• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Damned / Rejected Science (Miscellaneous)

almond13 said:
stuneville
One or two answers.
Venus was not mentioned by ancient astronomers until after 2000 BCE, which indicates that this planet was not to be found in it's present, prominent position prior to this time...
However, the "Morning Star" has been around for a loooong time. How early were Mars, Venus and the other naked-eye visible planets identified as such and not as other stars that moved a bit differently (and therefore were God-aspects?) In that context perhaps it's not that extraordinary.
Athena Venus
Neith (also called Ath-neith, Ath-nath, or Asenath hence Athena) was originally an African goddess from Egypt. The worship of Neith was taken to the Greek islands during successive waves of migration of black colonists from the African coasts to Mediterranean islands. These migrations and subsequent contact were very important in helping to establish civilization in ancient Greece. http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/200 ... -olympics/
The main imagery of Neith as wp wA.wt was as deity of the unseen and limitless sky, as opposed to Nut and Hathor, who represented the manifested night and day skies, respectively. As the "Opener of the Sun’s paths in all her stations" refers to how the sun is reborn (due to seasonal changes) at various points in the sky, beyond this world, of which only a glimpse is revealed prior to dawn and after sunset. It is at these changing points that Neith reigns as a form of sky goddess, where the sun rises and sets daily, or at its ‘first appearance’ to the sky above and below [11]. It is at these points, beyond the sky that is seen, that her true power as deity who creates life is manifested [12]. http://www.geocities.com/skhmt_netjert/neith.html
Nope, sorry, I don't buy that one. Even if the derivation is correct (and it seems a bit tenuous TBH - Athena (Greek) was goddess of wisdom and poster shops - the fact remains that Athena wasn't Aphrodite aka Venus, so his contention about myths depicting the birth of Aphrodite from the head of Zeus are nonetheless groundless.
How much did your bullshit detector set you back? Do Maplins do one? “2
You can order online here: http://www.bswatch.com/
There's a sensible caveat on that site, vis:
Caution

Use of this Universal Bullshit Detector Watch™ could get you in deep, uh… trouble. It might irritate, frustrate, aggravate, insult and/or piss off whomever you are with. Therefore we must issue the following disclaimer and warning:

We are not responsible for the results of your use of the Universal Bullshit Detector Watch™ whether due to your courage or lack of good judgment. Use of the Universal Bullshit Detector Watch™ may seem endlessly warranted. However, relationships may be adversely and possibly permanently affected.

Also, the Universal Bullshit Detector Watch™ is not waterproof, so don't get thrown overboard before taking it off.
”God, not another stealth tax.””
I'm told that the budget for science is about the same as that for Scotland. :_pished: :hello:
Not that low, surely?

Anyway, wait until Mr Brown gets in and starts asset-stripping Surrey and transferring it to Leith.
 
stuneville writes:
However, the "Morning Star" has been around for a loooong time. How early were Mars, Venus and the other naked-eye visible planets identified as such and not as other stars that moved a bit differently (and therefore were God-aspects?) In that context perhaps it's not that extraordinary.

I could at this point go into the actual number of planets that were visible – and recorded, but it seems a pointless exercise as the recipient is determined to negatise anything offered and to do so without the flimsiest trace of any of the evidence that he demands from others.
And again:
Nope, sorry, I don't buy that one. Even if the derivation is correct (and it seems a bit tenuous TBH - Athena (Greek) was goddess of wisdom and poster shops - the fact remains that Athena wasn't Aphrodite aka Venus, so his contention about myths depicting the birth of Aphrodite from the head of Zeus are nonetheless groundless.
Again, no references. It's so easy to wave away the fact that the goddess of the Egyptian morning and evening is passed on to the Greeks by the Egyptians to become their Greek goddess of the morning and evening and would have nothing at all to do with Venus the morning and evening star, would it?
I think that you're slipping away into irrationality on this one and I suggest a session of Fort reading as an antidote to scientistic hypnotism:
A seeker of Truth. He will never find it. But the dimmest of possibilities--he may himself become Truth.
Or that science is more than an inquiry:
That it is a pseudo-construction, or a quasi-organization: that it is an attempt to break away and locally establish harmony, stability, equilibrium, consistency, entity--
Dimmest of all possibilities--that it may succeed.
(Damned, p. 14)
:D
 
Venus was not mentioned by ancient astronomers until after 2000 BCE, which indicates that this planet was not to be found in it's present, prominent position prior to this time...

Really? Bit of a leap of faith there. Perhaps not found in the records or the records haven't survived.

The tablets have been copied and recopied over many centuries, resulting in predictable scribal errors. Immanuel Velikovsky interpreted the few scribal errors as evidence for a peturbation of Venus' orbit when writing Worlds in Collision (1950), avoiding the rest of the text, which shows a high degree of regularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_tablet_of_Ammisaduqa

OK, its Wiki, not the best source but surely...
 
Almond13 said:
stuneville writes:
However, the "Morning Star" has been around for a loooong time. How early were Mars, Venus and the other naked-eye visible planets identified as such and not as other stars that moved a bit differently (and therefore were God-aspects?) In that context perhaps it's not that extraordinary.
I could at this point go into the actual number of planets that were visible – and recorded, but it seems a pointless exercise as the recipient is determined to negatise anything offered and to do so without the flimsiest trace of any of the evidence that he demands from others.
Not at all – I quite clearly asked, and I quote: “How early were Mars, Venus and the other naked-eye visible planets identified as such and not as other stars that moved a bit differently (and therefore were God-aspects?)”, in a clear attempt to get an actual answer further to a relevant line of enquiry, not to have the request dismissed by you on the grounds that I am a “negatising recipient” :roll:. The only negatising I can see, if such a thing exists, is you attempting to deny the validity of any points or just sidetrack objections made by anyone else that happens to contradict the points you continue to make.
And again:
Nope, sorry, I don't buy that one. Even if the derivation is correct (and it seems a bit tenuous TBH - Athena (Greek) was goddess of wisdom and poster shops - the fact remains that Athena wasn't Aphrodite aka Venus, so his contention about myths depicting the birth of Aphrodite from the head of Zeus are nonetheless groundless.
Again, no references. It's so easy to wave away the fact that the goddess of the Egyptian morning and evening is passed on to the Greeks by the Egyptians to become their Greek goddess of the morning and evening and would have nothing at all to do with Venus the morning and evening star, would it?
But it also doesn’t address, yet again, that Aphrodite didn’t emerge from the head of Zeus. I’m well aware of the equivalence of god-archetypes in most of the major polytheistic myth-systems, thank you very much.
I think that you're slipping away into irrationality on this one and I suggest a session of Fort reading as an antidote to scientistic hypnotism:
And I suggest that you re-evaluate the way in which you interact on this forum. Your attitude towards others who don’t share your particularly outré world(s)view is starting to grate somewhat. We give you sufficient respect as to actually answer your points and attempt discussion with you and in return we’re either given the same in a new wrapper, or told that we are not worthy to even ask (or of course that we’re bound to say that, aren’t we?) For my own part, I will say, here and now that I will never again accept you seeking to patronise me, or any other poster in the manner of your preceding paragraph.

I'm sure this will be seized upon by you or someone else as yet more evidence of me bullying people, but frankly, I don't give a damn. I refuse to see you subverting this thread any more by being derogatory to others.
 
almond13 said:
I could at this point go into the actual number of planets that were visible – and recorded,

Please do, that would be interesting.

But as far as I can tell from a couple of Googles, Venus can be dated back to well before 2000 BCE -

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page9k.html

Ca 3000 BCE

Uruk tablets contain several references to the "Festival of the Morning Goddess, Ianna" and the "Festival of the Evening Goddess, Ianna" - presumably in her identification with the planet Venus (as morning star and evening star).

Ca 2100 BCE

Cylinder Seals: (Sun-Moon-Venus triplet on seals becomes more frequent.)
 
stuneville said:
And I suggest that you re-evaluate the way in which you interact on this forum. Your attitude towards others who don’t share your particularly outré world(s)view is starting to grate somewhat. We give you sufficient respect as to actually answer your points and attempt discussion with you and in return we’re either given the same in a new wrapper, or told that we are not worthy to even ask (or of course that we’re bound to say that, aren’t we?) For my own part, I will say, here and now that I will never again accept you seeking to patronise me, or any other poster in the manner of your preceding paragraph.
Calm Down, Calm Down!

My own response (after trying normal reasoning) to Almond's posts has been to ignore them for the most part, except when I'm pretty certain I can emphatically contradict him. Not that that always stops him burbling on... :roll:

His mindset and modus operandi have been clear for some time now. Starve him of the oxygen of publicity. Don't respond.

Especially, don't bother responding to 'Velikovsky' posts, since we already have a thread on that subject where most of this has been chewed over before.
 
Stuneville says:
And I suggest that you re-evaluate the way in which you interact on this forum. Your attitude towards others who don’t share your particularly outré world(s)view is starting to grate somewhat. We give you sufficient respect as to actually answer your points and attempt discussion with you and in return we’re either given the same in a new wrapper, or told that we are not worthy to even ask (or of course that we’re bound to say that, aren’t we?) For my own part, I will say, here and now that I will never again accept you seeking to patronise me, or any other poster in the manner of your preceding paragraph.
Stuneville says:
I'm sure this will be seized upon by you or someone else as yet more evidence of me bullying people, but frankly, I don't give a damn. I refuse to see you subverting this thread any more by being derogatory to others.
SUBVERT
1.To destroy completely; ruin: "schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community" (Alexander Hamilton).
2.To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
3.To overthrow completely: "Economic assistance ... must subvert the existing ... feudal or tribal order" (Henry A. Kissinger). See Synonyms at overthrow. Dictionary.com
This is very flattering, but a trifle overstated, don't you think.
I'm glad to see that you think I'm “somewhat great”, but modesty prevents me from accepting this compliment. I'm also looking forward with anticipation to the respect that you promise to show me, although, again I really don't deserve it. (I'm filling up) I fear that the discussion that you speak of has been sadly lacking on this particular thread as I only get replies from those who disagree on principal, not unlike yourself are out to teach me a lesson of some kind.
You Say:
””I will never again accept you seeking to patronise me, or any other poster in the manner of your preceding paragraph.“”
This kind of loss of control reinforces my suspicion that you and your alter-ego have an authority problem and by your own mouth “bullying”?

Here is the offending paragraph?:
Quote:
stuneville writes:
However, the "Morning Star" has been around for a loooong time. How early were Mars, Venus and the other naked-eye visible planets identified as such and not as other stars that moved a bit differently (and therefore were God-aspects?) In that context perhaps it's not that extraordinary.


I could at this point go into the actual number of planets that were visible – and recorded, but it seems a pointless exercise as the recipient is determined to negatise anything offered and to do so without the flimsiest trace of any of the evidence that he demands from others.
Quote:
And again:
Nope, sorry, I don't buy that one. Even if the derivation is correct (and it seems a bit tenuous TBH - Athena (Greek) was goddess of wisdom and poster shops - the fact remains that Athena wasn't Aphrodite aka Venus, so his contention about myths depicting the birth of Aphrodite from the head of Zeus are nonetheless groundless.


Again, no references. It's so easy to wave away the fact that the goddess of the Egyptian morning and evening is passed on to the Greeks by the Egyptians to become their Greek goddess of the morning and evening and would have nothing at all to do with Venus the morning and evening star, would it?
I think that you're slipping away into irrationality on this one and I suggest a session of Fort reading as an antidote to scientistic hypnotism:
Quote:
A seeker of Truth. He will never find it. But the dimmest of possibilities--he may himself become Truth.
Or that science is more than an inquiry:
That it is a pseudo-construction, or a quasi-organization: that it is an attempt to break away and locally establish harmony, stability, equilibrium, consistency, entity--
Dimmest of all possibilities--that it may succeed.
(Damned, p. 14)
:glum: :glum: :glum: :glum: :glum: :glum:
 
rynner

His mindset and modus operandi have been clear for some time now. Starve him of the oxygen of publicity. Don't respond.

Especially, don't bother responding to 'Velikovsky' posts, since we already have a thread on that subject where most of this has been chewed over before.
In fact, looking back at the threads I find that this particular one was started by wembley8
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... &start=180
This was the one that I wanted to discuss at the time, because I'd already had a session with eburacum and timble2 about this very subject.
COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION Synopsis BY IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY1946
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
The sudden barrage of post about WIC prevented me from doing so.
 
rynner said:
My own response (after trying normal reasoning) to Almond's posts has been to ignore them for the most part, except when I'm pretty certain I can emphatically contradict him. Not that that always stops him burbling on... :roll:
That's my point. Emphatic contradiction is just being dismissed or ignored along with whoever takes the time to do so. That's not what this place is about.
almond13 said:
You Say:
””I will never again accept you seeking to patronise me, or any other poster in the manner of your preceding paragraph.“”
This kind of loss of control reinforces my suspicion that you and your alter-ego have an authority problem and by your own mouth “bullying”?
I have no alter-ego. Being a man of my word, though, this little passage of ad-hominem has earned you a warning.
 
For example, ancient Greek mythology asserts that the goddess Athena sprang from the head of Zeus. Velikovsky identifies Zeus (whose Roman counterpart was the god Jupiter) with the planet Jupiter. Velikovsky identifies Athena with the planet Venus, although the Greek counterpart of the Roman Venus was Aphrodite and not Athena. This myth, along with others from ancient Egypt, Israel, Mexico, etc. are used to support the claim that "Venus was expelled as a comet and then changed to a planet after contact with a number of members of our solar system" (Velikovsky 1972:182).

