The Sick State of Todays Science

[Niflmir]

To summarize the article, the author asserts that science is indoctrinated and unwilling to listen to dissident views. The author further asserts that his idea (its not a theory) is correct and because scientists do not understand his idea they cannot claim to understand anything. That they can't understand anything is backed up by the assertion that they are "specialists" and therefore only understand a single field and therefore nothing outside of that field.

This is the claim of a crackpot: you don't understand me and are unwilling to listen to me because you are stubborn.

These assertions are all incorrect. As I will outline.

The training of experts is so narrow and specialized that, as George Bernard Shaw wrote, “No man can be a pure specialist without being in the strict sense an idiot.” Perhaps that is why no university on this planet offers a course that seamlessly sews the specialties together into a broad interdisciplinary canvas. The pieces don’t match up. The idiots cannot even converse!

A quote completely taken out of context and then backed up with ignorance. I have taken mathematical physics courses. I have friends who are bio-physicists. Then there is physical chemistry, bio-chemistry, etc. etc. etc. The quote is supposed to mean that in order to achieve a specialisation of a given subject you will also have to possess semi-specialised knowledge about other fields close to it. The author asserts that there is no secondary specialisations possessed by specialists and then uses this quote to call specialists idiots.

The author is clearly ignorant of the reality of what a person must learn to become a "specialist". I assure you, in order to work in my field, numerical relativiy, I need to possess a lot of secondary specialisations such as numerical analysis and differential geometry. Further, in order to get my job done, I need a firm grasp of computer programming and associated logic. All physicists possess an excellent grasp of electromagnetism, due to the fact that it is a linear, classical field theory and provides a stepping stone to the non-linear or quantum field theories they are actually interested in. The above paragraph is supposed to back up the final sentence in the next paragraph I quote.

This disconnect has allowed a surprising depth of ignorance to hide at the heart of our science. We have a gravitational cosmology that trumpets an understanding of the history of the universe back to the first nanosecond. Yet we do not understand gravity!! We have merely a mathematical description of what it does using words that have no real meaning—like “space-time” and an assumption of universality. Meanwhile the dismissal of the fundamental role of the powerful electric force in cosmology borders on pathological.

It is the author who doesn't understand gravity. I do and plenty of my colleagues do, it is after all, our job. The words which are meaningless to the author are meant to symbolize concepts which hold great depth which the author doesn't understand, by his or her own assertion. Universality is a concept of phase changes, not cosmology. Then the idea of the electrical force being powerful in cosmology slips in. In order for the electrical force to be significant, there must be charge seperations. On the scale of cosmology, megaparsecs, the universe is so neutral that the weakest force becomes the most dominant. Sure, in the primordial universe the density fluctuations due to charge seperation and charge currents were important, but this is currently being modelled and is well understood. I question who is dismissing the role of electromagnetism. Look up priomordial magnetic fields.

Entrenched science is constantly bolstered by sensational speculative announcements of “facts.” But wildly imaginative constructs such as "dark matter," "dark energy" and “black holes” are fictitious, not factual. Notwithstanding, pronouncements about the big bang have become a quasi-religious ideology, or scientism.

It is not nearly as entrenched as the author would have the reader believe. The author simply wants to believe this so that they can argue that they are being persecuted. Read up on Buchert averaging for real scientific dissident views. There are dissidents in the academy, they receive funding and publish their papers. The difference between this author and the real dissidents is that the real dissidents understand how science works, and so we listen to them.

 

[Niflmir]

Simple question.

Are you a practicing Scientist?

If you are, why would you refute any argument. That's the basis of science.

If you are not... Quit blowin' smoke up everyone's butt

This one struck me as funny. The basis of science is the desire to understand, to answer questions like "Why?" and "How?" to the best of our ability. When confronted with a hereto unexplained phenomenon, people will shoot off ideas from the top of their heads. Now you have a series of competing ideas with varying conclusions. You can attempt to furnish evidence that your preferred idea is right or you can attempt to furnish evidence that other theories are wrong.

It is generally easier to show that a theory is inconsistent with observation. Therefore, refuting things is often the preferred method.

But my being a scientist has nothing to do with the validity of what I am saying.

 

[hermanntrude]

niflmir makes a good point about the electrical force. It's strength depends (IIRC) on the inverse of the suare of the distance between the charges. If that is true then when one moves two objects so that they are twice as far apart as they were, the force between them is a quarter of what it was. If the distance is tripled, the force is divided by nine and so on. So over the distances of megaparsecs, the electrical force is negligible, isn't it?

