Any Maverick Mathematicians out there?

[Native]

ADDITON TO

Does one mean that Scientific Method has a valid space for and is inclusive of these *The Assumptive Method* and the *Hindsight Bias Method Way*, please?

My commnent:

Well, yes IF and WHEN the method is based on REAL observations, which are confirmed IN ALL astrophysical and cosmological brances, and also are explained dynamically and confirmed by *ALL Fundamental Forces*.

Which cannot be done before Newtons gravitational laws are revised and corrected.

 

[sayak83]

Does one mean that science is like politics where majority of votes are essential not what is truth, please?
Regards

Ultimately the majority vote of experts is considered as true. Science relies on the fact that the majority of the technically trained experts are competent to determine the truth from the available evidence. Difference with politics that only the vote of the experts in that field counts, and not of non experts.

 

[Native]

Ultimately the majority vote of experts is considered as true.

That´s indeed true But as long as a factual *Theory of Everything* isn´t at stage and confirmed by all, they all can be more or less or totally wrong.

 

[Native]

Here´s a real *Maverick Scientist* dealing with *odd properties of a star*.

Remember: Stick firmly to the OP *Maverick Spirit* when replying.

And BTW: Watch the entire video before replying

 

[ratiocinator]

But as long as a factual *Theory of Everything* isn´t at stage and confirmed by all, they all can be more or less or totally wrong.

Science may not have a theory of everything and it may have got things wrong, but that doesn't make the wingnuts you keep on posting from youtube any less clueless and obviously wrong. Neither does it make your favourite nonsense about electric universe any less of a total failure in terms of explaining observations.

 

[Native]

Science may not have a theory of everything and it may have got things wrong, but that doesn't make the wingnuts you keep on posting from youtube any less clueless and obviously wrong. Neither does it make your favourite nonsense about electric universe any less of a total failure in terms of explaining observations.

Remember: Stick firmly to the OP *Maverick Spirit* when replying.

You´re OUT of topic and out of respect too.

 

[ratiocinator]

You´re OUT of topic.

No, you are. Maverick doesn't mean ignorant and obviously wrong.

 

[Native]

. . . . Maverick doesn't mean ignorant and obviously wrong.

I agree in fact in this. The OP contents and in the video above, deals with *gutsy and critical thinking outside the black squared box*, hence Pierre Marie Robitaille, confirm both yours and my ideas of a real *Maverick Scientist*.

 

[ratiocinator]

The OP contents and in the video above, deals with *gutsy and critical thinking outside the black squared box*, hence Pierre Marie Robitaille, confirm both yours and my ideas of a real *Maverick Scientist*.

Having watched your previous videos, which were by people who were ignorant and obviously wrong, why would I bother watching another? Ignorant and obviously wrong is not the same as "gutsy and critical thinking outside the black squared box". When will you learn that youtube is full of nonsense?

 

[Native]

!

You´re out of topic once again and out of respect too once again.

 

[sayak83]

That´s indeed true But as long as a factual *Theory of Everything* isn´t at stage and confirmed by all, they all can be more or less or totally wrong.

Science does not claim it is right and infallible. The current theories are ones that have the best evidence for them. Future theories can replace them when they have better evidence, predictability etc.

 

[Native]

Science does not claim it is right and infallible. The current theories are ones that have the best evidence for them. Future theories can replace them when they have better evidence, predictability etc.

Agreed. This is why scientists needs to ask *Maverick* questions outside the squared boxes and give a daim of whats is the actual dogmas, excample:

Newton´s gravitational laws was made in 1687. His *celestial laws of motion* came on the first test 1932 by the discovery of the orbital motion of stars in galaxies didn´t follow the same pattern as in the Solar System. But what happen?
.
Quotes
Thus Newton's theory violated the first principle of mechanical philosophy, as stated by Descartes, No action at a distance.
Newton violated basic laws!

Conversely, during the 1820s, when explaining magnetism, Michael Faraday inferred a field filling space and transmitting that force. Faraday conjectured that ultimately, all forces unified into one.
Faraday had a Theory of Everything in 1820`s!

In 1873, James Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism as effects of an electromagnetic field whose third consequence was light, travelling at constant speed in a vacuum.

The electromagnetic field theory contradicted predictions of Newton's theory of motion.

We have now 4 indications that Newton´s gravity should and could be questioned and how:
1) His first violation (!?)
2) Faradays theories at hand.
3) Maxwell´s theories at hand.
4) The galactic contradiction

And what happend? *Dark matter* was invented to support the scientist who violated the mechanical philosophy! And it STIIL goes on and on and on, far out in the observable Universe.

Scientists and debaters who held high *the scientific method*, should take off with a close and serious look at the violating *Newtonian Method* and investigate if other natural motions or fundamental forces are at play.

And when one ask serious questions about Newton today in public, all hell breakes loose, much like in the Spanish Inquisition if *God* or the Pope was rejected or questioned in public.

IMO, uncritical cosmological scientists and their followers are unconscious chickens - sometime running around as if their heads were chopped off.

 

[sayak83]

Agreed. This is why scientists needs to ask *Maverick* questions outside the squared boxes and give a daim of whats is the actual dogmas, excample:

Newton´s gravitational laws was made in 1687. His *celestial laws of motion* came on the first test 1932 by the discovery of the orbital motion of stars in galaxies didn´t follow the same pattern as in the Solar System. But what happen?
.
Quotes
Thus Newton's theory violated the first principle of mechanical philosophy, as stated by Descartes, No action at a distance.
Newton violated basic laws!

Conversely, during the 1820s, when explaining magnetism, Michael Faraday inferred a field filling space and transmitting that force. Faraday conjectured that ultimately, all forces unified into one.
Faraday had a Theory of Everything in 1820`s!

In 1873, James Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism as effects of an electromagnetic field whose third consequence was light, travelling at constant speed in a vacuum.

The electromagnetic field theory contradicted predictions of Newton's theory of motion.

We have now 4 indications that Newton´s gravity should and could be questioned and how:
1) His first violation (!?)
2) Faradays theories at hand.
3) Maxwell´s theories at hand.
4) The galactic contradiction

And what happend? *Dark matter* was invented to support the scientist who violated the mechanical philosophy! And it STIIL goes on and on and on, far out in the observable Universe.

Scientists and debaters who held high *the scientific method*, should take off with a close and serious look at the violating *Newtonian Method* and investigate if other natural motions or fundamental forces are at play.

And when one ask serious questions about Newton today in public, all hell breakes loose, much like in the Spanish Inquisition if *God* or the Pope was rejected or questioned in public.

IMO, uncritical cosmological scientists and their followers are unconscious chickens - sometime running around as if their heads were chopped off.

What is your educational background?

 

[Native]

What is your educational background?

I don´t discuss personal matters in this OP.

 

[sayak83]

I don´t discuss personal matters in this OP.

If we are discussing the competence of science, it is important to know what your training in science is.

 

[Native]

If we are discussing the competence of science, it is important to know what your training in science is.

If I should give grade standing educated astrophysical and cosmological persons after their higher levels of education, I´m afraid most of them will fail to pass.

I don´t claim this because I think students are stupid, but it is the lectures they learn in modern cosmology, which is stupid.

I´m an independent researcher and not affected by any scientific dogmas - or religious dogmas for that matter.

If you like to inform me of your education, that`s fine by me, as I simply replies accordingly to the *Maverick out-of-the-box thinking skills* in this OP.

 

[sayak83]

If I should give grade standing educated astrophysical and cosmological persons after their higher levels of education, I´m afraid most of them will fail to pass.

I don´t claim this because I think students are stupid, but it is the lectures they learn in modern cosmology, which is stupid.

I´m an independent researcher and not affected by any scientific dogmas - or religious dogmas for that matter.

If you like to inform me of your education, that`s fine by me, as I simply replies accordingly to the *Maverick out-of-the-box thinking skills* in this OP.

What makes you competent in science so that you can distinguish what is good science and what is not? Only an expert jeweller can distinguish between diamond and a good imitation. So too for art etc. Do you have recognized expertise? If not, do you at least have a reasonable general knowledge in sciences by some other means. Have you taken online courses etc? Otherwise, why would your opinion regarding science matter to anyone ?

 

[Native]

What makes you competent in science so that you can distinguish what is good science and what is not? Only an expert jeweller can distinguish between diamond and a good imitation. So too for art etc. Do you have recognized expertise? If not, do you at least have a reasonable general knowledge in sciences by some other means. Have you taken online courses etc? Otherwise, why would your opinion regarding science matter to anyone ?

If you can´t make the logical deductions of my skills from the contents and contexts in my replies here and otherwhere, I then really don´t care.

You see? I´m trying to have your focus AWAY from the autoritative *personal educational system* in Universities, TOWARDS a free and independent and intuitive way of self-education.

That´s what a gutsy OP *Maverick Researcher* does.

 

[sayak83]

If you can´t make the logical deductions of my skills from the contents and contexts in my replies here and otherwhere, I then really don´t care.

You see? I´m trying to have your focus AWAY from the autoritative *personal educational system* in Universities, TOWARDS a free and independent and intuitive way of self-education.

That´s what a gutsy OP *Maverick Researcher* does.

My inferences regarding your skills in science based on your posts is not positive I am afraid.

 

[Native]

My inferences regarding your skills in science based on your posts is not positive I am afraid.

I know and it´s logically too if you´re judging my contents out from the consensus dogmas.
IT`S ALL LOGICS