From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 15:26:02 MST
BCC to Tom Van Flandern
At 12:12 AM 3/12/2003 -0700, Terry W. Colvin forwarded:
Forwarding the private reply of Tom Van Flandern - twc:
***** Terry,
I propose this as my last contribution to this discussion, with the possible
exception of one or two challenges I left for Ron Ebert. We’ve largely drifted
away from science and into side issues and personal belief systems. Ron can have
the last word, and I’m content to close on that.
[tvf]: 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]: 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.
So we are not really discussing my paper and my arguments, but just four points
from someone else's news note about my paper. To determine whether or not the
Big Bang has been credibly challenged, you would need to read the original paper
and the complete list of problems, especially the top ten.
So in other words, in your opinion these four points aren't a credible challenge
to the Big Bang? I guess if I wanted to keep arguing with you I would take the
effort to find the paper somewhere and read it. Or if you want to keep arguing
with me you can forward it to me. But most skeptics know that there is little
hope in changing the viewpoints of cranks. We argue with them to show onlookers
that their ideas are false. I think I've made that point by now, but further
argument with you would strengthen it.
[tvf]: 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.
[re]: Whether or not it meets the test of empirical evidence is the only
criteria >for its scientific validity.
Then what is the basis for your implication that the conclusion is
scientifically invalid, based as it is entirely on objective empirical evidence
with all subjective elements excluded? Or is that another case where you are
shooting from the hip and have not examined the evidence or argument?
Skeptics, scientists, and other people would want to rely on science to tell
them about the world seldom do the relevant research themselves. Instead they
rely on the findings of researchers whom they trust based on the peer review
process, the reputations of the journals they publish in, the reputations of the
academic institutions to which they belong, and the respect given them by their
own peers in their field. In this case we have had hundreds of geologists,
geographers, imagery experts, chemists, physicists and others examine the
thousands of detailed images from the Global Surveyor and Odyssey spacecraft
orbiting Mars. Many papers have been written on this data involving the geology,
geologic history, atmosphere, weather, presence of water, CO2, composition of
the poles, and other features of Mars.
Among all these Mars researchers, no one has even hinted that there are
artificial structures on Mars. If someone spotted something that he thought
might be artificial structures, merely saying that we have an area here, we
don't know what it is, it is possibly artificial but we need to do more research
to determine that and it is yet far too early to reach such a conclusion, would
create a major news event. Just look at what happened to ALH 84001, the Mars
meteorite that a researcher examined and found to contain clues that it could be
harboring fossil life from Mars. The fact of the matter is no one has found the
slightest hint that there are artificial structures on Mars. Such a finding
would be one of the most sensational discoveries of all time and it would be
avidly pursued by hoards of researchers to confirm or falsify it.
And you would have us believe that you have found such evidence when people with
the expertise in these areas haven't. This is very much the same mentality
you've shown in other areas, especially your claims of finding fundamental
problems in general relativity that aren't any problems at all to those trained
in that field.
Discussing the merits of the Mars conclusions is far afield of the topic of this
thread. However, allow me to cite two links that show conclusively that the
claims are true, not "patently false". (Has anyone ever obtained a patent to
protect false claims? :-)
(1) http://essence.utsi.edu/~spsr/, click link to "peer-reviewed journal
publications", 7th entry on list: "Evidence for Planetary Artifacts" by six
authors: Shows that six scientists (out of 30 contributing) from a variety of
fields supported the conclusions strongly enough to co-author this paper.
(2) http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/asom/pressconf_nyc.asp
links to presentation: "Artificial Structures on Mars", which shows a great deal
of *evidence* for artificiality on Mars. See the captions in the press release
for the a priori artificiality tests involved. Valid artificiality judgments are
never allowed to be subjective, as for "does it look artificial or not?" We
insisted that only a priori elements be used, such as interrelationships and
context.
The essence of these web sites is that you are doing a pattern recognition
exercise regardless of whether or not it is justified. And in this case it is
not. The Global Surveyor image in the Cydonia region of Mars clearly do not show
a face except to those who want to see a face. It is the classic "Jesus on a
tortilla" syndrome. If the MGS had been the first spacecraft to image this
region, I'd venture that no one would be examining it for a face. It is only
because the first low resolution images from the Viking spacecraft seemed to
show a face, that anyone is interested in it.
You need a lot better evidence than "it looks like a face and it measures like a
face in some respects." You'd want to see associated infrastructure used to
build the face, other structures in the area that are clearly artifacts (and not
more unjustified pattern recognition exercises on other wind eroded structures),
and things like changes in the chemical and/or isotope composition of the face
compared to nearby areas. Without at least one of these things, no one is going
to take your claim seriously. See
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/25/face2.html for a good
review of why professional scientists don't think this is an artificial
structure.
[re]: 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.
You are mistaken on all counts. First, our results were widely reported in the
second-tier media (NY Post, London Times, talk radio circuit, etc.)
But significantly, not the scientific media. Well the general news media reports
such things as Jesus on a tortilla too.
We approached NASA, and they were supportive and ordered more photos be taken to
confirm or test some of the findings, but refused to alter their official stance
of "let the photos speak from themselves", feeling that any official
pro-artificiality position would be divisive and interpreted by opponents as an
attempt to boost their budget.
I'd bet it would be much more accurate to say that they didn't want to stick
their neck out to be chopped off without a lot better evidence than yours. They
did shoot for ancient bacterial life in Mars rocks, but then they actually had
some evidence for that.
They have, however, now ordered a new super-camera with 8-inch resolution on
board a 2006 Mars spacecraft, hoping for more evidence that might convince even
the extreme skeptics.
I'm sure they didn't approve that instrument just for you. They want to know a
lot more about Mars in all respects than they do now. But you will benefit all
the same, and it is good to have your ideas better tested, however groundless
they seem at the moment. It's something like an experiment to see if there is
some outside force that governs the burning of tortillas whenever Jesuss' face
shows up.
Mainstream science journals such as Nature and Science refused to send our
6-author paper out for peer review on the grounds that they are commercial
publications with reputations to protect, and that such sensational claims must
be made solely by the authors without borrowing credibility from the journals
because the controversy would damage the journals, regardless of the merit of
the topic.
They are commercial publications but that is besides the point. They are
academic publications serving the world-wide academic community. And did they
tell you this, or is this your own reasoning?
(They maintain an ever-growing list of high-profile topics that are
unconditionally rejected without review regardless of merit because of this
"need to protect our reputation".)
I'm sure they do. Things like ghost sightings, perpetual motion schemes,
creationist theories, and Jesus on a tortilla. They won't publish anything for
which there is little or no empirical evidence for their support. But that
doesn't mean that they won't publish controversial findings or even claims that
most would consider quackery. They've published Hoyle and Narlikar's
quasi-steady state theory at a time when the evidence was already strongly in
favor of the Big Bang, a "successful" test of the effectiveness of homeopathy,
and the claim that controlled burns do not reduce the fire hazard in forests.
Finally, a few mainstream media reps who attended the press conference (ABC News
was one example) covered the story and scheduled it for air time. But execs at
the highest levels canceled the scheduled coverage for unstated reasons,
undoubtedly similar to those for the journals.
A rare moment of sanity in the main media. Amazing.
One big-name news anchor mentioned to me, somewhat by way of apology, that he
was now sitting on top of dozens of secrets too hot for the execs to put on the
air.
Meaning what? Your information was too secret to broadcast?
In short, your simplistic speculation about motives does not reflect the real
world.
I think I've got a lot better handle on it than you do.
Despite about 50 reviews by qualified parties and hundreds of suggestions, no
fault was found with our technical paper. But those of us willing to associate
our names with this finding were asked to "fall on our swords" so as to make
this controversial conclusion safer for those who follow. Yet people such as
yourself come along and use this as evidence that we are all incompetent
swordsmen because we stabbed ourselves. That was not how it happened!
I think at this point it is appropriate to introduce John Baez's crackpot index.
It is on his web site at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html (but I took
this copy from http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news95_e.html because of better
formatting for copying.)
The Crackpot Index A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary
contributions to physics.
1) A -5 point starting credit.
2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
6) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a
widely accepted real experiment.
7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
defective keyboards).
8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
9) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or claim that
special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good
evidence).
10) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this were
evidence of sanity.
11) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
12) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or claim that
classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without evidence).
13) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were
fact.
14) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule
accorded to ones past theories.
15) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo, claims that
the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..
16) 30 points for claiming that when ones theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen as the sham it truly is.
17) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a
"conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or
suchlike.
18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete
testable predictions.
John Baez E-Mail: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
----------------------------------------------------------
You've already scored on several categories in your past posts. It is the reason
I categorize you as a crank. Your above complaint comes under #17.
[re]: You clearly expect your "problems" to falsify the Big Bang.
True. But not all 30 arguments are strong enough to falsify it all by
themselves, which is what you implied for the matter/antimatter asymmetry
argument.
[tvf]: 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 [ref1], and that better explanations >exist for the black body microwave radiation than a BB fireball remnant [ref2], the >BB that remains is nothing but a collection of flexible auxiliary hypotheses, with >no kernel to hold them together.
[re]: 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 ... verification of Hubble recessional redshifts from time dilation ... >higher temperatures in the microwave background radiation (CMB) in the early >universe ... the one degree peak in the anisotropy spectrum of the CMB ... the >partial polarization of the CMB. 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.
These are the subjects of some several of the other points on the BB problems
list. Discussing them in depth would considerably broaden this exchange, and
require you to read the paper first. You can do that now, or you can wait until
it comes out in print in a year or so. At the moment, the paper is circulating
privately and collecting co-authors who support it and have ideas to add to it.
Before it is submitted, we expect to have several major names and institutions
involved.
Since the BB is now confirmed well beyond a reasonable doubt, this will be like
your relativity paper. A pitiful attempt to knock down verified theory.
[re]: 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.
This shows clearly that further discussion with you is pointless. You admit that
you have not read the paper supporting the previous statement. Yet without
examining the reasoning or citations, you declare it a lie, not just a mistake.
A deliberate intentional mistake is a lie. "Not a single important prediction of
the theory has yet been confirmed" is blatantly false, therefore a lie.
This hints at an almost religious desperation to sustain your present belief,
instead of the dispassionate objectivity that science demands. Any good evidence
paper shows a protocol and testing that raise the conclusion above being
influenced by the biases of the experimenters/authors. Without such controls, we
all just confirm our own biases in whatever we do. The alternative you seem to
prefer is a life in which one never rises above the errors one has accepted
along the way.
Nice words from someone who violates the scientific method at almost every step.
The paper on your web site with the wording "not a single important prediction
of the theory has yet been confirmed" is blatantly biased by picking out tests
that are old and of marginal value, while totally ignoring the strongest
evidence for expansion. That isn't doing science, that's fulfilling an agenda.
I recommend you study Scientific Method, why it works, and why any theory that
has abandoned controls on testing should be regarded with the utmost suspicion.
Take your own advice. Cherry picking data is the mark of a pseudoscientist and
is commonly found among cranks.
[tvf]: One of the better cases for that at the moment is the B/Be ratio [Science
>290, 1257 (2000)].
[re]: Another wrong citation.
It cannot be "another" unless there was a previous case. But I concede, I got
the page number wrong for this one. Point for you. Here's the correct reference
and a summary of its contents:
"Science 290, "Editor's Choice" 11/17 issue (2000); astro-ph/0009482; Astron.
Astrophys., in press. H, He, Li are thought to have been formed in the Big Bang.
Be and B are thought to be secondary elements from supernovae through
spallation. However, the Be abundance in one metal poor star is greater than
spallation allows. As a result, a new mechanism may be needed for BB
nucleosynthesis."
[re]: 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.
The news note about this paper in Science says otherwise.
And the suggestions in the paper at astro-ph/0009482 say otherwise. The authors
mention several possibilities that don't involve BB nucleosynthesis. The full
URL is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0009/0009482.pdf.
[re]: [Astrophys.J. 393, 59-67 (1992)] It's an old trick of cranks to use
obsolete >data to support their claims.
[tvf]: Nice. Now you include name-calling in your repertoire.
[re]: You have amply demonstrated that you are a crank.
And you have amply demonstrated a lack of objectivity on the subject and of
willingness to discuss the merits by constantly trying to switch the subject to
a mud-slinging contest. As those who study Scientific Method know, this is a
frequent tactic of those who feel they are losing on the merits.
We have been debating the merits of your claims and are continuing to do so. We
skeptics decide if someone is a crank based on those merits and once a person is
so qualified we don't shy away from labeling a spade a spade. You have scored
points in many categories in John Baez's crackpot index with your infantile
understanding of the Big Bang (such as ascribing problems to the BB that have
nothing to do with the BB) and relativity (deciding something is a problem
because you take a Newtonian view instead of a relativistic view, and then
inventing absurd theory to solve the supposed problem), the claim of artifacts
on Mars with essentially nothing more than the imagination to support it, and
statements like the authors of the relativity sites I've provided have axes to
grind.
Note that the chief evidence you cite to back a claim that I am a crank is that
I hold positions on a few intellectual issues different from yours and the
mainstream's. I know everyone in every belief system wishes to label every
outsider as a crank. But nothing could be more anti-intellectual or
self-serving.
As above. You lack a fundamental understanding of the theories you are
challenging, you think mainstream scientists have axes to grind, and you
complain that your attempts to publish are being suppressed.
You see, Tom, a person who isn't a crank would start out by assuming that
mainstream scientists know what they are talking about, and then would make a
serious effort to properly learn the theory they want to challenge, especially
concerning the explanation for the problem they think they've found. They would
also look at all the observations and tests that support the theory, and those
that don't, if any, and take all of it into account, not cherry pick them. Once
they thought that they had a reasonably good understanding of the theory and
conditions, they would then try to discuss it with a trained theorist or
researcher, perhaps in a forum such as sci.astro.research or
sci.physics.research, two moderated Usenet groups devoted to discussing such
things that have a number of qualified people on hand to answer questions. A
person who really desires to get at the truth of things will not decide that
mainstream scientists have axes to grind and then invent their own theories that
they think better explain phenomena than already verified theories.
