Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I believe it is the crime of science when a scientist states something as fact when he knows it is not a fact.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, but that's not reality. Reality is that experts teach you their facts while you are an impressionable student. You must then pay homage to those experts and those facts to get a job in the field. You cannot criticize the "known" facts if you want your papers published and your proposals funded. After all, who are you to nay say what all the experts are certain is true. And you find that, if you don't rock the boat, you get recognition and rewards. And your occasional colleague who does rock the boat is quickly labeled a crank and shunned.

Given that system, just how many human beings do you expect to listen to that faint inner voice and do what might be the "right thing"? And do you consider all of the others criminals of science? Even silent co-conspirators?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is the same as murder to me - the murder of truth. And it is like manslaughter when a scientist states a fact when it is actually a theory or opinion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For most people, self interest and self preservation trump truth-seeking. It's a simple conclusion based on an adverse risk/reward ratio. You can call them murderers in your metaphor, but we live in a scientific society where murder is rewarded and outing murderers is punished.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Each one has it's share of incompetence and outright liars.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maybe so. But there is no up-side to saying so. You make the incompetent and the liars angry, and you frighten off everyone else. It is better to recognize that most people are simply acting in a self-interested way. So are most real criminals in real society. They lack the skills to get what they want legally, so it becomes in their own self-interest to get it illegally. That doesn't justify the behavior. But one should not put on blinders and claim not to understand it.

There are always ways to get at the truth without making enemies. Most people don't like wars. But many will join a peace movement, even if it comes down to the equivalent of a war in the end.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't see religion (all religion as one) in competition with science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In a sense, all approaches to gaining knowledge and understanding are in competition with one another. Math and physics and philosophy often use incompatible approaches.

Where science and religion conflict is not over any particular theory such as evolution or creationism. It is over the method of seeking the truth. Religion values faith (accepting "revealed" truths even in the absence of physical evidence), whereas physics eschews faith and disallows miracles. That is different from denying they exist. It is simply an axiom that a non-miracle explanation is always to be preferred to a miraculous one because the former can lead to understanding and predicting the phenomenon, whereas the latter makes the phenomenon a mere whim of God and therefore neither understandable nor predictable.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what we symbolize as reality is just an metaphorical illusion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I strongly disagree, and said why in one of the closing chapters of my book. But that's a whole other can of worms. This thread is already all over the map.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The vacumm of empty space is not empty, it is full.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree. But be careful. You are drawing dangerously close to Meta Model territory -- the locally preferred cosmology.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the measured qualities of the vacumm is called non-locality. A photon once entangled with another photon remains entangled even when separated in space. They remain connected, not at the speed of light, but instantaneously. They act as if they are a single entity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's an interpretation. There are other interpretations of the same basic observations and experiments, as I show in chapter 5 of my book. Specifically, because FTL is no longer forbidden in physics, non-locality has become classical again instead of paradoxical. But I do not have the time to open so many secondary threads and do follow-ups. If interested in the Meta Model perspective, read my book. If interested in FTL phenomena, see the "speed of gravity" papers reprinted at this web site.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So this is our starting point. Not a nothing, but a something that is everywhere all the time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The starting point is critical to what follows, and I think you have chosen a bad one. Read chapter one on the Meta Model. It starts from nothing and derives the something that is everywhere. But the plenum then comes with some understanding, not with a miracle at the origin.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The very first thing to happen establishes a principle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, and that principle is anti-physics because something from nothing is a miracle. Given that there is an alternative that requires no miracle, one is logically forced to prefer that alternative. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">After all, who are you to nay say what all the experts are certain is true. And you find that, if you don't rock the boat, you get recognition and rewards. And your occasional colleague who does rock the boat is quickly labeled a crank and shunned.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Maybe even burned at the stake?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions, I recognize your honesty and thank you for that too. I too have noticed that those who are rocking the boats are labled crackpots and shunned. However, it is not good science to reject everything they say... I can see now that the world is about the "survival of the selfish" Well, America anyhow, Europe doesn't seem to have these problems. I don't think that "victory over the other" is how nature works. We are not here because we are the victorious. We did not survive because we survived as some would have it explained.

