Modern Science = BS

  • 256 Replies
  • 34239 Views
*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #90 on: November 24, 2009, 02:56:14 PM »
The short answer is: ask him. He says its not.

No he didn't.

*sigh* Yes he did.


I was lucky to have chosen to work in theoretical physics, because that was one of the few areas in which my condition would not be a serious handicap.

...

I have had motor neurone disease for practically all my adult life. Yet it has not prevented me from having a very attractive family, and being successful in my work.

You can not verbally communicate large enough equations accurately. They are much easier to write. The fact that he had to say them instead means he was hindered.

You do know that he has no means of "saying" things any more?

But like I say, it's not a problem. Probably he has quite a nice bit of software designed to communicate equations. Either way, it's not a problem for him. That was the bet. All payment methods are accepted except e-chex.

He only said it did not present a "serious handicap" meaning it could still present "a handicap" which would definitely fall into the category of "hindered"

Are you seriously that dumb?

?

clovis2

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 42
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #91 on: November 25, 2009, 06:43:43 AM »
I could not have said it better.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #92 on: November 25, 2009, 10:15:41 AM »
He only said it did not present a "serious handicap" meaning it could still present "a handicap" which would definitely fall into the category of "hindered"

We already went through this.

If something is not a serious handicap it transforms it into a non-serious handicap?

It doesn't work like that. By your logic:

Being blind is not a serious handicap for me. Therefore it is a non-serious handicap.  :-\

Are you seriously that dumb?

Moderator posts insults? More please.

(but after you make the $20 transfer)

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #93 on: November 25, 2009, 10:20:49 AM »
We already went through this.

If something is not a serious handicap it transforms it into a non-serious handicap?

It doesn't work like that. By your logic:

Being blind is not a serious handicap for me. Therefore it is a non-serious handicap for me:-\
Added the two words you forgot, in bold.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #94 on: November 25, 2009, 12:25:46 PM »
He only said it did not present a "serious handicap" meaning it could still present "a handicap" which would definitely fall into the category of "hindered"

We already went through this.

If something is not a serious handicap it transforms it into a non-serious handicap?

It doesn't work like that. By your logic:

Being blind is not a serious handicap for me. Therefore it is a non-serious handicap.  :-\

Are you seriously that dumb?

Moderator posts insults? More please.

(but after you make the $20 transfer)

Sorry, you failed at paralleling the sentence structure to make them logical equivalents. You skipped the step where you proved that "serious handicap" = "handicap"

While it is true that "serious handicap" is within the set "handicap" it is not true that "handicap" is within the set "serious handicap" so your logic is flawed. Please stop trolling.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #95 on: November 25, 2009, 01:28:29 PM »
Sorry, you failed at paralleling the sentence structure to make them logical equivalents. You skipped the step where you proved that "serious handicap" = "handicap"

I don't want to offend, so I'll put it in your words.

Are you seriously that dumb?

Hi I would like to register for disability allowance.
OK. Are you disabled?
Yes. I have a serious handicap.
Oh. I'm sorry.
What is it?
We only give money to people who are handicapped.
Yes. I have a serious handicap.
I know. But a "serious handicap" is not "handicapped". I'm rejecting your claim.
WTF?!


?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #96 on: November 25, 2009, 01:30:33 PM »
Sorry, you failed at paralleling the sentence structure to make them logical equivalents. You skipped the step where you proved that "serious handicap" = "handicap"

I don't want to offend, so I'll put it in your words.

Are you seriously that dumb?

Hi I would like to register for disability allowance.
OK. Are you disabled?
Yes. I have a serious handicap.
Oh. I'm sorry.
What is it?
We only give money to people who are handicapped.
Yes. I have a serious handicap.
I know. But a "serious handicap" is not "handicapped". I'm rejecting your claim.
WTF?!





What are you arguing against? Raist never said anything like that.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #97 on: November 25, 2009, 09:32:48 PM »
Sorry, you failed at paralleling the sentence structure to make them logical equivalents. You skipped the step where you proved that "serious handicap" = "handicap"

I don't want to offend, so I'll put it in your words.

Are you seriously that dumb?

Hi I would like to register for disability allowance.
OK. Are you disabled?
Yes. I have a serious handicap.
Oh. I'm sorry.
What is it?
We only give money to people who are handicapped.
Yes. I have a serious handicap.
I know. But a "serious handicap" is not "handicapped". I'm rejecting your claim.
WTF?!



I never said that. Sorry.

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #98 on: December 01, 2009, 07:15:49 PM »
Are ...are you sure you have a brain?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #99 on: December 01, 2009, 09:41:51 PM »
Are ...are you sure you have a brain?

Who are you speaking to?

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #100 on: December 02, 2009, 12:21:49 PM »
This is crazy. Why doesnt one of you write to Stephen Hawking to get the only definitive answer to the question?
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #101 on: December 02, 2009, 12:30:43 PM »
This is crazy. Why doesnt one of you write to Stephen Hawking to get the only definitive answer to the question?

Why would I send a letter to a man incapable of writing me back? I somehow doubt he handles his own mail or feel's any obligation to discuss his handicap with the general public.

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #102 on: December 13, 2009, 08:40:31 PM »
This entire inane argument has been made possible by modern science. 

the last 100 years or so have seen more progress than any other time in history by a long shot.  The reason for this is the development of the scientific method, which is the foundation of modern science. 

What is your evidence that modern science is bunk other than a quote from a scientist?

Psychology and Socialogy are not sciences, and should be ashamed for presenting themselves as such.

Quit being so ungrateful, science has provided you with everything from the computer you use to spread this drivel to the material your shoelaces are made of.  The god you forgot to mention is the reason for irrational fear of science hasn't done anything because he doesn't exist, and that makes you jealous of science.  sorry dude.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #103 on: December 13, 2009, 09:12:20 PM »
Quote
the last 100 years or so have seen more progress than any other time in history by a long shot.  The reason for this is the development of the scientific method, which is the foundation of modern science.

The scientific method wasn't developed within the last 100 years.  ::)

Einstein published his papers on relativity in 1905, yet they are still repeated verbatim in classrooms today.

Darwin published his book "Origin of the Species" in 1859, yet his book is standard reading in biology classrooms today.

Aristotile's buoyancy calculations are still used. The Pythagorean theorem still stands. Zoologists use Aristotile's animal classifications to classify the animals, Philosophers use Plato's philosophy to toung-tie their philosophies. Our math was all created in times of antiquity.

"Modern Science" is actually a mixture of primarily Ancient and Victorian sciences.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 02:11:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #104 on: December 13, 2009, 09:21:51 PM »
and one poor estimate clearly devalues the rest of my post.  Way to ignore all substance for semantics as usual.

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #105 on: December 13, 2009, 09:42:30 PM »
Nice presentation on why you should be a denialist. The reason why most people build upon scientific assumptions (which go through a lot more rigorous peer review and verification processes than any other major method) rather than perform every test of verification themselves is for the sake of progression. There is admittedly a basic requirement of faith for everything you take for fact, because even if you do perform such experimentation your own senses could be deceiving you from actually viewing reality, but without making any assumptions at all, you couldn't progress in life (And whether or not progression is beneficial is hardly up to debate, but think how you like). Most peoples who consider themselves "skeptical" are so much more drawn to scientific assumptions because a naturalistic epistemology holds so much more skepticism than any other major methodology and it shows so many more benefits that otherwise couldn't have happened (for example, it is unlikely that Alexander Fleming could have discovered the benefits of penicillin had he not taken for granted the peer-reviewed work of Antoine Bechamp, Rudolf Virchow and Louis Pasteur).

If one of your primary reasonings behind asserting that RET is unverified is because you do not trust the legitimacy of experiments to prove it as such (for example entering outer-space or crossing the "ice wall"), you may as well not trust anything written in any book that you have not had a first hand experience with (germ theory, theory of evolution), and you have never willfully gone to the doctor for anything because their workings are based upon un-self-verified assumptions. Except that you have trusted that what you were paying so much in advance for the doctor to do would in fact benefit you, haven't you Mr. Bishop?

As stated by Epic Skeptic, don't ignore the wholeness of a post to pull out a single flaw that is not very well interconnected with the conclusion to it.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

?

Quilimi09

Modern Science BS
« Reply #106 on: December 13, 2009, 10:16:33 PM »
Any time a writter takes something that todays scientists are postulating and enhances it and writes a story using it thats science fiction.  It can have elements of fantasy, adventure, romance or anything else in it; but its still science fiction if some basic premise in the book is scientific theory.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #107 on: December 14, 2009, 01:06:09 AM »
and one poor estimate clearly devalues the rest of my post.  Way to ignore all substance for semantics as usual.

What substance did you provide? You just mentioned something about how modern science allows computers to exist.

Computers are also an ancient technology. The Greeks had a computer called the Antikythera, which they used for navigation.

In the Victorian Era a man named Charles Babbage built programmable computers which could perform IF, AND, OR operations.

From there it was just a matter of commercialization and miniaturization.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 02:34:11 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #108 on: December 14, 2009, 01:10:07 AM »
Another clue to the transparency of his quote:

He cannot stand!
If he was really smart, he would figure out how to stand.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #109 on: December 14, 2009, 01:27:44 AM »
You should explain your feelings about modern science if you ever get an X-ray at the dentist, or an MRI.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #110 on: December 14, 2009, 01:45:52 AM »
You should explain your feelings about modern science if you ever get an X-ray at the dentist, or an MRI.

X-Ray isn't modern. It was invented in the 1800's. The Victorian Era.

MRI is just a slightly improved X-Ray machine which uses magnetic fields instead of radiation. The improvement in image quality isn't even that significant, showing us a hint more detail of soft tissue.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 01:15:35 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #111 on: December 14, 2009, 02:09:34 AM »
Nice presentation on why you should be a denialist. The reason why most people build upon scientific assumptions (which go through a lot more rigorous peer review and verification processes than any other major method) rather than perform every test of verification themselves is for the sake of progression. There is admittedly a basic requirement of faith for everything you take for fact, because even if you do perform such experimentation your own senses could be deceiving you from actually viewing reality, but without making any assumptions at all, you couldn't progress in life (And whether or not progression is beneficial is hardly up to debate, but think how you like). Most peoples who consider themselves "skeptical" are so much more drawn to scientific assumptions because a naturalistic epistemology holds so much more skepticism than any other major methodology and it shows so many more benefits that otherwise couldn't have happened (for example, it is unlikely that Alexander Fleming could have discovered the benefits of penicillin had he not taken for granted the peer-reviewed work of Antoine Bechamp, Rudolf Virchow and Louis Pasteur).

If one of your primary reasonings behind asserting that RET is unverified is because you do not trust the legitimacy of experiments to prove it as such (for example entering outer-space or crossing the "ice wall"), you may as well not trust anything written in any book that you have not had a first hand experience with (germ theory, theory of evolution), and you have never willfully gone to the doctor for anything because their workings are based upon un-self-verified assumptions. Except that you have trusted that what you were paying so much in advance for the doctor to do would in fact benefit you, haven't you Mr. Bishop?

As stated by Epic Skeptic, don't ignore the wholeness of a post to pull out a single flaw that is not very well interconnected with the conclusion to it.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #112 on: December 14, 2009, 02:20:59 AM »
Quote
Nice presentation on why you should be a denialist. The reason why most people build upon scientific assumptions (which go through a lot more rigorous peer review and verification processes than any other major method) rather than perform every test of verification themselves is for the sake of progression.

ts;dr

Progression off of an unproven hypothesis isn't "science". Building one unproven hypothesis off of another, as what Stephen Hawking does, isn't getting us anywhere closer to the truth.

For example; in the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. Newtonian mechanics and "Gravity" predicts that the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.

See this quote from softpedia.com:

    "According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

Whenever a brick wall like this comes up astronomers invent a fictitious hypothesis to explain occurrences. In this case they invented "Dark Matter" to explain why the galaxies rotated as they did.

They placed one unproven hypothesis upon the next in an effort to keep the house of cards called Gravity from crashing to the ground. The necessity for truth is denied entirely.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 02:45:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #113 on: December 14, 2009, 02:25:51 AM »
When you choose to do nothing more than hypothesize and neglect to demonstrate, it's called a pseudoscience.

Astronomers are little more than pseudo-scientists. Just some fellows sitting in their closet who let their imaginations run wild, pretending that what they do is science.

Stunning examples of how credible 'modern science' really is.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 02:33:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #114 on: December 14, 2009, 02:53:08 AM »
Assuming that a hypothesis is a fact, after its been rigorously peer reviewed and verified, is science.

When you choose to do nothing more than hypothesize and neglect to prove, it's called a pseudoscience.

Astronomers are little more than pseudo-scientists. Just some fellows who let their imaginations run wild, who are only pretending to conduct science.

Your assertion was not on astronomy alone, it was on the whole of modern science, and by only attacking this single strand of science, your attempting to avoid taking on much more validated sciences such as the ones used for modern medicine (expressed in my example). So do you think astronomy is pseudo-science? Fine then, change your thread title to something more specific. If you don't want to change your thread title, than I implore you to attempt to find a reasoning for why all the benefits science has ever provided could have arose without individuals using the building blocks of previously tested assumptions. How could Alexander Fleming, a biologist and pharmacologist, possibly have stumbled upon the uses of penicillin, without first assuming that germ-theory was true. How could he have been investigating the properties of staphylococci if he was so busy attempting to verify every scientific theory that he was accepting for truth was in fact truth?

So once again

Except that you have trusted that what you were paying so much in advance for the doctor to do would in fact benefit you, haven't you Mr. Bishop?

That's right Bishop, you have trusted people before, and in trusting anyone, your making the assumption that what they are saying is true, and your simply "Building one unproven hypothesis off of another." Why assume that what you read upon Stephen Hawkings was even said by him and not simply made up to spread the flat earth conspiracy? I mean, its just as valid as being skeptical on whether or not every space organization and person who claims to have explored Antarctica was actually telling the truth. Without having any trust in anything other than your own personal visual senses, you can only progress in horribly small increments.

You can only pick and choose with your flawed methodology for so long Tommy.
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #115 on: December 14, 2009, 03:27:10 AM »
Quote
Assuming that a hypothesis is a fact, after its been rigorously peer reviewed and verified, is science.

No. An unproven hypothesis cannot be considered as fact.

You kind of need to prove it before you can treat it as fact.

Quote
Your assertion was not on astronomy alone, it was on the whole of modern science, and by only attacking this single strand of science, your attempting to avoid taking on much more validated sciences such as the ones used for modern medicine (expressed in my example).

I've already touched on medicine earlier in the thread. Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science where the researcher puts the experiment first, conclusions after.

When they want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.

They do the same with the "Folding at Home" project. It tests each and every possibility methodically to find a suitable result.

There aren't any hypothesis' when it comes to medicine. When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after. That's how you find the truth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham knew this very well.

Modern Medicine is a Zetetic Science. Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham even contributed to its establishment his very own self.

Quote
How could Alexander Fleming, a biologist and pharmacologist, possibly have stumbled upon the uses of penicillin, without first assuming that germ-theory was true.

Flemming actually discovered Penicillin by accident. It's an invalid example. Read up on your history. He didn't use any particular method to discover it.

He left a petri dish containing deadly bacteria next to an open window and some mold blew in and started to dissolve the bacteria. That's how it was "discovered".

Quote
That's right Bishop, you have trusted people before, and in trusting anyone, your making the assumption that what they are saying is true, and your simply "Building one unproven hypothesis off of another." Why assume that what you read upon Stephen Hawkings was even said by him and not simply made up to spread the flat earth conspiracy? I mean, its just as valid as being skeptical on whether or not every space organization and person who claims to have explored Antarctica was actually telling the truth. Without having any trust in anything other than your own personal visual senses, you can only progress in horribly small increments.

What are you babbling about? It's not a matter of doubting someone's word. It's a matter of the search for truth.

Astronomers do not care about truth, so they operate by fantasy alone.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 01:11:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #116 on: December 14, 2009, 04:04:10 AM »
Quote
How could Alexander Fleming, a biologist and pharmacologist, possibly have stumbled upon the uses of penicillin, without first assuming that germ-theory was true.

Flemming actually discovered Penicillin by accident. It's an invalid example. Read up on your history. He didn't use any particular method to discover it.

He left a pea-tree dish containing deadly bacteria next to an open window and some mold blew in and started to dissolve the bacteria. That's how it was "discovered".


How could this disgustingly obvious quote mine be any more of an example of your attempting to cover your ass? I said "How could Alexander Fleming, a biologist and pharmacologist, possibly have stumbled upon the uses of penicillin, without first assuming that germ-theory was true. How could he have been investigating the properties of staphylococci if he was so busy attempting to verify every scientific theory that he was accepting for truth was in fact truth?". If you didn't understand the entire purpose of that second sentence, it was to describe the unlikeness that Flemming would have discovered penicillin by accident had he not been studying something that is based on the assumption that germs caused disease (germ theory).This is even more so expressed when I say "it is unlikely that Alexander Fleming could have discovered the benefits of penicillin had he not taken for granted the peer-reviewed work of Antoine Bechamp, Rudolf Virchow and Louis Pasteur." But ill give you a hi-five for throwing some bullshit attempt at claiming I didn't even read about how Flemming came to discover penicillin.




Quote
Assuming that a hypothesis is a fact, after its been rigorously peer reviewed and verified, is science.

No. An unproven hypothesis cannot be considered as fact.

You kind of need to prove it before you can treat it as fact.

Verifying something multiple times using multiple methods and surviving critical peer revision does make something fact. If not, whats an example of something you take for fact and how did you prove it.

Quote
That's right Bishop, you have trusted people before, and in trusting anyone, your making the assumption that what they are saying is true, and your simply "Building one unproven hypothesis off of another." Why assume that what you read upon Stephen Hawkings was even said by him and not simply made up to spread the flat earth conspiracy? I mean, its just as valid as being skeptical on whether or not every space organization and person who claims to have explored Antarctica was actually telling the truth. Without having any trust in anything other than your own personal visual senses, you can only progress in horribly small increments.

What are you babbling about? It's not a matter of trusting anyone, or doubting someone's word. It's a matter of the search for truth.

Astronomers do not care about truth, so they operate by fantasy alone.

What is your standard of truth then? Your epistemology? If your taking for granted an unprovable hypothesis,for example that what your senses perceive as a reality is actually a reality, are you not building off an assumption and disregarding the search for truth?

and enough of these bullshit semantics and petty straw-men
"So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace." -Arundhati Roy

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #117 on: December 14, 2009, 04:39:28 AM »

I've already touched on medicine earlier in the thread. Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science where the researcher puts the experiment first, conclusions after.

There aren't any hypothesis' when it comes to medicine. When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after. That's how you find the truth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham knew this very well.

Modern Medicine is actually a Zetetic Science which Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham even helped to establish his very own self.

Nice job trying to attribute something to Rowbotham that started hundreds of years before he was born.
Nice job being completely wrong on ther being no hypothesis in medicine too.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
Quote
When the Black Death bubonic plague reached al-Andalus in the 14th century, Ibn Khatima hypothesized that infectious diseases are caused by "minute bodies" which enter the human body and cause disease. Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3]

"The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."
Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances. The Italian Agostino Bassi is often credited with having stated the germ theory of disease for the first time, based on his observations on the lethal and epidemic muscardine disease of silkworms. In 1835 he specifically blamed the deaths of the insects on a contagious, living agent, that was visible to the naked eye as powdery spore masses; this microscopic fungus was subsequently called Beauveria bassiana in his honor.

Both, hundreds of years before:
Quote
Microorganisms were first directly observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, who is considered the father of microbiology. Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian obstetrician working at Vienna's Allgemeines Krankenhaus in 1847, when he noticed the dramatically high incidence of death from puerperal fever among women who delivered at the hospital with the help of the doctors and medical students.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine
Is significantly based on hypothesis.  By knowing which molecules(proteins for example) are metabolized or stored by an organ a target delivery mechanism can be proposed.
Progression off of an unproven hypothesis isn't "science". Building one unproven hypothesis off of another, as what Stephen Hawking does, isn't getting us anywhere closer to the truth.
(Kind of like the entirety of ENaG?)

See this quote from softpedia.com:

    "According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."

Funny how you bring that up.  The term is called conservation of angular momentum and the proposed motion of the sun in FET clearly violates it.  When the orbit of the sun gets smaller its orbital period should decrease as the radius of orbit contracts, days would get significantly shorter in the northern hemisphere summer, yet they do not, in the southern hemisphere summer days would be profoundly longer.  Rowbotham even claims ignorance as to what is going on.
Quote
That such is the sun's annual course is demonstrable by actual observation; but if it is asked why it traverses such a peculiarly concentric path, no practical answer can be given, and no theory or speculation can be tolerated. At no distant period perhaps, we may have collected sufficient matter-of-fact evidence to enable us to understand it; but until that occurs, the Zetetic process only permits us to say:--"The peculiar motion is visible to us, but, of the cause, at present we are ignorant."

So basically he is saying, "Oh yeah, that, uh I don't know, just ignore it."

Additionally there is nothing to account for the periodic driver of the expansion and contraction of the sun's orbit.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #118 on: December 14, 2009, 05:26:40 AM »
and one poor estimate clearly devalues the rest of my post.  Way to ignore all substance for semantics as usual.

What substance did you provide? You just mentioned something about how modern science allows computers to exist.

Computers are also an ancient technology. The Greeks had a computer called the Antikythera, which they used for navigation.

In the Victorian Era a man named Charles Babbage built programmable computers which could perform IF, AND, OR operations.

From there it was just a matter of commercialization and miniaturization.

I'm not going to quote myself, but first off, really?  Computers are what make it possible for you to spread your simple minded drivel around the world with a keystroke?  That's it?  I really hope I don't need  to explain in too much detail how many other technologies are part of the process for you to realize how ridiculous that is.

and it still ignores the fact that the main argument in your OP is a quote from a scientist who is way over your head.

Re: Modern Science = BS
« Reply #119 on: December 14, 2009, 05:30:25 AM »
Honestly, since when is a hypothesis a conclusion?

Does this whole thing stem from one man's stubborn refusal to pick up a dictionary?