My Theory Of Cosmic Origin....Comments Welcome!

Re: Banshee

Thed,

Although I agree this should be the case, too often I have seen that scientists in general can be so focused on their own ideological beliefs in a particular paradigm, cosmological belief, or pet theory, that they are unopen to thoughts that vie with their own beliefs, even when those thoughts may be correct. I am a research engineer at a University in the US and I have experienced this type of thought process so often I have almost lost hope that anyone will discover anything new.

Without an open mind, Einstein would never have come up with the theory of relativity, it was far too radical an idea that went against conventional theory or thought at the time. Every major discovery in science has been this way, a radical alteration of the then current views on the universe. Yes, I require proof, but lack of proof does not imply lack of truth, just a lack of understanding or knowledge on humanity's part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seeker

You got me there. What I am presenting is a perfect case, of sorts. You are right, scientists are human and just as liable to foibles.

What I am thinking of though is that most, the vast majority, od scientists can change their viewpoint if the evidence is against them. Only in a few rare cases will some one refuse to admit they are wrong. Such as the likes of Arp and Hoyle.

YMMV.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its my Birthday! =D

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, congratulations!

You've survived one more revolution of the sun. Here's hoping the next is completed in similar good health.

 

Fine.ThE BB CREATE OUR UNIVERSE RIGHT?SO,WASNT IT A EXPLOSION
CAUSED BY THE BALL WITH ALL THE DENSITY?GIVE A BREAK WE CAN DEFINE IT AS A BOMB.EVENTHOUGH, IT CREATED MATTER , TIME, AND SPACE.AND I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PLENTY OF PARTCLES IN EMPTY SPACE THAT COULD HOLD THE KEY WHY OUR UNIVERSE IS LIKE WHAT IT IS.

 

I always thought science was about facts not opinions and view points. Alot of scientists will risk riddicule to speak out about their discoveries and ideas and accept defeat if they are wrong. All scientists often come across findings that force them to change their preconcieved beliefs, so after a while they learn to not have belieafs that they hold too strongly at least.

 

Why is it then that the scientists keep on believing so strongly that there is water under the surface of Mars?

Just because they've found some paticals of atoms which are coming from the outcast of the Sun and seem to be like Oygen and Ozon which are fallen on the surface of Mars?

Does that proof that there is WATER under Mars's surface?

Couldn't it be some totally other liquid?

Just a thought...not a statement.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

Just to have said something about Mars. Read this.

It should belong in another Topic, but just for once...

 

Re: Re: Questions

Thed.

The questions I made are just to prove a point.
Empirical evidence does not exist.

Science is a belief system. No buts about it.
It works, sure, but the question is, does it work because it´s true, or because the priests of technology expect it to?
I´m talking projection here.
Interaction based results.
Holism.

Science has no means to find reason or meaning to excistance. It simply points out the mechanics of the system. I am in no means anti-science, I love the comforts and entertainment it brings. I also indulge in the comfort and entertainment of etheral life, psychedelic life. Food for the soul.

The only woo-woo´s I have is that many ppl seem to think it´s one thing or the other. Faith or science (while at the same time expressing diehard faith in science

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

And yes, I do see Carl Sagan as a cult leader (being one doesn´t have to be a bad thing. The cult may be benign). It´s not the leader that bothers me, it´s the blind followers.
Self righteous with billowing banners.

What´s your hymn?

 

Re: Seeker

why is Arp wrong in his red shift interpretation, it makes sense to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Banshee

you wrote,
__________

Why is it then that the scientists keep on believing so strongly that there is water under the surface of Mars?

Just because they've found some paticals of atoms which are coming from the outcast of the Sun and seem to be like Oygen and Ozon which are fallen on the surface of Mars?

Does that proof that there is WATER under Mars's surface?

Couldn't it be some totally other liquid?

Just a thought...not a statement.
__________


Are you sure???, 'cause I fail to see how that qualifies as a thought...

 

Hehehehe. Good Post. Keep up the good work.

 

c'est moi,

Precisely why he must be wrong.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Re: Seeker

Applying the Address Resoluton Protocol to Red Shift probably does make more sense.

H. Arp has only found a few cases (compared to the number of observations) where a high red-shift object was visually near a low red-shift object. He has not adequately ruled out chance alignment. Last I heard his data had been rechecked and found to be just that, chance visual alignments. The Universe is truly a big place.

 

Rambler, scientists think from out the Earth. They are trying to find life on other Planets and seem to think that it has to be in the same way life exists on Earth.

Why can't it be in another way then on Earth?

They have scientific theories enough and it makes good sense if you hear and read all about it, but it still are theories.

Just as my looking at this scientifical 'proof'. Just my theory and from a lot of other humans...

The Universe is a very large surrounding and Earth is just a Planet existing in this Solar system.

That doesn't proof that if there was life, (on Mars for instance) that it had to be in the same way as on Earth.

Could have been different and until there is real hard evidence I have my own theory about it. And with me a lot of other humans, which doesn't say I am not interested. I keep up with the scientists and their discovery's...

 

Sorry all, I'm on a mission so please feel free to ignore this post (NOT YOU BANSHEE)

Banshee,


------------------
Rambler, scientists think from out the Earth. They are trying to find life on other Planets and seem to think that it has to be in the same way life exists on Earth.
------------------

What do you base that conclusion on???

I think that science needs to base their ideas searches etc in reality otherwise its speculation and not science. There is nothing wrong with speculating as long as you don't expect a result.

------------------
Why can't it be in another way then on Earth?
------------------
It can I don't think anyone is arguing that it can't, but we need some idea of what we are looking for otherwise we'll never find it...therefore it would be more fruitfull to limit our "search" to things we know about (i.e. carbon based life, EM waves for communications etc)...it's not about possibilties but more about propability.


------------------
They have scientific theories enough and it makes good sense if you hear and read all about it, but it still are theories
------------------

So what do you propose as an alternative??? the world according to Banshee, living rocks, phsycic powers and talking planets???

------------------
Just as my looking at this scientifical 'proof'. Just my theory and from a lot of other humans...
------------------

Is that an attempt to give your ideas some credability?? 'cause if it is then it's not enough to say other people believe you, anyone can say that...

------------------
Could have been different and until there is real hard evidence I have my own theory about it. And with me a lot of other humans, which doesn't say I am not interested. I keep up with the scientists and their discovery's...
------------------

LOL, all I've seen you do is tell everyone how wrong science is and then run and hide when you are asked to support your statement with some facts. If you kept up with what is going on in science your view's on science etc would not be so nieve.

I don't care how many times you repeat yourself, it's NOT enough just to make claims, at some point if you want to be taken seriously you need to support what yuou say with facts, and evidence.

 

You don´t like that? That´s where I live. You´re missing out on some great fun man

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

my theory

my theory is much like banshees,
I believe that the only true reality is love and this love is what created the universe. Everything else is an illusion. Like Banshee I believe that we all created a chart that planned our life with a mission before we came here. The fifth dimension is around us just on a higher vibration, so we can't see it. I believe that the universe and other universes were created as a thought in gods mind. Of course there is probably some scientific background to
the beginning on some alien world in another dimension.


"Today I have learned the law of love; that what I give my brother is my gift to me"

"Some part of our being knows this is where we came
from. We long to return. And we can, because the
Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff."
- Carl Sagan

 

Zaleia, be welcome at Sciforums.

Good to see someone with the same theory here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But there is one difference. I do not believe in god.

We are all coming from the Cosmos and will return back there after our Earth bound body refuses to stay alive any longer.

As far as the everlasting questions for evidence concern...

Do you scientists ever read Cosmological theories? there are a lot to be found at the Internet, just as easy as you can find the Scientifical theories at the Internet.

Guess you have to be more open for it and not stay so focussed at only the Scientifical sites and knowledge you have.
There is more going on then only Scientifical theories...

And I do read the Scientifical sites...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!