by RedFishBlueFish » Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:21 am
Chris Peterson wrote:ritwik wrote:the mainstrem explanation is that it is because of "uneven mass distribution" in the intermediary galaxy.
The definition of "mainstream" is such that if you have a problem with it, the burden is largely on you to demonstrate its deficiencies, not on the mainstream to defend its position. In fact, the mainstream position is a solid one, supported by many refereed papers (look up 'quadrupole gravitational lens').
The above website is operated by a crank, and is chock-full of pseudoscience. It does not bear discussion, and indeed, any real discussion of this kook's ideas is likely to violate the rules of this forum.
One is entirely sympathetic with the statement that "The definition of 'mainstream' is such that if you have a problem with it, the burden is largely on you to demonstrate its deficiencies..." after all, extraordinary claims require ...
However, one is not at all sympathetic with the statement "... any real discussion of this kook's ideas is likely to violate the rules of this forum" which carries with it an implicit threat.
I believe that "real discussion" is always of value. Real discussion is truly the only path to understanding between peoples. I have not, nor am I likely to seek out the above website as, putting my faith in your professional opinion, it most likely is, as so many sites are, a platform for pseudoscience. However, if someone did wish to discuss the ideas/claims/assertions made there I find it more than passing strange that such discussion could not take place here. What better place to discuss the difference between science and pseudoscience (the demarcation problem which has bedeviled science and philosophy for a very long time) than such a venue as this.
I am willing to wager that the vast majority of users of this forum are neither astronomers, astrophysicists nor scientists of any description. I certainly am not, I fly airplanes for a living. But everyone who participates here is interested in science and astronomy and this is an opportune place for scientists to speak to a willing audience about what the scientific explanation for something is, and why some other explanations for a given phenomenon are founded on pseudoscience - it is unfortunate that this rare opportunity for such discussion is apparently not to be realized.
One is reminded of Tom Paine's observation that "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."
[quote="Chris Peterson"][quote="ritwik"]the mainstrem explanation is that it is because of "uneven mass distribution" in the intermediary galaxy.[/quote]
The definition of "mainstream" is such that if you have a problem with it, the burden is largely on you to demonstrate its deficiencies, not on the mainstream to defend its position. In fact, the mainstream position is a solid one, supported by many refereed papers (look up 'quadrupole gravitational lens').
[quote]http://milesmathis.com/lens.html
on this ↑ site author points out that those 4 dots are pretty crisp and round-ish...[/quote]
The above website is operated by a crank, and is chock-full of pseudoscience. It does not bear discussion, and indeed, any real discussion of this kook's ideas is likely to violate the rules of this forum.[/quote]
One is entirely sympathetic with the statement that "The definition of 'mainstream' is such that if you have a problem with it, the burden is largely on you to demonstrate its deficiencies..." after all, extraordinary claims require ...
However, one is not at all sympathetic with the statement "... any real discussion of this kook's ideas is likely to violate the rules of this forum" which carries with it an implicit threat.
I believe that "real discussion" is always of value. Real discussion is truly the only path to understanding between peoples. I have not, nor am I likely to seek out the above website as, putting my faith in your professional opinion, it most likely is, as so many sites are, a platform for pseudoscience. However, if someone did wish to discuss the ideas/claims/assertions made there I find it more than passing strange that such discussion could not take place here. What better place to discuss the difference between science and pseudoscience (the demarcation problem which has bedeviled science and philosophy for a very long time) than such a venue as this.
I am willing to wager that the vast majority of users of this forum are neither astronomers, astrophysicists nor scientists of any description. I certainly am not, I fly airplanes for a living. But everyone who participates here is interested in science and astronomy and this is an opportune place for scientists to speak to a willing audience about what the scientific explanation for something is, and why some other explanations for a given phenomenon are founded on pseudoscience - it is unfortunate that this rare opportunity for such discussion is apparently not to be realized.
One is reminded of Tom Paine's observation that "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry."