addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [humanism-174] Wubbo Ockels

From: Tim C.
Sent on: Friday, February 1, 2013 2:01 PM
I agree glen. Man needs to put aluminum foil into his ballcap!

-----Original Message-----
From: [address removed]
To: humanism-174 <[address removed]>
Sent: Fri, Feb 1,[masked]:30 am
Subject: [humanism-174] Wubbo Ockels

After having read a little more about Dr. Ockels and watching the video all the 
way thru, I find even more reason to see his main thesis self-contradictory and 
nonsensical. In the middle of his speech he refers to the "evolutions" of life 
and implies that he accepts evolution, but  several other times he implies that 
time does not exist except as a function of the human brain. Evidently it never 
occurs to him to ask how evolution could take place without time, and lots of 
it. Likewise how does he think our solar system and earth itself got to its 
current state if time did not exist before humans? The crux of this 
contradiction seems summed up in his own words, when he says "Being creates 
time, and time creates being."  But the second can't happen if the first is 
    As others have pointed out, he suggests experiments could verify his  
revoloutionary ideas, lead to wonderful new technological and cultural 
advancements, and even help us detect dark matter and even space aliens. But he 
doesn't say exactly what experiments, or how or why they would do this, or why 
he has not run them. To me, he is the classic crank, with a typical pattern: 
1. Make outlandish claims with little or no empirical support.
2. In place of evidence, use plenty of jargon, personal anecdotes, and emotional 
2. Imply that you're more brilliant and clever than everyone else, including 
millions of other scientists.
3. Assume your ideas will change the world.
4. Promote your ideas (and make $ from them) before doing rigorous experiments 
or publishing peer reviewed papers. 

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this 
mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Glen ([address removed]) from The Cleveland 
To learn more about Glen, visit his/her member profile:
Set my mailing list to email me

As they are sent

In one daily email

Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy