Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


Gravitational wave/inflation discovery literally bites the dust

The uncertainty of science: The big discovery earlier this year of gravitational waves confirming the cosmological theory of inflation has now been found to be completely bogus. Instead of being caused by gravitational waves, the detection was caused by dust in the Milky Way.

Even while the mainstream press was going nuts touting the original announcement, I never even posted anything about it. To me, there were too many assumptions underlying the discovery, as well as too many data points with far too large margins of error, to trust the result. It was interesting, but hardly a certain discovery. Now we have found that the only thing certain about it was that it wasn’t the discovery the scientists thought.

Nor is this unusual for the field of cosmology. Because much of this sub-field of astronomy is dependent on large uncertainties and assumptions, its “facts” are often disproven or untrustworthy. And while the Big Bang theory itself unquestionably fits the known facts better than any other theory at this time, there remain too many uncertainties to believe in it without strong skepticism.

Readers!
 

I must unfortunately ask you for your financial support because I do not depend on ads and rely entirely on the generosity of readers to keep Behind the Black running. You can either make a one time donation for whatever amount you wish, or you sign up for a monthly subscription ranging from $2 to $15 through Paypal or $3 to $50 through Patreon.


Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Your support is even more essential to me because I not only keep this site free from advertisements, I do not use the corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to promote my work. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
 

Or you can donate by using Zelle through your bank. You will need to give my name and email address (found at the bottom of the "About" page). The best part of this electronic option is that no fees will be deducted! What you donate will be what I receive.

6 comments

  • D.K. Williams

    I saw this story and didn’t buy it either.

  • mpthompson

    How certain is science about the big bang theory and inflation being correct? I realize that the so far the theory is the best fit for the CMBR measurements and other supporting evidence, but at one time planetary epicycles fit the leading theory of planetary motions as well. The main thing that bothers me about the big bang is that it places humans in a special location within the universe — mainly at near the beginning of time given that the universe will continue on for trillions and trillions of years making the first 14 billion years seem like an eyeblink. I wonder if “consensus” around the big bang is preventing investigation into radically different theories that might actually fit the observed data better.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the universe actually is infinite in age, but just always appears to be 14 billion years in age when an incorrect model is applied against the observed data. For instance, the edge of observed space for us is where cosmic expansion causes objects to move away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light — effectively placing us looking at all directions at an inside-out black hole. That being the case, the edge of the universe should have other properties we normally associate with the edge of a black hole including evaporation where all the matter that should have left over the cosmic horizon slowly leaks back into into our universe as radiation — thus endlessly recycling everything. Kind of a cosmic Hydrologic Cycle.

    Just some idle speculation on a lazy Sunday morning.

  • Phil Berardelli

    Bob, over the years I’ve learned to trust your skepticism, which has proven right more often than not. And your persistence in using the phrase “the uncertainty of science” is well grounded. Carl Sagan used to say the great thing about science is not what it discovers but that it’s a self-correcting process; that only by lengthy and painful and constant skeptical reappraisal can we ever even approach something considered truth. Time and again the scientific community has abandoned this rule, and always to their everlasting shame. Years ago, I profiled a microbiologist who was bullied into dropping out of graduate school at one point. His transgression? He wanted to pursue research into human retroviruses. His faculty adviser admonished him never to speak about such a ridiculous premise, because doing so would draw disdain and ridicule of the scientific establishment, who remained certain that retroviruses could not infect humans. Today, mention a particular retrovirus and nearly everyone has heard of it and knows what it can do to human beings: HIV. Hang onto your skepticism, Bob. It helps us all.

  • “How certain is science about the big bang theory and inflation being correct?”

    As you say, the theory presently fits the facts quite well. The facts, however, are far from certain. There are many many assumptions required to establish these facts. Moreover, the facts themselves are very tenuous, based on on relatively little data without much depth.

    Thus, a good scientist should remain very skeptical and open-minded about the Big Bang theory. Sadly, my experience in talking to astronomers is that if you dare raise any doubts about it you are considered a medieval witch doctor who doesn’t understand science.

  • Max

    The skepticism on this site is refreshing. question all ideas and theories, facts will stand on their own. (The consensus of scientists who said a major winter storm was coming to New York did not make it true)
    The creation of the universe occurred in one spot, everywhere else did not exist yet. Therefore everywhere you look is the center of the universe. Unless we are wrong.
    If everything is expanding outward from a central point, then no galaxy would collide with another as the distance between galaxies would continue expanding forever.
    Not only are collisions happening, but the movements of galaxies is nearly chaotic. Like the rip in space time that created this universe was attached to the wall or the edge of the universe and flittered about like a balloon that got away.
    I suspect that new theories with unusual mechanics and energies will be introduced in our lifetime to explain what we don’t know, and to bring up more questions that we haven’t asked yet. (For example, the big bang could have set off a cascade event that allowed multiple big bangs to occur over a very large distance ? The rebounding compression wave would have condensed the energy into matter so it would not all radiate out to the edge of the universe and slow down the expansion rate)
    Just random thoughts…

  • Edward

    “Sadly, my experience in talking to astronomers is that if you dare raise any doubts about it you are considered a medieval witch doctor who doesn’t understand science.”

    Skepticism also applies to new hypotheses, and scientists tend to be biased in favor of what they have already been convinced is right and true, despite their desire to keep open minds. Because the Big Bang *is* consistent with current observation, it is all too tempting to consider it to be “settled science.” Thus, should a new observation come along to disprove the Big Bang, it could take time for current scientists to accept it, just as Darwin’s hypotheses took time (and many additional observations) to accept and Einstein’s papers took time (and several experiments) to accept.

    It can be traumatic to realize that the great Sir Isaac Newton was less than correct or that reality is different from what you see and experience around you.

    This bias (I forgot the name for it) is a part of human nature, and it is why it is so hard to convince people that, for example, there really *is* a “pause” in global warming — which implies that global warming is the norm — so let me rephrase it: that there really has been no warming trend for the past decade or so. Many people believe in global warming because (non)scientist (and carbon credit entrepreneur) Al Gore’s movie convinced them before counter evidence was presented, and because it is hard to convince people — even open-minded scientists — that what they know to be right and true is neither. (Or to convince scientists whose funding comes from governments that want global warming proved for political, not scientific, reasons.)

    This bias is also why evidence that supports a current theory is so easily accepted and is so shocking when it turns out to have been generated by dust motes (read: “contamination”) in the experiment.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *