nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I tend to think that the high-energy physics, and cosmology (including big bang theories, black holes and etc) today are closer to scams than science. The science community is in collusion to cover this up to milk public funds. “Emperors’ New Clothes” is a precise description of this phenomenon. Please correct my 'crazy' idea. Edited January 12, 2015 by nobox -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Externet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Crazy idea ? Always thought cosmology = astrology = scam = not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I tend to think that the high-energy physics, and cosmology (including big bang theories, black holes and etc) today are closer to scams than science. The science community is in collusion to cover this up to milk public funds. “Emperors’ New Clothes” is a precise description of this phenomenon. Please correct my 'crazy' idea. It is hard to correct an idea that appears to be based on no information at all. Perhaps you could explain what you think is wrong with either the theories or the evidence. As you mention black holes and the big bang, p[erhaps you would like to show the errors in the Einstein Field Equations? Or why observations do not match the predictions of the theory? As for collusion, why would scientists conspire to deprive themselves of the big prizes that come from new discoveries? Why would people want to put money and effort into wrong ideas, instead of exciting new stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 It is hard to correct an idea that appears to be based on no information at all. Perhaps you could explain what you think is wrong with either the theories or the evidence. As you mention black holes and the big bang, p[erhaps you would like to show the errors in the Einstein Field Equations? Or why observations do not match the predictions of the theory? Speculation is what this board is all about. As for collusion, why would scientists conspire to deprive themselves of the big prizes that come from new discoveries? Why would people want to put money and effort into wrong ideas, instead of exciting new stuff? This line of logic does not hold any water. Ask why evolution theory has been denied by billions of people for centuries, while Earth has been assumed as the center of universe for millenniums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Speculation is what this board is all about But not just baseless speculation. Where is your evidence? Ask why evolution theory has been denied by billions of people for centuries It hasn't. Evolution has been known about since. at least, the domestication of plants and animals. Evolutionary theory has a shorter history but evolutionary theories have been discussed for at least 200 years. , while Earth has been assumed as the center of universe for millenniums Because of lack of evidence. So, without any evidence, we can just dismiss your "speculation" as the nonsense it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 I have some clues but no evidence. This post is to encourage the insiders to disclose evidence privy to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I have some clues but no evidence. This post is to encourage the insiders to disclose evidence privy to them. As your conspiracy theory is completely baseless, you won't have much luck. What "clues" do you have? Do you have any specific problems with the theory? With the evidence? Or is it just a personal dislike of general relativity (the only theory you have mentioned)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I have some clues but no evidence. This post is to encourage the insiders to disclose evidence privy to them. You caught us! How did you find out? Did someone tip you off? I've already informed my Illuminati bosses of the existence of this thread, so I hope you went through at least seven proxies! Edited January 12, 2015 by elfmotat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Speculation is what this board is all about. ! Moderator Note While this is the speculations forum, what we consider speculations in the context of science is not the same as unsupported/uninformed assertion. We have guidelines to follow. Please make an effort to adhere to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 As a starter, a large part of modern cosmology is based on the measurement of star brightness. There is only tenuous link between the star brightness with its distance, as claimed by the mainstream science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 There is only tenuous link between the star brightness with its distance, as claimed by the mainstream science. What do you think the claimed relationship is? What do you think is wrong with that relationship, specifically? And why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 What do you think the claimed relationship is? What do you think is wrong with that relationship, specifically? And why? You sound awfully like my friend Alan M. I appreciate his scientific rigor. But what I want is to get something new, interesting or helpful from a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 You sound awfully like my friend Alan M. I appreciate his scientific rigor. But what I want is to get something new, interesting or helpful from a debate. Random crank claims do not constitute a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) As a starter, a large part of modern cosmology is based on the measurement of star brightness. There is only tenuous link between the star brightness with its distance, as claimed by the mainstream science.That's only one method used its luminosity to distance relations. Science never relies on one method. There is also various forms of parallax you might want to Google the term cosmic distance ladder. Those relations took years of rigorous testing to develop. They are still being rigorously tested to this day Edited January 12, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physica Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 As a starter, a large part of modern cosmology is based on the measurement of star brightness. There is only tenuous link between the star brightness with its distance, as claimed by the mainstream science. This is more of a sign that you need to read up more. A standard undergraduate astrophysics textbook will explain this pointing out that brightness depends on size, how long the star has been alive. Astrophysics also takes into account transit times, spectra, photon flux rates and orbits. You'd fail your undergrad physics degree if you stated that a large part of modern cosmology is based on star brightness. Instead of thinking that something doesn't make sense to you therefore it must be flawed take the approach: something doesn't make sense to me therefore I must read up on it more. Life might be a little less frustrating for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) This is from another post but it's related Hertzprung-Russell diagram. http://www.google.ca...ykycf5uRqs9dB6g Edited January 12, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 But what I want is to get something new, interesting or helpful from a debate. OK. Why not start a thread on the evolution of invisible pink unicorns? Or the type of underwear Santa Clause wears? They would be far more sensible than this one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 What Santa's underwear is not made out of sugar and spice? Seriously though if you have an issue with a particular aspect of physics post it. You might learn something. Then we can also discuss something meaningful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 You sound awfully like my friend Alan M. I appreciate his scientific rigor. But what I want is to get something new, interesting or helpful from a debate. It's hardly rigorous to ask you questions about your idea. You made a claim about star brightness, and that claim showed the rest of us that you were assuming brightness was the only measurement used. It's not. So we ask why you think it's wrong, because we know it's not, and we hope that when you explain, we can find out where the misunderstanding is. Because there really HAS to be a misunderstanding on your part. The Big Bang Theory is our current best explanation of how the universe developed from an incredibly hot, dense state into the way it is currently. Evolution is seen every day, and has a serious mountain of evidence to support it, and nothing, NOTHING, to refute it. I don't know who you've been listening to, but this whole "milking public funds" angle is ludicrous. You need political persuasiveness to milk public funds, and scientists have only evidence to persuade the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 You sound awfully like my friend Alan M. I appreciate his scientific rigor. But what I want is to get something new, interesting or helpful from a debate. So let me get this straight: you post a thread based on a ludicrous proposition for which you have absolutely zero evidence, and you expect us to find the evidence for you? Sorry, but I think we all have better things to do with our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) So let me get this straight: you post a thread based on a ludicrous proposition for which you have absolutely zero evidence, and you expect us to find the evidence for you? Sorry, but I think we all have better things to do with our time. Good science starts that way, sometimes. i.e. it was started by 'ludicrous' idea and proved/disproved by people who had more time than what they know how to spend. Thinking out of box is my job. Edited January 12, 2015 by nobox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 We appear no closer to a unified field theory than nearly 100 years ago. Meanwhile cosmology has gotten so far away fromn experiment it now suggests an infinite number of worlds that are identical to ours except in one infinity Jesus existed and in another set exactly like ours he didn't exist. This is ludicrous on more parameters than I can count. Everything arises from a cause so how could two worlds be exactly alike except one had a cause and one didn't. "Jesus" wasn't selected for any religious reason but simply because soime of the scientific paradigms now are no less ludicrous. Where does the space and matter arise to create an infinity of universes? This goes beyond mere infinity and a new concept needs to be coined "infinity to the infinite power infinitely to express to express the number of worlds needed for everything to exist. I disagree with the thread title and the idea that it's all a scam but it's quite obvious science has gotten off the beam. It seems to affect nearly every field to a greater or lesser extent. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Good science starts that way, sometimes. i.e. it was started by 'ludicrous' idea and proved/disproved by people who had more time than what they know how to spend. Thinking out of box is my job. Good science starts with evidence, of which you have none. Thinking out of the box is fine as long as you don't bend facts to fit your ideas, instead of the reverse. Starting a topic based on an out-of-the-box idea is also fine, if you have evidence. What's not fine is starting a topic based on an out-of-the-box idea with zero supporting evidence, being too lazy to look for it yourself, and expecting others to do your work for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 I disagree with the thread title and the idea that it's all a scam but it's quite obvious science has gotten off the beam. It seems to affect nearly every field to a greater or lesser extent. I am glad someone has spotted more or less the same problem I presented here. Call whatever you want, 'scam', 'off the beam' or whatever, science is now institutionalized, and is no longer the romantic view people had about the science even 60 years ago. Thus mass collusion is possible. (Need proof here, don't blame me on that). -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Good science starts that way, sometimes. i.e. it was started by 'ludicrous' idea and proved/disproved by people who had more time than what they know how to spend. Thinking out of box is my job. Posting made up garbage does not qualify as "thinking out of the box". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts