Scientific Publications

[Jerry_B]

The treatment of Tesla is at least understandable if not the right thing to do; we see a similar scenario with Velikovsky. In both cases they were an embarrassment to the scientific community.

So on the one hand you're saying that it's somehow bad or problematic that 'Large numbers of people get their science from the media and education who put scientists on a pedestal' - but that it's somehow okay if people do it about Tesla and Velikovksy...?

 

[Ghostisfort]

I don't think I said that, let me see..........no, I didn't say that.
I said (in a different manner) that I can understand the reasons that scientists did not like Tesla or Velikovsky. This however, does not excuse their appalling behaviour towards the two.

Completely bonkers would describe their actions regarding Velikovsky. They went so crazy that they made him an icon among iconoclasts.
Tesla was making the scientists look amateurish. Tesla was too good at his job.

 

[Ghostisfort]

The Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, is lazy and rests on its historical laurels, a leading medical journal says.

A Lancet editorial said the oldest scientific academy in the world had done little in the fields of medical science and public health lately.
And the journal accused the Royal Society of being "self serving" and a "superficial cheerleader". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4562471.stm

 

[Spookdaddy]

Are we to suppose then that The Lancet isn't just another one of those rubbish scientific publications you're on about? Is The Lancet a beacon of light within an otherwise barren wasteland of peer-constrained scientific tautology, or do things just become rubbish when they no longer serves a particular immediate purpose?

 

[drbastard]

But Royal Society executive secretary Stephen Cox said the attack was part of a personal campaign by Lancet editor Richard Horton.

I had suspected this to be the case. This goes on all the time in scientific publication, editors using their power to get one up on their enemies, personal squabbles played out in the guise of rational argument.

Anyway, this headline was from 2005, why suddenly pop up with it now? It's out of context and out of date.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Anyway, this headline was from 2005, why suddenly pop up with it now? It's out of context and out of date.

As you will find with a quick check through this and related, threads, time and context, mean nothing when it comes to proving that orthodox science is a hoax.

:lol:

 

[Ghostisfort]

Are we to suppose then that The Lancet isn't just another one of those rubbish scientific publications you're on about? Is The Lancet a beacon of light within an otherwise barren wasteland of peer-constrained scientific tautology, or do things just become rubbish when they no longer serves a particular immediate purpose?

Apologies for the delay. I forgot that I posted on this subject.
Yes, The Lancet is rubbish just like the rest, but they are highlighting the worst to put themselves in a favourable light.
I note with interest that the premier post of the day gives, as an illustration of global warming denial, the case of the cancer-cigarette link, when the recent headlines have told us that the incidence of cancer is on the increase. This, in spite of several decades of anti smoking propaganda and the assurance that the cure is working.

As you will find with a quick check through this and related, threads, time and context, mean nothing when it comes to proving that orthodox science is a hoax.

 

[Anome]

...

Anyway, this headline was from 2005, why suddenly pop up with it now? It's out of context and out of date.

As you will find with a quick check through this and related, threads, time and context, mean nothing when it comes to proving that orthodox science is a hoax.

:lol:

After all, there's not such thing as time, so there's no relevance as to when it was published, it was published (once, somewhere), so it must be true.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...I note with interest that the premier post of the day gives, as an illustration of global warming denial, the case of the cancer-cigarette link, when the recent headlines have told us that the incidence of cancer is on the increase. This, in spite of several decades of anti smoking propaganda and the assurance that the cure is working.

There is absolutely no reason why the variations in incidence of a particular type of cancer should be automatically reflected in the overall figures for all cancers. (If that's what you're suggesting; I'm not sure what post you are referring to - a link would help.)

 

[Ghostisfort]

...

Anyway, this headline was from 2005, why suddenly pop up with it now? It's out of context and out of date.

As you will find with a quick check through this and related, threads, time and context, mean nothing when it comes to proving that orthodox science is a hoax.

:lol:

After all, there's not such thing as time, so there's no relevance as to when it was published, it was published (once, somewhere), so it must be true.

This is just a stratagem....science' obsession with presentism. Anything a few months old is out of date 'because we do better things all the time'.
It accounts for the manipulation of history that I cover at length on my website. This is intended to put academia at the forefront of invention and innovation when, in fact this does not happen.

Maybe you can give us some evidence that time does exist without reference to convoluted intellectualisations.

 

[Anome]

Perhaps you could explain to me the concept of "yesterday" without reference to "time"?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Perhaps you could explain to me the concept of "yesterday" without reference to "time"?

Time has always been based on the rotation of the Earth and the position of the Sun and Moon. Yesterday the Earth was in a different position relative to Sun and Moon. The concept of time is a convenience but does not represent an entity, force, energy or whatever that we can point at as being time.

