PDA

View Full Version : Wrongology.



cushioncrawler
11-16-2012, 04:52 AM
The Key to Science (and Life) Is Being Wrong
By Steven Ross Pomeroy | November 13, 2012| 31

In 1964, the occasionally enigmatic but always energetic physicist, Dr. Richard Feynman gave a lecture at Cornell University to a packed hall of eager, young scholars. Feynman’s demeanor was crisp and purposeful that day, a style reinforced by his sharp appearance. The professor’s hair was neat and tidy, and he was keenly attired in a trim, tailored suit.

His right hand grasping a piece of chalk, his left had nestled in his coat pocket, Feynman started to speak. “I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law,” he said in his unvarnished Queens accent, referring to his work as a theoretical physicist.

Feynman walked over to the chalkboard and began to write. His oration continued, almost in a manner synced with his scribbling. “First we guess it… Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results… directly to observation to see if it works.”

Feynman paused, removed his left hand from his coat pocket, and strode back over to the lectern to briefly peruse some notes. He then launched right back into his sermon.

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong,” he asserted, craning his neck forward and adroitly pointing his left hand at the chalkboard to accentuate the point. “In that simple statement, is the key to science.”

“It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is,” Feynman proclaimed, gesticulating in wide, circular, somewhat flamboyant motions. “It doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Feynman was absolutely right.

A good scientist must be willing to be wrong. Such an inclination is liberating, for it allows him or her to investigate potential answers — however unlikely they may be — to the difficult questions inspired by this vast, wondrous universe. Not only that, a willingness to be wrong frees a scientist to pursue any avenue opened by evidence, even if that evidence doesn’t support his or her original hunch.

“The hard but just rule is that if the ideas don’t work, you must throw them away,” The great science communicator Carl Sagan wrote. “Don’t waste neurons on what doesn’t work. Devote those neurons to new ideas that better explain the data.”

Sagan’s candid advice was perfectly followed in 1998, when two highly competitive groups of scientists from Harvard and Berkeley were racing to find the rate at which the universe’s expansion was decelerating. It was a high stakes contest, for a Nobel Prize was thought to be on the line.

But to both groups’ astonishment, the data ended up pointing in precisely the opposite direction. The scientists found that the universe’s expansion was not slowing down; it was speeding up! “I was, quite frankly, denying [it] was happening,” Harvard’s Brian Schmidt reportedly said. But because Schmidt and his colleagues overcame their disappointment and were willing to be wrong, the world learned something entirely new about the cosmos.

For the Berkeley and Harvard astrophysicists, recognizing their wrongness was easy, as the data irrefutably pointed in a completely different direction. But it’s not always that simple. Sometimes data can be inconclusive, leaving wiggle room for the researcher to draw a range of conclusions. Unfortunately, this occasionally leads to misconduct, especially for the scientists who are more interested in dogmatically pursuing pet theories instead of proof. They might tweak little bits of data in order to achieve statistical significance in the ubiquitous P-value test or they might ignore certain details that conflict with their hypothesis.

This is, of course, ethically wrong, but human nature often compels us to err in order to guard our ingrained beliefs. While scientists are oft considered to be marble men and women, the truth is, they never stop being human.

In order to recognize wrongness, scientists must maintain some level of detachment from their cherished theories and be open to the ideas of others in their respective fields. Richard Dawkins described a terrific example of this in his book, The God Delusion:


“I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real… Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said – with passion – ‘My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.’”

In the past year, we’ve been treated to two uplifting examples of that sort of modesty. Last year, University of California physics professor Richard Muller changed his skeptical stance on climate change when his own “BEST” study produced data that conflicted with his preconceived notions. He now admits that climate change is caused by human activity. In another noteworthy example, Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who, in a 2001 paper, touted that gays could be “cured,” reversed his position and apologized for his “fatally flawed, study.”

“I believe I owe the gay community an apology,” Spitzer wrote in a letter.

Wrongness is something we all secretly or openly dread. According to self-described “Wrongologist” Kathryn Schulz, in the abstract, we all understand that we’re fallible, but on the personal level, we leave little to no room for being wrong.

But Schulz believes that we should view this situation in a slightly different light. Realizing you’re wrong is what’s devastating, but being wrong often feels pretty good. As a matter of fact, it often feels identical to being right.

