Truth and Knowledge

[Pymander]

'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution. Contrary to popular belief though, a theory is always speculative, with no right to call itself otherwise than any equally viable alternative. We can never prove a theory. We can only disprove, or improve by refinement, when further evidence comes to light. We can never know, like the detective, that further evidence may contradict the theory we presently favour. It is an abuse of 'reason' to claim an alternative theory as proof against another. Only direct evidence can do this, and evidence which is not derived on the basis of contrary theories and supportive hypotheses. Premise, theory, hypothesis, postulate, axiom and other such terms are equivalent and form no sort of proof. All these are speculative.

 

A theorem (not a theory) is derived by deduction from an hypothesis or several hypotheses. The theorem can be proven. It rests on the hypotheses, and deductive validity. The hypotheses may later be proven from further more primitive hypotheses. But these model observed evidence by abstraction from amongst empirical data, information, knowledge or wisdom, and this constitutes a simplification of the composite sources in observed reality. Never can we escape such a tentative foundation for our theorem. Otherwise deduction proceeds ad nauseum or is circular.

 

Mathematics is less at the mercy of empirical data and more abstract as in isolating variables, and calls its hypotheses axioms. Science employes mathematics, but note that quantum considerations properly require rational numbers, not reals, so these limit validity. Science also deals with a range of empirical evidence requiring further modeling, and becomes more tentative as greater composites are attempted to be described. Its theorems are called conclusions, which may fail testing. A theory on the other hand may be the king pin hypothesis among hypotheses. We could probably grade sciences from chemistry to psychology according to the number of unproven hypotheses each relies on for validity.

 

If in mainstream scientific discussion, one preceeds a dialogue with the sugestion that alternatives may exist, is this not a positive step for science? If we suggest that a theory is ironclad, that is no different to bigone paradigms which are clung to by some, and they are then no different to us. The argument from mainstreem science belongs with reductio ad absurdum and other falacious logic. We must proceed according to one alternative, but always acknowledge the distincty possibility of not having chosen well. Whoever sets himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods - Albert Einstein.

 

 

[uncool]

'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question[/QUOTe]

False. What's required is at least an understanding of mainstream science.

at an academic institution. Contrary to popular belief though, a theory is always speculative, with no right to call itself otherwise than any equally viable alternative.[/QUOTe]

Again, false. It has every right to say that it is more than an "equally viable alternative"; it can certainly say that it is closer to the data than a theory which predicts different data.

We can never prove a theory. We can only disprove, or improve by refinement, when further evidence comes to light. We can never know, like the detective, that further evidence may contradict the theory we presently favour. It is an abuse of 'reason' to claim an alternative theory as proof against another. Only direct evidence can do this, and evidence which is not derived on the basis of contrary theories and supportive hypotheses. Premise, theory, hypothesis, postulate, axiom and other such terms are equivalent and form no sort of proof. All these are speculative.

But different speculations are not necessarily equal. That is why direct evidence allows us to evaluate which theories are closer to experimental outcome and which further away.

A theorem (not a theory) is derived by deduction from an hypothesis or several hypotheses. The theorem can be proven. It rests on the hypotheses, and deductive validity. The hypotheses may later be proven from further more primitive hypotheses. But these model observed evidence by abstraction from amongst empirical data, information, knowledge or wisdom, and this constitutes a simplification of the composite sources in observed reality. Never can we escape such a tentative foundation for our theorem. Otherwise deduction proceeds ad nauseum or is circular.

 

Mathematics is less at the mercy of empirical data and more abstract as in isolating variables, and calls its hypotheses axioms. Science employes mathematics, but note that quantum considerations properly require rational numbers,

Err. What?

 

No, they don't.

not reals, so these limit validity. Science also deals with a range of empirical evidence requiring further modeling, and becomes more tentative as greater composites are attempted to be described. Its theorems are called conclusions, which may fail testing. A theory on the other hand may be the king pin hypothesis among hypotheses. We could probably grade sciences from chemistry to psychology according to the number of unproven hypotheses each relies on for validity.

 

If in mainstream scientific discussion, one preceeds a dialogue with the sugestion that alternatives may exist, is this not a positive step for science? If we suggest that a theory is ironclad,

Strawman. What is suggested is that the theory has sufficient evidence that a mountain of evidence will be needed to persuade us that another theory is superior.

that is no different to bigone paradigms which are clung to by some, and they are then no different to us. The argument from mainstreem science belongs with reductio ad absurdum and other falacious logic. We must proceed according to one alternative, but always acknowledge the distincty possibility of not having chosen well.[/QUOTe]

As is already done.

=Uncool-

[Pymander]

False. What's required is at least an understanding of mainstream science.

 

Again, false. It has every right to say that it is more than an "equally viable alternative"; it can certainly say that it is closer to the data than a theory which predicts different data.

 

But different speculations are not necessarily equal. That is why direct evidence allows us to evaluate which theories are closer to experimental outcome and which further away.

 

Err. What?

 

No, they don't.

 

Strawman. What is suggested is that the theory has sufficient evidence that a mountain of evidence will be needed to persuade us that another theory is superior.

 

As is already done.

=Uncool-

 

 

Good one. You're Bart Simpson, right?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Pymander,

If someone has the decency to read your posts and reply to you in some detail, common courtesy dictates that you should respond with the same.

[Pymander]

Good one. You're Bart Simpson, right?

 

I stand corrected. Answering you initial response, do you get the impression that I have no idea of main stream science?

 

 

"Again, false. It has every right to say that it is more than an "equally viable alternative"; it can certainly say that it is closer to the data than a theory which predicts different data."

 

Can you not see that this is a contradiction?

 

"But different speculations are not necessarily equal. That is why direct evidence allows us to evaluate which theories are closer to experimental outcome and which further away."

 

And who decides what is 'direct evidence'? What is more direct, for instance, than the "Black Hole" contradicting the existence of "BigBangium".

 

"Err. What?

No, they don't."

 

You will need to be more specific.

 

"Strawman. What is suggested is that the theory has sufficient evidence that a mountain of evidence will be needed to persuade us that another theory is superior."

 

Original. Alternative does not imply superior/inferior. Are you, maybe, suggesting that, while every paradigm was swamped by greater evidence before the current one, that this cannot recur in the present.

 

"As is already done."

 

We have with all certainty chosen well this time? So that's scientific? Thank you. Have you written any books? I'd like to pursue your thinking in greater depth.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Pymander

[Bignose]

'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution.

 

Considering how many of those institutions receive many millions of dollars to perform research to explore alternatives, correct flaws in the current 'mainstream', and discover brand new things, I'd argue that this statement is flawed from the start. In addition to that, I suspect that a significant number of working scientists employed at these institutions would absolutely love to be the one who finds a way to turn the mainstream on its head -- because that would mean that they are responsible for a major discovery.

 

The great thing about what is mainstream today is that one can look over the evidence that made it mainstream. One can read the papers, can look at the experimental results, and basically do the complete opposite of just 'accept[ing] without question'. You might have to actually read some papers, though; it won't just be handed to you on a silver platter. 2012 is no longer the Dark Ages where a church or other all-controlling power tells you what to believe. If you want to question what is mainstream today, go and actually do some research and read the papers for the beginning that show step-by-step all the wealth of evidence as to why something became mainstream. Questions about why something is mainstream have answers, you just have to actually go look for them.

 

"Again, false. It has every right to say that it is more than an "equally viable alternative"; it can certainly say that it is closer to the data than a theory which predicts different data."

 

Can you not see that this is a contradiction?

 

This is not a contradiction. It isn't well-worded, however.

 

I hope this is clearer: One does not just get to declare that two choices are 'equally viable'. Viability, in terms of scientific ideas, are very easily measured: how close to the predictions that are based on the idea agree with experimental evidence? A theory that predicts results with 0.3% error is NOT equally viable with one that predicts results with 17.8% error. The first is clearly superior. Only if the errors are essentially the same are two ideas considered equally viable.

 

[edited for spelling]

Edited July 22, 2012 by Bignose

[uncool]

I stand corrected. Answering you initial response, do you get the impression that I have no idea of main stream science?

I have the impression that you know some mainstream science, but that you have no experience of actually working on science within the mainstream.

 

On a side note, would you mind using the quote function in the future, similarly to how I'm using it?

"Again, false. It has every right to say that it is more than an "equally viable alternative"; it can certainly say that it is closer to the data than a theory which predicts different data."

 

Can you not see that this is a contradiction?[/QUOTe]

See Bignose's post.

"But different speculations are not necessarily equal. That is why direct evidence allows us to evaluate which theories are closer to experimental outcome and which further away."

 

And who decides what is 'direct evidence'?[/QUOTe]

Direct evidence is data - everything that we can measure directly.

What is more direct, for instance, than the "Black Hole" contradicting the existence of "BigBangium".[/QUOTe]

You have yet to demonstrate such a contradiction.

"Err. What?

No, they don't."

 

You will need to be more specific.

Quantum mechanics does not require rational numbers in the least. Quantum mechanics deals with the reals and complex numbers just as much (if not more so) than classical mechanics does.

"Strawman. What is suggested is that the theory has sufficient evidence that a mountain of evidence will be needed to persuade us that another theory is superior."

 

Original. Alternative does not imply superior/inferior. Are you, maybe, suggesting that, while every paradigm was swamped by greater evidence before the current one, that this cannot recur in the present.[/QUOTe]

You missed what I was responding to. You implied that scientists thought that every modern theory was ironclad; that is not true. What is true is that most modern theories have mountain chains of evidence, and therefore would need mountains of evidence to convince us to set it aside in favor of another theory. That doesn't mean that it cannot happen. What it does mean is that it is unlikely, and would take a while.

 

"As is already done."

 

We have with all certainty chosen well this time?[/QUOTe]

That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we already do acknowledge the possibility of not having done well. Every scientist knows that current knowledge could be wrong.

So that's scientific? Thank you. Have you written any books? I'd like to pursue your thinking in greater depth.

No, I have not written any books.

=Uncool-

[Pymander]

Considering how many of those institutions receive many millions of dollars to perform research to explore alternatives, correct flaws in the current 'mainstream', and discover brand new things, I'd argue that this statement is flawed from the start. In addition to that, I suspect that a significant number of working scientists employed at these institutions would absolutely love to be the one who finds a way to turn the mainstream on its head -- because that would mean that they are responsible for a major discovery.

 

The great thing about what is mainstream today is that one can look over the evidence that made it mainstream. One can read the papers, can look at the experimental results, and basically do the complete opposite of just 'accept[ing] without question'. You might have to actually read some papers, though; it won't just be handed to you on a silver platter. 2012 is no longer the Dark Ages where a church or other all-controlling power tells you what to believe. If you want to question what is mainstream today, go and actually do some research and read the papers for the beginning that show step-by-step all the wealth of evidence as to why something became mainstream. Questions about why something is mainstream have answers, you just have to actually go look for them.

 

 

 

This is not a contradiction. It isn't well-worded, however.

 

I hope this is clearer: One does not just get to declare that two choices are 'equally viable'. Viability, in terms of scientific ideas, are very easily measured: how close to the predictions that as based on the idea agree with experimental evidence? A theory that predicts results with 0.3% error is NOT equally viable with one that predicts results with 17.8% error. The first is clearly superior. Only if the errors are essentially the same are two ideas considered equally viable.

 

 

A great deal is fairly certain, 88 stable elements max atomic number 92, organic and inorganic chemistry derived therefrom, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, etc all of this is employed with confidence. Great technological advances pervade all of industry. On the other hand, the origin of the universe, the divisions of the mind and its sources, the very mysterious questions concerning time itself or the complete avoidance of t=-infinity which makes no scientific sense, the subatomic world, and even the reasons why one force, the electric field, obeys mathematical law to bring all of manifestation into a comprehensible state, the nature of consciousness, and questions of purpose behind the manifested universe are all way beyond any kind of certainty. I will be frank, the crux of such questions resolve between two alternative realities. The source of the universe in all its glory is either conscious and with purpose and directing all things, or it is not. We know atheists rest heavily on unintelligent BigBangium. This appears to answer for The Most High Intelligent Power in Creation (avoiding a name). Which hypthesis seems more likely is essentially in question. The decision should be more explicitly individual, but based on all of science, as far as one is able to master it. Why? Because many questions requiring answers rest on this decision, especially for psychology, and even for humanity itself.

 

 

This is not just my opinion. Science, art and religion are branches of the same tree - Albert Einstein. Why him again? I think he showed us that we are from the light, and that it is very different from the material world, an ancient belief.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Pymander

[Bignose]

A great deal is fairly certain, 88 stable elements max atomic number 92, organic and inorganic chemistry derived therefrom, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, etc all of this is employed with confidence.

 

And they have become mainstream because there is a veritable wealth of evidence supporting what is mainstream.

 

On the other hand, the origin of the universe, the divisions of the mind and its sources, the very mysterious questions concerning time itself or the complete avoidance of t=-infinity which makes no scientific sense, the subatomic world, and even the reasons why one force, the electric field, obeys mathematical law to bring all of manifestation into a comprehensible state, the nature of consciousness, and questions of purpose behind the manifested universe are all way beyond any kind of certainty.

 

I don't think that the mainstream has much to say about any of these, however. Why the railing against the mainstream when it doesn't say much about any of these topics? If researchers uncover good answers about any of them, and support the answers with solid evidence, then they will become mainstream. But, right now, all these are open questions.

 

Now, if you want to try to answer these questions, evidence will need to be presented. On a science forum, we don't accept an idea about these subjects, or any subject for that matter, without having evidence presented in support of that idea. Since this is standard operating procedure for how science works today -- again I for one am very glad we aren't in the Dark Ages anymore -- is it any wonder that evidence will be asked of your ideas when you try to answer these hard questions?

[Ophiolite]

'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution.

I return to this opening statement, already addressed by Bignose and uncool. The depth of misunderstanding and ignorance embedded in this statement tend to render anything that follows it irrelevant. The others have pointed out how badly flawed the statement is. It prompts me to ask you these three questions:

 

Do you now recognise that the statement reveals your deep ignorance of how science today is actually conducted?

 

If you deny this misunderstanding will you provide evidence, not opinion and assertion, to justify that stance?

 

If you do accept that you were ignorant in this regard, will you concede that such ignorance hardly qualifies you to pontificate on matters as you do?

[Pymander]

I return to this opening statement, already addressed by Bignose and uncool. The depth of misunderstanding and ignorance embedded in this statement tend to render anything that follows it irrelevant. The others have pointed out how badly flawed the statement is. It prompts me to ask you these three questions:

 

Do you now recognise that the statement reveals your deep ignorance of how science today is actually conducted?

 

If you deny this misunderstanding will you provide evidence, not opinion and assertion, to justify that stance?

 

If you do accept that you were ignorant in this regard, will you concede that such ignorance hardly qualifies you to pontificate on matters as you do?

 

If one studies main stream science at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submitting assignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of an alternative paradigm that was not being taught. This paraphrases the statement you claim renders all else irrelevant. How?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Pymander

[uncool]

If one studies main stream science at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submitting assignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of an alternative paradigm that was not being taught.

Which demonstrates precisely what I said - that what's required is an understanding of mainstream science. The examinations are written to test the understanding of mainstream science; by answering from the point of view of an alternative paradigm, the student is denying any chance to evaluate the student based upon their understanding of the mainstream view, and therefore is about as good an answer as a blank page.

=Uncool-

[Ophiolite]

If one studies main stream science at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submitting assignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of an alternative paradigm that was not being taught.

Bollocks. As a single example I recall challenging staff over identification of current geosynclines. My argument was not only accepted, but incorporated into future lectures. Why? Because I provided evidence through peer reviewed papers that they were unaware of.

 

In most cases, however, and rightly so, when studying at a university one is meant to be learning the basics. Until one has these thoroughly grasped then it is arrogant and frigging infantile to go wandering off and waffling about alternative paradigms.

[Pymander]

Bollocks. As a single example I recall challenging staff over identification of current geosynclines. My argument was not only accepted, but incorporated into future lectures. Why? Because I provided evidence through peer reviewed papers that they were unaware of.

