John Dobson Talk

[Kirk]

Looking for what john said is a little more linear form? True to the idea that the construct of linear time is YOUR problem, it seemed like his talk could have been cut up and reassembled in any order and remained about the same. Enjoyable none the less. Here's mostly the same info all writen out.

http://www.johndobson.org/articles/cosmology.html

~Kirk

[Kirk]

Actually this is probably a better link:

http://www.johndobson.org/jarticles.html

It includes all his articles.

I personally found: http://www.johndobson.org/articles/godfactor.html somewhat helpful in understanding what he means by, "the changeless, the infinite, the undivided"

~Kirk

[lolife]

I've been meaning to ask how that talk was. I missed it, unfortunately. Is he nuts? Was it science?

Michael

[Buzzygirl]

Michael:

It was... interesting. I found it hard to wrap my mind around where he was coming from when he related his views on the unexplained aspects of the universe. His theories heavily influenced by his Vedantan theological perspective, and seem quite "mystical" to me. He's a unique guy, that's for sure.

[rbubany]

I didn't have the opportunity to hear him talk, so I just went out and read a couple of his articles.

He doesn't strike me as a quack at all. He understands relativity, time/space and all that physics stuff. He also is obviously a thinker.

If others can theorize hydrogen popping up in space like popcorn and get away with it, I would say Mr Dobson is at least as sane as Sir Fred Hoyle.

For what it's worth.

[Jon Hickman]

Just my $0.02, but haven't seen that much duck since last time I was in Peking!

[mtburr]

Just my $0.02, but haven't seen that much duck since last time I was in Peking!

That statement is ironic since Dobson actually was born in Peking and he lived there until he was 12.

But at the risk of taking the bait, I respectfully submit that writing Dobson off as "that much duck" is supercilious and narrow-minded. Here's a guy who has studied more physics and cosmology than almost anyone we'll ever meet. He's also well versed in chemistry, biology, etc. The fact that he has put modern cosmology together with the teachings of ancient Vedantan "physicists" does not make him a quack, it makes him an expansive and visionary thinker.

Moreover, if Dobson is a quack, then ultimately he might find himself in good company with other "quacks" like Copernicus, Darwin, Gallileo and Einstein.

Few would deny that Dobson's observations include metaphysical and philosophical elements. Surely they do. But he also examines a lot of fundamental physics and raises some serious questions about whether orthodox cosmologists today are drinking their own Kool-Aid, rather than applying the most rigorous scientific approach to validating the Big Bang theory.

Dobson's talk was compelling for other reasons too. For example, I think his point about amateur astronomy allowing people to see past their DNA is quite thought provoking.

So not all of Dobson's ideas represent "pure" physics, but that hardly makes him a quack. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, at very least he deserves a modicum of respect, given everything he has accomplished in his 89 years. Personally I would be delighted to accomplish a small fraction of Dobson's kind of "quackery."

Respectfully,
MTB

[Buzzygirl]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[Jon Hickman]

[I respectfully submit that writing Dobson off as "that much duck" is supercilious and narrow-minded.

Never said Dobson was a quack. His views however are another story!

[lolife]

Few would deny that Dobson's observations include metaphysical and philosophical elements. Surely they do. But he also examines a lot of fundamental physics and raises some serious questions about whether orthodox cosmologists today are drinking their own Kool-Aid, rather than applying the most rigorous scientific approach to validating the Big Bang theory.

First, let me agree that metaphysics is important and helps guide real physics. Sometimes having qualitative understandings helps to guide us in quantitative methods. So if he is combining physics and metaphysics into his own personal philosophy, fine, great, wonderful.

I do take issue, though, with the idea the modern cosmology is metaphysical. It's not. It quantitative and exhaustively grounded in physics. For example, theories about the first nanoseconds of the big bang are not guesswork, they are based on mathematics and physics based on observations of abundances of some key elements.

Clearly we do not have all the answers or even all the questions when it comes to cosmology, but it is not metaphysics. Things like the Big Bang or the CMB may be revised or eliminated as theories some day but it will be because we had a strong scientific basis to start with, which is very different than philosophical pondering.

[Kirk]

Did Dobson ever claim the BIg Bang was metaphysics?

~kirk

[lolife]

Did Dobson ever claim the BIg Bang was metaphysics?

I can't answer that but I chose that word to describe the notion that the Big Bang is not based on evidence -- that is is somehow a non-quantitative theory. That is the notion I disagree with.

[Kirk]

Let me preface this by saying that I am not an expert on the big bang nor John Dobson's theories but I don't think Mr. Dobson was saying that the Big Bang theory does not match the evidence. I think what he was trying to say it is a convoluted explanation for the observed evidence.

When people believed the sun orbited around the Earth they came up with models to explain this. In fact, the models did match the evidence (at least to a pretty good degree) To make them really match though they started to get more and more convoluted. Instead of saying, wait a minute, maybe the sun doesn't go around the earth they came up with these little epicircles and all kinds of nonsense. I think, (and I stress think) what Mr. Dobson was saying was that while the big bang theory seems to fit many observed phenomenon (the evidence) it does so only by inventing new stuff we can't see like dark matter.

So in essence, he isn't questioning what we see (the evidence) he is questioning the explanation for what we see. He seems to feel that his theory explains the observed in a simpler manor that does not need to resort to things like dark matter.

~Kirk

[lolife]

So in essence, he isn't questioning what we see (the evidence) he is questioning the explanation for what we see. He seems to feel that his theory explains the observed in a simpler manor that does not need to resort to things like dark matter.

I asked a physics professor at the U about dark matter and she said "Either dark matter exists or gravity is wrong -- take your pick!"

Dark matter is not an "epicyle" type of thing. Dark energy, on the other hand, is on shakier ground, although still very much based on observables.

I'm glad Dobson is out there stirring up the pot. I think that is great. The more ideas the better. But, again, if you read about the quantitative aspects of cosmology I think you will be impressed by how logical and rigorous of a theory the Big Bang is.

[Kirk]

Oops, thanks lolife, I meant dark energy not dark matter. All these terms! Anyhow, Ben Huset posted an interesting article on dark energy on the MAS mailing list today.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press ... 16-05.html

I agree, whether right or wrong, Dobson does a great service by stirring the pot. Science shoud never be a stagnant soup.

~Kirk