oh! One question that just occurred to me.(left field) If plasma is known to redshift light and gravity is known to redshift light then wouldn't the light from denser stars be more and more redshifted by their own intense gravity fields?

Am not sure about the former (where did you read that a 'plasma is known to redshift light'?), but the latter has been well-known for a long time, and also observed. For example, white dwarfs show gravitational redshift.

Wouldn't that make it exceedingly hard to determine if a star was so cool that it produced red light or if it was so dense that the light was simply redshifted an amount that makes its color the equivelent to a cooler star?

No. First, you need to do the calculation; simply using words will lead you to all kinds of unresolvable puzzles. Second, the lines in the spectrum of a star can tell you the 'surface gravity' of the star; together with its apparent brightness and estimated distance, you can then work out its size (radius). And so on ... (this post is already waaay too long; I doubt anyone will bother to read it all )

 

[Nereid]

Have we accounted for dark matter? I have been wondering what effect dark matter and dark energy may have on the expected red shift.

Active areas of research! Particularly DE (in fact it was 'discovered' through an apparent anomaly in redshifts - certain supernovae that seem to be good 'standard candles' gave different estimates of their distance - redshift vs luminosity).

Am not sure what 'expected red shift' means - can you elaborate please?

 

[Nereid]

Is this significant? Since we don't know the true nature of either one, I would think that there must be some question about this in both cases. No?

Hugely significant. Both concepts are intimately woven into the concordance model of cosmology.

However, the BBT doesn't require DE (nor, in a sense, DM), so refining our understanding of DM and DE (even, perhaps, discovering that one or both aren't 'real') won't necessarily lead to the discovery of fatal inconsistencies in the BBT - as is so often the case, the devil is in the details!

Further, discovering that DM isn't 'real' would very likely have a huge impact on many areas of physics, possibly both QM and GR ... there is simply no viable alternative (and this comment will surely lead to a flood of posts! So I'll head one stream off at the pass by saying that there are simply no viable alternatives to DM locally).

 

[Nereid]

thanks antirelative that's basically what i was trying to say in my post, but you put it much better than i did. Yes it does seem that as a race we still find it hard not cling to theories as beliefs in an almost religious manner.
Russ says this isn't the case but i strongly disagree, i could list 100's of people who've ideas have been rejected not because their ideas are not valid but simply because the ideas fly in the face of a great deal of 'accepted thought/scientific dogma'.

OK, please do so. Pay particular attention to showing us that the ideas which were rejected were, in fact, 'valid'.

Not only that but on a personal note I for for one will admit that i sometimes get lazy and fall into a bad habit of forgetting that a lot of the central tenants of science are in actuality JUST theories and working models no matter how well proven.

Hmm, maybe you need to devote some of your spare energy to the study of what science actually is! For a start, the idea that you can 'prove' something in science is of historical interest only ... in maths maybe you can 'prove' something; you can't in science. So we're left with theories, hypotheses, models etc ... yep, that's ALL there is! (Oh, and PB of good experimental and observational results).

But it somehow just seems easier to treat theories such as the big bang as absolute truths in an almost quasi-religious mindset, prehaps are brains have yet to fully evolve beyond our 'god in the sky' worshipping days...

Could I suggest that you attend a scientific convention? The annual meeting of the AAS perhaps? Or read ApJ? When you've done that, please get back to us with details of how those actively involved in doing science in the field 'treat theories [sic] ... as absolute thruths in an almost quasi-religious mindset'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm still confused as to how we can properly interpret the red shift given that we have discovered ~95% of the known universe [DM DE] in the last twenty or thirty years; and we don't know what it is. Are the cosmological models so flexible that these concepts were easily incorporated into the existing models?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

whoops, I missed your first response.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I referred to the expected shift, what I meant was the red shift we would get were DE and DM not an influence.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ says this isn't the case but i strongly disagree, i could list 100's of people who've ideas have been rejected not because their ideas are not valid but simply because the ideas fly in the face of a great deal of 'accepted thought/scientific dogma'.

Start by listing one...

And please note: simply being "valid" isn't enough - Newton's gravity is valid in its domain of applicability, but it has still been replaced. These ideas must be at least as good as Relativity to be worthy of consideration.

 

[russ_watters]

Hehe, okay I'll admit I was taking things to extremities just as I thought you were but here is some stuff I picked up searching around. I don't vouch for validity...

I don't want to dwell on this too much (its a pet peve of mine), but from your info there, the plagarism controversy was the biggest I'd heard of, but even that was mostly fringe and even then that has nothing to do with the validity of the theory.

The two quotes are highly misleading: the keys to SR were found before SR was published. Also, GR wasn't mentioned in the nobel citation (which makes sense, since it had nothing to do with GR) - saying it was specifically excluded implies it said something like 'this Nobel prize isn't for GR' and that just isn't true.

Regarding his inability to find a teaching job (I'm not sure how hard he was looking in 1907), that doesn't necessarily imply a controversy.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Can you say more please? Certainly viewing an object through lots of 'space dust' makes the object look redder than it would if there were no dust.

OK, you've lost me here ... 'reddening' is a very different kettle of fish from 'redshift'; the former is simply a greater absorption of shorter wavelengths (any lines in the spectrum of a reddened object remain at the same wavelenghts they'd appear if there were no dust); the latter is the whole spectrum being moved to longer wavelengths. Are you confusing the two perhaps?

Okay,
Yes, reddening causes preferential scattering of shorter wavelengths and redshift shifts the whole spectrum. I am talking about redshift from the compton effect. I guess that it applies primarily to ionized particles but I'm just saying that I have no doubt that the plasma emissions from stars assure that some of the particles are ionized or that there are pockets of electron clouds out there in space and there are some electrons that can be smacked by the photons coming through. In this case it is redshifted across the spectrum because all the photons, regardless of wavelength will transfer some of their energy to the electrons they run into.

Google this:plasma redshift

That'll give you boatloads of links and many of them are regarding using it as an alternative to BBT. Somewhere in there you should be able to find the experimental evidence...

what?

Hehe, ignore me.. I was stating the obvious for some reason.
I guess I was reaffirming that redshifted light, regardless of the source of the shift is mathematically blueshifted for the purpose of matching up spectral lines, so the reason for the shift would be transparent.

No. First, you need to do the calculation; simply using words will lead you to all kinds of unresolvable puzzles.

I was using a gedanken experiment.
What I'm saying is that if something is consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last. Because it is experimentally re-producable, you would rely upon that falsehood.

It's like someone giving you a laser and saying it has a 600nm wavelength and when you test it with a spectrograph it does indeed have a 600nm wavelenth. What you don't know is that this manufacturer uses a corrective screen in front of the laser. You could still use it in all situations except one: When using some known quantities about the internals of lasers you try to determine what is inside this particular laser. You could test it a thousand times and do all the calculations a thousand times; experimentally you are right but factually you are wrong.

I'm not questioning the calculation, I'm questioning the thought process used when gathering the data to calculate. (which yes I know that may lead to questioning the validity of G)

Not that I think everything we know about starlight is wrong, I'm just saying that I never take anything for granted and would like to know what all is considered and how in the process to detemine these things. I'm skeptical of absolutely everything until I've thought it out from beginning to end myself.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

LOL! Over there in the cosmology forum they are talking about alternative causes of redshift, BBT and plasma redshift.

Here's the thread on Plasma redshift:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58166

 

[Nereid]

When I referred to the expected shift, what I meant was the red shift we would get were DE and DM not an influence.

Hmm, perhaps a short course in modern cosmology would help? Ned Wright's tutorial is a good place to start.

wrt DE: AFAIK, there are only two sets of observations for which DE is introduced ... distance Ia SN, and the CMBR (esp the WMAP data). In the former, you can make a good case that it's still early days ... too many loose ends, systematic effects not well characterised, theoretical models not constrained enough (e.g. variations on WD detonation). In the latter, DE is like the icing on the cake - the concordance model fits the WMAP data pretty well without DE in the picture, but better with it in.

wrt DM: there are several types of independent observation - mutually consistent - which lead you to a 'there exists DM' conclusion; several of these involve your common garden variety redshift - doppler. The need for DM in cosmology is weaker than the need for DM in more 'local' astrophysics ... so if you choose to ditch DM in your cosmology, you have just added the headache of accounting for lots and lots more 'local' observations!

 

[Nereid]

Okay,
Yes, reddening causes preferential scattering of shorter wavelengths and redshift shifts the whole spectrum.

Ah, we have a terminology mismatch! I'm not familiar with 'reddening' being called 'redshift' - have you seen this in ApJ papers?

I am talking about redshift from the compton effect. I guess that it applies primarily to ionized particles but I'm just saying that I have no doubt that the plasma emissions from stars assure that some of the particles are ionized or that there are pockets of electron clouds out there in space and there are some electrons that can be smacked by the photons coming through. In this case it is redshifted across the spectrum because all the photons, regardless of wavelength will transfer some of their energy to the electrons they run into.

OK; so what's the size of this effect, for the nearest source of high intensity photons traveling through a plasma which has quite a range of temperatures and densities? What would be the size of the effect near a supernova?

Google this:plasma redshift

That'll give you boatloads of links and many of them are regarding using it as an alternative to BBT. Somewhere in there you should be able to find the experimental evidence...

I'm very familiar with this nonsense! From what I've read so far, the observational basis for these ideas is weak (and I'm being generous) ... further, if the hypothesised effect were to comprise a significant part of the observed quasar and galaxy and SN and novae (and some isolated stars!) redshifts, then the proponents of the idea have created for themselves a huge headache - what we all thought was a distant galaxy/supernova/nova/globular cluster/star/etc isn't any more ... why? because the distances we assumed are now all wrong, so the intrinsic luminosities (aka absolute magnitudes) will be all wrong too, and that means those objects can't possibly be similar to local galaxies/supernovae/novae/etc - despite the fact that everything else about them seems to be same (spectrum, metalicity, size, ...)! IOW, they have just given themselves the task of re-writing GR and QM.

I was using a gedanken experiment.
What I'm saying is that if something is consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last. Because it is experimentally re-producable, you would rely upon that falsehood.

And I'm saying that you are free to repeat all the observations and analyses which lead to the mainstream conclusions, and to point out exactly where - and what - the 'misrepresentations' are

But perhaps I misunderstand your point; what, specifically, do you feel has been 'consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last'?

I'm not questioning the calculation, I'm questioning the thought process used when gathering the data to calculate. (which yes I know that may lead to questioning the validity of G)

Worse, you have also likely thrown not only the Compton effect in the trash can, but also huge sections of QM and GR ... for example, what is a supernova? how does the Sun shine?

Not that I think everything we know about starlight is wrong, I'm just saying that I never take anything for granted and would like to know what all is considered and how in the process to detemine these things. I'm skeptical of absolutely everything until I've thought it out from beginning to end myself.

Good for you! If only there were more of this attitude!

But may I ask that you apply the same critical thinking to Reese/Talbott/Brynjolfsson et al? In particular, would you care to ask these folk what they think powers the Sun, causes a nova, leads to different types of supernova, the stars which the HST Key Project team thought were Cepheid variables in the Virgo galaxies are, ... ? If you do so care, let us know when you get answers to these questions, would you?

 

[TheAntiRelative]

- however, there is apparently little or no dust between galaxies

Oh one thing occurred to me. Why is it believed that there is little or no dust in the space between galaxies? I mean what data is that assumption based upon?

I know that radio galaxies are tooling along crapping out googles of tons of matter into the space between galaxies, so it seems kinda counter-intuitive to think there's nothing in between. So you've piqued my interest now.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Ah, we have a terminology mismatch! I'm not familiar with 'reddening' being called 'redshift' - have you seen this in ApJ papers?

Hurgh? I'm funcused now...

Okay I understand reddening as basically a sifting out of higher frequencies.
I understand redshift to be an entire shift of the spectrum toward the red end of the spectrum.

Am I misstating it?

OK; so what's the size of this effect, for the nearest source of high intensity photons traveling through a plasma which has quite a range of temperatures and densities? What would be the size of the effect near a supernova?

Hehe, Iamb not a physicist! I'm just a hobbyist. All I know is that the effect exists and behaves in a certain manner that has been documented and received as a part of accepted science.

I'm very familiar with this nonsense!

Oh, well you've read more about it than me then. My mistake.

And I'm saying that you are free to repeat all the observations and analyses which lead to the mainstream conclusions, and to point out exactly where - and what - the 'misrepresentations' are

But perhaps I misunderstand your point; what, specifically, do you feel has been 'consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last'?

I think you might misunderstand me. I'm saying that perhaps compton effect and gravitational redshift may be acting like that unknown screen in my analogy. I'd be glad to hear if that's something that's already been considered and proven not to be the case.
I was just making the point that even well meaning and hard working respectable scientist can be fooled by phenomena outside their control and knowledge because the phenomena consistently alters the data.

Worse, you have also likely thrown not only the Compton effect in the trash can, but also huge sections of QM and GR ... for example, what is a supernova? how does the Sun shine?

Well I think this is part of a misunderstanding but yes, I'm more than willing to throw out any number of things if evidence to the contrary rears its ugly head.

If you get to know me I'm very willing to spout all kinds of garbage and retract it later because regardless of how much I know, I put myself in the position of a perpetually a naive learner. With that thought I'm always more than willing to change my mind about anything at all. I never solidify anything in my mind beyond a variable percentage from like 3-97 based on evidence and that number can be easily swung a vast distance if the evidence is compelling enough.

I allow partial belief of even obsurd topics until I personally lay hands on all the evidence against it.

 

[Nereid]

Oh one thing occurred to me. Why is it believed that there is little or no dust in the space between galaxies? I mean what data is that assumption based upon?

I know that radio galaxies are tooling along crapping out googles of tons of matter into the space between galaxies, so it seems kinda counter-intuitive to think there's nothing in between. So you've piqued my interest now.

How would you tell if there were any dust?

The easiest test is 'reddening' ... if distant objects appeared redder than you'd expect, then you'd suspect dust. To test that hypothesis, you'd take detailed spectra, esp in the NIR ... if you found bands (PAHs, minerals), bingo!

In any case, if there were dust at a temperature anything other than the CMBR, you could 'see' it by its radiation in the FIR ... and IRAS (and later IR satellite obsevatories) didn't find any.

That leaves the question of whether there is IGM dust at a temperature of 2.7K ... there are many things that we should 'see' if this were the case (e.g. X-ray fluorescence around GRBs), but none (AFAIK) have been observed, so we conclude that the IGM has very little dust.

 

[Nereid]

Hurgh? I'm funcused now...

Okay I understand reddening as basically a sifting out of higher frequencies.
I understand redshift to be an entire shift of the spectrum toward the red end of the spectrum.

Am I misstating it?

Yes and no. Reddening changes the shape of the spectrum we see ... higher frequencies are diminished (the reverse of what you said); with redshift the whole spectrum is shifted 'red-ward'. Thus a look at the wavelengths of the lines quickly tells you what the effect is - if reddening, the lines are at the same wavelength; if redshift they are longer.

Hehe, Iamb not a physicist! I'm just a hobbyist. All I know is that the effect exists and behaves in a certain manner that has been documented and received as a part of accepted science.

OK. So let's ask that you extend your enthusiasm and curiosity a bit, and do some 'research' - please take the time to learn about the Compton effect wrt the Sun (the local source of high intensity EM, across the whole spectrum) ... what sort of redshift is expected (due to the Compton effect)? what is actually observed? to what extent have astronomers researched this, from the time the Compton effect was first published?

I think you might misunderstand me. I'm saying that perhaps compton effect and gravitational redshift may be acting like that unknown screen in my analogy. I'd be glad to hear if that's something that's already been considered and proven not to be the case.

OK, so I, Nereid am telling you this has been exhaustively researched and shown - within the limits of observational and experimental capability (note that nothing can be 'proven' in science; please read some of the threads in Philosophy if you'd like to know more) - that it's not the case. Now, if I take you at your word, you won't accept what I say (after all, who is Nereid?), but will take the time and effort to research this ... when you've done so, please let us know what you found.