 

In most cases, however, and rightly so, when studying at a university one is meant to be learning the basics. Until one has these thoroughly grasped then it is arrogant and frigging infantile to go wandering off and waffling about alternative paradigms.

 

Which is precisely what I was saying, so now you agree, and the rest of my post is okay again. Thanks. But I didn't start this thread to practice debating skills, just to lay some basic foundations in the logic of science, before presenting alternatives to current paradigms for discussion. As for pontificating, well, I guess the Masons have the Big G and don't discuss it for a reason. The competing paradigm is BigBangium. Seeing this arouses such fanatisism against the rival Steady State Theory => Big G again, I'll let it rest.

[Ophiolite]

No I frigging well don't agree. Here again is your statement:

 

'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution.

 

That statement is bollocks. It is bollocks for the following reasons:

 

Definitely as a post-doctoral researcher and generally as a doctoral student one is required to challenge and probe the current findings and understandings of 'main stream science'. That is the precise reverse of what you claim.

 

Secondly, even as an undergraduate one is encouraged to explore alternative explanations if one has demonstrated how to do so within the process of the scientific method.

 

You are blithely unaware of the importance and reality of these points even when they are explained to you, so I say again bollocks! You do not have a clue. Ignorance is not bad, intransigent ignorance is.

[Pymander]

No I frigging well don't agree. Here again is your statement:

 

 

 

That statement is bollocks. It is bollocks for the following reasons:

 

Definitely as a post-doctoral researcher and generally as a doctoral student one is required to challenge and probe the current findings and understandings of 'main stream science'. That is the precise reverse of what you claim.

 

Secondly, even as an undergraduate one is encouraged to explore alternative explanations if one has demonstrated how to do so within the process of the scientific method.

 

You are blithely unaware of the importance and reality of these points even when they are explained to you, so I say again bollocks! You do not have a clue. Ignorance is not bad, intransigent ignorance is.

 

Since you won’t let it rest, you force me to continue. But I won’t emulate the “show business for ugly people” called politics, which is only designed to obscure and defame, nor will I put words in the mouths of contenders as you just have.

 

Much evidence has accumulated since the rival “Big Bang” and “Steady State” theories had an equal footing. The “Big Bang” seemed to answer the question of t=0 and ignore t<0 which the “Steady State” plainly did not. This suits the purpose of those who prefer ultimate oblivion to a life of decency, and replaced ethics with “might is right”. “The Sorry Tale” by Patience Worth is available today, and provides a staggering picture of a previous time, when Julius Caesar’s Rome had become such an empire. The novel is also without ‘scientific’ explanation. The Edgar Cayce readings are likewise, and definitely not ‘creationist’ but very ‘Christian’.

 

Elements necessary for an attempt to explain the “Steady State” are now available, by reinterpreting the nature of the neutrino, dark matter, and dark energy. These elements have been more or less added to the “Big Bang” to cover anomalies in a rather ad hoc manner. Strangely, they support the rival theory rather well, properly interpreted. For those interested in examining this assertion, the following, which I am told does not belong in ‘main stream science’ but here in ‘speculation’, will be given. Its claims are yet neither proven nor disproven, but they are contestable. Proper scientific contesting of these assertions is being requested, not “mooeypoo”, “horse feathers” or other such mindless garbage.

 

The basis is as follows:

 

Matter and antimatter (dark matter) particles are always formed in pairs which will annihilate each other. I believe they must be rematerialized when photons and antiphotons collide with enough energy. They would contain excess energy as K.E. and most likely are the source of cosmic rays. But only in intergalactic space will they not immediately annihilate as much material as is created. This requires a mechanism for their separation. This would be supplied if (light) matter attracts (light) matter, dark matter attracts dark matter, and light and dark matter repel. The symmetry is incomplete unless dark matter is to dark energy as light matter is to light energy. In this respect, I think that the neutrino qualifies as the dark energy photon, or antiphoton. Neutrinos may have no other effect on matter (and vice versa) than gravitational repulsion.

 

The recycling is in spiral galactic cores, so called black holes, where the event horizon is actually converting light matter and light energy to dark energy. This will be repelled out of the galactic core, pass through all the material in the galaxy, and head into intergalactic space. The symmetry is complete, and mass is signed relative to the energy or the observer in question. Possibly, photons and antiphotons (neutrinos) are also produced in pairs. In circumstances where an energy discrepancy has been noted, the neutrino has been hypothesized. Its true nature may be as described here.

 

 

 

 

 

[ACG52]

Word salad that seems to have been assembled by choosing words at random.

[Bignose]

The basis is as follows:

 

Matter and antimatter (dark matter) particles are always formed in pairs which will annihilate each other. I believe they must be rematerialized when photons and antiphotons collide with enough energy. They would contain excess energy as K.E. and most likely are the source of cosmic rays. But only in intergalactic space will they not immediately annihilate as much material as is created. This requires a mechanism for their separation. This would be supplied if (light) matter attracts (light) matter, dark matter attracts dark matter, and light and dark matter repel. The symmetry is incomplete unless dark matter is to dark energy as light matter is to light energy. In this respect, I think that the neutrino qualifies as the dark energy photon, or antiphoton. Neutrinos may have no other effect on matter (and vice versa) than gravitational repulsion.

 

The recycling is in spiral galactic cores, so called black holes, where the event horizon is actually converting light matter and light energy to dark energy. This will be repelled out of the galactic core, pass through all the material in the galaxy, and head into intergalactic space. The symmetry is complete, and mass is signed relative to the energy or the observer in question. Possibly, photons and antiphotons (neutrinos) are also produced in pairs. In circumstances where an energy discrepancy has been noted, the neutrino has been hypothesized. Its true nature may be as described here.

 

Great. Nice story. How soon will some actual science be done based on this story?

[Ringer]

Since you won't let it rest, you force me to continue. But I won't emulate the "show business for ugly people" called politics, which is only designed to obscure and defame, nor will I put words in the mouths of contenders as you just have.

 

What politics?

 

Much evidence has accumulated since the rival "Big Bang" and "Steady State" theories had an equal footing. The "Big Bang" seemed to answer the question of t=0 and ignore t<0 which the "Steady State" plainly did not. This suits the purpose of those who prefer ultimate oblivion to a life of decency, and replaced ethics with "might is right". "The Sorry Tale" by Patience Worth is available today, and provides a staggering picture of a previous time, when Julius Caesar's Rome had become such an empire. The novel is also without 'scientific' explanation. The Edgar Cayce readings are likewise, and definitely not 'creationist' but very 'Christian'.

 

If your ethical guidelines are so easily swayed as to think you can take a misinterpretation of scientific findings and make them into all defining ethical guidelines then you are seriously mistaken about the purpose of science and of philosophy. By the logic of 'if someone doesn't have a god to tell them what is good they will be evil,' then atheists who do not commit crimes must be better than their religious counter-parts. Not that I believe this is true, but it's the logical conclusion of that train of thought.

 

Elements necessary for an attempt to explain the "Steady State" are now available, by reinterpreting the nature of the neutrino, dark matter, and dark energy. These elements have been more or less added to the "Big Bang" to cover anomalies in a rather ad hoc manner. Strangely, they support the rival theory rather well, properly interpreted. For those interested in examining this assertion, the following, which I am told does not belong in 'main stream science' but here in 'speculation', will be given. Its claims are yet neither proven nor disproven, but they are contestable. Proper scientific contesting of these assertions is being requested, not "mooeypoo", "horse feathers" or other such mindless garbage.

 

The basis is as follows:

 

Matter and antimatter (dark matter) particles are always formed in pairs which will annihilate each other. I believe they must be rematerialized when photons and antiphotons collide with enough energy. They would contain excess energy as K.E. and most likely are the source of cosmic rays. But only in intergalactic space will they not immediately annihilate as much material as is created. This requires a mechanism for their separation. This would be supplied if (light) matter attracts (light) matter, dark matter attracts dark matter, and light and dark matter repel. The symmetry is incomplete unless dark matter is to dark energy as light matter is to light energy. In this respect, I think that the neutrino qualifies as the dark energy photon, or antiphoton. Neutrinos may have no other effect on matter (and vice versa) than gravitational repulsion.

 

The recycling is in spiral galactic cores, so called black holes, where the event horizon is actually converting light matter and light energy to dark energy. This will be repelled out of the galactic core, pass through all the material in the galaxy, and head into intergalactic space. The symmetry is complete, and mass is signed relative to the energy or the observer in question. Possibly, photons and antiphotons (neutrinos) are also produced in pairs. In circumstances where an energy discrepancy has been noted, the neutrino has been hypothesized. Its true nature may be as described here.

 

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Pymander, no part of your post #16 addresses the central point I am making. You have made a claim. I have demonstrated that your claim is invalid and that your ignorance on that topic calls into question every other point you argue. Do you still maintain, despite observations to the contrary, that 'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution.? When and if you respond this time please address the point and not ramble on about other matters. It may fool the artichokes, it doesn't fool me.

[Pymander]

Pymander, no part of your post #16 addresses the central point I am making. You have made a claim. I have demonstrated that your claim is invalid and that your ignorance on that topic calls into question every other point you argue. Do you still maintain, despite observations to the contrary, that 'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution.? When and if you respond this time please address the point and not ramble on about other matters. It may fool the artichokes, it doesn't fool me.

 

“Main stream science' isrequired to be accepted without question at an academic institution.”

 

 

This attracted much flack. Tobe clearer, I have tried to be more specific, with:

 

 

“If one studies main streamscience at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submittingassignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of analternative paradigm that was not being taught.”

 

 

No doubt, any such generalitywill have exceptions. My experience has not been as positive as yours. Mycredentials reached no higher than those you may find in SwissImmaculate, andthis work is a result of mundane employment providing time few with myknowledge will find to think. I have decided to present for consideration myunshackled ‘theories’ for consideration by others more qualified. DH has beennotably polite and made corrections (historical sequence Hubble – Einstein isnotable, memory fades, but Einstein’s postulate is given as he termed it, thusmy incorrect inference here), and seems to share a broad spectrum of interests.

 

 

“In most cases, however, andrightly so, when studying at a university one is meant to be learningthe basics. Until one has these thoroughly grasped then it is arrogant andfrigging infantile to go wandering off and waffling about alternativeparadigms.”

 

 

This I took as agreement,among generalities. Still, for all my foolishness, it may be worthwhile toensure that prejudices (by any other name) do not falsify a real possibility.

 

 

And at the risk ofpontificating, an intelligent universal source, if nothing else, ought not tobe rendered ‘officially denied’, and the decision left to the individual. Thisrequires humility by religions and states as to past errors. Such a world, withlearned and considerate people, we certainly do not have (yet), and we get thegovernment we deserve (Psalm 82, KJV). I have provided citations for thisstance, but these are flatly despised. Pity!

 

[swansont]

A great deal is fairly certain, 88 stable elements max atomic number 92

 

Surely you meant 80 stable elements, max atomic number 82.

 

I second the call to learn how to use the quote function. Either click the reply button, or put them in by hand, thusly:

What you want to quote

[Ringer]

"Main stream science' isrequired to be accepted without question at an academic institution."

 

This attracted much flack. Tobe clearer, I have tried to be more specific, with

"If one studies main streamscience at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submittingassignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of analternative paradigm that was not being taught."

This is blatantly untrue. While exams may be graded on knowledge of the accepted views most, if not almost all, professors will accept challenges to accepted ideas when writing a paper, research reports, presentations, etc. They only time I have seen a student's assignment given poor marks when they took a contrary stance was not because of the stance, but because of the poor writing and evidence used. Obviously this mostly comes when you have a decent understanding of the basics, not freshmen/sophomore level courses, because if you don't know the basics of what you're arguing against you're just soap-boxing.

No doubt, any such generalitywill have exceptions. My experience has not been as positive as yours. Mycredentials reached no higher than those you may find in SwissImmaculate, andthis work is a result of mundane employment providing time few with myknowledge will find to think. I have decided to present for consideration myunshackled 'theories' for consideration by others more qualified. DH has beennotably polite and made corrections (historical sequence Hubble – Einstein isnotable, memory fades, but Einstein's postulate is given as he termed it, thusmy incorrect inference here), and seems to share a broad spectrum of interests.

 

I would hope few scientific departments truly try to shut down a students attempts to understand and further scientific ideas, because that's what makes science progress. If we didn't question the established ideas there would be no jobs for future scientists. Hell, many times I've seen professors get agitated because no one would try to figure out how things worked and why on their own and just relied on him/her to give us information. One prof would throw in some obvious B.S. in a lecture, stop, and usually do something like extra essay questions on the exam if no one could figure out what the B.S. part was.

"In most cases, however, andrightly so, when studying at a university one is meant to be learningthe basics. Until one has these thoroughly grasped then it is arrogant andfrigging infantile to go wandering off and waffling about alternativeparadigms."

This I took as agreement,among generalities. Still, for all my foolishness, it may be worthwhile toensure that prejudices (by any other name) do not falsify a real possibility.

And at the risk ofpontificating, an intelligent universal source, if nothing else, ought not tobe rendered 'officially denied', and the decision left to the individual. Thisrequires humility by religions and states as to past errors. Such a world, withlearned and considerate people, we certainly do not have (yet), and we get thegovernment we deserve (Psalm 82, KJV). I have provided citations for thisstance, but these are flatly despised. Pity!

 

What does this have to do with scientific establishment. 'Officially' science doesn't take a stance on a 'universal source' because it's not scientific to do so. Some scientists personally take a stand on it, as do many non-scientists, but the truth is for science it doesn't matter. A source doesn't explain anything better than the current model and adds more complexity and assumptions that are unnecessary. Therefore the model is not used because it's useless as a scientific model.

[Pymander]

Pymander, no part of your post #16 addresses the central point I am making. You have made a claim. I have demonstrated that your claim is invalid and that your ignorance on that topic calls into question every other point you argue. Do you still maintain, despite observations to the contrary, that 'Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution.? When and if you respond this time please address the point and not ramble on about other matters. It may fool the artichokes, it doesn't fool me.

Main stream science' is required to be accepted without question at an academic institution.

 

This attracted much flack. To be clearer, I have tried to be more specific as to what is meant, with:

 

If one studies main streamscience at an academic institution, he will not receive credit by submitting assignments and answering examination questions from the point of view of an alternative paradigm that was not being taught.

 

No doubt, any such generality will have exceptions. My experience has not been as positive as yours. My credentials reached no higher than those you may find in SwissImmaculate, and this work is a result of mundane employment providing time few with my knowledge will find to think. I have decided to present my unshackled 'theories' for consideration by others more qualified. DH seems to share a broad spectrum of interests, and has been notably polite and made corrections (one is historical sequence Hubble – Einstein. Memory fades, but Einstein's postulate is given as he termed it, thus my incorrect inference here).

 

In most cases, however, and rightly so, when studying at a university one is meant to be learning the basics. Until one has these thoroughly grasped then it is arrogant and frigging infantile to go wandering off and waffling about alternative paradigms.

 

This I took as agreement,among generalities. Still, for all my foolishness, it may be worthwhile toensure that prejudices (by any other name) do not falsify a real possibility.

 

And at the risk of pontificating, an intelligent universal source, if nothing else, ought not to be rendered 'officially denied', with the decision left to the individual. This requires humility by religions and states as to past errors. Such a world as allows this, with learned and considerate people, we certainly do not have (yet), and we get the government we deserve (Psalm 82, KJV). I have provided other citations for this stance, but these are flatly despised. Pity!

 

 

 

 

Surely you meant 80 stable elements, max atomic number 82.

 

I second the call to learn how to use the quote function. Either click the reply button, or put them in by hand, thusly: [noparse][/noparse]

 

I meant naturally occurring, and not so unstable that they have disappeared, thus to uranium and breakdown products, with four below number 92 with no long lived isotopes, Francium, Astatine, and two transition elements. 80 totally stable? Interesting.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Pymander

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

I meant naturally occurring, and not so unstable that they have disappeared, thus to uranium and breakdown products, with four below number 92 with no long lived isotopes, Francium, Astatine, and two transition elements. 80 totally stable? Interesting.

 

Then you'd still be wrong. There are (IIRC) 90 naturally occurring elements, max atomic number 92.