|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 05:21 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 |