The True Origin of The Universe?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When I was about 8 years old and in primary school, we had a task to write an essay of the subject of our choice.
I chose a manned trip to the Moon.....
I was given 92/100 for my effort, with 5 points deducted for referencing an "Earthquake" on the Moon, forcing the crew and ship to make a quick take-off and return.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[That was in 1954 by the way]

The rest of your very objective post is spot on, and align with my thoughts exactly...although you put it slightly better then I.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The above can be illustrated perfectly with the apparent "brilliance" of evidence they obtain, manufacture and misinterpret re the Apollo Moon landings and 9/11.
To the average layman, the cases put by these screwballs, nutbags are quite convincing at face value.

The most obvious method though in my opinion, to falsify their utter nonsense, is plain old logic, and common sense, once someone starts to think about those things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If your objective is to paint yourself as crank, you just succeeded with this post alone. You basically are alleging that you have no academic credentials to speak of, and therefore can't speak with any knowledge about the subject at hand. Yet the technology with with you made this post only became possible after thousands of such research activities were published. That alone should tell you there's a screw loose in your thinking. Failing that, all bets are off.

What you have danced around (unless I missed it) is why you have this chip on your shoulder. Unless you bombed out during review of your dissertation (in theology?) we have nothing to go on as to why you harbor this cynical perception of peer review. Have you even been peer reviewed? I doubt it. Or are you just a Creationist, come here to continue to pretend to chip away at the first principles of science?

If you want to be understood, you have to be clear. That includes a dash of intellectual honesty, so that folks can winnow out some signal of genuineness from amid all the noise.

And don't take this too hard. I'm just responding in good faith to your post:

I doubt that seriously. You've already trashed peer review, as a preemptive strike against all the evidence that will prove you wrong.

The first question is: what gives you the authority to declare what's "mainstream" or not. What gives you the chops to question theory, esp. if you haven't even mastered first principles? If you can't get past the trifles of peer review, then you're not yet even a novice. So what gives? Delusion of grandeur? That's another topic, another thread, perhaps even another site (www.rehabilitation.com?)

I'm quite certain you are an equal opportunity fallacy generator.

That allegation is confronted by your prejudice of peer review alone. Again: have you ever been peer reviewed? Then it's prejudice. :shrug:

A truism, but one which does not save you.

 

I wander who are you talking to. I said I look at mainstream science through the same glasses I look at any other theory. By "mainstream" I mean whatever you consider it to be, to me it's all the same and that's the whole point.

I said peer review does not guarantee terrible mistakes will pass through, or stay to linger, while correct theories will get rejected, as history confirms. You disagree?

 

do you even understand the goal of mainstream is to connect relativity and quantum physics?
do you realize the issue is gravity ?

 

Certainly it does not, but it doesn't happen too often, and the mistakes anyway are gradually found and eliminated in time, by the same peer review system.
While we have the overwhelming vast majority of non mainstream activists that claim to have ToE's etc, being totally wrong and delusional. In fact on this forum so far, since I have been here, it is exactly 100% total failure.
Yet you still have the audacity to stand there and criticise science and its methodology, while claiming you don't have an agenda.
Something is amiss somewhere.

 

pebcak??!!

 

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
PEBCAK

(humorous) Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard. Used by technical support helpdesk staff to indicate that the cause of a problem with a user’s computer is the incompetence of the user himself or herself.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


I see. But its off topic to discuss your IT short comings here.
You should go to the appropriate forum.
Someone may help you there.

 

I think they probably do understand the scientific method. But a deep seated hatred and "tall poppy syndrome" for established accepted scientific data, for whatever reason, sees them then acting and posting without engaging brain. Hence the silly comments and inane thoughts.

The point is Fraggle's, the progress of science continues unabated, built on theories based on proper observations and experiments, while the objectors, crackpots and "would be's if they could be's" languish on this and other forums, under a cloud of illusions re the non existence of their own contributions.
Sad.

 

I'm not criticizing anything, except the history perhaps. I'm talking about overconfidence and blind fate, and I say bad things can come out of them. That's all.

 

Over confidence in SR?...GR?....Evolution??...Abiogenesis??...The BB theory...QM??
Some tinkering with a couple maybe, but that would not change the overall model..eg: Inflation as part of the BB.
Over confidence in Heliocentric Universe??.....
Most cosmologists are confident that any future QGT will encompass all those.
The over confidence you speak of, comes from incredible predictions, observational verification and experimentation agreement and the research of the works of giants of the past and present.


They are all near rock solid fundamentally.
This is what your problem is then I take it?
Have you access to any reputable Laboratories?..or maybe you are in contact and exchanging data with Hawking, Penrose, Carroll, Thorne, Linde, or other world scientists?...You have access to telescopes?, Keck, Gemini?...or maybe the Planck probe?...or Spitzer? or any of the solar probes?? Rosetta maybe?

If you think I'm underestimating you in any other way, tell me?
But what I do know, is that you and other Alternative hypothesis pushers, burdened with delusional qualities, are drastically underestimating science today, including the science method and peer review.
I suppose understandable in a way, as forums such as this, are the only outlet available to you.
That's probably a blessing in disguise.

 

Not theories, blind faith in peer review gods and overconfidence in alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords. Individual theories you are supposed to research by yourself, and then rate your confidence in each one proportionally to how much you investigated it and how much convincing you found the evidence is. As long as you think with your own head it's all fine, that's all it matters.

 

Well then you are in luck: no one has blind faith in peer review. So that is an irrelevant/nonexistent complaint you are bringing-up.

Well that's ridiculous. No one has the knowledge required to investigate all theories for themselves and most people don't have the knowledge to investigate any theories for themselves. So what you claim is necessary is in fact impossible. In practice, this "confidence" level would necessarily be very unreasonably low for that reason. In your case, your attempt to do this has resulted in rejecting theories because you don't understand them.

Instead, you should trust in the results and track record of science; Not absolutely, but a lot.

 

Please talk to me in some other thread and say something of substance already. This conversation is empty even without your unnecessary little arguments. -- Anyhow, my intention was of course not to be so literal. For most people, physics means absolutely nothing. Most people don't need to know how to fix their car, install electricity in their house, or collide positron and electron in their particle accelerator. They are welcome to think whatever they remember from what they learned in school. For that much, mainstream science should do. But for people working in the field, or even people arguing about it on internet forums, they really should do the research and see if they will come up with the same conclusions by themselves. If for nothing else, than just for better understanding. Admit it!!

 

Already been answered in post 308. You seem to be lost somewhat for words in your grasping for straws to find something, anything to validate your nonsensical approach to science, the scientific method and peer review, and of course your paranoid obsession with proving you are thinking for yourself, irrespective of how out of context misinterpreted and illogical that thinking for yourself needs to become, just for the sake of saying "I'm thinking for myself"


Now answer what I have put to you in post 313, instead of presenting that rather tiresome and conclusively wrong paranoia, "Ï'm thinking for myself "

All the other alternative hypothesis pushers and ToE claimants also claim similar paranoia, and all have ended up as abject failures so far.

 

I'm sorry, I give up of challenging SR. After some preliminary research I found too much of it inconclusive, so I realized I can't make an argument without much more research, and I just can't be bothered, simply don't care too much about it. I didn't make any claims, so I don't think it's shameful to back out of it.