Swipe to go to another post.
Put here by whom?
'Twould have to be a thinking being to use reasoning...unless Vic is thinking AI, but that would beg the question of who developed the AI...thus, who not what.
Ever seen the movie :Mission to Mars? The part where the aliens showed them that they seeded Earth millions of years ago. I believe more like that!
Nope, never saw that.
Aliens would qualify.
You should watch it just for that part! Can't find the scene but it sure rings true!
I've actually seen a few videos of folks who believe that and have explained their theories.
Let me think on this one and get back to you
Thank God I'll pass that test
The alleged scientific method:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Devise a test.
4. If the test fails, go to #2.
5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.
The actual scientific method:
1. Formulate a theory.
2. Make a computer simulation.
3. Compare the simulation to observed data.
4. If they don't agree, find some way to adjust the data. If you can't adjust the data, ignore it.
5. Be sure your fellow scientists will agree with your findings, then publish.
STFU and go along with consensus or we cut off your grant.
Nah... you're just thinking of climate science, political science, sociology and psychology.
The real sciences are still ok.
The h*ll they are. Dark matter was invented in 1938 by Ian Oort specifically to fudge his data to agree with his theories. You can look that up at wikipedia. Now it is a foundational principle of all astronomy.
There are enough examples like that to fill a book.
The dark matter hypothesis goes back much further than Oort, by 50 years or so, to explain the stability of galaxies that are rotating too fast to be accounted for by the gravitation of the visible matter they contain.
As such, it is hardly a foundational principle of all astronomy (like, say, Newton's law of gravitation), and a Nobel prize awaits anyone who can prove that the "extra" gravity in the rapidly rotating galaxies comes from conventional matter. Similarly, a Nobel prize awaits anyone who can directly observe dark matter. Until one or the other happens, dark matter remains a hypothesis.
The problem is the ASSUMPTION that gravity is the sole effect involved. That assumption has been disproved by several physicists, and they got their grants terminated as a result.
I rather doubt that these physicists were able to prove the hypothesis that something other than gravity was involved, but I'd be happy to read about it.
I have given up citing references to people who refuse to accept the idea that the science might be wrong. References are nothing more than an appeal to authority.
But since you say you will be happy to read about it, I will point you to the site where such things get analyzed. It is a very big site.
I just got through saying I'd be happy to read their proof, if such proof exists. I merely said I had doubts, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise with sufficient proof.
How did you find out about it, if not from a reference?
What I was looking for was the "proof" you said existed for non-gravitational effects that eliminate the need for the dark matter hypothesis.
It seems that there have been several attempts, beginning with Alfvén, to introduce electromagnetic forces on a galactic scale. Unfortunately for these models, they make many predictions that run counter to observations, hence the plasma universe model is not accepted.
Recently, a hypothesis of scale invariance that the author says may obviate the need for dark matter/energy has been published. It will have its day in court, but again nothing has as yet been proved by it.
Ok, so I gave you a link to extensive investigations, and you come back with links to somebody who simply rejects those investigations without citing any particular failure. That is why I decline to cite "references". Science is not a matter of voting on preferences, but that is what the current crop of scientists do.
The first reference I gave indeed cites failures of the plasma model.
"Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which, in the context of Alfvén–Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed. Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances, but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed. In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found, even while the level of isotropy at 1:105 is not accounted for to that precision by any alternative models. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP and the Planck satellite and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives. The acoustic peaks in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model."
A scientist who makes theoretical claims indeed has to prove them to the satisfaction of other scientists. Claims are tested experimentally, and if they fail to match experiment, they are rejected. If the plasma model is right, then the Big Bang didn't happen, general relativity is wrong and the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion. Remarkable claims like these require remarkable proofs, which so far have not been forthcoming. On the contrary, they have been DISproved.
This is not to say that the dark matter/energy hypothesis is therefore necessarily correct, but just that the plasma hypothesis is wrong.
All of this blather is based on assumptions and rejections of simple observation. It is an assumption that the sun is powered by fusion, and it is an observation that the outside is hotter than the inside. The explanation offered is nonsense. You can disprove anything by refusing to admit basic principles, and astronomers refuse to admit that a charged particle in motion is an electric current. They get downright silly with their use of earthly weather analogies to things in space, and making up nonsense like "flapping magnetic fields" and "magnetic reconnection".
It is remarkable how stupid a person can be when his position depends on not understanding something.
No one denies that a charged particle in motion is a current.
What they do deny is that the charged particle flux to the sun is anywhere near large enough to account for the power the sun produces if it were simply a plasma discharge. Why does the Earth only have a feeble aurora borealis if there is all this galactic current flowing? Why isn't Jupiter or Saturn glowing like a small sun?
"No one denies that a charged particle in motion is a current."
You are babbling. Charged particles from the sun are without exception called "solar wind". Astronomers use Earthly weather terms to describe events in space where weather does not exist.
They know perfectly well that the solar "wind" is an expression for a flow of charged particles from the sun.
Do you also think that when oceanographers speak of water "currents" they mean electric currents?
And I notice that you have conspicuously dodged my questions.
Yes I have. That is because you are talking nonsense. I will not respond again to this discussion.
Simply saying it's nonsense doesn't prove it's nonsense.
And now you are skedaddling because you have no proof.
P.S. Even Velikovsky didn't buy the electric Sun hypothesis.
" Alfred de Grazia reports that Velikovsky never accepted Juergens' [electric Sun] theory, because the thermonuclear theory seemed sound to him. de Grazia writes that he:
"asked Velikovsky, more than once, whether he could accept Juergens' theory, he would reply with a definite negative. He adhered to internal thermo-nuclear fusion as the secret of the Sun's radiation" "
I am skedaddling because I am talking science and you are talking votes. I think you are talking nonsense and you think I am talking nonsense, and I decline to continue a discussion based on mutual disrespect.
You're skedaddling because I asked questions about the electric Sun hypothesis that you can't answer. If you could, you wouldn't be throwing up these "disrespect" smokescreens.
If you fail, don't listen to any talking snakes, Vic.
I am the snake
In that case, don't listen to yourself.
Wouldn't that make whatever created and put us here God?
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2018. Icons by DryIcons.