Like Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner off a cliff in those old Warner Brothers cartoons, we only start to fall when we come to the realization that we, along with our incorrect notions, have no solid ground to stand on. But the simple fact of the matter is that we had already run off the end of the precipice a long time ago! Thus, it’s best to admit that we’re wrong and get the fall over with so we can land (hopefully not too harshly), dust ourselves off, and get back on our feet.

Soflasnapper
11-16-2012, 03:32 PM
You can't get good philosophy of science work out of scientists.

They really don't know what's going on.

Fact is, plenty of correct theories seem to yield wrong results for many different reasons, which require slightly amending the theory or checking your math and other assumptions.

Any theory can be made to fit the experimental results with enough additional and perhaps ad hoc hypotheses. Doing that too much creates an unnatural and unwieldy theory, which Ockham's Razor leans against taking as correct. But it still may be correct. As somebody-- Einstein, I think-- said, the theory needs to be simple, but not simpler than necessary.

Newton's calculus yielded extremely wrong results as to the travel of the moon. So badly off that he considered sacking his theory of gravitation. It turned out he'd made a calculation mistake with the new calculus he invented, and hadn't created a mistaken theory.

Take the theory of the conservation of mass/energy. The spontaneous breakdown of the neutron into an electron and positron violated this principle, having a different apparent mass at the end of the process than at the beginning. Was the theory of conservation of mass/energy sacked based on this experimental finding? No. In fact the neutrino concept was created as a hypothetical theoretical reason this apparent violation wasn't one at all, despite no known way at the time to even begin to prove a neutrino existed. More, it had to be an ANTI-neutrino, not a regular neutrino.

Einstein's fudge factor, the cosmological constant, in his field equations is another example. His field equations implied that the known universe of matter would have self-imploded long ago. Which was obviously not the case. Did he sack his field equations as false on this evidence? No, he hypothesized a force pushing the universe outwards and added it to the equations. He later regretted doing that upon discovering the apparent Hubble expansion. Now it turns out there IS such a force pushing things apart, increasingly so.

Scientists may be good at science, but they cannot explain science as it really works. What they claim, unless they are also students of the philosophy of science, is generally mistaken. Like mathematicians that do not know the philosophy of mathematics.

cushioncrawler
11-16-2012, 04:11 PM
Mr Einstein's stuff woz iz wrong, mostly.
Dark matter -- wrong, mostly.
Dark energy -- wrong, mostly.
Dark fluid -- wrong, mostly. But aktually not far off the korrekt theory, ie an infinite cellular aether.

One day science will havta kum kleen on its bad science. Up to now it iz doubling down on theorys it knows to be wrong. The shit will really hit the fan. Karnt wait.
So at one level science trys to follow wrongology, but allthesame many scientists will only change their minds when they die.

In the meantime me myself i look at much of science az little better than the prezent krappology of dieticians krappynomicysts psychiatrysts and polyticians.

I must revizit newton's gravity. Didnt newton assume that the speed of gravity woz infinite. Iznt this speed of gravity a major problem. I must revizit how aether theory treats that stuff.
mac.

Soflasnapper
11-17-2012, 09:53 AM
I know what you mean, and yet, those errors have not caused any widespread change of those dominant accepted paradigms, rather trashing the point of Feynman and your piece.

The real truth I've noticed is what I said. No theory need give up as falsified on any given experimental result, if another hypothesis is added to the original theory.

Perfectly circular orbits for the geocentric theory of our solar system didn't work, so they added (perfectly circular but smaller) epicycles. Copernicus' helio-centric theory was worse than the old Ptolemaic system, as it maintained the perfectly circular orbits, the perfectly circular epicyles, and added another layer of epicycles, all to yield a less accurate prediction than the Ptolemaic system did.

Thomas Kuhn blew up the naive view widely held among scientists that they follow logic and rational assessments and only believe what the data says. Scientists do not realize what they do, and follow the leader of what the dominant paradigm is, at least if they want tenure and the ability to win grants for their proposed research.

cushioncrawler
11-17-2012, 02:41 PM
Yes its appears that wrongology iznt widespread among scientists. If scientists are happy to be tribal then how in hell kan we expekt polyticians or krappynomicysts to follow wrongology.
Religion proovs that wrongology aint in human nature. The only natural remedy to being wrong iz death.

Anyhow einstein's GR and SR will soon split science bigtime.
And the bigbang bullshit.
What iz the speed of a shitty smell.
And this will hurt GW and other good science bigtime.
mac.

Yes Kopernicus etc thort that planets where fixed, ie in a circular way. Didnt even think of gravity.
But if K woz wrong, what about the silly tossers that think that Gravity iz due to gravitons or something. The standard atomik model must hav about 150 epicycles now. And duzzens of Nobel Prizes. What iz the speed of a shitty stink.

I just remembered N-Rays. HAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAHHAAHAHAHA.
The epitome of science in France.

So, many scientists would rather fight than switch.
And az for the rest, rather than enjoy being shown the truth, they hate it.

So what hope religion, where the truth iz revealed after death. Boy o boy, what a money earner. The eternal truth, haahhhhhaaahhhha.

cushioncrawler
11-18-2012, 01:15 AM
5 Consequences and Problems Associated with Denial

The denial of aether has led to a chain of misconceptions of the nature of reality that can only be described as incomplete at best and paradoxical at worst. After the initial misinterpretation of 1887, one misconception led to another, widening the non-reality, deepening the unresolvability. The first misconception was the nopreferred-frame idea. It led to Maxwell’s perfectly valid preferred frame of reference being discarded. Then, without a special frame, there can be no absolute motion. It then follows that without absolute motion ALL
translational motion must be relative. And if all motion is relative, what better way is there for describing the
physical world than with Einstein’s special and general relativity?

The historic chain of misconceptions continued as relativity theory was applied to the whole universe and eventually gave us Sean Carroll’s preposterous expanding universe. Physicists know, or suspect, there is something wrong here. The
incompleteness and the paradoxes that have arisen are too easily demonstrated to be ignored.

Unfortunately, the premise was invalid from the very start. Unfortunately, the rejection of aether and the
consequential incomplete theory of gravity has led theorists to propose highly speculative universes of
mathematical genre —abstractions devoid of reality.
Although the premise was flawed, in the course of theoretical development the step by step logic, decade
after decade, was wonderfully flawless and found its grandest expression as the golden age of the expanding
universes.

The 20th century witnessed an astrocopeia of models based on Einstein’s gravity equations. Like
the Sorcerer’s Apprentice whose spell conjured up too many magic brooms, theorists were finding that their
magical mathematical equations were producing more and more versions of the expansion scenario.

As I said, it was a golden season; expansion was the big thing, and the harvest was abundant. But now it is
wintertime —time for testing survivability. This vast enterprise, responsible for proliferating and for
stockpiling a multitude of theoretical models, must now face the frigid fact that there was —there IS— only
one real universe!... And any scientist, professional or amateur, will tell you that a theory that allows (or
predicts) too many possibilities makes for a very weak theory. A weak theory is more appropriately called a
hypothesis or a speculation; and rarely survives.

The point is they —Academic Cosmologists— have problems. Serious problems.
When theorists deny the existence of aether they are left with no medium for the propagation of Maxwell’s
electromagnetic waves.
Seemingly unaware of the inconsistency, physicists discard the perfectly intuitive and sound notion,
whereby aether serves as the medium for the propagation of light, while claiming that the emptiness of space
is filled with all kinds of stuff like quantum particle-pair formation, and various entities continually popping
in and out of existence, and, of course, vacuum energy. But note, these things are not just scattered around
randomly in “empty” space. They permeate all space.

Physicist Robert Oerter, in his book A Theory of
Almost Everything, explains that there are harmonic oscillators, one at each point in space, wherever there
are quantum fields (which happens to be most everywhere). In what is otherwise empty space, these
oscillators are pulsating in their lowest energy state. “We know, however, that a harmonic oscillator has
some energy even in its lowest energy state. This vacuum energy exists at every point in space ...”

42 Robert Oerter leaves no room for doubt; there are entities at every point in space!
But wait a minute ... that sounds suspiciously like a space medium.
Let’s shine a light into this space used by “the standard model of modern physics.” A light beam travels
through points in (or of) space; there are oscillators at every point; the light, then, must pass through the
oscillators. The light can’t go around the oscillators since there are no gaps, no free points, no free zone.
Clearly, light is being conducted —conducted by the oscillators along the light ray’s path —by the space
medium itself —by the luminiferous aether that physicist have long rejected. What other conclusion could
there possibly be? ... Light does travel through a ubiquitous space-medium. Yet almost no physicist
acknowledges the fact. (Let there be no doubt about the seriousness of aether denial or aetherphobia. Those
afflicted, as if participating in a reversal of a popular fable in which the Emperor IS fully clothed, are
claiming He has no clothes!)

The situation with the light-conducting-medium reveals a problem on another level. It reveals the age old
“problem” of heresy, the undermining of the establishment’s sacred ideas. The guardians of the Official view
do not tolerate dissent. Consequently, under the oppressive rules of Academia no one today dares to call it
the luminiferous aether let alone generic aether. For two thousand years, few dared to challenge the authority
of Aristotle. Today, few dare to challenge the authority of Einstein.

Aether denial, of course, goes hand in hand with the denial of absolute motion —yet absolute motion is
surprisingly easy to prove.
The denial of aether led Einstein to two famous but incomplete theories of relativity. One is missing the
principle of absolute motion and, therefore, is unable to explain the real difference in the speed of a light ray
(along separate paths) observable in any gas-mode Michelson apparatus (particularly when calibrated as per
Cahill’s method to correct for Lorentzian contraction). The other theory is missing ... How shall I state this?
...

Here we have what may well be the biggest problem of all. Without aether there is no plausible way to
convey the effect of gravity. We are left with no way to convey Newton’s force of gravity. And in the
terminology of general relativity: we are left with no way to manifest the effect of space curvature.

It is sad to note that more than 300 years after Newton presented the world with a scientific definition of
gravity, the cause is still being reported as a mystery.

Peter Bergmann, a devoted student and follower of
Einstein, underscores this dismal deficiency by authoring a book entitled The Riddle of Gravitation.
The title refers to the unresolved problem of Einstein’s theory of gravity. For relativity experts like Bergmann, gravity
is a mystery for the simple reason that the underlying mechanism is missing. The rejection of aether, and its
dynamic properties, is directly responsible for this impasse.
Without aether, theorists are led to a totally unrealistic picture of the universe. They arrive at a
philosophically untenable picture of an expanding universe with its physically impossible singularity initial
state and its questionable end state. They lose sight of the principle that the Universe is the manifestation of
existence; and existence does not begin or end; existence is absolute and cannot be qualified in any way.

There is also a major practical problem. Without aether there is no plausible way to explain the abundant
experimental evidence detailed in the Chronology Table above. There is no way to explain the findings by
using standard physics. Yet it appears that official institutions are not in any hurry to solve the mystery.

For instance, in 1999 NASA set up an investigative commission headed by Dr. David Noever (a NASA scientist)
to review the Maurice Allais experiments. A decade later and we’re still waiting on the outcome. The lengthy
delay speaks volumes. One suspects there is a desperate effort to avert a revolution in physics and
cosmology; and it is unlikely that the report will ever be issued. Maurice Allais is unlikely to live long
enough to see it anyway. A website search of NASA (http://Science.msfc.nasa.gov/) gives only the original
1999 report.43

44 Two more examples of neglected experiments with solid evidence are the Dayton Miller
1925/26 studies and the Roland De Witte 1991 tests lasting 178 days.

It has been predicted that these two
experiments will eventually be recognized as two of the most significant experiments in physics. The
experiments were completely independent and used significantly different techniques yet they detected the
same velocity of absolute motion. Furthermore, they detected clear evidence of turbulence in the flow of
aether past the Earth. They had discovered aether-type gravitational waves.

45 Again, officially sanctioned theories have no plausible explanation.
Both Miller and De Witte have been repeatedly attacked for their discoveries. Sadly, De Witte was never
permitted to publish his data in a physics journal. Tragically, after being dismissed from his research
position, being misled by so-called anti-relativists, and having his findings ignored and even censured,
Roland De Witte became deeply depressed and suffered an early death.46

The rejection of aether has now led to a near crisis situation in Cosmology and Physics. The proof of the
existence of aether is out there. It is being ignored and even suppressed.47

Evidence is ignored, year after ear. All the while the experimental physicists keep rediscovering what is not supposed to exist —the aether and its associated absolute motion. The most recent rediscovery occurred in 2006. (See the Chronology
Table). It involved a new method —method number three, if your keeping count.

A review of the history of aether reveals that aether is repeatedly being re-discovered; as if its previous
discovery has been forgotten, again and again. For instance, Roland De Witte was unaware of Miller’s
historic work. ... Forgive the broadness of my question, but what is going on here!? What kind of science is
being practiced in society’s noble institutions when solid experimental evidence is ignored? Or worse

History of the Aether Theory — Ranzan
Source: http://www.CellularUniverse.org/AA3AetherHistory.htm

15 censored and suppressed?
While there is mostly silence among the ranks of institutionalized degree holders, this fact remains:
Without aether we are unnecessarily burdening ourselves with an incomprehensible “preposterous
universe.”

Soflasnapper
11-18-2012, 10:29 AM
Yes its appears that wrongology iznt widespread among scientists. If scientists are happy to be tribal then how in hell kan we expekt polyticians or krappynomicysts to follow wrongology.

Quite right. Even in mathematics, which some call the queen of sciences, you'll find sweet reason and quite clear and obviously correct lines of deductive reasoning rejected by the dominant paradigm, throughout its history.

This started with the rejection of so mild a concept as negative numbers. They hated and rejected imaginary numbers and its construct, complex numbers ('real' numbers plus a square root of -1 addendum), although the explanatory power of that construct is immense. They hated and scorned Kantor's transfinite number concept. And young Mr. Galois' combination of number theory and group theory? Forget about it-- the head of the French academy condemned him as a fraud.

As is often the case in science (Wegener's idea of continental drift, the Alvarez' pere et fil idea of the death asteroid, the notion that meteorites exist and come from the sky, etc., etc.), such notions get accepted only as the old guard establishment dies off generationally, and new, younger people take their places.

Humans-- too political, too tribal, too fixed in ideas, for rationality really to prevail, until a considerable passage of time.

cushioncrawler
11-18-2012, 03:03 PM
Yes i think that stubborness must hav an evolutionary konnektion ie it must help the species, while at the same time it iz only women who are never wrong.
mac.

cushioncrawler
11-19-2012, 02:53 PM
November 19, 2012, 1:44 pm9 Comments
Views Differ on Age of Planet
Quite a few bloggers are having fun with Marco Rubio’s bobbing and weaving in response to a question from GQ:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

As I like to say, the GOP doesn’t just want to roll back the New Deal; it wants to roll back the Enlightenment.

But here’s what you should realize: when Rubio says that the question of the Earth’s age “has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow”, he’s dead wrong. For one thing, science and technology education has a lot to do with our future productivity — and how are you going to have effective science education if schools have to give equal time to the views of fundamentalist Christians?

More broadly, the attitude that discounts any amount of evidence — and boy, do we have lots of evidence on the age of the planet! — if it conflicts with prejudices is not an attitude consistent with effective policy. If you’re going to ignore what geologists say if you don’t like its implications, what are the chances that you’ll take sensible advice on monetary and fiscal policy? After all, we’ve just seen how Republicans deal with research reports that undermine their faith in the magic of tax cuts: they try to suppress the reports.

I’m belatedly reading Chris Mooney’s The Republican Brain; if truth be told, I was afraid that the book would be too much red meat for my own predispositions, and wanted to keep my cool. But Mooney actually makes a very good point: the personality traits we associate with modern conservatism, above all a lack of openness, make the modern GOP fundamentally hostile to the very idea of objective inquiry. If they want your opinion, they’ll tell you what it is; doubters of orthodoxy need not apply, and will in fact be persecuted.

So don’t laugh over Rubio’s young-earth apologetics. If he, or anyone else from his party, wins in 2016, the joke will be on us.

Soflasnapper
11-19-2012, 06:31 PM
I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says

Somehow I don't think he'd want the Buddhist cosmology, or the Hindu cosmology, or even the native American cosmology, taught in schools along with the scientific answer and the fundamentalist Bible answer.

Giant elephants on still more giant tortoises, holding up the earth? A giant tree connecting the three realms?

Might as well teach the Tolkien cosmology as found in The Silmarillion. (Spoiler: Melchior sings off key.)

cushioncrawler
11-20-2012, 01:02 AM
Today i am sitting in the waiting room at my eye surgeons reading a skeptik magazine and it haz a quote (re bad scientists) by Dr Peter Doherty who says something like...

...."Science advances with each funeral...".
mac.

No, in fakt Dr Doherty sayd.....

Once you stop doing science, a good maxim is: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”. As the German physics Nobelist Max Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time".

