A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A brief list of things that show pseudoscience



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 13th 04, 05:34 PM
Vierlingj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

This post is a thread from sci.skeptic which I began.

From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 07:02:04 PST

Here are a few things to add to some of the lists out there, or to replace some
of them.

Some things that show pseudo-science or pseudo-scientists.

1. Any usage of the term "spacetime".
Space and time have nothing to do with one another, other than it takes time to
traverse space. In other words, space/time.

2. Any usage of pi that claims to prove anything. Pi can only be used to
produce an estimate until solved fully.

3. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of time.

4. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of mass.
Both 3 & 4 would require magic. Any science that tries to prove a beginning to
the universe is trying to prove magic, which proving so proves that all science
is false as magic would allow for anything. Magic and science are opposites and
can not co-exist.

5. Any 'science' that says electromagnetic radiation is made of particles. This
includes the wave-particle duality statements. Just because electromagnetic
waves in the light spectrum illuminate a particle or part of an atom or
molecule does not mean that the
particle is part of the electromagnetic wave. Since electromagnetic waves are
radiation, the particle may even move due to heat.

6. Any scientist that says Einstein wasn't trying to prove his religion.

7. Anyone that says E=mc^2 is anything other than a twisted around momentum
equation. Mass multiplied by velocity equals momentum. Energy and mass are not
interchangeable.

8. Any one that says gravity bends light.
That statement is much more suited to optical illusions.

9. Any statements that say space is a vacuum or any that compare space to a
fabric.

10. Anyone that says a particle can even be a particle and have no mass.
The boundaries of the particle would prevent this.

11. Anyone that says light has momentum.

12. Anyone that says the "Big Bang" theory is true. It makes as little sense as
creationism, which is none.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 2 in thread
From: Steve )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 11:19:11 PST

Just a quick note: #7 is essentially the kinetic energy equation
(mv^2)/2, not the momentum equation. And mass and energy are in fact
interchangeable, we do it on small scales in particle accelerators
every day. I'm not even going to touch on the rest. =P

7. Anyone that says E=mc^2 is anything other than a twisted around momentum
equation. Mass multiplied by velocity equals momentum. Energy and mass are
not interchangeable.



"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

Message 3 in thread
From: tim gueguen )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 13:21:33 PST

"Vierlingj" wrote in message
...
Here are a few things to add to some of the lists out there, or to replace

some
of them.

Some things that show pseudo-science or pseudo-scientists.

snip of laundry list
Translation: You've got some weird theory that no physicist takes seriously
and is incompatible with various elements of current mainstream physics.
Therefore they are all wrong, and you are the right one.

tim gueguen 101867

Message 4 in thread
From: Matt Giwer )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 23:40:28 PST

Vierlingj wrote:

This is going to ruin your day.

3. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of time.


Any "science" that claims to prove anything. No science claims to
prove anything. Proof is for logic and math. It has no place in science.

You should know that.

--
When groups which identify themselves as jewish become
involved in politics then they may be subjected to
political attack just fer durned meanness.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3083

Message 5 in thread
From: John Baker )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-31 12:06:07 PST

"Vierlingj" wrote in message
...

snip drivel

What's the matter, snookums? Did some *real* scientist laugh at your silly
"theory?"

Message 6 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-02 12:02:10 PST

Here are some quotes attributed to Einstein from his biography on the Math
World web site.

Einstein was attacked by some with anti-Jewish leanings. When a pamphlet was
published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted "If I were
wrong, one would be enough." Some famous Einstein quotes about God include

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or
that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His
thoughts, the rest are details."
"God is subtle, but he is not malicious."
"God does not play dice with the world."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
(Paris 1982, p. 319).

Well since religion is based in magic and magic and fact can not co-exist, his
statements about mixing the two are a joke. His statements along the lines of
would appear to an outside observer are better suited for optical illusions.

By interchangeable, I was reffering to the fact that mass does not turn into
energy and that energy does not turn into mass.The statements of so-called
scientists to the effect of a little bit of mass was lost are crap. It is still
there just beyond the detection capabilities of their technology. Also in the
equation E=mc^2, if mass and energy were interchangeable then mass would be
equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared. And then the speed of
light squared would equal energy divided by mass.

If you do a search for my full name, as in the siganture, you should find a
thread in a different newsgroup entitled electromagnetic pulses and their
detection. Read it you might learn something.

Now for the science doesn't prove anyhing statement. You are a space cadet.You
must be one of those idiots in the James Randi (so-called) educational
foundation forum, there are several there. There you go why don't you look up
my posts there again you might actually learn something.

You people that debunk religion and then push pseudoscience nonsense are just
as much a bunch of hypocrites as the people that say they are against mind
control and then push religion.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 7 in thread
From: Michael Gray )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-02 19:50:13 PST

On 02 Apr 2004 20:01:22 GMT, (Vierlingj) wrote:

:

By interchangeable, I was reffering to the fact that mass does not turn into
energy and that energy does not turn into mass.The statements of so-called
scientists to the effect of a little bit of mass was lost are crap. It is

still
there just beyond the detection capabilities of their technology. Also in the

:
You should tell that to the hundreds of people using enormous particle
accelerators.
They are under the (obviously mistaken) impression that they turn
energy into mass regularly.
I bet they'll be spewing when they find out they have been wasting a
lot of money over all those years!
And staggered by your grasp of Quantum Electrodynamics.
:
Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.


"psychotronic weaponry"?
Says it all, really.

Message 8 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-04 21:27:47 PST

Obviously.

You did pretty much hit the nail on the head with the wasting money comment
though. A bunch of assholes pushing **** to keep the tax dollars flowing in. It
falls under the baffle them with bull**** category.

Now for your psychotronic statement. Psycho is a prefix that means of or
pertaining to the mind or brain. The tronic part should be obvious even to you.

Message 9 in thread
From: Michael Gray )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-04 23:50:11 PST

On 05 Apr 2004 04:27:24 GMT,
(Vierlingj) wrote:

Obviously.

You did pretty much hit the nail on the head with the wasting money comment
though. A bunch of assholes pushing **** to keep the tax dollars flowing in.

It
falls under the baffle them with bull**** category.

Now for your psychotronic statement. Psycho is a prefix that means of or
pertaining to the mind or brain. The tronic part should be obvious even to

you.

I do not find it at all obvious what 'tronic' means.
I cannot find any Greek, (or even Latin), roots that apply.
Please educate me.

From: Steve )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience
View: Complete Thread (18 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-06 16:57:55 PST

Hmm, you actually got one part right: c^2 DOES equal (E/m), but only
in the case where 100% efficiency is reached. This is only possible
during a matter/antimatter annihilation. As for being below the
threshold of our detection, absolutely not. By viewing a
electron/positron collision, one can see that they completely destroy
each other to yield nothing but gamma rays. Pure mass into pure
energy, simple as that. And this wasn't just some freak one-time
happenstance. Today's linear accelerators, cyclotrons, and
synchrotrons produce this reaction BILLIONS of times per day. There
are many other types of reactions that produce this as well, namely
fusion. In Proton-Proton reactions, roughly 1% of the mass goes into
creating photons and neutrinos. Assuming that every star in the
universe is somewhat like the sun, which isn't far from true, there
are approximately
(400,000,000,000)(100,000,000,000)(700,000,000*1,0 00,000)(6.02*10e23)
=
16,856,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000
reactions of this sort going on per SECOND. That's 1.6856e61! For
every star like our sun, FIVE MILLION TONS of mass is converted
directly into energy every second. Check the statistics yourself.
Over fifty years of observation and experimentation, combined with
nearly a hundred years of mathematical verification of Einstein's
basic theories, as well as quantum mechanics. Sure, we don't know
everything about physics, but this is one thing that cannot be denied
unless your cortex is lacking some essential parts. Besides, how else
could fission and fusion produce energy? There exists a little thing
called the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy that no quantum
effect can override on that large a scale.
The facts, when presented, are far more mind-blowing than any religion
could ever hope to be. Einstein has been accepted as essentially
correct, and you will have to come up with some pretty goddamn good
evidence to show that everything we know is wrong. Perhaps you could
show it to me, and if you're right, I will cry it from the rooftops
like any good scientist should. My only prejudice lies in the lack of
proof.

(Vierlingj) wrote in message
...
Here are some quotes attributed to Einstein from his biography on the Math
World web site.

Einstein was attacked by some with anti-Jewish leanings. When a pamphlet was
published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted "If I were
wrong, one would be enough." Some famous Einstein quotes about God include

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this

or
that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His
thoughts, the rest are details."
"God is subtle, but he is not malicious."
"God does not play dice with the world."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
(Paris 1982, p. 319).

Well since religion is based in magic and magic and fact can not co-exist,

his
statements about mixing the two are a joke. His statements along the lines of
would appear to an outside observer are better suited for optical illusions.

By interchangeable, I was reffering to the fact that mass does not turn into
energy and that energy does not turn into mass.The statements of so-called
scientists to the effect of a little bit of mass was lost are crap. It is

still
there just beyond the detection capabilities of their technology. Also in the
equation E=mc^2, if mass and energy were interchangeable then mass would be
equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared. And then the speed of
light squared would equal energy divided by mass.

If you do a search for my full name, as in the siganture, you should find a
thread in a different newsgroup entitled electromagnetic pulses and their
detection. Read it you might learn something.

Now for the science doesn't prove anyhing statement. You are a space

cadet.You
must be one of those idiots in the James Randi (so-called) educational
foundation forum, there are several there. There you go why don't you look up
my posts there again you might actually learn something.

You people that debunk religion and then push pseudoscience nonsense are just
as much a bunch of hypocrites as the people that say they are against mind
control and then push religion.

Ø Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-10 10:43:16 PST

In order appearing in Mr. Steve's post. The equation, If c^2 =(E/m) then when
M=0 the speed of light squared equals zero. also then if m = 1, then the speed
of light squared = E. There is no such thing as anti-matter. This goes along
with, there is no such thing as negative energy.

Here is litle excercise in common sense for you to try. Take any starting mass
figure that you want, halve it, divide it into thirds, divide it into
millionths, all pieces will always still have mass. Regardless of how many
times you do the above. You will never reach zero and certainly not a negative
number. Sorry about your luck there, but maybe you should look up how fission
and fusion work. Neither turn mass into energy or energy into mass. Energy is
derived from the interaction between the particles of mass. The mass does not
just disappear. There is no such thing as a photon. That wave particle duality
**** is just that, ****. There is no such thing as a graviton either.

Now for your math. First off you start by using e to represent to the power of.
Your 6.02*10e23. However if this is the case then your second use of it is a
complete misrepresentation of the number you wrote out. By the way, the number
you wrote out would be 1.6856*10e65 not 61. Anyway writing it as 1.6856e61
would then also mean 1.6856*1.6856*1.6856 until you multiplied it that way 61
times. This would yeild an entirely different number. Typical for
pseudoscientific purposes.

As for my brain lacking, check out this from Einstein's biography mentioned
previously in this thread. In additional, the groove normally running from the
front to the back did not extend all the way in Einstein's brain.

The so-called law you referred to. Well since the universe is infinite, this is
crap. What this law states would seem to imply that the universe has
boundaries. As for you pointing to this law, it contradicts what you claim.

Now this might really blow your mind, The universe has always existed, mass has
always existed and there is no beginning of time. A little thing known as
reality.

You people do realize that physics is a form of mathematics don't you? At least
real physics anyway. So if any physic equation violates 1+ 1 = 2 then it is not
worth the paper it is written on.

As for the usage of the term goddamn, this implies you either have religious
beliefs (which speaks for itself as to the pseudoscience) or you also want to
push the religous garbage along with your pseudoscience. There are no gods and
there never will be.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 12 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-10 16:40:20 PST

Correction of my previous post. It should read that the number that was written
out should read 1.6856*10e64 and not 1.6856*10e65.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 13 in thread
From: John Vreeland )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-11 14:03:07 PST

(Vierlingj) wrote in message
...
In order appearing in Mr. Steve's post. The equation, If c^2 =(E/m) then when
M=0 the speed of light squared equals zero. also then if m = 1, then the

speed
of light squared = E. There is no such thing as anti-matter. This goes along
with, there is no such thing as negative energy.


You are misapplying the equation. c is a constant, not a variable.
You cannot vary m to vary c. Varying m varies E in turn. To say c =
0 makes about as much sense as saying 3*10^8 m/s = 0.


And what are "psychotronic weapons"?

"Says it all, really."

John Vreeland

Message 14 in thread
From: Steve )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-13 17:45:15 PST

In computer and shorthand scientific notation, the "e" means "times
ten to the [whatever number appears afterwards]". Also, 6.02e23 is
Avogadro's Number, which equals one "mole" of a substance. Hydrogen
has atomic weight 1: one mole of hydrogen atoms weighs one gram.
Nitrogen has atomic weight 14, and there are 2 nitrogen atoms in
molecular nitrogen: one mole of N2 weighs 28 grams. And you also
mistake antimatter as being in some way "impossible" or fanciful.
What's so fanciful about an electron with a positive electrical
charge? You seem to have a complete lack of knowledge of basic
mathematical constructs, so I guess I'm not too surprised. If
antimatter isn't real, what is Positron Emission Tomography? It's
been used for years. And you do realize that there are systems in
mathematics where 1+1 != 2? Is there any kind of experimental or
observational evidence you have that the universe has always existed?

I grow tired of you, as a cat grows tired of batting around a
long-dead mouse. Part of the positivist approach to science is to
allow anyone to challenge long-held ideas. But if we are to trash
what we have known (or thought we knew, as you say), we need some
pretty damning evidence for it. If your assertions are in fact the
truth, why don't you stop spouting what we percieve as useless drivel
and give us the proof. Or disproof. I, for one, would welcome it.
Consider it a personal challenge.



Death to nuclear weaponry. It's actually real.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 15 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-15 13:00:37 PST

There is actually nothing 'fanciful' about a 'positively' charged electron, nor
is there anything 'fanciful' about a 'negatively' charged proton.

THE TERMS NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ARE ARBITRARY. Arbitrary meaning that either
could be assigned to the other.

You do know that there is no such thing as 'negative' energy?

The negative and positive assignments are to show opposite direction of
electrical flow or opposite polarization. Also in some contexts the terms
positive and negative are used to show opposite sides of an established median
such as with farenheit or celsius measurements. By the way, when a magnet has
its polarity changed, does it become an antimagnet? (A question to ask
yourself.)

Zero is zero. A quantity other than zero is a positive number, despite the
usage of the terminology mentioned above.

Have you read what the people pushing the PET write? Alchemists would love
them. Next thing they will be turning lead into gold. One element does not
become another element simply by adding or removing protons, neutrons or
electrons. This process does however result in what is called an isotope.

About the mathematics statement, your phrasing is off. To write that people
invent or make up new systems of mathematics to coincide with or fit into their
pseudoscience would be a more correct phrasing of the statement.

Your continuing usage of religious terminology does not go unnoticed. Here is a
tibit for you. Religion is antiscience. Religion is based in magic, science is
based in fact. Magic and fact CAN NOT co-exist. As usual among people that push
pseudoscience, you perceive facts to be useless drivel.

Here is another question for you. If you say the universe has not always
existed, then what the **** was there before it? Notice before you answer, that
any answer you give (other than the universe has always existed) will imply
some sort of magic.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 16 in thread
From: Joe )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-16 07:06:08 PST

On 15 Apr 2004 19:59:57 GMT,
(Vierlingj) wrote:


Here is another question for you. If you say the universe has not always
existed, then what the **** was there before it? Notice before you answer,

that
any answer you give (other than the universe has always existed) will imply
some sort of magic.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.



The choices (there are only 2) that you give that you are asking us to
choose between are either magic or the universe always existed, but
that is all-or-nothing thinking, either-or thinking, black and white,
etc. which is seldom (never?) true. I am not a believer in gods and I
believe in the big bang, so there was nothing before the big bang. So
I would say that the universe has NOT always existed and there is NO
magic involved.


Joe Milon who is not trying to argue and who is a weak philosopher :-)
Eliminate the WMD to reply - This reduces mail from republicans since
they can't find the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 17 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-17 09:38:08 PST

What exactly did the 'big bang' expand into? Did space magically appear for
this expansion? Just a couple of quick questions for you to consider. When you
say nothing are you implying absolute nothing? If you mean a vacuum, then that
also would mean that the universe would have to have boundaries. Which in turn
would mean that it could not be a vacuum because there would be particles of
mass in it. Not to mention the fact that when a vacuum is made the space inside
the boundaries still exists, it is just devoid of mass. Again, the universe is
infinite which means it has no boundaries. By the way, there is only one
universe.

As far as the formations of galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, etc.,
there are a couple of possibilties yes. But as far as the universe, there are
only two choices. Either the universe and the mass that occupies it have always
existed, or they were magically created. The latter of which means that there
would be no reality, as there could be no fact if magic existed.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

P. S. Your signature is pretty funny.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 18 in thread
From: Vince Barmann )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-05-12 11:37:49 PST

Vierlingj wrote:

Here are a few things to add to some of the lists out there, or to replace

some
of them.

Some things that show pseudo-science or pseudo-scientists.

1. Any usage of the term "spacetime".
Space and time have nothing to do with one another, other than it takes time

to
traverse space. In other words, space/time.

2. Any usage of pi that claims to prove anything. Pi can only be used to
produce an estimate until solved fully.

3. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of time.

4. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of mass.
Both 3 & 4 would require magic. Any science that tries to prove a beginning

to
the universe is trying to prove magic, which proving so proves that all

science
is false as magic would allow for anything. Magic and science are opposites

and
can not co-exist.

5. Any 'science' that says electromagnetic radiation is made of particles.

This
includes the wave-particle duality statements. Just because electromagnetic
waves in the light spectrum illuminate a particle or part of an atom or
molecule does not mean that the
particle is part of the electromagnetic wave. Since electromagnetic waves are
radiation, the particle may even move due to heat.

6. Any scientist that says Einstein wasn't trying to prove his religion.

7. Anyone that says E=mc^2 is anything other than a twisted around momentum
equation. Mass multiplied by velocity equals momentum. Energy and mass are

not
interchangeable.

8. Any one that says gravity bends light.
That statement is much more suited to optical illusions.

9. Any statements that say space is a vacuum or any that compare space to a
fabric.

10. Anyone that says a particle can even be a particle and have no mass.
The boundaries of the particle would prevent this.

11. Anyone that says light has momentum.

12. Anyone that says the "Big Bang" theory is true. It makes as little sense

as
creationism, which is none.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.


This post powered by Phlogiston (TM)

  #2  
Old May 14th 04, 08:38 PM
Igor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

(Vierlingj) wrote in message ...
This post is a thread from sci.skeptic which I began.

From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 07:02:04 PST

Here are a few things to add to some of the lists out there, or to replace some
of them.

Some things that show pseudo-science or pseudo-scientists.

1. Any usage of the term "spacetime".
Space and time have nothing to do with one another, other than it takes time to
traverse space. In other words, space/time.

2. Any usage of pi that claims to prove anything. Pi can only be used to
produce an estimate until solved fully.

3. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of time.

4. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of mass.
Both 3 & 4 would require magic. Any science that tries to prove a beginning to
the universe is trying to prove magic, which proving so proves that all science
is false as magic would allow for anything. Magic and science are opposites and
can not co-exist.

5. Any 'science' that says electromagnetic radiation is made of particles. This
includes the wave-particle duality statements. Just because electromagnetic
waves in the light spectrum illuminate a particle or part of an atom or
molecule does not mean that the
particle is part of the electromagnetic wave. Since electromagnetic waves are
radiation, the particle may even move due to heat.

6. Any scientist that says Einstein wasn't trying to prove his religion.

7. Anyone that says E=mc^2 is anything other than a twisted around momentum
equation. Mass multiplied by velocity equals momentum. Energy and mass are not
interchangeable.

8. Any one that says gravity bends light.
That statement is much more suited to optical illusions.

9. Any statements that say space is a vacuum or any that compare space to a
fabric.

10. Anyone that says a particle can even be a particle and have no mass.
The boundaries of the particle would prevent this.

11. Anyone that says light has momentum.

12. Anyone that says the "Big Bang" theory is true. It makes as little sense as
creationism, which is none.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 2 in thread
From: Steve )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 11:19:11 PST

Just a quick note: #7 is essentially the kinetic energy equation
(mv^2)/2, not the momentum equation. And mass and energy are in fact
interchangeable, we do it on small scales in particle accelerators
every day. I'm not even going to touch on the rest. =P

7. Anyone that says E=mc^2 is anything other than a twisted around momentum
equation. Mass multiplied by velocity equals momentum. Energy and mass are
not interchangeable.



"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

Message 3 in thread
From: tim gueguen )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 13:21:33 PST

"Vierlingj" wrote in message
...
Here are a few things to add to some of the lists out there, or to replace

some
of them.

Some things that show pseudo-science or pseudo-scientists.

snip of laundry list
Translation: You've got some weird theory that no physicist takes seriously
and is incompatible with various elements of current mainstream physics.
Therefore they are all wrong, and you are the right one.

tim gueguen 101867

Message 4 in thread
From: Matt Giwer )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-29 23:40:28 PST

Vierlingj wrote:

This is going to ruin your day.

3. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of time.


Any "science" that claims to prove anything. No science claims to
prove anything. Proof is for logic and math. It has no place in science.

You should know that.

--
When groups which identify themselves as jewish become
involved in politics then they may be subjected to
political attack just fer durned meanness.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3083

Message 5 in thread
From: John Baker )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-03-31 12:06:07 PST

"Vierlingj" wrote in message
...

snip drivel

What's the matter, snookums? Did some *real* scientist laugh at your silly
"theory?"

Message 6 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-02 12:02:10 PST

Here are some quotes attributed to Einstein from his biography on the Math
World web site.

Einstein was attacked by some with anti-Jewish leanings. When a pamphlet was
published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted "If I were
wrong, one would be enough." Some famous Einstein quotes about God include

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or
that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His
thoughts, the rest are details."
"God is subtle, but he is not malicious."
"God does not play dice with the world."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
(Paris 1982, p. 319).

Well since religion is based in magic and magic and fact can not co-exist, his
statements about mixing the two are a joke. His statements along the lines of
would appear to an outside observer are better suited for optical illusions.

By interchangeable, I was reffering to the fact that mass does not turn into
energy and that energy does not turn into mass.The statements of so-called
scientists to the effect of a little bit of mass was lost are crap. It is still
there just beyond the detection capabilities of their technology. Also in the
equation E=mc^2, if mass and energy were interchangeable then mass would be
equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared. And then the speed of
light squared would equal energy divided by mass.

If you do a search for my full name, as in the siganture, you should find a
thread in a different newsgroup entitled electromagnetic pulses and their
detection. Read it you might learn something.

Now for the science doesn't prove anyhing statement. You are a space cadet.You
must be one of those idiots in the James Randi (so-called) educational
foundation forum, there are several there. There you go why don't you look up
my posts there again you might actually learn something.

You people that debunk religion and then push pseudoscience nonsense are just
as much a bunch of hypocrites as the people that say they are against mind
control and then push religion.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 7 in thread
From: Michael Gray )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-02 19:50:13 PST

On 02 Apr 2004 20:01:22 GMT,
(Vierlingj) wrote:

:

By interchangeable, I was reffering to the fact that mass does not turn into
energy and that energy does not turn into mass.The statements of so-called
scientists to the effect of a little bit of mass was lost are crap. It is

still
there just beyond the detection capabilities of their technology. Also in the

:
You should tell that to the hundreds of people using enormous particle
accelerators.
They are under the (obviously mistaken) impression that they turn
energy into mass regularly.
I bet they'll be spewing when they find out they have been wasting a
lot of money over all those years!
And staggered by your grasp of Quantum Electrodynamics.
:
Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.


"psychotronic weaponry"?
Says it all, really.

Message 8 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-04 21:27:47 PST

Obviously.

You did pretty much hit the nail on the head with the wasting money comment
though. A bunch of assholes pushing **** to keep the tax dollars flowing in. It
falls under the baffle them with bull**** category.

Now for your psychotronic statement. Psycho is a prefix that means of or
pertaining to the mind or brain. The tronic part should be obvious even to you.

Message 9 in thread
From: Michael Gray )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-04 23:50:11 PST

On 05 Apr 2004 04:27:24 GMT,
(Vierlingj) wrote:

Obviously.

You did pretty much hit the nail on the head with the wasting money comment
though. A bunch of assholes pushing **** to keep the tax dollars flowing in.

It
falls under the baffle them with bull**** category.

Now for your psychotronic statement. Psycho is a prefix that means of or
pertaining to the mind or brain. The tronic part should be obvious even to

you.

I do not find it at all obvious what 'tronic' means.
I cannot find any Greek, (or even Latin), roots that apply.
Please educate me.

From: Steve )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience
View: Complete Thread (18 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-06 16:57:55 PST

Hmm, you actually got one part right: c^2 DOES equal (E/m), but only
in the case where 100% efficiency is reached. This is only possible
during a matter/antimatter annihilation. As for being below the
threshold of our detection, absolutely not. By viewing a
electron/positron collision, one can see that they completely destroy
each other to yield nothing but gamma rays. Pure mass into pure
energy, simple as that. And this wasn't just some freak one-time
happenstance. Today's linear accelerators, cyclotrons, and
synchrotrons produce this reaction BILLIONS of times per day. There
are many other types of reactions that produce this as well, namely
fusion. In Proton-Proton reactions, roughly 1% of the mass goes into
creating photons and neutrinos. Assuming that every star in the
universe is somewhat like the sun, which isn't far from true, there
are approximately
(400,000,000,000)(100,000,000,000)(700,000,000*1,0 00,000)(6.02*10e23)
=
16,856,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000
reactions of this sort going on per SECOND. That's 1.6856e61! For
every star like our sun, FIVE MILLION TONS of mass is converted
directly into energy every second. Check the statistics yourself.
Over fifty years of observation and experimentation, combined with
nearly a hundred years of mathematical verification of Einstein's
basic theories, as well as quantum mechanics. Sure, we don't know
everything about physics, but this is one thing that cannot be denied
unless your cortex is lacking some essential parts. Besides, how else
could fission and fusion produce energy? There exists a little thing
called the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy that no quantum
effect can override on that large a scale.
The facts, when presented, are far more mind-blowing than any religion
could ever hope to be. Einstein has been accepted as essentially
correct, and you will have to come up with some pretty goddamn good
evidence to show that everything we know is wrong. Perhaps you could
show it to me, and if you're right, I will cry it from the rooftops
like any good scientist should. My only prejudice lies in the lack of
proof.

(Vierlingj) wrote in message
...
Here are some quotes attributed to Einstein from his biography on the Math
World web site.

Einstein was attacked by some with anti-Jewish leanings. When a pamphlet was
published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, Einstein retorted "If I were
wrong, one would be enough." Some famous Einstein quotes about God include

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics
to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this

or
that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His
thoughts, the rest are details."
"God is subtle, but he is not malicious."
"God does not play dice with the world."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
(Paris 1982, p. 319).

Well since religion is based in magic and magic and fact can not co-exist,

his
statements about mixing the two are a joke. His statements along the lines of
would appear to an outside observer are better suited for optical illusions.

By interchangeable, I was reffering to the fact that mass does not turn into
energy and that energy does not turn into mass.The statements of so-called
scientists to the effect of a little bit of mass was lost are crap. It is

still
there just beyond the detection capabilities of their technology. Also in the
equation E=mc^2, if mass and energy were interchangeable then mass would be
equal to energy divided by the speed of light squared. And then the speed of
light squared would equal energy divided by mass.

If you do a search for my full name, as in the siganture, you should find a
thread in a different newsgroup entitled electromagnetic pulses and their
detection. Read it you might learn something.

Now for the science doesn't prove anyhing statement. You are a space

cadet.You
must be one of those idiots in the James Randi (so-called) educational
foundation forum, there are several there. There you go why don't you look up
my posts there again you might actually learn something.

You people that debunk religion and then push pseudoscience nonsense are just
as much a bunch of hypocrites as the people that say they are against mind
control and then push religion.

Ø Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-10 10:43:16 PST

In order appearing in Mr. Steve's post. The equation, If c^2 =(E/m) then when
M=0 the speed of light squared equals zero. also then if m = 1, then the speed
of light squared = E. There is no such thing as anti-matter. This goes along
with, there is no such thing as negative energy.

Here is litle excercise in common sense for you to try. Take any starting mass
figure that you want, halve it, divide it into thirds, divide it into
millionths, all pieces will always still have mass. Regardless of how many
times you do the above. You will never reach zero and certainly not a negative
number. Sorry about your luck there, but maybe you should look up how fission
and fusion work. Neither turn mass into energy or energy into mass. Energy is
derived from the interaction between the particles of mass. The mass does not
just disappear. There is no such thing as a photon. That wave particle duality
**** is just that, ****. There is no such thing as a graviton either.

Now for your math. First off you start by using e to represent to the power of.
Your 6.02*10e23. However if this is the case then your second use of it is a
complete misrepresentation of the number you wrote out. By the way, the number
you wrote out would be 1.6856*10e65 not 61. Anyway writing it as 1.6856e61
would then also mean 1.6856*1.6856*1.6856 until you multiplied it that way 61
times. This would yeild an entirely different number. Typical for
pseudoscientific purposes.

As for my brain lacking, check out this from Einstein's biography mentioned
previously in this thread. In additional, the groove normally running from the
front to the back did not extend all the way in Einstein's brain.

The so-called law you referred to. Well since the universe is infinite, this is
crap. What this law states would seem to imply that the universe has
boundaries. As for you pointing to this law, it contradicts what you claim.

Now this might really blow your mind, The universe has always existed, mass has
always existed and there is no beginning of time. A little thing known as
reality.

You people do realize that physics is a form of mathematics don't you? At least
real physics anyway. So if any physic equation violates 1+ 1 = 2 then it is not
worth the paper it is written on.

As for the usage of the term goddamn, this implies you either have religious
beliefs (which speaks for itself as to the pseudoscience) or you also want to
push the religous garbage along with your pseudoscience. There are no gods and
there never will be.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 12 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-10 16:40:20 PST

Correction of my previous post. It should read that the number that was written
out should read 1.6856*10e64 and not 1.6856*10e65.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Message 13 in thread
From: John Vreeland )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-11 14:03:07 PST

(Vierlingj) wrote in message
...
In order appearing in Mr. Steve's post. The equation, If c^2 =(E/m) then when
M=0 the speed of light squared equals zero. also then if m = 1, then the

speed
of light squared = E. There is no such thing as anti-matter. This goes along
with, there is no such thing as negative energy.


You are misapplying the equation. c is a constant, not a variable.
You cannot vary m to vary c. Varying m varies E in turn. To say c =
0 makes about as much sense as saying 3*10^8 m/s = 0.


And what are "psychotronic weapons"?

"Says it all, really."

John Vreeland

Message 14 in thread
From: Steve )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-13 17:45:15 PST

In computer and shorthand scientific notation, the "e" means "times
ten to the [whatever number appears afterwards]". Also, 6.02e23 is
Avogadro's Number, which equals one "mole" of a substance. Hydrogen
has atomic weight 1: one mole of hydrogen atoms weighs one gram.
Nitrogen has atomic weight 14, and there are 2 nitrogen atoms in
molecular nitrogen: one mole of N2 weighs 28 grams. And you also
mistake antimatter as being in some way "impossible" or fanciful.
What's so fanciful about an electron with a positive electrical
charge? You seem to have a complete lack of knowledge of basic
mathematical constructs, so I guess I'm not too surprised. If
antimatter isn't real, what is Positron Emission Tomography? It's
been used for years. And you do realize that there are systems in
mathematics where 1+1 != 2? Is there any kind of experimental or
observational evidence you have that the universe has always existed?

I grow tired of you, as a cat grows tired of batting around a
long-dead mouse. Part of the positivist approach to science is to
allow anyone to challenge long-held ideas. But if we are to trash
what we have known (or thought we knew, as you say), we need some
pretty damning evidence for it. If your assertions are in fact the
truth, why don't you stop spouting what we percieve as useless drivel
and give us the proof. Or disproof. I, for one, would welcome it.
Consider it a personal challenge.



Death to nuclear weaponry. It's actually real.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 15 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-15 13:00:37 PST

There is actually nothing 'fanciful' about a 'positively' charged electron, nor
is there anything 'fanciful' about a 'negatively' charged proton.

THE TERMS NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ARE ARBITRARY. Arbitrary meaning that either
could be assigned to the other.

You do know that there is no such thing as 'negative' energy?

The negative and positive assignments are to show opposite direction of
electrical flow or opposite polarization. Also in some contexts the terms
positive and negative are used to show opposite sides of an established median
such as with farenheit or celsius measurements. By the way, when a magnet has
its polarity changed, does it become an antimagnet? (A question to ask
yourself.)

Zero is zero. A quantity other than zero is a positive number, despite the
usage of the terminology mentioned above.

Have you read what the people pushing the PET write? Alchemists would love
them. Next thing they will be turning lead into gold. One element does not
become another element simply by adding or removing protons, neutrons or
electrons. This process does however result in what is called an isotope.

About the mathematics statement, your phrasing is off. To write that people
invent or make up new systems of mathematics to coincide with or fit into their
pseudoscience would be a more correct phrasing of the statement.

Your continuing usage of religious terminology does not go unnoticed. Here is a
tibit for you. Religion is antiscience. Religion is based in magic, science is
based in fact. Magic and fact CAN NOT co-exist. As usual among people that push
pseudoscience, you perceive facts to be useless drivel.

Here is another question for you. If you say the universe has not always
existed, then what the **** was there before it? Notice before you answer, that
any answer you give (other than the universe has always existed) will imply
some sort of magic.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 16 in thread
From: Joe )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-16 07:06:08 PST

On 15 Apr 2004 19:59:57 GMT,
(Vierlingj) wrote:


Here is another question for you. If you say the universe has not always
existed, then what the **** was there before it? Notice before you answer,

that
any answer you give (other than the universe has always existed) will imply
some sort of magic.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.



The choices (there are only 2) that you give that you are asking us to
choose between are either magic or the universe always existed, but
that is all-or-nothing thinking, either-or thinking, black and white,
etc. which is seldom (never?) true. I am not a believer in gods and I
believe in the big bang, so there was nothing before the big bang. So
I would say that the universe has NOT always existed and there is NO
magic involved.


Joe Milon who is not trying to argue and who is a weak philosopher :-)
Eliminate the WMD to reply - This reduces mail from republicans since
they can't find the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 17 in thread
From: Vierlingj )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-04-17 09:38:08 PST

What exactly did the 'big bang' expand into? Did space magically appear for
this expansion? Just a couple of quick questions for you to consider. When you
say nothing are you implying absolute nothing? If you mean a vacuum, then that
also would mean that the universe would have to have boundaries. Which in turn
would mean that it could not be a vacuum because there would be particles of
mass in it. Not to mention the fact that when a vacuum is made the space inside
the boundaries still exists, it is just devoid of mass. Again, the universe is
infinite which means it has no boundaries. By the way, there is only one
universe.

As far as the formations of galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, etc.,
there are a couple of possibilties yes. But as far as the universe, there are
only two choices. Either the universe and the mass that occupies it have always
existed, or they were magically created. The latter of which means that there
would be no reality, as there could be no fact if magic existed.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.

P. S. Your signature is pretty funny.

Post a follow-up to this message
Message 18 in thread
From: Vince Barmann )
Subject: A brief list of things that show pseudoscience

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 2004-05-12 11:37:49 PST

Vierlingj wrote:

Here are a few things to add to some of the lists out there, or to replace

some
of them.

Some things that show pseudo-science or pseudo-scientists.

1. Any usage of the term "spacetime".
Space and time have nothing to do with one another, other than it takes time

to
traverse space. In other words, space/time.

2. Any usage of pi that claims to prove anything. Pi can only be used to
produce an estimate until solved fully.

3. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of time.

4. Any 'science' that claims to prove a beginning of mass.
Both 3 & 4 would require magic. Any science that tries to prove a beginning

to
the universe is trying to prove magic, which proving so proves that all

science
is false as magic would allow for anything. Magic and science are opposites

and
can not co-exist.

5. Any 'science' that says electromagnetic radiation is made of particles.

This
includes the wave-particle duality statements. Just because electromagnetic
waves in the light spectrum illuminate a particle or part of an atom or
molecule does not mean that the
particle is part of the electromagnetic wave. Since electromagnetic waves are
radiation, the particle may even move due to heat.

6. Any scientist that says Einstein wasn't trying to prove his religion.

7. Anyone that says E=mc^2 is anything other than a twisted around momentum
equation. Mass multiplied by velocity equals momentum. Energy and mass are

not
interchangeable.

8. Any one that says gravity bends light.
That statement is much more suited to optical illusions.

9. Any statements that say space is a vacuum or any that compare space to a
fabric.

10. Anyone that says a particle can even be a particle and have no mass.
The boundaries of the particle would prevent this.

11. Anyone that says light has momentum.

12. Anyone that says the "Big Bang" theory is true. It makes as little sense

as
creationism, which is none.

Death to psychotronic weaponry. Religion is fraud. James M. Vierling Jr.


This post powered by Phlogiston (TM)



And anybody that agrees with any of your statements.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How smart are SETI@homers? Andrew Nowicki Policy 212 June 3rd 04 01:02 AM
UFO Activities from Biblical Times Kazmer Ujvarosy Astronomy Misc 0 December 25th 03 06:21 AM
Do you like to show your new ideas or designs on British Invention show? iwico Astronomy Misc 0 October 15th 03 05:21 PM
Neutrino Oscillations greywolf42 Astronomy Misc 59 October 10th 03 08:23 PM
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light ralph sansbury Astronomy Misc 8 August 31st 03 02:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.