I doubt I will have any impact on your thought processes but maybe, just maybe, with a bit of kindness and sincerity, (since your second long post was much nicer than your first), I might have a tiny impact with some specific comments.
I to, am very direct. I to, sound too harsh to many people. I think I can be direct without a tone of anger
most of the time. So that is not the issue. But communication is. What you have posted and what you later describe as how you thought you sounded don't jibe. So here are some specifics about messages in your statements that from your subsequent posts, you don't seem to have recognized.
Quote:
On 2002-08-23 08:29, XoFFoX wrote:
It seems our friend Phip is truly a BAD Astronomer. He apparently does not keep up with recent astronomical discoveries. Maybe he just doesn't like reading.
|
Insulting someone is a tactic people use when they can't debate an issue with evidence. A lot of us on this BB recognize that and insults don't impress us.
Quote:
|
Another disturbing account of this event comes from several native North American lore and legends. Now what would these natives have to gain from supporting this story if they have even heard of it on todays info highway ??? These accounts come from elders not young natives and I don't believe that ANY of them use the internet so how would they know of Lieder or Hazelwood.
|
Wow, could you be a little out of touch here? Are you suggesting Native Americans don't use the internet? Especially their 'elders'? Or do you know these guys personally? Native Americans aren't exactly like the Aimish you know. And, there is a wide variety of people among Native Americans. They couldn't ALL not use the net.
Quote:
|
One thing that bugs me more than a bunch of doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario...is scientists spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set.
|
And you are? How can you make this judgement about people you've only heard talk a time or two or only read a few things they've written?
At the risk of being sarcastic I shall be
direct. Where has your 'data set' come from? It sounds like you've read a bit. Does that really compare to someone who has spent more than 8 years, (about the minimum time to get a phD.), reading and studying as much as one can on the subjects you think you know more about? Not to mention all the other knowledge gained from experience and additional education. Whether you respect university education or not, the individual doesn't sit around sucking up the party line during that 8+ years.
Quote:
|
You're (Phip) just as bad as they are, actually a bit worse just because most scientists are very close minded and I really detest that. It seems thinking outside of the box is foriegn and unpalatable for them.
|
You may have seen one too many movies on this one. If 'most scientists' are closed minded and never think outside the box, how have we gotten this far advanced in technology? How could close minded scientists transplant hearts, livers and lungs into people? How could they save premature infants who weigh less than one pound? Have you ever been inside of a neonatal intensive care unit?
How did close minded scientists develop the internet? How did they send all those communication satellites into space and gotten them into just the right orbits so your cell phone and pager work? Obviously I could fill pages here. I think you get my point.
Quote:
|
One thing that comes to mind about scientists being close minded is the topic of anti gravity. They don't even acknowledge that it exists. In a Universe overflowing with dualities, according to science gravity is and anti gravity is NOT. Hmmm ??? These guys are really on the ball. Most physicists say that gravity is a force...well I say it is an effect from the flow of energy, not a force.
|
Did this revelation come to you and so it is so? Have you thought of ways to test your hypothesis? Is there a reason we should listen to this idea?
Science welcomes new thinkers with open arms but you can't just decide you understand the Universe better than the rest of the world and then get upset that no one listens, agrees, or whatever it is that upsets you as you stated. You have to seek and present something in the way of evidence to support what you believe.
That doesn't mean you have to do the research yourself, but it does mean you can't just read about a discovery or potential discovery here or there and claim you've made your case. Because you haven't.
Quote:
|
Good ol Phip seems to know a lot about gravity but I bet he can't explain this one. I don't claim to know much about gravity except that I can and have build a device that could possibly demonstrate this effect.
|
The proof's in the pudding dude. Where is this device and when can we see the demonstration? Excuse me if I cannot believe this on faith.
Quote:
|
I'm not a scientist but it seems I understand more about the Universe than most.
|
If that's true you haven't convinced me. You don't have to of course. But to think you've learned so much from so little. And all those rocket scientists have learned so little from so much. Hmmmm?
I'll defer addressing any of your astronomy facts to the other intelligent souls on this BB. They handle those issues quite well.
If you're nice we'll mostly address your issues with logic and evidence. People I've chatted with on this BB seem perfectly willing to entertain new ideas and listen to alternative theories and hypotheses. But they aren't going to buy unusual perspectives on the Universe without clear evidence and rational logic to back it up. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]