http://www.thunderbolts.info/tb-authors.htm [Broken]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]
It's nonsense.phoenixthoth said:
You don't see any contradictions in that post, do you...? How about:Overdose said: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.. :yuck:
Anytime you see this kind of garbage stated about scientists you can bet your sweet bippy that it was written by a crackpot!From that site said:For established science the greatest embarrassment could come from public realization that, for decades, astronomers suppressed the warning signs.
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!"again from the article said:But astronomers ignored or dismissed Arp's work, insisting that his conclusions were either erroneous or impossible.
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.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?
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.The science-is-dogma opinion is self-contradictory at face value.
Certainly:TheAntiRelative said:Can you elaborate?
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.I'm certain that the troubles that Einstein faced when trying to convince proponents of ether would have seemed to be dogma to him.
It really wasn't that many scientists who disputed Einstein's work. There were no such controversies.The fact that a very great many scientists held on to ether for the next 20 years I believe he would have called dogma.
No, its an intrinsic property of science itself that it is anti-dogmatic.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?
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!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...
Well then I've read a tremendous amount of fiction trumped up by those gawd-awful historians. :tongue2:It really wasn't that many scientists who disputed Einstein's work. There were no such controversies.
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.TheAntiRelative said: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.
Have we accounted for dark matter? I have been wondering what effect dark matter and dark energy may have on the expected red shift.Phobos said: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...
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...russ_watters said: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 recieved (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.
Come see the violence inherent in peer review!MonstersFromTheId said:"Wait a minute, wait a minute. How do you account for this, this, this, and this?"
"Umm, ah,.. Help! Help! I'm being surpressed!"
Certainly, there's a lot still to be learned about DM & DE.Ivan Seeking said:Have we accounted for dark matter? I have been wondering what effect dark matter and dark energy may have on the expected red shift.
thanks antirelative thats 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 theorys as beliefs in an almost religious manner.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?
My response is that the question is a good one, but it takes quite a lot to answer comprehensively.TheAntiRelative said: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?
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.2) If so, then there would be a compton effect right?
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, 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.
what?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.
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.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...
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.Edit:Oh! One question that just occured 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 thier own intense gravity fields?
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 )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?