Our science section...

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by marki

Mark perhaps you have been abducted by aliens. Scientific method is of course paramount to any argument presented here. As I said educate not belittle and eradicate.

Mark

Reckon you could be right there Mark (#1); haven't felt like I've fitted-in for some time now. LOL

...I was gonna say something about that episode of South Park when Cartman had an alien...never mind!!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Crackpot theories by definition are logically inconsistent and doesn't reflect on the complexity and/or unorthodoxy of the theory.
Perhaps the term "revolutionary" is more apt.

BTW welcome back.
Where have you been?

Steven

Yeah, revolutionary is probably better.

Thanks Steven.....been busy with uni work. Next semester is going to be really busy, so I probably won't be on too often...have a pilot project/dissertation to produce. I've also been taking things easy...had been a little off colour for awhile at the end of last year and needed a break.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Reckon Carl got a little side-tracked by a FNQ lady.

How are the studies going???

I wish

Keeping me busy...just finished an assignment...early btw, so I have a little time on my hands at present.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Carl,
Agree whole-heartedly!
Great to see you back on the forums.

Regards, Rob.

Thanks, Rob

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by marki

Yes it's good to see you back Carl. Mark perhaps you have been abducted by aliens. Scientific method is of course paramount to any argument presented here. As I said educate not belittle and eradicate.

Mark

Thanks, Mark

He was....I was actually talking to the Greys that abducted him, a couple of weeks ago. The captain and the head doctor on their ship told me that he was a pain in the butt....especially when he used their own anal probe on themselves!!!

[avandonk]

I have been following this discussion. Science is not just plodding logically through the cowpats to get to the understanding of phenomena that are generally far more complex and subtle in their linkages to everything else than we usually understand . It takes rather large intuitive leaps to make major breakthroughs. But then the real hard work begins to show that your 'leap' is real.

The only thing that really works is evidence based science. Conjecture has to be backed by experiment. Generally if a theory cannot predict further effects or consequences that can be observed or tested it is about as good as the existence of the Easter Bunny. A cute theory that a rabbit leaves chicken eggs and chocolate eggs. The only ones that fall for the 'proof' are small children that do not yet know they are being deceived.

What still amazes me that there are people who barely understand just the basics of 'known' mathematics and physics and then glibly expound theories that supposedly 'solve' some of the big problems. There is nothing wrong with expounding these theories but listening and understanding to any valid critical assessment of these so called theories is also part of the game. Blindly ignoring valid criticism is bordering on delusion.

Yes there are 'scientists' with a personal ownership of current paradigms. If the evidence is strong enough it will overcome even these stubborn guardians of the 'truth'.

I don't know how many times I have heard young scientists say 'X by dying has contributed more to his field than he did in all of his life'.

I will stop now.

Alright a joke that a very famous scientist told me a long time ago.

He said to me at some drinking party ' It is not until your prostate is bigger than your brain is when you can be invited to become a member of The Royal Society'

So all you girls out there no matter how smart, you will never qualify!

I just realized you can qualify by having a brain bigger than their combined prostates.

Bert

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

What still amazes me that there are people who barely understand just the basics of 'known' mathematics and physics and then glibly expound theories that supposedly 'solve' some of the big problems. There is nothing wrong with expounding these theories but listening and understanding to any valid critical assessment of these so called theories is also part of the game. Blindly ignoring valid criticism is bordering on delusion.

Bert

I agree with your comment, but only in-part: Conversely, Mathematics can be used at detriment; I have seen many an idea posted as theory in mathematical form however, unless it is observed in natural state or experimentally, it is pure fantasy also. Mathematics, to me, is so plastic that almost anything can be postulated. Any idea in itself, including the supporting mathematics, is pure speculation, until show otherwise.

I once viewed mathematics was an absolute. Now I see it merely as a tool, no different than the language of English or indeed an engineering drawing...it is purely another form of communication of thought.

I know that you already know this; I just wanted to add to the conversation.

Lastly, the term I used above "experimentally" must also be viewed with skeptical analysis, because if something is NOT naturally occurring in nature, why should we offer it validity if created at the hand of man. We can never, ever, truly know if some particle - for instance - ever really existed at the beginning of the universe, even if our theories say it is so and we do see it materialise in a collider somewhere (ie are we entangled with the experiment and deriving a product of our choosing, which the universe has never seen before anyway). Such a particle should only ever be offered a status of 'Possible Particle' because mere existence of entanglement means we are always subject to interference, perhaps even some sort of [dynamic] creative interference.

[higginsdj]

Unfortunately, the 'crackpots' who define original 'real' science breakthroughs are very few and far between. They are far outweighed in number by the true crackpot who will usually mix real science with quasi science (and fantasy) to justify themselves. Unfortunately there are few, perhaps very few people on this list who could come up with real arguments against their science - and in any case, arguing/discussing/reasoning with these people is typically a waste of time in any case!

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Unfortunately, the 'crackpots' who define original 'real' science breakthroughs are very few and far between. They are far outweighed in number by the true crackpot who will usually mix real science with quasi science (and fantasy) to justify themselves. Unfortunately there are few, perhaps very few people on this list who could come up with real arguments against their science - and in any case, arguing/discussing/reasoning with these people is typically a waste of time in any case!

Cheers

Good point.

Those crackpots are the likes of Witten, Einstein, Hawking, Tesla etc...they have the ability to look beyond the horizon and see things clearly that most of us can't even contemplate.

[Nesti (Mark)]

If you're of the opinion that the fruit-cake crack-pots only target the science community; you're mistaken!

I like to think I'm a fairly open minded person but have a read of the TOOL who posted on one of my clips. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2cN2ff_Sec


He's polite...and so shall I be...but damn!!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

fruit-cake crack-pots only target the science community

They target anything they have an opinion on, if you could call their nonsense, opinion

[renormalised (Carl)]

I just posted a comment to that twit on your YouTube vid.

Excellent glider!!!!!

Went pretty damn high up there!!!.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

They target anything they have an opinion on, if you could call their nonsense, opinion

Thanks, just crank up the 'God Botherer' why don't ya...Ozmeisterman.

Nice one!


Anyhow, back to the subject at hand...what's wrong with 'General and Astronomical Science'?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Yep...back on topic...nothing wrong with the present title for the forum. Seems to cover the gamut of what is being discussed here.

[xelasnave]

I did not mean for my post to suggest that our science section should entertain crackpot ideas... and I know so many of you feel I offer only crackpot ideas as to gravity but in my defence I really do not think I make any leaps in logic and only base my comments upon observations I make using a mechanical mechanism to explain what is before me...I always seek a tangible and supportable machinery when considering anything.....
I do note that if you disagree with "GR" or "big bang" then the term crack pot is wheeled out immediately and given the weight of credibility both these theories enjoy it is perhaps reasonable to assume anyone who would dare seek an alternative to such solid science is indeed a crack pot...

However any theory or position that needs to defend its right to exist by first destroying the character of the "thinker" rather than to confront and engage the fundamentals of the premise of the hypothisis presented is unfortunate as no doubt it is the idea that is up for review rather than the personality traits of the proposer of the idea under consideration.

I certainly hope the new name for our "science" section works as a place where the real scientist and those with a mere casual interest can discuss ideas and findings they feel may be of interest to others members.

alex

[shane.mcneil]

Astronomy and General Science seems OK to me. Especially as this website is here to promote Astronomy.

Just my observations re the discussions. I find it is not so much what people say that worries me but it is knowing how qualified they are to say it or what they are basing it on. I tend to read everything critically and to look at multiple sources for verificataion. But I do feel that ideas shouldn't be squashed. Even an erroneaous point can send people down paths that they may not have thought of.

Think criticially is my motto.

Shane

PS "It is good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out." As the wise lady said.

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Good Lord Alex, SEE WHAT YOU DID?

[xelasnave]

I thought this may be helpful for folk who have a "theory" or "a belief".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavP...eature=related

AND useful when considering if certain ideas before us, that are offerred as cutting edge science, are "playing the game"...

You all know my problems in accepting various "ideas" for example...dark matter..and indeed some "theories" ..my major problem with big bang comes from the presentation of an idea (inflation) as a theory...I can not help feeling these (above) "theories" fail the basic tests set out in this simple coverage of the scientific method.

I have always presented my ideas as ideas and never as "theory" simply because I do recognise the requirements of the scientific method.... the closest I have come to a sucessful prediction relates to the pioneer craft but I always recognised that without the math to predict the slowing rate even my belief they would slow in the universe I suggest can not be rated as more than a guess... I guessed correctly maybe but clearly the anomoly has not yet been resolved and therefore although NASA still have no idea it does not mean I am right as to my suggestion as to why the craft should be expected to slow.

My style suggests I am ignorant of the scientific method and I simply say I bet I respect it more than many....is string theory a scientific theory???? given it fails the tests required past hypothisis????

Anyways I think it is wonderful that we have this section and wonderful that we have wonderful folk who input their knowledge.


alex