Notices
Results 1 to 52 of 52

Thread: is astrophysics psuedoscience?

  1. #1 is astrophysics psuedoscience? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Astro-physics.

    The physics of explaining how the light from what would be distant star systems is registered to our awareness..........."is it consistent" with our own simple understanding of atomic physics........." (and think about that, the big picture relating to the atomic picture, like the scientists of old forming atomic models of the solar system).

    We are assuming we are Gods, that everything we perceive from the styars, that we register with our perception, is there for us to perceive and put together and understand, that we, or rather, what we terms "brains", are that evolved to put the entrie spectrum of what we perceive "together".

    Astro-physics is looking into a wishing well......in hoping that human is already univeral God enough to make sense of what is perceived by human awareness.

    That is "psuedo-science", if you ask me, if no one is willing to consider FIRST a theory of "perception", of how we perceive, how we can "ultimately" perceive in a mathematical manner, zero to infinity, for space and time, in theory.............

    Psuedo science is lauching yourself into the great unknown without a clue.

    Science Fiction reveals greater insights of human intellect than laucnhing oneself into the unknown without any hope of tangiblly realizing in this life-time the exact nature of what it is it is forming a science on.

    Anyone who has a dig, basically, at the scientists of old for forming "atomic models" of our own solar system, what do you think astro-physics is?

    ............

    The Church actually considered atomic models of the solar system as the way to go.

    Why, oh, why...........why is astro-physics so easily gobbled up by psuedo science?

    My assessment: astro-physics was and STILL IS inspired by psuedo-science.........and if I can be bold, that those astro-physicists who ARE inspired by psuedo science are actually trying to become known by the Church.........for making a "great effort" in explaining the kingdom.......and on a lesser scale, most astro-physicists want a knighthood from a Monarch who claims to represent that Kingdom.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    *
    Why pick on astrophysics? Any branch of science can be invaded by kooks, cranks, mystics, and so on, each with their own form of nonsense. Some of these characters are mere mischievous pranksters while others take themselves seriously, believing they are far ahead of everyone else.

    Such wackos can do serious harm. They present false facts to the untrained public and they can sway public opinion in a harmful way, generating fear and distrust.

    But nothing they do can change the fundamental facts: a real science practiced by the true scientists does not become a pseudoscience merely because some nut gets up on his soapbox.
    *


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: is astrophysics psuedoscience? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    That is "psuedo-science", if you ask me, if no one is willing to consider FIRST a theory of "perception", of how we perceive, how we can "ultimately" perceive in a mathematical manner, zero to infinity, for space and time, in theory.............
    I think astrophysics is most definitely science, and a "theory of perception" is pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I don't have an answer to that.

    .......it's amazing..........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: is astrophysics psuedoscience? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    I think astrophysics is most definitely science, and a "theory of perception" is pseudoscience.
    Unless it's a scientifically proven model.

    Then it could be psychology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Are we seeing the stars, or are the stars seeing us?

    Are we doing science or are they not already doing us?

    Is a knighthood impressed?

    as I said: (The Church actually considered atomic models of the solar system as the way to go.......Why, oh, why...........why is astro-physics so easily gobbled up by psuedo science? My assessment: astro-physics was and STILL IS inspired by psuedo-science.........and if I can be bold, that those astro-physicists who ARE inspired by psuedo science are actually trying to become known by the Church.........for making a "great effort" in explaining the kingdom.......and on a lesser scale, most astro-physicists want a knighthood from a Monarch who claims to represent that Kingdom.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I think I am being misinterpreted here.

    I am presenting the case that astrophysics is a psuedo science because it is not relevant regarding what is REAL and the proper process of elimination.

    For instance, no one wants to rule out the possibility that the stars, well, let's be more precise, the stellar phenomena in the forms of light waves, is in fact an "illusion", that the stellar phenomena is in fact a type of endless reflection of light from our own solar system. I know that theory sounds wacko, BUT no one has successfully ruled it out. And, in not ruling out such possibilities, astrophysics cannot claim to be THE SCIENCE of THE STARS.

    Something that is legitimate is something that is real and tangible. No one can prove the stars as real and tangible, and so astrophysics MUST actually honor the possibility the stars are in fact an illusion, a light-illusion.......as a possibility.

    I am not saying that the stars ARE an illusion, I am saying astrophysics needs to be more realistic and thorough with being hypothetical, otherwise it is a psuedo-science, a science that is not entirely thorough.......a fantasy driven science that blindly hopes the stars are real. I mean, to play with a full-deck, the concept that the stars are an illusion must be addressed. Can anyone tell me "why" astrophysics has ruled out the possibility the stars could be an illusion to our perception, a reflection, so to speak, of light, as though light is endlessly reflected by this solar system back to this planet in such a manner? Surely computer simulations could maybe address such possibilities. Has anyone heard of any such attempts? I am saying this because ONCE we have ruled such possibilities out, THEN astrophysics can breathe a sigh of relief.

    Allow me to be hazardous to some of you: the phenomena of the stars, how the stars appear held together, that astrophysicists fail to theorize or explain can be better explained with the idea that the stars are in fact an elaborate and complex reflected illusion, that the dynamic feature of the stars we perceive is nothing more than pieces, shades, tints, of our own dynamic solar system.......that a black hole could be a light "drain" in that mirror of space-time where light is not reflected........and that where light is reflected, clearly it is not reflected "wholly", but partially, and obviously given the speed of light, that in such a mirror, the light reflected back to us would give off the illusion of an expanding Universe. No one has ruled this out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    "I think I am being misinterpreted here."
    On the contrary, the true scientists of this forum know who you are and
    what you are trying to do.

    There is no harm in just trying to stir the pot. Some folks think it is
    lively fun. But, personally, I am glad to see that so far no one is rising
    to your bait.

    Be patient and stay tuned. You are sure to get a sucker.

    Ah! here comes one now!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    You have just done a number of things. You profess to know who I am, as though I am unlike a true physicist of this forum. I am surprised you didn't suggest I look for disciples. It is rare for anyone, I must admit, to find intelligent debate when one feels exposed regarding the assumptions one carries with them.

    Actually, you won't find me repeating myself. I present something, and that's it. If you don't like it, at least leave it alone. A post is a post. Don't feel offended. And most of all, try not to assume who the person making the post is. If you read the post carefully you would find that I am aiming to encourage someone out there to PROVE ME WRONG and not to begin name calling.

    I mean, have you ever had someone on your own side playing some type of stupidity-advocate for the purpose of clarifying exactly how, for instance in this case, physics has directed it's course the way it has?

    Oh, sorry......there I go again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Anyone who believes astrophysics isn't true or valuable science, simply does not understand the nature of observational astronomy, its impact on study, and the fact that it goes hand in hand with theoretical astronomy (the second branch of astrophysics).

    That is, of course, unless someone wants to claim that there is such an overwhelming certainty in theoretical astrophysics that scientists no longer need observation, experimentation, or proof.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Observational Astronomy is not what I was referring to when presenting the case of astrophysics being a psuedo-science. Astrophysics is not observational astronomy, even if astrophysics employs observational astronomy as a subject of learning (it would obviously have to). I am referring to the theoretical mind set of astrophysicists not challenging, not facing the challenge, of the stars potentially being an illusion........a very complicated yet potentially explainable mirage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Performing Wiki-Fu:

    ...the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring and analyzing data, mainly using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented towards the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results, and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.
    Anyway, that aside, I think your theory that stars are an illusion in science is pseudo-science, not the other way around.

    While I have no intentions of quashing a theory I haven't fully explored, I think there's overwhelming evidence that observational astronomy has direct and profound benefit to science and is firmly embedded in reality. How can you claim that astronomy is pseudo-science in the face of massive amounts of factual data?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    What nation do you hail from, wolf.........what version of English. I could say that you are a very poor observor, and on top of that you criticize me for being a poor theorist. I do NOT have a theory that suggests the stars are an illusion. To repeat myself, as I hate doing, "why has no one ruled OUT that potential theory"............"what's the assumption: is it a hope"?

    Imagine this: I am a theoretical physicist and someone has asked me the question of what theories have been presented over the years of the stars being an illusion, and because of my time in professional study, I have not come across any. Now my question is, "where in history has such a theory been presented and successfully refuted and how"?..........

    I have found so often in these chat rooms that most of you are very rushed in your reading..........you are very poor listeners. I must pull you up though.......the planets are vastly different as a body of study to the stars, vastly different. As I have said, "what realisitic proof can we ever hope to get the stars are in fact "tangible" in at least the next 100 or so years: who is going to go out there and come back with hard evidence"? As for a theory on the planets, have you ever heard of a theory why this solar system has the number of planets it has......you know, a theory on why there is a sun, so many planets, and so on, or is that, as is usually the case, the result of CHANCE following the very popular big bang? My point, and this is not criticism aimed at anyone, is that science assumes much.

    I myself have been pulled up, chastised, for being irrelevant, for mucking around, that nly a sucker would respond to any of my posts. In brief, I don't mind, in fact, a no-reply situation. It suggests two things: no one wants to say anything because they can't be bothered, heard it before, or no one knows WHAT to say because it is a little out of their league. In the case here, all the responses, the criticisms, I get, are like swiss cheese........they are based not only on poor observation of my posts, and they assume that I am in defiance of the known laws and theories of contemporary physics.

    If in say 10 years someone presented som GAP theory that precisely explained the phenomena of the stars and predicted their behavior, predicted stellar behavior according to that theory, should that be considered as "complete": I argue that the stars can still exist as an illusion in the absence of people suggesting why the best theory on offer regarding the stars being an illusion being successfully refuted and not just abandoned.

    All my posts, every single one, have been investigating whether or not the current framework of science and all it's theories can allow for a new use of the number system relevant to a new set of space-time axioms. If so, how, if not, why. It is a study. I am arguing that a new set of space-time axioms can arrive at the same equations as contemporary science can, except via a different process, from a different set of axioms, and that theory can better explain what contemporary science can NOT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    What nation do you hail from, wolf.........what version of English.
    Easy, streamSystems. I think I'm just not thinking from the same angle as you. So lets start again.

    You suggested that the stars might be an illusion.

    Are you saying that the visual image we see is an illusion of reality? Are you saying the current understanding of stars is an illusion of reality?

    As for the other part, it seems to me you're asking "how do we determine fact from observation?" It sounds like you're stating that we observe stars with telescopes, and draw up claims of fact, even though we can't touch those stars.

    Is that correct?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    This thread is like you are all sitting around, smoking dope (which I confess to having done some of, when a little younger) and having so-called "deep" conversations about trees falling in forests when there's no-one there to hear them. It has nothing to do with science, however (am I wrong, or this not a science forum?)

    Wolf I admire your patience (or do I?) but streamSystems is a complete head-case. Reasoning with the guy is like pissing into the wind, so forget it. Or not, your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I say things for the record.

    What I have said I have said.

    Let's move on.

    I see no point in circular arguments that eddy into 3rd person arguments. If you don't know where I am coming from by now, and indeed I don't think either of you do, let's move on.

    Allow me to present a story (yes, a story), that highlights the evolution of my posts. No, actually, shaft the story.........I think that any theory on the stars, well, as long as it can be thoroughly demonstrated to be fact, should be upheld, BUT, I also think that there is MERIT in thinking that the stars ALSO could be an illusion, because if the stars are both REAL and an illusion, that presents more interesting "features" to our position in the Universe and the workings of our perception. Now please, let's think about this: how can the stars be real and an illusion? Well, technically, they would be real, but what if a theory were to bre presented that "suggested" according to our ultuimate ability of perception the stars were an "illusion"? That theory would suggest that our perception works as though we are perceiving as though through a "mirror". That, to me, presents an interesting case regarding the workings of our perception, how we think, and how we regard things around us.

    I understand what I do sometimes with my posts, and it is unfair, in retrospect. Most scientists see things very quickly according to their own experience of what they have learnt, never looking out for "further" possibilities of study for their own future...... ...... ... .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I think there's a certain amount of truth in saying that the stars we see are an illusion. In fact, in a way they sort of are. There's parallax and distortion events, not to mention the simple fact of the temporal physics (ie - we see the light of what was there 10-thousand years ago, not the actual star). In truth, none of the stars we see when we look up in the sky are real. That's just light hitting us, originating from a source that moved on (or even died) long ago. Even our closest neighbor will be two hours out of place by the time we see its image.

    On the other side, there's overwhelming reality in what we're seeing as well. Even though the image is no longer tangible by the nature of the cosmos, we can apply a vast amount of science towards it. We're also lucky enough to have an actual bona fide example right beside us. The Sun is a star, too.

    Maybe I'm still off the point, though. Whatever. I'm done posting about it.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    No, you're not off the point. I agree with you entirely. If I can go back to the story I have been trying to tell about all my posts, I am thinking that the universe is a massive entity, and I am thinking that in that Universe is a region that represents the entire universe, a type of cookpot of universal life and awareness, and I am also thinking our solar system is that entity. The only thing is, we cant PROVE this..........or can we.

    My argument is that if we can perhaps construct a theory regarding our "absolute" ability of perception, and highlight that to our perception the stars are an illusion, the concept of the stars, then it could be successfully argued (and heres the big "whooooaaaa", "where did that come from").....that the reason we exist as we do in the universe, presumably the only planet with "life", is because we represent the actually "complete set of ingredients" for life to occue here: it would be as though "around" this solar system is a virtual "mirror", and the stars could be argued to be an endlessly reflecting image of this one sun of ours........you know, as the light hits that space-time mirror on the rim-region/border of our own solar system precinct. That's what I said (I think it was in this post) when I presented the idea that the stars could be an elndlessly reflecting light display from the light of our own sun, EVEN THOUGH the styars could also be real...........and the point I was trying to make was that "it's possible, is it not, to present that argument successfully after thre bordom sets in having found a GUT". Imgaine it though, on the one hand is the theory that the stars are the mirror ball illusion of this solar system, and that completely ties in with the actually reality that eixsts of the stars themselves, SIMPLY BECAUSE this is the ACTUAL solar system that represents the overall "quality" of the the universe, of all the stars.

    ......... ........ ..... ..... ... .. .

    This possibility is "beyond" Battle star Galactia, it actually represents our potnetial "passport" of superiority in the Universe..........and indeed, what on earth does that have to do with "physics". Well, given the "relevance" of "nuclear bomb" superiority on this planet, I was thinking maybe this issue here would also be opened by the doorway of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Astrophysics is not pseudoscience.
    Your musings most certainly are.

    I've therefore moved this thread to where it belongs - pseudoscience.

    streamSystems, the simple reason that astrophysics has not addressed the possibility that stars are an illusion is the same reason it has not addressed the possibility that they are flecks of luminescent ejaculate on a velvet curtain: neither concept is consistent with the axioms on which astrophysics is based.

    A philosopher-astrophysicist would make the additional point that while they may well be illusions they behave as if they are large incandescent plasmascomposed largely of hydrogen and helium and fuelled by nuclear reactions. And it is this behaviour, real or illusory, that the astrophysicist has chosen to explore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I won't bore you with a reply.....

    ......yet, this is too tempting: if you were a sun, shining as you are, in a room surrounding you with mirrors all about, what type of light show would you see.

    I asked an intelligent question somewhere in this post: has anyone thought of doing a computer simulation on the concept.

    Sorry (too much assumed knowledge required)............

    My point is, "astrophysics is a type of psuedo science IF IT DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL POSSIBLE THEORIES of the STARS".

    GET A LIFE.

    [/b]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    All theories are addressed. All random nonsense ideas from average joe's across the globe are not.
    Thank god, because real science takes enough of their time. We don't have enough manpower to address all the garbage too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I think the mods need to rip out some pages of the dictionary on pseudo-science and staple them to the rules board. This is getting out of control (and I'm not just talking about this thread alone).

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    We don't have enough manpower to address all the garbage too.
    Point well taken, Neutrino, but easy on the essence of garbage. It's the mark of a true scientist to never disregard other theories. Although I agree that the scientific community (whatever that is) doesn't have time to examine everything from viewpoint and so must make judgments on what has merit or not. There's always the possibility that someone came to a conclusion because they don't know about some aspect, or they fudged a number, or some other bit. There's also a possibility that they've hit on something, but have just explained or interpreted it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I won't bore you with a reply.
    Sorry to inconvenience you. :?

    I wasn't going to respond to this again, but for some reason I feel the need to backup Neutrino and Ophiolite. :-D

    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    if you were a sun, shining as you are, in a room surrounding you with mirrors all about, what type of light show would you see.

    I asked an intelligent question somewhere in this post: has anyone thought of doing a computer simulation on the concept.
    Alright. I don't even need a computer to crowbar around with this idea.

    Let's say you are the sun, in a room full of mirrors.

    You look like this:


    Or this is probably better:


    How does that theory explain star pictures such as these, then:




    I could go on, but the forum mods might get angry at me for all the images. I think you get the drift.

    To further the experiment, how does reflection account for the physical movements of the stars and the star systems? Many stars are binary or trinary stars, and worse, all orbiting around each other. There's stars exploding, stars consuming other stars, stars of different intensity, etc. Analyzing the light from the stars, we can determine their makeup, and that makeup doesn't match the others. Further, if the stars are an illusion created by mirrors, where are the mirrors in relation to us? There are stars that are closer to us than others, and all stars are moving in motion with the galaxy, which in turn is moving with the expansion of the universe. Even further, there's the properties of light to be considered. Massive objects (such as stars) bend light, and this phenomena is readily observable. A reflection couldn't do that, unless the object creating the reflection was responsible, but that doesn't make sense either.

    If I wanted to tug on my sci-fi cortex, I could assume that the lights in the sky are reflections off of giant disco balls. But then the physics wouldn't lin up, not to mention the observations.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    A particular fractal pipeline mirror constructed radially through the plane of a theoretical solar system can provide what any of you with your childish remarks about masturbating that thing you call a brain can ever (never) hope to achieve, not in your life-time, nor the accumulated life time of your family or friends.

    Anyway, to get off the point, I am honored to make you feel inspired to add more rules to this forum.......boo hoo.

    basically, in summarizing your antics, I have presented posts, you could have ignored them, but no, you responded, and now you wish to use me as a case study why more rules need to be added to this forum. I have a suggestion, "exercise restraint": don't respond to a post............but, like the length of time of one of your regular masturbation sessions, things usually get out of "hand" (excuse the pun)..........you guys lose the plot, and then giggle amongst yourselves like schoolgirls.

    Does anyone know of a mathematical equation that turns a line of light into an endless fractal mirror-type reflection? How about combining a string of lights through a series of fractal equations that factor in the flux of motion in this solar system. Oh, sorry, I should post THIS ONE in the mathematics section, right?

    To cut the long story short, I have that mathematical equation, I have run the equations, and the results are surprising......but then again, so are you people.

    Bite me.

    (this is a computer generated response care of "streamSystems", in assessing all known data relevant to the current topic)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    WarningstreamSystems, as of now please cease your offensive remarks directed towards other members of this forum.
    While I am phrasing this as a request you will appreciate it is a requirement for your continued presence here.
    When presenting radical, controversial, topics on a science forum it behoves you to do so with a measure of respect for the work of scientists and for your audience. Such respect has been sadly lacking.
    If you have a problem with this request contact me or one of the other mods/admin by pm. Do not respond with a further emotional tirade.


    Ophiolite, in moderator mode.[/b]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I have seen worse than "bite me". My remark was in trying to adapt to the level of use you have been exercising on a matter of freedom of speech. Please could you highlight to me, besides, indeed where I have exercised "emotional disquiet". My comment about being self-righteous, well, some arenas and conventions deserve that element, yet this one does not deserve for instance a religious level of self-appointment of command, especially when the judgment over me has been very unfair and one-sided. I hsave not made ANY racial-religious remarks unkind to ANY race or religion. I hope you have also cautioned other memebers of this forum regarding their use of words that paint disgusting images.....otherwise you could come across fairly "lop sided" in your views. Not good for a forum administrator, if that is what you are (apologies to the forum administrators).

    Time will have it that my case on the possible theory of the stars being a type of mathematical illusion will prove accurate. Why that represents a threat to astrophysics, that is not my emotional problem. The problem is that you believe I am exercising emotional disquiet. Technically, "get a life", and "bite me", were to invoke images of you either getting a life or biting me. "Getting a life" was in response to me being made an example of regarding the suggestion that any new direction for astrophysics and in this case the one I present is termed psuedo-science. I was merely trying to say, "live, let astrophysics grow in tihs direction". "Biting me", you have, it seems. Well done. I didn't though think you would take it so literally.

    I do apologize though, directly to you, in not being more sensitive with my address to a potentially easily startled scientific community. I will be more cautious from here on with my posts, yet I myself have made the decision not to recognize the potential here in forums representing doorways of new topical theoretical pursuit. I had no idea that forums are mainly used for people to have their querstions on topics taught in class that they struggle with. I see that, and I understand how I am using this forum in a different way. Many apologies to you. Yet, more often than not readers here have jumped to conclusions regarding my posts that are in fact false. I have been misinterpreted, perhaps because people have a "set idea" on what I am presenting. I don't really see much point in using this forum any more in trying to present a new concept of science. Many apologies for not realizing that sooner. It is not the place for it. Sorry. It's a good forum, and I hope that maybe in the future the users can be more open to new directions in science. Maybe you could add a section, not titled psuedo-science, but "new directions in science". I might use the forum again that way.

    Cheers. Thank you to all who have responded to my posts in my general push to introduce to the scientific community a new stream of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    streamSystems Please see pm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Ophiolite,

    One of my life's testaments is transparency in all that I do. I'm cool. I could not allow myself to be a part, for the world to see, of some conspiracy I am presumably the perpetrator of.

    Please do not perceive this as arrogance. It's just one of those things, namely being "transparent", "honest"........

    If you feel it best to make an example of me, and I have yet to label anyone as spam or "troll" or use any emoticons, please advise me. I mean, being a woman, addicted to amphetamines, and using this chat-room at every truck-stop I can find with internet, it's fun.

    The greatest arrogance of all is silence, as exercised by God. Is anyone suggesting I upgrade my position?


    Regards, streamSystems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Well transparency is an honourable aim. However, transparency is achieved in two interdependent ways: visibility and comprehension.

    Your remarks are, indeed visible. Unfortunately I fail to understand more than half of them. Is this a failing on my part? Possibly, yet my comprehension level is generally excellent. Perhaps the problem lies at your end.

    In the words of technical writer I used to work with "eschew obfuscation".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    ......and along came a spider and sat down beside her.

    No, OK, I'm busted.

    Deriving equations for a circle and sphere and pi using a new theory for time and space (axioms) is not "specific" enough?

    I have the answers. It is you who needs to spend time "listening" to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    [quote="streamSystemsDeriving equations for a circle and sphere and pi using a new theory for time and space (axioms) is not "specific" enough?
    [/quote]so far all I have seen is you claiming you have done this. Please point me to the post/thread where you lay this out in detail, so I may go and 'listen'.

    streamsystems, I point out to you that you are not communicating cleary and what do I get? Poetic references to Little Miss Muffet! What relevance does that have? Perhaps a great deal to you, none at all to me. Indeed since I have just told you I couldn't understand you previous post, would it not have made sense to clarify that before producing even more gibberish?

    Let me be absolutely clear: you are not being absolutely clear, you are not even being half assed vague. You have the answers? Fine. let us hear them. Now. Don't prevaricate, lay them down here for us. We await with interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Gentlemen, please. This banter is going nowhere.

    streamSystems, Ophiolite is right, you've claimed again and again that we're not seeing the truth here, but you've given us no facts. You've talked of equations and experiments, but only in reference. If you think we are just spontaneously going to accept what you say because you keep saying we don't understand, over and over again...you are wrong. You're going to have to lay some evidence down for this. That's the only way you're going to convince us of your ideas, or even get us to consider them.

    Show us how a "...fractal pipeline mirror constructed radially through the plane of a theoretical solar system...can provide..." us with the same (or better) results than we see with current methods.

    I'll admit, there's some aspects of photometry I don't understand. So help me.

    Show us how you can take light from this:


    and get this (click for Hubble vis-cap):


    Keep in mind, we'll also need to know how the 3-dimensional structure is rendered, the mass structure explained, the expansion event and its reasoning, the spectroscopy results, and also how your model explains or refutes currently observable stellar life-cycles (including the shell explosion of Eta Carinae).

    We need evidence, streamSystems. We need something more than insults and telling us we're wrong.

    This is a science forum, after all...
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I apologise for the time it takes me to reply, as I have a 9-5 job on the other side of the world to most of you.

    Without seeming too long winded, science is an art of explaining space-time. Science as we know it does not alter the laws of space-time. The laws of space-time just "are". Many different sciences exist, yet only one that most recognize as "contemporary science". Anything else is generally regarded as "whacko".

    Unfortunately, I am presenting (as a download on the www link below) a new science that understandably is "whacko" until proven otherwise. The thing though about the "whacko" science I have is that it derives fundamental equations "properly". It proposes what we understand as "field forces", "atomic building blocks", and so on, everything basically science "observes and studies". I have presented it to certain agencies which have suggested that the theory be given a wider audience of debate. I then thought, "chat room". Hence, my presence.

    When I present a post, I am addressing what we know of space-time from a different angle. Sure, it comes across as gibberish to those of the contemporary-science class, but if having being a student already of classical-contemporary physics, I know I am not being contradictory. The proof is in the theory (which is impossible to annotate as a post, hence the guide to the website link).

    To calm this storm, I have realised the difficulty and lack of interest in "different approaches" to understanding space-time.

    I concede.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    To calm this storm, I have realised the difficulty and lack of interest in "different approaches" to understanding space-time.
    Official Warning Number 2:
    It may not be deliberate, but it certainly appears that way: stop with the snide, offensive, patronising attitude now. Not tomorrow, not next year, but now.
    Several posters here have shown a genuine interest in 'different approaches' and a level of tolerance that your objectionable replies have had no right to expect. Continually blaming rejection of your ideas on others, when the rejection is due to your inability to express yourself clearly is not acceptable.
    Ophiolite as moderator.


    I shall look at your website and comment later. thank you for drawing our attention to it.
    Ophiolite as poster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Thank you. To have one of you properly check it out has been worth the warnings. Please don't assume I am being snide. I am not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    In not being snide, I do understand that it does take a large piece of one's time to read a 200 or so page mathematical equation that properly explains a "fractal pipeline mirror constructed radially through the plane of a theoretical solar system.

    But let me highlight: the theory arrives at widely accepted equations of space-time. It does through using a NEW SET of mathematical and space-time axioms. This means that "another approach" to explaining space and time is "present".

    The big question therefore is whether or not this new way is "more accurate". In short, it is "more difficult". It is more difficult because "time" in this theory is not one dimensional, is not the "4th dimension".

    The theory proposes new fields of research.

    The theory proposes new explanations for the things contemporary science has faiiled to achieved, namely how a grand unified theory can be explained, the linking of the forces.

    But, may I highlight, it is a 300 and then something page manuscript.

    When one asks for proof, it is difficult for me to post that length of work. To understand what happens on page 200 for instance, one must have read pages 0 through to 199.

    I understand how it seems I present "simplified" posts on concepts that have an aura of "all-knowingness", but it is not deliberate..........it's what happens when a complete theory of space-time is understood.............a complete theory in using a NEW set of axioms that more properly accounts for "time".

