KL-666 wrote:Hello Lydiot,
I gave you evidence, but you conveniently ignore it,
But again: What I'm saying is that the evidence you gave is evidence ONLY if it (his hypothesis) wasn't evaluated and dismissed as being faulty. If it
was evaluated then it is no longer evidence of "hushing up", because it was taken seriously enough to be evaluated. This is just basic logic.
KL-666 wrote: to be able to call me cheap.
No, that wasn't addressed at you, it was addressed at any and all people who make a claim about something without then seeing fit to justify that claim by some evidence and reasoning, which can then be evaluated and confirmed or refuted. It wasn't personal at all.
KL-666 wrote:There is a culture to only allow telescope time to true believers in the expanding universe. This mono culture comes to light when participants of the inbreed group can come up with huge fantasies like dark matter and dark energy, and get away with it.
First of all, in terms of making claims and the size of those claims, there is currently no bigger claim than that of god. An omniscient omnipresent omnipotent creator of universes is clearly by far a more "huge" claim than dark matter. So if the size of the claim was an issue then bringing up dark matter in a thread about "creation or evolution / big bang or big belief" seems a bit.... unconvincing.
Further more, there is observational evidence that appear to support dark matter / dark energy, and one only has to check Wikipedia to get a list of that evidence. And, while one does that, one can also see competing 'hypotheses' on it. So in fact the community doesn't seem to all stick to one theory.
KL-666 wrote:Apart from that there are reports that such culture is at play, from scientists that want to look for anomalies. This is only supporting evidence for the previous one. Only attacking the least important evidence someone lately called a "straw man".
That's not a "strawman" at all. A "strawman" is an argument that wasn't made in the first place, not just "least important".
If you have more evidence to support your claim I'd happily read it. I actually thought I was being entirely reasonable here. I asked you for evidence so I could consider your claim. You posted links (thank you), and I read them. I think that's a very fair course of action. We seem to differ now on what the implications would be if your evidence turns out to not be evidence. I would argue that it would be reasonable for one out of two things to happen:
a) You provide other evidence that proves your assertion, or
b) You revise your opinion of it, seeing that your evidence no longer proves what you say it does
KL-666 wrote:Where is your evidence that such culture is not at play?
I already told you: If this guy's alternative hypothesis was evaluated then the community did play along and give him the attention he deserved. It was evaluated, shown to be inaccurate, and then we move on. And that is in addition to other hypotheses currently being considered. It appears the community is in fact not all in agreement on the issue.
KL-666 wrote: Bring me the men that have said: "Wow this dark disney stuff goes really to far. We need to look at the base of our thinking. Probably there are issues with applying the red-shift theory to astronomy". And show me that such men still get telescope time.
Kind regards, Vincent
But really this just begs the question again: What do you propose as an alternative working system for the scientific method? What you are hinting at is essentially telling group A to halt their research on X so that B can work on Y. How many "letters of the alphabet" should be accommodated and how is it to be determined who gets to do what and when? There are alternative theories around, and they all compete with each other.
In a sense you're setting up a no-win situation for science, and a guaranteed win for you, because the community is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
- It promotes some theories / hypotheses more than others = it's a biased community
- It takes into account all hypotheses and give them all equal time and attention = there's no consensus so who knows what's "true"
With what your view appears to be they can't win. But I see no alternative proposal from you for how it should work.
The only thing we know for certain is that science and the scientific community has led us to some truly remarkable findings upon which we've created remarkable technology. If an airbus A380, the space shuttle, the Large Hadron Collider, and even just smart phones aren't proof of the community working then I don't know what is...