Originally posted by shunyadragon

The source you cited is excellent, but it is cumbersome to use and references large amounts (in fact huge amounts) of mostly highly technical articles.

The sarcasm meter just pegged beyond the last of all possible universes. I never claimed to be an expert. In all my posts I am referencing and citing the cosmologists, and not claiming my own authority.

This is the problem with your opinion.

You don't know enough to decipher the "cumbersome, mostly highly technical articles" so you take the opinion on the subject from a book or an article in a magazine.

Here comes the problem....

You are biasing your opinion of the direction of the field or the research being done by which books get printed or which articles get written in scientific magazines.

These are selected based on sales value instead of scientific merit. Again, no one would read an article that talked about the universe being all there is. Throw in multiverses and infinte universes and then you have something exciting.

These theories of multiverse and eternal space may even be true but you are getting a skewed interpretation of the data which lacks proper context and criticism (most of the time).

Originally posted by shadowmaster

Cornell ( http://arxiv.org/ )allows the entire article to be viewed and downloaded.

This post was in reference to Jacep wanting me to give him an article that I had written. I was trying to illustrate the fact that any snip of the article could give up my anonymity....even if you don't have access to the entire article.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Your negative portrayal of SA and Discover is without legitimate foundation.

I am not trying to portray SA and Discover in a negatvie way but merely pointing out what they are. Do you think that legit scientists ever read SA or Discover in order to stay on top of the current research? NEVER If you believe that they are any thing more than science magazines then you should really be careful when referring to others as laymen.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The articles in these magazines are supported by Academic peer reviewed articles, and many in SA are peer reviewed academic articles. In Discover you can refer to a bibliography and further references in the back of the magazine.

That is what I said. The articles are merely supported by peer review but are not subject to it.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The above highlighted statement you made is false big time, and slanderous. See citation below..

Please point out exactly in what way my statement was false. Specifically.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I thought it would be instructive to select a recent article from SA and illustrate my point with a Bibliography of the authors.

Is the article peer reviewed?

Does it at anytime go under scientific review?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Two publications which I do recommend, but may be a somewhat more academic are Nature and Science.

Yes, these are excellent sources of peer reviewed articles.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

It is interesting that you are making the above attack, and one the other hand promoting an anonymous source, shadowmaster as an authority.

Well, if I believe his credentials, then he is whether you like it or not. SoR is also more of an authority than we are.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

If the topic or title you cited appeared in an journal and was well supported and peer reviewed by scientists I would genuinely be interested. Any citations available?

Citations for what specifically?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

You have done nothing in this thread, but to promote an anonymous source on Tweb as an authority.

It was an initial post to continue the discussion in another thread.

Originally posted by element771

I decided to split our conversation from the thread regarding Death.

If this is a waste of time, I apologize. But it seemed like our exchanges, were not settled.

This can also serve as a place for others to weigh in the thought of an eternal universe, whether new discovery has supported this concept, and the basis of that claim.

Read more carefully next time.

Originally posted by element771

I am not trying to portray SA and Discover in a negatvie way but merely pointing out what they are. Do you think that legit scientists ever read SA or Discover in order to stay on top of the current research? NEVER If you believe that they are any thing more than science magazines then you should really be careful when referring to others as laymen.

I am careful about referring to others as layman. Despite your claims, these spurious unfounded attacks on magazines and citing an anonymous source as an expert, you are acting like a layman.

That is what I said. The articles are merely supported by peer review but are not subject to it.

No that is not what you said, you were far more negative and degrading than that. The articles in Discover are supported by peer reviewed articles in other journals written by the scientists who published these articles in other journals.

This is what you will have in reputable lay journals like SA and Discover..

Please point out exactly in what way my statement was false. Specifically.

Specifically? You stated that the articles are not writen by scientists. I cited at least one example that demonstrated this is false, big time. I can cite hundreds more if you like.

Is the article peer reviewed?

Does it at anytime go under scientific review?

