What Is Bad Science?

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Afaik, Doer, there are independent corroborations (not conclusive, but highly supportive) of/for the Bang.
1) the microwave background radiation.
2) The very-large-scale galactic distribution ... the "cobwebby" unevenness that shows up when the scale approaches a gigaparsec. My 2¢ ... cn
Click to expand...
Yes, except, to me these are linked. And are therefore equally discounted. They don't stand one without the other as a BB supoprt, they prop each other. That's how I see it.

It's the MBR folks that see a pattern to the cobwebbyness. Cobweb universe is one of the basic mysteries. Why is it not a smooth disribution? How can a Bang condense into Cobwebs? If we can link that to something....MBR has compelling unevenness as well.

My problem here is the MBR. If the spaceframe is not static and not Constant based, we can't surmise that the radiation has cooled by a standard rate. The idea is if you rev the MBR back up over 18 billion years, you get the energy of the BB. That takes a Constant.

Another thing we don't know is the scale of Expansion's acceleration rate. Is it universal or patchy? I'm going to GUESS patchy. Patchy across time, as well as space. There could be random contactions and expansions happening right NOW, in a patchy universe.

So, cobweb and MBR could be the result of Patchiness in our manifold. That's just a guess.

But, I'd say surely,the A1 standard candle proof of Acceleration as overtaken even these slim "evidence."
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Yes, except, to me these are linked. And are therefore equally discounted. They don't stand one without the other as a BB supoprt, they prop each other. That's how I see it.

It's the MBR folks that see a pattern to the cobwebbyness. Cobweb universe is one of the basic mysteries. Why is it not a smooth disribution? How can a Bang condense into Cobwebs? If we can link that to something....MBR has compelling unevenness as well.

My problem here is the MBR. If the spaceframe is not static and not Constant based, we can't surmise that the radiation has cooled by a standard rate. The idea is if you rev the MBR back up over 18 billion years, you get the energy of the BB. That takes a Constant.

Another thing we don't know is the scale of Expansion's acceleration rate. Is it universal or patchy? I'm going to GUESS patchy. Patchy across time, as well as space. There could be random contactions and expansions happening right NOW, in a patchy universe.

So, cobweb and MBR could be the result of Patchiness in our manifold. That's just a guess.

But, I'd say surely,the A1 standard candle proof of Acceleration as overtaken even these slim "evidence."
Click to expand...
Matter groups together inside the universe because of gravity, that's why it's a 'cobweb'.

The rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe is constant;

Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hubble_Constant
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Matter groups together inside the universe because of gravity, that's why it's a 'cobweb'.

The rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe is constant;

Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hubble_Constant
Click to expand...

Yo, Padwan, you are a bit behind in your reading. Hubble detected expansion, He surmised that it was steady, Thus the Hubble Constant. The Red Shift.

But, a new candle was discoverd, recently, the 1A supernova, and it showed that the expansion is accelerating. In fact the research is turning toward what I'm suggesting here. What is the rate of accleration? If they find a patchy or "taffy" like spread of acceletration rates. Well, let the fun begin, huh?

Here is a peer reviewed paper on it. You can dig up the story. It was a physics guy not an astronomer that worked it out. Had a lot of trouble getting the telescope time, I iunderstand.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.eso.org/~bleibund/papers/EPN/epn.html
"To distinguish between a cosmological constant and quintessence the time variability of the acceleration should be checked. Tracing the supernova distances in detail can do this. A large sample of supernovae out to a redshift of about z=1.5 is needed. Proposals to obtain such samples have already been made."

BTW, saying there is gravity because there is gravity? We are discussing spread of energy density before matter condensed, not what happened after that.
 
N

newbyy

Member
researchkitty said:
You totally misunderstood the post.

Art is art. Expression of anything you want.

Science is science. Understanding the actual true physical reality of everything.

Apples are apples.

Oranges are oranges.

An artist pretending to know science and represent as such is equal to most of the science posts we see on rollitup, though. :)

Bad science usually comes from people who just jump the gun, look at bad data, or follow the wrong path. Or from people who claim to know things about their field, and dont. (e.g., Finshaggy and Black holes, this amounts to trying to teach an average person something technically detailed and the person not even wanting to listen or trying to hear other arguments. Scientists are never closed minded like that, we listen to ALL arguments).
Click to expand...
well said. and i agree with you totally. it is not science that is bad, it's the people who use science as a weapon or a cure are bad or good. Science is one of those things that you can never live without. so a better question is what is science and how it affects Good and Evil or Human condition. read the below article where you can get a good insight about it

http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
OK, I read it, fwiw. I totally disagree. An Australian Biologist is entitled to opinion and may well blog about it, so what? This is wrong. But, it points to fact that this is a blog about woo. Hope to change science into force for shifting morality to the good. This is what is incorrect.
-----------------
Yes, the real frontier for the human race–and most particularly for its designated vehicle for inquiry, science–was never outer space but inner space, the search for this makes-us-‘whole’, ‘good-and-evil’-reconciling, psychologically-rehabilitating, human-race-transforming-and-thus-human-race-saving understanding of the human condition! In terms then of the question ‘what is science?’, the truth is science was established to solve the human condition–that was its all-important objective.
-----------------

No one established science to solve the human condition. BTW, no one established science. Science is a Method, Religion is a Method, trying to jack everything into earth mother awareness and "‘good-and-evil’-reconciling, psychologically-rehabilitating, human-race-transforming-and-thus-human-race-saving...." That falls under woo, if not out right Gaia worship.

So let's not miss the point. Good and Bad Science refer to the Method, only. Not the result or the application. Those falls under wishful think and snake oil.

I don't accept the premise of good and evil in mankind. Religion puts us in these camps, not Science.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
researchkitty said:
Your confusing science with idiots.

An idiot would look at a barn, circle a shot, and say good shot.

Nobody would look at observations in science once and say "Thats fact!". Science is about REPEATING observations and independent verification of those observations.

What you are describing is idiotic, nothing more.

Most of the time a good scientist looks at the data, and if there are surprises in the data, they will check OTHER data of the same substance to ensure that their data isnt bad. ;) THAT is science!
Click to expand...
it took "real scientists" decades to figure out that Silent Spring (the Mrs O'Leary's Cow of the DDT ban) was full of shit. the numbers were all fabricated, the research papers cited didnt exist, and even some of the experts named as sources were fictional, but NONE said what the author claimed.

to this day some textbooks still claim DDT was the cause of eggshell weakening, when it has been proved to be mercury.

bad science happens all the time, usually it gets started by a silly notion from a retarded book or government report made for no purpose other than to sell the author's latest line of claptrap.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich
The EPA Report on Landfill Utilization by A Faceless Mandarin who admitted on Penn and Teller's show Bullshit (season 2 episode 5) that he made it all up.
Earth in the Balance by Al Gore

and dozens of others, all make spurious claims, then the public demands that we act on their claims, and if science gets in the way, Boom Goes The Dynamite! any who dare question the beliefs of the ignorant masses are branded heretics or "deniers"

where does Bad Science come from? Science in service to political interest groups, particularly Science In The Public Interest.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I don't accept the premise of good and evil in mankind. Religion puts us in these camps, not Science.
Click to expand...
not believing in good is just common sense, believing in "goodness" is as useless as believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Strippers With A Heart Of Gold.

but i find it impossible to accept that you dont believe in Evil. That's crazy!

not believing is Evil is like not believing in the legendary Cetopsis Candiru , the deadliest fish in the amazon! you may not believe in Candiru, but he sure believes in you, and has a plan for swimming up your dick and making a meal from your urethral blood flow!

Candiru is real, and to disbelieve does not protect your dick. only Microfiber Underpants, and urinary restraint can keep Candiru out of your joy department.

Disbelief simply lets you relax your guard, and then, Candiru is all up in your underwear, turning your junk into rubbish.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Interesting point. "I don't believe it, so it isn't there". The reality shows it is there. It would seem, no matter your subjective opinion of it, it still remains very real.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
not believing in good is just common sense, believing in "goodness" is as useless as believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Strippers With A Heart Of Gold.

but i find it impossible to accept that you dont believe in Evil. That's crazy!

not believing is Evil is like not believing in the legendary Cetopsis Candiru , the deadliest fish in the amazon! you may not believe in Candiru, but he sure believes in you, and has a plan for swimming up your dick and making a meal from your urethral blood flow!

Candiru is real, and to disbelieve does not protect your dick. only Microfiber Underpants, and urinary restraint can keep Candiru out of your joy department.

Disbelief simply lets you relax your guard, and then, Candiru is all up in your underwear, turning your junk into rubbish.
Click to expand...
Not if you pack with Vaseline. :)
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Interesting point. "I don't believe it, so it isn't there". The reality shows it is there. It would seem, no matter your subjective opinion of it, it still remains very real.
Click to expand...
What is very real, EVIL? You will need to prove that. Design a double blind experiment, etc. It has never been shown. Otherwise, it is just a label from religion. There is not even good and bad as anything but a societal agreement and those are always religion based.

And I carefully said, "...don't accept the premise..." Nothing to do with belief. I am quite sure by now, that we all have these labeled attributes. All have fallen quite short of the ideal. To fall short is not evil. Heinous deeds are just that,
as well as twisted thoughts. Nature and nurture, alone, makes the snowflake of human consciousness. Not good. Not evil.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Not if you pack with Vaseline. :)
Click to expand...
if you can pack your urethra with anything durable enough to keep the legendary Amazonian Dick Fish out of your pizzle, then youre a stronger man than I.

also, vaseline? dude. they swim up your cock, not your butt. and easing their passage IN is irrelevant, it's getting them out thats the problem.

currently the only solution is surgery, they make a banana split, and extract the fish and it's spines from your filleted trouser snake,, then they try to sew your mangled man-meat back into a semi-recognizable form.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
don't pee in the river?
Click to expand...
the amonia in piss draws Cetopsis Caandiru from his hiding place in the mud.

holding your water in the water caan reduce the chance you play host to a piscean parasitic penile plunderer, but it's no sure bet. residual ammonia in your urethra can attract them even if you dont open the golden floodgates.

plugging your snake-eye is of dubious value, i would prefer to block entry with durable microfiber, not a bent over rusty nail coated in crazyglue.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
How about one of those rain covers the M-16 rifle muzzle? You know, the thin latex thing they have for swallowing drugs? Almost like a water balloon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top