Galactic Telescope Interpretations

[ecco]

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

Issac Newton is considered a philosopher and a scientist.

Newton, the scientist, is responsible for his laws of motion. He wrote about them in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.

What you fail to understand is that, in Newton's time, and for centuries before, the terms science and philosophy were almost interchangeable.

Two hundred years later, that was no longer the case. Darwin did not write about the Philosophy of the Origin of the Species. Einstein did not publish the Philosophy of the Equivalence of Energy and Matter.

Are your concepts about EM and gravity philosophical or scientific?

 

[ecco]

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.

The points in my Hubble and Darwin references were my thoughts written by me and could be read in in one minute.

Your linked video is not produced by you, contains nothing of your original thoughts, and takes 55 minutes to watch.

Do you really want to equate the two? I remain "ignorant" of the "science" of your views because you haven't presented any science. Posting an hour-long video is not very persuasive. Also, I don't think I'm alone. I don't recall anyone else posting what they thought of your video. That probably means no one else has bothered to watch it either.

 

[gnostic]

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

Tthe Natural Philosophy of the Renaissance to the late 19th century isn’t the problem, it is the 20th and 21st centuries philosophies, especially Metaphysics.

Metaphysics have been diluted into over-complicated sophistry; it is more talk than action.

Isaac Newton’s physics and mathematics in classical mechanics were excellent FOR HIS TIME...his mechanics were so much wrong as they were incomplete.

Albert Einstein took the classical mechanics to the next level. In the future, someone else will extend Einstein’s work even further.

I have no problems with Natural Philosophy, I do have problems with modern Metaphysics.

Natural Philosophy is only good, IF it can be verified by observations, evidence or experiments, then and only then, does the specific study/research is considered science. And it is good if there are applications.

I know that you hate everything to do with gravity, but Newton’s theory still have applications today, in engineering, in studies of the Solar System and space flight.

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

And you don’t seem to be able to grasp no philosophies or any alternative concepts are not science, until they are TESTED, and have been VERIFIED by OBSERVATIONS and EVIDENCE.

Without evidence, any out-of-box ideas are not science, they are merely speculative opinions.

At least, with Hubble and Darwin, their discoveries and concepts are supported by the evidence, the same can not be said with the OP’s video by Gareth Samuel, which is all talk, and no substances.

If Samuel want to offer something new, then needs to present evidence and data that are testable and can be verified by the peers, not some flashy special effects and phony computer simulations in his videos.

Only people who are naïve think that some fabricated computer simulations are scientific evidence for his claims.

So I don’t care about Samuel’s unsubstantiated video.

PS, I had started this reply after lunch. Left it unfinished until now.

 

[Native]

What you fail to understand is that, in Newton's time, and for centuries before, the terms science and philosophy were almost interchangeable.

Thath´s exactly what I´ ve claimed all throughout my writings, so pack your strawman away.

Two hundred years later, that was no longer the case. Darwin did not write about the Philosophy of the Origin of the Species. Einstein did not publish the Philosophy of the Equivalence of Energy and Matter.

Their thoughts were/are STILL philosophical and some of them aren't taken for granted.

BTW: The superstitious Newton also predicted the end of the world in 2060 . . .

Are your concepts about EM and gravity philosophical or scientific?

I don´t differ between these concepts at all.

 

[Native]

Your linked video is not produced by you, contains nothing of your original thoughts, and takes 55 minutes to watch.

I didn´t claim that did I?.

Posting an hour-long video is not very persuasive. Also, I don't think I'm alone. I don't recall anyone else posting what they thought of your video. That probably means no one else has bothered to watch it either.

The problem is that some debaters reject a video content without even listening to it.

If you´ve done, you would have known that it concerns the problematics of finding rational solutions to irrational problems in standing science.

By ignoring the video content, you´ve just added yet another irrational problem to all the other problems - beside your guesswork's discussion which hasn´t anything to do with the video content.

 

[Native]

I have no problems with Natural Philosophy, I do have problems with modern Metaphysics.

What then about the 350 year old Newtonian metaphysical problem of predicting the end of the world in 2060?

And what about the "metaphysical occult gravity agency" Newton was accused of inserting by his own time?

Natural Philosophy is only good, IF it can be verified by observations, evidence or experiments, then and only then, does the specific study/research is considered science. And it is good if there are applications.

Yes, but your problem is that you don´t grasp that PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS comes before everything else if science shall develop to more understanding.

The posted Samuel Gareth video deals with such new thoughts - and all you do is rejecting the video even without watching it.

In fact, you´re constantly criticizing when something new is posted by somebody who thinks outside the scientific squared boxes. So I just take it in general that you just don´t like anything which requires new and independent thinking and revising of old scientific dogmas.

Only people who are naïve think that some fabricated computer simulations are scientific evidence for his claims.

What then about thousands of PC animations of for instants "consensus black holes"?

So I don’t care about Samuel’s unsubstantiated video.

How can you know of anything of its substantiations at all when you haven't watched the video?

IMO it´s your genuine cosmological interest of new ideas which is unsubstantiated in general.

 

[gnostic]

The posted Samuel Gareth video deals with such new thoughts - and all you do is rejecting the video even without watching it.

I did watch the stupid video..all of it.

Man, you got a lot of nerve to tell me I didn’t watch it...and watching do means listening to it too.

I don’t reject something because something is “new”, I rejected because most of what I had to listen have nothing to do with actual science. I would prefer videos with more substances, with actual data, and less flashes.

You keep telling me I don’t I have independent thoughts, but me analyzing what he had to say and disagreeing with the pretentious video is me exercising my independent thoughts.

Do I not have the right to disagree with video? You sounds like a fascist and dictator, telling me I cannot disagree with a video?

Quite frankly, right now, I’d prefer to put up Samuel’s video, then read your prattle about accepting something new for the sake of it being “new”.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
The posted Samuel Gareth video deals with such new thoughts - and all you do is rejecting the video even without watching it.

I did watch the stupid video..all of it.

OK, lets say you did, then.

But your reactions don´t tell anything at all of WHY you don´t like "the stupid video". You have NO factual arguments or explanations WHY at all.

You "just don´t like the stupid video"! (A simple EMOTIONAL expression!)

This makes me believe that you either:
(A. Didn´t watch it at all).
B. Didn´t try to understand its cosmological comparison content.
C. Just ignored the content because it proposed alternate explanations.
D. Simply ignored the alternate content because this is what consensus believers and scientists do per automatics when meeting new approaches and opposing arguments.
E. Just follows the, excuse my French, "consensus mob", without having any independent analytic process to the presented subject in the video.
F: Simply rejects my posts because of your personal biases.

Do I not have the right to disagree with video?

Of course you have. But you never tell WHY and to which video subjects you don´t agree. You´re frequently just expressing your negotiations without having factual arguments to post - which is why you are SO boring.

You just "don´t like the stupid video", which is your standing comment to all alternate videos with new approaches to cosmological problems.

You sounds like a fascist and dictator,

If I were you, I rather would be seriously more concerned with what the standing consensus dogmas is dictating you to think inside the cosmological narrow squared black boxes so that you can get yourself out of your selfmade intellectual jail.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.” - Don Marquis

 

[Native]

Subject "Cosmological Crisis and Paradigm Shift".

Quite frankly, right now, I’d prefer to put up Samuel’s video, then read your prattle about accepting something new for the sake of it being “new”.

Apropos "something new":

Listen to this video:

Abstract:
"For over 100 years the cosmological story has been the story of the Big Bang, gravity and relativity. Although, what if that story is wrong and a new cosmological story is emerging? How might a change in the cosmological narrative impact society and contemporary culture? There is a growing awareness that the standard model of cosmology is in crisis. Writer, poet, and social critic Ghada Chehade has broadened her focus to analyze how changes in science and cosmology impact culture. Ghada holds a PhD in Discourse Analysis and her doctoral research won Best Dissertation from the Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing".

So Gnostic, what do your intellectual analytics get out of this video content?

 

[gnostic]

OK, lets say you did, then.

But your reactions don´t tell anything at all of WHY you don´t like "the stupid video". You have NO factual arguments or explanations WHY at all.

I have told you why repeatedly. Samuel’s video has little in substance, as in no data...and if it has no data, then there are no evidence.

It is not up to me to provide the evidence and data, Native, because I am not the one presenting this “new idea”, he is...so the burden of proof lies with him.

Have you ever study science at all?

You do understand the concepts of scientific method and peer review?

If Samuel is the one who wrote the hypothesis, then he should be the test the hypothesis, and the tests should provide evidence and data, to be analyzed. That’s what Scientific Method is.

If his testings were successful, then he can present his hypothesis ALONG WITH THE DATA OF THE EVIDENCE, for independent scientists in the same or related field - in this case astrophysicists - to review his hypothesis and data (evidence).

Gareth Samuel presented no data, just his claims and his no-substance special effects.

If you are so easily wowed by his flashy video, then you are naïve, who have no understanding of Scientific Method, and the needs for scientific evidence.

 

[Native]

I have told you why repeatedly. Samuel’s video has little in substance, as in no data...and if it has no data, then there are no evidence.

You must be kidding! Most of the data in his videos refers to consensus ideas which Samuel Gareth analyse logically and give his alternate comments, but obviously you even didn´t grasped his critical comparisons.

It is not up to me to provide the evidence and data, Native, because I am not the one presenting this “new idea”, he is...so the burden of proof lies with him.

Again: But obviously you even didn´t grasped his critical comparisons.

Have you ever study science at all?

I understand your question very well: You have deposited all your beliefs in scientific consensus dogmas, hence you´re only believing in university authorities - and give a dam for those who have independent thoughts of what´s goin on in modern cosmology.

And then you post your usual theoretical parroting about scientific method and bla bla - without even thinking of if your science obey their own rules.

You do understand the concepts of scientific method and peer review?

If Samuel is the one who wrote the hypothesis, then he should be the test the hypothesis, and the tests should provide evidence and data, to be analyzed. That’s what Scientific Method is.
If his testings were successful, then he can present his hypothesis ALONG WITH THE DATA OF THE EVIDENCE, for independent scientists in the same or related field - in this case astrophysicists - to review his hypothesis and data (evidence).
Gareth Samuel presented no data, just his claims and his no-substance special effects.
If you are so easily wowed by his flashy video, then you are naïve, who have no understanding of Scientific Method, and the needs for scientific evidence.

You´re simply referring to your theoretical claims because you (of course) failed to understand Samuel Gareth´s most simple points.

As usual, one cannot expect any factual substance and logical arguments from you. You´re an excellent theoretical theorist and copy-paster, but that's all IMO.

 

[night912]

I understand your question very well: You have deposited all your beliefs in scientific consensus dogmas, hence you´re only believing in university authorities - and give a dam for those who have independent thoughts of what´s goin on in modern cosmology.

Hahahaha!!!
When defeated by logic and rational reasoning, blame scientific dogma as usual.

 

[Native]

Hahahaha!!!
When defeated by logic and rational reasoning, blame scientific dogma as usual.

Not at all. Most of the scientific cosmological dogmas defeat themselves by having no logics at all.

 

[night912]

Not at all. Most of the scientific cosmological dogmas defeat themselves by having no logics at all.

And I said, when defeated by logic and rational reasoning, blame scientific dogma as usual.

 

[gnostic]

You´re simply referring to your theoretical claims because you (of course) failed to understand Samuel Gareth´s most simple points.

Thank you, Native.

I am glad that you brought up, “theoretical” in your reply.

A theoretical model is usually accompanied with mathematical models (equations, metrics, constants) as part of the theoretical explanation.

As examples, when Einstein started to formulate Special Relativity in 1905, his concept included a number of equations, including his famous mass-energy equivalence equation (E= m c^2), so his model was theoretical-based model, not an experimental one, like the usual falsifiable hypothesis.

Several different types of experiments were carried out in the next few decades that verified Special Relativity, so it may have started out as a theoretical model, it then became a tested model, and elevated it to as scientific theory. For instance, 1938’s Ives-Stilwell experiment verified Relativity’s time dilation.

The same thing occurred with Einstein’s General Relativity in 1915, where it started as theoretical concept that included a number of equations, eg Einstein’s Field Equations. Again, a number of experiments would go on to test General Relativity.

I didn’t see any math in Samuel’s video, just as I didn’t see any data presented.

So not only Samuel’s claims aren’t “scientific”, it is also isn’t “theoretical”.

You are clueless as to what theoretical mean, just as you are clueless about what it take, to turn a model into science.

 

[Native]

And I said, when defeated by logic and rational reasoning, blame scientific dogma as usual.

Modern cosmological dogmas of unknown matter fills about 96 % of the observable Universe so there is only the 4 % logical matters left of logic and reasoning to brag about.

 

[Native]

Thank you, Native.

I am glad that you brought up, “theoretical” in your reply.

A theoretical model is usually accompanied with mathematical models (equations, metrics, constants) as part of the theoretical explanation.

As examples, when Einstein started to formulate Special Relativity in 1905, his concept included a number of equations, including his famous mass-energy equivalence equation (E= m c^2), so his model was theoretical-based model, not an experimental one, like the usual falsifiable hypothesis.

Several different types of experiments were carried out in the next few decades that verified Special Relativity, so it may have started out as a theoretical model, it then became a tested model, and elevated it to as scientific theory. For instance, 1938’s Ives-Stilwell experiment verified Relativity’s time dilation.

The same thing occurred with Einstein’s General Relativity in 1915, where it started as theoretical concept that included a number of equations, eg Einstein’s Field Equations. Again, a number of experiments would go on to test General Relativity.

I didn’t see any math in Samuel’s video, just as I didn’t see any data presented.

So not only Samuel’s claims aren’t “scientific”, it is also isn’t “theoretical”.

You are clueless as to what theoretical mean, just as you are clueless about what it take, to turn a model into science.

I said earlier that:
And then you post your usual theoretical parroting about scientific method and bla bla - without even thinking of if your science obey their own rules.
And:
You´re an excellent theoretical theorist and copy-paster, but that's all IMO.

 

[ecco]

What you fail to understand is that, in Newton's time, and for centuries before, the terms science and philosophy were almost interchangeable.

Thath´s exactly what I´ ve claimed all throughout my writings, so pack your strawman away.

Most people, today, know the difference between science and philosophy. Your posts tell us that you still believe they are one and the same.

Two hundred years later, that was no longer the case. Darwin did not write about the Philosophy of the Origin of the Species. Einstein did not publish the Philosophy of the Equivalence of Energy and Matter.

Their thoughts were/are STILL philosophical and some of them aren't taken for granted.

Nonsense. But, perhaps I'm wrong. Please show a philosophical paper negating Einstein's work.

Are your concepts about EM and gravity philosophical or scientific?

I don´t differ between these concepts at all.

Yes. We know. That is precisely why your EM ideas and concepts are just ideas and concepts and not worthy of very much scientific scrutiny. Actually, they don't get much attention from philosophers either, do they. I wonder why. Perhaps for the same reason that scientists don't evaluate ghost sightings and philosophers could care less about them.

 

[ecco]

I didn´t claim that did I?.

The problem is that some debaters reject a video content without even listening to it.

You claimed nothing much about your video. That's why I seriously doubt anyone bothered to watch it. Would you watch a 55-minute video entitled "The truth about bigfoot" if someone just posted it without any supporting commentary? If so, you have a lot more time to waste than the rest of us.

 

[ecco]

There is a growing awareness that the standard model of cosmology is in crisis.

That really sounds exactly like the Creationists: There is a growing awareness that the standard model of Evolution is in crisis.

Both have an equal amount of truth - none.