Phil Plait - Bad Astronomer vs. Good Science

New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

User avatar
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Phil Plait - Bad Astronomer vs. Good Science

Unread post by MGmirkin » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:52 am

I might also say, with respect to the "indivisibility" clause and the "speed of propagation" issue, that it seems like science currently offers "descriptions," but doesn't necessarily offer "understanding," of some processes.

IE, we know that "magnetic fields" are a force between electric currents. However, we don't yet seem to have a grasp of the "how" or the "why" of the thing yet.

We know that particles have "charge" and that charges can be attractive or repulsive. But we don't know why the charges attract or repel. We don't know what it is that transmits the force or through what medium it propagates. We just know that "something" happens, and that it "does something" in a specific way that can be described and in some regards predicted. But a description of effect is still only a description. Not an understanding of the full and complete process.

Without understanding the actual process involved, it's difficult to say whether the one (magnetism) is divisible or a discrete entity from the other (electric current). Likewise whether there is a specific propagation speed and why that should be so (though there may be experimental evidence that gives an anecdotal figure, even if the full, actual process is not known).

In a similar manner, we know that particles have mass, and that there is an attraction between those masses. But, scientists still don't know what it is that "mass" is, or why it should cause an attraction between particles that have it.

Just thought I'd throw that out there... For what it's worth.

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law


Re: Phil Plait - Bad Astronomer vs. Good Science

Unread post by outrageousfortune » Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:57 am

Hello everybody, Hi Michael

I experienced great delight upon finding this thread. Even though I might be acting against the rules, please let me add one spicy detail concerning Phil Plait. Those among us who follow Nasa's Mars disinfo will surely remember the first color photograph of Mars posted by the agency ( looks like Arizona...). Some hours after the picture hit the internet, Nasa changed colors using infrared filters, purportedly to get closer to the real colors of Mars. The US flag visible in the following pictures suddenly displayed a deep purple color where we are accustomed to seeing RED. Nasa even went so far as to fake pictures of the rover's landing air bags taken during tests on earth to confirm their "truth". Mr Plait was among the fervent defenders of this fake.

Someone claiming to be a top-notch scientist would surely have the prudence to check Nasa's pictures of the lander bags before supporting one additional Nasa lie. As of the last time I checked Nasa's website, the lander bags in the pictures of earth testing are unmistakably WHITE. This is only one more instance showing Mr Plait's task and purpose, namely, to act as a pawn in front of the real perpetrators of the Mars hoax. If Phil Plait is not a gov't-paid disinfo agent, nobody is.

My definition of Mars hoax: take a good close look at Nasa's Rover pictures. If you had taken them with your camera you would return the camera for repairs because it inserts countless black smudges, grey smudges, white smudges, rocks hovering inches above ground, mismatching shadows, whole pics that are mysteriously deteriorated as to be completely worthless, I could continue for hours. A friend of mine who has a lot of time because of his injured back has found a way to completely remove these obfuscations. The pictures he showed me left me speechless. I hope he will make true his promise to publish them in a book he is writing at the moment. The Mars hoax perpetrated by Nasa has Orwellian proportions, there are practically no pictures that have not been tampered with. But revealing who is walking the surface of Mars nowadays would not shock the public as inferred in the infamous Brookings Report, the shock would be caused by the fraudulent misuse of American taxpayers' money on an unimaginable scale.

Enough of this. Keep up the excellent work and let me congratulate you for your level-headed and well-formulated replies to Plait's friend.


User avatar
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: Phil Plait - Bad Astronomer vs. Good Science

Unread post by Tina » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:25 pm

Dave/Michael - I would not be surprised if our friend mojodog 8-) was none other than Phil Plait himself...he probably came across reference to your forum topic while he was googling himself. Note he joined Thunderbolts (30 Aug 08) to challenge your comments never to be heard of again.

I have witnessed many incidents on internet where the subject of discussion takes on a bogus identity to defend themselves or promote their published works.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest