From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 21:09:55 MST
Forwarding the private reply of Tom Van Flandern - twc:
*****
Terry,
Thanks for your e-note. The "logic" of Ron Ebert ["re" below] is
amusing. Most of these complaints arose because he did not read the
original article with citations, but only the capsulized summary of four
points that struck someone's fancy in "Science Frontiers". Apparently
Ebert's rebuttal, which makes unsubstantiated claims about four points
from a list of 30, is supposed to imply that the whole list is
defective. That itself is invalid reasoning. And none of these four
points were among the top 10 in the list. Here are my specific comments
on the Ebert message:
>[re]: first let's see the credibility of the person making the claims.
[citing totally unrelated matter of artificial structures on Mars]
This is the unscientific technique called "discrediting by
association". If you can't win an argument on merit, attack your
opponent on some other issue where he/she seems vulnerable. Note that
the merits of that side issue are not raised either. This is an attempt
to discredit an opponent purely by association, without any
consideration of the merit of either issue. Recognize the tactic for
what it is.
>>[sf article]: The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and
>>antimatter were created. If so, we don't know what happened to all the
>>antimatter.
[re]: The Big Bang makes no such prediction. The BB says nothing about
this. You may as well complain that the BB fails to explain why Mars is
red. The resolution of the problem will be in an as yet undeveloped
unifying theory like a Grand Unified Theory. We already know that the
nuclear weak force is asymmetric. The weak force is probably involved
with the resolution of the problem.
The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and
antimatter were created in the initial explosion. Matter dominates the
present universe apparently because of some form of asymmetry, such as
CP violation asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with
matter, but left much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of
this asymmetry, so far without success. Other galaxies can't be
antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with
the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not
seen. [Sources: Sci.News 158, 86 (2000); Science 278, 226 (1997).]
>>[sf article]: The Big Bang violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
>>by requiring that new space in the expanding universe be filled with
>>"zero-point" energy.
[re]: Another false claim. The conservation of energy has to hold in
local conditions. There is no requirement under general relativity that
it has to hold under global conditions. See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html. As
for zero point energy, if by that term you mean the net energy balance
provided by virtual particles, as above the BB says nothing about it.
The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that
energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new
space filled with "zero-point energy" (the Casimir effect) be
continually created between the galaxies. Wherever that new space and
energy appears is "local" to that place, and clearly violates the first
law. [Source: B.R. Bligh, "The Big Bang Exploded!" (2000),
<brbligh@hotmail.com>.]
>>[sf article]: Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies and quasars,
>>as are some other properties of the galaxies. All this is verboten under
>>Big Bang rules.
[re]: Yet another false claim. Redshifts are not quantized. This is
from the December 2002 Sky and Telescope:
The fact that redshifts are quantized for nearby galaxies had
already been confirmed in an earlier independent study. The new study
(quoting a news article dated *after* the top 30 list was published)
does not distinguish between these two conflicting results.
Quantization also occurs for quasars and for properties of
galaxies other than redshift. None of these should happen under Big Bang
premises. [Sources: Astrophys.J. 393, 59-67 (1992); Guthrie & Napier,
Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 12/1 issue (1991); Astron.J. 121, 21-30 (2001);
Astron.&Astrophys. 343, 697-704 (1999).]
>>[sf article]: Big Bang theory requires that the fine-structure
>>constant must vary with time; a claimed but controversial phenomenon.
[re]: See? It's a whole list of make believe claims. The BB says
nothing at all about the fine structure constant.
Under Big Bang premises (specifically, if quasars are at their
redshift distances), the fine structure constant must vary with time.
[Source: Phys.Rev.Lett. 9/03 issue (2001).]
[re]: This is the guy who also insists that gravity doesn't travel at
the speed of light and can't get out of a black hole. See [two links]
for the refutations.
But why neglect to cite the latest publication on this matter,
which (unlike the two web sites) is peer-reviewed? This article not only
answers those objections to the satisfaction of reviewers and editors,
but does the same for every objection raised to date, and concludes with
unchallenged reasoning that the "universal speed limit" is no longer in
effect in physics. See ["Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for
Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", T. Van
Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002)].
Now if I have grasped the essence of Ebert's reasoning, I should
be able to apply his same type of arguments to my own advantage: A
respected, senior physicist has joined me as a co-author of a carefully
scrutinized publication in a prestigious mainstream physics journal
containing a result of importance to physics. Because that result has
the weight of undisputed authority, everyone should now pay attention to
my Big Bang arguments, and can safely conclude that there probably *are*
artificial structures on Mars. Right? :-) -|Tom|-
-- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 21:15:21 MST