coffeesippin

On 9/16/2018 at 9:33 AM, Hulk said:

First you have to define God.

`God is love.` 1 John 4:7     It`s logical that God MUST be love to bless mankind so abundantly despite mankind`s nasty greed that mankind has survived countless wars of greed, especially with the weapons available to mankind. 

John Baptist told the soldiers to `Do violence to no man.``  King James Version.  Jesus Christ said, ``Put up thy sword, those who live by the sword will die by the sword.``   John and Jesus were agreed.   Revelation says, `The blood of all who were killed in the earth is found in Babylon.``  (Merchandisers of oil, gold, etc.)  Babylon is part of the anti-Christ empire.  Revelation also tells of what seems to be a false church of God as part of the anti-Christ beast with teeth that devours the earth, looking like a lamb, but with horns .. horns on animals are used to fight.  It seems if a person is following scripture he won`t fight and kill.  Therefore, people like the Crusaders even though they used the cross as a symbol were not following the scriptures they said they believed in.  Logic and reason then says they may not have been part of the true church which held the bible as the Word of God and Truth.  Or perhaps they had lousy preachers who were paid to sneak in and lead the lambs into the valley of death.  

Agreed .. Jesus Christ is divine .. 

On 9/24/2018 at 4:57 PM, mistermack said:

I very much doubt if dead people have power over hawks. Hawks have enough to think about, just surviving and raising chicks, and coping with the weather etc.

In any case, it takes a great deal of knowledge and skill to train a hawk, especially if the hawk is Austrian, and the dead person speaks English. 

And how would the dead person know where in Austria to go, to take control of a local hawk, and how would they know the address to send it to, and the exact time and day that the person would be looking out of that particular window?

Anyway, there's nothing in the bible to say that people will be able to control hawks after death. In fact there's a complete lack of any mention of controlling other species as a spirit.

When you think of all the billions of people who have died over the years, you would expect lots of contact with the "other side" if it was something that spirits were able to achieve.

I would personally choose an African Grey parrot, rather than a hawk, if I wanted to send a sign to the living.

God sent a spirit in bodily form like a dove when Jesus was baptized.   Luke 3:22

On 9/22/2018 at 8:57 PM, p.desch said:

 

While I lived in Canada, I made an agreement with Father Boniface. 
He was a Benedictine Monk.

I asked him if Jesus Christ is the son of God, send a hawk to my house window after you die.

After about six months after he died, I stood at my living room window in May 2012 in my house on Semmering Austria, and a hawk or falcon flew to my window and sat on my windowsill for a few seconds and then flew away. 

I have never seen a falcon here before and considered this a sign that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 

He came to this world to save and illuminate humanity with the Christ Consciousness (I.e Sermon on the mount and the Golden rule)

Praised be Jesus Christ!!

Peter De-Schuster 
Semmering Austria

     Yup.  And not only Christ consciousness, but to wash us from our sins in his blood.  What scientific validity came we see in being washed in blood.  Blood is used to cleanse and heal the body.    

On 9/24/2018 at 4:29 PM, jfoldbar said:

so this cheap crappy tool from china was a piece of s*&t. so i jokingly said under my breath "god should kill the guy that made this"

i later saw somewhere that 20000 people die in china each day. how can i live with the guilt knowing according to the rules of prayer that is all my fault?

 

Consider:  if it truly were your fault wouldn`t the number be 20,001(É substitutes for question mark until I get the glitch fixed.)

The author:   http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf

The theory:  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta    Submitted 2015, revised 2017.

King James Version of the Bible .. I`ve been 41 years with it .. often with Strong`s Concordance .. not one error in the KJV, though I have found at least one significant error in Strong`s.   An example of accuracy and intent in the KJV is when the soldiers come to John the Baptist, `What must we do to inherit the kingdom of God.`John Baptist said, `Do violence to no man ...`  This is in complete agreement with Jesus saying, `Put up thy sword, those who live by the sword will die by the sword.`   Most other versions allow for war by having John say something like, `shake no man violently`as if in a situation other than war.   Likewise the word `corn` (in Egypt.)  The word Corn is popularly said to have meant any grain, and Maize was supposed to in the western hemisphere only, but stone images of corn cobs have been found on ancient temples in India, and Herodotus gave a perfect description of maize in one of his books.   `The Olmecs of Central America had Black African origin, and Africa and the western hemisphere had easy and regular trade at the time of the Egyptian empire, as did India and Egypt, so maize would certainly have come to `the east.`  Why it didn`t make it to Europe, and why it disappeared in the middle east, may have had something to do with the wheat and barley cartels.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

You do far too much of this preaching. Stop it. 

 

Strange, if you follow the thread back, you will see John originated the discussion.  But yes, I just sent him a private message because preaching is not allowed on the science forums.  And I demonstrated that in that last message:   However, we`re not to discuss religion here, I understand though there is a place for that in this forum.  If you want to go there and open a topic, notify me.     It`s always the same way, Strange, someone else mentions God to me, I don`t initiate these exchanges.

Just now, coffeesippin said:

I`ve never seen you advertise yourself as anything but someone who knows far more than most here.  I`m not paid to do what I do, so I`m an amateur.  It would be rude for me not to respond to someone who raises the question of God to me, which is the most frequent way God is mentioned here, as in this very case, when you mentioned `your god.`  I understand this forum has a place for religious discussion.   If you want to start a post there, notify me.  

Regarding your:  

The following link gives details and info on the first BH observed, Cygnus X-1

http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html     

As you seem to know, Black Holes if they are reality and match theory, cannot be observed.  I understand you were simply careless in phrasing, and that it is only the effects of BHs that can be observed, but it does reveal your subconscious conviction that Black Holes are in fact reality, and this is bound to hinder your from considering other theories.   I`m NOT trying to tell you they DO NOT exist .. I cannot know that .. to me it`s not very important, except if they do exist the matter that goes into them might come out somewhere else in the universe in another form, and I suspect that form is the anti-gravity in cosmic voids, that being an original idea I had ten or so years ago, but which others have hit upon also.   This is only an easy find, not meant to be authoritative.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308733/galaxy-repelled-by-great-void    Of course, the idea of anti-gravity voids may be classified in this forum as pseudo science, or worse, as it was in the NASA APOD forum I was on when I thought of it. Needless to say I was severely castigated as a lunatic there.  Here`s another link that might have value. http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~pan/posters/2010CoAS.pdf    I play volleyball tonight, and not with other 70 year olds,  so have to take a break for a nap.  

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have never denied it nor hidden from that fact and have mentioned it many times on this forum...You?

What is vulgar and rude is how you seem to inevitable bring your god into everything.

 Whatever. ho hum 

Getting back on topic......

The following link gives details and info on the first BH observed, Cygnus X-1

http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

I`ve never seen you advertise yourself as anything but someone who knows far more than most here.  I`m not paid to do what I do, so I`m an amateur.  It would be rude for me not to respond to someone who raises the question of God to me, which is the most frequent way God is mentioned here, as in this very case, when you mentioned `your god.`  I understand this forum has a place for religious discussion.   If you want to start a post there, notify me.  

2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

This is your best reply?

 

I systematically went through your previous reply to me and commented on your every point.

Some I agreed with some I did not, all politely.

That is normal and natural.

Looking up at your subsequent reply

I was being kind and gentle in my comment

With this sort of slap in the face I will be blunt instead.

I do not take kindly to those who twist my words to appear to mean something different by selection/deselection.

Since your entire post by selection/deselection process enhances everything (christian) religous and obscures any agreement with your valid points (yes I have already said you make them) or additional points you may not have considered I regard that as preaching.

Yes I introduced Spotlight, (gosh that little word 'yes' - did you miss it?)

But in response to already too much Christian stuff in this thread.

 

 

 

 

Studiot .. As you admit YOU brought up Spotlight no I did not miss your `yes.`   You also brought up the Church.  Yet you accuse me of being the one to promote religion hereÉ  (question mark not functional at this time.)     My response Àm I supposed to answer all your questionsé  was not meant to be antagonistic.  We all have other things to do and because I did not hide my faith in the bible here I`m under frequent attack as if I am trying to put all scientists in the dungeon despite my great respect for science, my nickname since childhood till now at 71 is Sputnick because of my interest in cosmology.  In my opinion the tone of your comments to me is not kind and gentle, but is harsh and accusatory, in wanting to get away from that tone I made a long explanation a short question.  I may have failed you, but it was not a slight.

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I never saw those.
The ones I saw had stacks of problems + inconsistencies.

All was perfect.  The designer told them it would stay that way forever unless they ate that fruit.  The serpent persuaded them to eat it, resulting in lots of problems, including the end of perfection on earth .. problems and inconsistencies arose.  However, we`re not to discuss religion here, I understand though there is a place for that in this forum.  If you want to go there and open a topic, notify me. 

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I blame the designer...

The set of instructions included with the final goods were very clear, they were considered folly by the goodees.   YukYuk.   Goodees.  

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

The ultimate answers as you claim,  can apply to all scientific theories. No scientific theory is proof. But scientific theories can and do grow in certainty over time. Some [well at least one] is as near certain as one could hope for. GR and BH's at this time are overwhelmingly supported due to the overwhelming evidence, but as in any discipline, there will always be some isolated differences of opinion...Fred Hoyle, as I mentioned before was a "great" astronomer, but he was wrong on a very important specific part of cosmology that we accept today.

My qualifications? wait for it...I do not have any...I ama total amateur and lay person, but I have read many reputable books, I have listened to manyreasonable reputable obviously professionals on forums such as this, and I have asked many questions on those matters that I have not understood, without any preconceived opinion or agenda.

 I could also probably view some of your actions and opinions on this forum the same way.

??? What has that to do with anything? Except possibly reinforcing my opinion of you as having an agenda. The Father of the BB was a Jesuit pries named George LaMaitre. Galileo was religious, as to was Newton. It was the scientific knowledge and learning and reasoning that saw them make notable contributions to science. Religion had nothing to do with it. Again, I stipulate, it will not be some philosophical rhetoric, or some religiously inspired myth that will see science advance and new discoveries made.It will be science, scientists as governed my the scientific method.

Oooopsy daisy! Whinging!!! it should be...My humble apologies.

Amateur .. okay .. I suspected that from your hindered ability to see the open end of conversations here.

To say anything I said or did here was vulgar or lewd is a mere vulgar accusation, despite your smiley face.

I googled Whinging .. it`s quite an insult .. probably equal to troll, and totally inconsistent with my behaviour here except as perceived by your prejudicial blindness caused by my easy admittance that I consider the bible true, which in your opinion seems worse than infantile.   

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

Ignoring your whinging [perhaps as the old addage goes, "sometimes the truth hurts] Carver Mead and Svidzinsky are obviously good scientists, and they obviously have come up with an alternative...The fact of the matter is that the alternative/s have been rejected at this time by mainstream, most specifically because the GR inferred BH's match all the data. In the late fifties we had a "great"astronomer named Fred Hoyle who was proposing an alternative to the BB. He called it the "Steady State" That SS is now hardly ever talked about because of the overwhelming evidence supporting the BB and invalidating the SS. 

The recent 5 discoveries of gravitational waves from colliding BH binary pairs were because the signals generated aligned with the templates that were constructed along with a myriad of other reasons...Those templates were constructed long before the gravitational waves discoveries. They "just happened" to align with the templates, and very good reasons why they concluded the BH collisions. Could they be wrong? Is it possible Mead's, Vector 4 model is better? Yes that's possible, but at this time I believe highly unlikely. If this highly unlikely model/interpretation is actually closer to observation, it will in time be verified and accepted as per the scientific methodology and as has always been the case with science. And you can bet your short n curlies, that if this unlikely model is shown to be closer to the truth, that it will be scientists that will find that out....not philosophers, not some religious adherent and associated miracle...It will be other scientists as they go about their business following what we call the scientific method. You do understand that GR that first proposed the existence of BH's is being put to the test every day?

First I`ll say if I`d known the term `Troll`was an insult here I wouldn`t have used it, I know insulting people doesn`t make for intelligent conversation, but from the way it is used in the forum`s banned  list I assumed it was simply a label for someone who sets out to deliberately insult people and ideas.

Second I`ll say I appreciate your comments above .. they represent what scientific discussion should represent, discussion.  I especially appreciate Could they be wrong? Is it possible Mead's, Vector 4 model is better? Yes that's possible, but at this time I believe highly unlikely. If this highly unlikely model/interpretation is actually closer to observation, it will in time be verified and accepted as per the scientific methodology and as has always been the case with science.``  You acknowledge you may not know the ultimate answer to Black Holes.   By the way, what are your qualifications compared to the author of the Vector theoryÉ (question mark out of order right now.)

Third .. what do ìntimate` short and curly body hairs have to do with this discussion, it only makes me view you as vulgar and unthinking.  

Fourth ..   if this unlikely model is shown to be closer to the truth, that it will be scientists that will find that out....not philosophers, not some religious adherent`...` How do you know at this point in time that if the vector theory turns out correct that the author is not a believer in either God or bibleÉ   If you have hear of George Washington Carver (you can google him)  he was a Christian, he said God showed him his discoveries, and that was why he did not patent his discoveries, to share freely with the world when he could have been one of the richest men of his day, probably equal to Bill Gates today.  (Henry Ford recognized who and what he was and became a close personal friend.)

Last for now:  I`m not familiar with your term winging and why you use it.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

The rest of your complaints/whinging/ and emotional claims I'll let ride.

Again you resort to behaviour known as trolling .. but I won`t insult you and say you`re a troll .. just that you allow your behaviour to slip into that rut.

 

 

And you have admitted Black Holes may not be verifiable as reality.  You have honesty.  

For those of us who come here to learn, perhaps we can learn from this fellow:   

Awards and Honors Stanford Graduate Fellowship, 1997-2000 Fellowship of the President of the Russian Federation, 1996-1997 George Soros Graduate Fellowship, 1995-1996 Landau Fellowship from Forschungszentrum J¨ulich, 1994-1996 Fellowship of the Lebedev Physical Institute, 1994 2nd place, Physical Olympiad of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 1991 6th place, Mathematical Olympiad of Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 1989 2nd place, International tournament of young physicists, Moscow, 1988

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not sure why you chose a science discussion site to join for conversation. If you came to learn, like most of us, I don't think you'd have the same kind of troubles here. If you asked questions, instead of trying to tell people here where science is lacking (when it's clear you don't understand what you're criticizing), I think the members here would be happy to include you in their own learning processes. 

But you don't do any of that. You argue about things you don't know, and you get annoyed when your ideas are refuted. You constantly bring up religion and your god, even in mainstream science threads, and that always gets a negative reaction (because it's against the rules). I don't think you came here necessarily with a big chip on your shoulder, but you certainly have put one there since. I think many folks here are getting tired of short-sighted, oft-repeated (and refuted) religious arguments forced into science discussions. 

No offense, I'm sure you're a nice person, but you have only a popular science knowledge while trying to topple mainstream explanations. I recognize you, since I was in the same boat 14 years ago when I joined this site. I chose to learn instead of trying to teach.

Typical ``I know far more than you so you`re an ignorant slob` statement.  If you choose to learn read the Vector thesis.   I`m not trying to topple anything .. why do you think that É (my question mark on my keyboard is misbehaving.)  Perhaps because a guy with two PHds and a lot of other education agrees with me that MAYBE the conventional theories of Black Holes need re-examinationÉ   Or do you think the author`s CV isn`t up to your standardsÉ   didn`t know about that theory until today, by the way, perhaps you didn`t either.  

In any case, if I`d know `Troll`was an insult here I wouldn`t have used it for BeeCee, but the way its used in the banned list I assumed it was simply label for someone who deliberately insults people or ideas to start a war.   

For you to say I constantly bring up religion is false, an untruth, an exaggeration, whatever, perhaps practicing to defend yourself when examined by an admin.  But you sound very identical to BeeCee, almost the same words.  Perhaps sock puppets are employed hereÉ  NOT that `m absolutely accusing you, just raising a possibility, it`s been done many times, admitted to by mods on other forums.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Uh, what?

No. Don't drag me into your arguments. 

 

We`re all in this together Strange, at least for now, and as long as I`m here I will not abuse anyone here, but I will stand up for the integrity of the forum because it`s valuable, and even if I`m kicked out through Mod error I will petition the admins for my reinstatement.  

 P.S.  If I`d know `troll`was considered an insult in this forum I wouldn`t have used that word for BeeCee, but the way it`s used in the banned list indicated to me that it was an identifier for someone who deliberately causes contention mostly of a personal nature.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Calling someone a troll is a moderator call. We're sort of like the police, don't you think? Feel free to report anyone you think is trolling you, and if we agree they'll be banned as a troll. See how that works?

How is it a personal attack when someone points out something they think you're ignoring? That's not rational, and I think you know it.

For the rest, you have a different definition of personal attack, one that seems to include those who question you. Our differing definitions may be irreconcilable. You decide.

No Phi .. you choose to ignore not only the language but the tone .. as well as Strange's observation that BeeCee started it .. as well as your own observation that 'god botherers' is a derogatory term (I hadn't heard it before, I googled it, it's aimed pretty much specifically but not totally at Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on doors.)   BeeCee's opinion of me as a 'god botherer' colours his/her entire relationship with me in this forum and blinds his/her mind to what is before his/her eyes.  Perhaps you are in that same boat.  Whatever his/her relationship with you is colours your perception of what he/she writes.  Science is supposed to be impartial, observant, intelligent.  For you to say I consider that an attack is someone who questions me is absolutely ludicrous to the extreme. 

IF we can get back to science .. the writer of the Vector Theory Anatoly A. Svidzinsky         https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058    has a cv which should impress anyone on this forum:   http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf    1994, M.S. in Laser Physics, Summa Cum Laude, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 1997, Ph.D. in Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 2001, Ph.D. in Physics, Stanford University, USA.   

Strange has suggested we close this topic, though he didn't give a reason that I could see.  I hope the credentials of Svidzinsky will help keep it open for discussion, or at the least, to expose the theory to examination.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

(I am going to suggest this thread is closed)

the writer of the Vector Theory Anatoly A. Svidzinsky         https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07058    has a cv which should impress anyone on this forum:   http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf    1994, M.S. in Laser Physics, Summa Cum Laude, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 1997, Ph.D. in Physics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia 2001, Ph.D. in Physics, Stanford University, USA.   

 I hope the credentials of Svidzinsky will help keep it open for discussion, or at the least, to expose the theory to examination.

Here it is Phi .. ignore it if you want:

"Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore."    I consider that a personal attack, don't you?   Plus .. BeeCee doesn't consider a guy with 3 Phds from Moscow university now working at a U.S. university an expert?

"Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda."

He is calling me liar in that statement.   

"Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested."

And because I tell him he is a troll, which you moderators happily use often to describe why you ban people, you call it a personal attack?

And while he used the term 'god botherers' whatever that is but which you objected to, I certainly didn't call him a satan worshipper or anti-Christ or spawn of the devil.

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just to help clear up your confusion, on this forum calling someone a "troll" is considered a personal attack.

I'm sure he's relieved. How would he ever replace the income!

Ah ... so in the list of banned people the many "trolls" have been personally attacked instead of being banned for reasons of a scientific nature!  Nice to know.  

Replace the income .. yes, he could get an honest job, maybe  insulting customers as they come in the doors at WalMart.  (I'm trying to be as comedic and factual as you are.)

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT a personal attack, as he is pointing out an error in your reasoning. I would, however, point out to beecee that the term "god botherers" is a slur against a group, and should be avoided here.

 

!

Moderator Note

Again, not personal. He's attacking a paper not held in great esteem, and pointing out behavior that keeps you from investigating further. 

 

!

Moderator Note

All of this is observation. When we talk about personal attacks, it isn't about the ideas you're espousing. A personal attack would be to use language that disparaged you as a person, not the ideas you have, or the behavior you display. 

 

I think what you're experiencing (perhaps for the first time) is critical review of some of your deeply held ideas, and it's not going the way you thought. Sorry about that, but science works hard to remove as much emotional attachment and cognitive biases as possible. 

Phi if you read BeeCee's attack and still say it was not a personal attack then you really shouldn't be a moderator.  At 71 years old I've experienced critical review often in flesh and blood life, and on science forums by reviewers who use scientific language and references that can be checked.  BeeCee does none of that.  This isn't the first time BeeCee attacked me, and Strange made a note of that.  

Moderator Note

I have split this (potentially interesting) discussion of black holes off from the original thread.

I have given it the benefit of the doubt and put it in Astronomy and Cosmology. If it looks like coffeesippin is arguing that black holes don't exist, then it may be moved to Speculations where stronger rules for supporting arguments with evidence apply.

(Sorry it looks like beecee started it!)

Phi .. I'm not calling for your removal as a moderator, but I am letting the admins know what you're up to.  Why you're up to it is your own problem, but I've not only been critically and personally attacked by moderators before but bullied by them seemingly for their own enjoyment, and it ruins MY enjoyment and GREATLY devalues the forum the adminisitrators are trying to promote .. so I'm keeping records now of all that is involved, and will provide them to the administrators if it has to come to that.     

16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Phi .. he attacked me.  I was not attacking him, I was telling him why he was attacking me.  Why do you ignore his attack?  is he a pal of yours?

Here is his attack on me:  Feel free to chastise your buddy.

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

I sent this message to a couple of admins.  I think your behaviour has to be stopped for the good of this forum.

The message I sent to admins:    I have to object very strenuously to Phi For All's behaviour here on a few instances.   A poster who seems to be a pal of his/hers made a substantial personal attack on me, and I told that person WHY he was attacking me.   Phi For All then attacked me.   This is not civil, it is not intelligent, it casts a terrible light on this forum, and it should be stopped.

Just now, Strange said:

Aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek? 

(I am going to suggest this thread is closed)

Yes. Absolutely.  And I didn't attack him, I pointed out WHY he was attacking me.  Close a thread with a 2017 theory from a guy who has 3 PHDs from the Moscow University and who now works in an American university?   If you read this guy's cv you probably wouldn't consider closing the thread for an instant. 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Hey, we attack ideas here, not people. Civility is the #1 rule. Knock this off right now!

 

Phi .. he attacked me.  I was not attacking him, I was telling him why he was attacking me.  Why do you ignore his attack?  is he a pal of yours?

Here is his attack on me:  Feel free to chastise your buddy.

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Hey, we attack ideas here, not people. Civility is the #1 rule. Knock this off right now!

 

I sent this message to a couple of admins.  I think your behaviour has to be stopped for the good of this forum.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Yes scientists, including some very famous ones, have covered up matters in the past and I don't doubt they will do so again in the future.

But, to my knowledge, all these matters have been purely scientific, there has been no moral dimension, particularly resulting in death, and we are supposed to be discussing the question

 

But the antimoral coverups I described have resulted in subsequent suicides and other harm.

I really don't care what you call a 'church'.
Enough billions in this world accept and use the definition I am employing.

I did also note that other non church organisations have also been implicated.
Why did you ignore this?

 

So your continual introduction of off topic religous material in answer to all comment ammounts to preaching in my opinion.

"I did also note that other non church organisations have also been implicated.
Why did you ignore this?"

                Am I supposed to provide an answer for every question you have? 

"I really don't care what you call a 'church'.
Enough billions in this world accept and use the definition I am employing."

               Perhaps it's time to dispel ignorance, if that's what it is, one person at a time? 

"So your continual introduction of off topic religous material in answer to all comment ammounts to preaching in my opinion."

              You not only exaggerate greatly you ignore the fact that others introduce the question of biblical or religious involvement.                  I feel obligated to respond to aid the conversation with information.  I know preaching here is not allowed, that it will lead                  to banishment, so I try to respect the rules.   Is it my doing that many people can only think of morality in terms of religion?

              You began the conversation of the Boston coverups .. almost everyone knows the coverups involved and were hidden by                    the RC institution.  You mentioned the Church. Are you preaching against the idea of a true church?  If so you are                                  preaching according to the definition of the word.  I tried to show you that what you call the Church may not be the church               . . is that preaching?  

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Thank you for your reply.

I didn't specify which Church; Catholic and Protestant churches have all been implicated in such undesirable behaviour, right around the globe.

Of course this also applies to secular organisations, both private and state.

 

Yes, many Scientists, some famous, have also offered wise and penetrating thoughts on other subjects such as Philosophy and Morality.

But the point of my question was that I do not know of any evidence of systematic abuse and cover up on the scale that applies to Churches in general, although, of course, there have been individual rogue scientists in history - they are human after all.

Keep your mind open that they may not be churches.  The bible Revelation describes the anti-Christ beast Babylon that is destroying the world and the description includes a lamb with horns .. symbolic to me of the organizations that use the cross (or Crescent for that matter) as a symbol of faith, yet ignore the most basic teaching of love and non-violence .. warmongers in pulpits licensed by the governments of nations which go to war for expansion of wealth and empire.   In my opinion scientific consensus is such a cover up as you describe .. it relegates new ideas to the trash bin almost automatically, it replaces the ultimate goal of science which is discovery with that of status for those controlling the consensus.   That opinion will be extremely unpopular with certain scientists, but acknowledged by others as having foundation in reality.  I'm not expressing it to start a war, I'm expressing it because I believe it to be fact comparable to your statements about the abuse cover up, not that the two are in the same league of evil of course.   And I'm not condemning the consensus, I see it as a part of human nature, and it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it did 10 years ago when I began hanging out in these forums, because I see science needs to progress gradually to find acceptance.

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s potential merit in this point, but I think it needs to be made more precisely. Instead, one might say that...

We evolved a predisposition toward following the norms of the group and avoiding behaviors that would cast us out of the group or result in our ostricization, but the mores, morals, and expected norms of each culture are very much learned and differ from one tribe to another (despite some obvious overlap).

I don’t think this is true and have seen male primates kill babies from other fathers. Do you have a citation I can review to correct my thinking if I am indeed wrong?

It seems to be a part of animal behaviour including human and I believe it's one reason wars are so popular .. the older human males send the younger males off where they can't infringe on their territories.  Seemingly cute and innocent male Red Squirrels (don't we just love how they shake their bushy tails and scold us) in times of food abundance have been observed killing litters of rivals, seemingly so they will be able to have sex again with the now unburdened mother, and of course increasing their empire with recruits loyal to them (the new litter.)   https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/15/news/red-squirrels-kill-offspring-male-rivals-when-food-abundant-study

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Your imagination is working overtime. Where did I ask you to prove anything [Proof, that which god botherers are so ignorant about!] 

Yep I am roughly familiar with that and it is generally not held with much confidence by the experts, which you seem to chose to ignore. 

Again, you need to explain the effects we see, one being the mass of Cygnus X-1 being 15 times that of the Sun, but packed to within a small volume, as would be the case according to the equations of GR. Are you questioning that also? As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why? and what one could logically read into that. http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

ps: the Vector 4 gravity has been reviewed by aLIGO and other professionals and found wanting.

Because you have copped some deserved wrath and/or corrects? As much as you like to deny it, you have a religious agenda.

Rather curious as to why you would reopen a thread 6 months old, with such extraordinary whinging pretentious comments. It appears you are looking for controversy, as well as not being genuine and with no intention of accepting any answers to your questions, as I have previously suggested.

You're quite the insulting demeaning antagonistic troll looking for a fight in my opinion Beecee.  You are thoroughly familiar with this man's work? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta You don't consider him an expert?  You say I choose to ignore experts when I bring such an expert into the discussion?  You suggest I am saying Black Holes do not exist when I have said twice at least I am saying there is only doubt of their existence, Black Stars and this man's work part of that doubt?  You say I have 'copped some deserved wrath' but don't bring forward an example?  I bring forth an example of error on a mods part and you ignore it?  You say I reopen a thread six months old when it was never closed?  You can't consider I'm new to the forum so haven't been here to contribute to that thread before?  You accuse me of looking for controversy without bringing forth an example OUTSIDE of saying PERHAPS science suggests they may not exist?  You say I have no intention of accepting any answers yet bring forth no example of my having done so?  You're a troll, BeeCee, and a complete one at that.  

4 hours ago, beecee said:

BH's by there very nature can never be seen directly, but their existence is near certain. If we are to deny the existence of BH's we must then explain in some other way the incredible effects on space and matter energy within their vicinity.

see also....https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117001-on-the-existence-of-black-holes/

 

BeeCee you accuse me of not believing answers and insisting I should accept your answers on Black Holes when you yourself plainly say Black Holes may not exist?  "... their existence is near certain..."     What a confused mind you have directly opposing itself in such a way, no room for doubt and yet filled with doubt.  Allow yourself and others some common humanity, BeeCee, before you wake up one morning and find half your head on the floor.   

3 hours ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

I have split this (potentially interesting) discussion of black holes off from the original thread.

I have given it the benefit of the doubt and put it in Astronomy and Cosmology. If it looks like coffeesippin is arguing that black holes don't exist, then it may be moved to Speculations where stronger rules for supporting arguments with evidence apply.

(Sorry it looks like beecee started it!)

 

It is not pseudoscience, but it is purely hypothetical (until we have a full theory of quantum gravity).

Science doesn't really prove anything. However, there are several lines of evidence that are consistent with there existence.

Thank you Strange for the observation that I'm not 'guilty.'   I never said Black Holes do not exist, and BeeCee himself/herself whoever also says they may not exist so I'm not sure what his/her problem is, thought I think I know it's my faith in the Bible which he/she has certainly become aware of is simply causing him/her to view me in a prejudicial darkness equating me with those bible believers who are SAID not to believe in science, though I've never met one of those in 41 years of assembly with people who do believe in the bible.   I'll have to look into his/her profile to see if I can settle on a his or a her, not that it matters one way or the other.

BeeCee, here's another unsubstantiated quote from you:  "As I said previously, you seem to be questioning all of science...I wonder why?"   Your question is perhaps accusation that my belief in the bible puts me outside the experience of belief in science.  My childhood nickname which I'm still called at times is Sputnick because of my awe of the universe and my investigation of it which naturally was limited to a few books and a set of Encyclopedia.  You couldn't know that history though unless you read through my posts instead of scanning which I suggest you do.   I've never lost my fascination for cosmology, and I read a lot, and everything I read confirms we are not at an end of investigation, so conclusions are premature, and I suggest you take that to heart.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your problem is with those that control the buttons, but instead of fabricating conspiracies, why not listen.

The Newtonian version as I said in the link, fails to consider the Schwarzchild radius, and its validity as given in the equations of GR. Again to deny BH's you must explain the incredible effects we see in their vicinities. You have another alternative? With evidence? 

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Here's a 2017 theory I just found by googling, it seems to be written by someone with a lot of education.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta

Just now, coffeesippin said:

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Here's a 2017 theory I just found by googling, it seems to be written by someone with a lot of education.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta

And I don't suggest conspiracies among the button pushers, just human nature.

4 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

So you want me to prove Black Holes do not exist (which is not my statement) when you cannot prove they DO exist?  

Here's a 2017 theory I just found by googling, it seems to be written by someone with a lot of education.  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/meta

And I don't suggest conspiracies among the button pushers, just human nature.

http://iqse.tamu.edu/people/cv/asvidzinsky.pdf   Quite an impressive cv Anatoly Svidzinsky has.  

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

BH's by there very nature can never be seen directly, but their existence is near certain. If we are to deny the existence of BH's we must then explain in some other way the incredible effects on space and matter energy within their vicinity.

 

Black stars is one option.  I expect that idea will be labelled pseudo science by those in control of buttons on this forum, but I expect you've heard of it.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_star_(semiclassical_gravity)  To DENY the existence of Black Holes is not the same as questioning the existence of Black Holes.

Direct experience of Black Holes if they exist for instance is said to be impossible.  I don't think Kitty knew about scientists who put so much faith in computer models.

On 2/6/2012 at 7:36 PM, Jiggerj said:

 

Not being argumentative, YT, but I have to ask: What if people just want to come here and chat while tossing around ideas? Do we really need to do our homework (use the search engine) in order to post anything? I guess what I'm asking is, is this a chat forum first, or a science forum first? There is a section on religion, so it can't be all about big brains hammering out complex equations to one another. I enjoy the chats here, but I'm no big brain. <-- Does that disqualify me from posting anything?

Aristarchus was a big brain, and he got banished for showing the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the sun around the earth.

On 8/5/2011 at 3:30 PM, charles brough said:

 

Yes, I agree. My experience in posting in other forums is that someone will respond by taking every one of my paragraps in order and insert nit-picking comments between each one. At or near the end, they then make over-all condesending comments about my post and my "intellectual undercapacity." My take on this is that these posters are semi-retired professors who are used to showing off their "amazing genius" to their "lowly students." The practice is expecially bad in the social sciences. Perhaps that is because social theory consists of enough rationalizing that they are sensitive about it enough to deveop this defensive mechanism.

The worst of those who practice that formula seem to be moderators.  Unfortunately the old adage 'power corrupts' seems to be especially true on internet discussion forums where people have little chance of ever meeting face to face, so it doesn't really matter if you insult someone, except that you may be banned.   The threat of banishment is almost totally removed from moderators, so they can get carried away in their own self importance, earning the support of other moderators so inclined.   A moderator in this forum has already belittled me publicly for 'your treatment of evidence against you'  but I was quickly able to prove the evidence against me was totally fabricated and in fact the link that was provided did not even go to the quoted source.  No apology to me arrived either in public or my mailbox.  That type of moderator action happens frequently on internet discussion forums, but if a non moderator makes a complaint he can be labelled as a troll.   Nasty stuff.

On 10/20/2011 at 1:30 AM, genraven said:

I love "Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum."

That's why it has to be done in soft, subtle, polite ways like it's done by the people who don't want to appear to be doing so because it makes them look stupid and uneducated.