Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you disprove the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which is not based on logic and reason. A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. nospam.rwp@... wrote: > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross abuse and > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using astrophysics, > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, therefore I > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine could > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because something > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic location, > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, unfortunately so > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception and lack > of mental discipline. > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are routinely > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so that > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original purpose > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should put the > garbage out and move on. > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > altogether. > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > avoided. The > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the child to > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward off karma > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents accordingly so > that they take better care of their wards by > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. Hence good > values are > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong lifestyle later > on in life. > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > coincided with > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > horoscope. Had I > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial measures. > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I am not > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and without > compassion > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign despite > my personal > > pain and difficulties. > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written a book > dealing > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its treatment. In > his book a > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > educated us on his > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > oncologist, cancer > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > body-mind-emotion system and > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises radiation and > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried chemotherapy and > radiation as > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > " Living with the > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > intervention with > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > onslaught. Unless > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find out why > more and > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest you study > the holistic > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your treatment > with > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > world who are > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > medicos. > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > reductionist > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you will > entirely miss > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI has put > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in its view > to " upgrade " > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > impediment to > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > immediately be revised > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this matter > to the > > authorities. > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. If the > health > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream doctors > too have to > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > Regards, > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > >> > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem and the > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > knowledge and > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward of our > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The amount of > suffering > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, and the > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of which we > don't even > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > complications > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable pain, > unending > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any control. > Blaming > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four cases: > >> > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history in his > family. > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran out of > things to > >> do for him. > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She suffered from > chronic > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due to his > >> multiple myeloma. > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of seizures. > >> > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start blaming the > patients > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it may be > their > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be sure that > >> blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on our own > Karma, too. > >> > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > questions. But > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > heard so far > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but not one > of them > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy in those > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > trauma--where > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, specific > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your " blame the > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > >> > >> ______ > >> > > -- This is your brain on politics: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Should one believe in anything and everything they cannot prove? (Of course, science isn't about proving anything, but trying to create a framework in which all the current evidence seems to fit will.) I'm not an atheist just for the record and I tend to find measurable things more likely to exist. From your reasoning below Dave, it seems that you believe that agnosticism, the middle path, is the rational choice. Correct? There are many methods for distracting your rational mind to bypass it in order to effectively program your subconscious to execute your will. While religion can achieve those results, it is rarely so used and produces individuals who give up their individuality to follow the will of someone(s) else. Religion, hypnosis, trance, NLP, magick, mysticism, etc., can all be used for individual growth or against your for someone(s) else's personal gain. In the current version of skeptic magazine, which I pick up about once a year (I cannot handle it more than that because it can be irritating because the self administered blinders), it notes some studies that find that in a comparison of atheist and religionist moral behavior, there are more homosides[sic], abortions, and general moral decay by religionists when compared to atheists. The higher the atheist rate is in a particular country, the lower its rate of such moral decay. I haven't read any farther to see what conclusion the writer reached as to the reason for these results. -- Steve - dudescholar2@... " The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off. " --Mal Pancoast On Friday 04 August 2006 4:13 pm, Dave Narby wrote: > By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you disprove > the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > is not based on logic and reason. > > A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > nospam.rwp@... wrote: > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross abuse and > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using astrophysics, > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, therefore I > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine could > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because something > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic location, > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, unfortunately so > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception and lack > > of mental discipline. > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are routinely > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so that > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original purpose > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should put the > > garbage out and move on. > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > > altogether. > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > > avoided. The > > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the child to > > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward off karma > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents accordingly so > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. Hence good > > > > values are > > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong lifestyle later > > > > on in life. > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > > coincided with > > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial measures. > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I am not > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and without > > > > compassion > > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign despite > > > > my personal > > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written a book > > > > dealing > > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its treatment. In > > > > his book a > > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > > educated us on his > > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises radiation and > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried chemotherapy and > > > > radiation as > > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > > " Living with the > > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > > intervention with > > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find out why > > > > more and > > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest you study > > > > the holistic > > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your treatment > > > > with > > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > > world who are > > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > > medicos. > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > > reductionist > > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you will > > > > entirely miss > > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI has put > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in its view > > > > to " upgrade " > > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > > impediment to > > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > > immediately be revised > > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this matter > > > > to the > > > > > authorities. > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. If the > > > > health > > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream doctors > > > > too have to > > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > >> > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem and the > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > > knowledge and > > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward of our > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The amount of > > > > suffering > > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, and the > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of which we > > > > don't even > > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > > complications > > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable pain, > > > > unending > > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any control. > > > > Blaming > > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four cases: > > >> > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history in his > > > > family. > > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran out of > > > > things to > > > > >> do for him. > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She suffered from > > > > chronic > > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due to his > > >> multiple myeloma. > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of seizures. > > >> > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start blaming the > > > > patients > > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it may be > > > > their > > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be sure > > >> that blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on our own > > > > Karma, too. > > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > > questions. But > > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > > heard so far > > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but not one > > > > of them > > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy in those > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > > trauma--where > > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, specific > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your " blame the > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > >> > > >> ______ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Hi: I just don't see the connection, but it stimulated my imagination for sure! Has someone developed a vaccine against astrology? I didn't know it was infectious I personally like both astrology and vaccinations. I just can't get enough of them. This post has got me thinking of interesting, designer ways to combine them! Not only could it save time, but there could be money in it! At 06:14 AM 8/4/2006, you wrote: >Choosing between astrology and vaccinations, I would gladly go for the >former. > >Jagannath. > > > > > > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Hi: Isn't that a bit harsh? Many partially proven scientific theories are believed by scientists based on the preponderance of evidence. Court cases are decided on a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. Although I consider myself half Buddhist and half agnostic (I've also spent many, many years investigating the spiritual, but that's a digression), it seems clear to me that for a scientific mind who has not spent a great deal of time investigating spiritual issues, the preponderance of available evidence is very clearly that there is no god. At 03:13 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote: >By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > >Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you disprove >the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which >is not based on logic and reason. > >A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > ><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com>nospam.rwp@... wrote: > > > > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross abuse and > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using astrophysics, > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, therefore I > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine could > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because something > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic location, > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, unfortunately so > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception and lack > > of mental discipline. > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are routinely > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so that > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original purpose > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should put the > > garbage out and move on. > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > altogether. > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > avoided. The > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the child to > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward off karma > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents accordingly so > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. Hence good > > values are > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong lifestyle later > > on in life. > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > coincided with > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > horoscope. Had I > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial measures. > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I am not > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and without > > compassion > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign despite > > my personal > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written a book > > dealing > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its treatment. In > > his book a > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > educated us on his > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > oncologist, cancer > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises radiation and > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried chemotherapy and > > radiation as > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > " Living with the > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > intervention with > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > onslaught. Unless > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find out why > > more and > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest you study > > the holistic > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your