Re: Astrology -the only real science
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:48 am
Fire, you're a fucking idiot. Go learn some basic science.
Discuss all things noise.. or else.
quote where i did this, bloviating moron
quotes or lies
as if! no one takes me seriously because of morons like you not being serious, you argue but have no intelligence of your own
jliat wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:43 amGood, then why post here! You cite a proof from a cosmologist whose measure contradicts your faith in the electric universe. Then you ask me to quote it! Which sounds like you didnt read what you posted.
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don't add more layers of research red-tape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and re-checking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 × 10–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are).
And when applied to thermonuclear Versus Electric sun - the electric sun falls over! Well done!
pay attention dumbassjliat wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:13 amWhich sounds like you didnt read what you posted.
The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.
see, this kind of flippant ignorance is what gets you called names, only a moron would think there is any evidence for a thermonuclear sun when there isnt, while simultaneously ignoring all actual evidence of an electric sun
My point - and what person would cite this moron in support of their claims - something you have done! Daric i'm not the one saying the youtube theory of electric sun is wrong - its the likes of Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford who teaches the Standard Model.
And then the wheels fell off…
Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.
I wondered where you had got to the past day or so. So reading is now OK? I've no egghead buddies, if you were paying any attention i was in fact not challenging them on their work, or particularly the fringe. I've no idea what the kp index is, and no particular wish to know. In the main i'm pulling you up on your very poor argument skills. Use of miss quotes, blatant contradiction and abusiveness.... attacking strawmen etc.
haha haha ha hahahaha haha, whee yah that was funny!
see kids, this is what a stupid person does, pretends he isnt interested in the arguement while endlessly posting arguements and then when they fail... deflection, so now its my fault he cant get me to "get" something that is wrong, total moronjliat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:10 amIf given to choose between a qualified astro physicist and someone with no such qualification i'd tend to choose the former on those matters. Same goes for Airline pilots and Presidents, look at the latter example. It doesn't mean i believe they are right. You never seem to get this. Maybe you want to beat up on science and scientists, well i'm not the guy. Sorry.
yeah, its not right to make fun of you, since society is set up for the few on top to benefit at the expense of the many stupid, i really should feel sorry for you, thats what is socially acceptable, but i would rather bring you down, no more dipshits on a pedestal, your participation trophy is taken away, farewell and good riddancejliat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:10 amI've told you before, but if not, my interests are art, philosophy, comparative religion. All science is ever a priori ... even your thunderbolt lot. Add to that is it (all science electric and other) misses the metaphysical aspect of truth, life and being. These being the province of art, philosophy and religion. I'm neither a believer in a mathematical universe or a mechanical one, or electrical one.