It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Americanist
So what you're forced to mull from BS, Arb, and 547 are toxic concoctions of nuclear physics laced with additives of virtual particles.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
If you mean quantum mechanics and relativity, they aren't realms, they are models. To paraphrase George Box, even the best models we have aren't perfect representations of the natural world (they are after all, just models and not the real thing), but in spite of their imperfections, some models prove to be extremely useful and both those models have proven to be incredibly useful. As long as we don't have a proven model of quantum gravity, nobody is claiming those models are perfect, just that they make predictions with uncanny accuracy. Regarding your claim that the models are unsupported, may I ask how many scientific papers you've read which present evidence in support of these models? Are you, as I suspect, dismissing these models as unsupported without even examining the evidence which supports them? Of course you are; your posts have demonstrated this to be the case.
Originally posted by Americanist
The fairy tale nuclear science fair has gone on long enough. You espouse two unsupported (yet somehow related) realms
Scientists have the admirable quality of admitting that in addition to the things we know, there are some things we don't know, and they call them "dark" in the examples you mentioned.
along with dark matter, dark flow, dark energy, etc., etc. to maintain your shred of credibility.
An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Regarding your claim that the models are unsupported, may I ask how many scientific papers you've read which present evidence in support of these models?
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Anything can be supported by evidence.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.
Pointing out there's no evidence isn't ridicule.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.
People in this thread who are trying to have a civil discussion about Rodin's concepts have spent the better part of a year deflecting the fallacious debating technique of ridicule.
Evidence will be presented as it shows itself through open-source R&D.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody in this thread has supported even one of Rodin's claims with evidence, other than the fact that he has a coil.
People in this thread who are trying to have a civil discussion about Rodin's concepts have spent the better part of a year deflecting the fallacious debating technique of ridicule.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Evidence will be presented as it shows itself through open-source R&D.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Pointing out there's no evidence isn't ridicule.
Why entertain delusions with public discourse? It's not logical to even pretend humanity might possibly benefit from this.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
People using ridicule have an agenda. That agenda is contrary to public discourse aimed at progress for the good of humanity.
I too see the value in Sagan's argument, but.....
if there is anything I disagree with in Sagan's book it is probably his encouragement of skeptics to be as civil as he is in dealing with what skeptics see as the dark that extinguishes the candle. He writes
I can't deny that there is a strong appeal in this call for compassion, for seeing the occultists of the world as after the same thing skeptics are after, and for recognizing the skepticism in those who adhere to pseudoscientific or New Age spiritual notions.
...the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: US vs. Them--the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive....whereas a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of pseudoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.
You have personally demonstrated why this agenda is fitting, when you refused to even look at the evidence I posted, saying that instead you preferred to use your intuition.
If the goal were to try to get the true believer to give up his or her beliefs, then I would agree that an aggressive campaign which arrogantly maintains that it is better to live according to evidence than according to wishes might not be the best tactic. But, the aggressive, blunt, seemingly arrogant approach might be best if the goal is not to convert true believers to skepticism but to provide ideas which will counterbalance the plethora of occult, pseudoscientific, supernatural and paranormal notions which pervade just about any atmosphere in America, or the world, for that matter.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
That agenda is contrary to public discourse aimed at progress for the good of humanity.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
That is your opinion. I have a differing opinion.
Originally posted by beebs
I highly recommend watching the John Searl Story, because he does something similar with The Law of the Squares. IMO, John Searl understands it better than Rodin, but they are both onto the same thing.