An interesting idea but surely flawed. I'm not an expert on ancient myths but perhaps the similarities in the myths from the various cultures point more to a commonality in the way cultures evolve rather the accurate description of events. The fact that a number of cultures have the myth of a "great flood" could be more a case that each culture experiences large scale (but local flooding) rather than being indicative of a global inundation.

Likewise any other large event could creep into the mythology, could be a comet a meteor or whatever, but to go from a relatively modern written record of an ancient oral tradition detailing an event which may (or may not) have happened several 1000 years ago and assume its a record of a planetary pertubation is ludicrous unless evidence exists to support it. The mythology itself is not enough evidence. (Atlantis anyone?)

I suppose the bulk of the of the Greco-Roman mythology has been largely ignored using only those myths which fit the required hypothesis.

Perhaps you should read Graves's White Goddess in tandem with Velikovsky?
 
stuneville
I'm sure this will be seized upon by you or someone else as yet more evidence of me bullying people, but frankly, I don't give a damn. I refuse to see you subverting this thread any more by being derogatory to others.
FORTEANA WITHOUT FORT
Let me get this straight; First: What the hell is “emphatic contradiction”? And why would I not contradict it? Could this possibly have anything to do with you having the last word on everything?

The title of this NG is Fortean Times and is allied to FT magazine which is said to be based on the work and philosophy of the seemingly long forgotten Charles Fort, who was, above all else anti-science. What I have been doing in the tradition of Fort, is questioning the overly authoritative exagerations of a self important and overblown science; and no, I don't consider myself to be his equal. Having said this, I start to wonder why the inquisition? because science is the new inquisition.

I try hard not to become entangled in personalities, but I have a given right to defend myself and my ideas and it seems that it's this that causes offence. There is still supposed to be a right of free speech in the UK. You can't have it all your own way and you, being “emphatic” only makes me more determined to ridicule the “emphasis” as it has no more validity than my own. You must come to terms with this.

If you wish to suck science like a security blanket, then that's your prerogative, but dont expect me to do the same.

As my wife so aptly commented after reading your thread, “If he can't stand the heat then tell him to stay out of the kitchen.”

I look upon science as parodied by The Wizard of Oz; a big machine and a frightened little man hiding behind it. Give the machine a clout and he comes running out trembling. I find the ferocious defense of science intriguing as there is no discernible threat to it's existence. Again, this reminds me of my childhood and Sunday school and the story of the Wicked Flea. Apparently, according to the Bible the wicked flee when no one is chasing them. Maybe this is the reason?

The internet represents a symbol of freedom from authority, authoritative interlopers are a symbol of censorship. Russ Kick has said that the only healthy hatred is a hatred of authority.
Where do you stand on this?

Consider all of this a “promise” from me, that I will not mend my ways or bend to your will in any way shape of form.
 
lupinwick said:
Likewise any other large event could creep into the mythology, could be a comet a meteor or whatever, but to go from a relatively modern written record of an ancient oral tradition detailing an event which may (or may not) have happened several 1000 years ago and assume its a record of a planetary pertubation is ludicrous unless evidence exists to support it. The mythology itself is not enough evidence. (Atlantis anyone?)

I agree wholeheartedly. I would be cautious of back-engineering story and myth to fit a hypothesis. That seems to me to be an exercise in possible self-delusion - people like Daniken spring to mind.

Also, what to do we do about cultures (past and present) which have no such catastrophe's in their mythology? Surely if an earth-shaking event (if you pardon the pun) was allegedly witnesses by several cultures across the planet, why not all? Were some looking the other way?
 
Lupinwick wrote:
Perhaps you should read Graves's White Goddess in tandem with Velikovsky?
Hi lupinwick
What you have said, may, or on the other hand may not be true. There are no answers only choices.
The work of Velikovsky needs to be taken in context with all of his works – something never done by his deconstructive detractors. The idea that ancient civilisations lived in a cultural vacuum has even been discarded by orthodoxy now. What I suggest to anyone interested in finding out about these things is that they look at the writings of those who make it their business to find out what he was actually saying.

I personally, look on Atlantis as some kind of world-wide civilisation that existed before the time of known written records or may be recorded in untranslated text. There is certainly a tradition of engineering, mathematics, astronomy etc. that goes back to long before the times that we know about. I'm thinking of the stone foundation of Baalbeck for example.
 
almond13 said:
Charles Fort, who was, above all else anti-science.

This is simply not true.

Fort was very much pro-science and wanted scientists to behave in a more scientific fashion. His self-appointed task of bringing anomalies to light was very much part fo that spirit.

btw, I can't help noticing that you have not responded to the posts showing that relativity is indeed essential for the working of the GPS, or that Venus was recorded well before 2000 BCE, but simply start arguing about something else.

