Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
A really good point turbo-1. This type of calling people out discourages good discussion. I haven't decided whether or not there is compelling evidence for redshift quantization. There are interesting studies. And the weaknesses or strengths of those studies are worth discussing. One doesn't have to be committed to a position to discuss them. I wonder how many people avoid contributing and asking questions on some of the controversial topics because they're afraid it will be demanded that they defend the theory they would like to ask and find out more about?
|
That's a valid question. Some of the people on the "bridges" sub-topic on the "More from Arp et al" thread seemed to want to learn more about the strength of bridges as evidence for interaction (even if the redshifts are discordant), but don't want to be categorized into one camp or another; so they end up lurking, and occasionally post supportive comments like "thanks for doing this work" or similar. This is sad. Categorizing people and intimidating them is detrimental to real science. I think that the last month or so on the "More from Arp et al" thread is an example of how scientific inquiry should be conducted. At the least, we have gotten the encouragement of some people who have been pretty quiet until now, and who seem to want us to continue.
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.
Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924
Last edited by turbo-1; 17-May-2006 at 05:24 AM..
|