The Helical Model - Our Solar System Is A Vortex!

If there is electricity, the Stars react to it.

If there is fire, the Stars burn by it.

If there is matter, the Stars fuse with it.

If there is gravity, the Stars master it.

If there is life, ..............guess.



If there is life, the Stars live by it.

Pick my fights? I already won, I handed Luxembourg's ass to him.

It says you were quoting me, but that is not what I wrote. I do not know who you were quoting there, but it certainly wasn't me.

With that said, conventional science is always it's own worst enemy due to entrenchment of theories that become favorites of the scientific community.

The truth is not a popularity contest, the most brilliant ideas aren't always the most accepted ones.

Science is always proving itself wrong and refining itself, that's the path and process of discovery. So when a scientist cannot maintain the notion that accepted and popular mainstream theories could actually be wrong and/or incomplete, he/she is demonstrating poor form.


We live in a scientific oligarchy. It's mandatory that we question the so-called "proven" theories being purported by the entrenched scientific community. At best they are incomplete unto themselves.

When an educated person who "knows" stuff feels the need to insult and condescend to others, they are over-compensating for something.

When the world was flat, there were more "facts" to back up the flat model and very few arguments for the spherical model.


Science is built from observation. And people only see what they WANT to believe. And people only believe what the church tells them to believe.

If it is true, it will never be believed by the masses until it is recognized by the masses in whole.

Why not tell him fuck yourself off, that way he may be less stressed in future

Avoiding my question, reinforcing my statement.

You have to remember, he is not a scientist.

He is a priest, and a zealous guardian of the Standard Model orthodoxy.

For him to even consider that electricity rather than gravity controls the Universe would be a heresy that would cause his head to explode.

yes.

what's up with all the insights that classical science has known for several centuries now, that currently are being sold as 'breaking news'?

the rotational heliocentric model has been known to be inadequate for a century now. the fact that we are hurling throughout space (just like any other heavenly body) in a spiral way, is very old hat.

Yes indeed.

Always good for a few laughs though.


Z

Its like a car with no motion from the outside in the solarsystem.

With unknown airco whatever.

Also not earth wobeling around the galaxy center alone in an angle blahblah ... Crap people.

I live in the real world; gravity works, we successfully land probes on other worlds using calculations based on gravity. Get over it. I don't know why you decided to tell me to pick my battles when I already kicked his ass but maybe you don't live in the real world.

If you were paying attention you'd have noticed the quotes got fucked up some time ago and it wasn't just me. Try addressing the substance of what I said. You won't and you can't because I'm right. When jackasses feel the need to call me a shill or tell me to shut the fuck up, I will insult them. Get over it. I notice you don't think they're compensating. That's because you're biased and intellectually dishonest.

Last Edited by Astromut on 12/14/2012 08:40 PM

Where did I say those who were insulting me were compensating? Oh right, I didn't.

Science is always proving itself wrong, that's the process of discovery. It would stand to show that a good scientist is happy to prove themselves wrong, rather than constantly touting how "right" they are all of the time.

Insults don't do justice to the theories and ideas being discussed. When a person resorts to insults, they have lost objectivity and inserted their subjective emotions into the debate. Poor form for all parties involved.

Educated people are over-compensating when they resort to insults and slurs to debate a point. I stand by that remark, I don't think you noticed that it wasn't directed to anyone in particular, hence your following statement: "That's because you're biased and intellectually dishonest."

Thanks for playing.

It was clearly in reply and directed to me. Thanks for continuing to be intellectually dishonest. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong, but as predicted you will not address the substance of what I said. I will return insults in kind, I do not respect those who do not respect me. Don't like it? Too bad.

Well, if you wish to attribute my comment to you in particular, that is your choice.

Here is what I said, "When an educated person who 'knows' stuff feels the need to insult and condescend to others, they are over-compensating for something."


To quote an old African proverb, "Throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that barks is the one who has been hit."

Don't like it? Too bad.

You said it in reply to me, no one else. You are dishonest and biased in the extreme. I don't just roll over when told that I'm a shill and to shut the Fuck up. You said nothing to any of them, only to me.

And still no response to the substance of what I said. What I said stands.

The only thing in my reply that was directed to you specifically was the misquote.

Every other statement was generalized.

I'm not sure why you wish to make this personal and about you. Nor am I sure why you insist on insulting me, when I have not insulted you in any way.

Is this your protocol for debate?

The substance of what you said was not addressed because my statements were not specifically directed at you, they were broad and generalized statements about science, and the process of discovery, on the whole.

I can't understand why you want to make this all about you.

Why such a personal investment in other peoples' theories and ideas?

Perhaps this is why you have people making personal threats, etc., because you make it a personal issue.


Good luck to you. New ideas and theories do not have to be a threat to you, it's not necessary to ardently defend conventional theories or debunk new theories as though they were some sort of threat to the world of ideas at large. This is science, and the history of science is to prove itself wrong, that is the process of scientific discovery.

I encourage new ideas and theories, if that is my bias then so be it.

Astro and Second, enough, now go to your room you two! Come you guys, two intelligent folks. Can't you folks just agree to disagree? "Can't we all just get along?"

When you use this thing called the "quote" button, it means you're replying to someone.

People threaten me because they view my rationality as a threat to their irrational beliefs, particularly when I refuse to back down when told to shut up.

They are not a threat to me, which is precisely why I keep asking you over and over to PROVE ME WRONG AND ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT I SAID. How many times do I have to say that before you get it?

It's not about either, it's about showing bullshit for what it is. I actually showed substantively why the claims were completely false.

Your bias is that you only responded to my use of insults which was actually in reply to insults from your side of the argument. That is intellectual dishonesty at its best, and true to form, you denied that it was directed to me even though you were replying to my post and no one else's.

That's how your post started, but that's not where it finished. If you wanted to make a general statement not in reply to me you should have made a second separate post. Yes, you speak in generalities a lot, you've been doing it for the last several posts, but that does not mean it's not in response to me specifically and indeed you've again stated those generalities while responding to my posts.

I don't have to make a second post to communicate generalized statements directed at no one in particular.

My post was a reply to you because the quotes got all fucked up, and I was pointing out that I had been misquoted by you specifically.

I even said after that statement, "With that said....", and went on to speak in general terms about the scientific process at large.

Nothing about those broad statements were directed specifically at you.

You are calling me a liar because the last generalized statement in my post hit a nerve. In case you failed to notice my post was composed of ALL generalized statements, except my opening statement which was only directed at you to point out that the quoted material was not mine.

Is this your protocol for debate, to make it personal and question a person's motives from the jump-off by calling them intellectually dishonest?

Does it really surprise you when people make personal threats to you after this habitual manner of discourse? It's no wonder you keep getting yourself into trouble, you make yourself an easy target.


Like I said, good luck. I think you'll need it.

How dare you. Not only are you intellectually dishonest and refuse to see or care about the vitriol that was leveled at me which I was directly responding to (maybe you don't understand the concept of a direct response which tends to follow a quote box?), now you have the gall to insinuate that I'm the one to blame for the threats I receive. How dare you. There is no end to your dishonesty. If it were your side receiving the threats you'd blame it entirely on those making the threats and say they were compensating. Instead you insinuate that I'm to blame. No. It is people who are so deeply invested in bullshit that they threaten those who debunk their bullshit who are to blame. And it is people like you who encourage and enable them. I was not the only one who was threatened either.