I would also suggest that if you don't take a more civilised tone you can't expect anyone to converse with you.
 
I used Atlantis is a well known example of something which has crept into modern thought, I'm sure Plato would have been happy about it. The truth of Atlantis (a construct of Plato's perhaps?) may never be known, especially as Plato is the only known source. Perhaps Atlantis only truly exists as an idealised world (utopian) of myth and wonder.
 
wembley8 said:
almond13 said:
Charles Fort, who was, above all else anti-science.

This is simply not true.

Fort was very much pro-science and wanted scientists to behave in a more scientific fashion. His self-appointed task of bringing anomalies to light was very much part fo that spirit.

btw, I can't help noticing that you have not responded to the posts showing that relativity is indeed essential for the working of the GPS, or that Venus was recorded well before 2000 BCE, but simply start arguing about something else.

I would also suggest that if you don't take a more civilised tone you can't expect anyone to converse with you.
Hi wembley8
Infamy – infamy, they've all got it infamy.
I was not aware that I had injured your sensibilities wembley8?
Everyone has become so touchy of late.

As you have no doubt noticed, I've been preoccupied lately with attacks and dire threats. I had realised that I had neglected you and did intend to answer.

I've not replied to the relativity post because firstly I will be accused of whatever again and secondly because the person that I posted was instrumental in building the GPS and the one that you chose to debunk him had nothing to do with it. This happens all the time and I don't have the patience to continue with finding a further debunker to debunk the debunker. I am happy that a GPS engineer said what he said and that's what I posted. Why would he say that?
The point of all this being, not to insult anyone, but to show that science can be debunked like everything else in the universe.

I have the complete works of Fort before me, and if you really want me to, I will copy a few remarks that I would consider to be anti-science. As I have said before, the idea that fortean events and anomalies will someday be part of science is “”“IMHO””” complete bunkum.
 
Jerry-B
Also, what to do we do about cultures (past and present) which have no such catastrophe's in their mythology? Surely if an earth-shaking event (if you pardon the pun) was allegedly witnesses by several cultures across the planet, why not all? Were some looking the other way?
I think you will find that most of them do.
 
almond13 said:
Let me get this straight; First: What the hell is “emphatic contradiction”? And why would I not contradict it? Could this possibly have anything to do with you having the last word on everything?
It was actually Rynner who semi-coined the phrase, and applied it to himself when he replies, with solid grounds to one of your assertions, only to have you either sidestep the issue or indeed ignore it completely. As for me, I’m happy not to have the last word on a regular basis. I say what I wish to say.
The title of this NG is Fortean Times and is allied to FT magazine which is said to be based on the work and philosophy of the seemingly long forgotten Charles Fort, who was, above all else anti-science.
No, he wasn’t, as has been pointed out elsewhere. And by whom is he “long-forgotten”? Not by me. The term has however, been occasionally adopted as a flag of convenience for people who want to believe stuff that takes some believing (I know one rabid UFO nut who describes himself as a Fortean rather than as a Ufologist, despite the fact that his outlook is anything but Fortean.)

What I have been doing in the tradition of Fort, is questioning the overly authoritative exagerations of a self important and overblown science; and no, I don't consider myself to be his equal. Having said this, I start to wonder why the inquisition? because science is the new inquisition.
There are many scientists who are utterly convinced that all science is infallible, yes, but science itself makes no such claim. However, Forteanism does hold that if science has a workable explanation for something then that explanation must be at least considered. Each case on it’s own merits. What Forteanism doesn’t do is immediately give credence to whatever scientists reject as implausible.
I try hard not to become entangled in personalities, but I have a given right to defend myself and my ideas and it seems that it's this that causes offence.
Not at all. What causes offence is your constant belittling of others, the references cited by others or indeed of the rights of others to even question your points if they happen to disagree with you, if indeed you refer to them at all. I have consistently said on this very MB that anyone can say what they think about ideas or opinions, but the rights of others to engage in discussion must be respected – that still holds true. It’s your attitude toward others that is the problem.
There is still supposed to be a right of free speech in the UK.
With free speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely. To use it as justification to be as obtuse as you wish to others is hardly the object of holding that right.
You can't have it all your own way and you, being “emphatic”...
..no, not me, see above…
.. only makes me more determined to ridicule the “emphasis” as it has no more validity than my own. You must come to terms with this.
I must?
If you wish to suck science like a security blanket, then that's your prerogative, but dont expect me to do the same.
I don’t. I’m not a scientist. I’ve never pretended to be a scientist. I’ve already done the science/scientist thing above anyway. However, there are many posters on here who are trained in the sciences and yet maintain an eminently Fortean mindset – the two, as I pointed out previously, need not be mutually exclusive.
As my wife so aptly commented after reading your thread, “If he can't stand the heat then tell him to stay out of the kitchen.”
I’m not in the kitchen. And anyway, this ain’t heat, believe me.
I look upon science as parodied by The Wizard of Oz; a big machine and a frightened little man hiding behind it. Give the machine a clout and he comes running out trembling. I find the ferocious defense of science intriguing as there is no discernible threat to it's existence.
It’s not ferocious defence of science. It’s a perfectly justifiable critical deconstruction of Velikovsky’s ideas, in this case. If the science didn’t add up either we’d be equally robust in our analysis of that.
Again, this reminds me of my childhood and Sunday school and the story of the Wicked Flea. Apparently, according to the Bible the wicked flee when no one is chasing them. Maybe this is the reason?
Who’s fleeing? Anyway, things that you’re liable to read in the Bible…
The internet represents a symbol of freedom from authority, authoritative interlopers are a symbol of censorship.
I was waiting for this :)..
Russ Kick has said that the only healthy hatred is a hatred of authority.
Where do you stand on this?
No hatred is healthy. Hatred consumes those who hate as much as the hated.
Consider all of this a “promise” from me, that I will not mend my ways or bend to your will in any way shape of form.
Then I promise that you may find yourself banned rather soon. I’m not asking you to bend to my will, as there are many on here with whom I fundamentally and perpetually disagree and have yet never exchanged an ill-word. I merely request that you observe the rules of this forum. If you want respect from others then show some yourself.
 
Quote:
The internet represents a symbol of freedom from authority, authoritative interlopers are a symbol of censorship.

I was waiting for this Smile..

No comment though? :D
 
almond13 said:
I've not replied to the relativity post because firstly I will be accused of whatever again and secondly because the person that I posted was instrumental in building the GPS and the one that you chose to debunk him had nothing to do with it.

Hardly relevant - as I pointed out, the people who built it who put in the relativity factoring clearly did believe. And the fact that it works suggests that they were right.

almond13 said:
Why would he say that?

Because he thought it was true at the time. But by the time Van Flandern wrote the piece below he shows that GPS does indeed confirm relativity.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days. In ground solutions with the data, new corrections for epoch offset and rate for each clock are determined anew typically once each day. These corrections differ by a few ns and a few ns/day, respectively, from similar corrections for other days in the same week. At much later times, unpredictable errors in the clocks build up with time squared, so comparisons with predictions become increasingly uncertain unless these empirical corrections are used. But within each day, the clock corrections remain stable to within about 1 ns in epoch and 1 ns/day in rate.

The initial clock rate errors just after launch would give the best indication of the absolute accuracy of the predictions of relativity because they would be least affected by accumulated random errors in clock rates over time. Unfortunately, these have not yet been studied. But if the errors were significantly greater than the rate variance among the 24 GPS satellites, which is less than 200 ns/day under normal circumstances, it would have been noticed even without a study. So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.


almond13 said:
that science can be debunked like everything else in the universe.

Huh? You can only debunk bunkum.

almond13 said:
I have the complete works of Fort before me, and if you really want me to, I will copy a few remarks that I would consider to be anti-science.

That might be interesting, but maybe you'd better address the Venus question first.
 
almond13 said:
I said:
almond13 said:
The internet represents a symbol of freedom from authority, authoritative interlopers are a symbol of censorship.

I was waiting for this :)..

No comment though? :D
Yes, my comment was that I was waiting for the censorship accusation (I average one every two months or so.) It's always bollocks, and this time is no exception. Nobody's actually censored you at all, have they?

I do wish you'd learn to quote more clearly though.
 
stuneville
It was actually Rynner who semi-coined the phrase, and applied it to himself when he replies, with solid grounds to one of your assertions, only to have you either sidestep the issue or indeed ignore it completely. As for me, I’m happy not to have the last word on a regular basis. I say what I wish to say.

What rynner (the salt of the earth) calls “sidestepping” is his sad inability to reply. If you look at the thread on evolution you will see him admit as much. Something like, “I know that you have questions that we can't answer”, and again “hopefully you will leave the NG soon” “you are a ****” It's all there.
And sadly, we have the the very thing that i'm being accused of, the old sidestep and /or ignore and the insults. The reason for this is that he has never even looked at the alternatives without a jaundiced eye. But with your own and the backing of all those who don't want science questioned, who knows what you and he can come up with.

See the most recent on this present thread:
I notice with great interest that he has said nothing about my comments on pulsars? No defence of relativity. You see, this is the whole of the argument, with parrot-fasion repetitions of quoted science – it saves you thinking for yourself. But, if someone dares to argue with it there is an uproar and false accusations are bandied about.

