Is mainstream science out to get fringe science?

Great Debates
81

Well, Im not sure about this, I have heard nothing of the sort… Cite please?

I disagree. Velikovsky is no different than any other scientist who makes a claim and is refuted. Sagan is a very respected Astronomer and is how they say “In the Know”, Velikosvsky is a pretty obscure name, or is compared to Sagan, and It does seem unfair of him attacking a little guy like V. However, I don’t believe it is unjustified. Sagan is a professional, emotions or not, and would not make a fool of himself and attack V’s claims if Sagan felt they weren’t full of donkey doo. Give all the examples of it occuring in the past, It doesnt mean that its true in this case.

And as a side note to an earlier post. You generalize too much. Not all of us have a bias, we are naturally skepital of all things. And we are not all judging V off of Sagan’s work. I think only one person mentioned that he was. Please dont generalize like that.

Very true, I don’t know much about this case, but I AM learning more and more. And every passing moment I feel sillier for arguing. To me this guy seems the biggest crackpot, what with vermin falling from the sky and manna and such. But I concede a point you made earlier…or later as the case may be. I was refering to V. as the one spouting the ignorance not you. You are merely confused. :smiley:

You are obviously a very intelligent guy, More so than I. However, to quote Sagan again: Intellectual Brilliance is no guarentee against being dead wrong.

Im not certain of this. It is science so there is some sort of experimentation happening. It might be in the mathmatics, might be in earthbound geology and the knowledge we possess in other areas. Im not certain, You would have to direct this question to an Astronomer.

82

One more bit of evidence that Velikovsky didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground: Comets are small things, only a few miles in diameter and are made up mostly of ices and carbon. Venus is nearly as large as the Earth and is probably made up of the same materials (mostly iron and silica). Venus could not have been a comet.

83

Yes, but it is the theory that should be attacked fiercely. No argumentum ad hominem attacks.

I would not say pieces of comets bombarding Jupiter is an extraordinary claim. That aliens abducted you and probed your bunghole is. That Venus erupted from Jupiter, (a Gas planet) caused a bunch of biblical things to happen (no comment here) and settled neatly in the orbit it holds today, Well, is an extraordinary claim. And the only evidence you have given us from his work so far is a prediction that Jupiter would give off radio transimissions, something I don’t see holding any proof of his claims whatsoever. Unless of course he thinks those radio transmissions are to Venus. Jupiter to Venus, come in Venus. Wouldn’t doubt it.

It is science, He needs to provide a Mechanism, and evidence of said mechanism.

Exactly. Yet you dismiss Carl Sagan’s critique of V’s work as nothing more than a personal attack. The thing is, Sagan DOES know about celestial mechanics. As do all the other Astronomers who apparently are not giving V. a fair chance. This is what im trying to argue. Science does not reject somebody because they don’t like them. They reject the ideas that do not fit in with the model of how the universe works. If evidence starts to show that V. was correct then they will go back and review his works.

You can argue semantics all you like. Saying over and over again that science is just being unfair. That because you agree with some aspects based of sheer rationalization rather than hard evidence and solid proof, does not mean that science should just accept something because it “Just sounds reasonable”.

I think it was Cervaise that said you apparently did not understand the scientific way. I concurr with that assessment. It is apparent that you do not understand the finer points of science. I cannot speak too much without some of my fingers pointing back at me. I do understand enough of science in a general sense to realize that it is more than just rationalization and logic. There are finer points to know and to learn. Try arguing physics, geology, and astronomy with a Creationist. Unless you have acess to the internet or a library at the time of the argument, If you are not well educated you will loose.

But I think you just wish to rationalize and spew nothing more than pure logic and reason. Which can and will take us in circles. I don’t wish to argue nothing more than logic, I will loose when it comes to that. Go get a degree in astronomy and review Velikovsky and then come and argue the finer points. Not really, just a joke. But seriously, if you wish to argue the finer points of his work ill make a deal with you. Read up on some Astronomy. Not just the basics either, learn planet densities, Radiation levels, the gravitational constant, ect. Then, I’ll read Velikovsky for you and we can debate it till time’s end. On your message board of course. :smiley:

If you just want to exchange rationalizations and general chatter about the possiblity of his work being true, without looking into the mechanics of how he claims it to work, compared to how we see the univierse working today, then I am finished. I am too new to… To using my brain truthfully (Bad elementry-highschool years), to win an argument on sheer semantics. Sorry if you see this as a cop-out. Give me a decade to catch up to the point where most people are and I’ll gladly accept.

84

Amedeus wrote:

This is not necessarily true.

When researchers perform a rigorous double-blind placebo trial of a new experimental drug, and determine that the drug performs significantly better than the placebo does, they have determined, scientifically, that the drug is effective. They do not have to provide a mechanism as to why it is effective to know that it is effective.

However, a controlled double-blind placebo trial is many orders of magnitude better at providing real information than an eyewitness account is. Eyewitness accounts are one of the least reliable sources of information out there. In the hypothetical scenario AnotherHeretic describes above, of Velikovsky finding “eyewitness accounts from around the world that corroborated worlwide that Venus was a comet and took orbit as a planet,” the information gained would be doubly shaky because Velikovsky could have counted the hits and ignored the misses (i.e. tallied all the eyewitness accounts that validated his hypotheses but thrown out the accounts that contradicted them).

85

AnotherHeretic wrote:

[QUOTE]

I picked up a little knowledge about this concept back when I was reading a textbook on rocket science (don’t ask).

Whenever you have an object in a circular orbit, such as Jupiter (or a Venus-sized chunk of Jupiter) going around the sun, and you give that object a swift “kick” in a direction opposite to the direction it’s orbit in (in otherwords, a “retrograde kick”), its orbit changes shape into an ellipse. The direction of this orbit will be basically the same as its old orbit, e.g. counter-clockwise as seen from a point north of the ecliptic plane. The aphelion[sup]1[/sup] point of this new ellipse (the point farthest from the sun) will be just as far away from the sun as the object’s old circular-orbit distance was. The perihelion point of this new ellipse (the point closest to the sun) will always be closer to the sun than its old circular-orbit distance.

But no matter how hard that inital retrograde kick was, the new orbit’s aphelion distance will always be the same as the old circular-orbit distance. Kicking it harder will not make the new aphelion distance any closer, it will only make the elliptical orbit narrower and reduce the perihelion distance. A really narrow ellipse, with a perihelion distance much smaller than its aphelion distance, is said to be “highly eccentric”. (A circle can be considered a special kind of ellipse with no eccentricity.)

Now, Jupiter currently orbits the sun at a distance of 5.2 AU, while Venus currently orbits the sun at a distance of 0.72 AU. (By definition, the Earth orbits the sun at a distance of 1 AU.) Say a piece of Jupiter broke off and, somehow, received a tremendously hard retrograde kick – hard enough so that this chunk of Jupiter followed a new orbit with a perihelion distance of only a paltly 0.72 AU. We’ll call that new object “proto-Venus.” Your new proto-Venus object would be following a highly eccentric orbit, with its aphelion distance at 5.2 AU and its perihelion distance at 0.72 AU. In order to turn this proto-Venus into the real Venus, we have to get it orbiting in a circle, so that its orbital distance is 0.72 AU all the time. In order to do that, we have to slow proto-Venus down. We need to do another “retrograde kick” to proto-Venus right when it’s at its perihelion point. This second retrograde kick will have to be just as hard as the kick that knocked proto-Venus away from Jupiter to begin with. What was there at 0.72 AU that could whack proto-Venus that hard?

Fortunately, we can cheat here. We don’t have to do the second retrograde kick “all at once.” We can slow down proto-Venus a little bit each time it passes its perihelion point closest to the sun. Perhaps the sun emits something that causes a “drag” on proto-Venus. All we need is for the total amount of “perihelion braking” done to proto-Venus to equal the amount of retrograde kick it got when it was first spit out of Jupiter.

But this raises a new difficulty. If something caused proto-Venus to put on the brakes every time it got within 0.72 AU of the sun, there is no reason to assume that this braking force would stop once proto-Venus’s orbit had become circular. That braking force should have continued to slow down (proto-)Venus until it spiralled into the sun, the way Skylab spiralled down into Earth’s atmosphere in the late 1970s. So to explain how proto-Venus became the Venus we see today, you would either need (A) a second catastrophic event to circularize its orbit, or (B) a slow braking force exerted on it which magically stopped the moment its orbit became circular.

Neither of these possibilities seem very likely to me.

[sup]1) Technically, the terms “aphelion” and “perihelion” only apply to orbits around the sun. The generic terms when an object is orbiting around any other object are “apoapsis” and “periapsis”.[/sub]

86

Arthur C. Clarke wrote science fiction novels. Presumably Velikovsky presented his work as fact, not fiction.

87

You’re not taking somebody seriously because they haven’t read Velikovsky, yet here you are arguing about the merits of the scientific method before bothering to read about it. Here, I’ll give you the basic definition, taken from that link:

  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

  2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

  3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

In other words, science is all about proof. If an idea fails scientific tests consistently, it’s not a scientific idea. Now why don’t you go read that link, or don’t you have the time?

88

Sturmhauke:

You misunderstand me. What I was trying to say is that both Arthur C. Clarke and Velikovsky made certain predictions about the future and the nature of the universe, and that a few of them came true. This does not make the rest of their predictions viable, and it does not make them scientists. It makes them imaginative and lucky.

And yes - when Clarke presented his theories as science fictions he was just being honest.

89

Plus, there was that whole Arthur C. Clarke geosynchronous communications satellite thing.

90

I have to admit that the name-calling that seems to accompany discussions of this kind bother me. It doesn’t further understanding, it certainly doesn’t win over the person addressed. The only thing I can see it doing is giving the venter momentary pleasure of release. This is not a good way to proceed.

Having said that, I have to note that am a physicist, and that I’ve read Worlds in Collision several times and Ages in Chaos once. I haven’t read any of Velikovsjy’s other books, although I visited the Velikovsky Archive on-line and read some of the stuff there.

I certainly don’t have anything against an enthusiastic amateur venturing into a field not his own and making bold pronouncements, saying that the current beliefs of the Establishment are wrong. After all, I’ve done exactly the same thing. I even try to make my case on the strength of my interpretation of ancient myths. (See my website at http://www.MedusaMystery.com )

Nevertheless, I believe that Velikovsky is completely wrong and untrustworthy. I don’t believe I’m being arrogant in this (“I’m a scientist and he’s not!”). If you read Velikovsky, whether you are a scientist or a historian, I think you’re going to be appalled by his lack of methodology, his willingness to assert his beliefs as “fact” with nothing approaching a good argument for its plausibility (let alone proof), and his frequent wrenching statements by ancient writers out of context in dubious support of his position. He wants to prove that cometary dust darkened the skies during the time of the Caesars, so he presents one quote about the darkness of the skies. Is this at all in context? If the skies truly were noticeably darker wouldn’t there be a great many more pieces of evidence? A decent treatment would take up an entire chapter itself. One would at least hope for a few pages. Velikovsky claims to have shown this supposed historical incident by one quote and less than a paragraph of argument. And his books are FILLED with this sort of thing.

Velikovsky argues that the planet Mars came so close to the Earth that the moon Phobos and Deimos were visible. He acknowledges that there may have been incredible tides, citing an eighteenth century authority on the sizes of them. It’s clear that Velikovsky does not know enough physics to calculate the effects himself – no crime – but if he had taken the trouble to consult a more up-to-date expert he would have learned how devastating that tide would truly have been, and he would have been made aware that other effects would accompany that tide – such as dramatically increased volcanic and seismic activity. There’s no evidence that Velikovsky sought any such help, but contented himself with what he found in the library. There’s nothing to show that he looked for any documentary or archaeological evidence for those tides, either. The number of leads that should have been followed up to help establish his hypothesis (or that might have disproved it) is outrageous. Velikovsky does nothing to reliably establish even ONE of his extraordinary claims. THIS, rather than the occasional claim about a hot Venus or a Jupiter with radio emissions, is what people mean when they talk about the lack of corroborating evidence. Velikovsky’s books, properly done, should be filled with detailed evidence establishing his theory, point by point. Instead, he is always rushing off to the next exciting unproven hypothesis. After a while, you simply give up reading him. Velikovsky would have been far better off in establishing his credentials if he could publish one paper in a respectable journal than in writing a chain of dubious books. Velikovsky is not accepted NOT because he challenged the establishment with outre claims. It’s because he never even approached proving those claims.
As for Variable stars:

Variable Stars were discovered circa 1638 by Phocylides Holwarda, who first discovered the variability of omicron ceti, also called Mira. Comprehensive lists of hundreds of variable stars were published before Shapley’s time. Shapley really couldn’t “delay” the discovery of variable stars. See Chapter 6 of my book Medusa.

91

CalMeacham:

Yeah, like when you built that interociter and went to Metaluna, and no one believed you . . .

92

Worse yet, if this force can circularize Venus’ orbit in just a few years/decades, why didn’t Mercury fall into the Sun millions of years ago? Why hasn’t our own orbit appreciably changed? Speaking of which, an encounter with Venus, which, by the way, masses just about the same as the Earth, would significantly alter the Earth’s orbit. Yet here we are, with a year that hasn’t changed much in length for millions of years.

The vast, overwhelming and undeniable evidence is that Velikovsky was wrong. I am reading WiC right now, and plan on writing about it on my website. I want specific examples of his claims, and compare them to what he knew then versus what we know now.

93

CalMeacham, nice post. I’ve been wondering whether to jump in (I’m sure nobody wants another Why do circles have 360 degrees), but you said what should be said and said it well.

The Bad Astronomer, you may be interested in ADDRESS OF ABRAHAM SACHS AT BROWN UNIV. 3/15/65, some of the posts in the thread referenced above (especially Kimstu’s), FAQ: Velikovsky Critiqued, Worlds in Collision - a Critique, AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS, and TOP TEN REASONS WHY VELIKOVSKY IS WRONG ABOUT WORLDS IN COLLISION. If you’re looking for works by Velikovsky, COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION is always worth a visit when you want a good laugh, and there’s lots more stuff by him at The Immanuel Velikovsky Archive (including his correspondence with Einstein).

94

I’m too busy today to read the latest posts but I’ve gotten permission to post some comments I’ve received from a friend I showed the Lerner errors page to. These are his comments and he won’t be entering a back and forth or put himself into a position to be insulted the way I have…

Take the comments for what it’s worth.

I find Plasma Physics interesting but I do not understand it enough to form a strong opinion either way and the comments below are not my opinion.

=================
The main arguments were:
1.The existence of superclusters of galaxies and structures like the “Great Wall” which would take too long to form the “perfectly homogeneous” Big Bang.

Halton Arp’s work finishes off, once and for all, the Big Bang theory. So Eric Lerner’s argument about the time taken to form superclusters etc. has some validity. However, Arp has shown that the distance measurements using redshift as the measuring stick are incorrect. So the data needs to be looked at anew. The plasma universe has no known boundary, is indeterminately old, has no discernable beginning, and is not expanding. Space is 3-dimensional.

2.The need for dark matter and observations showing no dark matter.

Obviously there will be dark bodies as well as stars that will contribute some mass in a galaxy. However, the plasma model of galactic structure does not require dark matter to create the dynamics and structure we see in spiral galaxies. It is a natural form of the electric discharge seen in plasma experiments. The problem for dark matter theorists is to show why the spiral form is preferred given that the gravitational model cannot explain the
formation and persistence of the spiral shape.

3.The FIRAS CMB spectrum is a “too perfect” blackbody.

Tony Peratt has written the definitive book on the plasma model of the universe. In Physics of the Plasma Universe, p. 37, he writes “A relativistic electron beam that does not produce microwave radiation is unknown.” I suppose the CMB could be likened to the power hum from the electrical conduits that thread the universe.

Note that the only thing I can comment on somewhat is Arp. I’m not saying that Arp has toasted the Big Bang like my friend says, but I know a fair number of people who are familiar with Arp’s work who feel this to be the case.

In my view, I tend to believe that Arp is right, but I think he hasn’t been given a fair hearing by his opponents and so could not be subject to a fair criticism and test of his theories.

I’m not a fan of The Big Bang or the Redshift=distance ie redshift can ONLY be explained as Doppler effect, because being restricted to Planet Earth, both the Big Bang and Redshift as Doppler are HUGE assumptions imo.

We can’t measure actual distances in extra solar system space because we are stuck here. If we had some data from a planet on the other side of the universe it would sure help be a bit more certain :slight_smile: and I think that redshift=distance has become a law rather than a theory in people’s minds and the same goes for the Big Bang. So someone like Arp doesn’t have a chance to be heard today…

Other things may cause Redshift as well. Hasn’t it been shown that the sun causes a Redshift on a beam of light that passes by the Sun (I seem to remember reading that in an Astronomy textbook)? So if the Sun’s gravity can cause a tiny measurable redshift, perhaps those objects we associate as being REALLY far away are simply being exposed to more gravity and therefore exhibit a higher Redshift? Anyway, that’s just one question. Arp seems to think that redshift can relate to the age of the object.

More on this later.

95

Grey-eyed Athena (Minerva) was born from Zeus’ (Jupiter’s) brow, not Aphrodite (Venus). There is not now, nor has there ever been an planet associated with Athena.

If Velikovsky was willing to fudge enough to conflate two seperate goddesses in his premise, how much faith can we place in the accuracy of his conclusions?

I must apologize, as my all my copies of Velikovsky’s books seem to have gone walkabout sometime in the '70s. I cannot recall any mention of radio waves from Jupiter in Worlds in Collision despite 'nother’s suggestion I check there for the reason the Big V thought it was his most important prediction.

Science is not some type of parlour game that bestows “respectibility” upon whomever correctly guesses the number of beans in a pot. If you come up with a way to calculate the number of beans that hold true in all pot-related situations, you may have discovered a new scientific law. If you have a good idea why beans are associated with pots, and can tie it in with the behaviours of pigs in a poke, you may have the beginnings of a scientific theory.

The “scientific establishment” paid entirely too much attention to Velikovsky back when he first published. They seemed frightened that if they did not react quickly and decisively they would have an full-blown pseudoscientific cult on their hands. I believe that they cause the exact thing they wished to avoid.

96

Yeah, and when they made the movie version they stuck in lobster-clawed bare-brained “mutants” and made the Metalunans really stupid and changed a good Metalunan name like “Jorgasnovara” to “Exeter”. They don’t believe you, but they play up the sensational aspects.

97

One of the things many of the ‘fringe’ theories have in common is that they span multiple disciplines. i.e. they touch on History, physics, astronomy, archaology, etc.

This fact gets many of these theories far more attention than they would otherwise get. When Worlds in Collision came out, a lot of physicists were quoted as saying, “Of course, the physics is completely nuts. But I’m very impressed by the historical evidence.” In the meantime, the historians are saying, “Of course, the history is totally nuts, but the physics sure impress me.”

These theories often sound impressive to a layman, and scientists are laymen too when they step outside of their own disciplines. Thus you can get someone like an Einstein paying far too much attention to the theory because they are intrigued by the parts that sound good but they lack the training to evaluate scientifically.

In other words, by spanning many disciplines the fringe quacks ensure that no single person can refute everything they claim. And as bits and pieces are refuted, they simply replace them with new claims or ignore the refutations while quoting from the favorable parts of reviews.

Since it’s impossible to prove a negative, most fringe theories have aspects that are literally unfalsifiable. You can’t PROVE that they are wrong. Other aspects of the theory may stand up to cursory inspection, and still others may be grounded in solid, but mundane science. By mixing it all together across many difficult disciplines, it becomes hard to debunk unless it’s complete silliness as much of ‘Worlds in Collision’ is.

Another good example would be Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval’s Egyptian theories. They borrowed heavily from the work of a geologist named Shoch, who had an interesting (although questionable) theory about the age of the Sphynx. They took his theory, and twisted it beyond all recognition to make it fit theirs. Then they heaped on a giant helping of fringe archaology, physics, and astronomy.

The end result is nonsense, but there are grains of truth to be found if you sift through it all. And at the core is a theory by a respected geologist, subjected to peer review. This gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve, and deflects a lot of attention away from the sillier parts of the whole house of cards.

98

AnotherHeretic posted a message of his buddy’s, which said among other things:

However, the plasma model DOES NOT explain the measured rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Unless there’s something in the plasma model that can physically pull or push stars toward or away from the center of the galaxy as they orbit around it, or keep very fast stars bound in an orbit that would throw them out of the galaxy entirely if only the gravitational influence of visible matter is at work.

The spiral “shape” of galaxies is somewhat deceptive. Spiral galaxies only have about 15% more (visible) matter in their spiral arms than they do in the spaces between spiral arms. The reason spiral arms are so bright is because that’s where most of the larger, heavier, super-bright stars form. One star with 10 times the mass of the sun will be much brighter than 10 separate stars, each with only as much mass as the sun. (This is because (A) heavier stars have more of their interiors devoted to their “core” where thermonuclear reactions take place, and (B) heavier stars can take advantage of the C-N-O nuclear reaction cycle, which operates about 1000 times faster than the proton-proton chain used by lighter stars.)
Then in the same message, AnotherHeretic himself/herself added:

For stars less than 100 light-years away or so, we can measure the distance directly by using trigonometric parallax. We measure a star’s position in January, then we measure it’s position again in July when the Earth has moved to the other side of the sun. The tiny shift in the star’s position tells us how far away it is.

For more distant objects, we use “standard candles” – that is, stars that look identical to other stars we have measured the distance to via trigonometric parallax, but which appear much dimmer and are therefore much farther away. If we know how bright the star ought to be if it were at a fixed distance – its “absolute magnitude” or “intrinsic luminosity” as it’s called – and we measure how bright it actually appears, we can use the difference to judge the distance. The Cepheid variables Shapley was using have intrinsic luminosities that are both very very bright and completely predictable, which make them excellent standard candles for measuring the distances to nearby galaxies. Supernovae, if you’re lucky enough to catch 'em on film, are even brighter, and also have predictable intrinsic luminosities, and are used to gauge the distances to more distant galaxies.

It was only after these standard candles had been used to calculate approximate distances to many, many galaxies, that Hubble noticed that the galaxies farther away tended to have higher redshifts.

<shameless plug>
Hey, The Bad Astronomer! If you’re reading this, check out my astronomy website at http://www.stellar-database.com! It’s got data on over 2000 star systems within 75 light-years of Earth. (And, sure, my description of such things as spectral class is a little bit on the childish side, but at least it’s not bad astronomy. I hope.)
</shameless plug>

99

Who said it wasn’t 3-dimensional? X,Y,Z coordinates still exist, the last time I looked.

If the universe is indeterminately old, why is the night sky black?

100

First of all, I will take your silence on my ketoacidosis question as a retraction. Note that when I make a retraction, as a courtesy I say so rather than keeping silent :slight_smile:

I didn’t see that in the other thread. And I’m not thinking of what Atkins or Sears or any of them mentioned (the only high protein book I partially read is protein power and it’s not from that either). This was from something I read many years ago that low cal diets cause fat loss AND muscle loss, and as soon as you start to have a regular diet, you only gain back fat. Exercise alone seems to be way better than low cal diets.

And this has been my experience as well as every anecdotal person i’ve spoken to. Are you saying that there is a study that after going off of a low cal diet you gain back fat AND muscle mass?