 

[Niflmir]

niflmir makes a good point about the electrical force. It's strength depends (IIRC) on the inverse of the suare of the distance between the charges. If that is true then when one moves two objects so that they are twice as far apart as they were, the force between them is a quarter of what it was. If the distance is tripled, the force is divided by nine and so on. So over the distances of megaparsecs, the electrical force is negligible, isn't it?

Not only that, but the actual charge of objects on those scales is basically zero.

So you have a force decreasing with distance and miniscule charges to begin with whose magnitude is decreasing as you include more volume.

Then there is gravity, which is also decreasing at basically inverse squared, but the gravitational charge (mass) is increasing with basically the cube of the distance. Electricity just cannot win. There is a ratio we use to characterize the relative strength of electromagnetism in our simulations, the energy of the EM field (which we include in our computations) to the total energy of the system. Even when you have fields of some 10^16 gauss (unreasonably enormous) it is only a small fraction of the total energy.

 

[Tyr]

This one struck me as funny. The basis of science is the desire to understand, to answer questions like "Why?" and "How?" to the best of our ability. When confronted with a hereto unexplained phenomenon, people will shoot off ideas from the top of their heads. Now you have a series of competing ideas with varying conclusions. You can attempt to furnish evidence that your preferred idea is right or you can attempt to furnish evidence that other theories are wrong.

It is generally easier to show that a theory is inconsistent with observation. Therefore, refuting things is often the preferred method.

But my being a scientist has nothing to do with the validity of what I am saying.

..not to forget the "what" with the Why, etc and as for conclusions. Much scientific conjecture does not yet have a conclusion, hence the reason for scientific research

 

[coldstream]

It is hard to think of ONE useful piece of technology that has been produced by modern cosomology since the Second World War. That is certainly not true electronics and chemisty.. but the presitige branch of modern science is physics.. which at least in its cosmological incarnation.. has produced zero.

What's worse is it now exists in the nether world of superstrings.. multidimensions.. mathematical abstractions.. things that are beyond empirical experiment and verification. It has abandoned science to become a speculative philosophy. It produces meditations of existence, nothing more.

Once science has lost its purpose in producing useful technology it has lost its fundamental inspiration.

The cult of the certified expert has other manifestations as well. In political agendas masquerading as science as exist with the Global Warming hoax. Which too has abandonned its rigour and evidence to support an enviromental theology, that depicts man as a predatorial infestation on the pristine planet.

People don't even think twice as utter nonsense, disproved by all that you see around you, is proclaimed certified by experts, and therefor gospel truth. You will not be admitted to this scientific priesthood unless you are fully vetted and accept all the established myths. Hence the trumpeting of fools like Al Gore, the scientific pretender, standing before the world clothed only in his imaginary regalia, wins international acclaim.

Oswald Spengler, in Decline of the West, predicted that a civilization in decline would see its sciences devolve into boundless belief systems.. far too aesthetically pleasing and discarnate to be held to demands of proof and utility.

 

[Tonington]

Once science has lost its purpose in producing useful technology it has lost its fundamental inspiration.

Non-sequitur. I would think aquiring new knowledge of the universe is the fundamental inspiration for all scientists. Inquisitive, curious, intuitive. Technology doesn't necessarilly follow from new knowledge.

The cult of the certified expert has other manifestations as well. In political agendas masquerading as science as exist with the Global Warming hoax. Which too has abandonned its rigour and evidence to support an enviromental theology, that depicts man as a predatorial infestation on the pristine planet.

Ahh, more conspiratorial nonsense.

People don't even think twice as utter nonsense, disproved by all that you see around you, is proclaimed certified by experts, and therefor gospel truth. You will not be admitted to this scientific priesthood unless you are fully vetted and accept all the established myths. Hence the trumpeting of fools like Al Gore, the scientific pretender, standing before the world clothed only in his imaginary regalia, wins international acclaim.

Hmm, and ad hominems to boot. Can you provide any description of science that doesn't involve various forms of fallacy?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It is hard to think of ONE useful piece of technology that has been produced by modern cosomology since the Second World War.

Actually it's easy, if you know anything about it. Tunnel diodes and field effect transistors, without which none of the electronic devices in your life would function, are a direct result of cosmologists puzzling out the nuclear processes that power the stars. The quantum tunneling process was first demonstrated in the laboratory well after WW2, after theorists had figured out with quantum theory that it had to be happening in order to explain certain observations.

