The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Franktalk]

Taking out the western power grid? Don't need a gun. Just a large wrench and a windy day. And don't get me started on cascading dam failures.

That is so true. You just need to know where the sweet spot is.

[_Franktalk]

I enjoy a lively discussion in which diverse opinions are shared. What I do not enjoy is a witch hunt.

It seems that in Salem people suspected that there were people among them who held that Satan was their personal ruler. The people wished to weed out such heresy. Many people who embraced religion would seek that an individual would recant their connection to Satan. Even when Galileo was tried by the Pope he was forced to recant his view on the heavens. In modern society we no longer have one group who seeks to control the opinions of others we actually have two. One group is the traditional group who would burn people if they could. This act of mercy of course is to save their souls. Scientific zealots are actually much worse. They don't believe in a soul so a burning is just a burning. Currently the laws of this country limit the torture of those guilty of heresy. So some stick to name calling and accusing the heretic of being a liar. Much easier to discount someone once the wolf pack branded the heretic a liar. Then nothing the heretic says can be taken seriously and the orthodox position is saved by the faithful.

Some time ago a man named Bretz formed a theory about a flood in the northwest United States. He was branded as a heretic by the leaders of orthodox geology. He had the nerve to actually suggest a massive flood. So he was thrown out of the group and his theory was considered the work of a religious nut job. But a day came in which the theory of Bretz was accepted by the leaders of geology. So did the leaders have a change of heart? No they did not. They died. New leaders took over and they had no agenda except to follow the data. Now Bretz was lucky, he was still alive when this happened. Normally a theory rejected is only accepted many years after the death of the scientist.

There is a terrible habit in science that a set of data can only be interpreted one way. Once the leaders accept a mathematical model of a natural event it is heresy to suggest another model for the data. Unless of course that new model comes from an approved source and a wink and a nod is given to the wizard's apprentice. What I have suggested in my posts is that there is another way to interpret the data. I also suggest that not all of the data is being collected. For this I am branded a heretic. So be it. I find the group of us branded as heretics are pretty nice people. And of course way more open minded than the leaders of religion and orthodox science safe in their ivory towers.

I read Jefimenko's book because it was recommended and it dealt with my subject of interest. In it he makes the case that electrification and gravity may have a common cause because of the similar way each reacts in nature. Now according to some on this site I am to stupid to actually have read the book so I must get these opinions from others. These people have small minds and offer nothing to any discussion. They are parrots, repeating the orthodox line contained in approved books. I was hopeful that I could come here and play around with some ideas. But that is not the case. This site has bullies and they love to kick sand in the face of the kid who dares to play in their sandbox.

[_Maksutov]

I enjoy a lively discussion in which diverse opinions are shared. What I do not enjoy is a witch hunt.

It seems that in Salem people suspected that there were people among them who held that Satan was their personal ruler. The people wished to weed out such heresy. Many people who embraced religion would seek that an individual would recant their connection to Satan. Even when Galileo was tried by the Pope he was forced to recant his view on the heavens. In modern society we no longer have one group who seeks to control the opinions of others we actually have two. One group is the traditional group who would burn people if they could. This act of mercy of course is to save their souls. Scientific zealots are actually much worse. They don't believe in a soul so a burning is just a burning. Currently the laws of this country limit the torture of those guilty of heresy. So some stick to name calling and accusing the heretic of being a liar. Much easier to discount someone once the wolf pack branded the heretic a liar. Then nothing the heretic says can be taken seriously and the orthodox position is saved by the faithful.

Some time ago a man named Bretz formed a theory about a flood in the northwest United States. He was branded as a heretic by the leaders of orthodox geology. He had the nerve to actually suggest a massive flood. So he was thrown out of the group and his theory was considered the work of a religious nut job. But a day came in which the theory of Bretz was accepted by the leaders of geology. So did the leaders have a change of heart? No they did not. They died. New leaders took over and they had no agenda except to follow the data. Now Bretz was lucky, he was still alive when this happened. Normally a theory rejected is only accepted many years after the death of the scientist.

There is a terrible habit in science that a set of data can only be interpreted one way. Once the leaders accept a mathematical model of a natural event it is heresy to suggest another model for the data. Unless of course that new model comes from an approved source and a wink and a nod is given to the wizard's apprentice. What I have suggested in my posts is that there is another way to interpret the data. I also suggest that not all of the data is being collected. For this I am branded a heretic. So be it. I find the group of us branded as heretics are pretty nice people. And of course way more open minded than the leaders of religion and orthodox science safe in their ivory towers.

I read Jefimenko's book because it was recommended and it dealt with my subject of interest. In it he makes the case that electrification and gravity may have a common cause because of the similar way each reacts in nature. Now according to some on this site I am to stupid to actually have read the book so I must get these opinions from others. These people have small minds and offer nothing to any discussion. They are parrots, repeating the orthodox line contained in approved books. I was hopeful that I could come here and play around with some ideas. But that is not the case. This site has bullies and they love to kick sand in the face of the kid who dares to play in their sandbox.

I can't take you seriously as a seeker for truth, Frank, when you ball up so many lies in one post. You are embarrassing yourself. What you are proposing is that scientists are liars and frauds and you have no data other than crackpots, your feelings, and your obvious personal resentment at being exposed in your ignorance. You have your bruised ego while science has a centuries old record of achievements. You have your delusions of persecution while the world just ignores you. You can join the ranks of the flat earthers and claim to be the next Galileo, the victim of witch hunts because of your uncommon genius. I consider such people to be parasites on modern civilization, benefiting while bitching about and spitting on the hand that feeds them. Ungrateful, ignorant little brats spoiled by the fruits of science. Good job, Frank.

[_Franktalk]

Why share it if it's off-limits for discussion?

Some people are just not worth chatting with. I mean just look at Maksutov's response to my post. How is any of that useful? I chat about events in history to make a point and he uses personal attacks. This is not a discussion. It is exactly as I described it.

[_Maksutov]

Why share it if it's off-limits for discussion?

Some people are just not worth chatting with. I mean just look at Maksutov's response to my post. How is any of that useful? I chat about events in history to make a point and he uses personal attacks. This is not a discussion. It is exactly as I described it.

You don't discuss, Frank. You lie, obfuscate and run, then claim persecution. Poor you! How is your nonsense "useful"? You don't chat about "history", you throw silly non sequiturs out there and links to stuff you don't even read. Your thread is there for the world to see. Others provided scientific data, formulas, discussion, while you provided whining, excuses, evasions and claims of persecution.

It's all there. We can see it. Why deny it? You are just making yourself a laughable example of the worst in cyber pseudoscience. Or do you think that you have provided something convincing? Really?

How did you enter this rather substantial and sometimes demanding thread?

...............

Franktalk wrote:
I have to smile when I read posts like this. On one side we have people who by faith believe in a supernatural God. On the other we have people who have hugely overreached with their interpretations of the cosmos. Both groups are clueless.

But fun to watch.

..............

So, in calling people "clueless", who started with the personal attacks?

[_Lemmie]

Why share it if it's off-limits for discussion?

Some people are just not worth chatting with. I mean just look at Maksutov's response to my post. How is any of that useful? I chat about events in history to make a point and he uses personal attacks. This is not a discussion. It is exactly as I described it.

oh, you mean Maksutov's response to your "chat about events in history" that ended with this?

This site has bullies and they love to kick sand in the face of the kid who dares to play in their sandbox.

[_Maksutov]

oh, you mean Maksutov's response to your "chat about events in history" that ended with this?

This site has bullies and they love to kick sand in the face of the kid who dares to play in their sandbox.

"Playing in a sandbox" pretty much sums up Frank's state of mind. Apparently it's also as far as he's willing, or able, to go. If you wander into a discussion of cosmology and diss physics since Faraday and sneer at peer review in favor of cybercrackpots, maybe a little sand in the face is well earned.

[Guest]

I enjoy a lively discussion in which diverse opinions are shared. What I do not enjoy is a witch hunt.

Some time ago a man named Bretz formed a theory about a flood in the northwest United States. He was branded as a heretic by the leaders of orthodox geology. He had the nerve to actually suggest a massive flood. So he was thrown out of the group and his theory was considered the work of a religious nut job. But a day came in which the theory of Bretz was accepted by the leaders of geology. So did the leaders have a change of heart? No they did not. They died. New leaders took over and they had no agenda except to follow the data. Now Bretz was lucky, he was still alive when this happened. Normally a theory rejected is only accepted many years after the death of the scientist.

Franktalk,

Your characterization of Harlen Bretz and of the events surrounding the recognition of the Lake Missoula ice dam floods and the creation of the coulees and channeled scablands in Southeastern Washington State is as much your fantasy as it is fact.

To my knowledge Bretz was never considered a 'religions nut job'. He was a competent geologist. His theory was initially rejected by some in the community because these colleagues associated it the with the biblical flood. That's it.

Also, Bretz was not "thrown out" of any group. In fact he was able to publish his work in a peer reviewed journal in the early 1920s. Why ? Because he had supporting data.

After initially presenting his findings to an audience of skeptical geologists in the the late 1920s, Bretz teamed up with another geologist, Joseph Pardee, who had a similar view of the natural history of the region. They collaborated for several years, worked well together, and both got credit when their initial theories were vindicated.

One of the problems in gaining wide acceptance for the theory was that Southeastern Washington was a relatively remote and empty place in the 1920s. In the main, Bretz' geologist colleagues had never seen the place for themselves. Pretty hard not to believe the glacial flood narrative if you actually walk the land - or better yet fly over it.

Tradition has it that the turning point in the acceptance of the Bretz and Pardee repetitive ice age flood theory came after it was decided to have a look at the area from the air. One flight was all it took.

I used to fly on weekends over the channelled scablands at low altitude often when we lived in the area. Some of the main geological features were immediately north and east of the airport. The main route of the 40 or more sequential floods, and their effects on the land, are readily picked out from the air.

From the mile after mile of rolling sediment dunes laid down by fast moving water, to places where a fault in the basalt was widened into a canyon, to the site of the largest ancient waterfall ever discovered, the land features can be spectacular - when you know what to look for.

Finally Franktalk, which leaders in geology who rejected Bretz' claims continued to do so after, say 1960, and never acknowledged that Bretz was right before they died, as you claim? I am aware of none. Can you name one?

Sorry Franktalk. You and Harlen Bretz are not fellow travelers. Bretz had a strong background in science, knowledge as to what he was doing, and data - three things you have yet to demonstrate.

[_Gadianton]

Your characterization of Harlen Btetz and of the events surrounding the recognition of the Lake Missoula ice dam floods and the creation of the coulees and channeled scablands in Southeastern Washington State, is as much your fantasy as it is fact.

Is there anything about science you don't know about? Man, Franktalk should really take advantage of the opportunity he has on this board to get his thinking in the right direction.

[_Dantana]

If one were to take a box and remove every particle, creating a perfect vacuum (i.e. 'nothing' inside the box), that box would still be filled with quantum fields. Because of the waves propagating along these fields, particles "pop" into and out of existence. These particles - the effects of vibrations or excitations in quantized fields - can be detected with experimental apparatus properly set up to demonstrate the Casmir effect. Something from nothing.

Well, what I wanted to write was - Isn't the 'quantum field' a 'thing'? So, therefore, not something from nothing. Something from something. But then I googled quantum field theory and realized I might be in over my head, or have case of Dunning-Kruger....so I didn't.