20 hours ago, dmwalker said:

The YDIH evolved directly from pseudoscience.

Well, any idea or theory that doesn't conform to the prevailing scientific theories will be derided and labeled "pseudoscience' or "junk science".  This has happened many times throughout history, and sometimes the scientific establishment was right, and sometimes they ended up being wrong.  There are many arrogant, prideful, and selfish people in the scientific establishment, and they immediately attack any idea that has the potential to upset or disprove their carefully crafted narratives.  Imagine if you had spent 20 or 30 years researching something and had come up with theories that had become widely accepted over the years, then along comes someone who presents theories and evidence that contradicts your life's work - well, you'd likely become defensive and even hostile, and this happens frequently in the world of academia.  These people may have doctorate degrees and be really smart, but they are human nevertheless and subject to human weaknesses and shortcomings.

You only link to a couple of sources.  I've read many books and articles over the years regarding ancient catastrophes and mysteries such as megalithic structures, and they contain literally hundreds of various sources and hundreds of items of evidence collected over many years around the world.  

Bottom line: no one has a monopoly on the truth; no one knows everything - this axiom applies to so many subjects and ideas in our society.

Dave

Edited April 21, 20242 yr by dave2013

^Amen.^ These Earth scientists are foolish. Astrologists say everyone is born under a zodiac sign and that each sign is influenced by a ruling planet, affecting their behavior. Soon, and very soon, Nibiru shall be everyone's ruling planet!

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You only link to a couple of sources. 

I was overwhelmed by the number of articles on the subject but, in fairness, here is a link to what looks like the original article proposing the impact theory:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0706977104 

All I can say is the topic seems controversial but I hope you are not saying that all those criticizing the impact theory are "arrogant, prideful and selfish". There are probably valid arguments on both sides.

12 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Well, any idea or theory that doesn't conform to the prevailing scientific theories will be derided and labeled "pseudoscience' or "junk science".

 

Not unless it contradicts what we know experimentally to be true and has significant evidence against it. It has to be more than just a new and not conforming idea to be labeled pseudoscience. For example, MOND is an alternative to the prevailing dark matter theory but its not labeled pseudoscience. 

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Not unless it contradicts what we know experimentally to be true and has significant evidence against it.

Not to be disparaging, but your lack of a science or technical education and experience is showing when you make a statement like that.

Science is an ongoing search for the truth.  There are no scientific "facts" or "laws" that are not subject to revision or even repeal.

For centuries it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth.  This was established fact and dogma, and anyone who said otherwise was ridiculed and even accused of heresy.

For decades we were told that butter, cholesterol, and animal fat were very bad for our health, but more recent research has shown that moderate amounts of the fats in these foods are in fact not unhealthy and actually beneficial.

Only very recently have scientists discovered how important Vitamin D is for the immune system, whereas before it was thought to mainly be involved in getting Calcium into the bones.

All throughout the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century there were various ideas surrounding the nature of light and the existence of an ether, and then Einstein came along and quantum theory, note *theory*, was developed which did not require the presence of a medium like the ether and defined light as particles having wave-like properties.  Even after all this, Einstein later admitted that there could be an ether.

For centuries it was believed that the oldest human cities were Sumerian and dated to app. 6,000BCE, but the recently discovered ruins of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey date back to 8,000-9,500 BCE.

Science is a constant process of discovery.  Unfortunately, some scientists are extremely jealous of their work and theories, and anyone who challenges them are subjected to scorn and hostility.

Dave

Edited April 22, 20242 yr by dave2013

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Not to be disparaging, but your lack of a science or technical education and experience is showing when you make a statement like that.

 

You mean like yours does when you make comments about climate change? 😲 

 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Science is an ongoing search for the truth.  There are no scientific "facts" or "laws" that are not subject to revision or even repeal.

 

Technically correct! But you didn't read my sentence properly. I said what we experimentally know to be true. What experimentation  tells us is true. I didn't say anything about "scientific fact" And what experimentation tells us is true may not be true when more knowledge is gained and better experiments designed. It is true, of course, that long standing theories that have stood the test of time and being experimentally verified, replicated, countless times, are very rarely abandoned completely, rather, they are tweaked and refined. 

Again, science doesn't label a theory junk science or pseudo science just because it isn't in line with current thinking, as you claimed. Dark Matter might be the currently accepted explanation for what we see, but we didn't tell Mordehai Milgrom he was an word not allowed and responsible for junk science because he came up with his MOND hypothesis. Same for Penrose and CCC, nobody tells him he is responsible for pseudoscience. 

Now, when a theory that has been experimentally verified, replicated, countless times, is contradicted by badly conducted, flawed, research that ignores previous experimental verification we might call it junk science. And the chances of that badly conducted, flawed research being the way nature really works has a very low probability of being true. 

 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

For centuries it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth.  This was established fact and dogma, and anyone who said otherwise was ridiculed and even accused of heresy.

 

By the church. And the scientific method might be 1000 years old... but the scientific method we know dates back to the 1930's. So Copernicus and his experiences aren't relevant to this discussion

 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

For decades we were told that butter, cholesterol, and animal fat were very bad for our health, but more recent research has shown that moderate amounts of the fats in these foods are in fact not unhealthy and actually beneficial.

 

As you say "moderate amounts" and trans fats are still regarded as decidedly unhealthy. Like I said, the theory has been tweaked. And of course, medical science is far more contradictory over time than the other sciences. 

 

Quote

Science is a constant process of discovery.  Unfortunately, some scientists are extremely jealous of their work and theories, and anyone who challenges them are subjected to scorn and hostility.

 

Indeed, but I've never heard of a reputable scientist label another reputable scientist as responsible for  junk science or pseudoscience for disagreeing with their cherished theories, when the challenger has ben responsible for quality work . Although if you Google it I'm sure you will find something. 

 

Now we've both stopped pretending we know what we are talking about I'm off to watch Dune 2. 👍

Edited April 22, 20242 yr by martin-w

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Now we've both stopped pretending we know what we are talking about I'm off to watch Dune 2.

I'm not an expert and don't have a doctorate degree, but I do have formal university education and degrees in science and technology, mostly electronics engineering, advanced math, and computer science, not to mention 20 years of experience working in the field of radio astronomy.  Moreover, I've read dozens of books about ancient history and mysteries such as megalithic structures, advanced civilizations, and catastrophes.  I'm not pretending to know about these subjects.

The history if science is replete with examples of establishment scientists behaving with hostility and scorn against anyone who opposes their established theories.

Enjoy Dune 2.  I'm looking forward to seeing this myself and hearing your take on it.

Dave

Edited April 22, 20242 yr by dave2013

6 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Enjoy Dune 2.  I'm looking forward to seeing this myself and hearing your take on it.

 

Well I certainly enjoyed it, Dave. But yes, it's a VERY long film. Could have been an hour shorter. 😀

I admit, there were times when I was getting a little bored. Well worth watching though. 👍

17 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Science is an ongoing search for the truth.  There are no scientific "facts" or "laws" that are not subject to revision or even repeal.

Except for "settled science" of course.  You know how that works.

Hook