necessarily you cannot be in the literature until you find a publisher, where until you get into an important organ you might as well be in outer darkness on your own.
Right then. That's a no on the published front then. The powers that be haven't recognised your genius as yet. You have yet to overturn the orthodoxy. No qualifications, No proof but gut feeling is on overdrive?
The idea science is decided by consensus is false.
Scientific consensus has absolutely nothing to do with good science.
Anybody who wants to debate that evidently knows nothing about the scientific method.
I have some sympathy with this view - reality is not democratic. There are examples of scientists who had unpopular theories who were eventually vindicated. Ian Frazer and the guy who eventually showed stomach ulcers were caused by heliobacter and not stress spring to mind.
However...... If you do an experiment or an observation, and publish your result and then others try to repeat your experiment or observation and cannot get your result, then your result is probably more of the cold fusion variety. In this sense, consensus is very important. An unrepeatable result or observation is typically caused by an error.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
I think you are referring to his 1943 paper in Science entitled "The Problem of the Expanding Universe." In it he seems to me to state that he is of the opinion that the universe is expanding:
According to his student, Hubble maintained to the end of his writing the notion or at least favouring it, that the universe was not actually expanding
Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).
The observational approach to Cosmology in 1937 says
The features, however, include the phenomena of red-shifts whose significance is still uncertain. Alternative interpretations are possible, and, while they introduce only minor differences in the picture of the observable region, they lead to totally different conceptions of the universe itself. One conception, at the moment, seems less plausible than the other, but this dubious world, the expanding universe of relativistic cosmology, is derived from the more likely of the two interpretations of red-shifts. Thus the discussion ends in a dilemma,
Ie he seems to prefer a non-expanding universe since the expanding one is dubious.
if you read the darwin lecture mentioned at the end of his life in 1953:
Have you? My own position is that the degree of influence exerted on the global climate by humans is unknown. Do you disagree?
champ
12 Dec 2012, 01:40 AM
Right then. That's a no on the published front then. The powers that be haven't recognised your genius as yet. You have yet to overturn the orthodoxy. No qualifications, No proof but gut feeling is on overdrive?
Hey, why not engage in the discussion and explain your own views, instead of sniping from the sidelines about how wrong everyone else is?
Absolutely science has its fashions - have you never had a successful grant application? Believe me if you are not up to date on the current "fashions" you will not get funding.
Read a bit of the nanotech story it is an eyeopener, completely fraudulent data getting published in top journals, all because folk could not admit that they were all riding a fashion that had no basis in empirical observation. (Not there are not problems with empirical science too) Read the Helicobacter pylori story for anther example.
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993 The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
According to his student, Hubble maintained to the end of his writing the notion or at least favouring it, that the universe was not actually expanding
Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).
The observational approach to Cosmology in 1937 says
The features, however, include the phenomena of red-shifts whose significance is still uncertain. Alternative interpretations are possible, and, while they introduce only minor differences in the picture of the observable region, they lead to totally different conceptions of the universe itself. One conception, at the moment, seems less plausible than the other, but this dubious world, the expanding universe of relativistic cosmology, is derived from the more likely of the two interpretations of red-shifts. Thus the discussion ends in a dilemma,
Ie he seems to prefer a non-expanding universe since the expanding one is dubious.
if you read the darwin lecture mentioned at the end of his life in 1953:
It appears on page 666 that Hubble is saying there is not sufficient information to know if the red shift is a doppler shift or not.
That's not the way I read it at all. Earlier in the article he says the shift is "indistinguishable from a doppler shift."
Essentially he's saying that either the universe is expanding, or it's not a doppler shift. It's a reasonable position given the data he had at the time. He was also struggling with distance estimation, since all he had was apparent magnitude. Later on much better methods of distance estimation became available, along with measurements of much more distant objects and the observations of Hubble and his colleagues about speed of recession being proportional to distance were further borne out.
The expanding universe proposition was pretty revolutionary at the time. It's not surprising that a lot of astronomers were sceptical of it. But since (a) every new object discovered displays the red shift according to Hubble's law, and (b) no other reasonable explanation for red shift other than doppler shift has been proposed, the model stands.
If in fact Hubble privately believed that the universe couldn't be expanding, he wouldn't be the first astronomer to refute his private beliefs through his own careful observations. Kepler started out trying to refute Copernicus but ended up supporting him.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
That's not the way I read it at all. Earlier in the article he says the shift is "indistinguishable from a doppler shift."
Essentially he's saying that either the universe is expanding, or it's not a doppler shift. It's a reasonable position given the data he had at the time. He was also struggling with distance estimation, since all he had was apparent magnitude. Later on much better methods of distance estimation became available, along with measurements of much more distant objects and the observations of Hubble and his colleagues about speed of recession being proportional to distance were further borne out.
The expanding universe proposition was pretty revolutionary at the time. It's not surprising that a lot of astronomers were sceptical of it. But since (a) every new object discovered displays the red shift according to Hubble's law, and (b) no other reasonable explanation for red shift other than doppler shift has been proposed, the model stands.
If in fact Hubble privately believed that the universe couldn't be expanding, he wouldn't be the first astronomer to refute his private beliefs through his own careful observations. Kepler started out trying to refute Copernicus but ended up supporting him.
You seem to be getting muddled up by "doppler shift"
Doppler shift is caused by movement during wave creation.
Necessarily from the observers point of view a wave attentuation thru an unknown principle of nature and a doppler shift via movement would be indistinguishable.
I do not think you can have read the link i provided
Hubble also makes it fairly clear that when he is talking about the velocity red shift relationship he is describing it from the point of view of the expanding universe point of view.
Hubble appears to have been a traditional scientist. Rather than todays 'internet/media scientist' who knows things he cannot know.
If the earth is now as warm as it was a thousand years ago then at this point there is no urgent need to do anything.
There is no logic to that argument. You have taken 2 points in time say they are the same and therefore there is no problem. Why have you taken that position? I have a few questions:
1 - Why have you chosen nearly exactly 1000 years ago ? (I can only assume it is obvious biased "cherry picking" of data since that is the highest temperature, via the most favourable methodology - tree ring rata and ice cores from Asia and Europe). This shows EXTREME bias in your arguments. What does the BALANCE of data show? I can tell it you it shows you are REALLY reaching to say it was the same temperature even 1000 years ago as it is today, even at the edges of uncertainty.
2 - What was the RATE of temperature change during that time? IS this not important?
3 - What was the CO2 level to reach this temperature?
Essentially you are saying that the issue of climate change can be surmised as a state function with a single parameter of temperature. Are you not at all concerned with the direction of change, the rate of change over time, any possible feedback loops, any remaining temperature change to equate with current CO2 levels in the atmosphere (lag effect - and don't give me that CO2 lags temperature bollocks without reference to external forcing and rate of increase and isotope ratio).
You are in the right thread because it's obvious you already have a BELIEF that you want to convince other of. What you are sprouting certainly isn't unbiased scientific data, it's biased semi-scientific data that has been cherry picked.
You guys are getting off topic with discussions of doppler shift.
Yes, science has fashions, yes climate change is fashion. Going to the moon was fashion back in the 60s and 70s, but it doesn't mean they didn't get there and the research wasn't real.
Science is always limited by the fashions of the time and preoccupation with solving fashionable problems. Yes, it's possible this is massive group think. Everything could be massive group think, including our existence but it wouldn't make robbing a bank or running over a pedestrian any less of a crime or the punishment any less real.
Shadow
12 Dec 2012, 09:05 AM
Have you? My own position is that the degree of influence exerted on the global climate by humans is unknown. Do you disagree? Hey, why not engage in the discussion and explain your own views, instead of sniping from the sidelines about how wrong everyone else is?
The real question should be "to what degree is it unknown if humans are causing climate change". Obviously we are not certain humans are the major cause of climate change, but there are scientific reasons to believe that this is likely.
I disagree that it is unknown if humans are the major contributor to climate change. I do agree that the degree of influence exerted on the global climate by humans is unknown. However one can know if a football teams has one or lost the championship but not know by what degree (actually this would be more common than not).
There is no logic to that argument. You have taken 2 points in time say they are the same and therefore there is no problem. Why have you taken that position? I have a few questions:
1 - Why have you chosen nearly exactly 1000 years ago ? (I can only assume it is obvious biased "cherry picking" of data since that is the highest temperature, via the most favourable methodology - tree ring rata and ice cores from Asia and Europe). This shows EXTREME bias in your arguments. What does the BALANCE of data show? I can tell it you it shows you are REALLY reaching to say it was the same temperature even 1000 years ago as it is today, even at the edges of uncertainty.
2 - What was the RATE of temperature change during that time? IS this not important?
3 - What was the CO2 level to reach this temperature?
Essentially you are saying that the issue of climate change can be surmised as a state function with a single parameter of temperature. Are you not at all concerned with the direction of change, the rate of change over time, any possible feedback loops, any remaining temperature change to equate with current CO2 levels in the atmosphere (lag effect - and don't give me that CO2 lags temperature bollocks without reference to external forcing and rate of increase and isotope ratio).
You are in the right thread because it's obvious you already have a BELIEF that you want to convince other of. What you are sprouting certainly isn't unbiased scientific data, it's biased semi-scientific data that has been cherry picked.
You guys are getting off topic with discussions of doppler shift.
Yes, science has fashions, yes climate change is fashion. Going to the moon was fashion back in the 60s and 70s, but it doesn't mean they didn't get there and the research wasn't real.
Science is always limited by the fashions of the time and preoccupation with solving fashionable problems. Yes, it's possible this is massive group think. Everything could be massive group think, including our existence but it wouldn't make robbing a bank or running over a pedestrian any less of a crime or the punishment any less real. The real question should be "to what degree is it unknown if humans are causing climate change". Obviously we are not certain humans are the major cause of climate change, but there are scientific reasons to believe that this is likely.
I disagree that it is unknown if humans are the major contributor to climate change. I do agree that the degree of influence exerted on the global climate by humans is unknown. However one can know if a football teams has one or lost the championship but not know by what degree (actually this would be more common than not).
I cannot follow the line of reasoning you are presenting that says i am biased and that somehow you have a superior position
As far as i know it was very cold before it was warm 1000 years ago. It then got colder until quite recently.
Humans do not seem to have been involved in the warming or the cooling.
Therefore we can reason that the climate naturally changes
We then have to ask how we know that the current warming is caused by humans.
Why is my position on this so extraordinary??
I am at a loss to understand how if it got colder after it was warm and previously it warmed after it was cold that when it gets warmer then some other factor that never existed before, that we cannot quantify, *must* be the main warming factor.
How can we know when we know almost nothing about the past with, certainty?
Many times here you seem to openly suggest a person is fraudulent because they do not think like you do.
It suggests to me that you are overly attatched to an idea in an emotional manner rather than able to view it in an open minded scientific manner.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
