This site is devoted to looking at space science in a holistic, interdisciplinary manner. It also has some exceptionally cool images.



  1. Ryan says:

    heh, what a coincidence, I was just looking at that picture today (searched on wikipedia for super novae) . 1987 supernovae correct?

  2. John Schumann says:

    I appreciate the guy speaking out against the current explainations of the extreme redshifting of quasars and the multiiple images of quasars by gravitational lensing. Those don’t sit well with me either.

    I can’t say I understand his argument, but he does bring some freshness to the whole mess.

  3. Miguel Lopes says:

    Great stuff keeps appearing on the Internet.

  4. Dan McKinley says:

    This is nonsense. I wrote a full reply here:

    http://mcfunley.com/blog/archive/2005/09/14/565.aspx

    Your comments were not working for me when I wrote it.

  5. Dave says:

    John has several contributing editors and I’m one. I was the one who posted the article. At the top of every article is the name of who the poster is, except for John who is “site admin.”

    A long time ago, I realized that there’s a good reason for looking at “crackpots” and “kooks” – as you seem to be labeling the website authors – whose theories don’t fit the norm. Leaving aside the tin foil hat people, the serious, but out of the mainstream ones generally arrived at their conclusions through serious thought and analysis. They may turn out to have made mistakes in reasoning and/or calculations, or they may just be butting heads against the current tides of well funded belief. But that doesn’t mean they have nothing to contribute.

    Even if their overall results don’t pan out, there may be some small item within their research or conclusions that may be worth exploring or a key to something. And occasionally – looking back at scientific history shows many examples – everything might be right.

    Are the web site author’s right or wrong on their theories? I’m not qualified to judge. But it does provide an interesting, different look at the universe that can be start of a lively discussion which is worthy, assuming it doesn’t devolve into name calling. The fact that more learned folk are arguing through Wikipedia about the site’s merits indicates someone thinks there is something worth looking at.

    And who knows? They might be right.

  6. Dan McKinley says:

    Thank you, I made an amendment regarding the attribution of the quotes in my original post.

    I am not saying that these people are part of the tin foil hat set, necessarily. But I am saying that they do not understand the way science works.

    The scientific enterprise is the way we determine whether an idea is worth keeping around or not. Those that wish to have their ideas taken seriously publish papers and have their data reviewed by others. Those that wish to be seen as “crackpots” and “kooks” — either fairly or unfairly — do not do this, but rather self-publish, complain about the “establishment,” and play games on Wikipedia.

    What is going on here is not science, but cargo cult science.

    http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

    And I would say that evidence of an argument is not necessarily an argument for evidence. Some informed folks just have tremendous patience and like to maintain the factual content of Wikipedia.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19480 access attempts in the last 7 days.