The article is written by scientists that have published and cited similar articles that were published in peer reviewed journals. The articles are peer reviewed by the editorial staff of SA and Discover magazines.

Well, if I believe his credentials, then he is whether you like it or not. SoR is also more of an authority than we are.

What you believe or what I like or not is not the issue. I will only cite physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians that are recognized academic authorities with peer reviewed published materials. That is good science. No anonymous sources please. Maybe in rag journalism, but not in science.

Can you in any way confirm or document your claim of (SoR?)

Citations for what specifically?

Any article on the subject you cited that the universe is all there is.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I am careful about referring to others as layman. Despite your claims, these spurious unfounded attacks on magazines and citing an anonymous source as an expert, you are acting like a layman.

My attacks on these magazines are not unfounded. I was told to read these mags in order to catch up to the current research. I simply pointed out why this is inherently flawed.

And I am not citing an anonymous source....I have had interactions and discussions with SM in the past that lend credibility to his claims. Plus, I am not even using him to discredit any theories, only that he would have a better feel for where the research is going.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

No that is not what you said, you were far more negative and degrading than that. The articles in Discover are supported by peer reviewed articles in other journals written by the scientists who published these articles in other journals.

Yes but the articles in the mags are not, therefore any speculations / implications can be included. Some of these speculations would still be based on the research but would never make through peer review.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

This is what you will have in reputable lay journals like SA and Discover..

These are not reputable journals. They are magazines.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The article is written by scientists that have published and cited similar articles that were published in peer reviewed journals. The articles are peer reviewed by the editorial staff of SA and Discover magazines.

This is not peer review. Do you have any idea how science works?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

What you believe or what I like or not is not the issue. I will only cite physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians that are recognized academic authorities with peer reviewed published materials. That is good science. No anonymous sources please. Maybe in rag journalism, but not in science.

That is not my issue. My issue is that you are inherently biased towards one position because that is all you know.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Can you in any way confirm or document your claim of (SoR?)

Personal communications and judgment.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Any article on the subject you cited that the universe is all there is.

Please cite me a scientific article that the Earth is round.

Originally posted by element771

This is the problem with your opinion.

I am not citing my opinion. I am citing the academic physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians in the field. You have brought absolutely nothing to the table in the form of academic citations other than promoting an anonymous authority poster on Tweb

You don't know enough to decipher the "cumbersome, mostly highly technical articles" so you take the opinion on the subject from a book or an article in a magazine.

You do not know what I know, that is spurious assumption on your part. I by the way have enough math and science background to understand these articles, but most on Tweb do not.

You are biasing your opinion of the direction of the field or the research being done by which books get printed or which articles get written in scientific magazines.

False, my opinion is that the issues have not been resolved completely and options are many concerning the nature of the greater cosmos. I do not cite just articles from popular journals. Look over threads more completely. I have cited peer reviewed journals in the past. I base my arguments on the current view of physicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians, and not on the claims of an anonymous poster on Tweb.

These are selected based on sales value instead of scientific merit. Again, no one would read an article that talked about the universe being all there is. Throw in multiverses and infinte universes and then you have something exciting.

False again, and more unsubstantiated foolishness. The authors are for the most part scientists, basing their articles on there own and other peer reviewed publications.

Remember you made the foolish claim that the articles in these publications are not scientists.

These theories of multiverse and eternal space may even be true but you are getting a skewed interpretation of the data which lacks proper context and criticism (most of the time).

True, they may or may not be true. I have cited sufficient peer reviewed articles in the past that indicate that no, the conclusions are are not based on a skewed interpretation of the data, nor do they lack proper context.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

The shadowmaster simply expresses his professional opinions.
Others may judge solely by the presentation, not by credentials or so-called peer-reviewed articles.

(Peer review means that others of like mind agreed with publication somewhere. They are usually university folks who must publish or perish. Real research is generally classiified and not available publically. )

Hellboy would like to know what The ShadowMaster knows about classified research. Shadowmaster is correct in this regard and Hellboy is taken aback as to what Shadowmaster may know about this "real research", for it is uncommon knowledge.

