Sexual Biology Part 2

[exchemist]

Er no. I'm demanding that scientists drop their own batshit crazy models such as materialism (proven wrong by QM), dark energy (proven wrong by Halton Arp showing that quasars being physically connected to low red-shift galaxies) and the big bang (proven wrong by distant galaxies being older than the supposed age of the universe).

Aha!

[Super Polymath]

There are more models for Grand Unification theory than there are words in the dictionary. 

 

A few dozen variants of rainbow cosmology fall along the lines of what A-Wal is on about.

 

However, we're going to be well into the transhuman era before our particle accelerators are even sophisticated enough to dish out a fraction of the ample evidence needed for an infinitesimal reduction in the amount of GUT theories that we have now, we'll have ruled out a few in a few hundred years I'd imagine. 

 

 

"We need a theory of everything"

 

"The ultimate triumph of science"

Edited May 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[A-wal]

Oh plenty! But only the first one is free. From there on out you have to pay!

If they're as weak as your other arguments I can't imagine anyone with an ounce of common sense being willing to pay for them sweetheart.

 

So you haven't read any? Well, that certainly explains the "strong" arguments you present in defense of poor Alton:

There is no evidence against a steady state universe! The idea that red-shift can only be caused by objects moving away would be a ridiculous assumption even if it hadn't been comprehensively proven that low red-shift objects can be the at the same distance as high red-shift objects, and the background radiation that was detected was lower than the margin of error. That's called data fudging. Even if there were detectable radiation, they'd be no way to know how far away it was because of the way it was measured. Some people even think it was picking up microwave radiating from the oceans.

 

The "oh my, my brain can't imagine that being true! It's...it's...COUNTERINTUITIVE!"

 

*Snicker*

No, it's a stupid claim with nothing real to support it. It's a joke.

 

Do you think red shift is the only proof? "Blindly assumed?" What "strong evidence?" 

 

Really dear, your lack of education and blind bias against the Cabal of Evil Scientists is, well, embarrassing.

I don;t think they're evil, I think they're extremely stupid. Intellectualism is not the same as cleverness, and most scientists a dumb as a post. The way BS is presented as meaningful science while evidence refuting the dogma is ignored would be an embarrassment to anyone involved with science who has both integrity and a basic level of intelligence.

 

Nothing is as irritating to a shy man as a confident girl, :phones:

I love confident women. They're great, unless they're idiots. Then they're just annoying.

 

 

Er no. I'm demanding that scientists drop their own batshit crazy models such as materialism (proven wrong by QM), dark energy (proven wrong by Halton Arp showing that quasars being physically connected to low red-shift galaxies) and the big bang (proven wrong by distant galaxies being older than the supposed age of the universe).

Aha!

Aha what Mr Exchemist?

Edited May 18, 2017 by A-wal

[Buffy]

If they're as weak as your other arguments I can't imagine anyone with an ounce of common sense being willing to pay for them sweetheart.

 

Well, and you'd have to get in line...and you probably couldn't afford them anyway! :cheer:

 

 

There is no evidence against a steady state universe! The idea that red-shift can only be caused by objects moving away would be a ridiculous assumption even if it hadn't been comprehensively proven that low red-shift objects can be the at the same distance as high red-shift objects, and the background radiation that was detected was lower than the margin of error. That's called data fudging. Even if there were detectable radiation, they'd be no way to know how far away it was because of the way it was measured. Some people even think it was picking up microwave radiating from the oceans.

 

There's endless evidence for it dear, and despite your false apoplexy, no, it's not "only red-shift." By saying so you again prove you have no idea what you're talking about and worse, that you assume that everyone else is stupid enough to agree with this premise.

 

Your argument here about CMB assumes that the only CMB image we have is Wilson and Penzias's original data. No dear, we've got probes (COBE, WMAP) far out in space that discount the oceans and other anthropomorphic sources. Using this excuse is quite disingenuous to say the least.

 

Honestly, it's embarrassing.

 

But you're welcome to keep digging that hole! :cheer:

 

Now I know I'll never convince you, and that's not my purpose for responding here. For those of you who'd like to find out more about why steady-state is not taken seriously, here are a couple of links:

 

The Steady State Theory at Science Geek 

 

Brilliant Blunders: How the Big Bang Beat Out the Steady State Universe

 

 

 

No, it's a stupid claim with nothing real to support it. It's a joke.

 

I don;t think they're evil, I think they're extremely stupid. Intellectualism is not the same as cleverness, and most scientists a dumb as a post. The way BS is presented as meaningful science while evidence refuting the dogma is ignored would be an embarrassment to anyone involved with science who has both integrity and a basic level of intelligence.

 

"...most scientists [are as] dumb as a post."

 

Guess what they think of you, dear.

 

 

I love confident women. They're great, unless they're idiots. Then they're just annoying.

 

At this point, I'm afraid your use of "idiot" to describe "everyone who does not agree with me" begins to lose its rhetorical import.

 

To quote our president, "Sad!"

 

Now, none of this has anything to do with Sexual Biology, so take it elsewhere. 

 

 

How then did we come to the “standard model”? And how has it supplanted other theories, like the steady state model? It is a tribute to the essential objectivity of modern astrophysics that this consensus has been brought about, not by shifts in philosophical preference or by the influence of astrophysical mandarins, but by the pressure of empirical data, :phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

Well, and you'd have to get in line...and you probably couldn't afford them anyway! :cheer:

You have no idea what I can afford sweetheart.

 

There's endless evidence for it dear, and despite your false apoplexy, no, it's not "only red-shift." By saying so you again prove you have no idea what you're talking about and worse, that you assume that everyone else is stupid enough to agree with this premise.

 

Your argument here about CMB assumes that the only CMB image we have is Wilson and Penzias's original data. No dear, we've got probes (COBE, WMAP) far out in space that discount the oceans and other anthropomorphic sources. Using this excuse is quite disingenuous to say the least.

 

Honestly, it's embarrassing.

 

But you're welcome to keep digging that hole! :cheer:

If you'd read and understood what I actually wrote sweety you'd see that I said "Some people even think it was picking up microwave radiating from the oceans." I don't know if that's a realistic idea or not because I don't know enough about the instrument that was used to take the measurement and I would never just take the word of somebody simply because they're saying something that I want to be true or because I blindly trust their assumptions. That's something I think you should think about dear. It might prevent the embarrassment you're feeling and trying to deflect onto me.

 

"...most scientists [are as] dumb as a post."

 

Guess what they think of you, dear.

I honestly couldn't care less what people with that level of intellectual dishonesty (I know there are good scientists and I'm generalising a lot) think about anything. It annoys me immensely that these people are trusted and state funded though.

 

At this point, I'm afraid your use of "idiot" to describe "everyone who does not agree with me" begins to lose its rhetorical import.

 

To quote our president, "Sad!"

In has nothing to do with not agreeing with me, it's to do with an inability to think for themselves and a willingness to accept and argue for things based on the dogma they're fed. If they dropped their assumptions and actually looked at the evidence with an open mind they'd see how baseless some of their assumptions really are.

 

Now, none of this has anything to do with Sexual Biology, so take it elsewhere.

Then what's the post I'm responding to now doing hear my dear?

 

How then did we come to the “standard model”? And how has it supplanted other theories, like the steady state model? It is a tribute to the essential objectivity of modern astrophysics that this consensus has been brought about, not by shifts in philosophical preference or by the influence of astrophysical mandarins, but by the pressure of empirical data, :phones:

Buffy

If you believe the standard model is based on empirical data then your even more naive than I thought. The data is made to fit the model!

Edited May 19, 2017 by A-wal

[Buffy]

You have no idea what I can afford sweetheart.

 

You have no idea what my billing rate is! :cheer:

 

 

If you'd read and understood what I actually wrote sweety you'd see that I said "Some people even think it was picking up microwave radiating from the oceans." I don't know if that's a realistic idea or not because I don't know enough about the instrument that was used to take the measurement and I would never just take the word of somebody simply because they're saying something that I want to be true or because I blindly trust their assumptions. That's something I think you should think about dear. It might prevent the embarrassment you're feeling and trying to deflect onto me.

 

So if you "don't know" about all these things....and you repeat them without support...that's proof that you "don't blindly trust their assumptions."

 

Mmm hmm. Okay. :rolleyes:

 

 

I honestly couldn't care less what people with that level of intellectual dishonesty (I know there are good scientists and I'm generalising a lot) think about anything. It annoys me immensely that these people are trusted and state funded though.

 

"Intellectual dishonesty"....well at least you agree that there are a *few* good scientists.

 

That at least obeys Marnie's Law, which states that "Crass generalizations may be justified by admiting at least 10 exceptions."

 

So are there 10 good scientists in the world? Are any of them Cosmologists?

 

 

In has nothing to do with not agreeing with me, it's to do with an inability to think for themselves and a willingness to accept and argue for things based on the dogma they're fed. If they dropped their assumptions and actually looked at the evidence with an open mind they'd see how baseless some of their assumptions really are.

 

So except for those 10, all other scientists have an "inability to think for themselves and a willingness to accept and argue for things based on the dogma they're fed."

 

Really.

 

Mmm hmm.

 

Then what's the post I'm responding to now doing hear my dear?

 

You're right, this is a silly useless thread so it's perfect for your uh, expositions on uh, the "general idiocy of all scientists and the people who foolishly agree with them."

 

Quite a hypothesis. Have you considered defining an experiment that might validate that claim?

 

 

If you believe the standard model is based on empirical data then your even more naive than I thought. The data is made to fit the model!

 

Right, the Standard Model is all hand-waving. No math or data at all.

 

Mmm hmm.

 

Those silly physicists should not have spent all those years on Differential Equations!

 

I sure wish I hadn't!

 

 

 

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means,:phones:

Buffy

[A-wal]

You have no idea what my billing rate is! :cheer:

I know it's overpriced.

 

So if you "don't know" about all these things....and you repeat them without support...that's proof that you "don't blindly trust their assumptions."

 

Mmm hmm. Okay.

I pointed out that some people think the microwave background radiation that was detected is coming from the oceans and said that I don;t know if this is realistic or not. How does that translate in your mind to blindly trusting their assumptions? I could be coming from the heliosphere of the equivalent that presumably exists around the milky way, or both, or any number of other sources. There's no way to know how far it's traveled so how could we know?

 

"Intellectual dishonesty"....well at least you agree that there are a *few* good scientists.

 

That at least obeys Marnie's Law, which states that "Crass generalizations may be justified by admiting at least 10 exceptions."

 

So are there 10 good scientists in the world? Are any of them Cosmologists?

I doubt it!

 

 

So except for those 10, all other scientists have an "inability to think for themselves and a willingness to accept and argue for things based on the dogma they're fed."

 

Really.

 

Mmm hmm.

It certainly seems that way. How else would this crap be considered the most likely history of the universe based on red-shift that's obviously being caused along the way because it increases with distance, and some radiation that could be coming from anywhere?

 

You're right, this is a silly useless thread so it's perfect for your uh, expositions on uh, the "general idiocy of all scientists and the people who foolishly agree with them."

 

Quite a hypothesis. Have you considered defining an experiment that might validate that claim?

Yes I thought I'd join a science forum and find out for myself how these people are able to justify twisting data and reasoning to support something so far fetched with no real evidence backing it up.

 

Right, the Standard Model is all hand-waving. No math or data at all.

 

Mmm hmm.

 

Those silly physicists should not have spent all those years on Differential Equations!

 

I sure wish I hadn't!

You can use maths to describe any model! As far as data goes, light is more red-shifted the more space it crosses. That strongly suggests it's not caused by relative motion of the source. The microwave radiation could be coming from anywhere and the distribution is not what the model predicted, not uniform enough.

 

Edited May 21, 2017 by A-wal

[Super Polymath]

Put together the words God & Satan, what can you get?

 

Goats and

 

That's the only two words I could get using all the letters that makes any kind of sense.

 

Goats and ____?

 

Goats and sheep.

 

A shepherd is a term for someone who herds sheep, but not goats, & breeds sheep. The Bible says that the Lord is our shepherd, not our goatherder. We're back to the ritual of circumcision & marital arrangement now. 

 

"Sheep (Ovis aries) have 54 chromosomes, while goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) have 60." 

 

I will not be a sheep, nor be bred with one.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Super Polymath