I don't know much about Western religion, words and the real get mixed up so often, but in the East, their words collectively form a metaphysical philosophy that to me is of one message. If you understand one of the masters, you ought to understand all of them. You see, over there it is not about the words. It is about the experience. Faith means one hasn't found it yet... My survey of knowledge, as primative as it may be, shows me that the history of true knowledge is not about how one theory beat out all the rest. What I clearly see is that our knowledge is like a mosiac,
an interwoven collage of events, the warp and woof of the fabric of the Universe. And the simple principle of emergence, still being debabted by those who should know such things, illustrates how wholeness can be quite different from its parts. As different as the white space and black letters of this letter and what they mean to us. Instead of this or that scientist being the greatest or the rightest, I see, historically, all of them contributing to this mosaic in some way. That's what I saw historically with the Early Greek philosophies. And probably all of them are wrong in other ways too. What will survive in the future will be what is true, and nothing will be said about the lies.

It is sad that our science is influenced by selfish realities, because those realities are destined to disappear. Science must be held to a higher standard, perhaps even the highest standard, if it is be perceived as credible. Isn't credibility the main selling feature of science? The ultimate anyone can do is to resonate with the Universe, not ourselves. Ourselves, by ourselves, are doing battle with the Universe, and the outcome of that one is certain.


Now, back to the subject.


I went to your list of thirty reasons the Big Bang fails. How come "redshift quantization" is so far down o the list? And you mention Arp and not Tifft... I haven't come across any refutations of Tifft's evidence of periodicity outside of an astrophysicist who claims that since the referee's will not allow quantization papers to be published, there must be something wrong with the data. Then he says that since he doesn't hear any noise, it must have died...I wonder too why there hasn't been yelling and shouting? For and against. What I think I am hearing is Shhhhhh

And at the end of your long list I find this quote

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wonder that too...
There is a heck of a lot riding on the Big Bang, err Big Expansion. If the Big Bang goes poof, it is going to take a whole lot of other materialistic (only matter exists) science with it. Confronted with that eventuality, there will be a lot of people propping it up by whatever means they find necessary. I think it is crucial to our science how it goes about this transition.

If science is honest and forthright about the evidence, and an error is acknowledged, then science will remain credible. If science ramrods their favored theory through in spite of evidence against it, and later the theory is shown to be false, then science will not be credible anymore. The Big Bang will become the Big Bust.

So it isn't really about one person's self-interest anymore.

I don't know, this reminds me of the elections in so many ways, and I had, then, my hopes up so much. I still am in a state of shock, and wonder what is really going on

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I still am in a state of shock, and wonder what is really going on.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Read Thomas Kuhn's best seller, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It should be required reading to anyone who pursues a career in science. Because people get hurt if it goes otherwise, and the people in power would get hurt the most, science must always maintain the illusion of forward progress. Revolutions only succeed when they can be portrayed as evolutions.

It will help answer "what is really going on". -|Tom|-

Let the evolution begin

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleN...29/BANG29/TPScience/

I opened the book Structure of scientific revolutions to whatever page and read:
"Let us assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of novel theories and ask next how scientists respond to their existence. Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important, can be discovered by noting first what scientists never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anolmalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis. They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counterinstances, though in the vocabulary of philosophy of science that is what they are. In part this generalization is simply a statement from historical fact, based on examples like those given above, and more extensively, below. These hint what our later examination pf paradigm rejection will disclose more fully; once it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place.. <u>No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature</u>...The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another...

The structure of scientific revolutions page 77

Interesting, so it isn't to attack the wrong, it is to promote the right.

<center>Proposal</center>
<hr noshade size="1">
<center>Big Bang Problematique</center>

I have a proposal which may help. Construct a page with three columns.
In the center column list an empirical observation. In the right column list the explanation provided by the Standard BB Theory. In the left column list the primary alternative explanation. For example
<hr noshade size="1">
<b><div align="left">Temperature of ZPE | CMB | remnant of initial expansion
An Intrinsic property | RS | Doppler </div id="left"> </b>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I have a proposal which may help. Construct a page with three columns.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You mean like what I did in "Quasars: Near vs. Far" a decade ago? See metaresearch.org/cosmology/QuasarsNearVersusFar.asp It is a helpful technique, but apparently not sufficient to trigger the evolution all by itself. -|Tom|-