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


  1. May 15, 2004 #1
    I grew up believing the myth of the objective scientist

    scientists are incredibly timid people, crippled by an excessive reverence for authority and orthodoxy. many subjects, no matter how interesting, are simply prohibited because they call into question long-standing beliefs. prestigious people are permitted to dominate entire fields of inquiry, which are populated by little people trying to protect their status, and some areas of 'science' have not progressed in decades. heavy-handed zealots dominate conventional academic inquiry, defending the intellectual status quo at all costs and quashing research proposals designed to explore alternative possibilities.
    the holiest of holies - lightspeed - has been broken countless times in labs and cyclotrons around the world, but according to mainstream orthodoxy these events never occured. MBR has been proven to be isotropic by all data collected by CBR probes - disproving Big Bang Theory, but like any other group of priests and politicians...scientists lie and fudge their conclusions as much as the most distrusted professions in our society-- lawyers and car dealers

    scientists will read this in anger and outrage - proclaiming "Lies All Lies"
    and cheerleaders for SR will come to the rescue and attempt to beat this thread into submission - enjoy :smile:

  2. jcsd
  3. May 15, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think you may a tad confused:
    I suspect ion the first part you're refering to the effects of quantum tunnelling which can be consistently married to SR.

    Your defintely confused about the big bang theory as the fact that the CMBR is isotropic to such a high degree is one of the main pieces of evidence FOR the big bang.
  4. May 15, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It's funny but I can't find 1 site supporting that claim. Can you post a link?
  5. May 15, 2004 #4
    I find it very sad that this has been your experience of science and I hope you have better luck in the future. But I think you might be interpreting scientists' reactions to revolutionary new theories a little harshly.

    The thing is that if a scientist comes across a great new thing s/he will most likely want to get involved in it as quickly as possible. I'm sure every one of us has wished at some time or another they were there during the big descoveries of relativity, or quantum mechanics, or chaos theory etc. The only problem is that there are a great many wrong theories which come up - history keeps demonstrating this - so any new theory must encounter harsh criticism to have any chance of one day being accepted. The bigger the potential discovery, the more aggressive the resistance. But that's fine because it means if you try to publish "The answer to the universe is 42" then everyone will claw at you to try and prove you wrong. If they do, then fair game. But if they don't...

    The frustrating thing is that all this takes time. A big new idea changes everyone's intuition and it takes a lot of time to get used to it. I wouldn't call this orthodoxy. Physicists use their intuition a lot and so of course they are going to get upset if it gets thrown upside down.

    I think the only way for science to thrive is for debate and argument. Everyone wants to be correct at the end of the day (except some of the old professors who built their careers on wrong theories but they won't be around forever) so if you can convince them they will take your side.

    I think this is quite a minority. True, many make genuine mistakes, but that's all part of the process.

    But I really hope you have better experiences in the future. One of the best things I have found since starting my PhD is being able to have a meeting with a big uber-professor, argue for hours, and, just occasionally, end up being proven correct.

  6. May 15, 2004 #5
    We obviously don't know the same scientists.
  7. May 16, 2004 #6
    I'm just the guy you need.

    Here's an outline of my day as a typical scientist:

    I wake up, look around my gray and dull room, and read the signs around my room of authoritative people saying "you suck" with angry looking faces. I look at my slippers on the floor, which are gray and have no features, and realize that the right footed slipper is on the left of the left footed one. i quickly think 'wow, thats unorthodox' and put them the right way. i feel crippled. I walk down the hallway, going commando style in nothing but a torn up gray lab coat, and begin transmitting information faster than light. but before i do that, i have to make sure i question whether or not it can happen.

    I make sure to record all the results, and send them to newspapers and science journals where they never get published. Even when I pay money and print my own, people run in horror. so, then my gray cell phone goes off, and it's a party line of self-copnscious mumbling scientists arguing about why they have their status. since my cell phone and the sound waves go faster than light, they instantly understand what im saying. no lag. thank you nokia.

    i amke up obvious lies about how the world works - i tell them things like baseballs form naturally when a rabbit dies on a vernal equinox, because gravity will work jsut right to form a perfect sphere out of the hair, then evolution winds it all together in a baseball, then the walmart combine comes out to collect them for sale.

    of course its wrong, but ****, im prestigious, what's it matter?

    I then hear mumbling about someone trying to do a new kind of research, so I hop in my truck and break up that party. on my way I see a police officer walking down the street, since he has authority, i make sure to stop and kiss his feet.

    I then release a bunch of lies to the press saying the big bang theory is real, because you know, every scientist thinks that, even the little forum pricks that try to expose me think that we all think it's true.

    I probe a little bit and prove MBR isotropic. why the heck not? i'm jsut going to report the opposite anyway, because that's what i do. i'm a ****ing drone.

    I grab a beer with my buddies down at the used car dealership, and tell them everythign theyve ever been told is true.

    I eventually go to bed, i almost piss my pants in the joy knowing i accomplished abso-****ing-lutely nothing, and that's what I will accomplish for the next decades, because i'm a normal scientist, and that's what I do. I can't wait for the next day of my hum-drum existence.
  8. May 16, 2004 #7
    actually ANISOTROPIC CMBR is one of the main claims of BBT
    not Isotropic CMBR

    When NASA sent up its COBE satellite in 1989, it found, at that time, a 3 K (or, to be more precise, a 2.735 ± 0.06 K) temperature—measured to an accuracy of 1 part in 10,000 (Peterson, 1990). In order for the early Universe to actually have formed in the manner in which they thought it did, scientists recognized that there must have been variations, however slight, in the background radiation. Yet, the background radiation seemed more pristine with each new look at the skies. the evidence of any serious fluctuations in the background radiation had been conspicuously absent, leaving the Big Bang concept riddled with problems for which there were seemingly no solutions
  9. May 16, 2004 #8
    I'm very aware of the difference between QT and TeV accelerated particles
    I won't say how I know what I know, but lets just say it comes from a reliable and inside source, there have been several TeV runs in non-collider mode, where c was exceeded, and the run data immediately edited

    this happens far more often than you would ever believe
  10. May 16, 2004 #9
    Your are so right.

    Most of science people are from good faith, honest who wish the better for mankind and the development of science.

    But exactly like in a political party, he have to go with the will of the group, otherwise they will stay back bench. But the party line are maintain by the academics and have all to do with money and power.

    And if, despict everything you are publish, you will be crually contest and even ridiculized.

    History has plenty of such example:

    Remember Fleischmann-Pons with their cold fusion. Or Jacques benveniste with his water memory effect, or more recently Paulina Zelitsky who found underwater structure along Cuban coast line who have been said by reputed scientist on reputed magazine to believe in little green man.

    Even Hancock who have discover multiple underwater structure on which BBC have invested $500,000 to discredit them on TV

    And what’s about Tesla who discover AC power, phases motor and many many more which had their finance cut out by Morgan when he report being able to transmit electrical power without wires.

    And TT Brown with his electro gravitation who never been publish until some unofficial weird science group did.

    And Mesmer with his hypnosis

    Should we talk about Plato? Galileo? Coppernic? Newton?

    Hundreds more example exist

    Our science is from far for the mankind beneficial , in fact ou science is exactly where the money is and unfortunately this have nothing to do with the better of the mankind.

  11. May 16, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    BBT predicts a high degree of isotropy in the CMBR anyway, it's isotropy was the main piece of evidence for the big bang, infact other cosmological theories simply cannot explain this isotropy. Of course big bang theory also requires taht there be a tiny, but non-zero amount of anisotropy in order to explain the formation of clusters, galaxies, stars, etc. but this though it is only 1 part in 10,000 has already been detected.
    Last edited: May 16, 2004
  12. May 16, 2004 #11
    actually Edwin Hubble's interpretation of redshift being due to the Doppler effect was the main basis of BBT

    many scientists had calculated a mean temperature of space at around 2,7K centuries before BBT
  13. May 16, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, big bang theory originated before Hubble, though Hubble was the reason that it became accepted. Howver The homogenity and isotropy of the CMBR effectively killed any opposing theories dead, as there are other theories that can explain red-shift, howvere only BBT can explain the fact that the CMBR is homogenous and isotropic.
  14. May 16, 2004 #13
    I have a close friend, a Ph.D who works at Fermilab in Chicago. During a visit, he logged on from my non-secure computer to a secure network at Fermilab. I have seen run data, and it is true that run data is monitored on-site. If your "inside source" is from Fermilab I could attempt a private inquiry as to this claim.
  15. May 16, 2004 #14
    no, the source is at an accelerator facility here in Europe

    however I can't mention it by name for obvious reasons
  16. May 16, 2004 #15
    Oooh please tell. Is it CERN? ZEUS? I have friends at some of these places and it would be good to be able to warn them of this conspiracy.

    Also, what do you think would happen if LHC turns on and they don't find the Higgs? In a second, decades of hard work (not to mention a missed Nobel prize here and there) will be in the bin.

    What do you say. Will they deny it, or cover it up?

  17. May 16, 2004 #16
    George Gamow was the first to fully develop Abbé Georges Lemaître's 'Cosmic Egg concept (c 1927) into Big Bang Theory in the 1940's (a term coined by Hoyle as a criticism) more than a decade after Hubbles discovery

    there was no theory called Big Bang before Hoyles attack of Gamow's theory in the 40's

    also there are several theories (old and new) other than BBT that predict MBR
    Hoyles interpretation of steady state theory did not predict MBR
    but it never stated that MBR should not exist either

    there are many other steady state theories which do support MBR
    Last edited: May 16, 2004
  18. May 16, 2004 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Which are these theories? I have to say that I'm unware of any cosomology that isn't a big bangh cosomolgy that produces such a homgenous and isotropic CMBR (that's not tio say that I doubt there existance as given the data it wouldn't be too difiicult to create an ad hoc theory to fit it), because the obvious conclusions about the object radiating the CMBR is that it must be relativily small and very far away (therefore far back in time as well), the onlyu object that in my mind could fit this descritpion is a smaller more dense phase of the universe.
  19. May 16, 2004 #18
    the existence of MBR is not in dispute, what is in dispute is the explanation for the phenomenon.

    Sir Arthur Eddington - in his book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926) provided an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space

    In the book’s last chapter (“Diffuse Matter in Space”), he discussed the temperature in space

    Eddington concluded that MBR was not due to some ancient explosion, but simply the background radiation from all of the heat sources that occupy the Universe.

    He calculated the minimum temperature to which any particular body in space would cool, given the fact that such bodies constantly are immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained a value of 3,18 K (later refined to 2,8) about the same as the observed MBR known to exist today.

    MBR has been seized upon by proponents of BBT as proof of an initial catastrophic beginning of our Universe. however, the temperature estimates of space were first published in 1896 by C.E. Guillaume, prior to George Gamow’s birth in 1904 - Guillaume’s estimation was 5-6 K, and rather than blaming that temperature on some type of “Big Bang” explosion, he credited the stars belonging to our own galaxy

    in fact an infinite universe of stars would constantly be radiating heat in all directions which would in turn be absorbed by all the mass in the universe
    resulting in a mean ambient temperature thoughout the cosmos of 2,7 K

    the main argument against a stready state model is entropy, that an infinite eternal universe would have cooled to 0 K

    supporters of BBT conveniently ignore the fact that entropy does not apply to radiant bodies
  20. May 16, 2004 #19
    something going faster than light doesn't mean it would arrive instantly. there's varying speeds of "faster than light" :|
  21. May 17, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Unfoprtunately that was in 1927, the CMBR wasn't discovered until 1964 and there's no way of reproducing the CMBR in that manner. Yes you can use those methods to get a mean temperature (but note the temp. of 2.7 only applies to the CMBR the mean temp. of space inside a galaxy is higher), but you just don't get the CMBR's near perfect blackbody spectrum, isotrophy and homogenity.

    The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, there are no exceptions (well, except on a microscakle, but this merely reflects the statisical nature of the laws).
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook