Debunking the Big Bang Theory?

  • #51
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,367
2
TheAntiRelative said:
Lol, we are definately 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. :)
Well, then you'll be in for a most disconcerting ride if you choose to study physics in any depth at all :rolleyes:. For example, what does the 'colour' force have to do with colour? Why is Pluto called a planet and not just the largest plutino?
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...
And neither would I, ZapperZ, Russ, ... or Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, ... if they were alive!
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.
And I think you have a far too narrow view of both scientists and human nature. For starters, AFAIK, physicists have the same range of personalities as Joe Sixpack and Joan G&T - some are arrogant, some humble; some courageous, some timid; some foolhardy, some cautious; goodness, some may even be saints, and some knaves! Perhaps if you got out more, and actually went to *meet* some of these folk, you might be a little more, shall we say, mature.

Also, you might like to read some real papers ... they're full of gaps, unknowns, questions, ... I think you'll find the certainty reserved for nonsense - lots of scientists do not suffer crackpot fools gladly.
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.
Yes ... and no. As I said above, scientists are human, just like you and me - some have been known to stoop to quite underhand and dishonest means to maintain the positions of power and authority; but equally, some have been known to stick tenaciously to their guns, even dig in further despite (because of?) derision and rejection. However, I think you'll find - overwhelmingly (but NOT absolutely) - that good experimental or observational results are held in respect.
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.
So, what of the 40-year history of hunting down the 'solar neutrino problem'? It was certainly an anomaly, it was most definitely a very small signal, and some scientists did 'gamble their entire career on some small anomalous evidence' :surprised . Also, what of the iconoclasts who have made it to the top? What of those who are at the top who are genuinely delighted to foster new ideas and new ways of looking at old things? You might want to read some biographies ... you could be in for quite a shock (of course, we both know that Overdose wouldn't even consider doing such a thing - he might find his dogma severely challenged).
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.
Again, you're making it far too black & white ... the circumstances and individuals have far, far more diversity and richness than your narrow caricature.
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.
Well, I'll give you a better one - Wegener; and closer to physics, Chandrasekhar (hint: read up on the limit named after him, and his teacher). But so what? Were you expecting that scientists suddenly became angels when they got their PhDs? And as for your human behaviour, I could ask you to take a look at any large observatory - ground or space-based. You'll find most have something called 'Director's discretionary time' - the Director has a certain amount of time for observations using these immensely expensive instruments, to use as (s)he sees fit, no questions asked. Now, what the Directors actually *do* with that time is almost always described in the annual reports of those observatories - take a look sometime, it makes of interesting reading.
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.
Well it seems that we do :cry: If I may generalise, you expect all scientists to be saints and not human (or completely cynical and hypocritical), and I claim that a detailed examination of what scientists (collectively and individually) actually *do* shows them to be neither angels nor lying politicians.
 
  • #52
Well, then you'll be in for a most disconcerting ride if you choose to study physics in any depth at all . For example, what does the 'colour' force have to do with colour? Why is Pluto called a planet and not just the largest plutino?
Never said that I had the right side of the interpretation. Just said we were interpretting expressions differently while both saying the same thing.

Or perhaps I still don't understand? :uhh: :blushing:

Reddening = removal of higher frequencies from the mix. (analogous to sifting AFAIK) leaving many frequencies alone to finally arrive unchanged.
Red shift = lowering all frequencies by an equal amount.


As for the rest of what you said. All very good points which I can't really argue with if I had the inclination. (Sometimes I do play devil's advocate)
 
Last edited:
  • #53
184
0
Ok, so i wasnt going to provide a response to the call to provide an instance of perfectly good and credible science being rejected and scorned out of nothing more than scientific dogmatism. But i today came across some experiments, independantly replicated that were largley rejected by the scientfic community, from what i can work out simply because they mirrored some claims made by homeopaths.

ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THIS RESEARCH
Dr. Jacques Benveniste is Doctor of Medicine, former Resident of the Paris Hospital System, Research Director at the French National Institute for Medical Research, known worldwide as a specialist in the mechanisms of allergy and inflammation, he distinguished himself in 1971 by his discovery of Paf (Platelet Activating Factor), a mediator implicated in the mechanisms involved in these pathologies (for example, asthma).
In 1984, while working on hypersensitive (allergic) systems, by chance he brought to light so-called high dilution phenomena, which were picked up by the media and labeled «the memory of water».
The phenomenon referred to involves diluting a substance in water to a degree where the final solution contains only water molecules. With the hypersensitive systems he was using, however, he observed that this highly diluted solution initiated a reaction, as if the initial molecules were still present in the water: water kept a trace of the molecules present at the beginning of the dilutions.

Benveniste's finding were published in nature but an apendeum to the article stated that there was no physical basis for Benveniste's results and that they would arrange for independant investigators to observe repetitions of the experiment.
4 days after publication a sicentific 'fraud squad' arrived at the labs consisting of Walter Stewart, and James Rhandi (you just knew hed have something to do with this didnt you) and John Maddox.
Benveniste repeated the experiments in front of the group 4 times, one blinded, and got the same results that had been published.
However the team of 'fraud busters' still disputed the findings and decided to change the experiment protocol and design. The group of men, none of which were qualified to implement the experiments, finally recieved the negative results they were looking for and left. Nature published that 'high dilution experiments a delusion'. Even going as far as to dismiss supporting results that other labs had found.
Several years after the nature episode, scientific teams continued to atempt to prove Benveniste wrong. Consisting of a consortium of four independant laboratories in Italy, France, Belgium and Holland led by M.Roberfroid of the university of Louvain.
Their experiments were incredibly tight, none of the researchers knew which was the 'homeopathic' solution and which one was pure water. All solutions had all been prepared by labs which had nothing further to do with the trial. Results were also coded and decoded and tabulated by an independant researcher unconnected with the study.
In the end 3 of the 4 labs got statistically significant results with the 'homeopathic' solutions. The results were put down to human error, to eliminate this an automated counting protocol was applied to the figures. But even after this the results were still the same; the high dilutions of active ingredient worked, wether the active ingredient was present or it was water so dilute that none of the original substance remained. To one of the scientist's credit, they remarked that 'The results compel me to suspend my disbelief and start searching for rational explainations for our findings.'

However despite the number of labs that had replicated Benveniste's work, which consisted of double blind placebo-controlled trials. Nature refused to publish the positive findings and the results were rejected by the larger scientific community.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
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.
hi russ,

this is not a good argument. what one needs to consider is how fast things change. from my observation, the scientific community does indeed like to preserve the status quo WHEN POSSIBLE.

but this is true of human beings as a general rule. we generally need to be pushed some to accept change.
 
  • #55
Evo
Mentor
23,161
2,855
Physics-Learner, do you realize that this thread has been dead for almost 6 years?
 
  • #56
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
Also, this is no longer appropriate for the forum.
 

Related Threads on Debunking the Big Bang Theory?

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
178
Views
42K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
48K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
30K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
6K
Top