Is the moon getting nearer ?

[Subduction Zone]

He he he Who is now running away when challenged to support your beliefs and claims?

OK, then I just conclude that you cannot meet your own claims of evidence. So much for your cosmological principles. That´s just TOO FUNNY

Remember to read and contemplate your linked lecture - Thanks for nothing at all

I did not run away from anything. You on the other hand constantly do so. I will give you evidence for anything that you wish, but as soon as you deny one piece of it you lose. Then you have to show that you understand the concept of evidence. And we both know that evidence is a concept that you not only do not understand, but one that you are afraid to even try to learn.

Why are some people so afraid of even the concept of evidence?

 

[ecco]

the people replying in this thread have no interest in science , their only aim is to stop me and bury the thread

NEWS FLASH!
Internet posters stop brilliant scientist from advancing his theories.

A small group of dedicated science advocates, on a fringe internet forum, have conspired to successfully prevent the findings of a brilliant, unconventional individual from being presented to the world at large.

They have done this, in part, by continually repeating the lie that
10 - (-15) = 25.

The brilliant scientist, however, refuses to be beaten down by these crude, relentless tactics. He vows to continue his fight to enlighten the entire scientific community and, by extension, the entire world.

 

[ecco]

without speculating on the "spooky gravity" as a governing force - which it isn´t at all.

Indeed "spooky gravity" isn't a governing force. Little tiny angels are constantly pushing things this way and that (usually down).

It's also these little tiny angels that push all the stars along around the galaxy.

Everyone knows that. Even our distant ancestors knew that.

 

[ecco]

You don´t fool me you know

We don't need to do that. You do quite well making that of yourself.

 

[ecco]

I can concur that is so true of most science forums. They don't see it as you're trying to advance things , they see it as a threat for no just reason .

Precisely! And that´s the most pathetic of it all. Every time anyone come up with alternative ideas, the whole standard text book bunch goes mad because it threatens their very dogmatic identity.

Scientists didn't feel threatened when Einstein's theories greatly expanded Newton's.
Scientists didn't feel threatened when Hubble's theories overturned Hoyle's.
Scientists didn't feel threatened when Plate Tectonics overturned the concept of an unmoving earth.

Scientists don't feel threatened when an internet poster claims, with no supporting evidence, that the ancients knew more than today's science. They just dismiss the guy as another fruitcake.

Scientists don't feel threatened when an internet poster claims, with no supporting evidence, that he knows more about science than they do. They just dismiss the guy as another fruitcake.

 

[ecco]

He he he Who is now running away when challenged to support your beliefs and claims?

OK, then I just conclude that you cannot meet your own claims of evidence. So much for your cosmological principles. That´s just TOO FUNNY

Remember to read and contemplate your linked lecture - Thanks for nothing at all

I see you still need to hide your embarrassment behind smiles. Maybe, someday...

 

[ratiocinator]

Apparently you´re having huge troubles of leaving your gravity guru, so I just leave you to further speculations of your own.
BTW: Newtons gravitational ideas of celestial motions were DIRECTLY contradicted by the discovery and observation of the Galactic Rotation Curve.

Which still doesn't answer my question. Newton (refined by Einstein) have still made countless absolutely accurate predictions. All this suggest is that there either more matter than is visible (dark matter), which, given the accuracy of the theories and their track record, seems most likely, or it needs further modification.

So you still haven't explained the match between the theories and reality and, what's more, you have no alternative.

 

[Native]

I did not run away from anything. You on the other hand constantly do so. I will give you evidence for anything that you wish, but as soon as you deny one piece of it you lose. Then you have to show that you understand the concept of evidence. And we both know that evidence is a concept that you not only do not understand, but one that you are afraid to even try to learn.

This is pure projection from your side and I´m tired of your going in circles accusing other debaters for something which fits very well to your Besserwissen self.

You even don´t understand that I fully understand your arguments, but as the standard model arguments are far out in woods and based on pure speculations ans assumptions which are repeated som much that you and others take these as the truth and the scientific whole truth, then I of course reject your inconsistent arguments.

 

[Native]

Which still doesn't answer my question. Newton (refined by Einstein) have still made countless absolutely accurate predictions. All this suggest is that there either more matter than is visible (dark matter), which, given the accuracy of the theories and their track record, seems most likely, or it needs further modification.

There is NO matter needed at all. What´s needed is for astrophysicists and cosmologists to discard the "formative gravity models" and count on the stronger fundamental forces to be the governing part of the Universe.

 

[Native]

I see you still need to hide your embarrassment behind smiles. Maybe, someday...

The last resort in a ridicules debate are SMILEYS

 

[james blunt]

They haven't said I'm incorrect about gravity and light therefore they must actually know I'm correct !

 

[Native]

Scientists don't feel threatened when an internet poster claims, with no supporting evidence, that the ancients knew more than today's science. They just dismiss the guy as another fruitcake.

That´s the most funny - and tragic - part of modern science. In the ancient times, the entire cosmological and human knowledge was just ONE UNIFIED KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING.

Today this knowledge is divided out into several specific branches of "expertise" where the "experts" have a huge knowledge of a little part - and a huge part of ignorance in all the other parts and therefore they fail to see the overall connections.

The modern human has become increasingly stupid compared to our ancestors who perceived everything as going in eternal circles, which is precisely what the numerous ancient cultural Stories of Creation speak about.

Of course you don´t take these tellings as empirical evidence - but then again you too are a modern human.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is NO matter needed at all. What´s needed is for astrophysicists and cosmologists to discard the "formative gravity models" and count on the stronger fundamental forces to be the governing part of the Universe.

Firstly, you are still running away from my question; why are the theories so accurate? Secondly, where is your alternative that can produce the same degree of accuracy and do away with dark matter? Hand waving and waffle can't make accurate, numerical predictions.

 

[ratiocinator]

That´s the most funny - and tragic - part of modern science. In the ancient times, the entire cosmological and human knowledge was just ONE UNIFIED KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING.

Is this a joke?

A lot of "knowledge" in "ancient times" was plain wrong and the rest wasn't refined enough to make use of. You are using the products of modern, specialised, mathematical science to try to spread your ignorance.

 

[Native]

Is this a joke?

A lot of "knowledge" in "ancient times" was plain wrong and the rest wasn't refined enough to make use of. You are using the products of modern, specialised, mathematical science to try to spread your ignorance.

How do you know? Have you studied ancient Myths of Creation?

I´m afraid the joke is on the modern cosmologists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is pure projection from your side and I´m tired of your going in circles accusing other debaters for something which fits very well to your Besserwissen self.

You even don´t understand that I fully understand your arguments, but as the standard model arguments are far out in woods and based on pure speculations ans assumptions which are repeated som much that you and others take these as the truth and the scientific whole truth, then I of course reject your inconsistent arguments.

Once again you are making false claims about me. It is obvious that you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence and worse yet you are afraid to learn.

By the way, if you understood my arguments you would know that you are wrong. It is amazing that you are so willing to make false claims about others, and then when face with the fact that those claims put a burden of proof upon you you run away. Once again you told a falsehood by claiming "speculation". You have yet to show that there has been any speculation at all.

Instead of running away why not try to learn what is and what is not evidence? The fact that you have no clue is demonstrated by the fact that you continually run away from the offer of a discussion. If you actually did know then it would be fairly obvious early on. I am predicting that you run away again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know? Have you studied ancient Myths of Creation?

I´m afraid the joke is on the modern cosmologists.

Have you? You claim that but you have only demonstrated a lack of understanding of those myths.

 

[Native]

Information:

My approach to modern cosmology is primarily based on the concept of Natural Philosophy, which again includes the numerous ancient cultural telling in the Stories of Creation. Of course, I also inform myself of the standing cosmological theories and hypothesis and it´s connected arguments and observations.

It is my firm belief that modern science has lost a lot by leaving the genuine tradition of Natural Philosophy, which in fact for over two millenniums discovered the "smallest part of all", the atom. And long before this took place, ancient cultures all over the world had their Stories of Creation based on the overall cosmological view, which was based on the Cycle of Life and a basic conviction that everything in the Universe is eternally changing between creation, dissolution and re-creation.

That is: The Universe is eternal and cyclical and there is NO beginning and NO end and then of course NO Big Bang.

I write this in an attempt to explain my approach to modern science and I hope fellow debaters to have this approach in mind when we discuss.

 

[Native]

Have you? You claim that but you have only demonstrated a lack of understanding of those myths.

Obviously you think I´m that stupid to ask others of some expertise which I haven´t studied myself.

This just said it all about your self.

 

[Native]

Once again you are making false claims about me. It is obvious that you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence and worse yet you are afraid to learn.

By the way, if you understood my arguments you would know that you are wrong. It is amazing that you are so willing to make false claims about others, and then when face with the fact that those claims put a burden of proof upon you you run away. Once again you told a falsehood by claiming "speculation". You have yet to show that there has been any speculation at all.

Instead of running away why not try to learn what is and what is not evidence? The fact that you have no clue is demonstrated by the fact that you continually run away from the offer of a discussion. If you actually did know then it would be fairly obvious early on. I am predicting that you run away again.

Dear oh dear! Are you just arguing for having an empty arguing going on for ever?

What happened with your concrete evidences of "dark matter". Do you dare to post it or what?