Cosmology nerdery

Can you still drink the beer?

well that may works for sure
by discouraging you to 1) in first place

Don't post the plan?

...I don't get it.

also good... because ...since you didn't post the plans .... machine couldn't be build in few hundred years time... and paradox is avoided in first place....

but we still want to try to resolve paradox rather that avoid... means go through and win...
beat the bad guy[}:)]

That is what I am talking about.
No, not just pushing buttons IanK

I firmly believe that lots of contrary theories and some really good observable stuff (experimental data) is discarded as it is unpopular. In no other field of science would that happen.

The problem is the contrary theories can be really really good and the observations / research / data etc likewise but if it goes against big bang and/or expanding universe it is immediately viewed as somebody trying to prove creation is right, god exists, there was no big bang. So it is not viewed objectively by the establishment.
The science can be good but nobody wants to touch it.

Not if you killed him before you were born, or after you died.

You need to be a person who "exists" at the time the offence was committed, to be charged with an offence.

Geophysics has one of the best examples of scientists discarding unpopular theories.


lilienthal first noted that continents could jig saw together in 1756.

The scientific establishment did not want to believe it.

It wasn't until 1968 that Oliver was credited with publishing the proof that had continental drift accepted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift

It took a while but in the long run science eventually got to the bottom of it.

I like macro's stuff way better than mine.

killing is still baaaaad
although governments commonly convincing you otherwise

That may be your gut feel but it doesn't appear to be anything more than that.

If you could point to an example of good science being ignored i.e. not just waiting confirmation but ignored, I would be really very surprised.

While there is no denying that the politics of academe may bias attitudes, outright suppression is academic suicide. Contrary ideas breed healthy debate. After the debate is done and dusted there may well be proponents that wont lie down without a stake through the heart but they are most likely wrong. This is not to say that a failed idea can't be modified and resurrected. Then the debate goes around again.

There are lots of ideas and articles that don't get published in peer review journals but continue to thrive on the web and in sensation mongering media. These may pass the first skim read test but when you look into claims you find faults.

In short, I don't share your disquiet. There aint no conspiracy. Good science will out.

1 can't happen. Bad guy only sees plans because they are published on the web.
2 would be very dangerous for bad guy. He could destroy his ancestor so he wouldn't do it.

Meteor shower? As if...
I smell CIA

The limitation of a time machine is that you have to set up the arrival point so you can't go back to a time before you invented the time machine arrival point. Therefore the bad guy can't get you beforehand.

Too easy. Next. ; )

It is not a case of deliberate suppression or lack of interest. It is a simple fact that science has been over-run by business and politics.

All the below examples were published, either completely self-evident (like the observable phenomena) or were properly conducted research. The problem is the only place they were published was a very minor journal, or in a creation science forum (stay with me here, I'm not going all god-botherer...)
Simply because of that fact, when the author says "i found this and it is contrary to accepted belief but we need more research..." that further research never happens as he will NOT get grant funding and no employee of a major tertiary institution would get approval to use all the time and resources of their employer for that purpose as it is perceived as loony creation science no matter how good it is of who initiated it. So the good research is never furthered.

EG's

- stalactites forming to about a foot long in 200yrs or less

- Fossilisation of leather boots and hats in similar time frames

- fossilised trees standing upright through a LOT of sedimentary layers that should be thousands of years old (rapidly deposited is the obvious inference)

- Slowing of speed of light (which also fits with earlier postulated reasons for red-shift before popular science got hold of the expanding universe theory and made it "fact"). There is some really good stuff about red-shift and the later (@2004) slowing of c observations fitted well

The first 3 are observed. The latter was good science and needs further investigation (33 of the biggest names agreed in that letter to the journals!!! That says something)

Saying (basically) "we saw red-shift so the universe MUST be expanding so therefore it IS.... so now, hey we have to create dark matter else the densities are all wrong" ... is not observed, it is a theory. But the former 3 observable phenomena are ignored. Now, really ..... which sounds better. "I think.." or "I fkn saw it, it is indisputable and here is the pics, wanna see it for yourself..?"



Another example is all the galaxies spin, so the "mass" (whatever it was) was also spinning before it blew up (or rapidly expanded). That is in all the text books but violates the conservation of angular momentum as some galaxies spin the wrong way. It is still described as an "infinitely dense spinning mass that exploded" in all the highschool books even though it is plainly wrong. It is hard for uni people to escape that indoctrination and exercise independent thought because it is inside them as much as ABC or 123.

^^^ and thereby you prove my argument.

Doesn't matter how good the science, people are anti straight away - or if they believe it are too scared to say so in case they get labelled.

BTW I am not a creationist. I just think that it is fkd some stuff gets ignored by people who claim to be "scientists" or "thinkers" and if you have a bias you are not either.