[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Things that people disagree with are ALWAYS deemed irrelevant!

I don't know. Ask Harlton Arp, astrophysicist. In 1960 he was awarded the Helen B Warner Prize for Astronomy by the American Astronomical Society. This is traditionally given to an astronomer making significant contribution to the science over the past five year period, and is considered a pretty ironclad endorsement by "big science."

Arp was one of a handful of scientists in the world with large blocks of observing time for the Mt Polomar, Mt Wilson and McDonald Observatory telescopes, more evidence of his inside position within astrophysics. However, Mr Arp decided to assemble an atlas of peculiar galaxies. His reasoning was that little was known about the evolution of galaxies through time and a photographic survey of galaxies, especially those of unusual form, would be helpful in connecting the dots.

Unfortunately, those photographs and the inescapable conclusions Arp drew from them brought him into direct conflict with the cadre of Big Bang and redshift theory physicists who ran Big Science Astronomical and who in large part still do. They had their entire careers tied up in the validity of certain theories. Their income, prestige and social standing within the scientific community depended on being right. You see, science is first a political structure, and THEN a classical scientific structure.

Arp had many dozens of photos showing something deemed impossible by the astrophysics establishment. Their dogma was that redshift is purely the effect of recessional velocity: the higher the redshift, the further the distance. Arp's photos clearly showed high and lower redshift bodies in physical contact with one another, and high redshift bodies in front of lower redshift objects. Armed with ten years' worth of evidence, Arp presented his findings.

Nothing. No publication. No reaction. His observing time at Mt Polomar and McDonald observatories was taken away (can't have any MORE heretical photos coming out! Who KNOWS what that crazy man will destroy next). His papers were denied publication. Harlton Arp was effectively banned from American astronomy. He essentially fled to Europe and the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, where he spent the rest of his career. A good friend of mine, closely tied to Mr Arp, retired to Florida, where he was instrumental in jump starting my interest in amateur astronomy and from whom I learned the story.

Arp still maintains that his findings, although modified, of course, by subsequent discoveries is basically valid. In this story, from his website, he recounts the day when the brightest star in the astronomical sky, Fred Hoyle, came to visit and subsequently delivered an address to the Seattle Meeting of the American Astronomical Society, April 1972. This keynote address was considered the most significant event in Big Astronomy for the year. The address was traditionally printed in its entirety in the Astrophysical Jounal. Not that year. Fred Hoyle had jumped into bed with this prostitute, completely endorsing his line of research and the news would never see the light of day. Too many prominent luminaries in Big Science were threatened.

,Arp was not ignored back in 1960, he was given two awards for his work,,the Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy by the American Astronomical Society and Newcomb Cleveland Prize.

Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby. Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.
Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.

Resources:

1. S. P. Driver, A. Fernandez-Soto, W. J. Couch, S. C. Odewahn, R. A. Windhorst, S. Phillips, K. Lanzetta, A. Yahil (1998). "Morphological Number Counts and Redshift Distributions to I<26 from the Hubble Deep Field: Implications for the Evolution of Ellipticals, Spirals, and Irregulars". Astrophysical Journal 496: L93–L96. doi:10.1086/311257.
2. W. J. Couch, R. S. Ellis, J. Godwin, D. Carter (1983). "Spectral energy distributions for galaxies in high redshift clusters. I - Methods and application to three clusters with Z = 0.22-0.31". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 205: 1287–1312.
3. Postman, L. M. Lubin, J. B. Oke (1998). "A Study of Nine High-Redshift Clusters of Galaxies. II. Photometry, Spectra, and Ages of Clusters 0023+0423 and 1604+4304". Astronomical Journal 116: 560–583. doi:10.1086/300463.
4. R. S. Priddey, R. G. McMahon (2001). "The far-infrared-submillimetre spectral energy distribution of high-redshift quasars". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 324: L17–L22. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04548.x.
5. "Smithsonian/NASA ADS Custom Query Form". Results for "Arp, H". Retrieved 2006-09-03.
6. H. Arp (1966). "Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies". Astrophysical Journal Supplement 14: 1–20. doi:10.1086/190147.
7. Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy
8. About the AAAS: History & Archives
9. Juan Miguel Campanario and Brian Martin, "Challenging dominant physics paradigms" (2004) Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 18, no. 3, Fall 2004, pp. 421-438

Science is first political. Then, if possible, it considers your lofty objective scientific principles. Arp is just the example I am most familiar with. But he is far from alone.

You see, these are the kind of claims that really, really need citations. Single cases, I am afraid, do not show a patern.

Sanjay Gupta, MD, in his book, Cheating Death, relates the catch 22 position of the use of failed CPR techniques and the reluctance of the American Heart Association and American Medical Association to adopt clearly superior techniques. The present CPR technique is a three part strategy: breathing, compressions, defibrillation. Recent studies have shown that the breathing has no measurable value, defibrillation is killing people, not because it doesn't work, but because too much time is being taken with it.

Actually the most important part of CPR turns out to be chest compressions. Dr Mike Kellum had a better idea, born from pig studies, which found that compressions alone, without mouth to mouth resuscitation, was much more effective in saving lives. He went to Mercy Hospital System in rural Arizona, where the emergency services director was fed up.

"Why are we spending time trying to bring no one back to life?" For the previous three years, Mercy Hospital System EMTs had responded to 92 cases of witnessed cardiac arrests, saving only 19, five of which ended up with serious brain damage.

They bucked the AMA and AHA, changing their CPR method to two hundred chest compressions, followed by a single shock from the defibrillator. No breaths at all during the procedure. They did insert what Gupta refers to as "a small device inserted into the mouth to pump in additional oxygen," in other words, to ensure that the patient was able to obtain oxygen, but that was all. The proceedure was 200 compressions, 1 shock, 200 compressions, 1 shock, 200 compressions, 1 shock. That's 600 hard, fast compressions in the regimen.

In 2006, four years after this policy was instituted, FINALLY the American Journal of Medicine could ignore them no longer. Finally, the rest of the country could be told that survival rates without brain damage had gone from 15% to 48% just from the institution of this heresy.

Tell me. Did YOU know about this? Do YOU think it was warranted to sacrifice the lives of two thirds of savable cardiac patients for four years in defense of certain luminaries' careers? How does your local health authority conduct CPR today. Will they kill your father or grandfather or you because people whose responsibility it is to disseminate cutting edge scientific discovery are not doing so in defense of their position and influence?

Heresy is a threat. It is also a promise that the future will be better than today. Embracing that better future means a carefully considered embracing of heresy. Challenge of authority is always the first step toward progress.

Change takes time to initiate, you can not expect everything to change overnight. And yes, I did know this because I have gone through several first aid courses and was the designated field medic for my recon section while in the army. That being said, peer review is not a rapid process, since when someone is trying to get a paper published it is handed out to several other experts in the field who then try to find fault with it by repeating hte experiments described in the way described, only if they get the same results does the paper pass peer review, if however the results differ with the same methodology there is clearly a problem. All that takes time, nd then it takes even more time for cuting edge science to get into science classrooms, because classrooms do not teach the cutting edge, they teach science that has been shown to be good beyond reasonable doubt.

And as to the irrelevance of sir Newtons belief, sir Newton could have been a transvestite who had sex with cammels and sacrificed small children to Cthulu, that would have no bearing on the validity of his theory.