What's the other 90+% made of?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Cassius Malachi, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, not at all: river has proven himself a science crank many times, particularly in subjects such as Alien visitations and medical experiments, ghosts, goblins, long dead defunct theories, giants, fairies etc etc, you name it and if it fails to align with the scientific methodology and peer review, he'll support it.
    True science is not censored on science forums, although this forum allows far more speudoscientific content of the river variety then other forums.
    I'm for censoring, or at least moving to pseudoscience, the stuff I have mentioned, that fail to align with the scientific method and appropriate peer review. And for you info, what anti science idiots claim on a science forum such as this, stays on the forum.You see the real scientists at the coal face are not interested in the gunk and stupidity that some of our crank friends propose on this forum, and that is censored on other forums [see Cosmoquest]
    You imagine wrong. Firstly the Catholic church was not a scientific orginization: Secondly the true scientific method started with the likes of Galileo, Copernicus and company: Thirdly and although its true they did laugh at Galileo, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cassius Malachi Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    From what I know, the yanks have the option of staying in school until the age of 18 and then on to what they call college. As you sound like you're from the U.K. you'll know that we stay in school until 16, then what they still consider high school we call college until 18, and what they call college, we call uni until whenever we want/can no longer to continue attending. But, I essentially agree with the above (or what you wrote).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Oh my goodness Cassius, pad still does not get it.

    pads post # 61
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Whatever my friend: Your knowledge is scant at best.
    DM, originally a fudge factor is now quite evident and thought to exist in the forms of MACHO's and WIMP's.
    http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html
    NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
    For Release: August 21, 2006

    NASA RELEASE 06-297

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    X-ray/Optical Composite of 1E 0657-56
    Press Image and Caption
    Dark matter and normal matter have been wrenched apart by the tremendous collision of two large clusters of galaxies. The discovery, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, gives direct evidence for the existence of dark matter.

    "This is the most energetic cosmic event, besides the Big Bang, which we know about," said team member Maxim Markevitch of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Gravitational Lensing Explanation
    These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark. Despite considerable evidence for dark matter, some scientists have proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter. However, such theories cannot explain the observed effects of this collision.
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    DE was theorised due to observations and data from WMAP that our expansion is accelerating.
    Probably the CC of Einstein fame like I said, but obviously and certainly a property inherent to spacetime.
    Claiming they are not answers is a stupid cop out from one who lacks intestinal fortitude to put it as nice as possible.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Forums such as this are a magnet for God botherers, anti science nuts and cranks, and many others that suffer from delusions of grandeur in thinking they are able to rewrite 21st century cosmology.
    You see river, what you say and infest this forum with, and what your new found friend says and infests this forum with, stays on this forum as unproven unmitigated anti science, and religiously inspired crap.
    That is fact my dear friend.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    2006 pad.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    And nothing has changed except the addition of more evidence of DM particularly with gravitational lensing.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Its a claim pad.
     
  13. Cassius Malachi Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    The scientist who first proposed the idea of Dark Matter was nearly ruined because of it. For many years he was ridiculed (as were those who proposed the idea of a holographic universe, now James Gates has found Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting blockcode underlying all matter in nature), what you now cite as scientific dogma was at one time in the not so distant past, heresy. You say that myself and River infest this forum with unproven, pseudo-science and religiously inspired crap. You may be right. But my point is, all of what you now KNOW to be a scientific certainty, was very likely ridiculed, declared impossible and unproven, pseudo-science and religiously inspired crap, when the people who first proposed these ideas told them to the rest of the world.
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Fair Peer Review is ok, but the point is when high stakes are involved might is fair.

    Chandra when he proposed (at the age of 19) EDP, he was ridiculed by Eddington, almost destroyed him, but science won at the end. Even Vera Rubin's work on DM was criticised and now every one is clinging to DM.

    I am appalled at the lack of critical thinking (and lack of formal education) on the part of many posters here in this forum, and they claim to defend the present day cosmology from a position of knowledge. Write any paper which has a hint of anti GR, and the paper goes to dustbin. Poor Dingle died but could do nothing. So here more than the ego, money is at play, the status quo is at play. Look how many will be rubbished, so the things would change only after Sir Stephen Hawking decides to take a plunge inside a BH...
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2015
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Citation needed.
    Oort proposed it (on insufficient evidence) in 1932 - his career, and the respect accorded him, continued.
    Zwicky added maths (in 1033) and his career and respect remained for some decades after that.

    No he hasn't.
    He found that some equations in super string theory (which remains a hypothesis with no evidence) have algorithms that can be described as "doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting blockcode".

    Oh look - the "d" word. Crank alert.

    And here we go again: the wording "all of what you now KNOW to be a scientific certainty" shows that you don't have a clue.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2015
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Oh we know quite clearly ; from your and other posts. What this means in intellectual discussions. We just don't think that it is progressive thinking nor open minded.
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Really?
    And just how is posting unsupported crap and ridiculous nonsense "progressive thinking"?
    What, exactly, is laudable about being so "open minded" as to post un- and anti-scientific drivel as if if it were fact (and claim it to be so)?
    The problem is that you - and your fellow loons - are so ignorant that you think being "open minded" means uncritically accepting anything that you like the idea of, regardless of its validity or otherwise. And further extend that to assume that any dismissal of your crap is done by rote ("preservation of the dogma" in typical crank wording) as opposed to being read, analysed and THEN pointed out as the crap that it genuinely is.
    In short you not only don't know what "open minded" really means but you're so close-minded that you feel comfortable and justified in claiming that anyone pointing out that your nonsense IS nonsense is the close-minded one.
    You fail - consistently - to look at the scientific evidence[1] (which would wreck your stance) and prefer to cling (regardless of the facts) to your highly ignorant and uniformed pre-set beliefs.

    1 To the extent of not even using the scientific method.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Do you really believe this dwyr.
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    It's self-evident to anyone that can actually think.
    I'm not in the habit of posting things I don't believe to be correct.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, its an evidenced backed and supported claim.
    If you're speaking of Fred Zwicky, you are correct...But also in any endeavour/discipline, even science, there are also renegades and/or Mavericks for different reasons. Zwicky in the case of DM was shown to be correct, but as I try and instill into river, even present accepted scientific theories needed to run the gauntlet....Fred Hoyle stuck with his Steady State until he died. An otherwise great scientist, on this issue he was wrong.
    And yes, I'm certainly right about the religiously inspired and anti science cranks that post crap. The rest of your rant is just speculative and at this time unsupported. Evolution for example is more than a scientific theory...It is proven and factual...SR/GR and the BB are all overwhelmingly supported and any new future QGT will almost certainly contain all unchanged.
    Even science and the scientific method and appropriate peer review is not perfect, but certainly more perfect than the cranks and ego inflated alternative hypothesis pushers that propose their nonsense on forums such as this: The only outlet they have.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    So you think you are correct because nobody thinks as you do?
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Not even close to what I wrote, nor what I meant - I especially didn't claim that "nobody thinks as I do"[1].
    You REALLY should learn to read and comprehend what's written.

    1 And, in fact, it's fairly evident that paddoboy thinks the way I do, as do the majority of posters here that ACTUALLY know something about science.
     

Share This Page