Posted: Oct 28, 2011 1:20 am
by Brain man
Pulsar wrote:
Annila wrote:It is the combustion of bound forms of
energy to the free form of energy by stars, pulsars, black
holes etc. that powers the expansion. This is to say, the Big
Bang did not happen – it is still going on.

What a giant pile of crap. "The combustion of bound forms of energy to the free form of energy"? What does that even mean? Is he saying that the universe is expanding due to some radiation pressure? If stars are somehow powering the expansion, then why aren't galaxies flying apart? After all, the "energy outburst" would be greatest close to the stars and decrease with the square of the distance, right? Annila not only denies GR, which makes his calculations worthless, he even seems to ignore SR. After all, as the relative velocities of the galaxies increase, it would take more energy to accelerate them further. So why doesn't the expansion of the universe slow down? In addition, how does Annila explain the time dilation of type Ia Supernova lightcurves, which is in complete agreement with GR (, §4.1)?

This whole paper is a complete mess. How on earth this slipped through peer review, I've no idea. The referee should be tarred and feathered :nono:

btw, Annila has produced more 'gems'. Look at this: On page 12, in Theorem 7.2, he claims to have proved the Riemann Hypothesis!!! :crazy: Luckily, this bullshit hasn't passed peer review.

Annila published the incomplete conjecture on reimman because at that time there were about 4 new attempts being published so everybody was forcing each other to put their maths on the table in whatever state it was, OK. how about you show us your body of creative work before you ridicule others.


Do you know what this is ?

No this is not tired light. Unlike the wikipedia article there has been work an improvements on it published since 2001 that improve the calculations.

Do you know what this is ?


If I had one of those for every minute of my life wasted on explaining somebody elses work to somebody who does not really want to understand it I would be know. So I wont, because I don’t have time to read these papers and hand it all on a plate for you to say that’s rubbish. Write to the author, and write to the author politely if you want this cleared up.

Why are there problems ? Well why are there grants, and you will find why there are less problems with a ridiculous cocktails of non operational standard models, big bangs, dark matter and string theories hobbled together by an industry that has to pay people to do and build something, anything just keep producing, and keep it consistent with itself and of a serious standard to provide jobs, grants, paricle accelerators and make it appear to the public like we are not clueless idiots even though none of it really makes any sense and will give our descendents a chuckle or twos.

What does this say ?

Fringe science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fringe science is used to describe unusual theories and models of discovery. Those who develop such fringe science ideas may work within the scientific method, but their results are not accepted by the mainstream community. Usually the evidence provided by supporters of a fringe science is believed only by a minority and rejected by the most experts. Fringe science may be advocated by a scientist who has a degree of recognition by the larger scientific community (typically due to the publication of peer reviewed studies by the scientist), but this is not always the case. While most fringe science views are ignored or rejected, through careful use of the scientific method, including falsificationism, the scientific community has come to accept some ideas from fringe sciences.[12] One example of such is plate tectonics, an idea that had its origin as a fringe science, and was held in a negative opinion for decades.[13] It is noted that:
The confusion between science and pseudoscience, between honest scientific error and genuine scientific discovery, is not new, and it is a permanent feature of the scientific landscape [...] Acceptance of new science can come slowly.[14]

The phrase fringe science can be considered pejorative. For example, Lyell D. Henry, Jr. wrote that "'fringe science' [is] a term also suggesting kookiness."[15] Such characterization is perhaps inspired by the eccentric behavior of many researchers on the fringe of science (colloquially and with considerable historical precedent known as mad scientists).[16] The categorical boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience can be disputed. The connotations of fringe science are that the enterprise is still rational, but an unlikely avenue for future results. Fringe science may not be a part of the scientific consensus for a variety of reasons, including incomplete or contradictory evidence.[17]

Some historical ideas that were refuted include:
Wilhelm Reich's work with orgone, a physical energy he claimed to have discovered, contributed to his alienation from the psychiatric community and eventually to his jailing. At the time and continuing today, other scientists and skeptics disputed Reich's claims that he had scientific evidence for the existence of orgone. Nevertheless, dedicated amateurs and a few fringe researchers continue to believe that Reich was correct.
Focal infection theory as a primary cause of systemic disease rapidly became accepted by mainstream dentistry and medicine after World War I, largely on the basis of what later turned out to be fundamentally flawed studies providing evidence to support the theory. As a result millions of people were subjected to needless dental extractions and surgeries.[18] This particular aspect of FIT started falling out of favor in the 1930s and was relegated to the fringe of oral medicine by the late 1950s.
Clovis First theory: The idea that the Clovis was the first culture in North America was long regarded as mainstream until mounting evidence of pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas discredited it. [19][20][21]

