[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

There is a forum at "http://www.thunderbolt.info" which explores many scientific concepts.  I would be interested in having some of you explore the forum and give your reaction to some of the thoughts expressed there.  Some of them are quite different to the thoughts expressed in this forum.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[PhysBang]

Perhaps you mean the forum at "thunderbolts.info"?

That forum is, frankly, mostly populated by people who are either deluded or deceived. These people believe in a theory that cannot actually match the available astronomical observations currently available.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Perhaps you mean the forum at "thunderbolts.info"?

That forum is, frankly, mostly populated by people who are either deluded or deceived. These people believe in a theory that cannot actually match the available astronomical observations currently available.

They may make similar remarks about this forum.  What is your specific response to the articles: "Big Bang distortions" and "Having faith in Edwin Hubble"?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[PhysBang]

They may make similar remarks about this forum.  What is your specific response to the articles: "Big Bang distortions"

They begin with Arp's observations of intrinsic redshift. Arp "observes" intrinsic redshift by noting two things that look close together in the sky but that have different redshifts. The problem with all of Arp's observations in this area is that every time someone comes up with some way to determine the distance between these objects, they turn out to be just as far apart as their redshifts predicts. This means that every time someone has come up with a way to test Arp's predictions of intrinsic redshift, Arp has turned out to be wrong. That's a really bad track record.

and "Having faith in Edwin Hubble"?

One thing that the authors fail to note is that Hubble's initial measurements of the constant that bear his name were vary far from correct. Yet they seem to argue that we should have faith in the conclusions that Hubble made from these grossly incorrect measurements. This is really, really, bad science.

Again the authors of that page turned to Arp. They note that he was ostracized, but they fail to examine the quality of his cosmological work, especially relative to the quality of the work that other cosmologists were producing.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Would any of you care to comment about The Einstein Cross?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[BenV]

Personally, I would prefer it if we weren't discussing a different forum's articles in this forum.  It makes these threads very hard to follow.

If there is something specific that you would like people to discuss, please could you quote it here?

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Perhaps you mean the forum at "thunderbolts.info"?

That forum is, frankly, mostly populated by people who are either deluded or deceived. These people believe in a theory that cannot actually match the available astronomical observations currently available.

Do you really mean that most people in this forum are either deluded or deceived?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Personally, I would prefer it if we weren't discussing a different forum's articles in this forum.  It makes these threads very hard to follow.

If there is something specific that you would like people to discuss, please could you quote it here?

I understand what you are saying but it is difficult for me to determine who is deluded or deceived.  In other words, "How can I determine what is really bad science and what is really good science?"  I can only take what is being said by one scientist and get an opinion from another scientist for comparison.  In any event these are all topics that have been placed in the forum at thunderbole.info.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Geezer]

Joe: I don't think you answered Ben's question. Please try to address it.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Joe: I don't think you answered Ben's question. Please try to address it.

OK, Geezer.  There are many topics in thunderbolt.info.  I can list these questions individually.  But most of the topics that I have listed are shown as facts in the forum.  I am just trying to get another opinion on the questions that I have asked.  I have been asked to quote where I got the questions from.  If it is confusing, I shall list the questions individually.  Would you like that better?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Personally, I would prefer it if we weren't discussing a different forum's articles in this forum.  It makes these threads very hard to follow.

Hi, Ben V.  Would you prefer that I list my questions individually?  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

If there is something specific that you would like people to discuss, please could you quote it here?

I understand what you are saying but it is difficult for me to determine who is deluded or deceived.  In other words, "How can I determine what is really bad science and what is really good science?"  I can only take what is being said by one scientist and get an opinion from another scientist for comparison.  In any event these are all topics that have been placed in the forum at thunderbole.info.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[BenV]

I understand the desire to get different opinions, my point is that without visiting the other forum, people Reading this thread are completely in the dark as to what is being discussed here.

I would prefer it if you were to copy the specific comments from there that you wish to address (within their regulations) and post them along with your questions.

[chris]

Joe, with the deepest respect, what you have done by posting a referral to the other forum here is the equivalent of slapping an advert for MSNBC in the middle of a CNN broadcast.

There is a certain etiquette in media, which is that we don't slag off, promote, or refer people to competing organisations, unless it is newsworthy or in our best interests to do so.

I therefore request that you desist from doing this.

Thank you.

Chris

[PhysBang]

I understand what you are saying but it is difficult for me to determine who is deluded or deceived.  In other words, "How can I determine what is really bad science and what is really good science?" 

Rather than target a site specifically, I turn things over to Ben Goldacre: http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/stylish-correction-from-the-observer-readers-editor/

Look at what he says there about transparency. Good science communication tries to give you the tools to follow up on their claims.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Joe, with the deepest respect, what you have done by posting a referral to the other forum here is the equivalent of slapping an advert for MSNBC in the middle of a CNN broadcast.

There is a certain etiquette in media, which is that we don't slag off, promote, or refer people to competing organisations, unless it is newsworthy or in our best interests to do so.

I therefore request that you desist from doing this.

Thank you.

Chris

Hi, Chris.  Sorry, I did not realize that I was doing anything wrong.  Of course, I shall stop doing it.  Thanks for your advice.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[Soul Surfer]

In everyday life there are many thing where decisions and arguments about the best solutions to problems are down to personal opinions. For example whichever political party rules the UK or the US life will go in pretty much as usual with one or two relatively minor differences. but these are seen as extreme deviations by many people in particular the publicists for the political parties.  Everyone has a clear right to a personal theory or model and each one is just about as valid as any other.

The main facts of most of science, physics and chemistry are not like that.  Each step in the progress has been marked with a great deal of work and corroboration.  for example here red shifts are observed and confirmed where possible using many different distance estimates and all observations add to the accuracy of the overall model.  it is not just that someone had a good idea and loads of people jumped on a bandwagon.  Until someone knows and understands properly the full basis of the currently preferred models they have very little right or credibility in proposing a completely different theory.  This is not just vested interests it is just that very quickly most of these people show clearly that they do not fully understand the current model and are proposing their ideas based on something they have picked from a very narrow segment that happens to interest them.  THe internet allow the space for anyones voice to be heard and very often it is the extremists and cranks that shout loudest.  Many people really feel strongly about these different ideas which are honestly held but i would stress that it is important to understand as well as possible any theory that you wish to overturn.  Some people do this just for sport to waste the time of genuine scientists in trying to prove that the ideas are wrong or to create arguments because the proposers do not wish to and are not prepared to listen to or understand the refuting arguments.  All this tends to devalue the credibility of science and it saddens me greatly and seems to be more likely to return us to a dark age of suspicion and fundamentalism.