dhimokritis

Question about Einstein's constant of gravity

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, beecee said:

:) Do I fully understand the BB? or the Casimir Effect?                                                                        What I do understand is that with regards to the universe/spacetime, we have two choices...either it is infinite or it came from nothing :P The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB. All our laws of physics, GR and observational data are able to let us reasonably describe and detail the evolution of the universe/spacetime, at least up to 10-43 seconds after the event, up to the present time, and even make reasonable predictions many hundreds of millions of years into the future...

On evolving from nothing, I will give you this link.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Further, to my understanding, or its actual limitation, is that science, cosmology, and the scientific methodology, is certainly for me far easier to understand than any unscientific explanation, tinged with unsupported mythical dogma, with regards to some all powerful, omnipotent deity or any other form of spaghetti monster that ancient man needed to explain the wonders that surround him. Science, particularly cosmology, does that far easier, even if I do not understand it fully.

The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right.

 I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies.

 The space - time I think is not material, and cannot execute any force.  The “space – time” for me is “space - anti “gravity”, created by sub particles with property of anti mass, dispersed in all Euclidian space, around the bodies of “mass,, giving space some different property of ideal Euclidian space. The computer “meshes?” (simulations) have to do with different concentrations of sub particles of anti mass  on the space around bodies.

 It is repulsive force of interaction of gravity of body’s mater with anti gravity of space that holds bodies in suspended status in space.

Thanks for link. But I was full with “ Universal equalities “ of Gary Lyon Otto”

I did not intend to influence in your knowledge and believes in them. In this conversation I won for sure the banned status.

Mordred

  • Resident Expert

  • Resident Experts

  • 1046

  • 6024 posts

Posted 9 hours ago (edited)

Mordred.

I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation. So i have nothing to tell about your teaching.

My idea is that Constant of physic are “really physic” as counter part of equation, to hold concepts in balance. So if we have a mass, or charge in one side of physics equation, in the constants (that present in some manner their existence in the space) must be mass with anti mass, or electric charge with anti-electric charge. They do not annihilate each other. They create fields.

In my post, the constant of gravity divided by h multiplied by frequency, with this huge amount of energy in denominator, confused me and gave hope for some thing new and stranger, that my have any link with my idea.

After I treated all other constants of space with Planck constants, and I find some interesting results, in this direction.

Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear.

 

  • Moderators

  • 6456

  • 39535 posts

  • Location: Washington DC region

Posted 2 hours ago

 Thanks. warning given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

he beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right.

This is not a matter of belief, but of evidence.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

I believe in eternal and infinite universe

That is not, necessarily, incompatible with the Big Bang model. Unless you insist on an eternal, unchanging universe in which case, your belief is just plain wrong.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

I won for sure the banned status.

Nope. You might like to make yourself a martyr to your anti-science beliefs, but it takes more than just being wilfully ignorant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right.

Not in the least, perhaps you didn't read my post in its entirety; I said, "The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB". Sometimes this evidence is called the pillars supporting the BB. They are, [1] The observed expansion, [2] The CMBR or relic heat from the BB, [3] The abundance of the lighter elements. Other evidence supporting a BB model are galactic distribution and Olber's paradox.

Quote

 I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies.

This does not invalidate the BB. See....http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html but essentially we do not really know if the universe is infinite or not.

Quote

 The space - time I think is not material, and cannot execute any force.  The “space – time” for me is “space - anti “gravity”, 

I don't believe anyone has said that spacetime is a material thing, but something does not need to be a physical material thing to be real. Is a magnetic field real? Spacetime can be bent, warped, curved twisted in the presence of mass, which is then reflected in what we call gravity...In other words gravity is spacetime....is gravity real?

Quote

I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation.

So then, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB?  Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt.

Quote

Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear.

Your thread was moved to speculation because that's all it is...Again, as I said earlier, It would be very beneficial for yourself to familairise yourself fully with the BB model and why it is held in such high regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Stranger

  20 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right.

This is not a matter of belief, but of evidence.

------------------------

 

dhimokritis said:

The evidence, yes, may be personal and collective beliefs, based in some facts collected with material instruments - by material beings with some higher intelligence. From some facts, those beings may create hypothesis and theories. When the hypotheses are materialized, and became an objective evidence, which don’t live any tail behind, people believe in interpretations of hypothesis as truth, even though interpretation my be idealistic. Have not many hypothesis crashed, when material factors came in light?

What about this: We can’t collect evidence for anti mass objects, because our instruments and we self, are massive and repellent for anti-mass objects.    

  ----------------------

stranger

  20 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

I believe in eternal and infinite universe

That is not, necessarily, incompatible with the Big Bang model. Unless you insist on an eternal, unchanging universe in which case, your belief is just plain wrong.

dhimokritis said:

I didn’t say eternal in your meaning. For me eternal means that is material, and the sub-particles that structure universe are eternal: not created and not annihilated. And they are particular even though of Planck sise.

-------------

strange

  20 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

I won for sure the banned status.

Nope. You might like to make yourself a martyr to your anti-science beliefs, but it takes more than just being wilfully ignorant.

-----------------

dhimokritis said:

Don’t be hypocrite and acetic. I have not any debit to you, to deserve that.

 

 

 

  •  

  •  


“Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.”

Gapminder: https://www.gapminder.org

 

beecee

  • Organism

  • Senior Members

  • 205

  • 1244 posts

  • Location: Maroubra Sydney

Posted 17 hours ago

  20 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right.

Not in the least, perhaps you didn't read my post in its entirety; I said, "The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB". Sometimes this evidence is called the pillars supporting the BB. They are, [1] The observed expansion, [2] The CMBR or relic heat from the BB, [3] The abundance of the lighter elements. Other evidence supporting a BB model are galactic distribution and Olber's paradox.

-------------------

dhimokritis said

I don’t deny evidences, I deny interpretation of those. And the conclusion: Created from nothing.

 Let take 1- Observed expansion. When was made this pillar susceptible? When authors has an evidence of “v” expansion > “c” . And this happened when instruments were perfection-ed for farther vision. And look: The cause of this was promptly found “ something is in space that cause it. Let find it now. Wasn’t it before?

 I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies.

----------------

This does not invalidate the BB. See....http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html but essentially we do not really know if the universe is infinite or not.

-----------------------

dhimokritis

You say so? Why,--- when you are not sure?

----  Quote

___________

 The space - time I think is not material, and cannot execute any force.  The “space – time” for me is “space - anti “gravity”, 

 

I don't believe anyone has said that spacetime is a material thing, but something does not need to be a physical material thing to be real. Is a magnetic field real? Spacetime can be bent, warped, curved twisted in the presence of mass, which is then reflected in what we call gravity...In other words gravity is spacetime....is gravity real?

_____________

dhimocritis

You asked: Is a magnetic field real.

O yes. And I think is something material in space about it:

 μ0 / 4*pi = M*R. / e^2 = 10^-7 N /A^2

___________________

  Quote

I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation.

So then, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB?  Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt.


All I see till now about BB is fairy tales make sugared with some science for to be less dubious.

.-----------------------------

  Quote

Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear.

Your thread was moved to speculation because that's all it is...Again, as I said earlier, It would be very beneficial for yourself to familairise yourself fully with the BB model and why it is held in such high regard.

------------------

Why?

 

 

  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

I didn’t say eternal in your meaning. For me eternal means that is material, and the sub-particles that structure universe are eternal: not created and not annihilated. And they are particular even though of Planck sise.

The first sign of a crank is when they asign meanings to words and phrases that are not generally universally recognised. Every man and his dog understands what eternal means.

Quote

Don’t be hypocrite and acetic. I have not any debit to you, to deserve that.

Please learn to accept deserved criticism and stop being and sounding so precious. :rolleyes:

  •  

 
Quote

I don’t deny evidences, I deny interpretation of those. And the conclusion: Created from nothing.

 I have not yet seen any different interpretation from you on any accepted evidence for the BB.

With regard to arising out of nothing, perhaps the first thing you need to do is reveal your own definition of nothing. Plus I did give you a link.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Quote

Let take 1- Observed expansion. When was made this pillar susceptible? When authors has an evidence of “v” expansion > “c” . And this happened when instruments were perfection-ed for farther vision. And look: The cause of this was promptly found “ something is in space that cause it. Let find it now. Wasn’t it before?

The evidence for the expansion of the universe was cosmological redshift. The evidence for the acceleration in that expansion rate was obtained by the Supernova Cosmology Project                                                                                                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_Cosmology_Project  Yes it is true some as yet "unconfirmed" data on type 1a S/N was also found in recent times....This though as far as I know, is still to be verified. But all this would do is cast perhaps some doubt on the acceleration, certainly not on the expansion itself.  Further studies and future data, will certainly add to that body of knowledge one way or the other.

Quote

 I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies.

You can believe in damn well what you like, but it is not science and has absolutely zero evidence to support such an interpretation. 

 

Quote

you say so? Why,--- when you are not sure?

You obviously are confused. I'm as sure about the BB, as is the general consensus of cosmologists around the world, due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it and as much as anyone can be sure about any scientific theory. My only doubt is whether the universe is finite or infinite...That has not yet been determined.

 
Quote

I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation.

 

So then again I say, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB?  Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt.

Quote

All I see till now about BB is fairy tales make sugared with some science for to be less dubious.

The BB is a model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime. It is overwhelmingly supported by many lines of evidence. If you determine in your own mind that this model is "sugared with science" then I would suggest that you have some underlying agenda. And one could then ask, with a nonsensical approach to science that you have, why you are here. 

Quote

Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear.

I have not undertaken any verdict. I have given the generally accepted view of the evolution of the universe/spacetime as supported by many lines of evidence. Again, you certainly need to learn to accept criticism, and the obvious fact that you can't and apparently won't, seems to me at least, that you have an agenda of sorts.

Quote

Why?

Stop being obtuse. You have been told why your thread was moved to speculation. Again because that is all you have. Let me again say that you should go back to square one, understand what the scientific method is all about, understand what a scientific theory or model is, understand the data, research, observations  and reasons for why models/theories are formulated, and then ask any pertinent questions on any part you are having trouble understanding.

 

 

 

 

  •  
Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

What about this: We can’t collect evidence for anti mass objects, because our instruments and we self, are massive and repellent for anti-mass objects.   

But that very repulsion would be evidence. If anti-mass is repelled by mass, then mass is equally repelled by anti-mass, and that repellent force could be measured by how it effects massive objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 To add to Janus excellent point, we would be able to detect antimatter and matter collisions regardless if they repel each other or attract. Though evidence clearly shows matter and antimatter pairs attract, collide and emit detectable radiation as a result. As previously mentioned the pair is opposite in charge polarity opposites attract.
 Here is direct observation of collisions

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/22/discovery-lightning-creates-anti-matter-in-our-atmosphere/

https://www.wired.com/2011/08/earth-antimatter-belt/

note not only lightning but our sun also produces antimatter rays that collide with our atmosphere on Earth. In cosmology it isn't that antimatter isn't present, it is so scarce on a global metric scale. matter dominates the mix. So we do know the properties of matter/antimatter as per mass and charge which goes against your repulsion. We have also tested the attraction at the LHC. Where we can create antimatter.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Janus said:

But that very repulsion would be evidence. If anti-mass is repelled by mass, then mass is equally repelled by anti-mass, and that repellent force could be measured by how it effects massive objects.

 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

 To add to Janus excellent point, we would be able to detect antimatter and matter collisions regardless if they repel each other or attract. Though evidence clearly shows matter and antimatter pairs attract, collide and emit detectable radiation as a result. As previously mentioned the pair is opposite in charge polarity opposites attract.
 Here is direct observation of collisions

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/22/discovery-lightning-creates-anti-matter-in-our-atmosphere/

https://www.wired.com/2011/08/earth-antimatter-belt/

note not only lightning but our sun also produces antimatter rays that collide with our atmosphere on Earth. In cosmology it isn't that antimatter isn't present, it is so scares on a global metric scale. matter dominates the mix. So we do know the properties of matter/antimatter as per mass and charge which goes against your repulsion. We have also tested the attraction at the LHC. Where we can create antimatter.

A credit to  you both for actually deciphering what he was asking. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Janus said:

But that very repulsion would be evidence. If anti-mass is repelled by mass, then mass is equally repelled by anti-mass, and that repellent force could be measured by how it effects massive objects.

And the CERN ALPHA project is busy creating enough antimatter to test whether it has positive or negative mass. (We all know what the answer is going to be, but science always checks anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, beecee said:

The first sign of a crank is when they asign meanings to words and phrases that are not generally universally recognised. Every man and his dog understands what eternal means.

Please learn to accept deserved criticism and stop being and sounding so precious. :rolleyes:Only one question about "Crank". Do you believe in annihilation of mater?

And my "crank pot", prefered word in the forum for denigre the interloqutor, tell me that you and your dog believe. I say no, it exist for ever, and that i mean for eternity.

I have nothing to say about criticism, with loaned others minds. I would like to listen ":yours" answers about my questions in my post. And you stop boast with your eloquence, and native language.

 Please leave me alone with hypothesis of B.B. It was enough for me, the" theory", based in time : 1.9 *10^-70 s, or c=6,... *10^35 m/s. If you have any evidence for those and You can believe in "damn  what you like", but it is not science and has absolutely zero evidence to support such an interpretation. 

For me Heisenberg's absurdity: h / 2*dt. is the base on what you believe. The theorist my have taken dt=0, this would have solved your insecurity limited or unlimited the life of our "born-ed" universe. 

The other base is "red shift", those sheep of flock of light, that go aside with time.

If you now believe that in space may be an immense quantity of some unknown particles, "dark mater", so they coll:

why we don't doubt that those particles may have been the cause of astray of red sheep"? and maybe the so called, the after glow? and the disintegration of photon?

And with this i want to end 'my post". You have been worried about my "some sort of

 agenda". What do you think is my agenda? At least have told this to me, i am curious to know, because your opinion about this, give me an opinion about you. 

-----

 I asked some questions, nobody gave me an answer, except Mordred: No ' negative mass'. I think this is all affirmation of the forum, for my post. If not bell, the rest is unimportant.

 Only for Janus i have a feeble rebut:

 The electric frequency i think is C / (2*pi*alpha^-1 * RCompton).  Hz.

The "gravity frequency", i coll so my "crack-pot invention":

 is (G * m / R)^0.5 / (2*pi*alpha^-1*Rcompton) Hz.

 This frequency is inverse proportional with R^2. May be this "fact? "  influence the results of experiments?

Any way. Take or leave this is my false cent.

-------------

 

 I want to close my post. It was a conundrum for me that i payed with lots of lost - sleep.

I asked some questions, nobody gave me an answer, except Mordred: No " negative mass". I think this is affirmation of all the forum, for my post. If not bell, the rest is unimportant.

 Enough now. It was tired- some, this kind of conversation. It  is responsible my dementia, my ignorance in many fields, or my crappy computer that not posses "word" and "math - lab", and "quote"?  All  of them, and are not a justification.

 

 

 

 

 

  •  

 

 I have not yet seen any different interpretation from you on any accepted evidence for the BB.

With regard to arising out of nothing, perhaps the first thing you need to do is reveal your own definition of nothing. Plus I did give you a link.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

The evidence for the expansion of the universe was cosmological redshift. The evidence for the acceleration in that expansion rate was obtained by the Supernova Cosmology Project                                                                                                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_Cosmology_Project  Yes it is true some as yet "unconfirmed" data on type 1a S/N was also found in recent times....This though as far as I know, is still to be verified. But all this would do is cast perhaps some doubt on the acceleration, certainly not on the expansion itself.  Further studies and future data, will certainly add to that body of knowledge one way or the other.

You can believe in "damn  what you like", but it is not science and has absolutely zero evidence to support such an interpretation. 

 

You obviously are confused. I'm as sure about the BB, as is the general consensus of cosmologists around the world, due to the overwhelming evidence supporting it and as much as anyone can be sure about any scientific theory. My only doubt is whether the universe is finite or infinite...That has not yet been determined.

 

 

So then again I say, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB?  Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt.

The BB is a model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime. It is overwhelmingly supported by many lines of evidence. If you determine in your own mind that this model is "sugared with science" then I would suggest that you have some underlying agenda. And one could then ask, with a nonsensical approach to science that you have, why you are here. 

I have not undertaken any verdict. I have given the generally accepted view of the evolution of the universe/spacetime as supported by many lines of evidence. Again, you certainly need to learn to accept criticism, and the obvious fact that you can't and apparently won't, seems to me at least, that you have an agenda of sorts.

Stop being obtuse. You have been told why your thread was moved to speculation. Again because that is all you have. Let me again say that you should go back to square one, understand what the scientific method is all about, understand what a scientific theory or model is, understand the data, research, observations  and reasons for why models/theories are formulated, and then ask any pertinent questions on any part you are having trouble understanding.

 

 

 

 

  •  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

I say no, it exist for ever, and that i mean for eternity.

And the evidence shows that it has evolved from an early hot dense state.

2 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

For me Heisenberg's absurdity

And yet, the evidence ...

2 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

The other base is "red shift"

That was one of the first pieces of evidence. At the time, there were multiple other explanations possible.

But then came the detection of the CMB and, so far, no other theory has been able to explain that.

2 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

why we don't doubt that those particles may have been the cause of astray of red sheep"? and maybe the so called, the after glow? and the disintegration of photon?

You can make up any number of ideas. The important thing is to test them against the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

Please leave me alone with hypothesis of B.B

I'm certainly not going to go through your mixed up ramblings as of by now, you really should have learnt to use the "quote" function. You are in speculation for a very good reason: You are speculating and hypothesising without one scrap of evidence. Whether you like it or not, the BB model stands as the overwhelming model for universal evolution and is supported by the three grand observational pillars of cosmology. Even a future QGT should encompass the BB, while extending its known parameters. 

Quote

If you now believe that in space may be an immense quantity of some unknown particles, "dark mater"

DM has nothing to do with belief or otherwise, as you unfortunately and unscientifically seem to revel in. DM is evidenced in much observational data...the bullet cluster observation being one....https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/09/the-bullet-cluster-proves-dark-matter-exists-but-not-for-the-reason-most-physicists-think/#30d45ff41738

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2FX-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/M.Markevitch et al.; Lensing Map: NASA/STScI; ESO WFI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.

The gravitational lensing map (blue), overlayed over the optical and X-ray (pink) data of the Bullet cluster. The mismatch is undeniable.

The above image, a composite of optical data, X-ray data, and a reconstructed mass map, is one of the most famous and informative ones in all of astronomy. Known as the Bullet Cluster, it showcases two galaxy clusters that have recently collided. The individual galaxies present within the clusters, like two guns filled with bird shot fired at one another, passed right through one another, as the odds of a collision were exceedingly low. However, the intergalactic gas within each cluster, largely diffuse and making up the majority of the normal matter, collided and heated up, emitting X-rays that we can see today. But when we used our knowledge of General Relativity and the bending of background light to reconstruct where the mass must be, we found it alongside the galaxies, not with the intra-cluster matter. Hence, dark matter must exist.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Other overwhelming evidence for DM, is gravitational lensing of distant light sources by unseen intervening matter....DM.

Quote

 Enough now. It was tired- some, this kind of conversation. It  is responsible my dementia, my ignorance in many fields, or my crappy computer that not posses "word" and "math - lab", and "quote"?  All  of them, and are not a justification.

While I most certainly sympathise with the fact that english is not your first language, and consequently expressing your feelings is difficult, I have no sympathy with your rejection of reputable scientific data, and substituting instead unsupported illogical speculative fairy tales.

Quote

agenda". What do you think is my agenda? At least have told this to me, i am curious to know, because your opinion about this, give me an opinion about you. 

In my experience on science forums, those that come to float alternative ideas, without evidence, or reject incumbent accepted science without good reason, do so invariably because of personal agendas or some personal  part of their makeup...  "Delusions of grandeur" or a God/ID  agenda are two popular observations as to why some find the need to come to a science forum, to push their crusade against accepted science. While science is a discipline in continued progress, if any one in reality, had some hypothetical idea, that was well supported by observational evidence, and that predicted more then the incumbent model, they would inevitably write up a professional paper for proper peer review. While science forums such as this are great avenues for discussion and debate, they are not the vehicle for establishing new or updated ideas and theories. If those ideas and/or hypotheticals  have grounds for validity, they invariably and over time will be accepted by the professional peer review system. 

You may well ask, do I have an agenda? I would probably say yes...My agenda is the scientific methodology.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 3:46 AM, dhimokritis said:

And my "crank pot", prefered word in the forum for denigre the interloqutor, tell me that you and your dog believe. I say no, it exist for ever, and that i mean for eternity.

You can say what you like, but if it does not align with the scientific methodology, and has evidence supporting it, you are literally pissing into the wind.

Quote

I have nothing to say about criticism, with loaned others minds. I would like to listen ":yours" answers about my questions in my post. And you stop boast with your eloquence, and native language.

Well actually I'm not boasting, as I mention many times about my amateurish non scientific status....With regards to "loaned other minds" a great scientist once said, "I only see as far as I do because I stand on the shoulders of giants"  or words to that effect. I know what I know because I read reputable authors and scientists, understand the scientific method and what it entails, and question what I don't understand. I don't pretend that I have magically and suddenly out stripped and out thought the great minds with their access to great technology and instruments.I'm certainly not burdened with delusions of grandeur and/or laden with any God/magical spaghetti monster agenda. I'm here to learn, and over many years I have become rather skilled at sorting the wheat from the chaff, and the crank from the knowledgable science. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now