For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You were being honest before and now you aren't: science doesnt claim to already have all the answers, but in order for there to exist an alternative, there must first be a mainstream theory to disagree with. And you have acknowledged that mainstream theories exist, that you disagree with. You aren't just looking to plug holes here.

    Conversely, for an alternate "theory" to be more than just a meaningless pseudophilosophical musing, it must quantitatively describe or predict something.

    Science doesn't have all the answers - yet - but the path you support has none.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    go away noob.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    No.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    No it isnt - at least not that one. Asking about "proved" indicates clearly that you don't know what the word means in the context of the scientific method.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what makes you think i am "anti science"?
    dig up some posts of mine where it is reasonably clear i am "anti science".
    and yes, i WILL ask questions about what science doesn't know.
    do you have a problem with that?
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    don't you have anything else to do?
    you have no clue about what i know homeboy.
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    What I know about what you know is what you've shown me (and the rest of the forum, of course) you don't.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    RUSS and LEOPOLD:

    PLEASE DIAL IT BACK. DISCUSS THE TOPIC, NOT EACH OTHER.

    IF ONE PERSON GETS CARRIED AWAY, THAT DOES NOT GRANT YOU PERMISSION TO DO THE SAME.

    REMEMBER THE OLD PLAYGROUND LAMENT: "IT ALL STARTED WHEN HE HIT ME BACK." THAT'S ACTUALLY TRUE. HE WHO DOES NOT HIT BACK IS RECOGNIZED BY EVERYONE AS THE MORE MATURE, LEAVING THE OTHER LOOKING CHILDISH.

    THANKS!
    FRAGGLE ROCKER
    MODERATOR
    LINGUISTICS
    ARTS & CULTURE
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    And yet you insist on diving into threads making antagonistic posts. Maybe you should consider your own attitude before you address the attitudes of those around you.
     
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    This thread is about guidelines for thinking scientifically. How is the particulars of galaxy formation relevant to that? If all you are trying to establish is that we don't know everything yet, you needn't have bothered with such a convoluted path to making the point: anyone who understands what science is recognizes that. We wouldn't still be doing science if there weren't unanswered questions!
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    If you want to discuss that go start a thread in the astronomy section, it's off topic for this thread. Worse yet, your statement makes little sense in the context of the discussion you seem to think you're having.
     
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I think this part is supposed to be relevant to this thread:
    Why do you think that?

    Edit: replaced what with why.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2014
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    So...paddoboy, is the ^^above quoted^^ statement : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : 3.) a fact? : or, 4.) a momentary fact (which hereafter "becomes a theory again") ?

    Perhaps you should apply your "few(12!) simple procedures" to your ^^above quoted^^ statement.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    I see my theory as just that...A theory, based on printed observational evidence available in this and many other alternative threads, and the claims put by obviously deluded alternative theorists. [see point 2]
    My theory of course does not over ride or displace any other theory with the concreteness and robustness of the likes of evolution, the BB, SR, GR or QM.
    Most of our prominent alternative theorists do though. [see point 10]
    I'm not claiming to over ride any revelations of past giants like Newton or Einstein. [see point 11]
    I certainly would be prepared to modify my stance in the face of contradictory evidence, but I also have plenty of mainstream support with my theory.
    And finally I'm certainly not claiming anything that invalidates any mainstream thinking or any incumbent model, [in fact mainstream supports my theory as you see so kindly to put it]
    Remembering of course that obviously and logically the incumbent model is the default position. [see point 3]

    But your question is off topic. This isn't about my thoughts or theories.
    It's about the process the alternative position needs to go through to gain any respect or acceptance.
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    (Highlights by dmoe!)


    Tall Poppy Syndrome???!!!

    Goodbye, paddoboy!
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    The links I gave above, cover all the points in the OP.
    And the following few paragraphs [especially the last] probably sum up the errors and attitudes of at least three alternative theorists on this forum, that claim to have a ToE or similar all encompassing, all knowable "theory" that over rides and refutes 100 years of science.

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    The new theories should explain all the observations and experiments the old theory did and, in addition, the new set of facts which lead to their development. One can say that new theories devour and assimilate old ones (see Fig, 1.2). Scientists continually test existing theories in order to probe how far can they be applied.

    When an old theory cannot explain new observations it will be (eventually) replaced by a new theory. This does not mean that the old ones are ``wrong'' or ``untrue'', it only means that the old theory had a limited applicability and could not explain all current data. The only certain thing about currently accepted theories is that they explain all available data, which, if course, does not imply that they will explains all future experiments!

    In some cases new theories provide not only extensions of old ones, but a completely new insight into the workings of nature. Thus when going from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's our understanding of the nature of space and time was revolutionized. Nonetheless, no matter how beautiful and simple a new theory might be, it must explain the same phenomena the old one did. Even the most beautiful theory can be annihilated by a single ugly fact.

    Scientific theories have various degrees of reliability and one can think of them as being on a scale of certainty. Up near the top end we have our theory of gravitation based on a staggering amount of evidence; down at the bottom we have the theory that the Earth is flat. In the middle we have our theory of the origin of the moons of Uranus. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it.


    An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact that is close to the top of the certainty scale and will give rise to a lot of skepticism. So if you are trying to contradict such a fact, you had better have facts available that are even higher up the certainty scale: ``extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim''.
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    That coupled with the highly unlikely scenario, that anyone with any such all encompassing life changing theory, would push it on an ordinary science forum, where any bum [including me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] can post what he likes.
    There are many far better outlets, orginisations, and media sensationalists, that would jump at such a theory, if it at all had anything going for it.
    I blame tall poppy syndrome and delusions of grandeur.
     
  21. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi Russ.

    Isn't that what Einstein was doing too? You couldn't get more (then) non-mainstream than GR at the time. It came as a revolutionary shocker 'out of the blue' to all his mainstream contemporaries, and no mistake! Yes?
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Well actually, No.
    SR in many fractured forms was being considered by Lorentz, Fitszerald, and others....The greatness of Einstein was putting it all together. GR was a natural progression.
    Plus of course an Einstein, or Bohr only comes along very rarely, and I can say with utmost assuredness, that they wouldn't be pushing any model with substance on a remote science forum.
     
  23. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    I only said GR. The SR was just evolution of what was known already.

    And if you read the history, you will find that no-one expected GR as it was. It was NOT some 'evolution' of what was mainstream, as you try to wrongfully imply. It was revolutionary and non-mainstream in the extreme.

    Nothing in the mainstream science/models at the time prepared the mainstreamers for GR. Please don't try to rewrite the history to suit your uninformed opinions. Thanks and goodbye, paddo.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page