Thursday, June 10, 2010

Phil Plait: Really Bad Astronomer

Bad Astronomy at Discover Magazine

Take a look at this hilarious discussion at Discover Magazine's Bad Astronomy Blog where I make fun of bad astronomer Phil Plait and his famous buddy James Randi. Randi is, of course, the skeptic who enjoys debunking palm readers and psychics in the name of science. Check out how Phil Plait cowardly manages to ignore my debunking of Einstein's physics and ends up banning me from his blog in frustration. Oh, the horror! I am trembling as I write. LOL.

Of course, as every scientist should know, the best way to help science is to debunk scientists but don't tell that little truth to Randi and Plait. You see, they've got a little religion to defend against outside attackers like me.

PS. Someone at Bad Astronomy posted the picture below to mock me. I am supposed to be the black knight on the ground with both arms cut off. I think it's funny. Note that stereox112, one of the last persons to post a comment on Plait's blog calling me a crackpot, recently wrote a stupid comment in reply to one of my articles and got an ass whipping in return by yours truly. The comedy never ends.


See Also:

How to Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion

8 comments:

jting said...

So,

I've been reading your blog out of mostly morbid curiosity.

And I have to ask, why don't you put up? I mean seriously, the best way to prove yourself to the world and not live in a state of constant delusion is to produce a meaningful... anything.

Write an equation that is empirically testable and true. Write a program that is bug-proof and bug-free. Do anything, something.

But as is, you are just a sophist, nothing more, nothing less. A man shouting into the void with no proof, no evidence, just rhetoric. The saddest kind of man, the man who believes they are brilliant and no one who cares believes so. You are like Van Gogh, except your paintings are just bullshit in text form, no color theory, no troubled madness, just bullshit.

Seriously, if you think science happens in blog form, I don't know what to think. You can't disprove infinity in words alone, you can't disprove time, momentum, and all of modern physics with words with a very glaring lack of formula.

Objects continue to move because they receive an acceleration and get kinetic energy relative to their observer. Everything in space is relative, though you don't believe in space.

Why things are relative: Because for the observer, be it a man or a rock, they are standing still while the world moves around them. When an object that is moving 5,000 miles an hour hits a man it is just the same as a man hitting an object at 5,000 miles an hour for both parties.

I defy you to produce an equation for an objective universe. It seems logically impossible since even an objective observer is an observer. Now, I assume that would be your argument. Now I argue, WHAT IS THE POINT OF PHYSICS IF YOU CAN'T WRITE EQUATIONS?

If your arguments for a non-spatial reality are in fact your standpoint, then we can't do shit with that. What can we prove if we can't actually develop experiments to prove it since there can't be any equations since an equation would necessitate a relative observer?

If you call me names, well that's fair because I called you names too. But if you call me names and just spout some sophistical bullshit to "prove" me wrong, then... well I called you names first and first one wins.

If however you can reconcile an objective universe with a relative experience of that universe and produce a single equation, or part of an equation, or anything, to show that in fact relative experience is a lie then maybe I'll be converted, but until then consider me a doubting Thomas. Let me stick a finger in dem wounds.

Louis Savain said...

Jting,

Eat shit, whoever you are. How about that?

Russell said...

Why is it that you never come back to people that question your logic with some kind of extended reasoning? You generally devolve the conversation into angry personal attacks, and I find that it is hard to weed through all the name calling and so forth to get to even a smidgen or explanation for your claims. You obviously put a lot of time into this, and maybe even want people to believe you, so why not spend more time backing up your claims, and less time throwing out insults? It's pretty hard to buy your brand of "science" when most of your reasoning seems to come from "ahhahahhahah... those people are stupid...."

Louis Savain said...

Russell,

Obviously my blog and my writings are not meant for you. This is not a popularity contest and I am not running for office. I've got nothing to explain to you and I have no desire to have you or anybody in particular on my side. I can smell bullshit a mile away and it's usually coming from the scientific community. I suggest you go read someone else's blog.

Russell said...

Right, this blog probably isn't for me, but I did happen upon it, and in reading it got that you are passionate about what you believe, which leads me to think that you feel the word would be a better place if everyone else saw things from your perspective. So I am confused as to why you make it a point to piss on everyone else while spreading your word on the inter-web. Obviously everyone is entitled to think and approach things however they please, I was just curious as to why you approach the debate the way you do.

Louis Savain said...

I certainly do not piss on everyone. So you're obviously lying to make a lame point. But I do make it a point to piss on those whom I believe deserve to be pissed on. and I am not using some secret formula to determine who I should piss on.

If you're coming from a scientific community's propaganda slant, the likelihood that you will be pissed on is almost 100%. I don't need nor seek the approval of the scientific community. They can kiss my ass. So, if like Jting above, you start arguing that everything is relative, even though I've explained elsewhere why this is pure unmitigated BS, or if you begin by telling me that I need to show equations, even though I have shown over an over that mathematicians don't have a fucking clue, it gets on my fucking nerves and I'll waste no time in telling you to shove it.

So there you go. I am a rebel Christian with a fucking attitude. If you don't like my rebellious style (you may think I am neither a good Christian nor a good scientist) or if you don't like my arguments because it's not what you were taught, just slide over to somebody else's blog and tell them how much you love them. It's that simple. After all, nobody is twisting your arm, right?

Russell said...

I don't think I am lying, I have just noticed a lot of pissing on people in your commentary. So I guess not everyone has been pissed on, but at best that makes what I said either an exaggeration or just wrong, not a lie. I also don't just look to people spreading information that I agree with so that I can tell them I love them and worship them, all of that wouldn't be worth a damn if I didn't know about alternative points of view. Furthermore, if you have some kind of cogent and coherent construct for explaining things, that is all that is necessary for me to at least respect your opinion(no equations necessary, if you have found a way to avoid them). Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Good luck.

Louis Savain said...

See you around.