 

[Niflmir]

It is hard to think of ONE useful piece of technology that has been produced by modern cosomology since the Second World War. That is certainly not true electronics and chemisty.. but the presitige branch of modern science is physics.. which at least in its cosmological incarnation.. has produced zero.

To most other people, knowledge has value. Are writers somehow worthless because they don't give anything to society? Most people would say that their writings are something of great value. But you know, Fahrenheit 451 for the rest.

Look up Buchert averaging, which is essentially a modern, scientific rebellion against the lambda-cold dark matter cosmological picture which I already wrote about above. The fact that people publish papers on this topic on basically a daily basis disproves everything else you are saying.

 

[darkbeaver]

It is the author who doesn't understand gravity. I do and plenty of my colleagues do, it is after all, our job.

Your participation lends the discussion gravity, haha. Now if you'll be forthcoming with the explanation of gravity we would like to understand it as well.
:smile:

 

[Tyr]

It is hard to think of ONE useful piece of technology that has been produced by modern cosomology since the Second World War. That is certainly not true electronics and chemisty.. but the presitige branch of modern science is physics.. which at least in its cosmological incarnation.. has produced zero.

What's worse is it now exists in the nether world of superstrings.. multidimensions.. mathematical abstractions.. things that are beyond empirical experiment and verification. It has abandoned science to become a speculative philosophy. It produces meditations of existence, nothing more.

Once science has lost its purpose in producing useful technology it has lost its fundamental inspiration.

The cult of the certified expert has other manifestations as well. In political agendas masquerading as science as exist with the Global Warming hoax. Which too has abandonned its rigour and evidence to support an enviromental theology, that depicts man as a predatorial infestation on the pristine planet.

People don't even think twice as utter nonsense, disproved by all that you see around you, is proclaimed certified by experts, and therefor gospel truth. You will not be admitted to this scientific priesthood unless you are fully vetted and accept all the established myths. Hence the trumpeting of fools like Al Gore, the scientific pretender, standing before the world clothed only in his imaginary regalia, wins international acclaim.

Oswald Spengler, in Decline of the West, predicted that a civilization in decline would see its sciences devolve into boundless belief systems.. far too aesthetically pleasing and discarnate to be held to demands of proof and utility.

Wave–particle duality

 

[darkbeaver]

Electric gravityElectric Gravity in an Electric Universe
In 1850, Faraday performed experiments trying to link gravity with electromagnetism that were unsuccessful. However, his conviction remained: “The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.”[12]

Faraday’s estimate of the importance of such a connection still stands. Today, there are a number of scholars pursuing this obvious line of inquiry. After all, the electrical and gravitational forces share fundamental characteristics—they both diminish with the inverse square of the distance; they are both proportional to the product of the interacting masses or charges; and both forces act along the line between them.

Matter and mass

Gravity acts in proportion to the mass of an object. What do we mean when we refer to the ‘mass’ of an object? "One of the most astonishing features of the history of physics is the confusion which surrounds the definition of the key term in dynamics, mass."[13] Early in the 20th century numerous textbooks equated the mass of an object to its weight. That equation led to confusion because it doesn’t explain why the mass of an object we measure on a weighing machine (gravitational mass) is identical to the mass of that object when we push it (inertial mass

 

[darkbeaver]

The main idea in the article posted in the OP is that there's something wrong with contemporary physics, and to that extent it's correct, there really *is* something missing from our current understanding and every physicist knows it. But to suggest, as Darkbeaver and that site do, that it's due to a conspiracy of vested interests, is paranoid nonsense. He claims to be a cutting edge scientist, but he's not. Here's how a real cutting edge scientist thinks:

If there are no conspiracys of vested interests in science then there are no conspiracys of vested interests. To believe that one would have to exercise boundless faith.

 

[CDNBear]

...and how did they do that? Scientific explanation only please

It's irrelevant...DB has posted extensively about how the 'right' is daft and that 'science' has proven its case. So here he is dumping on the very group of people he's quoted in the past to press his agenda.

Fun that old hinky thing hypocrisy is.

 

[CanadianLove]

Quote DB
"Faraday’s estimate of the importance of such a connection still stands. Today, there are a number of scholars pursuing this obvious line of inquiry. After all, the electrical and gravitational forces share fundamental characteristics—they both diminish with the inverse square of the distance; they are both proportional to the product of the interacting masses or charges; and both forces act along the line between them. "


That reminds me of the talk a Quatum Physicist had on the CBC Radio Ideas. When they were first observing the smallest possible piece of matter that is known to exist. One scientist looked at it and saw a solid and took the measurements, then asked another scientist to confirm what he had seem and measured. The second scientist who looked at it energy rather than a set solid so required different instruments to quanify the observation. That is where they first started to prove that life is accually observer based. What we expect to see is what we will see. "Lock up the deviants" :lol:

IMO this is the reason for the delay with the collider. They feel that the media has so many people believing the scientists are going to destroy the World with the experiment that they are afraid they will destoy the world if everyone is thinking about it. When that experiment is conducted the World will not even know it is happening - That is what I think they want.

But that is just a theory.

 

[darkbeaver]

It's irrelevant...DB has posted extensively about how the 'right' is daft and that 'science' has proven its case. So here he is dumping on the very group of people he's quoted in the past to press his agenda.

Fun that old hinky thing hypocrisy is.

How you doing CDNBear? Everything is peachy and you are in good health I hope. My agenda? What can I say about that without jeopardizing the mission which you being above and beyond the intelligence of the ordinary man have been able to discover. I can't talk anymore they're following me, time to move on to the next Tim Hortons. It was great talking to you again, wish you were here so I could get a ski-doo boot into your crotch.:lol:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That is where they first started to prove that life is accually observer based.

That's a lamentably common misconception. Quantum theory is entirely consistent with an objective reality that continues to exist regardless of our perceptions of it. Reality is not observer-created. Read this. What the theory *does* say is that what you'll observe in the quantum world depends on how you measure it. Whether, for instance, you observe the wave or particle nature of the entities in question depends on the apparatus you set up to measure things.

...the media has so many people believing the scientists are going to destroy the World with the experiment that they are afraid they will destoy the world if everyone is thinking about it.

If that were true, the experiment's irrelevant. If reality were observer-created, people could destroy the world just by thinking about it, with or without the experiment.

But that is just a theory.

No it's not, it's just an idea. And not a very good one.

 

[Niflmir]

Your participation lends the discussion gravity, haha. Now if you'll be forthcoming with the explanation of gravity we would like to understand it as well.
:smile:

What do you want to know? I cannot divulge all of the details without you knowing differential geometry, otherwise

R_{ab} - 1/2Rg_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}

would tell you everything you need to know. If you aren't interested in matter,

R_{ab} = 0,

will tell you everything. I'm sure that this probably doesn't tell most people here anything.

As I said, what do you want to know? Keep in mind that all I can give you are descriptions; unless you understand the model you won't really be able to synthesize any new information from it. For your everyday experience, Newtonian gravity should suffice, if you are interested in Cosmology, you need to know the basics of the above that lead to the FRW cosmologies. Even if you think that there are insufficiencies with the FRW cosmologies, one should understand it.

 

[petros]

Simple question.

Are you a practicing Scientist?

If you are, why would you refute any argument. That's the basis of science.

If you are not... Quit blowin' smoke up everyone's butt

I love this science abuse. I have no need for TV. I wish I could rummage through this gangue pile all day but my sides hurt from laughing.

When I stop and think about it I'm looking forward to the culling of the herd. Some people I will miss but the most won't bother me me either way.

 

[darkbeaver]

What do you want to know? I cannot divulge all of the details without you knowing differential geometry, otherwise

R_{ab} - 1/2Rg_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}

would tell you everything you need to know. If you aren't interested in matter,

R_{ab} = 0,

will tell you everything. I'm sure that this probably doesn't tell most people here anything.

As I said, what do you want to know? Keep in mind that all I can give you are descriptions; unless you understand the model you won't really be able to synthesize any new information from it. For your everyday experience, Newtonian gravity should suffice, if you are interested in Cosmology, you need to know the basics of the above that lead to the FRW cosmologies. Even if you think that there are insufficiencies with the FRW cosmologies, one should understand it.

That's full of mistakes, why don't you just say you don't know and get it over with.
Your angular velocity comes from where? Assumptions all I see are assumptions.:lol:

"It is not nearly as entrenched as the author would have the reader believe. The author simply wants to believe this so that they can argue that they are being persecuted. Read up on Buchert averaging for real scientific dissident views. There are dissidents in the academy, they receive funding and publish their papers. The difference between this author and the real dissidents is that the real dissidents understand how science works, and so we listen to them."

Real dictionary dissidents get fired not funded what you have there is a loyal opposition, that author and his buddies have pretty good tickets Niflimr. It's like they say that science is full of abused words, Dissidents throw wrenchs and molotov cocktails, they are not employed by the academy. The list of bonified dissident victims of the establishment in long and glorious, lots of them died by fire defending thier positions.