treatment > > with > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > world who are > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > medicos. > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > reductionist > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you will > > entirely miss > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI has put > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in its view > > to " upgrade " > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > impediment to > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > immediately be revised > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this matter > > to the > > > authorities. > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. If the > > health > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream doctors > > too have to > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > >> > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem and the > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > knowledge and > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward of our > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The amount of > > suffering > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, and the > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of which we > > don't even > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > complications > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable pain, > > unending > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any control. > > Blaming > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four cases: > > >> > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history in his > > family. > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran out of > > things to > > >> do for him. > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She suffered from > > chronic > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due to his > > >> multiple myeloma. > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of seizures. > > >> > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start blaming the > > patients > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it may be > > their > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be sure that > > >> blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on our own > > Karma, too. > > >> > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > questions. But > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > heard so far > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but not one > > of them > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy in those > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > trauma--where > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, specific > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your " blame the > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > >> > > >> ______ > > >> > > > > > >-- >This is your brain on politics: > ><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>http://www.scien\ cedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > >Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Hi: I know what you mean about that debunker mentality, it is just as bad as the true believers. They believe just as strongly in their disbelief and bring that, a priori to any investigation. It isn't science and it isn't reason. Nevertheless, I totally agree with you, and there have been a number of studies that I've read in the past that confirm the research you mention. One study I remember, however showed that agnostics and atheists were both fairly immune to the evils of divorce, drug addiction, violence, abortion, suicide, etc. compared to people of mainstream religions. Fundamentalist religion especially, whether Christian, Islamic or others were the worst at betraying these moral precepts. Clearly, to be atheist or agnostic, one needs to be an independent thinker, which implies a strong mind that is able to ignore the onslaught of popular concepts in favor of reason. It is this reliance on pure reason combined with the strength of mind to be independent - to care enough about truth to follow it against all odds ( in my mind a manifestation of love ) that creates truly moral people. Relying on having morality come from elsewhere to save you just doesn't work. You have to face your human weakness yourself in order to have much mastery over it. Having said that, I still believe strongly in spirituality - really a different topic from 'god'. The problem with god is that it usually takes away a sense of self-reliance and that always weakens people. It is very relevant to longevity because it also makes you sick and fundamentalists are also statistically much sicker than atheists, in addition to their moral decay. Seemingly quite a paradox, huh? So stop waiting for god to heal you and get off your butt and do something, for Christ's sake! :-D At 04:02 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote: >Should one believe in anything and everything they cannot prove? (Of course, >science isn't about proving anything, but trying to create a framework in >which all the current evidence seems to fit will.) > >I'm not an atheist just for the record and I tend to find measurable things >more likely to exist. From your reasoning below Dave, it seems that you >believe that agnosticism, the middle path, is the rational choice. Correct? > >There are many methods for distracting your rational mind to bypass it in >order to effectively program your subconscious to execute your will. While >religion can achieve those results, it is rarely so used and produces >individuals who give up their individuality to follow the will of someone(s) >else. Religion, hypnosis, trance, NLP, magick, mysticism, etc., can all be >used for individual growth or against your for someone(s) else's personal >gain. > >In the current version of skeptic magazine, which I pick up about once a year >(I cannot handle it more than that because it can be irritating because the >self administered blinders), it notes some studies that find that in a >comparison of atheist and religionist moral behavior, there are more >homosides[sic], abortions, and general moral decay by religionists when >compared to atheists. The higher the atheist rate is in a particular >country, the lower its rate of such moral decay. I haven't read any farther >to see what conclusion the writer reached as to the reason for these results. > >-- > >Steve - <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@... > > " The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off. " >--Mal Pancoast > >On Friday 04 August 2006 4:13 pm, Dave Narby wrote: > > By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > > > Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you disprove > > the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > > is not based on logic and reason. > > > > A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > > > <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com>nospam.rwp@... wrote: > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross abuse and > > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using astrophysics, > > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, therefore I > > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine could > > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because something > > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic location, > > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, unfortunately so > > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception and lack > > > of mental discipline. > > > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are routinely > > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so that > > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original purpose > > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should put the > > > garbage out and move on. > > > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > > > > altogether. > > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > > > > avoided. The > > > > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the child to > > > > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward off karma > > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents accordingly so > > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. Hence good > > > > > > values are > > > > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong lifestyle later > > > > > > on in life. > > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > > > > coincided with > > > > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial measures. > > > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I am not > > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and without > > > > > > compassion > > > > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign despite > > > > > > my personal > > > > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written a book > > > > > > dealing > > > > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its treatment. In > > > > > > his book a > > > > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > > > > educated us on his > > > > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises radiation and > > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried chemotherapy and > > > > > > radiation as > > > > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > > > > " Living with the > > > > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > > > > intervention with > > > > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find out why > > > > > > more and > > > > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest you study > > > > > > the holistic > > > > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your treatment > > > > > > with > > > > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > > > > world who are > > > > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > > > > medicos. > > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > > > > reductionist > > > > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you will > > > > > > entirely miss > > > > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI has put > > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in its view > > > > > > to " upgrade " > > > > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > > > > impediment to > > > > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > > > > immediately be revised > > > > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this matter > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > authorities. > > > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. If the > > > > > > health > > > > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream doctors > > > > > > too have to > > > > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > > >> > > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem and the > > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > > > > knowledge and > > > > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward of our > > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The amount of > > > > > > suffering > > > > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, and the > > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of which we > > > > > > don't even > > > > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > > > > complications > > > > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable pain, > > > > > > unending > > > > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any control. > > > > > > Blaming > > > > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four cases: > > > >> > > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history in his > > > > > > family. > > > > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran out of > > > > > > things to > > > > > > >> do for him. > > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She suffered from > > > > > > chronic > > > > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due to his > > > >> multiple myeloma. > > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of seizures. > > > >> > > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start blaming the > > > > > > patients > > > > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it may be > > > > > > their > > > > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be sure > > > >> that blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on our own > > > > > > Karma, too. > > > > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > > > > questions. But > > > > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > > > > heard so far > > > > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but not one > > > > > > of them > > > > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy in those > > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > > > > trauma--where > > > > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, specific > > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your " blame the > > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > > >> > > > >> ______ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Actually, I think that belief in a higher power is the correct choice... But I freely admit in the final analysis it's not rational. And as far as science is concerned... Don't get me started! LOL. steve wrote: > > Should one believe in anything and everything they cannot prove? (Of > course, > science isn't about proving anything, but trying to create a framework in > which all the current evidence seems to fit will.) > > I'm not an atheist just for the record and I tend to find measurable > things > more likely to exist. From your reasoning below Dave, it seems that you > believe that agnosticism, the middle path, is the rational choice. > Correct? > > There are many methods for distracting your rational mind to bypass it in > order to effectively program your subconscious to execute your will. > While > religion can achieve those results, it is rarely so used and produces > individuals who give up their individuality to follow the will of > someone(s) > else. Religion, hypnosis, trance, NLP, magick, mysticism, etc., can > all be > used for individual growth or against your for someone(s) else's personal > gain. > > In the current version of skeptic magazine, which I pick up about once > a year > (I cannot handle it more than that because it can be irritating > because the > self administered blinders), it notes some studies that find that in a > comparison of atheist and religionist moral behavior, there are more > homosides[sic], abortions, and general moral decay by religionists when > compared to atheists. The higher the atheist rate is in a particular > country, the lower its rate of such moral decay. I haven't read any > farther > to see what conclusion the writer reached as to the reason for these > results. > > -- > > Steve - dudescholar2@... <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > " The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off. " > --Mal Pancoast > > On Friday 04 August 2006 4:13 pm, Dave Narby wrote: > > By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > > > Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you disprove > > the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > > is not based on logic and reason. > > > > A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > > > nospam.rwp@... <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross abuse and > > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using astrophysics, > > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, therefore I > > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine > could > > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because > something > > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic location, > > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, unfortunately so > > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception and lack > > > of mental discipline. > > > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are routinely > > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so > that > > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original purpose > > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should > put the > > > garbage out and move on. > > > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > > > > altogether. > > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > > > > avoided. The > > > > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the child to > > > > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward off karma > > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents accordingly so > > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. Hence good > > > > > > values are > > > > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong lifestyle later > > > > > > on in life. > > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > > > > coincided with > > > > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial measures. > > > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I > am not > > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and without > > > > > > compassion > > > > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign despite > > > > > > my personal > > > > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written a book > > > > > > dealing > > > > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its treatment. In > > > > > > his book a > > > > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > > > > educated us on his > > > > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises > radiation and > > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried chemotherapy and > > > > > > radiation as > > > > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > > > > " Living with the > > > > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > > > > intervention with > > > > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find out why > > > > > > more and > > > > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest you study > > > > > > the holistic > > > > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your treatment > > > > > > with > > > > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > > > > world who are > > > > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > > > > medicos. > > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > > > > reductionist > > > > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you will > > > > > > entirely miss > > > > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI > has put > > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in its view > > > > > > to " upgrade " > > > > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > > > > impediment to > > > > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > > > > immediately be revised > > > > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this matter > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > authorities. > > > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. If the > > > > > > health > > > > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream doctors > > > > > > too have to > > > > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > > >> > > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem > and the > > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > > > > knowledge and > > > > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward > of our > > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The amount of > > > > > > suffering > > > > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, and the > > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of which we > > > > > > don't even > > > > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > > > > complications > > > > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable pain, > > > > > > unending > > > > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any control. > > > > > > Blaming > > > > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four cases: > > > >> > > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history in his > > > > > > family. > > > > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran out of > > > > > > things to > > > > > > >> do for him. > > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She suffered from > > > > > > chronic > > > > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due > to his > > > >> multiple myeloma. > > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of > seizures. > > > >> > > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start blaming the > > > > > > patients > > > > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it may be > > > > > > their > > > > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be sure > > > >> that blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on > our own > > > > > > Karma, too. > > > > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > > > > questions. But > > > > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > > > > heard so far > > > > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but not one > > > > > > of them > > > > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy in those > > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > > > > trauma--where > > > > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, > specific > > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your " blame the > > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > > >> > > > >> ______ > > -- This is your brain on politics: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Preponderance of evidence... You mean like Einstein's relativity? Check out Lorentzian relativity, it does a better job of explaining the time dilation phenomenon (Occam's razor is as sharp as ever). But the members of the COE (Cult O' Einstein) get downright ornery if you bring that fact up. It all stems from the human arrogance of declaring time a fundamental quality of the universe. Turns out it's just something we invented to measure relative velocities. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html I had the idea around the same period, but it turns out I'm glad I wasn't the one to publish. This guy has been catching all kinds of shit! I guess that's what happens when you toss a truckload of it into a fan..! O_o Dave Brown wrote: > > Hi: > > Isn't that a bit harsh? Many partially proven scientific theories > are believed by scientists based on the preponderance of > evidence. Court cases are decided on a preponderance of > circumstantial evidence. Although I consider myself half Buddhist > and half agnostic (I've also spent many, many years investigating the > spiritual, but that's a digression), it seems clear to me that for a > scientific mind who has not spent a great deal of time investigating > spiritual issues, the preponderance of available evidence is very > clearly that there is no god. > > > > At 03:13 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote: > > >By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > > >Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you disprove > >the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > >is not based on logic and reason. > > > >A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > > ><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com>nospam.rwp@... > <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross abuse and > > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using astrophysics, > > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, therefore I > > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine > could > > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because > something > > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic location, > > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, unfortunately so > > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception and lack > > > of mental discipline. > > > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are routinely > > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so > that > > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original purpose > > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should > put the > > > garbage out and move on. > > > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > altogether. > > > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > avoided. The > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the child to > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward off karma > > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents accordingly so > > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. Hence good > > > values are > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong lifestyle later > > > on in life. > > > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > coincided with > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial measures. > > > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I > am not > > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and without > > > compassion > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign despite > > > my personal > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written a book > > > dealing > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its treatment. In > > > his book a > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > educated us on his > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises > radiation and > > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried chemotherapy and > > > radiation as > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > " Living with the > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > intervention with > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find out why > > > more and > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest you study > > > the holistic > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your treatment > > > with > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > world who are > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > medicos. > > > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > reductionist > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you will > > > entirely miss > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI > has put > > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in its view > > > to " upgrade " > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > impediment to > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > immediately be revised > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this matter > > > to the > > > > authorities. > > > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. If the > > > health > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream doctors > > > too have to > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > > >> > > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem > and the > > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > knowledge and > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward > of our > > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The amount of > > > suffering > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, and the > > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of which we > > > don't even > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > complications > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable pain, > > > unending > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any control. > > > Blaming > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four cases: > > > >> > > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history in his > > > family. > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran out of > > > things to > > > >> do for him. > > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She suffered from > > > chronic > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due > to his > > > >> multiple myeloma. > > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of > seizures. > > > >> > > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start blaming the > > > patients > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it may be > > > their > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be > sure that > > > >> blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on our own > > > Karma, too. > > > >> > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > questions. But > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > heard so far > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but not one > > > of them > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy in those > > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > trauma--where > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, > specific > > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your " blame the > > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > > >> > > > >> ______ > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >-- > >This is your brain on politics: > > > ><http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>http://www.scien\ cedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > >Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Towards the end of this long discussion I would like to point out the recent finding that there is a code that guides the DNA. Now what guides that code? Continuing on the path we will be bound to accept that some kind of energy is behind it all. Then spirituality will be understood by the medical " experts " also just as it interests the physicists now. Planets are shown to have effects upon water and electro magnetic waves. Our body too is predominantly made of water and we do have an energy aspect. The moon also has a remarkable effect on the mind. The sun rules all life on earth. Therefore what is wrong with astrology which deals with how planets affect our lives? If the scientists are mindful about God, spirituality and ethics we could expect a better world at the end of the day. Else, what we are all apprehensive about will certainly come to pass. Regards, (Spammer) Jagannath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Nice try, however there is plenty of evidence for spontaneous order and self-ordering systems, including the the planets, suns, universe etc. You don't seem to realize that even though life is quite amazingly complex, in total, it only required a very simple start and an immense number of parallel, trial and error, reactions over an immense amount of time, including composition, duplication and mutation of complexes (e.g. gene swapping between bacteria, viral infections and symbioses). This phenomena of nature is something science calls evolution, it does not require sentience, including Gods, it just happens. For all we know some chemicals systems on another suitable planet are growing more complex systems after the right combination was hit on, by their kind of evolution, possibly not with DNA. All action needs is a large enough energy gradients in the appropriate directions (which can occur naturally), so you statement about energy is meaningless. Physical 'laws' or constraints do not need understanding or sentience, they just are, they cause things like matter, universes, suns, planets and life to form, eventually. Astrology is bunk, because other planetary forces in our solar system get drowned out by local forces, so cannot have any significant effect, only extreme energy sources like quasars, black holes, neutron stars, supernova and a our local sun have any chance of causing local effects, even so most of those energy sources tend to be seriously attenuated by distance, the Earths magnetic and electrical fields, and atmosphere. Honest and committed scientists should be wary and sceptical of any god, other irrationality's, dogma and self interests, lest it cloud or corrupt their reasoning, as it has with some otherwise brilliant scientists. IMHO religion, especially organised religion, is toxic to science and continues to undermine science, be it by the burning of books, Popes rulings, irrational politicians and wilfully ignorant people etc. jagchat01 wrote: > Towards the end of this long discussion I would like to point out > the recent finding that there is a code that guides the DNA. Now > what guides that code? Continuing on the path we will be bound to > accept that some kind of energy is behind it all. Then spirituality > will be understood by the medical " experts " also just as it > interests the physicists now. > > Planets are shown to have effects upon water and electro magnetic > waves. Our body too is predominantly made of water and we do have an > energy aspect. The moon also has a remarkable effect on the mind. > The sun rules all life on earth. Therefore what is wrong with > astrology which deals with how planets affect our lives? > > If the scientists are mindful about God, spirituality and ethics we > could expect a better world at the end of the day. Else, what we are > all apprehensive about will certainly come to pass. > > Regards, > (Spammer) Jagannath. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Hi: Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a great deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love to hear about it. 8-) At 12:03 AM 8/6/2006, you wrote: >Preponderance of evidence... You mean like Einstein's relativity? >Check out Lorentzian relativity, it does a better job of explaining the >time dilation phenomenon (Occam's razor is as sharp as ever). But the >members of the COE (Cult O' Einstein) get downright ornery if you bring >that fact up. > >It all stems from the human arrogance of declaring time a fundamental >quality of the universe. Turns out it's just something we invented to >measure relative velocities. > ><http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html>http://www.space\ ..com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html > >I had the idea around the same period, but it turns out I'm glad I >wasn't the one to publish. This guy has been catching all kinds of >shit! I guess that's what happens when you toss a truckload of it into >a fan..! O_o > >Dave > > Brown wrote: > > > > Hi: > > > > Isn't that a bit harsh? Many partially proven scientific theories > > are believed by scientists based on the preponderance of > > evidence. Court cases are decided on a preponderance of > > circumstantial evidence. Although I consider myself half Buddhist > > and half agnostic (I've also spent many, many years investigating the > > spiritual, but that's a digression), it seems clear to me that for a > > scientific mind who has not spent a great deal of time investigating > > spiritual issues, the preponderance of available evidence is very > > clearly that there is no god. > > > > > > > > At 03:13 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote: > > > > >By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > > > > >Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you disprove > > >the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > > >is not based on logic and reason. > > > > > >A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > > > > ><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex > .com>nospam.rwp@... > > <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross abuse and > > > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using astrophysics, > > > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, therefore I > > > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine > > could > > > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because > > something > > > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic location, > > > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, unfortunately so > > > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception and lack > > > > of mental discipline. > > > > > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are routinely > > > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so > > that > > > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original purpose > > > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should > > put the > > > > garbage out and move on. > > > > > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > > altogether. > > > > > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > > avoided. The > > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the child to > > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward off karma > > > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents accordingly so > > > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. Hence good > > > > values are > > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong lifestyle later > > > > on in life. > > > > > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > > coincided with > > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial measures. > > > > > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I > > am not > > > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and without > > > > compassion > > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign despite > > > > my personal > > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written a book > > > > dealing > > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its treatment. In > > > > his book a > > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > > educated us on his > > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises > > radiation and > > > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried chemotherapy and > > > > radiation as > > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > > " Living with the > > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > > intervention with > > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find out why > > > > more and > > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest you study > > > > the holistic > > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your treatment > > > > with > > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > > world who are > > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > > medicos. > > > > > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > > reductionist > > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you will > > > > entirely miss > > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI > > has put > > > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in its view > > > > to " upgrade " > > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > > impediment to > > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > > immediately be revised > > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this matter > > > > to the > > > > > authorities. > > > > > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. If the > > > > health > > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream doctors > > > > too have to > > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > > > >> > > > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem > > and the > > > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > > knowledge and > > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward > > of our > > > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The amount of > > > > suffering > > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, and the > > > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of which we > > > > don't even > > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > > complications > > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable pain, > > > > unending > > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any control. > > > > Blaming > > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four cases: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history in his > > > > family. > > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran out of > > > > things to > > > > >> do for him. > > > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She suffered from > > > > chronic > > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due > > to his > > > > >> multiple myeloma. > > > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of > > seizures. > > > > >> > > > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start blaming the > > > > patients > > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it may be > > > > their > > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be > > sure that > > > > >> blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on our own > > > > Karma, too. > > > > >> > > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > > questions. But > > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > > heard so far > > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but not one > > > > of them > > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy in those > > > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > > trauma--where > > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, > > specific > > > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your " blame the > > > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > > > >> > > > > >> ______ > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >This is your brain on politics: > > > > > ><<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>h > ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>><http://www.scie\ ncedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>http://www.sciencedaily.com/relea\ ses/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > > > >Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Jagannah: I was not joking when I said I believed in Astrology, not newspaper astrology, but natal astrology, properly charted with all the synchronous bodies in our solar system. There is actually research that supports this and of course some that does not. Perhaps it like the god discussion. I've done enough investigation to personally believe that it is truly valid - with big limits - and can be useful in the diagnosis and treatment of disease including mental illness. At 02:27 AM 8/6/2006, you wrote: >Towards the end of this long discussion I would like to point out >the recent finding that there is a code that guides the DNA. Now >what guides that code? Continuing on the path we will be bound to >accept that some kind of energy is behind it all. Then spirituality >will be understood by the medical " experts " also just as it >interests the physicists now. > >Planets are shown to have effects upon water and electro magnetic >waves. Our body too is predominantly made of water and we do have an >energy aspect. The moon also has a remarkable effect on the mind. >The sun rules all life on earth. Therefore what is wrong with >astrology which deals with how planets affect our lives? > >If the scientists are mindful about God, spirituality and ethics we >could expect a better world at the end of the day. Else, what we are >all apprehensive about will certainly come to pass. > >Regards, >(Spammer) Jagannath. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 : I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in degree on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I think you should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In medicine. it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer Association, American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide (control ) the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these fields will somehow get their heads out of the sand. In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science journals with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to where the new work and money goes. Jim Brown wrote: > Hi: > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a great > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > At 12:03 AM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > >Preponderance of evidence... You mean like Einstein's relativity? > >Check out Lorentzian relativity, it does a better job of explaining the > >time dilation phenomenon (Occam's razor is as sharp as ever). But the > >members of the COE (Cult O' Einstein) get downright ornery if you bring > >that fact up. > > > >It all stems from the human arrogance of declaring time a fundamental > >quality of the universe. Turns out it's just something we invented to > >measure relative velocities. > > > ><http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html > <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html>>http://www.space\ ..com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html > <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html> > > > >I had the idea around the same period, but it turns out I'm glad I > >wasn't the one to publish. This guy has been catching all kinds of > >shit! I guess that's what happens when you toss a truckload of it into > >a fan..! O_o > > > >Dave > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > Isn't that a bit harsh? Many partially proven scientific theories > > > are believed by scientists based on the preponderance of > > > evidence. Court cases are decided on a preponderance of > > > circumstantial evidence. Although I consider myself half Buddhist > > > and half agnostic (I've also spent many, many years investigating the > > > spiritual, but that's a digression), it seems clear to me that for a > > > scientific mind who has not spent a great deal of time investigating > > > spiritual issues, the preponderance of available evidence is very > > > clearly that there is no god. > > > > > > > > > > > > At 03:13 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote: > > > > > > >By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > > > > > > >Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you > disprove > > > >the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > > > >is not based on logic and reason. > > > > > > > >A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > > > > > > ><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex > > .com>nospam.rwp@... <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> > > > <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross > abuse and > > > > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using > astrophysics, > > > > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, > therefore I > > > > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > > > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine > > > could > > > > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because > > > something > > > > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic > location, > > > > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, > unfortunately so > > > > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > > > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception > and lack > > > > > of mental discipline. > > > > > > > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are > routinely > > > > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so > > > that > > > > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original > purpose > > > > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should > > > put the > > > > > garbage out and move on. > > > > > > > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > > > altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > > > avoided. The > > > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the > child to > > > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward > off karma > > > > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents > accordingly so > > > > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. > Hence good > > > > > values are > > > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong > lifestyle later > > > > > on in life. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > > > coincided with > > > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial > measures. > > > > > > > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I > > > am not > > > > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and > without > > > > > compassion > > > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign > despite > > > > > my personal > > > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written > a book > > > > > dealing > > > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its > treatment. In > > > > > his book a > > > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > > > educated us on his > > > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises > > > radiation and > > > > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried > chemotherapy and > > > > > radiation as > > > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > > > " Living with the > > > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > > > intervention with > > > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find > out why > > > > > more and > > > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest > you study > > > > > the holistic > > > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your > treatment > > > > > with > > > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > > > world who are > > > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > > > medicos. > > > > > > > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > > > reductionist > > > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you > will > > > > > entirely miss > > > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI > > > has put > > > > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in > its view > > > > > to " upgrade " > > > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > > > impediment to > > > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > > > immediately be revised > > > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this > matter > > > > > to the > > > > > > authorities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. > If the > > > > > health > > > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream > doctors > > > > > too have to > > > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem > > > and the > > > > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > > > knowledge and > > > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward > > > of our > > > > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The > amount of > > > > > suffering > > > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, > and the > > > > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of > which we > > > > > don't even > > > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > > > complications > > > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable > pain, > > > > > unending > > > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any > control. > > > > > Blaming > > > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four > cases: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history > in his > > > > > family. > > > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran > out of > > > > > things to > > > > > >> do for him. > > > > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She > suffered from > > > > > chronic > > > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > > > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due > > > to his > > > > > >> multiple myeloma. > > > > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of > > > seizures. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start > blaming the > > > > > patients > > > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it > may be > > > > > their > > > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be > > > sure that > > > > > >> blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on > our own > > > > > Karma, too. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > > > questions. But > > > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > > > heard so far > > > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but > not one > > > > > of them > > > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy > in those > > > > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > > > trauma--where > > > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, > > > specific > > > > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your > " blame the > > > > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ______ > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >This is your brain on politics: > > > > > > > ><<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>h > > ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>><http://www.sci\ encedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>http://www.scien\ cedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>> > > > > > > > >Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing away the idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars represents distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are physically connected yet have different red shifts. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102\ -8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books Here is a quote from two reviews on this: " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the crisis in moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that extragalactic redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an empirical picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, demonstrating that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the astronomy community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science fails its ideals and potential. " " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble flow, exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant examples of high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, which is inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the evidence against it is getting stronger with new observations. " In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those with a vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't also have control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > : > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in > degree > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I think you > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In > medicine. > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer Association, > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide > (control ) > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these > fields will > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science > journals > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to where the > new work > and money goes. > > Jim > > Brown wrote: > > Hi: > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a great > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > -- Steve - dudescholar2@... " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be different. " --Joje Reyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 On Sunday 06 August 2006 3:27 am, jagchat01 wrote: > Towards the end of this long discussion I would like to point out > the recent finding that there is a code that guides the DNA. Now > what guides that code? Continuing on the path we will be bound to > accept that some kind of energy is behind it all. The jump from what was said above to what is said next is called " hand waving " . > Then spirituality > will be understood by the medical " experts " also just as it > interests the physicists now. ... > If the scientists are mindful about God, spirituality and ethics we ... Deities, metaphysical " guidances " , and random sets of ethics have no supernatural basis; it's all imagination and left-over superstition. > Regards, > (Spammer) Jagannath. Hail to the Sun God, O, What a Fun God, Ra, Ra, Ra. -- Steve - dudescholar2@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Where did these physical " laws " come from? ~Inga On Aug 6, 2006, at 6:40 AM, nospam.rwp@... wrote: > Physical 'laws' or constraints do not need understanding or sentience, > they just are, they cause things like matter, universes, suns, planets > and life to form, eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Jim: There is a lot of truth in what you say. As I said, it has often become like a religion, not like science should be, with an open mind to all new ideas.... Nevertheless, there is a lot of good work going on. At 06:25 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: >: > >I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in >degree >on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I think you >should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > >After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many >years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion >work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. >I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In >medicine. >it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer Association, >American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide >(control ) >the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these >fields will >somehow get their heads out of the sand. > >In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science >journals >with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to where the >new work >and money goes. > >Jim > > Brown wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a great > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > At 12:03 AM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > > > >Preponderance of evidence... You mean like Einstein's relativity? > > >Check out Lorentzian relativity, it does a better job of explaining the > > >time dilation phenomenon (Occam's razor is as sharp as ever). But the > > >members of the COE (Cult O' Einstein) get downright ornery if you bring > > >that fact up. > > > > > >It all stems from the human arrogance of declaring time a fundamental > > >quality of the universe. Turns out it's just something we invented to > > >measure relative velocities. > > > > > ><<http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html>h > ttp://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html > > > <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html>><http://www.spac\ e.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html>http://www.space.com/scienceastro\ nomy/time_theory_030806.html > > > <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html> > > > > > >I had the idea around the same period, but it turns out I'm glad I > > >wasn't the one to publish. This guy has been catching all kinds of > > >shit! I guess that's what happens when you toss a truckload of it into > > >a fan..! O_o > > > > > >Dave > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > Isn't that a bit harsh? Many partially proven scientific theories > > > > are believed by scientists based on the preponderance of > > > > evidence. Court cases are decided on a preponderance of > > > > circumstantial evidence. Although I consider myself half Buddhist > > > > and half agnostic (I've also spent many, many years investigating the > > > > spiritual, but that's a digression), it seems clear to me that for a > > > > scientific mind who has not spent a great deal of time investigating > > > > spiritual issues, the preponderance of available evidence is very > > > > clearly that there is no god. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 03:13 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > > > > > > > > >Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you > > disprove > > > > >the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > > > > >is not based on logic and reason. > > > > > > > > > >A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > > > > > > > > ><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex > > > > .com><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com>nospam.rwp@... > <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> > > > > <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross > > abuse and > > > > > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using > > astrophysics, > > > > > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, > > therefore I > > > > > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > > > > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine > > > > could > > > > > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because > > > > something > > > > > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic > > location, > > > > > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, > > unfortunately so > > > > > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > > > > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception > > and lack > > > > > > of mental discipline. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are > > routinely > > > > > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so > > > > that > > > > > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original > > purpose > > > > > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should > > > > put the > > > > > > garbage out and move on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > > > > altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > > > > avoided. The > > > > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the > > child to > > > > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward > > off karma > > > > > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents > > accordingly so > > > > > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. > > Hence good > > > > > > values are > > > > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong > > lifestyle later > > > > > > on in life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > > > > coincided with > > > > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial > > measures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I > > > > am not > > > > > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and > > without > > > > > > compassion > > > > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign > > despite > > > > > > my personal > > > > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written > > a book > > > > > > dealing > > > > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its > > treatment. In > > > > > > his book a > > > > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > > > > educated us on his > > > > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises > > > > radiation and > > > > > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried > > chemotherapy and > > > > > > radiation as > > > > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > > > > " Living with the > > > > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > > > > intervention with > > > > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find > > out why > > > > > > more and > > > > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest > > you study > > > > > > the holistic > > > > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your > > treatment > > > > > > with > > > > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > > > > world who are > > > > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > > > > medicos. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > > > > reductionist > > > > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you > > will > > > > > > entirely miss > > > > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI > > > > has put > > > > > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in > > its view > > > > > > to " upgrade " > > > > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > > > > impediment to > > > > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > > > > immediately be revised > > > > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this > > matter > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > authorities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. > > If the > > > > > > health > > > > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream > > doctors > > > > > > too have to > > > > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem > > > > and the > > > > > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > > > > knowledge and > > > > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward > > > > of our > > > > > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The > > amount of > > > > > > suffering > > > > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, > > and the > > > > > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of > > which we > > > > > > don't even > > > > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > > > > complications > > > > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable > > pain, > > > > > > unending > > > > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any > > control. > > > > > > Blaming > > > > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four > > cases: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history > > in his > > > > > > family. > > > > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran > > out of > > > > > > things to > > > > > > >> do for him. > > > > > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She > > suffered from > > > > > > chronic > > > > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > > > > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due > > > > to his > > > > > > >> multiple myeloma. > > > > > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of > > > > seizures. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start > > blaming the > > > > > > patients > > > > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it > > may be > > > > > > their > > > > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be > > > > sure that > > > > > > >> blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on > > our own > > > > > > Karma, too. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > > > > questions. But > > > > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > > > > heard so far > > > > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but > > not one > > > > > > of them > > > > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy > > in those > > > > > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > > > > trauma--where > > > > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, > > > > specific > > > > > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your > > " blame the > > > > > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ______ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > >This is your brain on politics: > > > > > > > > > ><<<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225. > htm>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>h > > > > <ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>ttp://www.scienced\ aily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > > > <<ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>ttp://www.science\ daily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > > > > > > <<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>http://www.scien\ cedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>><<http://www.sc\ iencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>http://www.sciencedaily.com/rel\ eases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>><http://www.scie\ ncedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>http://www.sciencedaily.com/relea\ ses/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > > > > > > <<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>http://www.scien\ cedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>> > > > > > > > > > >Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2006 Report Share Posted August 6, 2006 Hi: Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of academic science. It is like they are defending their original conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be there instead. Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing away the >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars represents >distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are physically >connected yet have different red shifts. > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) ><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/1\ 02-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/s\ r=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the >crisis in >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that extragalactic >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an empirical >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, demonstrating >that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the astronomy >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science fails its >ideals and potential. " > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble flow, >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant examples of >high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift >galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, which is >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the evidence >against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those with a >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't also have >control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > : > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in > > degree > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I think you > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many > > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion > > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. > > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In > > medicine. > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer Association, > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide > > (control ) > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these > > fields will > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science > > journals > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to where the > > new work > > and money goes. > > > > Jim > > > > Brown wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a great > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > >-- > >Steve - <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@... > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be different. " >--Joje Reyes > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Halton Arp has made several contributions to Infinite Energy Mag. I like his writing. To his credit, he is a working scientist, not just a theorist. IEM has advertised his book for years now. I predict that you will like the book . He also wrote: " Seeing Red " Brown wrote: > Hi: > > Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A > continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series > of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly > another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of > academic science. It is like they are defending their original > conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of > gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be > there instead. > > Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited > especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat > replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy > technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless > revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by > current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I > suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with > tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new > paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. > > > > At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing > away the > >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars represents > >distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are > physically > >connected yet have different red shifts. > > > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) > ><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/1\ 02-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/s\ r=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the > >crisis in > >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that > extragalactic > >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an > empirical > >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, demonstrating > >that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the > astronomy > >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science fails its > >ideals and potential. " > > > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble > flow, > >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant examples of > >high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift > >galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, > which is > >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by > >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the evidence > >against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > > > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those > with a > >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't also have > >control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. > > > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > > : > > > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in > > > degree > > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I > think you > > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many > > > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion > > > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. > > > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In > > > medicine. > > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer > Association, > > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide > > > (control ) > > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these > > > fields will > > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science > > > journals > > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to > where the > > > new work > > > and money goes. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > > > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > > > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > > > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > > > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > > > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > > > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a > great > > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > > > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Steve - > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@... > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be different. " > >--Joje Reyes > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 Hi: I also found this book: Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality by W.C. [ Cosmic Sense Books. 444 pp (paper). ISBN 096-431-8814 ] According to the reviews, the resulting theory postulates an overall steady state with a series of smaller " big bangs " ad infinitum. Do you know if these two authors are in agreement outside of their disagreement with the standard BB theory? I plan to take a look at both. At 09:05 AM 8/7/2006, you wrote: >Halton Arp has made several contributions to Infinite Energy Mag. I >like his >writing. To his credit, he is a working scientist, not just a >theorist. IEM has >advertised his book for years now. I predict that you will like the >book . >He also wrote: " Seeing Red " > > Brown wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A > > continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series > > of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly > > another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of > > academic science. It is like they are defending their original > > conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of > > gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be > > there instead. > > > > Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited > > especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat > > replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy > > technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless > > revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by > > current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I > > suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with > > tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new > > paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. > > > > > > > > At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > > > >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing > > away the > > >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars represents > > >distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are > > physically > > >connected yet have different red shifts. > > > > > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) > > ><<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=11549152 > 95/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ\ ct/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=boo\ ks > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/\ sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.\ amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-68\ 42541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > > > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > > > > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the > > >crisis in > > >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that > > extragalactic > > >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an > > empirical > > >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, demonstrating > > >that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the > > astronomy > > >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science fails its > > >ideals and potential. " > > > > > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble > > flow, > > >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant examples of > > >high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift > > >galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, > > which is > > >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by > > >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the evidence > > >against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > > > > > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those > > with a > > >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't also have > > >control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. > > > > > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > > > : > > > > > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in > > > > degree > > > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I > > think you > > > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many > > > > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion > > > > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. > > > > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In > > > > medicine. > > > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer > > Association, > > > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide > > > > (control ) > > > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these > > > > fields will > > > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science > > > > journals > > > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to > > where the > > > > new work > > > > and money goes. > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > > > > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > > > > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > > > > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > > > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > > > > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > > > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > > > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > > > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > > > > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > > > > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a > > great > > > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > > > > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Steve - > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net><mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudesc\ holar2@... > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be different. " > > >--Joje Reyes > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 : I have the Bye Bye Big Bang Book, but not Arp's book, so I can't say for certain. However, my guess is that they agree, though, given my memory is of Arp's articles. By the way, I liked the above book and was convinced that the Big Bang is big baloney .along with its Dark Matter fix. Interestingly and strangely, neither agrees with my spiritual belief system, since I accept the Hindu Yugas as workable. My final reaction is more like: " who cares? " I have a life to live here. Let's move on. Jim Brown wrote: > Hi: > > I also found this book: > > Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality > > by W.C. [ Cosmic Sense Books. 444 pp (paper). ISBN 096-431-8814 ] > > According to the reviews, the resulting theory postulates an overall > steady state with a series of smaller " big bangs " ad infinitum. Do > you know if these two authors are in agreement outside of their > disagreement with the standard BB theory? I plan to take a look at both. > > > > At 09:05 AM 8/7/2006, you wrote: > > >Halton Arp has made several contributions to Infinite Energy Mag. I > >like his > >writing. To his credit, he is a working scientist, not just a > >theorist. IEM has > >advertised his book for years now. I predict that you will like the > >book . > >He also wrote: " Seeing Red " > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A > > > continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series > > > of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly > > > another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of > > > academic science. It is like they are defending their original > > > conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of > > > gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be > > > there instead. > > > > > > Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited > > > especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat > > > replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy > > > technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless > > > revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by > > > current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I > > > suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with > > > tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new > > > paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. > > > > > > > > > > > > At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > > > > > >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing > > > away the > > > >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars > represents > > > >distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are > > > physically > > > >connected yet have different red shifts. > > > > > > > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) > > > ><<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=11549152 > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=11549152> > > > 95/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ\ ct/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=boo\ ks > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>>><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905\ /sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/s\ r=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>> > > > > > > > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > > > > > > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the > > > >crisis in > > > >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that > > > extragalactic > > > >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an > > > empirical > > > >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, > demonstrating > > > >that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the > > > astronomy > > > >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science > fails its > > > >ideals and potential. " > > > > > > > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble > > > flow, > > > >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant > examples of > > > >high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift > > > >galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, > > > which is > > > >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by > > > >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the > evidence > > > >against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > > > > > > > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those > > > with a > > > >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't > also have > > > >control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. > > > > > > > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with > you in > > > > > degree > > > > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I > > > think you > > > > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > > > > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for > so many > > > > > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold > Fusion > > > > > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream > science. > > > > > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and > physics. In > > > > > medicine. > > > > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer > > > Association, > > > > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups > guide > > > > > (control ) > > > > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope > that these > > > > > fields will > > > > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > > > > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major > science > > > > > journals > > > > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to > > > where the > > > > > new work > > > > > and money goes. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds > several > > > > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has > something > > > > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks > continuous > > > > > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight > lines) time > > > > > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but > this > > > > > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > > > > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current > level of > > > > > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > > > > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > > > > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > > > > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion > (i.e. your > > > > > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the > church. Even > > > > > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a > > > great > > > > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, > I'd love > > > > > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > >Steve - > > > > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net><mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudesc\ holar2@... > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > > > > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be > different. " > > > >--Joje Reyes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2006 Report Share Posted August 7, 2006 With the information I've read and come across to date, I'm inclined to see the visible universe as a continously expanding with new galaxies being created/born regularly and in general most galaxies moving away from each other - local interactions notwithstanding. Arp I believe has photos of older galaxies giving birth to new galaxies along with high speed jets of matter ejected from the center of spiral galaxies in both orthogonal directions - in other words in general perpendicular to the plane of a galaxy. This web page makes the point near the beginning and again about half way through in greater detail. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm -- Steve - dudescholar2@... " The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off. " --Mal Pancoast On Monday 07 August 2006 12:52 pm, Brown wrote: > Hi: > > I also found this book: > > > Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality > > by W.C. [ Cosmic Sense Books. 444 pp (paper). ISBN 096-431-8814 ] > > According to the reviews, the resulting theory postulates an overall > steady state with a series of smaller " big bangs " ad infinitum. Do > you know if these two authors are in agreement outside of their > disagreement with the standard BB theory? I plan to take a look at both. > > > > At 09:05 AM 8/7/2006, you wrote: > >Halton Arp has made several contributions to Infinite Energy Mag. I > >like his > >writing. To his credit, he is a working scientist, not just a > >theorist. IEM has > >advertised his book for years now. I predict that you will like the > >book . > >He also wrote: " Seeing Red " > > > > Brown wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > > > Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A > > > continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series > > > of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly > > > another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of > > > academic science. It is like they are defending their original > > > conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of > > > gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be > > > there instead. > > > > > > Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited > > > especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat > > > replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy > > > technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless > > > revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by > > > current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I > > > suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with > > > tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new > > > paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. > > > > > > > > > > > > At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > > >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing > > > > > > away the > > > > > > >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars > > > > represents distance. He is able to show that both old and new > > > > galaxies are > > > > > > physically > > > > > > >connected yet have different red shifts. > > > > > > > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) > > > ><<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=11549152 > > > > 95/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.amazon.com/g > >p/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541? > >ie=UTF8 & s=books > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr > >_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>><http://www.amazon.com/gp/produc > >t/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & > >s=books>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ > >ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr > >_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > > > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > > > > > > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the > > > >crisis in > > > >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that > > > > > > extragalactic > > > > > > >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an > > > > > > empirical > > > > > > >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, > > > > demonstrating that crucial observations have been ignored and > > > > suppressed by the > > > > > > astronomy > > > > > > >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science fails > > > > its ideals and potential. " > > > > > > > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble > > > > > > flow, > > > > > > >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant examples > > > > of high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to > > > > low-redshift galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is > > > > quantized, > > > > > > which is > > > > > > >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by > > > >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the > > > > evidence against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > > > > > > > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those > > > > > > with a > > > > > > >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't also > > > > have control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they > > > > died. > > > > > > > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you > > > > > in degree > > > > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I > > > > > > think you > > > > > > > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > > > > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so > > > > > many years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold > > > > > Fusion work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream > > > > > science. I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and > > > > > physics. In medicine. > > > > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer > > > > > > Association, > > > > > > > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide > > > > > (control ) > > > > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that > > > > > these fields will > > > > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > > > > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major > > > > > science journals > > > > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to > > > > > > where the > > > > > > > > new work > > > > > and money goes. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > > > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > > > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks > > > > > > continuous (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of > > > > > > (straight lines) time or motion is very useful for physics and > > > > > > rocket science, but this analytical structure is really just a > > > > > > scaffolding erected around physical motion that has helped us > > > > > > arrive at the current level of understanding. Thinking that its > > > > > > success at a certain level of analysis proves that the universe > > > > > > works that way a priori is wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type > > > > > > of belief-based theory in science sometimes makes science > > > > > > dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your " Cult O'Einstein " ) that > > > > > > resists new evidence like the church. Even if not yet fully > > > > > > worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a > > > > > > great > > > > > > > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd > > > > > > love to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > >Steve - > > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net><mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net > >>dudescholar2@... > > > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > > > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be > > > > different. " --Joje Reyes > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 Hah! Just as the late great Groucho wouldn't join any club that would accept him as a member, I wouldn't publish in any scientific journal that would even referee me. I'm content to throw rocks through the windows of their straw fortifications, occasionally using my hamster and low-temperature plasma hydrolysis fusion steam-powered trebuchet to toss two-tone buckets of ripened flaming pig manure into the midst of their egg-headed cabal meetings (incidentally, those self-same heads, while appearing at first as delicate as the ovum that is their cranial namesake, ultimately prove as impermeable as neutron star material). Brown wrote: > > Hi: > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a great > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > At 12:03 AM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > >Preponderance of evidence... You mean like Einstein's relativity? > >Check out Lorentzian relativity, it does a better job of explaining the > >time dilation phenomenon (Occam's razor is as sharp as ever). But the > >members of the COE (Cult O' Einstein) get downright ornery if you bring > >that fact up. > > > >It all stems from the human arrogance of declaring time a fundamental > >quality of the universe. Turns out it's just something we invented to > >measure relative velocities. > > > ><http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html > <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html>>http://www.space\ ..com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html > <http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html> > > > >I had the idea around the same period, but it turns out I'm glad I > >wasn't the one to publish. This guy has been catching all kinds of > >shit! I guess that's what happens when you toss a truckload of it into > >a fan..! O_o > > > >Dave > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > Isn't that a bit harsh? Many partially proven scientific theories > > > are believed by scientists based on the preponderance of > > > evidence. Court cases are decided on a preponderance of > > > circumstantial evidence. Although I consider myself half Buddhist > > > and half agnostic (I've also spent many, many years investigating the > > > spiritual, but that's a digression), it seems clear to me that for a > > > scientific mind who has not spent a great deal of time investigating > > > spiritual issues, the preponderance of available evidence is very > > > clearly that there is no god. > > > > > > > > > > > > At 03:13 PM 8/4/2006, you wrote: > > > > > > >By declaring yourself an atheist, you reveal you are irrational. > > > > > > > >Just as you cannot prove the existence of God, neither can you > disprove > > > >the existence... Ergo, either way you are operating on a belief which > > > >is not based on logic and reason. > > > > > > > >A better bet is to state you're an agnostic... Or just keep quiet. > > > > > > > ><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com><mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex > > .com>nospam.rwp@... <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> > > > <mailto:nospam.rwp%40dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Horoscopes are self-contradictory garbage, they are a gross > abuse and > > > > > distortion of astronomy, so it is relatively easy, using > astrophysics, > > > > > to discredit the junk concepts that support horoscopes, > therefore I > > > > > regard anyone who promote horoscopes as fools or knaves. Karma is > > > > > mystical garbage, I don't see how even valid alternative medicine > > > could > > > > > reasonably accept it, let alone modern medicine. Just because > > > something > > > > > has a foreign name or is from Tibet, or is from some exotic > location, > > > > > does not necessarily make that thing true and honest, > unfortunately so > > > > > much dogmatic mysticism and new age self-deception still pollutes > > > > > peoples minds because of this absurd system of self-deception > and lack > > > > > of mental discipline. > > > > > > > > > > I am an atheist, I find it quite offensive that children are > routinely > > > > > infected by the fake 'god' (object of fear) mental disease just so > > > that > > > > > society can manipulate people; religion served it's original > purpose > > > > > millennia ago, it is now waste from prior development, we should > > > put the > > > > > garbage out and move on. > > > > > > > > > > Jagannath Chatterjee wrote: > > > > > > Dear Dr ____, > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry to be late in replying to your mail. I had missed it > > > > > altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > If modern medicine accepts karma then a lot of suffering can be > > > > > avoided. The > > > > > > ayurveds (also Tibetan Medicine) study the horoscope of the > child to > > > > > know what diseases he is predisposed to. Thus they can ward > off karma > > > > > to a certain extent. They can also advise the parents > accordingly so > > > > > that they take better care of their wards by > > > > > > educating them to be honest and God fearing individuals. > Hence good > > > > > values are > > > > > > inculcated so that the child does not adopt a wrong > lifestyle later > > > > > on in life. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my case also I could discern that the most painful period > > > > > coincided with > > > > > > the mahadasha of the planet that is the most malefic in my > > > > > horoscope. Had I > > > > > > known at that time I could have taken recourse to remedial > measures. > > > > > > > > > > > > I know it is cruel to blame patients for their illness. Here I > > > am not > > > > > > discussing with patients, but doctors. If I was so cruel and > without > > > > > compassion > > > > > > as you suggest then I would not be carrying on my campaign > despite > > > > > my personal > > > > > > pain and difficulties. > > > > > > > > > > > > You talk of cancer. I know of an oncologist who has written > a book > > > > > dealing > > > > > > with the need for a fresh approach to cancer and its > treatment. In > > > > > his book a > > > > > > whole chapter has been devoted to karma. An associate of his > > > > > educated us on his > > > > > > ideas and showed us the book at a Rotary meeting. As per the > > > > > oncologist, cancer > > > > > > is an all pervading disease that attacks the entire > > > > > body-mind-emotion system and > > > > > > thus requires a holistic approach. He openly criticises > > > radiation and > > > > > > chemotherapy. Genetic engineers too have decried > chemotherapy and > > > > > radiation as > > > > > > they say it helps spread the cancer. Please refer to the book, > > > > > " Living with the > > > > > > fluid genome " by Dr Mae Wan Ho. > > > > > > > > > > > > Diseases like cancer and AIDS are spreading due to chemical > > > > > intervention with > > > > > > disease. The entire system breaks down due to the repeated > > > > > onslaught. Unless > > > > > > this trend is checked we have a horrible future ahead. > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you look at the macro situation and try to find > out why > > > > > more and > > > > > > more patients are coming down with cancer. I also suggest > you study > > > > > the holistic > > > > > > methods sincerely so that you yourself can complement your > treatment > > > > > with > > > > > > holistic therapies. Now there are many universities all over the > > > > > world who are > > > > > > offering short term courses on holistic therapies for the modern > > > > > medicos. > > > > > > > > > > > > However when you are studying them you should keep aside your > > > > > reductionist > > > > > > views and immerse yourself in the holistic concept. Else you > will > > > > > entirely miss > > > > > > what these therapies have to offer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently in India the courses are severely impeded as the GOI > > > has put > > > > > > unnecessary stress on anatomy/physiology/pathology etc. in > its view > > > > > to " upgrade " > > > > > > the knowledge available. This is a serious flaw and is a serious > > > > > impediment to > > > > > > the students who end up being nowhere. The courses should > > > > > immediately be revised > > > > > > to reflect the classical views. I have been writing on this > matter > > > > > to the > > > > > > authorities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take my above suggestion seriously. I am not joking. > If the > > > > > health > > > > > > scenario has to improve then the good and honest mainstream > doctors > > > > > too have to > > > > > > come forward and do their bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Jagannath. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Dear Jagannath, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> With this one statement about how " people are both the problem > > > and the > > > > > >> solution " , you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of both > > > > > knowledge and > > > > > >> compassion. I wish you could come and observe the cancer ward > > > of our > > > > > >> hospital for just one day and see how wrong you are. The > amount of > > > > > suffering > > > > > >> and heartache is sometimes unbearable even for the doctors, > and the > > > > > >> patients' only crime is having a few bad genes, many of > which we > > > > > don't even > > > > > >> know, that allowed them to develop some of the most terrifying > > > > > complications > > > > > >> you can imagine. Paralysis, water in the lungs, intractable > pain, > > > > > unending > > > > > >> seizures--all because of genes over which no one has any > control. > > > > > Blaming > > > > > >> them for their problems is despicable. Just consider four > cases: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1.JK, a 22 year old boy with blood cancer. No prior history > in his > > > > > family. > > > > > >> We discharged him from the hospital to die because we ran > out of > > > > > things to > > > > > >> do for him. > > > > > >> 2. KN, a 37 year old woman with bile duct cancer. She > suffered from > > > > > chronic > > > > > >> accumulations of fluid in her belly until she died. > > > > > >> 3. SK, a 45 year old who died from congestive heart failure due > > > to his > > > > > >> multiple myeloma. > > > > > >> 4. PS, a 37 year old with lung cancer. Not a smoker--died of > > > seizures. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You have to be a hard hearted and cruel person to start > blaming the > > > > > patients > > > > > >> for their bad luck. Or, if you believe in Karma as I do, it > may be > > > > > their > > > > > >> Karma to have had to endure so much suffering--but you can be > > > sure that > > > > > >> blaming them will have a distinctly unpleasant effect on > our own > > > > > Karma, too. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> No one is saying that allopathy has all the answers to these > > > > > questions. But > > > > > >> at least it continues to work towards finding them. All I have > > > > > heard so far > > > > > >> from the defenders of homeopathy is how bad allopathy--but > not one > > > > > of them > > > > > >> has given a suggestion about how it may supplant allopathy > in those > > > > > >> fields--cancer, heart disease, stroke, autoimmune disease, > > > > > trauma--where > > > > > >> life is on the line. Can you even think to offer a rational, > > > specific > > > > > >> alternative in any of these cases? Until you can, your > " blame the > > > > > >> allopathy " game is just so much hot air. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ______ > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >This is your brain on politics: > > > > > > > ><<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>h > > ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>><http://www.sci\ encedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>>http://www.scien\ cedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm> > > > > > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm > <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm>> > > > > > > > >Yep! You've been an annoying zombie all these years. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2006 Report Share Posted August 10, 2006 I vote for a static universe. http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp And if you disagree, I'll meet you out back in the University parking lot. (j/k) Brown wrote: > > Hi: > > Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A > continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series > of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly > another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of > academic science. It is like they are defending their original > conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of > gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be > there instead. > > Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited > especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat > replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy > technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless > revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by > current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I > suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with > tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new > paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. > > > > At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing > away the > >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars represents > >distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are > physically > >connected yet have different red shifts. > > > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) > ><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/1\ 02-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/s\ r=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the > >crisis in > >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that > extragalactic > >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an > empirical > >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, demonstrating > >that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the > astronomy > >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science fails its > >ideals and potential. " > > > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble > flow, > >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant examples of > >high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift > >galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, > which is > >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by > >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the evidence > >against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > > > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those > with a > >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't also have > >control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. > > > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > > : > > > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in > > > degree > > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I > think you > > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many > > > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion > > > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. > > > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In > > > medicine. > > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer > Association, > > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide > > > (control ) > > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these > > > fields will > > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science > > > journals > > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to > where the > > > new work > > > and money goes. > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > > > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > > > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > > > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > > > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > > > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > > > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a > great > > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > > > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Steve - > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@... > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be different. " > >--Joje Reyes > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 Hi: Well, I'd rather meet you for lunch or at the gym for a work out together, but it is interesting that this site talks about Milgrom's model on the distance limitation of gravity. This makes ultimate sense to me. The dark matter and dark energy fudge factors have never sat well with me. Did these scientist's forget the Occam's razor principle? Do we get to vote on universe dynamics models? At 11:15 PM 8/9/2006, you wrote: >I vote for a static universe. > ><http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp>http://metaresearch.org/cosmol\ ogy/BB-top-30.asp > >And if you disagree, I'll meet you out back in the University parking >lot. (j/k) > > Brown wrote: > > > > Hi: > > > > Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A > > continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series > > of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly > > another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of > > academic science. It is like they are defending their original > > conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of > > gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be > > there instead. > > > > Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited > > especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat > > replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy > > technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless > > revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by > > current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I > > suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with > > tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new > > paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. > > > > > > > > At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > > > >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing > > away the > > >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars represents > > >distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are > > physically > > >connected yet have different red shifts. > > > > > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) > > ><<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=11549152 > 95/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ\ ct/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=boo\ ks > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/\ sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.\ amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-68\ 42541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > > > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > > > > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the > > >crisis in > > >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that > > extragalactic > > >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an > > empirical > > >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, demonstrating > > >that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the > > astronomy > > >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science fails its > > >ideals and potential. " > > > > > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble > > flow, > > >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant examples of > > >high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift > > >galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, > > which is > > >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by > > >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the evidence > > >against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > > > > > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those > > with a > > >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't also have > > >control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. > > > > > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > > > : > > > > > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with you in > > > > degree > > > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I > > think you > > > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for so many > > > > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold Fusion > > > > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream science. > > > > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and physics. In > > > > medicine. > > > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer > > Association, > > > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups guide > > > > (control ) > > > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope that these > > > > fields will > > > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major science > > > > journals > > > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to > > where the > > > > new work > > > > and money goes. > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds several > > > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has something > > > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks continuous > > > > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight lines) time > > > > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but this > > > > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > > > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current level of > > > > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > > > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > > > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > > > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion (i.e. your > > > > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the church. Even > > > > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a > > great > > > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, I'd love > > > > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Steve - > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@... > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be different. " > > >--Joje Reyes > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2006 Report Share Posted August 23, 2006 ....Boy howdy! Brown wrote: > > Hi: > > Well, I'd rather meet you for lunch or at the gym for a work out > together, but it is interesting that this site talks about Milgrom's > model on the distance limitation of gravity. This makes ultimate > sense to me. The dark matter and dark energy fudge factors have > never sat well with me. Did these scientist's forget the Occam's > razor principle? Do we get to vote on universe dynamics models? > > > > At 11:15 PM 8/9/2006, you wrote: > > >I vote for a static universe. > > > ><http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp > <http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp>>http://metaresearch.org/cosmol\ ogy/BB-top-30.asp > <http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp> > > > >And if you disagree, I'll meet you out back in the University parking > >lot. (j/k) > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > Excellent. If big-bang cosmology is overthrown, in favor of what? A > > > continuous model, an infinite series of bang and contract, a series > > > of " little bangs? " I think I'll order that book. This is clearly > > > another example of the god-like egos present in some areas of > > > academic science. It is like they are defending their original > > > conclusions for fear of being publicly humiliated. An attitude of > > > gratitude for advancing scientific theory to the next level should be > > > there instead. > > > > > > Although Sigmund Freud's theories have largely been discredited > > > especially by modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and somewhat > > > replaced (for those who see value in classical psychotherapy > > > technique) by the neo-Freudian Psychodynamics, Freud is nevertheless > > > revered as the father of psychology and even though he was " wrong " by > > > current thinking, he paved the way toward a broader understanding. I > > > suppose had Freud still been alive today, he would fight CBT with > > > tooth and nail as does the scientific establishment of today over new > > > paradigm shifting concepts and discoveries. > > > > > > > > > > > > At 07:01 PM 8/6/2006, you wrote: > > > > > > >While we digress on science, Arp does an excellent job of blowing > > > away the > > > >idea that red shift in the light coming from particular stars > represents > > > >distance. He is able to show that both old and new galaxies are > > > physically > > > >connected yet have different red shifts. > > > > > > > >Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Paperback) > > > ><<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=11549152 > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=11549152> > > > 95/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ\ ct/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=boo\ ks > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>>><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905\ /sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/s\ r=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/102-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0968368905/sr=1-1/qid=1154915295/ref=sr_1_1/10\ 2-8030596-6842541?ie=UTF8 & s=books>> > > > > > > > >Here is a quote from two reviews on this: > > > > > > > > " Seeing Red " represents a senior scientist's personal account of the > > > >crisis in > > > >moderrn astronomy. Dr. Arp presents observations showing that > > > extragalactic > > > >redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe. He crafts up an > > > empirical > > > >picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies, > demonstrating > > > >that crucial observations have been ignored and suppressed by the > > > astronomy > > > >community. Finally, he cites examples of how academic science > fails its > > > >ideals and potential. " > > > > > > > > " Arp argues convincingly that the holy grail of cosmology, the hubble > > > flow, > > > >exists only in the minds of astronomers. There are abundant > examples of > > > >high-redshift quasars which are physically connected to low-redshift > > > >galaxies. There is convincing evidence that redshift is quantized, > > > which is > > > >inexplicable in the conventional picture where redshift is caused by > > > >recession speed. Big bang cosmology has been overthrown, and the > evidence > > > >against it is getting stronger with new observations. " > > > > > > > >In other words, science and knowledge could advance faster if those > > > with a > > > >vested interest in maintaining the science dogma du jour didn't > also have > > > >control of the steering and we didn't have to wait until they died. > > > > > > > >On Sunday 06 August 2006 7:25 pm, Jim wrote: > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > I have come to really respect your opinions, but I differ with > you in > > > > > degree > > > > > on this one. Instead of " sometimes makes science dogmatic, " I > > > think you > > > > > should have said, " most times makes science dogmatic " :0) > > > > > > > > > > After reading Dr. Gene Malove's Infinite Energy Magazine for > so many > > > > > years and seeing how mainstream scientists put down the Cold > Fusion > > > > > work since 1988, I have become hardened to most mainstream > science. > > > > > I have this problem mainly with the fields of medicine and > physics. In > > > > > medicine. > > > > > it came after seeing how groups like the AMA, American Cancer > > > Association, > > > > > American Heart Association, and other such influential groups > guide > > > > > (control ) > > > > > the direction of progress. Nevertheless, I still have hope > that these > > > > > fields will > > > > > somehow get their heads out of the sand. > > > > > > > > > > In general, I have developed a strong distaste for the major > science > > > > > journals > > > > > with their exclusivity which has given them such control as to > > > where the > > > > > new work > > > > > and money goes. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > Brown wrote: > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this theory is clearly brilliant. I read about Lynds > several > > > > > > years ago and exchanged a few emails. He definitely has > something > > > > > > valuable. The way standard analysis and calculus breaks > continuous > > > > > > (curved) movement into infinitesimal slices of (straight > lines) time > > > > > > or motion is very useful for physics and rocket science, but > this > > > > > > analytical structure is really just a scaffolding erected around > > > > > > physical motion that has helped us arrive at the current > level of > > > > > > understanding. Thinking that its success at a certain level of > > > > > > analysis proves that the universe works that way a priori is > > > > > > wrong-headed. Unfortunately, this type of belief-based theory in > > > > > > science sometimes makes science dogmatic like a religion > (i.e. your > > > > > > " Cult O'Einstein " ) that resists new evidence like the > church. Even > > > > > > if not yet fully worked out, I believe that Lynds' theory has a > > > great > > > > > > deal of merit. We'll be hearing more about it... > > > > > > > > > > > > So Dave, do you publish in scientific journals? Which ones, > I'd love > > > > > > to hear about it. 8-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > > >Steve - > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@... > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net> > > > > > > > > " Knowledge of the world has its roots in those who dare to be > different. " > > > >--Joje Reyes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.