Galactic Telescope Interpretations

[Native]

Abstract: Of course, the standing cosmological science interpret the cosmological observations according to the standing consensus. But as all telescopic images are still images, it is difficult for the scientists to discern what forces cause the motion of these imageries.

Gareth Samuel, owner of the YouTube channel, "See The Pattern", present some of these problems and their solutions in this video:

I´ve for a long time claimed stars and dwarf galaxies to have been ejected from galactic centers, and this is anyway confirmed in this video content.

IMO, the standing cosmological ideas needs a serious changes of paradigms. What are your sayings about the video content?

 

[icehorse]

Cool video, thanks.

Around 3:45 we're shown a simulation (extremely sped up). As computers get faster and faster, cosmologists' ability to do simulations will improve.

I suspect that what simulations will show us is that there is no one right answer to questions like the one you're posing. Instead, in the complex soup of the universe, we'll see any number of different cosmological dances.

 

[PureX]

Put a bunch of dots in front of a human, and he will see patterns in them.

 

[Native]

I suspect that what simulations will show us is that there is no one right answer to questions like the one you're posing. Instead, in the complex soup of the universe, we'll see any number of different cosmological dances.

Hi Ishorse,
Generally I agree in this. When I pointed out this:

I´ve for a long time claimed stars and dwarf galaxies to have been ejected from galactic centers, and this is anyway confirmed in this video content.

I also were aware that the opposite motion in galaxies are natural too as IMO everything goes in formative circles and circuits of inwards and outwards motions.

 

[Native]

Put a bunch of dots in front of a human, and he will see patterns in them.

Yes, a 9 folded HURRAH for the human imagination

 

[Polymath257]

What are your sayings about the video content?

Speculations lacking in evidence and, in fact, contradicted by the evidence. Like most of the Thunderbolt tripe.

 

[Native]

Speculations lacking in evidence and, in fact, contradicted by the evidence. Like most of the Thunderbolt tripe.

If you cannot comprehend the cosmological implications, just hold onto your math and ordinary technical physics.

 

[ecco]

Gareth Samuel, owner of the YouTube channel, "See The Pattern", present some of these problems and their solutions in this video:

Your thread title says it all:
Galactic Telescope Interpretations

Interpretations! Some people interpret Genesis to be the word of God. Some people interpret the lines in one's palm or the bumps on his head. Some people interpret the meaning of tea leaves.

 

[Native]

Your thread title says it all:
Galactic Telescope Interpretations

And what did the video content say?

 

[gnostic]

Once again, you present another video from Gareth Samuel, who proposition his personal opinions and interpretations on cosmology that have little in substances.

Making videos with a whole bunch of computer simulations are just that “simulations”, they are not evidence.

It is the same things when you post up Robitaille’s video, with very zero evidence to support his claims and interpretations.

It is same tactics that all conspiracy theorists and woo advocates used, using made up computer simulations as if they were evidence, when they are not.

For instance, Michael Behe have no verifiable evidence and verifiable data, to support Intelligent Design and his own Irreducible Complexity, so he make up computer simulations that support his concepts.

Computer simulations only work if you can support with actual evidence and actual data.

But any unscrupulous computer programmers can dazzle people with animation that have fictional data, just like novelists can write works of fiction.

Why do you think Behe can never publish his papers on scientific journals on Irreducible Complexity?

It is because biologists and biochemists know that computer simulations alone, don’t constitute as scientific evidence and as verifiable data.

Behe know that no Peer Review will publish his flimsy assumptions, so he write books (eg Darwin’s Black Box) through non-scientific publishers that don’t do peer review.

Anyway, @ecco is right, Samuel is just interpreting. He is not providing any evidence to support his interpretations, and computer simulations in some YouTube videos are not evidence.

 

[Native]

Once again, you present another video from Gareth Samuel, who proposition his personal opinions and interpretations on cosmology that have little in substances.

At least Gareth Samuel dares to think for himself, which cannot be said about you. All you can do is to parrot lots of consensus dogmas which are on the brink of what one can learn from a religious cult leader.

 

[gnostic]

At least Gareth Samuel dares to think for himself, which cannot be said about you. All you can do is to parrot lots of consensus dogmas which are on the brink of what one can learn from a religious cult leader.

Thinking for yourself don’t make it “science” or correct in their thinking or interpretations, Native.

People are humans and they make mistake, can be misled, and can be false.

And that’s why science required to verify their concepts with testable observations, evidence and data.

Mere logic, reasoning or intuitive thinking are not themselves evidence of anything, until they can be verified and tested.

Without the evidence it is merely a subjective assumption, merely speculation, merely a personal opinion.

Samuel’s video is nothing more than interpretations, not evidence of anything.

 

[ecco]

Your thread title says it all:
Galactic Telescope Interpretations

Interpretations! Some people interpret Genesis to be the word of God. Some people interpret the lines in one's palm or the bumps on his head. Some people interpret the meaning of tea leaves.

And what did the video content say?

I have no idea. Why would I bother watching a video linked by you?

I´ve for a long time claimed stars and dwarf galaxies to have been ejected from galactic centers, and this is anyway confirmed in this video content.

You've made many claims over the years and have failed to substantiate any of them. Do you really think a video put together by Electric Universe carries any weight?

 

[Native]

Thinking for yourself don’t make it “science” . . .

By this your self image description, you´ve just dismissed all former philosophers and scientists who made new discoveries by thinking outside the consensus squared box.

You simply don´t know what you´re criticizing!

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
And what did the video content say?

I have no idea. Why would I bother watching a video linked by you?

So you don´t know what you´re talking about at all.

You've made many claims over the years and have failed to substantiate any of them. Do you really think a video put together by Electric Universe carries any weight?

And you´ve most likely also just ignored these claims - so again you don´t know what you´re talking about.

 

[Native]

Subject: "Cultivating a gaping intellectual blind spot".

In this video, Michael Strevens argues that science came about only once thinkers stumbled upon the idea that scientific breakthroughs could be accomplished by breaking the rules of logical argument.

Video title: "How Irrationality Created Modern Science" - With Michael Strewens.

“Leaping from Aristotle to Descartes to quarks and gravitational waves, Michael Strevens will show that much of science’s power derives from an epistemic limitation that can only be understood as irrational.

The paradigmatic scientist is a paradigmatic reasoner in many ways, but in at least one way, their perfection as a scientist lies in the deliberate cultivation of a gaping intellectual blind spot”.
-------------------
Which logically requires thinking alternately outside the consensus squared black boxes. Which some debaters here cannot grasp.

As soon as an alternate idea is posted, they all go bananas because such alternate content requires an open minded and independent rethinking, which apparently aren´t their strongest qualities.

 

[night912]

At least Gareth Samuel dares to think for himself, which cannot be said about you. All you can do is to parrot lots of consensus dogmas which are on the brink of what one can learn from a religious cult leader.

Thinking for yourself don’t make it “science” or correct in their thinking or interpretations, Native.

By this your self image description, you´ve just dismissed all former philosophers and scientists who made new discoveries by thinking outside the consensus squared box.

You simply don´t know what you´re criticizing!

By this your self image description, you´ve just dismissed all former philosophers and scientists who made new discoveries by thinking outside the consensus squared box.

You simply don´t know what you´re criticizing because you literally told yourself to not listen to Gareth Samuel and simply to think for yourself.

 

[ecco]

By this your self image description, you´ve just dismissed all former philosophers and scientists who made new discoveries by thinking outside the consensus squared box.

You simply don´t know what you´re criticizing!

Philosophers don't add much to science.

Scientists who thought they made discoveries worked hard to get evidence that their theories and concepts were correct. They did a lot more than make speculative interpretations.

You and your sources have shown no evidence for anything. So, yes. I do know what I'm criticizing.

So you don´t know what you´re talking about at all.

See above.

And you´ve most likely also just ignored these claims - so again you don´t know what you´re talking about.

It's sorta like claims for ghosts. When I was young I was intrigued. I did some research. I found nothing to substantiate ghosts. Now when someone makes claims about ghosts, I do ignore them.

Likewise with the claims you have made over the years about EMF and "knowledge of the ancients". I looked into them back then. Now I don't have to do a lot of digging to see it is just more of the same.

 

[ecco]

In this video, Michael Strevens argues that science came about only once thinkers stumbled upon the idea that scientific breakthroughs could be accomplished by breaking the rules of logical argument.

Video title: "How Irrationality Created Modern Science" - With Michael Strewens.

I can't see myself watching an hour-long video of a philosopher pontificating on his views of anything. The beauty of being a philosopher rather than a scientist is that when the philosopher says ABC, he is done. When a scientist says ABC, his work is just beginning, he has to justify ABC with evidence.

Consider...

Hubble did not look at the sky because he wanted to break any rules of the logic of a static universe. He was looking at redshifts and concluded that the universe was expanding. He followed up with more research and proved his theory.

Darwin did not set out to prove Genesis was wrong. He made observations and came to conclusions. Then he did the research to substantiate his conclusions.

Ostensibly, you have viewed the video. So, tell us, how did Irrationality Create Modern Science.

 

[Native]

Philosophers don't add much to science.
Scientists who thought they made discoveries worked hard to get evidence that their theories and concepts were correct. They did a lot more than make speculative interpretations.
You and your sources have shown no evidence for anything. So, yes. I do know what I'm criticizing.

NO you don´t as even Isaac Newton called himself a Natural Philosopher.

I can't see myself watching an hour-long video of a philosopher pontificating on his views of anything. The beauty of being a philosopher rather than a scientist is that when the philosopher says ABC, he is done. When a scientist says ABC, his work is just beginning, he has to justify ABC with evidence.

Then what on Earth are you then doing in this thread?

You don´t watch a posted video, hence you´re simply just criticizing the very alternate approach itself - which is scientific ignorance.

I don´t care about your Hubble and Darvin references as long as you ignore my posts.