| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Al" |
| Date: |
12 May 2005 02:56:27 PM |
| Object: |
List of scientific lies and or ***** |
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a short
list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing a good job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is true and
not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a web search.
2. If you do not accept evolution you are a creationist. What exactly is a
creationist in the sense that the word is used on this NG? This is a lie put
about by scientists to discourage other theories.
3. The proofs of relativity: Stars were observed to move away from the Sun
during the 1919 eclipse. Eddington fudged the data, read an unbiased
history. The perihelion advance of Mercury was a fortuitous coincidence that
has been proven wrong. I have read up on the latest GPS proofs but they are
full of waffle and only time will tell. The first example was a definite
lie. I can give examples of light bending round the moon during occultation.
The astronaut's radio transmissions were heard whilst behind the moon. It's
an optical effect, unrelated to relativity.
4. Plate tectonics. All the evidence can equally support an expanding earth.
To insist on one theory to the exclusion of all others is dishonest and
arrogant in the extreme. Scientists did not even originally develop this.
Geology the sick man of science. (New Scientist)
5.Rose and extra solar planets
6. Life detection experiments on Mars. I remember reading in Astronomy or
Astronomy Now or both, an article by the then project director of the NASA
missions. He said something like "I had a job to do and I did it. -To answer
the question is there life on Mars? The answer is no". He failed to mention
that when tested in Antarctica, these same experiments had the same answer.
Namely, that there is no life on Earth. As fate would have it, exactly one
week later, the announcement in the same magazine that a meteorite hade been
found in Antarctica.
7. The big bang. This, it was decided would be the one and only theory, as
Hoyle had been a naughty boy and had to be taught a lesson. His steady state
model was thrown out of the pram. The answer to life the universe and
everything is the BIG BANG. Hoyle also coined this name.
8. The transistor "That's Not A Transistor on Shockley's bench" (John
O'Leary and Bill Hays) the photo image of an alleged Bell Labs Transistor
"Test Rig" depicting William Shockley's alleged Invention, used for over 50
years by Bell Labs, is not really a Transistor: its a high back voltage
microwave Rectifier prototype, invented in 1943 for use in Broadcast
television, and not a Solid State Device at all! This is the picture used
for 50 years. I understand that he and et al got the Nobel Prize for this.
What can I say about this?
(http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/swampy/1/transistor.htm)
9. Velikovsky: A name we all know! This guy put down a few of his own
original ideas and took them to a publisher. The publisher was delighted and
gave him an advance. Same publisher also did scientific textbooks and he was
threatened by scientists with a boycott if he did not remove the book from
publication. It was passed to another publisher and read by an American
planetarium director (all names can be supplied if required) who thought it
was good and decided to put on a show using Velikovsky ideas. He was told to
empty his desk and go. There was an uproar unparalleled in the annals of
science and the mans name was blackened and vilified beyond all human
understanding. All of the predictions he made in the book have since been
verified by science. His name is now used as a kind of insult. This has not
prevented people from using and profiting from his ideas.
10. Tesla: Do I really need to say anything about the way he has been
treated by science?
Best regards
Al
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 10:26:47 PM |
|
|
"Al" <almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:d60bn8$j9q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a short
list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing a good job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is true and
not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a web search.
Big stop.
*plonk*
*flush*
*flush*
*flush*
Sometimes a troll is hard to dispose of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
13 May 2005 05:11:04 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message news:P5Vge.41108$B82.1212205@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Al" <almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:d60bn8$j9q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a short
list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing a good job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is true and
not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a web search.
Big stop.
*plonk*
*flush*
*flush*
*flush*
Sometimes a troll is hard to dispose of.
There's still something left.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 04:28:31 PM |
|
|
"Al" <almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:d60bn8$j9q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
It has been said that my assertions are false list of data as proof of
my complaint that science is not doing a good job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is true and
not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a web search.
2. If you do not accept evolution you are a creationist. What exactly is a
creationist in the sense that the word is used on this NG? This is a lie put
about by scientists to discourage other theories.
I'll explain this one for you in very simple terms.
In biology the mainstream accepted theory is Darwinian
evolution theory with a few nuances.
A bunch of religious fanatics seem to have a problem with
that because their bible has been telling them that their god
has created everything. So life cannot have evolved.
These fanatics have therefore been given the label 'creationists'.
To give themselves an obviously false comforting feeling of
symmetry, these creationsists have therefore given mainstream
biologists the label "evolutionists". I'm sure you know what
I mean.
