The Creationist Trick

FOR POSTING: Big Bang Has No Credibility Left

May 13, 2017

Agreed with this. See document “Eight Three Refutations of General Relativity” on www.aias.us , Steve Crothers’ chapter nine of “Principles of ECE”, and papers such as UFT88, 99, 109, 255, 313, 255, 254 and 375. I have selected eighty three of the leading refutations, there are many other refutations on www.aias.us. ”

The most popular strategy among creationists, in fact their only strategy, is to watch out for disputes between evolutionary biologists or to find slight (but explainable) oddities in the fossil record. They then proclaim that ‘Darwin has been disproved’ and that therefore ‘the bible is true’.  This is a pathetic strategy: it is not a zero-sum game and so, even if the mainline Darwinian model were proved wrong, it would not validate that evil book; it would merely resurrect some of the many alternative evolutionary models that were previously discounted. The loonies are playing the same trick here: a slight disagreement over the rate of inflation does not invalidate the Big Bang … nor does it change any of the observations which support the Big Bang. In fact, the similarity between Big Bang deniers and Darwin deniers is very close. As Ron (poor boy who done good)  likes to point out, the Big Bang was named sarcastically so by Fred Hoyle (poor boy who done good). What hero-worshipers fail to realize is that Hoyle was an utter crackpot, apart from a lucky guess concerning resonance in nuclear synthesis. He used dubious mathematical reasoning to fool the unwary into thinking that evolution was completely improbable. He claimed that ‘flu came from outer space (that BTW was the medieval explanation). He conspired with other crank academics in Cardiff (then a hotbed of UK creationism) to ‘prove’ that the Archeopteryx (dinosaur/bird) link was a fake (in spite of the fact that several independently discovered examples exist).  He also predicted global freezing. Before Ron came along, he was probably the biggest embarrassment to British academe. So the point is, in case you missed it, that no amount of bickering over the details of cosmology is going to make Ron and his fatuous theories any the more valid.

“Many other avant garde intellectuals have refuted Big Bang experimentally and theoretically for many years. ”

Thanks to Ron, ‘avant garde’ is becoming synonymous with ‘crackpot’. But then, it always was … but not in science.

“Einstein himself rejected Big Bang long ago, in the thirties. ”

He did not believe his own calculations, added a ‘fiddle-factor’ to explain the discrepancy … and then found that he had been correct all along.

“This letter from Hawking and his angry friends uses the old disingenuous and anti Baconian dogma, that the empty minded crowd must be right. ”

They had a right to be annoyed. It seems that the authors of the article gave no warning as to its nature. Such ‘jumping over the heads of peers’ and ‘appealing to the general public’ is the sort of dirty trick which is usually pulled by the lunatic fringe. That is what Ron does when he ‘publishes’ papers on his own website or goes to vanity publishers with his loony books without ever engaging with the relevant scientific community. 

“No logical argument is given as to why they must be right. They are in fact totally wrong. ”

There is something called the ‘scientific literature’, Ron, which you ignore. Scientists do not work on the ‘sound-bite’ principle: all of the evidence for their stance is to be found in the vast amount of supportive material to be found in the ‘journals of record’. You make no observations, you perform no experiments; you merely use dodgy theory to support your sly misinterpretations of the evidence of others.

“Einstein wrote that it takes only one experimental fact to refute his theory. It was refuted by the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy fifty years ago, it is refuted by retrograde precession in the S2 star, and by other well known experimental facts. ”

Given that the flat velocity curve of a galaxy is also a ‘refutation’ of Newtonian theory, why do you think that it undermines Einstein; given that General Relativity is not that important in classic celestial mechanics (where gravity is assumed to act instantaneously)? Again, the point is that there is a queue of explanations for the velocity curve, and an idiot who has to re-introduce the aether in order to explain it will always be at the very back of that queue. And yet again, where do you get the idea that retrograde precession has been observed? Can you not understand scientific papers? But what a flexible theory ECE2 is: first it ‘explains’ gyroscopic levitation, which does not exist, and then it ‘explains’ a retrograde precession, which has not been observed. Jeez, Ron, do you never wake up in the middle of the night and cry in shame and despair at what you have become? 

“Big Bang is full of adjustables, so one could fit and predict anything. I think it was written originally by a sixties Dalek in the wine cellar of Trinity College Cambridge. The Dalek had been at the bottles. As an Oxford man I am not surprised by anything that goes on there.”

You are not good at humour Ron, and you are not ‘an Oxford man’: you did not graduate from there. You merely conned your way in for a while … and then they decided that you were ‘not wanted on voyage’. In academia, a ‘record number of fellowships’ is not a good thing: valuable people are eagerly snapped up immediately and are not passed around like a hot potato.

“Not even wrong” as Pauli wrote with equal indignation. Louis de Broglie and Jean-Pierre Vigier rejected Big Bang on the basis of photon mass, so have thousands of others. ”

That is another crackpot ploy: to take famous quotations out of context. You know very well that Pauli would have applied it to ECE. Hmm, was that before or after Vigier went peculiar and started to attend the same loony conferences as Searl? 

“So if we look at physics as a populist football match, there are more than six thousand supporters on our side, in fact there are several million judging by the scientometrics of www.aias.us, and they work at the best universities in the world. ”

But your audience is imaginary and the scientometrics are bogus. Ironically, it is the Public Dick who has undermined you: you consider him to be a ‘scholar’ equal to yourself, and yet the hit-counter on his website reveals a very low level of interest. Put a hit-counter on your websites and try to prove us wrong! As for being read at the ‘best universities’, how come your supporters have not written an article like the one above? 

“This site is very carefully ignored by the dogmatists. ”

Jeez Ron, it is ignored by everybody. We shall ignore it as soon as your name is expunged from the list of civil-list pensioners. That can happen before or after you are outed as a pseudoscientific clown and the tabloids tear you to pieces. Your choice.

“Dark matter was invented to cover up a regrettable inconvenience – the complete failure of Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). ”

Again, the failure would also be Newton’s. Dark matter is just one of several proposals for explaining the flat velocity curve. Why do you harp on about dark matter? Is it because cranks are always constrained to attack only those scientists and theories of whom the man-in-the-street has heard?

“Big Bang is riddled with well known theoretical errors. I have written several times to Hawking as a Civil List Pensioner and did not receive the elementary courtesy of a reply. ”

Why would he reply to a crackpot?

“This means that Hawking is unable to argue scientifically with AIAS / UPITEC. So Hawking’s type of work should not be publicly funded. ”

There was a time when busy mathematics professors would have their brightest students refute circle-squaring proofs which they had been sent by cranks. Unfortunately there are just too many cranks these days, and it is no longer a sensible use of valuable time to have anybody respond to the lunatic fringe.  Stop bothering real scientists Ron!

“The censorship system of the dogmatists has been sieved by www.aias.us and http://www.upitec.org , which have recorded twenty two million hits since 2002. ”

Only those who cannot recognize their mistakes complain of censorship, withdraw from academic intercourse … and then screw around with fake statistics.

“The censorious journal system has been replaced by the open access website system. ”

There certainly is a big problem these days. Open-access publication has been turned into a money-making racket by crooks in the third world. One US academic who pointed this out was threatened with a huge lawsuit … and with imprisonment if he ever went to India. So cranks like Ron could not be operating at a better time. Fortunately, Ron cannot afford the fees which the crackpot-journals demand, and he has to ‘publish’ his ‘papers’ where they are never to be seen (contrary to his lies).  

“A paper such as UFT88 has been consulted perhaps fifty thousand known times in a decade, and also by the best minds in the best universities, institutes and similar. Private consultations which I cannot identify probably amount to tens of thousands more consultations. ”

These are all palpable lies. Again we ask you to install hit-counters on your sites or … STFU!

“It is high on the first page of Google, the dogmatists are finished as intellectuals. ”

Try turning off the Google service which preferentially brings up sites which you have previously visited.

“Anger is not an example of Baconian natural philosophy. It is a display of mindless arrogance – a skinhead at a football match, or a troll “Looking Back in Anger”, John Osborne, played by Richard Burton. Recently a dogmatist had a fit all over Stephen Crothers and that reached the newspapers. Parents should be careful what they do with their fees.”

You wouldn’t know Baconian philosophy if it bit you! “John Osborne, played by Richard Burton”? WTF is that supposed to mean? Crothers deserves everything he gets. Correction: Crothers doesn’t get what he really deserves!

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: