John Dobson (amateur astronomer)

"Now back to the border... where the radiation as seen by us approaches zero. The energy of the particles approaches zero. If the energy of the particles approaches zero, [E = m] the mass of the particles approaches zero. If the mass of the particles approaches zero, [\triangle x\;\triangle mv \ge \hbar] the momentum of the particles approaches zero. The momentum is the mass multiplied by the velocity... If the momentum approaches zero, our uncertainty in the momentum approaches zero. You can't have a big mistake about nothing. ...If the uncertainty in the momentum approaches zero, the uncertainty in where they are [\triangle x] goes to totality, and they can recycle back anywhere. I don't see any way to avoid that, understanding physics the way we understand it now. You would have to change the physics to get out of the mess."

"So as I see it, the stuff recycles from the border."

"So there is this question which... everybody fails to ask me about it. How come it recycles as and not as iron? ...As seen by us, if the mass is going very very low, then the size of the particles has to get very big because things are wound up against electricity by being small, and if their size goes bigger then their mass goes down, or if their mass goes down, their size gets bigger. So way out there, as seen by us, the mass is going down, the sizes are getting bigger and the molecules can't hold together. The atoms can't hold together, and they come back as s and electrons."

"I'm going to give you my one-liner. The universe is made out of s and electrons. It talks French and knows how to spell it. I really don't think that people who believe in intelligent design have even smelled the problem. It's made out of protons and electrons, and it talks French and knows how to spell it."

"[W]hat is the evidence that it recycles from the border? There's a lot of evidence now. ...The Hubble telescope was asked to look to see about the between ... 3C 273 is a quasar... close enough to us so that the light reaches us... and can't get into the atmosphere, so we asked [the Hubble telescope] to look at it and see if there are any clouds of between 3C 273 and ourselves that are going away from us at different speeds... [T]he Hubble telescope said that there are a whole block of clouds of hydrogen between 3C 273 and ourselves going away at different speeds, and so each one makes a shadow in the spectra and there are a whole lot of shadows. That's called the Lyman-alpha forest. So that's an old piece of evidence, and the Hubble telescope also said that there's more than enough in the intergalactic voids to make all the known galaxies."

"[I]n recent times we found there's... dozens of galaxies that are only a few hundred million years old, and they couldn't possibly be as old as the Big Bang theory says they should be. ...So there's a lot of observational evidence... on my side that says no to the Big Bang model."

"There's another problem. The Big Bang people always thought that the background radiation that... Penzias and Wilson discovered in 1965 was the proof of their theory. Well, you can't prove a theory. You can disprove it, and it's been disproven several times."

"[H]ow do I get the background radiation? It turns out that way out near the border, where the mass of the particles is very low, all radiation going through a field of low mass particles gets so often picked up and re-radiated that it gets thermalized to 3°K. ...[T]he amount of 3K background radiation that we get in this model corresponds to what we measure, and the Big Bang gets about 1% of what they predict."

"The fun part is this. We have a rule against machines... because the entropy tends to a maximum. ...Entropy is a measure of the scrambledness of the energy... and it's easier to scramble an egg than to unscramble it. ...So the rule is that entropy, the scrambledness of the energy tends to go up, and does not tend to go down, and for that reason you can't have a perpetual motion machine that takes energy in a more scrambled state and runs it out in a less scrambled state. It always goes the other way. It gets it in a less scrambled state and dumps it out scrambled."

"[I]n my model the stuff recycles from the border as brand new spaced all out... and that's the lowest state of entropy known to man. Hydrogen all spaced out is the lowest state of entropy, and then it falls together by gravity and the entropy goes up, and all these other things happen and the entropy keeps going up and going up. ...[W]hen it recycles from the border the negative entropy is back in."

"Long ago there were some physicists who said that the whole universe was made out of energy. We Europeans were so retarded that we didn't notice... energy until 1845. But there were some physicists who... probably 5,000 years ago said the whole universe is made out of energy, and their name for the universe was... "the changing"... [T]hey said if the universe is the changing, there has to be something with respect to which it changes. So there has to be a changeless underneath, and if it's not in time it can't be in space, so it has to be changeless, infinite and undivided. Then their problem was, if what exists is changeless and what we see is changing, how the hell do you do that? ...[T]hey said it could only be by mistake. You can't change the changeless, but you could mistake the changeless for the changing. So they said, we'll have to study mistakes."

"In order to mistake one thing for another you have 3 things to do. ...[Y]ou have to fail to see what it was. That's the veiling power of your mistake. Then you have to jump to the conclusion that it was something else. That you do on your own hoofs. That's called the projecting power of the mistake. But... you had to see the thing in the first place, or you would have never made the mistake that way. In order to mistake your friend for a ghost, you had to see your friend. Your friend shows through in the ghost. So those old physicists said the changeless has to show through in our physics. That's inertia. The infinite has to show... That's the in the miniscule particles. And the undivided has to show... and that's why they all fall together by gravity."

"Now it's not as though we Europeans had another explanation for any of this. We don't! ...We have only an explanation of how things fall, not why they fall; and how they coast, not why they coast; and that they are made of electricity and not why they're made of electricity. Those old physicists had the why answer on this."

"So if you ask what's beyond the observable universe, and the observable universe... is due to a mistake... and you want to know what's beyond the mistake, it's the changeless, the infinite, the undivided."

"All we see is that things are moving away from each other, but if you see from the center of an observational universe, as seen by you they're going away from you. ...[R]edshift is not an actual thing. This is not an actual model of the universe. It's not a model of an actual universe, it's a model of an observational universe... [T]hat's the difference between this model and all of the other cosmological models. All the other cosmological models have taken the universe to be actual. What do we mean by actual? We mean that it arises by a process in physics. Since universes are fairly well known not to arise by processes in physics, I don't think that we have any actual universes. I think we're stuck with observational physics. I think this stuff that we wrote on the board is about an observational universe, not about an actual universe."

"I asked 3 astronomers in the last 25 or 30 years... When a cluster of stars is formed out of a cloud of dusty , what proportion of this stuff makes into the stars, and what proportion is blown away by the stellar wind? ...[T]he first 2 ...said they don't have an immediate answer... but they thought that between 1 and 10% would make it into the stars, and between 90 and 99% would be blown away. ...[T]he 3rd man ...in more recent time ...said 95% ...is blown away, and in some cases more and in some cases less. So... what is all this ? It's blown away from when the stars were formed. ...[W]hen a galaxy is formed, it's just a cluster of stars and 99 or 95%... of this stuff is going to be blown away. Now that's what we see. Vera Rubin measured this for ... around it is all the rest of this stuff which is 10 times as much as we see in the galaxy... So the is perfectly ordinary matter..."

"[I]n recent times we've discovered... that about 1/2 of the neutron stars that we know about have from the galaxy. ...Now these are neutron stars with a density of 100,000 battle ships in a one pint jar, and they're about 10 or 12 miles in diameter and they weigh a hell of a lot, and they're leaving the galaxy, and they're , and they're too bloody small for you to find. ...They're not going to shine for you."

"I think that the is ordinary matter. I don't think we need any fancy stuff like the Big Bang people need. The Big Bang people needed all that fancy stuff because their inflationary models said that it has to be in there... [T]hen they ran into this difficulty... If there's all that extra stuff in here, out of which and could be made, then the Big Bang model is wrong. ...If all this extra matter is ordinary matter, then the helium abundance is not ok for the Big Bang model! So then they had to invent that this dark matter responds only to gravity. I was having dinner with a physicist... I said in that case why didn't it fall into the galaxy? ...[H]e said, "It can't fall into anything without getting rid of its gravitational energy, and it has no way to do that." So what's the use of the dark matter? It can't do anything. ...[T]hat's the problem with the dark matter..."

"[T]he dark matter that they invented said that the universe should be not expanding so fast. ...So then they had to invent the to make it speed up. ...[I]f you want to invent all these things you can get out of any model."

"One of the troubles of the Big Bang is they invented the initial conditions so that it would come out like this. Well, that's not usually the name of the game. ...You're supposed to look to see what the initial ingredients might have been. ...I don't take seriously dark energy and dark matter. Dark matter, as I see it... we already know that we see only a little bit of the universe that's out there. Vera Rubin measured it a long time ago. We know where it is, and I have a good idea what it is."

"I have a feeling... that the physicists are going to have to learn to read, because the... physicists have taught... that thisE = mmeans that matter can be converted to energy... and that's not this equation. That would be E + m = \text{a concept}. If mass goes down the energy goes up. If the energy goes down, the mass goes up. There's only one way to write that E + m = k, and that's not Einstein's equation... and Einstein never took it the other way. He always took it the way he wrote it. ...I don't think he ever saw how it was taught in school. If you were teaching... and Einstein is visiting... are you going to talk relativity?"

