|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 Hi |
|
you demand our papers?
are you the thought police??. I had a feeling this thread was headed this way. I could almost 'smell' it coming.
|
|
interjection
I am playing the peace maker here, Steve you are a bit out of line please apologise
|
|
<<Not to get into too much detail on this but as Janet is Stephens sister I think when she references something we should probably accept it.>>
Even if it disagrees with accepted peer reviewed science? No, don't think so. When I asked for evidence I want an academic journal paper, not some random page from the internet. New ideas can come through, but they are not worth a thing until they pass through peer review. Show me a paper, and then I'll read it and decide.
|
|
<<I am playing the peace maker here, Steve you are a bit out of line please apologise>>
I simply politely asked for the evidence of a claim and where it came from. That's how science works, otherwise anyone could claim anything they like.
Please tell me where that is 'out-of-line'?
|
|
That's not exactly what I meant
The proper quote was "The internet is full of hypothesis, fact and disinformation. Judge things on merit. I like a mathematical view on words, if they add up I will look into it." There is several published papers out there on the subject, I like reading white papers. Not all are correct I judge things on my own understanding.
|
|
There is a polite way to have a debate
People do not need to go hard left or hard right to discuss difficult topics. It goes nowhere. Being polite and asking hard questions that are on topic is much more productive than having a shouting contest.
|
|
Again, all I have ever asked for is the evidence of a claim, I am not going to accept something as true just because someone says it is. I asked for the evidence so that I could properly judge the claim myself, if I rejected it without looking at the evidence, that would be dogma. I have been nothing but polite about it.
|
|
the world is flat syndrome
For me I think the big bang theory is a bit like people in the medieval ages thinking the world is flat.
|
|
Chris, if I told you that the moon was made of cheese, would you believe me? I would hope not, even if I evidenced my claim by showing you cartoons which clearly showed it was. You would want to see credible evidence before I could convice you right? This is all I am doing, I want to know why you think what you do so I can decide for myself if your claim can be taken seriously. We don't automatically believe something just because someone says so.
I am not dogmatic, show me irrefutible proof and I will instantly change my mind, but I need to see the proof first!
|
|
I like science
So lets look at string theory as a good example as to why the big bang has many flaws. The existence of the string which has been scientifically proven opens up the view of multi-universe. he big bang cannot account for this. What we can see and what we can observe is not the full picture. hence my analogy of the Medieval people think the world is flat, just because you cannot see it does not mean that all you can observe is the way it is. Have you looked into String Theory?
|
|
because the Scientific establishment says its true...
does not make it true either. They tend to dismiss alternative theories on many subjects. If you don't like alternatives then that's your right. I presented some evidence and you attacked my sources as illegitimate. Why the argument? Let people decide for themselves. The big bang theory is just that..a theory. A working model that will stand or fall with the test of time.
|
|
how about musical evidence?
www.youtube.com
|
|
<<So lets look at string theory as a good example as to why the big bang has many flaws.>>
Can I just correct a possible misconception, I'm aware the Big Bang theory has many flaws, chief among them is the concept of the singularity. I even agreed in another thread that the criticisms of the theories of Dark Energy and Inflation were fair, as they were post hoc insertions to make the theory fit with observations (namely the accelerating inflation of the universe and the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background). But Not A does not necessarily equal B, any other theory would have to explain a whole host of other things as well as solve the flaws in the current model. I believe that no model currently exists, and so the Big Bang is the best we can do for now. If you believe it has been superceded, great, so show me!
<<Have you looked into String Theory?>>
Yes. I find it to be an interesting hypothesis that solves many problems (including the big problem of the singularity as the strings can be shown mathematically to have a minimum size), the fault with it at the moment is that it is untestable, and so cannot be taken to be true (yet!). You have to have a theoretical framework AND experimental evidence before you can declare something to be true, hence the big search for the Higgs, the theoretical mechanism of the Higgs field has been know for years but we had to find it too!
<<The existence of the string which has been scientifically proven opens up the view of multi-universe.>>
It's my understanding that particles as strings has not been scientifically proven. There is no experiment you can do to show this at the moment where strings would behave differently to particles (unless you know something I don't, in which case great, show me!)
The multiverse was proposed to explain the seemingly staggering coincedence of the universal constants being the way they are such that we have a viable universe. I don't know how that is affect by string theory, but I would be happy to be enlightened.
<<The big bang cannot account for this.>>
The Big Bang can be incoperated into the multiverse model, if one universe can spawn another, and I was under the impression that prominent string theorists have proposed a model where the Big Bang is triggered by two branes colliding. Untestable of course, but an interesting idea.
<< What we can see and what we can observe is not the full picture. hence my analogy of the Medieval people think the world is flat, just because you cannot see it does not mean that all you can observe is the way it is.>>
Agreed, but Medieval people has to make do with the evidence they had, until new evidence proved it wrong. You can't change your mind based on what you might see in the future, you have to wait until you have observable evidence, so that your intuition does not lead you astray. This is the scientific method, and it is very effective.
|
|
'evidence' of infinity
www.youtube.com
this has several parts.
|
|
I work with a lot of PhD's
My observation is that where you are and what you do you are entirely correct to prove facts from fiction you need to use scientific theory. However I am not a scientist if you did a Myers Briggs personality test I come up as an INTJ. If you know anything about team dynamics you need a good balance of different personality types to cover all angles. it is good to know oneself both strengths and weaknesses. I am an ideas person but struggle with the detail to complete as I get bored. That's why I prefer philosophy. Not all my ideas are correct but I like the big picture. On Hugs Bison I love this picture.
bumblemumble.bigcartel.com
|
|
<<because the Scientific establishment says its true...
does not make it true either>>
Indeed not, but you need evidence to overturn the established opinion, I just asked what that evidence was so I could judge for myself.
<<They tend to dismiss alternative theories on many subjects.>>
No theory should ever be dismissed out-of-hand without it being checked, but some hypotheses must be if contradictory evidence shows them to be false. Established science has been overturned before, and will be again, but only when the evidence is strong enough.
<<I presented some evidence and you attacked my sources as illegitimate.>>
you presented a website that could have been written by anyone at any time. It has (as far as I know), not passed through a peer review process. The claims have not been checked. If you show me something that has, I'll be happy to read it and discuss it.
<<Why the argument? Let people decide for themselves.>>
That is how science works, there are discussions, and arguments, all to find the truth. There can only be one, and the one with the most evidence must be the one we go with. It's not about controlling thoughts, it's about finding the one objective truth.
|
|
this is not just a Science forum.
I know how science works also. But as in history established theories are very hard to challenge. It is in the vested interest of those that hand out research grants that there theories remain intact. This is where Human Nature comes in. These well established Scientists now have great jobs at Universities and lucrative lecture tours. So it is in there interest to under-fund or not fund at all any alternate theories that challenge there own.Case in point; 'Clovis point'. Many a fine field researcher lost there funding for not blindly adhering to established theory that the migration route of humans into North America was across the baring sea land bridge. If you dared to argue otherwise you got ridiculed and refunded. Well it turns out that Clovis point did not come across via the norther route. It took 50-years to to find the truth because of the reluctance of the Established Scientific body to except the 'alternative' theory on this matter despite the evidence coming in from the field(this doesn't sound like the scientific method does it??). You said;'''(That is how science works, there are discussions, and arguments, all to find the truth. There can only be one, and the one with the most evidence must be the one we go with. It's not about controlling thoughts, it's about finding the one objective truth''.) That is not how Science works today!!!! Its how it should work!!!! But unfortunately Humans screw it up because of there vested interests. I will continue to post whatever the hell i want about the subject. And you can do the same.
|
|
One terrible example, and I agree that it was terrible, is not sufficient to throw out the whole of academia (I realise I'm inviting more isolated anecdotes here). Established science has been overturned before (see Einstein, Darwin etc...), indeed it's how researchers make their name, if you prove something wrong you make a bigger name for yourself than confirming already known facts (I actually work in academia at the moment, so I know a bit about how it works). Yes there are vested interests, and it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we have. Trust me the financial rewards in academia are not great, the reason scientists do what they do is because they want to find the truth, whatever that may be.
<<I will continue to post whatever the hell i want about the subject.>>
I've never tried to stop you.
All I've ever asked for is the credible evidence of a claim. I'm still waiting, but as it seems you're getting more and more defensive I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
more ''evidence''
www.youtube.com
|
|
i have been presenting evidence
and you can wait till hell freezes for for all i care Sir.
|
|
OK, since all you are going to do is post videos made by people who believe conspiracy theories about the ''scientific establishment'' I'll ask a more direct question.
Presumably your alternative hypothesis is an infinite universe, how does this model account for the cosmic microwave background?
|
|
To all readers; here is the evidence.
I AGAIN POST THIS VIDEO BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT IN SHOWING HOW SCIENTIFIC DOGMA WORKS. PLEASE WATCH ALL THE FOLLOWING;
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com
i HAVE MET AND SPOKEN TO MANY OF THESE SCIENTISTS. This is my 'evidence'.You will find your background radiation explanations and any other explanations you need. But i already know what you will say!!(see video #8) ......let the readers decide.
|
|
insulting!!!
(K, since all you are going to do is post videos made by people who believe conspiracy theories about the ''scientific establishment'' ) this is what you wrote!!Are you saying that all pro-big bang videos are good and any anti-big bang videos are bad? Some of these scientists are at the top of there field!! Like Halton Arp( en.wikipedia.org.... Whose catalogs of Galaxies all of us Astronomers use. How dare you assault there integrity!!.
|
|
History is about to be made....
www.ustream.tv
if you get a facebook pop up just exit and start again. It should clear up.If not message me and i will try to filter it out.
|
|
<<Are you saying that all pro-big bang videos are good and any anti-big bang videos are bad?>>
No, don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying no ''video'', for or against, is of any use with the papers to back it up.
How can you check what you are told? Why do you trust the opinion of one scientist and not the other?
<<Some of these scientists are at the top of there field!! Like Halton Arp( en.wikipedia.org.... Whose catalogs of Galaxies all of us Astronomers use. How dare you assault there integrity!!.>>
You don't believe in Alchemy?!! How dare you insult Isaac Newton, the man was at the top of his field, and came up with gravitational equations that we still use today!
See the problem? That's called the argument from authority, and it's a logical fallacy. I have heard of Halton Arp, he is no doubt a very intelligent man, who has produced some very fine research, but it doesn't stop him being wrong about this.
Also, I was not insulting anyone's integrity, I didn't say anyone was a liar.
|
|
Errata
<<No, don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying no ''video'', for or against, is of any use with the papers to back it up.>>
Sorry, please read with as without.
|
|
Sapienti Sat!!!!!!
i put enough evidence out for any reasonable person but not enough it seems for one with a closed mind!!. 'Contra principia negantem non est disputandum'
|
|
I'll say it again, show me irrefutable PEER REVIEWED evidence and I'll happily admit you were right. My mind is not closed.
I'll also ask again, why do you trust one scientist and not the other?
|
|
where have i insulted Newton or any Scientists?
and you say i put words in your mouth? I put out videos made by reputable Scientists and you said they were conspiracy theorists!!!. I have looked at many of your posts in other clubs and found something interesting!!! you also use Internet sites to explain your ideas!! but i found no 'formal papers' by you. Yet you demand them from me. And when i post legitimate alternatives you reject them!!! I believe that is called 'Ignoratio elenchi ' And it will not work with me. So good day Sir...Maiora premunt!!
|
|
|
