To David Mitsky:

Then I suggest that you be a shining example of "niceness", my friend.

Chook.

Can I ask a question that has been nagging at me and in light of the rather heated discussion here, seems appropriate.

I would not classify myself a profesional anything, I am a student, always have been and always will be - am i wrong to listen to all sources and evaluate them in my way? as do my students. Regardless of the level of scientific 'professionalism' in the person raising the information?

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

The stereotypical scientist is seen as brilliant, passionate for their work and unable to relate well with others. Using representative heuristics is not always accurate, but it does tend to agree with many extremely bright people. Also, as Dave said, many ideas cannot be explained in plain language. One must have a modicum of knowledge to begin understand some subjects such as orbital mechanics, string theory, trig, chemistry, etc. The scientist are not always elitist, they are more comfortable with people who speak the same language, concepts, ideas, et cetera, just as the rest of us are. As I said in an earlier thread, trying to tell my daughter about quarks, leptons and the like does little good since she knows very little about atoms, yet.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Of course the people must be interested in the subject and shouldn't get the information force-fed, let's say average people should be able to understand what is meant. It always works to find good analogies to communicate difficult concepts.
Cheers.

On the question of the value of cosmology, in reading through the bulk of the replies in this section I think the answer has become almost self-evident. The very discussion of it's value is valuble, and gives weight to the premise that it IS valuble.

Blueplanet27, surely you are not suggesting that the science should be dropped simply because it is hard, both to understand and observe? IMHO that is the whole reason for the statement of a theory--I think that this may happen, I design a means to see if I am right. The scientific method seems to work very well.

I agree VanderL. Most people desire recognition from others, and scientists are no different. It would be a sad thing indeed, if you postualted a theory that has incredible merit but couldn't communicate to anyone.

I also don't think you need complete understandign of a subject to be able to gain an intuitive grasp of it. I have an understanding of Relativity because of the well communicated explanations of Sagen and Hawking, among others, but don't ask me to sit down and show you the mathematics that prove the theory.

Not only not wrong, absolutely this is the way it should be. If not for the questioning of "current" scientific knowledge, we would be living on a flat planet worrying about falling off the edge of the world and landing on Atlas' shoulders.

Shame on you Dave Minsky! I do not see the questioning of a concept or idea as sanctomony especially in the context of VanderL's comments. I do not mean to answer for him, as he seems quite capable of answering for himself, but I can tell you that MY scientific degrees are non-existant. Does that mean I am sanctomonious if I question an idea that I find unpalatable? Futhermore, if I find the arguments given by the author of that idea illogical and without merit, does that make me unable to argue the conclusions of that author?

Please explain to me exactly who you would define as qualified? Seems to me that Galileo had a number of "qualified" people around him, yet that didn't prevent his nearly being burned at the stake.

Frankly, if a professional is unable to explain a concept to me in a way that I can understand at least the principle if not the specifics, then he is not much of a professional. Even Newton was able to do that, and by all accounts he was not a people person by any stretch of the imagination.

Coming back to the value of cosmology, I find it remarkable how many theoretic ideas have come to be observed. A neutron star was only theorized at one time. A magnetar was also only predicted in theory, yet a handful of them have now been found. Think about it--extra-solor planets were only theory until the last decade.

Just because we haven't seen it YET doesn't necessarily mean we won't ever see it. That, good people, is the very essence of theory.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

You're missing the point entirely Duane. Dr. Thompson, who is a professional scientist, described the difficulties involved in presenting a convincing explanation (which has to include mathematics at some level) of an abstruse scientific principle. It is one thing to popularize science and some writers, most notably the late Isaac Asimov, do a good job of it but saying something is so is not the same as rigorously proving it to be so with the necessary higher level mathematics, mathematics that perhaps only a few per cent of the population are able to understand. _A Brief History of Time_ was written without including mathematics to improve its sales potential. Even so this book, which has been said to have been purchased and left unread by more people than any other best seller, was rather difficult for me to wade through and I took a course in quantum mechanics in college.

VanderL, who in my opinion has been advancing "the Electric Universe" with a very clever agenda, has finally met someone who is able to effectively dispute the claims of this Veliokovsky based theory. If VanderL is a professional scientist, which I doubt, then he is certainly entitled to an opposing opinion regarding the dissemination of physical science to the public. If he is not, then why doesn't he believe what a professional scientist has to say on the subject?

By the way, my surname is Mitsky and thanks so much for that charitable rebuke.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Quote Dave Mitsky:

"VanderL, who in my opinion has been advancing "the Electric Universe" with a very clever agenda,"
Uncharitable insinuation.

"If VanderL is a professional scientist, which I doubt, …"
Uncharitable assumption.

"By the way, my surname is Mitsky and thanks so much for that charitable rebuke."
Uncharitable sarcasm.

Mr. Moderator - please see the Rules about being charitable on our forum.

I use this same pricipal to teach my Special Education students Newton's Laws and my remedial Maths class to do differentiation- with staggering success! - by the way, the way i measure the successs is by the way i noticed that they were applying that knowledge in the school, simulating the game we played in class with the correct maths etc.

Like many, i am no where near a professional at anything and only a 5th year teacher, but like so many people, i like to see and encourage others to see with their own eyes. (so to call me unprofessional would be a truth that would not need to be repeated - i have admitted it).

And as I have admitted that I am not a professional, is it therefore ironic (and delightfully flattering) that my students see me as, to quote:
However, I always encourage, and have been encouraged to question the professionals....to me (and a lot of fellow non-professionals who i know) do not consider anyone's words as a be all end all of a theory. Often because I dare to ask a question, or even greet a professional - i am ignored or treated as a no hoper (this has happened repeatedly) - i do not see this as being acceptable - this is plain rude.

I will always teach my students to question the theories, to gather evidence, to understand theories through their eyes, and to never accept being ignored or being put down, as I was taught. Is this wrong, some have argued that i may be wrong, but i have never been convinced and I have always been encouraged to continue.

By the way, many professionals have replied and even contributed to my class curriculum, even got a letter from JPL encouraging my students - and I cannot even begin to describe the positive impact that had! An email from Stephen J. Gould also really inspired them - how very kind of him to reply to an email from a girl who struggles with literacy but loves science - she is really inspired by his encouragement!

So therefore I agree with Duane's comments:

And ask, does this barrier apply to my students?

I hope the answer is 'Of course not' but sometimes I am not entirely convinced and sadly, nor are my students


PS I do not mean to offend anyone with this, but this is the truth of my feelings and experiences

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Here here, DP!!!

Whether the "electric-cosmos" theory is an accurate portrayal of the Universe & its physical workings, or whether it's just a bucket of bananas, is really beside the point... There are anomalies in current scientific thinking that must be addressed properly - ie scientifically. Not just brushed under the carpet in some reactionary...um...reaction.

I'm noticing more & more in this forum a kind of conservatism that scoffs at anything outside the textbooks... Which can be dangerous, because the textbooks don't answer everything, and to search for answers, one must search "outside the box"...just like Einstein did. And Einstein flunked out of high school!

We must question everything!!!! There are no answers without questions!!!

For example: I've questioned elsewhere the current cosmological model describing the geometry of the cosmos. No one can answer this one. But the conservatism is there, stifling creative thinking.

We do NOT know what this Universe "is" in which we find ourselves. It is a mystery, slowly being unravelled...perhaps. There is no room for conservatism here, because...we...just...don't...know! (I just wish some of these experts would ADMIT it!!!).

The Universe is not "conservative". It is very radical. ANYTHING is possible.

"Creak... The movement of the door sends a shaft of fresh air into the smoke-filled room. A few dying embers drift down from above to join the ashes on their freefall. From the crack in the doorway, a sliderule emerges... On its' end is hung a scrap of white cloth, with the words "Ozz Fest '99" sculpted in black..."

Hey, There...

Is it safe to come back in here again?

At the risk of being laughed at and forever barred from a place I've just found, calling a forum's moderator to step in the middle of a heated debate seems pretty much to me like asking the playground monitor to stop a couple of kindergarteners from arguing about who's got a better baseball card, ok? Use of quotes is seriously touchy... The written word can be taken so many ways. You cannot see the author's amused smile, the lift of an eyebrow or the intensity of a look that gives meaning beyond what he has written. Write a response one day - and read it ten days later. You'll find even your own words to have a different tone...

Although I would like to think that I could sit down around the dinner table with the world's greatest minds, past and present, and have them tell me all they know in ways that I can understand - I realize the burden is not on them to teach me what they know... It is on me to understand what they are saying. If just one of them can hand me a shining seed of an idea or concept, then I will take that seed, run with it, plant it, nurture it and watch it grow. When it has blossomed into maturity, I can then take it back to them with open hands, open eyes and open heart... Knowing I've done my part... And then say:

"Hey, dude? How's come it flowered in red?"

Yes, this is a very simplistic way of trying to make a point, but I think you who read will understand what I am trying to get at. The minds that create the theories are offering you what they believe to be true. If you truly want to understand what it is about, you must take the intiative to learn what makes it so.

Always reaching for the stars,

~T

"A stray ember lights upon that scrap of white and burns a hole.. Revealing the numbers beneath. The sliderule withdraws, letting the scrap of smoking cloth fall to the floor. The door closes with a soft snick and from behind it it a voice echoes down the empty hall...

That's it!! I found the answer!"

__________________
"We are all on our backs in the gutter... Only some of us are looking at the stars."

Einstein didn't flunk out of high school.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Didn't he? Oh. I just read the cliches, not the autobiographies!

Hey folks, this conversation has gotten too personal, too fast. It's an interesting conversation, but it's raising hackles on both sides - I'm going to close it up.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.