No Dark Energy? New Puzzling Discovery

[ubavontuba]

Free thinking crackpots

I missed this last time ... as several folk have mentioned (welcome back Space Tiger!), it isn't at all 'anyone's guess'

Of course, anyone can make a guess, but to show that such a guess meets the 'three consistencies' tests¹ is an awful lot of hard work (and rarely do 'anyone's guess' pass even weak versions of those tests - just ask Garth how hard it is!)

¹My shorthand for the core 'doing' part of science:

• internally consistent
• consistent with well-established theories, where the domains of applicability overlap
• (the most important one) consistent with all relevant, good observational and experimental results.

These are excellent rules of thumb. However many "crackpot" theories meet these criteria. For instance the theory proposed by the scientists from the article I referenced is apparently consistent with these criteria (it just seems far-fetched on the face of it).

Even my own examples of crackpottery above meet these criteria. For instance: If the universe's expansion is an acceleration and gravity is equivalent to acceleration, then who's to say that the acceleration isn't an effect of gravity? See? Internally consistent, consistent with well-established theories, and consistent with observation. Even the outrageous Heisenberg virtual mass thingy has its basis in known physics and hypothesized quantum gravity.

Remember, far-fetched is not equivalent to wrong. Einstein himself said it best: "For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there can be no hope."

Obviously this doesn't mean that all insane sounding ideas are good, but Einstein realized the importance of thinking beyond the accepted norm.

Unfortunately, this site has dedicated itself to thinking within the norm... to excising the fun of fluid and creative thought. This makes me sad (and bored).

It is true that crackpottery seems all too pervasive in more relaxed forums, but these crackpot ideas are actually excellent learning tools. By simply examining them and pointing out the errors in them, people learn the parameters of real physics.

It is true that many crackpots, devoted to their ideas, will not allow themselves to be thusly educated, but I (and I'm sure many others) have indeed learned a great deal from the free discussion of these (usually silly) hypothesis.

By closing and locking all of the free-thinking forums and threads, I think this site seals its own fate. I think this site will now begin to fade away...

P.S. To the moderator. I understand that you will likely delete this posting due to its "objectionable material." I suppose it's too much to hope that you know history and science well enough to know the inherent dangers of censureship in regard to these matters.

P.S.S. Chronos, you had it right.

 

[Chronos]

Don't give up on us just yet ubavontuba! We stubbornly cling to our hard earned mainstream ideas, but, are usually willing to lend an ear. While it may sometimes appear we 'lecture', that is not the spirit in which it is offered. Sharing knowledge is one of the greatest pleasures in science.

 

[ubavontuba]

Chronos,

I don't mind the lectures, in fact I try to take what lessons from them that I can. Unfortunately, as free-thinking is censored, the subjects of the lectures become quite dry (read boring).

I was chastised quite fervently in this regard in a similar topic. So, I decided to try and play by the rules and ask more sedate questions. The chastiser left the discussion! (presumably out of boredom)

I'm a person that learns best through exploratory considerations. I'd like the forum to be willing to put up with the seemingly "out there" questions, so that I might learn best what the limitations of physics are.

For instance; if I were to seriously propose the idea of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (on a macro scale) being a possible cause of the dark matter effect, I could learn a great deal from a thoughtful conversation that explains why this can't be correct... but I can't learn anything from being called a crank and being told not to post anymore crackpot theories.

As recently discussed in Centauri Dreams:

Ernst Rutherford once said that a good scientist should be able to explain his work to a barmaid. Rutherford’s point was well-taken. He did not mean to say that every layman could or should be brought to understand the details of every scientist’s experiments. But he did believe that scientists have an obligation to communicate their findings and to keep in touch with the community around them.

I suppose that to many of the self-proclaimed experts of this site that trying to educate a goof like me is a big waste of time. This is true. I'll likely not find a use for this knowledge in my lifetime.

However, my 6 year-old son is a bonafide high-achiever (for instance, he currently reads and comprehends fluently at the 5th grade level). So, by showing by example at least some interest in these topics, don't I at least expose him to the possibilities?

Anyway, I don't intend to leave the site just yet. I'm hoping that the site owners and moderators might see the wisdom in relaxing their "no crackpots" policy. If (as I suppose) they don't, then I'll eventually have to move on to a more interesting venue.

I'm sure they might initially celebrate their victory over crackpottery, but the internet is full of physics forums that have likewise choked themselves to death.

Physics should be fun. Don't take yourselves so dreadfully serious.

 

[Garth]

Is not there a difference in exploring heterodox ideas between presenting them as questions about the mainstream theories rather than as a polemic against them?

I hope questions, thoughtfully presented, will always be acceptable on this site with other possible solutions to those questions as well, and that would be a good antidote to 'boredom'.

Garth

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm sure they might initially celebrate their victory over crackpottery, but the internet is full of physics forums that have likewise choked themselves to death.

Physics should be fun. Don't take yourselves so dreadfully serious.

This is where your "evidence" doesn't match the point of your post. The internet is full of physics forums that have choked themselves to death BECAUSE they are allowing such crackpottery. PF at one time WAS choking itself to death because we allowed such a thing. How are you, an admitted amateur, able to distinguish between legitimate, established ideas, with something that someone else came up with? Do you not care that you could be telling your son "Oh yes, antigravity has been found. And Einstein's Relativity is wrong. And that hydrino? Physicists have accepted them."?

Again, as you have said, the internet is FULL of such places. Yet, there ARE still people who come here and simply, for some odd reason, could not stand the fact that this one, minority-in-number forum would DARE to keep crackpots out.

<shakes his head in disbelief>

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

These are excellent rules of thumb. However many "crackpot" theories meet these criteria.

This claim (and you're not the first to write such, here in PF) has yet to be substantiated (if you're interested, I can point you to a website where anyone is free to put up such claims, and try to defend them, using just these three criteria - PM me. Oh, and PF has its IR section; very few 'crackpot' theories have even got past the mild entrance criteria, let alone met just two of the three consistencies).

Or maybe 'many' means something different to you than it does to me?

For instance the theory proposed by the scientists from the article I referenced is apparently consistent with these criteria (it just seems far-fetched on the face of it).

I checked back, you seem to have provided several links - which theory did you mean?

Even my own examples of crackpottery above meet these criteria. For instance: If the universe's expansion is an acceleration and gravity is equivalent to acceleration, then who's to say that the acceleration isn't an effect of gravity? See? Internally consistent, consistent with well-established theories, and consistent with observation.

Indeed.

However, astrophysics and cosmology have long since been quantitative branches of science - for your 'example of crackpottery' to meet the criteria, you need equations, math, numbers and stuff. Otherwise all you have is a word salad, perhaps useful as a Kuhnian purgative, but 'calorie-free' in terms of its scientific content.

Even the outrageous Heisenberg virtual mass thingy has its basis in known physics and hypothesized quantum gravity.

Remember, far-fetched is not equivalent to wrong. Einstein himself said it best: "For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there can be no hope."

Obviously this doesn't mean that all insane sounding ideas are good, but Einstein realized the importance of thinking beyond the accepted norm.

Indeed.

As you know, ideas are cheap - anyone can have one ("http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/nota-bene/believe-the-impossible.html" "). It's what you do with your ideas that counts; the really, really hard work is getting from the impossible idea to even an OOM test of it (though often it takes only a day or so to find holes in most crazy ideas).

Unfortunately, this site has dedicated itself to thinking within the norm... to excising the fun of fluid and creative thought. This makes me sad (and bored).

As has already been said, doing astrophysics and cosmology can be enormous fun, requires both creativity and discipline, and can leave you with highs that drugs cannot begin to match.

Of course, it's your choice if you wish to continue to be sad, bored, and uninspired (just as it's your choice whether you stay here or not).

It is true that crackpottery seems all too pervasive in more relaxed forums, but these crackpot ideas are actually excellent learning tools. By simply examining them and pointing out the errors in them, people learn the parameters of real physics.

There may be some merit to this.

However, as ZapperZ has said, PF is not such a place for this sort of thing (and you will find dozens, if not hundreds, of sites which do allow crackpot ideas to be posted; I suspect that few, if any, of those sites also have folk with even 1% understanding of the key aspects of modern astrophysics and cosmology, who are also prepared to spend their time debunking the crackpot ideas, let alone someone with a command of the field as good as Space Tiger's). We've tried this in PF, and it is boring in the extreme - the mind-numbingly narrow visions of almost all crackpot ideas is depressing, the almost universal inability to do even simple high school math or grasp the concept of OOM (order of magnitude) sanity checks is shocking (what on Earth did those folk actually learn in school??).

So here's a suggestion: why not start your own site, to implement the kind of nirvana that would make you happy (and excited)?

It is true that many crackpots, devoted to their ideas, will not allow themselves to be thusly educated, but I (and I'm sure many others) have indeed learned a great deal from the free discussion of these (usually silly) hypothesis.

By closing and locking all of the free-thinking forums and threads, I think this site seals its own fate. I think this site will now begin to fade away...

Well, a testable prediction.

Hmm, it's now been how many months since PF got rid of TD and introduced IR? In that time, how many members has PF lost? how many new ones have joined? And when students want help with their homework, to which websites do they turn? The ones full of 'free-thinking' and crackpot ideas?

P.S. To the moderator. I understand that you will likely delete this posting due to its "objectionable material." I suppose it's too much to hope that you know history and science well enough to know the inherent dangers of censureship in regard to these matters.

P.S. To ubavontuba. I understand that you will likely hope that a moderator will delete this posting due to your desire have 'proof' of your (crazy, easily refuted) idea about censorship (no, wait, it's censureship! Stupid Nereid, can't even spell). I suppose it's too much to hope that you know the history of science well enough to know that "Galileo was silenced! Galileo was right! I am being silenced! THEREFORE I MUST BE RIGHT TOO!" is a rather poor basis on which to pontificate about how science is actually done.

 

[ZapperZ]

Actually, what seems to have been overlooked is that I started this thread to point out a paper that clearly is one of those that is bucking the trend and questioning the almost-accepted idea of the existence of dark energy. So to suggest or even imply that such questioning doesn't exist in physics is clearly false.

However, there is a clear difference between what is done here, and what is done by crackpots on many places on the web. This is what most people who are not familiar with how physics/science is done, and not trained in these fields, are not aware of. Handwaving arguments are never sufficient. Putting physics phrases together that may sound impressive may in fact produce garbage. Ignorance of the underlying mathematical description of ALL the concepts in physics is a source of many hilarious ideas. All of those are not something most people would see, but those of us in this field do and shake our heads often.

ubavontuba: you have hijacked this thread into something that should have been brought up in the Feedback forum. In fact, if you go look there, nothing of what you are saying is new and have been addressed ad nauseum already. There's a good chance this thread will split off, but if not, any further arguments should be in a different thread in a different forum.

Zz.

 

[ubavontuba]

Okay. I will continue my thoughts in the "Feedback" forum under the title "Where's a good crackpot when you need one?" I hope you will all join me there to discuss this further.