Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: conspiracy to silence all but big-bang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Wichita Falls, TX
    Posts
    22

    conspiracy to silence all but big-bang

    I just found out something very interesting about forums.

    Chemists don't spend any time or money trying to silence people who disagree with them. It is not necessary as chemistry is an exact, proven science. On the other hand millions of dollars and many man-hours are spent every year by the big-bang industry to suppress, discredit, contradict and silence opposing views. Every science forum has these hired guns. It is no coincidence that every scientifically valid argument or observation that
    disproves big bang is immediately blasted, misrepresented, by about ten hired guns making every effort to insult and discredit the troublemaker. There will never be any real scientific discussion, because the big-bang theorists fear getting disproved publicly. Big-bang, which has failed in every prediction it has made, has been disproved in many ways for many years. The Hubble deep space images alone proved that the universe has not changed in 15 billion years, disproving singularity, expansion, and all the early epochs predicted by big-bang.

    The absolute bias and close-mindedness at forums are purposeful, to present the illusion that the various contradictory big-bang theories are all infallable.

    When you defeat all ten hired guns, they play dumb, pretend not to understand. They go into the three monkee routine: "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".

    These hired guns at forums are on salary, paid to deny any voice other than their own. This is not what science, or America is supposed to be. Remember how politicians talked about how we need to hear all the voices, and how our ideas are important?

    Try to find the real "open letter to science", which has been buried by the hired guns, by putting many other things on the internet with the same title and same keywords. If you find it, you will see that the top scientists, top universities, and top observatories complain about the bullying by big-bang theorists, forcing people to bury all observations and discoveries that disprove big-bang, or lose their jobs. Halton Arpe was destroyed for discovering matter streams connecting nearby galaxies to quasars, proving that quasars are not profoundly distant or ancient, are not from an earlier "epoch".

    The fact that big-bang people do these things tells me that they know deep down that big-bang is wrong, and that they must protect that dirty little secret.

    Recently the big-bang theorists got 1.1 billion for saying they detected gravity waves from two colliding black holes. Gravimeters can't detect gravity from the outer planets, much less millions of light years away. Also, by their theory, gravity would have to propagate at the speed of light. People who predict the future positions of stars and planets know that gravity is instantaneous, and only that value will allow for correct predictions. The big-bang theorists also said that the gravity waves required more energy than is contained in the entire universe. This is absolute disproof to a thinking man, and absolute proof to a gullible fool.

    1.1 billion dollars, for baffling the population with fantastic colorful [redacted].

    This post is about conspiracy much more than about science. If it is allowed to post, it will
    probably get buried in the "against the mainstream" forum, where it is labelled as incorrect from the get-go. All open-minded non-biased theorists who are not afraid to speak have been run off there, so this post will only be seen by the hired guns and those intimidated fools who are afraid to say anything.

    STATUS QUO SITS FOR A SERVING OF SLICED SCIENCE

    In a plush back room the status quo met
    Compared the size of their government checks
    They then settled down in self-righteous excitement
    Were served fine wine to add to the delight
    Now comes the time for the purposeful meeting
    To each in turn give new insights a beating
    With mindless arguements and political ploys
    Each voice gives fallacy to the deafening noise
    To mire in stagnation will pacify the group
    As progress diverts funding and spoils the mood
    Many more drinks were poured that hour
    In celebration of smugness purchased by power
    Using position as barrier or lever
    Assuring that science could never advance ever
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2019-Jan-29 at 05:34 AM. Reason: Language

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,182
    What exactly is your belief of the beginning of the Universe, if not the big bang?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,769
    I'm not particularly interested in arguing over whether people try to silence people who don't believe in the BB. Actually, quite frankly, I'm skeptical myself of the BB. I don't have any particular theory to deny it but I am curious as to whether perhaps the universe has already existed but seems to have started from a point due to some phenomenon that we do not understand. But that's just my sort of intuition, and I would never claim to be correct. It's more of an interest. But I do have a couple of comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    Chemists don't spend any time or money trying to silence people who disagree with them. It is not necessary as chemistry is an exact, proven science.
    Just two thoughts about this. One is that you also don't see lots of not-very-well-informed people coming up with their own theories that try to disprove quantum chemistry or whatever. I don't mean to put down chemists, because the work they do is very important, but people just don't have that much interest in it beyond the fact that it does something useful. Whereas many, many people have an interest in the BB even though it is not very useful at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    This is not what science, or America is supposed to be.
    I hope you realize that the scientific endeavor is something that goes beyond the confines of a certain North American country. I don't know why you single it out, except I suppose because you probably live there.
    As above, so below

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,804
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    What exactly is your belief of the beginning of the Universe, if not the big bang?
    Nope. We’re not going to discuss the substance of an ATM theory in the CT forum.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,342
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    I just found out something very interesting about forums.

