fertilizerspike

Here's a really big problem: I have no idea what you mean when you say "the current science". As far as I'm concerned "the current science" is the better explanation.

The load of codswallop is coming out of your mouth. I never claimed direct imaging is the only method of detecting planets. That came from your feverish imagination. Perhaps you should try reading my comments if you intend to critique them. As for other causes of periodic changes in spectra of stars (attributed quite erroneously to velocity), until you can demonstrate you even understand my comments I don't see the point of elaborating. And really I was being generous calling it "margin of error", because actually with only 5% verification, that's a 95% falsification so far. I'm not the least bit concerned about your happiness. This isn't a happiness forum. I'm interested in science. The problem here, I think, is that what you consider to be science is nothing but a collection of fables based on wishful thinking, in which you have 100% unwavering faith. Even when it is exposed to you that your beliefs are not science I feel you will persist in them, growing more and more angry as you find you are unable to defend those beliefs, then you will seek the same remedy that people in your position always seek, to have the offending information obliterated without investigation. You've also left a crucial part from your description of science: experiment

Put down the crack pipe, there was no hijack, and everything I posted in the thread you cut this from was relevant to the topic. Is there some peculiar and idiosyncratic reason you're suggesting comments about "black hole" don't belong in a thread discussing "black hole"?

No, I'm referring to the consistent pattern of fraud and lying among "fossil hunters".

You're citing Heisenberg imagining a gamma ray microscope as proof of his "uncertainty principle"? That's basically what the piece you cited says, that Heisenberg imagined a gamma ray microscope imaging an electron and he found (shocker) that his imaginings fit precisely with his predictions. Eureka!!! Actually you're a little behind the times, it was demonstrated last year that silicon lenses can be used to focus gamma rays. Shocker!!!

Yes, hair does have such properties, and you can demonstrate them on a cold, dry day with a plastic comb.

It's difficult to accurately say considering all the fraud and hoaxing in paleontology.

The mortality rate of untreated tetanus is about 25%, if I'm not too much mistaken. If even rudimentary medical treatment is administered (not injections of vaccines) the mortality rate drops to well below 10%. This low mortality rate combined with the extremely low incidence of tetanus means that taking a tetanus vaccine is akin to playing russian roulette. It may not hurt you, but it won't do you any good and might kill you. Oh, also, tetanus is primarily treated with antibiotics with a very high success rate.

Food allergies caused by "excessive water intake"? That sounds utterly absurd. Do you have any data to back that up?

To date nobody has demonstrated the fusion process said to take place in stars. Not only that, but stellar fusion models explicitly state that stars are self-compressed balls of gas. We know from the known properties of all gases that this is impossible. Gases under no circumstances compress themselves under their own weight while heating up, they expand to fill the available space while cooling. As for a star's size, I'd say it depends on at least two things; the amount of available matter and the magnitude of electric current that formed the star in a "z pinch".

Sagittarius A*, to name just one that's very nearby. But you could name any "black hole candidate" object, they're all prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation, in utter defiance of "black hole" assumptions. The "singularity" is riotous in itself, it is a purely mathematical construct with utterly no empirical referent. You're confusing misunderstanding with fact, that's quite the convoluted error you've engaged in.

But can you actually produce any of this "dark matter" for study in the lab? Without experiment it's easy to stray off into hallucinatory terrain.

Fewer than 5% of the "discovered" exoplanets have been imaged directly, leaving a 95% margin of error. That pitiable in any sense of the word. Pending further verification of these "methods" used to "detect" planets around stars it's not a safe bet. I guess I should go ahead and explain at least one method that has as yet unverified assumptions at its core, since you're going to keep complaining until I do. Astronogers often claim they can detect planets by changes in a star's "radial velocity". This assumption is flawed because there are of course other phenomena that could be perturbing a star's motion that have nothing to do with any planets. No attempt is made in any of these "radial velocity" methods to exclude other causes, so the observations are not diagnostic of anything.

I didn't ask for a citation, I asked for the data, which you apparently can not provide. Loomis came to many absurd conclusions, one being that his three pendulum clocks, which were essentially rooted in bedrock, phase shifted 120 degrees, were modulating each others' periods by transmitting inertia through the Earth. He was a rich guy who had a tiny handful of good ideas but mainly bad ones.

You apparently believe he showed "variation that was consistent with the magnitude and period expected from the variation from the moon". Like all users of the forum I'm sure you're perfectly willing to provide the data he acquired. Please note that anecdotal stories about the evidence are unconvincing. Please provide the data, and then demonstrate that his data agrees with predictions based on whatever model you feel was used to make those predictions.

From your point of view I could be a spotted ape, which is just one reason your point of view is irrelevant, because it can lead you to conclusions that stray far from reality. This is why science is rooted in experimental verification. Where is the experimental verification of "dark matter". Note the absence of a question mark, it's rhetorical, because there is no such verification. Can you produce some of this "dark matter"? Can anyone? Until someone does, this stuff is imaginary. Oh, can you produce some "dark matter" so everyone can share your conviction that it is real? No, of course you can not, and nobody else can, either. Until that happens, this stuff is imaginary.

I'm well familiar with the various claims about "black hole". It seems that any time astronogers locate an incredibly bright object they name it a "black hole", in utter defiance of the very definition of "black hole", which states they can never be observed because light can not escape them. As for experimental verification, it is essential to science. Until the idea is tested it may be safely deemed imaginary. To date nobody has reproduced the effect of "black hole" in the lab. If that ever changes then so will my conclusions about their existence. No, it doesn't screw up any of cosmology, but it does upset a lot of stargazers and storytellers. Science is based on experimental verification. Cosmology is not exempt when practiced as a science. All real phenomena can be modeled and studied in the lab. Note: a computer simulation is not a lab Oh, have you single-handedly changed the definition of "black hole" so that it is now observable? Publish, you may win the Nobel prize.

So in other words you have no evidence supporting your claim that my assertions are "bizarre". Why am I not surprised. I'm well familiar with the various claims about methods of exoplanet discovery. I don't find many of them convincing. To put it another way, I don't share your blind faith in their methods. I also don't have your superstitions regarding consensus views. Consensus is not part of science and is therefore irrelevant. Further I don't think stating that a given method is logically or factually flawed is bizarre, I find it rather mundane, scientists do it routinely. If you're not a scientist I can understand your confusion. The typical methods used to identify stars with planets are spurious because they are generally based on fundamentally flawed assumptions.

Like all these "paradoxes" of "relativity" this one is resolved by arriving at the conclusion that the laws of physics are the same, everywhere, all the time, on every scale, and don't change based on wishful thinking of an observer. Despite what Terrance Mckenna rambles about in a drug-addled haze. Wait, is the roach smoking DMT?

You are making the rather bizarre assertion that the assertion I've made is rather bizarre. Perhaps you could follow "normal practice on this forum" and back up what you say with facts. I look forward with interest to see what facts you can offer in support of your assertion. Please don't be offended if I remind you in advance that repeating an assertion is not a fact. Referencing a suspect website is not a fact. Expressing an opinion is not a fact. Ideally a fact would be found in a recognized text, or a peer reviewed journal. Alternatively a well reasoned argument using solid, well established scientific theory would be acceptable. Over to you.

The distinctions between "hypothetical" and "fictional" are meaningless. Imaginary is imaginary.

By you, unless you can describe how they can be observed or tested (as in experimental verification of the phenomenon in the lab).

Loomis proved only his obsession with time and that it is impossible to keep "perfect time", it is only possible to compare clocks to each other.

A "black hole" is an imaginary construct with utterly no empirical referent. Said to be entirely unobservable and untestable, they belong completely in the realm of fantasy, not science.

Since "dark energy" is entirely fictional it can not be playing any role in any real phenomenon.