ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th August 2012, 07:11 AM   #81
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Difficult to tell. My guess is that those who the history books say were the scientists behind new ideas were in many cases not the real discoverers. Only when an idea is published in scientific journals does it become 'discovered' sort of.
A further addition to Quandumb Physics:

If a knowledgeable expert makes a revolutionary discovery, I should conclude that it isn't because of his years of study and dedication to the topic, but that some other guy who didn't bother studying it at all came up with the idea, and that scientist guy just stole it from him.

I have no proof for this whatsoever...but it makes me feel a hell of a lot better about myself!
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:13 AM   #82
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by PiedPiper View Post
I'm surprised you're willing to make a blanket statement on the behalf of all professional scientists. I'm a professional scientist, and you certainly don't speak for me.

You're invoking either a mass conspiracy + coverup or a mass groupthink (a 100% effective one, and do you have any idea how difficult that is to achieve?).

Trust me, many professional scientists (including myself) "go outside the box". Many who have done so have made radical new discoveries that changed the way we view the laws of chemistry and physics. Many of these scientists earned Nobel Prizes.

To say that all professional scientists wouldn't dare to speculate against current theories is a *profoundly* incorrect statement. Many scientists dare to do just such a thing. Not all who do so find anything of interest, but they're responsible for some of the largest leaps forward.
I often like to point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe when I encounter this argument. The initial reaction from astronomers was pretty negative till the paper was published. Then everyone just shook their head and said give these guys the Nobel prize.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:13 AM   #83
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The experts are very locked into the existing theories. It's much more easier for me to go outside the box so to speak.
No, it's not. The reason it's not is that you don't know where or what the box is.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:14 AM   #84
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I should perhaps have been a bit clearer. How many professional scientists dare assume Einstein's relativity is wrong for example?
Quandumb Physics Part III:

When faced with experts like Einstein, ignore the fact that their theory has been challenged and tested literally thousands of times, and found to consistently match with observed reality, and instead claim that scientists mindlessly follow it "because it sounds good to them".

Then make the argument that my theory is just as valid as Einstein's, "because it sounds good to me".
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:15 AM   #85
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by GeneMachine View Post
Anders, your hypothesis still does not predict any mechanism for the observed solar neutrino flux, which is perfectly compatible with our theory, strike that, with the observable fact that the sun is a ball of hydrogen undergoing fusion.
You mean the AD HOC addition to the already messy models?

"The number of neutrinos can be predicted by the Standard Solar Model. The detected number of electron neutrinos was only 1/3 of the predicted number, and this was known as the solar neutrino problem. It led to the idea of neutrino oscillation and the fact that neutrinos can change flavour." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:16 AM   #86
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I should perhaps have been a bit clearer. How many professional scientists dare assume Einstein's relativity is wrong for example?
Dare? All of them. Every single one. You appear to be confused about what science actually is.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:19 AM   #87
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Dare? All of them. Every single one. You appear to be confused about what science actually is.
Do you have any single source to back up that claim?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:22 AM   #88
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Dare? All of them. Every single one. You appear to be confused about what science actually is.
Quandumb Physics Addendum:

"Science" is either whatever sounds right to me, or it is a process used to create false paradigms that interfere with my personal vision of the world. Where it supports me, it is right; where it doesn't support me, it is the work either of quacks who don't know what they are talking about, or thieves who've stolen their ideas from people like me.
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:23 AM   #89
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Do you have any single source to back up that claim?
See? Just like I said!
Quote:
Quandumb Physics Part III:

When faced with experts like Einstein, ignore the fact that their theory has been challenged and tested literally thousands of times, and found to consistently match with observed reality
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:23 AM   #90
GeneMachine
Critical Thinker
 
GeneMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
You mean the AD HOC addition to the already messy models?

"The number of neutrinos can be predicted by the Standard Solar Model. The detected number of electron neutrinos was only 1/3 of the predicted number, and this was known as the solar neutrino problem. It led to the idea of neutrino oscillation and the fact that neutrinos can change flavour." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino
Yes, the standard model is certainly not complete. However, it predicts solar neutrino flux way better than your hypothesis, which does not predict any neutrinos at all.
GeneMachine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:24 AM   #91
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Do you have any single source to back up that claim?
Yes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:28 AM   #92
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by GeneMachine View Post
Yes, the standard model is certainly not complete. However, it predicts solar neutrino flux way better than your hypothesis, which does not predict any neutrinos at all.
My hypothesis is that all kinds of particles are extracted from the vacuum; all the way from the massless to the most heavy particles, although there should be a lot fewer of the heavy elements probably, and LOTs of photons and neutrinos.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:29 AM   #93
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Further addendum to Quandumb Physics:

Argue that anything tied to the scientific method is invalid, since it was created by scientists, and I've already demonstrated that they don't know what they're talking about, because their theories are so complicated and difficult for me to understand.

Instead, present me with real evidence...by which I mean coming from people who agree with my version of the way the universe works.
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:30 AM   #94
GeneMachine
Critical Thinker
 
GeneMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
You mean the AD HOC addition to the already messy models?
One more thing, you call the fine tuning of the standard model "ad hoc additions", while your argument goes like this:

- The sun is a black hole, and the light we are seeing is Hawking radiation.
* It is shown that you are off by 11 orders of magnitude.
- Well, it's not Hawking radiation, but the sun is a quasar instead.
* It is shown that quasars have completely different observable properties.
- Well, it's not a quasar as such, but something quasar-like. Also, Casimir effect.

Perhaps we should call it a quasi-quasar-object, in short a quaquasar, bringing us back to the flying frog hypothesis put forth further upthread.

Anders, you are making ad hoc leaps all around the observable universe, while failing to actually observe it. Science doesn't happen in a "what if"-vacuum - it builds on data.
GeneMachine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:31 AM   #95
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Who of those people questioned Einstein's relativity AFTER that theory had become mainstream?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:32 AM   #96
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
Yeah Woo Slingers really need to learn that "What if" is where ideas start, not where they end.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:32 AM   #97
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
...there should be a lot fewer of the heavy elements probably, and LOTs of photons and neutrinos.
Why 'probably'? Please explain this part of your hypothesis.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:33 AM   #98
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
My hypothesis is that all kinds of particles are extracted from the vacuum; all the way from the massless to the most heavy particles, although there should be a lot fewer of the heavy elements probably, and LOTs of photons and neutrinos.
Quandumb Physics Part IV:

When talking about "predictions", ignore the scientific definition that a "prediction" is something based on detailed mathematics and study, creating a complete model with testable claims; and instead use my own definition of "prediction" which means "whatever I happen to think sounds good, I don't need any actual mathematics or physics to back it up".

The latter method is far superior to the former, since the former requires so much actual work and study before I can add anything to my theory, whereas with the latter, I can just say, "Oh, yeah, I want to add that, too!", and voila'! My job is done!
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:34 AM   #99
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by GeneMachine View Post
One more thing, you call the fine tuning of the standard model "ad hoc additions", while your argument goes like this:

- The sun is a black hole, and the light we are seeing is Hawking radiation.
* It is shown that you are off by 11 orders of magnitude.
- Well, it's not Hawking radiation, but the sun is a quasar instead.
* It is shown that quasars have completely different observable properties.
- Well, it's not a quasar as such, but something quasar-like. Also, Casimir effect.

Perhaps we should call it a quasi-quasar-object, in short a quaquasar, bringing us back to the flying frog hypothesis put forth further upthread.

Anders, you are making ad hoc leaps all around the observable universe, while failing to actually observe it. Science doesn't happen in a "what if"-vacuum - it builds on data.
I don't claim I have a valid theory! I'm just throwing hypotheses around. The standard model is supposed to be scientifically solid as can be, yet instead of making accurate predictions, the model is altered into ever more messy special cases when the predictions fail one after another.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:35 AM   #100
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
My hypothesis is that all kinds of particles are extracted from the vacuum; all the way from the massless to the most heavy particles, although there should be a lot fewer of the heavy elements probably, and LOTs of photons and neutrinos.
Except that stars behave the way we'd expect large balls of fusing hydrogen to behave, and not in the slightest like black holes extracting particles "from the vacuum".
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:35 AM   #101
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Perhaps we should call it a quasi-quasar-object, in short a quaquasar, bringing us back to the flying frog hypothesis put forth further upthread.
PLEASE call it that. I've got a great spot for quaquasar in Words with Friends.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:36 AM   #102
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I don't claim I have a valid theory! I'm just throwing hypotheses around.
Why?

Quote:
The standard model is supposed to be scientifically solid as can be, yet instead of making accurate predictions, the model is altered into ever more messy special cases when the predictions fail one after another.
Theories are modified to fit the facts. Not the other way around.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:37 AM   #103
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Who of those people questioned Einstein's relativity AFTER that theory had become mainstream?
All theories are positively encouraged to be questioned by anyone, all the time. You didn't read much of that link. Science is not a priesthood. You fail to grasp what science is.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:37 AM   #104
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Why 'probably'? Please explain this part of your hypothesis.
The real particles have to be 'shaken' out of the virtual particle soup of the quantum vacuum energy, so I imagine that it will be easier to extract particles with less mass than the heavier particles. I added 'probably' in case my assumption is wrong.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:37 AM   #105
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic
Autosycophant
 
Wolfman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dongguan, China
Posts: 13,193
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Except that stars behave the way we'd expect large balls of fusing hydrogen to behave, and not in the slightest like black holes extracting particles "from the vacuum".
It behaves the way he expects a black hole "extracting particles from the vacuum" would behave. Cuz he's "predicted" that that's the way it will behave.

Come on, people...get your acts together!
__________________
Please check out my blog and forum, "Wrest In Peace"
Wolfman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:39 AM   #106
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
All theories are positively encouraged to be questioned by anyone, all the time. You didn't read much of that link. Science is not a priesthood. You fail to grasp what science is.
And you have still not been able to produce any mainstream scientist who has questioned Einstein's relativity, after that theory became 'gospel' in the (public) scientific community.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:41 AM   #107
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Why?


Theories are modified to fit the facts. Not the other way around.
Why? Because the standard model is modified after the facts. A sound theory should be able to PREDICT the actual results, not be modified again and again to fit the facts.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:43 AM   #108
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,165
Originally Posted by Wolfman View Post
In addition, we have very precise measurements of the gravitational pull of our sun...a black hole of that size would have a far, far greater gravitational pull, and the Earth would long ago have been swallowed up. Despite not being an expert in this field, I feel 100% confident in stating, quite absolutely, that the sun is not a black hole.
Is that absolutely true? I was under the impression that a black hole with the mass of the sun would have as much gravitational pull as the sun outside the S radius.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:45 AM   #109
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I don't claim I have a valid theory! I'm just throwing hypotheses around. The standard model is supposed to be scientifically solid as can be, yet instead of making accurate predictions, the model is altered into ever more messy special cases when the predictions fail one after another.
According to who. Relativity is the best description of observed phenomena we have. This does not mean some bright spark wont come along and completely redraw how we understand the universe. Remember GR did exactly the same thing to Newtons Laws of gravity.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:45 AM   #110
GeneMachine
Critical Thinker
 
GeneMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Is that absolutely true? I was under the impression that a black hole with the mass of the sun would have as much gravitational pull as the sun outside the S radius.
Wolfman pointed to a black hole the size, not the mass of the sun.
GeneMachine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:46 AM   #111
Psi Baba
Homo Skepticalis
 
Psi Baba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,007
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
No, my (super speculative ) hypothesis is that all stars are black holes.
If that's the case, then what were they before they became black holes?
__________________
We have reached a point in time where reality and satire have intersected and now you can't tell the difference. -- Lewis Black

There is a cult of ignorance . . . nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. -- Isaac Asimov
Psi Baba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:47 AM   #112
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The real particles have to be 'shaken' out of the virtual particle soup of the quantum vacuum energy, so I imagine that it will be easier to extract particles with less mass than the heavier particles. I added 'probably' in case my assumption is wrong.
But it's easier to separate big lumps from soup than tiny crumbs which just stay in suspension. So shouldn't the most massive particles fall out first?

Where is this soup, by the way?

Adding 'probably' implies that you calculate your idea is more likely right than wrong. Please explain how you worked that out.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:47 AM   #113
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Is that absolutely true? I was under the impression that a black hole with the mass of the sun would have as much gravitational pull as the sun outside the S radius.
Wolfman used size rather than mass
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:47 AM   #114
GeneMachine
Critical Thinker
 
GeneMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
According to who. Relativity is the best description of observed phenomena we have. This does not mean some bright spark wont come along and completely redraw how we understand the universe. Remember GR did exactly the same thing to Newtons Laws of gravity.
And, one might add, that didn't proof Newton wrong - it just showed that Newton's theory of Gravity is incomplete and only works under certain boundary conditions, i.e. small masses, low velocities.
GeneMachine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:47 AM   #115
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Except that stars behave the way we'd expect large balls of fusing hydrogen to behave, and not in the slightest like black holes extracting particles "from the vacuum".
After the standard theories in physics have been modified umpteenth times to fit the facts, they are still not adequate enough to explain how the sun works. Did you miss this elephant in the living room: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=51
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:49 AM   #116
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
And you have still not been able to produce any mainstream scientist who has questioned Einstein's relativity, after that theory became 'gospel' in the (public) scientific community.
You never actually asked for that.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:50 AM   #117
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
So says the guy that doesn't believe nuclear fission is real.
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:51 AM   #118
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Why? Because the standard model is modified after the facts. A sound theory should be able to PREDICT the actual results, not be modified again and again to fit the facts.
Then clearly, what you are doing is infinitely worse than the Standard Model.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:52 AM   #119
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
*Sighs*

- Here's one thing a theory doesn't address.
- Claim entire theory is flawed.
- Replace theory with bunk.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:55 AM   #120
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Psi Baba View Post
If that's the case, then what were they before they became black holes?
I think the basic Big Bang theory could be basically correct. So particles lumped together more and more, until protoplanets formed, then planets, and when the mass reaches a certain threshold a black hole is formed and: IGNITION! A star is born.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 -7. The time now is 09:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.