Bad Astronomy Vs Good Science. Debunking Phil Plait

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
new video just came across..
haven't had a chance to view yet (slow conection) but am sure it will be good..


When a person assumes the role of class clown, abdicating every principle of reasoned communication, there's something fitting in the kind of treatment that this video gives to Phil Plait and his ilk


Bad Astronomy Vs Good Science. Debunking Phil Plait

peace

daz__




posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
it's a good little video,but it's more or less an advert for some forums. (fora?)

I've never liked bad astronomy anyway,and laugh in the face of people who quote from it to try and debunk anything.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 

thanks for your response.. What surprises me though is as long as this thread has been up there has only been 1 response. I was looking through some old feeds and totally forgot about this thread.. The amount of times people quote Bad Astromomy as their sources a site I incidently have no respect for since I read an article on their site where they quite freely ran down a scientist I have a lot of respect for. I have never gone there since and I will never return there.. I take the lack of flames on this thread as an affirmation of bad astromomy's terrible manners. I can't say anything about their science as I would not trust them to tell me the time of day..

again thank you for your input..

peace

daz__



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by daz__
The amount of times people quote Bad Astromomy as their sources a site I incidently have no respect for since I read an article on their site where they quite freely ran down a scientist I have a lot of respect for.

If they backed up their arguments with facts, then there's no reason for you to get upset aside from emotional attachment.


I have never gone there since and I will never return there.. I take the lack of flames on this thread as an affirmation of bad astromomy's terrible manners.

I wouldn't normally comment on a thread like this because I have no desire to get into a flame war against ATS rules. Flame baiting is also against ATS rules I believe. Therefore, don't take the lack of posting as an affirmation. If this threatens to turn into a flame war I'll stop posting, but don't take that as affirmation either.


I can't say anything about their science as I would not trust them to tell me the time of day..

Since the science content is the meat of the site and discussions there, what you're effectively saying is that you're not in a position to say anything about them, let alone automatically dismiss people for referring to them.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
hello ngc,



Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by daz__
a site I incidently have no respect for since I read an article on their site where they quite freely ran down a scientist I have a lot of respect for.

If they backed up their arguments with facts, then there's no reason for you to get upset aside from emotional attachment.


you are quite right.. I did get upset at the time because it seemed like more of a personal attack on the scientist; so I guess emotional attachment for my source played a part in my decision not to return there..




I have never gone there since and I will never return there.. I take the lack of flames on this thread as an affirmation of bad astromomy's terrible manners.

I wouldn't normally comment on a thread like this because I have no desire to get into a flame war against ATS rules. Flame baiting is also against ATS rules I believe. Therefore, don't take the lack of posting as an affirmation. If this threatens to turn into a flame war I'll stop posting, but don't take that as affirmation either.


I have no interest is getting involved in any flame wars with anyone about anything. If you have followed any of my posts on the site you would see I try to respect everyone although sometimes I can type a little too quick and am a little short with people; but when I am in the wrong I not to proud to apologise.

I just assumed that with the amount of people that quote bad astromomy that there would have been more people jump to their defense.





I can't say anything about their science as I would not trust them to tell me the time of day..

Since the science content is the meat of the site and discussions there, what you're effectively saying is that you're not in a position to say anything about them, let alone automatically dismiss people for referring to them.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ngchunter]


I have been to the site twice and the second time is when I found the article I did not like so I feel I am in a position to say what I said. If I were never there then the point you made is quite valid. In my opinion there is no information there on the site that can't be found anywhere else on line so I don't feel like I am missing so much. Mayby I am wrong and there is much that I am missing but I have never had cause since to go back and find out..

peace

daz__



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by daz__
I just assumed that with the amount of people that quote bad astromomy that there would have been more people jump to their defense.

As Gene Cernan once said, the truth needs no defense. I say it simply needs to be told. I do it mostly because I enjoy it, the motivation of those at BA are generally no different.

In my opinion there is no information there on the site that can't be found anywhere else on line so I don't feel like I am missing so much.

In many cases that is true, but BA is a concise source of information related to space conspiracy topics. In other cases there are experts at BA and related forums whose personal experience in aerospace is rare and uniquely insightful.


Mayby I am wrong and there is much that I am missing but I have never had cause since to go back and find out..

Fair enough, but that's no reason to automatically dismiss those who do choose to use that site.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by daz__


Fair enough, but that's no reason to automatically dismiss those who do choose to use that site.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ngchunter]


If you care to review my posts you will find I have dismissed no-one automatically for using that site. In my universe everyone has a right to believe and follow their own heart and make their own decisions. The whole point of this thread in a way was to highlight the fact that Bad Astronomy is not always viewed as a cool place and in a way I got a little joy from the fact that someone took the time and effort to put this video together and give Bad Astronomy a little bit of their own medicine.. I guess in a way also I was hoping to find someone that would change my mind about Bad Astronomy because deep down I know it can't be all that bad but as you pointed out earlier my emotional attachment is blocking me

daz__

[edit on 26/5/2009 by daz__]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I totally agree Daz, I've corresponded with many ex members who were banned for expressing there views there. And when the BAUT members get cornered with facts that don't conform to the consensus the thread gets locked and or removed. I've even heard from some that their posts were edited by one particular moderator.

Oh yeah that's truth for ya.

I mean look at their logo, an astronaut with boxing gloves
ready to fight to defend the dogma. Although Bad Astronomy is an appropriate name for a bad astronomer / pseudo skeptic.

Good vid too.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
"Magnetism is a very important topic in astrophysics (despite some pseudoscientists lying and saying this force is ignored), but it’s not well-understood. It’s fiendishly complex, so much so that it’s a joke in astronomy: when giving a colloquium about an astronomical object’s weird features, saying it’s due to magnetism will always get a chuckle out of an audience. And it’s a standard joke that if you want to derail a talk, ask the speaker about the effects of magnetism. In three dimensions, magnetism is ferociously difficult to model. "

A quote featured in the vid from Phil.
This alone shows his ignorance and pseudo skepticism. He's referring to EU/plasma cosmology here.
It's painfully obvious the strawman he's setting up here, this is not the claim at all, of course magnetic fields are recognized in mainstream cosmology (idiot).
What he doesn't get is that electric currents create magnetic fields and the standard theory ignores this basic high school science principle.
Hannes Alfven warned against the misuse of his theories, and renounced the frozen in magnetic fields as false.

Oh and the "Magnetism is ferociously difficult to model" comment also reeks of ignorance, perhaps he should look up Maxwell, Faraday, Ampere, Lorentz...

Of course he's got no problem with the outlandish and unproven concepts plaguing mainstream cosmology. Hypocrite.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 
Hi squiz,
very interesting what you say about your correspondence with ex-members. It doesn't sound like the kind of place I would like to hang out and try to have a serious discussion about anything.

Me myself am just a lay person and don't have a great understanding of the subject but from what I have read even Maxwell didn't manage to grasp the subject totally. Did he not fail to account for magnetic fields in his equations.

you are right of coarse. It is an amazingly huge and complex subject.

Thank you for sharing what you know to the thread.

daz



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by daz__

from what I have read even Maxwell didn't manage to grasp the subject totally. Did he not fail to account for magnetic fields in his equations.


Maxwell was the man who unified electricity, magnetism and even light.
But you might be thinking of his theory of molecular vortices in the ether that he apparently changed to include charged particles, but never explained the relationship between them. So perhaps any failure on his part was to do with that tentative subject of the ether.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I totally agree Daz, I've corresponded with many ex members who were banned for expressing there views there. And when the BAUT members get cornered with facts that don't conform to the consensus the thread gets locked and or removed.

People get banned for not answering questions or not backing their opinions up with facts. I've never seen them lock a thread because someone posted "facts" they didn't like. Don't like it? Then don't post. Thems the rules there.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Aye, the problem with BAUT is that they make you back up statements with evidence, and answer questions put to you!

You're not even allowed to just make an assertion based on a youtube video and expect everyone to congratulate you for it .....
No wonder some folk don't like it



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Aye, the problem with BAUT is that they make you back up statements with evidence, and answer questions put to you!

You're not even allowed to just make an assertion based on a youtube video and expect everyone to congratulate you for it .....
No wonder some folk don't like it


Hmmm,
I am trying to decide now if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
I mean here on ATS if some one makes an assertion on an article or video if you are incorrect in your assertion it doesn't take long for the really good researhers to tear you to pieces.

I would imagine it is good in one way but perhaps a lot is missed with such a strict rule.

mind still open

daz__

[edit on 27/5/2009 by daz__]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Ha, funny. Even the astrophysicists can't back up what they say with real evidence.
Sorry for the short reply not much else to say except the people I've chatted with tell a different story.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Hi guys a heads up,

It's best not to talk about badastronomy's forum and the way they may or may not run it.

Thanks,

Bandit



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I remember watching a video of Phil Plait on a Penn and Teller show attempting to address an assault of moon hoax questions. He was not giving enough time to respond yet he did manage to sound honest and sincere, I thought he did pretty good while under pressure.

Then I read the logo on his site, "I likes reality the way it is and aims to keeps it that way." That statement and the pursuit of debunking summed it up for me.

I like Thunderbolts but this video is an attempt to debunk the debunkers and since I consider the act of debunking adding nothing to a debate and therefore worthless this becomes a paradox of worthlessness.

I do find it ironic that state-of-the-art laser interferometers, LIGO, are just as successful in not finding gravity waves today as they were in not finding an Aether wind 100 years ago. Maybe this is proof that gravity doesn't exist.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
I do find it ironic that state-of-the-art laser interferometers, LIGO, are just as successful in not finding gravity waves today...


Exactly, can we not see the double standards here? Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, strange matter, neutron stars that defy proven physics, pulsars, quasars, black holes, dirty snowballs as comets, redshift as distance (proven false decades ago), the big bang, no gravity waves, no frame dragging, stellar formation that fails every test, galaxy formation that fails without the inclusion of imaginary forces and virtually the complete failure to predict anything. There are dozens more but you get the point.

The hypocrisy is truly stunning. But I'll take The Bandits advice and not discuss BAUT here.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Exactly, can we not see the double standards here? Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow

Not all theories based on the standard model include dark matter. EU isn't the only alternative explanation, and it's easily the most disproven. MOND is a perfect explanation for galaxy motions without introducing a single speck of dark matter, and if it were expanded to include relativistic effects it might explain all other observations that would otherwise have to introduce exotic matter and energy.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
EU isn't the only alternative explanation, and it's easily the most disproven.


By all means do it, lets hear it, it's time the gloves come off on this issue.
Perhaps you'd like to talk about the Sun again?

I always hear baseless generalizations such as that, but no one can come up with the goods.
For a model that is so easily debunked it's already made many many correct predictions, more than 100 years of big bang cosmology could produce.
Shall we compare predictions? the proof of a valid theory?
And debunking Big Bang cosmology is like shooting fish in a barrel.


MOND is a perfect explanation for galaxy motions without introducing a single speck of dark matter, and if it were expanded to include relativistic effects it might explain all other observations that would otherwise have to introduce exotic matter and energy.


All other theories are also based on a gravity central cosmology. There is substantial proof that galaxies are formed from electromagnetic energy that overpowers gravity a thousand billion, billion, billion, billion times rendering gravity to be pretty much insignificant.
Which means all gravity based theories will fail.

Your comment regarding MOND I assume stems from this article.
And I'm glad you mentioned because it also refutes the standard model, It looks as though some are starting to come to their senses.
Study plunges standard theory of cosmology into crisis

Well it's been in crisis mode for a long time now. I think this news is a breath of fresh air.

And this is not a cosmological model, (yet) it's an observation that happens to refute the standard model. So what other models are you talking about besides Steady State?

From the article-


Competing theories of gravitation have already been developed which are independent of this construction. Their only problem is that they conflict with Newton's theory of gravitation......

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong,” declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University's Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.”


There you have it, if we don't understand gravity, as this and many other observations have shown, how can we formulate a working theory of cosmology based solely on gravity!! it will be flawed of course because the basic understanding at the very foundation is flawed.


Wall Thornhill has provided an alteration to MOND that includes electromagnetism and charge.

www.holoscience.com...


Pretending that EU is the only alternative people can turn to is a scam.


Never said anything of the sort. Man, what is it with the science apologists and their strawmen? Again I ask, what other models? and which do you prefer? Oh, and be prepared to defend it.

I suggest you start a thread to debunk plasma cosmology and show why your preferred model is valid. Come on let's rumble.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by squiz]



new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join