I got banned for posting this on Richard Dawkins Forum. Once again we see that for those people who are ignorant of the facts and have no logical or scientific argument, censorship = science. Not only did they permanently ban me but they deleted the post because they are literally terrified of the power of words and afraid of the obvious persuasiveness of the truth.
Here are my top ten scientific facts in no particular order.
Top Ten Scientific Facts
1. Space and time are not material objects (Anaxagoras, Zeno, Leukippos, Demokritos, Aristotle, Leibniz 1689, 1695, 1716, Maupertuis 1750, Kant 1781, 1787, Davisson 1927, Heisenberg 1958).
2. Hydrocarbons are abiogenic (Von Humboldt 1804, Bakewell 1813, Berthelot 1866, Mendeleyev 1877, Kudryavtsev 1951).
3. The mantle is cold and its rigidity increases with depth (Tassos and Ford 2005, Tassos 2008).
4. The Pacific Ocean was entirely enclosed during the Cretaceous and did not exist (McCarthy 2003, 2005).
5. The diameter of the Earth has increased over time (Drayson 1854, Mantovani 1909, Carey 1976).
6. Earthquakes are electric (Freund 2002, 2003, 2007, Tassos and Ford 2005, Thornhill 2005).
7. The universe is electric (Maxwell 1857, 1873, Thomson 1897, Tesla 1900, 1904, Lodge 1904, Birkeland 1913, Velikovsky 1946, 1950, Alfvén 1970).
8. Gravity is electromagnetic (Kepler 1609, Faraday 1845, 1865, Poincaré 1908, Velikovsky 1946, 1950, Thornhill 2008).
9. Redshifts are intrinsic and non-cosmological (Hubble 1947, Arp 1966, 1987, 1998, 2003).
10. The Big Bang is a myth (Hubble 1947, Hoyle 1949, Arp 1966, 1987, 1998, 2003, Lerner 1991).
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
31 comments:
I do not know where to begin. Therefore, I won't. I'll let it go at "WTF?"
I realized this was a parody site when I saw your explanation of mass being added to Earth via photosynthesis. After that I knew there was nothing more to see here.
You don't believe plants have mass?
Oh they have mass. The mass is transferred to the plant via a sunlight-powered process that moves minerals and nutrients to the plant from the already-existing soil. Photosynthesis does not add mass to the planet. Anyone who says so is either ignorant or deluded.
Choose one.
Your statement that "plants have mass" blatantly contradicts your claim that "photosynthesis does not add mass to planet." Apparently logic and consistency are not your strong points?
Oil Is Mastery actually makes a good point. However, plants are NOT part of the planet. Therefore they don't add mass to the planet. When one thiks of planetary mass, we think of the rock or "earth" is expanding. So, I don't want to contradict the author here, but, I guess it depends on what you consider to be part of the planet. Afterall, the planet is nothing but rock. It's a HUGE sphere of rock orbiting Nuclear reactons (the "Sun.")
If plants are not part of the planet then what are plants a part of?
Amazing, exactly the reason why you're an economist like Ben Stien.
Hmmmm, do you happen to have a brief explanation of what you think happened instead of the Big Bang then?
I'm not an economist but I'm flattered you think I am...=)
As far as an alternative explanation to the creationist Big Bang hypothesis, I don't know how the universe began unlike the creationist Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre.
"...their theory is incorrect but they don't have an accepted theory to replace it and that I think is very psychologically bothersome to particularly scientists who have gone into science in order to be certain about the world, to be sure that they're right and so forth, and it's a very insecure position. Some scientists have joked that well a scientist would rather be wrong than uncertain. We sort of have to live with uncertainty which is, well, it's an interesting and challenging situation." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1998
Hmmmm, very true that there is uncertainty in that area, and in Cosmology in general. I think the biggest concern is the apparent perpetual motion that would be required for the Universe to have collapsed down to a very small radius in order for it to have expanded again in the way that we see it now. Perhaps myth, but perhaps there is another explanation for it doing so.
What is your belief about the calculation for Newtonian escape velocity? How should it be modified to reflect what is commonly observed in nature?
Ve = sqrt(integral(2G*M1/r^2),r=Ro1...infinite)
Or how about simple newtonian gravitational forces?
G*M1*Mo/Ro1^2 = Mo*Vo^2/Ro1
whereby Vo = sqrt(G*M1/Ro1) in a circular orbit
There is no possible way to fix gravity and I say it should be abandoned entirely. There are no fixed stars and no divine intervention and miracles involving orbital velocities.
Velikovsky, I., Cosmos Without Gravitation: Attraction, Repulsion and Electromagnetic Circumduction in the Solar System, 1946
Planets have mass. Plants sit on top of this mass and transfer it to themselves via photosynthesis.
Thus, photosynthesis moves mass, it does not create it.
I've decided that your answer is, in fact, Delusion.
This is evidenced in your continued reliance on Velikovsky.
You have already conceded plants have mass (in the form of carbon atoms). Electricity from the sun is required in order for plants to produce vegetable matter in the form of carbon atoms. This scientific fact cannot be avoided and has nothing at all to do with the late great Dr. Velikovsky.
What replaces the Big Bang?
Easy - just assume the universe always existed, exists and will always exist.
It doesn't bother in the least to know that Velikovsky had degrees in Medicine and Psychoanalysis, but not in Rocket Science or Physics? That should, IMO, be your first clue that Velikovsky's writings on gravitation and on astronomy are severly flawed. Satelites, after all, are not being put into electrical orbits around the Earth, certainly not using any manner of electrical equations. It should, also, be problematic for you that Newton's and Einstiens equations are so pragmatically useful when NASA uses them for flying rockets to all over the solar system.
Ve = sqrt(integral(2G*M1/r^2),r=Ro1...infinite)
G*M1*Mo/Ro1^2 = Mo*Vo^2/Ro1
whereby Vo = sqrt(G*M1/Ro1) in a circular orbit
I know I've already addressed this issue of gravitation being true, I've already addressed that. Maybe the reason you keep getting censored is because you keep on maintaining that obviously real things like gravitation don't exist.
What you aren't conceding is the very simple fact that photosynthesis does not add mass.
Type that out and I'll say you've made progress. Until you admit you have a problem, you cannot get help for it.
QF,
Leibniz invented differential calculus and thought gravity was utterly absurd.
Jeffery,
You have already conceded carbon atoms have mass.
Where does the carbon come from? Sure it has mass... what has that to do with the fact that you said Photosynthesis adds mass to the planet?
You are a world-class troll. What exactly drives you to abandon evidence and reason for this delusional state? Did a hot cosmologist break your heart?
While it may seem to discredit me, I'm genuinely concerned about this vendetta you have against the scientific community. You are the same sort of person that denies global warming, denies evolution, buys into vaccine/autism linkage... a pathological denier of scientific fact. You are at least consistant. This electric universe/expanding earth/abiotic oil nonsense is all disproven science. You relish your victimization, wearing it like some kind of badge of honor.
Jeffery,
The massive carbonaceous matter originates on the Earth through photosynthesis but the electricity to generate it comes from the sun.
Photosynthesis, by it's very nature, is a process of photonic absorption of energy. It is Chlorophyll that absorbs light in these electromagnetic spectrums.
Now, photons do have an energy-momentum directly related to frequency and wave number, but they don't have any rest mass.
OiM-
This is what I've been saying. You claimed that sunlight added mass. When you said that, you were being delusional.
Jeffery,
Sunlight adds matter and matter has mass. No delusion.
RUNNING DOWN THE LIST
I guess the first question that comes to mind is why the deletion and ban?
Well, I suppose OilIsMastery's list is controversial (rejected in whole or in part), and for most people, obscure.
Without running down the list, it's evident that several items are alleged evidence for different aspects of a single concept (Expanding Earth, Plasma Cosmology).
Top ten lists are by definition opinion (whatever the list covers).
"Overdose" might be the word of choice, or "in your face" as a description of OilIsMastery's list.
And while sincere, these unfamiliar concepts might best be delt with one at a time.
I don't think OilIsMastery should have been banned, but I'll say this: OilIsMastery, a trail of being banned from websites is not a good thing, if for nothing else, you are denied an opportunity to be persuasive and present your case on the various issues.
And, if being banned is happening on a regular basis, that may have as much, or more to do with your style and method as it has to do with the content of the ideas you present.
OilIsMastery, your discussion with Jeffery Keown on this thread, itself, is an example.
Photosynthesis is the process whereby, solar energy is used to facilitate conversion of carbon dioxide and other elements into plant life.
This increases structure and organization on the Earth's surface, but doesn't add mass.
OilIsMastery, you have a bad habit of being non-responsive to questions. You tend to respond to a question with another question, that is non-responsive and frankly evasive and annoying.
OilIsMastery, you tend to offer quotes and statements of fiat, instead of reasoning and logic that are internally consistent and only then resort to supporting authority and quotes.
You don't encourage ongoing debate because you fail to acknowledge valid points made by the other side or fail to explain why their points are invalid.
I've come across some of your threads and many are unpersuasive.
I'm sorry to be tough, but I think objective criticism might be more constructive than turning a blind eye.
@ Jeffery Keown:
Jeffery Keown states: "This electric universe/expanding earth/abiotic oil nonsense is all disproven science."
Oh, is it?
Jeff, you have never stepped into the arena of ideas to contest Abiotic Oil theory (at least on this website).
The Scientific evidence for Abiotic Oil theory is overwhelming.
And over the course of many months and numerous marshallings of scientfic evidence and debates with other commenters, the extent of scientific evidence has been demonstrated and its validity made convincingly.
What part of it do you dispute?
Expanding Earth theory also has substantial evidence to support it.
What part of it do you dispute?
And last, but not least, Plasma Cosmology also has substantial evidence to support it.
And, what part of it do you dispute?
I've offered my reasons a few times in response to your questions, but you have never responded. Of course, that is your choice, but to say it's all nonsense, and "is all disproven science" without taking up debate is empty rhetoric on your part.
I think OilIsMastery's point is to suggest science in areas where laboratory testing and observation and measurement are not applied is in a crisis.
Theory and reality do not match because of historical considerations and present day functions of human nature.
Science has fallen into sterile and fallow soil because politics has become more important than the scientific method.
And this falling into the ditch is retarding Man from advancing technologically.
Man can't afford to wear political, ideological blinders at the present time.
Anaconda,
I think being banned from those websites is a good thing because it means that what I am saying is true. If I were wrong, they would be able to persuade me and others that I'm wrong using logic and reason rather than using censorship and fascism.
You say I have a bad habit of not responding to questions so I ask, What questions haven't I responded to? Usually when I don't respond to questions it's because of censorship and banning on the part of my opponents.
If I quote something it's because I agree with it and it's inherent reasonableness was obvious to the person being quoted who is much smarter than any of us and communicated it simply for all. The reasonableness and logic can be found in the cited authors which saves me time since I don't get paid to teach and need to allocate my limited time.
As I said, it depends on what you consider part of the planet. Earth is actually rocks, minerals, and elements. I consider plants be something that grows and lives on the planet. Plants offer a kind of symbiosis to the planet like ALL organisms. The Earth gives the plants the sustanence they need and when they die, the decay and become a part of the soil and the earth then. Organisms are not part of the planet, because they do not make up the planet. They work in a kind of symbiotic and sometimes parasitical relationship. However, that does not mean they don't become part of it. Get what I'm saying?
I could be wrong but it is my opinion that biomass is real, carbon atoms have mass, and plants are part of the biosphere.
Weren't they a bunch of little bitches at Richard Dawkins' site. I don't know how Dawkins and Randi put up with the dim bulbs that follow them around. These guys start with the abuse and full on lying in order then to tittle tattle to the moderator who is usually someone pretty damn dopey as well.
This is interesting. What are we saying here? The plants are always absorbing energy right? And some of that energy will be converted to matter is that right?
So over geological time you will wind up having a slowly growing planet. Is that the reasoning here?
It sounds reasonable. But what would the extent of it be? The rate of it? And the planet would be catching solar wind and cosmic rays also right? So that would lead it to grow some also would it not?
I don't really know why people ipso facto have problems up front with a proposition that sounds pretty reasonable.
But can you quantify to some approximate extent the rate of growth?
I've come to the conclusion that none of us has a rounded general knowledge background in any science without a working understanding of plasma physics. This has only just come to me as a tentative proposition recently.
Would that be a fair call in the view of the scientists here who DO have that knowledge?
(Graeme Bird).
"And, if being banned is happening on a regular basis, that may have as much, or more to do with your style and method as it has to do with the content of the ideas you present."
No don't be stupid fella. Its because they are a bunch of mindless little bitches. True-science was fine on the Richard Dawkins site. Its was these insulting mindless dim bulbs that were swarming him, lying and refusing to be logical that were the problem.
I tend to get banned also. But thats a different story since I anticipate what jerks the low IQ section of the floor is going to be so I like to get a couple of good insults in to stop them banning me prior to having the opportunity to do so.
It ought to be an embarrassment for Richard and Randi what dummies they have in their fan club. I suppose they are too busy to notice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While I'm at it may I say what a moron Jeffrey Keown. And just how delusional he is. Jeffrey how can you possibly know what you think it is you know. Given the inherently logical nature of the propositions discussed here?
You are an idiot mate. A total dickwad.
Make your case. How is it that you think you know what you think you know. Prove to me that the world isn't slowly growing in size.
I think the argument is a good one. I would just want an idea of how quickly it is growing.
Graeme,
Thank you for your kind words.
I have to admit, they are pretty dumb...=)
@ GMB & OilIsMastery:
GMB makes a valid point, I don't know what the circustances were at the Richard Dawkins site. And if the circumstances were similar to what is apparent at Bad Astronomy, then it's easy to see how that could happen. At Bad astronomy there was also a little "tittle tattle" that wanted to appear "neutral," but obviously wasn't, his protests not withstanding.
It's apparent each site has it's own little "in crowd" that can flaunt the rules and get away with it. And they don't take too kindly to people who disagree with them no matter how well reasoned and documented with authority that person's argument is.
Although, over at Bad Astronomy I was able to hit back pretty hard until the "tittle tattle" piped up, so then I resumed a more even approach and continued commenting.
All that said, an apology is due OilIsMastery, it wouldn't be the first time, and I've gotten pretty tough on a couple commenters on this website myself without any grief from the website administrator, OilIsMastery:-)
Apparently, science blogs aren't too different from political blogs.
It's a matter of judgment: Generally, reasoned argument is the best course of conduct, but there are times when, either, one is taking abuse and then it must be returned post haste (sometimes I'm more patient then others), or someone insists on illogical and unreasonable arguments and it seems appropriate to deliver some pointed comments to highlight the stupidity of their argument.
I realize the second justification can be self-serving to a degree.
Again, it's a matter of judgment:-)
Post a Comment