So it woz Planck who sayd it -- brilliant.
mac.

cushioncrawler
11-20-2012, 06:04 AM
".......Like Wile E. Coyote chasing Road Runner off a cliff in those old Warner Brothers cartoons, we only start to fall when we come to the realization that we, along with our incorrect notions, have no solid ground to stand on. But the simple fact of the matter is that we had already run off the end of the precipice a long time ago! Thus, it’s best to admit that we’re wrong and get the fall over with so we can land (hopefully not too harshly), dust ourselves off, and get back on our feet.......


"".......The story tells how, following the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus sent the disciples by boat to the other side of Lake Galilee while he remained behind, alone, to pray. Night fell, the wind rose, and the boat became caught in a storm. In the midst of the storm and the darkness the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea. They were frightened, thinking they were seeing a spirit, but Jesus told them not to be afraid, they were reassured. Jesus calmed the storm and entered the boat, and they went on to the shore. According to a detail found only in Matthew, Peter walked out onto the water towards Jesus, but he became afraid and began to sink, and Jesus rescued him.[1]

Christian teachings consider the episode a miracle intended to show the importance of faith, and the control of Jesus over nature. Biblical scholars view the episode as instrumental in asserting the divinity of Jesus among early Christians. In this view, the episode's demonstration that God the Father is willing to share divine power with his son Jesus impacted the affirmation of the belief in the divinity of Jesus in the Christian ecumenical creeds.[2][3]......"

SO, WILE E COYOTE IZ PLAGIARIZING THE BIBLE.
MAC.

cushioncrawler
11-20-2012, 06:07 AM
Only Matthew's account mentions Peter asking to come unto the Lord on the water. After Peter came out of the ship and walked on the water, he became afraid of the storm and began to sink. He called out to Jesus for help. Jesus caught him and reproved him for his lack of faith, and led him back to the ship whereupon the storm stopped. Also in Matthew the astounded disciples called Jesus the Son of God.[5][6]

SO, HERE PETER WALKS ON WATER ALONE, AND LATER WALKS ON WATER BUT WITH THE HELP OF JEEZARSE.
KARNT WAIT FOR THE FILM TO KUM OUT.
MAC.

cushioncrawler
11-20-2012, 06:12 AM
WTF. THEY CALLED JESUS THE SON OF GOD, BUT WHAT ABOUT PETER. HE PROBLY WALKED ON WATER FURTHERER THAN JEEZARSE. KOZ PETER WALKED OVER TO MEET JEEZARSE (ON WATER), AND THEN WALKED BACK (ON WATER) TO THE BOAT WITH JEEZARSE.

SO, HERE WE HAV 2 PEEPLE WALKING ON WATER, AT THE SAME TIME. WHERE ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH HAV 2 PEEPLE WALKED ON WATER AT THE SAME TIME. YES, PRAPS ONE HERE OR THERE, BUT NEVER TWO AT THE SAME TIME.

AND MONTY PYTHON HAV NEVER MADE FUN OF ANY OF THIS EVER. THAT SEALS IT.
MAC.

cushioncrawler
11-20-2012, 06:25 AM
Doo-dloo-doo-doo-doo
Doo-dloo-doo-doo-doo-doo
Doo-dloo-doo-doo-doo-doo
Doo-dloo-doo-doo-doo-doo...

I'm walkin on the lake
Just walkin on the lake
What a glorious feelin'
I'm happy again
I'm laughing at clouds
So dark up above
The sun's in my heart
And I'm ready for love
Let the stormy clouds chase
Everyone from the place
Come on with the rain
I've a smile on my face
I walk down the lane
With a happy refrain
Just singin',
Singin' in the rain

Walkin on the lake
Dee-ah dee-ah dee-ah
Dee-ah dee-ah dee-ah
I'm happy again!
I'm singin' and dancin' in the rain!

I'm dancin' and singin' in the rain...
[ADDITIONAL VERSE]
Why am I smiling
And why do I sing?
Why does September
Seem sunny as spring?
Why do I get up
Each morning and start?
Happy and head up
With joy in my heart
Why is each new miracle
A trifle to do?
Because I am living
A life full of you.

cushioncrawler
11-20-2012, 06:35 AM
Yes we loved torvill and dean. But they skated on ice, eezy peezy.
Jeezarse and Peter didnt hav any ice -- its a miracle.
mac.

Hey, how kum disney or the Godsquad hav never staged jesus on ice.

I kan see him entering jerusalem now, on a donkey, aktually 2 guys on skates.

Imagin the show stopper, jesus doing figure of eights carrying a crucyfix. Not a dry eye in the crowd.
mac.