Originally posted by element771

Without academic credentials or paying a decent chuck of change , how many of those are accessible to the layman?

Good point.

Sometimes, with a little tenaciousness, you can find back-journals that are free, but for the most current information, you're right. It would be difficult.

Tell you what, If you really, really want access to a journal online that you cannot seem to get access to, let me know, and I'll see if I can get it and either forward access to you, or copy and paste the relevant papers and send them to you.

Strange BUT TRUE!

The Earth is NOT round!

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Good point.

Sometimes, with a little tenaciousness, you can find back-journals that are free, but for the most current information, you're right. It would be difficult.

Tell you what, If you really, really want access to a journal online that you cannot seem to get access to, let me know, and I'll see if I can get it and either forward access to you, or copy and paste the relevant papers and send them to you.

I able to access them but thanks for the offer.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I am not citing my opinion. I am citing the academic physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians in the field. You have brought absolutely nothing to the table in the form of academic citations other than promoting an anonymous authority poster on Tweb

This is citing your opinion because you pick and choose which articles you find to be persuasive. Just because something is published, it does not mean it is 100% correct. This is where knowledge and opinion come into play. You can't just read articles and swallow their message without the ability to discern what is true, maybe true, crap, etc.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

You do not know what I know, that is spurious assumption on your part. I by the way have enough math and science background to understand these articles, but most on Tweb do not.

Good for you. I was using your own words to describe the articles cited by SM.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

and not on the claims of an anonymous poster on Tweb.

Will you stop saying this. I am not saying that the issue is settled because of SM. You are misrepresenting what I have repeated over and over again.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

False again, and more unsubstantiated foolishness. The authors are for the most part scientists, basing their articles on there own and other peer reviewed publications.

THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO PEER REVIEW.

Can you not read?

Yes, they are based on the article. But that is it. In these magazines, they are free to take the results to the next level or the implications without anymore research. You cannot do this in peer reviewed articles. All speculation is subjected to criticism by other experts in the field. This is not the case in these magazines.

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Hellboy would like to know what The ShadowMaster knows about classified research. Shadowmaster is correct in this regard and Hellboy is taken aback as to what Shadowmaster may know about this "real research", for it is uncommon knowledge.

shadowmaster could tell you but then the men in black hats would come and flashy-thingie you.

Originally posted by Sparko

shadowmaster could tell you but then the men in black hats would come and flashy-thingie you.

You know......?

Seems like that happened, before....

How can you tell?

and.... is anybody safe????

Originally posted by HELLBOY

Hellboy would like to know what The ShadowMaster knows about classified research. Shadowmaster is correct in this regard and Hellboy is taken aback as to what Shadowmaster may know about this "real research", for it is uncommon knowledge.

The openly discusses those aspects which do not reveal classified information. Specifically he talks openly about research into QM entanglement and theories about them.

Shunny likes to puff out his chest and brag but all he does is read published articles and then pontificate as though he wrote them himself. In fact, he has not presented any qualifications (as he demands of others) to establish that he is qualiftied to even understand them

The Shadowmaster's posts are self contained and offer criteria for any rebuttal. If you see otherwise, then challenge him on it.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

The shadowmaster openly discusses those aspects which do not reveal classified information. Specifically he talks openly about research into QM entanglement and theories about them.

Shunny likes to puff out his chest and brag but all he does is read published articles and then pontificate as though he wrote them himself. In fact, he has not presented any qualifications (as he demands of others) to establish that he is qualiftied to even understand them

The Shadowmaster's posts are self contained and offer criteria for any rebuttal. If you see otherwise, then challenge him on it.

I have seen Shadowmasters' careful application of information.

Hellboy pays attention to the details, and knows when a rebuttal is appropriate. Shadowmaster has covered all his bases.

Good form!