Time is movement, through an angle, and it is therefore impossible to represent the speed of light for example, as being a time period. What we can say, is that the Earth moved through a certain angle while a beam of light from Earth reached Mars.

It must be remembered that while the Earth rotated, it moved around the Sun and the Sun moved to a different position from the start point. And so it is difficult, if not impossible to measure the speed of light. This has been observed by experiments.
Time is a theoretical convenience.
Nature does not recognise time, just movement.

 

[rynner2]

Nature does not recognise time, just movement.

Stop telling nature what to do!!

And define movement, without using the concept of time.

 

[Ghostisfort]

...I note with interest that the premier post of the day gives, as an illustration of global warming denial, the case of the cancer-cigarette link, when the recent headlines have told us that the incidence of cancer is on the increase. This, in spite of several decades of anti smoking propaganda and the assurance that the cure is working.

There is absolutely no reason why the variations in incidence of a particular type of cancer should be automatically reflected in the overall figures for all cancers. (If that's what you're suggesting; I'm not sure what post you are referring to - a link would help.)

It's in the thread 'Global Warming and Climate Change', by PM. He compares global warming deniers to anti smoking deniers. I don't smoke myself and therefore have no axe to grind, but the incidence of cancers has been on the increase throughout several decades of anti smoking campaigns and we are assured of improvements in treatments.

As someone who has had several family members fall victim to cancer, I no longer donate to the cancer charities.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Nature does not recognise time, just movement.

Stop telling nature what to do!!

And define movement, without using the concept of time.

This is very interesting!
Another of natures properties ignored by science.
Everything out there is in orbit and so movement is in fact cycles that need no time.

 

[rynner2]

Nature does not recognise time, just movement.

And define movement, without using the concept of time.

This is very interesting!
Another of natures properties ignored by science.
Everything out there is in orbit and so movement is in fact cycles that need no time.

Define 'orbit' without using the concept of time.


(And don't forget, if you abolish time, everything happens all at once!! :madeyes: )

 

[Spookdaddy]

...It's in the thread 'Global Warming and Climate Change', by PM. He compares global warming deniers to anti smoking deniers. I don't smoke myself and therefore have no axe to grind, but the incidence of cancers has been on the increase throughout several decades of anti smoking campaigns and we are assured of improvements in treatments...

That's simply a repetition of the original statement. So I'll re-spin my own: There is absolutely no logical reason why success in dealing with a specific form of cancer has to reflect postively in the overall figures of what is a very wide spectrum of disease. Successes in dealing with smoking related illness will not necessarily override the growth of incidences of cancer in other areas - and if there is overall growth of cancer across the spectrum this does not mean that there isn't progress in particular areas, and that this progress isn't worth pursuing.

 

[Ghostisfort]

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space, for example the orbit of a planet around the centre of a star system, such as the Solar System.[1][2] Orbits of planets are typically elliptical.

Current understanding of the mechanics of orbital motion is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which accounts for gravity as due to curvature of space-time, with orbits following geodesics. For ease of calculation, relativity is commonly approximated by the force-based theory of universal gravitation based on Kepler's laws of planetary motion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

I have one or two problems with the above:
A point in space is not necessarily gravitational. Why mention it?

With no time, the term space/time becomes meaningless. It becomes space/movement. As everything in space is moving in orbit, it becomes space/space or movement/movement. In the accepted Einsteinian use of the word, space is empty and cannot move.

The curvature of space/time follows the same absurdity.
Space is thought of as the empty container of matter and you cannot curve nothing, as Tesla pointed out a hundred years ago.

Gravity is a force allied to electromagnetism, both propagating/deriving from the luminiferous aether. The existence of aether is in the same category as the existence of gravity and electromagnetism. We know it's there but we can't define it in any meaningful way.

Kepler's universal gravitation, formulated in around 1609 has not been improved upon and is still in its basic original form. Newton's law of gravitation is based on Kepler's laws.
As I recall, Newton and astronomers of the day had a problem with determining the position of the Moon and they were not completely happy with his law.

Now, what is needed is for a scientist to prove empirically that time exists along the lines of electromagnetism and gravity. As an astronomer, I would have thought that would be child's play for you?

 

[Ghostisfort]

.

That's simply a repetition of the original statement. So I'll re-spin my own: There is absolutely no logical reason why success in dealing with a specific form of cancer has to reflect postively in the overall figures of what is a very wide spectrum of disease. Successes in dealing with smoking related illness will not necessarily override the growth of incidences of cancer in other areas - and if there is overall growth of cancer across the spectrum this does not mean that there isn't progress in particular areas, and that this progress isn't worth pursuing.

I thought at this point that you would have given some figures to show that complaints such as lung cancer had reduced with the campaigns. Although this is not my area of expertise, I have a feeling that this cannot be done?

 

[rynner2]

With no time, the term space/time becomes meaningless. It becomes space/movement. As everything in space is moving in orbit, it becomes space/space or movement/movement.

You keep referring to movements and orbits, even though you've totally failed to define either without reference to time.

But time can be measured in other ways than by reference to bodies orbiting in space. A prisoner locked in a windowless cell would still experience the passing of time. He could even measure it by counting the beats of his pulse, or watching a candle burn down. At intervals too he would feel hungry, or need to sleep, and over longer periods of time he would notice changes in his body as he aged. He would have memories of when he was younger, when his joints weren't so painful, and when his skin was not mottled and wrinkled.

All these things indicate the passing of time, even though the man may never have seen a heavenly body in his life, or ever heard of orbits.

Another example might be a planet with life somewhat like ours, but with a thick cloudy atmosphere so that no heavenly bodies can ever be seen. Let's assume in addition that the planet is tidally locked to its sun, so that the inhabitants are aware that one part of the sky is brighter than the rest, but this brightness would never move.

But even with no astronomical basis for time, the people would still be aware of time passing. In addition to the phenomena available to the prisoner in his cell, the people would experience the cycles of life and death, and they could have a long and detailed history, based perhaps on the reigns of a succession of monarchs. There would be no seasons, but life carries within it various internal clocks, ticking relentlessly away.

And the people might discover the principles of pendulums, and go on to make pendulum clocks, and then wind-up clocks, and even atomic clocks!

So don't tell me that time does not exist - I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

 

[Ghostisfort]

The scientifically induced habit of circular reasoning is something we don't seem to be able to break away from.
'Because we use something called time, then time must exist.
'Because we use time, it follows that someone on another planet uses time'.
This is a clear example of irrational rationalism and the abandonment of logic.

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I seem to recall a tribe here on Earth who have no words to convey the concept of time. I'm sure there's a thread?

Are we back to atomic clocks and the 'where do they get their time from'? They get it from the revolution of the Earth relative to the heavenly bodies in the year 1900. Ephemeris time.

By convention, the standard seasonal year is taken to be A.D. 1900 and to contain 31,556,925.9747 sec of ephemeris time. In 1984 ephemeris time was renamed terrestrial dynamical time (TDT or TT); also created was barycentric dynamical time (TDB), which is based on the orbital motion of the sun, moon, and planets. For most purposes they can be considered identical, since they differ by only milliseconds, and often therefore are referred to simply as dynamical time.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/ ... z1VOnGughB

Things weather and decay due to erosion and life is a constant movement, exchange of cells and wear and tear. Time is attached for convenience, not integral. The so called body clock follows the daylight and the moon.

Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. A simple definition states that "time is what clocks measure". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

 

[Spookdaddy]

...I thought at this point that you would have given some figures to show that complaints such as lung cancer had reduced with the campaigns. Although this is not my area of expertise, I have a feeling that this cannot be done?

Given that it was you who provided the original comment - rather vaguely and entirely unaccompanied by data - I find this response rather self-serving?

 

[Ghostisfort]

...I thought at this point that you would have given some figures to show that complaints such as lung cancer had reduced with the campaigns. Although this is not my area of expertise, I have a feeling that this cannot be done?

Given that it was you who provided the original comment - rather vaguely and entirely unaccompanied by data - I find this response rather self-serving?

It was just a metaphor and I was slightly pissed. I always regret getting into such emotive subjects. I would rather pursue the relatively simple path of destroying science' concept of time.

 

[rynner2]

According to Mr.Ghostisfort, esq:

Time does not exist

but

Are we back to atomic clocks and the 'where do they get their time from'? They get [time] from the revolution of the Earth relative to the heavenly bodies in the year 1900. Ephemeris time.

Either there is time or there isn't - which is it?

Again: define Movement (or Orbits) without reference to Time. Put up or shut up!

 

[Ghostisfort]

Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. Wiki

You appear to disagree with the greatest scholars?
There is no valid argument that I can conceive of where you could present the slightest proof that time exists as an entity outside of mathematical theory.

Orbit time:
Everything in the universe is in orbit about something else. At the extreme, the super galaxies orbit the universe itself.
On a smaller scale, a bullet fired from a gun describes an arc (orbit) that diminishes as it slows to the point where it tries to orbit the centre of the Earth. It hits the ground.
Moons orbit planets, planets orbit suns and asteroids even orbit other asteroids.
Stars orbit galaxies, although not according to Newton's approximate Law. Einstein's theoretical gravitational radiation remains undetected and his gravity calculations are only used for theoretical objects like pulsars and black holes. There is no satisfactory scientific explanation for the force of gravity, science simply relies on labels.

There are no straight lines in space, even though most websites, including NASA's, say that Newton's first law requires an object in space to move in such a straight line.

Orbits appear to be as a result of gravitational forces, but there are electromagnetic forces unaccounted for by astronomy. A small object will orbit a highly charged electrode without the need for gravity. The Sun has a high electrical charge.

We are told that the orbit is a result of an object falling and moving forward:

As the object moves sideways, it falls toward the central body. However, it moves so quickly that the central body will curve away beneath it.
A force, such as gravity, pulls the object into a curved path as it attempts to fly off in a straight line.
As the object moves sideways (tangentially), it falls toward the central body. However, it has enough tangential velocity to miss the orbited object, and will continue falling indefinitely. This understanding is particularly useful for mathematical analysis, because the object's motion can be described as the sum of the three one-dimensional coordinates oscillating around a gravitational centre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit#Planetary_orbits

A spacecraft that escapes Earth's gravity will orbit the Sun.

Orbit
1. (Astronomy) Astronomy the curved path, usually elliptical, followed by a planet, satellite, comet, etc., in its motion around another celestial body under the influence of gravitation http://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbit

I have doubts of extreme gravity about the two quoted explanations above.
A little levity.
No mention of time.

 

[rynner2]

The more you post, the more you reveal the inadequacies of your own arguments, which you can only back-up with mostly irrelevent clips from elsewhere.

You constantly complain that science is dehumanising people. So, an appeal to you as a human - are you aware of time passing (in the ways I suggested earlier)? If so, how can you deny time exists?

(But if you deny experiencing the passing of time, then I suspect your posts are produced by a poorly programmed robot!)

 

[Ghostisfort]

Well, tell me what you consider to be back-up and I'll try to get it.

To return to my reference to super galaxies, I had a personal experience:
During a quiet time I called for my guide and not specifying a destination we set off. I found that my asking to go places would be a delay in going where he wanted to take me. (he/she, I'm not sure)

We set off on a journey that seemed to cover vast distances. At times, not unlike the intro' to Star Trek, with speeding stars passing by, seemingly endlessly.

Finally, we entered the black void that signalled our exit from the universe. We travelled into the blackness for some time and then stopped and turned. If stopped and turned has any meaning outside of the universe.

There before me was the universe, that I can only describe as being like a kid's football with galaxy-like transfers stuck all over. I could see maybe four or five, making I suppose, eight or nine for the whole sphere. It struck me that these must be the galaxy clusters or super galaxies mentioned sometimes by astronomers.

All of my answers to questions and posts come from the "collective consciousness" and not from me. I get a string of disjointed sentences and attempt to put them into some kind of entertaining order.

I've discovered since this experience that there are other universes and that the purpose of "life and the universe" if you will, is the evolution of universes. Our lives, lived in a normal human manner, are an important part of this evolution. There is no good or evil, no heaven and hell, no devil, all is part of a benevolent universe.

Anyone can enjoy the experience that I've described above, I'm not special in any way. I will be glad to give the simple instructions to anyone who requests them.

 

[Jerry_B]

To return to my reference to super galaxies, I had a personal experience:
During a quiet time I called for my guide and not specifying a destination we set off. I found that my asking to go places would be a delay in going where he wanted to take me. (he/she, I'm not sure)

But as we have no way of telling whether all of that just happened in your head/imagination, it's not at all relevant. You need to back up your arguments with something more solid.

 

[Ghostisfort]

To return to my reference to super galaxies, I had a personal experience:
During a quiet time I called for my guide and not specifying a destination we set off. I found that my asking to go places would be a delay in going where he wanted to take me. (he/she, I'm not sure)

But as we have no way of telling whether all of that just happened in your head/imagination, it's not at all relevant. You need to back up your arguments with something more solid.

You mean like this?

The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until 71 years after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish with his Cavendish experiment, performed in 1798 (Philosophical Transactions 1798). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... easurement

What seems to be unknown by most, is that Newton's law of universal gravitation was never completed. Both he and the astronomers of his day failed to plot the position of the Moon using it and the astronomers are recorded as reverting to the old tables.
Incidentally, the old tables were probably compiled by astrologers.(I'll check)
We are still lumbered with the self same law.
If this is not a mystery of imagination, I don't know what is?

I have offered in my post to tell anyone how it's done and they can try for themselves. Are you up for it? If so a PM is all that's required.
This is how the old and famous names of science did their best work.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...This is how the old and famous names of science did their best work.

Old? Surely you mean, most travelled.

Actually, that doesn't really work - but you can't have, 'subject to movement earlier than those who are moving now', because you can't really have an 'earlier'...or can you??