Earliest known iron artifacts come from outer space

Aug 19, 2013
These are meteoric iron beads (center), including the tubular lapis lazuli (blue), carnelian (brownish/red), agate, and gold beads that they were originally strung with. Credit: UCL Petrie Museum/Rob Eagle

Researchers have shown that ancient Egyptian iron beads held at the UCL Petrie Museum were hammered from pieces of meteorites, rather than iron ore. The objects, which trace their origins to outer space, also predate the emergence of iron smelting by two millennia.

Carefully hammered into before being rolled into tubes, the nine beads – which are over 5000 years-old - were originally strung into a necklace together with other exotic minerals such as gold and gemstones, revealing the high value of this exotic material in ancient times. The study is published in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Professor Thilo Rehren (UCL Archaeology, Qatar), lead author of the paper, said: "The shape of the beads was obtained by smithing and rolling, most likely involving multiple cycles of hammering, and not by the traditional stone-working techniques such as carving or drilling which were used for the other beads found in the same tomb."

The team's results show that in the fourth millennium BC metalworkers had already mastered the smithing of meteoritic iron, an iron-nickel alloy much harder and more brittle than the more commonly worked copper, developing techniques that went on to define the .

As a result metalworkers had already nearly two millennia of experience of working with meteoritic iron when iron smelting was introduced in the mid-second millennium BC. This knowledge was essential for the development of iron smelting and the production of iron from iron ore, enabling iron to replace copper and bronze as the main metals used.

Excavated in 1911, in a pre-dynastic cemetery near the village of el-Gerzeh in Lower Egypt, the beads were already completely corroded when they were discovered. As a result, the team used x-ray methods to determine whether the beads were actually meteoric iron, and not , which can often be mistaken to be corroded iron due to similar properties.

By scanning the beads with beam of neutrons and , the team were able to reveal the unique texture and also high concentration of nickel, cobalt, phosphorous and germanium – which is only found in trace amounts in iron derived from ore - that is characteristics of meteoric iron, without having to attempt invasive analysis which could potentially damage these rare objects.

Professor Rehren said: "The really exciting outcome of this research is that we were for the first time able to demonstrate conclusively that there are typical trace elements such as cobalt and germanium present in these beads, at levels that only occur in meteoritic .

"We are also excited to be able to see the internal structure of the beads, revealing how they were rolled and hammered into form. This is very different technology from the usual stone bead drilling, and shows quite an advanced understanding of how the metal smiths worked this rather difficult material."

Explore further: Grant Museum starts major project to preserve rarest skeleton in the world

More information: '5,000 years old Egyptian iron beads made from hammered meteoritic iron' by Rehren et al is published in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Related Stories

Ancient Egyptians accessorized with meteorites

May 30, 2013

Researchers at The Open University (OU) and The University of Manchester have found conclusive proof that Ancient Egyptians used meteorites to make symbolic accessories.

Iron in primeval seas rusted by bacteria

Apr 25, 2013

(Phys.org) —Researchers from the University of Tübingen have been able to show for the first time how microorganisms contributed to the formation of the world's biggest iron ore deposits. The biggest known ...

Mining projects may not be viable

Aug 23, 2012

(Phys.org)—According to research from Murdoch University's Asia Research Centre, iron ore prices could drop dramatically by 2015, making planned projects in Australia potentially unviable.

Recommended for you

Oxford team shed light on ancient Egyptian obelisk

16 hours ago

History was made this month as the robotic Philae lander completed the first controlled touchdown on a comet. The European Space Agency-led project was set up to obtain images of a comet's surface and help ...

Ancient Egyptian codex finally deciphered

Nov 24, 2014

(Phys.org) —A pair of Australian researchers, Malcolm Choat with Macquarie University and Iain Gardner with the University of Sydney, has after many decades of effort by others, succeeded in deciphering ...

User comments : 58

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2013
Yet another clue which points to the possibility of ancient people striving to commemorate a catastrophic past. To the extent which we are perpetually surprised at the ingenuity of the ancients, we should also re-examine the underlying meaning(s) of the archetypes they attempted to pass on within oral traditions. Keep in mind that not only do the weapons held by Zeus correspond to high-energy plasma formations, but Anthony Peratt has also identified 85 separate classes of petroglyphs which also exhibit similarities to these high-energy laboratory plasma phenomena. There are numerous unusual correspondences between the various archetypes, and these similarities span oceans at a time when it was not thought that people were capable of crossing those oceans. Why were these stories so important that entire cultural traditions attempted to commemorate them? Why would the cultures adorn these symbols atop the heads of their kings? Why would they sacrifice people in tribute and fear?
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
At least the ancient aliens guys sometimes have a point, in that the ancients probably were more intelligent than we give them credit.

...but you are being ridiculous...
Gmr
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
Yeah...

I think a certain Joseph Campbell would have a bit to say about some of this interpretation of mythos and story.

From what I've seen, he'd actually be pretty cordial in stating to HannesAlfven above: "bullcrap."

Nice seeming guy, really. Check out some of his lectures sometime. A real eye-opener.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
Re: "...but you are being ridiculous.."

Not really. Anthony Peratt is a former adviser to the Department of Energy. He's an expert on nuclear explosions, a researcher on the z-machine (one of the world's largest plasma laboratories), and a peer reviewer for IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science (IEEE is, btw, the world's largest scientific institution).

His paper was published in two parts, both titled "Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity", the first of which states:

"Eighty-four distinct high-energy-density Z-pinch categories have been identified in petroglyphs, nearly all of which belong to the archaic [50] class. Only a small percentage of these petroglyphs, or parts of petroglyph patterns, do not fall into any of these categories." (page 8)

Peratt traveled the world to map the petroglyphs, and then used off-time on government supercomputers in an attempt to simulate the theoretical locations for the discharges.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
What subsequently transpired is that people like yourself -- who know close to nothing about petroglyphs, but yet exhibited disdain for his conclusions -- caught wind of it, and wrote letters to his laboratory alerting them to his usage of off-cycle government computation (I won't name names, except to say that it was a self-proclaimed critic who writes articles for wikipedia). Shortly thereafter, Peratt halted all research on this topic and even posted a message on his website suggesting that his work had nothing to do with the Electric Universe (a peculiar statement for those who are familiar). If he continues research on this topic, his findings are apparently no longer shared with the public. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the work is now classified, as you (at least should) know that plasma physics is also the study of nuclear explosions.

You might want to read the papers before forming an opinion of them ... Right?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
Re: "I think a certain Joseph Campbell would have a bit to say about some of this interpretation of mythos and story."

Campbell was popular at a time when the idea of global catastrophe was basically heresy. People seem to not realize that much of Carl Sagan's legacy rests on shaky ground, due to these shifts. You know, we sent four landers to Venus, and they all sent back temperature profiles which showed the heat of Venus originating from the planet's surface. See Charles Ginenthal's summary and reaction by searching on YouTube for "charles ginenthal venus". The data was not interpretable within the context of Carl Sagan's Super Greenhouse Theory, and so the researchers threw away the data from all four missions, and assumed their conclusion that Venus was in thermal equilibrium -- a necessary requirement for greenhouse theory.

The data was however suggesting that Venus is not in thermal equilibrium, which adds support to the frequent mythological references to Venus.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
Venus and Mars play staring roles in many of the myths of the world. Venus generally starts out in these myths as exhibiting a beautiful cometary display, which subsequently transforms into a terrifying medusa which rains fire down upon our planet.

The myths are very unusual in many respects. But, to be clear, the enigmas completely originate with the mythological archetypes -- not the researchers who study them. This is easy to determine for oneself. But, you'll never notice it unless you actually pay attention to them.

See Symbols of an Alien Sky as a starting point, but realize that this is an incredibly large body of knowledge. Do not pretend to know it without learning about it.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013
Here is a red flag quote from one of the original papers justifying Venus' thermal equilibrium, based upon data from 2 of the 4 landers. CAPS are mine ...

"The magnitudes of the CORRECTIONS for both instruments are determined by FORCING AGREEMENT with a range of CALCULATED net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux MUST BE SMALL because of the large density of CO2."

Without that forcing, the idea of a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus would have to be forever abandoned, and mainstream science would have had to take Velikovsky's ideas seriously. Needless to say, the data was basically thrown out to preclude this possibility.

All of these things can be verified with simple Google searches.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
By the way, I should attribute the investigative journalism here on Venus' thermal equilibrium to Ted Holden. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Ted has written about, but his online postings on this very specific issue are well worth digging into. That forcing quote can be tricky to track down. The Ginenthal video leaves no doubt that the Venus infrared flux data supported Velikovsky's claims. It's really quite scandalous that even after all of this time, this very important validation of the mythological archetypes has not managed to break through the aura of scientism. One would think that there would be a lot more interest in such claims, given all of the discussion about global warming. But, we live in a debunking era where conventional ideas tend to be given the benefit of the doubt. There need not be any "conspiracy" involved when the subject matter so directly pertains to nuclear weaponry.
Gmr
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2013
HannesAlfven, words out of context without understanding are not investigative journalism, and PUTTING some of them in ALL CAPS has a similar effect with regard to meaning.

You can hope and clap all you wish. It won't make your fantasies come true - and attributing some of that failure to a murky conspiracy puts you in a camp of victims who won't take responsibility for their own happiness.

The world accepting your nutty conjecture won't make you happy, and won't make it any more true, either.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
Would you like to clarify what was stated out of context?

Re: "and attributing some of that failure to a murky conspiracy puts you in a camp of victims who won't take responsibility for their own happiness."

There is no conspiracy. The problem with the plasma physics discipline is that it's also the study of nuclear explosions. This makes the discipline murky, simply by association. If you talk to journalists who specialize in knowing about this discipline, some of them -- Jeff Schmidt, formerly of Physics Today being one of them -- will rather plainly tell you that the papers are frequently written to disguise the actual purpose -- that purpose being to create better computer models which can be used to workaround the restrictions on nuclear testing.

Re: "The world accepting your nutty conjecture won't make you happy, and won't make it any more true, either."

I put the info out there to help the investigative journalist who will eventually decide to apply their talents.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013
Although critical thinking today is not valued in astrophysics and cosmology, I am convinced that there will yet come a day when it is once again. The point of critical thinking is to ask poignant questions. That means following up on promising leads, even when they undermine established theory.

After all, nobody should feel comfortable with a 4% baryonic universe. It's not actually an explanation. By the standards of any other scientific discipline, given the public's investment, that would be considered either a complete failure or at least a work-in-progress.

The real problem here is that "thinking like a scientist" now includes ideological aspects. It's no longer just a methodology, as is commonly suggested. Professors routinely evaluate the ideologies exhibited by their graduate students. See the scathing critique of the physics discipline titled Disciplined Minds, which led to the discipline's largest freedom of expression case in its history.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013
If the discipline is simply weeding out its own critics before granting them doctorates, then the very meaning of consensus is undermined. The public assumes that consensus is in the spirit of free will, but a graduate program which weeds the students out who are prone to "getting political" plainly eliminates the critical thinkers.

The physorg community likes to pretend as though Jeff Schmidt and the 1,000+ researchers who supported him with their signatures (Noam Chomsky included) never existed. But, so long as the discipline cannot own up to its own most damning critique, it will continue to fail to properly answer the most complex questions man has ever asked.

When a machine is broken, we don't imagine that feeding it better data will somehow produce a correct result. For the very same reason, people would be wise to take a very close look at problems which are claimed to exist in our university system.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2013
@Hannes the Alfven,,,,

Tell me true, and don't lie,,,,,, do ya really think that people are going to read the page after page of stuff ya post? Are ya so stupid as to think ya are changing anyone's mind? Is your brain so muddled that ya think anyone is convinced? Are ya so dumb that ya think ya are providing a service to any cause whatsoever?

Either ya are really, really stupid, with great delusions of grandeur concerning your accomplishments and mission to save the world of physics from the evil physicists who wish to suppress the one or two really smart people who ever lived. Dumb as a moon rock and deluded as the Zephyr..

But maybe ya aren't really stupid, maybe, just maybe ya know how stupid all those those things ya post page after page really is, but find it fun to vandalize a web site because they hurt your feelings in the past?

Please post a multi-page confirmation of theory. I'll be sure to read every word, as will everyone else.
scottfos
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2013
OK Hannes, I've read it all. Can you do me a favor and tie it all together? Are you saying that folks from Venus came to Earth ~4k years ago because their planet became unlivable then due to global warming? And when they landed, their machines caused a high energy plasma the world around which is readable in the rocks but had no other negative impact? And these folks landed everywhere at once, and/or contacted peoples all around the world - from Arizona to Armenia, hence the squatting man (and i'm guessing pyramids soon after.) Am I close? Thanks.
scottfos
3 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2013
Q-Star, he's not daft. he just forgot to read the last page of that Scientific American last year, "The Conspiracy Theory Detector".
*Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of "connecting the dots" between events that need not be causally connected.
*The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
*The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
*The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

and so on and so forth, ending, of course, with:

*The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2013
I think you overestimate your own impact. What I would encourage you to do is to keep track of the numbers on this page ...

http://www.youtub...ct/about

The thunderbolts.info site stats have been neck-and-neck with the cosmoquest.org site (formerly bautforum) for many years now.

People are listening. We can tell from the quantcast demographics that many of the visitors are graduate students.
Gmr
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
Words.

They don't really make a difference in science. One thousand pages of debate can be countered with a single prediction and experiment.

Arguments and signatories belong in the political realm, or philosophy, or religion. Science doesn't depend on belief. You don't have to trust me - you can go do the experiments yourself.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2013
I think you overestimate your own impact. What I would encourage you to do is to keep track of the numbers on this page ...

http://www.youtub...ct/about

The thunderbolts.info site stats have been neck-and-neck with the cosmoquest.org site (formerly bautforum) for many years now.

People are listening. We can tell from the quantcast demographics that many of the visitors are graduate students.


I don't know why ya are bragging about that. 16,000 subscribers? Wow, out of all the hundreds of millions of potential connoisseurs of crackpottery on the entire interweb, 16,000 oh my. That must be classified a truly monumental movement. (Zephyr has more subscribers than that on the Aether Wave blog.)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
Re: "Words ... They don't really make a difference in science. One thousand pages of debate can be countered with a single prediction and experiment."

This is offensively simplistic. Statistical measures of confidence exist within a philosophical framework which must ultimately accommodate unconceived alternatives. At the end of the day, if a community refuses to meaningfully and authentically investigate alternatives, then the "experts" will intentionally induce ignorance of alternatives. And eventually, everybody will just hammer at the data until somebody eventually gets their 6 sigma. Does this ever mean that people should stop looking for the unconceived alternatives?

Dean Radin has demonstrated that he can get 6 sigma by simply having people imagine that they can control the behavior of a photon. Either the measure can be achieved through some trickery, or people can really control the outcomes of their experiments with nothing but their thoughts. Take your pick.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
@scottfos

It's interesting, because I've spent a bit of time talking to the EU theorists and I know for a fact that they refuse to ever discuss conspiracies. The only conversations about conspiracies I ever see are by mainstreamers attempting to discredit the EU. Even when I explicitly state that there is no conspiracy -- as in this case -- it's oftentimes all they want to talk about.

Re: "Can you do me a favor and tie it all together?"

Yes, it's very simple. The models which are being used to model cosmic plasmas are simplistic, idealistic models which have been known to be wrong for more than 50 years now. In fact, Alfven -- the guy who basically invented the MHD models still used, at the start of his career -- realized by the end of his career, after working with plasmas his entire life in the lab, that he had made a huge mistake. He used the occasion of his 1970 Nobel lecture, as well as his numerous publications, to correct course. But, he was ignored from the start.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
For a review of the history -- which will involve reading "words" -- see the Edge article ...

http://www.scient...e_09.pdf

When the cosmic plasma models are corrected to more accurately reflect our observations of plasmas within the laboratory, then this dramatically alters the context for the mythological archetypes.

To get a better feel for how the models are wrong, see the Parks papers (who incidentally, has nothing to do with the EU) ...

"Why Space Physics Needs to Go Beyond the MHD Box" (2004) and
"Importance of Electric Fields in Modeling Space Plasmas" (2007)

I would also advise taking a very close look at the meaning of the word "quasi-neutral". That term seems to be a point of confusion for a lot of people. It is clarified here ...

http://www.thunde...tral.htm

The implication of all combined is the inevitability of transient electrical events.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013
I should say, actually, that it's simple when a person is authentically trying to understand what is being claimed, using all resources available to them (such as the theorists themselves, if necessary).

That said, people who are only interested in debunking the idea will tend to quit at the first sign of trouble, before they have understood the larger picture. There's little hope for learning there. This is actually what it means to be "old", cognitively speaking: As people age, people generally look increasingly to their pre-existing worldviews for understanding their surroundings. When a person reaches that point where they are no longer able to construct new worldviews to compete with their preferred ones, then the plasticity which so many people point to as an advantage of science becomes undermined.

If an entire community of scientists decides to teach a particular worldview to students, and weed out those who don't go along with it, then they can actually oppose progress.
scottfos
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
heh, well thank you Hannes. you help an hour go by less slowly. needless to say, CTers never consider themselves CTers. but you have indeed managed - just in these posts alone - to fulfill 7 of the 10 categories @ scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director. never quit believing! cheers.
Gmr
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
Ancient Astronauts plus Electric/Plasma Universe equals Fruity Goodness.
Physphan
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2013
This is an article about ancient beads, not really the place for promulgating pet beliefs about unrelated subjects. What disturbs me is the frequency of these 'discussions'. Over and over, for no good reason. Pretty much any subject has become like this, and PhysOrg is worse off for it. Regular readers already know the various alternative ideas, so realize you will get full "told ya so" rights by posting to sites dedicated to your beliefs and leave us alone. Please.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
Re: "Regular readers already know the various alternative ideas"

Actually, I see no discussion whatsoever in any physorg articles of the physics discipline's largest freedom of expression issue in its history, which would necessarily be a first step towards actually fixing the problems which were revealed in Jeff Schmidt's critique of the physics establishment, Disciplined Minds. Keep in mind that Schmidt fully documented the incredible lengths which the American Institute of Physics went to in order to conceal Schmidt's allegations against them.

The physics graduate program badly needs outsiders at this current time to remind the incoming and existing graduate physics students that there are ways to survive these indoctrinating programs (which Schmidt likens to mental bootcamps) without ideologically caving in. Once students know the system, it's easier for them to game it to their advantage.

Personally, I think that we should be empowering the students -- not the system.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2013
Re: "This is an article about ancient beads, not really the place for promulgating pet beliefs about unrelated subjects."

What you seem to not realize is that this absolutely does pertain to claims that there exists a link between mythology, plasma physics and catastrophe. Where the larger physics community consistently goes wrong is in its refusal to take a closer look at the details of the mythological archetypes, while simultaneously claiming that there is nothing worth looking at. You can't have it both ways.

Although reporting on plasmas has actually improved over the past year or so, we still see interstellar matter which exhibits the features of plasmas consistently referred to as gas. Theoretical inferences like gravitational lensing are referred to as established physics even though we know, without any doubt by now, that our own Milky Way's center does not lens. And when lensing is mentioned, it is rarely mentioned that/when dark matter is required to get it work.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
Pretty much the only people critiquing the cosmic plasma models are the Electric Universe theorists. Were it not for them, few would even know that the models essentially treat cosmic plasmas as though they are superconducting, unable to hold an E-field and with magnetic fields frozen-in.

I am not the problem here. I am just one of the guys here adding the asterisks which physorg and other science news agencies refuse to add to their stories. The problem -- and it is a very serious one with enormous implications -- is that people imagine that these asterisks are not required at all. We need students who understand where the theories come from, and why they might (or might not) believe them. The decision to leave out the asterisks is a political act in its own right, for what it does is present a worldview as though it is a collection of unbiased claims.

The real problem is that people think we can answer these incredibly complex questions w/o full student comprehension.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
It should be obvious that a student who understands where an idea comes from, as well as what critiques have been lodged against it, is subsequently better able to question that idea.

Those who fear argumentation in cosmology and astrophysics might want to reassess their own level of certainty in these disciplines. What sense does it make to pursue just one model in our most uncertain disciplines, even as that model can only account for 4% of the universe's main actors?

What in the world are you conscripting students into? Why would anybody go so far out of their way to literally force students into a belief that this definitively is the ONLY model they should learn? Sounds more like an ideological trap to me than some attempt to empower students to think on their own.

It goes without saying, at this point, that we must continue to teach the established theories. But, we will not see groundbreaking progress in these uncertain disciplines until students can also ??? them.
Gmr
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
Words and more words.

If you have a point to make, HannesAlfven, please try to be succinct instead of wall of text.

Coherence and quality is not gained through volume discounts.
rug
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
"Brevity is the soul of wit" seems to me HannesAlfven is lacking wit.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
Words are unfortunately necessary to teach students/people how to question claims. A computer can understand an equation without words, but we still use people to solve problems in physics for the very reason that computers still cannot understand words sufficient to apply history, philosophy and critical thinking to equations.

It seems that many people here imagine that the goal of education in physics is to generate students who will simply apply the equations without recourse to any critical thought about what they are doing. In fact, this is the exact warning which Schmidt lodges against the physics discipline -- that this is what professors today look for in their grad students when identifying "professionals" ... Students who won't get political.

But, the truth which many undergrads don't learn until they are already in the graduate programs is that the system already IS political. Every aspect of these programs is designed to create disciplined thinkers & weed out the rest.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
I'm sure you will find these words irrelevant too ...

From http://www.julesn...6489.htm

---

"Mike Ryan: In another area of the book you say "outright professional training tends to kill off natural creativity." Can you kind of go into why that is?

JS: Well there's ... you mean how it is or why it is?

MR: Why it is ...

JS: Well, why it is is because training is to prepare people for the workplace where they're going to be assigned an idealogy and have to carry it out. And how it is, is this abusive process that I mentioned where really, graduate school and an all-consuming, high-pressure intellectual bootcamp ... in fact, only about half of the entry students survive, and that half really doesn't 'survive' because they're really not themselves by the time the process is over.

[...]
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
[...]

"If you're in a graduate program, it's usually not at all with independent thought, it's one of fear and [conformity], and students are [relentlessly] (?) scrutinized and judged, not just briefly, and they can say this is just temporarily and I can hold on to my real ideas and just pretend for awhile, but this goes on for years on end .... the students are ever aware that their tickets to the profession can be cancelled at any time, no matter how many years of work they've put into it. People realize that the best way to conform, the best way to succeed, is to literally really adopt a favored idealogy. Not to pretend, but to actually adopt it. This is something they see in the so-called "Stockholm Syndrome"

[...]

---

So, you should see the problem here: How can we explain to students the truth of what they are getting themselves into through equations? Is there an equation that contrasts critical thinking with professionalism?
rug
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013
You know, you could have just posted the link. I'm pretty sure everyone here can click a link. You don't have to copy paste the whole thing.
Gmr
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013
But this is how HannesAlfven pretends he's been published on phys.org.

Some fantasies can be seen as self harm when acted on in this manner.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
I should mention that if there are any students out there who are thinking about going into a graduate physics program, they can go to Jeff Schmidt's website and email him at the address on that site with questions. He appears to read the emails.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2013
You guys don't seem to really care much about warning the students about what they are getting into. If I were a student thinking about going into one of these programs, I'd be thankful that somebody took the time to explicitly warn me, so that I could make a more informed decision.

I don't sense that anybody here actually cares about the harm done to (a) the people who are weeded out for simply thinking about what they are memorizing; nor (b) the students who develop shingles from the stress of being involved in a bootcamp-like program; nor (c) the very obvious threat to society's ability to solve big problems in physics that demand creative and critical thinking.

The public has this view that the consensus in physics originates purely in the strength of the arguments and evidence. Jeff's critique is groundbreaking because it shows that behind the consensus exists a program which is designed to create that agreement, regardless of the cost to humans and society.
Gmr
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013
Conspiracy.

Check.
rug
3 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2013
Maybe thats because you are full of crap, and ignorant of what really goes on in the universities? Yeah, that would be it.

You quote people like Jeff Schmidt who instead of spending his time writing for Physics Today which he was being paid to do. He spent his time writing a book. Then got piss off because he was fired for being stupid enough to put it in the book that he had stolen the time to write it in the first place.

That right there kills his credibility with me. The fact that you took the time to read it and believe the words written by a proven dumbass proves your dumbass level to me as well.

I think anyone that reads your rantings and copies of other peoples work and does not think your a dumbass doesn't need to be in science anyway. Obviously they can't think for themselves and believe everything they read online.

Hannes, if you want to preach to students, go to the schools to do it. Most of them are not coming here anyway since this site is mainly of the laymen.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2013
But this is how HannesAlfven pretends he's been published on phys.org.

Some fantasies can be seen as self harm when acted on in this manner.


I'm wondering if he wears a white lab coat around the house like Reg Mundy/AntonKole/RealityCheck/Ken Hughes does while pretending that he, as an amateur scientist, has developed the Theory-Of-Everything that is going to turn physics as we know it on it's head?
scottfos
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
While plasma universe seems to be unable to predict a single thing (only fit facts into their "theory" after being found), at least 1 debunker has had 1 prediction come true:

ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130731072938AAEByaq

Q. "How do "Electric Universe" proponents deal with a lack of galactic current?"
A. "Beats me....There are a few cranks (HannesAlfven, cantdrive85, vacuum-mechanics, and a couple others) on the Phys.org accumulator site who are relentless advocates of the 'electric universe' thesis. It is their answer to virtually every article related to space or Earth sciences, to the point of being absurd."

Hannes 0, debunker 1

and with that, i am done. this noob is sorry he got engaged/trolled.
Physphan
4 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013
@HA
"Actually, I see no discussion whatsoever in any physorg articles of the physics discipline's largest freedom of expression issue in its history..."

You're (unfortunately) not perceptive enough to realize there is no discussion because most don't believe what you are spewing and don't care. You are not making a difference, you are not helping, you are irritating people. Religious zealots feel the same way you do, each wanting to cure us of ignorance but they belong to dozens of different religions and each thinks THEIRS is the only truth. This is not the right forum for that either. You should leave a link or two a year on RELEVANT posts and quit preaching! Get a clue from your high (NOT!) ratings and go away. Please.
rug
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013
Hey scottfos, don't feel sorry about it. If anything it just helps strengthen your own arguments for what you know to be true. Gets you to look at your own evidence and reevaluate your own choices.

Besides, it can be fun from time to time. Then it just gets old as they start rehashing old points that have already been disproven. I think it's kinda funny most of the time when they take one line out of everything you say, focus on that, and try to make it seem you're either lying or a idiot. Sometimes, it just pisses me off.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
"Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds -- justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner." Anne Rice

"The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
H. L. Mencken

rug
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
Fiction writers, fake science, and theories that have been proven wrong. I think I'm starting to see a pattern.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2013
Fiction writers, fake science, and theories that have been proven wrong. I think I'm starting to see a pattern.

Well, that is a start, its only a matter of time for you to see the obvious. Sadly you and many others ignored what Tesla said many years ago:
"...magnificent mathematical garb (GR) which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8
One of these days you people may figure it out, but I can tell it won't be a realization you arrive at using you own ability to reason.
rug
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013
Right, cause believing in falsified theories makes your reasoning so much better than mine.
Gmr
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013

"The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
H. L. Mencken


The inferior man, eh?

