Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Saying is Believing by Mel Acheson


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 18 2013 - 10:45 AM

http://www.thunderbo...g-is-believing/

Supernova remnant W49B. X-ray in blue and green, radio in pink, optical in yellow. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/MIT/L.Lopez et al.; Infrared: Palomar; Radio: NSF/NRAO/VLA

Feb 18, 2013 Is this an image of a supernova remnant around a black hole? An exploding double layer in a galactic circuit? A mythical creation event in another planetary system? An unnamed formation in an unimagined process? Theories and facts interdependently provide names for things; without a name, we may not even perceive the thing. Stephen Toulmin noted in 1961 (Foresight and Understanding) “the continual interaction of theory with fact—the way in which theories are built on facts, while at the same time giving significance to them and even determining what are ‘facts’ for us at all….” Considering that we can’t talk or write about something without naming it, this insight directly ties understanding to lexicon. The inevitable conclusion is Thomas Kuhn’s insight a year later (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) that scientists with different “paradigms” (read: lexicons) will “practice their trades in different worlds.” With this background and the Electric Universe (EU) lexicon for a contrast, I’ll deconstruct the press release for this image: http://chandra.si.edu/photo/2013/w49b/ The object is a “distorted supernova remnant” in the consensus lexicon. “Distorted” is in contrast to what is expected from theory. The p.r. elaborates two paragraphs farther down: “generally symmetrical…evenly in all directions.” Theory’s influence on facts is illustrated by a Google images search for “supernova remnant”: many if not most of the images are “distorted” from expectations of spherical symmetry. The use of the adverb “generally” would seem to be an artifact of theoretical expectations. The EU lexicon expects “generally” a bipolar quasi-symmetry. Side-on views of planetary nebulae often show cylindrical shapes with complex “cells of plasma” (“bubbles of gas” in the conventional lexicon). Images that appear circularly symmetrical are interpreted as “down the axis” views. In the EU, “supernova remnant” and “planetary nebula” are synonyms, varying primarily in their energy. “Remnant” is a necessary adjunct to the theoretically prior “supernova explosions that destroy massive stars.” The assumption that gravity is the only force and mass is the only property of interest dictates that only words associated with ballistics and inertia can be used. Material apparently rushing away from a central location can only be the result of an explosion that gave the mass an impulsive force against gravity. “Exploding double layer” (DL) are the words of choice for EU. The assumption that stars are formed and powered by external electrical forces dictates that words associated with instabilities in “Birkeland currents” be used. Especially relevant are those describing the interruption and expansion of current loops. Supernovae are the result of a surge in the star’s supply circuit that catastrophically expands a star-wide DL. It’s a global instance of what in the consensus lexicon is called a coronal mass ejection (CME). Since electromagnetic forces are many orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force, the words “gravity” and “mass” are of little significance in EU. Since the current loops respond to the electromagnetic forces at each moment and location, the glossary of ballistics and inertia are seldom consulted. The p.r. doesn’t mention the separation of the material into strands. Strands are a minor feature in the consensus view and are the result of inhomogeneities in the “shock wave” from the explosion. Such strands are “filaments” in EU, which is an important word. An EU p.r. would likely remark first on that aspect of the image. The “Bennett” or “z-pinch” effect will separate the expanding material—actually “current carriers”—into several narrow channels. The (electrically powered) acceleration of the star-wide DL, as well as the acceleration of charge carriers across the high electrical field of the DL, generate high velocities that mimic many of the effects of inertial shock waves. The p.r. omits mention of the “braiding” in many filaments, especially in those along the axis. But other consensus accounts attribute it to “twisted magnetic field lines” that are “anchored” to “neutron stars” or “black holes.” Such an assertion is an antinomy in consensus theory: field “lines” are a pedagogical visualization device, similar to contour lines or lines of latitude. Magnetic fields are by definition continuous and closed. The imaginary lines cannot be anchored or twisted any more than they can be broken and reconnected. In EU, braiding of Birkeland currents is a natural result of the electromagnetic forces in them that generate long-range attraction and short-range repulsion. The “right-hand rule” that describes the relation of magnetic field direction to the current that generates it requires two close currents to spiral around each other. The p.r. does mention “neutron stars” and “black holes” as causes for the high-energy radiation that’s detected. They are artifacts of the “gravity only” assumption: When observers find that more energy is radiated than can be accounted for by the natural processes of gravitational attraction, they must invent supernatural concentrations of the gravitational force, which means super-mass and infinite density of matter. This is easily accomplished with a stroke of “mystical math” [in EU terms] that is unmoored from any empirical anchor. The high energy is easily accounted for in EU because an exploding DL will draw in the energy of the entire circuit. It acts as a short in the circuit or breakdown in the current, much like a stroke of lightning. Significantly, the light-curves of supernovae mimic that of lightning: a sudden increase with exponential fading. So which lexicon is to be preferred? Are they simply equal but different lexicons (“incommensurable” in Kuhn’s lexicon)? To compare the two is to compare apples with oranges: an established well-developed theory (with anomalies, patches, and antinomies) stands against a barely articulated one with little more than promises of fruitfulness. There is no “meta-scientific” ground for comparison. This would seem to be a position of relativism. But there is an extra-scientific ground, a ground that keeps evolving: The consensus theory grew from the environment of mechanical technology and our biological senses. That environment has changed: Modern technology sends space probes with electronic sensors around the planets and into interstellar space; it expands our senses to include radio and x-ray “vision”; it has made us aware that the universe is composed of plasma. And it does so with the new knowledge of electricity. Problems in outer space turn out to be problems in inner space, in the space of our lexicons. In the 1969 postscript to his 1962 essay, Kuhn remarked, “Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied. That is not a relativist’s position….” I absolutely prefer a lexicon of promises. Mel Acheson



#2 of 27 BrianW

BrianW

    Screenwriter

  • 2,552 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted February 20 2013 - 08:41 AM

Okay, I'll bite, though I suspect I'll regret it later.

So which lexicon is to be preferred? Are they simply equal but different lexicons (“incommensurable” in Kuhn’s lexicon)? To compare the two is to compare apples with oranges: an established well-developed theory (with anomalies, patches, and antinomies) stands against a barely articulated one with little more than promises of fruitfulness. There is no “meta-scientific” ground for comparison. This would seem to be a position of relativism.

I know the point is made later to suggest a preference for EU, and that the two positions are not actually equivalent, but insinuating that matters of science are subject to such relativism is a bit insulting. If that's the case, you might as well assert that science is no better or worse than ancient Greek and Roman mythology in explaining nature. (The sun rises and sets because it is carried on Apollo's chariot -- as good a scientific theory as any, given absence of empirical data at the time.) There's more to science than "He Said / She Said". Science is more than just observing a new phenomenon of nature and coming up with an explanation that "feels the most right". It's not a democratic process, and it must be utterly and completely severed from our instinct, our intuition, and any "gut feeling" we might bring to the process.

The p.r. does mention “neutron stars” and “black holes” as causes for the high-energy radiation that’s detected. They are artifacts of the “gravity only” assumption: When observers find that more energy is radiated than can be accounted for by the natural processes of gravitational attraction, they must invent supernatural concentrations of the gravitational force, which means super-mass and infinite density of matter. This is easily accomplished with a stroke of “mystical math” [in EU terms] that is unmoored from any empirical anchor.

(Emphasis is mine.) This is wrong on two counts: 1. Neutron stars and black holes were absolutely NOT invented to explain high-energy radiation observed in the cosmos. They were unexpectedly predicted by the mathematics of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity well before we had the ability to make such observations. At the time, scientists thought both were too outlandish to exist, and that the theory must be wrong to allow such anomalies. As you pointed out yourself in another thread, Einstein himself rejected the notion that our universe could support the existence of black holes (though he did warm to neutron stars fairly quickly). Only in subsequent observations of the cosmos did we see evidence of their existence. Scientists absolutely did NOT apply a "stroke of 'mystical math'" in order to produce an end result, namely neutron stars and black holes. Rather, they took equations developed to describe the behavior of space-time, and neutron stars and black holes unexpectedly dropped out into their laps. 2. Asserting that the math that leads to the prediction of neutron stars and black holes is "unmoored from any empirical anchor" is simply wrong. The math supporting General Relativity (which originally predicted neutron stars and black holes) has been vindicated empirically at every opportunity. As long as EU theory continues to reject the math that underlies physics, it is truly little more than ancient Greek mythology in its attempt to explain nature, but without the thundering gods. But that's not even the worst of it. The worst part is the author's obvious bias to accept notions that simply "feel right" over notions that arise from "mystical math". Real scientists are keenly aware of the degree to which our intuition can and will mislead us. That's why the Scientific Method exists. The Standard Model, originally set forth to explain known particles and their behavior, kept (mathematically, of all things) predicting the existence of more and more particles, each more ridiculous and outlandish than the previous. Intuition told scientists of the day that the universe couldn't accommodate so many particles, and that they were "mere artifacts" of the theory to be ignored. Today, almost all of the particles predicted by the Standard Model have been discovered empirically, including the supremely exotic Higgs boson. Mr. Acheson reveals his bias for intuition over math in the way he refers to "supernatural" concentrations of gravitational force and infinite density of matter, as if to suggest that such a thing should be rejected out of hand for its ridiculousness. His preference for a lexicon of promises is guided -- mistakenly -- by his bias for what he feels must be the way the universe works. He says he prefers a lexicon of promises, but the promises he embraces are empty as long as he continues to believe that physics and math can be extricated from one another. I prefer to go where the data leads. I'll embrace the math over intuition any day.
-Brian
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#3 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 20 2013 - 10:06 AM

Your response is well taken; nevertheless, Mr. Acheson's article isn't easy reading. Let me address a single point: "Magnetic reconnection", which is referenced in the essay. Can one not say the Longitudinal reconnection is causing climate change? Perhaps I'll regret stating that but one should consider the below peer reviewed paper. Perhaps mathematically it's an impeccable idea; the physics is invalid. See here: http://www.thunderbo...g_the_wheel.htm

Alfvén ridiculed this explanation by saying, "“A magnetic field line is by definition a line which is everywhere parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system changes, the shape of the magnetic field line changes but it is meaningless to speak about a translational movement of magnetic field lines.”" - Alfvén, op cit, p.12.(Emphasis in original) Despite his warnings about this, astrophysicists persist in the notion that moving and interacting magnetic field lines – independent of any electrical current causality – produce the release of energy and plasma during solar flares. They have named this process ‘ reconnection’. The standard explanation of reconnection is that magnetic field lines move and eventually come together (‘short-circuit’) at some point. There they change their structure (reconnect) and move apart. But magnetic field lines as such cannot move or touch each other. A compounding error is made in assuming that plasma is ‘attached’ to those lines and will be bulk transported by this movement of the lines. So in coming up with this novel hypothesis they have reinvented the wheel. But not only is this hypothesis an unnecessary ‘reinvention’, it is based on erroneous concepts and has no clarifying value.

http://electric-cosm...ott-Aug2007.pdf See also here: https://sites.google...ic-reconnection Mathematics is a tool, a means to an end. But thank you for your thoughtful remarks. :)

#4 of 27 BrianW

BrianW

    Screenwriter

  • 2,552 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted February 21 2013 - 01:52 AM

I agree that math is a tool to be used to achieve an end, but I don't see the point of its use if it isn't trusted. I wanted to address your initial discussion of magnetic field lines, but I declined in order to focus on my primary point. However, you and your ilk have characterized "traditional" scientists as believing that magnetic field lines actually exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Field lines are simply a tool useful both for visualization and as a basis for mathematical analysis. This is an inference on my part since you don't state it explicitly, but you seem to believe that because magnetic fields and electric currents are inextricably linked, there must somehow be an electric current at every point in space a magnetic field can be detected. I also infer this from this quote:

The “right-hand rule” that describes the relation of magnetic field direction to the current that generates it requires two close currents to spiral around each other.

This just isn't the case. Electric currents give rise to magnetic fields that extend way beyond the location of the actual electrical current, just as gravitational fields extend way beyond the mass that gives rise to them. The Right-Hand Rule is just a tool to help determine field direction, and an arbitrary one at that. It's not meant to depict actual helical currents that wrap around field lines. (We could have just as easily selected the left hand and reversed the convention.) There is no electrical current spiraling around magnetic field lines. As for the person you cited who was banned from making modifications to a Wikipedia page, I'm not sure what your point was. He vandalized the page by adding his own non-peer-reviewed opinion on the matter, then accused the curators of vandalism when they removed it. He called the primary contributors liars and confesses to antagonistic behavior. Honestly, I don't know what else could have been done with him but to ban him. I'm all for avoiding scientific censorship, but we also can't open our textbooks to every crank with a pet junk-science theory to promote. (Hypothetically speaking.) Also, all this talk about not reinventing the wheel is in sharp contrast to what EU actually does.

The (electrically powered) acceleration of the star-wide DL, as well as the acceleration of charge carriers across the high electrical field of the DL, generate high velocities that mimic many of the effects of inertial shock waves.

Or it could just be an inertial shock wave. Why reinvent the wheel?
-Brian
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#5 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 21 2013 - 10:22 AM

I agree that math is a tool to be used to achieve an end, but I don't see the point of its use if it isn't trusted. I wanted to address your initial discussion of magnetic field lines, but I declined in order to focus on my primary point. However, you and your ilk have characterized "traditional" scientists as believing that magnetic field lines actually exist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Field lines are simply a tool useful both for visualization and as a basis for mathematical analysis. This is an inference on my part since you don't state it explicitly, but you seem to believe that because magnetic fields and electric currents are inextricably linked, there must somehow be an electric current at every point in space a magnetic field can be detected. I also infer this from this quote: This just isn't the case. Electric currents give rise to magnetic fields that extend way beyond the location of the actual electrical current, just as gravitational fields extend way beyond the mass that gives rise to them. The Right-Hand Rule is just a tool to help determine field direction, and an arbitrary one at that. It's not meant to depict actual helical currents that wrap around field lines. (We could have just as easily selected the left hand and reversed the convention.) There is no electrical current spiraling around magnetic field lines. As for the person you cited who was banned from making modifications to a Wikipedia page, I'm not sure what your point was. He vandalized the page by adding his own non-peer-reviewed opinion on the matter, then accused the curators of vandalism when they removed it. He called the primary contributors liars and confesses to antagonistic behavior. Honestly, I don't know what else could have been done with him but to ban him. I'm all for avoiding scientific censorship, but we also can't open our textbooks to every crank with a pet junk-science theory to promote. (Hypothetically speaking.) Also, all this talk about not reinventing the wheel is in sharp contrast to what EU actually does. Or it could just be an inertial shock wave. Why reinvent the wheel?

Ilk...am I? Brian, I'm glad you enjoy South Park; however, we have mutually exclusive views, that are simply incompatible. We can agree not to agree. And actually I didn't read the soap opera with the Wikipedia, I did find the discussion on the topic interesting but you don't address Don Scott's published paper. Readers who are happy having faith that once upon a time there was nothing, then it exploded, but somehow black holes that don't just suck they blow are at the center of every galaxy -- all these silly, I think, ideas, are free to believe and have faith. I don't believe EU theory will be the penultimate explanation. However, I believe there is electricity in space and the concepts provided, as Mel discussed, are superior explanations. Here's a recent post: http://www.thunderbo.../jet-streams-2/

As the theories suggest, black holes possess a gravitational attraction of such intensity that not even electromagnetic radiation can escape the event horizon. Thus, no direct evidence of a black hole’s existence can be measured, only the hypothetical effects of the extreme gravity. Such effects are said to be gamma rays, X-rays and extreme ultraviolet radiation from the gases and dust as they are compressed into smaller and smaller spaces before being drawn down into oblivion. Explaining the jets of ionized particles often seen erupting from various galaxies and quasars ranks as one of the most difficult tasks facing modern astronomers. What force can create highly energetic particle emissions that span distances measured in light-years? What confines them into narrow beams?The prevailing theory of “compacted gravitational point sources” exciting gas and dust as they orbit does not address the existence of collimated jets. There is only one force that can hold such a matter stream together over those distances: magnetism. The only way to generate that magnetic confinement is through electricity flowing through space. In the past, astronomers observed coherent filaments from galaxies like M87, which extend for thousands of light-years. Charged particles within the filaments are thought to exceed velocities of 500 kilometers per second... Axial electric currents should be flowing along the jet’s entire length. Only electric fields can accelerate charged particles across space. In previous Picture of the Day articles, we have taken issue with the very idea of black holes and the indirect “evidence” for them that has been presented by the scientific community. Any substance hot enough to emit gamma rays is not a gas but is ionized plasma. What the Harvard-Smithsonian scientists fail to realize is that the gamma rays they are seeing are synchrotron radiation and not the incandescent glow of hot gas. The gamma rays, as well as X-rays and ultraviolet light, are due to electrons spiraling along helical magnetic fields. The black holes whose effects are supposed to be influencing time and space throughout the Universe are convenient ways to explain away the amazing forces of electric currents permeating space.

http://www.thunderbo...t-isnt-there-2/ And here's a video: In The Paradigm Shift Dilemma By Nelson Hultberg, he points out:

Egoism of the Intellectuals This egoistic flaw in human nature doesn't just afflict the general public. It also afflicts that body of humans called "intellectuals." Human nature is such that it compels many scholars to also fight against challenges refuting their accustomed way of thinking. Scientists, who have spent years of their lives in support of a certain paradigm, will forsake all the pledges of objectivity that comprise their creed to vehemently fight against a new paradigm that clearly presents a more rational perspective. Truth, the most highly prized goal of all, is forsaken to protect personal egos and previous convictions. This flaw exists in layman and intellect alike. A good example of how this flaw stifles social progress was the predicament of the communists in the Soviet Union throughout most of their twentieth century reign. By 1950, history's verdict was in. State socialism was a morbid, tyrannical and unworkable philosophy of social organization. It decimated the human spirit. It was living death. Yet the intellectual authorities of the communist bloc shut their eyes to these unwelcome facts of reality and marched imperviously on for four more decades shoring up their sham with lies, sophistries and doctored statistics.

http://thedailybell....m-Shift-Dilemma Cheers!

#6 of 27 BrianW

BrianW

    Screenwriter

  • 2,552 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted February 22 2013 - 02:44 PM

From the article in your first link:

In fact, according to the same scientists, nothing, including light, can even leave the black hole. But there is already a serious problem with these claims. If the escape velocity of a black hole is that of light in vacuum, then light, on the one hand, can escape. On the other hand, light is allegedly not able to even leave the black hole; so the black hole has no escape velocity.

