Thread: Since my silly ideas of trying to fit links to apprpopriate topics...

...just got censured there, I will post some here.


https://www.coursera.org


https://www.edx.org

^Those two have a bunch of free top Uni courses online, which you can take just for learning and fun purposes, or to earn credits and certificates if you would rather.

Some forums I like and or operate...

Spiritual Inspiration Forum

Log in

Free forum : BreakAwayForum

I am sure I will be finding more, and if anyone wants to add some links, please feel free. I am always interested in new knowledge and ideas and discussions.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

...just got censured there, I will post some here.


https://www.coursera.org


https://www.edx.org

^Those two have a bunch of free top Uni courses online, which you can take just for learning and fun purposes, or to earn credits and certificates if you would rather.

Allow me to state that you were (as far as I can tell) not subject to censorship, because if you were,
your links would be removed and/or your thread would be relocated/deleted. However, it is still visible for anyone: Buddhism and modern psychology

Some forums I like and or operate...

Spiritual Inspiration Forum

Log in

Free forum : BreakAwayForum

I am sure I will be finding more, and if anyone wants to add some links, please feel free. I am always interested in new knowledge and ideas and discussions.

It is unclear to me why you provided links to these fora, as they are all focused on subjects that have nothing to do with science.
That is like redirecting animal activists to hunting fora, or pacifists to fora about warfare and weaponry.

In physical science as well as mental science, all things interbe, which is to say that everything is interrelated.

There are things such as synchronicity Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think, if the mind is able to multitask.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

In physical science as well as mental science, all things interbe, which is to say that everything is interrelated.

There are things such as synchronicity Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think, if the mind is able to multitask.

And how does that concept relate to the fora you have listed in your O.P.?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

In physical science as well as mental science, all things interbe, which is to say that everything is interrelated.

There are things such as synchronicity Synchronicity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think, if the mind is able to multitask.

Seems to have little to do with science.

Oh good grief, either try the links if you want to, or don't try them. Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Stop talking bollocks.
Your links have absolutely bugger all to do with science.
(And are, generally, ANTI-science).

Our minds are our only way of understanding the seemingly inner and outer worlds around us. Some people on this forum may understand this, though it seems many won't.

If the mind cannot function in but a very narrow view, then science is the poorer for it. Now, it certainly is not important to me if anyone wants to check out any of these and hopefully more links I will find or not, they are just ideas that someone somewhere may find helpful to broaden their scopes of perspectives.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Our minds are our only way of understanding the seemingly inner and outer worlds around us.

No.

Some people on this forum may understand this, though it seems many won't.

Unsupported claim.
So no one "understands" this.

If the mind cannot function in but a very narrow view, then science is the poorer for it.

You're apparently completely ignoring the definition of science.

hopefully more links I will find or not

So long are they're not links to bullshit and woo like the previous 3.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Science is not whatever you want it to be. Science is well defined.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Science is not whatever you want it to be. Science is well defined.

By whom?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Science is not whatever you want it to be. Science is well defined.

By whom?

Dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster), encyclopedias (e.g. Wikipedia), scientific institutions (e.g. NIH, AAAS) and universities, etc.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Our minds are our only way of understanding the seemingly inner and outer worlds around us.

No.

Some people on this forum may understand this, though it seems many won't.

Unsupported claim.
So no one "understands" this.

If the mind cannot function in but a very narrow view, then science is the poorer for it.

You're apparently completely ignoring the definition of science.

hopefully more links I will find or not

So long are they're not links to bullshit and woo like the previous 3.

Good god man, give me one, just one scientific idea to discuss with?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Science is not whatever you want it to be. Science is well defined.

By whom?

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, scientific institutions, scholars, etc.

Translation=people's minds.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Science is not whatever you want it to be. Science is well defined.

By whom?

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, scientific institutions, scholars, etc.

Translation=people's minds.

Nonetheless, the majority of the people are inclined to accept the definition of "science" as explained by the various sources from many scholars and institutions around the world. Unless you can come up with a better definition of the word that is not only more accurate, but also gains broader acceptance by the scientific community.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Our minds are our only way of understanding the seemingly inner and outer worlds around us. Some people on this forum may understand this, though it seems many won't.

Philosophy, not science. Not even philosophy of science. (There is a philosophy subforum, maybe you should take it there.)

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Good god man, give me one, just one scientific idea to discuss with?

That's a bit rich from someone who starts a thread with a load of new-age woo.

"Like, man, the world it's like, you know?"

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Translation=people's minds.

Wrong again.
The practise of science - and thus the definition - was arrived by observing what works and what doesn't.
In other words: reality.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Good god man, give me one, just one scientific idea to discuss with?

Yeah, you're having a little difficulty here, aren't you?
You post links to crap and ask ME to give you "a scientific idea".
Can you see the problem here?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Your very ideas of what is science or not, are just purely mental constructs.

Science is not whatever you want it to be. Science is well defined.

By whom?

Well, like all words, science is defined by committee. You don't HAVE to accept the definition. You don't HAVE to accept anything. You can happily detach yourself from all reality if you so choose. The rest of us prefer some kind of structure to our concepts.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Translation=people's minds.

Wrong again.
The practise of science - and thus the definition - was arrived by observing what works and what doesn't.
In other words: reality.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Good god man, give me one, just one scientific idea to discuss with?

Yeah, you're having a little difficulty here, aren't you?
You post links to crap and ask ME to give you "a scientific idea".
Can you see the problem here?

Yeah, you said nothing scientific for me to reply to. I'll give some ideas. Electronics. Physics. Chemistry. Math. Just saying my posts are woo is hardly science. Seriously, I will discuss with you on anything scientific, but you name the format.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

https://www.coursera.org


https://www.edx.org

^Those two have a bunch of free top Uni courses online, which you can take just for learning and fun purposes, or to earn credits and certificates if you would rather. .

That is a false claim. Neither EDX or Coursera courses are accredited by the US Department of Education, which in the US is considered the gold standard for listing accredited programs and institutions. (U.S. Department of Education Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs). Coursera's own web site, probably in an attempt to protect itself from legal actions even explains its certificates cannot be exchanged for credits:

"How many credits (from an accredited institution) can I exchange the Coursera Certificate for towards a degree? Coursera is working with the American Council on Education (ACE) to ensure that credits that come from the Signature Track program will be honored by many of ACE’s 1,800 member schools, such as Amherst University, Boston University, Carnegie Mellon and many others. Last week, ACE said that they would recommend to their member schools that they offer 2 – 3 credits per completed Signature Track course.
However, even as ACE has recommended it, it is likely that only a portion of these schools – those with lesser reputations – will honor these credits, at least at first. Adoption will take place on a university-by-university basis, and for any given institution its unclear right now ifor when it will happen. Right now the answer is: Your Coursera Certificate cannot be exchanged for any credits from any accredited institution. After ACE’s announcement, we can expect this answer will change within weeks or months."
What is a Coursera Certificate? What's it Worth? - SkilledUp.com
--

While I think open course materials hold some great potential , until they are vetted and recognized as accredited, they put their perspective students at risk of wasted time and effort.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Yeah, you said nothing scientific for me to reply to.

Mainly because I was pointing out that you'd linked to crap.

I'll give some ideas. Electronics. Physics. Chemistry. Math.

WTF do they have to do with THIS topic?

Just saying my posts are woo is hardly science.

Can you show that there is science in those links?

Seriously, I will discuss with you on anything scientific, but you name the format.

Given your misunderstanding of what science is - and the number of posts you've made showing your ignorance of science - I'm not sure you're capable.

A few of our courses have also been approved for ACE CREDIT College Credit Recommendations. To learn more about ACE CREDIT and eligible courses, visit our College Credit Recommendation Guidebook.

College Credit Recommendation Service (CREDIT)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Yeah, you said nothing scientific for me to reply to.

Mainly because I was pointing out that you'd linked to crap.

I'll give some ideas. Electronics. Physics. Chemistry. Math.

WTF do they have to do with THIS topic?

Just saying my posts are woo is hardly science.

Can you show that there is science in those links?

Seriously, I will discuss with you on anything scientific, but you name the format.

Given your misunderstanding of what science is - and the number of posts you've made showing your ignorance of science - I'm not sure you're capable.

I am and you aren't. I already posted some in the math section. I am also employed as an electronics tech, and a Radio Frequency calibration technician, and I am very good at it. Try me. I bet all you will do is complain and cry and will have nothing scientific for me to discuss.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

I am and you aren't.

Wrong.

I already posted some in the math section

Yeah, you posted on basic maths - not science per se.

Still can't show any science in the linked threads?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

I am and you aren't.

Wrong.

I already posted some in the math section

Yeah, you posted on basic maths - not science per se.

Still can't show any science in the linked threads?

edX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Mayflow

edX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So that's a "no" then.
And a diversion.

Not sure why you're putting all this effort into flouting your work instead of just intelligently participating in discussions. There are Nobel winners who were cranks, too. They don't get a free pass, either.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

edX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So that's a "no" then.
And a diversion.

I already said you may question me on anything you consider scientific. Go for it, or go away.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

I already said you may question me on anything you consider scientific.

Then why did you post links to bullshit forums?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Not sure why you're putting all this effort into flouting your work instead of just intelligently participating in discussions. There are Nobel winners who were cranks, too. They don't get a free pass, either.

I will give you the same opportunity as I did to Daffy Duck. Start up a science discussion with me on your topic of choice.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Not sure why you're putting all this effort into flouting your work instead of just intelligently participating in discussions. There are Nobel winners who were cranks, too. They don't get a free pass, either.

I will give you the same opportunity as I did to Daffy Duck. Start up a science discussion with me on your topic of choice.

Why not just go to one of the threads where a discussion is already taking place? Do you feel like this is your home turf in this thread and you're somehow safer here?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Not sure why you're putting all this effort into flouting your work instead of just intelligently participating in discussions. There are Nobel winners who were cranks, too. They don't get a free pass, either.

I will give you the same opportunity as I did to Daffy Duck. Start up a science discussion with me on your topic of choice.

Why not just go to one of the threads where a discussion is already taking place? Do you feel like this is your home turf in this thread and you're somehow safer here?

Not really. Safe on a forum is when you are free to say as you may wish without having it closed, changed, removed, or getting yourself banned.. I do not feel safe anywhere on this forum in that regard. As far as discussing science, I do feel pretty confident, though. It is just like when the people who keep saying I cannot do so are offered the chance to, they seem to have no abilities to do so.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Not really. Safe on a forum is when you are free to say as you may wish without having it closed, changed, removed, or getting yourself banned.. I do not feel safe anywhere on this forum in that regard. As far as discussing science, I do feel pretty confident, though. It is just like when the people who keep saying I cannot do so are offered the chance to, they seem to have no abilities to do so.

One is not free to say what one wishes to say. There are rules, as written down in the Forum Guidelines (see §2 and §4).
As such, the Staff has the right to close threads(*), remove URLs and suspend/ban members.


(*) Your thread was closed (as explained in post #2), yet you can send a request to one of Moderators to re-open it.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

As far as discussing science, I do feel pretty confident, though.

Unfortunately your confidence is unjustified.
Viz:
these days it is quite a possibility that the mind can recreate the past, and possibly even the future
or
Quantum physics experiments show that the expectations of the minds of the experiments affect the outcomes of the experiments

It is just like when the people who keep saying I cannot do so are offered the chance to, they seem to have no abilities to do so.

Because we've already seen your "ability" in that direction.
That, added to the bullshit forums you linked to, are indicators enough.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Not really. Safe on a forum is when you are free to say as you may wish within the confines of the forum guidelines without having it closed, changed, removed, or getting yourself banned.. I do not feel safe anywhere on this forum in that regard.

I added a very important part for you. If you come onto a science forum and refuse to participate in a scientific manner, you may be asked to leave or even forcibly removed. The same is true of any forum with a predetermined topic. I belong to a snowboarding forum as well as a car forum. Were I to clutter their boards with topics that didn't refer to the specific intent of the forum, I would be removed.

There are usually PARTS of a forum where that can take place, but popping into a scientific discussion and participating in a non-scientific way defeats the purpose of a SCIENCE forum. That is why you are constantly berated by other members.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

As far as discussing science, I do feel pretty confident, though. It is just like when the people who keep saying I cannot do so are offered the chance to, they seem to have no abilities to do so.

I'm not sure that you're incapable of participating in a scientific discussion. I don't know you that well. From what I have seen, however, you seem unwilling to do so. Your attempt to unscientifically redefine science as being a "mind construct" is a good example.

I would also highly recommend you be wary of who you lean on when you feel threatened. It isn't particularly wise to latch onto other members who do not meet form standards in regards to how they approach scientific topics.

If you don't feel like conforming to the guidelines or starting fresh, maybe you should take the time to reconsider whether or not you want to continue to participate here. No one is forcing you to stay if you don't like the way things are done. There are plenty of other science forums out there which accept different kinds of participation more openly.

EDIT: Galdernit, CES! Stop posting what I want to say in a faster and more concise manner. You're making me look bad worse.

As far as discussing science, I do feel pretty confident, though.

Nothing you've posted so far has had any scientific validity. It has nothing to do with your use of English, but with the fact that you know nothing about the subjects you post on.

I assume Mayflow has picked up his knowledge of science from spiritualist web sites and fora. That would explain his gross misunderstandings.

How many times have I asked any and all of you to actually discuss any venue of science with me that you desire to discuss, and yet not one of you has. I dare any of you to do so!

Because what you have to say is rarely (if ever) said in a scientific manner. It makes debating actual science with you an exercise in frustration.

If there is something scientific you wish to discuss, go for it. Calling science a construct of the mind and trying to redefine it is not only not a scientific discussion, but you haven't demonstrated anything that affords you the right to redefine terminology. It sounds more like you're just another person who wants to insert topics into scientific discussions that don't belong there and you accomplish it by "moving the goal posts".

Ok, I will start. What are AC, DC, resistance, ohm's law, frequency, linearity, capacitance? What are transistors and diodes and Fet's Who was Tesla? That is magnetic field, what is electric field? How do you calculate correction factors, or dB of error (either in power or voltage or current flow)?

How about this? Are wimps the fabric of dark energy or matter - sure unfair as we do not yet know, much we do not yet know, but what I do know on this topic is that I see no one as of yet here who can discuss any of this with me.

You're just asking for definitions of units of measurement. What's the point? The second paragraph might be a little more scientific, but you cannot expect people to participate in a discussion if you don't start it.

A forum is not about posting "What is" and expecting everyone else to toss out a definition. Try something more like this:

The product of a HFC car's fuel consumption is water. I believe it could be possible, rather than simply expelling this water, to condense it and store it in the car, perhaps to later extract it when the car is at a charging station so that the water can be used for grey water purposes. What do you guys think?

How come so many techs turn out to be cranks?

Are wimps the fabric of dark energy or matter

You do realize that Dark energy and Dark matter are two completely different things, and have nothing to do with each other? The only thing they have in common is with word 'Dark'.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You're just asking for definitions of units of measurement. What's the point? The second paragraph might be a little more scientific, but you cannot expect people to participate in a discussion if you don't start it.

A forum is not about posting "What is" and expecting everyone else to toss out a definition. Try something more like this:

The product of a HFC car's fuel consumption is water. I believe it could be possible, rather than simply expelling this water, to condense it and store it in the car, perhaps to later extract it when the car is at a charging station so that the water can be used for grey water purposes. What do you guys think?

Ok, I'll bite on this one. Hydrogen fueled cells to run a car. Chemistry is not my strong suit, but I do like the idea. Do you have any ideas how this may work? (if it ever does?) Remember the hindenburg and Toyota's 1.2 Billion dollar penalty by the US for faulty gas petals.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Are wimps the fabric of dark energy or matter

You do realize that Dark energy and Dark matter are two completely different things, and have nothing to do with each other? The only thing they have in common is with word 'Dark'.

Nobody as far as I know really knows so far. Dark matter seems I think to be sort of like gravity, but dark energy seems to me more like possibly anti-gravity? It seems responsible for the expansion of the Universe? Reminds me of the tao te ching thing.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Who was Tesla?

A pretty smart guy with some phenomenally crank ideas who's now become the "It guy" for nutcases.

Reminds me of the tao te ching thing.

And there you go again, dragging in bullshit.

Nobody as far as I know really knows so far

You don't know very far. They are two completely different phenomena, producing different results. The word 'Dark' is used in the case of matter because we can't see it, and used in the case of energy as a place holder until it's figure out what it is. There is no anti-gravity. The universe expands due to the metric expansion of space.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You're just asking for definitions of units of measurement. What's the point? The second paragraph might be a little more scientific, but you cannot expect people to participate in a discussion if you don't start it.

A forum is not about posting "What is" and expecting everyone else to toss out a definition. Try something more like this:

The product of a HFC car's fuel consumption is water. I believe it could be possible, rather than simply expelling this water, to condense it and store it in the car, perhaps to later extract it when the car is at a charging station so that the water can be used for grey water purposes. What do you guys think?

Ok, I'll bite on this one. Hydrogen fueled cells to run a car. Chemistry is not my strong suit, but I do like the idea. Do you have any ideas how this may work? (if it ever does?) Remember the hindenburg and Toyota's 1.2 Billion dollar penalty by the US for faulty gas petals.

The question I posed was mostly to give you an example of how to format a question in an attempt to start a discussion. You don't have to use the example itself.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Who was Tesla?

A pretty smart guy with some phenomenally crank ideas who's now become the "It guy" for nutcases.

Reminds me of the tao te ching thing.

And there you go again, dragging in bullshit.

Yeah yeah, I'll find something on Tesla to post in a bit, but the Tao Te Ching is not something I call bullshit, although you may call it so as you wish. The tao speaks of the "way" If one were to understand certain electronic amplifiers, there is something called "push-pull" - a bit much I think, but Push pull amplifier, working and theory. Class A , Class B , Class AB circuit diagram

Dark matter could be the "pull" and dark energy the "push" - In the tao it is a balance of the dark and the light. A good IQ sees relationships and patterns, but the more vast and varied it's input sources are the more the patterns that can be seen.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dark matter could be the "pull" and dark energy the "push" - In the tao it is a balance of the dark and the light. A good IQ sees relationships and patterns, but the more vast and varied it's input sources are the more the patterns that can be seen.

Leaving out the insults to others' IQs, what model of accepted physics does this simplification of dark matter and dark energy fit? If it doesn't, do you have a model you've created?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Yeah yeah, I'll find something on Tesla to post in a bit

Why?
Are you looking to demonstrate that you're a nutcase?

but the Tao Te Ching is not something I call bullshit

Which doesn't bode well for your claim to scientific.

A good IQ sees relationships and patterns

And you're telling me this because...?
(What do you call "a good IQ"?)

, but the more vast and varied it's input sources are the more the patterns that can be seen.

Simply because YOU see a "pattern" doesn't mean it's valid: especially when part of that "pattern" is demonstrably bullshit.

Are you looking to demonstrate that you're a nutcase?

Already done.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dark matter could be the "pull" and dark energy the "push" - In the tao it is a balance of the dark and the light. A good IQ sees relationships and patterns, but the more vast and varied it's input sources are the more the patterns that can be seen.

Leaving out the insults to others' IQs, what model of accepted physics does this simplification of dark matter and dark energy fit? If it doesn't, do you have a model you've created?

Not really. Just thought of the idea just now. Probably the biggest point I should like to make is that to call other people bad names and crackpots just because they either know things you do not know, or are interested in things you are not, does not become even an average IQ, and it helps no one to learn and grow.

Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Probably the biggest point I should like to make is that to call other people bad names and crackpots just because they either know things you do not know, or are interested in things you are not, does not become even an average IQ, and it helps no one to learn and grow.

Yeah?
And what's your view on "calling people names" when they post non-scientific bullshit on a science board?
When they claim they're capable of discussing science while they make non-scientific statements?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the point of that link would be...?
It doesn't contradict anything I've said about him. (In fact it actually supports what I said).

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dark matter could be the "pull" and dark energy the "push" - In the tao it is a balance of the dark and the light. A good IQ sees relationships and patterns, but the more vast and varied it's input sources are the more the patterns that can be seen.

Leaving out the insults to others' IQs, what model of accepted physics does this simplification of dark matter and dark energy fit? If it doesn't, do you have a model you've created?

Not really. Just thought of the idea just now. Probably the biggest point I should like to make is that to call other people bad names and crackpots just because they either know things you do not know, or are interested in things you are not, does not become even an average IQ, and it helps no one to learn and grow.

I suppose that my entire point is that just coming up with an idea and spouting it off without consideration for accepted science isn't particularly scientific. It's a bit cranky, actually.

While it is fun and important to speculate, we must do so within known boundaries. Otherwise, it's no different from just daydreaming. Carrying on a scientific debate demands that we stay within the realm of accepted science or provide a model better than the accepted one if we're proposing something new.

I am not real keen on cranky people who want to talk about science, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of science, they cannot. I have asked all of you repeatedly to actually talk about science with me, and no one has, so far.

(Oh, and a lie on your part: posts #42 & #48 for example).

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Not really. Just thought of the idea just now. Probably the biggest point I should like to make is that to call other people bad names and crackpots just because they either know things you do not know, or are interested in things you are not, does not become even an average IQ, and it helps no one to learn and grow.

It is nothing to do with how much you know - there is nothing wrong with not knowing, if you are interested in learning.

It is your ridiculous habit of mixing up science (and technology, in the case of amplifier designs) with mythology and fantasy.

Science and technology, as you should know, are quantitative disciplines that are able to produce practical results.

Spiritual woo does nothing but make fools feel happy.

Other than pointing out your egregious errors and lack of knowledge, what's to discuss? Your textbook definitions and flipping through tech manuals do not constitute science.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

(Oh, and a lie on your part: posts #42 & #48 for example).

Those were not even made by me.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Those were not even made by me.

Your comment "I have asked all of you repeatedly to actually talk about science with me, and no one has, so far" included a lie.
The final clause.
The posts I listed were specifically examples to illustrate that lie (unless "no one" really means "fewer than two people").
If you want more there's also the two quotes of yours that I gave in post #35 where YOU made assertions in a science thread (and failed to support them).
Can you support those claims?
Do you maintain that they're science?

I think you need a psychiatrist.

I would offer help, but you would have to pay me, and I don't take Duck money, and am not willing to simply put the payments on your bill. Now I understand your needs to quack without a point or any abilities whatsoever to converse scientifically, so carry on.

At this point, the crank breaks down into a series of non-sequiturs.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

I think you need a psychiatrist.

Yup, there's another thing you've got wrong.

I would offer help, but you would have to pay me, and I don't take Duck money, and am not willing to simply put the payments on your bill. Now I understand your needs to quack without a point or any abilities whatsoever to converse scientifically, so carry on.

Am I to take all the foregoing waffle as an admission that you now realise you were talking bollocks with regard to the quotes in post #35? And lying in post #58?
I only ask because you've decided to make comments about me, rather than address the points I raised.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

I think you need a psychiatrist.

Yup, there's another thing you've got wrong.

I would offer help, but you would have to pay me, and I don't take Duck money, and am not willing to simply put the payments on your bill. Now I understand your needs to quack without a point or any abilities whatsoever to converse scientifically, so carry on.

Am I to take all the foregoing waffle as an admission that you now realise you were talking bollocks with regard to the quotes in post #35? And lying in post #58?
I only ask because you've decided to make comments about me, rather than address the points I raised.

Those points being?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Those point being?

1) You lied.
2) Despite your repeated claim that you're prepared to "talk about science" you have, for the most part, failed to do so when given the opportunity.
3) You have made (supposedly) scientific assertions: and failed to show that they are, in fact, science.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Those point being?

1) You lied.
2) Despite your repeated claim that you're prepared to "talk about science" you have, for the most part, failed to do so when given the opportunity.
3) You have made (supposedly) scientific assertions: and failed to show that they are, in fact, science.

Dude, I talked about science. I talked about electronics, I talked about RF electromagnetism. What science did you talk about, and I do not lie.
I also touched on quantum physics.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dude, I talked about science. I talked about electronics, I talked about RF electromagnetism.

Flick's post #42 pretty much covered it.

What science did you talk about

Post #35.
(Now, admittedly, it wasn't science as such, more highlighting that you were making unscientific claims, but it was leading into science).

and I do not lie.

You, post #58: I have asked all of you repeatedly to actually talk about science with me, and no one has, so far.
But, Flick's post #42. (Which you responded to - hard to claim you missed it).
And AlexG's post #48 (Which you ignored).

In other words, you claimed that no one has talked about science TO YOU. Despite the fact that at least two people already had done so prior to you making that claim.
I.e. a lie.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dude, I talked about science. I talked about electronics, I talked about RF electromagnetism.

Flick's post #42 pretty much covered it.

What science did you talk about

Post #35.
(Now, admittedly, it wasn't science as such, more highlighting that you were making unscientific claims, but it was leading into science).

and I do not lie.

You, post #58: I have asked all of you repeatedly to actually talk about science with me, and no one has, so far.
But, Flick's post #42. (Which you responded to - hard to claim you missed it).
And AlexG's post #48 (Which you ignored).

In other words, you claimed that no one has talked about science TO YOU. Despite the fact that at least two people already had done so prior to you making that claim.
I.e. a lie.

Pay attention Duck. I replied to post 48 in post 50. I did not ignore it, as it interested me. Dark matter pulls in like gravity it seems, and dark energy causes expansion it seems.

Good points to consider. I replied to Flick's post about Hydrogen operated vehicle, but he sidestepped the reply I made as just some sort of example as of how to approach a conversation.

Dark matter could be the "pull" and dark energy the "push" - In the tao it is a balance of the dark and the light

That's your idea of replying to my post 48?

The only thing you've shown is that you're unable to carry on a scientific discussion.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Dark matter could be the "pull" and dark energy the "push" - In the tao it is a balance of the dark and the light

That's your idea of replying to my post 48?

The only thing you've shown is that you're unable to carry on a scientific discussion.

You claimed the two are unrelated. Where did you get that idea from? I am not saying it is inaccurate but highly unlikely that two scientific truths would be unrelated.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Pay attention Duck. I replied to post 48 in post 50. I did not ignore it

But you didn't post any science with regard to it.
Thus falsifying your own claim about wanting to talk science.

Good points to consider. I replied to Flick's post about Hydrogen operated vehicle, but he sidestepped the reply I made as just some sort of example as of how to approach a conversation.

Regardless: you lied.

You claimed the two are unrelated. Where did you get that idea from?

From the research on both. They have nothing to do with each other. One is a gravitational source which apparently does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, and the other is a property of space causing the metric expansion of the universe.

Originally Posted by AlexG

You claimed the two are unrelated. Where did you get that idea from?

From the research on both. They have nothing to do with each other. One is a gravitational source which apparently does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, and the other is a property of space causing the metric expansion of the universe.

If the one (I assume you mean "dark matter" is a gravitational source) and if the one I assume you mean "Dark energy" did not do a push pull sort of thing, one would blow the Universe apart and the other would create a Black hole and with nothing else. Therefor, it is just deductive reasoning that they both exist in conjunction.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

[If the one (I assume you mean "dark matter" is a gravitational source) and if the one I assume you mean "Dark energy" did not do a push pull sort of thing, one would blow the Universe apart and the other would create a Black hole and with nothing else. Therefor, it is just deductive reasoning that they both exist in conjunction.

There is no reason to think that dark matter can form a black hole (although it will, obviously fall into a black hole).

Because dark matter does not interact via the electromagnetic force, it will not condense to form solid bodies. It certainly not form stars, which are the only currently known method of forming a black hole.

There is no reason to believe they must both exist. Otherwise it would not have been a surprise when dark matter was discovered. And an even bigger surprise when dark energy was discovered.

This sort of "logic" to claim things are obvious post-hoc is totally unscientific.

"Tiny Primordial Black Holes are a Viable Candidate for Dark Matter"

Saying that dark matter could actually be a large number of tiny black holes is not the same as suggesting that dark matter (not made of black holes) could form a black hole.

Originally Posted by Strange

Saying that dark matter could actually be a large number of tiny black holes is not the same as suggesting that dark matter (not made of black holes) could form a black hole.

But my point would be that dark energy may be the force that stabilizes dark matter and vica versa.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

But my point would be that dark energy may be the force that stabilizes dark matter and vica versa.

And where is the scientific evidence for that?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mayflow

But my point would be that dark energy may be the force that stabilizes dark matter and vica versa.

And where is the scientific evidence for that?

Where is the scientific evidence against it?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Where is the scientific evidence against it?

Yet another display of your failure to understand science and how it works.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mayflow

But my point would be that dark energy may be the force that stabilizes dark matter and vica versa.

And where is the scientific evidence for that?

Where is the scientific evidence against it?

Ah yes, the crank's mantra... ' prove me wrong'.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mayflow

But my point would be that dark energy may be the force that stabilizes dark matter and vica versa.

And where is the scientific evidence for that?

Where is the scientific evidence against it?

And where is the scientific evidence against dark matter being invisible unicorn droppings?

This is why you are being criticised for being totally unscientific.

Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A wikipedia 'scientist'.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Dark flow, Dark fluid, or Dark matter.

From the wiki you linked to.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Dark flow, Dark fluid, or Dark matter.

From the wiki you linked to.

That is because dark energy is thought to be a balancing factor to gravity. However if you really read the article, it seems that many think that dark energy is going to possibly eventually rip the Universe apart. After the Big Bang was created gravity took over for a while and dark energy became a sort of cosmological constant. What I mean by constant is that gravity is inconstant as it revolves around dense masses, whereas dark energy seems to be fairly evenly and ubiquitously distributed regardless of mass densities. Ubiquitous - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Whut?
Some pretty wild speculation presented as fact in that post...

What I mean by constant is that gravity is inconstant as it revolves around dense masses,

I don't get what you're trying to say here. It makes no sense. Gravity is quite constant and calculable.

whereas dark energy seems to be fairly evenly and ubiquitously distributed regardless of mass densities.

That's because dark energy has nothing to do with mass.

Originally Posted by AlexG

What I mean by constant is that gravity is inconstant as it revolves around dense masses,

I don't get what you're trying to say here. It makes no sense. Gravity is quite constant and calculable.

whereas dark energy seems to be fairly evenly and ubiquitously distributed regardless of mass densities.

That's because dark energy has nothing to do with mass.

That is why I added the term ubiquitous. Sure gravity is calculable up to a certain point in areas of large mass - not sure it is in black holes or super dense mass though, but without the masses, dark energy seems to still be about the same, whereas without mass there is no gravity so far as we know.

but without the masses, dark energy seems to still be about the same, whereas without mass there is no gravity so far as we know.

And again, that's because dark energy has nothing to do with mass.

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

What is the point of posting links with no comment? Most people in this thread have at least a basic idea of what dark matter and dark energy are. If there is some particularly interesting or relevant piece of information on that page, why not tell us what it is?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

What is the point of posting links with no comment? Most people in this thread have at least a basic idea of what dark matter and dark energy are. If there is some particularly interesting or relevant piece of information on that page, why not tell us what it is?

Are you really so daft that you cannot see that I post my ideas and theories and then you and others here say they are just my crackpot ideas, and then when I find and post links by Nasa and such that say very much what I have been saying, then you say I am not commenting on the links when they are saying much the same things I already said on my own, and you could not grasp?

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Are you really so daft that you cannot see that I post my ideas and theories and then you and others here say they are just my crackpot ideas, and then when I find and post links by Nasa and such that say very much what I have been saying, then you say I am not commenting on the links when they are saying much the same things I already said on my own, and you could not grasp?

But that is exactly my point. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in that page that supports what you are saying.

If you think there is, then please be specific and quote the statements that support you.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Mayflow

Are you really so daft that you cannot see that I post my ideas and theories and then you and others here say they are just my crackpot ideas, and then when I find and post links by Nasa and such that say very much what I have been saying, then you say I am not commenting on the links when they are saying much the same things I already said on my own, and you could not grasp?

But that is exactly my point. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in that page that supports what you are saying.

If you think there is, then please be specific and quote the statements that support you.

I know you cannot see the relationship. Can't fix that for you.

Originally Posted by Mayflow

I know you cannot see the relationship. Can't fix that for you.

If you think that article supports your claim, how hard is it to provide evidence (a quote).

This is just a typical crank thread and Mayflow is a typical crank. We've seen a lot of these.