Cosmology is in crisis – but not for the reason you may think

Really? I'll say you don't prefer to conduct yourself as an adult. Maybe you don't have a high standard for conducting yourself as an adult. Several folks posting with you wish you'd just go away and conduct yourself as an adult somewhere else in cyber space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When I envision the area where pseudoscience emanates from I think of the last scene in Beetlejuice. The original post was made to incite this type of response. It's obvious to anybody with a slightly larger area than the dude in the last scene of Beetlejuice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really. You need to be mathematically proven to be the scientific illiterate you choose to be. LOL. You're just acting the fool. Here is a good idea. You can visit the WMAP site where they've provided descriptions of the theoretical predictions and the experimental results for every level of scholarship. Even remedial deniers such as yourself.

wow so passionate. Start out by reading the actual science literature on the subject you denigrate with your intellectually dishonest bullshit. Start out by reading the cosmological concerns as stated by the nitwit who wrote down the nonsense. Then go to WMAP and find out why it's complete, self serving, lying bullshit. Then figure out why scientists might consider the author a dumbshit crank who is trying to denigrate the scientific process of cosmologists. Or better yet keep the unsubstantiated bullshit you choose to believe in outside the science threads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...

 

Hi there BdS.
You are lucky you have found GOD.
Unfortunately in more than half a life time I have not found one single god nor any evidence in support of one.
Where there is misery and suffering I look yet never do I notice divine intervention to help the victims. I have seen natural catastrophes where humans have been killed and such catastrophes are called an act of god but so far thats as close as I have come to any evidence. Still I doubt if anyone saying such things really observed god creating the crisis.
So it seems he keeps his existence secret from me.
Paddoboy made a good point.
Imagine the responce from the congragation of a church if one went in and spouted all were stupid and their god was nonsence. It would be disrepectful. Certain actions here can be seen as disrespectful from folk who want to destroy faith in the scientific method and when disrespect is noticed it is called out.

Given your comments your action in posting the op suggests a motive way past your expressed position that you thought we would all enjoy the news. To remain friends, love your fellow man and all that goes with such philosophy, I will regard your posting as innocent but please take on board my point of being respectful.
The great thing about science is it just keeps getting better, things change, old views can be updated and better models presented.
Generally religion is set in stone and there is no freedom to think or do anything outside the teachings and beliefs of that religion.
So I can understand if you have experienced such alack of freedom you may think that is the way it is for science. Science gives you freedom it does not want to take it away.
It may be seen as preaching from a biased view when others point out aspects of science but I think that comes from folks like paddoboy having to repeatedly point out the science. His frustration can sometimes be seen but I ask you.... If you had to go over and over the science, post links etc and those he tries to help simply ingnore his good intention, would one not become irritated.
Have a great day and I hope I have not offended you or others... Strangly although not religious I try to follow the.. Love your fellow man approach... But I am hetrosexual, I mean I like to give respect if posible.

 

Me too and my mentor is Bob Marley ...if the cap fit wear it....This isn't an isolated incident so I'm not giving this nonsense the benefit of doubt. There is none.

 

I feel I am sliding your way.
Should I be a little firmer do you think.
I enjoy the site here so maybe I am too happy.
I just can not understand the difficulty some have with reliable information.

 

It's simple really Xelasnave, some come here with a mission, and a preconceived methodology......For the many reasons I have stated, they see science as some evil to be overthrown, or at the least to be shown as wrong.
They have no other place to vent their angst: Even other science forums have some of them banned, permanently.
Something your going to have to get used to..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What is 'Reliable Information' ? In the context what you possibly are suggesting that anything which comes from mainstream should be reliable, and should be taken to be true ? Is it so ?

Once you settle that then the problem comes, what is mainstream, is it democracy of mainstream science (highest votes) or opinion of any scientist working ? This is crucial because recently one die hard supporter of mainstream says he does not agree with the views of one Prof Lewis who said spacetime is not a thing ? So please be more demonstrative about your views.

 

You are right.

Actually Paddoboy, very recently learnt that copy pasting the definition is not plagiarism, he forgot to refer to the terms of use of the site and this gaffe.

I feel Mods should intervene, and allow Paddoboy to edit that post with due credits..Or Paddoboy on his own can make a new post, giving due credit to website. That would end this.

 

Some people's intolerance to 'alternative view' stems from complete irrationality, they feel troubled discussing anything which is contrary to their perception and understanding. In this thread, I was quite surprised the turn around by Exchemist, he had posted a very fair opinion at first, but then he got so influenced by Brucep post that fellow suggested a new thread censoring Phys.org. Irrationality breeds further irrationality ?

 

Perhaps I generalise.
Lets say its not that important and is a mere expression of my unsupported idea. I know its not good form but to be honest its nothing more than an unsupported idea.

 

Fair enough...

Do you think it is incumbent upon the critic to offer the workable alternative ? It is great if he does that, but should he be abused for expressing his apprehensions without some alternative remedies ?

See, when Chandra (Age 19 then) offered a new theory about EDP (White Dwarf etc) way back in 1920 or so, the mainstream well establihsed scientist Eddington ridiculed him, and Eddington succeeded in stalling Chandra for quite sometime, later on Chandra won nobel for that.

So there is tremendous amount of cross disagreement among the scientists even today, in such case if discussions on alternative scenarios or criticisms take place, then whats the harm ? Few posters here on this forum have become irrationally intolerant, stuffling the discussion. And unfortunately these die hard intolerants have no formal education, that means their ability to comprehend the mainstream in toto itself is questionable.

 

Consider yourself lucky the reality is this forum gives you a fair tolerance and really you offer an idea with little back up. Again a generalisation with no support.
Lets entertain another idea. One may do well to learn fully about what hard research and many folk better than you or me can tell us. Dont be in rush to critisize mainstream it works, it has the best minds.
I can not say more.

 

So what in your opinion should the admins do ? Charge for allowing criticism ?

And by the way what is my idea which I offered with little back up ?

 

My opinion is irrelevant.
If you have the goods dont worry state your view and respond to the science and be guided by the terms of service for this site.
I withdrawn my suggestion you offer an idea without support but you could ask yourself why it may be I formed such an impression.

 

Well, that certainly explains your antiscience stance.

 

I think I once compared the web to an eighteenth century insane asylum where the public could pay to see the 'inmates' in their fits of madness, this for entertainment. I think some of the mods here are descendants of those asylum keepers. Remember...in the bank, large amounts. There's gold in them there crackpots.

 

As I explained in my post, what I did after seeing Brucep's criticism was to read the abstract of the arxiv paper that the Phys.org article was reporting on. I then immediately realised the Phys org article was a travesty of what that paper was actually saying.

Not having any particular axe to grind, I am able to alter my assessment when I get better information. How about you?

 

But you are no Chandra nor an Eddington: Donald Duck does come to mind, or maybe Bozo.

Whatever disagreements exist in science, particularly cosmology, will in time be thrashed out in science and cosmology, by reputable people, certainly not by yourself [not withstanding your delusions of grandeur]

And of course the real irrational outbursts from people on this forum are those that act so childishly by claiming they are never wrong [attributed to delusions of grandeur, a specified illness] and remarks such as "running away" "being scared"etc
If the cap fits my friend wear it, and this particular cap was specifically designed for you.