Timey-wimey Blog

I will admit it, I’m a little frustrated by the (seeming) sudden uptick in speculation threads that have no real evidence supporting them. Especially the repeats and rehashes of theories that were debunked by mainstream science years, if not decades, ago. So I thought I would spend a little time going over what you may be doing wrong if your new grandiose theory gets met with derision and scorn.

1. Evidence. I can’t stress this enough – if you are positing a theory that overturns portions of accepted modern science (I’m looking at you, Michelson-Morley detractors) then you need to have an overwhelming amount of experimental evidence to support that position. Most modern theories (with the exception of the new ones like the Higgs) have mountains of experimental and mathematical evidence to support them – that’s how they became mainstream science. This isn’t to say that these theories cannot be wrong, just that if you intend to prove them wrong, you better bring more than a vague idea to the table.

2. Math. Have some. Have derivations. If you don’t have math then, as far as physics is concerned, all you have is a vague idea, not a well formulated theory. Your math needs to do two basic things: show why it matters to the theory at hand, and make some predictions that can then be tested to validate (or falsify) the theory.

3. Incorporate already verified observations. If your theory cannot account for, or even goes against, observed phenomena, then you can freely assume that either your theory or reality is wrong. (Hint: Reality isn’t wrong.)

4. Do not handwave. If someone asks a question that you don’t have an answer to or you had not previously considered, admit you don’t know and ask for time to look it over. You’ll get a lot more leeway and respect for admitting you had not considered something than trying to Jedi Mindtrick your way past it (“This isn’t the equation you were looking for.”)

5. Learn to take criticism. In most cases, criticism is not personal (it should never be personal, but people are people). Nine times out of ten, the person offering the criticism really is trying to help you refine your theory, or at least get you to understand what they perceive to be a fatal flaw. Use these critiques to make your theory better – I guarantee the ones you get on the forums will be much less ego-destroying than the ones you get from journal referees.

6. Understand how science is done. “Prove me wrong” is not how science is done. Please refer to numbers 1 and 2 above. Science is exciting, and new science is even more so. New ideas are how science advances, and those advances pay direct dividends into the overall quality of life and knowledge for the human race. But not every idea is good science, or even science at all, and you have to be able to recognize science from pseudo-science if you expect to be taken seriously.

In conclusion, I just want to say that challenging mainstream science isn’t “bad” or “wrong”. Many of the most famous theories (SR and GR, QM, etc) directly challenged their forebears and were proved to be correct. But they made those challenges based on predictions made by strong, well formulated theories that incorporated and expanded on, or better explained, things that had already been experimentally verified. However, you must build your challenge on the back of strong predictions based on mathematics, and you must have solid evidence why the mainstream science should change. Anything less is doomed to failure and ridicule.

2 Comments »

Jes Jørgensen, of the Niels Bohr Institute has recently led a study that found glycolaldehyde around a star. Apparently this particular sugar is used in the creation of RNA, and this find could indicate one method of how pre-biotic molecules arose in stellar disks, and indeed could have been seeded onto planets.

Sweet stars and pre-RNA

No Comments »

So I was reading an article on CNN about the new TLD’s being considered by ICANN. In the article they were discussing specific complaints addressed by governments such as Saudi Aradia (which objected to .gay and .islam, among others).

Then I ran across this tidbit:

Saudi Arabia isn’t the only government filing complaints with ICANN. American clothing retailer Patagonia has applied for .patagonia, riling up the government of Argentina where the Patagonia region, named by Magellan in 1520, is located. The Royal Australian Navy is objecting to the .oldnavy and .navy extensions due to an Australian law that prohibits anyone not in the navy from using the word without permission.

Immediately my bullshit-o-meter went off the scale. Surely this can’t be right? The Australian Navy has that kind of authority? Well, fine.

Navy navy navy navy navy navy navy navy navy navy.
Come and get me.

Actually, the article, in typical journalistic fashion, isn’t being entirely accurate – or more precisely, factually complete.

The law is actually the DEFENCE (PROHIBITED WORDS AND LETTERS) REGULATIONS 1957. And it does in fact actually spell out the word Navy, as well as Air Force, and a few others that are used fairly commonly such as Regular Army, and Army Reserve.

However, what the article fails to point out is that the law only applies to commercial enterprises. Specifically:

(1)
For this regulation, the use, in connexion with a trade, business, calling or profession or by an organization or body of persons, of:
(a)
a word, or words, specified in the second column of a Part of Schedule 1, being a word or words that is or are descriptive or indicative of:
(i)
a part of the Naval Forces, Military Forces or Air Forces of a part of the Queen’s dominions; or
(ii)
a service or body of persons associated with the defence of the Commonwealth; or
(b)
a group of letters specified in the third column of a Part of Schedule 1, being a group of letters that is descriptive or indicative of:
(i)
a part of the Naval Forces, Military Forces or Air Forces of a part of the Queen’s dominions; or
(ii)
a service or body of persons associated with the defence of the Commonwealth;
is a restricted use.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, either in the US or Australia.

That said, it seems to me that what the intent of the law was to prevent people from having their customers think that a specific business was somehow connected to, affiliated with, or endorsed by a particular branch of the armed forces, which is a stance I can agree with, especially with so many young men and women in harm’s way right now – everyone loves a patriot (sort of).

All of that aside, I am not sure how far Australia is willing to push ICANN into enforcing a specific local legislation on the rest of the world, especially when there are already websites on the Internet that would violate that law (www.oldnavy.com for starters). Yet, Old Navy makes no claim to be “descriptive of, a part of, or associated with” any part of the Australian Navy – and maybe that should be the guide. As in real life, if someone misrepresents themselves as being affiliated with a government organization when they aren’t, then you take action to stop the offense.

Though, you have to wonder, if you publish a book about the Navy, called The Navy, in Australia, have you broken the law? And, more importantly, would anyone really care?

2 Comments »