[re]: [quantized redshifts] 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.
But pencil beam surveys show that redshift is certainly quantized on a much
larger scale, and that result is now widely accepted as valid, and interpreted
to mean that galaxies occur in alternating walls and voids.
I don't know of pencil beam studies that show quantization. But some periodicity
will be seen because large scale surveys show that galactic groups are arranged
in soap bubble like structures with sheets, walls and voids.
However, this now-recognized quantization effect also disappears in broader
surveys for reasons not yet understood, but indicative of something important
about either the nature of redshift or of large-scale structure. It therefore is
unsurprising that the smaller-scale quantization might have the same difference
in behavior a dependence on the survey area covered.
A pencil beam study might look further than a broad study, but you are still
dealing with small numbers of galaxies. So it is much more subject to selection
effects than broader studies. Besides which, with the newer 2dF and Sloan
Digital Sky surveys, the databases to mine are enormous and they look pretty far
out. Pencil beams don't reach all that much further.
[tvf]: 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]: 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.
Shall we make this a credibility challenge, then? The citation in question is:
Astronomical Journal, v. 121, pp. 21-30 (2001), paper by Burbidge et al. on
quantization effects in redshifts. Lets ask for a volunteer third party --
anyone willing can do it -- to verify that the citation is correct (as I say) or
wrong (as you say).
Ah. Now I know what happened. You said Astron.J. 121, 21-30 (2001). I took that
to mean Astronomy and Astrophysics. I was looking at the wrong journal. It is
better not to use abbreviations unless you are sure that the other person knows
what it means. When I use a citation, I always copy and paste the full title and
info out of the computer database.
Now I have looked up Burbidge's article. The sample size of 57 galactic
redshifts and 39 quasars is too small to be meaningful.
[re]: 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.
But essentially every mainstream theory is a consensus of experts until it is
overthrown. One can learn nothing from the number of experts or their degree of
confidence. Here are some quotes that seem relevant to this point:
** "I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that stones
fell from the sky." - Thomas Jefferson (1806), on hearing reports of meteorites.
** "An expert is a man who never makes small mistakes." -- Tom Phipps, Heretical
Verities
** “Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt.” Lev Landau
“I am certain that it is time to retire Landau’s quote.” Cosmologist Michael
Turner (Phys.Today Dec., 10-11 (2001).
A consensus of experts - here meaning researchers in the field - can certainly
be wrong. But they aren't going to be wrong all that often and there had better
be good grounds for assuming they are. Some areas of research are better settled
than others. Some, say the causation of earthquakes or Alzheimer's disease, are
so poorly known that there isn't a consensus at all. But others are so strongly
confirmed that few if any hold contrary opinions. Evolution, relativity and
quantum mechanics fall under that state.
[re]: I see from the library database that [Vigier] 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.
It is amazing how ignorant one can remain if one tries hard enough. Vigier is
one of the most widely published and celebrated physicists, specializing in
quantum physics, of our times. Why don't you use your celebrated "library
database" on my name and see what it turns up, then compare with my Bibliography
at the link I gave in my last message? I'll bet you find only a small percentage
of my publications there, as you obviously did for Vigier.
You're missing the point - a very important one. What counts in the community of
science is the publications in academic journals and what particular field of a
science. A computer scientist who has lots of publications in computer journals
can claim that evolution is false, but he can't get his "theories" published in
any biology journal. At best he might make something like the ICR's Acts and
Facts. So no biologist takes him seriously, and a few who may have the curiosity
to look at his claims finds he has fundamental misunderstandings about
evolutionary theory.
I found 43 publications of yours in various journals. I don't see any in
journals specializing in relativity. There is only one co-authored with Arp
where you challenge the Big Bang. It is:
The case against the big bang. Source PHYSICS LETTERS SECTION A GENERAL ATOMIC
AND SOLID STATE PHYSICS [0375-9601] yr: 1992 vol: 164 iss: 4 pg: 263.
In cosmology terms 1992 is pretty old. And a journal specializing in general
atomic and solid state physics? You see, you haven't been able to publish your
ideas on the Big Bang in something like the Astrophysical Journal, where it
would properly belong if people took it seriously.
As for Vigier, his "double first name" fouled up my initial computer database
search. I've done a more comprehensive search now and see 186 publications, the
majority as a co-author in a group. It looks like only two or three are
publications in relativity journals, and again it is with co-authors and on
stuff not basic to general relativity. The fact of the matter is I read your
paper co-authored with him. I assume everything stated in it the both of you
agree with. So I can state with confidence that you both demonstrate abysmal
ignorance of general relativity.
[re]: Then let [the editor of Foundations of Physics] 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.
Your religious fervor for what you believe knows no bounds, does it?
You don't know the difference
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm
-- 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 13 2003 - 15:33:20 MST