Billzilla Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 He's a nice guy. He's a free thinker. He's a non-conformist, in a nice way. But ... ... his theories don't remotely agree with the ones that have been proven to work extremely well for the last decade to centuries past. He won't provide any hard forlumae to back them up, so it's difficult to agrue with a moving target. If you can get some formula's out of him, great, please work on them fair & square to see if they have merit. But please remember, he's a nice guy, just a little ..... odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 I'd be more than happy to examine any evidence or formulas he has, unfortunately refusing to provide them angers me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenel Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 You left out his eating habbits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 I would sincerely like to know if the people I am dealing with here have any understanding of (a) scientific method (b) narrow (specialised) or wide knowledge of science © have evre been confronted with new theories (d) expect "evidence" and of what sort. eg if I say 1+1=2, do you want complete derivations! I will only supply evidence that is available on others views of a controversial nature that makes a point I wish to highlight. I will not supply evidence on accepted general principles of science, other than to remind you of their existence. I do not demand that you accept the propositions I put forward, they are placed here to encourage discussion. I will not respond to sniping, so if you wish to discuss, please be civil. All propositions I post have been thoroughly considered, and I expect that you will see their merit in time. I am not going to spoon feed, so if you wish to debunk me you will need to get up to speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billzilla Posted July 16, 2002 Author Share Posted July 16, 2002 More on the alternate (ah-hem!) theories of Mr Zarkov. http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/topic102992.shtm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Unregistered Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 I have just come from the ABC's forum in australia. Zarkov is making it big time....many high powered scientists are lining up to understand his new explanation of gravity... SPIN GRAVITY.....he has posted a short explanation on this forum somewhere. Go Zarkov !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Thanks for the vote of confidence, who-ever! Yes first stage completed, we have the WORDS! Fantastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Zarkov is making it big time....many high powered scientists are lining up to understand his new explanation of gravity... Just remember Zarkov, us mods can see IPs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Thanks, but I was black walled, just letting you know I know > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 Just let it be known that i was for the content of my posts, and I was judged guilty and delisted for a while. The charge was that my posts were not scientific, but there was no enquiry into the science behind them. My posts are now being relagated to metaphysics, even though there have been no investigation of the science behind my assertions. I now have a choice it seems, to allow this censureship, or withdraw all my posts and not post again to this forum. My posts have attracted a lot of interest and comment. If you have an opinion on this dilema I am confronted with, please feel free to make a comment > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and - especially important - to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true. -Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 You refuse to provide a scientific basis for your arguments. I have asked many many many times. You reply with bullshit like "my maths is off limits because i use them for AI" and ignoring journal article requests. A scientific theory meets the following criteria: a) It is constructed based on evidence or extrapolations (you will not prove this, so we have no reason to believe you when you simply say they are) b) Experimental data supports the conclusion (you refuse to provide accurate data) If these conditions are not met, it belongs in "Metaphysics". Moving it to that forum does not alter it or censor it, or hide it from the main page. It simply places it in the proper category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 Oh Mr Fafolone, so Einsteins theory of relativity, when compiled was not science! Maybe the science is inherent, why do you not enquire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenel Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 Einstien had scientific proof, experimental data, to back up his theory. You sir, do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 The math will follow but a logical path must be offered first. Einstein did that, so his conclusions seemed valid and were later proved. I am more than willing to be walked through a line of reasoning and must be given the opportunity to judge it on its merits. I feel more secure when stuff makes sense to me and any questions I have can be discussed. I want to reasonably figure things out as much as anybody and I'll put it all out on the table. Some trains of thought don't get very far without tracks to run on. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 That's all I ask just Aman! Questions will lay the tracks, OK ! > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 Einstein based his equations on real data, he showed how he arrived at his conclusion. You do neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 Eisnstein's therory took years to be defined, refined and established, and many tens of uears for the rest of the world to even consider it. I have only been working on this for a few months! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 Which adds to its lack of scientific quality. And Einstein didn't have extensive evidence contradicting his conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 Ok, I was hoping you would get the gist of my discussion. Think about Galileo, and the trials he had to go through, or even other astronomers who were actually killed. New thoughts are always greeted with hostility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 Galileo, again, HAD EVIDENCE. They wouldn't listen to his evidence. I would be happy to listen to yours, but we go right back to your inability to produce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 Ok, you will have to ask, I will tell you what you don't know. PS, how did Galileo have evidence, and if he did why didn't they listen to it! Similar type of story in science has been written time and time again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 The point of the matter is, I would like you to provide reasoning for your outrageous claims. Can you honestly say, as a [self-proclaimed] scientist that it is appropriate to challenge the foundations of physics and biology, and not provide an explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 Fafalone, I am new here, yes I understand your dilema, but I would urge you ( I do not really care) to understand that science has a huge body of accepted data and logic. Do I need to reference well established understandings, these are the backbone. Most people are not multi disiplinary, so questions need to be asked, but does a "correct" answer need to be constantly followed by references. People must get in the habit of self check, they must decide what is truth or not. Yes my assertions are different, but they do not break any laws of science, just stand on the toes of a few cherished theories. Once again I will say questioning over time usually sort out the problem you seem to think you have > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 19, 2002 Share Posted July 19, 2002 You need to explain how you arrived at your conclusions, people cannot make an informed decision on their validity without one. Feel free to keep on posting without one, I'll just move it on over to metaphysics (recategorization, not censorship). This thread is closed because of profanity on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts