Anarchists and Science

[grillo]

For the past few years, as I've slowly but surely made my way from minarchist to anarchist, there seems to be one stumbling block that I can never seem to get around; anarchists, and people who question the status quo in general, rarely seem to question the many dogmas of science, beyond the most obvious frauds (Man-made global warming and peak oil come to mind). I wonder, with so much talk about the 'big-bang' when arguing with creationists, and other silly (and provably wrong) ideas, why is it that so many of you take the scientific main-steam, which is almost entirely funded by the state, at its word? The same goes for health care (folks seem to love drugs and other state-pharma-warfare-complex procedures).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing any theist or creationist angle here or even looking for trouble. Maybe I'm completely wrong about how you folks think, and I'd be interested in anyone's response. But the gravity-only model of how the universe works simply doesn't fit the actual universe we perceive. Therefore, talking about string-theory and blackholes (as defined by gravity) comes across as ignorant.
If anyone is interested I'd be happy to put links up about these topics.
BTW, I love how the Evolution Fairytale people claims this board is about "killing Christians".

[Brad Reddekopp]

For the past few years, as I've slowly but surely made my way from minarchist to anarchist, there seems to be one stumbling block that I can never seem to get around; anarchists, and people who question the status quo in general, rarely seem to question the many dogmas of science, beyond the most obvious frauds (Man-made global warming and peak oil come to mind). I wonder, with so much talk about the 'big-bang' when arguing with creationists, and other silly (and provably wrong) ideas, why is it that so many of you take the scientific main-steam, which is almost entirely funded by the state, at its word? The same goes for health care (folks seem to love drugs and other state-pharma-warfare-complex procedures).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing any theist or creationist angle here or even looking for trouble. Maybe I'm completely wrong about how you folks think, and I'd be interested in anyone's response. But the gravity-only model of how the universe works simply doesn't fit the actual universe we perceive. Therefore, talking about string-theory and blackholes (as defined by gravity) comes across as ignorant.
If anyone is interested I'd be happy to put links up about these topics.

In the long run, I trust scientific method. I don't necessarily trust what any particular scientist is saying about his or her latest work but I trust scientific methods of investigation to eventually do what they are designed to do, which is to compensate for various human shortcomings (biases, stupidity, dishonesty, etc.).

BTW, I love how the Evolution Fairytale people claims this board is about "killing Christians".

Really? Who's been saying such a thing?

[grillo]

For the past few years, as I've slowly but surely made my way from minarchist to anarchist, there seems to be one stumbling block that I can never seem to get around; anarchists, and people who question the status quo in general, rarely seem to question the many dogmas of science, beyond the most obvious frauds (Man-made global warming and peak oil come to mind). I wonder, with so much talk about the 'big-bang' when arguing with creationists, and other silly (and provably wrong) ideas, why is it that so many of you take the scientific main-steam, which is almost entirely funded by the state, at its word? The same goes for health care (folks seem to love drugs and other state-pharma-warfare-complex procedures).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing any theist or creationist angle here or even looking for trouble. Maybe I'm completely wrong about how you folks think, and I'd be interested in anyone's response. But the gravity-only model of how the universe works simply doesn't fit the actual universe we perceive. Therefore, talking about string-theory and blackholes (as defined by gravity) comes across as ignorant.
If anyone is interested I'd be happy to put links up about these topics.

In the long run, I trust scientific method. I don't necessarily trust what any particular scientist is saying about his or her latest work but I trust scientific methods of investigation to eventually do what they are designed to do, which is to compensate for various human shortcomings (biases, stupidity, dishonesty, etc.).

BTW, I love how the Evolution Fairytale people claims this board is about "killing Christians".

Really? Who's been saying such a thing?

Well, I guess I'd be curious why you might think that? As far as I can tell, no other state-funded venture had fulfilled what it supposedly set out to do with any kind of honesty. Health care and the supposed dietary sciences appear to simply be propaghanda and distrubution arms of the Pharma industry. While there are many many doctors and scientists who attempt to do real research and get the word out to the people, the scientific mains- stream cannot and will not ever report on, nor utilize this information, other than to knock it. So why trust the scientific-method when those that use it are mostly either stupid or evil?
Also, what is the scientific method, according to your understanding?
As we can see with the study of space, the theory of a gravity-driven universe is the ONLY theory most people are ever exposed to in the media, at school, or with friends, despite the fact that the maths that 'prove' it also 'prove' that one cannot see or ever test more than 95% of the universe, because it is made of magical dark-matter! To hold on to this absurd notion of space that has sprung from these faulty, overly complicated mathematical models we now have such arcane notions as: curved space, neutron stars, WIMPs (and now WIMPZILLAS), MACHOs, several different types of black holes, superluminal jets, dark energy, and magnetic field lines that pile-up, merge and reconnect. All of these inventions are fictions put forth by astrophysicists in desperate efforts to defend their theories when faced with contradicting observations. None have ever been observed or photographed. Many of them are demonstrably impossible. But their existence is repeatedly invoked to explain new observations and measurements that contradict the enshrined theories of modern astronomy. Now black holes, which are supposedly gravitational singularities that allow nothing to escape their grasp including light, can be seen to blow jets of radiation from their centers. Again, huh? All this to hold on to the Big Band theory? Why?
It appears to me there is a terrible flaw in the scientific-method that allows it to be manipulated by the status quo...

Here's that link to Evolution Fairytale http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1353&st=0
GOTG is listed in the links at the bottom of the first post!!!

[Brad Reddekopp]

For the past few years, as I've slowly but surely made my way from minarchist to anarchist, there seems to be one stumbling block that I can never seem to get around; anarchists, and people who question the status quo in general, rarely seem to question the many dogmas of science, beyond the most obvious frauds (Man-made global warming and peak oil come to mind). I wonder, with so much talk about the 'big-bang' when arguing with creationists, and other silly (and provably wrong) ideas, why is it that so many of you take the scientific main-steam, which is almost entirely funded by the state, at its word? The same goes for health care (folks seem to love drugs and other state-pharma-warfare-complex procedures).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing any theist or creationist angle here or even looking for trouble. Maybe I'm completely wrong about how you folks think, and I'd be interested in anyone's response. But the gravity-only model of how the universe works simply doesn't fit the actual universe we perceive. Therefore, talking about string-theory and blackholes (as defined by gravity) comes across as ignorant.
If anyone is interested I'd be happy to put links up about these topics.

In the long run, I trust scientific method. I don't necessarily trust what any particular scientist is saying about his or her latest work but I trust scientific methods of investigation to eventually do what they are designed to do, which is to compensate for various human shortcomings (biases, stupidity, dishonesty, etc.).

BTW, I love how the Evolution Fairytale people claims this board is about "killing Christians".

Really? Who's been saying such a thing?

Well, I guess I'd be curious why you might think that? As far as I can tell, no other state-funded venture had fulfilled what it supposedly set out to do with any kind of honesty.

You may have missed my point. Most scientists may be funded by governments or corporations but I think that to suggest that the scientific method itself is state-funded is mistaken. It is my view that the principles of peer review, testability, repeatability, etc., will win out in the long run. Those last four words are the key to what I'm saying. I recognize that it's probably wise to be skeptical of much of what comes out of the mainstream in the short term.

So why trust the scientific-method when those that use it are mostly either stupid or evil?

The individuals who use it, as well as the nations and corporations that back them, are in competition with one another. I don't believe that there is any grand conspiracy uniting all scientists into some massive cabal to prevent the truth from coming out.

Also, what is the scientific method, according to your understanding?

The common understanding of scientific method will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

As we can see with the study of space, the theory of a gravity-driven universe is the ONLY theory most people are ever exposed to ...

With all due respect, I'm not particularly interested. Perhaps someone else here will find that subject sufficiently compelling that they'll want to invest some time in discussing it.

Here's that link to Evolution Fairytale http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1353&st=0
GOTG is listed in the links at the bottom of the first post!!!

Historically, religious movements have generally experienced "revival" (increased commitment and enthusiasm among members) when they've been persecuted. Many Christians are aware of this, at least on some level, and so they love to imagine that they are persecuted even when they are not.

[Hierophant]

I have actually been questioning science, but not the assertion of a gravity-driven universe. I think it's silly to deny that.

[Hierophant]

Apparently we want to kill Christians. HAH!

It's true that I want to stamp our Christianity, but not kill Christians. After all, murder is a sin^b^b^bcrime.

[Brad Reddekopp]

If they've included GOTG on that list on the basis of the name, that suggests that a) they think they are gods and/or b) they're idiots. (It's more likely to be 'b' but 'a' is funnier.)

[grillo]

I have actually been questioning science, but not the assertion of a gravity-driven universe. I think it's silly to deny that.

Kinda like how it was silly to question the earth-centric model of the Universe? I suppose you have thoroughly studied plasma cosmology and the electric model of the universe ( a model that actual can account for all of the observable phoenomena in space without inventing un-measurable hoo-ha). I know you wouldn't simply assert something as silly without having any idea about what you are talking about.
It is this exact knee-jerk response that has me constantly pulling my hair out (not really). Let me guess, you learned it in school, NASA says it is so, as does the popular science magazines, therefore you know the gravity-driven model is correct. Is that where your knowledge comes from?
Like the statist paradigm, the scientific establishment has too much invested in its own bad ideas to admit they are wrong. However, the occasional plasma-driven-model article does find it's way into the mainstream and, like NODeity said, once the free-market is made aware of these ideas (there being no grand conspiracy) I imagine science will go through some new paradigm-changing episode, and the past 100 years will be what looks silly.
Two Links, FT; http://www.plasmacosmology.net/ and http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/davesmith_au.htm

Let me know what, if anything, you think.

[Hierophant]

I am not interested in alternate theories. Sorry.

[grillo]

I am not interested in alternate theories. Sorry.

Which is why I asked the question in my first post...

[Sparx]

Interesting. I can't find any reviews on plasma cosmology by skeptics.

[grillo]

Yeah. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but it is really interesting. Good to hear someone else thinks so. The thunderbolts forum ( http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php) is pretty fascinating and they tend to keep up with the latest news from NASA and the like and view it through electric-universe glasses. Worth checking out...

[Hierophant]

The reason why I have no interest is that no one has demonstrated to me that there was a problem.

[grillo]

The problem, as I understand it, is mainstream astro-physics uses a gravity only model of the universe, but since gravity is such an incredibly weak force (as demonstrated by the fact that you can overcome the gravity of an entire planet by simply lifting your arms) these scientists make more and more crazy mathematical assumptions and inventions (like dark matter) in order to describe the universe. The plasma based theory appears much simpler and requires no invisible matter or math-only explanations. In other words, it has the edge in terms of Occum's Razor ie; simple.
here is a good breakdown...http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm
And here is a guy that has some pretty cool ideas about physics in general...http://milesmathis.com/death.html

[Tmaq]

Interesting. I can't find any reviews on plasma cosmology by skeptics.

Last time I checked, the issue was the Zeeman splitting of light due to magnetic fields; if red-shifting isn't due to the speed that galaxies are receding as per the Big Bang theory, and is instead due to the passage of light through a strong magnetic field (or billions of years of passing through weak magnetic fields), then we would expect Zeeman Splitting (where one frequency of light becomes 1 primary and two secondary, slight shifted) in the emission lines we are using to measure red shifting.

We don't see that splitting, which is a major problem for that theory, especially because one of the predictions is quantization in the frequencies of red-shifting, for which there is some evidence.

The Plasma Universe (Which used to be called the magnetic steady-state universe) does address the various 'epicycles' of the Big Bang theory, in addition to contradicting one of the most fundamental parts of any cosmology; it posits a much older (or potentially older, anyway) universe by making a steady-state universe plausible again. Plasma theory could be finite and unbounded, too. And it could also be the case inside a bubble inside a neutron star forming spontaneously because of hawking radiation, but you know, those untestable notions are half the fun!

The infinite ionized universe is an awesome theory, worthy of at least as much consideration as any other theory, especially because it can accord with many other aspects of other theories. Its the original dark matter theory, but whereas Big Bang supposes it to explain where the gravity is coming from, Plasma ends up including it by invoking a homogenous structure with an explanation for the rarity of illuminated matter. Galaxies formed from the 'shorting' of matter and anti-matter plasma streams, which implies much larger, darker, supporting events for each 'spark.' Giant streams of protons aren't very reactive. Giant streams of anti-protons aren't, either. Boy do they make light when they meet. "Don't cross the streams!"

One of the best parts is that it implies a much, much longer time-horizon for the universe, and for that reason, kind of backfires; why don't we see stars older than 12 billion years or so, if its been around forever? (Infinite in size, or age, or both are all possibilities, and we can combine it with 'brane theory' the original "get out of comitting to a geometry" card.)

-Tom