The Big Bang and Magnetic fields

Anyway I'll leave you with it...I have a busy few days ahead of me.
Maybe call on dmoe for assistance?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No

I'll call on you

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's OK, you havn't an answer.....Don't concern yourself too much, it's rather a common situation as far as you are concerned.

Being a busy little Beaver of late, I havn't had much time to review all that I would like to review....
One of those thoughts of mine concerned the reason why we have such a large number of anti mainstream and conspiracy theorists on hand on forums such as this..
Obviously the prime reason, and as I have mentioned more then once, is that all other doors are locked to their rather peculiar inane Ideas and subsequent gobblydook rhetoric that says nothing in reality.
We have James to thank for his open gregarious nature in accepting all ideas no matter how nutty, and that most other forums do ban.
I don't mean that as any cynical criticism if that is the way it sounds.
James once took part in another forum run by the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Service] with Dr Kruzilniki as its patron.

So I started a search and found a lengthy article which aptly applies to most in the categories in question....

I'll rehash a few notable paragraphs and then give the link.......



By
Ted Goertzel retired as professor in the Sociology Department at Rutgers University in Camden, N.J..


Invoking the word conspiracy also implies that something is secret and hidden. Pigden (2006) defines a conspiracy as “a secret plan on the part of a group to influence events in part by covert action”

A conspiracy theory gives believers someone tangible to blame for their perceived predicament, instead of blaming it on impersonal or abstract social forces


Historians and social scientists are generally sceptical of conspiracy theories because they believe that most conspiracies fail and that historical events can be better understood without recourse to unverifiable speculation

Conspiracy theories appeal to people who are discontented with the established institutions of their society and especially with elites in that society. They are likely to believe that conditions are worsening for people like themselves and that the authorities do not care about them. A conspiracy theory gives believers someone tangible to blame for their perceived predicament, instead of blaming it on impersonal or abstract social forces. The meme becomes a habit of thought: the more people believe in one conspiracy, the more likely they are to believe in others


The logic of the conspiracy meme is to question everything the ‘establishment'—be it government or scientists—says or does, even on the most hypothetical and speculative grounds, and to demand immediate, comprehensive and definitive answers to all questions. A failure to give convincing answers is then used as proof of conspiratorial deception. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists offer their own alternative theories with the flimsiest of evidence, challenging the authorities to prove them wrong

Many of these theories are clearly absurd, but some have a veneer of possibility. How can we distinguish between the amusing eccentrics, the honestly misguided, the avaricious litigants and the serious sceptics questioning a premature consensus?


One valuable guideline is to look for cascade logic in conspiracy arguments (Susstein & Vermeule, 2008). This occurs when defenders of one conspiracy theory find it necessary to implicate more and more people whose failure to discover or reveal the conspiracy can only be explained by their alleged complicity. Another guideline is to look for exaggerated claims about the power of the conspirators: claims that are needed to explain how they were able to intimidate so many people and cover their tracks so well. The more vast and more powerful the alleged conspiracy, the less likely that it could have remained undiscovered.

For example, the claim that the moon landing in 1969 was a hoax implies the complicity of thousands of American scientists and technicians as well as of Soviet astronomers and others around the world who tracked the event. It is incredibly implausible that such a conspiracy could have held together.


Even if a conspiracy theory is implausible, it can be used as a rhetorical device to appeal to the emotions of a significant public. The conspiracy meme flourishes best in politics, religion and journalism, in which practitioners can succeed by attracting followers from the general public. These practitioners might actually believe the conspiracy theory, or they might simply use it to win public support


Dissenters from mainstream science often invoke a meme that there are two sides to every question and each side is entitled to equal time to present its case. George W. Bush famously suggested that students be taught both evolution and “intelligent design” theories so that they could judge which had the most convincing argument (Baker & Slevin, 2005). Similarly, climate change ‘sceptics' demand equal air time for their side of the argument and, at least in the beginning, the media were more than willing to grant it in the interest of ‘balance'. If these dissenters or ‘revisionists' succeed in getting an opportunity to present their case, they hammer away at any gaps or contradictions in the evidence presented by mainstream researchers, using rhetoric that questions their motivations, while avoiding any hint of weakness or bias in their own case


. It does not work well for scientists because there are objective right and wrong answers to most scientific questions. US Admiral William Leahy might have won a classroom debate in 1945 with his famous statement that “the [atomic] bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert on explosives”
Nevertheless, in deciding to pursue the atomic bomb project, US President Harry Truman relied on scientific evidence

Conspiracy theorists typically overlook lapses by their supporters but are quick to pounce on any flaw on the part of their opponents


Scientists do change their ideas in response to new evidence, perhaps more often than people in most walks of life

…allowing the conspiracy theorists to dominate the public debate can have tragic consequences


Conspiracists often seem to believe that they can prove a scientific theory wrong by finding a flaw or gap in its evidence. Then they claim conspiracy when scientists endeavour to fix the flaw or fill the gap, or even persist in their work on the assumption that a solution will be found. In fact, the occasions when an entire scientific theory is overthrown by a negative finding are few and far between. This is especially true in fields that depend on statistical modelling of complex phenomena, in which there are often several models that are roughly equally good (or bad), and where the choice of a data set and decisions about data set filtering are often critical. The more important test of a research programme is whether progress is being made over a period of time, and whether better progress could be made with an alternative approach. Progress can be measured by the accumulation of a solid, verifiable body of knowledge with a very high probability of being correct


much more at.....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897118/


Apologies for the length of the extracts and post, but as is obvious with the incredible pedant that is being spewed against mainstream science in this thread, I see it as necessary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy, so...you think that there is a "conspiracy" being conducted against you and/or mainstream science? In an earlier Post you also mentioned "paranoia". So...that seems reasonable...to you?
And you believe this "James", that you speak of, to be somehow involved or partially to blame for for this "conspiracy"?.

And you need to copy/paste articles that you :

...and you "see it as necessary" because of "the incredible pedant that is being spewed against mainstream science in this thread"?

paddoboy, it "is obvious" that something "is being spewed" in this Thread.

I believe that Australia or even Fiji has professionals that may be able to help you with that.

 

Another way to explain dark energy and dark mass is connected to reference. Say you were near a zone where space-time is highly contracted due to GR. As we look out at the universe, from this reference, the distances will appear closer than it would from an earth reference since we would be looking out from a contracted reference.

As light from space, goes down the our space-time well, toward our contracted reference, distances contract. The distance between point A and point B in space also appears to contract when the light finally reaches us.

There is no preferred reference in the universe. Our contracted reference will see the mass of the universe appear closer together due to the perception of contracted distances. If we used the basic Newtonian gravity equation, for a quick gravity estimate, and plug in the distances we see, with mass invariant, the universal gravity appears to go up. Gravity moves at C and will not change with our choice of reference. Only distance changes. There is no preferred reference, so let us use this reference for the universe.

The net effect is we can't assume the earth reference is the universal reference. That assumption dates back to ancient time before we knew about relativity and changes in space-time references. Rather we need to average what all the various universal mass references see , and then calculate gravity for the universe via the "average" reference. It appears that 5/6 of the universal reference sees the mass of the universe closer in distance for its gravity calculation. What we are seeing is the universal summation of references. From the 5/6 estimate we should be able to guess the number of black holes and other massive features in various locals or in the universe.

This calculation gets complicated or needs a super computer, so my next generation model uses C as the ground state of the universe, since this is the same in all references. This allows any reference to see the same thing.

 

You should really start all of your posts with, "Once Upon A Time".

 

Good post: Bunch of psychotic cranks and brethren tea party members. Just think how the abstract would read for a paper submitted for publication by river.

The BB is wrong. Why? Because I said so.

Hope he submits it using really soft paper. I like to recycle stuff. Reduces my personal carbon footprint.

 

Against Me???? Don't really care, but it is certainly conducted against mainstream science by such as yourself, and as as universally recognised, these sorts of forums are the only outlets nutbags such as yourself have.

For someone so adapt at picking up spelling mistakes, your understanding of English is quite atrocious.
On the contrary, I have respect for James as a scientist, and although he has separate outlets for the anti mainstream/conspiracy nutters, sometimes they are hard to keep in check.
Still, I'm sure the normal forum members understand what I meant.

Sure I need to copy and paste, I appreciate reputable scientific articles and respect the scientific methodology that those scientists involved have followed.
Keep your eyes on my posts, you'll find plenty more.
And of course the reputable members on this forum appreciate such cutting and pasting.

Any help I require will always be sought from reputable individuals...That's the big difference between you and me.

 

paddoboy, if you "Don't really care" - why Post about it?

paddoboy, what "universally recognised(sic)" sorts of forums do the "outelt(sic) nutbags(sic) such as yourself" Post in?

You do not even realize on how many levels that the ^^above^^ statement is just so wrong!

paddoboy, "For someone so adapt(sic) at" at copy/pasting, there is really no excuse for your spelling mistakes.

Incidentally, you have not the slightest idea of where any of my adeptness is manifest.

So, paddoboy, the quote below was Posted by...a "contrary"...alter-ego...or...someone else? :

That would not surprise me - considering your previous "contrary" Postings.

paddoboy, judging from the amount of e-mails and PM's that I have received, and the content of those of late - most all of the Forum members (and Forum readers!) that have contacted me - understand exactly what you have "meant".

Yes, you do!

However, paddoboy, if (BIG IF!!!) you actually knew and fully understood the subjects you choose to go on about, you would be able to relate them...by...using...your...own...words,...and...in...Layman's...terms!

But, paddoboy, you evidently can not!

Ergo : you "need to copy and paste"!

Appreciation aside, you may "respect the scientific methodology that those scientists involved have followed".

However, paddoboy, you obviously do not personally exercise any "respect", nor personally follow any "scientific methodology", judging by your exhibited conduct on this Forum.

Of course you will continue to Post (until banned) the same "stuff" you have been, you see no need to change that.

And, paddoboy, the only Posters that you consider to be "the reputable members on this forum", are the members that do not peg you for exactly what you are, and/or do not point that fact out to you!
When you are pigeonholed or called out - the only abilities that you have to exercise are feckless, feeble and childish, i.e. name calling, diversion, allegations, assertions, accusations, ignorance and blatant disrespect - and not just for yourself, but for other Posters and the Rules of this Forum.
Do you honestly believe that "the reputable members on this forum" you speak of, will come to your aid when the "ban hammer" is on a trajectory focused precisely on your seeming elitist, egotistical, self-idolizing and completely disrespectful little empty head?

paddoboy, just keep telling yourself that you do not require help - I am sure that you consider yourself to be one of the most "reputable individuals" in your Monkey-sphere!

Oh my dearest little paddoboy, there are a multitude of "big difference(s)" and exponentially more HUGE DIFFERENCES between you and I.

 

I posted a great article about a "Bunch of psychotic cranks and brethren tea party members" [thanks for that brucep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]
You as usual were not able to interpret that as any normal person would and asked about a conspiracy against me.....
Like I said, I don't really care. [we have a real live one here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]]

You're the conspiracy /anti mainstream/bleeding heart pusher...ask yourself that question.
My position is quite clear to all and sundry.

It's a real pity your adeptness didn't apply to the science level.
Your bleeding heart status really sickens me.

The full text of what I said about James is there for all to read, not some sentence taken out of context and purposely misconstrued due to the hate level and agenda you are burdened with.

Is that right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What was your favourite fairy tale when you was a kid?

Again my posts are there for all to read...the cut and pastes, and the ones in my own words, probably about 60/40 out of a total of 1400 or so posts...
Are you really a full quid?

Too much gobblydook and emotional crap for me to comment on, sorry sonny...Suffice to say, I'm a far better man then you will ever be and ever were.

Once again, I'll stand by the judgement of the moderators and adhere to their rulings, but as I do prefer to post science [as opposed to pseudo crap and emotional gobblydook] I think I will be OK.

Maybe you need another break.... [nudge, nudge, wink, wink

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]


Oh, and Merry Xmas to you and I hope everything improves in the New Year.

 

The following point from post 143 that the nutters cling to are as follows.....

The logic of the conspiracy meme is to question everything the ‘establishment'—be it government or scientists—says or does, even on the most hypothetical and speculative grounds, and to demand immediate, comprehensive and definitive answers to all questions. A failure to give convincing answers is then used as proof of conspiratorial deception. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists offer their own alternative theories with the flimsiest of evidence, challenging the authorities to prove them wrong



Great extract, great post [even if I say so myself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] and a result from careful Internet searching of reputable sites and web pages.
Ahhh, what would we do without the Internet!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

paddoboy, yeah, yeah...your ability to copy/paste impresses no one.

paddoboy, may I (AGAIN!!!) humbly ask you to provide the Quoted Posts where I ever Stated/Asserted, IN ANY WAY, my opposition to "Mainstream Science Theories" other than to state/assert that they were theories, or presented/posed/offered ANY "alternative theory or theories"?

Although your copy/pasting, parroting/repeating and assertions/allegations/accusations are quite feckless - It WAS and CONTINUES to be your CONDUCT in your Posts on this Forum that I have been Posting about!

paddoboy, may I (AGAIN!!!) humbly ask you to provide the Quoted Posts where I ever Stated/Asserted, IN ANY WAY, my opposition to "Mainstream Science Theories" other than to state/assert that they were theories, or presented/posed/offered ANY "alternative theory or theories"?

Again, paddoboy, you will fail to even attempt to do as I humbly ask!

You will, however, continue with the same CONDUCT that you have been practicing/exhibiting/repeating for 8 and 1/2 pages (so far) of this Thread!!!

 

Neither does your ability to whinge whine, cry emotionally with that bleeding heart persona, and general self gratutious praise.
Still, no one else will do it... *shrug*

Silence in the face of alternative rubbish and pseudoscience, says quite a lot!
And of course then criticising those that do happen to deride such nonsense.

 

Feckless...puerile...inane...evading...waste!

paddoboy, may I (AGAIN!!!) humbly ask you to provide the Quoted Posts where I ever Stated/Asserted, IN ANY WAY, my opposition to "Mainstream Science Theories" other than to state/assert that they were theories, or presented/posed/offered ANY "alternative theory or theories"?

And yes, paddoboy, failure to supply, or "silence" in response to a challenge/request to provide evidence, does indeed, say quite a lot!

 

Speaking of humility, that coming from you is quite Ironic, isn't it.
And of course Imitation [as you do so well] is a form of flattery and hero worship, and can be rather embarrassing for a humble layman such as myself.

But anyway, once again....
Silence in the face of alternative rubbish and pseudoscience, says quite a lot!
And of course then criticizing those that do happen to deride such nonsense.

When will you come out of the anti mainstream closet!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Going merely by your numerous assertions/allegations/accusations in the previous 134 Posts, paddoboy, it would seem that you were absolutely sure that I was NOT in that closet in the first place!

At any rate...

...jump!

 

Yep, But in perusing my accusations/assertions, you would find they pale into what you have openly and insidiously inferred.

But anyway, once again, have a happy Xmas and Merry New Year!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I certainly have a heavy schedule!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

brucep

You know, I once had the same idea looking at a Sarah Palin book on the remainder table, but upon looking within found that the pages had already been used for that purpose, by Sarah Palin. I think it had a tag on it that said "Just take it and leave."

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We had a own unique version of Sarah Palin, same sort of racist and bigot......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson

 

Post Proof!

...or...jump!