Jump to content

Halogen Fisk

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Halogen Fisk

  1. Hi Zarkov,


    first time I've spoken to you on this forum.

    How's the Tassie chill?


    Originally posted by Zarkov

    I challenge people to show me the science is incorrect.


    Again & again people on these forums will say:



    "The onus is on the author of the new theory to provide proof"


    otherwise we'd have to accept Radical Edward's Smelly repulsion theory until we could mount a "REAL" ;) moon mission to prove him wrong.

  2. A lenghty but related cut & paste.

    I believe Carl Sagan was the author:


    A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.


    1. A -5 point starting credit.

    2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

    3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

    4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

    5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

    6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

    7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

    8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstein", "Hawking" or "Feynman".

    9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

    10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to university, as if this were evidence of sanity.

    11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

    12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else

    about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

    13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

    14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at maths, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I

    need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

    15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against


    16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain

    "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

    17. 10 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are

    fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

    18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

    19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

    20. 20 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally

    misguided (without good evidence).

    21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

    22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

    23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

    24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

    25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported.

    (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his

    undergraduate physics textbooks.)

    26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

    27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilisation (without good evidence).

    28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, etc.

    29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from

    gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

    30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case,

    and so on.

    31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it

    truly is. (30 more points for fantasising about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to


    32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

  3. Originally posted by Doc

    It is true aluminum traces were found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.



    The exact role (if any) of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease is still being researched and debated. However, most researchers believe that not enough evidence exists to consider aluminum a risk factor for Alzheimer’s or a cause of dementia.


    Alzheimer's Support Web Site

  4. Originally posted by chris

    But, if we can see 50 billion light years away, and we havent found this 10th planet, it would have to be hard to fathom the size of this planet.



    The big factor here is stars (hence galaxies) generate lots of light.


    Any planet beyond the orbit of Pluto would only reflect light, & not much out there to reflect.


    As a metaphor:

    It's easier to find someone at night if they're holding a torch!

  5. I've just been reading a thread about quantum "teleportation,"

    & it got me thinking:


    People seem to assume that, as past achievements had been considered "impossible" but then achieved,

    the same must be true for what is currently impossible.


    Past "Impossibles:"

    If man was meant to fly, god would've given him wings.

    It is "impossible" to fly faster than sound.

    Humans will never travel in space.


    Some conclude that:

    We will learn how to travel faster than light.

    We will learn how to teleport matter.

    We can master the art of becoming invisible.

    We will discover how to travel through time.


    The general idea is of you can write a Sci-Fi book about it, then it must be possible.


    Anyone else got any thoughts on the matter?


    Are there some things that truley cannot be done?

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.