Quite the vaunted opinion you have of yourself. Too bad neither point can rescue the bargain bin tinfoil hat wearing screeds posted in an effort to emulate real scientific endeavor.

All I see is cargo-cult science-esque posturing.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2013


The inferior man, eh?

Quite the vaunted opinion you have of yourself. Too bad neither point can rescue the bargain bin tinfoil hat wearing screeds posted in an effort to emulate real scientific endeavor.

All I see is cargo-cult science-esque posturing.


If you take offense, it's obvious you are fearful of the unknown and as such your admitted inferiority is a personal issue. I'm not superior to any person, I'm but an insignificant speck, on an insignificant rock... Fear of the unknown however, is not a trait I share with you.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2013
The most ironic fact about this entire discussion is the detractors claim the high ground of science yet their only "evidence" to refute is;
"...but you are being ridiculous...", "bullcrap.", "Ancient Aliens", "nutty conjecture", "Are ya so stupid", "Are ya so dumb that ya think ya". Note the use of "ya", it exudes class and respect the hallmark of any "scientific" discussion. Down yonder in Dixie, do your students need subtitles when when you lecture, like the Moonshiners from o'er yonder? But I digress, "Dumb as a moon rock and deluded as the Zephyr..", "conspiracy", "Fruity Goodness", "CONSPIRACY", "connoisseurs of crackpottery", "ya", "promulgating pet beliefs", "Words", "words?", "to the point of being absurd", "more words!", and for good measure toss in another "conspiracy".

GMR;
One thousand pages of debate can be countered with a single prediction and experiment.

Shit or get off the pot, where's your "proof"? Peratt did it, you?

Scientific indeed, what a joke!
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2013
"Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds -- justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner." Anne Rice

A common theme throughout her works......so what? last I checked she is a fiction writer who writes about vampires and witches and taltos and angels and supernatural spirits and a potion allowing a king of Egypt to live forever and made it impossible to die and ghosts and other supernatural creatures ....
Gmr
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013

Shit or get off the pot, where's your "proof"? Peratt did it, you?

Scientific indeed, what a joke!


Ah, but I'm not afraid of the unknown. Because I don't buy the hokum and goblins you wedge into the unknown, it apparently frustrates you to no end.

Frankly, you're welcome to wallow in your beleaguered sense of oppression and Weltschmertz. Again, none of it will make any of your conjectures any more true.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2013
Because I don't buy the hokum and goblins you wedge into the unknown, it apparently frustrates you to no end.

Your ignorance by no means affects me, this is but an enjoyable exercise. What frustrates me is that my tax dollars are hard a work discovering hokum (i.e., DM, DE, gravitrons or god particles or zombie holes, etc.) and theorizing abut goblins ( i.e. black holes of all flavors from stellar to superfantasicallygigantic monsters, magnetars, and other gravitational beasts). It's pretty clear a few of you are quite "old" n the sense HA described, in my experience that is reflected in real oldness. As Max Planck said;"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Institutionalization and the "educational" system will delay the inevitable, but the "standard model" will go the way of epicycles. Dead model walking.
Gmr
3 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2013

Institutionalization and the "educational" system will delay the inevitable, but the "standard model" will go the way of epicycles. Dead model walking.


Yammer yammer garp. That's all I hear.

When you actually manage to replicate all the success of the "standard model" in predictive elements and deriving what we see without ad-hoc elements and presumptions of a cosmic nine-volt, people might hear something different.

Until then... yammer.
yep
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2013
"A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is"

Success of the standard model?

The standard model is junk science built on assumption and speculation filled with sheeple worshiping the god big bang and its black holes and dark energy magic, but it sells!

There I said it... What are you going to do now sic Megalodon on me.

Gmr
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2013
^Argle bargle yammer

Really, this idea some have that some grand conspiracy is keeping their brilliant ideas down...

Oh, wait - there is /one/. It's called "reality." And from what I understand, it is pretty widespread and controlling.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.