Maybe, maybe not, I have seen his videos more than once the next day and 
even I picked things I had overheard him assuming too much and giving 
himself righteousness without much justification he does justify very 
well things on other occasions, and since much if not all the posters 
here haven't seen a complete video and/or are not willing to challenge 
the conventionalism of general believes I'd say you don't have an mind 
openness big enough to understand what his POV is and what he is saying 
actually.

  He says in one of his videos that the majority of the scientist 
community would ridicule him and others that dare to think different 
from the big bang followers.

I had the same doubt than you Warp saying how life can resist the 
inferno of a life forming planet conditions but he has proved that in 
the previous video and if that wasn't enough here is other proof: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16zeA-c-3vw&eurl=http://brainmind.com/Astrobiology1.html

Note that he mentions that evidence has been collected already by other 
scientist so is not just he and his pseudo scientific personal world, 
there is actual evidence that support his theories and suggest that as 
the logical explanation.

I'm also aware that we, as humans, have limited resources to know what 
really happened or will happen in terms of millions/billions of years, 
we may be getting to what it happened but maybe is just a fraction of 
the explanation and/or a fraction for sure of what things influenced as 
factors for such conclusions and further and more complete answers will 
come in time completing/correcting current explanations.

If you know a better plce for astronomy videos, for free, I'd appreciate 
the link(s) and visit them right away, mean while his theories makes 
perfect sense to me.

Post a reply to this message

I'd appreciate links if you have them.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> are not willing to challenge 
> the conventionalism of general believes I'd say you don't have an mind 
> openness big enough to understand what his POV is and what he is saying 
> actually.

>   He says in one of his videos that the majority of the scientist 
> community would ridicule him and others that dare to think different 
> from the big bang followers.

  You see, that's very typical pseudoscientist talk: Basically, there's
a world-wide conspiracy between scientists to have only one true theory of
everything, and any alternative theories are shut down and ridiculed for
the sole reason that they are incompatible with the one true theory.
Scientists are very closed-minded and are not willing to even consider
alternative theories.

  Of course pseudoscientists like to talk like this because it gives them
more credibility. They want to give the layman the impression that the
"scientific community" consists of old farts who are fixated into one
single old theory, have a strong resistance to change and are not even
willing to consider or study alternatives. The pseudoscientist wants to
give an impression of himself as being an innovator, someone who thinks
out of the box, who is not stagnated by historical (and often untrue)
theories, and that he is fighting the good fight against the "scientific
community" who is ridiculing him and shutting him down.

  But naturally this is just a bunch of lies, and has nothing to do with
reality.

  The scientific community consists of thousands and thousands of different
people from around the world, from different cultures and different
ideologies. They are not just one single entity who are brainwashed by
some central organization to believe in one scientific theory without
question. They are individual, rational people, and most of them are from
countries and cultures which have absolutely no interest in advocating
some theory from some other culture (eg. the US or Europe) if they know
or suspect that the theory may not be believable in the scientific sense.

  And most of them are certainly innovators and open-minded, who are very
ready to consider and study alternatives. Nothing would reward a scientist
more than being able to publish a paper about a brand new hypothesis or
even theory, which other scientists could study, measure and test, and
as a result of this could be considered scientifically sound.

  The main problem with pseudoscientists is that they usually present
hypotheses which are not measureable, testable nor falsifiable. These
hypotheses are of little scientific value. The pseudoscientist will then
complain that the scientific community doesn't take him seriously because
of this. Then they will just start ranting how the scientific community
is stagnated and doesn't accept new ideas.

  However, science just doesn't work that way. Hypotheses must be based
on measurements and must be falsifiable. Experiments must be repeatable
and their results verifiable. Else it's of little use.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   You see, that's very typical pseudoscientist talk: Basically, there's
> a world-wide conspiracy between scientists to have only one true theory of
> everything, and any alternative theories are shut down and ridiculed for
> the sole reason that they are incompatible with the one true theory.
> Scientists are very closed-minded and are not willing to even consider
> alternative theories.
> 
>   Of course pseudoscientists like to talk like this because it gives them
> more credibility. They want to give the layman the impression that the
> "scientific community" consists of old farts who are fixated into one
> single old theory, have a strong resistance to change and are not even
> willing to consider or study alternatives. The pseudoscientist wants to
> give an impression of himself as being an innovator, someone who thinks
> out of the box, who is not stagnated by historical (and often untrue)
> theories, and that he is fighting the good fight against the "scientific
> community" who is ridiculing him and shutting him down.
> 
>   But naturally this is just a bunch of lies, and has nothing to do with
> reality.

Well... there *have* been scientific theories which were considered 
ridiculous for a long time, which eventually turned out to be correct. 
And in some branches of science, there isn't a whole heap of evidence to 
go on, and so opinion starts to dominate over evidence and hence you do 
get scientists who are kind of set-on a particular theory and don't want 
to look at other theories.

On the other hand, this is the exception rather than the norm. Sometimes 
there is a certain reluctance to accept a new theory, but science didn't 
get where it is today by ignoring available evidence. Any true scientist 
would at least consider the possibility that another theory is right 
given hard evidence to support it.

>   The scientific community consists of thousands and thousands of different
> people from around the world.
> 
>   And most of them are certainly innovators and open-minded, who are very
> ready to consider and study alternatives. Nothing would reward a scientist
> more than being able to publish a paper about a brand new hypothesis or
> even theory, which other scientists could study, measure and test, and
> as a result of this could be considered scientifically sound.

Indeed. This is what scientists live for. (Not to mention getting paid 
for...)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Just because someone "makes sense" to you doesn't automatically mean
> he is right.

String Theory "makes sense". In fact, a while back, there were actually 
half a dozen slightly different version of ST, and they all appeared to 
make sense. What nobody could figure out is which of them - if any - 
actually apply to the Real World that we live in...

Newton's Laws of Motion make perfect sense. Being able to accelerate an 
object to unlimited speeds makes sense. But the Real World doesn't 
actually work that way, it turns out.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well... there *have* been scientific theories which were considered 
> ridiculous for a long time, which eventually turned out to be correct. 

  I think this happened mostly at the latter half of the 1800's and very
early in the 1900's. Many prominent scientists had got a bit arrogant
because they believed that almost everything that there is to know about
physics and the Universe is known, that there's nothing new left to
discover. In other words, that the science branch of physics is "complete".
Measurements which contradicted established theories, while a bit
uncomfortable, were often just dismissed as having some simple explanation.

  While arrogant people will always exist, I think the scientific community
as a whole has learned its lesson and got mostly over this kind of mentality
after relativity and quantum mechanics basically showed that almost
everything we thought we know is inaccurate.

  New plausible theories are not immediately shut down and ridiculed.
There have been several examples posted in this very newsgroup (eg.
about those articles dealing with black holes and GR).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Well... there *have* been scientific theories which were considered 
>> ridiculous for a long time, which eventually turned out to be correct. 
> 
>   I think this happened mostly at the latter half of the 1800's and very
> early in the 1900's.
> 
>   While arrogant people will always exist, I think the scientific community
> as a whole has learned its lesson and got mostly over this kind of mentality
> after relativity and quantum mechanics basically showed that almost
> everything we thought we know is inaccurate.

There wre still lively debates about, e.g., whether H. floresiensis is a 
"real" new species or a small group of diseased H. sapiens specimins. 
Some claim that this absolutely is a brand new species, for a whole long 
list of reasons. And others simply laugh at the idea and claim it's pure 
moonshine. But...

>   New plausible theories are not immediately shut down and ridiculed.

...I think this is the bottom line. There is a contraversy here, rather 
than a "X is false, end of discussion".

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Well... there *have* been scientific theories which were considered 
>> ridiculous for a long time, which eventually turned out to be correct. 
> 
>   I think this happened mostly at the latter half of the 1800's and very
> early in the 1900's. Many prominent scientists had got a bit arrogant
> because they believed that almost everything that there is to know about
> physics and the Universe is known, that there's nothing new left to
> discover. In other words, that the science branch of physics is "complete".
> Measurements which contradicted established theories, while a bit
> uncomfortable, were often just dismissed as having some simple explanation.

	You mean, like today's theoretical particle physicists? From their
perspective, the Standard Model is complete. If the LHC finds the Higgs
Boson where they expect it, then that'll be the final evidence they need
to declare it so.

	As for within the scientific disciplines, and especially in relatively
new fields, I see this arrogance frequently. Someone puports a new
theory that explains certain phenomena (in some material, say). The
referees routinely reject it purely because it's not based on the
current model. These aren't big issues/theories, which is why usually
the only people who know about them are those directly involved.


-- 
!@#$%^&*: The most widely used computer term worldwide.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> after relativity and quantum mechanics basically showed that almost
> everything we thought we know is inaccurate.

I think it's probably also the case that at the time, there was little 
evidence that scientists were wrong in this respect. There were very few 
measurements that were different than theory predicted to the limit of 
accuracy of the instruments, relatively few "unexplained" observations, and 
so on. Nobody had seen the cosmic background radiation, nobody had seen 
enough quantum effects to realize what they were, nobody had measured the 
orbit of Mercury accurately enough to realize it was "wrong", and so on.

I suspect that had instruments started getting more accurate, the failure of 
reality to line up with theory would have triggered more explorations of new 
theories, just like photoelectric phenomena did.

>   New plausible theories are not immediately shut down and ridiculed.

Yeah. The difference is, new theories not only have to explain *some* of the 
results, they have to explain *all* of the experimental results, and 
hopefully *also* explain something the current theories don't. And as 
physics and other sciences get more and more complete, it gets harder and 
harder to come up with a new theory that still agrees with the old theory 
except in the places we haven't looked.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message

On 6-3-2009 10:24, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I'd appreciate links if you have them.

what about simply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

This in contrast to Josephs' "magical thinking of modern day scientists"
and "Most modern scientists reject God and in stead embrace a theology 
of miracles. Preaching that life came from non-life. From lightning 
bolts striking a random mixture of chemicals in a super natural organic 
soup. An idea so absurd and laden with magical thinking it is equivalent 
with discovering a computer on mars and claiming that it was randomly 
assembled in the m[?] sea. The theory of organic soup is a silly 
childish myth, only life can give rise to life, only DNA can give rise 
to DNA, the machinery of life."

There is of course the ridiculing of all other less intelligent people 
that is a sure sign that what follows is a strawman argument. And 
indeed, I don't think you can find a modern scientists that thinks that 
life originated from lighning bolts in a mixture of chemicals. That 
refers to the famous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment that 
resulted in organic molecules, most importantly aminoacids. Note however 
that they are merely building blocks used by life but Miller, nor 
anybody else would claim that it *is* life. In fact nobody knows how 
that came about. So, claiming that you know what "most modern 
scientists" think happened is plain silly and uninformed. We also know 
that many organic molecules form in outer space, a fact that is 
apparently not relevant at this point, though no doubt somewhere in the 
video that will be mentioned.
I have not a clue what the computer is doing in the next sentence so I 
won't comment.
Then there is the claim that "only life can give rise to life" which 
either implies that life has been there since whenever the universe 
begun or that there is none now. I don't believe either of these 
positions, so I believe this is factually an incorrect statement.
Followed by "only DNA can give rise to DNA", which is for the same 
reason nonsense. Besides in order to make DNA you need to have RNA as 
well. Moreover there is life that does not contain DNA but only RNA. In 
fact as you will see in wiki, there are quite a lot of people that think 
it is likely that before DNA we had purely RNA based life and before 
that we might have even had other reproducing systems. Oh and note also 
that we also know that there is more to genetics than merely DNA and RNA.
In short, I don't like his attitude. I know that he is factually wrong 
on almost everything in the first few minutes of this video. (As if he 
has read a few pieces in the general papers and stopped reading anything 
after the 80's.) It also makes me sad that somebody spends so much of 
his time in spreading his own misformed view of science and his personal 
pet-theories.
There may be some more factually correct statements after 2:45, but it 
is not likely that I will find out.

Post a reply to this message