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. What Mr. Crothers says of black holes here can be said of the escape velocity of Earth, or any object with a gravity field strong enough to be measured. (Will a rock traveling at Earth's escape velocity escape Earth's grasp? Or won't it?) He's unable to do a proper (and very simple) boundary condition analysis, and he mistakes his analytic failure as a reason to reject the existence of black holes. The entire article is rife with this kind of error. On another note, I'm very sorry that you've decided to play the Intellectual Egoism card. At no time in this discussion have I cited my own or anyone else's intellect as an authority that should be heeded. All along the way, I've cited the Scientific Method and mathematical analysis as my authority. It is these two tools (and I say this very emphatically) that prevent intellectualism from influencing the progress of science -- just one of many things that separates science from, say, Communism. Also, I would add that it does not logically follow that someone making the claim of having his theory excluded from traditional regard on the basis of elitism, necessarily has a theory worth regarding.
-Brian
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#7 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 24 2013 - 07:40 AM

Questions Concerning Schwarzschild's Solution of Einstein's Equations J.Dunning-Davies (Submitted on 11 Mar 2005) Now that an English translation of Schwarzschild's original work exists, that work has become accessible to more people. Here his original solution to the Einstein field equations is examined and it is noted that it does not contain the mathematical singularity normally associated with the existence of a black hole. Einstein's own views on this subject are considered also and it is seen that, at the very least, grave questions exist over the possible existence of these somewhat esoteric stellar objects.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503095

A fresh look at some questions surrounding black holes M. Anyon, J. Dunning-Davies (Submitted on 6 Jun 2008) The modern notion of a black hole singularity is considered with reference to the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equations of general relativity. A brief derivation of both the original and the modern line elements is given. The argument is put forward that the singularity occurring within the Schwarzschild line element that has been associated with the radius of the black hole event horizon is, in fact, merely a mathematical occurrence and does not exist physically. The real aim here, however, is to attempt to open up the whole problem, draw some conclusions, but finally to urge everyone to consider the points raised with no preconceived opinions and then come to their own final conclusion.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1176

#8 of 27 Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor

  • 9,375 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted February 26 2013 - 05:14 AM

This is the first of five posts devoted to providing a more professional peer-review of the "Special Issue" of the Bentham Open Astronomy Journal (BOAJ) devoted to Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe (PC/EU) [edited by Jeremy Dunning-Davies]. While BOAJ claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, we'll see in the upcoming posts that the quality of the peer-review process for this issue was very questionable. Each of the articles exposed in these reviews exhibit many fundamental errors in physics (especially electromagnetism) and astronomy. Many of the unchallenged mistakes are at levels which could be identified by an undergraduate physics student or possibly even a competent EE undergraduate.

http://dealingwithcr...w-exercise.html
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

#9 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 26 2013 - 10:36 AM

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/05/electric-universe-peer-review-exercise.html

See: Scott's Reply to Tom Bridgman: http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf EXCERPT:

When I first heard about Dr. Tom Bridgman’s 48-page onslaught against me and the material I present in my book, The Electric Sky (TES), I thought I would simply ignore him. But friends I admire and trust have repeatedly implored me to take up my pen so that the casual reader of his criticisms will not assume I accept them. These following paragraphs are not a comprehensive dissection of each and every allegation he made. They are simply my reaction to what stood out as being most outrageously inaccurate, and uninformed... MORE LIKE CREATIONISM THAN I EXPECTED [p. 44] TB seems to take offense at the degree to which I talk about plasma when it is in the dark current mode of operation (Earth’s ionosphere for example, or the outer interplanetary plasma, etc.). He states, “...much of Scott’s model hides connections behind ‘invisible’ dark currents. These ‘Dark Currents’ seem to fulfill in Scott’s ‘theology’ the role of God in creationist claims as a form of invisible agent.” I submit this comment, coming from a staunch supporter of Fairie Dust entities such as Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Neutron Stars, is the epitome of hypocrisy. In his zeal to play Citizen Robespierre to anything that challenges his belief structure, he seems to see the Ghost of Creationism lurking everywhere even when it is clearly not. Does he feel no unease that it was Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, who was one of the inventors of his beloved Big Bang Myth? It is well known that one of the early general appeals of the BB was that it bridged the gap between ‘science’ and ‘faith’. When the big bang theory was first heralded, Pope Pius XII wrote, “Scientists are beginning to find the finger of God in the creation of the universe”. On p 28 of TES I said: Alfvén commented on Lemaître’s proposal: “The appeal of the Big Bang has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world – what perfect principles must have been used.” It is not the purpose of this book to denigrate the Almighty. We simply contend that we do not need a spiritual argument to explain the sky. It’s not that supernatural. The real cosmos is not invisible, immeasurable, or unknowable. We simply must use our eyes, our brains, and the work product of the last hundred years of serious electrical science. If we do so, we shall see through the mystifying fog. After reading those paragraphs, TB’s describing my work, as being a ‘theology’, is a low blow. Gratuitous comments such as this are an indication that his urge to attack me has overcome his reason. It is modern astrophysics that Demands its followers ‘believe’ in unseen, immeasurable entities such as WIMPS, MACHOs, Dark Matter, and Inflatons as a matter of ‘faith’ without proof. The reification of abstractions such as point - masses, magnetic field lines, and mathematical singularities into real entities that can have an effect on matter in real space are classic theological transmogrifications – miracles. If TB wants to see a supporter of this species of Creationism, he can simply look in a mirror.

& http://www.sjcrother...m/Bridgman.html Excerpt:

W. T. "Tom" Bridgman claims to be an astronomer, who owns and maintains a website where he, as a Defender of the Realm, with its black holes, big bangs, Einstein gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy, and dark forces, disparages and ridicules people he sees as enemies of proponents of the current dogmas in astronomy and astrophysics. He has clearly revealed that he is not at all interested in true scientific discourse. For this reason it is doubtful that Bridgman will ever contribute anything original to science. Perhaps that is why he instead regurgitates the usual dogmas and attacks people who think for themselves. Here is Bridgman's brief description of himself: W.T."Tom" Bridgman Maryland, United States I obtained my doctorate in physics and astronomy in 1994. I currently work in scientific data visualization for the media and public outreach. Now Bridgman has demonstrated a proclivity to censor from his webpages arguments and comments which he does not like. Even though he owns and maintains the said website, he invites scientific discussion, and so gives all and sundry the real expectation that scientific arguments will not be suppressed in any way by him. But it seems he frequently withholds that which he finds embarrassing for himself and the Standard Modellers. Bridgman has taken it upon himself to attack me and my work, and with that aim he has posted to his website a rather pathetic set of comments, which can be found here: http://dealingwithcr...y.blogspot.com/ I prepared a reply to Bridgman and posted a link to it on his webpage. Here is my response to Bridgman: www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/bridgman.pdf Bridgman subsequently decided to open a blog dedicated solely to vilification of me and my work. He then posted a number of my replies, the contents of which he and one J. Sharples ignored. Bridgman did not like what I had to say and soon stated that he would not post anything further from me unless it complied with his restrictive dictatorial terms. I quote him: "Since this is my blog and not your forum, your next comment here better include a demonstration (preferably a link) of the experimental implications of your claims, including why it works so well in precision timing applications, or I will reject it.". He did not however impose any restrictions upon the posts by Sharples. Before receiving his ignoble censorial note I had prepared this reply to Sharples and Bridgman, a reply that would be withheld, by Bridgman's own admission. In it I provided Bridgman and Sharples with a simple recipe to prove me a mug and themselves smarter than the average bear. Here is the simple recipe:

1) Provide a proof that Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence' and his 'laws' of Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter; namely, the empty spacetime described by Ric = Rμν = 0. 2) Provide a proof that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is NOT a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.

Sharples posted to Bridgman's site an attempt to fulfil the recipe above. Even a cursory reading of Sharples' attempt reveals that he does not actually address the recipe. Despite his plaintive cries the fact remains that it is impossible for matter to be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter; and Ric = 0 is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Sharples also evades the issue of the invalidity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor. This is not surprising either, because it is easily proven that the pseudo-tensor is indeed a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. By contracting the pseudo-tensor one obtains a first-order intrinsic differential invariant, i.e. an invariant that depends solely upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives. But the pure mathematicians, G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus, proved, in 1900, that such invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. It is noteworthy that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is involved in the theory of Einstein gravitational waves, and other things besides. Since the pseudo-tensor is invalid so is all that depends upon it. It does not matter what Sharples and Bridgman plead because these facts cannot be circumvented. There is another upshot to this, which is developed in a number of my papers; namely, that Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and so are in conflict with experiment at a deep level. So much so for Bridgman's demand that I adduce physical evidence. Bridgman, who claims a PhD in physics and astronomy, has admitted that until he read my papers he was entirely ignorant of the fact that the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not even Schwarzschild's solution. I remark that Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes! Although Bridgman did eventually post a link to a paper I wrote in reply to Sharples' initial criticisms of my work, neither he nor Sharples paid any heed to its contents. I remark that in his published criticism of my work Sharples misrepresents me in places by constructing the proverbial straw men, and thereby claims that I am wrong. That is of course unscientific method. But is has become apparent from the literature that this unscientific method is a common one amongst the defenders of the black hole, Einstein gravitational waves, and Big Bang nonsense. It is also clear from the comments of Sharples and Bridgman they are entirely ignorant of what r in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" actually denotes: but this they have in common with all black holers and big bangers. The irrefutable geometric fact is that the said r is not even a distance, let alone a radial one, in the manifold described by the so-called "Schwarzschild solution", and thereby completely invalidates all claims that General Relativity 'predicts' black holes. Two Russian specialists in General Relativity acknowledged the validity of my proof that General Relativity does not predict black holes. Their published paper is here. http://www.ptep-onli...08/PP-12-18.PDF Concerning the observational aspects of the Big Bang fantasy I refer the reader to this paper which was published in the technology magazine, Electronics World. The magazine's online copy of my paper is here. This paper shows conclusively that the cosmologists have deliberately cooked the books, and so the Big Bang cosmology is also a dead duck. The WMAP, COBE and Planck satellites are nothing but very expensive space junk. The relativists no longer have any legs to stand on. Theirs is an exercise in futility which has cost the public purse astronomical sums of money, all down the drain.



#10 of 27 Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor

  • 9,375 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted February 27 2013 - 08:01 AM

Yes, ignore all physics research in favor of "electrical science." All of modern cosmology is conclusively debunked by an article in an obscure electronics magazine. Here's the NY Times on the "researcher" cited in the Crothers article: http://www.nytimes.c...e-big-bang.html

Colleagues describe Dr. Robitaille as a biomedical researcher whose credentials were unquestioned until two years ago, when he drifted outside his field and began proposing radical revisions to some basic laws of physics. About that time, Dr. Spigos said, Dr. Robitaille resigned as director of magnetic resonance imaging research there. ''At this time,'' Dr. Spigos said, ''there was this controversy between him and the scientific community'' over the physics theories. ''And I believe that they are outside the realm of his expertise.'' On a purely scientific level, the theories appear to be harmlessly if totally incorrect, said Dr. Andrew Gould, an astronomy professor at Ohio State. Dr. Robitaille speculates that satellite measurements of a kind of afterglow of the Big Bang, the great explosion in which most scientists say they believe that the universe was born, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans. He also says the Sun is a turbulent liquid, not the placid ball of gas that scientists have understood it to be for at least a century. Dr. Gould said that because cosmological satellites carefully blocked light from Earth and because the liquid theory was unsupported by observations, including ''seismic'' vibrations that serve as probes of the Sun's structure, the theories were untenable. ''It's completely wrong,'' he said.

Comedy gold!
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

#11 of 27 Joseph DeMartino

Joseph DeMartino

    Lead Actor

  • 8,301 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Joseph DeMartino
  • LocationFlorida

Posted February 27 2013 - 09:18 AM

This egoistic flaw in human nature doesn't just afflict the general public

Speaking of lexicons, somebody needs to learn the difference between "egoism" and "egotism". :)

#12 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 27 2013 - 10:17 AM

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/05/electric-universe-peer-review-exercise.html

Open Astronomy Journal's Special Issue was simply to introduce people to the fact that alternative ideas existed regarding many astronomical/cosmological topics. The alternative ideas attempt to explain astronomical/cosmological phenomena especially those unexplained by conventional theory. Part of the purpose was to open up a truly open minded debate where ALL views are heard. After all, some conventionally accepted explanations are wrong (specifically, the accepted black hole entropy expression) and, in other cases, conventional theory is simply unable to offer an explanation. Note also the generality of the accusations posted here. If any of the readers here have genuine scientific points to make, including Mr. Silverman, then make them specific so that sensible debate can ensue and sensible answers be produced. In fact, if any readers have genuine scientific objections, write them up as real scientific papers and submit them to a journal; I'm sure the Open Astronomy Journal for one would view such submissions sympathetically. Submission guidelines are here. http://www.benthamsc...oaaj/MSandI.htm

Instructions for Authors The Open Astronomy Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes Research articles, Letters and Reviews in the field of astronomy, aiming at providing the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in the field.

