Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

If I didn't include myself then I would not have used we

 

You always have a get out clause

 

A lot of the posts by you on here do sound conspiratorial, Sisu. Like the NASA 'throwing the theory out the window and then going outside and bringing it back in', or something like that, for example.

No decent scientist would assert that NASA are lying. A reporter might, but a scientist wouldn't. Why would NASA lie? Sounds a touch ... conspiratorial?

What you are doing is posting pictures and then adding either your interpretation of them or your interpretation of somebody else's opinion on them. Things like 'as if that's a volcano'. Are you now suddenly a physicist, astronomer and a vulcanologist? Sounds a touch arrogant to me. Like when you dismissed blackholes. Stephen Hawking surely has a better grasp on this than you? No? He's only been working on it for like 20 years or something, and is an expert in his field.

Obvious to the layperson? Who cares about the layperson? I want to be informed by people who have spent the requisite time learning the basics so they can tell what is and isn't good data. Science cannot be done by lay people, anymore, it's moved on so much in the last 100 years that people in one small area of biology (not even physics) can talk to another small area of biology and often understand very little of what each other are saying. In the old days (even as recent as the Victorian age) lay people with a bit of effort could do serious scientific research; nowadays you need to study for at least 5 years before you can understand what gap in our knowledge need to be filled.

I'm not ridiculing the questioning. Questioning is good. However, the obvious flaws you think you are pointing out are not obvious to anyone other than yourself. There is not enough evidence presented by you to even show there are any flaws in the current understanding let alone evidence of a 'new way of looking at the universe'. If you think there is then perhaps your understanding is more superficial than my admittedly shallow knowledge in this area. You've posted about 5-6 (not counted) different things in a kind of scattershot approach (as if, if enough sh*t is thrown, then some will stick kind of way). Each one of those would have been better posted and explored in detail. You could have, for example, posted the volcano picture on that planet. Explained the Geology of the planet, how the photo was taken (e.g. was it taken in black and white and later coloured for effect) and how using that information why you then thought it was not a volcano. Detail and evidence. Remember that scientific theories are not dreamt up by scientists on benders. They are the result of years and years of thought and evidence.

I'm not trying to rile you or anything I just think you're posting a lot of sensationalist stuff most of which seems a little odd, to say the least, and lacking in any detail or evidence. For example you posted this:

Which is ... interesting. I found this paper (peer-reviewed in a decent middle tier journal - impact factor 3.19!) after about 2 minutes searching (when drunk!). The whole article is online (if you follow the link).

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3546.pdf

Title : The distribution of water ice in the interior of Comet Tempel 1
Published: 2007
Authors: Sunshine et al.

The mean density of the comet Tempel 1 is ~0.6gcm-3; water is ~1gcm-3, ice is ~0.9gcm-3 and igneous rock is about 2-3 times more dense than that. You claim the comet is predominantly rock and yet its density, on average, is lower than ice.

Is that the logic you referred to which doesn't require you to be a physicist. It must be - I'm not a physicist.

 

Our construction of reality tends to be in terms of our sensory perception–the sounds, colours, and sensations we experience. The way in which we produce this picture of the world is more or less hard-wired into the brain. How we interpret this picture varies considerably. We each assess a person’s actions in very different ways. We may read very different meanings into a news story, or see a situation at work in very different lights. These varying interpretations stem from the beliefs, assumptions and expectations we bring to the situation, what psychologists call our mind sets.

In much the same way as our various scientific paradigms are founded on an even more fundamental belief, or metaparadigm, the various assumptions that determine the meaning we give to our experience are based on a more fundamental mind set. We believe that inner peace and fulfilment comes from what we have or do in the external world.

This way of thinking actually prevents us finding true peace of mind. We can become so busy worrying about whether or not we may be at peace in the future, or so busy being angry or resentful about what has stood in the way of peace in the past, we never have the chance to be at peace in the present.

The general effect of this material mind set is to put our inner state of mind at the mercy of the external world. In this respect, too, it is similar to the materialist metaparadigm of contemporary science. In both instances, consciousness is assumed to be dependent upon the material world. The current scientific worldview believes that consciousness emerges from the world of space, time and matter. This materialist mind set tells us that our state of mind depends on events in the world around us. And, like the scientific metaparadigm, the mind set that runs our lives is seldom questioned. We don't have to perceive the world through this mind set. If we perceive things from the perspective that everything we know is a construct of consciousness, everything changes.

With this shift, whether or not we're at peace is no longer determined by what we have or do in the material world. We created our perception of the world. We have given it all the meaning and value it has for us. And, we are free to see it differently. Nothing has to be achieved in order to be at peace. All we have to do is stop doing, stop wanting things to be different, stop worrying, stop getting upset when things don’t go how we would like, or people don’t behave as we think they should. When we stop doing all the things that obscure the peace that is there at our core, we find that what we've been looking for all along is there, waiting silently for us. This, to me, is 'spirituality'. It is a universal principle, independent of time, culture, or religious belief. And it is the core principle from which many spiritual practices unfold.

If inner peace is truly a goal then seeking out 'conspiracy theories' [for want of a better phrase] is very unlikely to achieve it.

'People are disturbed not by things, but the view they take of them' - Epictetus

 

my other halfs brother is a budha, not sure if that's because he is a tight batard though ie doesn't believe in christmas for his nieces, he is nearly a doctor (sometime in a year he qualifies) so his head must be in a good place.

they go somewhere quiet over the xmas period and are isolated from civilization and they just meditate (i think) sounds good to me lol, but i have kids, so maybe that's why i miss the quiet time.

was on devaint art while back and a user posted a picture of the sky, and i said that the cloud he posted looked a bit like a rat, and another user and himself didn't see it to start with and agreed, interesting that it takes others to point out what is right in front of us and we are oblivious to it.

 

My eldest's best friend is Hindu and his family don't celebrate Christmas - they're not tight either

Freud would be interested in you seeing a rat cloud

 

sadly jb,

just checked my profile on devaintart and its a comment i made more than 3 weeks ago on a pic so cant post the pic for you to see, don't go too far back sadly.

what's the significance of Freud being interested in me seeing a rat cloud, does it mean i am mad or something if so cant really argue with that lol

 

I was actually likening your interpretation of what you saw in a cloud to Freud's dream interpretations. You seeing a rat and not, let's say, a puppy, would give an insight into your psyche.

 

Interestingly Freud saw religion as 'infantile neurosis'.

 

The bottom line at the point I make chum, pal, is that not everything is being factored into calculations. Scientists do not lie, well look at Climate change, they f**king lie. it was PROVEN they altered the data to back their claims. So there you are with scientists lying and lets not forget who funds most of the research done, npt the scientists.

Scientists tell us GMOs are safe when the science behind GMOs is fundamentally flawed. Purporting that strands of DNA\RNA only perform one function, this has been proven to be scientifically incorrect but we are lied to so they can promote and use GMOs. You really need to wake up.

Scientists tell us Microwave ovens are completely safe, they are not, the mangle cell structure and those that are consumed affect the cells in the body.

Scientists tell us Aspartame is safe and other scientists tell us it poses a long list of health risks, the former scientific group work for Monsanto the latter public funded research. So who's lying.

Also, it is FACT that scientists who have made a career off of research findings will defend it tooth and nail, not lie but rather discount anything to the contrary because they have staked their life's work on what they claim to be true, this is no secret, it's the human condition. Will I post a complete list of scientists who were mocked only to turn out to be right. it is quite an extensive list.

It goes to show though, when presented with logical, well thought out and scientifically backed new ideas people just go yeah well, that's not what I believe so it's hogwash. You have shown that perfectly. Thank you

As for Tempel 1 There was supposedly an interesting area of 300,000 square feet only 6 percent of that area supposedly consists of pure water ice now if comets act they way they do, how does an unconfirmed by the way, small patch of ice explain such massive tails and reaction on comets?

Also they took samples of Tempel 1 from the tail and there was NO WATER in it. Funnily enough now the water is "internal" and that document you provided is supposition not any scientific findings, or Proof from any samples taken, literally the same folly I was already talking about.

That's not to say there is no ice on any comet, I never made that claim, I said NASA never found any ice on samples taken, please keep up The elements needed to create water come from the sun as does every other element we know of. it is possible for water to be literally anywhere in the right conditions for it to form

To add the samples taken from the comet contained elements that 1 can only be created in great heat, others that needed moderate temp and others than needed water and a lot more besides, and none of it can be explained. Comets are as much a mystery to NASA as they were to astronomers decades ago.

But lets boil it down to the simple logical fact, a comet's tail was claimed to and is still claimed to be caused by evaporating ice and this is because of the creation of free silicates, but the thing is electrical phenomenon also create free silicates. Also the jets on a comet change position. To add to that there have been recorded feature changes in short time between observations, by NASA.

I told you, research, don't just regurgitate documents you have not read because that documents does not back any point you are wishing to make, at least I read it


That document also doesn't explain why Comet Holmes didn't flare up until it was past Saturn in a deep freeze traveling away from the sun. NASA can't explain it either but the electric comet does explain it quite well, yet mainstream theory ignores things it cannot explain.

I suppose not all comets are the same too. Some may contain some ice and some none, I don't know.

 

I can't be bothered to counter any of that. It's like trying to debate with my younger brother, who has an art degree. He's a fantastic drawer and painter.

As Pope says:

 

CCC I guess I need to step back from this, or rather the position I have taken since you turned it into a pissing contest

As MITO rightly said, How can I tell of all this sitting in my house.

I started out just offering a different set of ideas. it was not to claim anyone was lying, or that everything was wrong. I was pointing out that possibly all the information is not present in calculations concerning current knowledge. Your replies have taken me away from that. I don't know who is right or who is wrong on this, the most likely outcome is that maybe neither are right, science is extremely dynamic which is another way of saying science keeps getting it wrong as proved by new discoveries.

imo current theories do not add up, but scientists and physicists say that, I am just repeating it. I am not putting it forward as if I have a profound understanding of the science.

Your conspiracy comments ect sort of turned it into a pissing contest which is exactly what I didn't want. You had no interest in the subject and only had interest in having a pop, jovial as it was.

Either way having read through it has at least led to some decent intelligent discussion from others on this thread, that's good to see.

Peace

 

From the Tempel 1 mission

So how have they come to this conslusion without any scientific base to support it.
it's "may" now. But we are told the tail is caused by water vapor from heating by the sun #

Like I said, complete supposition, not scientific fact at all, just people's ideas.

 

My real problem was what physicists / scientists you championed and why. Having had experience of pseudo-scientists who brainwash laypeople, with little real experience of Science, some of those mentioned on your links set off similar alarm bells in my mind.

Also, I do have an interest in the subject but I feel discussing possible paradigm alteration in a subject in which neither of us has any qualification in would render any points proffered moot.

Peace right back at you, matey!

 

Even more interestingly the value of Freud's thoughts have become less and less relevant as time goes by.

 

Surely that depends upon what you are debating with your younger brother. I'm sure there are areas of our existance in which he can make you look silly

 

I don't agree with Freud's view Dave, far from it, but the debate about psychoanalysis as a scientific theory continues still.

 

OK I was having a 'bite', I'll admit it!

Like most of us, my understanding of Freudian Theory is based upon commentaries rather than the real work. That appears to be the problem that underlies the discussion we've had on this thread - we are working whithin the constraints of other people's interpretations.

 

You are quite right, sir. My younger brother's knowledge of art history is borderline encylopaedic. I would never argue the toss on that topic. In matters of cobbling I always defer to the shoemaker ...

 

I studied Freud at university but I'm probably not much wiser than anyone else on here about his work. Academics make a living interpreting other peoples interpretations, that's how it works.... there's nothing new under the sun and all that!