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