Starship Asterisk*

Sputnick wrote:Astrophysics was once non-science as far as the establishment was concenerned, and Celia Payne was considered a non-scientist. I highly, highly, highly recommend the book 'Through a Universe Darkly' by physicist Marcia Bartusiak. This book puts historical condemnation of new ideas in a beautifully bright light.

Astrophysics has never been considered a non-science. It would be better to say that, before it started generating testable theories, astrophysics wasn't taken too seriously- something like the state astrobiology is in today. Cecilia Payne was not considered a non-scientist. The low level of respect she and her ideas encountered for a number of years was largely the result of the fact she was a woman at a time when women weren't expected to be scientists. That's a problem with scientists and society, not with science itself.

It is common in science for new ideas to be rejected. On the whole, this is a good thing, because it forces the defenders of new ideas to make a particularly strong case for change. And that is where the burden should lie, because if every scientist had to devote serious attention to every new idea, nothing much would get done.

Cecilia Payne's ideas were accepted, because she was able to make a solid case that they were right. So in the end, despite the fact that she herself was not respected by much of the establishment, her ideas won out on their merit- because she was able to demonstrate why they were better than other ideas. Note that she did this by working within the system: she utilized formal scientific methods, published peer reviewed papers, and generated testable theories. She played by the rules <g>.

Chris - Edward Pickering was Director of Harvard College Observatory from 1877 to 1919 and introduced Astrophysics at Harvard even though 'he had to fight the snide remarks and critical attacks that he was pursuing dubious physicals..." So, according to many of his contemporaries, Astrophysics was not science.

It is most definitely not a good idea to reject new ideas as that stifles the entire creative process, and leads to good people quitting or moving to a more open minded environment. It is far better to say, "Yes .. you may be onto something young scientist .. let me suggest ways of helping you find additional proof."

Celia Payne's equations were definitely rejected when she brought them forward, and not just because she was a woman, but because they did not fit the accepted models. It wasn't until years later that they were accepted, and as you admit, probably if female scientist historians like Marcia Bartusiak were not able to overcome extreme prejudice and ignorance among the ruling male supremacists (comparable to white supremacists) you and I and Nereid and APOD would probably never have hear the name Celia Payne .. and I'm using her pre-marriage name because that's when she made her hydrogen equations.) For the benefit of your intellectual growth I suggest strongly you need to read Marcia's book - Through a Universe Darkly.

Astrobilogy? It seems to me from what I've read astrobiology is totally recognized as an important science .. and that the massive 'currents' thought certain to exist in the theoretical Dark Matter should give rise to more respectability for Plasma Cosmology.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:
You need to be able to say why the BB is absurd, in objective terms. That's what I'm still waiting for. Otherwise, you have no case.

I did say why I think the Big Bang is absurd.

From a philosophical standpoint, drawing upon human experience, what creation story/hypothesis/theory isn't "absurd"? The Universe has always been here? Absurd. The Universe was created at some time? Absurd. The Universe arose out of a super-universe? Absurd. There is simply no framing this problem in a way that can satisfy human intuition. So honest science ignores that, and simply follows the objective evidence where it leads.

Philosopher Emmanuael Kant was proven right about island universes .. his idea was truth and not absurdity except it might have been absurd in the minds of those who thought they 'knew it all.'

I think the universe is not only under obligation to reveal itself to it .. it declares itself to us plainly if we aren't blinded by wrong concensus which most of us are quick to become part of because it puts us within the framework of a tribe we consider powerful. Power is not truth. Truth is truth .. and like a poet said, truth is Beauty, and beauty is truth.

Sputnick wrote:Chris - Edward Pickering was Director of Harvard College Observatory from 1877 to 1919 and introduced Astrophysics at Harvard even though 'he had to fight the snide remarks and critical attacks that he was pursuing dubious physicals..." So, according to many of his contemporaries, Astrophysics was not science.

Astrophysics dates back far earlier than the early 20th Century! And it has been recognized as science for several hundred years. Pickering introduced astrophysics as a department, which was politically threatening to both physicists and astronomers in that academic environment. It was clearly absurd to argue that the subject wasn't scientific, and any such arguments obviously died very quickly. There was never a mainstream opinion that astrophysics was non-science.

It is most definitely not a good idea to reject new ideas as that stifles the entire creative process, and leads to good people quitting or moving to a more open minded environment. It is far better to say, "Yes .. you may be onto something young scientist .. let me suggest ways of helping you find additional proof."

I disagree. Putting pressure on people with new ideas to make a strong case is a very good thing. I don't think science could even work the way you suggest. No specialist has time to do early development work on other people's ideas.

