Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

October 5, 2004

Volker Hetzer wrote:

on faith as you admit below.


Yes, I have faith that if I repeat observations previously performed, I
will get something in the way of evidence from them, and if I make
predictions based upon theory based upon evidence, observational and
otherwise, I will produce further evidence. Science and faith are not
incompatible,


So, in what way does your "faith" change the outcome of your observations?

It allows me to design better experiments.
Can you give an example?

Sure, when confronted with an obviously crackpot claim, I have faith in my ability to identify a crackpot claim, and I can have faith
in the outcome of any experiment attempting to verify the crackpot claim, so thus I don't have to bother performing any experiments to
verify the claims of the crackpot, and I don't have to waste my valuable time with crackpots.

Ok, the scientific method evolves. Yes. Now, can you show that
introducing faith improves the method?

I allows me to greatly speed up the process, because I don't have to
verify every observation ever made,
Who said you have to?

Crackpots like you.

and I don't have to necessarily make
observations where I have faith in the outcome,
You work unreliably.

Sure, I am ignoring unreliable crackpot results.

and I can focus on
producing useful results.
You introdice the subjective notion of "usefulness" which has nothing
to do with correctness.

Ok, crackpots are incorrect and useless, so what.

On the other hand, I have great confidence,
faith, really, that if I construct the devices to enable me to observe
things or perform things that I can't yet observe, but know must exist
or be possible based upon the totality of evidence in all it's myriad of
forms, then I won't be wasting my time.
So, if a normal scientist constructs them without any faith, simply in order
to find out whether something's there, what's the difference?

Do these normal scientists waste their time verifying the claims of crackpots?

In this regard, the skeptics are
almost always demonstrated to be wrong in the end.
How much is "almost always"? So far no dowsers, faith healers and
mediums have passed any sort of verifiable test that didn't give an
opportunity to cheat.

Thus they are crackpots, I and don't have to waste *MY* time considering their claims.

Like, by demonstrating
that with your addition one can derive better theories (less complex,
more explanatory and/or predictive power)?

I just did that.
Well, no. You just said that you would deliver shoddy work derived
cheaper or faster than a scientist's work.

In regards to crackpots like you idiots, who cares? Not I.

I have better things to do than to spend my time debunking crackpots on the usenet, it is better to confront the idiot claims of
normal scientists with evidence.

Skepticism without evidence is nonsense. Any scientist who claims there is *NO* evidence, is acting just like the crackpots that they
so gleefully ridicule.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
October 5, 2004

Volker Hetzer wrote:

on faith as you admit below.


Yes, I have faith that if I repeat observations previously performed, I
will get something in the way of evidence from them, and if I make
predictions based upon theory based upon evidence, observational and
otherwise, I will produce further evidence. Science and faith are not
incompatible,


So, in what way does your "faith" change the outcome of your observations?

It allows me to design better experiments.
Can you give an example?

Sure, when confronted with an obviously crackpot claim, I have faith in my ability to identify a crackpot claim, and I can have
faith
in the outcome of any experiment attempting to verify the crackpot claim, so thus I don't have to bother performing any
experiments to
verify the claims of the crackpot, and I don't have to waste my valuable time with crackpots.
See? Wrong. Almost any claims were crackpot ones when first voiced.


Ok, the scientific method evolves. Yes. Now, can you show that
introducing faith improves the method?

I allows me to greatly speed up the process, because I don't have to
verify every observation ever made,
Who said you have to?

Crackpots like you.
I didn't.


and I don't have to necessarily make
observations where I have faith in the outcome,
You work unreliably.

Sure, I am ignoring unreliable crackpot results.
So, you ignore your own results? And you call yourself a crackpot too?
But you want to evolve the scientific method?


and I can focus on
producing useful results.
You introdice the subjective notion of "usefulness" which has nothing
to do with correctness.

Ok, crackpots are incorrect and useless, so what.
And a crackpot is identified how?


On the other hand, I have great confidence,
faith, really, that if I construct the devices to enable me to observe
things or perform things that I can't yet observe, but know must exist
or be possible based upon the totality of evidence in all it's myriad of
forms, then I won't be wasting my time.
So, if a normal scientist constructs them without any faith, simply in order
to find out whether something's there, what's the difference?

Do these normal scientists waste their time verifying the claims of crackpots?
You evaded an answer.


In this regard, the skeptics are
almost always demonstrated to be wrong in the end.
How much is "almost always"? So far no dowsers, faith healers and
mediums have passed any sort of verifiable test that didn't give an
opportunity to cheat.

Thus they are crackpots, I and don't have to waste *MY* time considering their claims.
You evaded an answer.


Like, by demonstrating
that with your addition one can derive better theories (less complex,
more explanatory and/or predictive power)?

I just did that.
Well, no. You just said that you would deliver shoddy work derived
cheaper or faster than a scientist's work.

In regards to crackpots like you idiots, who cares? Not I.
Actually, in regards to proving your theory. By invoking the crackpot stuff you
show that you can't concentrate on the topic.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

October 5, 2004

Volker Hetzer wrote:

Actually, in regards to proving your theory.

So you claim you can 'prove' a theory.

http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm

By invoking the crackpot stuff you
show that you can't concentrate on the topic.

The subject is scientists acting like crackpots, and scientists engaging crackpots.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Great question Kjakja.

Although we have local movement which can in any direction for galaxies in groups, other galactic groups (most if not all galaxies
belong to some loose collection) that are more distant have a increasing propensity to be moving away from us.

The Hubble Constant is about 70+ kilometres per second per megaparsec (3.1 x 1million light years). So at 10 megaparsecs the
recession speed is about 700 kilometres per second.
At one Billion light years they are all moving at over 23,000 kh per sec.
Just how this 23 thousand kilometres gets made or where it is put is still a mystery.



"kjakja" wrote in message ...
If some galaxies are moving toward each other(Andromeda and Milky Way)
within local groups and clusters of groups move toward each other and
collide, then I presume that all super clusters must be going away
from each other. If not, at what point is the universe expanding on a
galactic scale? Thank you for your responses.








"Etherized" wrote in message
...
"fo"

*Snap*

+
=

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 29/09/2004


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

How much is "almost always"? So far no dowsers, faith healers and
mediums

Au contraire;
All here,
Perched on a stair ~
But O dear!
So many
Steps to mark,
Underscore,
Highlight ~
All perfect scores
For the late-night
High life.
Here, drink
A highball, cocktail,
Fizzy stuff aswirl.
Spinning grrl ~
Pirouettes !
Balanchine,
Or Martha Grahm
Scores this dance?
All mixed [meta]phors.
Stravinsky sings,
Strings sting,
This dance,
The shape of time.
All mind marking
L-air en mid-air ~
Transcendal prelude,
Or rec-drug quelude
Swallowed w[hole]?
O woe! I dunno.
*Shrug*
Close enough
For jazz, may
Have to do
For now ~
Bookmarked
In my book
Of memory.
A rain date
Awaits.
"Almost"
Is almost always
Enough.
That's [I'm] jazzz,
F[y]olks!


_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Skepticism without evidence is nonsense.

Sure,
Whatever.
Where's that
Other V[art]?
Dart, ur.
See me, V?
*Squinting I's*
Hi-5!
Stars in your
Eyes!
Cheers*88888

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" schrieb im
In regards to crackpots like you idiots, who cares? Not I.

Actually, in regards to proving your theory. By invoking the crackpot
stuff you show that you can't concentrate on the topic.

Give him a minute... he'll move from the "crackpot" stuff to the ad hominem
attacks.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in

The subject is scientists acting like crackpots, and scientists
engaging crackpots.

No, actually, it's not. The subject is actually the value of N in Drake's
equation. You seem to have forgotten that somewhere between calling us
idiots and crackpots.

October 6, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:

The subject is scientists acting like crackpots, and scientists
engaging crackpots.

No, actually, it's not. The subject is actually the value of N in Drake's
equation. You seem to have forgotten that somewhere between calling us
idiots and crackpots.

Once you claim *ZERO* evidence for anything, you enter the realm of crackpots.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote
Paul Lawler wrote:
No, actually, it's not. The subject is actually the value of N in
Drake's equation. You seem to have forgotten that somewhere between
calling us idiots and crackpots.

Once you claim *ZERO* evidence for anything, you enter the realm of
crackpots.

Unfortunately for your position, I am NOT claiming zero. I am stating that
without any doubt whatsoever N=1.