Posted by: graemebird | June 30, 2008

The Importance Of Standing Up To The Physics Con-Game

Small children are being taught all sort of fantastical and ridiculous stuff not knowing that there is no basis for it. The arguments of the priesthood are all circular when it comes to high physics. And they cannot justify their models independently, without referring back to these models. Now obviously any attempt to justify a model with reference to itself is simply circular reasoning and therefore fallacious argumentation.

Look at the list of matters that are unjustifiable, yet holy writ in physics:

1. Can anyone justify the idea that the Universe was created OUT OF NOTHING AT ALL 13.5 billion years ago?

2. Can anyone show that the idea of a background temperature of 3 degrees in space is simply not the heat generated from stars? Surely everyone can see that to sheet this temperature off to A REMNANT OF THE BIG BANG is a pathetic clutching of straws.

3. Has anyone seen any evidence whatsoever for there being more than 3 dimensions?

4. Does anyone know of any justification whatsoever for the concept of the SINGULARITY?

5. Does anyone have any evidence whatsoever for as idiotic an idea as “space-time”. An entitiy that doesn’t know whether it be space or time.

6. For that matter do we have evidence, any at all, for time itself, as anything but a derivative concept?

7. Has anyone found any evidence for the blatant contradiction of space that stretches or compresses?

8.  Can anyone justify the concept of the “wormhole” that small children and big physicists are always talking about.

9. Can anyone justify the dogma that gravity only propagates at the speed of light? Whereas in reality all our orbits would have unwound were that the case and obviously so?

 10. The light-speed limit. So far no-one has come up with evidence for a speed limit that nothing can move faster than. This limit is in fact broken all the time. Obviously gravity moves far faster than this. But the fact of the matter is that there was never any evidence for this limit in the first place.

11. Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Can anybody even portray these idiotic ideas as anything more than a pathetic excuse for the theories not working. Imagine going that far into the excuse-making limbo? You gravitational theories and your observational theories are clearly wrong and are proved wrong. Do you admit it? No of course not. You just invent excuses like Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

12. The idea that astronomers have a good handle on how far distant objects are away from them. Where is there evidence that when they look at objects that they reckon are 12 billion light-years away… Just how good is their evidence that they are indeed that far away.

13. How about this idea that the universe is not only expanding. But accelerating in its expansion. How good is the evidence for this last bit of hocus pocus?

14. Experiments involving quantum entanglement: Has anyone got any evidence whatsoever that these experiments aren’t merely airtight examples of evidence for faster than light interaction between particles?

15. Last and Least. The most stupid of them all. The notion of INFLATION in the mathematicians creation theory. When the universe expands out of a “singularity” (a creature that does not exist and never could) at trillions of times fast than the speed of light until the Universe is half its current size and mysteriously this inflation slows right down but continues at a lesser pace but is now acceleration.

Now I’m not knocking these ideas because they are A LITTLE BIT STUPID. They are just fucking moronic. How could we have been taken in by these maths-nerds? These are the stupidest ideas imagineable.

But part of the problem is that this full corpus of ideas has been generated by BUILDING ON EARLIER MISTAKES. Hence the situation has only grown worse and worse until now. And now we can see, without controversy amongst reasonable men, that the situation has deteriorated into utter idiocy. And perhaps it was inevitable that it had to get this far, with mistakes mutiplying on mistakes until the whole corpus was reduced to absurdity. Perhaps it had to go that far before any reasonable man could survey the scene and see that the socialist science had spun out of the realm of all seriousness.

Its just one more racket that we have to put an end to. The relentless lying of high physics.

Once more we have a very restrictive thread. Flippant posts will be wiped. But also posts that seek to put the burden of proof on the challenger, or posts that pretend that a model can be justified by reference to itself….. these will be wiped.

You don’t have to come on under another name. But my advice is that you do so. Since on Catallaxy you have all shown (Cato alone excepted) that you are mindless sycophants the minute some emaciated mathematician enters the room, either walking or on a wheelchair.

Jason Soon is calling Edney for the task. This is terminal stupidity on Jasons part. Since he knows that Edney has NEVER ONCE come up with any justification for any of these lies. And that all Edneys attempts to do so were circular reasoning. Were attempts to justify the model in terms of the model.

Just shows the retarded state of epistemology in Australian halls of learning.

THIS THREAD IS NOT UNRELATED TO THE LAST THREAD FOR TWO REASONS.

I. People used to wallowing in no-evidence garbage out of pure faith are likely to reject really good evidence when they see it. So that whilst these people, who cannot think for themselves are incredulous in the face of any pimply near-autistic maths-kid who lays on them the most ridiculous speculations…. nonetheless they won’t accept the evidence of their eyes when it comes to the Mars pictures. And acutally these two mental deficiencies are really just two sides of the same coin.

2. People intuitively reject the stunning evidence of the Mars photo. Since it doesn’t accord with their implicit view of the universe and of futuristic scenarios. But if it is the case that the universe is far older than what we’ve been led to believe. And the distant galaxies aren’t quite so distant. If planets are blowing up all the time and if panspermia works. If civilisations have a hard time getting too far past our level and can easily fall back. If technology cannot be divorced from capital accumulation, and capital accumulation cannot be divorced from a planetary economy……. Well if this alternative mindset is the one you are travelling with then you are far more likely to take the Mars photos at face value.

Or if you are honest and take the Mars photos at face value maybe you will get round to thinking some of this other stuff through. Because there is no question we have been sold a lot of unscientific rubbish.

Now you may need some guidance. So here’s a thread elsewhere on the ether where some fellow calling himself GMB has made much the same argument as I:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/messagetopic.asp?p=8774019

Just in passing a grave insult was made by a snotty little leftist not that long ago.

 

Liam (Bring Me The Head Of Böhm-Bawerk) said:”

If you see Liam a very severe price must be paid for this grave insult. No death, head or spinal injuries or permanent facial scars. But he must be made to pay with at least some bruising to the shins.

 

Advertisements

Responses

  1. ………………Once more we have a very restrictive thread. Flippant posts will be wiped. But also posts that seek to put the burden of proof on the challenger, or posts that pretend that a model can be justified by reference to itself….. these will be wiped…………….

    Does this mean you only want people to post here who agree with you?

  2. No of course it doesn’t. Don’t be a dishonest idiot.

    If they can make a case of it without the circular reasoning of justifying a model by reference to itself than of course I’d be VERY interested in what they have to say.

    These are really dumb and baseless ideas we are looking at here. And if anyone can make them seem less stupid without simply throwing the burden of proof onto the challenger than I sure as hell want to hear the fellow out.

  3. Your chosen name leads me to make this remark. Here is the real problem with us tolerating this maths-mysticism unscience and lies.

    While you believe the no-evidence nonsense of the above without question when actual evidence comes along, for example the remnants of industrial infrastructure on Mars, you are totally unmoved by it.

    So part of getting people to accept actual evidence when they see it, is to not allow any no-evidence frauds to be standing there in the place of real science.

  4. No you are lying. I delete comments exactly in accordance to what I’ve said above. So stop lying. B.O.M.

    No lies on this forum fella. Do it on Catallaxy. Its actively encouraged there.

  5. “Can Graeme Bird justify why the idea that the universe just was and has been all along is preferable to it being created out of nothing?”

    No good. We already said we weren’t having posts that simply put the burden of proof on the challenger. We wanted an explanation for their bullshit, lies, and passing off incredible fantasies as the gospel truth. We didn’t want people to sit back and merely arbitrarily decide that the stupid set were right and the challenger had to jump over an enourmously high bar in order even to so much as beg for evidence for the stupid side of the argument.

    Try again. So far no cunts come up with anything. Which just shows I’m right to point out all this stuff is totally baseless.

  6. […] sort of fantastical and ridiculous stuff not knowing that there is little basis for it. The argumehttps://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/the-importance-of-standing-up-to-the-physics-con-game/Dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com/Windfall-Profit NonsenseIs a &quotwindfall-profits […]

  7. Mr Bird I am no physicist like you but do you think that the universe is in some sense static? While I agree with you that this Big-bang creationism is tosh, I am perplexed about why the thing does not collapse under gravity.

    I believe Hoyle and others had an explaination for this but it involved creating matter which hardly seems much better.

    What do you think is going on and why don’t we all get squashed down as the whole thing compacts undergravity?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: