beecee

It's pareidolia on a grand scale...nothing more, nothing less, and all without a scrap of evidence. Some people will swallow anything if burdened with enough baggage.

The beliefs of billions at best are just unscientific. But woo it is and you seem to be its greatest adherent. [You will probably now wear that as your badge of honour] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo-woo dubiously or outlandishly mystical, supernatural, or unscientific Make as many as you like, that's your perogative within the rules of course. But you will never show that anything supernatural and/or paranormal is anything more then woo and unscientific. But hey! the ball's in your court...prove me a liar.

I doubt that. You will certainly I believe keep on making threads as long as you are able [your crusade ] but inevitably you will still have no real evidence to show either any reality with your spaghetti monster, nor your numerology woo. Debating/arguing unscientific nonsense such is being discussed in this thread, can be rather challenging when the person pushing the woo position refuses to listen to contrary evidence, and just keeps repeating the same old nonsense post after post after post. It will though inevitably reach a stage where action of some sort will need to be taken. I would welcome that in this particular boring repetitive subject matter and the person pushing this woo. Obviously the subject of any form of ID is unscientific nonsense and that has been shown many many times over different threads. This new woo on numerology and how anyone can accept it is truly mind boggling! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology Numerology is any belief in the divine or mysticalrelationship between a number and one or more coinciding events.[2] It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.[3] extract: Lack of evidence] Skeptics argue that numbers have no occult significance and cannot by themselves influence a person's life. Skeptics therefore regard numerology as a superstition and a pseudoscience that uses numbers to give the subject a veneer of scientific authority.[2] Two studies have been done investigating numerological claims, both producing negative results, one in the UK in 1993,[10] and one in 2012 in Israel. The experiment in Israel involved a professional numerologist and 200 participants. The experiment was repeated twice and still produced negative results. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I have a hypothesis: While this is a science forum, [meaning claims should be accompanied with evidence] many individuals laden with religious baggage, see the need to mount a white charger, and conduct a crusade against the evils of science that has shown their faith to be crap, and pushed any need for any deity of any persausion, back into oblivion.

You can say that as many times as you like and it won't ever change the fact that any mythical higher power or deity of any description, and any mythical claim re numbers synchrocity is unscientific bullshit...I equate both to woo. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words. Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example: "Homeopathy is effective (even when no molecule of the active ingredient remains in the final product) because the solution retains a memory of the solute."—the explanation for these results, e.g. water memory, is woo. Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.) The term implies a lack of either intelligence or sincerity on the part of the person or concepts so described.

Obviously.

My observation is that many promoting such woo, seem to wear it like a badge of honour, and ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Your second obtuse avoidance statement seems to confirm the first in my opinion of course.

Speaking just for myself, I have during my experiences in my life so far, noticed a connection between those despicable human beings we could call racists and bigots, and those that seemingly believe in some form of higher power and religion. And we all know in this day and age of technological advancement and the Internet, how many will use the Internet to spread their evil and such. The Internet is obviously a great boon for society in general, but I'm sure most of us also realise it is and can be used to spread many forms of nonsense, anti science propaganda, racism, bigotry, and sexism etc etc The real truth behind the ridiculous insinuation put in the OP, is that what really determines IQ's are essentially environmental and socio-economical factors and many other forms of inequality and certainly not race. Obviously also some individuals like bearing their shortcomings and less than desirable qualities like a badge of honour.

