sharp@kpnoa.UUCP (05/16/84)
<Whatever became of Hubert ?> I have been following the discussions by Ethan Vishniac and Doug Gwyn for a little while now, and have been considering putting my oar into this debate. As a theoretical astrophysicist (that's what it says in my passport !) I qualify as one of the "establishment", but, fortunately for the health of the science, I do not always agree with other "establishment" scientists. I have several `corrections' I would like to make to Ethan's comments, and I have been preparing a careful commentary. However, I have been very irritated by Doug's latest diatribe: I am quite prepared to listen to unusual views when they are argued according to science - i.e. predictions and testability criteria - but I strongly object to the ad hominem arguments now being used. I quote: > ... make me think that our current crop of physicists have either not been > well trained in the concepts of relativity, or that they do not understand > their fundamental significance. Doug goes on to postulate a mechanism for the 2.7K background based on energy input to a local gas by, for example, a magnetic field. Let me take this latter point first. Without a calculation of the mechanism of energy input there is no reason to assume that it would produce a black body spectrum until the gas had been able to thermalise, but, much more importantly, contradicting this idea is the fact that we can and do measure our motion with respect to the background, and it is consistent with measurements made of our motion with respect to the background of distant galaxies. Now the rudeness. Where in the theory of Special Relativity do you find denied the existence of a reference frame that can be distinguished by a particular physical phenomenon ? All the theory states is that each frame is equally valid for interpreting the phenomena, and then shows how to relate the descriptions made by physicists in each frame. It is much easier to discuss some phenomena in some frames rather than other frames, and this is simply the case for the microwave background. In addition, if there is ever any conflict between special and general relativity, it is usually the case that the more sophisticated theory is held to be better - if SR were valid for all cases, there would have been no need for GR. It is easy to show that gravity is FUNDAMENTALLY incompatible with SR, and the proof needs no great mathematics or other "jiggery-pokery". In other words, where there is gravity, special relativity CANNOT BE USED, even if I admitted a conflict with the idea of a preferred frame (which I don't: see above). Next, where is the concept of a universal time reference ? Doug states that this is implicit in the big bang. I'd like to know where. Enlighten me. Send me a copy of your MS thesis, which you keep dragging in and which is not exactly a readily available reference. I might even find time to read it. I object to being called names in the context of completely unsupported assertions about relativity. I spent a long time trying to understand exactly why "establishment scientists" believe certain things, and I came to the conclusion that pretty often they have a good case. Nowadays, I am prepared to listen to rational scientific arguments, but not to polemic. There are plenty of "enfants terribles" working INSIDE the field - if I were to overturn anything as fundamental as GR, my fame would be ensured, and I rather like that idea. Yes, experts are wrong - usually much more often than they care to admit. But I wouldn't like to back the track record of non-experts against them, and if you would, I'll cheerfully take your money. This might be better in .flame, but ... When I calm down, I'll get on with the rational discussions of interesting topics. I'll even try to point out (because that's where I'm trying to work) where the weak points really are in current cosmological theories, and poke needles into such as Ethan who do not believe in the existence of anomalous redshifts (sorry, Ethan). Right now I'm going drinking. It's hard enough getting permission to stay and work in this country without being attacked for my ignorance. -- Nigel Sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories Tucson, Arizona (602) 325-9273 UUCP: {akgua,allegra,arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,lbl-csam,seismo}!noao!sharp ARPA: noao!sharp@lbl-csam.arpa
jim@ism780.UUCP (05/21/84)
#R:kpnoa:-33600:ism780:20300001:000:1086 ism780!jim May 19 21:21:00 1984 I quite agree with Mr. Sharp. I think Mr. Gwyn has destroyed his credibility with such a misrepresentation of the nature of GR. The existence of distinguished places (e.g., the tip of my nose) and distinguished events (e.g., when I lost my virginity) are in no way inconsistent with GR, which talks about the consistency of the laws of physics across reference frames. If the standard explanation of the background radiation violates GR, then Mr. Gwyn owes us a formal demonstration of this. Any theory which is predicated upon the assumption that modern physicists are not well grounded in the fundamentals of relativity or that their results do not take into account such fundamentals is false on clear evidence, and the theorist has indulged in blatantly bad science. If Mr. Gwyn cannot make his points through statements of empirical observations and connecting logic, then I think he should remain quiet, unless his only intention is to act as a gadfly to get more knowledgeable physicists to provide us with informative analysis. -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)
gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (05/23/84)
Mr. Gwyn would appreciate constructive criticism of his statements, not of others' interpretation of them. Thank you.