Thursday, December 18, 2008

Phil Plait: Censorship = Science



I've been banned from posting comments on the aptly named censorship advocacy website Bad Astronomy. Phil Plait had no logical or scientific response to my questions so rather than attempt to answer them persuasively he just deleted the questions. How scientific of him. Then he called me a troll because anyone who asks questions (Socrates etc) is a "troll". Not only did he delete my questions and prevent me from commenting but he also banned my ip from accessing the website. I wonder how much further science would have progressed by now if instead of directing their time and energy towards censorship they directed it towards listening, debating, and learning. If it wasn't for people like him I would probably have doubts about my beliefs. So let's all thank Phil for reinforcing our worldview.

I'm used to it by now. Brian R. has also banned me from commenting on Clastic Detritus.

UPDATE: He must've seen this because I can now access the website.

16 comments:

Quantum_Flux said...

The reason Phil Plait doesn't like questions is because he's really just an idiot and can't answer them how he promotes himself to be able to. I never liked Bad Astronomy, it is all just hype over at his site, smoke and mirrors. I think Universe Today as much better in the presentation of the data and format.

OilIsMastery said...

I agree.

deHilster said...

The world is full of people who are on the "mainstream" boat. We're building a database of those who think outside the box. These almost 1000 people have encountered the same problems. Many think like you about Abiotic Oil, the expanding earth. Generally astronomy, physics, and plate techtonics is in a mess. See http://db.worldnpa.org.

OilIsMastery said...

David,

Glad you found me. Thanks for the headsup. I plan on joining immediately.

Regards,

B

Quantum_Flux said...

I find this lecture series by mathematician Roger Penrose to be of interest in addressing Big Bang Cosmology:

Roger Penrose: Before the Big Bang

Perhaps Electric Cosmos Model goes part of the way in explaining what the Cosmological Constant really is. After all, I see no reason why black holes can't coexist with Birkeland Currents.

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

"Black holes are for people that have to explain EVERYTHING in the Universe by gravity and magnetism.

Once plasma is in the picture there is no need for "black holes".

See Electric Sky: Missing "Dark" Matter.

(I recommend you review Scott's website, it gives a comprehensive and comprehensible overview of Plasma Cosmology and the pitfalls of the gravitational model. Scott is an electrical engineer. Plenty of mathematics in that field.)

Notice Don Scott uses mathematics. The difference is that Scott doesn't abuse mathematics.

Quantum_Flux: If you respect mathematics, and I know you do (and I do as well), then you should be OFFENDED by those that abuse mathematics.

"Black holes" and "dark" matter are abuses of mathematics and only serve to discredit the proper use of mathematics that quantify relationships of observed and measured phenomenon.

It is an abuse to use mathematics to assert the reality of objects that have NEVER been observed or measured.

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

I watched this Penrose, guy, on the YouTube.

Please, tell me you don't believe this crap. TOTAL GARBAGE!

You're in a fantasy Quantum_Flux if you believe this garbage.

Singularity state:

Density is infinite
+
Energy is infinite
+
Space/time curvature is infinite
=
INFINITE GARBAGE

QF, you're in a dream world.

This isn't mathematics, or science, it's fantasy, plain and simple.

Might as well play some Dungeons and Dragons, at least that involves YOUR creativity and you know it's a game, not somebody else's hucksterism.

Let's look at Penrose's theory:

The "big bang" happens, expans to infinity; then the "big bang" happens, again, expans to infinity; and big bang happens, expans to infinity, again, and so on to infinity.

There is no collaspe or whatever.

Did you watch the Penrose interview?

It's non-sense. It's metaphysical reasoning masquerading as science.

Frankly, I wouldn't even call it metaphysics, it would give metaphysics a bad name because it claims to be science. It's fraudulent crap.

Metaphysics is honest about its framework, this is rank speculation, fraudulently posing as science.

This guy, Penrose, wanted "something" he could call his own, so he comes up with this cockamamy story -- it's not any better than "channeling" spirits.

What's incredibly sad is that anybody gives any credence to it at all.

But, of course, lots of people believe in "channeling, too.

You are an acolyte, Quantum_Flux, there is no other reason why you would even bother to take this stuff seriously, and it's a psuedo-religion, but worse because it claims science as it's mantle, but what it attempts to do is explain creation. Quantum_Flux, that's religion even if the "priests" use mathematics as their chanting kant.

Do you know why Penrose uses the word "crazy" so many times? It a well worn rhetorical tactic, to make the listener numb to his own thoughts of rejection.

Repeating "crazy" is an effort to de-sensitize the audience to how absolutely bullshit it all is.

It's simply a conjurer's trick.

Did you follow this guy in the Youtube tapes? Complete malarky.

Don't follow con men like Penrose just because they use mathematics as a cover for carnival barking.

Sure, they want you to come into their tent: With the bearded lady, the wolf-man, and the dog-faced boy. The only difference is that all of the above are real -- while Penrose and his ilk are complete fakes or just idiots.

Take your pick.

Pull your head out!

Quantum_Flux said...

He presents a falsifiable theory (I agree it is probably false). At any rate, I'm more interested in Penrose's Twistor theory because of the mathematical modelling (computational programming) that he uses than whether the physics is true or not, that can wait to be seen by the LHC if Black Holes are created or not. Anaconda, you are correct that I'm being an accolite for Penrose's Theory though, I learned a lot of complex math from his book The Road to Reality, for you see, I can use complex math with just about anything that requires complex math (i.e. electromagnetism and circuitry).

Of note though, Penrose is not completely making this stuff up, he goes off of data from astronomical satellite observations and he tries to make it conform to Einstien's General Relativity which is based on Maxwell's Equations.

Quantum_Flux said...

Think about this. A gain in gravitational entropy (particles coming together under gravitation) actually causes a decrease in electromagnetic entropy (particles coming together so that they 'interact' with the electrical fields), so perhaps thermodynamics allows for a cyclic universe carried out by black holes with a net increase of entropy with each cycle, perhaps that prediction will be confirmed if the LHC shows the behavior of micro-black holes.

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

I'm glad to read that you don't take his cyclical universe at face value.

However, I dispute it's falsifiable theory.

Remember, in order to for "big bang" to have any validity, ALL physical laws have to be set aside.

That isn't science.

As for his ability in mathematics, I'm sure he is quite capable. Most of the time these guys start out representable, but for whatever reason, fame, fortune, a sense of achievement, whatever, they go too far.

There is simply no SCIENTIFIC way to know how the Universe started. It's a religious question.

Sure, science would love to answer it. But in the attempt, it inevitably loses its grounding in observations and measurements.

Quantum_Flux, it's not a prediction. As Science can't answer how the Universe started, it can't answer how it ends.

These type theories are conjured, yes, that's the right word, because they can't be disproved or proved.

"Big bang", along with "black holes" were items that were thought up, perhaps with good intentions, but initially went nowhere because scientist, yes, they were still struggling to be scientists back then, knew there was no way to prove or disprove these ideas. But as the paradoxes (falsifications) of General Relativity, the gravitational model, piled up, they were brought back "out of the closet" to save the gravitational model. (I hope you reviewed Don Scott's website, the Electric Sky.)

So no, I don't buy cyclical universe at all.

It's cynical that he passes off that crap in the name of science.

Here's an idea, maybe these guys aren't satisfied with being mathmaticians, they see others turning into gurus, that's what Hawkins has turned into, and they say to themselves, "if that guy can be a guru, why can't I be one too, afterall the other guy is a mathmetician just like I am."

This is a symptom of the "sickness" of science in the present age outside applied material science, where wonders are being done. (I include electrical engineering and computer technology in this camp.)

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, it is fun to model things with mathematics, add in a little bit of "maybe it will be proved or disproved" and you've got the fun of being a Mathematician.

As for calling the origins of the Universe a religious question....wrong! The Universe is, and therefore it had an origin and therefore science can answer these questions. However, the existance of God is a religious question that can't be addressed by science, same with that of anything imaginary or of Kant-ianesk nature.

Quantum_Flux said...

The Universe exists, logic exists, and mind exists. Those three are not questions of faith, but givens and there is proof of the existance of all three of those entities (lest you be a Kunt Philosopher). Those three entities can be addressed by scientific means.

