View Single Post
  #30  
Old 22-05-2011, 11:42 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by overlord View Post
LOL. Someone on this thread said I don't understand science. Funny that, since not only AM I a scientist with degree from the University of Melbourne, but I have also undertaken extensive research in the history and philosophy of science, so I am aware of certain of the ins and outs. I am also in my eleventh full time year of university and am wrapping up a Phd, which is actually my third university degree.

But that's right, most people are sycophants and suck-ups to the people on television who grow beards (yes they do), in order to get research grants since that makes them look like mystical elders. They assume they are right because they see themselves as low in the hierarchy and unqualified to discuss 'sacred physics' which becomes religious for them. Thus Hawking and other nutters who believe in such fraudulent ideas as 'dark matter' are called upon to explain the origins of the universe.... as if they knew, and millions of parrots actually believe them. BELIEF without REASON is not science. Science has always been about asking questions and analysis. Nothing these cosmologists do is in anyway falsifiable, and is therfore highly theoretical and unscientific. On the other hand, astrology developed empirically.

P.S.

I forgot to say that it's hard to understand that article without knowledge of this. Many of the Ptolemaic aspects were improved by Johannes Kepler, an excellent scientist who developed orbital laws, and noticed that certain aspects could be bisected with resultant weather changes on earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_aspect

We currently experienced some very hard aspects which shut down solar activity with the result of primary agriculturist commodities tripping in value in the late 2000s.
Just because you have a degree or two, and are working towards a PhD doesn't mean you understand what science is about. You've obviously abandoned all of your critical faculties to pursue a hobby horse which from what I can tell you've held even before your academic career. So, you're trying to "use" science in order to prove your preconceived notions. That's not how science works, despite what your delusions about it might tell you. As so far as Hawking et.al. are concerned, their ideas wouldn't have been accepted as workable theories if they weren't able to be falsified. The simple fact that they are theories means they've passed various tests of falsifiability and have been accepted...so how can they be "unscientific". If you actually knew anything about how science works, as you claim to, you would know that a hypothesis is what the preliminary step in the falsification of any scientific idea is. That's where it maybe unscientific or not....a theory is an accepted premise, no matter how controversial it is. It is also a tested premise and so has been falsified to the best of the ability of science at the time. However, what is unscientific is the nonsense you're trying to peddle in these posts. I don't need to list the number of studies which have been carried out on this subject to be able to say, in all confidence, that what you're trying to justify is nothing more than snake oil. I've encountered a few people such as yourself in my time that try and use science to prove wholly unsupported and discredited nonsense, thinking that because they've managed to get through university and obtained a degree or two, that somehow makes them qualified to rewrite science in their own image, so to speak. I suggest that if you want to go write science fiction, then go do so. Leave the real science up to those that actually know what they're doing and have taken the time to understand what it's on about.