Comments on: 5 Scientific Ideas That Could Just Be Bullsh*t

By: Viajes el tiempo - Parte 2 - P?gina 15 - psicofxp.com

Viajes el tiempo - Parte 2 - P?gina 15 - psicofxp.com — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:20:26 +0000

[...] cuidado entonces cuando apostamos nuestras fichas a un n?mero que puede ser el perdedor?. http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/2008/11/07/5-scientific-ideas-that-could-just-be-bullsht/ 1.- Materia oscura 2.- Energ?a oscura. 3.- Ondas gravitacionales. 4.- Bos?n de Higgs 5.- [...]

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:07:05 +0000

In my opinion, the Big Bang is the most questionable, right next to dark matter. The fact that the basic idea in astronomy is that the universe is limited is almost crazy, yet both of these theories support that belief.

Saying that the big bang happened is saying there was an explosion of space. But as we all know, you can’t get something from nothing…so something would of had to exist before this explosion of space, and if that was the case, something would of had to exist OUTSIDE of that. So to say that the big bang started all of this is inaccurate, and will forever be unprovable.

As far as dark matter goes, it also follows the belief that the universe is limited, and that 96% of it is made up a material that we have never had any hands on in studying, or even had supporting proof for the claims of its volume, or if it even works as we believe it does.

Aside from those two, I would have to say Einstein’s theory of relativity… just because the mechanics from which the theory is based on, have never been observed by humans and currently can not be physically or theoretically proven.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:56:10 +0000

Money for gravitational wave detectors would increase if and when a detection is made, as further funding/detections would allow astrophysics and cosmology to be done. I’m assuming you would be less concerned about the money set aside for gravitational wave research in that case, the same is surely true for funding bodies.

Honestly, if Advanced LIGO, which is already fully funded by the NSF, does not see anything then that could be the end of projects like LISA & EGO and future funding for interferometer detectors.

All IMHO…

By: ttfnRob

ttfnRob — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:30:35 +0000

@rhorow and @diehardevolutionist – I think you have missed my point. Evolution is not on the list exactly because it is not like Panspermia. Evolution is a theory with mountains of evidence behind it. The large-scale idea of evolution – as the natural selection of entities by gradual (and sometimes random) improvement – is solid and an excellent description of what we see in the world.

The more interesting and precise ways in which the same concept can be applied to other smaller or unrelated systems is more interesting and possibly more fringe. Can software evolve if we allow it to copy itself, for example? Do traffic systems evolve, or even the Earth as a giant organism (like Gaia theory).

These are smaller studies but they could be on this list. Evolution, like the Big Bang, is a theory with an awful lot of real life evidence behind it. for that reason it does not sit in the same category as panspermia or string theory.

By: ttfnRob

ttfnRob — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:21:00 +0000

@Michiu – String theory, as a term, can be used alongside M-theory. They can be considered different aspects of a similar problem. String ‘theory’ in this article could really be string ‘theories’, since there are quite a few of them.

By: Diehardevolutionist

Diehardevolutionist — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:40:27 +0000

Could someone please tell me why evolution is not on this list? It has just about the same level of probability as panspermia. The amount of crap that is getting serious funding out there is just amazing.

By: rhoroe

rhoroe — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:47:23 +0000

that and evolution

By: Michiu Keiku

Michiu Keiku — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:43:57 +0000

String Theory is obsolete with M theory.

By: Everything you know is wrong - or is it ? « The e-Astronomer

Everything you know is wrong - or is it ? « The e-Astronomer — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:41:48 +0000

[...] teeth grinding. More recently, Robert Simpson (the Orbiting Frog) wrote a lovely post called Five Scientific Ideas that could just be Bullsh*t . Do give it a [...]

By: Gus

Gus — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:34:18 +0000

Dark Energy Identified:

Based on laboratory simulation, I believe dark energy is actually the energy contained in traveling shock waves. See ISBN 978-1-4343-0661-6 (sc)

By: Ian O'Neill

Ian O'Neill — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:29:02 +0000

Awesome post Rob! You’ve said some things here that many were thinking (but don’t want to say in case they lose their funding!). Your take on gravitational waves is excellent. I recently wrote about LIGO and thought “wow, this is a lot of money being spent on something that doesn’t work. What a load of tosh.” I also read a paper saying that we need a gravitational wave detector with a baseline from here to the Moon to stand any chance of detecting a ripple.

And the best research done to date with LIGO was a publication that “proved” a local pulsar was being driven by a smooth (i.e. no lumps) spinning neutron star. They know it is smooth because LIGO didn’t detect any gravitational waves from the thing… but LIGO has never detected any frickin’ gravitational waves! I realise it’s got something to do with characterizing the pattern of waves generated, but please. I think there are a lot of frustrated LIGO physicists out there.

But don’t touch my Higgsy. He’s out there, I can feel it.

By: Tailspin

Tailspin — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:01:09 +0000

One of the common arguments against evolution is, “it’s just a theory.” Somehow we need to disabuse people of that use of the word ‘theory’. But how are we to do that when it’s called ‘String Theory’, which by any other name still smells, um, not like a rose.

By: Dave Mosher

Dave Mosher — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:45:40 +0000

Rob — excellent post! I’ll try to add to your list with my own entry and send a link when it goes up (this weekend?)

By: chris

chris — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:50:27 +0000

great article man. It’s nice to see someone question String Theory, too many people are too in love with it.