From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 19:41:03 MST
Forwarding the private reply of Tom Van Flandern - twc:
*****
Terry,
Here is my response to Ron Ebert's latest.
> [re]: I replied to what was forwarded by Terry to the Skeptic list.
You seemed to imply that, if four points selected from the
bottom 2/3 of the list were questionable, the remaining 26 (unseen by
you) points probably are questionable too. Do you agree, then, that
would be an invalid generalization?
> [re]: The claims have to stand or fall on their own merits, regardless
>of the person making the claims. But by showing you have already made
>patently false claims about artificial structures on Mars, it
>demonstrates that your credibility is so low that anything you say has
>to be independently verified before anyone can believe it.
Raising the level of your protest to a shrill "patently false",
even if you added a declaration that the Mars hypothesis contradicts the
Word of God in the Bible, does nothing to make your "discrediting by
association" argument scientifically valid -- here or ever.
If you wished to show that the messenger (me) is non-credible,
you would first have to show that some other claim brought by the
messenger was, in fact, false; then show that the messenger should have
known better so that the credibility fault is the messenger's. You have
done neither in connection with the Mars hypothesis. You are simply
pulling a modern-day "Joe McCarthy" -- who loved to discredit even Nobel
Laureates in the 1950s by suggesting communist ties or thinking. Read
the chapter on "Scientific Method" in my book, "Dark Matter, Missing
Planets and New Comets" (North Atlantic Books, 1993; 2nd edition 1999).
Skeptics are supposed to be skilled in critical thinking. Yours needs
work.
One of the points I made a decade ago, long before evidence for
artifacts existed, was that the possibility of artifacts on other
planets is not known to be of low probability, but rather of unknown
probability, which is a very different matter. For all we know, the
whole Galaxy has already been explored and there are artifacts on every
suitable terrestrial planet in it, in which case the probability of our
finding artifacts on Mars would be close to 100%.
If one is going to be a good skeptic, one must learn to
recognize the difference between frivolous and well-founded challenges
to accepted ideas. A skeptic is one who says "show me" and waits to see
the evidence, not someone who says "don't bother" because he/she already
knows the answers. In the above, you make no mention of the merits of
the case for the artificiality hypothesis. You imply that the case
merits are irrelevant because you already know the answer. That is just
as invalid scientific reasoning as was implying that the Mars issue has
bearing on the credibility of my criticisms of the Big Bang.
> [re]: The resolution of the problem of the matter-antimatter asymmetry
>is to be found in one of these auxiliary theories, not the BB. There is
>no mechanism outlined in the BB that addresses the point. For that
>reason it is a false and deceptive claim that this asymmetry falsifies
>the BB.
What is false and deceptive is your changing my list of "The top
30 *problems* for the Big Bang" into a claim that each point on the list
is supposed to falsify the BB. That is an invalid "strawman" argument --
creating a dummy target and beating the stuffing out of it.
The matter/antimatter asymmetry remains a real problem for BB,
and also awaits yet another ad hoc helper hypothesis to save the model.
Now that we know that even the expansion of the universe is in doubt
because redshift does not necessarily require velocity as an explanation
[*], and that better explanations exist for the black body microwave
radiation than a BB fireball remnant [**], the BB that remains is
nothing but a collection of flexible auxiliary hypotheses, with no
kernel to hold them together.
* ["Did the universe have a beginning?", MRB 3, 25-35 (1994); Apeiron 2,
20-24 (1995); "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", North
Atlantic Books (1999);
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp]
** ["New COBE results and the big bang 'fireball'", MRB 1, 17-21 (1992);
"Is the microwave radiation really from the big bang 'fireball'?",
Reflector XLV, 4 (1993); "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets",
North Atlantic Books (1999).]
> [re]: The BB can be falsified on its specific mechanisms and
>predictions. For example, there is a period in time early in the history
>of the universe where the temperature range that is coupled with the
>expansion due to the BB allows for the formation of the hydrogen, helium
>and their isotopes that we see in the universe today. Their ratios to
>one another are predicted by the calculations done for this nuclear
>synthesis era. These predicted ratios have been verified by
>observations. Had they not been, the BB would have been falsified.
However, each prediction/observation pair initially failed, and
had to be adjusted by one of those "auxiliary hypotheses". If a failure
of one of them really falsified the BB, then it now stands falsified.
One of the better cases for that at the moment is the B/Be ratio
[Science 290, 1257 (2000)]. But no BB proponent doubts that another
auxiliary hypothesis will eventually come to the rescue for that problem
too. The "dark energy" auxiliary hypothesis, which adds energy wherever
needed in whatever quantities are needed to keep the BB consistent with
observations, shows that "falsification" is no longer a part of the BB
proponents' lexicon.
> [re]: The quantum fluctuations that provide the background for the
>Casimir effect cancel out in normal local conditions and provide zero
>net energy. For this reason there is no violation of the first law
>locally.
So you propose that, in the locale where new space is created,
no new zero-point energy is created with the new space? Then the energy
already there must be shared and is becoming ever more diluted. That
would defeat the accelerating expansion attributed to the "dark energy".
> [re]: [Astrophys.J. 393, 59-67 (1992)] It's an old trick of cranks
>to use obsolete data to support their claims.
Nice. Now you include name-calling in your repertoire.
There is no question that the original study and its later
confirmation were statistically significant. So until the new study
shows that it can replicate the old studies, and can then explain why it
obtained a different result, the conflict will remain unexplained.
> [re]: [Guthrie & Napier, Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 12/1 issue (1991)];
>Astron.J. 121, 21-30 (2001)] Invalid reference. The volume, page number
>and year don't give any match for this journal in the library database,
>and physically checking the journal shows this is an invalid match.
I don't have the first citation handy, but can write to Bill
Napier to verify it if necessary. It certainly provides enough
information to locate the paper in a technical library. The second
reference is in my hand as I write this, and is correct as to journal,
volume, page numbers, and year. So your claim that you physically
checked the journal is shown to be a bluff.
> [re]: [Astron.&Astrophys. 343, 697-704 (1999)] is a paper about
>discrete states of galactic *rotation curves*, NOT radial redshifts.
That is what it was intended to show. I referred to *other*
quantized properties of galaxies in addition to redshift.
> [re]: This [set of four references] is a sterling example of why your
>credibility is zero and you are not to be believed without independent
>verification.
Well, the credibility of one of us has indeed suffered in this
exchange. But I'm not the one sweating. :-)
> [tvf]: But why neglect to cite the latest publication on this matter,
>which (unlike the two web sites) is peer-reviewed?
> [re]: The web sites are written for general public use by mathematical
>physicists who have their own numerous publications in peer reviewed
>journals and who are generally highly respected by their peers. And
>there are reference citations to papers in peer reviewed academic
>journals.
So I show my peer-reviewed papers in peer-reviewed academic journals
[http://metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/resume.asp] and
raise you another 50. :-) Ah, yes: the appeal to authority -- another
hallmark of invalid reasoning in science.
> [tvf]: 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)].
> [re]: I guess that's supposed to be Foundational Physics. If so, like
>Science Frontiers it is not an academic journal and the University of
>California library doesn't carry it.
No, it is "Foundations of Physics", a major mainstream academic
physics journal (current editor at Univ. of Colorado). It is revealing
that you didn't know that, yet considered yourself qualified to comment
on the relative merits of the academic dispute itself.
> Whatever reviewers you are referring to, it is highly likely that they
>are not mathematical physicists or general relativists with positions at
>academic institutions in those fields. If one crank peer reviews another
>crank, it means nothing.
It is also revealing that you did not recognize my co-author's
name -- Jean-Pierre Vigier at Univ. of Paris. He is a celebrated senior
physicist in whose honor three international symposia have been held.
Among other positions, he is currently an editor for Physics Letters A,
another mainstream academic physics journal. And the editor at
Foundations of Physics would be mightily insulted that you think he was
incompetent to choose appropriate referees for a controversial paper, or
to judge the discussion that went on with mathematical physicists for
the better part of a year before final approval.
But all you really need to do is read the paper. It answers
every objection raised during the last decade, including the ones at the
web sites you mentioned, to the satisfaction of neutral parties. No
rebuttal has been forthcoming (unlike the case following my earlier 1998
paper, which was followed by some published objections in the form of
technical comments). This time, the critics appear to have been muted.
Unfortunately for your position, based as it is on showing that
I am not a credible source, I am a career astronomer/physicist with
strong credentials who has found good cause late in my career to become
critical of certain mainstream models. As long as the criticisms are
constructive and credible, this process is a normal part of the
scientific evolution that assures that bad models eventually get weeded
out. Time will eventually tell which, if any, of these challenges have
merit. But your assumption that they are unworthy apparently arises from
reading sources with axes to grind, to judge by the web sites you
listed. Most scientists appreciate the role of challenges, whether they
are right or wrong on any particular issue.
> [re]: You haven't published in any mainstream physics journal, let
>alone a prestigious one, on this subject. I understand you are respected
>as a celestial mechanic who is able to accurately work out comet,
>asteroidal and planetary orbits, but your understanding of relativity
>and quantum mechanics is infantile and you have no hope of getting your
>claims on them published in an academic physics journal.
Gee, any return shot I take would be too easy, given that you
derailed from reality several paragraphs back. But on the specifics, you
will apparently be surprised to learn that relativity is a part of
celestial mechanics.
BTW, since you represent yourself as someone qualified to judge
the merits of my research, what exactly are *your* qualifications? In
the scientific arena, that is? I've already seen a sample of your
oratorical skills. :-) -|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 : Sat Mar 08 2003 - 19:46:46 MST