Celia Payne's equations were definitely rejected when she brought them forward, and not just because she was a woman, but because they did not fit the accepted models. It wasn't until years later that they were accepted...

Which demonstrates that the scientific process works. Despite prejudice, good ideas always win out, once they are presented with force. It's easy to point to a case like this and argue that if everyone had been openly accepting of new ideas, the "right" answer would have been mainstream much sooner. But you have to consider that during that same time, plenty of other scientists were offering up other theories, which turned out to be completely wrong. Had they all been accepted from the beginning as equally worthy of consideration, who knows if any consensus would have been reached. Had Payne been a man, her work would have probably been accepted faster. But it would still have required time and effort to sway opinion. As it should.

Astrobilogy? It seems to me from what I've read astrobiology is totally recognized as an important science ... [non-science snipped]

It is becoming so. Modern astrobiology dates back about 50 years. For most of that time, it was generally considered more akin to philosophy than to science. As recently as the late 1970s (I was at JPL then, doing work with the Viking project, which had a goal of looking for life) many scientists still considered astrobiology to be very weak science. With our modern planetary exploration, most now consider it a scientific pursuit with respect to the Solar System. Many are still skeptical of the work being done in this area with respect to other star systems.

Sputnick wrote:Philosopher Emmanuael Kant was proven right about island universes .. his idea was truth and not absurdity except it might have been absurd in the minds of those who thought they 'knew it all.'

No philosopher has ever been proven right about anything. Philosophy deals with subjects that are inherently beyond demonstration. Philosophers can only argue about opinions.

I think the universe is not only under obligation to reveal itself to it ...

Nevertheless, your thinking of it this way does not make it so. QM is perhaps the most well tested of all rich, fundamental scientific theory, and there's not much about QM that seems logical or intuitive to most people. BTW, I didn't say that the Universe wouldn't or couldn't reveal itself, only that what was ultimately revealed need not seem reasonable when viewed in the light of everyday experience.

Observations with advancing instruments are revealing far more matter on the thin edges of the spiral galaxies .. this matter including huge numbers of stars too faint to be seen previously, and considerably thickening (the mass of) the spirals. Other suggestions as to what Dark Matter consists of are ordinary things like brown dwarfs, red dwarfs, dead white dwarfs, black holes, dust, gas, near stars, planetoids. P.233 Through a Universe Darkly

As well - Astrophysicist Mordehai Milgrom has written several papers showing how Newton's equations can be altered to account for the curious rotation rates of galaxies. P. 213-214 Through a Universe Darkly. Therefore, there may be no need for dark matter to 'hold in' the observable matter.

Chris Peterson wrote: No philosopher has ever been proven right about anything. Philosophy deals with subjects that are inherently beyond demonstration. Philosophers can only argue about opinions

Emmanuel Kant was proven correct about his island universes - galaxies .. Emmanuel Kant was a philosopher - therefore your answer is marked "Wrong" by the concensus.

I hope posting this here is not seen as spamming, as I may have posted it elsewhere already.

"Gerrit Verschurr -

"The cosmologically important "missing mass" problem may not be related to mass. It may be a missing the point problem ... ...
... ... the nature of 'far from equilibrium processes' ... ...
... ... illusion of stability ... ..." Through a Universe Darkly

Sputnick wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: No philosopher has ever been proven right about anything. Philosophy deals with subjects that are inherently beyond demonstration. Philosophers can only argue about opinions

Emmanuel Kant was proven correct about his island universes - galaxies .. Emmanuel Kant was a philosopher - therefore your answer is marked "Wrong" by the concensus.

Okay, I probably should have phrased that differently. No point of philosophy has ever been proven right. And philosophers, arguing philosophy, can only argue about opinions.

Of course, Kant was not correct that galaxies were universes. He was only correct in the idea that the spiral nebulas seen in telescopes were distant objects made up of stars. That was simply an interpretation of an observation (and not an original idea of Kant's, in any case).

Sputnick wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: No philosopher has ever been proven right about anything. Philosophy deals with subjects that are inherently beyond demonstration. Philosophers can only argue about opinions

Emmanuel Kant was proven correct about his island universes - galaxies

He was?

What - specifically - did he write (about 'island universes')?

What - specifically - did he have to say about how he came to his 'island universes' conclusions?

Can you say - with certainty - that no one, prior to Kant, came up with this idea (whether Kant was aware of it or not)?

Of all the things that Kant wrote, what proportion do you consider have been "proven correct"? Proven incorrect? Not proven?

.. Emmanuel Kant was a philosopher - therefore your answer is marked "Wrong" by the concensus.

Chris P will, no doubt, write his own response ... mine is as follows: what is the relationship between Kant's writing (on island universes) and science?

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: No philosopher has ever been proven right about anything. Philosophy deals with subjects that are inherently beyond demonstration. Philosophers can only argue about opinions

Emmanuel Kant was proven correct about his island universes - galaxies .. Emmanuel Kant was a philosopher - therefore your answer is marked "Wrong" by the concensus.

Okay, I probably should have phrased that differently. No point of philosophy has ever been proven right. And philosophers, arguing philosophy, can only argue about opinions.

Rather like the discussion on the Big Bang, String Theory, Dark Matter .. wouldn't you say?

Of course, Kant was not correct that galaxies were universes. He was only correct in the idea that the spiral nebulas seen in telescopes were distant objects made up of stars. That was simply an interpretation of an observation (and not an original idea of Kant's, in any case).

I was not aware that galaxies had been spotted in Kant's day. Not long ago our galaxy was thought by reputable scientists to be the universe. And of course most ideas in astronomy are as old as the Greeks or Persians .. including Ether (in modern days translated as Dark Matter) filling the voids.

Sputnick wrote:Observations with advancing instruments are revealing far more matter on the thin edges of the spiral galaxies .. this matter including huge numbers of stars too faint to be seen previously, and considerably thickening (the mass of) the spirals. Other suggestions as to what Dark Matter consists of are ordinary things like brown dwarfs, red dwarfs, dead white dwarfs, black holes, dust, gas, near stars, planetoids. P.233 Through a Universe Darkly

You are referencing a 15-year old book, that itself is referencing at least 20-year old research. This book may have continuing value for the scientific history it presents, but it is nearly useless has a scientific reference.

All of these other alternatives to explain the nature of galaxy rotation curves have been seriously considered, and (in the last 15 years) all have been found deficient. That doesn't mean they have been entirely excluded from consideration, but it does mean that nobody can figure out how to make them fit in with actual observations. A few still try, but most have abandoned these explanations as unlikely.

As well - Astrophysicist Mordehai Milgrom has written several papers showing how Newton's equations can be altered to account for the curious rotation rates of galaxies. P. 213-214 Through a Universe Darkly. Therefore, there may be no need for dark matter to 'hold in' the observable matter.

And a few scientists (without ridicule, I might add) continue to explore Milgrom's theory. However, because it is simply empirical, and because it does not effectively explain other dark matter observations (structure of the CMB, gravitational lensing effects, nature of galactic collisions), it is considered by most scientists (including some of its proponents) to be an unlikely solution to the question of dark matter. Again, this demonstrates how effectively science is conducted. Theories are judged against observation, and valued accordingly. This happens naturally, with no central authority. The more popular a theory, meaning the more people consider it explanatory, the more it gets explored. There is a natural division of effort that serves science well.

Sputnick wrote:Observations with advancing instruments are revealing far more matter on the thin edges of the spiral galaxies .. this matter including huge numbers of stars too faint to be seen previously, and considerably thickening (the mass of) the spirals. Other suggestions as to what Dark Matter consists of are ordinary things like brown dwarfs, red dwarfs, dead white dwarfs, black holes, dust, gas, near stars, planetoids. P.233 Through a Universe Darkly

All but primordial black holes have been ruled out as serious contenders for more than a very modest contribution to the DM in galaxy halos. The Freeman and McNamara book I cited earlier goes into this in much more detail; for a briefer summary, try this JREF Forum thread: Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence

As well - Astrophysicist Mordehai Milgrom has written several papers showing how Newton's equations can be altered to account for the curious rotation rates of galaxies. P. 213-214 Through a Universe Darkly.

He has indeed, and very interesting those papers are.

Therefore, there may be no need for dark matter to 'hold in' the observable matter.

I'm not sure what name this logical fallacy goes by, but to go from a possible non-CDM solution to (some) spiral galaxy rotation curves to your 'therefore', Sputnick, is a prize example.

Not only is the class of astronomical observations for which CDM provides a consistent explanation far broader than just spiral galaxy rotation curves, but Milgrom's MOND is, in your own words, an untruth. Why? Because, as he himself stated, right from Day One, MOND is inconsistent with relativity (both Special and General), and thus is inconsistent with humongous amounts of extremely good experimental and observational results.

Of course, there have been attempts to generalise MOND to make it a relativistic theory, and these attempts continue to this day, but this is a hard row to hoe.

(And in case any reader is wondering, there are dozens and dozens of published papers on MOND and its relativity-consistent extensions ...)

Sputnick wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Okay, I probably should have phrased that differently. No point of philosophy has ever been proven right. And philosophers, arguing philosophy, can only argue about opinions.

