From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 10:23:29 MST
BCC to Tom Van Flandern
Admin note: Formatting of Ron Ebert's reply is read by my Netscape e-mail as
vertical bars instead of ">". I used my forward function and edited the subject
line. Any quote and reply disconnects are my fault.
Terry
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: FWD (PvT) Re: The bottom two-thirds of a cosmological iceberg ?
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 01:17:21 -0800
From: Ron Ebert <ebert@citrus.ucr.edu>
Reply-To: skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu
To: skeptic@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu
At 07:41 PM 3/8/2003 -0700, Terry Colvin forwarded:
> 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?
Yes. I can't address claims if I don't know what they are. Since I don't, I have
nothing to say about them.
> > [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.
Whether or not it meets the test of empirical evidence is the only criteria for
its scientific validity.
> 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.
My my. You keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, don't you? Here is what you
said on your web site:
"On Tuesday, May 8, 2001 at 1PM, Meta Research released findings that provide
compelling evidence for the presence of artificial structures on the planet
Mars. The press conference was held at the New Yorker hotel in Manhattan, New
York.
Dr. Thomas Van Flandern presented findings representing contributions by dozens
of researchers, including physicists, geologists, engineers, and image
processing specialists from several organizations."
"Findings representing contributions by dozens of researchers" for artificial
structures on Mars falsely implies that these researchers have supplied evidence
for these artificial structures. There is no such evidence. Only a crank makes
such patently false claims. The claim is flat out wrong. Such a finding would be
sensational and seized upon by those looking for any kind of life in the solar
system, let alone intelligent life separate from us. Nobody in the scientific
news media has reported that there is even disputable evidence as to whether or
not there are artificial structures on Mars. If you can make such an absurd
claim, then nothing else you say can be believed without independent
verification.
> > [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.
Like I keep telling you, I don't know what your top 30 problems are and I am
only dealing with what has been forwarded to the Skeptic list. Here is what was
forwarded to us:
> Perhaps these frequent sales pitches of the Big Bangers goaded Van Flandern
> to mention[ed] *twenty more* problems with this paradigm that so tightly
> enchains and debilitates cosmological thinking. It would seem that a
> paradigm with a total of at least thirty large cracks in its facade would
> crumble. But, this is apparently not happening!
You clearly expect your "problems" to falsify the Big Bang.
> 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.
In light of today's knowledge, this statement is absurd. Strong empirical
verification of the Big Bang include the ratios of the light elements and their
isotopes that verify calculations of reactions during the nuclear synthesis era,
verification of Hubble recessional redshifts from time dilation in the light
decay curves of type Ia supernova, as well as finding higher temperatures in the
microwave background radiation (CMB) in the early universe compared to today's
universe, and most important of all, the discovery of the one degree peak in the
anisotropy spectrum of the CMB as well as the harmonic overtones and the damping
tail, and the partial polarization of the CMB as predicted from the surface of
last scattering. No other alternative theory has any hope of duplicating these
characteristics of the CMB. The Big Bang is now verified well beyond a
reasonable doubt.
> * ["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]
From the web site:
"Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for
interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has
yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it."
To put it bluntly, this is a lie.
> ** ["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".
Wrong. The matching of galaxy brightness to the Hubble recession law, the ratios
of the light elements and their isotopes, and the very existence of the CMB are
early good confirmations of the BB.
> If a failure
> of one of them really falsified the BB, then it now stands falsified.
But none did.
> One of the better cases for that at the moment is the B/Be ratio
> [Science 290, 1257 (2000)].
Another wrong citation. This is a news page in that issue of Science and there's
nothing said about the B/Be ratio. If there is some article or paper somewhere
about the B/Be ratio, it is irrelevant to the BB since beryllium is generated by
galactic cosmic ray spallation. The amount is not primordial and the amount in a
star is a mixture of primordial and cosmic ray generated Be. We can't tell
anything about the nuclear synthesis era or the age of the universe by measuring
Be. Likewise for boron.
> 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.
Wrong again. The dark energy is certainly falsifiable. If type Ia supernova
light curves followed a strict Hubble recession law, dark energy would be found
to be absent. Two other lines of evidence are the clustering of galactic groups
in the early universe and the characteristics of the CMB anisotropy spectrum.
The fact of the matter is the dark energy has been verified instead of
falsified.
> > [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".
Zero point energy is ZERO energy. There is no local violation of the
conservation of energy. As for the dark energy, nobody knows what it is yet. It
may or may not be an imbalance in quantum fluctuations. Until we find out, we
don't have to worry about local non-zero energy creation. Such a thing is likely
to fall under global conditions anyway and there would still not be any local
conservation of energy violations.
> > [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.
You have amply demonstrated that you are a crank.
> 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.
That is trivial and already done. The data set on the newer study was much
larger than the older study. The older study apparently had selection bias
effects. By using a far larger data set, this has been eliminated.
> > [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.
You are the one giving me references, not me you. It is your responsibility, not
mine, to see that they are correct.
> 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.
It is no bluff. I walked into the UC Riverside Science Library and went to the
journal stacks and examined the journal. I looked at issues at the year of the
reference and several others, including earlier ones and later ones and the
latest ones. Anyone reading these posts can do the same.
> > [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.
Okay. Point to you.
> > [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.
There are appeals to authority and appeals to authority. It is invalid to say a
claim is right because someone with a degree says so. There is no authority in
science in the sense of some person decides what is true and that's that, but we
can have some confidence in what the consensus of researchers in a field may
conclude about some issue - as much confidence as they themselves have.
In this case, the consensus of opinion of theorists and researchers of
relativity and quantum mechanics who hold academic positions in these fields in
universities is to be valued over those who have no training or expertise in
these fields and who make claims contrary to verified theories.
> > [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.
Ah. That's the trouble with making abbreviations on poorly known journals. They
can be misinterpreted. Now that I've got the proper name, I see that this is one
of those handful of "philosophical" journals that will publish off the wall
theories. In the interest of reasonable academic freedom, it is proper to give
voice to such theories, but they are by and large ignored by the larger physics
community.
> > 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.
I am writing this post from home and will have to let go the minor point of
whether or not Jean-Pierre Vigier is really an editor of Physics Letters A since
I'd need to get an issue of the journal to try and verify that. But I see from
the library database that he has published only in Foundations of Physics
Letters with one exception. That is a flag that he is as untrained in general
relativity and quantum mechanics as you are.
> 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.
Then let him be insulted. Because he's approved your and Vigier's paper which is
full of absurd claims that would be laughed at by the editors of any mainstream
journal.
> 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.
Such a statement simply means you are deluding yourself. From your paper:
"General relativity has a geometric and a field interpretation. If angular
momentum
conservation is invoked in the geometric interpretation to explain experiments,
the
causality principle is violated. The field interpretation avoids this problem by
allowing faster-than-light propagation of gravity in forward time. All existing
experiments are in agreement with that interpretation. This implies the
existence
of real superluminal propagation and communication of particles and fields, free
of
causality problems. The introduction of real physical faster-than-light
propagation
into gravitation, electrodynamics and quantum theory has important consequences
for physics."
You start with the false statement that angular momentum conservation violates
causality in general relativity and then invoke absurdities to solve this
"problem." And what a surprise, you invoke an absolute spacetime, in essence, an
ether, to solve this supposed problem. That is the most common tactic of
relativity cranks who just can't accept the tenets of the theory.
> 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 I said before, you are recognized as a competent celestial mechanic. What you
aren't recognized as is in having competent training in relativity and quantum
mechanics.
> 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.
The trouble is they're not credible.
> 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.
Ah. Mainstream relativity theorists have axes to grind. How thoughtless of me
not to realize that.
Such a complaint is typical of a crank.
> Most scientists appreciate the role of challenges, whether they
> are right or wrong on any particular issue.
Real challenges, yes. But they don't like to waste their time with cranks who
insist that verified theory is wrong and that they know better than the people
with training how things should work.
> > [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.
Yeah? As it deals with speeds far less than light and gravities far less than
that of compact stellar objects, I don't think you have to invoke relativity to
do the calculations. I don't think that JPL/NASA needs to invoke relativity when
they send a spacecraft to Jupiter for a gravitational boost, for example.
> 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|-
Oh, I'm nobody special. Just a hobbyist with an interest these matters. The
validity of my criticisms don't depend on the degrees I may or may not have. It
depends on the truth of the empirical evidence and established theory I've
presented. I have had a cosmology article published in Skeptic. See
http://phyld.ucr.edu/Ron%20Ebert%20Web%20Pages/cosmology_at_the_beginning_of_a_.htm
if you are interested.
Ron Ebert
ron.ebert@ucr.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Believers tend to insist on openmindedness except when it applies to
themselves. It is not some noble notion of intellectual fairness which
these people promote. The openmindedness argument is simply an appeal to
sympathy made by those who have no good evidence in their support and no
good response to criticism. It's whining...nothing more.
-- Brant Watson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 10:28:39 MST