Forbidden Science

[Mojo]

HOLY HELL! ANd did you also know that table salt contains CHLORINE, which was used as a chemical weapon in WW1!

Ok, slightly facetious

...

And I am sick to DEATH of hearing that vaccines contain mercury.
THEY STOPPED USING MERCURY TO STABILIZE VACCINES OVER 20 YEARS AGO!!!!

And, of course, the mercury was not elemental mercury, but in the form of a mercury-containing compound (much as the chloride ions in salt are not the same as elemental chlorine).

Maybe not so facetious afer all.

 

[clarsct]

Thanks for the boost, Mojo.
*straightens tie*

I've still got it...

 

[Camillus]

Streptomyacin? That's the agent that causes strep throat.[/SIZE]

Streptomycin is an aminoglycoside antibiotic derived from streptomyces soil bacteria. Like all aminoglycosides it is not absorbed from the gut and must be given by injection. Its primary use today is in the treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, although it has a spectrum of activity against some Gram-positive and many Gram-negative bacteria.

Strep throat is caused by the bacteria streptococcus which is not related to streptomyces.

 

[Genesius]

Actually, they openly mix some of the most toxic chemicals known to man into vaccines. There is no need to keep it secret because most people cannot think for themselves. They have a television to do it for them, and people generally act according to the programming coming from the TV.

Oh my Gunderscored! You've just shown me the light! I now realize that the musician known as Frank Zappa was really a Gov't agent responsible for releasing disinformation to distract people from the evil TV programming conspiracy.

Where's my proof, you ask?

I'm the Slime

I am gross and perverted
I’m obsessed ’n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I am the tool of the government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can’t look away
I make you think I’m delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin’ out
From your tv set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don’t need you
Don’t go for help...no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

Thanks, love. My mind has been set free!

 

[Dancing David]

Actually, it's fluoride salts that keep people compliant and unquestioning. Fluoride was tested and used for this reason in German and Russian concentration camps during WWII.

Sure works on me, I have drank floride in water my whole life, except when I lived in mexico, I have had numerous applications of a gel containing flouride to my teeth.

I am compliant and unquestioning, yup, yup , you.

The fact that something was used does not means that it works, the US miltary uses lots of things to control thier troops, but they aren't chemical, they are behavioral, why? Because it works.

I see flouride is the reason why those rascals on Hogan's Heros acted the way they did, it all makes sense.
At least to the John Birch Society.

 

[love]

Oh, and by the way, the seven Velikovsky predictions I posted did not fit the original criteria of "things that were regarded as impossible but were later proven to be true," because none of those predictions were considered impossible. Astronomers at the time predicted Venus's temperature to be close to Earth's, but they never claimed higher temperatures were impossible.

It does seem objectively that Velikovsky's prediction was right. Other scientists who did not agree with his theory were not agreeing with this prediction, until it was found to be true. For example, Donald Menzel, director of Harvard College Observatory estimated in 1950 that the surface temperature of Venus to be about 120 degrees Farenheit, not the 800 degrees it is now accepted to be.

Venus is hot because of volcanoes and greenhouse gases. If Venus were ejected from Jupiter some 5000 years ago, it would not have any atmosphere at all. So current observations prove that Velikovsky was wrong; not that he was forbidden, that he was simply wrong. Venus, like all other planets, does not have the type of tails that comets have, so the Earth could not have passed through the tail of Venus, a crucial point in Velikovsky's theory.

Well, you do not make the same deductions that Velikovsky made. He predicted Venus to have a hydrocarbon atmosphere, which it does. At the time Velikovsky made his predictions, the atmosphere was considered to be made up of water vapour or carbon dioxide.

One forbidden aspect to Velikovsky's science was that there was a campaign by academics to stop Macmillan publishing his books. The campaign was eventually successful and Macmillan gave up publishing the book themselves even though it was a number one best seller at the time.

This is all in Milton's book.

The Velikovsky theory reminds me of the theory of continental drift, and is perhaps just another paradigm shift waiting to happen.

 

[Ladewig]

It does seem objectively that Velikovsky's prediction was right. Other scientists who did not agree with his theory were not agreeing with this prediction, until it was found to be true. For example, Donald Menzel, director of Harvard College Observatory estimated in 1950 that the surface temperature of Venus to be about 120 degrees Farenheit, not the 800 degrees it is now accepted to be.

O.K., I agree that the scientists at that time made temperature predictions that were far below the obseved temperature today. They were wrong. However, I don't see how your response addresses the word "impossible." The original claim posted in this thread was that predictions made by Velikovsky were considered impossible by scientists of their day AND were later shown to be true. I can't find any evidence that scientists of that period considered a hot Venus to be impossible. An ejected-from-Jupiter Venus they considered impossible.

Well, you do not make the same deductions that Velikovsky made. He predicted Venus to have a hydrocarbon atmosphere, which it does. At the time Velikovsky made his predictions, the atmosphere was considered to be made up of water vapour or carbon dioxide.

But what does that have to do with the lack of a tail. No planet has ever been observed to have a tail. Venus today does not have a tail. Also, if Venus were ejected from Jupiter, Venus would not have any atmosphere. The escape velocity of Jupiter is around 37 miles/second. Something shooting out of Jupiter is not going to carry an atmosphere with it.

One forbidden aspect to Velikovsky's science was that there was a campaign by academics to stop Macmillan publishing his books. The campaign was eventually successful and Macmillan gave up publishing the book themselves even though it was a number one best seller at the time.

This is all in Milton's book.

O.K. Velikovsky got a bum rap, but that doesn't mean he is right!

The Velikovsky theory reminds me of the theory of continental drift, and is perhaps just another paradigm shift waiting to happen.

Funny I was thinking something similar, but to make the parallel truly accurate you would have to propose continental drift along the lines of a few miles a year instead of a few inches per year. You would also have to have plates do right-angled turns every now and again for no apparent reason. Velikovsky's calculations are several orders of magnitude beyond what is possible.

 

[Correa Neto]

One thing is being completely forgotten.

Venus is a rocky planet, it has a crust and a mantle composed of silicates and a core composed of metals (Fe and Ni), (very) roughly -silicate type is variable, as well as the sizes of the cores and the mantles- the same thing as the Moon, Mars and Mercury.

Comet composition is VERY different from this.

So, its just a blunder.

 

[Ladewig]

One thing is being completely forgotten.

Venus is a rocky planet, it has a crust and a mantle composed of silicates and a core composed of metals (Fe and Ni), (very) roughly -silicate type is variable, as well as the sizes of the cores and the mantles- the same thing as the Moon, Mars and Mercury.

Comet composition is VERY different from this.

So, its just a blunder.

More importantly, Jupiter's composition is very different. Jupiter is about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium (by mass) with traces of methane, water, and ammonia. If Velokovsky were right, then all these heavier elements joined together inside Jupiter and then leapt up out of the planet to wander around the Solar System before dropping into a very regular orbit between mercury and Earth.

 

[love]

It seems to me that Velikovsky had a theory that had predictive power. It may not be perfect but has been shown to be much more accurate with respect to its predictions that any other theory around.

It seems that science rather than integrating any new understandings has invented reasons to explain what it got wrong. Where is the test, that these reasons have any predictive power? It seems that the science here is becoming a list a facts, accompanied by supporting arguments, which are ad hoc patched when any new measurements are made.

 

[Psiload]

It seems to me that Velikovsky had a theory that had predictive power.

And broken clocks are correct twice a day.

 

[Mojo]

It seems to me that Velikovsky had a theory that had predictive power.

Try reading what has been posted. Velikovsky's theories don't fit the facts.

Venus has the wrong composition to have been ejected from Jupiter. Venus also has the wrong composition to be a comet. Comets also have the wrong composition to have precipitated "manna" in the form of carbohydrates (another of his claims, in which he seems to have confused the words "carbohydrates" and "hydrocarbons").

He may have been vaguely correct about the temperature and atmosphere of Venus, but since he arrived at his conclusion about this for reasons that are obviously wrong, it can be nothing but dumb luck.

 

[love]

Try reading what has been posted. Velikovsky's theories don't fit the facts.

I disagree. Velikovsky's theories don't fit the assertions made here.

Try reading one of Velikovsky's books.

 

[Genesius]

Well, you do not make the same deductions that Velikovsky made. He predicted Venus to have a hydrocarbon atmosphere, which it does. At the time Velikovsky made his predictions, the atmosphere was considered to be made up of water vapour or carbon dioxide.

Your argument would carry a lot more weight if you knew what the <rule 8> you were talking about. The composition of Venus' atmosphere, from http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/venus.html is:

• CO2: 96.5%
• N2: 3.5%
• SO2: 0.015%
• Ar: 0.007%
• H2O: 0.002%
• CO: 0.0017%
• He: 0.0012%
• Ne: 0.0007%

Nope, no hydrocarbons here.

Sorry love, but wishing don't make it so, and Velikovsky was a total crackpot . And so are you if you believe this garbage.

 

[Rodney]

And where was I supposed to quote that from? You could have said.

The Wikipedia article.

I reread the wiki article and I looked for peer reviewed papers concerning the alleged material that you quoted from the wiki article.

The only places that reference it are not in any journals or institutions that study astrophysics, they all seem to be linked to alterante science of speculation.

But this is Milton's point. As he states at http://www.alternativescience.com/ether.htm --

"[Dayton Miller's former student Robert] Shankland and three other authors published a paper in 1955 which, on the surface, was a critical review and re-analysis of Miller's long and painstaking observations. In reality, there was no review and no re-analysis; simply a trawl through the data looking for possible sources of error. Moreover, neither Shankland nor his fellow authors actually did any of the work on which the paper was based. Instead this was left to one of Shankland's students who received no credit beyond a footnote. The 1955 Shankland paper begins with the statement that has been repeated so often since, that Michelson and Morley obtained a 'null' result. The paper also claimed that 'All trials of this experiment except those carried out at Mount Wilson by Dayton C. Miller yielded a null result within the accuracy of the observations.'

"Says James de Meo, 'This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. By redefining all the positive results observed by what may in fact have been the majority of ether-drift researchers, as mere expressions of 'observational inaccuracy', Shankland narrowed his task considerably'

"In the end, Shankland and his team settled on the notion of seasonal temperature variations as being responsible for Miller's findings. There was no longer anyone alive to point out how fatuous this explanation is and Miller's data was safely interred along with his body. As far as orthodox science is concerned today, relativity is universally accepted and the ether controversy is dead and buried."

If the ether exist, it has not been demonstrated, since the stuff referenced to Maurice A is from 1955, I suspect that no one else has investigated it or if they have it has been found wanting.

No "respectable" scientist wants to investigate any result that contradicts Einstein.

So where is special relativity being modified?

It's unclear that it is necessary to modify it, but, again, how many scientists want to investigate whether it should be modified?

Not because it is forbidden science but because it is non-productive. There is no conspiracy to suppress material, most scientists would love to be associated with something that overturns conventional science.

Conspiracy is too strong a word, but, as Milton notes, many topics are off-limits to orthodox scientists.

So unitil someone can show me material that shows that the ether exists, I say Fruitcake, tatsy but un-nouishing.

But we still aren't sure whether the ether exists because the experimental results are inconclusive. Why hasn't there been an authentic attempt to replicate Miller's experimental results, rather than a biased attempt to discredit them?

 

[Ladewig]

It seems to me that Velikovsky had a theory that had predictive power. It may not be perfect but has been shown to be much more accurate with respect to its predictions that any other theory around.

It seems that science rather than integrating any new understandings has invented reasons to explain what it got wrong. Where is the test, that these reasons have any predictive power? It seems that the science here is becoming a list a facts, accompanied by supporting arguments, which are ad hoc patched when any new measurements are made.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Would you briefly describe what you want scientists in 2005 to do with Velikovsky's theories?

 

[ysabella]

adjuvants:
Aluminium
Squalene
Freund's (FCA)

Squalene! Toxic? Better not lick anybody's nose ever again.

 

[Mojo]

I disagree. Velikovsky's theories don't fit the assertions made here.

Velikovsky's claim about the temperature on Venus is not that it has a higher temperature than was thought at the time. His claim is that Venus has a high temperature because it was ejected from Jupiter and ping-ponged around the Solar System. This can't be considered a hit. His reasoning is simply not backed up by the evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

"Says James de Meo, 'This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. By redefining all the positive results observed by what may in fact have been the majority of ether-drift researchers, as mere expressions of 'observational inaccuracy', Shankland narrowed his task considerably'

This James de Meo is the only one who seems to have this point of view, most of the articles that I briefly read said that the informeter results are not significant. That does not mean there is conspiracy to discredit the studies, but there is no reason to believe they support the existance of the ether.

There are more criticisms than that of Shankland.

What this Meo seems to ignore is that the ether experiments are being , have been , and are still being re-enacted all the time. There are many things which are currently being used and explored where the effects of the ether would have a drastic effect upon the experiemental results.

If the ether existed it would have been replicated, multiple times in all sorts of events, and there would be study into it. It is not just Shanknland's criticism that disproved the ether.

What are Meo's credentials?
[/quote]


"In the end, Shankland and his team settled on the notion of seasonal temperature variations as being responsible for Miller's findings.
[/quote]
And this is the nature of science, if a possiblity exists that something confoundes the data then you control the effects and rerun the trial.

There was no longer anyone alive to point out how fatuous this explanation is and Miller's data was safely interred along with his body. As far as orthodox science is concerned today, relativity is universally accepted and the ether controversy is dead and buried."

This statement is just foolish, you don't hope the data demosnstrate your effects, if there might be confounding effects, then that's that. They need to be contrlled for and the data run again.

I hope that you understand that inferometry is used in daily reseach and to create results all the time, many of these uses occur on very , very, very large scales and would be effected by the ether , if it existed.

No "respectable" scientist wants to investigate any result that contradicts Einstein.

More poop, Eistein took more grief than this Miller ever did, his theory was routinely attacked, sceintists would love to be the one to overturn special relativity.

That would put your name nest to Einstein's.

More whining that is untrue.

It's unclear that it is necessary to modify it, but, again, how many scientists want to investigate whether it should be modified?

Foolish, they study it all the time, they look for verification or disproval all the darn time, it is constanly being researched by someone.

Conspiracy is too strong a word, but, as Milton notes, many topics are off-limits to orthodox scientists.

Just because he says something doesn't make it so, again if something is productive, it is studied, even very foolish and silly things are studies and researched, if they are productive, then the research continues.
Many subjects that are forbidden are re-examined, and they are still found wanting.
Conspiracy it is.

But we still aren't sure whether the ether exists because the experimental results are inconclusive. Why hasn't there been an authentic attempt to replicate Miller's experimental results, rather than a biased attempt to discredit them?

The fact that the results are inconclusive does mean that the ether doesn't exist, it means that the theory can not be supported by the data.

There are many things done every day that use inferometry, such as the artificial creation of a larger telescope by the linking and data merging of seperate observing stations.
I am very certain that this and many other events would demonstrate the ether if is existed.

If it did exist is would be a leading canidate for dark matter.

Currently the observations show that photons are still self existant particles that travel through space time, that is why the ether is un-needed, until it gives better fit to observed data, the ther is non-productive.

 

[Correa Neto]

Regarding the claim that science is not making any predictions, but just stocking data, I think the person who made it must educate him/herself to avoid further embarassment.

Ever heard of computer modelling?

Solar system(s) are modelled and their evolution is also modelled. We know the behavior of the orbits, what will happen to them in next billions of years, we can set initial conditions and see their evolution, from spinning disks of gas and dust to full-fledged solar systems. These results are called what?