Scientists and Virtue

No, not the final proof. But the math people had already said the numbers checked out properly. And that's why everyone kept working on it instead of tossing it aside like they would have with any pesudoscientific nonsense.

How do you distinguish them? By first determining if they are based on fact rather than fiction - something that many people here (like you) seem to be unable to do. And that's largely because it requires a good education - which is considerably more than just running off at the mouth on some Internet forum.

Again, I've NEVER "displayed extreme prejudice" against ANY logical possibility. Only against nonsense with no scientific basis. And once again, I challenge you to find something and QUOTE it (rather than just saying "or whatever it was") and claiming I was against a logical possibility. So far you've done nothing of the sort. And guess what? You will not be able to find it, either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you? Since you have rejected them, i guess you must be well educated about each of those fields you have rejected. How well you know about each of these fields?

I haven't rejected any possibility as of now. its only you who reject things without any acceptable explanation demonstrating your reasons other than labeling it as quack. May be you dont know but you think its fiction. That happens quite often when you acquire information by reading books than by experimenting on your own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But what if Einstein had not provided the math and said that everything was relative? He would have been called a loon and a pseudo scientist by the scientific establishment but he still would have been right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's because you have no idea of my background. Yes, I have training and degrees in several fields and I spent years as professional researcher before retiring not too long ago. In fact, I spent considerable time at what was then THE most respected respected research organization in the world - as well as having worked at other places before and after that. In addition, I've never lost my love of learning and subscribe to a number of professional journals.

And here's yet another deference between me and the VAST majority of people here: I don't just read the articles, I study them and check out all the references they supply with each one. And that's what I spend almost all of my time doing - rather than watching nonsense on TV or burning myself out with silly parties, drinking and drugs. All of that is just stuff for young fools.

And I make my determination between fact and fiction by examining the facts and evidence presented - not by some emotional or gut reaction. Those are completely worthless to a professional. The latter being a trap that many people in your age group fall into.

 

I don't waste any time dealing in silly "what if's" - that's a child's game. I deal only in facts that can be substantiated - not in idle mental gymnastics. "What if's" buy you nothing about things already past and resolved.

 

How can u know about something that people are unaware of? You cannot read about it anywhere. You cannot know anything about it since everyone is unaware of it. So basically we have no choice than to examine every claim even if it doesn't make much of rational sense. Most times the ones who claim only saw a small portion of it and are trying to earn quick bucks or fame. By rejecting those claims simply because their claims looks obviously silly is one of the major mistakes most highly educated ones make.

How can u examine the evidence presented by someone who cant handle a scientific study on his own? Do you go on about researching further? or ask him to study more and bring more evidences?

 

You consistently miss the point Read-Only.

The point here is before the math was checked by independent parties, there were ALOT of people skeptical of this new theory of the universe. There is NO debating this. It did not become SCIENCE until it was independently verified (<-because THATS how science works), before this it was pseudo science.

 

No, your it's your mistake in thinking that that unsubstantiated claims should not be treated as silly.

And your last question is just as easy to handle: He has to provide SOLID evidence of his claim - experimental results and/or math. If he cannot do that, his claim is worthless. An example of VERY bad (worthless) science is the proposal by munty13 that speed is dependent on the perception of the observer. That's absurd! The speed of light - or a bullet - does NOT change no matter if a observer is aware of it's presence or not. Even a child of 16 can understand why THAT claim is total foolishness!!!!!!!!

 

I'm under no obligation and have no inclination to improve your education. It's YOUR job to do that - and I don't care if you decide to do it or not. If you were ASKING QUESTIONS instead of making useless assertions it would be a different matter. But you choose only to talk rather than ask or to try and learn by putting you own effort into it.

 

LoL!! How could progression exist without asking "What if?"

Even Einstein himself said imagination is more important than knowledge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're a hack and you know it.

 

Someone who is not scientific enough might provide hints into a much bigger unexplored area. Only a fool can ask the ones who make a claim to go further, spend years to build the proof the way science expect it and then prove it. If you consider yourself wise, you would have taken a keen interest in experimenting it at least one time to disprove him. Not calling his idea stupid the very next moment as if you have already done it and knew everything he tried to explain.

By the way, munty13 wasn't talking about speed of light changing because of observation. It was that the perception of the speed of light is more subjective and can vary with different species because their reaction time is faster. May be you should read it all over again.

Now if you still claim that his idea was nonsense, then are you able to see and process information like a mosquito? If not how can you know that for sure? Because no one else has thought about the possibility before and obviously you have no single source of knowledge unless you care to acquire on your own. He could be wrong. He himself mentioned that in his opening statement. So basically he wasn't trying to show off; instead was trying to find errors with his thought experiment.

I

 

Since you have avoided this once again I can only conclude you agree.

 

I somehow missed this part of it. I was asking about your knowledge in the fields you have rejected as pseudo science. Did you have any basic first hand knowledge regarding any of those field you talked about?

 

Incorrect. Only a fool would ACCEPT such claims WITHOUT proof. If you do not understand that one very simple point, there is no reason to waste anymore time trying to explain any of this to you. Sorry - and his claim is STILL pure nonsense because PERCEPTION has absolutely nothing to do with REALITY. His suggestion to discard clocks is equally as ignorant a suggestion as any simple-minded, uneducated person could offer. It makes no sense at all. And again, if you cannot see that, then further discussion with you isn't worth the effort.

Are you actually willing to learn or not? A simple "no" from you and I'll be happy to leave you in your own ignorance also. I certainly have better and more interesting things I could be doing with my time.

 

I'm finished with wasting my time on you. I had actually forgotten what a fool you had made of yourself in the UFO threads. Goodbye and good riddance!

 

Indeed I do - as do all professionals. But none of us are going to spend one moment of our time entertaining such nonsense as over-unity, free energy, violation of the laws of thermodynamics, ghosts or speed changing with perception. Now... Go and deal with my prior response to you.

 

Apparently not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Youve been at this for HOW many years?

Well you obviously cannot refute my logic (as you failed to address my line of reasoning in several earlier posts), so what does that make you? A fools fool?

I got you so bad you had to rehash old subjects which you think is a sore area for me (how childish is that? senile already?). I have no problem admitting I think military UFOs exist.

EndLightEnd - 1, Read- Only - 0

 

Yes, notice here how he clearly ignores your point and attempts to redirect the discussion by slandering your reputation. This is a mark of weakness and defeat.

He also reduces the practice and benefits of asking "what if" - a means of penetrating the unknown - to "idle mental gymnastics."

He was cornered and shown for the sophist and pedant he is. Hopefully he can learn and evolve from this instead of validating himself and harboring anger and resentment as he no doubt usually does.

Good luck to you Read-Only.

 

No thanks! Am afraid i might become narrow minded like you.


I think that you are some schoolkid trying to gain some reputation as a retired scientist/researcher.

 

Jerk! You totally ignored the last sentence of what you quoted! Now go BACK and read it again and you'll see just HOW foolish this post was.:bugeye: