Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 02-10-2010, 11:39 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
Well, Alex, Craig said one of them might be wearing a fez!!
mmm I think Craig is running close to the edge of political correctness... one could read all sorts of things into such these days... never liked them myself the tassels look girly.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-10-2010, 11:43 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
mmm I think Craig is running close to the edge of political correctness... one could read all sorts of things into such these days... never liked them myself the tassels look girly.

alex
Kristian Birkeland was always photographed wearing one whilst performing experiments on plasmas whilst investigating auroras … knowledge I have gained … courtesy of the other Alex (EU).

Cheers
PS: Still, it is scientifically, politically incorrect !!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-10-2010, 11:45 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 xelasnave View Post
Yes of course Carl.
The point I am really attempting to make is I see little need to draw in Hawking ..their experiment is exciting in its own right and I feel the attempt to throw Hawking radiation into the mix really takes away from their work.

alex
You can't separate the experiment from the existence (putative or otherwise) of Hawking Radiation. That'd be like saying we can see the Sun shine, but we can't have photons being involved
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-10-2010, 11:46 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
mmm I think Craig is running close to the edge of political correctness... one could read all sorts of things into such these days... never liked them myself the tassels look girly.

alex
But if it's Cooper, at least we'll get a laugh out of it
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-10-2010, 11:48 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 CraigS View Post
Kristian Birkeland was always photographed wearing one whilst performing experiments on plasmas whilst investigating auroras … knowledge I have gained … courtesy of the other Alex (EU).

Cheers
PS: Still, it is scientifically, politically incorrect !!
That says it all...one big laugh
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-10-2010, 12:06 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
Actually, the only BH that has a formalised singularity is a non rotating BH that obeys the Schwarzchild Metric. Since BH's will be rotating (because they formed from a rotating object), the actual presence of a singularity can be called into question. If defined, the singularity will not be a point but a ring shaped object because the hole is rotating. So, the physics of the "singularity" are different and the maths describing are as well. A BH with these characteristics obeys the Kerr Metric (discovered by Roy Kerr back in the early 60's). These types of BH's are a little more complicated than your Schwarzchild hole.

In any case, if you have a complete law of quantum gravity, you can dispense with the singularity altogether because at a quantum level, the energy and mass of the hole become part of spacetime/superspace.
This is a valuable piece of information.

.. Probably the most valuable since the original post !
Thanks (again) Carl.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-10-2010, 12:09 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
If you can demonstrate (& convince the community) that the model fits the description from Wiki I forwarded you in my last post, then I would have no objections !! I'd be a believer !! (Not that this counts for much .. )



Cheers
Craig I have no desire or need to convince anyone of anything.

All that is important is that folk understand I am right and for them to also realize their approach will be no different than mine... few believe the reality they have constructed is not the best and the most correct...my study of science politics religion and humans in general suggest this to me.

I have learn t that finally even science depends a great deal upon belief and faith ...and I know folk get outraged if one suggests our science requires faith and belief but those folk must accept that even science is subject to such mechanics of interpreting our "reality". The advantage with science is there is observation and evidence to support the beliefs we arrive at... but finally a belief is born and when that belief plays in the game the evidence that brought that belief into being is not dragged out for review.. that is the beauty of belief we believe our science and the painstaking methods, experiments etc that got us to this point such that we do not need to review it daily...that is good and it is a pity that religion and politics dont follow the opposite.

AND that means ...if you accept that your belief is say gravity works via attraction then nothing I say do to prove the opposite will change your mind..because my approach offends a basic belief... (that a force of attraction is available to explain observations)..my belief is simply that the observations support push rather than attraction...much like the EU folk have a basic belief as to how it woks we all hold a basic belief..it simply comes down to belief in so many respects and belief can not be changed from external pressure it can only come from change within..a personal thing we could say...I doubt if someone from EU will all of a sudden abandon the premise of electricty controls everything because their belief turns on that point... Just as with GR inspite of its complexity there is a point of acceptance that it is valid..so we believe in it and our experiments etc support the belief that it works.

I site the arguments that go on within the realms of current and acceptable and legitimate science but upon areas less contentious... there are various views within and upon big bang theory and yet all subscribe to the idea as such but the big bang will remain a given and it is the finer points that may come into argument.. scientist will have different views even when the nature of science suggests there will only be one truth...well there is only one truth but who knows what it is really.

As to areas that suggest extreme gravity (black holes) I can only present a model of something that one can not see other than relating its presents to observations of its apparent effect on bodies nearby...

alex
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-10-2010, 12:25 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Craig I have no desire or need to convince anyone of anything.

All that is important is that folk understand I am right and for them to also realize their approach will be no different than mine... few believe the reality they have constructed is not the best and the most correct...my study of science politics religion and humans in general suggest this to me.

I have learn t that finally even science depends a great deal upon belief and faith ...and I know folk get outraged if one suggests our science requires faith and belief but those folk must accept that even science is subject to such mechanics of interpreting our "reality". The advantage with science is there is observation and evidence to support the beliefs we arrive at... but finally a belief is born and when that belief plays in the game the evidence that brought that belief into being is not dragged out for review.. that is the beauty of belief we believe our science and the painstaking methods, experiments etc that got us to this point such that we do not need to review it daily...that is good and it is a pity that religion and politics dont follow the opposite.

AND that means ...if you accept that your belief is say gravity works via attraction then nothing I say do to prove the opposite will change your mind..because my approach offends a basic belief... (that a force of attraction is available to explain observations)..my belief is simply that the observations support push rather than attraction...much like the EU folk have a basic belief as to how it woks we all hold a basic belief..it simply comes down to belief in so many respects and belief can not be changed from external pressure it can only come from change within..a personal thing we could say...I doubt if someone from EU will all of a sudden abandon the premise of electricty controls everything because their belief turns on that point... Just as with GR inspite of its complexity there is a point of acceptance that it is valid..so we believe in it and our experiments etc support the belief that it works.

I site the arguments that go on within the realms of current and acceptable and legitimate science but upon areas less contentious... there are various views within and upon big bang theory and yet all subscribe to the idea as such but the big bang will remain a given and it is the finer points that may come into argument.. scientist will have different views even when the nature of science suggests there will only be one truth...well there is only one truth but who knows what it is really.

As to areas that suggest extreme gravity (black holes) I can only present a model of something that one can not see other than relating its presents to observations of its apparent effect on bodies nearby...

alex
Oh boy … here we go again .. !
I've mellowed a bit lately, Alex .. probably a result of eating a bit of humble pie over the last couple of weeks. Also from wrangling with Bert who has no room for faith (especially in Science) and Carl, who believes life can exist on an exoplanet in a 'habitable zone' and Alex (EU) who's into modelling.

So I think I might not bite this time !!


Let me ask ya a useful question … Do you think IIS would benefit from having an Alternative Science Forum, which would allow your kinds of ideas to develop and be tempered ?

I know some consider this heresy but its only a question to one of those who I can see might enjoy such a forum.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-10-2010, 12:28 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised View Post
You can't separate the experiment from the existence (putative or otherwise) of Hawking Radiation. That'd be like saying we can see the Sun shine, but we can't have photons being involved
I wish I felt confidence enough to disagree Carl.
Consider this however.
Say we did not have Prf H's input and at this point we know nothing of Hawking radiation..what then?
Well we have an observation that does not have to be interpreted in the context of HR......
alex
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-10-2010, 12:48 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
I wish I felt confidence enough to disagree Carl.
Consider this however.
Say we did not have Prf H's input and at this point we know nothing of Hawking radiation..what then?
Well we have an observation that does not have to be interpreted in the context of HR......
alex
Hang on a minute …
That's not even a valid thought exercise !
These guys are querying into whether predictions from Hawking can be verified, or not.
Your thought exercise is mixing different phases of the process up and then trying to compare the results ?? This process is illogical !

Cheers
PS: Bit at that one !! Ain't lost the passion, yet !!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:04 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
I have learn t that finally even science depends a great deal upon belief and faith ...and I know folk get outraged if one suggests our science requires faith and belief but those folk must accept that even science is subject to such mechanics of interpreting our "reality". The advantage with science is there is observation and evidence to support the beliefs we arrive at... but finally a belief is born and when that belief plays in the game the evidence that brought that belief into being is not dragged out for review.. that is the beauty of belief we believe our science and the painstaking methods, experiments etc that got us to this point such that we do not need to review it daily...that is good and it is a pity that religion and politics dont follow the opposite.
That's your belief Alex not science. This is circular logic also employed by the other Alex who suggests that mainstream science operates like a belief base system through mathematics, but then we spend billions of dollars on experiment and observation. By doing that we are actually questioning the theory, so it cannot by definition be based on belief in the first place.

What's this about reviewing experiment/observation daily? If you don't like the answer then let's just continue the experiment/observation in the hope it's wrong and it comes up with an answer that supports our own beliefs.

It appears you are projecting your own prejudices on science.

Regards

Steven
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:18 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
Oh boy … here we go again .. !
I've mellowed a bit lately, Alex .. probably a result of eating a bit of humble pie over the last couple of weeks. Also from wrangling with Bert who has no room for faith (especially in Science) and Carl, who believes life can exist on an exoplanet in a 'habitable zone' and Alex (EU) who's into modelling.

So I think I might not bite this time !!


Let me ask ya a useful question … Do you think IIS would benefit from having an Alternative Science Forum, which would allow your kinds of ideas to develop and be tempered ?

I know some consider this heresy but its only a question to one of those who I can see might enjoy such a forum.

Cheers
I think an Alternative Science section sounds appealing but I feel the reason for implementing such is the only matter that needs to be addressed.

AND that reason has more to do with managing personalities as opposed to doing something constructive with alternatives available.

I believe no one even in this most wonderful age has all the answers irrespective of the evidence they present.

GR EU or PU probably all hint at a truth we will never arrive at...

I am always suspicious of someone who believes they really have all the answers and even more suspicious of someone who explains all in the context of their beliefs to the exclusion of alternatives..that is a religious approach and when science becomes dogmatic it becomes even less than religion.

the problem for humans not science but the way humans site their beliefs as solid science...how many folk site GR and dont have a clue whats contained in the 11 field equations..they believe it is right on others views not their own investigation.... and I am not saying GR is not correct but how many folk understand it..few..
Science is as it is and how we interpret observations is what we need to be careful about...and clearly irrespective of your universe we all have the propensity to cherry pick to establish our view over others... GR is as guilty as Eu in my view but it is the people not the science where the problem lays.

I think this forum works very well simply because it enables folk with different approaches to interact... I think we have a wide selection of people who read or participate... and therefore learn of others views and approaches...

Folk think science is infallible (and it is without humans) such that anything that suggests that the humans working upon that science were wrong means we need an alternative...when in truth there will be only one truth... I like to think that science unlike religion and politics is open to various interpretations.

Big bang is a theory with a great deal of evidence in support and is right or wrong but how will we ever know...we can not so to hold anything as alternative suggests BB is fact beyond question... I dont think science can be happy with closing off inquirey and to settle upon something as fact is stupid.

This forum only suffers from folk getting upset with others not accepting the view they present as correct... I dont care if my views are not accepted and I dont need to destroy the EU in order to push a PU or a GR universe... I like to think I can learn something from everyone who makes a comment... be that a a fact or to observe good or objectionable behavior ... live and let live, treat all with respect irrespective of your belief that they are wrong or right.

If I were to only be involved in say alternative science sites (alternative cosmology site is a great example) I would become opposed to GR and never learn about it ... I am sure GR Eu and PU all have something of value so segregating "science beliefs" may not be useful to me personally.

Being mellow is good to provide the patience to suffer a view one can find offensive to held beliefs and maybe give time to hold respect for the presenter of even for the craziest of ideas...
alex
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:43 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Alex;

There are so many things I don't agree with in your response that I just think I'll stick with this point (for the moment):

Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
I think an Alternative Science section sounds appealing but I feel the reason for implementing such is the only matter that needs to be addressed.

AND that reason has more to do with managing personalities as opposed to doing something constructive with alternatives available.
I understand your perspective and appreciate your thoughts.
Let me now present a couple of the reasons I see, (as distinct from your assumptions on my reasons):

- those developing alternative ideas should have the right to do this, in an environment which allows them to do so. Sometimes, most of these ideas are not well formed and these 'ideas' folk know it. This constantly gets interpreted by mainstreamers as matured thinking, which was never the intent;

- mainstream science is far more advanced in this regard and thus, has much of the 'ideas' and 'process', ground already covered. People would like to further their knowledge in mainstream science and would like to do this without having to regress into philosophical debate every time a new mainstream concept presents itself.

It would seem that separation of the two would provide far more satisfaction and a more efficient learning environment for both camps.

I'm sure I can think of many more reasons but these are the first, now that I've had a ponder.

It all depends on the views of the community. Astronomy and Astrophysics on the other hand, may be the only interest of the IIS folk. Somehow, I also feel the community interactions about non-Astronomy topics, hint at the likely interest in other topics.

A forum with a separate header such as "Alternative Ideas", at least, sets the expectations of the readers/posters before they step into something with other assumptions in mind.

Cheers & Rgds.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:46 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
[QUOTE=sjastro;641180]That's your belief Alex not science. This is circular logic also employed by the other Alex who suggests that mainstream science operates like a belief base system through mathematics, but then we spend billions of dollars on experiment and observation. By doing that we are actually questioning the theory, so it cannot by definition be based on belief in the first place.

I can see your point Steven and I am not in disagreement at all...
other than my approach is nothing like Alex EU...

What's this about reviewing experiment/observation daily? If you don't like the answer then let's just continue the experiment/observation in the hope it's wrong and it comes up with an answer that supports our own beliefs.

My point is we believe or more correctly know what we have arrived at to date is valid (because of the reasons you out line) and needs no review but is material we can rely upon to carry us forward and in this context I say that is our belief is science..we know its been done correctly and tested via math and reviewed by a peer group who can point out any error in the steps we take...so we believe (and entitled to do so) that to the current point we are on solid ground... GR holds true etc so we dont have to question that belief daily, we know what is there has been reviewed tested etc which enables us to believe we are on solid ground... our belief is simply that we have assembled stuff correctly to date.

I do not have the problem with math folk attribute to me...I believe for goodness sake... I made a comment once that math proves the premise and I dont sort through the math because I know (or believe the math will be supportive etc) that is a statement that I accept the maths without question really as backing up a premise and the folk doing the math are absolutely credible.


It appears you are projecting your own prejudices on science.

I deny I hold any prejudices on science or anything or anyone for that matter. I do accept I can be misunderstood ...but remeber this Steven my questions have been to seek answers rather than to destroy anything and you have always been helpful. It worries me that you perceive me same as ALEX EU that is not my style



alex
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-10-2010, 01:54 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post

I deny I hold any prejudices on science or anything or anyone for that matter. I do accept I can be misunderstood ...but remeber this Steven my questions have been to seek answers rather than to destroy anything and you have always been helpful. It worries me that you perceive me same as ALEX EU that is not my style

alex
Alex;

Does it worry you to have your views referred to as pseudoscientific views?

(Just wondering).

Cheers

Last edited by CraigS; 02-10-2010 at 03:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-10-2010, 02:05 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
Alex;

There are so many things I don't agree with in your response that I just think I'll stick with this point (for the moment):



I understand your perspective and appreciate your thoughts.
Let me now present a couple of the reasons I see, (as distinct from your assumptions on my reasons):

- those developing alternative ideas should have the right to do this, in an environment which allows them to do so. Sometimes, most of these ideas are not well formed and these 'ideas' folk know it. This constantly gets interpreted by mainstreamers as matured thinking, which was never the intent;

- mainstream science is far more advanced in this regard and thus, has much of the 'ideas' and 'process', ground already covered. People would like to further their knowledge in mainstream science and would like to do this without having to regress into philosophical debate every time a new mainstream concept presents itself.

It would seem that separation of the two would provide far more satisfaction and a more efficient learning environment for both camps.

I'm sure I can think of many more reasons but these are the first, now that I've had a ponder.

It all depends on the views of the community. Astronomy and Astrophysics on the other hand, may be the only interest of the IIS folk. Somehow, I also feel the community interactions about non-Astronomy topics, hint at the likely interest in other topics.

A forum with a separate header such as "Alternative Ideas", at least, sets the expectations of the readers/posters before they step into something with other assumptions in mind.

Cheers & Rgds.
You certainly present a compelling proposition Craig.

I like less rather than more.

I can see how professionals could be frustrated by folk with only a casual interest however if one were to open a thread on say ..er push gravity..then I am sure that title would alert professionals to stay away... and I know often they can not resist such a interesting concept...or EU how interesting that such a body of thought is out there...
AND it is good to have folk like Carl, Steven, Bojan and your good self to say hold on consider this or that...

I mean if in general chat I read a title "2012 the end of the world" that would flag for me not to open it and bother myself about all that 2012 crap and the foolishness that is drawn to it.

This forum runs rather well and although we may see each other as having different or conflicting views I think it is all good. I dont mind reading Carl' and ALexEU going at it... I dont mind seeing a little passion in a subject usually associated with dullness... I learn a great deal from here and think IIS is perfect beyond improvement I guess.

alex
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-10-2010, 02:09 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
ALSo maybe by having laymen engage a professional it could remind the professional that they may also require skills of argument and presentation that shows them in a better light such that folk understand the valuable work that is being done in science... science journalism perhaps causes problems that someone here can dispel.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-10-2010, 02:36 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
[QUOTE=CraigS;641195]
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Alex;

Does it worry you to have your views referred to as pseudoscientific views?

(Just wondering).

Cheers
A simple answer would be yes in so far as I do feel folk give me little credit to the reading and attempts I make to understand science and my insistence upon scientific method... so it hurts I guess when folk think you are the opposite.. I dont buy anything unless it has evidence proof etc...I present my ideas but have always recognized their lack of science method and called them ideas and speculation

I have always presented my ideas as ideas and speculation with absolute recognition of scientific method and requirement.

My outbursts against inflation theory and dark matter is because I believe scientific method has been thrown out...Similarly I get upset that string theory is called such as it has no support via experiment or observation..to me it is no more than speculation and no matter how grand the math string theory fails to provide the basic requirements of scientific theory but I accept that I am getting caught up in the words used and that is silly. But these folk should know better than me that they speculate and what they present is not theory... I cant call my speculation theory why can they...and you are a string theory guy... no problems but I would call upon you to help me past how they get away with calling it theory...

As to my ideas being stupid I did say the pioneer would slow and they did...but that is treated as a mere guess.. I took a long time to make the call and having got it correct feel proud that I did... I feel I offer a reasonable explanation as to the Sun's corona which is dismissed without any other explanation on the books ... I say attraction has never been established as a force scientifically and that is a fact in my view. There is no experiment that prooves such a force...AND if attraction is real how does it work... Steven is the only person to offer a basis and experiment for attraction and I have asked that question over and over for years...so I find saying attraction is a force without an experiment objectionable... and although I disagree that the observations in Stevens experiment shows attraction it was wonderful to get a starting point on that aspect.

I dont find speculation upon a gravitational field consisting of some type of particle (push u) anymore difficult to accept than to speculate that dark matter is a given... I do not think GR and PU are in conflict.

Nothing worries me Craig but I do regard all here as very good friends and so when they think I am something I am not I feel "hurt" they dont understand the real me....


Still we have another thread running off the point and it is my fault...sorry my friends.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-10-2010, 02:57 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post

A simple answer would be yes in so far as I do feel folk give me little credit to the reading and attempts I make to understand science and my insistence upon scientific method... so it hurts I guess when folk think you are the opposite.. I dont buy anything unless it has evidence proof etc...I present my ideas but have always recognized their lack of science method and called them ideas and speculation.
I intended no offence nor did I want to hurt you, in any way. The question requires a knowledge of what defines 'pseudoscience', in order to answer it.

Quote:
.Similarly I get upset that string theory is called such as it has no support via experiment or observation..to me it is no more than speculation and no matter how grand the math string theory fails to provide the basic requirements of scientific theory

.. I cant call my speculation theory why can they…
I don't know what to call string theory. However Steven pointed out the other day that whilst String Theory hasn't resulted in any testable predications, he did say something like:

"While we cannot directly observe the strings that make up String Theory, the effects of the strings may make the theory falsifiable.
For example QFT is unable to nail down the precise mass of the Higgs boson, but String Theory is able to accomplish this.
Is this analogous to the electron example? This is the debate."

I also found this the other day


Quote:
I dont find speculation upon a gravitational field consisting of some type of particle (push u) anymore difficult to accept than to speculate that dark matter is a given... I do not think GR and PU are in conflict.
I don't think it bothers me … like it did a few weeks ago .. does this mean I've mellowed, yet again ?

Quote:
Nothing worries me Craig but I do regard all here as very good friends and so when they think I am something I am not I feel "hurt" they dont understand the real me….
We only know you from what you write. Same goes for allof us… we are disembodied beings … minds driving keyboards in the aether ..

Quote:
Still we have another thread running off the point and it is my fault...sorry my friends.
alex
No worries … it was my thread. !!


Cheers, Regards and, I kind of enjoy rappin' with you !
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-10-2010, 03:18 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice posing as science, but which does not constitute or adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1]

Pseudoscience has been characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[2] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[2]

By one account, being able to tell science apart from "pseudo-science, such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition"[3][4] is part of gaining scientific literacy. There is, however, disagreement among philosophers of science and commentators in the scientific community as to whether there is a reliable way of distinguishing pseudoscience from non-mainstream science.[5][6

The bold type probably catches me

alex
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement