Water-Rich Asteroid Orbiting Dead Star!

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-watery-asteroid-dying-star-habitable.html
http://www.pentagonpost.com/scientists-discover-waterrich-asteroid-orbiting-dead-star-gd-61-solar-system/83413157

The headlines are proclaiming that scientists have found a water-rich asteroid orbiting a dead star! This supports their new (old) theory that asteroids delivered water and life to Earth!

Only problem is, if you read the article, they haven't found a water-rich asteroid orbiting a dead star. What they've found is the signature of heavy elements and oxygen in the light from a white dwarf star. They then assembled this data into what they wanted to find, and voila! They have a water-rich asteroid orbiting a dead star.

They even say that the asteroid was torn apart by the white dwarf star and now exists only as a smear of atomic elements in the star's atmosphere. So why are all the headlines reporting that they've found a water-rich asteroid ORBITING, present tense, a dead star? And is the star dying or dead? Depending on which article you choose to read, it could be either.

Oh, and there may still be rocky, terrestrial planets orbiting this same star, potentially habitable planets that pushed this water-rich asteroid into the star. This last statement proves that they don't have photographic evidence of this asteroid or the imaginary planets, because obviously they couldn't have photographs of a small asteroid, yet have no photographs of much-larger planets. Yes, I know they don't even claim to have photographs, just spectrographic data from the star. But that's my whole point.

SHOW ME THE PHOTOGRAPHS! A picture is worth a thousand words. Unless you can show me photographs of this distant water-rich asteroid, or these potentially-habitable planets, then you've got nothing other than a few lines on a spectrograph. Don't tell me you've found water-rich asteroids and potentially-habitable planets.

This is what is wrong with modern science. They get a trickle of raw data, draw sweeping conclusions that match what they want to find, and then report the conclusions to the public. And suddenly we have the public believing scientists have found water-rich asteroids and Earth-like planets orbiting distant stars, monstrous black holes at the centers of galaxies gobbling up entire solar systems, Higgs particles, etc, etc.

I don't have any problem with the notion that there are habitable planets and water-rich asteroids orbiting distant stars. There probably are. What I have a problem with is the propensity of modern science to draw premature conclusions from tiny trickles of data.

Life on Earth started elsewhere?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24488604

Of course the idea that life was carried to Earth from somewhere "out there" is not a new idea. But it seems to be gaining traction these days. Why? Could it be because scientists are finally starting to secretly admit to themselves that they can't figure out how life could have arisen on Earth, or how there is so much water on Earth, so they're ready to embrace and promulgate the idea that it came from space? Pushing life's origins to a more distant location, one that isn't yet easily accessible, tremendously lessens the pressure to figure out how it could all have begun on Earth. You know, "Life came from somewhere else, so we don't need to figure out its Earthly origins any more. And we can't carry out direct research on alien worlds yet, so we'll just postpone figuring out life's ultimate origins." Very convenient.

The only problem is, pushing the origin of life on Earth into space still doesn't explain how life would have arisen elsewhere. The question still remains. But it enables scientists to smugly say, "How did life first arise on Earth? It didn't. It came from space." And then they can leave it at that, because they have now explained the origins of life on Earth.

All they're doing is sweeping the dust under the rug and hoping nobody notices the lump in the rug.

New Death to Einstein! video on YouTube

I've posted a new video based on my book Death to Einstein!

Nobel Prize actually awarded for non-discovery

Given that the Nobel Prize has been awarded for the discovery of the Higgs boson, I want to be one of the lone voices of reason and point out that NO ONE is saying that the Higgs boson has been discovered. Even CERN will only say that the evidence "strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson."

So why is the Nobel Prize being awarded for a non-discovery?

Actually, to be honest, I guess the Prize was awarded merely for the theory that predicts the Higgs boson. But still, in the announcement, the Prize committee says that the theory "...recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted particle..."

Wrong!

I hereby predict that in due course it will be reported that the evidence has turned against the recently discovered particle being the Higgs boson.

So what have I got against the Higgs boson? Absolutely nothing. I just refuse to go along with the propaganda that the Higgs boson has been discovered when no one will come out and say that whatever they found is definitely the Higgs boson. Whatever happened to scientific integrity and honesty?

"Virtually certain" is not certain. If I'm virtually certain that a particular girl will go out with me Friday night, I'm not going to make reservations for dinner until I actually get a "Yes."

I also like how CERN, high on the success of the Higgs "discovery," is now going to turn its attention to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Good luck with that.

Death to Einstein! videos on YouTube

I've started a series of videos based on my book Death to Einstein! The first two videos are posted below, with more to follow soon.

Death to Einstein! diagrams

Here are the diagrams for my ebook, Death to Einstein! These are posted here for the convenience of readers whose devices aren't displaying the diagrams.

The relevant wikipedia diagrams can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#The_train-and-platform_thought_experiment

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity

The following are my diagrams, copyright 2013 by Scott Reeves:

Diagram #1 (as labeled in the book):

Diagram #2:

Diagram #3:

Diagram #4:

Diagram #5: