Chapter 1 – There are no Junk Leftovers in the Solar System
GALAXIES For Intelligently Designed Minds (NOT For ‘Standard’ Model DUMMIES)
TINA: We have waited for Tom for a couple days and he hasn’t arrived yet. Perhaps we should start, because we don’t know whether he had been caught in the blizzard on the way or he decided not to come, as he had mentioned last year there might be a possibility he couldn’t make it…
TIM: If Tom confirmed to you that he was coming, then I think he will come, unless something prevents him from doing so. Tom keeps his word and appointments. I hope he is OK.
TINA: We will eventually find out. This is perhaps one of the disadvantages of living in such a remote place, far from the world and close to the stars, although often I think the very fact is a helpful thing. It reminds of the Shangri-La of the novel, where they had few and slow ways of communicating with the outside world.
TIM: That’s a positive view of the phenomenon.
TINA: I love this place and the peace and tranquility here.
TIM: Let’s start by reviewing what we have discussed last year and see whether there is anything we have missed, and when he arrives we can inform him of what we have discussed and covered up to that point.
TINA: Where did I put my notes…?
Quick Review of the former Discussion
TIM: Last spring, we didn't have time to finish describing the engine of a spiral galaxy, but perhaps to start and as we wait for Tom, we should quickly review the main points we have discussed, and after we can see whether you had found your notes by then.
TINA: Last spring, one of our main discussions was about the ‘Standard’ Model of cosmology and its multiple contradicting claims, which puts in question the self-declared ‘only accepted and valid’ model. You claimed that the ‘Standard’ Model is not a standard at all, and explained why it is a poor way of analyzing the universe, namely that it attempts to interpret the universe on two faulty premises. One is that assumes that everything in the universe is an accident and the product of explosions, expansions, and other imagined phenomena that there is no way to verify scientifically, although the same are essential and critical elements of the narrative. The other is that the same assumptions contradict experimental science.
TIM: Correct! Actually, many cosmologists despair at the officially approved “only valid and accepted ‘Standard’ Model” narrative, but they have not found or agreed on a workable alternative for it.
TINA: In the process, we discussed some of the amazing ways the solar system is organized, contrary to assumptions that the solar system, and in fact the whole universe, is completely dumb and the product of accidents. We discussed some eye-opening facts about light, quantum, relativity and their different sets of laws, and then we went to talk about galaxies and the role of the black holes found around the universe. One of the highlights and perhaps highly controversial point of the discussion was your claim that Einstein arbitrarily declared that the speed of light is constant and the same throughout the whole universe, a claim which science at the time didn’t have any way to prove or disprove. However, since then it has been proven that the speed of light can be changed by external factors, which could be easily found throughout the universe. For example, it has been proven in lab experiments that light might travel at a speed up to 300 times faster than in a vacuum or that at extreme low temperatures, light almost stops. The evidence of those experiments combined with the possibility that space is not isotropic and homogenous questions the accuracy of the assumed distances assigned to events, stars and galaxies throughout the universe. As mentioned, you questioned the assertion that space-time is homogeneous and isotropic, which means that it has the same properties at any given point. As if that wasn’t enough, and to the point of almost provoking Tom’s ire, you defended that time is not constant either. You pointed out some of the contradictions and huge misunderstandings those have created about the way the universe seems to work. Dear Tom completely opposed some of your suggestions and tentative conclusions, which added a lot of razzmatazz to the workshop and debate!
TIM: Those discussions were a lot of intellectual fun!
TINA: We analyzed the laws of physics, which are claimed to be ‘universal’ and the laws at the quantum level, which are completely different to the former but that have been proven correct at the quantum level. This led to the discussion that if here where we stand there are two different sets of laws at work, which mutually exclude each other; there is a high probability that throughout the vast universe and at greater scales there could be also other sets of laws, which are completely unknown to us. We discussed some possibilities regarding this.
TIM: Pretty good recap. I don't see why you even need to find your notes!
While the ‘Standard’ Model’s rests in Pseudo-scientific Foundations, it routinely discards Intelligent Design Theories as Pseudo-scientific
TINA: You claimed that the self-proclaimed ‘Standard’ Model rests in pseudo-scientific foundations purposely designed to promote the philosophy that the whole universe was formed by accident and out of the capricious explosion of a tiny dot, smaller than a period on a page of a book, for which there is not experimental proof whatsoever. In addition, the assumption is then propped up by equally difficult to prove conjectures of baryogenesis, expansions, creative primordial soups, and other inventions, none of which has a solid basis on experimental science. However, the ‘Standard’ Model turns accuses other theories in the market, such as the Intelligent Design proposals, of being pseudo-scientific and simply discards and bans them. In your opinion, the ‘Standard’ Model is nothing more than a ‘nice try’ at developing a non-intelligent narrative for the existence of the universe.
TIM: People can believe and promote whatever theories they want, even if they sound weak and contradictory. However, theories are just theories and one theory cannot disqualify another. Only proven science qualifies or disqualifies theories. The absurd claim of those who promote the ‘Standard’ Model theories is that while their model is full of pseudo-scientific assumptions and imagined ‘science’ they insist that theirs is the only ‘accepted and valid’ science and all others are pseudo-scientific. This is entirely against the true accepted norms of science.
TINA: That’s what the ‘Standard’ Model does continually to any theories and proposals of Intelligent Design scientists, for example. The ‘Standard’ Model accuses the Intelligent Design of being a cover-up for Creationist views of the universe, particularly as the work of political conservative and Christian fundamentalists in the US. In addition, through their agency, both in the US and in the EU, education is legally banned from teaching about Intelligent Design or Creationism.
TIM: Yes. Perhaps in certain cases schools are heavily discouraged of mentioning anything about Intelligent Design, if not forbidden to do so. I am not a political conservative or Christian Fundamentalist, but scientific theories should be analyzed and judged on their scientific basis and merits and not on the political ideas, religious views, affiliation, or personal views of the scientists that propose them.
TINA: Could you give an example, please?
The ‘Standard’ Model labels Intelligent Design Proposals as pseudo-scientific solely based on the political or religious Views of the Authors of those Theories
TIM: For example, if I would say, this theory is not valid or is pseudo-scientific because the author is a Jew, or a Muslim, or Buddhist or Hindu, or a liberal leftist, it would be wrong and prejudiced. So, what’s the difference when the author or proposal is labeled as pseudo-scientific because the author is a Christian Fundamentalist or a political conservative? What’s the difference when the proposals of Intelligent Design scientists are banned and branded as pseudo-scientific just because of the authors’ political or religious views? Scientific theories should be evaluated scientifically and not morally or politically, or according to politically correct trends.
TINA: The attitude of the ‘Standard’ Model scientists in that case is similar to someone saying, ‘Standard’ theories are pseudo-scientific because the author believes in evolution’.
TIM: That would be also completely wrong. However, many of the ‘Standard’ Model theories are pseudo-scientific because they aren’t based on experimental science, but only on long chains of conjectures and assumptions that have never been proven by experimental science.
TINA: Your position is that a theory shouldn’t be evaluated on the ideology, religion, color of skin, nationality of the author, or promoter of the theory, but based on whether the theory is proven scientifically or not.
TIM: However, that’s exactly what the ‘Standard’ Model does routinely, specifically in relation to Intelligent Design scientists. The ‘Standard’ Model labels any proposals offered by Intelligent Design scientists as pseudo-scientific based on the political or religious views or affiliation of the authors.
TINA: Those considerations don’t have anything to do with whether a scientific theory is sound or not.
The particular Laws of a Country, whether it is secular or religious, don’t have any Relevance on whether a scientific Theory is scientifically sound or not
TIM: Not at all. However, a usual tactic used and promoted by the ‘Standard’ Mode in naming theories as pseudo-scientific, is to claim that the views of the theory are not in accordance with the Constitution of the USA or the laws of the EU. The laws of a country don’t have anything to do in determining whether a scientific theory is valid or not, whether the state is entirely secular as in the case of the US and the EU, or religious as in some other countries.
TINA: Can you explain this better or offer any examples, please?
TIM: It is ridiculous to have a doctor in law, or a judge deciding whether a scientific theory is valid scientifically based on whether it is constitutional or not. However, some of the arguments advanced by the ‘Standard’ Model against Intelligent Design in the US and the EU are that the laws of those entities don't allow theistic concepts being taught in their schools. That is as ridiculous as it would be to say that ‘quantum mechanics is pseudo-scientific’ because it contravenes the constitution or laws of a nation.
TINA: Instead, whether a theory is valid scientifically should be judged on scientific basis.
TIM: A lot of Intelligent Design theories are backed with a lot more scientific evidence than many of the ‘Standard’ Model ones, but the former are thrown out as pseudo-scientific just because ‘Standard’ Model science dislikes the belief system of the authors and because the Intelligent Design theories expose a number of the ‘Standard’’ Model pseudo-scientific theories.
TINA: They are classified as pseudo-scientific based on prejudice and not on a scientific basis.
TIM: Right. I am not a political conservative or a Christian Fundamentalist, however, to evaluate the ideas of the Intelligent Design about the universe we need to leave aside their political views and evaluate the science. We can't say that a scientific idea is valid or not because of the scientists political or religious beliefs. The scientific proposal has to be evaluated on scientific merits.
TINA: The verdict of a US or EU judge on whether a certain theory or science goes against a section of their Constitution doesn’t have anything to do with science, or with whether a proposal is scientific or pseudo-scientific.
TIM: Judges could rule a theory is in violation of the constitution of their country, but the ruling doesn’t have any scientific value, but it is just a legal verdict. Now the problem we were discussing here is not whether intelligent design is constitutional or not in some countries but whether the ‘Standard’ Model and ‘Standard’ science has any authority to call an opposing theory ‘pseudo-scientific and not valid’, just because it contradicts its ideological basis, or the laws of a country, but not on a scientific basis.
The ‘Standard’ Model self-proclaimed Status of ‘only valid and accepted Theory’ is of no scientific Value
TINA: You clarified you are not a political conservative or Fundamentalist Christian. How would you define your views? Could your views be defined as belonging to the scientific Intelligent Design camp?
TIM: I don’t think so. At best, they could be viewed as a kind of ‘theoretical’ intelligent design argument or as a kind of theoretical Creationist argument, but I am not part of any of those movements, nor affiliated with any of those scientists. Possibly many of their ideas and beliefs and mine differ and I am not in any position to claim to represent people I don’t even know. I don’t consider myself part of any specific group and I don’t think they would consider I speak for them, either.
TINA: What are your foundations then and your background?
TIM: My views stem from the study of Scripture and from the analysis of the arguments offered by scientists from different schools of thought. I couldn’t say that I agree or disagree with this or that scientist scientific views, based on their religious or political views. For example, I agree with many scientific proposals made by ‘Standard’ Model scientists, although I disagree with the ‘Standard’ Model in general, specifically with its self-proclaimed ‘only valid and accepted’ status, which truly is worthless. I mean, if I and a group of friends, supporters, employees and followers would decide unanimously that our ideas are ‘the only valid and accepted ones’, our exceptionality and self-proclaimed status would be as worthless scientifically as the one proclaimed by the ‘Standard’ Model circles.
TINA: Scientists usually offer hard evidence and proven experimental science for their arguments and you don’t, so, your classifying your views as ‘theoretical’ Intelligent Design might be more correct and acceptable.
TIM: Yes, maybe, that is, if my views are intelligent, although they might often look so compared to the non-intelligent ‘Standard’ claims.
TINA: You claim that your views are based on analyzes of selected key scientific facts. I should say that nevertheless, your arguments are partly based on that and partly on philosophical and religious arguments. You believe in Jesus and in the gospels and obviously, your views are aligned with your beliefs.
TIM: I don’t deny this at all, and in fact am quite confident of my roots.
TINA: In that sense, your arguments offer a similar foundation to those of the ‘Standard’ Model, as obviously many of their arguments and yours cannot offer solid scientific proof for many of the respective basic claims. This is unlike many of the claims of the Intelligent Design camp, which usually present some piece of hard evidence, although often ignored by the ‘Standard’ Model apologists.
TIM: Correct. Continue, please…
TINA: Ultimately, your critique of the ‘Standard’ Model is that it is highly prejudiced against the evidence of intelligent design in the universe. In addition, you claim that ‘Standard’ views are not a standard, but rather a theoretical extension of the narrative maintaining that everything is an accident, there is no right or wrong, and only the fittest survive. You claimed that many of their arguments contradict the basic tenets of experimental science, which constantly find order and reliable rules at all levels of the universe, albeit sometimes it is hard to establish why it is so.
The ‘Standard’ Model labels Intelligent Design as Pseudo-scientific not because it contradicts proven experimental Science but because it contradicts and disproves the ‘Standard’ Narrative
TIM: Intelligent Design claims are usually based on experimental science and not in speculations or projections like mine, or like the ‘Standard’ Model’s speculations.
TINA: I agree. Their conclusions are usually focused on definitive research revealing complex irreducible engines, or highly complex organization on nature and the fine-tuning of the universe, which can't be explained by the simplistic evolutionary assumptions.
TIM: Intelligent Design often bases their conclusions on hard scientific evidence, however, the ‘Standard’ Model’s opposition to Intelligent Design is not based on experimental science but in the argument that Intelligent Design contravenes ‘Standard’ Model philosophical ‘principles’ and its assumptions. In other words, the ‘Standard’ scientific camp refuses to acknowledge the scientific evidence presented by the Intelligent Design camp and labels those claims as pseudo-scientific, but it does so by claiming their own philosophical narrative and interpretations and theories, and not experimental science; which actually appears to support the Intelligent Design claims.
TINA: But some of your ideas and views are not based on experimental science either, because you are discussing galaxies and black holes and other subjects for which there is limited experimental proof available.
TIM: Yes. That’s why if anything my views would be more like ‘theoretical’ Intelligent Design ideas or something like that. Surely, I don’t want to taint the well-deserved solid reputation of Intelligent Design scientists, which is based on hard evidence and successful experimental science, with my ideas, speculations, projections and arguments about the universe, which are not based on proven science.
TINA: Thanks for clarifying your position! By the way, that was the gist of our last round of discussions, which spanned a number of mornings and afternoons.
TIM: That was a good summary and commentary of the talks we had last spring, Tina. You grasp ideas clearly and can express them succinctly. In contrast, sometimes the scope of our debates is hard to grasp, as we go over some subjects back and forth and trying to develop every side of the argument, as we offer answers to any objections or new points raised. Sometimes, the process of the debate makes it difficult to see the whole picture clearly.
TINA: What you say about debates is true, but also they help to clarify many questions and details that otherwise might go unanswered.
TIM: I am glad you think so. What questions do you have about those things we have discussed?
While the Standard’ Model labels Asteroid Belts as leftover Junk, they seem to be essential to the Solar System’s Stability
TINA: First, I would like to ask a clarification about the solar system discussion. We talked about the asteroid belts, which the ‘Standard’ Model assumes are leftover junk from collisions or discarded pieces of failed planet formation. However, in your view, they are not leftover junk at all but they are part of the mechanism that helps the solar system to keep its gravitational balance. We discussed how the fragments could be dynamically rearranged by the gravitational perpetual realignment of the planets and major celestial bodies of the solar system. As a result, the realignment would counter-balance the destabilizing effects of those very movements and help to maintain the internal and external gravitational balance of the solar system.
TIM: Yea, we said that.
TINA: We also discussed that the mass of the fragments could be altered by the same actions and by the flare-ups and activity of the Sun at the center of the system. As those fragments lose part of the ice and gases that compose them, they could be propelled by their evaporation, which could cause them to change positions fast relative to each other, while changing shape and size in the process. This is confirmed by what it is observed about the fragments and by claims that fragments seem to disappear or vary their positions often and vastly.
TIM: Yes, we described those two ways in which the belts would be modified. By doing so, they could help to fine-tune the internal and external gravitational balance of the solar system.
TINA: OK, that’s what I need a clarification about, if you don’t mind. What role would the simple attraction and repelling forces of gravity play on modifying the belts? Specifically, my question is that if the basic gravity theory used by “Standard’ Model cosmology, accepts that gravity is a force that attracts and repels celestial bodies’ masses, why they don’t include the mass of those huge belts in the gravity equation of the solar system?
TIM: It is a pity that Tom haven’t reached here yet, as I am sure that he would be able to provide up-to-date scientific information regarding this. However, as I recall, the total mass of the Asteroid belt, for example, whose orbit is between those of Mars and Jupiter is estimated to be less than the mass of our moon.
The Belts interact and change Positions to counterbalance the gravitational Changes generated by the Movement of the Planets
TINA: Is that the reason why the belts are not considered to have a big gravitational impact on the solar system?
TIM: I think so.
TINA: You proposed that the belts would be involved in a fine-tuning process of the gravitational balance. How would the belts do that, if their combined mass were not significant at all? Do you propose that it might be an advantage that the sum of their masses is not too great, or if not, instead of fine-tuning they may have too much of a destabilizing influence?
TIM: Right. Due to the smaller size of the fragments and the abundance of them, they would be able to realign themselves fast and fill the gaps in the gravitational balance of that area of the solar system, which is nevertheless probably maintained at large by the movement of the planets and their interactions with the sun. However, as the planets are massive and have orbits that don’t allow them to change their positions enough, the fragments could do that more efficiently, to counter-balance the constant movement of the planets. Therefore, while the fixed movement of the planets in most cases would partially disturb the balance, the fragments would be able to move around filling gaps and counterbalancing those partial disturbances to the gravitational balance. Their action it would be based in a sort of swarm effect, as they group and regroup according to the gravitational forces and need for balance.
Some Ways the Asteroid Belts fine-tune the Gravitational Balance of the Solar System
TINA: Do you mean that they could be doing that fine-tuning of the gravitational balance by their very mobility, volatility, and ability to change quickly both, their positions and their mass.
TIM: Yes. Their numbers, reduced size and mobility would make them into key elements of the fine-tuning of the gravitational balance, rather than being the assumed leftover junk. No individual fragment could affect the balance of the solar system, but the sum of their changes of position could help to fine-tune it. As you recalled, they form belts that have the ability to vary its density by realigning themselves or by modifying the composition of the fragments. So, as planets move closer to or away from each other and closer or away from a certain point in the belt, the belts may thin out or thicken up, by both means: relocation and or changing of their composition, and so reduce or augment its gravitational influence at a given point by filling the gaps. Therefore, while at some points the belt may be thinning out, at other points it may be concentrating fragments, which at the same time may grow their mass by adding gases, water, or ice.
TINA: You also proposed that the belts would act as a cushion between the inner and outer planets. Do you mean that the fragments would have like an intelligent nature of their own to adapt in that way or they would only be responding to gravitational changes?
TIM: Good point. They would probably just be responding to the changes in the environment. The intelligent nature of the process would be reflected at the solar system level, where the combination of the movement of the planets, the changes created by flares of the Sun and perhaps the solar wind would regulate the environment accordingly. I don't mean to attribute the intelligence either to the solar system per se, but to the Designer and the design of the engine of the solar system.
TINA: However, the hurdle is still there, that if the effect is solely based on the changing mass and location of the fragments, the effect still could have a minimum impact, as their combined mass is so small and spread out compared to that of the planets.
TIM: Their impact on the gravitational balance based on their mass alone it might not be so significant, and the ‘Standard’ Model might seem right in discarding the belts as having any impact through ‘gravity’ alone. However, my view is that their impact is not only based on their mass but in their mobility and in other factors, such as in changes of volume of the belts, which we could discuss in a moment.
TINA: So, the influence of the belts could be partly based on the fragments quickly gaining or losing some of their mass, by gaining or losing water, gases and ice. An added influence would be based on the fragments apparent ‘erratic’ mobility and finally, a third possible influence would be based on the ability of the belts to expand or contract their volume, even in cases when their mass would remain mostly the same.
Possible Role of Volume and voluminous Structures in the Gravitational Balance
TIM: Volume could be an important element of gravitational balance in space and those belts could have a considerable influence on planets and parts of the solar system, based on the added factor of their volume and their ability to adjust it quickly.
TINA: Do you propose that plain volume could sometimes replace the influence of mass?
TIM: It could. More specifically, the association of mass and volume –or inner space of a volume- could combine to influence the gravitational balance. For example, Jupiter’s volume is much greater than its mass, as it is about 1300 times more voluminous than the Earth, but its mass is only about 300 times bigger than Earth’s. The disproportional volume of Jupiter in relation to its mass seems to be caused partially by the abundance of lighter gases in its atmosphere, such as Hydrogen and Helium. Later we could discuss why its ratio of mass to volume is so different from the one of Earth.
TINA: I see.
TIM: Now, because Jupiter is so massive, as it travels through the solar system circling the sun it is bound to affect the gravitational balance of the system and of other planets. However, its gaseous volume might change at different points of its orbit to soften the blow of its approaching or departing mass, by either reducing or augmenting its volume, although its mass wouldn’t change.
TINA: How would that apply to the dwarf planets, such as Pluto or Eris, as they are not so big or have such a great volume.
TIM: This is true, those dwarf planets are much smaller, but they seem to be imbedded or under the influence of the Kuiper belt, so that might be part of the answer. In other words, their gravitational balance might be connected to and depending on that much bigger belt.
TINA: You suggested that volume in space may have an influence on the gravitational balance, but astronomers and cosmologists focus mostly on the force of gravity, assumedly imbedded in mass, as the main cause of that balance.
TIM: In my view, volume is related to the gravitational balance. In the case of the belts, they could adjust their volume to match the approach or departure to a certain region of it by any of the nearby planets.
TINA: Especially, in such as cases as when two of the planets catch up with each other and combine the influence of their volumes and masses on a certain point of the solar system.
TIM: Regarding Jupiter’s volume, it is interesting that its orbit around the sun seems to be in tandem with the solar cycle variations. Jupiter completes an orbit around the sun in about 11 to 12 earth’s years, which is similar to the time the sun completes a cycle. The sun’s cycle variations have a peak or max about every eleven or twelve years in which its irradiance, flares and radio flux increase notably, which could affect the volume of Jupiter by compressing or by expanding the lighter gases that make up the planet. It is possible that those periodic changes in Jupiter’s volume are such that they help to maintain its gravitational balance and that of the solar system.
The Sun Cycle of Activity could periodically change the Volumes of the four Giant Planets
TINA: Do you think that those periods of increased or decreased activity of the sun would also influence the other giant planets?
TIM: It could. While two of those giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, are gaseous, the other two are gaseous and icy, Uranus and Neptune. Surely, the periodic times of increased or decreased activity of the sun would have an impact on all those planet’s volumes. We said that Jupiter completes one orbit around the sun in about 11 earth’s years. Then, Saturn’s orbit takes about 29 years, Uranus about 84 and Neptune about 165 earth’s years.
TINA: So, changing the volume of those four giants could be another way the sun influences the gravitational balance of the solar system.
TIM: Yes. That could be part of a mechanism regulated by the activity of the sun.
TINA: Apart from the activity of the sun, what other factors could alter their volumes?
TIM: Gaseous and icy bodies also respond to changes on pressure by expanding or contracting, and often produce energy in the process. Jupiter for instance produces a lot of radiation and heat, and apparently, the production could be related to periodic changes in its volume. All those changes combined with the apparent erratic changes in the asteroid belts and fragments could all be part of the solar system’s fine-tuning of its gravitational balance.
TINA: It would be interesting to corroborate your ideas against any hard data available.
TIM: It would. However, when we consider that Neptune makes one orbit around the sun in about 165 years, and the planet has only made one such orbit since its discovery, the data available might not be significant. In addition, as those factors as well as the possible influence of the asteroid belts on the gravitational balance have been completely underestimated, possibly the data available is scant.
TINA: In addition to those two ways mentioned, could the belts also adapt to influence the gravitational balance electromagnetically?
TIM: The fragments are believed to have an iron core, plus water, ice and gases. Their iron cores would certainly be influenced by electromagnetism. In fact, if the asteroids would be rotating in their axes they could be generating electromagnetism of their own, which could add to their interactions among themselves. However, as many of the asteroids are so small probably it is hard to observe whether they rotate on their axes or not.
TINA: All of the ideas we have been discussing point to a possible advanced mechanism involved in gravitational balance that it seems are ignored or vilified by the official science.
Why are some many Scientists afraid to think out of the ‘Standard’ Model Box?
TIM: Yea. We will discuss again those influences on the gravitational balance as we continue to develop a view of the solar system’s organization. Maybe some of these ideas may be too out of the box for some ‘Standard’ scientists but perhaps others have discussed them. In any case, it might be worth considering the possible influence of the belts on the gravitational balance of the solar system, for which we have given a few ideas, in case they are interested.
TINA: Many scientists are methodic people and plodders and live within the bubble of their field of research, and perhaps don’t consider other alternatives to the things they have been taught, even when the math doesn’t seem to add.
TIM: In addition, many are afraid to upset the status quo of the academia, especially if those might conflict with the ‘Standard’ views of the majority. Sometimes, scientists’ thinking is not critical enough and independent enough.
TINA: Perhaps that is an occupational hazard, as they have built their views and expertise by long years of theoretical indoctrination and study, which seldom is challenged. The scientific community, for all the apparent excitement about their work, is quite conservative and their views change slowly.
TIM: Yes, in contrast, some scientists who were not afraid to upset the basket of accepted ideas have revolutionized science, such as Galileo Galilei and Einstein.
TINA: They both challenged the status quo with their ideas and views.
TIM: Yes. As long as Einstein remained as an independent thinker, mostly in his younger years, and even on the points that he might have not been completely right, he was able to offer outstanding contributions to physics and to stir things up quite a bit. He did that even when many of his teachers and later many of the scientists of the day opposed his ideas! As a young physicist, he supported himself and paid his expenses while working during the day at a patent office, and writing at night, without having to compromise his unconventional views in order to secure a salary or grants from the scientific establishment! I admire that side of his character and it seems that for as long as he did that, it bore tremendous fruit! It takes courage to think differently than the accepted majority and to speak about it boldly!
TINA: It seems that few of those on the payroll of the big employers of science are willing or able to do that!
TIM: They might come up with ‘great and revolutionary ideas’, as long as those don’t contradict the views of their employers and their core ‘Standard’ values and narrative. However, if they do cross those red lines and dare to think out of the box, they might find themselves out of the box altogether and lose the benefits of having patrons and financiers. That’s also an occupational hazard of people working and employed in promoting science.
Those who fund and manage scientific Research neither favor nor allow ‘Dissidents’
TINA: Are the big employers of science mostly governments?
TIM: They are usually governments, corporations, foundations, scientific circles, and very wealthy people. All those are quite exclusive and fussy about whom they allow to join their teams, whom they hire, retain and whom they reward with prizes and recognition. There were a number of outstanding scientists in the twentieth century who contributed much to the development of, for example, nuclear science, who suddenly found themselves out of the box when they expressed their concerns about the newly developed technology and the risks it posed to humanity. Some of those scientists were even persecuted politically and accused of ‘aiding the enemy’ because of this.
TINA: Such as…?
TIM: Some examples are Oppenheimer, Rotblat, Bertrand Russell among others. They offered great contributions to science, but when they questioned the intentions of the establishment that controls science and research, they were sidelined, vilified and ignored.
TINA: So, they were used and praised as long their work benefitted the establishment, but when they tried to express opposite ideas to those of their bosses, they were fired or vilified?
TIM: Yep. Today, those who dare to be creationist or intelligent design proponents, even critical thinkers or dissidents who dare crossing some redlines of the establishment, are blocked from joining official scientific circles or are kicked out and labeled as pseudo-scientific, pariahs, and untouchables. It seems to happen to scientists everywhere. For their work, they depend on the funding and good will of their sponsors, especially when today scientific research and work require such huge amounts of capital, tech, and personnel. Most employed scientists cannot afford to do their own research and work, but rather are hired to do their employers’ work and toe the line of their wishes.
TINA: It seems they are mostly hired brains at the mercy of a system, on which they depend.