Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - What is Big Science?
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 General Matters
 Big Science and Big Government
 What is Big Science?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Jim

1850 Posts

Posted - 17 Sep 2011 :  20:25:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The deck is stacked for of the current belief system based on the BB model and an expanding universe. This is the same process used in the 10th century only now they call it science. Nothing ever changes other than the names used by either the "ins" or the "outs". These days the "ins" are called scientists and the "outs" are called crazies. No doubt at some point in the future the "ins" of today will be seen to be something other than scientists just like the "ins" of the 10th century fell out of grace as human advancement gets to some new level. Maybe the Gov of Texas has the right idea.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 19 Sep 2011 :  08:49:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Jim] "The deck is stacked for of the current belief system ... "

Yes, Jim, it is. That's the point of this thread.

Big Science is the offspring of Big Government, which puts politicians in control of a lot of mankind's total spending. And politicians make ALL of their decisions for political reasons, rather than for good reasons.

[Jim] "Maybe the Gov of Texas has the right idea."

Maybe. Probably not. He is a politician, so his thinking will always be political, rather than scientific or economic. (Yeah, yeah, I know there are some exceptions. Big whup.) Right now a lot of the people are paying more attention to the politicians than they usually do, so some politicians (perhaps including Mr. Perry?) are adjusting their thinking a little.

Unless the people suddenly develop a longer attention span than what they historically have had, this new mood is probably not going to last. But I'm cautiously optimistic.

===

As long as we allow politicians to be in control of big portions of human activity, we will have to put up with the deck being stacked in favor of a few limited options. And that necessarily means stacked against all other options.

Only free people are able to create a vast array of options. We had that for a while. Now we don't.

LB

Go to Top of Page

Jim

1850 Posts

Posted - 20 Sep 2011 :  13:11:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well my point is that the world was always this way. An established faith is made a focus of the culture's energy and right now that faith is based on the BB model. In the past and in different cultures the same process is in play with faith in some other model, so why should things be different now? The current faithful are rewarded and the doubters are crazies. At least now crazies are fed to the lions or a worse fate. We are free to rant on sort of--
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2011 :  11:06:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You are right, Jim. The world (meaning mankind) has always been this way.

Sigh.

But as I look back at our history I see a few (very few), brief (very brief) exceptions. Isn't it odd how these general rules we invent (such as "the world has always been this way") always turn out to have exceptions?

I guess what I'm hoping to accomplish with this thread is to see what the group thinks about both the general rule (it's always been this way) and these few exceptions.

Human intellectual progress in general, and progress in the arts and sciences in particular, has tended to be slow and painful and insignificant during the "always" times, and breath-taking in terms of speed and significance during the "exception" times.

At least, that is what I see when I scan the historical records. Does anyone else see this, too?


LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2011 :  11:12:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Jim] "At least now crazies are fed to the lions or a worse fate. We are free to rant on sort of--"

I presume you meant to say "... [NOT] fed to the lions ... "?
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1850 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2011 :  13:55:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LB, What was accomplished during the exceptional times you see when things were different than normal? Maybe you have a book here because it looks like a new way of seeing the past.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 26 Sep 2011 :  17:23:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
One of these exception times I see is called the Renaissance. From approximately 1300 to approximately 1600, in some parts of Europe, there was a ... relaxation? ... of the usual tendeny of the haves to brutally suppress the have-nots.

Now, I don't want to lead you astray. Everything was not suddenly sweetness and light, except possibly in a relative sense, for three hundred years. Instead of constant brutal suppression, the haves (for reason or reasons unknown) slacked of to mere sporatic brutal suppression of the have-nots.

===

The result was an expansion of teaching and learning that was, to say the least, unusual. The arts and the sciences made large strides, compared to what happened both before this period and after. New ways of depicting things (the concept of perspective drawing, for example) were invented.

This was the time of Columbus, and others who traveled the world in search of adventure, wealth, and knowledge.

It was also the time of Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe and Kepler. And it was when Scientific Method was developed and adopted as a standard of excellence.

New theories of God (new religions, and off-shoots of existing religions) were put forth by brave schollars (Erasmus, Luther and Calvin) but were not automatically stamped out for this little exception period. In fact, some historians claim that the Church of that time actually encouraged some of this learning/teaching explosion. Go figure.

===

Most of these changes were not permanent, and when the world did return to its "always mode" they were taken back. But not all of them. And much the new knowledge (both true and false) generated during this little burp is still with us.

LB

Go to Top of Page

Jim

1850 Posts

Posted - 27 Sep 2011 :  15:02:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Renaissance was done under the rules of the Pope and was mostly in Italy. The Germans were kind of free then though.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 28 Sep 2011 :  10:12:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Jim] "The Renaissance was done under the rules of the Pope and was mostly in Italy."

Yep, that's pretty much how I see it too. These "exception periods" do tend to be short lived and geographically limited. The fascinating thing about them is that the powers that be (in this case the Church) lift their thumbs off of the people for a while. For a little while, in a few places, the individual is under less compulsion to hew to some sort of "official world view".

And when that happens, art and science and prosperity - and happiness - go up. Way up, in some cases.

As I said previously I'm not implying that all problems go away. One recurring blemish in all of the exception events I've identified is that the benefits experienced by many individuals are not experienced by all individuals. And this odd phenomenon is group dependent - if you are a member of Group A you still live under a thumb, but the members of Group B start living free. (More or less.)

But the closer you get to the time-center and the space-center of one of these exception events, the closer you get to ... utopia? ... heaven? ... the other side of the fence?

Well, I'm still looking for the word I need. I'm trying to say that things tend to get better, and the amount of improvement depends on the specific circumstances surrounding the event. We will probably never actually get there, but these exceptions do demonstrate that the present sorry state of affairs can be replaced with something much better.

If we can understand how it has happened before, perhaps we can figure out how to make it happen again?
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 28 Sep 2011 :  11:43:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Jim]
(from the thread titled The God-Did-It Theory, pg 3, 13 Jul 2006:18:59:44)

"If science has the ability to weed out false ideas why is astrophysics still growing and going strong. If you need to believe in dense matter, blackholes, expanding space and other such unprovable ideas just to get past asph101 how can weeding be done? If you have to confess fusion power rules and believe in the rules of the game just to get a low paying job in the field how do you get anyone to do the weeding?"


I was going over an old thread earliier today, and came across this. As an aside to the main discussion, you and Tom were discussing some of the consequences to science that I now recognize as resulting from us NOT being near the center of an exception event.

Our local equivalent of the Church appears to be the combined government funding agencies?
Our "official world view" appears to be - modern science?

This "official world view" we are required believe is, all in all not too bad, as it includes things like engineering and biology. But it does also include certain elements (BB, QM, etc.) that seem to you and me and many of the others here to be, umm, questionable.

When I became aware of my lack of acceptance of these things late in my Junior year at college, I just shifted to engineering. It worked out well. As an engineer you are aware of the flakey stuff, but for the most part you just ignore it. When you build a physical thingy for a paying customer, it actually has to work. So engineers use the laws of Newton rather than Eistein, etc.

A few results from QM and GR have been "simplified" for use in engineering work. For example, some 4D space-time equations cannnot be used "as is". (No one knows how to measure something or build a physical device using 4D coordinates). So these equations must be translated into a "Newtonian approximation". The raw 4D space-time coordinates become raw 3D space plus raw 1D time coordinates (and those famous paradoxes somehow disappear), and then things are easy.

Physics remained my true love, however, so I did finish my physics courses and got that degree also. I just had to stiffle myself and answer the questions like they wanted me to.

When I discovered Tom and his work here I knew I was home.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1850 Posts

Posted - 28 Sep 2011 :  16:46:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Lb, Engineering and bioscience is doing it right as you say. Physics and astronomy are stuck in the deep do-do of 20th century ideas. Relativity is built on an absolute(E=mc^2) but, QM can be made great when it gets it's foundation(Planck's E=hf) rebuilt. None of the souls from the 13th/15th century you reference were free to do anything not approved by the church. We are a lot freer now than at any past time. It's just that somehow the money has been supporting bad science for about a century now. Why that is a mystery-maybe something better than nuclear power will be discovered.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 28 Sep 2011 :  19:13:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Jim] "We are a lot freer now than at any past time."

Yes.

Well, some of us are. And I guess that if you could look at each one of us (all six point something billion of us) as individuals, you might be able to say that each one of us are freer now in some specific ways than we were a year, or a decade, ago. So it seems reasonable to conclude that we are now experiencing another "exception event" of some sort. If so, some of us are obviously closer to the center of that event than others.

(These events are, most likely, easier to recognize in hind sight. And, I am beginning to to suspect that the existence of previous exception events has an influence on the when and the where of future events. They seem to be happening more frequently. It is a source of "optimistic energy" for me.)

Those of us who are closer to the center (how can we know?) probably ought to be spending a little time trying to figure out how to help those of us who are farther away. (That is part of what I imagine I'm doing right now.)

[Jim] "It's just that somehow the money has been supporting bad science for about a century now."

- somehow - ?

- for about a century now - ?

Another of the exception events I see is the USA from the late 1700s to the early 1900s. This event petered out roughly a hundred years ago. So again, I have to say "yes Jim, this is about how I see things, too".

(I also do not (yet) have an answer for that "somehow" question.)

[Jim] "Why that is a mystery-maybe something better than nuclear power will be discovered."

Perhaps. We already know that matter-antimatter reactions have a higher energy density. And we know that there are particles smaller than the protons and electrons of classical sub atomic physics. If we can probe to even smaller things, perhaps we can find even more energy density?

In the 5-D universe of DRP, the size dimension may be the most important of them all, in terms of understanding our place in the grand scheme of things. Because it is the least studied and the least understood property of said universe.

    (Mike Van Flandern, Tom's oldest son, has suggested that it might make more sense to think and talk of this as the "mass" dimension. I can see some benefits to this idea. If any of you have opinions, I'd like hear them.

    This is a communications issue. What is the best way to commuincate the concept to other minds?)


Look at the place in front of you, where your keyboard sits. In addition to the obvious keyboard, there are other things, right there in front of you.

  • A portion of the volume of a planet.

  • Quite a few molecules.

  • A portion of the volume of a solar system.

  • A large number of atoms.

  • A portion of the volume of a galaxy.

  • A really large number of sub atomic particles.

  • A possibly unquantifiable (IOW, infinitessimal) portion of the volume of the universe.

  • A possibly unquantifiable (IOW, infinite) number of smaller particles that have not yet been, and some of which may never be, discovered.


We are able to observe, directly and indirectly, only a tiny fraction of this universe.

  • In the small direction on the size (mass?) dimension, we can see things that are about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than we are.

    • For the mass equivalent, that would be about 40 orders of magnitude smaller.

  • In the large direction on the size (mass?) dimension, we can see things that are about 20 orders of magnitude larger than we are.

    • For the mass equivalent, that would be about 60 orders of magnitude larger.

So our visible universe spans about 40 orders of magnitude in size (or about 100 orders of magnitude in mass), while the size (mass) dimension itself goes to infintiy in both directions. Which suggests that there is more out there.

We will eventually develop the tools needed to see both the smaller and the larger things. (The history of scientific advancement says so.)

When we do, what will we see?



Go to Top of Page

Jim

1850 Posts

Posted - 30 Sep 2011 :  21:59:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I don't have a favorite cosmological model and find fault with all the ones I know about. The TVF model seems to me to replace stuff that doesn't exist in the real universe with similar stuff. It does have good points too like recycling which is not part of the BB. It seems to me the use of these models is distorting data and thereby making new data fit preconceived ideas about the universe rather than letting the data tell us about the universe. When this weird way of doing things changes good things will happen in science.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 01 Oct 2011 :  10:25:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Jim]
"It seems to me the use of these models is distorting data and thereby making new data fit preconceived ideas about the universe rather than letting the data tell us about the universe.

When this weird way of doing things changes ... "


Well, yes and no ...

[LB]
"We will eventually develop the tools needed to see both smaller and larger things. ... When we do, what will we see?."


It would seem that the model I'm using has already abandonded that "weird way of doing things". Actually, I do not rely on a single model to guide my thinking. Even when I am thinking about a single thing.

In point of fact, Jim, some of the models I use on a frequent basis do have the defect you mention ( ... making new data fit preconceived ideas ... ). But it is precisely because I (and all other explorers) must use such models, that I also use other models that compensate. I've repeated an example of the results just above (where I quote myself).

I and others have been using this technique explicitly for about a decade, but its use actually goes much farther back in time. And yet, bad science is still in control. In fact, if anything it seems to be getting worse.

    (
    NOTE - least anyone in the audience misunderstand, I believe most of science is OK-fine. It is just certain parts of physics where things are wandering around in Lala Land. It is a real problem, and scientific progress in some areas is being retarded as a consequence. Because the problem is restricted in this way, it does not have any obvious/identifiable impact on the day-to-day lives of most people.

    But it does make for interesting discussions in science forums like this one.
    )
So an obvious question now is - why isn't your solution working?

LB

Go to Top of Page

Jim

1850 Posts

Posted - 03 Oct 2011 :  14:48:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LB, It is nice to see you agree at least on a few points since my ideas are so much more radical. For example: I do not believe the zoo of subatomic particles are of much use because the of foundations of science as stated above. I have learned the standard model will not be replaced as long as money is spent to prove it is correct so any effort in a direction finding fault with the standard model will be ignored by people who direct science at this time. I find this problem of making data fit the model has infected other areas of science too. And that does have a harmful effect on everyday people. But, not being a highly trained expert my findings mean nothing to anyone. It will be left to the future to fix the problem I guess.
Go to Top of Page

Solar Patroller

Canada
62 Posts

Posted - 30 Dec 2011 :  13:05:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It seems there is a compulsion in the truth movement to refrain from criticizing or ridiculing the lunatic fringe (the anti-truth movement) and worse, to adopt its semantics, which only serves to reinforce and empower the lunatic fringe and propagate its mindless polemics, which is a self-defeating and self -destructive strategy, but it is the strategy of choice and maybe because it (the lunatic fringe) is so intimidating because it is so vicious and influential-- it is, after all, a bullying movement of fanatics based on dominance aggression behaviour, and is essentially psychopathic and retarded. It couold be instead that most in the truth movement just don't care, or that there are infiltrators who shaft it from the inside, or a combination. Also, it seems you haven't read my web site, possibly because it is quite long, but in any case I will reprint some of it here. But compulsions and old habits die hard so I don't expect any change.

But, of course, orthodoxy will never accept any unconventional theses no matter how plausible, logical, well-substantiated, and even proven in some cases, and there is a reactionary, extremist faction in it, a lunatic fringe (whether in relation to it or in relation to society as a whole)(aka the anti-truth movement), which is very influential, making incoherent and hypocritical accusations, which is even more subjective, irrational, obstinate, and close-minded than orthodoxy in general, and is mostly or largely extreme left-wing (CSICOP (properly pronounced see'-si-kop) (Crackpots in Support of Inane Claims Opposing the Paranormal), now called CSI (Crank Science Institute), for instance, is secular "humanist", and most espouse extreme left-wing views such as political "correctness").

Science is dominated by anti-rationalists (empiricists) who pretend to be rationalists. I won't say that the PH and FPH (failed planet hypothesis) are crackpot ideas simply because they're wrong nor that all who support them are crackpots but there are some who are--the reactionary and pseudo-scientific faction, who are unable to make any intelligent criticisms, are unable to engage in any rational discussion, and always resort to mindless polemics. They become hysterical at even the suggestion of anything new, unorthodox, or unconventional, and are abusive as a knee-jerk reaction and pattern. This is not normal behaviour, in fact, it is maladaptive and maladjusted and severely so, in other words it is an indication of serious psychopathology, and it doesn't occur on the SFH-EPH side. This behaviour might be explained as them still in the child phase, never having achieved the age of reason, still in the egocentric stage, with probably having a very strict and rigid upbringing, and so being totally dependent on orthodoxy which has replaced their parents, so in their maladaptive state any threat to it they consider a threat to them and react hysterically and cholerically. They also or instead have an abnormally extraverted personality, popularly and traditionally called a choleric personality (low on Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, high on Neuroticism, high on Extraversion, low on Openness), also known as the undercontrolled pesonality, so they display several symptoms of mental illness: compulsive verbal abusiveness, compulsive lieing, lack of feeling and conscience, extremism, hysteria, dominance aggression behaviour, extreme irrationality, rigidity, obstinancy, an inability to change their minds, narrow-mindedness, delusions, rage disorder, a compulsive and fanatical reliance on convention, unreasoned skepticism, and highly neurotic patterns of denial and projection. The compulsive verbal abusiveness, compulsive lieing, lack of feeling and conscience, and compulsive projection are symptoms of psychopathy, which is common in abnormal extraversion, and stubbornness and rigidity are symptoms of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. In fact, there seems to be a specific mental disorder, a syndrome, we can identify in which these features/symptoms form a pattern, and which we might call orthodoxy addiction.


You might also want to visit my other web sites such as unconventional-wisdom.info.


Edited by - Solar Patroller on 21 Jun 2013 08:56:04
Go to Top of Page

evolivid

USA
206 Posts

Posted - 19 Oct 2013 :  00:37:16  Show Profile  Send evolivid a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Larry

do you think a solar flare could knock ISON off course
and what are the chances of that ...

-Mark

MARX
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 19 Oct 2013 :  16:32:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The short answers are
Yes,
and not very likely.

***

This discussion would fit better in the News topic (I'm trying to see if we can talk about the politics of science here.)

If you want to go into more depth on this issue, repost your question in the News and Information forum. (Start a new topic).

Thanks,
LB
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.73 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03