Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
uh...ok?
I loved making this video, physicists are so full of shit
- Thread starter David Jeffrey Spetch
- Start date
uh...ok?
Yes, they seek the truth. Do not misunderstand that they are totally changing knowledge. They are refining it.
Fo things change when science changed from geocentricity to heleiocentricity. It changes everything yet nothing to people;'s lives. Do rightys think that was a sign that science is flawed? Nope. It adapts with knowledge. It is on a constant mission to discover as much as it can. That is the opposite of religion.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are hallucinating again. No one is playing opposites.
You are not making any proof either.
Into the Night
Verified User
Actually, not ok. He's teaching religion is science.
Into the Night
Verified User
Science isn't a Universal Truth. Only religions claim that. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Science isn't knowledge either. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Science isn't 'refining' anything.
The Theory of an Earth centered universe was falsified by Galileo.
The Theory of a Sun centered universe was falsified by Newton and Einstein.
Neither is a theory of science anymore.
Paradox. Irrational.
You are pivoting. That's a fallacy. The discussion is about the Theory of the Big Bang, which was never a theory of science. It is a religion.
Science isn't knowledge. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not possible to prove any theory True. It IS possible to show a theory of science to be False. It is NOT possible to show a nonscientific theory to be False. A nonscientific theory remains a circular argument. If arguments extend from it, that makes it a religion. The Theory of the Big Bang is a religion. Indeed, many people try to prove the circular argument True. That is not possible. That is what a fundamentalist does.
Science isn't 'discovery'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
The Theory of the Big Bang is NOT science. It is a religion, with many fundamentalists in it (including you).
It is not possible to test the null hypothesis of this theory (or any other theory concerning an unobserved event). Science requires this test to be available, practical, specific, and to produce a specific result. This is what 'falsifiable' means. Every theory of science is falsifiable. That is the very definition of science...a set of falsifiable theories.
It is also not possible to prove any theory True (regardless of whether it's a theory of science or not).
For example (since you brought it up):
The theory of science that the Earth was the center of the Universe was first created by Aristotle. He assumed the Earth was stationary (well, you can't feel any motion, can you?) and that everything else orbited the Earth.
This theory was falsified by Galileo when he was able to show that moons orbit Jupiter, blowing the whole Earth centric model to hell. It did NOT prove the Earth orbited the Sun (a different theory of science), but just that the Earth centered model was False.
The theory of science that the Earth orbited the Sun and everything else orbited the pair (the Tychonian model) was falsified by Kepler. He was able to show that Mars also orbited the Sun, and did that for Jupiter and the other planets as well. The Tychonian theory is no longer a theory of science.
The theory of science that everything orbits the Sun was falsified by Newton and again by Einstein. They were able to show that a) everything has gravity, including the Sun, and that bodies in space orbit each other, and b) that nothing is stationary.
The current theory of science states concerning this is that all bodies orbit each other around a point called the barycenter.
This stems from the theory of Gravitational Attraction created by Newton. It is testable. It is falsifiable. So far the theory has not yet been falsified. It is still a theory of science. The equation tested is F=G * (m1*m2) / r^2 where 'F' is force, 'G' is a natural constant (which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'm1' and 'm2' are two masses, and 'r' is the distance between them.
If ANYTHING falsifies this equation, it will be falsified. It will no longer be a theory of science. So far, it has not yet been falsified.
The Theory of the Big Bang cannot be tested. It is not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened. Science has NO theories about any unobserved event. They are not falsifiable.
You are. Quit lying. You just say the opposite and run away.
The big bang is not religion. Perhaps your stupidity is. The backf\ground radiation map shows there was an explosion 14.5 billion years ago.https://www.wired.com/2010/10/spacecraft-finishes-mapping-cosmic-background-radiation/ You are too ignorant to deal with.
Into the Night
Verified User
I am convinced you have no idea what 'opposite' even means.
It is a religion. It is not a falsifiable theory.
It shows no such thing. Also note that supporting evidence is not used in science. Only religions do that.
Inversion fallacy.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I know he is.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I think you're missing my point. YOU are not a scientist and after having read your posts...for far too long...I know YOU do not seek knowledge. Don't hide behind scientists and science, I know you have no understanding of either. I quoted you and even went to the trouble of highlighting the relevant portion where you contradicted yourself.
I just started the video, and Oh My!!! 23 second in, and it is so much worse than I thought.
Clearly "everything that ever existed will always exist" is wrong. People live and die. Buildings are built and crumble. Science has no idea what was before the Big Bang, but in theory there was something there before.
The cosmic background radiation that was found is the proof the big bangers needed to back the theory that was determined by Astrophysicists since Einstein. https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-...ents the heat,or minus 273.15 degrees Celsius.) It is the proof the big bangers sought.
Hide behind? What a strange thing to say. That implies I am deliberately trying to cover up something? I accept scientific evidence presented by educated and trained professionals over the protestations of people who base their lives on myth and bronze age books or dubious origins. You are not qualified to make such a determination. You KNOW nothing about me.
Here is the first Feinman equation.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/fried.html Does someone have to feed you?
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I didn't say you were covering something. If you knew you had to bother to cover something up then you'd be smarter than I think you are.
You should think before typing. You are off subject, rambling and as usual, distilling it down to posts of immature insults.
Into the Night
Verified User
Attempted proof by fundamentalism. Circular argument fallacy. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.
Astronomer, not astrophysicist. His name was Fred Hoyle. The Theory of the Big Bang was introduced in 1949. It is not a theory of science. It remains a circular argument, and, in this case, a religion. There are many fundamentalists in this religion, including you.
Attempted proof by fundamentalism. Circular argument fallacy.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. It is not possible to prove a nonscientific theory False. It IS possible to show a theory of science to be False.
Only religions use supporting evidence.
When a truly stupid post is required, you are always up to the job. I presented no circular arguments. Zero. The first suggestion for the big bang was Lamaitre. However, it took a while for evidence backing it to show and it did. You cite religion frequently and say stupidly and wrongly that astrophysics and science is a religion, and imply that if it is so that goes against its credibility. Therefore all your crazy posts have no credibility like your bible citing in gay threads. Try and be consistent in other things rather than just in logic.
Last edited:
Dave
Just a suggestion here...
Write a script for exercises like this in the future.
It will allow you to better organize your points and present them in an orderly and logical manner.
Off the cuff is a very difficult skill to learn and all too often renders the message too hard to absorb.
Just a suggestion here...
Write a script for exercises like this in the future.
It will allow you to better organize your points and present them in an orderly and logical manner.
Off the cuff is a very difficult skill to learn and all too often renders the message too hard to absorb.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are. Your own illiteracy.
Science is not evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as 'scientific evidence'. Buzzword fallacy.
'Expert' worship. Buzzword fallacies.
Neither me nor Guille is making these arguments at all. Straw man fallacy.
'Expert' worship. Qualifications are not necessary.
I know quite a bit about you:
* You are a nothing.
* You are deeply into fundamentalism of various religions including the Church of the Big Bang, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, and the Church of Covid.
* You have no mind of your own. You like to claim void references like 'experts'.
* You like to make false dilemma fallacies.
* You like to make inverted arguments, laying YOUR problems on someone else.
* You like to make arguments of the Stone fallacies.
* You like to try to connect unrelated URLs together as a 'proof' of something unrelated to any of them.
* You worship the government.
* You discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions. You support The Oligarchy.
* You are still deeply infected with TDS.
* You like to word stuff, and accuse people of saying things they never said.