Exploring Nature: Joining Discussions on Software Testing and Astronomy

[P.Schuurmans]

I am looking forward to joining discussions here.

My Backgroud is 2 years "applied physics", 5 years education for teaching in visual communication (art), 15 years experience as a database software developer. Now I am looking for a job as a software tester.
Software Testing is similar to being a scientist to me (o:

I am especially interested in understanding nature and communicate about it with others. (and less in showing my knowledge to others to become an authority (o: )

Last years I read about redshift (Doppler, SRT, ART, Hafele/Keating and Pound/Rebka) and the difference between mainstream theory and new ideas like those from H.C. Arp and P.LaViolette. Why are some new ideas too scary to be taken seriously ? When we are good scientists, it should not be a threat to us.
My point is that too often people think dogmatic and reject new ideas before really trying to understand them.
I try to be openminded towards the most crazy crackpots, because I think we need to understand more of nature than we do now.

I can become enthousiastic when I am doing the dishes and see a galaxy-shape appear in a stirred pan with water and some bean-residue. It is a serious observation to me, like the Hubble deep space pictures or CERN data.

 

[Evo]

Last years I read about redshift (Doppler, SRT, ART, Hafele/Keating and Pound/Rebka) and the difference between mainstream theory and new ideas like those from H.C. Arp and P.LaViolette. Why are some new ideas too scary to be taken seriously ? When we are good scientists, it should not be a threat to us.
My point is that too often people think dogmatic and reject new ideas before really trying to understand them.
I try to be openminded towards the most crazy crackpots, because I think we need to understand more of nature than we do now.

Please read our rules and banned topics. Works by crackpots are not allowed to be discussed here.

 

[P.Schuurmans]

Does this imply that there is a blacklist with people who are considered "crackpot" ? Who makes this distinction ?

I am afraid this is exactly the problem that I tried to warn for. Progress in science is impossible when everybody agrees on the accepted theory.
Discussion will be limited to homework-issues. I am not interested in science to get a degree, just like I am not interested in sport to receive a medal.
Its the process of searching for the truth that I am passionate about.

I would like to discuss this issue (in private) with somebody that is responsible for these decisions on this Forum.
And I will follow the guidelines carefully, even if this means that I cannot contribute anything.

 

[Evo]

Our rules explain what is allowed, I suggest that you read them as they will answer your questions. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/ There is a list of some banned topics to give you an idea of the things we don't allow. Physics Forums is for the discussion of peer reviewed mainstream science published in approved journals.

 

[mfb]

Progress in science is impossible when everybody agrees on the accepted theory.

That does not happen, don't worry. All scientists are constantly looking for things that are in disagreement with existing theories. It's just hard to find those.
To do this, it is obvious that you have to learn about the existing theories and their predictions first, a step most crackpots forget (or ignore).

I would like to discuss this issue (in private) with somebody that is responsible for these decisions on this Forum.

All mentors are, and those discussions can be found in the feedback forum, there is no need to have iteration 463123 of this topic in private.

 

[P.Schuurmans]

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I will try to find my way and behave like a real scientist (o:

 

[Evo]

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I will try to find my way and behave like a real scientist (o:

When a new member brings up topics that are not allowed, we find it is better to advise them before they make a lengthy post, only to have it deleted. If you wish to learn and discuss topics we allow, you are most welcome here.

 

[P.Schuurmans]

You are right. Better be sure about the rules first.
I only hope that the rules will not suffocate the discussions.
When I am not sure, I will ask for advice.

I am eager to learn more about Physics. Tnx again

 

[Drakkith]

Hi P. Schuurmans, welcome to PF!

Last years I read about redshift (Doppler, SRT, ART, Hafele/Keating and Pound/Rebka) and the difference between mainstream theory and new ideas like those from H.C. Arp and P.LaViolette. Why are some new ideas too scary to be taken seriously ? When we are good scientists, it should not be a threat to us.

Science (mainstream science) does not treat new theories as 'scary' or their creators as 'threats'. What happens is that someone proposes a theory and then fails to adequately support their theory with math, evidence, and/or logic. Sometimes one of two competing theories is shown to better support or explain new evidence and that theory is elevated over the other theory, which then typically falls out of favor. Some common 'crackpot' cosmological theories were once real, plausible mainstream theories, but have now been left behind after new evidence came to light (Arp's intrinsic redshift is one of these).

You will hear much from certain people who like to claim that mainstream science is blind to new theories or the truth or whatever. If that were the case, we would not be continually developing new technologies, building gigantic experiments to discover new physics, or sending telescopes into space to gather more evidence to narrow down existing theories and create new ones.