What are solid grounds? Can this again be the orthodox version that we dare not deny for fear of the inquisition? Or is it just “street cred'” and face saving, pride or just plain wanting your own way?
There are two ways of dealing with an upstart like me. The first is to say, “That's an interesting and alternative point of view”, and the other is to say, “He is attacking my sacred cow, lets get him”. Which one is being used – I leave it to the jury to decide.

You say:“”If the science didn’t add up either we’d be equally robust in our analysis of that.”” :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Who, on this NG has ever done this since I've been here? I challenge you to point to one. And if there ever should have been one in the past (deleted of course) I'll bet he was bullied out of existence. You must be joking, this is another of your wind-ups. The science department scrotes want me out of the way so that I'll ask no more questions. Admit it and be a man.

You say:
“”Who’s fleeing? Anyway, things that you’re liable to read in the Bible… “”
Taking the piss out of the Bible gets you street cred'. He's a lad isn't he? Not.
I said:
The internet represents a symbol of freedom from authority, authoritative interlopers are a symbol of censorship.
You say:
I was waiting for this ..
You will notice that I stress the authoritative words in this and I'm surprised that you don't pick up on it. Can this be because you want to play it down?

You say:
“”No hatred is healthy. Hatred consumes those who hate as much as the hated. “”
You are so wrong with this one that i don't know where to start. As usual you have taken the emotional path, which seems to be your nemesis.
To hate the war in Iraq is healthy, to hate child pornography is healthy, to hate censorship is healthy, and any one who says that child pornography needs censorship is trying for the thin end of the wedge for internet censorship – you don't have to log-on and the internet never made anyone a pervert.
To hate bullying is healthy, to hate mismanagement of news groups is healthy.
To hate victimisation is healthy and to hate group victimisation is even more healthy.
To hate any form of evil is healthy.

To my remark about science as a security blanket you say:
I don’t. I’m not a scientist. I’ve never pretended to be a scientist. I’ve already done the science/scientist thing above anyway. However, there are many posters on here who are trained in the sciences and yet maintain an eminently Fortean mindset – the two, as I pointed out previously, need not be mutually exclusive.

The two are mutually exclusive if the scientists are there to support science at any cost. Example: “there is no theory for dowsing and therefore dowsing is an illusion.” even though dowsing is used commonly. I would refer you to a past article in FT. Ref' on request. They need not be exclusive (agreed) but they are.

You say:
Then I promise that you may find yourself banned rather soon. I’m not asking you to bend to my will, as there are many on here with whom I fundamentally and perpetually disagree and have yet never exchanged an ill-word. I merely request that you observe the rules of this forum. If you want respect from others then show some yourself.

Give me a list of the rules I've broken and the terrible crimes I've commited and I will give you a list of the names of those who have done likewise to me *and not a word* one of them was a moderator in my first weeks on this group. This is definitely victimisation and I want to complain to the organ grinder rather than the monkey. We will take this further...

To my hundred + a day regular readers, 5211 at this count: Do you want this thread banned and the science department return to the boring old mundane crap? Answers on a postcard to Dennis.

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm
:hello: :hello: :hello: :hello: :hello: :hello: :hello:
 
wembley8
That might be interesting, but maybe you'd better address the Venus question first.
I thought that you wanted to know about van Flandern first?
You see, this would be the first ever proof of relativity if true. All other, so called proofs are invisible things like quasars. Based on past performance, I still don't believe a word. If anything comes up I guarantee you will be first to hear about it.

What Venus question, there have been oodles? ;)
 
Almond,

Its a pity I'm on holiday as of tomorrow, as this looks like it could be interesting in a number of unfortunate ways.

You can disagree with folks as much as you like as long as the facts hold up (or are at least entertaining). When it comes to a list of insults though, then be a sport and keep them to yourself (or in a pm).
 
Wembley8
Just had a look at the reference that you gave and found this:
Ca 2100 BCE
Cylinder Seals: (Sun-Moon-Venus triplet on seals becomes more frequent.) http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gtosiris/page9k.html
What exactly does this mean? - becomes more frequent? It's only one hundred years away from the date I gave and a sudden interest in Venus. I can't for the life of me see how you can use this to debunk me? I'd be interested in your comments on this.

I was working on this and intended to get references for all possible, but as you insist:--

The change that took place.
The planet Venus established the present order on the earth and placed the north and south polar stars in their places. The Pawnee Indians believe that the future destruction of the world depends on the planet Venus. When the end of the world will come, the North and South poles will change places. In the past the South Star left its place a few times and came up higher, bringing about a shifting of the poles, but on these occasions the polar stars did not reverse their positions.

