When this approach has been peer reviewed and accepted, come back and let us know undefined, won't you?
:yawn:
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
When this approach has been peer reviewed and accepted, come back and let us know undefined, won't you?
:yawn:
The video of course sponsored by the Thunderbolt Project......Or those nutbags still pushing a Plasma/Electric Universe theory to over throw present incumbent models.
Someone is certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel!!!!
@Paddoboy.
The objective scientific method and objective scientists have regard to the content/facts presented, not their sponsor/source.
Alternative versus mainstream is to do with ideas being discussed at the time on their merits, not opinionating by clueless cheerleader types fixated on source and personalities, and so missing the actual import of the facts/ideas presented.
That is the purpose of preliminary discussion sites like these, to listen to and discuss all ideas that may have some merit when objectively considered and discussed fully and properly. Peer review comes at the end when preliminary discussion is over.
And anyway, if Russ et al here and elsewhere watch and consider that video content as presented, irrespective of presenter/sponsor, they can give their 'peer' assessment of the facts presented, without any unscientific personal opinions as you seem to bring instead of scientific argument on the facts as presented.
Anyone trying to restrict preliminary discussion, and/or telling people to not discuss their ideas on these discussion sites, such as you've been doing since you lobbed here, has no business being allowed on such discussion sites, as they are acting against the spirit of open science discourse and the reason for being of such sites as these.
Goodbye and good luck, paddoboy.
The objective scientific method and objective scientists have regard to the content/facts presented, not their sponsor/source.
Alternative versus mainstream is to do with ideas being discussed at the time on their merits, not opinionating by clueless cheerleader types fixated on source and personalities, and so missing the actual import of the facts/ideas presented.
That is the purpose of preliminary discussion sites like these, to listen to and discuss all ideas that may have some merit when objectively considered and discussed fully and properly. Peer review comes at the end when preliminary discussion is over.
And anyway, if Russ et al here and elsewhere watch and consider that video content as presented, irrespective of presenter/sponsor, they can give their 'peer' assessment of the facts presented, without any unscientific personal opinions as you seem to bring instead of scientific argument on the facts as presented.
Anyone trying to restrict preliminary discussion, and/or telling people to not discuss their ideas on these discussion sites, such as you've been doing since you lobbed here, has no business being allowed on such discussion sites, as they are acting against the spirit of open science discourse and the reason for being of such sites as these.
Goodbye and good luck, paddoboy.
Ignoring the rest of your deluded diatribe, perhaps you can show me where I have told anyone not to discuss there ideas here [other then in the appropriate forum of course]
I'll refute all that I see as rubbish and any one apparently suffering from delusions of grandeur, will be notified of that terrible malady.
I hope that's OK with you.
You may see me as an easy mark undefined, but I would look again if I were you.
So then that's a "yes"? Yes, you think any new idea is, by definition, non-mainstream? Well, you're wrong. Non-mainstream means not following the scientific method, not just being new.
But yes: most crackpot ideas are not scientific -- but the purveyors often think they are. Again, case-in-point, the crackpot ideas being forwarded in the physics forum here, including yours. They aren't just new (in many cases they aren't actually even new), they are not following the scientific method.
Right. Which is why your ideas and those of the other crackpots in the physics forum are non-mainstream/crackpot ideas: they don't follow the scientific method. It isn't because they are new, it is because they don't follow the scientific method. Einstein did, hence his ideas were mainstream even though they were new.
Why would I do that? What about this conversation implies to you that I would want to watch such a video?
Again, just tying up some loose ends, Russ...
An objective scientist would be only too eager to follow the alternative views/facts wherever they are presented, irrespective; especially if they may falsify existing paradigms.
You are not an objective scientist then? I had the impression you were. Sorry, my mistake. Goodbye and good luck, Russ.
An objective scientist would be only too eager to follow the alternative views/facts wherever they are presented, irrespective; especially if they may falsify existing paradigms.
You are not an objective scientist then? I had the impression you were. Sorry, my mistake. Goodbye and good luck, Russ.
No they wouldn't. An objective scientist can recognize science when he sees it and ignores non-science when he sees that. He isn't gullible and doesn't read/watch just anything anyone throws at him.
So you fancy yourself and these others to be like Einstein. Well, Einstein's ideas got accepted relatively quickly. There must be a reason why the resident crackpots haven't had their ideas accepted as fast. Perhaps you can figure it out. Tell me: what did Einstein have that you, Farsight, VictorEspinoza, Forrest Noble, and the makers of that video don't?
But, but, but....how would you know what was 'being thrown at you' if you didn't watch that video from a PhD and expert on MRI and MICROWAVES etc critiquing the COBE and WMAP data/signal processing/sources etc in an as objective and scientific manner any true objective scientist would be GLAD of the opportunity to see and assess the facts presented for himself?
You can't claim to be an objective scientist and 'know what's what' until you actually view that video and consider the facts presented by an expert in the relevant Microwave field.
Just throwing a hissy fit and saying you won't watch it just out of pique and ego is not the way of doing objective science/discourse.
Good luck.
Paddoboy told me where it came from. I'm already as familiar as I care to be with electric universe crackpot nonsense. And in any case, this isn't the thread for it. This thread is for discussion of what makes for good/bad science, not for discussion of particular theories or "theories".
Oh, well, see, you've just misunderstood (although I'm pretty sure I've told you already): I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. And we're not "doing" science in this thread or anywhere else in this forum. We're just talking about science.
Again, just tying up loose ends, Russ...
But that video has nothing at all to do with the EU matters.
The video presents an objective and pertinent scientific critique (by a relevant PhD and MRI/Microwave expert and record-holder in his field) of the COBE/WMAP methods/assumptions and conclusions etc due to 'signal processing' and other techniques used so far.
So we are not discussing any 'alternative theory' at all. It is a mainstream critique of mainstream COBE/WMAP work so far. Period. In fact, we are not discussing the details at all, are we?
I merely directed your attention to some video you might be interested to see and hear for scientific reasons. What you do afterwards, or whomever you discuss it with afterwards, is up to you. I won't be here probably, as I am just tying up some loose ends here and withdrawing from all internet forum activity (although I may read-through occasionally to see if something interesting turns up in discussion, but I doubt I will have time to post/discuss until some months have gone by, for the reasons stated already).
And if you 'take your cues' from paddoboy as to what presentation of scientific facts/ideas/critiques to view or not, then I wish you even more luck than I already did, you'll need it!
You don't have to have an 'official card' saying 'objective scientist' in order for you to follow the Objective Scientific Method for your own intellects' sake and that of your own scientifically motivated search for enlightenment. Just follow the method and follow the facts irrespective, and 'voila', you are an objective scientist in practice. However, if you feel you are being/behaving in a manner LESS than objectively scientific, then it doesn't matter whether you are an 'engineer' or a laborer, does it?
It's your call as to how far you are willing to follow the objective scientific method and follow the objective discourse of the ideas/facts irrespective of source. Anyhow, being an 'engineer' should not ipso facto disqualify/discourage you from 'doing objective science/discourse' whenever or wherever you like. Even on a science discussion site like this one!
It's up to you what you make of the opportunities for doing objective science/discourse, and the internet age has given everyone the opportunity to engage as best they can. Good luck, Russ.
But that video has nothing at all to do with the EU matters.
The video presents an objective and pertinent scientific critique (by a relevant PhD and MRI/Microwave expert and record-holder in his field) of the COBE/WMAP methods/assumptions and conclusions etc due to 'signal processing' and other techniques used so far.
So we are not discussing any 'alternative theory' at all. It is a mainstream critique of mainstream COBE/WMAP work so far. Period. In fact, we are not discussing the details at all, are we?
I merely directed your attention to some video you might be interested to see and hear for scientific reasons. What you do afterwards, or whomever you discuss it with afterwards, is up to you. I won't be here probably, as I am just tying up some loose ends here and withdrawing from all internet forum activity (although I may read-through occasionally to see if something interesting turns up in discussion, but I doubt I will have time to post/discuss until some months have gone by, for the reasons stated already).
And if you 'take your cues' from paddoboy as to what presentation of scientific facts/ideas/critiques to view or not, then I wish you even more luck than I already did, you'll need it!
You don't have to have an 'official card' saying 'objective scientist' in order for you to follow the Objective Scientific Method for your own intellects' sake and that of your own scientifically motivated search for enlightenment. Just follow the method and follow the facts irrespective, and 'voila', you are an objective scientist in practice. However, if you feel you are being/behaving in a manner LESS than objectively scientific, then it doesn't matter whether you are an 'engineer' or a laborer, does it?
It's your call as to how far you are willing to follow the objective scientific method and follow the objective discourse of the ideas/facts irrespective of source. Anyhow, being an 'engineer' should not ipso facto disqualify/discourage you from 'doing objective science/discourse' whenever or wherever you like. Even on a science discussion site like this one!
It's up to you what you make of the opportunities for doing objective science/discourse, and the internet age has given everyone the opportunity to engage as best they can. Good luck, Russ.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
An observation,
We use the term Universe to describe the wholeness in general conversation. However in equations of physical things we do not use the term universe, we say "spacetime", which has definable and defined properties.
IMO, the same argument holds for the term Time. Like the term Universe the term Time has no real meaning and in scientific experiments we do not speak of time "in between", we say "duration" (and then we use a selected type of measurement of durations).
We have really no clue about the qualities of time; "finite but bounded"? "infinite? "constant"? It has no physical attributes and actually has no place in Physics. It is a meta-physical concept. All these debatable terms can be avoided if we start using the term "duration" and use the term Time in its proper context.
http://what-is-time.info/
I just read this and have not compled digesting this. Any comments?
We use the term Universe to describe the wholeness in general conversation. However in equations of physical things we do not use the term universe, we say "spacetime", which has definable and defined properties.
IMO, the same argument holds for the term Time. Like the term Universe the term Time has no real meaning and in scientific experiments we do not speak of time "in between", we say "duration" (and then we use a selected type of measurement of durations).
We have really no clue about the qualities of time; "finite but bounded"? "infinite? "constant"? It has no physical attributes and actually has no place in Physics. It is a meta-physical concept. All these debatable terms can be avoided if we start using the term "duration" and use the term Time in its proper context.
http://what-is-time.info/
I just read this and have not compled digesting this. Any comments?
Aha. So now the claim is that something new to science is non-mainstream. How stupid is that? Every day something new happens in mainstream science. One day it was the announcement that DNA had been defined, and one some other day the human genome was sequenced. All of this is mainstream stuff arising from the speculation that began about 100 years ago about something like a crystalline macromolecule that was believed to provide the genetic fingerprint of individual organisms.
There have to be millions of examples like this. Folks even had to coin new words like "heuristics" to cover the way innovation began exploding so quickly that formulaic methodologies were not available to address highly specialized problems. One day something called the Cooley-Tukey algorithm (for computing the Discrete Fourier Transform) was announced (actually rehashing work by Gauss way before), showing drastic reductions in the number of computations required, paving the way for microprocessors to handle human intelligible signals like audio and video. Within a couple of decades, there were thousands of "heuristic algorithms" published that covered everything from operations research to finite element analysis (of systems) to forecasting weather or economics. The root of all of this was the success in developing "processing shortcuts" in the spirit of Cooley-Tukey, but each to its own specific technology. This was unfolding several decades ago when geeks were just beginning to lose the slide rules. At the time I enrolled in a course in numerical algorithms--some 10 years of so had passed since I took the "mainstream" course (how to program Simpson's rule, how to program Gaussian elimination, etc.) only now there was a text which covered something like a thousand methods which all looked to be the windfall of heuristics--and all generally directed at finding the determinant, the matrix inverse, the eigenvalue decomposition, the singular value decomposition, the power spectral density, and so on. Everything was new and changing every day. Several device mfrs. came out with DSP chips that were made to do specialized operations like the Blackman Tukey "butterfly" (something like an inner product) -- in just one clock cycle. One day an entrepreneur basically undertook a heuristic approach like this (mutivariate algorithms) and solved a financial question in 3 days, just in time to save a corporation from make a serious blunder--and operations research was born. Everyone was freewheeling--as fast as they could. I signed up for the OR course then too! Now when I look at the way efficiency is built into every modern enterprise--from the way a distributor moves goods per the "transportation problem", to the way flu vaccines are anticipated and distributed just in time, I see the fruits of all of that innovation. It's everywhere. The whole world works like this now.
That just touches very superficially on two areas that came to mind (genomics and numerical methods) as I read your comments. As you well know there are hundreds of topic areas across the hundred or so top trade journals which have all mushroomed with innovations as science evolved over the past 30 years or so.
And of course as you know all of this is mainstream. All the naysayers are really saying is "I have no idea what is going on in the world around me, so let me just start making stuff up and pretending to be an innovator" as if "becoming a scientist" is something like starting a garage band after learning three chords and claiming to have gone platinum overnight. It's dumber than a box of rocks, moronically vain, and technically vacuous. Other than than that, it's just straight up trolling.
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
Watched your link, very interesting, very detailed. I agree with the general conclusion that there really is no way to ascribe the micro-wave background as being a relic of a big bang beginning. One of the micro-wave background sources not mentioned is the galactic and intergalactic medium hydrogen HI. HI (atomic and molecular hydrogen) radiates at the same micro-wave frequency, primarily intra-galactic hydrogen. Nearly all that criticize mainstream micro-wave background conclusions, are in agreement that most or all "background" microwaves that are being observed, are either produced by the Earth or within the galaxy.
The sponsors of this speech were Electric-Universe proponents.
Although I think Plasma Cosmology has many valid criticisms of the Big Bang model such as this speech, some consider Plasma Cosmology to be similar to Electric-Universe proposals. Electric-Universe proponents, however, encompass a great many additional divergent hypothesis, many of which seem to be obviously pseudo-science. Of the few serious researches in Plasma Cosmology today, most try to distance themselves from Electric-Universe proponents for this reason, according to what I have read.
Last edited:
Huh? It was presented at an EU conference and put online by an EU website. WTF are you talking about?
Is his PhD in physics? No? Then it isn't relevant.
Yep, any objective scientist would be eager to follow any alternative hypothesis, if that alternative hypothesis were to falsify the incumbent model, or at least align with the same observations and make further predictions which are verified.
In other words align with the scientific methodology and successful peer review.
Your video obviously does not pass peer review.
Are you saying that the mainstream is doctoring findings and manufacturing a conspiracy?
I mean why wouldn't that be allowed for, at least with the WMAP findings.
Sorry, I just don't buy it.
At the risk of being called a cheerleader again, and clinging to shirt tails and apron strings, I couldn't agree more with that excellent summary.
Well put.