And a recent article here: http://www.benthamsc...AJ/191TOAAJ.pdf Home page here: http://www.benthamsc...toaaj/index.htm Cheers! :)

#13 of 27 BrianW

BrianW

    Screenwriter

  • 2,552 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted February 28 2013 - 12:41 AM

Part of the purpose was to open up a truly open minded debate where ALL views are heard. After all, some conventionally accepted explanations are wrong

OW! My IRONY GLAND!

If any of the readers here have genuine scientific points to make, including Mr. Silverman, then make them specific so that sensible debate can ensue and sensible answers be produced.

Again, this is ironic (or just plain disingenuous) since you were the first in the discussion to abandon scientific discourse and fall back to your position of last resort by playing the "Intellectual Egoism" card.

In fact, if any readers have genuine scientific objections, write them up as real scientific papers and submit them to a journal;

If you think anyone here is going to submit a paper to a scientific journal, then you are on the wrong forum. If, on the other hand, you are well aware that nobody here has any intention of submitting a scientific paper to a peer-reviewed journal, and you're trying to leverage that knowledge to make people on this forum feel like they aren't entitled to discuss cosmology or to challenge your ideas, then I call bullshit. Either discuss the science, or don't. Your transparent attempts to manipulate us into submission won't gain any traction here.
-Brian
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#14 of 27 Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Moderator

  • 15,610 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted February 28 2013 - 04:18 AM

Brian, you have my support completely. But as I said on a similar thread (and really, do we need to have 30 different threads for the pseudo-science to be spread around in?) there is no way this is going to end well. You can't argue with people who believe in this bunk because their logic runs in circles and is powered by faith and a need to feel special because they believe in something controversial...

"Sam, you are the biggest nutter we have here."

Blog: Navesink.net - My Flickr Stream - Dolby Atmos Discussion Thread - Updates at Twitter - Join the HTF Flickr Pool


#15 of 27 Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor

  • 9,375 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted February 28 2013 - 06:32 AM

I lost all respect for the Open Astronomy Journal when they rejected my meticulously researched paper on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. James, if you'd read the page that I linked (not to mention the actual astronomer in the NY Times article that I quoted above), you would have found a lengthy series of genuine, scientific debunkings of the claims made by the EU crew.
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

#16 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 28 2013 - 10:27 AM

I lost all respect for the Open Astronomy Journal when they rejected my meticulously researched paper on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. James, if you'd read the page that I linked (not to mention the actual astronomer in the NY Times article that I quoted above), you would have found a lengthy series of genuine, scientific debunkings of the claims made by the EU crew.

I posted links to the highly technical refutations of Bridgeman by both Crothers and Scott. If there has been a credible challenge to Crothers mathematics and his response and the same for Scott, I've no knowledge of it. The fact remains that:

Bridgman, who claims a PhD in physics and astronomy, has admitted that until he read my papers he was entirely ignorant of the fact that the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not even Schwarzschild's solution. I remark that Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes!

Read the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030

Submitted on 12 May 1999) Translation by S. Antoci and A. Loinger of the fundamental memoir, that contains the ORIGINAL form of the solution of Schwarzschild's problem. The solution is regular in the whole space-time, with the only exception of the origin of the spatial co-ordinates; consequently, it leaves no room for the science fiction of the black holes. (In the centuries of the decline of the Roman Empire people said: ``Graecum est, non legitur''...)

http://arxiv.org/pdf...s/9905030v1.pdf I see no credible challenge posted here other than for whatever reasons, the theories presented challenge your beliefs, faith, aesthetic preferences, livelihood, whatever. And I'm entirely fine with that. But I disagree with your contention; there is electricity in space, there is plasma, not "hot gas". See also: http://bigbangneverh...ed.org/wiki.htm http://bigbangneverh...ned.org/p13.htm

But Alfvén’s most significant contribution to science is his daring reformulation of cosmology, his critique of the Big Bang, and his posing of an alternative, the plasma universe—an evolving universe without beginning or end. To Alfvén, the most critical difference between his approach and that of the Big Bang cosmologists was one of method. "When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical and the empirical scientific approach," he explained. "In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world, what perfect principle must have been used." This, he said, is the method of conventional cosmology today: to begin from a mathematical theory, to deduce from that theory how the universe must have begun, and to work forward from the beginning to the present-day cosmos. The Big Bang fails scientifically because it seeks to derive the present, historically formed universe from a hypothetical perfection in the past. All the contradictions with observation stem from this fundamental flaw... According to Alfvén, the evolution of the universe in the past must be explicable in terms of the processes occurring in the universe today; events occurring in the depths of space can be explained in terms of phenomena we study in the laboratory on earth. Such an approach rules out such concepts as an origin of the universe out of nothingness, a beginning to time, or a Big Bang. Since nowhere do we see something emerge from nothing, we have no reason to think this occurred in the distant past. Instead, plasma cosmology assumes that, because we now see an evolving, changing universe, the universe has always existed and always evolved, and will exist and evolve for an infinite time to come... Since the universe is overwhelmingly made up of plasma, Alfvén reasoned that plasma phenomena, the phenomena of electricity and magnetism, not just gravity, must be dominant in shaping the evolution of the universe. He demonstrated in concrete theories how vast currents and magnetic fields shaped the solar system and the galaxies. As space-based telescopes and sensors revealed this plasma universe, ideas that he pioneered became more and more accepted. Yet even today, his broadest conceptions of cosmology remain those of a controversial minority. But his idea of an infinite, evolving universe is the only one that corresponds to what we know of evolution on the physical, biological and social level... Alfvén was recognised for his contributions to the foundation of plasma physics by being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. But his broadest contributions to cosmology and to the human view of our universe are not yet fully appreciated, since they still conflict with the dominant orthodoxy of the Big Bang and the mathematical-mythological approach to cosmology. In time, however, Alfvén will be viewed as the Galileo of the late twentieth century. Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville, New Jersey, 8th May 1995



#17 of 27 BrianW

BrianW

    Screenwriter

  • 2,552 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted February 28 2013 - 01:56 PM

Thanks, Sam, but I'm going in for another go. If I tug on the rope three times, pull me out. Posting links to articles without any discussion isn't really a discussion, now is it?

I posted links to the highly technical refutations of Bridgeman by both Crothers and Scott.

I beg to differ. Dr. Bridgeman raised legitimate questions about (just one example) what drives and maintains the charge separation that is necessary to power this electric universe of yours. This (among many others) is a valid scientific question that needs to be answered before EU can be taken seriously. The rebuttals you referenced, instead of addressing these technical shortcomings, focused on claims of censorship, vilification, and other appeals via "victim-mentality" arguments. (Despite what you might think, "reductio ad ubsurdium" is not a scientific principle that strengthens anyone's argument in a technical discussion.) I've brought up the fact that Crothers doesn't seem to grasp that the escape velocity of a black hole is the speed of light only at the event horizon, and that there is no contradiction (as he claims) in what mainstream scientists have said about the ability of light to escape or evade capture. This is such a simple concept that until it's addressed, I can't take anything Crothers says seriously. Scott, instead of relying on actual science, refers to black holes and neutron stars as "fairie dust entities", which is not a technically compelling argument. Until Scott is willing or able to defend his assertions with more than disparagement of mainstream physics, I can't take anything he says seriously, either. Sorry, but the only one here who isn't participating in a scientific discussion is you. (And Scott. And Crothers.)
-Brian
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#18 of 27 JParker

JParker

    Second Unit

  • 309 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2011

Posted February 28 2013 - 03:12 PM

Thanks, Sam, but I'm going in for another go. If I tug on the rope three times, pull me out. Posting links to articles without any discussion isn't really a discussion, now is it? Scott, instead of relying on actual science, refers to black holes and neutron stars as "fairie dust entities", which is not a technically compelling argument. Until Scott is willing or able to defend his assertions with more than disparagement of mainstream physics, I can't take anything he says seriously, either. The rebuttals you referenced, instead of addressing these technical shortcomings, focused on claims of censorship, vilification, and other appeals via "victim-mentality" arguments. (Despite what you might think, "reductio ad ubsurdium" is not a scientific principle that strengthens anyone's argument in a technical discussion.) Sorry, but the only one here who isn't participating in a scientific discussion is you. (And Scott. And Crothers.)

You are responding to an excerpt of Scott's rebuttal, which I quoted, and was not technical; there is nothing of the sort of "victim-mentality" in his 15 pages, that is false. In fact, the entire rebuttal of Bridgeman is technical, you have to read it in its entirety. Both Scott's and Crothers' expertise is superior to mine, and I quote them. I see you do not refute the contention of the original paper by Schwarzschild that "Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes" because you cannot, Q.E.D. From Scott:

PULSARS [On the top of his page 2] TB implies that I have proposed a “radically different model of pulsars”. The notion that pulsar repetition rates are most probably due to an electrical oscillation rather than light house-like massive stars rotating at 60,000 rpm or more is due, not to me, but to other investigators such as Healy & Peratt (see: http://public.lanl.g...yPeratt1995.pdf Those authors begin their (peer reviewed) paper with a review of the history of the discovery of pulsars and the classical theoretical descriptions of their behavior. They (H&P) performed a plasma supported transmission line experiment that duplicated some 17 detailed properties of those observed emissions. I have read their paper, discussed this with Peratt personally, and find much merit in what they say. Postulating this electrical mechanism as an explanation for observed pulsar emissions is far less of a stretch of one’s sense of reality than proposing that an incredibly massive star rotates with the speed of a dentist’s drill. But H&P ’s proposed model is, regrettably, not mine to take credit for. MISREPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT I SAY On his page 4 Bridgman states: “Dr. Scott states that astronomers assume that the physical laws in the distant cosmos are different from those known on Earth (page 7).” What I did say in part was this: “The hypotheses of these plasma scientists on the subjects of solar, stellar, and galactic behavior are careful extrapolations of their demonstrated experimental results and physical principles. They do not involve invisible matter or unseen forces or “new science” – claims that the laws of physics must be different out there in deep space (where we cannot falsify them) from what they are here on Earth.” I have indeed heard arguments that: “Just because something is falsified here on Earth doesn’t mean it can’t happen out in space.” For example see the section of this rebuttal on the impossibility of neutron stars (below). His (TB’s) claim that matter made up solely of neutrons can and does exist out in space despite the fact it cannot here on Earth is a case in point. He also mentions “There are some searches for Dark Matter and Dark energy candidates that are being conducted in Earth laboratories.” I hope I live long enough to see positive results of these searches announced. I doubt I will. NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN SOLAR FLARE The first statement Bridgman makes on this [p.15] is totally false. He claims I try to explain the presence of helium on the Sun by invoking H→He fusion in places like solar flares. A careful reader will see that what I was trying to do was to explain the observed traces of some 68 different elements in solar spectra. How can this happen if the only elements in and on the Sun are hydrogen and helium? I suggested that fusion reactions might be occurring in the z-pinch regions of the double layer that is probably present above the photospheric surface. As a matter of fact, the plasma z-pinch mechanism is one that does hold out some hope of future success in developing a steady state fusion reaction...[See Lerner's Focus Fusion below] MISSING NEUTRINOS TB states that I start my critique of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory report by ‘parsing a sentence’ from that report. He agrees with my conclusion that the sentence makes no logical sense, but weasles that it was for only this experiment9. But this was the experiment that has been ballyhooed as constituting the definitive ‘proof’ that neutrinos ‘have mass and can change flavor.’ This one was the ‘big one’. What TB ignores is that I do start by stating a simple obvious fact, “There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel.” That is what the SNO researchers did and it is a blatant logical error in their experimental procedure. TB’s refusal to attempt to refute this singularly important point and, instead talk about my parsing of a sentence, exposes his ‘critique’ as being nothing more than a defensive smoke screen... THE IMPORTANCE OF IN SITU MEASUREMENTS TB states [p. 5] that I say, “All kinds of claims should be admitted on equal footing.” No, I do not say that at all. There is a big difference between giving a novel proposal due scientific examination (giving it its day in court, so to speak) and blindly elevating it to equal status without examining it. I am not recommending the latter course of action. TB seems unaware of the difference between being open-minded and being empty-headed. It is ironic that TB uses Galileo’s discoveries as an example of how the requirement of experimental testing might have been used against a hypothesis wrongly. Actually it was Galileo who was challenging the prevailing Ptolemaic Earth-centered model of his time. His discovery of four moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus was experimental evidence that falsified the accepted model. The Church held up this philosophical, theoretical, earlier model as being God-given and thus unassailable – it was a sacrilege to try to falsify it or replace it (quite similar to NASA’s – and Bridgman’s – attitude regarding the Big Bang). It is also ironic that Bridgman should object so strongly to my suggestion that, in so many cases in his field, totally erroneous early pronouncements have been corrected only after we have gone there and made close (in situ) observations: e.g., Birkeland being correct and Chapman wrong; Venus being hotter than the melting point of lead; Earth’s emitting radio signals that can only be detected above the ionosphere; plasma (charge separation) in space; etc…. TRUSTING MATHEMATICAL MODELS TB [his p.6] says that I complain about trusting mathematical models. He completely misses my point. I spent almost my entire professional career as an electrical engineer working with mathematical models. I do trust them – up to a point. My warning about them was this: If every time new data comes along we have to add complexity to our model in order to accommodate it, this should be a hint that the model is not robust. It is fundamentally a failure. It is a blob of ‘silly putty’ that is malleable enough to fit any new data. This sort of model is not a proper basis for a hypothesis; it is merely a blank check to claim we understand something when we really do not. I stand by that statement. OBSERVATIONS As I went through Bridgman’s critique and examined his accusations against my work, I checked the actual statements I had made in The Electric Sky. I actively sought out evidence of whether I had been correct or had erred. In just about every case, I found new (at least to me) confirmation of my original statements. In instance after instance Bridgman has said or implied that I have said or implied things that I have not. CONCLUSION Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common. [Sound familiar, Brian? Read the below.] 1. They speak down to their audience using ‘arguments from authority’. 2. They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space. 3. When confronted with ‘in your face evidence’ such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?” 4. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of ‘experts’ does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation. 5. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have. 6. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative. # # # When I met Bridgman at his place of employment - NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD on March 16, 2009, he appeared more personable than his rant (and the addendum he has since issued) would indicate. I got the feeling at that meeting that if we could just sit down and talk about things, some area of agreement and mutual respect might be found. Apparently, from reading what he has written subsequent to this meeting, there is little hope of that.

Doesn't sound like a victim to me; he sounds rather justifiably irritated. 15 pages are here: http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf Lerner's Focus Fusion is here: http://focusfusion.org/ What, are you against viable fusion research because it is from and due to the work a Plasma Cosmologist? Well, fracking has its appeal..

#19 of 27 BrianW

BrianW

    Screenwriter

  • 2,552 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted February 28 2013 - 04:45 PM

I read Crothers' entire paper. Like I said above, it is rife with errors simple enough for a high school physics student to catch. It's bunk. To any extent I mischaracterized Scott's paper, I apologize. I read only as much of that one as I could stand. You're right about these papers not being easy reading, but not for the reasons you think.

Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common. [Sound familiar, Brian? Read the below.] 1. They speak down to their audience using ‘arguments from authority’.

Since you called me out, I'll address your points. The only authority I've cited is the Scientific Method. At no time, ever, have I argued on the basis of any man-made authority. You and your ilk, on the other hand, openly call mainstream scientists liars and conspirators on nothing but the basis of your own intellectual conclusions that black holes (and such) can't possibly exist. The only one here suffering from intellectual egotism is you.

2. They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space.

Scientists (and skeptics) will consider -- and be convinced of -- absolutely anything. All it takes is evidence.

3. When confronted with ‘in your face evidence’ such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove – or at least make you doubt – what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: “Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”

Real scientists know that our eyes (and our intellect, intuition, and gut) do, in fact, lie to us. All the time. Things in nature are not necessarily what they appear to be. Bridgeman noted this several times in his five rebuttals, that EU proponents repeatedly fall victim to the "X looks like Y, so X must be Y" trap. If you're relying on your eyes to that extent, you're not going to get very far in your understanding of nature.

4. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of ‘experts’ does not make them true. Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation.

This is just preposterous. Only a paranoid lunatic would posit that this is the way science is done.

5. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have.

These things are well understood, and significant technological breakthroughs owe their existence to this understanding. You never responded to my criticism that EU proponents seem to think that there is necessarily an electrical current everywhere in space a magnetic field can be detected. Unless you refute or explain that, I will continue to believe that it is EU proponents who don't understand the basic relationship between electricity and magnetism.

6. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

Well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. Again, since you called me out specifically, I assume you lump me in with the vituperative pseudo-skeptics with a monetary interest in some conspiracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not a dime of my income depends on science grants, on professorships, or on convincing others that black holes exist. My only interest in science is in the extent to which it can reveal how the universe works. I'm not sure what ground you expect to gain by insulting the very people you intend to sway. I'm not sure how you expect to be so insulting and maintain that you are the one being talked down to. Do you really think behaving this way helps your cause?
-Brian
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#20 of 27 Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor

  • 9,375 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted March 01 2013 - 03:06 AM

To Alfvén, the most critical difference between his approach and that of the Big Bang cosmologists was one of method. "When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical and the empirical scientific approach," he explained. "In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world, what perfect principle must have been used." This, he said, is the method of conventional cosmology today: to begin from a mathematical theory, to deduce from that theory how the universe must have begun, and to work forward from the beginning to the present-day cosmos. The Big Bang fails scientifically because it seeks to derive the present, historically formed universe from a hypothetical perfection in the past. All the contradictions with observation stem from this fundamental flaw...

When the premise is such obvious nonsense, why should we bother with the rest? If someone told you that the Earth is flat and that he has the equations to back it up, would you take him at his word? (When educated people seriously argued that topic, airplanes were a thousand years in the future.) Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Big Bang Theory knows quite well that the Big Bang is exactly the opposite of what he describes here -- it's an origin hypothesis derived from current observations; not current hypotheses derived from a theoretical origin. It's like claiming that Melissa Rauch could not possibly have looked super hot yesterday because today we observe Bernadette in a frumpy outfit.

According to Alfvén, the evolution of the universe in the past must be explicable in terms of the processes occurring in the universe today; events occurring in the depths of space can be explained in terms of phenomena we study in the laboratory on earth. Such an approach rules out such concepts as an origin of the universe out of nothingness, a beginning to time, or a Big Bang. Since nowhere do we see something emerge from nothing, we have no reason to think this occurred in the distant past. Instead, plasma cosmology assumes that, because we now see an evolving, changing universe, the universe has always existed and always evolved, and will exist and evolve for an infinite time to come...

The Big Bang is not "something emerg[ing] from nothing." A singularity of near-infinite density is, in fact, the very antithesis of "nothing."
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users