The Demise of ATM Discussions - Page 2

Michael Noonan · #31 (**permalink**) 27-February-2008, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

One thing about physics today. Many of the new 'discoveries' are really only somone adding a small, approximated term back into a calculation to see what the effect is. Physicists are people, they can make mistakes. So, if god comes down and says we have it wrong, every physicist worth his diploma will immediately ask where the math is wrong.

(my bold)

I have no doubt that they would.

And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.

korjik · #32 (**permalink**) 27-February-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Noonan

(my bold)

I have no doubt that they would.

And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.

incorrect (and insultingly so). If his math is correct, there isnt anything that can be done. You dont have to have any credentials to be right.

Or are you really saying that every scientist here would participate in a fraud just because they didnt like the truth?

korjik · #33 (**permalink**) 27-February-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

The answer is never that simple.

There are mainstream concepts that are jealously guarded: The Big Bang and the three pillars that support it: Metallicity evolution, expansion and the CMB. When the size of the universe became too great; a auxillary hypothesis, inflation, was added to the equation. Inflation required a reverbation signal in the the CMB; but in the Boomerang and WMAP measurements, the signature was much too small. Dark Energy was proposed as an auxillary hypothesis to an auxillary hypothesis. So was it a mainstream concept? It was a patch on a sinking raft, because without dark energy; the Big Bang was losing air and flying around backwards. Supernova researchers found more attenuation than they expected and there you have it: A bandwagon to reel-in the BB.

There has been no careful or critical examination of the assumptions made by supernova researchers as you imply: The explanation seemed to fit into the existing puzzle; so every other possible reason that supernova magnitudes are queer becomes an ATM issue. If you think about it dark matter is a very big patch: it is like floating all the pieces of a puzzle that do not fit on water and calling them islands. I guess since 70% of the earth is covered with water, 70% Dark Energy is a reasonable number, too.

So once again, observational evidence exists that comets are not the dirty snowballs they were predicted to be. Is the dirty snowball concept mainstream today, or ATM? Where do we discuss alternative hypothesis that attempt to explain why comets are made out of clay? How long should a discussion of alternative theories of comets last, and which theory should be allowed to be discussed on a mainstream discussion board?

You avoided my question. You assume that all scientists willingly participate in fraud to have to keep from admitting they are wrong. You accuse them up just pulling numbers out of air to sound good. You go on irrelevant tangents.

And you wonder why you dont get listened to?

dgruss23 · #34 (**permalink**) 27-February-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

Ten or fifteen years ago, was dark energy "mainstream" cosmology?

I think the answer here is not so black and white. I don't think all ideas can fit into a simple "mainstream" or "against the mainstream" dichotomy. When Reiss et al (1998) provided supernova results that suggested an accelerated expansion, many cosmologists were already well prepared to make the jump to a universe with a non-zero cosmological constant. It was well established by 1998 that there were observational difficulties for the standard inflationary CDM cosmology that could be alleviated by the re-introduction of a non-zero cosmological constant (lambda).

For example Efstathiou (1995) discussed several problems that persist for the CDM cosmology if the cosmological constant is zero. The biggest of these problems was that the ages of the oldest stars (in globular star clusters) were difficult to reconcile with a Hubble constant of ~70 km s-1 Mpc-1 - the old age crisis whereby the universe would be younger than its oldest stars. This problem was also discussed by Krauss in 1998 among numerous other authors during the 90's. Another problem that had come to a head by that time was that observations indicated a matter density too low to account for Omega=1 as required by inflation (see for example Carlberg et al 1996 study on the matter density of the universe from galaxy clusters).

A nice review of the Cosmological Constant was provided in 1992 by Carroll&Press In their conclusion they state:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carroll&Press

In terms of ruling in a nonzero cosmological constant, the situation now is not too different than it has been in the past. A high value of H0 (>80 km/s/Mpc, say), combined with no loss of confidence in a value of 12-14 Gyr as a minimum age for some globular clusters would effectively prove the existence of a significant Omega-lambda term. Given such observational results, we would know of no convincing alternative hypotheses.
What is most different now from in the past, and what provides hope for breaking the seemingly endless alternation between Lamda-fashionability and Lamda-rejection, is the existence of a new set of tests - gravitational lens statsistics - that have the ability to rule out a dominant omega lamda contribution.

The point here is that the cosmological constant term has always been in the equations and whether or not its value is zero had been a topic of serious discussion in mainstream journals long before 1998.

In the end, the supernova results were the final piece needed for cosmologists to abandon the occam's razor excuse and adopt the cosmological constant as a means of saving CDM cosmology from other observational difficulties.

So I don't buy the argument that has been made here in the past that cosmologists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to dark energy. It's not that simple. Were they cautious? Yes. Were they hoping they could get away without it? Probably. Are they concerned about the fine-tuning problem it presents? Certainly. But when the time came, the community of cosmologists readily accepted the cosmological constant and dark energy because observations suggested it exists and not inconveniently it provided a means of rescuing CDM cosmology from other troubling observations.

I don't think there will be agreement on this thread regarding the issue of whether or not cosmologists are dogmatic or open minded where new ideas are concerned. People have well staked out positions on that matter. The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it. The reason ATM ideas are often taken less seriously is that they typically require more dramatic modifications to what is accepted than the cosmological constant did (for example).

Jerry · #35 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

You avoided my question. You assume that all scientists willingly participate in fraud to have to keep from admitting they are wrong. You accuse them up just pulling numbers out of air to sound good. You go on irrelevant tangents.

No, I answered your question, and so did Dgruss.

Do you know what the 'Magnitude in Blue 50' technique is or what it means? You calculate how many days after the peak magnitude it takes a supernova to lose one magnitude in blue, subtract fifteen days and invert the answer. So if it takes 18 days for a 'type Ia' supernovae to lose one magnitude from the peak in the at-rest blue light band, the value is -3, (I think, it has been a while).

Why subtract 15 days? At the time the method was established (~1995), the average supernova 'type Ia' took fifteen days to lose one magnitude. It should be an easy matter then, to determine whether or not the population observed today has the same average light curve profile as supernova did in 1995. But it is not, and the reason is that even though they are still tracked, the Magnitude in Blue 50 values are rarely published today. Why not? I really don't know. It seems like a useful parameter to follow.

Since then, at least four new techniques have been developed that normalize about one thing or another. What I do know for a fact, is that the scale has been sliding - the normal distribution ten years ago was different than it is today: supernova vary more than was expected. You can't apply Occur's razor when you do not know how long the field is. It is very hard to tell what is happening when everytime the field is ruled off, a different standard is used. Whether or not changing rulers is fraudulent is generally tied to motive. If the motive is to keep the answer as simple as possible without raising eyebrows, I couldn't call it fraud. I couldn't call that good science, either.

Ari Jokimaki · #36 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

If his math is correct, there isnt anything that can be done. You dont have to have any credentials to be right.

Are you arguing that anyone who has math correct, is right? If someone presents a correct math of turtles all the way down -scenario, then that scenario is right?

Celestial Mechanic · #37 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Noonan

[Snip!] And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.

And I would criticize Him for self-publishing His work in the popular press instead of submitting it to Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review, or General Relativity and Gravitation.

Michael Noonan · #38 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

And I would criticize Him for self-publishing His work in the popular press instead of submitting it to Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review, or General Relativity and Gravitation.

And I have no explanation for the dreams of Mary Shelley.
Wikipedia article here

Quote:

"I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world".

Michael Noonan · #39 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

incorrect (and insultingly so). If his math is correct, there isnt anything that can be done. You dont have to have any credentials to be right.

Or are you really saying that every scientist here would participate in a fraud just because they didnt like the truth?

My mistake my friend I failed to acknowledge that you are indeed 'trained' in the language of mathematics and I am not. I am saying that "every" conceivable option would be most thoroughly and exhaustively undertaken to be absolutely certain to ensure that His mathematics does prove to be correct. In fact it is my belief and just that my humble and unimportant belief that He would be made to wait to ensure that full and exhaustive testing of His hypothesis and predictions could be carried out before the Absolute Theory Of Everything could receive approval from the properly appointed discipline of scientific endeavour and then He could be properly in the running, as He might be for consideration in the nominations for a Nobel Prize.

To the best of my knowledge I do not remember saying that the scientific community would participate in a fraud, just due process. However if I have made an error of judgement then I will again humbly submit that I am mistaken and will dutifully offer a full and unconditional apology.

Now to return to an earlier question I have so far failed to answer.

Quote:

(snip)
To answer your question tho. 2+2=5: can you point out where the math is wrong? Basically, all of the leading edge of physics is approximations. To try to figure out almost any problem exactly would requre more computing power than exists on the planet. All of classical physics is the low velocity, many state averages of GR and QM. In many places you make assumptions to make the math simpler. Maybe you assume that the pressure gradient is small across the area looked at. Maybe you say that the magnetic field is changing slowly. There are many others.

In the non capacity of lacking credentials I will offer this:-
It depends on the absoluteness of the operand '=' because if in the ordinary simple mathematics it is immutable then the left and the right side of the equation are not in balance. Nature even at co-ordinate points of singularity does 'seem' to fail the laws of mathematical immutability.

If the operand '=' is a barrier and is not immutable then as in nature various situations of flow can exit to balance the left and the right sides, be it a flow or a storm or destruction of an excess on one side or the creation of new material on the other. There is some excellent reading to be had with regards to tipping points.

If on the other hand it is missing some of the required information to explain the nature of why 2+2=5 such as the left and the right sides also being described by the appropriate logarithmic or exponential equations at the point of 2, 2 and 5 respectively then it is through the lack of inside knowledge that the equation loses meaning ... much like 6*9=42 in base 13.

But you are right as others on this forum have so kindly informed me, I do not have the mathematical training and required credentials to identify the simple equation of 2+2=5 under the limited understanding of the rules of mathematics (such as I have) as anything other than wrong.

In many ways mathematics can be viewed with the same degree of awe as the beautiful language of the French. It is to be admired and appreciated and above all respected and so to dare to use it without full knowledge of the absolute beautiful precision of the language is to commit an utterly vulgar act indeed.

jedaisoul · #40 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 01:16 PM

I'd like to add my experience as a fairly recent contributor to the ATM forum. On the 30th August 2007 I posted "Terry's Simultaneity-Time Cosmology". Despite the fact that this was obviously posted by an amateur, a strong discussion followed, but by the 5th September 2007 it was all over.

It seems to me, in retrospect, that it died because I over-blew my claims. What I had was not a cosmology, but a novel framework for a cosmology. Also it seemed that no one saw any significance in that framework. So the 30 day rule did not limit discussion. I learned a lot, and have since presented the ideas on other forums. But, conversely, nowhere has it received the feedback that it did here.

So I, for one, do not believe that the ATM forum on BAUT is dead. Nor do I feel that the 30 day rule is unreasonable.

Gillianren · #41 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 05:06 PM

Let's forget the DE/DM discussion. Let's pick something nice and noncontroversial. Meteorites. Was the idea that they fall from the sky once ATM? Was the idea (incorrect, of course!) that they didn't, which Thomas Jefferson believed, once ATM? Before now, of course.

Fortis · #42 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

The answer is never that simple.

There are mainstream concepts that are jealously guarded: The Big Bang and the three pillars that support it: Metallicity evolution, expansion and the CMB.

Wasn't the Big Bang theory (its name even coined by one of its detractors) originally ATM? IIRC the mainstream view was very much Steady State.

Perhaps Steady-Staters are just trying to guard an older orthodoxy?

korjik · #43 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Noonan

My mistake my friend I failed to acknowledge that you are indeed 'trained' in the language of mathematics and I am not. I am saying that "every" conceivable option would be most thoroughly and exhaustively undertaken to be absolutely certain to ensure that His mathematics does prove to be correct. In fact it is my belief and just that my humble and unimportant belief that He would be made to wait to ensure that full and exhaustive testing of His hypothesis and predictions could be carried out before the Absolute Theory Of Everything could receive approval from the properly appointed discipline of scientific endeavour and then He could be properly in the running, as He might be for consideration in the nominations for a Nobel Prize.

To the best of my knowledge I do not remember saying that the scientific community would participate in a fraud, just due process. However if I have made an error of judgement then I will again humbly submit that I am mistaken and will dutifully offer a full and unconditional apology.

Now to return to an earlier question I have so far failed to answer.

In the non capacity of lacking credentials I will offer this:-
It depends on the absoluteness of the operand '=' because if in the ordinary simple mathematics it is immutable then the left and the right side of the equation are not in balance. Nature even at co-ordinate points of singularity does 'seem' to fail the laws of mathematical immutability.

If the operand '=' is a barrier and is not immutable then as in nature various situations of flow can exit to balance the left and the right sides, be it a flow or a storm or destruction of an excess on one side or the creation of new material on the other. There is some excellent reading to be had with regards to tipping points.

If on the other hand it is missing some of the required information to explain the nature of why 2+2=5 such as the left and the right sides also being described by the appropriate logarithmic or exponential equations at the point of 2, 2 and 5 respectively then it is through the lack of inside knowledge that the equation loses meaning ... much like 6*9=42 in base 13.

But you are right as others on this forum have so kindly informed me, I do not have the mathematical training and required credentials to identify the simple equation of 2+2=5 under the limited understanding of the rules of mathematics (such as I have) as anything other than wrong.

In many ways mathematics can be viewed with the same degree of awe as the beautiful language of the French. It is to be admired and appreciated and above all respected and so to dare to use it without full knowledge of the absolute beautiful precision of the language is to commit an utterly vulgar act indeed.

First:

Quote:

And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.

Does not equal this:

Quote:

I am saying that "every" conceivable option would be most thoroughly and exhaustively undertaken to be absolutely certain to ensure that His mathematics does prove to be correct. In fact it is my belief and just that my humble and unimportant belief that He would be made to wait to ensure that full and exhaustive testing of His hypothesis and predictions could be carried out before the Absolute Theory Of Everything could receive approval from the properly appointed discipline of scientific endeavour and then He could be properly in the running, as He might be for consideration in the nominations for a Nobel Prize.

The first is an ad-hom dismissal of the presenter. The second is what is supposed to happen.

Second:
The rest of your post is correct, I did not define the problem completely.

Using base 10 integers where is the mistake in 2+2=5
there is no time evolution or space evolution so = is the absolute definition.

Not really important now tho.

korjik · #44 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Are you arguing that anyone who has math correct, is right? If someone presents a correct math of turtles all the way down -scenario, then that scenario is right?

Not implicitly stated is that the math fits observation and observation fits the math. My terminology gets sloppy when I get annoyed.

If someone has the math correct, and can show the earth on a turtle on a turtle, then yeah, he should be accepted.

korjik · #45 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

I think the answer here is not so black and white. I don't think all ideas can fit into a simple "mainstream" or "against the mainstream" dichotomy. When Reiss et al (1998) provided supernova results that suggested an accelerated expansion, many cosmologists were already well prepared to make the jump to a universe with a non-zero cosmological constant. It was well established by 1998 that there were observational difficulties for the standard inflationary CDM cosmology that could be alleviated by the re-introduction of a non-zero cosmological constant (lambda).

For example Efstathiou (1995) discussed several problems that persist for the CDM cosmology if the cosmological constant is zero. The biggest of these problems was that the ages of the oldest stars (in globular star clusters) were difficult to reconcile with a Hubble constant of ~70 km s-1 Mpc-1 - the old age crisis whereby the universe would be younger than its oldest stars. This problem was also discussed by Krauss in 1998 among numerous other authors during the 90's. Another problem that had come to a head by that time was that observations indicated a matter density too low to account for Omega=1 as required by inflation (see for example Carlberg et al 1996 study on the matter density of the universe from galaxy clusters).

A nice review of the Cosmological Constant was provided in 1992 by Carroll&Press In their conclusion they state:

The point here is that the cosmological constant term has always been in the equations and whether or not its value is zero had been a topic of serious discussion in mainstream journals long before 1998.

In the end, the supernova results were the final piece needed for cosmologists to abandon the occam's razor excuse and adopt the cosmological constant as a means of saving CDM cosmology from other observational difficulties.

So I don't buy the argument that has been made here in the past that cosmologists had to be dragged kicking and screaming to dark energy. It's not that simple. Were they cautious? Yes. Were they hoping they could get away without it? Probably. Are they concerned about the fine-tuning problem it presents? Certainly. But when the time came, the community of cosmologists readily accepted the cosmological constant and dark energy because observations suggested it exists and not inconveniently it provided a means of rescuing CDM cosmology from other troubling observations.

I don't think there will be agreement on this thread regarding the issue of whether or not cosmologists are dogmatic or open minded where new ideas are concerned. People have well staked out positions on that matter. The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it. The reason ATM ideas are often taken less seriously is that they typically require more dramatic modifications to what is accepted than the cosmological constant did (for example).

I think you are looking too much at semantics. My point is that DE was ATM but isnt now. You are correct about the how, but it was still a major change to the thinking of the day.

Your last paragraph has it correct, and is what I have been trying to say. I would change:

Quote:

The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that cosmologists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it.

generalizing it to

The lesson from the cosmological constant, is simply that scientists are willing to modify theory when observational results demand it.

I would also say that ATM idea are less accepted for more reasons than yours. First is a refusal by many to give a straight answer to a straight question. Second is the inability to admit errors. Third is the mainstreamers are out to get me paranoia. Fourth is the oddball ideas.

Michael Noonan · #46 (**permalink**) 28-February-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

First:

Quote:

And after that ask where He studied and who are His supporting referees and then point out that as a newcomer to the field of professional science that He is wrong.

Does not equal this:

Quote:

I am saying that "every" conceivable option would be most thoroughly and exhaustively undertaken to be absolutely certain to ensure that His mathematics does prove to be correct. In fact it is my belief and just that my humble and unimportant belief that He would be made to wait to ensure that full and exhaustive testing of His hypothesis and predictions could be carried out before the Absolute Theory Of Everything could receive approval from the properly appointed discipline of scientific endeavour and then He could be properly in the running, as He might be for consideration in the nominations for a Nobel Prize.

The first is an ad-hom dismissal of the presenter. The second is what is supposed to happen.

Second:
The rest of your post is correct, I did not define the problem completely.

Using base 10 integers where is the mistake in 2+2=5
there is no time evolution or space evolution so = is the absolute definition.

Not really important now tho.

Then as stated I offer a full and heart felt apology to you korjik my intention was not to dismiss you or offend. I had wished to present a case fairly and with strength, the idea that I had made an ad-hom attack did not occur to me at the time of writing.

Michael.