adding misogyny to the list?
Just a bit of humor in to this thread. But in all honesty.. who are the bigger consumers? Men or women? Who makes the majority of purchases, and who is the majority of advertising aimed at?

adding misogyny to the list?
if it were due to random factors, how would you calculate it? lorentz transformation can predict the difference between the time in the accelerated and stationary reference frame pretty well. also, time is thought to be manipulated by gravity, since gravity is a kind of acceleration. gravity also shifts the wavelenght of electromagnetic radiation, if you shoot a lightbeam upwards, away from the center of gravity, it will appear redshifted, if you shoot it towards the earth, it's going to be blueshifted.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.
it's not strictly only about velocity, but the fact that the one is accelerated away from the other (and negatively accelerated back of course). and in my opinion, mathematics behind the concept is pretty sound, and necessary, in order to account for the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light (in this particular case). and if you now say that it's not proven that the speed of light is a constant, no matter from where it is measured, I at a loss.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.
well, how do you go about measuring that? what evidence can you point to which substantiates your claim?
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.
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.
Can and will. Just because it came out of the mouth of some expert doesn't mean it's true.
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.
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.
You whipped out the anti-science line, revealing how you really think, so my discourse with you is now over.
it's not strictly only about velocity, but the fact that the one is accelerated away from the other (and negatively accelerated back of course). and in my opinion, mathematics behind the concept is pretty sound, and necessary, in order to account for the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light (in this particular case). and if you no say that it's not proven that the speed of light is a constant, no matter from where it is measured, I at a loss.
Is it just me, or does it seem like everyone in this thread (including me) is ganging up on Silver Surfer(SS)?
We're all just taking turns pounding his ass into the mattress.:D Feels good to be part of a team.Just kidding
Nah but, were all just having fun.
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?
The whole thing amuses me just as much as I imagine you are amused. As was said earlier it's actually all of you who are invested/in love with science, not meOne day, when you realize just how absurd things like the Big Bang actually are, you will laugh as I and many others do at just how ridiculous we were to ever have been sucked in by such a story. Then you will be where I am, poking at people who still subscribe to mythical scientific creations that are as equally absurd as any 'god' or religious item. Watching science lovers bash religion lovers is fantastic.. my ignorance is greater than yours! Take that!
![]()
This is really fascinating, thank you.
I agree with your observations about dogmatic science, in terms of thought experiences vs. actual observed phenomena.
I'm curious; are you saying you are a relgion lover, and that "we" science lovers are bashing you? Or are you generalising about people who post in this sub-forum and trying to get the last laugh?
the theory of dark matter also takes observational fact (circular speed of solar systems within galaxies not getting slower with increased distance from the center of the galaxy), and tries to explain it. and I wonder how you would talk about such phenomena without mathematics? none of this is subject to our everyday experience, as somebody pointed out, just from everyday experience, the earth's surface would appear flat and the sun goes around it. and these theories have been first disproven by mathematics, and not by somebody going around the world.This is the crux of the whole issue we have.. far too much reliance on mathematics to explain how things work, divorced from actual reality. To be more accurate it is mathematics projected on to reality, as opposed to mathematics being used to explain what we actually observe. As I already stated I believe gravity acts instantaneously, or so fast as to be instant, and that I believe Einstein was wrong in his assertions. It's the main reason why plasma cosmology appealed to me in the first place.. because it actually deals with observed evidence and then tries to explain it, as opposed to maths first than observation second to validate the hypothesis. No thought experiments or metaphysical garbage.. just observations of phenomena occurring, and following explanations.
The whole thing makes my head spin.. there's so much nonsense in astrophysics it's amazing that anyone takes it seriously at all. Black holes, neutron stars that spin so fast they should fly apart, the big bang that is essentially just a new creation myth. When combined with Einstein's work it makes me realize just how much we don't know at all, and just how creative the human imagination really is.. and also the ability for people to believe things so illogical, and yet criticize others who follow religions or believe in deities etc. In conclusion, we know no where near as much as we believe.
there seems to be a lot that the standard model can explain which plasma cosmology cannot. or is the CMB also fake?wikipedia said:In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén-Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[17] In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.
the theory of dark matter also takes observational fact (circular speed of solar systems within galaxies not getting slower with increased distance from the center of the galaxy), and tries to explain it. and I wonder how you would talk about such phenomena without mathematics? none of this is subject to our everyday experience, as somebody pointed out, just from everyday experience, the earth's surface would appear flat and the sun goes around it. and these theories have been first disproven by mathematics, and not by somebody going around the world.
the higgs boson also has been talked about for a while, but recently it has actually been found. do you suggest that scientists should just stop looking for dark matter, just because it's not obvious where it is to be found? instead you think it is best to completely abolish the current standard theories on cosmology and gravity, instead of modelling them to account for observations better? if general relativity is wrong, it will be disproven eventually, but as for now, there is little which makes more sense. and reintroducing the ether, which has been disproven to exist in the late 19th century is just ridiculous.
and if gravity acts with the speed of light (which kind of suggests that there is a massless particle involved, but I am by no means a physics expert, and I know that the graviton is purely hypothetical at the moment), then from a viewpoint of a human it is not really distunguishable from instantanously, same as if you turn on the light in your room, it seems to be everywhere at once, when it really is not.
and black holes have been found observationally as far as I am aware.
edit I'm just reading into plasma cosmology, and while it is interesting as another point of view, it also comes with a hell lot of assumptions. the biggest one being that the observational universe is just a pocket of mostly matter, so there must be another pocket of mostly antimatter beyond, how exactly do you say that this comes from any kind of observation?
there seems to be a lot that the standard model can explain which plasma cosmology cannot. or is the CMB also fake?
Tesla said:There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment
The whole thing amuses me just as much as I imagine you are amused. As was said earlier it's actually all of you who are invested/in love with science, not meOne day, when you realize just how absurd things like the Big Bang actually are, you will laugh as I and many others do at just how ridiculous we were to ever have been sucked in by such a story. Then you will be where I am, poking at people who still subscribe to mythical scientific creations that are as equally absurd as any 'god' or religious item. Watching science lovers bash religion lovers is fantastic.. my ignorance is greater than yours! Take that!
![]()
^ They also tend to explain vacuum energy as a particle phenomenon, whereas the ether would make more sense. I mean which is more plausible: that unseen, undetectable particles constantly and randomly pop into existence and annihilate each other all over the entire universe so fast that we can't even see them, or that a medium like the ether is real?
I always found it to be BS that light is a particle and not a wave. It's made to fit relativity and the standard model, just like the idea that space has a curvature. Something that isn't there can't be curved.
I don't get this.