How to become a 'true skeptic' in this forum?

[salomed]

I think the whole edifice is corrupt. It is corrupt from from the topdown (The corporations) and it lack's integrity from the bottom up (tenure, baby, tenure).

That is an opinion generated by the distorted business of the news media. The slogan used by newspapers and TV news is :"If it bleeds, it leads." In other words, always emphasize anything bad, because it is more likely to attract readers and listeners. That which is good appears on the last page in small print, if at all.

THe other thing to remember is that journalists are innumerate. They do not understand statistics or numbers, and so report anecdotes instead. The vast majority of scientists are honest, and report their findings honestly, but innumerate journalists cannot understand what 'majority' means, and report the exception, since it comes as an inaccurate anecdote. Those who work for corporations, like Big Pharma, may not be as honest, but most maintain high standards. But the news media do not like to report anything good, so they will always present the opposite.

Actually, I don't tend to read the news media, I trust that even less than the science media.

You acknowledge that those who work for corporations may not be as honest, you do get that the whole academic/medical/industrial/etc complex is corporate?

It's not like there is corporate science and then unconnected to them are these groups of scientists totally unaffected by corporate influence. That is not this world.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You shouldn't trust the science media, it's just going to confuse you.

[Lance Kennedy]

Salomed


You are being sucked in by the media. I have worked with the scientific community and I know what they are like. The majority are almost painfully honest, and write their results so carefully to avoid saying anything that might be wrong. Sure there is a small group who are influenced by corporates and write misleading material. But they are a minority.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Salomed


You are being sucked in by the media. I have worked with the scientific community and I know what they are like. The majority are almost painfully honest, and write their results so carefully to avoid saying anything that might be wrong. Sure there is a small group who are influenced by corporates and write misleading material. But they are a minority.

"...being sucked in the lunatic fringe."

[Matthew Ellard]

This conversation about science suffering from corruption is very silly.

Firstly, the scientific method states that an experiment must be able to be replicated. Therefore, the scientific method itself, has a method of weeding out isolated examples of corruption, incompetence or simple stupidity. The physical nature of the world doesn't change.

Additionally, I think it is very ironic that Salomed is complaining about corruption in science after consciously hiding data and forging evidence in his magic shapes in Shakespeare claim.




.

[salomed]

This conversation about science suffering from corruption is very silly.

Firstly, the scientific method states that an experiment must be able to be replicated. Therefore, the scientific method itself, has a method of weeding out isolated examples of corruption, incompetence or simple stupidity. The physical nature of the world doesn't change.

Additionally, I think it is very ironic that Salomed is complaining about corruption in science after consciously hiding data and forging evidence in his magic shapes in Shakespeare claim.




.

You still need to setup the debate you had no intention of setting up.

[salomed]

Salomed


You are being sucked in by the media. I have worked with the scientific community and I know what they are like. The majority are almost painfully honest, and write their results so carefully to avoid saying anything that might be wrong. Sure there is a small group who are influenced by corporates and write misleading material. But they are a minority.

She who pays the piper/scientist.

[Matthew Ellard]

You still need to setup the debate you had no intention of setting up.

You're an idiot. You claimed that the mathematical constants were magically hidden in the Sonnets title page, if you divided the length of lines you chose between some printed text and ignored those lines that didn't work ......and then you still couldn't find one mathematical constant.

3.1 is not π.
π is 3.1415926535.......

There were 16 million other numbers on the same page, using "your method" and you still couldn't find one mathematical constant.

Here is a link to a children's page about mathematics. Learn something.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/irrational-numbers.html
"Example: π (Pi) is a famous irrational number. You cannot write down a simple fraction that equals Pi.........."

[salomed]

You still need to setup the debate you had no intention of setting up.

You're an idiot. You claimed that the mathematical constants were magically hidden in the Sonnets title page, if you divided the length of lines you chose between some printed text and ignored those lines that didn't work ......and then you still couldn't find one mathematical constant.

