Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[SpheresOfBalance]

"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited."

Then

Dictatorial, Stagnant, Elitism!

Then

Or more likely just bored with crackpots and loons filling-up their forum with nonsense about subjects they've not bothered to study.

Then

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

Then

And yet, it is this same kind of science (located in this process of 'power') though which is found climate change, global warming, and eco-catastophism.

You seem to be as bad as her/it/him, as you're trying to justify tyrannical behavior.

It's a forum for those interested to congregate and converse on a specific topic. There is always going to be people of differing degrees of understanding, such that the possibility that two or more similar people may meet, and carry on conversation related to the topic, where someone benefits from the exchange, is likely, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. It's easy enough to ignore those posts that are not in keeping with your degree of understanding. Banning anyone is selfish and demeans the banned, as long as they're not being purposefully disruptive. While they absolutely have that right, as it's their forum, I'm saying it's rude and in bad taste and could possible be a mistake; who knows how the banned, may one day, turn out.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

Excuse for what? Not allowing their forum to be full of talk by those who don't know what they are talking about? You think ignorance should be encouraged? They well may be exercising power but what of it? Its hardly repressive to request a shared basis upon which to discuss a scientific subject.

You're making a premature judgment call from your selfish, elitist, self sucking, podium, for shame, you pig!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

It seems reasonable to me that ideas under discussion should have been subject to peer review so they're not saying that unorthodox ideas cannot be discussed.

Without knowing what Godfree posted or attempted to post it's hard to comment on his particular case.

I agree John but only insofar as being purposefully disruptive, as peers are relative. And in Godfree's defense, he's never shown outright nastiness, sure he can be repetitive and stubborn and sometimes seems fixated, but don't we all show a little of that sometimes?

It's wrong to exclude anyone that is politely stating their case. Content of knowledge, is immaterial as it's always ongoing, especially when talking about theories! Who knows, a comment from one not so well versed in the topic at hand, could spur new avenues, for those that are setting the pace, of our current theories, and as long as everyone plays a part in the enlightenment, who cares to what degree? That's one of the main problems in the world, we are actually one big family, but everyone is clamoring to be the big cheese at the expense of another; for shame!

[Arising_uk]

You're making a premature judgment call from your selfish, elitist, self sucking, podium, for shame, you pig!

What a big-girls blouse you are beginning to sound. Its hardly premature as I've been listening too and discussing with Godfree for while now. Still, I take it that this response of yours comes from some sense of victimhood at not being able to afford to study philosophy? Take heart, you can pretty much get all the canon of philosophy books very cheap at any good secondhand store, why not try to read some as it may relieve this idea that all views are valid, especially those that are ignorant of the subject they discurse about. This also applies even more to science subjects, as they are the everyman subject that anyone with a will can achieve.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're making a premature judgment call from your selfish, elitist, self sucking, podium, for shame, you pig!

What a big-girls blouse you are beginning to sound. Its hardly premature as I've been listening too and discussing with Godfree for while now. Still, I take it that this response of yours comes from some sense of victimhood at not being able to afford to study philosophy? Take heart, you can pretty much get all the canon of philosophy books very cheap at any good secondhand store, why not try to read some as it may relieve this idea that all views are valid, especially those that are ignorant of the subject they discurse about. This also applies even more to science subjects, as they are the everyman subject that anyone with a will can achieve.

You're a parrot and a fool to think that all answers are necessarily located in books, that one has to buy.

As I asked Chaz: "When is a skeptic not a skeptic?" and then I answered for him "When he's not skeptical of his skepticism." The same holds true for everyone, especially those that parrot books written by someone else, as if it's they, the reader, that are actually responsible.

Parrots crack me up! They mimic with such conviction.

The most telltale sign that you're in the presence of a parrot, is that they tell you that you're wrong and then refer to someone elses writings as proof, indicating that they're incapable of thinking for themselves. These parrots always have a self image problem, which is why they parrot those they worship, as if they could possibly be them; under the authors umbrella, they find their credibility.

Only a fool thinks that philosophy can only be studied in books that others wrote. Philosophy is automatically studied from birth.

[Arising_uk]

You're a parrot and a fool to think that all answers are necessarily located in books, that one has to buy.

