POP SCIENCE:

That is again total intellectual dishonesty for the reasons I have already stated in my previous post quoting you. Yes, I was going to ignore your personal rant but have changed my mind.
Obviously the posers I refer to are those with no credentials that seek to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology....People like the one who calls himself the god. I would also point you to post 39 by sweetpea as just a small glimpse of such posing, which you strangely ignore.
Those same posers also refuse to disclose what credentials they have, [obviously none] and when confronted with reputable links invalidating what they claim, quickly write them off as "pop science" The reason for this thread.

Agreed, but how about a dose of common sense and logic also??
I mean do you believe any upstart/poser is going to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology from a science forum open to any Tom, Dick and Harry? Can you answer that honestly?
And do you believe that any such invalidation of things like the BB, SR, GR, Evolution and all the postulates that go with them like time dilation, length contraction and gravitational lensing, will ever be invalidated by amateurs or lay people like the poser referred to in post 39?
Can you answer that honestly?

Again, therein lies the reason for your vengeful rant, simply because I have dare criticise and/or somewhat deride philosophy, as per my previous quotes.

I read and I learn, and I'm not posing and putting on airs in saying that 21st century cosmology, and GR are wrong from my lay person's position.
My message to you re your vengeful intellectual dishonesty is to realise what this thread is about.
Let me list it again for you
[1] Posters/posers, posting in science threads disguised somewhat, that in effect are actually trying to invalidate GR and other overwhelmingly accepted mainstream physics.
[2] The same posers/posters when confronted with reputable links and references, including arXiv papers invalidating their claims, writing those same links and papers off as "pop science"
[3] The same posters/posers, will all inevitably refuse to reveal what expertise they have to even attempt to rewrite 21st century cosmology.

No you have not for the reasons/vengeance I have stated.

More unsubstantiated ranting.
Again, this is about posers/posters, obviously with delusions of grandeur and inflated egos, who believe they have invalidated/disproved GR and other applications of 21st century cosmology, or simply misinterpret and twist the words of some of the giants of the present and past. Besides the obvious example of the poster in post 39, we also have a fellow called Farsight, who has claimed he has a "Theory of Everything"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Some of these posers/posters are driven by a religious agenda [the god] others like Farsight, simply are blinded by their perceptions of themselves as all knowing.
Those are the issues my dear philosophical friend, and perhaps if you did face up to those issues front on, you would not be so critical of what I have said and the reason for this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's amazing is choosing to answer all the questions asked of them. This leads me to believe they make time for these requests. By choice. The answers had some diversity revealing a bit how they do their work. Always interesting for me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good analysis. If you want to complain but are unwilling to look for the source of your complaint and just choose to complain further for the reasons you've stated then expect to be put on ignore. You should be a favorite poster to them since you're always willing to begin and end the discussion without excluding them for being so intellectually dishonest. Sometimes I think they actually expect everybody not to recognize their intellectual dishonesty. They must think this is politics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure If I thanked you sweetpea, but you have it now: Those two ludicrously laughable stupid statements are part of the reason why this thread exists.

 

Whats not true ?

 

1. Whats logical and common sense about BH singularity ?

2. Whats logical and common sense about inflation ?

3. Whats logical and common sense about travel to past or future in a sensed pushed by pop science ?

4. Whats logical and common sense about BH getting evaporated in 10^67 years ?

5. Whats logical and common sense about worm holes / whte holes ?

You lack independnt creative and critical thinking and hence whatever is said by scientists is logical and common sense for you....

 

So says our resident fringe dweller!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Probably most of what you have ever claimed, going by the evidence in your general posts here, and those moved to pseudoscience.

No I have plenty of both. tempered with logic and common sense, and the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the intuition to have picked your religious agenda and who you were before.

 

Let's attempt to educate you once again: As all have been explained to you before:

The Singularity is a mathematical artifact where GR breaks down and does not apply.
GR is a classical theory. The Singularity is not believed to be physical.

Inflation explains some previous unexplained problems with the BB, and seems to fit in without any problem.
So much so that original proposers of Inflation were recognized for their major contributions in physicists. Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, and Paul Steinhardt shared the prestigious Dirac Prize for the idea.

Another insidious attempt at a dishonest interpretation: Future time travel is of course theoretically possible due to the absolute nature of the speed of light, and the fact that all frames of references are as valid as each other. Time travel is not forbidden by GR.
But here's a professional approach.....
https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

Everything if Hawking Radiation is shown to be factual, and that again deflates all you have ever claimed.

They are theoretical but allowed for in GR, despite once again your intellectual dishonesty about anyone ever claiming anything else.

You obviously lack the ability to reason and think properly, and need to employ your expected intellectual dishonesty to attempt to throw a bad light on present day accepted cosmology, all due to your previously closeted religious agenda, and the big brush off you gave rajesh.

So again my friend, what's logical or common sense about any of your agenda driven anti science rants?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Particularly by one who lacks any expertise and credentials as is evidenced.

 

Thank goodness we have a forum-goer who knows better than hundreds of actual, qualified scientists who study this stuff as part of their careers.

Who needs to bother actually studying cosmology and relativity for a chance to come up with a paradigm-changing revelation that will win them a Nobel prize and a place in the history books (move over, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking!) when we have some random stranger on an internet forum deciding that everything we've already discovered is wrong just because he says so.

 

You are attempting to put their definitions here, but what is logical and common sense about them, you have to answer that ?

 

To me JamesR seems to know a thing or two, but I can't fathom his way of modding. It's so hippie, in that he can call someone a fraud, as he did with Farsight, and yet he lets them post on.

 

They match observations and align with experimental results as per the scientific method.

So again my friend, what's logical or common sense about any of your agenda driven anti science rants?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Particularly by one who lacks any expertise and credentials as is evidenced.

 

He's definitely not a hippie. I'm an old hippie and I'm about intellectual honesty. So I'm going to discuss the intellectual honesty and how it's viewed by the rules of this forum. We know the rule is don't use inappropriate language. In a report I submitted yesterday reviewing the nonsense posted for the calculus and it's value for doing physics research and deriving predictions from theoretical models. IE mathematical physics. I argued that inappropriate language needs to be defined. That the moderation team should have the authority to define what inappropriate language is, in detail, including the nonsense posted denigrating the value of the calculus for doing physics. Those are outright lies and I have no choice but to call it inappropriate language. This forum doesn't agree with that. They rejected my query because the specific stuff said about calculus will remain an arguable topic in the thread I made my report from. That tells me something. All the nonsense is arguable. That means members who respect intellectual honesty associated with science and mathematics might feel they have to argue against the nonsense. Sometimes I lose my cool and use inappropriate language. The type this forum censures. You know the hippies I've known generally favor behaving in an intellectually honest way. That's the last thing I'm going to say on the subject. Now that I understand the details. Posting in this forum is a personal choice and a priveledge This must be very convenient for moderators who don't read many threads. Not having to moderate inappropriate intellectual content. Hope I didn't say anything that will be interpreted as inappropriate.
One last comment about reviewing the intellectual content of an opening post to assure it's a proper topic for science and math threads. Or any intellectual topic. This doesn't mean the post has to made by an expert on the topic, it can be an honest question from somebody who knows nothing about the topic. Any honest query on the topic. This simple moderation tool can be very effective for reducing some of the future contentious comments in the thread even though future moderation of intellectual content isn't part of the duty.

 

In my time on this forum I have never openly criticised the mods or administrators, although I have been modded at times and served a suspension:
I believe their job is hard enough as it is.
Let's say at this time, there are aspects of what is let pass as science, that I fail to understand.

 

I see your meaning.
Bruce, by the using the word hippie in my post, I was trying to say...the site modding seems to show an extreme liberalism, which in the science sections results in shooting itself in the foot.
I was not trying to convey hippies are dishonest.
Or, perhaps I should say...in this site's attempt at being 'open' to truly reflect the free expression of 'the global web', it shoots itself in the foot on the science sections.

 

It would be nice to hear James' thoughts on this.

 

I didn't think that was you're meaning. I'd replace the extreme liberalism with idealism. I'm definitely a liberal and an idealist. A pragmatic idealist. I'll go with both feet. One foot represents the ideal forum while the other foot represents a pragmatic compromise. The new terms and rules can't achieve either. But I wasn't going to make further comment on this. Oh well.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/07/bbc...nce-cranks-for-the-sake-of-editorial-balance/

BBC staff instructed to stop giving time to science cranks for the sake of editorial balance:

Journalists at the British Broadcasting Corp. have been receiving instructions from the BBC Trust to stop inviting unqualified ‘experts’ on their shows in an effort to provide ‘editorial balance’ on contentious subjects.

According to The Telegraph, the BBC Trust released a report card on its efforts to curtail what it called giving “undue attention to marginal opinion,” on topics where the contrarian viewpoints have been widely dismissed.

“The Trust wishes to emphasize the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences,” the report states. “Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”

In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate change and creating a ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified skeptics to have too much air-time.

The report cited a World at One episode in September on the landmark UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) research project which concluded with 95 percent certainty that the climate is changing and that human activity is the main culprit.

Unable to secure a qualified UK scientist to dispute the findings on the program, the show’s producers turned to retired Australian geologist and climate change skeptic Bob Carter who dismissed the report –put together by hundreds of scientists around the world – as “hocus-pocus science”.

Similar criticism of U.S. media has been offered by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tysonwho told CNN’s Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter that his network needed to stop giving “equal time to the flat Earthers.”

“What responsibility do you think the members of the media have to portray science correctly,” Stelter asked Tyson.

“The media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but it doesn’t really apply in science,” Tyson explained. “The principle was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view. And then you can be viewed as balanced.”

“You don’t talk about the spherical Earth with NASA, and then say let’s give equal time to the flat Earthers,” he added. “Plus, science is not there for you to cherry pick.”

Tyson once remarked, “the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/07/bbc...nce-cranks-for-the-sake-of-editorial-balance/
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

No-one at the BBC understands the basics of doing a simple web-search? Took me seconds to find:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/
On this contentious topic I remain an agnostic, but relentless scare tactics and disingenuous crap like that highlighted in red does the alarmist camp's cause no good. Those committed to everything mainstream will however generally fail to notice such shortcomings.