It is the Supernatural, the thing that everybody disagrees about and is not a given that can be addressed by the subjectivity of religion. (If you dispute the subjectivity of religion, then I'll pose the question of proof to which you'll reply the worn out appeal to 'have faith' that what you say is true. Furthermore, if religion has some element to truth to it, then which one and how can you be so sure?) To me, religion is the smoke and mirrors that exists between leaders manipulating the minds of their followers to believe things of which there can be no certainty. Ergo, religion is a bad thing to me because nobody has a verifiable explanation (what is heaven? what is hell? what is nirvana? How did you discover the existance of such places? Or, perhaps they all fall within the realm of Mind which is a given entity that can be objectively studied by psychology and brain scans).

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

The origins of the Universe is not necessarily religious, though, I point out, it was the religious impulse that first made Man ask, "Why?" and, "How?" in the "big picture" sence...now don't go running off on one of your atheist rants.

This quote is a solid piece of logic: "Science is the study and acceptance of whatever is provable in the Universe."

This is the problem: Science can't prove the origin of the Universe.

Look at the language the "big bang" theory uses: "infinite".

You can't prove infinite, by definition it is unending, and, therefore, non-quantifable.

Mathematics is a very valuble tool, but it must be applied to quantifiable "things".

Quantum_Flux, do you see the problem? Mathematics is being invoked to prove something by definition it can't prove.

Infinite can't be measured, so mathematics can't be used. But that's exactly what these "wayward" mathematicians are doing: Abusing mathematics.

The origin and end of the Universe can't be proved with mathematics or science (as desirable as that may be).

But because these people have failed to realize this basic limit to the scientfic method, they have perverted science and led Humanity and science down a dead end path.

It may be "fun" to play around with mathematical formula, but that's not science.

As Clint Eastwood said, "Every man has got to know his limitations." So, too, must science know it's limitations and realize what it can and can not do.

Once science goes into areas it can not do, it perverts itself.

Quantum_Flux, you dislike religious athority. Why do you chain yourself so meekly to so-called scientifc authority that abuses mathematics and the scientific method by putting out theories that require setting aside the physical laws of nature and by definition can't use mathematics because mathematics can't tell us anything about infinity?

You'll be a better scientist and...ahmm...a better atheist if you distance yourself from people that use mathematics in the name of what can only be answered by indulging in essentially religious questions.

Science and religion need to be seperated, these people indulge in mixing the two and pretend they don't.

Quantum_Flux said...

I don't believe the Universe was infitely dense at any point in history. I don't believe Black Holes are infitely dense either because angular momentum typically prevents that. Science will explain these things, there are universal limits on most quantitative things, so I don't see where people come off assuming all these infinites either, but the maximums and the behaviors near the limits is what science will always be able to ascertain.

Does the position of matter (light, plasma, gas, liquid, solid, black hole) in a confined space and time have an infinite number of possible orientations? Do virtual (static field) and real (wave) gravitons exist? What is the exact nature of gravitons and how do they relate to photons?

By the way, none of these questions are religious, merely that of scientific enquiry just waiting to be experimented with and the truth discovered.

Anaconda said...

Qunatum_Flux:

There you go again: "Does the position of matter in a confined space and time have an infinite number of possible orientations?"

Science can't answer questions with "infinite" as part of the assumption, so to theorize infinity is psuedo-science because it can't be proven or falsified.

(I know it's a hard habbit to break.)

Just remember, "black holes" have never been observed, and saying "near infinity" isn't a whole lot better than infinity.

"Near infinity", is a wiggle word qualifier intended to get the "big bang" and "black holers" off the hook (of their reliance on infinity), but it doesn't.

"Near infinity" is just as non-quantifiable as "infinity".

Mathematics is about discrete measurements.

Put a quantifiable number on it no matter how big, then it can be falsified.

(notice, "big bang", "black holers" don't seem to ever put a specific number on it [they have no idea, and then their theories can be proved false]. Both of these results are to be avoided at all costs.

Again, review Electric Sky.

"Black holes" are a fantasy.

It's a shame some mathematicians will wallow in the mud to promote "black holes" when their discipline was developed to stop idle speculation in general terms.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, who exactly is saying that black holes and neutronium can't have specified densities? If there is the mass of 7 suns in a confined volume (event horizon) the radius of Earth, it is very dense, but it is not necessarily infinitly dense. Who is to say that it can't happen? Perhaps 'singularity' refers to anything within the radius of the event horizon, that's how I've always interpreted the word to mean because scientists don't really know what lies underneath the event horizon.