The Blazing Star
The Egyptian priests, said that the world conflagration was caused by a shifting of bodies
in the sky which move around the earth. The comet Venus after two contacts
with the earth, eventually became a planet. Phaethon, which means
`the blazing star,' became the Morning Star.

The Four Planet System
The planet Venus was born in the first half of the second millennium. In the third millennium only four planets could have been seen, and that in astronomical charts of this early period the planet Venus cannot be found. In an ancient Hindu table of planets, attributed to the year 3102, Venus alone among the visible planets is absent. Indian Brahmins of the early period did not know the five planet system ' and only in a later period did the Brahmins speak of five planets.
Babylonian astronomy, too, had a four planet system. In ancient prayers the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Mercury are invoked; the planet Venus is missing; and one speaks of `the four planet system of the ancient astronomers of Babylonia.' These four planet systems and the inability of the ancient Hindus and Babylonians to see Venus in the sky, even though it is more conspicuous than the other planets, are puzzling unless Venus was not among the planets.

"The great star that joins the great stars."
The great stars are, of course, the four planets Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn,
and Venus joins them as the fifth planet. When not all the orbs were yet in the heavens .

Velikovsky
Ancient Mexican records [say]...The sun was attacked by Quetzal-cohuatl; after the disappearance of this serpent-shaped heavenly body, the sun refused to shine, and during four days the world was deprived of its light; a great many people died at that time. Thereafter, the snakelike body transformed itself into a great star. The star retained the name of Quetzal-cohuatl (Quetzal-coatl). This great and brilliant star appeared for the first time in the east. Quetzal-cohuatl is the well-known name of the planet Venus.
[Quetzal-cohuatl means "a feathered serpent."]

It is written in a Samaritan chronicle that during the invasion of Palestine by the Israelites under Joshua, a new star was born in the east: "A star arose out of the east against which all magic is vain."
Chinese chronicles record that "a brilliant star appeared in the days of Yahu [Yahou]."

...the comet Venus, after two contacts with the earth, eventually became a planet...
[Ancient Hindu and Babylonian tablets only show a four planet system (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury).]

Sanchoniathon says that Astarte (Venus) had a bull's head [two long appendages--tails of a comet]. The planet was even called Ashteroth-Karnaim, or Astarte of the Horns, a name given to a city in Canaan in honor of this deity. The golden calf worshiped by Aaron and the people at the foot of Sinai was the image of the star.

Cicero wrote: "Venus, called in Greek Phosphorus and in Latin Lucifer..."

The Egyptian Venus-Isis, the Babylonian Venus-Ishtar, the Greek Venus-Athene were goddesses pictured with serpents, and sometimes represented as dragons. "Ishtar, the fearful dragon," wrote Assurbanipal.

Since the latter part of the eighth century before the present era, Venus has followed an orbit between Mercury and earth, which it has maintained ever since. It became the Morning and Evening Star...The dreaded comet became a tame planet. It has the most nearly circular orbit among the planets.
The end of the terror which Venus kept alive for eight centuries after the days of the Exodus was the inspiration for Isaiah when he said:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God."
Septuagint and Vulgate both translate Morning Star or Lucifer. What does it mean, that the Morning Star was assailing the heavens and rising high, and that it was cut down low to the horizon, and would weaken no more the nations?
More than a hundred generations of commentators have occupied themselves with this passage, but have met with failure.
Why, it is also asked, should the beautiful Morning Star, called Lucifer, the Light Bearer, live in the imagination of peoples as an evil power, a fallen star? What is in this lovely planet that makes her name an equivalent of Satan, or Seth of the Egyptians, the dark power? In his confusion, Origen wrote this question to the quoted verses of Isaiah: "Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light?"
Lucifer was a feared prodigy in the sky, and its origin, as illuminated in this book, explains how it came to be regarded as a dark power and a fallen star.
After a great struggle, Venus achieved a circular orbit and a permanent place in the family of planets. During the perturbations which brought about this metamorphosis, Venus also lost its cometary tail.
In the valley of the Euphrates, "Venus then gives up her position as a great stellar divinity, equal with sun and moon, and joins the ranks of the other planets."
A comet became a planet.
Venus was born as a comet in the second millennium before the present era. In the middle of that millennium it twice made contact with the earth and changed its cometary orbit.
(Worlds in Collision, Immanuel Velikovsky)
 
almond13 said:
blah blah blah....]
I really can't be arsed, so yes! I shall side-step neatly and cut straight to...
almond13 said:
This is definitely victimisation and I want to complain to the organ grinder rather than the monkey. We will take this further...
Make my day :).

Meanwhile, for the repeated ad-homs, have another warning.
 
Back
Top