I was just making the point that even well meaning and hard working respectable scientist can be fooled by phenomena outside their control and knowledge because the phenomena consistently alters the data.

Indeed. If you have a chance, please have a long chat with a 'real' scientist (you could read ZapperZ's journal - he of the 'physics guru 2004' award here at PF) about this topic. Let us know what you find.

Well I think this is part of a misunderstanding but yes, I'm more than willing to throw out any number of things if evidence to the contrary rears its ugly head.

{this is wrt the extent to which good observational data are inconsistent with QM & GR; specifically, whether what's presented on Reese's website provides a good basis for claiming that there is such good observational data}. So, can you summarise what you think are the good observational results which would lead you to consider throwing out QM and GR (and the Compton effect)? Please be as specific as you can; and anything concrete that you can find on Reese's website that helps you reach your conclusion ... please be sure to let us know what it is.

 

[Overdose]

OK, please do so. Pay particular attention to showing us that the ideas which were rejected were, in fact, 'valid'.

Nope haven't got time, and it would be a pointless excercise, it's self evident, id say in the next year you'll stumble across a couple of cases yourself, its not that uncommon.

Hmm, maybe you need to devote some of your spare energy to the study of what science actually is! For a start, the idea that you can 'prove' something in science is of historical interest only ... in maths maybe you can 'prove' something; you can't in science. So we're left with theories, hypotheses, models etc ... yep, that's ALL there is! (Oh, and PB of good experimental and observational results).

Great well pat yourself on the back for understanding what science is!
I never doubted that scientists don't understand what science is, on a conscious level they clearly do, but the point is we offen don't think about things rationally and objectively, its far easier to catagorize something as a 'belief' somewhere in the back of your mind than it is to know things that 'are probably true but could possibly not' The human mind just isn't acustomed to that way of thinking all the time.

Could I suggest that you attend a scientific convention? The annual meeting of the AAS perhaps? Or read ApJ? When you've done that, please get back to us with details of how those actively involved in doing science in the field 'treat theories [sic] ... as absolute thruths in an almost quasi-religious mindset'

Why would i need to do that? just use your eyes and ears man, dogmatic defense of theories is everywhere to be seen.
And you've kind of proven my point by getting so worked up over my little bit of arm-chair psychology, you're defending a paradigm as if you're ready to die for it, like some kind of crazed fundamentalist.

 

[poolwin2001]

Wasn't there a Quasi Steady State theory propounded by some physicits including Narliker,Hoyle etc for the origin of the universe?

 

[Overdose]

Start by listing one...

And please note: simply being "valid" isn't enough - Newton's gravity is valid in its domain of applicability, but it has still been replaced. These ideas must be at least as good as Relativity to be worthy of consideration.

Good old russ calling people's bluff with demands of unattainable proof..
why must they be 'as good as relativity to be worthy of consideration" ??
thats either an off hand tactic to shut me up, or you're...

 

[Nereid]

Nope haven't got time, and it would be a pointless excercise, it's self evident, id say in the next year you'll stumble across a couple of cases yourself, its not that uncommon.

So, just so that I don't misunderstand ... you make a claim ("i could list 100's of people who've ideas have been rejected not because their ideas are not valid but simply because the ideas fly in the face of a great deal of 'accepted thought/scientific dogma'[/color]"), but when challenged to provide support for it, you say you're too busy?

Great well pat yourself on the back for understanding what science is!
I never doubted that scientists don't understand what science is, on a conscious level they clearly do, but the point is we offen don't think about things rationally and objectively, its far easier to catagorize something as a 'belief' somewhere in the back of your mind than it is to know things that 'are probably true but could possibly not' The human mind just isn't acustomed to that way of thinking all the time.

Hmm, unless I'm mistaken, this is another claim - which I may or may not be interested to discuss with you - but should I challenge your 'dogma', I would be wasting my time because you're too busy? Please note that this is a question.

Could I suggest that you attend a scientific convention? The annual meeting of the AAS perhaps? Or read ApJ? When you've done that, please get back to us with details of how those actively involved in doing science in the field 'treat theories [sic] ... as absolute thruths in an almost quasi-religious mindset'

Why would i need to do that? just use your eyes and ears man, dogmatic defense of theories is everywhere to be seen.

I must be in the slow class today ... I thought I'd suggested that you collect some specific, concrete, objective data - based on your direct experience with real scientists and how they work - and present those to us so we can better understand the validity of your claim. In response to my suggestion, you ask me to 'use [my] eyes and ears' and state that 'dogmatic defense of theories is everywhere to be seen.' Looking out my window, I cannot see any 'dogmatic defence', so am I entitled to conclude that you are exaggerating?

Seriously, if you aren't interested in applying the scientific method to studying this topic (and I'm not saying that you aren't; I don't know yet), then why are you here? PF is a site for a discussion of science, not a place to spout unsubstantiated nonsense (that's just MHO, of course).

And you've kind of proven my point by getting so worked up over my little bit of arm-chair psychology, you're defending a paradigm as if you're ready to die for it, like some kind of crazed fundamentalist.

Now you've totally lost me ... are you saying that asking questions and wanting to have things spelt out, chapter and verse, is fundamentalism? Are you claiming that proposals should be accepted without requiring their proponents to provide support for those ideas? For the avoidance of doubt, I have formed the impression that you are uncomfortable with being asked to defend your ideas ... kinda like the pot calling the kettle black? But to be sure I've not misunderstood, would you mind telling us how - in some detail - you feel science should be done?

 

[russ_watters]

Good old russ calling people's bluff with demands of unattainable proof..

Well, what you said to Nereid was The Cop-Out of the Century - but all I asked was for an example. I didn't even ask for proof.

But see, this is what I love so much about science: science demands accountability. By refusing to support your claim, you invalidated it yourself! Thanks for saving me the trouble!

why must they be 'as good as relativity to be worthy of consideration" ??
thats either an off hand tactic to shut me up, or you're...

After what you so arrogantly and condescendingly said to Nereid about understanding science, I'm surprised you would ask such a rediculously basic question. But I'll deign to answer it: if two theories cover the same ground, the one that covers it better is adopted. Why? Because its more useful - more accurate - more correct - quite simply, better. If a theory that is proposed to replace Relativity doesn't do as much as Relativity, that would quite obviously be a step backwards in our understanding of the way the universe works.

 

[Overdose]

I won't 'defend' my beliefs, or give examples because the same thing will happen that happened with the ESP thread, the thread got huge and out of control, and while i used all my spare time during the week gathering evidence, i come back online to find the thread has been closed. So to be blunt..whats the point?
I also think it would be absurd to build up a dosier or evidence on really what was little more than a passing social comment on the nature of science.
science is not perfect and doesn't always follow its self-applied rules, and can indeed be dogmatic, if you want to believe otherwise I am cool with that. Its new year's soon and I am ready to get my swerve on..

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Yes and no. Reddening changes the shape of the spectrum we see ... higher frequencies are diminished (the reverse of what you said); with redshift the whole spectrum is shifted 'red-ward'. Thus a look at the wavelengths of the lines quickly tells you what the effect is - if reddening, the lines are at the same wavelength; if redshift they are longer.

Lol, we are definitely speaking a different language or something. "Higher frequencies (blue) are deminished." That's sifting out higher frequencies to me. Perhaps you are thinking of keeping what is "Sifted-out" instead of throwing it away. :)

OK. So let's ask that you extend your enthusiasm and curiosity a bit, and do some 'research' - please take the time to learn about the Compton effect wrt the Sun (the local source of high intensity EM, across the whole spectrum) ... what sort of redshift is expected (due to the Compton effect)? what is actually observed? to what extent have astronomers researched this, from the time the Compton effect was first published?

Do you already know the answer? If so can you give me a link?

OK, so I, Nereid am telling you this has been exhaustively researched and shown - within the limits of observational and experimental capability (note that nothing can be 'proven' in science; please read some of the threads in Philosophy if you'd like to know more) - that it's not the case. Now, if I take you at your word, you won't accept what I say (after all, who is Nereid?), but will take the time and effort to research this ... when you've done so, please let us know what you found.

Well, that may be true since I'll still want more than one guy's word but if you have some reference links it'd make my life easier! :)

{this is wrt the extent to which good observational data are inconsistent with QM & GR; specifically, whether what's presented on Reese's website provides a good basis for claiming that there is such good observational data}. So, can you summarise what you think are the good observational results which would lead you to consider throwing out QM and GR (and the Compton effect)? Please be as specific as you can; and anything concrete that you can find on Reese's website that helps you reach your conclusion ... please be sure to let us know what it is.

Okay, I'm no proponent of Reese's site so I'm not sure if we aren't misunderstanding each other again.
I'm just saying that if significant observational results that were contrary to QM and GR I would have no qualms about throwing out QM and GR for the new model that would have to be constructed...

One thing I would add is that results like that (if they exist) would not all appear at once against such tested and so far reliable theories. They would trickle in one small item at a time. My question is this. If small contrary results begin to trickle in, will they be labeled correctly or will they be brushed off as small anamolies that are more than likely just experimenter effect or other false data? I believe human nature will lead to the more arrogant approach.

However, I'm sure that you will argue that the scientific method and scientists themselves are always looking for the truth and accept evidence as it comes. You'll also argue that any scientist would leap at the opportunity to make a name for themself by disproving a "pillar of science" theory.

I will then counter that few and far between are those willing to gamble their entire career on some small anomalous evidence. Most humans will doubt themselves when faced with: If this is true then everyone other than me is wrong and I'm the only one that is right.

You will then say that just posing a theory that is counter to mainstream will not cause a respected scientist to suddenly be labeled a quack. Just look at Einstein.

And I'll say, just look at Nikola Tesla. (to which you'll think... He wasn't really a scientist though, he's just an inventor that went off the deep end)
And then I'll run out of references even though I've watched the same behavior happen in every group of humans from all walks of life about a variety of subjects.

And we'll eventually come the the point at which I believe we just have completely different views of human nature and you believe that I could use a few visits with a qualified professional to deal with my paraniod delusions.

 

[Nereid]

I think you'll find we may be much closer than that 'we just have completely different views ...'

The ways in which established theories in science get overtaken are many and varied. Just about the most difficult is the one you described ... a small, hard to observe and verify anomaly ... and that's it! Fortunately, my own reading of the history of science leads me to think that these are pretty rare ... much more often the 'overthrow' comes when a good test shows 'reality' is inconsistent with the theory, and that sets off a flurry of activity - how, precisely, is it inconsistent; under what conditions; ...

Of course, I suspect that we have a very different view of the 'characteristic timescale' on which science operates ... in a thread somewhere in physics, several of us agreed that a decade is just about the shortest possible time for anything significant to happen, and that the average working lifetime of a scientist is more typical (say, 30 years). There are well known examples in science of programmes that took considerably longer ... just look how long it took for the basic mechanics of evolution to be uncovered, from the time of publication of Darwin's theory ('genes' was but a stepping stone; IMHO, it was only with the unravelling of the nature of DNA that this mechanism was determined).

As to the Compton effect ... I'll politely decline your kind invitation; if others would like to give you something to go study, that'd be good. However, if I did, Overdose (and even you?) could say that I'd be presenting you only 'the dogma', and hiding closets chock-a-block full of skeletons.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

As to the Compton effect ... I'll politely decline your kind invitation; if others would like to give you something to go study, that'd be good. However, if I did, Overdose (and even you?) could say that I'd be presenting you only 'the dogma', and hiding closets chock-a-block full of skeletons.

heheh

Even if I believe something to be dogma I study it carefully otherwise I'm only ascribing validity to my own dogma. So in short, I value all info regardless of my pre-conceived notions about it.

For example, I recently read "The Final Theory" and though I couldn't buy into the expansion theory for a number of reasons but I continued to read it. Finally, I set the bar at the explanation of a fully circular orbit since that seemed to be the most critical problem IMO. Once that was woefully ineffectively explained, I finally gave up.