Leaderboard

I forget. Do you want to discuss science or the many ways you've been wronged?

I’m not a physicist but I suspect the reception you will get will depend on: (1) what predictions your model makes that enable its validity to be tested and (2) whether it is compatible with the rest of physics. We get a lot of people who just dream stuff up with no attention to how their ideas could be validated experimentally, and a lot more who think their ideas can exist in a vacuum, when they are incompatible with everything else. Obviously no one is going to tear down the whole of physics, just because of a claim to account for a handful of phenomena in a different way. Good luck.

What a weird echoing labyrinth your mind must be.

That appears to be what they are trying to do by posting here. That is not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

You make that sound like a bad thing. Perhaps that is part of the reason you are not getting the response you'd like while on science forums.

Find out what "expanding universe" means in physics, not in your imagination.

I agree, anytime I see aliens described as humanoid I cringe, the idea of aliens being remotely human is unlikely to say the least. It has to be said the "humanoid" shape often described is used to back the idea that "aliens" are time travelers or from another plane of existence. One mystery being used to explain yet another mystery... not a path to knowledge. Oh yeah there is the speculation that the "aliens" we see are really just biological probes/drones that are made to look like us... I think they missed the mark a bit with the grays... While I wasn't following Avi all that closely I am saddened to learn he ran off the rails, he started out on track, I don't understand the "why" in cases like this. To have the cashe' to be able to pull off an investigation (I understood his point) and then ruin it with hubris just boggles my mind.

Dyou think he sees the irony in the fact that while poo pooing philosophy, his approach to language use and advocacy of precision based language is very relevant to philosophy of language and that he often waxes classicly philosophical in both speaking engagements, interviews, unscripted and scripted via his documentary work. I think that kind of tees me off a little bit because I'd say he definitely falls into the category of people smart enough to know better. Philosophy is in everything we do. There are so many current idioms and turn of phrase that have common everyday usage but are actually linguistic snapshots of the works of individual philosophers or people engaged in philosophy. I mean the existence of science owes itself to natural philosophy. @Eise Is this a situation where you can apply the non-identity argument? That Neils assaults on philosophy and his field and academic position and ability to make those assaults are made possible by philosophies very existence? Similarly to how you would apply it to arguments against antinatalism? Sorry for the tangents. You should really show up more on the ethics and politics boards. Your input would be invaluable truly. Like frat boys.

They were missing from the discussion thread.

I agree. @Externet what is the purpose of sharing the documents? Majestic 12, also known as Majic-12, and MJ-12 for short, is a purported organization that appears in UFO conspiracy theories. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_12) The wikipedia page have several references, for instance FBI comment on documents like those posted above: https://vault.fbi.gov/Majestic 12/

Documents appear fake. One description of the craft includes photomultiplier tubes that sound much like a 1940s idea of advanced tech. Oppenheimer and Einstein were consulted? And yet said nothing about it for the rest of their lives? Fermi and Teller had a famous chat at Los Alamos a couple years later in which it was clear they were unaware of any aliens visiting Earth, so I guess they weren't consulted on this amazing find. Some of the other descriptions of a propulsion system sound suspiciously like futuristic technology you would find in pulp sci-fi of that era. Several paragraphs gush over the lack of rivets and smooth skin of the craft - a big preoccupation at that time, before stealth technology began to develop smooth-hulled craft. And then we have the humanoid corpses. Please. A high school sophomore with a basic understanding of evolutionary biology could explain how nonsensical that is. I had a good laugh at the part about MPs who were so traumatized by the find that they commit suicide. Seriously? You just helped find and wrangle alien corpses and their spaceship, and instead of being out of your mind with excitement at how interesting your dull job became, you think I'm going to kill myself. Life was so much better when I had to stand by a doorway or gate for hours, or shlep equipment around or break up tavern fights. No more fascinating stuff, please! It's killing me!

My opinion of him went down considerably when I learned he has tried to rubbish philosophy: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/05/20/pigliucci-pwns-neil-degrasse-tyson-smbc-teases-pigliucci/ He doesn't seem to understand that science is both rooted in philosophy and poses philosophical questions. So I suspect he's a bit shallow. I'm sure he knows his science but I would take anything he says about other matters with a pinch of salt.

Recent headline the teenage boy in me noticed today... TRUMP DEVASTATED BY PECKER IN COURT

Missed yet again, need a new scope on that rifle?

colin leslie dean proves Evolutionary theory-evolving species - ends in nonsense so what is a species just a definition https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/species/ "A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring" Or from your own biology site https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/species “One can also define species as an individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring .” but species hybridization contradicts that https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00113 "When organisms from two different species mix, or breed together, it is known as hybridization" "Fertile hybrids create a very complex problem in science, because this breaks a rule from the Biological Species Concept" so the definition of species is nonsense note when Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf or https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey

colin leslie dean proves ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness The Foundations of Mathematics end in meaningless jibbering nonsense A) Mathematics ends in contradiction-6 proofs http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/MATHEMATICS.pdf and https://www.scribd.com/document/40697621/Mathematics-Ends-in-Meaninglessness-ie-self-contradiction Proof 5 ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness https://brilliant.org/wiki/zfc/ ZFC. ZFC, or Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, is an axiomatic system used to formally define set theory (and thus mathematics in general). but ZFC is inconsistent:thus ALL mathematics falls into meaninglessness proof it all began with Russells paradox and to get around the consequences of it Modern set theory just outlaws/blocks/bans this Russells paradox by the introduction of the ad hoc axiom the Axiom schema of specification ie axiom of separation which wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "The restriction to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variants. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory "Axiom schema of specification (also called the axiom schema of separation or of restricted comprehension): If z is a set, and \phi! is any property which may characterize the elements x of z, then there is a subset y of z containing those x in z which satisfy the property. The "restriction" to z is necessary to avoid Russell's paradox and its variant" now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves the axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/predicativity.pdf "in ZF the fundamental source of impredicativity is the seperation axiom which asserts that for each well formed function p(x)of the language ZF the existence of the set x : x } a ^ p(x) for any set a Since the formular p may contain quantifiers ranging over the supposed "totality" of all the sets this is impredicativity according to the VCP this impredicativity is given teeth by the axiom of infinity" thus ZFC thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like Russells paradox Banach-Tarskin paradox Burili-Forti paradox with the axiom of seperation banning itself ZFC is thus inconsistent and thus ALL mathematics is just rubbish meaningless jibbering nonsense

I'm just happy that my locus of control is mine to influence, I don't care what you do with yours... 😉 Hmm, another neg for a reasonable post; it's getting difficult to not assume...

Colin leslie dean proves A 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed mathematics ends in contradiction-Euclidean geometry is destroyed mathematician will tell you √2 does not terminate yet in the same breath tell you that a 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle can be constructed, even though they admit √2 does not terminate thus you cant construct a √2 hypotenuse thus a 1 unit by 1 unit √2 triangle cannot be constructed, which contradicts what mathematicians tell you thus maths ends in contradiction Euclidean geometry is destroyed http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/scientific-reality-is-only-the-reality-of-a-monkey.pdf or https://www.scribd.com/document/660607834/Scientific-Reality-is-Only-the-Reality-of-a-Monkey