Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anything from left field make it to mainstream?

  1. Oct 10, 2003 #1

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Several folk in posts in this sub-forum have said that it's important to allow 'a hundred flowers to bloom' - let's be open to all ideas and inputs, at least initially, because you never know which one among these may just turn out to be the discovery of the millenium - or words to that effect.

    So I got to thinking (yes, it hurts), how many things from left field have made it to mainstream, in the last 50 or 100 years?

    Not many, was what I thought immediately. I mean, apart from sprites (here's a link to an older report, so you can get a flavour of how odd they once seemed: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/sprites.html), what is there? And sprites were hardly a phenomenon which the UFO crowd had at the top of their list of hard evidence (were they?); it was more long-haul pilots!

    So, casting the net wide, wide to begin with, what left-fielder has made it to mainstream?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 10, 2003 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    First, although you are not quoting me [I don't think], I do support the general idea. I think the more relevant question is: How much of present day science was anticipated?

    As for your question:
    How about the PC for starters? [developed in a garage]
    The gilled mammals of Asia.
    Ceolocanth
    Great apes
    Anti gravity [dark energy]
    Mission to the moon
    Wrist watch computers [Dick Tracy]
    Ray guns
    Giant Squid
    High efficiency discharge style motors [developed in a garage]
    Einstein

    Just a few off the top of my head.


    Also, no; the UFO people could not tell sprites from other claims. Why you ask. Because if people like pilots reported them, due to the dismissive attitude of many scientists towards things they can't explain, the pilots were subject to ridicule and possible career damage. To anyone who takes the time to investigate this stuff, this becomes abundantly clear. The airline companies don't like pilots who see funny things. So what few were reports were made remainded as relatively un-investigated UFO reports.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2003
  4. Oct 10, 2003 #3
    mathematical formulation of universal laws
    telephone
    airplane
    tv
    radio
    hell, all of electronics

    The fact is, everything someone might point out as being a great triumph of science happened, in fact, in spite of it. I can't think of a single massive discovery that wasn't done by an outsider. Einstien was hardly in the loop, he only worked at a patent office. Newton was weird, not really a people person. Cavendish was afraid of women, he had to leave notes to his maids/servants (he couldn't talk to them directly) and only left the house for a walk to the royal society meetings. The fact is that the moment you go for a real career in science you will never discover anything of consecquence. (Sure, there was Feynman, but how many joe blows know his name? NONE!) Someone smart once said something to the effect of: 'If someone (esp. an 'expert') tells you something, it's generally true, unless they used the word impossible in the sentence, at which point their arrogance is showing.'
     
  5. Oct 10, 2003 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have another great example somewhere in the UFO Napster; I didn't spot it on first try. Back in 1965 [or so] some great 8mm film of a UFO was shot. Since it was labeled a UFO - which as you know is supposed to mean unidentified and not taken as a substitution for ET - the film was largely ignored. Only in recent years did scientists realize that this is film of a near miss with a significantly large meteor.
     
  6. Oct 10, 2003 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Animal sensitivity to seismic precursors

    Animal sensitivity to human health problems

    Dophins used to treat severe autism

    On another note:
    Hydrogen as an alternative energy carrier:
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4127

    And some recent example from the political forum:

    Here is a wild one that I just picked up from the fringe. Be sure to read the entire thread.
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6830

    Agent Orange:
    http://www.appc1.va.gov/opa/fact/docs/agentorangefs.htm


    Oh yes. Global warming and most other environmental issues.

    Claims that Vietnam was an unjust war [that we shouldn't be fighting].

    Watergate.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2003
  7. Oct 10, 2003 #6

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    How about the idea that there is no luminiferous ether? That was considered bizarre in its day.

    Njorl
     
  8. Oct 10, 2003 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I was told by a Berkeley man [always suspect ], that SR was developed without knowledge of the Michelson - Morley experiment. Do you know if this is true?
     
  9. Oct 10, 2003 #8
    I doubt it. One another note, I've always wondered about the MM experiment. I heard one theory that matter is like vorticies in a fluid, and the the aether is this fluid. The aether flows in, and apparently pops out of existence, and it is continually created at some rate everywhere. From this theory, it was said that gravity is a push force resulting from this influx and that light bends near massive objects the same way that a boat doesn't follow a straight line when going spanwise in a moving river (except of course this is oversimplified, because that river would have to be unidirectional only on small scales, but when you zoom out you see that is is flowing to the center of the massive body, like ripples going backward in time). This does explain the null result, because the aether flow would then perpetually be normal (perpendicular) to the surface the experiment is on. Does anyone know if they've tried a vertical MM experiment? I think this is the gist of the theory, it's from a guy in Norway, so his English is so-so. If you guys are interested, PM me, I'll send you the website.
     
  10. Oct 10, 2003 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why?
     
  11. Oct 10, 2003 #10
    Whoaaa! Hold the presses!
    You may have just answered something that's been eating at me since I picked up the Patent-Man's ramblings a few weeks ago and tried to read through them.
    If you get out your copy of SR and turn to chapter VIII On The Idea Of Time In Physics, you will find on the third page: "That light requires the same time to traverse the path A to M as for the path B to M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity." (AM and BM are equal distances, M is the centerpoint between A and B)

    Now, I read that over and over, scratching my head wondering why on earth he felt it was necessary to stipulate that light traveled at the same speed no matter which way it was going. If your informant is correct, Ivan, I will have found my answer.
     
  12. Oct 10, 2003 #11
    Ivan Seeking: Why: I don't know, just don't. Weird, huh?.
    I think Zoobyshoe proved me wrong.
     
  13. Oct 10, 2003 #12

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    This is called isotropy, and Einstein did have to postulate it because his other new postulate (in addition to Galilean relativity which was old) was that the speed of light did not depend on the speed of its source. With that and Galileo you need isotropy to reach a complete consistent theory.

    Modern axiomatic development of special relativity uses galilean relativity and a different new postulate. That all inertial observers measure the speed of light to be the same. Since one can imagine inertial observers (= moving without acceleration) that move in any direction, therefore this new postulate includes isotropy inside it. So those two postulates, instead of Einstein's three, is what we use today.

    On the subject of Einstein and the Michelson-Morley experiment, he spoke with forked tongue. In an early interview he said he didn't know about M-M when he developed the theory. Years later, in a speech in Japan, he said he did.
     
  14. Oct 10, 2003 #13
    What is to be made of this discrepancy?

    The way he wrote it, as I quoted, seems just about definitely to prove he wasn't aware of it. A demonstrated fact need not be stipulated, postulated, or proposed. If you have a copy of SR and read the whole passage he makes quite a big point about this issue, as if in evasion of a reader objecting to anything like an assumption light was constant. Had he known it was a demonstrated fact he could simply have said so, stated who had demonstrated it for the reader who didn't know, and proceeded to use it. (As he did with the Lorentz Transformations).
     
  15. Oct 11, 2003 #14

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    All of the proposed left field successes are pathetic. Science fiction isn't proposing things as hidden reality (not even the Matrix, folks) it's entertainment. The coelacanth was not predicted by Madam Blavatsky, it was caught by fishermen. An empirical fact, and one no longer a mystery. Einstein was a trained scientist working on an existing field (Maxwellian electromagnetics as developed by Lorntz). And so on.

    The real left field is spirit raps, seances, higher planes, fairies, ghost hunters, esp, remote viewing and so on. Two hundred years of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. And the upshot? Has even one of these topics become mainstream?
     
  16. Oct 11, 2003 #15
    This is true. There is a difference between "left field" and what might be called "the margins", (eg: Einstein who wasn't employed in the mainstream of academia.)
     
  17. Oct 11, 2003 #16

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Faraday's vision of the interaction between electricity and magnetism. (Though today's interpretation has significantly less mysticism, since we understand EM more.)

    Chaos theory.
     
  18. Oct 11, 2003 #17
    I'm not sure what you're talking about, Fz+. Faraday had a mystical interpretation of this?


    I have been reading about Chaos since you introduced me to it in another thread. Although it could be easily said to have come from the margins, I haven't found any "left field" precursors.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2003
  19. Oct 11, 2003 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think we need to define "left field". I took this to mean anything outside of the mainstream. I take mainstream to mean typical sources of research such as: Professors and advanced students at recognized and respected universities, privately funded science of significant scope [so as to engage in good science], and more generally, those ideas that are already accepted as credible. I see Einstein as fringe since he met none of these criteria. I see the Coelacanth as fringe since it was "declared" to be extinct for millions of years.

    I also consider Sci Fi as a driving force for science. In spite of the objections now of 100 years of science, Sci Fi has gotten many things right; beginning of course with the Mission to the Moon ca 1895. This was considered silliness. I also think the 1930s - 50s Sci Fi's assumptions of wrist watch videophones, computers, and ray guns are also examples of this. In the days of vacuum tubes and 220 volt speakers, who could have foreseen the modern photo-reduction techniques that enabled the silicon revolution? Many scientists publicly attribute their ideas and inspiration to Sci Fi even though these ideas may seem to fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Some of the present ideas rejected by most scientists as plausible are ZPE powered systems, Warp drive, Star Trek type transporters, energy shields... you know the score.

    This was my perspective on this discussion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2003
  20. Oct 12, 2003 #19
    I agree! And on the subject of SciFi, I make this prediction, regardless of whether we actually achieve it: antigravity is possible!
    It makes me so mad that many/most 'good' scientists will tell you that antigravity is impossible. If you then wait long enough that they don't remember meeting you and then introduce yourself and ask how gravity ('normal, not anti-' but don't say that :smile:) works, they, given the time, will tell you ten different theories. And then if you ask, 'so you're not sure?' they will beat around the bush and pretty much just say 'Nope! I'm a hypocritical fool and you just proved it to yourself!'!
     
  21. Oct 12, 2003 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    First, if we consider the beliefs of the majority of the people on this planet, a large percentage of which will testify to personal experiences of some kind, spirituality is [and has always been ]mainstream. As for an absence of evidence, what kind would you like? What if we don't know what to look for? If something can't be proven, and maybe can never be proven, must it be false? Also, as with any potential reality, the evidence could be just around the corner.

    Does science or logic allow us to prove that all true things can be proven true?

    We have pictures and videos claimed to be ghostly apparitions that are dismissed as lens flares and trickery. This can't be proven, but since the possibility exists, the general attitude inappropriately defaults to claims of no evidence. Some of these images may be evidence; we just can't prove it. Next, for any inexplicable direct experience, we conjure up claims of mass hallucinations, psychological predisposition to fantasy, seismically generated EM fields, atmospheric sub-sonics, loose shutters, hormone imbalances, and of course the continuing implication that the claimants are lying; since their claim can't be true. These assertions can't be proven as the cause for all of these experiences - not even by a long shot - but they are virtually accepted as true without proof by the skeptics. Why? These spiritual [whatever that means] possibilities violate the popular paradigm among scientists that all spirituality is nonsense.

    In the end, it is skeptics who are vastly in the minority. Skeptics of spirituality are the sociological fringe.

    I think science owes humanity an open attitude towards beliefs and claimed experiences that are as old as our species.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Anything from left field make it to mainstream?
  1. Mainstream media (Replies: 6)

  2. Mainstream Science (Replies: 1)

Loading...