Whatever you say about the sensationalising gutter press, and I agree with you, most of their headlines are direct quotes from NASA, verified by quotation marks. These are almost always repeated in the same stories in BBC On-line, and even I wouldn't refer to BBC news as coming under the heading 'gutter press'. The whole point though, Don, is that if NASA didn't sensationalise it, then neither would the MSM??
It is important to understand that this particular member attacks and debases science regularly and uses the sources mentioned (and others) as well as YouTube to fill in the education gaps. His primary victim is generally NASA but anything he cannot understand is up for grabs.
As far as I can see, you have never linked to a NASA primary source and in the majority of the cases you are railing against, NASA has had absolutely nothing to do with the research.
Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? And finally, 'the uproar is lacking' because a) nobody can possibly disprove what they say, meaning they can say any hyped-up **** they like and b) one of my signatures is 'The bigger the lie, the more there are who will refuse to believe it's the truth.' Think about it??
I think I gave you the most honest and accurate answer I can. - I believe their measurements because of my knowledge of the telescope they used - I am not qualified to speak to the conclusions they draw but have no good reason to doubt them As regards 'The bigger the lie, the more there are who will refuse to believe it's the truth.' - utter hogwash not least because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
The Daily Mail headline is yes. It takes the same format of pretty much all tabloid headlines, regardless of the subject of the story. That’s the spin and dramaistion I mentioned. That doesn’t mean the underlying science which (vaguely) inspired the story is in any way flawed or untrue. The Daily Mail hack who put together the story would have no idea whether it was true or not, they’d write exactly the same article regardless. Your argument appears to be that the scientists are lying but you’d given zero justification why they would need to or would choose to, let alone anything to back you your clear implication that they actually are. When you accuse a massive group of professions of an institutional criminal fraud, there is a general expectation to provide some actual evidence. Or you could play your usual game of getting all indignant at the very idea of anyone daring to question your assertions and go off in a huff.
Well that, of course, depends upon whether you believe that guesswork and speculation is the same as evidence. How can anyone possibly assert that this 'cosmic monster' ( ) is "12 billion light years from Earth" and that it "creates new stars 1,000 times faster than the Milky Way"? I mean give me a ****ing break!! I think we're done here?
I think you have a lot of learning to do - I doubt you'll attempt it. Measurements of supernovae, it's really very accurate. Read the paper and learn.
It's by reading and listening that I have reached my conclusions. Like I said - I know when I'm being fooled. I have nothing further to say on this thread because I also know when I'm . . . !!
I think when your entire contribution to a sub-forum amounts to a long argument from ignorance combined with a complete unwillingness to learn, you have to take stock of whether that's productive.
Okay I've said it to others now I'll say it to you - I'd rather be ignorant than gullible. Have a good day.
Sadly - given that you've repeatedly taken the purple prose of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express at face value and got bent out of shape over it - in this one case you appear to be both
What are you afraid of? How do Higgs bosons complicate your life to the point you sound like a mindless drone when responding to most every scientific thread? Do you dump every scientist and higher degreed person in with NASA?
Actually, and since I don't take those papers, most of my contributions on this forum are from the BBC, and whilst they don't go for purple prose, the BBC does have some semblance of gravitas, relatively speaking.
Falls for what exactly. You've still failed to even try to establish anything here as being fundamentally untrue. You're entitled to refuse to accept anything you want but when you start accusing others of fraud (and now of being stupid), you need to back up that slander.
I don't recall calling anyone 'stupid' (but I apologise if I did), only gullible. And I can't prove an event didn't take place when it's only hearsay, any more than you can prove it. We can only take the word of the third party that it did, and in this case you believe them but I don't. It's moot, so there's no point in arguing about it.
You mentioned IQ which is a reference to intelligence and anyway, calling being gullible is no better. Maybe you need to stop and take a breath and calm down before clicking the post button in future. You claim there is no way to know if these statements are correct yet condemn anyone who does take the word of the professionals. At the same time, you quote the tabloid media without giving a second thought to whether they’re telling the truth. Your choice of third parties to trust doesn’t appear to have any kind of rational basis. Anyway, you earlier explicitly stated the scientist are lying; “Er, because we live in the age of 'lying'? Or have you not noticed? NASA and it's international equivalents have become a non-productive global industry which provides lucrative salaries and life-long jobs simply for making up all kinds of nonsense for people like you to believe”. That isn’t saying we can only take their word for it, that is a direct slanderous accusation against thousands of individuals you know absolutely nothing about. You could at least try to keep your rants internally consistent.
Sadly this anti-science rhetoric coming from Cerberus and others is a really negative side effect of the climate change debate. When you hold a political position but a vast majority of the scientific research shows that position to be incorrect you can either admit you were wrong or double down on your ignorance by accusing all scientists of lying. At the end of the day, people are scared of things they don't understand and this leads to some high level paranoia. It is easier for some people to doubt all science than admit that they lack the knowledge necessary to understand it. You see the same thing with flat Earthers all the time.
So, since that distant galaxy is forming stars so much faster than we thought was possible, and we are looking back 12 billion years in time, does this imply that star formation was much faster in a younger universe and that with time, it aging, this in some way effects the time involved in star formation? It would logically seem to be the implication. But would not that then question the natural laws involved, as we know them today, in star formation? So, has natural law then changed, over billions of years? Would Rupert Sheldrake use this discovery to back up his idea that laws are not unchanging laws, but rather, habits? ha ha And habits are subject to change? And will change over time? Yes, I read his book, The Science Delusion. Here, it is now free... https://eduardolbm.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/the-science-delusion-rupert-sheldrake.pdf
There is some thought laws MIGHT be different outside our observable universe. But it's considered unlikely by most even those who admit it could be possible. There are more reasonable explanations.
