|
Post by piper on Nov 28, 2005 1:45:44 GMT -4
I already know that most science is not based on fact.
The "big bang", "black holes", "dark matter", "dark energy", "neutron stars", "magnetars", "WIMPs", "MACHOs"... none of these fabrications exist in the real world. They're all mathematical constructs which only exist in computer simulations.
;D
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Nov 28, 2005 2:04:08 GMT -4
Piper said:
Yes, some of them are mathematical constructs. But they're constructed from bases of varying soundness.
Big Bang: Galaxies are moving away from each other. The further a galaxy is from ours, the faster its moving. Play this in reverse, and in the past the galaxies were crushingly close to each other. That's the basis of the Big Bang.
Black holes: A small star like ours will swell up into a red giant when its used all its hydrogen, and then collapse into a red dwarf. Larger stars live faster and die more violently, and their remains are denser. Get a large enough star to start with, and its remains will be so dense that the escape velocity for the star will be greater than the speed of light. That's a black hole.
Neutron stars: the remains of exploding stars which aren't dense enough to be black holes.
These sorts of events have a simple logical premise. The others I can't comment on because I don't know enough of the background science.
But where do you think the theories come from? Friday afternoon, everyone's sitting around having a beer, and one scientist says to the rest, "Hey, how about this one..."
Why not learn the science behind these concepts before dismissing them?
|
|
|
Post by piper on Nov 28, 2005 2:28:14 GMT -4
Piper said: Yes, some of them are mathematical constructs. But they're constructed from bases of varying soundness. Big Bang: Galaxies are moving away from each other. The further a galaxy is from ours, the faster its moving. Play this in reverse, and in the past the galaxies were crushingly close to each other. That's the basis of the Big Bang. Black holes: A small star like ours will swell up into a red giant when its used all its hydrogen, and then collapse into a red dwarf. Larger stars live faster and die more violently, and their remains are denser. Get a large enough star to start with, and its remains will be so dense that the escape velocity for the star will be greater than the speed of light. That's a black hole. Neutron stars: the remains of exploding stars which aren't dense enough to be black holes. These sorts of events have a simple logical premise. The others I can't comment on because I don't know enough of the background science. But where do you think the theories come from? Friday afternoon, everyone's sitting around having a beer, and one scientist says to the rest, "Hey, how about this one..." Why not learn the science behind these concepts before dismissing them? *sigh* I have been following the "science" behind these counter-intuitive concepts for over 20 years now, and yes they are all complete fabrications. Big Bang: Solely based on the incorrect assumption that redshift equals distance, ignoring intrinsic redshift for young objects (quasars, etc.). See Arp, et al. Black Holes: Your parroted knowledge of stellar cycles is incorrect. Stars are electrical in nature, a fact which is ignored by mainstream science. Black holes do not exist in nature. They are a construct put in place to explain the nature of electric plasmoids using limited and incorrect gravity-based views. Neutron Stars: see above. If you are interested enough about science and cosmology, I recommend The Electric Universe website. Beware cognitive dissonance. ;D
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 28, 2005 10:37:49 GMT -4
I have been following the "science" behind these counter-intuitive concepts for over 20 years now, and yes they are all complete fabrications. Perhaps if you had spent that time learning instead of following, you wouldn't be so confused as to how "things" work. There is no evidence for the "electric universe" idea... that is why it is ignored by mainstream science. ...Only if one is interested in how science doesn't work...
|
|
|
Post by piper on Nov 28, 2005 12:20:05 GMT -4
Interesting claims you make. Care to back them up?
I said "following" because you can't learn a subject that always being adjusted in an ad hoc way to support a false theory. And if you believe that something in nature can only be understood through complex mathematical constructs on a computer, they have you exactly where they want you: ignorant and spreading that ignorance.
I had a very good "understanding" of cosmology and astrophysics, and was even able to describe in detail the formation and functioning of a "black hole" and the life cycle of stars. I gave up when cosmologists concluded that 90% or more of the universe was "unknown" and "invisible". It's a shame it was all a waste of my time. Then I learned that the Universe is composed of 99% plasma, and that plasma is a conductor, and that the electricital force is magnitudes (10^38 times) stronger than gravity but is ignored. It was then that I found out how our universe really works.
Yet people are free to believe what they want to believe (or what they are indoctrinated to believe) without looking into it any further for themselves. I have no problem with that. But after studying the Electric Universe concept for a few years now, you'd better have something to more than "there is no evidence".
I could mention the blue giant that "exploded" as SN1987A, non-spherical planetary nebulae, round craters everywhere, the debris kicked up by comet Shoemaker-Levy hitting Jupiter, the double-flash of the Deep Impact mission, "gas giants" planets found in very close proximity to their suns, short-period comets, the superlightning that downed the shuttle Columbia... all things that cannot be explained by the "Standard Model" and which are easily explained by the Electric Universe model. And all without adding imaginary items to do so!
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 28, 2005 13:32:31 GMT -4
Interesting claims you make. Care to back them up? WOW...that is probabily the lamest attempt at "shifting the burden of proof" that I have ever seen. Mainstream science accepts blackholes, etc. Anyone who happens to disagree is making an extraordinary claim, and the "onus" is on them to demonstrate that mainstream science is wrong... ...but you knew that didn't you, or you wouldn't have attempted the "shift". So the government is covering up the "true cause" of Columbia's destruction??... ...why don't you prove that. If it's so "easily explained" then why are you having such "difficulty" explaining it? So far, you just keep saying "I am right". That isn't enough. Your arguments must be convincing. So far, I am only convinced that you are a true believer, and it's likely that no amount of evidence will sway that belief. I haven't decided if I'll waste more time on you or not...
|
|
|
Post by piper on Nov 28, 2005 13:52:56 GMT -4
I was merely replying to the name of the thread and stating what I think. You are the only one who made a claim, which was " There is no evidence for the 'electric universe' idea", so I see no shift there. I also gave many examples of why I believe mainstream science is wrong, you addressed none of them. As for the Columbia, photos of the lightning flash were taken by amateur astronomer Peter Goldie and sent to NASA. They have been pulled by the photographer from most websites, but one is available HERE. - Columbia downed by Megalightning- San Francisco Photos indicate Shuttle Columbia was struck by Hyper-Lightning on Reentry- Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?Where do you get the impression I was trying to explain anything, or that I was having "difficulty" doing so? I never set out to explain anything, I was giving my thoughts. I can back up and defend any statement I make with many references, like the above, if you want me to. The only question is will you read the information, or are you the one who is a true believer and who will refuse to consider information because of its source and not its content?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 29, 2005 17:18:16 GMT -4
I was merely replying to the name of the thread and stating what I think. You are the only one who made a claim, which was " There is no evidence for the 'electric universe' idea", so I see no shift there. You state that mainstream science is wrong... That is your claim. It is up to you to PROVE that claim. No, you just linked to a bunch of non-critical sites that agree with you. Proving nothing. I looked at the image...it "proves" that the image was posted on the web. Just how it proves this megalightning "thingy" brought down the shuttle, I have no idea as there is absolutely no evidence to conclude that. This board happens to deal with reality. If you want to be taken seriously then you will have to demonstrate that your "thoughts" and reality do not conflict with each other. You mean you'll link to more sites that do not employ critical thinking? I don't really care what you do...I've already "written you off" as a lost cause. Reading those pages, I can see only 2 alternatives...either NASA is too stupid to realize that megalightning caused Columbia's destruction, or there is a big "cover-up"...and not a lick of evidence to back up either... ...you just don't "get it" do you...it doesn't matter at all what I believe or what you believe...what matters is what can be demonstrated with evidence. Since you're not trying to "explain" anything, I seriously doubt that you will actually attempt to demonstrate (with evidence) anything you say. In other words, you're wasting my time... So let's review... You are making the claim... Your proof is to link to irrational, non-critical sites... I can not take you seriously... I've "written you off"... Belief is irrelevant... So what do you know...there really is no need to continue discussing anything with you at all...
|
|
|
Post by piper on Nov 29, 2005 20:02:49 GMT -4
I have no problem with that at all, as I have learned not to argue with someone whose PR job involves maintaining a certain set of beliefs among the population on a few messageboards.
Or maybe you just haven't undergone the required paradigm shift? But no, I've looked at all your posts here. Nothing constructive and no original thought, just dogmatic adherence and a bit of worshipful fawning.
This board would definitely be a waste of my time. Thanks for the heads-up.
</re-lurk in disgust>
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 30, 2005 13:14:02 GMT -4
I have no problem with that at all, as I have learned not to argue with someone whose PR job involves maintaining a certain set of beliefs among the population on a few messageboards.
Guess the truth doesn't set people free after all.
This board would definitely be a waste of my time. Thanks for the heads-up.
Yeap, it would. If you're not willing to look at factual evidence, then it would always be a waste of your time.
</re-lurk in disgust>
Nooo! Don't re-lurk! Noo! We were having fun looking at your posts! Who will we laugh at now?
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Nov 30, 2005 13:32:36 GMT -4
Nooo! Don't re-lurk! Noo! We were having fun looking at your posts! I wouldn't worry, just a hunch, but I don't think Piper will stay gone for long...
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Nov 30, 2005 13:52:08 GMT -4
Why does Piper show up as a "guest"? Are guests allowed to post here?
Later
Pete
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 30, 2005 14:11:57 GMT -4
As for the Columbia, photos of the lightning flash were taken by amateur astronomer Peter Goldie and sent to NASA. They have been pulled by the photographer from most websites, but one is available HERE. Was the picture perchance pulled because the photographer didn't like the use being made of it? It's obviously a time exposure to get the long streak of Columbia's re-entry over California, so perhaps the camera was jogged at some point to send the image of Columbia zigzagging over the film. As I see it there are two major problems with the lightning strike theory: 1. No thunderstorms over California on the day. 2. The very detailed picture from the recovered flight recorder of a break-up, consistent with the launch damage to the leading edge, starting long before Columbia reached California.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 30, 2005 19:44:15 GMT -4
Why does Piper show up as a "guest"? Are guests allowed to post here? He deleted his account so the forum considers him a guest.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 4, 2005 15:24:37 GMT -4
Egads.
Piper, sir, invention arises from necessity. Science is driven by industry, by technology, by engineering. All the marvels of the communications age (satellites, et al) came about because the science, astronomy, and cosmology you disparage showed it was possible to build certain things.
The electric universe theory, from all I have read of it, predicts such incredibly powerful effects that any decent-sized industry -- or even a good backyard tinkerer -- should be able to do utilize them to do amazing things.
You may be able to delude yourself into thinking all astrophysicists have joined in a close-minded cabal that refuses to see actual data and insists on tinkering with inapplicable mental models. I do not see how you can convince yourself that every person with enough technical understanding to diagnose a problem in a color TV could ignore a practical workable theory with applications as powerful and widespread as this one implies.
Change your mental model. Don't think of a white-coated professor fighting to preserve his tenure. Think instead of a hungry young entrepeneur like Dick Rutan. Ask yourself why this sort of person doesn't bother to give a second glance to your vaunted "Electric Universe."
|
|