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

Boris,

Such myths of science process, although merely first-order approximations of the actual behavior of science practitioners, have come into existence because of the need to simplify for the non-scientist.

E.G.: Banshee.

Boris2,

Don't be taken in by her gratuitous compliments. Banshee is a chronic anti-science, anti-scientist, anti-rationalist.

When she compliments you for providing such a critical assessment of the practice of science, she is like Usama bin Laden complimenting Microsoft for providing him such fine flight simulator software.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No need to worry about me Mr G, I am 46 and seen enough BS on the web to make me a skeptic of the first order.

I'll take people on face value for most of the time as one cannot see people on the web so all the visual clues are absent.

I like science and at the same time am aware of its limitations, but even with those limitations I don't succumb to having to resort to the paranormal or such to fill the gaps.

I would like to believe in all the pseudoscience/paranormal but I need evidence. This evidence must come from scientific not anecdotal sources.

I also try to maintain a friendly mien to all, no matter their beliefs. It is not for me to say whether they are right or wrong, just to try to point out the accepted theories or such.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr G.

Exactly the point I have made on several other boards. In popularising a scientific principle the author often misses wads of details pertaining to the applicibility of theory, any opposing theories and the theories general status. In short, it is presented as absolute proof and has the unopposed backing of the establishment. This makes scientists look like unthinking autonomons blindly leading accepted wisdom.

The problem is that to properly explain a point properly requires turning a 300 word press release into a 5000 word full blown journal article that no one will read as it is too turgid.

Boris2, like yourself I endeavour to be pleasant whilst describing accepted wisdom on a point. Flame wars are not my style. Just occasionally some thing demands a true slapping down.

Just my 2 penneths.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Boris 2 and thed, I respect everybody's opinion and their view on the matters which are discussed. For everybody has to live his/her own life, with his/her own feelings and knowledge.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By the way, I am 41 and know enough myself about a lot of matters discussed here at the forums.
I am no fool over whoms head you may speak without even being there.

A little respect please, thank you.

 

Banshee I would not have posted what I did to a public forum if I thought that.

I think I show that. I don't think I have put you down for your beliefs, Banshee. I don't personally believe in such things as you do, but they work for you, so who am I to say you are wrong? Like I said I need scientific evidence not anecdotal. This way I can check the facts for myself.

 

When your only evidence is popular anecdote, for support you're always working your cult of personality for what its worth.

I prefer to be said to be obnoxious so that I can't be construed to be orchestrating cult thinking. Thereby am I more likely to be relying on equally unpopular facts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wow what a tounge lashing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh by the way it is Osama Bin Laden nit Usama Bin bin Laden.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tristan,

Allow me to help: Mr. G, you ugly, obnoxious, worthless pos. Haven't you got a clue that the name of that other pos is spelled with an 'O'?"

Why, yes, Tristan. It can be spelled with an 'O', and quite frequently is.

"Bin bin": Hehe. Nice touch.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Banshee

When I intend a comment for a specific person I address that person directly. I do not and never have talked over people by using alliteration or allusion in any post, here or elsewhere.

My comments where very general, based on 10 years or so experience reading and contributing to numerous science based groups on the Net or at online services.

FYI I'm 37, a Father of 3 kids under 5, with all the trappings that brings. I also work as a computer systems manager (OpenVMS being my speciality) for (currently) a major UK Airline.

 

I apologize to Boris and thed for the reply above, but I am getting so tired of always the same insults by some members here on the thread and even elsewhere on other threads I post, they seem to like it to take somebody down because they are some different then they are and what they do/don't believe.

Never ever have I told anybody to believe in anything. That is all up to the human him/herself. I was just ticked off and really tired of it, for it keeps on going and never can they let me be.

So I am sorry for the reply above.

Well, I found some interesting links for as well the scientists as for the Cosmologists among us.
Maybe that will work for either one of us, no matter what your theories or thinking is.

Hope it will work out.

First I have got a very nice link which concerns the new exploration of a Pyramid, found near Cuba, deeply hidden under the Ocean.
Guess you better all check it out, for there is news here which perhaps you all want to read.
Let me know what you think about it.

Tristan, you should read it, very interesting, gives you a lot to think about.

http://www.earthfiles.com/earth303.htm


Then I have got another link, just from a mailinglist I am a member of in the Outlook, for the more scientifical thinkers among you. Guess you will like to read this one.
So you see, it is not all Cosmic theories I am reading and dealing with. I have a lot of this kind of links and they all come from that one particular mailinglist.

A Psychic mailinglist....

May you all have a good time reading it, for this is really interesting oh scientifical ones. (just a joke).

Please, it is meant to everybody, no matter what your theories or way of thinking is, read it you all, scientifical ones and Cosmologists.

Will you please read it and let me know what you are thinking of it?

Thank you so much...

http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_454631.html

 

Banshee

Apology accepted, I was never insulted or angry anyway. Just feel that setting the record straight is important, or you will feel that I have it in for you.

You mention that people go for you on other boards, for your ideas, as well? I'd like to offer a reason for this.

One thing you will find with people who are from a scientific background is that they hardly ever are concerned about the messenger. That is, they are a free wheeling, free thinking bunch who are probably more open minded than most and can be extremely intolerant of apparent intolerance. But one thing they are is deeply sceptical and deeply against anything that demands <u>unthinking</u> acceptance. For this reason the rise of New Age mysticism, or anything of its ilk, will rise the ire of a sceptic/scientist. But, and a big but, they will attack the message and not, generally, the messanger.

If you have a deep commitment to a paradigm that counters this scepticism and way of thought it will appear they are attacking you, by virtue of that commitment. Science demands that you have no preconceptions so scientists are unlikely to put this level of commitment in an idea.

If you want to get into the mind of a hardened debunker I would suggest you read Carl Sagans "A Demon haunted World, science as a candle in the dark". Even other debunkers are debunked for their attachment to 'too much reality'. James Randi specifically gets it in the neck.

If I get time tomorrow I'll comment on the URL about gas clouds going into the Sun.

Dave "Scepticism is the path to joy" Barlow

 

Sunward-moving gases are not that difficult to understand.

The sun is made of gases. The sun is very hot. The hot gases of the sun lose electrons and become charged plasma. The free electrons move around. The moving electrons create electric currents. The electric currents create magnetic fields. Magnetic fields control the movement of plasmas and electrons.

Gas clouds falling toward the surface of the sun are not new. Prominences expand upward as magnetic fields expand. Prominence gases when cooling, condense and move sunward down controling magnetic field lines.

The particular motion of solar gases linked to above is the apparent result of collapsing magnetic fields dragging gases back toward the sun's surface -- as oppposed to the more familiar mechanism of cooling gases sliding down magnetic field lines.

Only a surprise having not been seen before.

 

Spoken to Gag Halfrunt recently?

James R, a very valid point if I may say so. As Carl Sagan put it, Science is a way of not deluding yourself.

 

Oi it's been so hard catching up! Being away from the forums for three days is AGONY. How did you do it banshee????
Nice Avatar thed.
I'm just going to continue to watch this one for awhile, yet I recall banshee saying that two thirds of all the humans on Earth were going to die. Are there any updates to this?

 

Thank you for the replies. They were to be expected as they came.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good for you, all this different thinking....

Never said a thing about theories, it is an interview, only an interview....
Why not take a look at the Internet yourself, for there is hard, scientific evidence to be found there. Go look it up yourselves. Search engines enough. Keyword: Atlantis.

What about the Pyramid? That was the main item.

As far as the link at Ananova concerns, you know it all from the start, don't you. Well, I have given it a try.....
It are good links....everybody can handle the information as they like or just ignore it.
That is what they were posted for.

Not to put theories deep under the skin of the members who are posting here.

Have fun discussing all the theories you have. I will read them all, with OPEN MIND.

But don't start hitting me as I want to say my part of the discussions going on here.

Thank you very much.

 

The peak of the last ice age, when sea level would have been lowest, occured 20,000 years ago. By best guesstimate, sea level at the peak of the last ice age was 300 meters/~1000ft lower than today -- half the apparent depth of west Cuba's submerged site.

Some 14,000 years ago, world-wide sea level is estimated to have been 110 meters/360 feet below current sea level.

Egyptian pyramids were constructed sometime between 2700 to 2100 bc. Egyptologists have narrowed that time period to a general date of 2450 B.C.. Mesoamerica's first pyramids were constructed between approximately 100 B.C. and A.D. 300. Atlantis supposedly sank 13,000 years ago.

The existence of west-Cuban, submerged, Mesoamerican-era pyramids, 2,000+ feet down, seems highly questionable, since the level of the sea at the time of their supposed construction would not permit construction in that area anytime at all in the last 20,000 years, and certainly no time coincident with either Egyptian, Greek or Mesoamerican pyramids/structures/writing/symbols.

Let us all wait for the pictures and the scientific analysis over the coming years before leaping to conclusions.

 

Catastrophism abounds

Banshee

The Earthfiles.com URL was interesting for many reasons.

First off, it seems to me that the level of speculation was enormous. Secondly, the interviewer was talking to people who, probably, have already committed themselves to a specific theory. Hence they could be guilty of selection bias in the evidence.

As I understood the argument on the page it went like this. Some one found some underwater artefacts that may be artificial. There where apparently some form of petroglyphs on these artefacts. The petroglyphs have yet to be translated. (Note that no imagery of the glyphs was presented to indicate how obvious these where). One petroglyph was a simple cross structure formed from 2 ellipses. This petroglyph was identified as also being used by the Etruscans. The conclusion was then that the same culture was responsible. As I mentioned about Von Daniken this is a case of assuming two things that co-incidentally look alike are some how linked. Not always a valid asumption.

The argument then switched to an interview with someone who appears convinced that Atlantis exists and who quoted data from a catastrophist conference hosted by a Velikovskian organisation [1]. On this site two Swedish geologists/scientists used evidence from alluvian/pluval flooding and metallic spherules possibly showing evidence of melting, reforming and shock (it was not said explicitly) that a Comet hit the Earth. To bolster this argument the Etruscans are referred to as mysterious and having mysterious origins.
From this the conclusion was that a Comet destroyed Atlantis, the survivors founded the Etruscan civilization and where/had been responsible for the underwater structures off Peru.

All this from one symbol, poorly imaged by video camera and still not analysed properly by other experts.

You will pardon me if I seem less than convinced and deeply sceptical. A better interpretation might be that these structures are manmade but have no relation to anything. Only if a significant number of petroglyphs matching Etruscan ones where found would a case be made. Using Velikovskian sources for data weakens any scientific case as well.

As Mr. G. says, more analysis is needed before leaping to conclusions.

[1] In which another 'scientist' cites black holes as the cause of galactic structure and Spirals evolving into Ellipticals despite any morpological evidence of transitionary forms and Ellipticals being seen in the early Universe. Also quoted where Drs. Wickramasinghe and Hoyle.

 

Questions

In which manner is scientific knowledge accurate?
Isn´t science just theories proven right by scientific research?
Where is the proof that these truths aren´t just created by the scientists and its believers?
Is science based on empirical facts?
Doesn´t that demand that you have cause, effect and consequense mapped from beginning to end?
Doesn´t this mean that science is in a state of constant mapping and never beyond the confines of theory?

What elevates science above any other belief-system?

Isn´t Carl Sagan a cult leader?

 

Re: Questions

Scientific knowledge is only as accurate as the data supporting it. Probably many of the current ideas are open to further improvement.

That said, its good enough that we put satellites into orbit to talk over mobile phones, we can detect genetic defects, can design vaccines and antibiotics, build computers and the Internet. All from known scientific principle.

Yes. But a theory is not 'just' a theory. You are using this almost as a derogatory term as if a theory can be simply ignored and brushed aside.

The Newtonian Theory of Gravity is only a theory, using that context. Yet it sucessfully put Man on the Moon and numerous probes around the Planets. Not bad for 'just' a theory.

The theory of quantum Physics is only a 'theory' yet is successfully used to design and build silicon chips used every day. Not bad for 'just' a theory.

The term you really want is hypothesis. That is, a theoretical attempt to explain some observed fact. A hypothesis must include some testable result and some way of negating itself. It becomes a theory after it passes the burden of experimentatal proof. It can be replaced anytime an experiment or new observation negates the theory

The question should then become, Is science an ongoing attempt at explaining reality using Hypotheses, Theories and facts?

You are sitting in front of it. As I said to Banshee, you use technological gadgets every day designed on 'just' theories. You put your life in the hands of 'just' the theory of aerodynamics every time you board a plane. The proof is all around you, open your eyes and look.

If any of our modern society was somehow an invention of the mind alone do you think a TV or radio would work. What about mobile phones? Fridges, Pharamceuticals? Surgery? CD/DVD Players? Are all these devices, tools and knowledge just created by the believers of science.

Yes, see above.

Yes, see above on definitions of hypothesis and theory. But, and a big but, we can not see the full facts in one go so science is constantly evolving and changing.

It does not claim to be 100% right all the time. A wise person once said to me that science is about 99.99% failure and only .01% success.

[/QUOTE]Doesn´t this mean that science is in a state of constant mapping and never beyond the confines of theory?[/QUOTE]

See above. New data can always overthrow an accepted theory.

It is not a belief system. Equating the two is like asking which is the better to eat, a Smorgasboard or my Television.

What has Carl Sagan got to do with anything? This is a non sequitor.

I can name cult leaders for you, Rev. Moon and whatshisname Rael. Implying Sagan is on a par with these odious characters is disingenious.

Equating a science populariser with the leaders of religions and cults is another classic trick to make science look like a religion. Its another attempt to make people think Science is only in the mind with as much validity as an opinion.

The difference between science and opions/religions is that religions have not invented anything yet nor have opinions. Science has.

The above questions are a classic attack used by 'woo-woo' believers to justify themselves and turn the argument around, away from the point at hand. The trick is to make Science look like a belief system, like any other belief system and hence only as valid. The next trick is to equate science to a cult and hence some how dirty and capable of tricks, smoke and mirrors to justify iteself.

Your phraseology above gave that away. Questions such as Where is the proof that these truths aren´t just created by the scientists and its believers?. Followed by Isn´t Carl Sagan a cult leader?

As I say above, your allusion that science is all in the mind worth no basis in reality would mean the orbit of the Earth about the Sun was only held together by wishful thinking and only became valid when Newton discovered gravity.

The obvious logical fallacy of your questions is left as an exercise for the reader to disentangle.