OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
And yes, Economics is not science. It's a bunch of religious philosophers engaging in mathematical masturbation.
What Is Bad Science?
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
I've never had the impression that the multitude of telescopes around the world and in orbit are spending their time "not really looking"
Doer
Well-Known Member
This is an example of good science. Challenge it. Dark Matter is not a done deal. BTW, we have discussed the idea of elastic space density in another thread.
And I can show solid math, at least that there is no matter, at all. It is all condensed space. And it is the Higgs field that controls the density. And what controls the Higgs field? OK...Right.
Let's move on.
So, the most simple explanation beyond our particle-wave math constructs is that the vibration of space, in tiny reflecting scalar waves, is the component we call atomic matter. This is much harder to prove than particle-wave math. But, it fits well with String math and 11 dimensions.
Well, you say, P-W behavior is observed. But, I say, we could be observing the Scalar Wave behavior, instead. So, real science says we don't know, but this the Current Understanding.
But, in the Press, you get the done deal. Dark Matter scaffolds is what holds together the Universe. There was an experiment that mapped the lensing of "dark matter" across the Microwave background this year. Great results. But, what the heck is Dark Matter?
No one knows, but that doesn't stop the Press Done Deal Machine. We human must need a bit of fake certainly, I guess.
So, just like the Big Bang and Evolution took hold as the Current Understanding, so has Dark Matter. But, big holes in each. They are constantly challenged. There are giant gaps in the fossil record, for example. And new findings mean new hypothesis.
The press goes, "But you SAID..." Science says, "no." Big Bang requires a leap of faith, also. A faster than light period of expansion. Then add Dark Matter, the math is blown.
So, outside of the press there are always non-competing theories. They can only compete if they can design proof. And, in math, elegance is a kind of proof.
What if we didn't need Dark Matter? What if that describes, simply, the regions around galaxies where the space is still quite condensed and constitutes a virtual gravity well for lensing, rotation effects, etc?
That condensed space, never finished condensing into matter? More simple to me.
A new theory of general relativity
In our work, appearing in the July edition of the journal of Physical Review D (a preprint of which is available on arxiv), we have developed a new theory of general relativity that may change our understanding of galaxies and the universe. Our proposed theory does not need dark matter to exist to explain galaxy rotation curves.
And I can show solid math, at least that there is no matter, at all. It is all condensed space. And it is the Higgs field that controls the density. And what controls the Higgs field? OK...Right.
Let's move on.So, the most simple explanation beyond our particle-wave math constructs is that the vibration of space, in tiny reflecting scalar waves, is the component we call atomic matter. This is much harder to prove than particle-wave math. But, it fits well with String math and 11 dimensions.
Well, you say, P-W behavior is observed. But, I say, we could be observing the Scalar Wave behavior, instead. So, real science says we don't know, but this the Current Understanding.
But, in the Press, you get the done deal. Dark Matter scaffolds is what holds together the Universe. There was an experiment that mapped the lensing of "dark matter" across the Microwave background this year. Great results. But, what the heck is Dark Matter?
No one knows, but that doesn't stop the Press Done Deal Machine. We human must need a bit of fake certainly, I guess.
So, just like the Big Bang and Evolution took hold as the Current Understanding, so has Dark Matter. But, big holes in each. They are constantly challenged. There are giant gaps in the fossil record, for example. And new findings mean new hypothesis.
The press goes, "But you SAID..." Science says, "no." Big Bang requires a leap of faith, also. A faster than light period of expansion. Then add Dark Matter, the math is blown.
So, outside of the press there are always non-competing theories. They can only compete if they can design proof. And, in math, elegance is a kind of proof.
What if we didn't need Dark Matter? What if that describes, simply, the regions around galaxies where the space is still quite condensed and constitutes a virtual gravity well for lensing, rotation effects, etc?
That condensed space, never finished condensing into matter? More simple to me.
A new theory of general relativity
In our work, appearing in the July edition of the journal of Physical Review D (a preprint of which is available on arxiv), we have developed a new theory of general relativity that may change our understanding of galaxies and the universe. Our proposed theory does not need dark matter to exist to explain galaxy rotation curves.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave
[HR][/HR]In physics, a quantity described as "scalar" only contains information about its magnitude. In contrast, a "vector" quantity contains information both about its magnitude and about its direction. By this definition, a "scalar wave" in physics would be defined as any solution to a "scalar wave equation".[SUP][4][/SUP] In reality, this definition is far too general to be useful, and as a result the term "scalar wave" is used exclusively by cranks and peddlers of woo.
Solutions to scalar wave equations are actually quite prevalent (and useful) in physics. Some prominent examples include acoustic (sound) waves, the motion of a taut string being stretched (such as a guitar string being plucked), and the motion of waves in water (such as the ripples from a stone being dropped into a pond). In contrast, electromagnetic waves are vector quantities derived as solutions to a set of vector wave equations (in this case Maxwell's equations).
[HR][/HR]
I'm no fan of Dark Matter, but I thought something was wrong when I saw "scalar wave".
Would you mind elaborating on that particular bit?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Evolution and the Big Bang...This is an example of good science. Challenge it. Dark Matter is not a done deal. BTW, we have discussed the idea of elastic space density in another thread.
And I can show solid math, at least that there is no matter, at all. It is all condensed space. And it is the Higgs field that controls the density. And what controls the Higgs field? OK...Right.
So, the most simple explanation beyond our particle-wave math constructs is that the vibration of space, in tiny reflecting scalar waves, is the component we call atomic matter. This is much harder to prove than particle-wave math. But, it fits well with String math and 11 dimensions.
Well, you say, P-W behavior is observed. But, I say, we could be observing the Scalar Wave behavior, instead. So, real science says we don't know, but this the Current Understanding.
But, in the Press, you get the done deal. Dark Matter scaffolds is what holds together the Universe. There was an experiment that mapped the lensing of "dark matter" across the Microwave background this year. Great results. But, what the heck is Dark Matter?
No one knows, but that doesn't stop the Press Done Deal Machine. We human must need a bit of fake certainly, I guess.
So, just like the Big Bang and Evolution took hold as the Current Understanding, so has Dark Matter. But, big holes in each. They are constantly challenged. There are giant gaps in the fossil record, for example. And new findings mean new hypothesis.
The press goes, "But you SAID..." Science says, "no." Big Bang requires a leap of faith, also. A faster than light period of expansion. Then add Dark Matter, the math is blown.
So, outside of the press there are always non-competing theories. They can only compete if they can design proof. And, in math, elegance is a kind of proof.
What if we didn't need Dark Matter? What if that describes, simply, the regions around galaxies where the space is still quite condensed and constitutes a virtual gravity well for lensing, rotation effects, etc?
That condensed space, never finished condensing into matter? More simple to me.
A new theory of general relativity
In our work, appearing in the July edition of the journal of Physical Review D (a preprint of which is available on arxiv), we have developed a new theory of general relativity that may change our understanding of galaxies and the universe. Our proposed theory does not need dark matter to exist to explain galaxy rotation curves.
For fucks sake..
2 of the most well established scientific theories in existence..
All credibility lost
Doer
Well-Known Member
You have the lack of cred as we all know. And your opinion here is valueless, fight boy,
These are Theories of the Current Understanding only. THAT IS WHAT I SAID.
They are under constant assault. You, in ignorance are not following along.
Evolution and Big Bang, both, are only one big discovery from Doom.
Dark Matter is only one shift of concept from Doom. We simply don't have the Current Understanding as yet, that it is only Space in various levels of Compression. No "matter" really exists. It is just the human impression.
If you can prove that, and the math is very solid, it is quite possible to gain a new Current Understanding of the Origin of the Universe.
You Hack.
That is science.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And every year, new finding are brought to light that change the ideas of Evolution.
Currently there is some compelling evidence that perhaps evolution can be viral driven at a rate not even considered before.
A new Species may create itself much faster than we thought. It you prove that, we may be able to gain a new Current Understanding about Evolution.
Or we could find something today that says it is, in fact, un-refutably Intelligent designed Evolution seeded by Ancient Aliens.
You Hack.
That is science. You, as I have always said, follow religious type of Belief thought, and call that science.
You believe the Theory of the Current Understanding is IT. Science say, oh, yea fearful...you wish.
Currently there is some compelling evidence that perhaps evolution can be viral driven at a rate not even considered before.
A new Species may create itself much faster than we thought. It you prove that, we may be able to gain a new Current Understanding about Evolution.
Or we could find something today that says it is, in fact, un-refutably Intelligent designed Evolution seeded by Ancient Aliens.
You Hack.
That is science. You, as I have always said, follow religious type of Belief thought, and call that science.
You believe the Theory of the Current Understanding is IT. Science say, oh, yea fearful...you wish.
biostudent
Well-Known Member
A scientific law is a law because it won't change; not subject to revision or alteration. Example: Mendelian genetics; the Punette Square: cross a homozygous dominant with another homozygous dominant a million times and you'll get the exact same result.
A theory otoh, especially Darwin's evolution theory, is not STATIC - it can be revised, altered, discarded, made better, etc.
This factor is actually one of the core requirements of a theory to be scientific - it must be falsifiable or else its not a legit theory. Darwin's theory is a good theory because it is both replicatable and falsifiable.
Yes it has been proven many times, but his idea of 'survival of the fittest' has also been disproven many times, which sequentially made it subject to revision. Some examples off the top of my head: G6PD mortality & malaria inhibition, medaka fish, some specie of Finch from the Galapagos among whom the least fit individuals were the only survivors. If you want more detail on these, let me know.
The truth is, theories are NOT static. It is bad science when people consider them so.
Yup. Reread previous post and you may find this makes my argument stronger.
biostudent
Well-Known Member
You don't need equations for anything to be a law. Here is a law without equations:
*All life is made of cells.
I think you may also be misinterpreting what I said: it is bad science when people treat theories as laws. And this is very common today.
CaretakerDad
Well-Known Member
^^^^ "some specie of Finch from the Galapagos among whom the least fit individuals were the only survivors"
This is where you show a fundamental lack of understanding. Fitness is defined by survival, not some preconceived notion of yours. I will use a more understandable example for you, Sickle Cell Anemia which affects African Americans. In our society and climate it is a disease that is considered a health problem. In the originating area of the world, it actually helps prevent those populations from contracting malaria as the blood is not palatable for a mosquito. Fitness depends solely on environmental conditions, all of them not just the obvious. That's science.
This is where you show a fundamental lack of understanding. Fitness is defined by survival, not some preconceived notion of yours. I will use a more understandable example for you, Sickle Cell Anemia which affects African Americans. In our society and climate it is a disease that is considered a health problem. In the originating area of the world, it actually helps prevent those populations from contracting malaria as the blood is not palatable for a mosquito. Fitness depends solely on environmental conditions, all of them not just the obvious. That's science.
bud nugbong
Well-Known Member
I think economics is a great tool at least. Might not be an exact science the way it is used to "predict markets" But using things like Basics of economics is very important in life. Dealing with money and finance is something that isn't stressed enough in schools. I took it as an elective and think it was More helpful than Health class, which Is mandatory and doesn't really shed light on anything new to a young person these days.
I think that If d.a.r.e. threw some economics into the act less kids would get into drugs in the first place. Tell them how much money they will spend on the drugs and then compare it to what you could do with that money instead. Kids always love materialistic stuff. Get them hooked on that+saving money rather than drugs.
And that's another reason I have an issue with it. It always seemed to me wanting to make lots of money was a bad thing(when I was really young about 9), It seemed Like you would be being greedy If you had a big house and nice car and strived for these things. Now if I had a little lesson in my Math class about these things, and cut down on the damn algebra (which I havnt used much in the real world) kids like me wouldn't misunderstand rich greedy people with rich successful people.
*just an economics supporter eating edibles on a Saturday...don't mind me
biostudent
Well-Known Member
First off, fitness is defined by the biological ability to reproduce, not reproduction itself. Your idea of fitness is paradoxical - i.e. the survivor is the most fit; if the least able of the individuals is the only one to reproduce then that least able individual is the fittest - this is a paradox which cannot be falsified and as such, it contradicts the fundamental scientific principle of a legitimate theory that states a theory is only legit if its falsifiable.
I cannot say this is bad science actually because it is not even science - it fails to meet the criteria required by scientific methodology.
Secondly, I may as well detail the case of the Finch and the environment: two phenotypes were prevalent on one island, one dominant comprising a larger individual with stronger wings allowing it to fly longer distances that allowed it to gather more resources to sustain a larger brood (this was the most fit); and a less fit phenotype consisting of smaller birds with subordinate physical abilities that could only sustain a small brood merely on chance, more prone to predation and competition, shorter lifespan, comprising a deviating group on the population pyramid although miniscule in numbers. Over time, the less fit would've probably disappeared by natural selection. But what happened is, something that Darwin didn't account for while formulating his magnificent theory, is that the larger phenotype was wiped out by a natural catastrophe which indefinitely skewed the population dynamics pyramid over the deviants. The original island had depleted most of it's resources for the Finch. So the larger of the species was able to fly to another island which promised sustainability, while the smaller phenotype lacked the physical ability to reach the 2nd island and hence got left behind. On the second island, a volcano erupted and killed all of the most fit of birds. The least fit survived on the first island. This case can be defined as: that specie of Finch evolved to have less biological fitness. If we define this according to your logic then it becomes an unfalsifiable paradox which has no place in scientific methodology.
Blood palatability for a mosquito has nothing to do with malaria. The mosquito will drink the blood and digest it whether the RBC is sickle shaped or not, especially considering that most of the nutrients in blood are not even comprised of red blood cells (RBC is the defective component in sickle celled anemics), i.e free floating ions, fatty acids, proteins, minerals, interstitial fluid, etc. Atleast do some research before you post. Sickle cell anemia confers resistant against malaria because the RBC has an abnormal shape and the malaria parasite (Plasmodium) is unable to bond & effect to that shape. At the same time, the anemic faces premature mortality. What this means is that the individuals who don't even come in to contact with Plasmodium (whether they be African Americans or Africans in malaria infested countries) suffer from premature mortality and because it is a dominant allele it is highly heritable. This reduces the biological fitness of the individual due to a shorter lifespan to reproduce.
People who aren't well grounded in life sciences hold a common misconception about evolution that it leads to a fitter organism. This is completely false. Infact, evolution can lead to an extinction of species as well.
Darwin's theory of evolution is remarkable because it follows all the principles of scientific methodology, which has allowed following scientists to revise and reformulate his work for factors and discrepancies not previously enacted by Darwin. That is the best of science and it continues to improve. The worst of science is when one holds theories such as these as static; that's not only bad but also detrimental to scientific advancement.
That's not science. That's a logical fallacy.
Last edited:
CaretakerDad
Well-Known Member
You're an idiot.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well. no. The lasest Noble prize is for Nash's theory about how we compete to change the game and then we cooperate to change it. then compete again.
It is blisteringly and obviously the real way it works, but he invented the math to prove it.
Keynesian and Supply Side Economics are just political concepts these days, Both are doomed to fail.
madagaskar
New Member
The Hall of Shame Examples of bad science causing real damage! Think bad science is only an academic problem?
jamesroy990
New Member
jamesroy990
New Member
Bad Science is a book by Ben Gold acre, criticizing mainstream media reporting on health and science issues. The dumbing-down of science to produce easily assimilated wacky, breakthrough or scare stories is criticized.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sometimes it just comes out with unexpected force and gets you in the eye. happens to all of us.