3.1 is not π.
π is 3.1415926535.......

There were 16 million other numbers on the same page, using "your method" and you still couldn't find one mathematical constant.

Here is a link to a children's page about mathematics. Learn something.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/irrational-numbers.html
"Example: π (Pi) is a famous irrational number. You cannot write down a simple fraction that equals Pi.........."

Matthew, you can get 3.14 very easily. You have not even tried. You dare not.
And the other eight constants are there.
And the very fact we have so many right angled triangles is itself uncanny, but that is a bagatelle compared to the other amazing things on that front page.
You know you can.
You know it doesn't fit with your narrow compromised assumptions and your kneejerk, contrarian personalities.
All you have done is misinformed, misdirected, hated, insulted, threatened, ridiculed and all those other tawdry little tricks I see so easily now.
I don't care one bit what you think.
Some here I respect their opinions tremendously.
I used to respect yours, before I understood your methods.
Feel free to keep on talking to me, I find it amusing, and If I have time I might even read some. I might even, if I am a bit bored, like now, reply.
But you are not a man of your word.
I look forwards to more of your slime but equally, I would be more than fine if you blocked me and I never had to encounter your pathetic little VERY google-assisted, too much time on your hands, nastiness again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Salomed


You are being sucked in by the media. I have worked with the scientific community and I know what they are like. The majority are almost painfully honest, and write their results so carefully to avoid saying anything that might be wrong. Sure there is a small group who are influenced by corporates and write misleading material. But they are a minority.

She who pays the piper/scientist.

Scientists LOVE to catch other scientists making mistakes. Proving a renowed Ph.D. is wrong about something makes careers.

Your stupid trolling about some grand conspiracy of scientists is just you expressing your inability to understand science.

[salomed]

Salomed


You are being sucked in by the media. I have worked with the scientific community and I know what they are like. The majority are almost painfully honest, and write their results so carefully to avoid saying anything that might be wrong. Sure there is a small group who are influenced by corporates and write misleading material. But they are a minority.

She who pays the piper/scientist.

Scientists LOVE to catch other scientists making mistakes. Proving a renowed Ph.D. is wrong about something makes careers.

Your stupid trolling about some grand conspiracy of scientists is just you expressing your inability to understand science.

Yes yes, I am just trolling. Making it all up about the peer review system being inherently biasing, corporate interests being crucial to funding, journals being shown to compromised, yada yada... I am just a troll please block me. Pretty please.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I blocked you I couldn't say "{!#%@} YOU" as often. Where the fun in that?

[salomed]

If I blocked you I couldn't say "{!#%@} YOU" as often. Where the fun in that?

There is no fun in swearing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I blocked you I couldn't say "{!#%@} YOU" as often. Where the fun in that?

There is no fun in swearing.

Then you're doing it wrong.

[OlegTheBatty]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

Fukkin' amateurs . . .

[salomed]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

Fukkin' amateurs . . .

Please stop swearing!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

Fukkin' amateurs . . .

Please stop swearing!

Who the {!#%@} are you to tell us what to do?

[salomed]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

Fukkin' amateurs . . .

Please stop swearing!

Who the {!#%@} are you to tell us what to do?

I am someone who comes here for debate and talk not to listen to bad language.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

Fukkin' amateurs . . .

Please stop swearing!

Who the {!#%@} are you to tell us what to do?

I am someone who comes here for debate and talk not to listen to bad language.

Then don't move your lips when you read.

[salomed]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

Fukkin' amateurs . . .

Please stop swearing!

Who the {!#%@} are you to tell us what to do?

I am someone who comes here for debate and talk not to listen to bad language.

Then don't move your lips when you read.

See you next tuesday;)

[Lance Kennedy]

Salomed

Suggesting that scientists are occasionally corrupt is a valid point. Suggesting they are always or almost always corrupt is simply wrong. Science has made amazing strides in the last 100 years, and that would be impossible if scientists were mostly corrupt.

I agree with you on swearing. I occasionally use the word 'bullsh!t', because it is a potent word that carries meaning. But gratuitous swearing is not needed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So stop me.

[Matthew Ellard]

3.1 is not π.
π is 3.1415926535....... as it is an irrational number.

Matthew, you can get 3.14 very easily. You have not even tried..

Why are you so stupid? You cannot calculate π. or any other irrational number by simple division. The value you obtain by your ridiculous "division method" gives the wrong value for π. There are no magical hidden mathematical constants anywhere in Shakespeare's Sonnets.

You simply don't understand basic mathematics and additionally ignored the other seven clear evidenced reasons, I set out as to why you are not only wrong, but you additionally cheated to hide that same evidence and started a second thread to hide your earlier lies.


viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941&start=80
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871

[Gord]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

There's the 10,000 hour hypothesis, but it's been debunked.

[OlegTheBatty]

Isn't there some hypothesis to the effect that you have to do something ten thousand times to become expert at it?

There's the 10,000 hour hypothesis, but it's been debunked.

They didn't even consider researching swearing. !#%@ scientists.

[salomed]

3.1 is not π.
π is 3.1415926535....... as it is an irrational number.

Matthew, you can get 3.14 very easily. You have not even tried..

Why are you so stupid? You cannot calculate π. or any other irrational number by simple division. The value you obtain by your ridiculous "division method" gives the wrong value for π. There are no magical hidden mathematical constants anywhere in Shakespeare's Sonnets.

You simply don't understand basic mathematics and additionally ignored the other seven clear evidenced reasons, I set out as to why you are not only wrong, but you additionally cheated to hide that same evidence and started a second thread to hide your earlier lies.


viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941&start=80
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871

For 400 year old printing it is amazing how accurate the nine mathematical constants are. Just mind blowing.

Don't forget, it is not possible to perfectly write Pi, Eulers Number, Brun's constant, Phi or the other constants encoded in the Sonnet's cover because they go on and on for light years.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you lie so much?

[salomed]

Why do you lie so much?

I have not lied.
I do not lie.
Just calling soneone a liar because you cannot refute them is a bit ellardy.
Be better.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you lie so much?

I have not lied.
I do not lie.
Just calling soneone a liar because you cannot refute them is a bit ellardy.
Be better.

I'm better than you, I don't lie so much.

[salomed]

Why do you lie so much?

I have not lied.
I do not lie.
Just calling soneone a liar because you cannot refute them is a bit ellardy.
Be better.

I'm better than you, I don't lie so much.

Name one lie and I will leave the forum for good.

[Poodle]

3.14 is pi.

But don't leave - you're far too much fun.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you lie so much?

I have not lied.
I do not lie.
Just calling soneone a liar because you cannot refute them is a bit ellardy.
Be better.

I'm better than you, I don't lie so much.

Name one lie and I will leave the forum for good.

Whatever you posted. You will never agree that anything I point is a lie, you'd lie about.

[Matthew Ellard]

3.1 is not π.
π is 3.1415926535....... as it is an irrational number.
Irrational numbers cannot be calculated by simple division.

For 400 year old printing it is amazing how accurate the nine mathematical constants are. Just mind blowing.

There are no mathematical constants ( irrational numbers) anywhere on the Sonnets title page.

You are upset and emotional because you claim Rene Descartes, the mathematician, as your hero but didn't know what a basic irrational number was until I told you a week ago.

[Matthew Ellard]

Name one lie and I will leave the forum for good.

1) You stated you overlaid your JPEG Sonnets title page over the original at the British Museum and posted a photo. The original Sonnets title page is held at the British Library and has different text at the bottom. You simply lied and forged evidence.

viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941&start=40#p567602

No, you are mistaken....I have taken the image from your link and have superimposed it in GIMP onto the one from the British Museum. You can do this yourself in a few minutes.

You then forged this "overlay" picture

Salomed forged photo.jpg

2) You said and still say, the mathematical constants (irrational numbers) can be calculated by division. That is a direct lie.

I have set out all your lies in the original thread.
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941#p566177

Goodbye and good riddance...and take Gorgeous with you.

[salomed]

Name one lie and I will leave the forum for good.

1) You stated you overlaid your JPEG Sonnets title page over the original at the British Museum and posted a photo. The original Sonnets title page is held at the British Library and has different text at the bottom. You simply lied and forged evidence.

viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941&start=40#p567602

No, you are mistaken....I have taken the image from your link and have superimposed it in GIMP onto the one from the British Museum. You can do this yourself in a few minutes.

You then forged this "overlay" pictureSalomed forged photo.jpg

2) You said and still say, the mathematical constants (irrational numbers) can be calculated by division. That is a direct lie.

I have set out all your lies in the original thread.
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941#p566177

Goodbye and good riddance...and take Gorgeous with you.

Do this:
Take the two pictures from the internet.
Invert one.
Overlay a layer of this onto the other.
You get the above picture.
Where is the lie?

[Matthew Ellard]

Salomed just lies and lies and lies......

No, you are mistaken....I have taken the image from your link and have superimposed it in GIMP onto the one from the British Museum. ........

The Sonnets are held at the British Library. The British Museum has no version of the Sonnets. The Sonnets at the British Library have the original print run title page, as the book seller was John Wright.

Sonnets John Wright 1.jpg

You were totally unaware you were manipulating a jpeg image of a later print run with a modified title page for the book seller William Aspley.

Sonnets William Aspley.jpg

You lied and fraudulently fabricated a fake overlay of your modified jpeg with the real Sonnets page at the British Library, which was a total lie and posted this image.:

Salomed forged photo.jpg

What makes you a completely incompetent liar is that the punctuation marks moved and yet magically your "secret hidden geometric shapes defined by punctuation didn't change at all.

You are a continuous liar and on the same level as Gorgeous. Stick to your word and leave the forum. Go promote your book, to be released in late 2017, on another forum.

I have listed all Salomed's lies, and they are endless, in the original thread.
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941

[salomed]

I have not lied once. Do as I said, its there. Its all there.
The question is, is it coincidence or intended that the nine constants are encided in the cover.

You wont even confirm that the triangles are right angled. You are the dishonest one.

[salomed]

Salomed

Suggesting that scientists are occasionally corrupt is a valid point. Suggesting they are always or almost always corrupt is simply wrong. Science has made amazing strides in the last 100 years, and that would be impossible if scientists were mostly corrupt.

I agree with you on swearing. I occasionally use the word 'bullsh!t', because it is a potent word that carries meaning. But gratuitous swearing is not needed.

Lance, I saw this just now and thought of you:


https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/ ... iew-fraud/

[Matthew Ellard]

I have not lied once. .

You directly lied about layering your manipulated JPEG image over the original at the British Library and finding an "exact match". (You were unaware they had different wording) You then forged this image, claiming it was proof you layered the original, by simply reversing the colour on your own manipulated image. See the hard evidence three posts above.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28046&p=572362#p572320

Salomed forged photo.jpg

viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941&start=40#p567602
You are a liar.

Salomed 5.jpg

[salomed]

I have not lied once. .

You directly lied about layering your manipulated JPEG image over the original at the British Library and finding an "exact match". (You were unaware they had different wording) You then forged this image, claiming it was proof you layered the original, by simply reversing the colour on your own manipulated image. See the hard evidence three posts above.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28046&p=572362#p572320
Salomed forged photo.jpg
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=27941&start=40#p567602
You are a liar. Salomed 5.jpg

I challenge you: let us have a video confrence, public, and I will demonstrate, using either pen and paper or computer images, that I have not lied and that these things are in the sonnets.

Challenge Accepted?