Skip to comments.Physicists suggest possible existence of other kinds of dark matter
Posted on 05/26/2013 4:08:21 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
I agree with you that there is a lot of politics and bad science out there. I saw a program about some scientists who were questioning the idea that the universe is expanding. They had some pretty compelling evidence that seemed to contradict the big bang theory. They were basically black balled. Scientists aren’t perfect and some are down right dishonest. I have been really intrigued by the whole LENR thing. I hope it is true but I am skeptical. A lot of things are thought to be impossible and someone discovers differently. I do know though that as far as gaining knowledge about the universe, science and reason are all we have.
The free market technology is advancing at an exponential rate. seems like it's advancing quite fast without we or our doing anything about it as if it could.
“we” government don't need to tax us more for more fake global warming studies. these scientists are so honest . NOT
I think a lot of the problem arises from sheer inertia built into the university system from the tenure system. The old guard is protective of its turf by its very nature and add tenure to academe and then political granting and funding of research dollars based on giving too much weight to the “Appeal-to-Authority Fallacy” and new ideas and new scientists don’t get the attention they deserve.
It is especially difficult if the good scientific work is being done on the side that has been politically “demonized” so that good scientists will dismiss the topic out of hand because scientist X has publicly denounced it as pseudoscience. Such was the case with Carl Sagan’s denunciation of the works of Immanuel Velekovski. . . Velekovski’s work became anathema in science, even though a scientist who had read a good portion of his pre-publication draft had found many of his facts and hypotheses compelling, because of Sagan’s very public criticism. . . yet Sagan later admitted he had NOT BOTHERED TO READ THE WORKS HE SO VEHEMETELY CRITICIZED! He stated that it was obvious they were wrong because they challenged the “known facts” that the Solar System was pretty much now as it always has been as has the Earth and there is no room for catastrophism. The scientist who HAD read Velekovski’s work felt compelled enough to write the forward to his first book “Worlds in Collision.” His name? Albert Einstein. Of course he didn’t publish his forward in the national scientific press.
It is quite interesting to note that Velikovski made specific predictions about conditions on Venus in 1950, a time when orthodox Astronomers and cosmologists like Carl Sagan were predicting Venus would be found to have a planet girdling ocean with a high carbon dioxide atmosphere with a surface temperature of only about 40° over that of the Earth’s own temperature, with an atmosphere much like Earth’s and that it would be possible for mankind to mount a manned expedition to Venus and colonize it. Venus was considered by some as a “second Earth” with a habitual temperate zone near the poles. Velikovski, on the other hand, basing his argument on Mythology which holds that Venus is a newly born planet that was once a comet born out of Jupiter, predicted that Venus would be an inhospitable oven of a planet still cooling from the heat of its creation and its atmosphere would be a reducing atmosphere of acids at nearly 90 atmospheres pressure composed of aldehydes and methane, at temperatures hot enough to melt tin and lead. No water would be found anywhere as the heat and pressure would preclude its formation. Guess who was proved right, the orthodox astronomers like Sagan or the “pseudoscientist” Velikovski when the Russian Venera project probes touched down on the Venusian surface and lasted only hours because of the 90 bar atmosphere at 860° F (hot enough to melt tin and lead), composed of acidic, reducing gasses including large percentages of methane and aldehydes and NO WATER)??? So, was Carl Sagan right to criticize and demonize and dismiss out of hand a work he did not even bother to read, thus creating a modern shibboleth that most scientist believe to this day: “Immanuel Velikovski is worthless tripe?”
We are seeing similar demonization in climatology today. Anyone who disagrees with the anthropogenic global warming crowd is labeled a “denier” and ostracized, defunded, and considered somehow “evil” and “sick.” They, too, are being labeled “pseudoscientists.” In case readers don’t recognize it, that’s another logical fallacy called argument ad hominem. In other words, don’t attack the case, attack the messenger.
P.S. no peer review has been able to refute Velikovski’s scholarship on comparative mythology. You may disagree on his conclusions, and I do on a lot, but his facts and research are impeccable.
Where what Cosmologists are failing to Quantify is the relationship between “empty” Space and E.
‘can’t touch this’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo
11 dimensions ~ all intuited by Orthodox Jews ~ and rendered into math more recently by a montage of Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish mathematicians and physicists ~ the math says they are there. Just the other day we discussed a recent discovery that suggests strongly that we’ve located one ~ the business about the self assembly of nanoparticles of gold into a ladder instead of a string when placed within the bounds of a DNA outer structure ~ all good stuff!~
The Babylonians preserved earlier Sumerian observation records that have been translated in more recent times ~ generally since way after Velikovsky's death.
The 'comet' Velikovsky thought turned into Venus is more likely Inkydoo, Gilgamesh' friend, who ran off to play with a priestess of Ishtar (hence the trip to Venus)
Established scientific dogma should not be overturned lightly or easily.
Gather sufficient evidence and it will go bye-bye. And that’s the way it should be.
This is essentially the same idea that existing social constructions and principles should be given the benefit of the doubt and not thrown under the bus for momentary convenience.
I believe when applied to politics this POV is known as conservatism. Not a belief that change should always be avoided, but rather that you should have a damn good reason before making big changes.
Not even in the same league as what Velikovsky was talking about. There is a LOT more evidence than could be accounted for by a small asteroid sharing orbits. The events seen in the sky that have been recorded were far too spectacular to be such a small event. The convergence of other research confirms much of what Velikofsky predicted. . . and there are other physical evidence left in the rock art everywhere around the world of events in our ancient skies that indicate primitive man witnessed high energy plasma displays in our skies that can be replicated in the laboratory today.
The evidence has been overwhelming for years. . . But the orthodox cosmologists and astronomers will strain at gnats and shove camels through eyes of needles to ignore that evidence. When the Electric Universe Cosmologists made 19 specific predictions about what would happen when the Deep Impact space probe struck comet Tempel 1, those paragons of science bent over backwards to ignore them. When every single one of the nineteen proved to be right on the money, they redoubled their efforts to ridicule them, despite their complete accuracy and vindication of events. One of those predictions was that the impact would reveal there would be no H2O, let alone ice found on the "dirty snow ball" that the "accepted theory of comets" maintained they were composed of. The impact revealed ZERO water. . . Which astounded the orthodox astronomers and cosmologists because they were certain that comets were "dirty snow balls!" But, instead of saying "Congratulations, you were right!" To the Electric Universe Cosmologists who predicted this finding, they claimed to find water when they analyzed the dust and found a Hydroxyl molecule (OH), Hydrogen, and Oxygen among the ejecta and announced officially "Voila! We found Water! Or, at least chemicals, that in the right conditions can combine to make water. . ." Without saying that there was less than 0.01% of the amount required even IF they magically combined to make the water! The other 18, including the double bolt of lightning that blew out the on board electronics a split-second before the craft hit the comet, have gone unexplained in the standard, orthodox cosmology. . . and are being ignored, swept under the carpet. That is willful ignoring of the facts and evidence. . . and there is plenty of evidence of deliberate sabotage of the work of Electric Universe cosmologists, from deliberately canceling grants, deep-sixing papers, and the blackballing or refusal of tenure to educators who dare to research, publish or even discuss the concept. . . Despite the fact that a couple of Electric Universe cosmologist have won Nobel prizes.
The Epic of Gilgamesh describes some VERY spectacular events.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.