The reason we don't allow discussion of these theories here on PF is that the discussions tend to attract supporters of the theory who don't actually understand the theory or regular physics and who will not listen to reason. We used to have a subforum dedicated to new/personal theories, and the discussions went nowhere because of people like that. There's a reason ALL new fundamental theories are developed by professional scientists who are trained in current physics. They already know the territory of mainstream science along with the little outshoots and dead ends that don't lead anywhere, and they have the tools and the training to navigate the unknown territory to new discoveries. Of course, like every job, there are scientists who just aren't very good at some aspects of their jobs. When that aspect is understanding what makes a new theory viable or not, we get scientists who are long-term proponents of unaccepted theories. (personal pride and other human factors have an effect too)

That's why all theories are subject to ongoing peer review, even after they've been published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Being peer reviewed in a journal doesn't mean that a paper/theory is accepted as correct, it only means that whoever did the peer review didn't find it horribly wrong)

 

[P.Schuurmans]

Thank you Drakkith for welcoming me on this forum.

evidence came to light

I would like to start a topic about H.C.Arp's observations. His theory / conclusions that he developed from his observations , I would like to keep out of the discussion.
Because I think his collection of "Peculiar Galaxies" are peculiar only in the Big bang Theory where there is a clear correlation between distance and redshift of galaxies/objects. Am I allowed to do that ?

supporters of the theory who don't actually understand the theory

How many people support the Big Bang theory without really understanding it ?
I myself am reading about Einsteins work for (3?) decades and still have the feeling that I don't fully understand it's consequences.
In my vision supporting a theory is not black or white like people believe in one or another religion. It can be a variable feeling where you expect the theory to fit the observations. But these expectations can blur our mind.

The last part of your post seems to suggest that mainstream science does not make mistakes and some people act like judges-in-science that can tell the difference between good and bad work, without exception.

 

[Evo]

I would like to start a topic about H.C.Arp's observations. His theory / conclusions that he developed from his observations , I would like to keep out of the discussion.
Because I think his collection of "Peculiar Galaxies" are peculiar only in the Big bang Theory where there is a clear correlation between distance and redshift of galaxies/objects. Am I allowed to do that ?

The mentors will have to discuss this, while some of ARP's work is ok, it is too easy to cross over into his crackpottery. It sounds like what you wish to discuss goes into the latter.

 

[P.Schuurmans]

It sounds like what you wish to discuss goes into the latter

I assume that the part of his work where he was making observations is the good part ...
Edwin Hubble is accepted as a good scientist too, because of his observations.

The question now is : "Are we open to look at those pictures with an objective approach ?"

But Arp's work is not the only issue I would like to discuss. I have some more questions where I need a second opinion or an explanation of people with good knowledge of physics.

 

[Evo]

It would have to fit our guidelines, we will not debunk or discuss it otherwise.

 

[Drakkith]

I would like to start a topic about H.C.Arp's observations. His theory / conclusions that he developed from his observations , I would like to keep out of the discussion.
Because I think his collection of "Peculiar Galaxies" are peculiar only in the Big bang Theory where there is a clear correlation between distance and redshift of galaxies/objects. Am I allowed to do that ?

I can't make any guarantees without seeing the actual content. If you would like, you can type up a post and send it to me and I can discuss it with the other mentors.

How many people support the Big Bang theory without really understanding it ?
I myself am reading about Einsteins work for (3?) decades and still have the feeling that I don't fully understand it's consequences.

It's one thing to support a theory you don't understand when it is supported by the vast majority of the mainstream scientific community. It's quite another thing to support a theory you don't understand which is NOT supported by the vast majority of the mainstream scientific community. It's like supporting a design for a bridge that 999 out of 1000 structural engineers or architects or whoever designs bridges say will fail when you yourself can't understand the design.

In my vision supporting a theory is not black or white like people believe in one or another religion. It can be a variable feeling where you expect the theory to fit the observations. But these expectations can blur our mind.

Supporting a theory does not mean absolute and utter blindness to other theories or to the possibility that the theory is ultimately incorrect. That's actually more a fault of crackpots and people like Arp, who insist that a single theory is right regardless of the evidence brought against it (or the lack of evidence supporting it).

The last part of your post seems to suggest that mainstream science does not make mistakes and some people act like judges-in-science that can tell the difference between good and bad work, without exception.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I posted. All scientific theories are subject to continual and ongoing scrutiny. Not only because new evidence can falsify the theory, but also because people are human and are not perfect. It is not unheard of to find mistakes in peer-reviewed papers. Hell, it's not even uncommon. Peer review itself is certainly prone to problems. There is a growing list of journals which are known to be of 'poor quality' because of their lax standards regarding peer review. Even good journals can miss something sometimes. We just don't have anything better that peer review. (And I can't think of any way of ensuring that scientific papers and theories meet some kind of quality standard that wouldn't be some version of peer review. Who else has the skills and experience required to make sure these things are correct other than the people trained in that field?)

 

[Drakkith]

Whoops, I just realized this thread was locked at some point. Please feel free to message me if you would like to continue this discussion.