The point was, the same star the speed of light measued the same. Yes, my bad, the frequency shifted based on relative motion, but the veolcity of that light always measured the same.
There was certainly a widespread belief, if not a consensus, that aircraft could not exceed the speed of sound.
To his everlasting credit, the renowned aviator Chuck Yeager was the first to break the sound barrier in 1947, flying the Bell X-1. As the plane reached Mach 1, it shuddered and shook tremendously, but he just pushed on. Amazingly, once past the turbulent sonic transition, an airplane designed for supersonic flight smoothed out again. Yeager become a cult hero among pilots.
There was some layperson belief of this due to inaccurate media surrounding some incidents, but the aeronautics field never believed it to be impossible. Challenging and poorly understood? Definitely. But even the cited Bell X-1 program itself shows that experts saw it as an engineering and flight controls challenge, not a physical limit.
Right. I think there are a lot of theories that were, well let’s say partly right, or at least on the right track, which then were replaced by a theory that provides us with a more complete understanding of what is actually going on. Newtonian mechanics being replaced by Einstein’s general relativity is a good example. I’m not sure those count as a generally accepted theory that was then disproved.
I’d propose Fred Hoyle (who as noted above derisively named the competing Big Bang theory) as the archetype of the old time scientist set in his ways as at least one example. His steady state theory of the universe as one of the best examples of what the OP is asking about, and AFAIK he stuck with it even after it was disproven by the evidence that supported the Big Bang.
This book is very pseudo-scientific and beats up straw men, much like most of Pinker’s writings.
Yeah, I just read up on it after posting that. I read it years ago and found it convincing, but the whole book seemed like an academic argument with someone, where I was only hearing his side. I didn’t realize that the someone was made of straw.
Oh absolutely there are individuals like that. Even now, there’s the odd scientists who refuse the Chicxulub impact theory. And don’t start on folks like James Watson.
But cabals of such folks (representing “the establishment”) suppressing promising young crusading researchers with their new-fangled ideas, as we might see in movies and as was suggested in this thread re: Alvarez, don’t exist.
Hoyle was also a visionary scientist who had some very interesting ideas about nucleogenesis. Just because he was wrong about one aspect of cosmology does not mean he was wrong about everything.
Linus Pauling (with two Nobel Prizes under his belt) was also wrong about many subjects. Newton talked some garbage, too. That’s just the way people are.
The Big Crunch theory was widely supported. The momentum from the Big Bang would slowly run out, and gravity would eventually cause the universe to collapse into what would finally be a singularity. Now that we realize Dark Matter is causing all of space to expand more and more rapidly, that model has become all but obsolete.
The old saying is that Science moves forward “One funeral at a time”. It can be very, very lonely to go against “consensus”. I might be mis-remembering my scientists, but the first geologist to posit the existence of a glacial Lake Missoula in Montana was brushed aside.
He eventually received the highest Geology award, but by this time he was very elderly, and he remarked at the ceremony there was nobody was left alive of his former critics to gloat over, they had all died. Science can apparently be as petty and juvenile as other fields, sadly.
I’ve never read the book, but my recollection is that it does not have a great reputation. That doesn’t change that the actual “blank slate” theory of child development has been soundly debunked.
It is my belief that much of that was the one funeral at a time advancement of science. The arguments for blank slate, to me, always seemed to be “humans are fundamentally different from animals” instead of “we have no evidence that this behavior is influenced by genetics.” Also, a bunch of eugenicists had to die.
The “no evidence” scientists adjusted their view when the evidence did appear.
Another issue with determining what old scientific consensus has been debunked, is, as mentioned a few times in this thread, often there was never the wrong consensus. It may have been a few very loud proponents, urban legend, pop-science misunderstanding or oversimplification, etc. which make it seem like the wrong view was the prevailing view among experts. In many cases there was lots of disagreement among the experts, and therefore no consensus, until a testable hypothesis with lots of evidence rose to the top.
Dark energy, not dark matter. All that is ascertained about dark matter is that it makes more gravity happen – and there are a few hypotheses that eliminate dark matter completely, like RelMOND, which reformulates the gravitational inverse square law so that it drops off at a non-parabolic rate at really big distances and includes frame dragging and extra-galactic gravity in the calculations to make the observations work out. Dark energy accounts for expansion, amounts to a really big fraction of the content of the universe and is much more challenging to challenge.
Dark energy, not matter. But we can’t really say that for sure. We can say that at the current rate of expansion, if dark energy continues to behave the way that it currently does, that yes, we won’t have a Big Crunch. But we can’t say that dark energy isn’t going to change at some point in the future.
FWIW I find that whole topic fascinating. It gets down to the law of conservation of energy turning out to be incorrect (another candidate for a theory that has been shown to be incorrect) when we consider the universe as a whole. Per Noether’s theorem, that would mean that time is not symmetric, and as best as I can tell it turns out that it isn’t. So yes, if things with dark energy stay the same, we won’t have a Big Crunch, but we don’t have any good reason to assume that dark energy will stay the same.
Yep. LOL
Geosynclines (in a tectonic framework, not the original theory) were still current terminology when I was first taught geology, but the terminology had vanished by the time I finished my studies and started working. That’s within some 6 years. The same time period was when the Chicxulub impact theory became firmly cemented. Exciting time to be a young geologist.
I certainly didn’t suggest that there was a cabal suppressing Alvarez’s ideas. That would be ridiculous.
Another follow-on from the Alvarez hypothesis was that mass extinctions could be considered actual, verifiable events, complete with smoking guns (or craters, as the case may be) and everything. Prior to that verification, mass extinctions in the fossil record were interpreted as merely the result of poor sampling, caused by a highly imperfect and incomplete fossil record. Evolution was thought to proceed at a constant rate through time (see: Uniformitarianism), so any sudden appearances or disappearances of fossil lineages were illusory. See, for example, this paper from as late as 1982:Mass extinctions—Illusions or realities?
The finding of the Chicxulub crater verified that catastrophic events can, and have, occurred, and that the result of such catastrophies could, indeed, be mass extinctions, meaning the appearance of such in the fossil record represents a truer interpretation of events than their appearance being due to simply gradualism + an imperfect record.
The Big Crunch was never the standard accepted model. It was one model of three, which observations of the time were not able to distinguish between. Scientists had different guesses about which one was most likely, and the Big Crunch might at some time have been the most popular guess, but the proponents of any of the three would admit that better evidence was needed. Once we did get those better observations, much to everyone’s surprise, it was none of those three models, due to the effects of what we now call Dark Energy (not Dark Matter; that’s not nearly so mysterious).
But while we’re on the topic of cosmology, the very idea that the Universe has a beginning is a candidate for this thread. It’s not disproven yet, but Eternal Inflation models are looking awfully plausible. In these models, rather than being an extremely brief period at the start of the Universe, the Inflationary Era extended back infinitely far into the past. Inflationary space is still extremely unstable, and frequently collapses into non-inflationary space, but inflationary space expands so rapidly that at any given moment, it’s still the case that most of the cosmos is still inflationary.
Cool. If that’s true, then the period when scientists believed that the universe had a beginning would be a brief interlude between times when scientists generally believed the universe had no beginning.
My impression is that it was more like 1) These coastlines look like they fit - what a funny coincidence, 2) that non-geologist is talking nonsense - there’s no way for solid continents to move through solid rock - don’t it’s not even worth mentioning the idea in classrooms unless it’s in the same breath as phlogiston, 3) Hunh. Sea floor maps make the fit of the continents even better, and there’s a mid-Atlantic ridge - let’s look more closely at that. and 4) Now we’ve got a new theory (plate tectonics), and real evidence for it (including but not limited to the fit of continent shapes). Consensus rather suddenly changes.
TLDR - there was a real consensus among geologists that Wegener was an amateur who was postulating physically impossible things in response to thin evidence that might just be coincidence
Quasicrystals might be the quintessential example: