Mass Explained By Someone who knows about Science

[ChildInAZoo]

I think the point of Brain Man's little exposition is that people believe in things for which we have inadequate evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, their belief is such that they will refuse to admit other evidence that would challenge this belief. They are locked into denial.

Would you say this of a person who cannot follow the mathematics of particle physics, yet claims that all particle physicists are wrong?

[ChildInAZoo]

I agree

So you agree that it is not a straw man to say that expansion geologists deny subduction. Well at least you are getting somewhere.

Given your penchant for supporting Farsight, I am not surprised that you believe in all kinds of crazy things, but surely you can see that it is foolish to believe in a scientific theory on the basis of pretty videos. And you still haven't addressed why it's not a problem for the expanding earth theory that it predicts that the Earth is currently expanding at a rate that is obviously incorrect. How can a youtube video trump what should be the central prediction of the theory? How did any scientists convince anyone before the invention of film?

correct...

How is "correct" an answer?

[Brain Man]

I think the point of Brain Man's little exposition is that people believe in things for which we have inadequate evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, their belief is such that they will refuse to admit other evidence that would challenge this belief. They are locked into denial.

Would you say this of a person who cannot follow the mathematics of particle physics, yet claims that all particle physicists are wrong?

I know that wasnt for me, but put simply yes and no.

[Brain Man]

I agree

So you agree that it is not a straw man to say that expansion geologists deny subduction. Well at least you are getting somewhere.

Given your penchant for supporting Farsight, I am not surprised that you believe in all kinds of crazy things, but surely you can see that it is foolish to believe in a scientific theory on the basis of pretty videos. And you still haven't addressed why it's not a problem for the expanding earth theory that it predicts that the Earth is currently expanding at a rate that is obviously incorrect. How can a youtube video trump what should be the central prediction of the theory? How did any scientists convince anyone before the invention of film?

correct...

How is "correct" an answer?

sorry what i mean to say, was i am currently in agreement with you regarding this point, and regarding the above point i agree that it is not a straw man to say that expansion geoligists deny subduction.

Back later.

BM.

[Brain Man]

Sorry i meant

"regarding the above point i agree that it is not a straw man to say that expansion "geologists" deny subduction.

[PsychoSerenity]

I think the point of Brain Man's little exposition is that people believe in things for which we have inadequate evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, their belief is such that they will refuse to admit other evidence that would challenge this belief. They are locked into denial.

As an example of this, people believe that the Higgs field is responsible for mass, as per the opening post, which referred to this article:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... nce/basics

The article includes paragraphs such as this one:

"He said mass isn't a property of matter. Instead, an invisible field fills every corner of the universe, and things acquire mass by interacting with the field. The more strongly the field (called the Higgs field) interacts with a particle, the heavier it is."

However it isn't true. It's a myth. You can check this in A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. This is a CERN professional, and he knows what he's talking about. You can do a "search inside" on "Higgs sector" and read pages 174 and 175. It tells you the Higgs mechanism accounts for 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter.

This means the Higgs mechanism isn't responsible for mass. And yet people continue to believe it is, even going so far as to dismiss Einstein's 1905 paper DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?. That's where he talks about a body losing mass as it emits massless photons. It's the paper that gave us E=mc², and there's a simple relationship between this and annihilation, where massive particles are converted into massless photons. There's also a relationship with "the photon in the box", which increases the mass of that system. Sadly people are so convinced about the Higgs field that they won't examine the evidence, and they won't examine Mass Explained, or discuss it. Rather strangely, they don't want anybody else to either.

[lpetrich]

What gives you that idea? How do expanding-earth advocates "let the evidence lead them to the theory"???

very interesting, i see nobody has both the honesty and balls yet to admit that the expanding earth animations are an extremely superior 4 dimensional model to pangea.

What do you find so terrible about the Pangaea hypothesis? Why do you think that it's such a poor fit?

(subduction zones...)

Strawman, hes not arguing against subduction in those regions just on the zones with symmetrical striping

Those are spreading centers, and subduction zones are the opposite.

(the rediscovery of Continental Drift...)

He talks about when global distribution was completed after 1970 as you well know..

What do you mean by that?

(about running a simulation...)

Have you run even a simple simulation. You don’t just get data and plug it in. You need to set up the system, have an implementation plan. Factor in problems will occur, many problems. What kind of system would you run this on ? How would you set it up for the null hypothesis ? what are you going to do that hasnt been done before ? All you have done so far is misinterpret the work, and throw up strawmen. Who would supervise your work to make sure the hypothesis is tested properly ? Thats a major project, time, money, staff, software, expertise, management, writing reports. Are you really motivated to do all this ? i mean ill call your bluff, contact maxlow and get the datasets to see if you will.

I've done numerous simulations over my career, and many of them have not required the massive song and dance act that you imagine that they would need, Brain Man. In fact, all those that I've done over my career I could do on my home computer without much trouble.

You dont need a link, its explicit if you read his work. He bases his model entirely on the newer data.

Geology after the CGMW and UNESCO bedrock geology map, 1990

That’s it, the Unesco 1990 data will do. I mean his Geology is post Unesco 1990, because it starts from there, and presumably uses updates to that data.

Is it this map?

I fail to see how that implies trouble for mainstream geology.

When you model the plates with the 1990 unesco data, they all wind back neatly into each other, and you dont need to send india traveling half way across the planet in a ridiculous manner like Pangea.

India's peregrinations are no different from those of most other post-Pangaea continents.

The geologists dont actually deny subduction occurs. Thats one of the major strawmen posted around the internet.

A favorite argument by expanding-earthers is that subduction cannot happen and does not happen.

[colubridae]

I've just caught up with the thread.

Am I correct in saying that BM and FS belief that subduction does not happen. or that accretionary prisms don't happen?
Island Arcs back arcs wadati-bennioff zones do not exist?
Mid-ocean ridge spreading, mantle plumes etc don't exist?

Presumably quite by chance your theories explain polar reversals?


Is anyone worried that the good ( ) name of rationalia will become a fucking joke?

In case anyone is concerned rationalia is gaining no scientific gravitas here. quite the opposite.

[colubridae]

For the life of me I can fathom what on earth it is you think you are doing.

Do you honestly believe that by out-debating or outlasting someone on a joke forum is gaining you anything other than ridicule.
Do you think anyone here is going to buy FS’s comic book or suddenly think ‘yep every scientist in the world is wrong, only FS is correct’.

What is it that you get from this – pure antagonism?

Please I really want to know. Is this some sort of test or weirdo mafia game?


Surley to christ you must know you are spouting crack-pot drivel?

[Brain Man]

What gives you that idea? How do expanding-earth advocates "let the evidence lead them to the theory"???

very interesting, i see nobody has both the honesty and balls yet to admit that the expanding earth animations are an extremely superior 4 dimensional model to pangea.

What do you find so terrible about the Pangaea hypothesis? Why do you think that it's such a poor fit?

(subduction zones...)

Strawman, hes not arguing against subduction in those regions just on the zones with symmetrical striping

Those are spreading centers, and subduction zones are the opposite.

(the rediscovery of Continental Drift...)

He talks about when global distribution was completed after 1970 as you well know..

What do you mean by that?

(about running a simulation...)

Have you run even a simple simulation. You don’t just get data and plug it in. You need to set up the system, have an implementation plan. Factor in problems will occur, many problems. What kind of system would you run this on ? How would you set it up for the null hypothesis ? what are you going to do that hasnt been done before ? All you have done so far is misinterpret the work, and throw up strawmen. Who would supervise your work to make sure the hypothesis is tested properly ? Thats a major project, time, money, staff, software, expertise, management, writing reports. Are you really motivated to do all this ? i mean ill call your bluff, contact maxlow and get the datasets to see if you will.

I've done numerous simulations over my career, and many of them have not required the massive song and dance act that you imagine that they would need, Brain Man. In fact, all those that I've done over my career I could do on my home computer without much trouble.

You dont need a link, its explicit if you read his work. He bases his model entirely on the newer data.

Geology after the CGMW and UNESCO bedrock geology map, 1990

That’s it, the Unesco 1990 data will do. I mean his Geology is post Unesco 1990, because it starts from there, and presumably uses updates to that data.

Is it this map?

I fail to see how that implies trouble for mainstream geology.

When you model the plates with the 1990 unesco data, they all wind back neatly into each other, and you dont need to send india traveling half way across the planet in a ridiculous manner like Pangea.

India's peregrinations are no different from those of most other post-Pangaea continents.

The geologists dont actually deny subduction occurs. Thats one of the major strawmen posted around the internet.

A favorite argument by expanding-earthers is that subduction cannot happen and does not happen.

never mind all that, i spent the day researching the other threads on this forum and now believe that the earth expanded because we let it out the fridge.

[colubridae]

BM is this some sort of weird game for you?

You post interminable anger against science until someone accidentally calls you a loonie; then you hit the report button cry foul then get some freaky pleasure from seeing some sap cautioned on a crazy web forum?

Do you perceive that your life has been fucked up by scientists the world over and a rampage on rationalia will even the score?

I simply don't understand.

[Brain Man]

For the life of me I can fathom what on earth it is you think you are doing.

Do you honestly believe that by out-debating or outlasting someone on a joke forum is gaining you anything other than ridicule.
Do you think anyone here is going to buy FS’s comic book or suddenly think ‘yep every scientist in the world is wrong, only FS is correct’.

What is it that you get from this – pure antagonism?

Please I really want to know. Is this some sort of test or weirdo mafia game?


Surley to christ you must know you are spouting crack-pot drivel?

l
Oh lighten up coulabrid..coulabridae..Why dont you try some drugs it would probably loosen you up a little...i think a few E should sort you out.

Since Maxlow put his work out there last year a lot of people are taking the idea seriously, and some of the recent literature on it is in fact a neal adams comic book.

A surfer solving subatomic physics, a comic book artist promoting the origins of earth, a TV presenter developing the missing link in human evolution...What exactly is going on ? the majority of us pay taxes for these problems to be solved by professionals.

[Brain Man]

BM is this some sort of weird game for you?

You post interminable anger against science until someone accidentally calls you a loonie; then you hit the report button cry foul then get some freaky pleasure from seeing some sap cautioned on a crazy web forum?

Do you perceive that your life has been fucked up by scientists the world over and a rampage on rationalia will even the score?

I simply don't understand.

Not my style to report people.

im doing fine..it seems to work out for me, because i am not attacking anybodies territory. As a result I have more projects than i can deal with. I just don't trust that science is doing its job on a wider scale. i.e. I don't trust it to bring me theories when somebody is attacking an established field.

I also suspect that we are going into an attention deficit age and that the average person needs an entertaining parody of it otherwise its all too serious.

[colubridae]

BM is this some sort of weird game for you?

You post interminable anger against science until someone accidentally calls you a loonie; then you hit the report button cry foul then get some freaky pleasure from seeing some sap cautioned on a crazy web forum?

Do you perceive that your life has been fucked up by scientists the world over and a rampage on rationalia will even the score?

I simply don't understand.

Not my style to report people.

im doing fine..it seems to work out for me, because i am not attacking anybodies territory. As a result I have more projects than i can deal with. I just don't trust that science is doing its job on a wider scale. i.e. I don't trust it to bring me theories when somebody is attacking an established field.

I also suspect that we are going into an attention deficit age and that the average person needs an entertaining parody of it otherwise its all too serious.

Ok I still don't understand. If you believe what you say that science is not delivering (I'm utterly coninced it is, but I accept that it's debatable) debating it here is more or less pointless.

Why not try RDF? They are now concerned only with serious issues. Even if you don't post the wacky science you can still debate the 'closed science' side of things. In fact that sounds right up their street.

Don't get me wrong I love what you are doing here
you and FS are very entertaining. But what are you getting out of it? There must be something?

[Brain Man]

you and FS are very entertaining. But what are you getting out of it? There must be something?

Insight into reactions from more everyday scientific consumers. Like scientific market research.

You could waste a lifetime, and some people do by selling or getting into the wrong avenue. by having too much idealism, or projecting your own processes onto the average person. Its better to try and see whats going on, what people care about, how things work, then adjust your aims and goals realistically. And why not learn something in the process. You can then decide without too much hassle what to do for the love of it, and what is a practical area of business that serves current needs.

Time consuming , but saves a fortune in resources and expenditure in the long run.