Nexus - 1103 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

was requested on the appropriate European telescope. It was turned _ before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things down. Pietsch's eyes avoided mine when he said, 'I guess I did not —_are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with, at most, an explain it clearly enough’. The Director of the world's largest | adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new telescope in the US requested a brief observation to get the redshifts. theory. It was not done. The Director of the X-ray Institute requested "...Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality confirmation. It was not done. evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a "Finally, after nearly two years, E. Margaret Burbidge with the field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of relatively small 3-meter reflector on Mount Hamilton, on a winter the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpreta- night against the night sky glow from San Jose, recorded the spectra. _ tions with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder of both quasars. It was fortunate that mandatory retirement had why, in this circumstance, four good alternative models are not been abolished in the US because, by this time, Margaret had over even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.” 50 years of observing experience. Of course, the referee report One of these models is Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), from which I quoted was directed against her paper, which reported —_ proposed in 1993 by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar.”* this important new observation. In her firm but lady-like English way, Margaret withdrew her paper from the Astrophysical Journal |THE ANTIGRAVITY CONTROVERSY Letters and submitted it to the European journal Astronomy and In 1992, Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov published claims Astrophysics Letters." to have observed partial gravitational shielding above a rotating Arp concludes and generalises: superconductor.” The scientific establishment reacted with scorn "What was particularly appalling about this series of events was and dismissed the claims on a priori grounds:” that Margaret Burbidge was someone who had given long and "Most physicists laughed at Podkletnov's report. Riley Newman, distinguished service to the scientific community: Professor at the a professor of physics at UC Irvine who has been involved in University of California, Director of the Royal Greenwich gravity research for 20 years, typified the reaction when he Observatory and President of the American Association for the commented, 'I think it's safe to say gravity shielding is not Advancement of Science, among other contributions. It seems it conceivable’. Like many scientists, he felt that Podkletnov must was permissible to let her fly have made a mistake, measuring anywhere in the world doing onerous magnetic fields or air currents instead administrative tasks, but her scientific In1 992, Russian scientist of genuine weight reduction. accomplishments were not to be Eugene Podkletnov published "And yet, few of Podkletnov's critics accorded elementary scientific respect Z . actually bothered to read his and fair treatment. claims to have observed partial description of his work. Their reaction Some would argue that this is a gravitational shielding above a was So dismissive, it almost sounded special case, owing to the climate of . like prejudice. From their perspective opinion where the offices of the rotating superconductor. he was an outsider, a nonmember of Astrophysical Journal Letters are H if i the ‘gravity establishment’. They located. But, as events in the follow- The scientific establishment couldn't believe that a major discovery ing chapters make clear, the problem reacted with scorn and in physics had been made by such a is pervasive throughout astronomy and, contrary to its projected image, endemic throughout most of current science. Scientists, particularly at the no-status dilettante fooling around at some obscure lab in Finland." Podkletnov's claims received major publicity in 1996, when the UK dismissed the claims. most prestigious institutions, regularly suppress and ridicule find- Sunday Telegraph of September | reported that a follow-up paper ings which contradict their current theories and assumptions.” was about to be published in the British Journal of Physics D. G. Burbidge gives the following devastating summary of the anti-. — Podkletnov later withdrew the paper under curious circumstances, scientific conduct of the astrophysical establishment:” as New Scientist reports:” "The existence of a class of objects which have redshifts not "But Podkletnov has now withdrawn the paper, just weeks before largely due to the cosmic expansion was not predicted either in the —_it was due to appear. His decision follows a bizarre series of devel- hot big bang cosmology or in QSSC. How is this phenomenon opments triggered by media interest in the device. Earlier this dealt with in each hypothesis? As far as that big bang model is con- month [September 1996], Tampere University issued a carefully cerned, its supporters are in complete denial. They never mention worded statement denying all knowledge of the antigravity the observational evidence, do not allow observers who would like research. While admitting that it had been involved in some pre- to report such evidence any opportunity to do this in cosmology liminary experiments done by Podkletnov in the early 1990s, the conferences, argue against its publication, and if forced tocomment —_ university said he was no longer on the staff. on the data simply argue that they are wrong." "Suspicions deepened when Vuorinen, the supposed coauthor of Thomas Van Flandern's recent paper, "The Top 30 Problems with _ the paper, issued a statement denying that he had ever worked on the Big Bang",” gives an overview of problems with Big Bang cos- antigravity with Podkletnov. mology and concludes: "The furore appears to have surprised Podkletnov, who insists "The Big Bang...no longer makes testable predictions wherein that the claims made in the paper are genuine. But he says the uni- proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. versity is correct in denying the existence of any recent research, as Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, the paper centres on experiments carried out in 1992. unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think "On the key issue of Vuorinen's denial of involvement in the of this as a normal process in science! They forget, or were never work, Podkletnov says that there must have been some confusion taught, that a model has value only when it can predict new things over names, and that another Petri Vuorinen was the true coauthor. that differentiate the model from chance and from other models Podkletnov does have an unpaid affiliation with Tampere's Institute before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with, at most, an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. "...Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpreta- tions with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.” One of these models is Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), B14 proposed in 1993 by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. In 1992, Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov published claims to have observed partial gravitational shielding above a rotating superconductor. The scientific establishment APRIL — MAY 2004 NEXUS +37 reacted with scorn and dismissed the claims. www.nexusmagazine.com