"Einstein never changed it, the way he put it in his words. He said toward the end of his life, ..."Matter had fallen out of the physics... as a fundamental concept." We're left only with energy. ...That's going to have to be cleaned up. The physicists can't be this retarded permanently."

"S^2 = x^2 - t^2S is zero only if x is equal to t. If x is equal to t then S is always zero. ...[O]ur evidence that the universe is out there and inde-god damned-pendent of us, is that we look out there and see it... [T]he equation says that... the separation of every event that you've seen... and your seeing of that event has always been zero. ...[W]e knew it was like that when we're dreaming. We didn't know that it's better than that when we're awake."

"I'm not responsible for any of those equations. ...I'm just your tour guide."

"I give these talks in Hollywood... at the church in the Vedanta center... There are all these monks lying around and... people ask me questions... So I tell them, "I'm just your tour guide. I'm here to tell you where you are and how you got here. If you want to get out, talk to the people in orange.""

"[T]he way I understand it from those old physicists is that there's something underneath which we didn't notice, and... they said... they have an answer for why inertia shows, why gravity shows, why electricity shows. We have no answer at Caltech. We know how things fall... how they coast... how they're electrical. We don't know why. ...[T]hose old physicists gave us a way of looking at this thing that says why. If you mistake one thing for another, the one thing has to show, and they said what's underneath has to be changeless, infinite and undivided... [T]he... [unchanging] that shows through is inertia, the infinite is the electrical energy and... gravity is the undivided showing through."

"It shows through in us too. Everybody runs after peace and security. That's running after the changeless. Everybody runs after freedom. That's running after the infinite, and everybody runs after happiness. We all get married and have children... and you're restricted to the pursuit of happiness, not to its attainment. It's written."

"[I]f this whole thing is due to a mistake, there's a reason why it's made out of frustration. ...My model says that the universe is going to be made out of frustration."

"I was asked to give a talk... [by] the lady at the pretzel farm in Sierra... You understand a pretzel farm, where all those folded s are? ...[T]he lady ...asked me to give a talk on frustration. ...I said I was walking down through ... in Los Angeles in the winter... the rainy season, and there's this little stream of water coming along beside me... I was thinking that the poets say it will be happy when it reaches the sea. But the poets are wrong... The sea is trying desperately to get to the center of the earth, and the rocks are in the way, and it gets frustrated. ...So the rocks are trying desperately to get to the center of the earth, and the iron of the earth's core is in the way, and the rocks get frustrated. And the iron at the earth's core is trying desperately to fall into the sun, and its inertia is in the way, and it goes round and round... 18 miles a second, and it gets frustrated. And the sun is trying desperately to get to the center of the galaxy, and its inertia, the way it goes around 150 miles a second, and it gets frustrated. And the galaxy has been trying to merge with all the rest of the matter of the observable universe, but the expansion is in the way, and it gets frustrated. And the expansion has been trying to reduce the density of the universe, but the recycling is in the way, and it gets frustrated."

"Now if the universe weren't made out of frustration, it couldn't go on like this. Cheer up. There's no way out of it."

"[T]here's nothing invariant about how it [the universe] looks to all of us. There are a lot of us and it looks different to a whole bunch of us... But if you ask... the fundamental questions what's underneath, then I think it comes out the same. ...[T]he changeless, the infinite and the undivided, and if there's no other way to do this except making mistakes, but you're not required to make a mistake. I think it's time to fire me."

"I didn't create a telescope. ...I'm famous for being too retarded to make an . You're supposed to do something to get famous for it! But we... weren't going to do photography. We just wanted to see what's out there and we made a 24 incher, that's more than 13 foot , and we've run it for more than 80,000 miles in the public parks and in Indian reservations, up to Canada and down to Mexico. But we weren't going to do photography. We din't need to track things across the sky, so we never did all that. ...So the people who need to be blamed are the people who invented those equatorial mounts. You should get on their case, not mine, because that's an invention. What we did is not an invention."

"They were going to give me an award for public service in astronomy in the East Bay Astronomical Society, so... they sweet talk you in front of the crowd: "The Dobsonian Revolution..." So I got up and said, "All the previous revolutions were run with the cannons on Dobsonian mounts!""

"We were in the monastary and it must have been in our curriculum to grind telescope mirrors, and these were just gallon jug bottoms, just little 5 1/2 incher things, and I was doing them under water so as not to make a stir... but we had enough stir anyway."

"Why would I need a newer type telescope. Our older type telescopes do everything I need... There are a lot of people who like to invent... harder ways to do things. I let them do it."

"It's high time... that the amateurs did something else besides taking pictures with those 4 and 6 inchers, and looking at the pictures in the daytime with their s. They're not going to see them with their cone cells through the telescope. They're going to see them with their s, and the rod cells are wired the wrong way. For this whole bunch of cells there is only one wire to the brain, and for this whole bunch [in the other eye] there's only one wire to the brain. So your resolution is between this bunch and this bunch... so if you want to see what those pictures look like, take them in the closet and turn out the light, and damn it all, they look just like what you see through the eyepiece. Don't think I don't do all these things. I do."

"It's virtually impossible to entertain me at a . I've had to aim that [24 inch] telescope for the public for... a lot... 4,000 nights... so I've seen most of those things from 7 to 10 thousand feet through a 24 incher... and my eyes are no longer as young as they used to be."

"I used to be able to see the middle star in the through our 24 incher. So we were up on 5,000 ft in the Sierra and there was this young lady and... I noticed her pupils were very big, so I asked her to... see if she could see the central star... So she calls out there are two stars inside and there are two... in the nebulosity, and she calls out the . That's all you see through the 120... [I]t makes a lot of difference what's between your eyepiece and your brain... and I don't have very good eyes."

"When I was in Boston when... 3 years old, some big kid rubbed mud in my eyes till it was behind the eyeballs, and the doctors thought I would be blind. Mother said it took one whole week for the mud to ooze out from underneath my eyeballs. ...So I don't have a straight horizon in my right eye, but my brain reads my left eye. ...I've had 87 years to get used to it, and my brain knows which eye to read. ...But if I'm not careful, I can see, once in a while, this picture intrude ..."

"If the amateurs don't get their telescopes out for the public, nobody will! The professionals make telescopes for the professionals. We sidewalk astronomers make telescopes for the rest of you."

"I was in ... and they've had star parties on the dark of the moon... probably for 100 years... Run off to the wilderness with their telescopes so they can lick their chops and go to bed. And now on the next week, when there is a quarter moon, they have a public star party in the old in Seattle, and they blame that one on me. But they get quite a number of telescopes... and several hundred people looking... A lot of amateurs do this kind of thing now. We sidewalk astronomers used to do it on every clear night, but... I can't do that any more. They run me all over the place in a plane."

"[Y]ou need to make telescopes so you can see what's going on out there. You can't see it any other way. Watching TV doesn't do it. They get all mixed up when they run the TV, and they get you all mixed up if you're not careful."

"A specific type of Alt-Az mount is called a Dobsonian mount, named after John Dobson... a cofounder of the San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomers in 1967 and an avid promoter of bringing the wonders of astronomy to the people. ...The Dobsonian mount is simple (two basic pieces - tube and base), stable, and low cost."

"[A] side to Dobson’s work that makes... scientists, uncomfortable."

"Dobson believes scientists are making a mistake by limiting themselves to conventional measurements of space and time. Such... he insists, have hit a roadblock. Researchers should, he says, add philosophy and metaphysics into their equations."

"Dobson tried this argument out on the physics department at , referring to his model of the universe... "I’ll admit... this is way out in left field." ...[P]rofessors and students fidgeted through the lecture. Several walked out... Afterward came... "What you’re talking about isn’t physics." "Nobody is going to listen... until you can come up with... numbers.""

"He is portrayed as a galactic Pied Piper, luring followers with enthusiasm and charm, coaxing them on a journey to the heavens."

"Dobson’s original design is fundamentally excellent. What I have done is taken Dobson’s concepts and tried to realize their full potential."

"Dobson is a visionary. With his home-built telescopes, he smashed traditional "small" expectations for amateur instruments. ...John Dobson pointed the way to today’s dream telescopes."

"The true Dobsonian—the telescope held by friction alone—was invented by John Lowry Dobson. Born in China in 1915 to missionary parents, it fell to Dobson to reduce the alt-azimuth telescope to its essentials. ...[H]is family returned to San Francisco in 1927."