What is Big Science?

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.

<b>[Jim] "We are a lot freer now than at any past time."</b>

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.)

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

- 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.)

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

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.
<ul>
(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?)</ul>

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.
<ul>
<li>A portion of the volume of a planet.</li>
<li>Quite a few molecules.</li>
<li>A portion of the volume of a solar system.</li>
<li>A large number of atoms.</li>
<li>A portion of the volume of a galaxy.</li>
<li>A really large number of sub atomic particles.</li>
<li>A possibly unquantifiable (IOW, infinitessimal) portion of the volume of the universe.</li>
<li>A possibly unquantifiable (IOW, infinite) number of smaller particles that have not yet been, and some of which may never be, discovered.</li>
</ul>
We are able to observe, directly and indirectly, only a tiny fraction of this universe.
<ul>
<li>In the small direction on the size (mass?) dimension, we can see things that are about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than we are.</li>
<ul><li>For the mass equivalent, that would be about 40 orders of magnitude smaller.</li></ul>
<li>In the large direction on the size (mass?) dimension, we can see things that are about 20 orders of magnitude larger than we are.</li>
<ul><li>For the mass equivalent, that would be about 60 orders of magnitude larger.</li></ul></ul>
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?

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.

<b>[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.

<u>When this weird way of doing things changes ...</u> "</b>

Well, yes and no ...

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

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) <u>must</u> 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.

<ul>(
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.
)</ul>So an obvious question now is - why isn't your solution working?

LB

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.

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.