    Think of reality like a mountain, and the way we explain that mountain with equations are marker posts on trails on that mountain. The theory suggests beyond all doubt to me that I am scaling the same mountain, because the theory arrives at the same marker posts. The only difference is the theory represents a different trail that scales the same mountain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Yes streamsystems, time is not onedimensional, given that for us to perceive it as adding to our experience, which all is that is experienced.
    Time becomes part of us, adds to our dimensions, exactly how many we have now is irrelevant. But it's a whole lot ofcourse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    and....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    and....
    And unfortunately the black hole in cerns large hadron collider is probably not the highest gain chain reaction.

    I am puzzled, I wont have time to create it before they gain us dumb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    ..............and you obviously know how much they have invested "already"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    ..............and you obviously know how much they have invested "already"?
    Never saw them on the northpole with a photon simulator laser of the earth spin frequency directed right through the earth.

    But naturally, If you are sure... Are you sure? *looks at the person pointing at the diet coca cola*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    ....and you are m.jacksons's...........what..............

    I can't sing..........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    ....and you are m.jacksons's...........what..............

    I can't sing..........
    Never mind, just some stupid tv comercial i saw ones. Forget about the maya thing, they only predicted a whole lot of spooky things... Or so I heard, a maya indian told me that when I was in mexico.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I am sure about one thing: trying to convert pure matter into something else WILL result in a chain reaction of haneous proportions...........if it is belligerently pursued: those people are staring into an envelope, a "mirror", with their antics.

    Imagine asking a cardiologist to understand the heart by trying to blow it up and watching the debris fly this way and that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Imagine asking a cardiologist to understand the heart by trying to blow it up and watching the debris fly this way and that.
    Well, there's no point in that, wouldn't even smell like pizza. quite the opposite, fewer people left to create intensive gain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I think nuclear science and it's antics with particle annhilation can take their focus away from the real meachanics of the atom. I think the concerto of atomic play can be better understood in theory as opposed to blowig the atom up..........just like with cardiology.........observing carefully while taking the entire surrounds in carefully...........ideally being theoretical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    The folks blowing up atoms aren't bypassing theory. They're trying to discover facts that uphold their theories.

    If the theory states that a certain sub-particle must exist, and they find that sub-particle, then it helps validate their theory. Finding that sub-particle involves a bit of effort, though. Hence projects like CERN.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    The folks blowing up atoms aren't bypassing theory. They're trying to discover facts that uphold their theories.

    If the theory states that a certain sub-particle must exist, and they find that sub-particle, then it helps validate their theory. Finding that sub-particle involves a bit of effort, though. Hence projects like CERN.
    Must be really important to confirm theories if they make giant particle accelerators. Must be painfull for them not knowing what quarks are made of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Guest
    "is astrophysics psuedoscience?" - NO, not in this forum. Next question...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Must be really important to confirm theories if they make giant particle accelerators. Must be painfull for them not knowing what quarks are made of.
    Um, that's because there are major technological and scientific advantages to be had from understanding these things. Physics theories are great and all, but how do you know they're right unless you try testing them? Plus, the advantages in understanding the nature of particles extends to many aspects.

    Do you honestly think the beneficiaries of projects like CERN, JET, and Z, directed billions of dollars to those projects, simply to see a quark?

    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    "is astrophysics psuedoscience?" - NO, not in this forum. Next question...
    ...I hope the can of worms didn't pop open again...
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Um, that's because there are major technological and scientific advantages to be had from understanding these things. Physics theories are great and all, but how do you know they're right unless you try testing them? Plus, the advantages in understanding the nature of particles extends to many aspects.

    Do you honestly think the beneficiaries of projects like CERN, JET, and Z, directed billions of dollars to those projects, simply to see a quark?
    Yes, that's our idea Wolf; that they do it because it's worth it. But what progress that fits in your mind could possibly be worth it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    don't forget that the www originated with CERN - worth it ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    don't forget that the www originated with CERN - worth it ?
    Excuse me for being so sceptic, i didn't realise they were looking for a new world wide webb in the bosons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •