The Climate Change AND contentious science thread- vampires and dark matter

[-=SS=-]

Your passion makes it seem like you have something really deeply invested in this. Have you studied astrophysics and come to these conclusions yourself?

Have I studied astrophysics and gained qualifications? No. I am a layman, though I was very good at all the sciences during school, and mathematics. It's more a case of common sense and intuition, recognizing when you're being had. Dark matter is clearly that. It if were not within the realm of science you'd have no trouble calling it out.. something which can't be tested for directly which just happens to balance out our magnificent equations that don't quite work? Come on, as I said to drugmentor.. you have to concede it is awfully convenient.

In actual fact I think the opposite is true here. Everyone who is arguing against me here is invested heavily in the enterprise of science. See your "anti-science" comment is just that. I think science is great, but I'm not in love with it like you all are. I used to love science too, but then I realized it was largely comprised of people.

You are missing the point here. The whole idea behind Einstein's "spacetime" is to demonstrate that space in fact is not empty. It is real. What is it? Who knows, but if you try and traverse it, you won't get very far. Given the fact that it exerts a demonstrable effect on things we consider "extant", its hard to deny that space certainly does exist. Can you think of anything else, that is does not exist, that directly influences aspects of the physical world? And, of course, I am referring to the time required for anything to get anywhere in this vacuum. Furthermore, the parameters of empty space (temperature, organisation of matter) can certainly lead to complex physical ocurrences, such as the loss of electrical resistance close to absolute zero. This is a known parameter of space that exerts (or reduces perhaps) another force; it exerts effect. Further to that, if empty space/vacuum sits above absolute zero, is this not a distinct "property" of this nothingness? Or why is it not absolute zero? What gives rise to this is radiation, exerting some influence on something. Or would you believe that something that has properties could conceivably not exist? I'm not so sure...

No, you're getting confused here. Space itself has no properties. How can it when it is an abstraction. Something which has no being has no properties. If there is anything occurring, such as the things you mention, then it is the result of other factors, not of space itself.

Einstein didn't demonstrate anything. It's a mirage of mathematics, not an actual demonstration. It is only real if you believe/trust the theory. I don't, for the simple reason that you can not affect space, something which has no properties. You can not affect nothingness, an abstraction with no substance. Again, if something is occurring it is because of something else. Whether it is the ether or what, I don't know. All I know is that space-time is just a plain absurdity.

Sure sure, except experiments have largely demonstrated that changes in a gravitational field propoagate at light speed. Given that physical reality, its simply untrue to say that without instantaneous gravity, all planets would fly off into space. Its not happening, is it? Surely, if gravity was an instantaneous function, we would not see a universe remotely like what we see. The sun would not have been able to accumulatively form; the planets would not have had the time to accrete the necesary materials for planet construction. Instant gravity would have simply smashed all matter together, at once.

No, it's not happening. The remedy to that is Einstein's GR and space-time to explain why the Earth responds to the Sun where it is now and not where it was 8 minutes ago (if gravity travels at light speed). Personally I think it's a bunch of baloney and that Newton was correct in his assertion that gravity is instantaneous (or at least so fast as to

You are welcome to deny the evidence, but iconoclasm as a reflex is just as pointless as blind acceptance.

Can and will. Just because it came out of the mouth of some expert doesn't mean it's true.

No, its about chemistry. Again, there may be another means for creating heavy elements, but its simply true to say that stars are energetic enough to do this. A supernovae is even more energetic.

My position is that our assumptions about how stars and other stellar bodies function is incorrect. Again the standard position is more about best and convenient fit, and nothing do to with actual proof of anything. Like the dark matter scenario it is more convenient to ride what we have than to contemplate anything else.

But if there is somewhere else for fusion to take place; where?

Pretty sure I mentioned just how powerful the EM force is in relation to gravity. The fusion is taking place where we see what we see.. in the atmosphere and the surface of the Sun, and not in the core.

Where do I start?

I find the rise of anti-science to be pretty troubling. Its taken a foothold in this age of global warming, as people begin to realise they cannot really escape the physical trth. As Alasdair said, I wonder if many people who deny climate change are aware of who's side they inevitably fall on? It is, assuredly, not the side of the free thinking rebel. It is the side of the iron-fisted, gold-plated corporation.

This has nothing to do with anti-science and that statement pisses me the fuck off. Conventional wisdom in science does not hold a monopoly on truth. It's amazing that for all the talk of how science moves forward and embraces new ideas, how actually in reality it is just as closed minded as any other belief system or enterprise.

It's alright for new ideas.. just so long as they fit within the current paradigm. God forbid anyone challenge Einstein or any other pillar of modern science. You whipped out the anti-science line, revealing how you really think, so my discourse with you is now over.

 

[Kittycat5]

What are your alternative theories then? Can you point us in a direction that we can analyze this for ourselves? Just because you say it does not make it so either.

 

[spacejunk]

In actual fact I think the opposite is true here. Everyone who is arguing against me here is invested heavily in the enterprise of science. See your "anti-science" comment is just that. I think science is great, but I'm not in love with it like you all are. I used to love science too, but then I realized it was largely comprised of people.

So...you're rejecting the value of scientific reason on emotional grounds?

 

[drug_mentor]

I disagree. It is entirely about not wanting to re-examine particular tenets of established science, the greatest being Einstein's relativity and its entanglement with the process known as gravity. The establishment of science functions just like any other establishment.. people rise to the top, get all comfy and do not want the boat rocked for fear it will upset their patch, or require effort on their behalf to embrace a new situation or paradigm. When they realized that there wasn't enough mass in the Universe to account for the motion of stellar bodies you would have thought they would at least entertain the idea that they got something seriously wrong somewhere. But..

The problem is that you are rejecting solid rationale in abductive reasoning/inference to the best explanation, which is applied in law and many fields of science, in favour of your intuitive feeling that these damn physicists are just a lazy bunch.

There are good reasons to think general relativity is the best explanation we have. You are essentially disregarding all this in favour of intuition. You are entitled to this belief, but it is the antithesis of the critical thinking which you routinely champion.

Regardless of what you believe you have to concede that dark matter is an awfully convenient explanation to the encountered problem. Something which can not be perceived or tested for is more akin to religious mysticism than science. You're free to believe it's about abductive reasoning, or whatever label, but to me it is clearly a case of pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

I have some scepticism towards contemporary physics. I don't pretend to have any great understanding of it, but I do think whether unfalisifiable theories fall within the realm of science, philosophy, or some other field is a pressing question, the answer to which might be quite upsetting to many physicists. Regardless, my point is that the reasoning you are engaged in is highly fallacious.

Different subject area, and you're entitled to not believe they don't exist. I don't really care what you think to be honest.

Obviously it is a different subject area. The point is that you are saying one thing is bullshit purely because it isn't testable, if you were consistent in this logic then you shouldn't believe in untestable entities.

It's perfectly valid. Time is an abstraction, it has no actual being or value other than what we assign to it. It helps us make sense of our existence, but it's not real. It has no properties. You don't have to be a genius to realize time is a fabrication of the human mind.

In the passage I quoted, the only argument present was an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy. You can claim that it is valid reasoning, but anyone with the faintest familiarity with logic can see that it is utter nonsense.

In actual fact I think the opposite is true here. Everyone who is arguing against me here is invested heavily in the enterprise of science.

This is patently false, see my third paragraph of this post. If I am invested heavily in anything it is logic and critical thinking.

 

[-=SS=-]

You do realize SS that people are attempting to test for dark matter. If they fail, they will need to re-examine the theory and come up with a new hypothesis. Maybe this will be a change to GR or maybe something no one as of yet has considered. But I agee with drug mentor that given the success of GR up until now, it seems entirely reasonable to try and figure out what the hell dark matter is or isnt within the concepts of GR.

If they fail they will simply conjure up something new and exotic, or tweak something a little somewhere.. all in all they will just add another floor to the castle made of sand. I wouldn't be surprised if they claim to have succeeded in finding dark matter.. unfortunately it all seems to rapidly descend into particle physics and levels of mathematics that no one but the experts can decipher these days. Like the Higgs Boson, supposed mass particle.. another bunch of bullshit.

On a side note, how do you feel about Halton Arp and his discovery that NGC 4319 galaxy is connected to a quasar with a significantly different redshift value? A simple observation that NASA tried to deny and obfuscate, and for which Arp was exiled from the astrophysics community? How does that fit into your narrative about the honesty and integrity of modern science?

 

[Kittycat5]

It was refuted when better technology became available. It is saddening and maddening that people who come up with alternative theories can have their careers ruined within their time, but Arp was wrong on this. He didnt deserve exile though. But Fritz Zwicky was largely shunned in his day too for pointing out that there doesnt seem to be enough matter in most galaxies. As you said, science is made up of people, and people have biases and prejudices.

 

[GodandLove]

If they fail they will simply conjure up something new and exotic, or tweak something a little somewhere.. all in all they will just add another floor to the castle made of sand. I wouldn't be surprised if they claim to have succeeded in finding dark matter.. unfortunately it all seems to rapidly descend into particle physics and levels of mathematics that no one but the experts can decipher these days. Like the Higgs Boson, supposed mass particle.. another bunch of bullshit.

On a side note, how do you feel about Halton Arp and his discovery that NGC 4319 galaxy is connected to a quasar with a significantly different redshift value? A simple observation that NASA tried to deny and obfuscate, and for which Arp was exiled from the astrophysics community? How does that fit into your narrative about the honesty and integrity of modern science?

Hey SS, you didn't answer my question buddy. What do the scammers have to gain?

Let me guess, You don't really know, do you? You just like being the guy that goes against the grain, am I right?

 

[-=SS=-]

It was refuted when better technology became available. It is saddening and maddening that people who come up with alternative theories can have their careers ruined within their time, but Arp was wrong on this. He didnt deserve exile though. But Fritz Zwicky was largely shunned in his day too for pointing out that there doesnt seem to be enough matter in most galaxies. As you said, science is made up of people, and people have biases and prejudices.

How was he wrong? He was one of the best astronomers. You know, one of those experts we love to talk about so much. I find no rebuttal of the NGC 4319 problem besides NASA's blatant attempt to dismiss the whole idea with poor quality imaging. The fact is the astrophysics community shunned one of its own and greatest because what he observed went contrary to the paradigm that had been established. It completely validates my contention that science has become a religion and is composed of dogmatic old men who do not want their boat rocked. The way he was treated was utterly disgraceful. What should have happened was proper investigation, not removing him from the picture.

When you find one instance you can pass it off as a mere coincidence, but when you find numerous examples then coincidence becomes more unlikely. To write him off is ridiculous. Again, his observations throw a spanner in the works of the conventional wisdom.. but you face up to that and work with it, not ignore or suppress it because it makes life difficult.

It was clear they didn't like him and his observations because it challenged the Big Bang theory.

 

[Kittycat5]

And just to clarify, the Higgs boson is not a particle that gives mass, it is an excitation of the Higgs field that pemeates all space which other particles interact with to gain mass. And before you call it bullshit, remember both classical electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics have fields that stretch throughout all space and what we observe are similar excitations of these fields.

I just do not understand why you think modern physicists are not applying the same approaches to unresolved problems that physicists have been using for the past 150 years.

 

[Kittycat5]

How was he wrong? He was one of the best astronomers. You know, one of those experts we love to talk about so much. I find no rebuttal of the NGC 4319 problem besides NASA's blatant attempt to dismiss the whole idea with poor quality imaging. The fact is the astrophysics community shunned one of its own and greatest because what he observed went contrary to the paradigm that had been established. It completely validates my contention that science has become a religion and is composed of dogmatic old men who do not want their boat rocked. The way he was treated was utterly disgraceful. What should have happened was proper investigation, not removing him from the picture.

When you find one instance you can pass it off as a mere coincidence, but when you find numerous examples then coincidence becomes more unlikely. To write him off is ridiculous. Again, his observations throw a spanner in the works of the conventional wisdom.. but you face up to that and work with it, not ignore or suppress it because it makes life difficult.

It was clear they didn't like him and his observations because it challenged the Big Bang theory.

I am in agreement with you regarding Arp's treatment. But it seems data from the Hubble space telescope question his theory (which he naturally rebutts, but that is no different from him conjuring up something new). The data is a bit over my head so I am reserving judgement, but other than he was one against many, he is trying to fit his theories into newer data just as you suggest those working on dark matter would do.

But I stll do not see what your evidence is for EM being the driving force in cosmology. I said my mind is open, but have never seen any compelling evidence for this.

 

[-=SS=-]

I am in agreement with you regarding Arp's treatment. But it seems data from the Hubble space telescope question his theory (which he naturally rebutts, but that is no different from him conjuring up something new). The data is a bit over my head so I am reserving judgement, but other than he was one against many, he is trying to fit his theories into newer data just as you suggest those working on dark matter would do.

I have tried to locate actual rebuttal and evidence against the observations made by Arp, but I find nothing except people simply repeating the same line that it has been rebutted. I have just come across another example (it's been years since I've dug on this one). NGC 3516.

The difference between Arp and the dark matter proponents is that he actually observed something. Many things actually. Dark matter proponents have observed nothing, and they can't by the nature of its (supposed) properties.

But I stll do not see what your evidence is for EM being the driving force in cosmology. I said my mind is open, but have never seen any compelling evidence for this.

Google Plasma Cosmology. Have fun.

 

[GodandLove]

"Global warming is a scam!" "But I'm not going to give any rational or logical reason as to why it's a scam, you just have to take my word for it, because I know way more about climate science than the world's leading climatologists!"

Climate change is real people, there's no denying it now. Our best bet to try to slow it down would be to wean off of fossil fuel, entirely. We can start by giving automobile industries an ultimatum. They either start producing cheap and economical electric cars or they'll be fined x amount of dollars. We also need to create/fund a Solar Panel distribution program, for schools, businesses and low income families.There is no excuse why we can't provide every American household with highly efficient and effective solar panel systems. Don't believe this is doable...or affordable? Since 1996 the United States Pentagon has misplaced 8.5 trillion dollars, that's trillion, with a T. 8.5 trillion dollars unaccounted for, just gone. Just half of that would be enough money to supply every American household with top of the line High capacity solar panel systems and still have some money left over to obliterate homelessness by expanding our social welfare programs. Once we've done that, we need to try our absolute hardest to prevent corporations/Government agencies from starting a monopoly on green energy. We also need to throw people like SS into re-education centers.

And that's a memo.

 

[alasdairm]

Climate change is real people, there's no denying it now.

i agree.

Our best bet to try to slow it down would be to wean off of fossil fuel, entirely.

i think that we're past the point of no return. there are too many vested interests and consumers in general are too selfish and greedy to get on board in any meaningful way

alasdair

 

[Kittycat5]

Google Plasma Cosmology. Have fun.

I did. I am actually now tending towards either outmodated science whose current backers are bordering on nothing more than iconoclasts as someone mentioned.

 

[-=SS=-]

"Global warming is a scam!" "But I'm not going to give any rational or logical reason as to why it's a scam, you just have to take my word for it, because I know way more about climate science than the world's leading climatologists!"

OK, so why is it a scam. Well like any good scam there is money to made, from various points.. from providing new services, to intentionally suppressing others to drive up prices, to new taxes, to fines, to subsidies for landowners to build stupid windmills. But I don't believe that is why this is happening. It's a happy side benefit for people in "the club", but not the main motivation. I mean, as you rightly point out, trillions of pounds just go missing and no one fucking notices.. corporations, banks and individuals stash trillions away in funds all around the world and nothing happens.. the whole financial system is completely bought and paid for at this point, so money is not what it's about.

It's about power, control and order. It's an excuse to dump more laws and regulations on the pile, with a few extras hidden in there for good measure as is always accomplished. It's been more than a decade since 9/11 and we can look back and see how that was used to enforce more laws and regulations, many of which are now coming to light. Not saying it was a conspiracy, but you never let a good crisis go to waste! This is the same. People in "the club" desperately want ever tighter control and power.

Climate change is real people, there's no denying it now.

It's always been real, no need to get your knickers all twisted about it. The failure is believing that we are in any shape or form responsible for causing fluctuations, which have and always will occur naturally regardless of what do/don't do. All the "wacky weather" we've been having is not evidence of anything except hysteria. Floods have always happened. Storms have always happened. The River Thames fucking froze solid once upon a time not so long ago. Shit like that does happen, it's not evidence of anything.. except perhaps the ever dynamic and shifting nature of the Sun.

Our best bet to try to slow it down would be to wean off of fossil fuel, entirely. We can start by giving automobile industries an ultimatum. They either start producing cheap and economical electric cars or they'll be fined x amount of dollars.

So long as you're not anti-nuclear I don't care so much about this, I don't have a fetish for gasoline engines or anything. If we're going electric and going for other sources of energy we need nuclear power and not these ditsy fucking wind turbines and solar. That's not going to be reliable enough, especially in the UK!

We also need to throw people like SS into re-education centers.

Yeh you'd love that wouldn't you. It's amazing how I get accused of being a nazi sometimes with my opinions on immigration for example, yet here your the one talking about sending me to a center to be forcefully brainwashed into believing some bullshit you think is real. Who's the real fascist here.

 

[Bagseed]

It's perfectly valid. Time is an abstraction, it has no actual being or value other than what we assign to it. It helps us make sense of our existence, but it's not real. It has no properties. You don't have to be a genius to realize time is a fabrication of the human mind.

just a quick question, if time is just an abstraction, if one clock is highly accelerated, why does it run slow in comparison to an initially synchronized stationary clock? why do accelerated particles (apparantly) decay slower than slower ones? these experiments prove time dialation. how can time be purley abstract, if we can actually measure how it is affected by acceleration?

I also used to think that time is just an idea so to speak, but learning of these kind of experiments made me change my mind about it.

 

[-=SS=-]

i think that we're past the point of no return. there are too many vested interests and consumers in general are too selfish and greedy to get on board in any meaningful way

Fossil fuels aren't what doomed us. We were finished the moment Madison Avenue came in to existence and began persuading women they needed a mountain of synthetic shit to be comfy and happy. Men generally don't want half of the crap women desire, and when they do it is usually just to entice a woman anyway.

You want to solve the real problem (us), then we need to attack our own psychology and not a greenhouse gas. If we survive climate change (which we will), we'll end up doing ourselves in anyway with our materialistic greed and sexual lust. Until we know ourselves we will end up destroying ourselves one way or another.. new technology will only accelerate that process (as happened with electricity).

In short. We're fucked.

 

[alasdairm]

adding misogyny to the list?



alasdair

 

[GodandLove]

It's about power, control and order.

Okay, so we've finally established a reason why, you think global barbecuing is a scam. So, our Governments are trying to pull off one of the BIGGEST scams the world has ever seen, all so that they can add a soupcon of control to their already unparalleled authority?

I'm sorry, I just can't buy that theory. We are at a point in human history where global governance has reached an apogee. It just doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. Furthermore, if their sole intentions are to gain more power and control, why just stop at global warming? Why not try and convince people of a biological threat too/instead? It's all about power and control after all. What better way to get the masses eating out of the palm of your hand than to convince them of a spooky biological threat that will kill them in 10 days?

 

[-=SS=-]

just a quick question, if time is just an abstraction, if one clock is highly accelerated, why does it run slow in comparison to an initially synchronized stationary clock? why do accelerated particles (apparantly) decay slower than slower ones? these experiments prove time dialation. how can time be purley abstract, if we can actually measure how it is affected by acceleration?

Did you consider that maybe the experiments are not proving what they claim to be? That perhaps the clocks are affected by motion, gravity, changing EM conditions as the plane passes around the Earth, cosmic rays, who the fuck knows what else.

The twin paradox is an interesting thought problem but that's all it is. Again it's metaphysics, not physics.

I also used to think that time is just an idea so to speak, but learning of these kind of experiments made me change my mind about it.

Even when I was really into science I always thought that twin paradox made no sense what so ever, and I still do not understand why people get sucked in by it given all the concessions and assertions made in how the "experiment" works. The idea that the one who travels away will be younger is just laughable.. which one is moving away? The one in the rocket, or the one on Earth? Earth is not some static object, and neither is the surrounding context. They both age at the same rate regardless of velocity.. as ones common sense would dictate. A 10 year old can see this "thought experiment" for what is.. bunch of (intentionally) confusing baloney designed to bedazzle and mystify the impressionable.