Relatively recent fringe sciences include:
Aubrey de Grey, featured in a 2006 60 Minutes special report, is working on advanced studies in human longevity,[22] dubbed "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" (SENS). Many mainstream scientists[who?] believe that his research, especially de Grey's view on the importance of nuclear (epi)mutations and his purported timeline for antiaging therapeutics, constitutes "fringe science".
De Grey Technology Review controversy: In an article released in a 2006 issue of the magazine Technology Review (part of a larger series), it was written that "SENS De Grey's hypothesis is highly speculative. Many of its proposals have not been reproduced, nor could they be reproduced with today's scientific knowledge and technology. Echoing Myhrvold, we might charitably say that de Grey's proposals exist in a kind of antechamber of science, where they wait (possibly in vain) for independent verification. SENS does not compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists; but neither is it demonstrably wrong".[23]
A nuclear fusion reaction called cold fusion occurring near room temperature and pressure was reported by chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in March 1989. Numerous research efforts at the time were unable to replicate these results.[24] Subsequently, a number of scientists with a variety of credentials have worked on the problem or participated in international conferences on cold fusion. In 2004, the United States Department of Energy decided to take another look at cold fusion to determine if their policies towards the subject should be altered due to new experimental evidence, and commissioned a panel on cold fusion.
The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin holds that natural petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. The ubiquity of hydrocarbons in the solar system is taken as evidence that there may be a great deal more petroleum on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids which migrate upward from the mantle. Abiogenic hypotheses saw a revival in the last half of the twentieth century by Russian and Ukrainian scientists, and more interest has been generated in the West[citation needed] after the publication by Thomas Gold in 1999 of The Deep Hot Biosphere. Gold's version of the hypothesis is partly based on the existence of a biosphere composed of thermophile bacteria in the Earth's crust, which may explain the existence of certain biomarkers in extracted petroleum.
Responding to fringe science

Michael W. Friedlander suggests some guidelines for responding to fringe science, which he argues is a more difficult problem to handle, "at least procedurally,"[25] than scientific misconduct. His suggested methods include impeccable accuracy, checking cited sources, not overstating orthodox science, thorough understanding of the Wegener continental drift example, examples of orthodox science investigating radical proposals, and prepared examples of errors from fringe scientists.[26]

Though there are examples of mainstream scientists supporting maverick ideas within their own discipline of expertise, fringe science theories and ideas are often advanced by individuals either without a traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline,[27] although the history of science shows that scientific progress is often marked by interdisciplinary and multicultural interaction.[28] Friedlander suggests that fringe science is necessary for mainstream science "not to atrophy", as scientists must evaluate the plausibility of each new fringe claim and certain fringe discoveries "will later graduate into the ranks of accepted" while others "will never receive confirmation".[29] The general public has difficulty distinguishing between "science and its imitators",[29] and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".[30]

Towards the end of the 20th century, religiously-inspired critics cited fringe science theories with limited support, or else junk science. The goal was frequently to classify as "controversial" entire fields of scientific inquiry (notably paleo-anthropology, human sexuality, evolution, geology, and paleontology) that contradicted literal or fundamentalist interpretation of various sacred texts. Describing ongoing debate and research within these fields as evidence of fundamental weaknesses or flaws, these critics argued that "controversies" left open a window for the plausibility of divine intervention and intelligent design.[31][32][33] As Donald E. Simanek asserts, "Too often speculative and tentative hypotheses of cutting edge science are treated as if they were scientific truths, and so accepted by a public eager for answers," ignorant of the fact that "As science progresses from ignorance to understanding it must pass through a transitionary phase of confusion and uncertainty."[34] The media also play a role in the creation and propagation of the view that certain fields of science are "controversial". In "Optimising public understanding of science: A comparative perspective" by Jan Nolin et al., the authors claim that "From a media perspective it is evident that controversial science sells, not only because of its dramatic value but also since it is often connected to high-stake societal issues."[35]

Whats unbelievable is that this discussion of fringe work is taking place “Again” in pseudoscience. This is a disgrace. If I google these authors names in a few weeks, most of their peer reviewed works will be supplanted in google by this forum branded as pseudoscience , even though it is clearly fringe. Due to the huge backlinking from the regressive political activism going through here. There is a healthy back and forward interplay between fringe and mainstream advancement as we all know, so whats going on here is damaging and regressive to that processs.

There is action being taken about this, all of those responsible will be named and shamed online, with a permanent site SEOd so it stays under the listings for this forum. Just like this site, there can be no libel, because it can be hosted anywhere.

There will be no appeal to this forum to make a separate section for fringe and pseudoscience, because steps have already been tried and met with ridicule. Those statements will be put online. Its clear to everybody they the staff here aren’t even going to think about this till there is website underneath ratskep in google pointing out the litany of shameful misrepresentation against hard working theorists.