11–20 of 112 posts
>“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” This is science. It differs from the media's Science™
Robert A Wilson's blog, hidden assumptions, has been arguing there are also problems with general relativity and the conservation of mass. His work, consistently rejected despite respect for his mathematical expertise, has recently been published in peer review. He has also questioned whether the Big bang doesn't raise more questions than it answers, alongside dark matter.
Summary by a commenter in the link: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe. When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zw…
"interstellar clouds of electrons retard the velocity of radio waves in direct proportion to their wavelength" in an article from a 1968 edition of Scientific American written by Anthony Hewish...the same guy who discovered pulsars
The merger stuff JWST has falsifed was never really on solid ground anyway but tuned cosmological simulations. The simulations probably got subgrid physics wrong (same issue as climate models face).
But for a moment I was just imagining a world where scientists agreed that the Big Bang never happened. How many physicists' work would be thrown in the trash? How many high school science books would have to be updated? How would the general public's trust in science change?
Would be such an interesting thing to observe.
Summary by a commenter in the link: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe. When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zw…
Sounds like this commenter should write a paper.
>“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” This is science. It differs from the media's Science™
Author's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner I get the impression he's regarded as something of a crank in astrophysics communities.
Robert A Wilson's blog, hidden assumptions, has been arguing there are also problems with general relativity and the conservation of mass. His work, consistently rejected despite respect for his mathematical expertise, has recently been published in peer review. He has also questioned whether the Big bang doesn't raise more questions than it answers, alongside dark matter.
Lots of people do this. Come up with a theory with testable set of predictions that isn’t just a patchwork of models glued together to explain data and then you’ll convince people.
The dark matter crowd was able to convince quite a few people without hurdling such a high bar, not to mention stuff like string-theory..