Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top 10 Space Mysteries for 2003
Space.com ^ | dec 26, 2002 | Robert Roy Britt

Posted on 12/28/2002 4:46:38 AM PST by The Raven


Dec. 26 — The funny thing about discoveries is that they often produce new mysteries, too. This year was no exception, as many remarkable space science findings generated puzzling problems for astronomers to look into.

IN SOME CASES the puzzles are brand new. Other times a discovery merely confirms how little we knew. Either way, there’s plenty for astronomers to do.

Here then are the Top 10 Space Mysteries that astronomers will be pondering in the New Year and beyond:

1. Dark energy:

Nobody knows what the heck it is, but it is officially repulsive. And man, is it powerful! More powerful than gravity, even.

While gravity holds things together at the local level (and by local I mean within galaxies and even between them, forming galactic clusters), some unknown force is working behind the scenes and across the universe to pull everything apart. Scientists have only come to realize this dark force in recent years, by discovering that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing pace.

Having no clue what it is, they’ve labeled it dark energy.

The past year was a good one for proving that dark energy is at work. Calculations have been refined: The repulsive force dominates the universe, comprising 65 percent of its makeup.

(Similarly unseen and exotic dark matter makes up 30 percent of the universe, leaving us with a universe that contains just 5 percent normal matter and energy.)

Two curious ideas related to the accelerating expansion, both of which emerged in 2002: All galaxies are destined to become frozen in time or, perhaps, time never ends.

2. Water on Mars?

Mars simply will not give up its most coveted secrets. Ultimately, the big quest for NASA and all the Mars scientists is about whether there is life, but before that’s answered, there is the question of liquid water, a requirement for life as we know it.

Despite two major discoveries of water ice in 2002, nobody can figure out yet whether any of it might exist in the melted state.

Meanwhile, clues mount. In one compelling study released in December, dark streaks on the surface were attributed to salty, running water. But many experts remain unconvinced. NASA’s Odyssey spacecraft is circling Mars as you read this, hunting for more evidence.

3. The Milky Way’s middle:

Something is eating at the black hole at the center of our galaxy. And whatever is bugging the gravity monster manifests as an utter lack of appetite.

In October, astronomers announced they’d watched a star zip around the black hole that anchors the Milky Way, all but proving the impossible-to-see object is actually there. Meanwhile, the region around the black hole is an active place, as the Chandra X-ray Observatory showed early this year.

However, the black hole is not devouring enough matter to generate the tremendous X-ray output seen with other supermassive black holes. Scientists are so far unable to fully explain the stark contrasts they’ve seen, this tremendous diversity in black hole behavior.

Hints emerged this year, however. A study in January suggested mergers between two black holes might serve as an on-off switch for the activity. Then observations announced in November showed two black holes involved in a pending merger. Astronomers now need to tie all this to a firm explanation of the differences between the mediocre output of our black hole and the brilliant illumination surrounding others in many distant galaxies.

4. The origin of life:

Have you ever had one of those dreams where you try to run from a monster and you’re legs go round and round but you don’t get anywhere? The quest to understand the origin of life isn’t much different.

In fairness, it must be pointed out that there is little data to work with. Earth does not retain a record of what went on billions of years ago, when life got going.

Meanwhile, there is no shortage of wild ideas. Scientists now generally agree that life could survive a trip to Earth from Mars, in the belly of a rock kicked up by an asteroid impact. A study in November revealed why a Mars rock lands on Earth once a month, on average. A wilder idea, that bugs simply rain down from space inside comet dust, gained support from a second scientist in December, who claimed to have found some of these space bugs in Earth’s atmosphere.

Most mainstream scientists, however, figure there’s a good chance that life on Earth was cooked up in a soup of pre-biotic chemicals right here on the planet. The ingredients — water and organic chemicals — may well have come from space, but Earth likely acted as the incubator.

The answer (and a lot of well-funded researchers are asking the question and debating the possibilities) bears on how likely it is that life might have begun elsewhere, on Mars or around another star.

More at the link

(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: blackhole; crevolist; milkyway; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 12/28/2002 4:46:38 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I love it – the more we learn the more we realize our ignorance.
I hope the day never arrives when we know everything about the Universe. It’s a mystery of the highest order, right up there with God.
2 posted on 12/28/2002 5:58:47 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
This is GOOD Stuff to wake up to, get a nice cup of coffee, and like the other thread says...the more we understand about our Universe, the more ignorance we see all around us, and YEP, someday we'll all wake up to see that there was Design, and Authorship written into the smallest code. I love it. There's a Plan Man, for 2003!
3 posted on 12/28/2002 6:27:03 AM PST by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Most mainstream scientists, however, figure there’s a good chance that life on Earth was cooked up in a soup of pre-biotic chemicals right here on the planet.

Which begs the question, who was the cook? The space bugs theory has more credibility than random emergence of human life from primordial soup.

4 posted on 12/28/2002 6:57:45 AM PST by scottinoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Ah, mysteries, mysteries, I love mysteries.

I suppose some day, this may all be figured out. If anyone is interested in some mindblowing extremely speculative fiction about what happens when we actually DO find out how everything works, I would suggest the book Distress, by Greg Egan.

5 posted on 12/28/2002 7:05:28 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
How is the expansion of the universe measured? Not by measuring distance. It's measured by the spectral shifts of known emitters of light. One cause of the shift could be the relative velocity of the source to the observer. This would explain the expansion. However, if the velocity of light slowed with time, the results would be the same. Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down.
It's too bad most scientists run with the herd. We need a few strays who think for themselves to advance knowledge.
6 posted on 12/28/2002 7:23:50 AM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Here are a few more:

11. If the redshift of quasars is due entirely to recessional velocity, how to explain the quantization of redshift observed in quasars?

12. If quasars are supposed to be unbelievably bright objects out on the edge of the universe, how to explain their unmistakable association with relatively close, low redshift galaxies?

13. Given 11 and 12, how to explain their distribution by quantization values and non-random alignment across these galaxies?

14. Based on 11-13, how to explain the entrained material and isophote continuity between some low redshift galaxies and their higher redshift companion quasars?

15. Based on 11-14, why are such findings regularly suppressed by reviewers for major astronomy journals and by their editors?

16. Why are such publically-funded astronomical instruments as the Hubble and other scopes around the world allowed to be sequestered for use only by those who deny the decades-known data cited in 11-14 who often happen to be the people mentioned in 15?

17. What would become of current ideas of the formation and function of the universe--and the professional positions of those promoting them--if the single leg upon which they rest, the Big Bang (itself dependent on redshift as indicative of recessional velocity), no longer supports them?
7 posted on 12/28/2002 7:43:33 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
What planet are you from ? LOL
8 posted on 12/28/2002 8:05:14 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: scottinoc
Which begs the question, who was the cook? The space bugs theory has more credibility than random emergence of human life from primordial soup.

The space bugs theory simply defers the questions -- who is the cook and did life come from primordial soup?

BTW, I don't see any evidence that would point to how life could survive a fall to earth.

9 posted on 12/28/2002 8:21:42 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
How is the expansion of the universe measured? Not by measuring distance. It's measured by the spectral shifts of known emitters of light. One cause of the shift could be the relative velocity of the source to the observer. This would explain the expansion. However, if the velocity of light slowed with time, the results would be the same. Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down. It's too bad most scientists run with the herd. We need a few strays who think for themselves to advance knowledge.

Well said!

10 posted on 12/28/2002 8:23:13 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
What planet are you from* ? LOL

See what I mean? You'd be better served by informing your incredulity. Of course, the world will continue spinning its way through space regardless of the degree to which cosmological ideas deviate from what's actually out there.

*Planet: the world of academic science. Position: Ph.D..
11 posted on 12/28/2002 8:29:34 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
" Scientists now generally agree that life could survive a trip to Earth from Mars"
...and from Earth to Mars.

So, if life were found on Mars, it very well could have just come from Earth.


Former Space Mystery #11: 'What does the turtle stand on?"
Ans. "It's turtles all the way down!"

12 posted on 12/28/2002 9:30:26 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
1) "Nobody knows what the heck it is." It's Fred. Oh...WHAT it is ! Mostly Ovaltine, but a kind nobody wants.

2) I explained this one in an earlier thread. I said I'm sorry, and I'll be more careful in the future...but when a puppy needs to go...he needs to GO !

3) I didn't know you guys were so nosey...or I wouldn't have parked my SUV where it blocked your view. Sorry.

4) a: I LIVE one of those dreams. b: See reply #2: When a puppy needs to go...he REALLY needs to go !
13 posted on 12/28/2002 10:02:49 AM PST by PoorMuttly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I'd like to see a more fleshed out version of your points. I'm quite sure one-liners don't quite do them justice.

I'm firmly convinced that there is something fundamentally wrong with our current view of the mechanics of the universe. I'm not sure exactly what it is though. It is more of a feeling sprung from casual study over the years.

I don't believe that modern physicists are completely off base. It is more like they seem to be missing some small set of fundamental facts, or maybe have made some assumptions that seem to fit observational data, but is nonetheless wrong. The best analogy would be that Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry seemed to explain the workings of the universe really well for quite a while. Both have been shown to have fundamental flaws that cause them to fail in both the macro and microsopic scales.

Once we are able to more fully quantify and understand conciousness we may have more of a clue. I don't really know, but enjoy the quest.

14 posted on 12/28/2002 10:27:34 AM PST by zeugma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I'm still waiting for them to find a brown dwarf fairly close aboard our solar system.
That'll freak some lad coated types out. Then they'll all ask, "Why didn't we find this before?"
15 posted on 12/28/2002 11:26:28 AM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven; *Space
Good stuff!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

16 posted on 12/28/2002 12:09:31 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Gary Boldwater said: "Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down. "

I've read that red-shift might be explainable by a reduction in the speed of light over the life of the universe. I have not read that earth-based measurements support this possibility.

Can you recommend a summary of this evidence? Thanks.

17 posted on 12/28/2002 1:18:42 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
Ping!

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be included, or dropped, let me know via freepmail.]

18 posted on 12/28/2002 1:23:49 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
This all to deep for me. I'm going back to my stack of Louis Lamour novels
19 posted on 12/28/2002 1:35:15 PM PST by blastdad51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
However, if the velocity of light slowed with time, the results would be the same.

The redshift is not a feature of the speed of light, but of the recession of the source of the light. So yes, you're correct up to this point.

Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down.

Do you have a reliable source for this?

20 posted on 12/28/2002 2:19:56 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: William Tell; PatrickHenry
"Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?"; Galilean Electrodynamics, Montgomery & Dolphin (authors), Sept/Oct 1993. The data may be obtained from:
Lambert Dolphin 1103 Pomeroy Avenue
Santa Clara CA 95051
This was dated 1993 so he may have moved. If it's difficult to get, let me know I'll send a copy.
21 posted on 12/28/2002 2:40:01 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Excellent!!!!
22 posted on 12/28/2002 2:42:30 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
I would suggest R.H. Dishington, "Physics 2001".
23 posted on 12/28/2002 2:46:23 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
...some unknown force is working behind the scenes and across the universe to pull everything apart.

That's an easy one. The democRAT party.

24 posted on 12/28/2002 2:48:37 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
I'm still waiting for them to find a brown dwarf fairly close aboard our solar system.

They did. His name is Robert Reich.

25 posted on 12/28/2002 2:52:13 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
I forgot about that one.
Didn't they also find some gravity singularities at the same time?
26 posted on 12/28/2002 2:53:57 PM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Namely a singularity centered on Chappaqua New York?
(Chappaqua, Chappaquiddic What is it with Democrats and things starting with Chappa?...)
27 posted on 12/28/2002 2:59:27 PM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Once we are able to more fully quantify and understand conciousness we may have more of a clue.

I would say that we actually do, though not everyone is on board at this moment. There has been a lot of really good grounding work in this area over the last few years. The real problem is that even fairly smart people can get really stupid when they approach this particular problem (e.g. Penrose), so it is almost like arguing religion for many people. Fortunately, there is a small contingent of individuals who don't go brain-dead when working on things like this and can keep things strict and rigorous without waxing eloquent about vague abstractions in the utter absence of evidence.

We can learn many interesting things from this, but it isn't an answer in the big scheme of things. At best it gives us the proper perspective on the nature of the computational mechanics of the universe.

28 posted on 12/28/2002 3:02:34 PM PST by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: scottinoc
Which begs the question, who was the cook? The space bugs theory has more credibility than random emergence of human life from primordial soup.

Who's to say that a Creator doesn't use randomness.

I would have used the word, God....but that's a rather simplistic, man made term for something that is well beyond our ability to comprehend.

29 posted on 12/28/2002 3:36:56 PM PST by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
"Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?"; Galilean Electrodynamics, Montgomery & Dolphin (authors), Sept/Oct 1993

I did a quick Google search. This work seems to be mentioned only by creationist-oriented websites. No peer-reviewed journal seems to have heard of the authors. So I'm skeptical.

30 posted on 12/28/2002 4:08:14 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I did a quick Google search. This work seems to be mentioned only by creationist-oriented websites. No peer-reviewed journal seems to have heard of the authors. So I'm skeptical.

It's even worse. Lambert Dolphin is the the primary funder of Barry Setterfield and his C-decay model, which is the advancement of the Montgomery & Dolphin paper. The C-decay model is a primary exhibit of what happens when people don't pay attention to significant figures in their work. Garbage in, Garbage out.

31 posted on 12/28/2002 4:11:59 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Garbage in, Garbage out.

I figured. If the speed of light were discovered to be variable, I'm certain I would have come across it in a mainstreem publication. Actually, it would be headlines, worldwide. Nobel Prize stuff, not hidden away in cultish websites.

32 posted on 12/28/2002 4:17:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Recommended reading: Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience.
33 posted on 12/28/2002 4:25:20 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
11. If the redshift of quasars is due entirely to recessional velocity, how to explain the quantization of redshift observed in quasars?

There isn't observed quantization of redshift, no matter how much Tifft can massage the data. Why hasn't he released a new catalog in the past 11 years?

12. If quasars are supposed to be unbelievably bright objects out on the edge of the universe, how to explain their unmistakable association with relatively close, low redshift galaxies?

So unmistakable that none of the associations have ever definitively been shown to actually be anything more than line of sight projections. Not only that, the number density of "associations" aren't indistinguishable from the number density of "associations" that are generated from an isotropic and homogeneous population of quasars and galaxies. Strange, eh?

13. Given 11 and 12, how to explain their distribution by quantization values and non-random alignment across these galaxies?

Since 11 and 12 are not given, why bother with the rest?

15. Based on 11-14, why are such findings regularly suppressed by reviewers for major astronomy journals and by their editors?

Maybe because the findings are not good science, and never will be good science? Having worked within the current paradigm (MA, astronomy), I can say that the BB interpretation has a lot going for it. I always wonder how Arp etal would interpret the findings of the Gunn-Peterson trough, a prediction of the BB paradigm that was found to exist in a distant quasar recently. Unfortunately, they appear to be silent on the issue...

34 posted on 12/28/2002 4:26:30 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
I'd like to see a more fleshed out version of your points. I'm quite sure one-liners don't quite do them justice.

These points are detailed in a book titled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. IMHO, Arp makes some very good points about the distribution of quasars around active galaxies, and the quantization of red shifts. On the other hand he devotes a significant portion (perhaps justified) of the book bitterly complaining about the treatment he has received from the scientific mainstream.

You can find the book here: Seeing Red

35 posted on 12/28/2002 4:26:37 PM PST by e_engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
I love it – the more we learn the more we realize our ignorance. I hope the day never arrives when we know everything about the Universe. It’s a mystery of the highest order, right up there with God.

It's also a mystery that could kill the human species eventually, if they don't kill each other first.

Earth has very limited resources as our populations steadily increase. Eventually, Earth will be completely overcrowded and it's resources depleted. If the human race doesn't start cracking some of those mysteries, the human race will be doomed within the next thousand years or so.

36 posted on 12/28/2002 4:48:46 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
there is something fundamentally wrong with our current view of the mechanics of the universe.

If our state of knowledge of the tools available to science [math, mainly] is viewed as the skin of a balloon, a bumpy balloon with us inside, then imagine we can see the "mechanics" of the universe only from where we look through the skin of the balloon. Then through modern math research we are steadily pushing the skin of the balloon outward but only at certain points. Eventually, --here is an article of faith,-- part of the skin of the balloon will be pushed out far enough that we can see the "mechanics" in a new and more useful way. The view still won't be correct, it can never be, but it will at least answer our trivial questions of today while posing new questions we lack the math to ask today.

37 posted on 12/28/2002 5:34:13 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Earth has very limited resources as our populations steadily increase. Eventually, Earth will be completely overcrowded and it's resources depleted. If the human race doesn't start cracking some of those mysteries, the human race will be doomed within the next thousand years or so.

A couple of generations of cannibalism would go a long way to reducing the pressure.

38 posted on 12/28/2002 6:01:00 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Looks Tasty...

39 posted on 12/28/2002 6:46:49 PM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Have you read the article itself to determine if it is pseudo science?
40 posted on 12/28/2002 8:07:34 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Here's Lambert Dolphins article for you to read for yourself on the web:

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

You can find the data here:

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdata.html


Since you have difficulty operating a search engine and call something pseudo science without ever reading it, it may not be worth any of your time to bother reading/analyzing what you've already commented on. That's for you to decide.
41 posted on 12/28/2002 8:28:10 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Is this Objectivist pseudo science?

Apparently, the Objectivists seem to think otherwise.

From this web site:

http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/

We have:

"To summarize: what is relative about the theory of
relativity is the standards of measurement. This makes it
incompatible with Objectivism as well as counter-intuitive to the
average non-philosophical observer."

and:

"Many people seem to think that experiments prove that the speed
of light is constant. They do not."

and:

"The Lorentz ether theory (LET) starts out by assuming that
the ether exists and that Maxwell's equations hold in the ether
frame, but not necessarily in any other frame. This implies that
the speed of light is only constant relative to the ether, and is
different if the ether is in motion - just like any other wave
phenomena. Integration is built right in at the very beginning.
The Lorentz contraction and time dilation can be derived as a
consequence of assuming that the structure and mechanism of
ordinary rulers and clocks is determined by electromagnetic
interactions which are affected by motion through the ether. This
leads to the Lorentz transformation formulas and the apparent
constancy of the speed of light (and for experts - the apparent
invariance of Maxwell's equations)."

Well, if the total amount of ether is constant (conserved) and the universe is expanding, the ether density would become less and hence light would slow.

What is your opinion?


42 posted on 12/28/2002 9:05:46 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I think the greater mystery is.....

....what did George Bush know, and when did he know it!
43 posted on 12/28/2002 9:11:28 PM PST by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottinoc
The space bugs theory has more credibility than random emergence of human life from primordial soup.

Actually no. It is totally ridiculous and only fitting for the Art Bell crowd. First of all it just puts off the problem to another planet we know little about. Second of all that planet is apparently unable to support life at all so there is no reason to believe that life arising there is anymore likely than on earth. It is just desperation by atheists who need to show that God does not exist but in spite of all their efforts they cannot.

44 posted on 12/28/2002 9:29:27 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
>>Eventually, Earth will be completely overcrowded and it's resources depleted

There's no data to support that.
45 posted on 12/29/2002 2:52:59 AM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
When economist Julian Simon died last month, The Washington Post described him as an “iconoclast economist.” The New York Times labeled him an “optimistic economist.” Op/ed writer Stephen Rosenfeld of The Washington Post honored him as a “leading light in the battle against popular environmental doomsday thinking.” The Associated Press identified him simply as a professor of business administration at the University of Maryland.

He was all of the above. He was also well known for his 1980 wager with Stanford University ecologist Paul Erlich that the prices of natural resources would fall because resources would not be depleted, and because any higher costs would lead to alternatives or searches for new supplies. Erlich bet that the cost of the resources would increase because they would become more scarce. In 1990, Erlich paid Simon $576.07, the amount the prices of five resources had fallen in 10 years.

Excerpts from Simon’s obituaries painted a portrait of a complex, unconventional, and controversial thinker.

Associated Press: “Simon believed that human beings, with their imagination and spirit, are the ultimate resource. His writings challenge more widely held beliefs about scarcity of energy and natural resources, pollution, and the effects of overpopulation.”

The Washington Post: “... an iconoclast population economist who challenged conventional thinking with his predictions that world populations and standards of living could increase simultaneously and infinitely. ... He insisted there is no conclusive proof of serious ozone depletion, acid rain, or greenhouse warming or that extinction of species is increasing.

“‘The doomsayers have been wrong for 25 years,’ he wrote in a 1995 essay. ‘Every measure of material human welfare in the world has improved rather than deteriorated.’ ...

“To many environmentalists and ecologists, Dr. Simon’s arguments were worse than nonsense. They fostered complacency in the face of impending crises of overpopulation and dwindling natural resources.”

The New York Times: “His views, generally optimistic about the benefits humans bring to the planet and about man’s prospects for the future, were widely debated. ... He argued that mankind would rise to any challenges and problems by devising new technologies to not only cope, but thrive. ... Mr. Simon’s views were widely contested by a large coterie of the academic and scientific community, many of whose members believe that more people create more problems, straining the earth and its resources in the process. ...

“‘Fortunately for this planet,’ Mr. Simon said in response to the Global 2000 Report, ‘these gloomy assertions about resources and environment are baseless.’”

Stephen Rosenfeld, The Washington Post: “He felt there was a cultural conspiracy to protect and praise the theoreticians of early resource exhaustion, explosive population growth, imminent mass starvation and choking chemical pollution. Meanwhile, fact-oriented scholars, as he considered himself, were widely dismissed as agents of a mindless, profit-driven right wing. ...

“Due to people like Julian Simon, a noticeable dent has been made in a largely unspoken assumption that underlines one tendency of environmental appreciation, namely, that man in general and perhaps capitalist man in particular are flawed creatures who lack full respect for their precious natural inheritance. ...

“The bitterness of the battle between doomsayers and doomslayers has alternately amused and turned off the public. Many people come to the Malthusian question looking not to enlist in a cultural war but simply to understand things better. Julian Simon had a certainty to his judgments — the family obituary declared that his 30 years of forecasts had been ‘completely borne out by events’ — that did not exactly encourage discussion.”


Erlich- Simon Bet on the price of five non-renewable resources

One of the reasons that ZPG has received a tarnished reputation is due to some of the doomsday predictions of Paul Erlich, founder of ZPG and author of "The Population Bomb." Among other things, Erlich predicted world-wide famine and rising prices of energy and metals before the turn of the century. Julian Simon (author of "Population Matters" and "The Ultimate Resource") made a $1,000 bet with Erlich that the real price of non-renewable resources (five metals) would fall between 1970 and 1980. Simon won the bet and challenged Erlich to another bet. Erlich did not renew the bet (this indicates his own confidence in predictions had declined). Simon's predictions about human welfare for the year 2000 appear more accurate that Erlich's predictions. For instance, we now have more known oil reserves than we did in 1970! In part due to winning the bet, Julian Simon earned the nickname "doomslayer."

South- Simon Bet on the price of one renewable resource

Julian Simon believed population growth benefits the human race and that there is no inherent "carrying capacity" for humans on this earth. He believed that human ability to solve problems would cause the price of all resources to decline in real dollars (thus improving the welfare of all humans). Before his death in February of this year, Simon said the real price of ALL natural resources has declined over time. Since this statement was not true for sawtimber, I challenged Simon to a $1,000 bet. We bet on the future price of pine sawtimber stumpage in south Alabama (details of the bet can be found at: www.forestry.auburn.edu/sfnmc/web/bet.html

Soon after we made the bet, Simon began to doubt that he would win. Historical data from Simon's own book indicated a real increase in sawtimber price over the last century. He decided that to protect his reputation, he should withdraw from the bet. After a little more than a year into the bet, Simon sent me a check for $1,000. While this bet does not prove anything about future price trends, it does show that nobody has 20/20 vision when it comes to predicting the future. Not even the "doomslayer" has a perfect record when it comes to betting against doomsayers.

46 posted on 12/29/2002 3:57:44 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
What is your opinion?

I've responded to your freepmail on this point.

47 posted on 12/29/2002 5:21:34 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
And the most unexplained mystery.......................

Where did JESSE JACKSON get all his money???????

48 posted on 12/29/2002 5:24:51 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Now, look at the historical record of the velocity of light measurements over the few hundred years it's been done. It's slowing down.

Calculations for the speed of light over the years have been done in different ways. If the same methods were employed over the years and the results showed a decrease, you might be able to make this argument. Not saying it isn't true, but I haven't seen the data to support it.

Still, if we accept your premise as true that light is slowing down, don't we then have to explain how that is happening? The concept of light slowing down throughout the universe is no easier for me to explain than the idea that the expansion of the universe is accellerating.

49 posted on 12/29/2002 5:53:12 AM PST by TN4Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
“If the human race doesn't start cracking some of those mysteries, the human race will be doomed within the next thousand years or so.”

I didn’t mean to imply that we shouldn’t learn as much as possible. I personally would like to see cheap “Startrek” type travel in my lifetime. I was referring to discovering the ultimate First Cause of the Universe.

50 posted on 12/29/2002 7:36:02 AM PST by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson