Leaderboard

Prof Reza Sanaye has been banned for continuing to hijack threads and argue in bad faith

oh sure. Throw me under the bus... 😄😄

@Bill McC The topic is "Spotting Pseudoscience"; is your post meant as an exercise for other members?

If anyone is still intersted its to do with wind stoppers for the Steppes https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89817/fending-off-the-wind-on-the-steppe

https://thelanguagenerds.com/

See it this way: getting out of a gravitational field costs energy. Objects with mass lose kinetic energy, which means they slow down. Light also has energy, but it is not dependent on its speed, because it always has the same speed. But the energy of light is related to its frequency. So light 'loses frequency', which means its frequency goes down, i.e. it becomes redder. Now imagine a light beam with less energy than needed to get out of the gravity field. It would have no energy anymore, which for a wave simply means it does not exist anymore. At the event horizon EM radiation just has not enough energy to escape. Physically maybe not completely correct, but it might help to develop your 'physical intuition'... It is true, using daily intuitions it is impossible to understand modern physics. Throwing away physical theories because it does not fit your intuitions is the worst you can do. (In fact, it is one of the strongest motivations of so many 'crackpot theories' that are also posted on this forum).

I think what is said here is true and important to a healthy culture of spreading only verified true information, but I guess I want to give my 2 cents on why some of these points are more culturally complicated. The reason quacks would claim the industry is trying to suppress information is because historically some systems of economy government and business will at times do really destructive and antisocial things. Whether this ever really stopped legitimate science from being published or studied is really debatable and much less likely than just the disgusting sheer destruction of food that could have been donated or destruction of other usable goods for profit or solely to disadvantage competition, but it plays into a story some people will be able to believe due to the mistrust of society or the economy. I guess I think a dialogue on the cultural psychological aspects of what can make pseudoscience believable and easy to spread is worth talking about once in awhile, and I'm totally not condoning any of it but just think it is sensible to approach these matters knowing that there's a complex cultural history to pseudoscience (which is probably an entire field of social science on its own that we need to master and get under control before society suffers too much more lmfao) and at times there is maybe a real potential for some things, in some circumstances at least, that are usually used as bullshit ploys, to otherwise have instances that may be could connect that concept to being truthful. I might have screwed up the grammar there let me write a better concise sentence. In rare instances industry could be negative to society, so with false logic this is used as a scapegoat. This also connects to alternative medicine. Marijuana is a great example. There are some kids with rare seizure problems that only THC seems to fix. Since it's illegal, marijuana has been lumped in with alternative medicine in some demographics. Also, the history of why marijuana is illegal is a completely fucking racist campaign by Harry J Anslinger to make people think that a mexican plant is making people go nuts and die (cannabis got it's name of marijuana from this, and marijuana was a totally unrelated mexican plant before) Another note I want to make about alternative medicine is that lots of folk medicines are where we start researching from, because foundations of information historically are built off the first things we start testing. which is shit with totally random anecdotal connotations. I just find this really fascinating and I think it's a reason to keep in mind that a lot of people spreading pseudoscience are confused and just doing what comes natural, to observe ideas at whatever level they're functioning at and then spread shit around and try to play with those ideas. I don't want to sound like I'm defending these problems or have an understanding of where science made its perfect distinction from natural philosophy and alchemists, but just point out that I suppose the human conditions problems are also the steps to our successes as well. What interests me a lot about horticulture and ancient medicines (and not saying I believe anything because it's traditionally used, and I also think the perspective I'm presenting here is totally different from the even worse snake oil salesman advert that tried and true ancient remedies must be a cure) is that all of these plants are full of chemicals and we might not even have studies (or accessible studies) on a lot of them and their properties. So while nothing is proven about alternative medicine, I think there is a lot of potential in plant science that's untapped (which is why not destroying the environment or entire planet would be a really swell idea) anyways, sorry if bumping an old thread is frowned upon but I thought I might bring up these points, some of the things I mentioned are things you hear about a lot not even from scientific communities but are still things when you look up can be pretty well proven, as I don't think I specifically made any tall claims just tried to point out the complexity of our world. I guess ultimately I think if some of the reasons these points the original poster made could be addressed and confirmed by people who know science it could be easier to make average people feel like they're understood and that they are willing to listen and then maybe more complex ideas can be more accessible to them. I guess the point of a forum is to basically allow culture and people to work through that anyways

Excuse me ; these are stipulations that YOU are adding. The original author did not say so.

Ok , Area . .. . So Sorry for elucidating . . . We now deem it as both Provocative and Irrelevant . . . .. . . . . .

That sentence fragment marked in red is only a recitation; you did it without understanding electricity. I have worked with many experts in the electrical field, and although it is disheartening to realize that modern science took money from the government to achieve grant results that were predefined, it is what took place. Electricity today is a hot mess. There is almost no going back as you are here claiming at least an eighth-grade education, I am sure, and cannot see the total failure of institutions, especially when it comes to electricity. My eighth-grade remark does not mean that you did not spend many more years in a counterintelligence center/university. It means any eighth-grader could figure it out if they were interested in doing so. But don’t worry, most eighth-graders today will never understand electricity, so perhaps you are safe.

Many of your points are valid. However, many are standard Royal Society armchair recitals of current beliefs which are the same as ancient beliefs. I noted that you did not mention Benjamin Franklin, the other side of the coin, the man who started science on earth. A man whose inventions were better in many ways than even Tesla's inventions due to a basic understanding of the universe. The Royal society laughed at old Benjamin Franklin for thirty minutes, as his letter about static electricity and lightning being the same was read by a friend who knew of Benjamin Franklin's working lightning rods. They claimed he was spouting off. They challenged him to fly a kite in an electrical storm, and he did it easily, as can any Universal scientist today. But when the Myth Busters attempted it almost three hundred years later, they claimed that Benjamin Franklin could not have done so, and universities agreed. That would be sad if it were not criminal. Benjamin Franklin realized that only electricity stops electricity. No insulator can protect you without first charging in a ramping voltage. It took decades before Benjamin Franklin received the Copley award from the Royal Society, its highest award. Universities have since reversed their decision about single-particle electricity and have gone back to Du Fay's two-particle theory of electricity; Du Fay's theory had children going to bell towers to ward off lightning. Knowledge is no longer what universities are about. Today ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) has been skewed by University's announced decision to change Benjamin Franklins exact markings to total lunacy. So before you write off people, you need to look at the government that owned science totally after World War Two. And what they have gotten you to believe that is easily debunked if you wish to face it. Most do not. It is too late for your document to protect science.

On the contrary, I have found that those that march around proclaiming almighty science and the need to defend it against those that question it, have no science. They have a little formula that helps someone doing their homework or helps someone calculate some difficult to achieve result. But they do not have science. Science needs no protection, and if it has fallen, it has fallen because the people are not interested. If they are not interested, there is no science. When people are not interested in science/reality, they are suicidal and extremely dangerous individuals by actual observation. Someone with reality/science is rather calm and confident and can communicate civilly for years about a subject. While those claiming to have the only science, the holy grail of science, are quite poor at science and cannot explain their science. Others claim science proves nothing really, except that what it states today is the gospel, and they will not allow any other currently not supported "science" into view. Nor can they discuss or defend against sane challenges. So my thought is when you are ready for real science, I hope it is still there for you. There is not much left; that is why we haven't been to the moon in over half a century, even though we have unlimited funding for any good project in the U.S., As does any other country.