You could just go to the library.

I asked Chaz: "When is a skeptic not a skeptic?" and then I answered for him "When he's not skeptical of his skepticism." The same holds true for everyone, especially those that parrot books written by someone else, as if it's they, the reader, that are actually responsible.

You think you've said something deep here? It just shows you don't understand skepticism.

crack me up! They mimic with such conviction.

The most telltale sign that you're in the presence of a parrot, is that they tell you that you're wrong and then refer to someone elses writings as proof, indicating that they're incapable of thinking for themselves. These parrots always have a self image problem, which is why they parrot those they worship, as if they could possibly be them; under the authors umbrella, they find their credibility.

Show me where I've quoted others or others writings? That I know of them means I can make my own assessment of what I think and the subjects discussed, whereas you work from a position of ignorance and apparently think highly of it.

a fool thinks that philosophy can only be studied in books that others wrote. Philosophy is automatically studied from birth.

Only those ignorant of what philosophy has said say such inanities as this. You are a prime example of talking much about something you know nothing of. If you'd bothered to study the subject you'd find that much of what you say and think has already been better said and done. But you are also a good example of a reverse elitism that seeks to denigrate education and academia. You wish to level all those down rather than raise others up and from what I understand of America you and yours are succeeding in your wishes.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're a parrot and a fool to think that all answers are necessarily located in books, that one has to buy.

You could just go to the library.

I asked Chaz: "When is a skeptic not a skeptic?" and then I answered for him "When he's not skeptical of his skepticism." The same holds true for everyone, especially those that parrot books written by someone else, as if it's they, the reader, that are actually responsible.

You think you've said something deep here? It just shows you don't understand skepticism.

crack me up! They mimic with such conviction.

The most telltale sign that you're in the presence of a parrot, is that they tell you that you're wrong and then refer to someone elses writings as proof, indicating that they're incapable of thinking for themselves. These parrots always have a self image problem, which is why they parrot those they worship, as if they could possibly be them; under the authors umbrella, they find their credibility.

Show me where I've quoted others or others writings? That I know of them means I can make my own assessment of what I think and the subjects discussed, whereas you work from a position of ignorance and apparently think highly of it.

a fool thinks that philosophy can only be studied in books that others wrote. Philosophy is automatically studied from birth.

Only those ignorant of what philosophy has said say such inanities as this. You are a prime example of talking much about something you know nothing of. If you'd bothered to study the subject you'd find that much of what you say and think has already been better said and done. But you are also a good example of a reverse elitism that seeks to denigrate education and academia. You wish to level all those down rather than raise others up and from what I understand of America you and yours are succeeding in your wishes.

You're simply a liar that knows not what you're talking about. Most of the time you just spit out words to see where they splatter.

[Godfree]

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

It seems reasonable to me that ideas under discussion should have been subject to peer review so they're not saying that unorthodox ideas cannot be discussed.

Without knowing what Godfree posted or attempted to post it's hard to comment on his particular case.

I posted pretty much the same as I do here ,
the ban is for life ,the ban will be lifted"never"
that is a very emotional response from a "science forum"
I am tired of the assumption that if I don't agree it's because I havn't heard the theory or seen the clip , I'v seen it all many times over ,
I know space is supposed to have been created by the bang ,
as apposed to banging into space, I know that the expansion of space is supposed to effect the relationship between the movement of the galaxies,
and the space around them ,
don't bother trying to get me to watch a video , I'm on dial-up and can't without spending a long time recording it,
but for future reference please try and remember,
disagreeing with you does not mean I don't know what you know ,
it means I think the knowledge is wrong,,!!!!!

[Arising_uk]

You're simply a liar that knows not what you're talking about. Most of the time you just spit out words to see where they splatter.

Denial is also a river in Egypt.

[Arising_uk]

I posted pretty much the same as I do here ,
the ban is for life ,the ban will be lifted"never"
that is a very emotional response from a "science forum"
I am tired of the assumption that if I don't agree it's because I havn't heard the theory or seen the clip , I'v seen it all many times over ,
I know space is supposed to have been created by the bang ,
as apposed to banging into space, I know that the expansion of space is supposed to effect the relationship between the movement of the galaxies,
and the space around them ,
don't bother trying to get me to watch a video , I'm on dial-up and can't without spending a long time recording it,
but for future reference please try and remember,
disagreeing with you does not mean I don't know what you know ,
it means I think the knowledge is wrong,,!!!!!

You might but its SpaceTime not Space that was created. Its not Space thats expanding its SpaceTime.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're simply a liar that knows not what you're talking about. Most of the time you just spit out words to see where they splatter.

Denial is also a river in Egypt.

You're simply a liar that knows not what you're talking about. Most of the time you just spit out words to see where they splatter.

[lancek4]

Not more likely, you're talking about their excuse, I'm talking about the implications and ramifications of their asserting this power, two separate things, but I can understand your inability to see the difference!

It seems reasonable to me that ideas under discussion should have been subject to peer review so they're not saying that unorthodox ideas cannot be discussed.

Without knowing what Godfree posted or attempted to post it's hard to comment on his particular case.

I posted pretty much the same as I do here ,
the ban is for life ,the ban will be lifted"never"
that is a very emotional response from a "science forum"
I am tired of the assumption that if I don't agree it's because I havn't heard the theory or seen the clip , I'v seen it all many times over ,
I know space is supposed to have been created by the bang ,
as apposed to banging into space, I know that the expansion of space is supposed to effect the relationship between the movement of the galaxies,
and the space around them ,
don't bother trying to get me to watch a video , I'm on dial-up and can't without spending a long time recording it,
but for future reference please try and remember,
disagreeing with you does not mean I don't know what you know ,
it means I think the knowledge is wrong,,!!!!!

I think one of the problems here, godfree, is that such theories are not argued like philosophy (auk), the theories arise from the math, and it is the math that drives the theoritcial speculation, not merely sitting I our arm chair and clashing ideas together in our thought space.

[Arising_uk]

You're simply a liar that knows not what you're talking about. Most of the time you just spit out words to see where they splatter.

So you've said.

[Godfree]

I think one of the problems here, godfree, is that such theories are not argued like philosophy (auk), the theories arise from the math, and it is the math that drives the theoritcial speculation, not merely sitting I our arm chair and clashing ideas together in our thought space.[/quote]

I have spent many hours looking at sites that argue both sides ,
my opinion is a collection of physics and maths ,
by people with degrees on the subject , and I am quoting them ,
So Lancek nobody wants to discuss the red and dead,
will you give it a go , not my claim , from 2005 they have had images ,
of galaxies old and dead , and the image is 10 billion years old ,
can you explain to me how they can overlook this reality ,
according to the site ,"not predicted by theory"
they were surprised to see red and dead galaxies that far out ,
according to the theory distant galaxies should be young and blue , not red and dead , the observational data , does not support the bbt ,
please explain if you can , !!!

[lancek4]

I think one of the problems here, godfree, is that such theories are not argued like philosophy (auk), the theories arise from the math, and it is the math that drives the theoritcial speculation, not merely sitting I our arm chair and clashing ideas together in our thought space.

I have spent many hours looking at sites that argue both sides ,
my opinion is a collection of physics and maths ,
by people with degrees on the subject , and I am quoting them ,
So Lancek nobody wants to discuss the red and dead,
will you give it a go , not my claim , from 2005 they have had images ,
of galaxies old and dead , and the image is 10 billion years old ,
can you explain to me how they can overlook this reality ,
according to the site ,"not predicted by theory"
they were surprised to see red and dead galaxies that far out ,
according to the theory distant galaxies should be young and blue , not red and dead , the observational data , does not support the bbt ,
please explain if you can , !!![/quote]

Obviously the terms 'young' 'blue' 'old' 'red' have been misapplied. The meaning of such terms have changed where the movement and activity of the universe has not, or vice versa. And, The position of man in view of his not self has manifested meaning whch expemplifies our current state of knowledge.

The BB has to do with describing a necessary beginning, as to the subject.
But The observed objects of the universe seem to evidence a stasis.
This discrepancy comes at a time when spiriitual-metaphytsical propositions are being seen for what they are: ubiquitous to knowing reality and transient, based upon contemporary circumstance of an unknowable basis.

Is that a good explanation?