A bunch of flat earthers on these newsgroups who don't
understand the first thing of relativity seem to make a hobby
of giving mainstream physicists, and for that matter just about
everyone else who *does* happen to understand that first
thing of relativity, the label "relativists" or "SRians".
So, to make fun of these flat earthers, we call them "creationists"
in turn.
Now you know "what exactly a creationist is in the sense that
the word is used on this NG".
Since you obviously assert that exceptional claims don't require
exceptional evidence, what kind of evidence do you need for my
rather unexceptional claim that you are just another frustrated
creationist?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 04:47:40 PM |
|
|
***** Van de merde wrote:
[cut]
I'll explain this one for you in very simple terms.
In biology the mainstream accepted theory is Darwinian
evolution theory with a few nuances.
A bunch of religious fanatics seem to have a problem with
that because their bible has been telling them that their god
has created everything. So life cannot have evolved.
These fanatics have therefore been given the label 'creationists'.
To give themselves an obviously false comforting feeling of
symmetry, these creationsists have therefore given mainstream
biologists the label "evolutionists". I'm sure you know what
I mean.
A bunch of flat earthers on these newsgroups who don't
understand the first thing of relativity seem to make a hobby
of giving mainstream physicists, and for that matter just about
everyone else who *does* happen to understand that first
thing of relativity, the label "relativists" or "SRians".
So, to make fun of these flat earthers, we call them "creationists"
in turn.
Now you know "what exactly a creationist is in the sense that
the word is used on this NG".
Since you obviously assert that exceptional claims don't require
exceptional evidence, what kind of evidence do you need for my
rather unexceptional claim that you are just another frustrated
creationist?
When you have nothing interesting to say, Van de merde, why don't you
just shut the ***** up? You fucking whine too much, you *****-kissing
*****. Who gives a ***** about relativity? When your chicken-*****
voodoo physics can explain why things fall and why things move, only
then will you have the privilege to bend over for your masters. Until
then, you're just an *****-kissing field hand and the physics of your
masters remains chicken-*****. *****.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 05:36:11 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message news:t8j781hpjabkupao8kdaosc7r0tg0kd2a1@4ax.com...
***** Van de merde wrote:
[cut]
I'll explain this one for you in very simple terms.
In biology the mainstream accepted theory is Darwinian
evolution theory with a few nuances.
A bunch of religious fanatics seem to have a problem with
that because their bible has been telling them that their god
has created everything. So life cannot have evolved.
These fanatics have therefore been given the label 'creationists'.
To give themselves an obviously false comforting feeling of
symmetry, these creationsists have therefore given mainstream
biologists the label "evolutionists". I'm sure you know what
I mean.
A bunch of flat earthers on these newsgroups who don't
understand the first thing of relativity seem to make a hobby
of giving mainstream physicists, and for that matter just about
everyone else who *does* happen to understand that first
thing of relativity, the label "relativists" or "SRians".
So, to make fun of these flat earthers, we call them "creationists"
in turn.
Now you know "what exactly a creationist is in the sense that
the word is used on this NG".
Since you obviously assert that exceptional claims don't require
exceptional evidence, what kind of evidence do you need for my
rather unexceptional claim that you are just another frustrated
creationist?
Forgot to mention...
Al, you will also see that frustrated creationists come in many flavours.
You will find some rather exceptional [-even for you-] evidence of
that right here:
When you have nothing interesting to say, Van de merde, why don't you
just shut the ***** up? You fucking whine too much, you *****-kissing
*****. Who gives a ***** about relativity? When your chicken-*****
voodoo physics can explain why things fall and why things move, only
then will you have the privilege to bend over for your masters. Until
then, you're just an *****-kissing field hand and the physics of your
masters remains chicken-*****. *****.
Louis Savain
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=ding+savain
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 09:30:42 PM |
|
|
***** Van de merde wrote:
Forgot to mention...
Al, you will also see that frustrated creationists come in many flavours.
You will find some rather exceptional [-even for you-] evidence of
that right here:
You're so fucking lame, Van de merde. Eat *****.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 10:16:27 PM |
|
|
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in
news:s84881l4tuaqoj0k7pirtnrv0efsa50c6o@4ax.com:
***** Van de merde wrote:
Forgot to mention...
Al, you will also see that frustrated creationists come in many
flavours. You will find some rather exceptional [-even for you-]
evidence of that right here:
You're so fucking lame, Van de merde. Eat *****.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Ding Savian, Ding.
K.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
14 May 2005 08:16:42 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns96559B60C13EDKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6>,
Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in
news:s84881l4tuaqoj0k7pirtnrv0efsa50c6o@4ax.com:
***** Van de merde wrote:
Forgot to mention...
Al, you will also see that frustrated creationists come in many
flavours. You will find some rather exceptional [-even for you-]
evidence of that right here:
You're so fucking lame, Van de merde. Eat *****.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Ding Savian, Ding.
Says Klazmonic while Van de merde rips him a new *****. ...
ahahaha.... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ogogo" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
13 May 2005 03:53:46 AM |
|
|
About plate tectonics I do not agree: modern methods proved it really
well.
Of course, it is very far from explaining everything and lots of
questions remained unanswered. Expanding of Earth can not explain for
example subduction zones, they are mapped down to the depth of several
km by several independent methods.
For marsian meteorites completely agree as my wife is professional on
microfossils. Already at the press-conference of NASA , after Clinton
speach ,there was one guy who presented point of view (now accepted
almost by everybody in this field of research) that it is all *****.
He also wrote a book about this.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Prai Jei" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
13 May 2005 12:24:18 PM |
|
|
Al (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<d60bn8$j9q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>:
occultation. The astronaut's radio transmissions were heard whilst behind
the moon. It's an optical effect, unrelated to relativity.
No, them astronauts never went to the moon anyhow did they? Somebody goofed
there, forgot to cut the transmissions at this time.
--
A couple of questions. How do I stop the wires short-circuiting, and what's
this nylon washer for?
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 03:03:16 PM |
|
|
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a short
list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing a good job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
[snip]
3. The proofs of relativity: Stars were observed to move away from the Sun
during the 1919 eclipse. Eddington fudged the data, read an unbiased
history. The perihelion advance of Mercury was a fortuitous coincidence that
has been proven wrong. I have read up on the latest GPS proofs but they are
full of waffle and only time will tell. The first example was a definite
lie. I can give examples of light bending round the moon during occultation.
The astronaut's radio transmissions were heard whilst behind the moon. It's
an optical effect, unrelated to relativity.
[snip crap]
Ignorant idiot.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
More GPS,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 04:05:45 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4283B684.CF4DBA90@hate.spam.net...
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a
short
list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing a good
job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
[snip]
3. The proofs of relativity: Stars were observed to move away from the
Sun
during the 1919 eclipse. Eddington fudged the data, read an unbiased
history. The perihelion advance of Mercury was a fortuitous coincidence
that
has been proven wrong. I have read up on the latest GPS proofs but they
are
full of waffle and only time will tell. The first example was a definite
lie. I can give examples of light bending round the moon during
occultation.
The astronaut's radio transmissions were heard whilst behind the moon.
It's
an optical effect, unrelated to relativity.
[snip crap]
Ignorant idiot.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
More GPS,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Hi Uncle
The Sky and Tele is interesting, as this was the rag that refused to print
the pictures of Mars "as they may give credence to Velikoskys' theories"?
The gods are against you as I was reading up on Neutron stars last night.
There is no direct evidence that they exist.
Pulsars do not even follow the theoretical rules. The sudden changes in
speed were postulated to be star quakes, reducing the diameter and speeding
up. However it seems that PSR0823 sometimes anti-glitches, slows down. In
the same report there is mention of phase jumps with signals arriving early.
" This may portend the death of standard star-quake model" ( Anti Glitch
Snags Science News 110:5 1976)
Al
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 05:01:09 PM |
|
|
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a
short list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing
a good job. The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is
true and not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a
web search.
Contrary to your assertion, all sentient, rational beings hold that
evolution is both true *and* a theory. Clearly you believe that the term
"theory" is merely a scientific euphemism for "wild speculation". From
this I am able to conclude that you are, indeed, a creationist, and that
none of your arguments have any merit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 05:59:08 PM |
|
|
"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4283d2a7$0$298$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a
short list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing
a good job. The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is
true and not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a
web search.
Contrary to your assertion, all sentient, rational beings hold that
evolution is both true *and* a theory. Clearly you believe that the term
"theory" is merely a scientific euphemism for "wild speculation". From
this I am able to conclude that you are, indeed, a creationist, and that
none of your arguments have any merit.
Hi Pyriform
I gather from your email address that you don't have a very high opinion
of yourself.
Where is the evidence to prove what you are saying is true? If it was
there I would join you.
There are no missing links, although you would think from the glib
statements shown in the books that there are.
Life started with a huge explosion of different body patterns. They all
disappeared except the ones that we see today.
It was like a test to see which were most suited. More like devolution?
Where did all the DNA variation come from?
Modern man has been around for a million years or so I'm told. Where are
the intermediate forms of man? There just was not enough time for it to
happen.
I know that there seems to very little alternative, but that is because
all opposition is shouted down.
Best regards
Al
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 07:01:33 PM |
|
|
"Al" <almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:d60mbj$6db$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4283d2a7$0$298$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together
a short list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not
doing a good job. The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is
true and not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do
a web search.
Contrary to your assertion, all sentient, rational beings hold that
evolution is both true *and* a theory. Clearly you believe that the
term "theory" is merely a scientific euphemism for "wild
speculation". From this I am able to conclude that you are, indeed, a
creationist, and that none of your arguments have any merit.
Hi Pyriform
I gather from your email address that you don't have a very high
opinion
of yourself.
Where is the evidence to prove what you are saying is true? If it
was
there I would join you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html
Lets see you put your money where your mouth is.
There are no missing links, although you would think from the glib
statements shown in the books that there are.
So missing links have been found and are therefore no longer missing duh.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Life started with a huge explosion of different body patterns.
They all
disappeared except the ones that we see today.
Wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Tree of life project:
http://www.tolweb.org/tree?group=life_on_earth
It was like a test to see which were most suited. More like
devolution? Where did all the DNA variation come from?
Modern man has been around for a million years or so I'm told.
Where are
the intermediate forms of man? There just was not enough time for it
to happen.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
I know that there seems to very little alternative, but that is
because
all opposition is shouted down.
Uncle Al already showed how wrong you were about relativity. BTW the
measurements done by Eddington on starlight deflection were merely the
first such. The Hipparchos satelite measured the effect as far out as 60
degrees from the solar limb. The measurements are completely in accord
with general relativity.
Read the links given. Believe it or not, ignorance can be cured.
Klazmon.
Best regards
Al
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
13 May 2005 08:50:28 AM |
|
|
In article <d60mbj$6db$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Al"
<almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4283d2a7$0$298$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a
short list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing
a good job. The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is
true and not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a
web search.
Contrary to your assertion, all sentient, rational beings hold that
evolution is both true *and* a theory. Clearly you believe that the term
"theory" is merely a scientific euphemism for "wild speculation". From
this I am able to conclude that you are, indeed, a creationist, and that
none of your arguments have any merit.
Hi Pyriform
I gather from your email address that you don't have a very high opinion
of yourself.
Where is the evidence to prove what you are saying is true? If it was
there I would join you.
There are no missing links, although you would think from the glib
statements shown in the books that there are.
Life started with a huge explosion of different body patterns. They all
disappeared except the ones that we see today.
It was like a test to see which were most suited. More like devolution?
Where did all the DNA variation come from?
Modern man has been around for a million years or so I'm told. Where are
the intermediate forms of man? There just was not enough time for it to
happen.
I know that there seems to very little alternative, but that is because
all opposition is shouted down.
Best regards
Al
While you're at it, Al, ask the morons, why do humans all over the
world seem to enjoy music so much even to the point of fanaticism?
What is the evolutionary or survival advantage of music loving and
music making?
Where are the human species who don't give a rat's ***** about music?
Surely there must be counter-examples of human species who don't care
about music. Some will retort that there are a few weird people on
earth who hate music. But don't let them get away with it. Ask them to
show you the music-hating human *species*, the music-indifferent
missing link, so to speak.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
13 May 2005 08:35:01 AM |
|
|
Pyriform wrote:
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together
a
short list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not
doing
a good job. The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is
true and not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do
a
web search.
Contrary to your assertion, all sentient, rational beings hold
I would quibble with this generalization. I, for one, hold a more
conservative view about the extent to which *any* theory can be held to
be "true". Evolution as a predictive theory, in particular, does not
hold the same power as, say, QED, nor does it pretend to. It attempts
to apply a small amount of order to inherently and possibly intractibly
complex systems. QED suffers from the opposite problem: it deals with
inherently simple objects, but practical application of the theory
quickly gets mired in incredibly tortuous (though in principle
tractible) calculations. Both, therefore, have limits in their
"success", though for different reasons.
that
evolution is both true *and* a theory. Clearly you believe that the
term
"theory" is merely a scientific euphemism for "wild speculation".
I would agree that "theory" often connotes a dismissive meaning, as in
"just a theory". This is ameliorated by the understanding that we
really don't have anything better or firmer than a theory. Faith is a
different form of knowledge, but I would be hard pressed to say that a)
one is inherently a stronger form of knowledge than the other, b) one
is more complete than the other.
From
this I am able to conclude that you are, indeed, a creationist, and
that
none of your arguments have any merit.
And this is a value judgement that I personally find without merit and
borders on bigotry. Those who say that the scientific method is the
only true form of knowledge-gathering generally don't understand how
science is really done. Understanding is arrived at through a variety
of methods, and true genius is best associated by an ability to
synthesize across broad pools of understanding.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
14 May 2005 06:23:04 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together
a short list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not
doing a good job. The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is
true and not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a
web search.
Contrary to your assertion, all sentient, rational beings hold that
evolution is both true *and* a theory.
I would quibble with this generalization. I, for one, hold a more
conservative view about the extent to which *any* theory can be held
to be "true".
There is a distinction between the "truth" of evolution (in the sense of
the historical fact of evolution having occurred, and continuing to
occur), and the "theory" of evolution (in the sense of the particular
mechanisms adduced to explain it). That is why it is reasonable to claim
that evolution is both true and a theory. You are of course correct that
there is no such thing as absolute proof in the physical sciences
(although there does come a point where the body of evidence in favour
of a theory makes disbelief perverse).
Clearly you believe that the
term "theory" is merely a scientific euphemism for "wild
speculation".
I would agree that "theory" often connotes a dismissive meaning, as in
"just a theory". This is ameliorated by the understanding that we
really don't have anything better or firmer than a theory. Faith is a
different form of knowledge, but I would be hard pressed to say that
a) one is inherently a stronger form of knowledge than the other, b)
one is more complete than the other.
Faith isn't knowledge (except in the circular sense of knowledge about
faith). My grandmother's faith led her to believe that thunder was
caused by God moving his furniture about. Do you think her knowledge on
the matter was a "strong" as mine (or, I assume, yours)? What on earth
do you mean?
From
this I am able to conclude that you are, indeed, a creationist, and
that none of your arguments have any merit.
And this is a value judgement that I personally find without merit and
borders on bigotry.
It is a value judgement that saves me a lot of time. I have yet to find
a counter-example. In my experience, the people who dismiss evolution as
"just a theory" are the same ones who reject relativity, quantum
mechanics, and anything else which challenges their personal
incredulity.
Those who say that the scientific method is the
only true form of knowledge-gathering generally don't understand how
science is really done. Understanding is arrived at through a variety
of methods, and true genius is best associated by an ability to
synthesize across broad pools of understanding.
Irrespective of whatever intuitive leaps a scientific genius might take
to arrive at his results, in the end they stand or fall by the
scientific method.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
14 May 2005 07:09:12 PM |
|
|
Pyriform wrote:
PD wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put
together
a short list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not
doing a good job. The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is
true and not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists,
do a
web search.
Contrary to your assertion, all sentient, rational beings hold
that
evolution is both true *and* a theory.
I would quibble with this generalization. I, for one, hold a more
conservative view about the extent to which *any* theory can be
held
to be "true".
There is a distinction between the "truth" of evolution (in the sense
of
the historical fact of evolution having occurred, and continuing to
occur), and the "theory" of evolution (in the sense of the particular
mechanisms adduced to explain it).
Well, again, we can never quite claim the historical *fact* of
evolution, though we can certainly point to a lot of experimental
evidence that points to evolution as a plausible explanation, indeed
the most plausible explanation yet presented. The facts are the
evidence, not the explanation. But this is semantics, and in general, I
agree with you.
That is why it is reasonable to claim
that evolution is both true and a theory. You are of course correct
that
there is no such thing as absolute proof in the physical sciences
(although there does come a point where the body of evidence in
favour
of a theory makes disbelief perverse).
Clearly you believe that the
term "theory" is merely a scientific euphemism for "wild
speculation".
I would agree that "theory" often connotes a dismissive meaning, as
in
"just a theory". This is ameliorated by the understanding that we
really don't have anything better or firmer than a theory. Faith is
a
different form of knowledge, but I would be hard pressed to say
that
a) one is inherently a stronger form of knowledge than the other,
b)
one is more complete than the other.
Faith isn't knowledge (except in the circular sense of knowledge
about
faith). My grandmother's faith led her to believe that thunder was
caused by God moving his furniture about. Do you think her knowledge
on
the matter was a "strong" as mine (or, I assume, yours)? What on
earth
do you mean?
Well, I plainly disagree. Does your mother love you? There is no
question that this is a question you have *knowledge* of the answer to,
though there is no objectively verifiable (or falsifiable) test that
would satisfy the scientific criteria in the usual sense. I claim there
are things that we include in our body of knowledge, things we hold to
be *certain* that do not spring from any scientific process. These
things are in the realm of faith, faith being defined as certainty
without objective, empirical support.
From
this I am able to conclude that you are, indeed, a creationist,
and
that none of your arguments have any merit.
And this is a value judgement that I personally find without merit
and
borders on bigotry.
It is a value judgement that saves me a lot of time. I have yet to
find
a counter-example. In my experience, the people who dismiss evolution
as
"just a theory" are the same ones who reject relativity, quantum
mechanics, and anything else which challenges their personal
incredulity.
Maybe it's me, but I've seen exceptions -- ones who believe in
evolution but don't believe relativity, and vice versa. I can't
categorize. Nor can I lump those with a deep and real spiritual faith
as being unscientific. Indeed, I worked side by side with a couple of
excellent physicists, one of whom is a priest and another a nun.
Those who say that the scientific method is the
only true form of knowledge-gathering generally don't understand
how
science is really done. Understanding is arrived at through a
variety
of methods, and true genius is best associated by an ability to
synthesize across broad pools of understanding.
Irrespective of whatever intuitive leaps a scientific genius might
take
to arrive at his results, in the end they stand or fall by the
scientific method.
Ah, but they wouldn't have gotten to that point if not for the
unscientific leap, no? Explain how a scientist gropes for a model that
is based on "elegance" or "beauty". On what basis does one decide that
the underlying principle *must* be simple, *must* be pretty, for it to
be true? That's an act of faith, a scientifically "moral" principle if
you will, not the scientific method. The scientific method is
necessary, but not sufficient, for science.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baugh" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 05:38:05 PM |
|
|
Al wrote:
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is true and
not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a web search.
2. If you do not accept evolution you are a creationist. What exactly is a
creationist in the sense that the word is used on this NG? This is a lie put
about by scientists to discourage other theories.
This second is not an assertion it is a statistical likelihood. Most
complaints about evolution are motivated by theists who dislike "taking
God out of it".
As for the validation of evolution we have years of experience with
selective breeding... look in the seed catalogs at the various
cultivated verities of roses. Look at the emergence of anti-biotic
strains of various bacterial pathogens. Selective breeding is an
observed phenomenon. Evolution according to Darwin simply states
that such selection occurs in nature as well as in the stock yards
and kennel clubs and green-houses.
The rest is genetics, including more recently observed effects of
retroviruses in altering chromosomes. Granted it is a theory but
the theory is well confirmed by empirical data.
I'll say this to the creationists. Creationism is not a scientific
theory it is a metaphysical postulate. It cannot be tested by empirical
means. Thus it does not belong in a *science class*. I for one am
all for public schools teaching comparative religion. And if a church
run private school wants to teach religious dogma then that's their
prerogative, and of the parents who select the school.
10. Tesla: Do I really need to say anything about the way he has been
treated by science?
Not half so bad as how his work has been distorted by the conspiracy
theorists. Tesla beat Marconi to the punch by some years. That I
think is the worst case of his lack of credit in the science books.
But recall that Tesla was an *Engineer* and *inventor*, he never
presented any specific scientific theories or opinions. He rather
developed various inventions and patents all of which fit his
understanding of the science of electricity of that time, which
was the same as that of the current scientific consensus.
His one falicy was that he lacked Maxwell's one appendix to the
theory of electricity and magnetism of that time. He was able to grasp
fully in his genius the application of inductance but not quite
capacitance.
Thus he could only conceive of electrical waves as traveling within the
wave-guide created by the Earth's surface and the top of the atmosphere.
He viewed his wireless transmission as utilizing the conductivity of the
Earth at high frequencies, not as an electro-magnetic wave through free
space.
But I would hesitate to say Science (as in the scientific community)
treated him badly. He has the rare distinction of having a unit of
measure named after him. That is a very exclusive club.
As far as the rest of your list goes,
Einstein's Relativity wasn't "proven" it was shown to predict pheonmena
more accurately than Newtonian gravitation and Galilean relativity.
Plate Tectonics: Well you explain how the Hawaiian islands form a chain
of younger and younger volcanic islands ending with the current
volcanically active one. Also suggest an alternative explaination for
the periodic lines of reversing magnetization in the Pacific sea floor.
Explain the physically observed motion of the south western part of
California relative to the rest of the state and continant. The motion
is observed directly via laser ranging. Plate motion is an observed
phenomenon. I mean you can literally see different plates moving
slowly over time if you watch closely enough.
Extra-solar planets? What do you assume our sun is the only one with
planets? Would you assume your own dog is the only one with fleas
given you've only seen other's from a distance?
Life on Mars is still very very up in the air with the majority of
scientists skeptical.
7) The Big Bang is more tenative but there is an apparent relative
motion between us and other stars i.e. Hubble's observations. Are you
questioning whether this is the case or whether extrapolation of this
motion back in time yields an initial explosive event?
The Big Bang is concensus in cosmological models but it is by no means
fatal to consider alternatives.
8) With regard to the transistor business, I've not enough information
to respond. Is the prototype pictured actually available?
9) Velikovsky, he's the guy who had the planets dancing around in such
wildly improbable trajectories just to "explain" a few Bible stories?
Why bother using planets, just call em miracles and be done with it.
Well that's my response to your list.
Regards,
James Baugh
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 07:14:44 PM |
|
|
In article <d60bn8$j9q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Al <almond-----nodash@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I was especially attracted to this one.
3. The proofs of relativity: Stars were observed to move away from the Sun
during the 1919 eclipse. Eddington fudged the data, read an unbiased
history. The perihelion advance of Mercury was a fortuitous coincidence that
has been proven wrong. I have read up on the latest GPS proofs but they are
full of waffle and only time will tell. The first example was a definite
lie. I can give examples of light bending round the moon during occultation.
The astronaut's radio transmissions were heard whilst behind the moon. It's
an optical effect, unrelated to relativity.
Regardless of the quality of Eddington's work, are we to suppose from this
accusation that his was the only attempt anyone has made to measure the
effect? And that optical and relativistic bending are indistinguishable?
By the way, an astronaut's radio doesn't "bend" around the moon. It
diffracts due to its long wavelength. You can see how well visible light
diffracts around objects on a sunny day.
10. Tesla: Do I really need to say anything about the way he has been
treated by science?
They named the SI unit of the magnetic field after him.
--
"Did you know that most people use ten percent of their brains? I am now
one of them." -- Bart Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
12 May 2005 10:00:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Al
<almond@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote
on Thu, 12 May 2005 20:56:27 +0100
<d60bn8$j9q$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a short
list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing a good job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
List of scientific lies and or *****:
1.The biggest one is that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is true and
not a theory. This has been stated by many scientists, do a web search.
Outside of the scope of this newsgroup. However, the short
answer is that they are both correct: Evolution is a theory
*and* it has been observed. (Bacterial cultures are a
reasonably good way of showing the mechanism in action.)
2. If you do not accept evolution you are a creationist.
What exactly is a creationist in the sense that the word
is used on this NG? This is a lie put about by scientists
to discourage other theories.
In sci.physics, I can't say. In areas such as talk.origins
a creationist is one who believes in "special creation".
The modern form of this appears to be a variant of intelligent
design, which postulates, again, items outside of strict
physics, but presumably the intelligent designer is the Almighty God.
Considering that this so-called intellignet designer routed
the ureter through the prostate gland and made some very strange
design decisions regarding, among other things, the human kneecap,
the ulnar nerve (near the elbow), and the human eyeball (blind spot),
there are some interesting questions here that are better pursued
in talk.origins.
3. The proofs of relativity:
Relativity has NOT been proved, though it has been very well
substantiated. No great theory can be proved; Newton's theories
stood up for the better part of 2-3 centuries until someone came
along and pointed out certain anomalies in the observations
of Mercury, among other things.
Stars were observed to move away from the Sun
during the 1919 eclipse.
The error swamped reliable observation.
Eddington fudged the data, read an unbiased
history. The perihelion advance of Mercury was a fortuitous
coincidence that has been proven wrong.
The error there is cumulative: 5556 versus 5600 using careful
calculations, AIUI. However, perhaps the calculations
weren't careful enough for some. I'm a bit skeptical
about "dark energy".
I have read up on the latest GPS proofs but they are
full of waffle and only time will tell.
GPS proves nothing, as it was not designed to prove anything.
NST-2 would be interesting if the raw data were available for
the timeticks. (I *can* find French lunar ranging data but
am unsure as to how to adapt it to a method by which one
can distinguish BaT from SR/GR, as the moon is moving
laterally, not directly towards or away.)
The first example was a definite
lie. I can give examples of light bending round the moon
during occultation. The astronaut's radio transmissions
were heard whilst behind the moon. It's an optical effect,
unrelated to relativity.
I'd need details on that before I can comment intelligently.
Considering that the orbital velocity was 1 km/s or so,
it's doubtful they could communicate long...
4. Plate tectonics. All the evidence can equally support
an expanding earth. To insist on one theory to the
exclusion of all others is dishonest and arrogant in the
extreme. Scientists did not even originally develop this.
Geology the sick man of science. (New Scientist)
I'm not all that certain that an expanding earth can explain
subduction. However, I'm not all that qualified here, either.
5.Rose and extra solar planets
You'll need to expand on that. I believe we've actually imaged
one now, from the doomed (?) Hubble.
6. Life detection experiments on Mars. I remember reading
in Astronomy or Astronomy Now or both, an article by the
then project director of the NASA missions. He said something
like "I had a job to do and I did it. -To answer the question
is there life on Mars? The answer is no". He failed to mention
that when tested in Antarctica, these same experiments had the
same answer. Namely, that there is no life on Earth. As fate
would have it, exactly one week later, the announcement in the
same magazine that a meteorite hade been found in Antarctica.
Not sure how that connects. At best, the evidence is inconclusive.
We have found water, or traces of past water, on Mars, though.
That ups the probabilities considerably.
7. The big bang. This, it was decided would be the one and
only theory, as Hoyle had been a naughty boy and had to be
taught a lesson. His steady state model was thrown out of
the pram. The answer to life the universe and everything is
the BIG BANG. Hoyle also coined this name.
The only other alternative I know of is the steady-state
theory, which has some problems. I'm not sure that it
predicts the CMBR correctly, for example.
8. The transistor "That's Not A Transistor on Shockley's
bench" (John O'Leary and Bill Hays) the photo image of an
alleged Bell Labs Transistor "Test Rig" depicting William
Shockley's alleged Invention, used for over 50 years by Bell
Labs, is not really a Transistor: its a high back voltage
microwave Rectifier prototype, invented in 1943 for use in
Broadcast television, and not a Solid State Device at all!
This is the picture used for 50 years. I understand that he
and et al got the Nobel Prize for this. What can I say about this?
(http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/swampy/1/transistor.htm)
Regardless of whether it's a Rectifier Prototype or a
transistor, it's clearly "solid-state" (the only other
alternative would be a vacuum rectifier, which were fairly
common back then -- I have a book dated 1938 that detailed
a number of projects using vacuum tubes).
9. Velikovsky: A name we all know! This guy put down a few of
his own original ideas and took them to a publisher. The
publisher was delighted and gave him an advance. Same publisher
also did scientific textbooks and he was threatened by scientists
with a boycott if he did not remove the book from publication.
It was passed to another publisher and read by an American
planetarium director (all names can be supplied if required)
who thought it was good and decided to put on a show using
Velikovsky ideas. He was told to empty his desk and go. There
was an uproar unparalleled in the annals of science and the mans
name was blackened and vilified beyond all human understanding.
All of the predictions he made in the book have since been
verified by science. His name is now used as a kind of insult.
This has not prevented people from using and profiting from his ideas.
I'd need more data here. Specifically, what predictions did
Velikovsky make?
10. Tesla: Do I really need to say anything about the way he has been
treated by science?
Yes. :-P
Best regards
Al
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
13 May 2005 08:53:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:56:27 +0100, Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false and so I put together a short
list of data as proof of my complaint that science is not doing a good job.
The list is endless and this is but a taste.
This is not the best way to woo someone come into your
church and ***** you. Step outside, let your inner self
lead. Flaunt it. Here, this is what you ought to do:
http://www.geektimes.com/michael/travel/usa/ca/sanFrancisco/castro/events/1998PrideParade/gallery-1/images/fairy.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: List of scientific lies and or ***** |
13 May 2005 10:01:47 AM |
|
|
"Maleki" Mehram <maleki401@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1pt3xlqhz6ye8$.4nxpjs16kczb.dlg@40tude.net...
On Thu, 12 May 2005 20:56:27 +0100, Al wrote:
It has been said that my assertions are false ...
[Mehram]
This is not the best way to woo someone come into your
church and ***** you. Step outside, let your inner self
lead. Flaunt it. Here, this is what you ought to do:
http://www.geektimes.com/michael/travel/usa/ca/sanFrancisco/castro/events/1998PrideParade/gallery-1/images/fairy.jpg
[hanson]
Mehram, yo, you gay fat-boy... you surley do flaunt it!
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... so, you have finally come out
of the closet, Mehram...... ahahaha... showing off that
you are a Persian fairy... ahahaha... But, Mehram, you
ought to go on a jewish diet. You look quite repulsive.
But thanks for the laughs.
.... ahahaha.... ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