Yes, but to the very best of our knowledge Mars is probably devoid of life, but still that very slight chance that so far we have missed it, requires that we try not to contaminate the place...The usual conspiracy nuts and hoaxers would have a field day if we didn't. Unlike Aliens visiting Earth, where life is obvious and plentiful and the claims made by some that they have been kidnapped, probed and returned from whence they came. Not sure about why some mystery cannot be invoked to explain another "unknown" event. But unexplained they certainly are...or in this case unidentified...as in my own sighting many years ago. I once participated in a forum where any type of sighting, no matter how questionable, was inferred as Alien origin, and all other possible suggestions as to what it may have been, were met with fingers in the ears and nah nah na nah na! Agreed. And also in other ways I suggest. For example, after thousands of claimed visitations and even some contact, and the obvious that they would necessarilly be far in advance of us and have really nothing to fear and not really want of anything, why they don't make themselves known officially. You know, landing at the Kremlin, or the White House, or the lawns of the Parliament in Australia or anywhere else. Obviously in many cases it is not bogus and certainly something out of the ordinary was seen. You mentioned drones...yes a possibility. But again I don't see that as extraordinary evidence that a extraordinary claim of this nature would and should require. In essence some extraordinary evidence and verification, would positively answer mankinds greatest age old question of are we alone. Again my opinion, certainly not, but just as certainly, that is my belief...one that I would literally give my right arm for to actually have verified. Hmmm, other possibilities still remain. I don't yet see it as extraordinary evidence where we can say positively, hey, we have been visited by little green men! Agreed. Obviously I have not delved into this as far as you have, and again, I certainly support your suggestion of further examination and investigation. The problem even then is that these things, these UFOs, seem to just flitter in and flitter out again, without giving us time for proper investigation.

As I said, most are explained by more mundane explanations. Those that are not readily explained are simply "unidentified" not necessarilly outside the reach of science per se. If they are Alien controlled space craft from somewhere else, then they are also able to be explained by science as that.

Most scientists I believe, would say we certainly are not alone. The sheer size of the universe, the near infinite numbers of stars and planets, the stuff of life being everywhere we look, make that belief pretty tenable in my opinion. But the fact remains that as yet we have no definitive evidence of any life existing off the earth, and certainly no extraordinary evidence of ETL having visited Earth. What do I believe to be extraordinary evidence? Alien excreta, alien artifacts, needles, [considering all the anal probing and other medical procedures reported] As a great man once said, ëxtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence There is nothing more desirable for your's truly to wish for before I kick the bucket, that evidence that we are not alone and an ever increasing number of scientists believe we are getting close to verifying some sort of life from off this planet. The incident that Moontanman suggests is certainly closer to the positive position of possible non human technology, but extraordinary evidence? There are many weird types of atmospheric and weather phenomena that maybe taken for controlled Alien craft. Some probably yet to be recorded, eg: St Elmo's Fire, balled lightening, cloud shapes etc etc....Radar blips can be caused by temperature inversions layers. We have all seen how big a full Moon appears on the horizon. Simply an example of a convincing illusion created by a perception in relation to surrounding horizon objects. Let me say I actually admire the scientific way that Moontanman has approached UFO sightings, and I will agree that although 95% of them are readily explained away by more conventional scenarios, the 5% or so that remain as "Unidentified" should be further investigated by an impartial panel. As someone who has been witnessed to a UFO [emphasis on the U] I would dearly love some convincing confirmation on its origin. Is it possible that Earth has been visited by some ETI in the past? Of course! but again, we have no extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim or confirmation. Arguments against that possibility are that time and distances are great barriers for inter-planetary contact. Moontanman's solution though re "expanding exponentially"with regards to the human race, does have some logic supporting it. The whole rotten shame about the question of ETL and UFO sightings is the number of ratbag claims, devious trickery and charlatans out there, that most certainly take the gloss off such a scientifically interested discipline. Wouldn't it be great if governments around the world, could unite and cease the trillions and trillions of dollars spent on militaristic endeavours, and dierct it towards NASA ESA and other space agencies to facilitate further space endeavours and experiments, like a outpost on the Moon, manned Mars missions and even beyond! Dreaming? Please allow an old bastard such as myself that luxury!

Much like using a rule or measuring tape when turning down a cylinder and/or piston, instead of a Vernier caliper or micrometer?

Thanks for clearing that up Marcus, including also the reply to AbstractDreamer.

https://newatlas.com/vanishing-star-skip-supernova-black-hole/49725/ Birth of a black hole witnessed as star vanishes without a bang: For the first time, astronomers have witnessed a star disappear right before their eyes. Known as N6946-BH1, the star appears to have collapsed into a black hole without the usual flair of a supernova, which not only marks the first time scientists have witnessed the birth of a black hole, but could change our understanding of the life and death of stars. According to conventional thinking, when a star exhausts its energy supply, it violently ejects most of its matter outwards in a supernova, before collapsing in on itself to form a black hole. But N6946-BH1 has bucked the trend, skipping the supernova stage and quietly collapsing into a black hole. These failed supernovae (or "massive fails", as the team calls them) could help patch some holes in our stellar knowledge. "The typical view is that a star can form a black hole only after it goes supernova," says Christopher Kochanek, lead researcher on the study. "If a star can fall short of a supernova and still make a black hole, that would help to explain why we don't see supernovae from the most massive stars. more at link..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/468/4/4968/3098190 The search for failed supernovae with the Large Binocular Telescope: confirmation of a disappearing star: Abstract We present Hubble Space Telescope imaging confirming the optical disappearance of the failed supernova (SN) candidate identified by Gerke, Kochanek & Stanek. This ∼25 M⊙ red supergiant experienced a weak ∼106 L⊙ optical outburst in 2009 and is now at least 5 mag fainter than the progenitor in the optical. The mid-IR flux has slowly decreased to the lowest levels since the first measurements in 2004. There is faint (2000–3000 L⊙) near-IR emission likely associated with the source. We find the late-time evolution of the source to be inconsistent with obscuration from an ejected, dusty shell. Models of the spectral energy distribution indicate that the remaining bolometric luminosity is >6 times fainter than that of the progenitor and is decreasing as ∼t−4/3. We conclude that the transient is unlikely to be an SN impostor or stellar merger. The event is consistent with the ejection of the envelope of a red supergiant in a failed SN and the late-time emission could be powered by fallback accretion on to a newly formed black hole. Future IR and X-ray observations are needed to confirm this interpretation of the fate for the star. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this bring into question the science of Supernovas? Could extra massive stars actually form a BH at their cores first, without any "rebound" and instead just consume the rest of the inflated star?

https://newatlas.com/neutron-star-collision-black-hole/54861/ NASA sheds light on strange object created in cosmic collision: In August 2017, astronomers were treated to one of the most spectacular stellar light shows ever seen – a collision between two neutron stars. The smashup was so powerful it sent gravitational ripples through the very fabric of spacetime, and produced flares in visible light, radio waves, x-rays and a gamma ray burst. Now that things have quietened down, astronomers have studied the strange object created in the cosmic collision. The LIGO facility was the first to notice something big was happening. On August 17 last year, the instrument detected gravitational waves coming from a source now officially known as GW170817, which lies about 138 million light-years away. Gravitational waves alone are old news, but there was something different about this one – it wasn't caused by invisible black holes merging, but the very-visible crash of two neutron stars. About 70 observatories around the world quickly trained their sights on the location, and weren't disappointed. Across the various instruments, signals were detected in visible light, radio waves, x-rays and a short gamma ray burst. The fireworks were expected to be short-lived, but to make things even weirder, the afterglow actually seemed to get brighter over the next few months. more at link................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aac3d6 GW170817 Most Likely Made a Black Hole: Abstract: There are two outstanding issues regarding the neutron-star merger event GW170817: the nature of the compact remnant and the interstellar shock. The mass of the remnant of GW170817, ~2.7 , implies that the remnant could be either a massive rotating neutron star, or a black hole. We report Chandra Director's Discretionary Time observations made in 2017 December and 2018 January, and we reanalyze earlier observations from 2017 August and 2017 September, in order to address these unresolved issues. We estimate the X-ray flux from a neutron star remnant and compare that to the measured X-ray flux. If we assume that the spin-down luminosity of any putative neutron star is converted to pulsar wind nebula X-ray emission in the 0.5–8 keV band with an efficiency of 10−3, for a dipole magnetic field with 3 × 1011 G < B < 1014 G, a rising X-ray signal would result and would be brighter than that observed by day 107; we therefore conclude that the remnant of GW170817 is most likely a black hole. Independent of any assumptions of X-ray efficiency, however, if the remnant is a rapidly rotating magnetized neutron star, the total energy in the external shock should rise by a factor ~102 (to ~1052 erg) after a few years; therefore, Chandra observations over the next year or two that do not show substantial brightening will rule out such a remnant. The same observations can distinguish between two different models for the relativistic outflow, either an angular or radially varying structure.

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, that further collapse is compulsory. Therefor ignoring other infalling matter/energy, the interior of any BH should be nothing but critically curved spacetime, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where GR fails us. I have never hinted or said that GR is not an approximation. As I see others have told you, all theories are approximations...even a future validated QGT would probably be an approximation. That does not mean that it is wrong. And more importantly, it does not suggest that "c" is not invariant. I'm not really knowledgable enough to answer that question, other then to say that we have no reason to believe that "c" can be anything other then "c" and plenty of reasons to accept that "c" has always been "c". I don't believe that is true. As I said just above, GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached that further collapse is compulsory. It is then reasonably logical for us to then assume that the interior of a BH is just critically curved spacetime. [ignoring infalling matter/energy] At least up to the quantum/Planck region where we know GR fails us.

No, just another totally false statement without any evidence.

or simply a product of evolution, stemming of course from Abiogenesis, the only scientific answer available. Why do you insist in being deliberately obtuse? That has been answered many times for you. Are you that blinded by mythical beliefs? It is nothing but woo. I once personally threw 17 heads in a row in a game of two up on ANZAC Day. Coincidence or woo?

Science isn't about proofs and positives. Science is about explaining the universe around us based on observations and via models/theories. The strength of science is that models and theories are modified according to further and improved observations. No observations, no predict any god that you claim under any name you chose even "higher power"...or spaghetti monster.

Well I suggest that you listen to what most reputable professionals are saying, both here and in the science world in general. We all know where GR fails us....at the quantum/Planck level at the BH's center where the non physical singularity exists.Not at the EH. No one has ever denied that GR is an apporoximation. But any validated QGT will give the same answers as GR within the parameters of applicability of GR. That's great and I'm glad I am mistaken with my suggestion. Your next step now is to understand the answers you have been given and the science it entails. And of course the expertise of the people giving you those answers. GR is incomplete because it is an approximation. A future validated QGT will almost certainly encompass the BB and GR and extend the parameters at which they operate. Just as GR extended and improved accuracies beyond Newtonian gravity.

Nice dreams. Hans Christian Anderson would be envious.

Any supernatural being of whatever design of god that you like to dream up, like your number synchrocity claims, is unevidenced nonsense and just your personal opinion. There is really only one scientific answer to the existence of universal life my friend, and that is Abiogenesis.

It does nothing of the sort, and all I see is more obfuscation and dancing around the issue. No, just simply coincidences. And the empty unsupported, unscientific rhetoric continues.

My own answer to your question as to why "c"should be "c" and invariable was that this is what length contraction and time dilation depend on. Other answers by others were also forthcoming, such as if it were variable, it would be noticed in many other aspects. I suggested a possible underlying cause that I have been a part of in another forum. That person often questioned GR, BH'S the BB and as it turned out, he was exposed as a closeted IDer. I hope you do not have an agenda. You have right to "honestly" question whatever you have a problem with. There are things I have not understood in the past....I then make an effort to dig deeper and gain more knowledge in that particular area of science, and invariably it turns out that the answers I gave been given were correct at that time. My only agenda my friend is science, the scientific method, and to keep learning off those more qualified and understanding same.