Announcing ... 'Dark Flow'

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by alpal

There are plenty of ideas:
here's a recent short paper:

An Explanation for Galaxy Rotation
Rates without Requiring Dark Matter

http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0218v2.pdf

The author (Declan Traill) just manages 3 pages, inserts a one sentence conclusion and includes a massive list of references numbering two, both of which are authored by Declan himself. There is even a URL reference to some Wikipedia data.

I didnt realise that this article existed.

I am convinced - totally

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

The author (Declan Traill) just manages 3 pages, inserts a one sentence conclusion and includes a massive list of references numbering two, both of which are authored by Declan himself. There is even a URL reference to some Wikipedia data.

I didnt realise that this article existed.

I am convinced - totally

You are not required to be convinced -
you only need to know that there are about 200 different theories
about dark matter including some which
say that it doesn't exist at all.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by alpal

You are not required to be convinced -
you only need to know that there are about 200 different theories
about dark matter including some which
say that it doesn't exist at all.

there are also many theories concerning the geometrical shape of the earth

Do you sieve through them one by one before you settle on the most plausible or scientifically supported theory?

I really need to know this alpha

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

there are also many theories concerning the geometrical shape of the earth

Do you sieve through them one by one before you settle on the most plausible or scientifically supported theory?

I really need to know this alpha

No - I just post a link to something which may be of interest in this thread.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

there are also many theories concerning the geometrical shape of the earth

Do you sieve through them one by one before you settle on the most plausible or scientifically supported theory?

I really need to know this alpha

Hi Peter it is so nice to have you back.
I sincerely hope you are well and life is good for you.
I can answer your question but it is probably not very mainstream.
Of course you sort thru and pick your favorite "theory" particularly if it supports your view of cosmology.
I know a chap who has a paper using an ether and because I have always liked the ether idea if I was to refer to any paper it would be his.
The only trouble is his idea on ether is different to mine but what do you do.
He has shot himself in the foot really calling his "theory" an ether theory because mainstream dont need it and dont like it because the current model did away with the need and I think it causes frame problems but I dont understand so dont ask me to comment.
I have been hanging out at sciforums of late where they get all types, it is different to here.
Here we are nice to each other but over there they throw mud as if the world had unlimited supply. They get many folk who get to be called cranks who attack mainstream and then the mainstreamers attack them anger is common insults common and bullying common.
It is indeed a fun place. And you can discuss religion and politics and even ghosts and ufos.
So you get some strange folk.
If you like to question the unquestionable it is the best.
There is one guy who holds ligo was fake, gravity b probe was fake and another who thinks we never went to the Moon. But they put up a lot of science news.
Anyways when you select your favorite "theory" in a too selective way it is called "cherry picking" and really it is the way to go because with it and the net you can gather "facts" to support anything you like or attack anything you dont like.
Over there they were getting into a ligo is isnt thing but the main opponent just got banned for continued insults to me. Does not like me and I think he is a sock puppet of a guy who believes I am the anti christ. So it takes all types I just never thought I would find them all in the one place.
Good to see you back I hope things are better this time around.
Alex

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

so Alex, you seriously gave the Flat earth theory some rigorous attention before you decided to dismiss it as a plausible theory to include in your final top 3 candidates?

I dismissed the tetrahedral Earth geometry right off the bat, but gave the cone shaped earth theory some consideration - about 3 minutes. Both these theories didnt make my op 3 though Alex.

You have a lot of explaining to do my friend.

I leave the joint for 5 minutes and you run amok with metaphysical and surrealistically distorted nonsense.

[xelasnave]

Well the problem is this Peter.
I understand cosmology better than other humans and given I am so far ahead of the current mainstream concensus it would seem arrogant on my part to present models which probably wont be embraced by main stream for at least three or four centuries.

But I will give you a hint.
The model that has the Universe atop of a giant turtle supported by massive piers is closer to the reality than you may imagine.
But keep that to yourself, I only returned to this century because I forgot my glasses on an earlier trip and now I cant find my keys to my phone box.
I just want to leave before the..... Opps I cant tell you the fate of the planet you would only find that depressing.
Xela

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Well the problem is this Peter.
I understand cosmology better than other humans and given I am so far ahead of the current mainstream concensus it would seem arrogant on my part to present models which probably wont be embraced by main stream for at least three or four centuries.

But I will give you a hint.
The model that has the Universe atop of a giant turtle supported by massive piers is closer to the reality than you may imagine.
But keep that to yourself, I only returned to this century because I forgot my glasses on an earlier trip and now I cant find my keys to my phone box.
I just want to leave before the..... Opps I cant tell you the fate of the planet you would only find that depressing.
Xela

...deep down inside, everybody knows the fate of the planet

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

...deep down inside, everybody knows the fate of the planet

Have you asked everybody or are you extrapolating upon a unpublished survey?

Try thinking "Independence day" with an unhappy ending or the turtle going well er going turtle up.
Alex

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

The author (Declan Traill) just manages 3 pages, inserts a one sentence conclusion and includes a massive list of references numbering two, both of which are authored by Declan himself. There is even a URL reference to some Wikipedia data.

I didnt realise that this article existed.

I am convinced - totally

Upon re-reading -
do you have your own theory which we can all put to the test
or do you just want to criticise other people?

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Have you asked everybody or are you extrapolating upon a unpublished survey?

Try thinking "Independence day" with an unhappy ending or the turtle going well er going turtle up.
Alex

some things are just innate - science isnt really needed for validation. In fact science sometimes hinders the emergence of truth and contaminates the reality ether to the point where it is totally unrecognisable.

The truly important properties and aspects related to awareness and truth are independent of the scientific process.

Scientists, especially Physicists aren't fooling anyone. They should admit the religious aspects of their church and apologise to their congregations and to the public in general.

[xelasnave]

Science is not about truth upon my understanding, it is better than that.

It may seem well hidden but the idea is that science is never really sure about anything in so far as, unlike religions, it is allways ready to embrace a new model.

Now we could be harse and critisize our physisist friends but it is their task to develop the existing models and what may flow from them and demand any proposed new model answer the unanswered problems in the old model and make better testable predictions and ensure we will need more physicists to run the new model.

Well I threw in the last bit to make you happy but you can believe that part if you wish.

And of course we can to a degree parallel the institution of science with the institution of the church in the regard that science has rules, and proceedures which can be treated as somewhat sacred in so far as if we do not follow certain rules and proceedures we will be cursed in that we will lose a system that slowly but surely enables us to peel back the layers of ignorance and show a reality which without science would always remain hidden from us.

And I certainly agree physicists are not fooling anyone because they publish their findings, which means their peers will expose all and any mistake, so their work ultimately is entirely exposed to the public.

And indeed they should appologise for being so demanding of any model presented and cause progress to be slowed just because they see fit to insist upon everything being as correct as possible.

As always Peter we are in complete agreement but your hero worship I say is not misplaced.

Alex

[Stonius (Markus)]

I think one of the most revealing properties of religion is that over time, it tends towards divergence in what is considered 'true', where over time, science tends towards consensus.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Science is not about truth upon my understanding, it is better than that.

"nothing else matters" (Metallica)

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

"nothing else matters" (Metallica)

Dependable wisdom from a rock band from the eighties.
Kill em all

Alex

[xelasnave]

Kill em all (metalica)
Just to clear up any confusion there Peter.
I have been thinking maybe we could start a new thread and discuss the "issues" surrounding mainstream science.
You seem to be a blinkered supporter of mainstream so it would be good to have you participate and defend the possible criticism .
I have been following a discussion in which the point has been raised that maths has been wrongfully elevated. And concern was expressed that "science" is difficult to get into and the person presenting that view hinted that if you did not "toe the line" you would have no chance.
Look to prevent us causing this thread to go off topic I will open a new thread so I hope you can join me.
Alex

[xelasnave]

I have started a new thread.
Alex

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Kill em all (metalica)
Just to clear up any confusion there Peter.
I have been thinking maybe we could start a new thread and discuss the "issues" surrounding mainstream science.
You seem to be a blinkered supporter of mainstream so it would be good to have you participate and defend the possible criticism .
I have been following a discussion in which the point has been raised that maths has been wrongfully elevated. And concern was expressed that "science" is difficult to get into and the person presenting that view hinted that if you did not "toe the line" you would have no chance.
Look to prevent us causing this thread to go off topic I will open a new thread so I hope you can join me.
Alex

not a bad idea

however, it is far more effective when a global approach is taken and any objections to science and its methods and conclusions are inserted in the appropriate thread, within the appropriate forum section at the appropriate time....in the fullness of time.

we wouldn't want to isolate this very critical narrative to an obscure section of this fine establishment now would we xelA? A form of cognitive sterilisation

(that's what religious organisations do)

[xelasnave]

Actually Peter the thread I referred to at the other forum has raised very interesting points, some reminds me of things you have said in the past.
It does not upset me but science has changed over the years from the individual working away all alone to finally come up with something really great whereas these days it seems only big teams who are funded have a chance.
Alex

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Actually Peter the thread I referred to at the other forum has raised very interesting points, some reminds me of things you have said in the past.
It does not upset me but science has changed over the years from the individual working away all alone to finally come up with something really great whereas these days it seems only big teams who are funded have a chance.
Alex

have a chance to do what?

Do you know of a single idea that has emerged from more than one person?

Even in the team and partnership environment ideas emerge from individuals. The advantage of teams is that complex problems requiring different skill sets and disciplines can be tackled.

My issue is not with the scientific method or the techniques used but rather the politicisation and especially the corporatisation of scientific funding leading to mediocre goal settings and avoidance of Big Ideas and dream type challenges.

The CD laser disk was invented over 40 years ago by a researcher in a Philips lab even though there was no use for it. The Researcher (James Russell) was often asked "why would anyone need so much memory capacity on an expensive thin disk spinning so fast?"

In today's environment not many projects are funded that dont have short to medium term applications. Too much risk - and when I say risk I mean stock-market-corporate risk to share holders. And this mentality has transferred itself to government policy, academia and other research bodies.

Of course there are exceptions and individual researchers and inventors working independently - but there is only so much that can be done without proper funds and access to equipment/laboratories etc.

Generally I find the scientific community a little boring these days and need to dig very deep to find interesting research.

Paul Dirac gets a Nobel prize over 80 years ago for work done in a PhD completed in his early 20s (Dirac actually predicted the existence of an anti-electron purely based on theoretical work). Compare that to a recent Nobel Prize won by a few scientists for inventing the blue LED.

Countries such as China and India are more likely to fund radical scientific research projects than countries like the USA. Ironically, this may motivate Western nations to be a little bit more bold in scientific funding (like they used to be)

cheers