    Chemists don't spend any time or money trying to silence people who disagree with them. It is not necessary as chemistry is an exact, proven science. On the other hand millions of dollars and many man-hours are spent every year by the big-bang industry to suppress, discredit, contradict and silence opposing views.
    If I understand your claim, you believe there is a world-wide conspiracy in physics and astronomy over cosmology. Is that correct?

    How exactly do you think such a conspiracy would be kept secret? Are all the world governments in on it?

    And what would be the motivation for this vast conspiracy?

    Every science forum has these hired guns. It is no coincidence that every scientifically valid argument or observation that
    disproves big bang is immediately blasted, misrepresented, by about ten hired guns making every effort to insult and discredit the troublemaker.
    Interestingly, I've seen virtually identical claims regarding very different subjects (for instance, Apollo Hoax claims) where, in fact, the poster is making a scientifically invalid argument, but doesn't realize it, and is unwilling to accept that others have studied the subject in greater detail than they have.

    Big-bang, which has failed in every prediction it has made,
    Incorrect. For example, the validation of the prediction of cosmic microwave background radiation was a significant factor in the acceptance of BBT.

    The Hubble deep space images alone proved that the universe has not changed in 15 billion years
    . . . and I'd say this is an example of an invalid claim.

    Halton Arpe was destroyed for discovering matter streams connecting nearby galaxies to quasars, proving that quasars are not profoundly distant or ancient, are not from an earlier "epoch".
    Halton Arp was destroyed? Could you provide evidence for that claim?

    Anyway, this takes me back: There was a debate decades ago about whether or not quasars were cosmological, but as more quasars were observed with better equipment, the evidence increasingly pointed to cosmological. That's how real science works: People put forth ideas and they're tested. In the 1970s I remember there were a number of ideas being kicked around about what might cause quasars, and debates about distance, but it's not a serious debate anymore.

    If you're going to claim otherwise, it would require a worldwide conspiracy of astronomers faking data, and then again the question would be: Why would they bother? Most people wouldn't care what a quasar is or how distant it is, and I don't see how the question would affect their lives.

    The big-bang theorists also said that the gravity waves required more energy than is contained in the entire universe. This is absolute disproof to a thinking man, and absolute proof to a gullible fool.
    Could you provide a reference to where relevant scientists made this claim?

    I expect you're talking about detection of gravitational waves (not gravity waves), and this sounds like either you're getting this from a poorly written popular article or that you misunderstood what was written.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    These hired guns at forums are on salary, paid to deny any voice other than their own. This is not what science, or America is supposed to be. Remember how politicians talked about how we need to hear all the voices, and how our ideas are important?
    How about you go to a politician and tell them that our society should be governed by ducks? See how much they value your ideas then. Sadly that is the quality of most alternative science on the internet. I genuinely wish it wasn't but very few people who propose alternative ideas seem willing to do more than quote mine, misrepresent popular science writing and then make outlandish appeals to emotion about how they are being oppressed.

    I think the issue is simple - you mistake people evaluating and rejecting an idea for suppression. Take your claims about Halton Arp, for example. His catalogues are still widely used and referenced, and recognised as great work. He worked at the Max Planck Institute for decades. His papers were accepted and published. He won the Humboldt award. And finally he died at 86 after forty or fifty years speaking out against the current consensus. All despite his stance against the Big Bang. He wasn't destroyed or suppressed. People read what he said, tested his evidence and periodically reviewed what he said. It just didn't have the strength of evidence that other theories had.

    As for the idea that there are paid armies of people policing the internet... If so they do a terrible job. Alternative models are regularly discussed and published. So far none of them make the grade.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    On the other hand millions of dollars and many man-hours are spent every year by the big-bang industry to suppress, discredit, contradict and silence opposing views.
    The "Big Bang industry"? Is that a thing? How does it make its money?

    Every science forum has these hired guns.
    Do you know where you sign up? I wouldn't mind getting paid for explaining the same things I explain for free. Although I suppose I would have to stop discussing alternatives to the Big Bang, which would be a shame. (Although you said that doesn't happen, so I must have been dreaming.)

    It is no coincidence that every scientifically valid argument or observation that disproves big bang is immediately blasted, misrepresented, by about ten hired guns making every effort to insult and discredit the troublemaker.
    Although I have seen a lot of unanswered questions about the Big Bang model (or models, as there are multiple variations, I have never seen any evidence that "disproves" it. And I'm not even being paid to say that.

    There will never be any real scientific discussion, because the big-bang theorists fear getting disproved publicly.
    If someone were to present evidence that disproved the Big Bang (or even radically changed it) they would likely get a Nobel Prize. Look at Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess who got the Nobel Prize "just" for showing that the rate of expansion has increased.

    Big-bang, which has failed in every prediction it has made
    You undermine your argument (such as it is) with obviously false statements like that. But I would point out that the killer evidence in favour of the Big Bang model (and that killed the alternatives) was found in my lifetime.

    , has been disproved in many ways for many years. The Hubble deep space images alone proved that the universe has not changed in 15 billion years, disproving singularity, expansion, and all the early epochs predicted by big-bang.
    I assume this is not the place to discuss these errors. Feel free to start another thread to discuss them.

    The absolute bias and close-mindedness at forums are purposeful, to present the illusion that the various contradictory big-bang theories are all infallable.
    No scientific theories are infallible. I imagine almost everyone here would be really excited if some new theory were found. The exciting thing about science is when new science is discovered.

    These hired guns at forums are on salary, paid to deny any voice other than their own. This is not what science, or America is supposed to be.
    Ah, is that the problem? That I am not American, so I can't get paid for explaining people's basic misunderstandings? That is disappointing.

    You do realises that science is an international collaboration? So you are saying that countries are cooperating to hide "the truth" (whatever you think that is). Including countries who are not on good terms with each other? That doesn't make much sense, I'm afraid.

    Assuring that science could never advance ever
    Why would anyone want to do that?

    Presumably you think because they get paid for doing the research? But there would be more funds (and prizes) available for exciting new science rather than re-hashing the same thing over and over.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I'm not particularly interested in arguing over whether people try to silence people who don't believe in the BB. Actually, quite frankly, I'm skeptical myself of the BB. I don't have any particular theory to deny it but I am curious as to whether perhaps the universe has already existed but seems to have started from a point due to some phenomenon that we do not understand.
    There are plenty of versions of the Big Bang model that are consistent with that. There is zero evidence for the universe "starting". There are models where it is infinitely old. Models where it is one of many. Models where it is cyclic.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,435
    I'm no fan of the BB model either, but it is the current model of greatest popularity, i.e mainstream, so it's not surprising that at least on this site any anti-BB discussion is strongly opposed. Arguments range from "that's quackery" to "show the math" to "demonstrate how your idea explains absolutely anything and everything imaginable." I wouldn't say there's an organized, paid conspiracy, but it does seem that BB protagonists are quick to accept anything supporting their theory - such as background radiation having no other possible explanation, or the unanticipated (meaning not part of the model) observation of acceleration of expansion simply meaning that another variable is all it takes to tweak the model. On the other hand any observation that opposes the mainstream view is automatically rejected. "That author is a quack." "The paper wasn't published in the right journal." "There weren't enough REAL scientists involved in writing the paper." "The writer doesn't have the right credentials." Those sort of comments make the BB supporters appear to be conspiratorial, especially when the counterargument that they didn't even read the a paper is met with, "I don't have to."
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    I'm no fan of the BB model either, but it is the current model of greatest popularity
    I don't really understand this concept of "liking" or "disliking" a theory. It fits the evidence better than the alternatives, at the moment. That is why it is "popular". That's all there is to say, really.

    I wouldn't say there's an organized, paid conspiracy, but it does seem that BB protagonists are quick to accept anything supporting their theory - such as background radiation having no other possible explanation
    But no one has come up with an alternative explanation. Or, at least, not one that is also consistent with all the other evidence.

    or the unanticipated (meaning not part of the model) observation of acceleration of expansion simply meaning that another variable is all it takes to tweak the model.
    Which just shows what a robust model it is! But that is how science works. Find new evidence: fit it into the theory. If it won't fit, develop a new theory. That is exactly how we ended up with the Big Bang model as the most generally accepted theory.

    On the other hand any observation that opposes the mainstream view is automatically rejected.
    I notice you didn't give any examples of those observations ...

    But there are problems with the Big Bang model. We don't know what happened in the earliest times (probably not "the creation of the universe" but who knows). The amount of primordial lithium is still unexplained, as far as I know. The fact that there is matter at all. And so on. So there is still a lot of science to do. And maybe that will mean a revolution and the abandoning of the current theory. Or maybe not. That is why science is so exciting. (Apart form the long dull waits for another paradigm shift....)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,439
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    ...The Hubble deep space images alone proved that the universe has not changed in 15 billion years....
    Your post is replete with false claims, the above being just one of them. In fact, the Hubble deep space images alone demonstrate that the universe has indeed changed over its 15 billion year existence. This needs no detailed explanation here since the demonstration is obvious. Your claims seem little more than a straighforward troll.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Nope. We’re not going to discuss the substance of an ATM theory in the CT forum.
    Another reminder to all; though the temptation is great, we are not going to discuss ATM theories as alternatives to the Big Bang in this thread, nor are we going to use this thread to either poke holes in the BB theory, nor to defend it. This thread is to discuss this supposed conspiracy to suppress alternatives.

    Stick with the conspiracy.
    Last edited by Swift; 2019-Jan-29 at 04:02 PM.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Ah, is that the problem? That I am not American, so I can't get paid for explaining people's basic misunderstandings? That is disappointing.
    I am an American, and I've been unable to find out how to apply to be a paid shill for well over a decade now. I've been accused of being one several times, usually over Apollo, but I've never seen the checks.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    I am an American, and I've been unable to find out how to apply to be a paid shill for well over a decade now. I've been accused of being one several times, usually over Apollo, but I've never seen the checks.
    You think that's bad? I've apparently been part of this great conspiracy and haven't received any of my checks yet.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    I am an American, and I've been unable to find out how to apply to be a paid shill for well over a decade now. I've been accused of being one several times, usually over Apollo, but I've never seen the checks.
    I could have sworn I put that check in the mail...Bart Sibrel must have intercepted it somehow.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I don't really understand this concept of "liking" or "disliking" a theory. It fits the evidence better than the alternatives, at the moment. That is why it is "popular". That's all there is to say, really.
    And yet you go on... Actually, claiming "That's all there is to say," is exactly what the OP is claiming: "Conspiracy to silence all but Big Bang".

    But no one has come up with an alternative explanation. Or, at least, not one that is also consistent with all the other evidence.
    You cannot back up that statement, because "no one" implies you have disproved EVERY alternative explanation ever offered.

    I notice you didn't give any examples of those observations ...
    I know CT would not be the place for that. Either you simply forgot, or are trying to bait someone into responding.

    But there are problems with the Big Bang model. We don't know what happened in the earliest times (probably not "the creation of the universe" but who knows). The amount of primordial lithium is still unexplained, as far as I know. The fact that there is matter at all. And so on. So there is still a lot of science to do. And maybe that will mean a revolution and the abandoning of the current theory. Or maybe not. That is why science is so exciting. (Apart form the long dull waits for another paradigm shift....)
    How are we to take that? Are you part of this vast conspiracy or not? You see, I'm not supporting the conspiracy concept. I'm merely pointing out that comments like you made above can be taken as evidence of a conspiracy by someone who believes there is a conspiracy. Even the multiple responses claiming they aren't being paid could be seen as evidence of people working together (even unpaid) to suppress all anti-BB thoughts, including the concept of a conspiracy.
    Last edited by mkline55; 2019-Jan-29 at 08:18 PM. Reason: Knocked out the sarcasm
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    "Big Bang Theory" has been cancelled, which proves there is no conspiracy.

    I rest my case.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	untitsled.png 
Views:	46 
Size:	104.9 KB 
ID:	23977  

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    "Big Bang Theory" has been cancelled, which proves there is no conspiracy.
    I fear you may have mistaken this discussion for the When you just *have* to make a joke thread. It's not. Please stay on topic.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    <snip>
    No one? Ever? I wasn't aware that you had personally examined every alternate solution. Congratulations! Have you by chance summarized every one of them online somewhere? That would be a very useful resource.
    Knock off the sarcasm.

    I know CT would not be the place for that. Either you simply forgot, or are trying to bait someone into responding.
    And be careful of what inappropriate behavior you accuse others of.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    And yet you go on... Actually, claiming "That's all there is to say," is exactly what the OP is claiming: "Conspiracy to silence all but Big Bang".
    I think you misunderstood me. I meant "is consistent with the evidence" (or not) is all there is to say about a theory. Liking it (whatever that means) is irrelevant. Or, to put it another way, the only reason to like a theory is because it is consistent with the evidence. I really "liked" Newton's proof that the universe must be infinite (in Newtonian gravity). But if someone demonstrated that the evidence was more consistent with it being finite, I would "like" that.

    I don't see how theories can be attractive or otherwise, other than fitting with the evidence.

    No one? Ever? I wasn't aware that you had personally examined every alternate solution. Congratulations! Have you by chance summarized every one of them online somewhere? That would be a very useful resource.
    I am certainly not aware of one. And I suspect it would be headline news if they had (like the suspected superluminal neutrinos). But if you know of one, I would love to hear it (in the appropriate place, of course).

    I know CT would not be the place for that. Either you simply forgot, or are trying to bait someone into responding.
    But you gave examples of other things. But, no, I wasn't trying to bait you. Just joking.

    But if you are aware of evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, I would be fascinated to hear of it (in the appropriate place).

    How are we to take that?
    I've no idea. Every scientific theory is incomplete, has open questions, has limited domains of applicability, will probably be modified in future, etc.

    Are you part of this vast conspiracy or not? You see, I'm not supporting the conspiracy concept. I'm merely pointing out that comments like you made above can be taken as evidence of a conspiracy by someone who believes there is a conspiracy. Even the multiple responses claiming they aren't being paid could be seen as evidence of people working together (even unpaid) to suppress all anti-BB thoughts, including the concept of a conspiracy.
    I'm sure people who believe there is a conspiracy will see everything as evidence for that conspiracy. Some will quite seriously say, "the fact there is no evidence just shows how powerful the conspiracy is". I can't really help with that.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    I am an American, and I've been unable to find out how to apply to be a paid shill for well over a decade now. I've been accused of being one several times, usually over Apollo, but I've never seen the checks.
    I'm sure you've encountered Shakespeare conspiracy theorists; do they also claim that opponents are paid shills? If so, it is even harder to imagine who funds that!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    I just found out something very interesting about forums.

    Chemists don't spend any time or money trying to silence people who disagree with them. It is not necessary as chemistry is an exact, proven science. On the other hand millions of dollars and many man-hours are spent every year by the big-bang industry to suppress, discredit, contradict and silence opposing views. Every science forum has these hired guns....
    Lots of problems with this post, 2ndClassCitizen.
    Chemists do post in forums and do disagree with people. I suspect that if someone were to start a thread on phlogiston theory here, a chemist or two would point out how invalid it is.
    No evidence that a "big-bang industry" exists.
    No evidence of millions of dollars being spent at forums by that industry.
    No evidence of that money being spent to "suppress, discredit, contradict and silence opposing views".
    No evidence of "hired guns".

    Some irrelevant stuff about America and politics.

    Then there are the factual errors. ETA: irrelevant since this is a conspiracy theory thread.
    Science is not written in forums. Science is worked out in the scientific literature.
    The Hubble telescope found that the universe has changed during the last 13.8 billion years, e.g. quasars are more common in the early universe, earlier galaxies have less "metals" (elements higher than H), galaxies evolve (their populations of stars change).
    The Big Bang has passed the vast majority of its predictions.
    Halton Arp was not "destroyed". He published and worked until his death.
    Errors about the successful detection of gravitational waves. There are no gravimeters used. The sources are up to billions of light years away. The detections confirmed that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. People who predict the future positions of stars and planets know that gravity is not instantaneous because they know about the speed of gravity and that measurements show that it is not instantaneous. No one says that gravitational waves require more energy than is contained in the entire universe.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jan-30 at 03:07 AM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,882
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    I could have sworn I put that check in the mail...Bart Sibrel must have intercepted it somehow.
    It's probably safer to send things through my Patreon; then you can even claim it's because you're a fan of my writing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm sure you've encountered Shakespeare conspiracy theorists; do they also claim that opponents are paid shills? If so, it is even harder to imagine who funds that!
    The city council of Stratford-upon-Avon, one assumes. At least you can actually point to a reason for that--the tourist industry built on Shakespeare is huge. What would be the advantage of pushing a theory you know to be wrong?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post

    These hired guns at forums are on salary, paid to deny any voice other than their own. This is not what science, or America is supposed to be.
    Where's my money?

    And my American passport?

    Apparently I'm owed both.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,530
    Chemists don't spend any time or money trying to silence people who disagree with them. It is not necessary as chemistry is an exact, proven science.
    Alchemy.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    The city council of Stratford-upon-Avon, one assumes.
    Of course. So simple. I was thinking of an ancient secret society guarding the massive wealth accrued from the Bard's estate.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,817
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndClassCitizen View Post
    On the other hand millions of dollars and many man-hours are spent every year by the big-bang industry to suppress, discredit, contradict and silence opposing views. Every science forum has these hired guns.
    Is there any way you could name or direct us to some of these people doling out millions to suppress anti-big bang theories so that we could get on profitable footing for the continuation of public education? We have volunteers that should at least get beer and coffee money, and with millions at stake, perhaps they could be sent to Vegas or something. We kind of owe them that. I really think we could take the lead role in this suppression thing and that should warrant one or two million a year in funding. At least, it would be better than my proposal to have members write the ultimate book on Nibiru as a fund raising effort. People said it was... bad, unethical, evil, etc.
    Solfe

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,804
    Folks, I've already warned one member that this isn't a joke thread, no matter what you think of the proposed CT's credibility. Let's keep the jibes, jokes, and off-topic excursions in check please.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,769
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    I'm no fan of the BB model either, but it is the current model of greatest popularity, i.e mainstream, so it's not surprising that at least on this site any anti-BB discussion is strongly opposed. Arguments range from "that's quackery" to "show the math" to "demonstrate how your idea explains absolutely anything and everything imaginable." I wouldn't say there's an organized, paid conspiracy, but it does seem that BB protagonists are quick to accept anything supporting their theory - such as background radiation having no other possible explanation, or the unanticipated (meaning not part of the model) observation of acceleration of expansion simply meaning that another variable is all it takes to tweak the model. On the other hand any observation that opposes the mainstream view is automatically rejected. "That author is a quack." "The paper wasn't published in the right journal." "There weren't enough REAL scientists involved in writing the paper." "The writer doesn't have the right credentials." Those sort of comments make the BB supporters appear to be conspiratorial, especially when the counterargument that they didn't even read the a paper is met with, "I don't have to."
    I think that like others it is hard to understand what the motivation could be to have an actual "conspiracy" with money payments and that kind of stuff. What is more serious is mkline55's assertions. I think they are exaggerated, but it is true I think that scientists in general (or people in general) do have a bias to seeing what they want to see in data. I remember a session at a AAAS meeting several years ago where they were talking about "fake news," and somebody mentioned a study where they showed identical data to people who were on opposing sides of a controversial political issue, and both sides tended to see the data as supporting their position. The thing with the BB is, I think that it is well supported by the observations, and I think that if a person with proper credentials and proper data came up with a good reason that what we are seeing is somehow wrong (I'm just making this up, but suppose they came up with an explanation for baryon asymmetry that involved some phenomenon that would also make the universe appear to be expanding), then I think they would get published very easily and would get to have dinner with the king of Sweden as well.
    As above, so below

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think that like others it is hard to understand what the motivation could be to have an actual "conspiracy" with money payments and that kind of stuff. What is more serious is mkline55's assertions. I think they are exaggerated, but it is true I think that scientists in general (or people in general) do have a bias to seeing what they want to see in data.
    This is inevitably true. It is human nature. There are plenty of examples of people being reluctant to accept new ideas (if I remember correctly, Einstein didn't really accept black holes as real possibilities, even though predicted by his theory).

    Science does what it can to remove these sort of biases. But, it could be argued, they are a good thing. It stops people jumping on every new theory as being "right". The resistance to new theories can strengthen them. Very relevant example: the continued defence of steady state models made sure that people really examined the data to test both ideas. But some people have never given up on steady state models. (To counter the OP, I had a quick look and it seems that people are still writing occasional papers about quasi-steady state models.) Which is good: science needs opposing ideas (as the OP says).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •