Starship Asterisk*

G'day Chris

Were you a dictator in your last life.

Do you think there is a need to control information based on your opinion?

You can be a critic based on science, but not on just your opinion.

You must give some form of logic.

JimJast wrote:... Nature does not see any forces acting in the univese causing those movements. It sees only forces like thoses that press us against the Earth, but not any moving the Earth around or a stone thrown into the air. ...

Huh?!

You think there is a force pressing "us" to the earth, but that this force does not have any effect on a stone thrown into the air?

OMG!

Rob

harry wrote:Do you think there is a need to control information based on your opinion?

I absolutely think that there need to be controls on the quality of information allowed in a forum intended for the rational discussion of science, and excluding pseudoscience from these discussions is important. Otherwise, this ceases to be a place where people can get useful information about science, and just another junk science site- of which there are far too many already.

harry wrote:Gravitational Radiation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ation.html

Unfortunately prof. Baez might be wrong about gravitational radiation being of spin 2. The reasons are too compex to be suitable for this forum so let's consider it just a controversial issue. The same as non conservation of energy in general relativity in which prof. Baez believes as well, and tried even to convince me about it in March 2001 saying:

"It is always surprising when it happens, but sometimes to learn
more about the world we must stop asking certain questions...

... namely, those based on false assumptions."

Prof. Baez didn't say who is to decide whose assumptions are false. Neither he explained why Faynman's statement that energy and momentum are conserved separately, which is used in physics a lot as one of main assumptions, is according to him a false assumption. Which might have been the reason why Feynman refused to attend any more gravity conferences and to mark such adversaries of his as type #4.

Prof. Baez justified though his opinion by telling me: "In our previous discussion, you seemed to assume that energy conservation holds in general relativity. It does not [...]. I was telling you to drop this assumption. I was telling you that questions based on this false assumption would lead you astray. [...] I said quite explicitly that energy is *approximately* conserved to an extremely high degree of accuracy in situations where the gravitational field is weak - the Newtonian limit."

Yet I managed to prove (with help of Landau's "Theory of Fields") that energy is conserved in general realtivity not only "where the gravitational field is weak" but always. That's why I'm so sure that the BB is a false hypothesis. Apparently Prof. Baez is not familiar with my proof which has to wait with publication till I complete my PhD work in 3 years, since to publish anything even in arxiv.org I need to be a PhD in something and I'm not even in visual arts, since I never expected that a quality of a proof will be decided not on its merit but on whether it was done by a PhD .

G'day Chris

Mate first look into the mirror.

I have read your responses and I find that you lack understanding on many issues of cosmology and because of that I find your opinion out of place.

That does not mean that I have a full understanding.

I have read many sections of Meta Research and although I do not agree with some issues, I cannot say that their work is not based on science.

You speak of science and your the first not to apply it.

harry wrote:I have read your responses and I find that you lack understanding on many issues of cosmology and because of that I find your opinion out of place.

Happily, real science doesn't operate the way you'd like. If it did, we'd all be chipping scrapers in our caves and wondering where our next meal was going to come from. Or at the least, we'd still be trying to count the turtles, looking for the bottom.

Science depends on the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. It depends on recognizing that there are genuinely bad ideas, ideas that are not worthy of serious consideration. Ideas that quite correctly should be rejected summarily.

Chris Peterson wrote: I absolutely think that there need to be controls on the quality of information allowed in a forum intended for the rational discussion of science, and excluding pseudoscience from these discussions is important. Otherwise, this ceases to be a place where people can get useful information about science, and just another junk science site- of which there are far too many already.

And from that point of censorship those in power progress to burning people at the stake ..nice. Big Bang is pseudoscience at its worst, Chris, yet its presumptions and assumptions and fudges and publicity are declared real science. What a total hogwash.

Chris Peterson wrote: Happily, real science doesn't operate the way you'd like. If it did, we'd all be chipping scrapers in our caves and wondering where our next meal was going to come from. y.

Food was so abundant before "our" era of science that very few people went hungry, and the food they ate was not only abundant and easily caught and found but natural and nourishing. In "our" era of science mass starvation of hundreds of millions is commonplace, and cancer and diabetes etc. is riding that pale horse because of 'scientific' processing of food which results in little nourishment taken into the body. Did you know, Chris, that slaves in the U.S. were able to nourish themselves comfortably by food they found and caught as they worked the fields? And that was in an era in which natural food had been diminished greatly. The industrial, 'scientific' world is at huge risk in the few coming decades (or years) of starving to death while staring through the latest and greatest telescopes and microscopes.

aristarchusinexile wrote:And from that point of censorship those in power progress to burning people at the stake ..nice. Big Bang is pseudoscience at its worst, Chris, yet its presumptions and assumptions and fudges and publicity are declared real science. What a total hogwash.

It isn't a question of censorship, it's a question of rules to avoid anarchy.

Claiming that the Big Bang is "pseudoscience" betrays complete and total ignorance of science. No scientist would consider the BB to be pseudoscience, even if he disagreed with it.

ok, people, what you (we ?) all need is to calm the fuсk down.

1 I will lock this thread (for now) since, I think, everyone had his say here, including me, Chris, Jim, harry, sputnik, etc
2 I will not ban anyone, let's leave it to Nereid (because she seem to always have her own opinion on these matters)
3 to re-open, pm Nereid, as per usual.