Rather like the discussion on the Big Bang, String Theory, Dark Matter .. wouldn't you say?

Big Bang theories and dark matter theories, absolutely not. There is no philosophy or abstract opinion involved here. These are fully scientific theories, which are argued on the basis of observation and prediction. String theory is another matter. It is, indeed, widely criticized by scientists on the grounds that it may well be untestable, and therefore is better considered philosophy than science. The jury is still out on that, but the good thing is it forces the proponents of string theory to work extra hard finding ways to make it scientific.

I was not aware that galaxies had been spotted in Kant's day.

They had. Herschel, Messier, and others were publishing drawings and descriptions of galaxies at the time. Kant specifically credited Herschel's observations in his discussion of Island Universes.

Not long ago our galaxy was thought by reputable scientists to be the universe.

It sure was. And once again, the process of science (and in particular, improved observational technology and technique) corrected this perception. Note that this was nothing more than observational interpretation. The discovery of other galaxies didn't break existing theory, it extended it. No theory had to get thrown out and replaced with something different.

=Nereid
Chris P will, no doubt, write his own response ... mine is as follows: what is the relationship between Kant's writing (on island universes) and science?

Page 125 from the oft and should be read book - "Island universes (Galaxies) "A concept contemplated by the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant as early as the 1700s." Of course others came before - the Greeks - the Persians - who knows who else. Why is that important. Why is a Philosopher not to be credit in astronomical science just because he's a philosopher and not an astronomer or an astrophysicist. He was correct about 'Island Universes' existing because until very recent time in modern history our galaxy was considered to be the universe. Hypotheses is part of science - Kant's ideas were a form of hypotheses, and if you, Nereid, are willing to say to Kant, 'Emmanuel, you are not scientific in your suggestion that (galaxies) Island Universes exist' then you have my blessing in your attempt to reach him.

Chris Peterson wrote: The jury is still out on that, but the good thing is it forces the proponents of string theory to work extra hard finding ways to make it scientific.

The jury is still out on Dark Matter and Big Bang too, Chris, but you have left the courtroom in your haste to announce the news that they are reality .. and despite your denials that is definitely what you are attempting to do.

I was not aware that galaxies had been spotted in Kant's day.

They had. Herschel, Messier, and others were publishing drawings and descriptions of galaxies at the time. Kant specifically credited Herschel's observations in his discussion of Island Universes.

I'll have to do more reading.

No theory had to get thrown out and replaced with something different.

The theory that our galaxy was the entire universe had to be thrown out .. it was thrown out .. and will forever be thrown out.

Sputnick wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: The jury is still out on that, but the good thing is it forces the proponents of string theory to work extra hard finding ways to make it scientific.

The jury is still out on Dark Matter and Big Bang too, Chris, but you have left the courtroom in your haste to announce the news that they are reality .. and despite your denials that is definitely what you are attempting to do.

Technically, the jury is (and always will be) out on every theory. But the defendant in the BB trial is leaning back with a big smile on his face, and the defendants in the string theory trial, MOND trial, and other "alternative" trials are definitely squirming in their seats...

The theory that our galaxy was the entire universe had to be thrown out .. it was thrown out .. and will forever be thrown out.

That wasn't really a theory, at least not by most accepted uses of the term. At best it might be considered a weak hypothesis. More than anything, it was a simple interpretation of observation, arrived at because of technical limitations. Observationally, our understanding of the extent of the Universe has evolved with our ability to observe it. As we've pushed its edges out further, this hasn't required discarding previous theory- certainly not anything fundamental.

I can't wait for the larger proposed telescopes to be built and brought on line then we will have a better understanding about BBT and others. Afterall, the universe can't be 13.7 billion years old if we then find objects that we equate to 17 GYR away. But would an older universe preclude the BBT? or only push it farther back in time?

BMAONE23 wrote:I can't wait for the larger proposed telescopes to be built and brought on line then we will have a better understanding about BBT and others. After all, the universe can't be 13.7 billion years old if we then find objects that we equate to 17 GYR away. But would an older universe preclude the BBT? or only push it farther back in time?

BA - The supposed age of the Big Bang universe has been changed every time a new 'measurement' of the age of galaxies near and far are made that conflict with the estimated age of the universe just before the new discoveries are made. In purely scientific terms those changes are called 'adaptive fudging'.

BMAONE23 wrote:I can't wait for the larger proposed telescopes to be built and brought on line then we will have a better understanding about BBT and others. Afterall, the universe can't be 13.7 billion years old if we then find objects that we equate to 17 GYR away. But would an older universe preclude the BBT? or only push it farther back in time?

Bigger telescopes will let us see finer detail (which is valuable), but not generally farther back in time. We already see to the optical edge of the visible Universe, and to the most distant measurable edge via microwave. The most distant things we can see are actually 46 billion light years away. That does not conflict with the 13.7 gy age of the Universe because of the fact that space has been expanding over that time. Thus, this distance to the visible edge is called the co-moving distance.

Sputnick wrote:BA - The supposed age of the Big Bang universe has been changed every time a new 'measurement' of the age of galaxies near and far are made that conflict with the estimated age of the universe just before the new discoveries are made. In purely scientific terms those changes are called 'adaptive fudging'.

That is, of course, utter nonsense. As we make better measurements, we refine the age of the Universe. It isn't swinging all over the place. To call this "fudging" is like calling it fudging when you buy a better watch, and can tell time to the nearest second instead of nearest minute.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:BA - The supposed age of the Big Bang universe has been changed every time a new 'measurement' of the age of galaxies near and far are made that conflict with the estimated age of the universe just before the new discoveries are made. In purely scientific terms those changes are called 'adaptive fudging'.

That is, of course, utter nonsense. As we make better measurements, we refine the age of the Universe. It isn't swinging all over the place. To call this "fudging" is like calling it fudging when you buy a better watch, and can tell time to the nearest second instead of nearest minute.

It's not nonsense at all Chris .. it happens all the time. Fudge is fudge is fudge - as stick as Dark Matter.

Sputnick wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:I can't wait for the larger proposed telescopes to be built and brought on line then we will have a better understanding about BBT and others. After all, the universe can't be 13.7 billion years old if we then find objects that we equate to 17 GYR away. But would an older universe preclude the BBT? or only push it farther back in time?

BA - The supposed age of the Big Bang universe has been changed every time a new 'measurement' of the age of galaxies near and far are made that conflict with the estimated age of the universe just before the new discoveries are made.

That's quite a claim!

Do you have anything to support this assertion?

In purely scientific terms those changes are called 'adaptive fudging'.

Are they? Who calls them that? Specifically, which scientists use that term?

Here are some interesting sources for an increasing chronology of time through the years

The following is a list of dates, the method of calculation and links
to where more information can be found.



1642
John Lightfoot (1602 ? 1675)
While constructing a chronology of time from biblical genealogies, he calculated that
the world was created at the equinox in September of 3298 BC.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science5.htm

1650
James Ussher (1581 ? 1656)
Calculated a possible day of creation for Sunday 23 October 4004 BC.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science5.htm

1928, 1929, 1930 ( several varying dates) ? 2 billion years
Edwin Hubble (1889-1953)
Using the percieved Red shift of different stars and galaxies.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/RachelHoover.shtml
http://www.govertschilling.nl/nieuws/ar ... _stsci.htm

Appx. 1947 2-3 billion years
Uses a refined method and Hubbles data.
George Gamow (1904-68)

Appx. 1952 1 to 10 billion years
Bart Jan Bok (1906-83)
Usind information about the age of Galactic clusters.

1987 - 8 billion years
Harvey Butcher
Measured the ratios of thorium (Th) and neodymium (Nd) in the sun and
20 nearby stars spectroscopically.
Published in Nature


This site has references to various articles about the age of the universe.
http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html



Appx. 1995 9.5 billion
Nial Tanvir
Nature 7 September 1995
http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

10 billion years
Barry Madore
Studied Cephoid variable stars
http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

part 1

Part 2

1995 - 8-12 billion years.
Distance scale measurements and stellar evolution theory 8 to 12 billion years.
(Distance to galaxy M100)
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html

Using a combination of Globular clusters and hubble time
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... y/age.html


Appx. 1997 13 to 14 billion years
HST Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale
13 to 14 billion years.
Used supernovae in distant galaxies to calculate the distances to
those galaxies to calulate the universe?s rate of expansion and, thus
its age. (standard Candle)
http://www.stardate.org/resources/news/ ... 00208.html

1999 13.4 billion years
Charles Lineweaver of the University of New South Wales, Australia
calculated the age of the universe to be 13.4 billion (+/-1.6
billion.) The calculation are based on young, independent observations
from which US researchers around Nehta Bahcall of the Princeton
university (new Jersey) newly calculated the form and extension speed.
Published in Science (US magazine). 23 May 1999.
http://www.eurobrasil.at/scientific_cag ... _9907.html


1999 12 billion years.
Using Cepheids
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/19 ... ript.shtml
Wendy Freedman
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... ay99_1.htm
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9905/25/age.of.universe/
Another study using Cepheids Between 12 and 13.5 billion years.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Godandscience/morebang.html

Part 2