ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th June 2016, 07:18 AM   #81
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
UPDATE:

There were some responses to my ISF post, over in la-la-land (a.k.a. Thunderdolts), mostly just more excuses and bleating; it's crystal clear, by now, that a key reason why no EU acolyte has proposed even the sketchiest tests of "EU theory" is that they are, collectively, innumerate. For example, the steady stream of "looks like a duck Birkeland current" comments/images/etc are never followed by even the slightest hint of "here's how to estimate the current, based on the images" (or similar).

On a slightly positive note, there was a suggestion that it's not doing zero-cost astronomical research (based on what-Arp-would-have-given-his-first-born-for, e.g. SDSS, etc) that will test "the EU", but rather reproducing Birkeland's experiments (no, don't laugh; I think the comment was made in all seriousness). Of course, today we know far more about the density, temperature, composition, etc of the IPM (inter-planetary medium), from the solar corona out to 1 au (and beyond) than Birkeland did, so EU fanatics have a far better chance of testing Birkeland's ideas than he did.

So, is there a concrete proposal or two, for what a lab-based, empirical test might be? An outline of how to appropriately scale a terrella, for example, to represent the IPM density gradient? Nope; not even the slightest hint ... (lots of gratuitous "recommendations", of course, that it should be "professionals" who do all this work; EU fans are nothing if not honest about their inability to do any work of this kind, and their lack of intent to ever learn).
Much to my delight, over in fantasy-land, there is, in fact, a proposal for testing!

Originally Posted by Zyxzevn, Jun 22, 2016
Bending of light, due to gravity.

This is one of the most fundamental ideas of General relativity, and all of its evidence that I have seen
has certain flaws. The major problem is that all this evidence is in astronomical objects, and not in
the laboratory. In the laboratory we have only seen shifts in frequency, which might have other causes.

But the bending of light can be tested in the laboratory. We can do it by
placing mirrors opposite of each other and a laser. These mirrors can reflect the
laser beam forth and back for a very long distance. If these mirrors are straight enough,
we will see the acceleration of gravity affecting the beam of light.
Let us assume 2 mirrors 4,000 m apart, and light bouncing about 100,000 times.
If we use c= 300E6 m/s, light will take a 4E8/3E8 = 4/3= 1.3 seconds. (i'll use 1 second instead).
With G=10 m/s², light should fall a distance of 5 meter.

It will even change, depending on the gravity of the sun and the moon.

Difficult?
Maybe, but we have actually done this experiment, with very high accuracy.

It is the LIGO itself.

Nowhere I have seen this falling of light mentioned everywhere...

Maybe, because light does not fall.
OK, so it's not a proposal to test the EU But it does seem to show that at least one EU acolyte can think of doing tests.

On the downside, however, there's a series of comments about some publications of Thornhill and Scott re neutrino production within electric Sun ideas (can't dignify these with word model).

Originally Posted by Thornhill
The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino “flavours” are all generated on the Sun and do not need to “oscillate” on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit.

[...]

In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle.
(source)
Originally Posted by Scott
the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is the z-ping-produced fusion occurring in the double layer (DL)
(source: his book, "The Electric Sky", p106)

Apparently, one particularly zealous EU acolyte thinks that because (some) particle accelerator experiments produce neutrinos, Thornhill's weird ideas have been proven, in controlled lab experiments!

Ditto Scott's, because fusion has been observed in (some) z-pinch experiments.

In a blog post he wrote back in 2013, Tom Bridgman introduced the term "Cafeteria Science" (my bold):

Originally Posted by Bridgman
With [his] main 'proofs' totally discredited, he will be forced to rely even more on cobbling together bits-n-pieces from mainstream solar theory and mangling it into some form he can try to claim is evidence for his model. He's already started this with the revision of his site. Yet, the more of the standard model [he] tries to integrate into his, the less relevant his 'model' becomes. Why?

- Because [he] wants to accept helioseismology results where he thinks it is convenient for his model, but denies the same science where it is inconvenient.

- Because [he] appropriates many graphics generated from simulations of mainstream solar models, not informing the reader that these models are generated using a very different solar structure than advocated by [him]. Changing the composition of the solar plasma changes the particle masses and ionization levels which can dramatically alter the results of these simulations and make them inapplicable.

Scientific results, especially things as well established as solar and stellar physics, is not something where you can pick-and-choose your science as if from a menu.

[He] has never presented a rigorous demonstration that any of the results he has lifted from standard solar theory would even apply in his model.
Once again, a good illustration of the fact that, whatever the EU is, it is not science.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2016, 03:19 PM   #82
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,455
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Ditto Scott's, because fusion has been observed in (some) z-pinch experiments.
This may be Scott's hyperbole (to be charitable).
As far as I can find out there have been no confirmed stellar-type fusion (e.g. using hydrogen) in z-pinch experiments.
There were neutrons detected in a z-pinch experiment (ZETA (fusion reactor)) but then it was found that they also appeared in runs that did not have the conditions needed for fusion.
Looking up 'z-pinch fusion' in SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) gives proposals for enhanced z-pinch apparatus that might give sustainable fusion. Looking up 'z-pinch fusion observations' gives 71 abstracts. There are neutrinos detected from D-D reactions.


Which leads to one of the EU fantasies - that anything we produce in the lab will appear in nature ! So according to EU logic, there must be natural Bose-Einstein condensates, natural super-fluid helium-4, natural z-pinches, etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2016, 03:47 PM   #83
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,455
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Much OK, so it's not a proposal to test the EU
And not even a proposal to test the already tested gravitational bending of light in GR !
The angle of deflection of light by a massive body M = 4GM/rc2

This gives roughly ~10-35 degrees if my math is correct. That is roughly ~1035 meters for a magnitude of a meter deflection. That is a path length of 1019 light years! This is not 4,000,000,000 meters.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 04:34 AM   #84
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And not even a proposal to test the already tested gravitational bending of light in GR !
The angle of deflection of light by a massive body M = 4GM/rc2

This gives roughly ~10-35 degrees if my math is correct. That is roughly ~1035 meters for a magnitude of a meter deflection. That is a path length of 1019 light years! This is not 4,000,000,000 meters.
Indeed.

But credit where it's due: of the tens of thousands of EU zealots, Zyxzevn is in a tiny minority, someone who proposed a test, and one which involves making a calculation.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2016, 05:54 AM   #85
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Indeed.

But credit where it's due: of the tens of thousands of EU zealots, Zyxzevn is in a tiny minority, someone who proposed a test, and one which involves making a calculation.
Over in fairy-tale land, Zyxzevn wrote an interesting comment, in response to the above (it seems that Zyxzevn did/has not actually read the relevant posts here, in full).

A really great start is this (my bold):
Originally Posted by Zyxzevn
The mainstream has a lot of assumptions on certain subjects. From these assumptions,we can do calculations with some mathematical models.

The EU makes other assumptions on certain subjects. The EU can do calculations as well with certain mathematical models,

[...]

From this difference the EU might have found alternatives to models that the mainstream has no good observations for. These are:

1) galaxy rotation speeds. Model: Dark matter. Alternative: Electromagnetism.

[...]

These alternative explanations are simple, and are confirmed in the laboratory.
The EU only needs to extend the laboratory models to the appropriate sizes.
Sounds very promising, no?

However, here is the totality of "the EU" calculations "with certain mathematical models":
Originally Posted by Zyxzevn
And here are all the references to such calculations, cited by Zyxzevn:
Quote:
Huh?

Despite having shown the ability to do a BOTE (even if full of mistakes, and not related to anything in the EU), one that took him (?) no more than hour, Zyxzevn falls back on the tired excuses and whining that suffuses the EU.

Able to do calculations? Yes.

Willing to do so? Apparently.

Don't be shy, Zyxzevn, release your inner scientist!
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2016, 04:49 PM   #86
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Putting 2 and 2 together ...
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
<snip>

In a blog post he wrote back in 2013, Tom Bridgman introduced the term "Cafeteria Science" (my bold):

Originally Posted by Bridgman
With [his] main 'proofs' totally discredited, he will be forced to rely even more on cobbling together bits-n-pieces from mainstream solar theory and mangling it into some form he can try to claim is evidence for his model. He's already started this with the revision of his site. Yet, the more of the standard model [he] tries to integrate into his, the less relevant his 'model' becomes. Why?

- Because [he] wants to accept helioseismology results where he thinks it is convenient for his model, but denies the same science where it is inconvenient.

- Because [he] appropriates many graphics generated from simulations of mainstream solar models, not informing the reader that these models are generated using a very different solar structure than advocated by [him]. Changing the composition of the solar plasma changes the particle masses and ionization levels which can dramatically alter the results of these simulations and make them inapplicable.

Scientific results, especially things as well established as solar and stellar physics, is not something where you can pick-and-choose your science as if from a menu.

[He] has never presented a rigorous demonstration that any of the results he has lifted from standard solar theory would even apply in his model.
Once again, a good illustration of the fact that, whatever the EU is, it is not science.
And applying this ...

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Over in fairy-tale land, Zyxzevn wrote an interesting comment, in response to the above (it seems that Zyxzevn did/has not actually read the relevant posts here, in full).

A really great start is this (my bold):
Originally Posted by Zyxzevn
The mainstream has a lot of assumptions on certain subjects. From these assumptions,we can do calculations with some mathematical models.

The EU makes other assumptions on certain subjects. The EU can do calculations as well with certain mathematical models,

[...]

From this difference the EU might have found alternatives to models that the mainstream has no good observations for. These are:

1) galaxy rotation speeds. Model: Dark matter. Alternative: Electromagnetism.

[...]

These alternative explanations are simple, and are confirmed in the laboratory.
The EU only needs to extend the laboratory models to the appropriate sizes.
Sounds very promising, no?

However, here is the totality of "the EU" calculations "with certain mathematical models":
Quote:
And here are all the references to such calculations, cited by Zyxzevn:

Originally Posted by Zyxzevn
Huh?

Despite having shown the ability to do a BOTE (even if full of mistakes, and not related to anything in the EU), one that took him (?) no more than hour, Zyxzevn falls back on the tired excuses and whining that suffuses the EU.

Able to do calculations? Yes.

Willing to do so? Apparently.

Don't be shy, Zyxzevn, release your inner scientist!
As Zyxzevn seems to have had at least some university education in physics ("I understand both sides of the problem. Walked all the way through the university", and "So as a scientists, I am very happy: we can test different models and learn more science" source: TBF), it's worth asking if he (?) approaches the EU from a Cafeteria Science perspective or not.

Let's see:

Originally Posted by Zyxzevn
The main difference in assumption is: The EU assumes that electromagnetism has much more influence in the universe than mainstream assumes. This is based on the common logic that Plasma is electromagnetically active. Something that we clearly see at the sun.

From this difference the EU might have found alternatives to models that the mainstream has no good observations for. These are:

1) galaxy rotation speeds. Model: Dark matter. Alternative: Electromagnetism.

2) high energetic objects. Model: dark holes. Alternative: Electric systems.

3) variations of redshift. Model: dark energy. Alternative: Influence of interstellar plasma.

Then there are some mainstream models that are clearly wrong:

4) high radiation in solar corona. Model: magnetic reconnection.
Alternative: Electromagnetically active plasma.

5) Corona of Comets. Model: Icy comets with geysers. (I personally think that this is clearly wrong)
Alternative: Electrochemistry.

These alternative explanations are simple, and are confirmed in the laboratory.
The EU only needs to extend the laboratory models to the appropriate sizes.

Then the EU has alternative models for things that seem OK in the mainstream perspective.
And these models are usually attacked by many mainstream scientists.

6) redshift related to distance. Model: inflation. Alternative: interstellar plasma.

7) alignment of stars, shape of star formations. Model: dark matter/ big bang. Alternative: electromagnetism.

8) Lines of craters. Model: mysterious impacts. Alternative: Electromagnetic discharges.

9) Birth of stars. Model: gravity induced fusion. Alternative: Electric attraction and electromagnetic discharges.

Etc.

You will get my point. Electromagnetism everywhere..
And (my bold):
Quote:
So, if we look at the rotation speed of galaxies, we can assume a force 1/r. Such a force would imply a current from the side to the centre. And if we look closely at a galaxy, we can indeed see spiral structures from the centre to the edge. Assuming these might be currents, we might expect that stars are forming along these spirals. And indeed they do.
So instead of dark matter that we can not find in any laboratory, we now have simple electromagnetic currents.
We could search a nearby galaxy with some stars on the background. That way we may be able to see dark-mode plasma currents. Not very hard. And because very strong magnetic fields already have been found in some galaxies, this electromagnetic model is very promising.
Magnetism and charged objects on a large scale might even be responsible for the rotation speed as well, since the force of a charged object in a magnetic field is stronger when the object moves faster. So even within the Electric model, we have plenty of alternatives to test.
Doesn't look like Cafeteria Science, does it?

I mean, a single, unifying idea, with local variations, right?

Well, actually Zyxzevn treats "electromagnetism" as a form of magic, one whose local manifestations are cherry-picked from a menu ("Electric systems", "interstellar plasma", "Electromagnetic discharges", "Electromagnetically active plasma", "Electrochemistry", etc).

And the cherry-picking becomes obvious when you take one of smorgasbord morsels and actually do a BOTE calculation based on it. The kind of BOTE which Zyxzevn seems very happy to do, re GR (see above) ... and a BOTE which no one over in la-la land seems to have even any interest in challenging, let alone trying to replicate.

Why am I so certain about this?

Because I've done what no one in TBF seems to have done (other than Zyxzevn)!

Stay tuned.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2016, 09:43 AM   #87
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
It's important to understand the context of any EU scientific research program, or BOTE calculation.

From a comment in Brian Koberlein's blog post, Testing the Electric Universe:

Originally Posted by Brian Koberlein
I’ve actually dealt with a lot of EU supporters, and the biggest problem is that you never know which position on the spectrum they’re going to take:

Plasma astrophysics is a legitimate science! (I completely agree.)
Mainstream cosmologists have problems their models can’t answer (True)
Plasma physics could explain dark matter/dark energy/no big bang (Interesting, but I’m not convinced)
The Sun is powered by interstellar electric fields (No)
The Valles Marineris on Mars was carved electrically! (Hoo boy…)
EU means the Universe is 6,000 years old (facepalm)
I have spent rather too many hours going over what's been posted, here in the SMMT section of ISF, on "the EU". You can find material on each of these six varieties of "the EU", often in many different threads (OK, maybe not the "facepalm" one). And a great many more besides.

For example:
This, um, confusion over what is, and what isn't, "the EU" can be found in TBF itself.

For example, recently a TBF member tried to introduce critical examinations of "the EU", and a variant of it, into a "mainstream EU" thread, and was slapped down (no, I'm not going to provide a link; go find the thread for yourself); here's a sample:

Originally Posted by Lloyd
[...] but Alfven didn't well support the EU model and Peratt criticized Thornhill's model. I don't know of any math that supports the Thunderbolts EU model's electric currents in space or how the currents are generated, if stars etc don't generate them, nor of how currents can produce z-pinches strong enough to form stars and planets. What's the math for such z-pinches?
The variant Lloyd introduced?

"Charles Chandler's EU model". Chandler has posted here too (see, for example, Critical review of an EM theory?). Perhaps a key reason why Chandler is, apparently, so disliked in TBF is that he actually did some calculations? Some of his work was shown, by our own ISF members, to be, umm, rather lacking in intellectual and mathematical rigor; perhaps that's a reason why he seems to have quit ISF (he was quite active in that thread)?

How long before someTBFone claims that Miles Mathis - the artist - has worked on "EU theory" and done calculations thereon? Maybe he has the only currently active EU scientific research program?

Anyway, I did find an example of where a TBFer who posted recently (in TBF) had a chance to show that he'd done some actual work on the EU, of the "Arpian redshifts" variety ... check out BeAChooser's posts in the Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics thread.

This enormous variety within "the EU" makes it trivially easy for an EU zealot to engage in dishonest debating tactics ... state that no EU acolyte has done even any BOTE calculations, and watch Peratt's and Lerner's names appear, even Birkeland's . When you have at least the following to choose among, "the EU" can be stretched to address even obesity I guess: “EU/PC concepts”, “EU/PC theory”, “the EU/PC cosmology model”, “EU/PC themes of cosmology”, “EU/PC cosmology theory”, “EU/PC solar models”, “EU/PC cosmology paradigm”, “the EU/PC paradigm”, “EU/PC theories (plural)”, and “the EU model”.

Anyway, the point of all this is that if you do do an EU theory BOTE calculation, say, you have a huge range of options. Whatever you choose, though, you'll surely be attacked by EU zealots, for not using the "correct" EU theory, say (much like Lloyd was attacked). And any such attack would, of course, be hypocritical and inconsistent.

Which goes to show that whatever EU zealots' approach to debate on the EU is, it is not science-based.

Stay tuned!
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2016, 07:42 AM   #88
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
No don't get excited, no one has posted even the faintest hint of a scientific research program, based on (or testing) the "Electric Universe". At least, not that I've noticed, in the last few months.

However, lamare has posted "An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"", over in the Thunderdolts forum. It quickly got shunted to the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" section, despite the fact that it looks to outsider me like a genuine "Electric Universe" theory (it hits so many of the EU "sweet spots"). I guess that as lamare is not an official "electric theorist", the idea doesn't merit official endorsement.

You might have thought that something like this, so apparently near and dear to so many EU fanatics' hearts, would motivate some to consider testing it using astronomical data, to see if - for example - it could produce the Hubble redshift-distance relationship, or a ~3K CMB.

Doesn't seem to have happened (yet?)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2016, 08:29 AM   #89
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
However, lamare has posted "An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"", over in the Thunderdolts forum. It quickly got shunted to the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" section,
Surely the whole of EU 'theory' should be in the mad ideas section?

There was a debate elsewhere about 'electrical cratering', where one of their more zealous acolytes proposed it as a mechanism for Phobos. Repeated requests for a mechanism resulted in two references; one to a paper by C. J. Ransom in that god awful Bentham special issue (I'm sure JT will know the one), and a 1988 paper by Peratt.
Ransom's paper consists of his description of creating micro-craters using plasma. He gives no indication of what mechanism would cause this, other than mentioning a Z-pinch in the title. How it forms, why it forms, is left for the reader to figure out! And no figures regarding the current etc.
Peratt's paper turned out to be a completely different thing altogether, regarding Alfven's 'plasma gun' hypothesis, possibly operating at Io. However, the first couple of lines of the abstract make it perfectly clear that for his hypothesis to work (no evidence since 1988), the volcanoes have to be pre-existing, as he admits the current involved is nowhere near enough to explain the volcanoes.
Gold, in 1979, had suggested this as a possibility, but it was quickly killed by a 1981 paper. Gold has never revisited the topic as far as I can see. Nor has anyone else.
So, what we are left with is Thornhill and Talbott's Velikovskian 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' reasoning. Which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with science.

Peratt's 1988 paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988Ap%26SS.144..451P

Gold's 1979 paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/206/4422/1071 (paywalled)

Cook's 1981 refutation of Gold: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/211/4489/1419 (paywalled)
Interestingly, it looks like Eugene Shoemaker was a co-author on the Cook paper.

Ransom's 'paper': http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/...OAAJ-4-185.pdf

We all know how well the 'Electric Comet' has(n't) gone for them. It will be interesting to see how T & T manage to spin this to the terminally gullible. I have no doubt that whatever they come up with will be swallowed by the most evangelical of their acolytes. Perhaps some of the more serious PC proponents really need to get away from the Velikovskian, mythology inspired woo of T & T over at woo central, and start looking at doing some proper research. Mind you, if Alfven and Peratt failed, I can't see anyone there having much luck.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2016, 11:51 PM   #90
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,410
Just as an aside, for those who are interested in the "real EU", there is an AGU monograph in the works called "Currents in Geospace and Beyond", in which you can read all about what currents can and cannot do in space physics.

I submitted a paper on comets, and I just got a paper to review about the Earth's magnetotail, so a broad range of topics is covered. The book will probably be published near the mid of 2017.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2016, 03:28 PM   #91
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,455
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Doesn't look like Cafeteria Science, does it?
It looks more like argument from ignorance which maybe we should expect from the EU crowd.
  • When we look at the rotation speed of galaxies, we can assume the force of gravity which is an inverse square force.
  • Not all galaxies are spiral galaxies.
    However elliptical galaxies are not flat like spiral galaxies and so we cannot measure a rotation curve using the Doppler effect. The evidence looks like elliptical galaxies are about twice the mass as suggested by the light they emit (Dark matter in elliptical galaxies, Do Elliptical Galaxies Have Dark Matter Halos?) but that also matches the normal matter that we are not detected.
  • The spirals in spiral galaxies cannot be material because of the winding problem (they would wind into the core within a few galactic revolutions).
  • Spiral arms do have more star formation but that has nothing to do with EU current fantasies.
    Density wave theory + the SSPSF model have arms with more density (thus more star formation) and/or self-propagating waves of star formation.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2016, 07:01 PM   #92
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
IThe spirals in spiral galaxies cannot be material because of the winding problem (they would wind into the core within a few galactic revolutions).


What a great thing to learn, thanks RC!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 08:35 AM   #93
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
No don't get excited, no one has posted even the faintest hint of a scientific research program, based on (or testing) the "Electric Universe". At least, not that I've noticed, in the last few months.
<snip>
An EU zealot protested, over in Thunderdolts, to the effect that "a full and complete set of Birkeland type experiments" has been proposed for years.

I did a quick check, and apart from SAFIRE, found nothing of the sort. Sure you'll get lots of hits on phrases like "Birkeland experiment", but even a semi-rational, logical summary of what just such a set of them would entail (much less a complete set)? Um, no. Also no hint of any literature searches being done, to see what sort of experiments of this kind have been done, and results published, in the last century or so (see tusenfem's post upthread for some relevant background). Not even the kind of cherry picked ones EU acolytes are much in love with.

The EU, where science is verboten ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2016, 12:10 PM   #94
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,410
i think there were, of late, some new experiments wirh terrellas
i sm now on a short vacation, can see later if i can find the references
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 09:18 AM   #95
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
I haven't posted to this thread for several months.

For the obvious reason.

I do check the "EU central" sites every now and then (in my spare time; it often is a source of great amusement), albeit not on a strict timetable. I keep an eye out for anything that hints at possible tests of an EU idea, proposed by an EU zealot, and if I'd found any, I'd've posted here.

Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
i think there were, of late, some new experiments wirh terrellas
i sm now on a short vacation, can see later if i can find the references
Any update?

Every now and then I come across things like this (dated 30 January, 2017):

Originally Posted by Hawaiiguy Kailua
I would point you to the Safire Project headed by Monty Childs, which is now in phase 2 as a mounting of evidence against the standard sun model. Being that it is an independent study and it’s a physical model study the accumulation of data is there to be challenged or confirmed. So far it’s been overwhelming confirmation against the standard solar model.
(source)

Here's Brian's response: "I’m well aware of the Safire Project, and that it’s nonsense."

Brian could have added that "the accumulation of data is there to be challenged or confirmed" is not available for anyone to download and analyze themselves (at least, AFAIK); rather there's few uncalibrated images, all of them looking like ducks.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 09:44 AM   #96
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
Wow, so I guess the abstract to their paper, when they publish (as if), will read something along the lines of:

"We stuck a gazillion volts of electricity, from the mains, through a metallic sphere. Results indicate that the observed behaviour was not consistent with a fusion powered ball of gas. Therefore we conclude that the Sun is probably not a metallic sphere powered by electricity."

Can't wait for that.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2017, 12:01 PM   #97
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,235
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2017, 07:50 AM   #98
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Yet another piece of evidence which shows that "the EU" is not even pseudoscience comes from the external discussion forum thread I cited in the LIGO's detection of GWR and "the VETO" thread here.

In that external source there was some discussion of additional tests - beyond what LIGO had already performed - to rule out sources of the GW150914 signal other than the merger of two solar-mass black holes; one such proposed test was (something like; this is my paraphrase) using satellite data to determine the state of the magnetosphere/ionosphere within a few (tens of) ms of the GW150914 signal, to see if there was some sort of geomagnetic/electromagnetic transient (the idea was that however good the very extensive set of LIGO environmental monitors - which certainly should have identified any such transient strong enough to create a LIGO signal - some kind of local transient may nevertheless have triggered a signal).

Leave aside the details - and shortcomings - of the particular idea and focus on its nature: it's a proposed test which would involve collecting data (obtained independently) and analyzing it, quantitatively! Further, that data may well be publicly available, essentially for free. In other words, the kind of thing I've had my eyes open for, in regard to tests of "the EU", for over a year now (in this thread alone). Tests proposed by EU zealots.

Does anyone else see something, um, amazing here? An EU zealot proposes a test of a major discovery in physics (and astrophysics), one which would involve data already available, and which could (in principle) be done in an objective and independently verifiable way!

So the ability to conceive these sorts of tests is proven, by the existence of one. Why, then, oh why do no EU zealots apparently apply such abilities to the testing of their own ideas? I submit the answer is both obvious and sad: testing of EU ideas is verboten. Or even inconceivable. Because "the EU" is in essence a religious cult.

Some more evidence of this comes from Slip Sticks and Wrong Theories, a Thunderdolts Pic o the day. Here's an extract:

Originally Posted by Mel Acheson
It would be wrong to insist on using a slide rule to direct Cassini around Saturn’s moons. Just so, it’s wrong for Established Science to refuse to look at Arp’s findings of quantized intrinsic redshifts. Just so, it’s wrong to overlook Juergen’s insights into the electrical nature of the sun. It’s wrong to ignore Alfven’s admonition that plasmas don’t behave the way theoreticians believe and that there are large-scale currents in space. It’s wrong to dismiss the Thunderbolts of the Gods as “merely myth” in blind defiance of the intelligibility in the data. Turning a deaf ear, a blind eye, and a closed mind to this astronomical mass of evidence is intellectually irresponsible.
(my bold and hilite)

Leave aside the falsehoods (e.g. "Established Science" most certainly did NOT "refuse to look at Arp’s findings of quantized intrinsic redshifts"). Focus on the implied research programs (some examples only):
  • investigating quantized redshifts (intrinsic or not)
  • turning "Juergen's insights" into detailed proposals for new experiments and observations
  • testing Alfven's ideas ("admonition") in the lab
  • deriving testable hypotheses concerning ideas about large-scale currents in space

Developing any of these - and the likely dozens of others you could quickly come up with - takes little more than time, effort, a good internet connection, and the sorts of tools which PCs come with for free. Not things which are the monopoly of "Established Science".

So why hasn't Mel Acheson put some time and effort into developing at least one (apparently)? Why have the ~millions of EU fans not done so (apparently)?

I submit that there's a very good reason why no such proposals have been developed, and why none ever will: a key aspect of "the EU", the religious cult, is intellectual irresponsibility; one of its (unstated) core missions is to destroy science.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2017, 05:12 PM   #99
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
As JT alluded to, the first thing they need to do is cut out the lies about what real science is actually doing or not doing. It makes them look pathetic. Thornhill's long running electric comet woo is just one prime example of that. In fact, if they want to move forward (I have no idea how), then they need to dump Thornhill and Talbott, and all the associated Velikovskian non-science. If you are basing your 'science' on misinterpretations of ancient myth, then you have already lost.
Maybe there are some hardcore PC advocates there who don't buy into that nonsense. They need to figure out whether or not they wish to be associated with such rubbish. I don't see where they can go, given the failure to match observation of Peratt's and Alfvén's models. If you need to call on the likes of Arp, Robitaille and Crothers to support your model, then it is already doomed.
No, I suspect it will carry on as is, flogging books and DVDs to the gullible, and basically being an anti-science, crackpot meeting place. Which is fine; what else would we have to talk about otherwise?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 8th February 2017 at 05:14 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2017, 05:51 PM   #100
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,455
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
So why hasn't Mel Acheson put some time and effort into developing at least one (apparently)?
Could it be because he has blindly "swallowed the Kool-Aid"?
Or has a financial interest in EU being correct?
He is a coauthor with Talbott and Thornhill of their 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' book and Scott's 'The Electric Sky'.

I suspect the first since a look at his articles shows that he lies about science and EU. For example: Wanted: Cosmo-centric Ideas (2016)
  • Arp's "intrinsic redshift" was based on his idea that quasars (galaxies!) erupted out of foreground galaxies, not any valid statistics or science.
  • It is a lie that Thornhill is a researcher who has discovered anything about electrical discharges.
  • A bit of ignorance - it was not "Birkeland before 1900".
    Birkeland published his book in 1913.
  • A lie of "The legends of our prehistoric great-grandparents from around the globe tell a coherent story".
    The legends of prehistoric people vary greatly.
Gravity vs. Plasma is abysmal ignorance of plasma and science
Quote:
The mathematical shorthand that was developed for articulating the gravity view and for using the technologies based on it doesn’t work for the plasma view. A new mathematics-and new technologies-will need to be invented.
Gravity and plasma are different things with different mathematics !
"New mathematics" for plasma has been in existence since at least 1942: Magnetohydrodynamics
"New technologies" have been studying plasma for over a century - first seen in 1879 , the term coined in 1928: Plasma

Playing the Jokers
  • A lie that the evidence for an expanding universe is not just Hubble's law.
  • A lie about Hannes Alfven (his "large distances" for plasma effects were not cosmological scales).
  • A "assumption of isolation" lie.
    It is physics that shows that bodies such as galaxies are electromagnetically isolated but not gravitationally.
  • "lightning discharges" delusions.
Plasma Star = EU delusions about CH Cygni.
Dark Dreams is basically the delusion that we have to see individual stars forming to know how they form!
Consequence-free Cosmology is the delusion that colliding galaxies are cosmology with a "divide by zero" lie about the black holes mentioned in the Chandra article: NGC 2207 and IC 2163: Galactic Get-Together has Impressive Light Display
The Colors of Thought is the Colors of Delusion! A delusion of the variation of measurements of c meaning that every equation where it appears must be wrong (specifically "Stefan’s Law" which is actually the Stefan–Boltzmann law). A link to the ignorant Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille delusion that Kirchhoff's Law is wrong.
Another Fogged Image of Stephan’s Quintet is an incoherent, deluded post. A lie of "redshift as a cosmic meterstick has been disproved since the 1960s". A delusion that the tails on the foreground galaxy and background galaxy are interacting. A delusion of "paired ejection from an active galaxy". The delusion that galaxies are solid when a bright background quasar can shine through a galaxy - we can image galaxies through the Milky Way ! Argument from incredibility ("At 70 million Kelvin, the heating is truly shocking"). A lie about that temperature being a "runaway extrapolation from a theory about solids".
Captives of Simplifying Assumptions = a non-science rant about the orbit of SOHO.
Wishing for Theories = a lie of a "consensus conjecture of stellar evolution" followed by an irrelevant rant with EU delusions, e.g. "the star may fission into two or more pieces".
Artistic Spin = EU delusions irrelevant to the reported science (Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years).
An Itsy-Bitsy Spider = a new Halton Arp error? He stated in a book that galaxies ejected dusty plasma. Mel Acheson has the delusion that an ESO observation is that plasma ejection. The reality is that it is star formation in an unexpected location in the cluster around the Spiderweb Galaxy: Construction Secrets of a Galactic Metropolis
Blast of Gas = a lie that EU can explain the flow of gas in NGC 253 (The Sculptor Galaxy) followed by ignorant ranting, e.g.that astronomers using the term gas means whatever he imagines will happen, happens.
Butterflies on a String = ignorance and delusions about planetary nebula. It is not "old stars", it is old red giant stars. Theory and observation supports shells of material being blown off these old red giant stars. The idiocy of calling science fantasy. EU Birkeland currents delusions. No link to the science which looks like: Bizarre alignment of planetary nebulae
Gravitation as Frog = ignorance and "frog" ranting. An uncited "Ilya Prigogine" who looks like the chemist Ilya Prigogine . G is hard to measure so its value doe vary between experiments - well Duh! Newtonian gravitation states that galaxy rotation curves have to be explained by adding dark matter. An inane, irrelevant derail to Halton Arp's invalid ideas.
Super Exploding Double Layer = the title alone is an EU delusion and the contents confirm it!

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th February 2017 at 07:38 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2017, 06:49 AM   #101
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Butterflies on a String = ignorance and delusions about planetary nebula. It is not "old stars", it is old red giant stars. Theory and observation supports shells of material being blown off these old red giant stars. The idiocy of calling science fantasy. EU Birkeland currents delusions. No link to the science which looks like: Bizarre alignment of planetary nebulae
Ahh, yes, that reminds me that Brian Koberlein made a post on Scott's egregious error regarding the M2-9 Butterfly nebula:
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/30/known-unknowns/
Scott suggested it was a Z-pinch! Oh dear.

M2-9: A PLANETARY NEBULA WITH AN ERUPTIVE NUCLEUS?
Balick, B. (1989)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AJ.....97..476B

Scott's nonsense (warning: PDF opens automatically)
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...5/PP-41-13.PDF
See Fig. 10

As any eejit can see, Fig. 2 from Balicks paper (only 26 years for Scott to dig it out!) shows negative velocity (towards the viewer) to the left, and positive velocity (away from the viewer) to the right of the figure. I'm not aware that Z-pinches can actually do that! Apparently, neither is Scott. More 'looks like a duck' failure.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2017, 06:19 PM   #102
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I submit that there's a very good reason why no such proposals have been developed, and why none ever will: a key aspect of "the EU", the religious cult, is intellectual irresponsibility; one of its (unstated) core missions is to destroy science.
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
As JT alluded to, the first thing they need to do is cut out the lies about what real science is actually doing or not doing. It makes them look pathetic. Thornhill's long running electric comet woo is just one prime example of that. In fact, if they want to move forward (I have no idea how), then they need to dump Thornhill and Talbott, and all the associated Velikovskian non-science. If you are basing your 'science' on misinterpretations of ancient myth, then you have already lost.
Maybe there are some hardcore PC advocates there who don't buy into that nonsense. They need to figure out whether or not they wish to be associated with such rubbish. I don't see where they can go, given the failure to match observation of Peratt's and Alfvén's models. If you need to call on the likes of Arp, Robitaille and Crothers to support your model, then it is already doomed.
No, I suspect it will carry on as is, flogging books and DVDs to the gullible, and basically being an anti-science, crackpot meeting place. Which is fine; what else would we have to talk about otherwise?

I agree the message is anti-science but I think the goal is to monetize a conspiracy theory. They're feeding the need of the ignorant faithful to think they're privy to special knowledge, that their leaders are "taking it to the man". Nonsense like SAFIRE is a means to put butts in conference seats, and I think those involved know they're not doing science. Others associated with the EU are hardcore cranks, who I think believe for the most part the unscientific nonsense they put forth.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba

Last edited by ferd burfle; 9th February 2017 at 07:24 PM. Reason: "Un"
ferd burfle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2017, 08:39 PM   #103
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Here's Brian's response: "I’m well aware of the Safire Project, and that it’s nonsense."

Brian could have added that "the accumulation of data is there to be challenged or confirmed" is not available for anyone to download and analyze themselves (at least, AFAIK); rather there's few uncalibrated images, all of them looking like ducks.

The last time I checked Monty Child's SAFIRE update talk video from the EU June 2016 conference was behind a paywall at the Silly Site. So I skimmed it today on YT to catch up. They have a biqgger vacuum chamber and power supply now but the conceit is still the same: they're breaking totally new ground in plasma physics and that's why they just, you know, try stuff. At times, it almost looks like science, but one of the last slides in Monty's talk gives the game away. Under the heading "Questions", meaning question raised by managing to create a plasma with the new kit, he asks:

Quote:
-Are we getting transformation (sic) of elements?
-Are we getting more energy out than in?
-What does the voltage gradient look like before SAFIRE fires?
-Will we get X-rays, Neutrons, Gamma rays etc?

I predict, this "project" will produce endless "progress" but will always be just one little tweak away from that Nobel-winning breakthrough. Yup, this baby's got legs.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2017, 09:07 PM   #104
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
I predict, this "project" will produce endless "progress" but will always be just one little tweak away from that Nobel-winning breakthrough. Yup, this baby's got legs.
I suspect that Monty is onto a nice little earner, and is in absolutely no rush to come to any conclusions!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2017, 09:42 PM   #105
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
It used to be, some years' ago, that Electric Universe (EU) proponents were many, and highly vocal. Look at the number of EU-related threads in the archives of ISF, for example.

These days, those proponents have retreated to Eejet-Tube vids, and unmoderated fora; even their fave forum today has little traffic.

One thing has always baffled me about the EU, and its fanatics: an apparent, complete, lack of any research proposals.

For example, all over the internet you'll find people asking EU fans things like "if you had total control over all the world's leading astronomical facilities - telescopes etc - where would you point them?" or "given unlimited funds, what experiments, here on Earth, would you conduct?" Yet, aside from SAFIRE and perhaps Lerner's Focus Fusion, there are no answers!

At least, none that I could find.

Which I find baffling.

I mean, isn't there even one EU adherent who is curious enough to think about doing an experiment, or making an observation, to test EU ideas? It seems to me that it'd take just one such to vastly improve the EU's standing (assuming the results of such experiments or observations were consistent with "EU theory", whatever that is).

Hence this thread: do any of you, dear readers, know of any published research projects/programs/experiments/observations, proposed by EU supporters (other than SAFIRE and Lerner's Focus Fusion)?
You seem to be under the delusion that persons who believe crap know how to do science. I have never within my memory found that to be the case. Essentially all of that type just find something that , while completely wrong, seems to make sense to them so they do their dead level best to store it in their brains and then lock them up and destroy the key. It is very, very sad, but at least they are happy believing they KNOW THE TRUTH!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2017, 07:48 AM   #106
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Nice work, RC!

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Could it be because he has blindly "swallowed the Kool-Aid"?
Or has a financial interest in EU being correct?
He is a coauthor with Talbott and Thornhill of their 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' book and Scott's 'The Electric Sky'.

I suspect the first since a look at his articles shows that he lies about science and EU. For example: Wanted: Cosmo-centric Ideas (2016)
  • Arp's "intrinsic redshift" was based on his idea that quasars (galaxies!) erupted out of foreground galaxies, not any valid statistics or science.
  • It is a lie that Thornhill is a researcher who has discovered anything about electrical discharges.
  • A bit of ignorance - it was not "Birkeland before 1900".
    Birkeland published his book in 1913.
  • A lie of "The legends of our prehistoric great-grandparents from around the globe tell a coherent story".
    The legends of prehistoric people vary greatly.
Gravity vs. Plasma is abysmal ignorance of plasma and science

Gravity and plasma are different things with different mathematics !
"New mathematics" for plasma has been in existence since at least 1942: Magnetohydrodynamics
"New technologies" have been studying plasma for over a century - first seen in 1879 , the term coined in 1928: Plasma

Playing the Jokers
  • A lie that the evidence for an expanding universe is not just Hubble's law.
  • A lie about Hannes Alfven (his "large distances" for plasma effects were not cosmological scales).
  • A "assumption of isolation" lie.
    It is physics that shows that bodies such as galaxies are electromagnetically isolated but not gravitationally.
  • "lightning discharges" delusions.
Plasma Star = EU delusions about CH Cygni.
Dark Dreams is basically the delusion that we have to see individual stars forming to know how they form!
Consequence-free Cosmology is the delusion that colliding galaxies are cosmology with a "divide by zero" lie about the black holes mentioned in the Chandra article: NGC 2207 and IC 2163: Galactic Get-Together has Impressive Light Display
The Colors of Thought is the Colors of Delusion! A delusion of the variation of measurements of c meaning that every equation where it appears must be wrong (specifically "Stefan’s Law" which is actually the Stefan–Boltzmann law). A link to the ignorant Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille delusion that Kirchhoff's Law is wrong.
Another Fogged Image of Stephan’s Quintet is an incoherent, deluded post. A lie of "redshift as a cosmic meterstick has been disproved since the 1960s". A delusion that the tails on the foreground galaxy and background galaxy are interacting. A delusion of "paired ejection from an active galaxy". The delusion that galaxies are solid when a bright background quasar can shine through a galaxy - we can image galaxies through the Milky Way ! Argument from incredibility ("At 70 million Kelvin, the heating is truly shocking"). A lie about that temperature being a "runaway extrapolation from a theory about solids".
Captives of Simplifying Assumptions = a non-science rant about the orbit of SOHO.
Wishing for Theories = a lie of a "consensus conjecture of stellar evolution" followed by an irrelevant rant with EU delusions, e.g. "the star may fission into two or more pieces".
Artistic Spin = EU delusions irrelevant to the reported science (Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years).
An Itsy-Bitsy Spider = a new Halton Arp error? He stated in a book that galaxies ejected dusty plasma. Mel Acheson has the delusion that an ESO observation is that plasma ejection. The reality is that it is star formation in an unexpected location in the cluster around the Spiderweb Galaxy: Construction Secrets of a Galactic Metropolis
Blast of Gas = a lie that EU can explain the flow of gas in NGC 253 (The Sculptor Galaxy) followed by ignorant ranting, e.g.that astronomers using the term gas means whatever he imagines will happen, happens.
Butterflies on a String = ignorance and delusions about planetary nebula. It is not "old stars", it is old red giant stars. Theory and observation supports shells of material being blown off these old red giant stars. The idiocy of calling science fantasy. EU Birkeland currents delusions. No link to the science which looks like: Bizarre alignment of planetary nebulae
Gravitation as Frog = ignorance and "frog" ranting. An uncited "Ilya Prigogine" who looks like the chemist Ilya Prigogine . G is hard to measure so its value doe vary between experiments - well Duh! Newtonian gravitation states that galaxy rotation curves have to be explained by adding dark matter. An inane, irrelevant derail to Halton Arp's invalid ideas.
Super Exploding Double Layer = the title alone is an EU delusion and the contents confirm it!
I have - so far - looked at only a handful of these.

If you're not too critical, several could pass as ill-informed essays on the history and philosophy of science (e.g. "Wanted: Cosmo-centric Ideas").

Others, however, reveal fundamental inconsistencies which the author - and most EU zealots and fans - seems completely oblivious to.

Take "Plasma Star", for example (extract):

Originally Posted by Mel Acheson
Recent images of the star CH Cygni reveal the electrical circuitry that drives it. Radiation in radio (blue), optical (green), and X-ray (red) highlight the several inner components of the plasma discharge.

The outer red circle (large optical image) is composed of radial filaments. This is a region of increased density where the plasma has jumped into glow mode. It shows a cross section of the interstellar Birkeland cable as it pinches down to form the star. Its circularity indicates that we are viewing the star down the axis of the cable: The radial filaments appear foreshortened in consequence.

The string of green “sausages” in the “jet” near the center shows the narrowest region of the pinch as the current flows into the star. The increase in current density has again pushed the plasma into glow mode. Instabilities, called “sausage” instabilities, have caused secondary pinches to break the jet into cells. The curled shape is the result of viewing the current down the axis as it spirals around that axis. The star at the center is a binary.
Start with "The outer red circle (large optical image) is composed of radial filaments.": OK, that can be interpreted as a semi-objective statement concerning morphology; semi-objective because there's no analysis, no source cited, etc ...

Next sentence: "This is a region of increased density where the plasma has jumped into glow mode." Really? How was that conclusion arrived at? AFAICS, it's pure a "looks like a duck" subjective speculation. In fact, I'd be astonished to learn that there's even a minimally quantitative model somewhere, used to guide the visual interpretation.

One more sentence: "The string of green “sausages” in the “jet” near the center shows the narrowest region of the pinch as the current flows into the star." OK, actually two; this is the image caption: "A composite image of X-ray data from Chandra (red), optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope (green), and radio data from the Very Large Array (blue)."

Yeah, the author would not get high marks for accuracy (no Mel, red is X-ray, not optical), nor the editor for proof reading.

But a fundamental inconsistency is in these innocent words: "X-ray data from Chandra (red), optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope (green)" Data Mel? What investigations did you undertake to convince yourself that any of this data is reliable? Both Chandra and the HST are space-based missions whose design, construction, launch, testing, and on-going operation include "consensus belief" (your words, Mel) that huge parts of mainstream physics actually work, parts which you are on record as stating do not work. Like relativity. Newton's law of universal gravitation. Ditto the data: have you ever examined the way stuff which happens in sensors up in space ends up as pixels in an image on an internet website? Did you count the number of places where there is "consensus belief" in bits of physics or mathematics which you have explicitly denied?

tl;dr unless and until Mel comes clean about why - in detail - he can accept the veracity of data from space-based observatories (given his record of denying so much of the physics involved), even his "looks like a duck" speculations reek of hypocrisy.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2017, 05:38 PM   #107
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,455
A little bump: No real news from the SAFIRE project for over a year and getting to 2 years!
The project was proposed in 2013.
December 2014: Brian Koberlein described it as useful as concluding that light is water because we see similar patterns (Quacks Like a Duck).
23 September 2015: The only published paper with no EU nonsense: Study of striations in a spherically symmetric hydrogen discharge
2013-2016: Various YouTube videos, e.g. of EU conference presentations.

That is maybe 4 years to do a relatively simple task of tweaking a plasma globe to look like features of the Sun and do what looks like standard plasma measurements. The EU2017 conference next month promises actual delusions about the project:
Quote:
Building on the past year of experimentation and analysis, the SAFIRE Project has moved into Phase 3, which takes the lessons from the Phase 1 Proof of Concept Prototype into a much larger chamber. Phase 1 ended on a cliff-hanger with indications of fusion and transient million-fold CME-like eruptions.
A delusion of fusion in a plasma globe as if they were ignorant about the technological challenges of producing the high temperatures and pressures needed for fusion! Those "CME-like eruptions" supports a "quacks like a duck" or "I see bunnies in the clouds" situation.

Last edited by Reality Check; 20th July 2017 at 05:39 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2017, 06:17 PM   #108
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A little bump: No real news from the SAFIRE project for over a year and getting to 2 years!
The project was proposed in 2013.
December 2014: Brian Koberlein described it as useful as concluding that light is water because we see similar patterns (Quacks Like a Duck).
23 September 2015: The only published paper with no EU nonsense: Study of striations in a spherically symmetric hydrogen discharge
2013-2016: Various YouTube videos, e.g. of EU conference presentations.

That is maybe 4 years to do a relatively simple task of tweaking a plasma globe to look like features of the Sun and do what looks like standard plasma measurements. The EU2017 conference next month promises actual delusions about the project:

A delusion of fusion in a plasma globe as if they were ignorant about the technological challenges of producing the high temperatures and pressures needed for fusion! Those "CME-like eruptions" supports a "quacks like a duck" or "I see bunnies in the clouds" situation.
Oh dear. Are they still doing this? Why, exactly? It is provable beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the loon Scott's electric sun idea is dead before it starts! Deary, deary me. There may be people in the PU community (still nutters, but not quite so bad), who could have used money like this to design software applications to update Peratt's failed model. Yet they waste it on something that is trivially proven wrong before it starts! Bizarre.
Where is their current? Where is the accompanying magnetic field? Where is the interaction between these two fields (IMF & incoming field)? What would happen when these two fields met? Et boring cetera. Lunatics, I tell ya.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 23rd July 2017 at 06:19 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2017, 06:13 PM   #109
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
I still haven't seen anything from an Electric Universe fan that could be viewed as even the outline of a possible research program.

However, the responses to a Bob_Ham's fairy recent posts (he seems to have been banned), especially in the Thunderdolts thread "Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?", seem to point to one reason any such outline would be very difficult for such fans to even conceive, let alone write (great source of humor though!) ...

Putting a positive spin on what's in those threads: ISF member BeAChooser has written about "filaments", per what he sees in some astronomical data. Some of these ideas could, with some effort, perhaps be turned into a first draft of a program ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2018, 04:46 PM   #110
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Almost six months have passed, and still not the slightest sign of anything remotely resembling even the outline of a possible scientific research program (why am I not surprised?).

The citizen science "voting" phase of the ZooGems project has now closed, as it has for the companion Radio GalaxyZooGems project.

I think these provide an illustration, by way of contrast, of the science-bereft nature of the Electric Universe idea and its community. How so? Read on ...

The Zooniverse arose from the hugely successful online, crowd-sourcing, citizen science project, Galaxy Zoo (GZ). The Zooniverse team has developed something they call Project Builder, which is open and public. Anyone can use it to create an online, crowd-sourcing, citizen science project. In subject/topics limited only by your imagination. And the results from such projects have led to hundreds of scientific papers, with many an interesting, often unexpected, discovery. Certainly not just in astronomy.

Yet, despite several avid EUers being well aware of this sort of thing, I've never seen so much as a peep about how such a platform/tool could be used to do some interesting scientific research, based on EU ideas!

What can account for this amazing, apparently complete, lack of interest?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2018, 05:22 PM   #111
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
By the by, since I do not try to follow crap "science" I do not know if the number 67 has any meaning/use in EU dreams (not nearly up to theories in scientific usage)' Just curious'
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2018, 10:52 AM   #112
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
What can account for this amazing, apparently complete, lack of interest?
Errrm, an inability to understand the requisite science would be my guess!

I notice that Brian Koberlein has disabled comments on his blog, but a recent reading (before they went down) of the nonsense proposed in the comments on his latest blog on EU, and the previous one from a few years ago, would back that up.

BK gets excoriated by a certain poster for not knowing that Thornhill & Scott changed their electric sun models to accommodate neutrinos. Big deal. The poster fails to realise that such nonsense doesn't match observation, so arguing about whether or not these loons propose neutrinos is neither here nor there. I'd love to see where Thornhill & Scott have explained this in detail, but can only find a comment by Thornhill on a silly EU video, where he claims it is happening at the surface due to the 'nucleosynthesis of heavy elements.'
Of course, this doesn't match observation, as the neutrino count would be heavily stacked toward the part of the energy spectrum of the heavier element neutrino production; it isn't. It would also mean there would be intense gamma rays observed from surface fusion. They aren't.
So getting in a huff about what these woomeisters propose is pointless, when their explanations are scientifically illiterate, and simply don't match observation.
Then there was another loon suggesting that Brian was out of date, and it was fission that caused the neutrinos! To the best of my knowledge, fission only produces anti-neutrinos, although I'm happy to be corrected.

So, all in all, I think it backs up something I've said before; it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance to even give EU ideas any head space. And as JT has said before; whatever EU is, it certainly isn't science.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2018, 01:52 PM   #113
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
By the by, since I do not try to follow crap "science" I do not know if the number 67 has any meaning/use in EU dreams (not nearly up to theories in scientific usage)' Just curious'
Perhaps they were off by two and actually wanted 69...........
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2018, 08:11 PM   #114
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,455
No updates on the SAFIRE project but their web site has some serious crackpottery.
Home page: "Current areas of study include * Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)".
Pressing "questions" that are at least partially deluded.
  • "Are nuclear reactions on the sun a cause or consequence of the sun shining?" (idiocy that fusion on the sun would not be detectable as gamma rays fry the Earth!)
  • "Is the photosphere the outer skin of a superhot core or the visible edge of an electric discharge?" (the photosphere is plasma, a layer around the sun and has convection cells!)
  • "Are there some aspects of observed cometary behavior that are more simply explained including an electric potential within the solar system?" (no)
  • "Are the known electric fields and currents around the earth more simply explained by the model of the Earth being immersed within larger electrical potentials within the solar system?" (no)
A "results" page with
  • A lie of a proposal ignoring their apparatus being results.
  • A image with the caption "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions found in Hydrogen impregnated metalic electrodes."
  • A image of a cartoon with the caption "Measurement of ion temperatures in anode tufts and their relation to solar coronal prominences"
Plus that W Lowell Morgan, Montgomery W Childs. 2015 standard plasma physics paper.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th February 2018 at 08:20 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2018, 08:38 PM   #115
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Errrm, an inability to understand the requisite science would be my guess!

I notice that Brian Koberlein has disabled comments on his blog, but a recent reading (before they went down) of the nonsense proposed in the comments on his latest blog on EU, and the previous one from a few years ago, would back that up.
One might imagine this as being only a temporary measure(?) The mainstream debunks contained in the blog comments served as highly useful reference material, after all.
(Bring 'em back if possible, Brian! .. )
Originally Posted by jonesdave116
BK gets excoriated by a certain poster for not knowing that Thornhill & Scott changed their electric sun models to accommodate neutrinos. Big deal.
An aside: just had a looong discussion with (I think) the same poster you're referring to on the topic of Olber's Paradox in infinite static universes. A somewhat dated Scott paper surfaced which contained yet more classic Scott blunders on the related surface brightness invariance with distance sub-topic ... Scott just can't seem to get any breaks whatsoever, given that he also recently re-affirmed the arguments in this errored paper, (presumably as part of his attempt to jemmy his way into cosmology)!
PS: Oh yes .. the poster I think you're referring to, also discarded the same paper, (presumably though, because it didn't agree with his beliefs).
Originally Posted by jonesdave116
... Of course, this doesn't match observation, as the neutrino count would be heavily stacked toward the part of the energy spectrum of the heavier element neutrino production; it isn't. It would also mean there would be intense gamma rays observed from surface fusion. They aren't.
And hilariously, the lame excuse of assumed pinch produced gammas being absorbed by the atmosphere above the assumed electrode surface, (before it exits the photosphere), also has to be assumed ... and never demonstrated with a real model ... (after all, that would be a violation of the 'EU conde of quantitative modelling silence'!)

Originally Posted by jonesdave116
So getting in a huff about what these woomeisters propose is pointless, when their explanations are scientifically illiterate, and simply don't match observation.
Then there was another loon suggesting that Brian was out of date, and it was fission that caused the neutrinos! To the best of my knowledge, fission only produces anti-neutrinos, although I'm happy to be corrected.

So, all in all, I think it backs up something I've said before; it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance to even give EU ideas any head space. And as JT has said before; whatever EU is, it certainly isn't science.
Really goes without saying, eh? (But thanks for saying it anyway).

Last edited by SelfSim; 19th February 2018 at 08:43 PM. Reason: PS
SelfSim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2018, 03:51 AM   #116
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by SelfSim View Post
And hilariously, the lame excuse of assumed pinch produced gammas being absorbed by the atmosphere above the assumed electrode surface, (before it exits the photosphere), also has to be assumed ... and never demonstrated with a real model ... (after all, that would be a violation of the 'EU conde of quantitative modelling silence'!)
Yep, that is precisely the sort of idiocy I'm talking about! So, who has done the maths and science on this? How deep below the photosphere would Thornhill and Scott's woo need to be to have all the gamma radiation blocked? Last I read, the photosphere was about 1 x 10-6 the density of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. I assume (not really) that one of those geniuses has worked this out? I suspect their answer would be - "you work it out, and that is how deep it'll be!"
And the pp neutrinos have been detected by Borexino, and match very well with the standard model. For the uninitiated, those are the lowest energy neutrinos, that were very difficult to detect previously, but account for the vast majority of the fusion going on in the solar core. From the reaction:
p + p --> 2H + e+ + ve
So, we know that this accounts for ~ 99% of the Sun's energy. There is no place left for Thornhill's 'heavy element' nucleosynthesis at the surface. It has to be from hydrogen fusion. Hydrogen fuses at ~ 4 million K.

Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun
Borexino Collaboration
http://mcba11.phys.unsw.edu.au/~mcba/PHYS3160/n.pdf

Of course, that is only one of the problems caused by some non-event EE suggesting this electric sun nonsense back in the 70s. There is also the invisible incoming current. Presumably this current carries with it a magnetic field. What will happen when this bunch of electrons (presumably) and their associated magnetic field encounter the outflowing electrons and ions of the solar wind, and their associated magnetic field (the IMF)? Shouldn't be hard to model for the plasma geniuses of EU. In fact, I could give it a decent go with pencil and paper, although it would be better left to Tusenfem. It wouldn't be pretty, and would be extremely obvious! Simply isn't happening, which is why nobody takes this nonsense seriously.

And then there is the usual nonsense about Birkeland, and his various models for the Sun - models I'm sure he'd have chucked in the dustbin if he'd been around when nuclear fusion was discovered. I expect he'd be flabbergasted that people (one person?) a hundred years on were still holding onto his pre-nuclear musings, given what we know now.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2018, 05:11 PM   #117
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Nothing new, but it’s worth repeating: the Zooniverse project, Radio Galaxy Zoo, looks at blobs of plasma, as revealed by their radio emission.

Surely one of the most direct probes into the nature of extra-galactic plasmas.

I’d have expected EU acolytes to be swarming all over it, yet not a peep, in, what, more than four years.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2018, 09:54 PM   #118
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Nothing new, but it’s worth repeating: the Zooniverse project, Radio Galaxy Zoo, looks at blobs of plasma, as revealed by their radio emission.

Surely one of the most direct probes into the nature of extra-galactic plasmas.

I’d have expected EU acolytes to be swarming all over it, yet not a peep, in, what, more than four years.
Why would they bother when the mantra clearly lays down the primary EU law (lore?) of:

'Never be seen as questioning the primary assumptions of the holy scriptures .. especially concerning the ubiquitous universal plasma'
SelfSim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2018, 10:04 AM   #119
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Errrm, an inability to understand the requisite science would be my guess!

I notice that Brian Koberlein has disabled comments on his blog, but a recent reading (before they went down) of the nonsense proposed in the comments on his latest blog on EU, and the previous one from a few years ago, would back that up.

BK gets excoriated by a certain poster for not knowing that Thornhill & Scott changed their electric sun models to accommodate neutrinos. Big deal. The poster fails to realise that such nonsense doesn't match observation, so arguing about whether or not these loons propose neutrinos is neither here nor there. I'd love to see where Thornhill & Scott have explained this in detail, but can only find a comment by Thornhill on a silly EU video, where he claims it is happening at the surface due to the 'nucleosynthesis of heavy elements.'
Personally, I’m a by surprised that BK has kept the comments up for so long.

EU nonsense has been thoroughly shown to be, well, inconsistent, not science etc, and a rather large number of EU acolytes more interested in trivial arguments than in discussing science. So continuing to allow comments permits these ideas to be endlessly repeated, without anyone becoming any wiser.

These days it’s such a fringe activity perhaps it’s best to just ignore it.

Quote:
So, all in all, I think it backs up something I've said before; it takes a considerable amount of scientific ignorance to even give EU ideas any head space. And as JT has said before; whatever EU is, it certainly isn't science.
I just dropped in to EU central ... same old, same old.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2018, 01:54 PM   #120
SelfSim
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 465
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
... EU nonsense has been thoroughly shown to be, well, inconsistent, not science etc, and a rather large number of EU acolytes more interested in trivial arguments than in discussing science. So continuing to allow comments permits these ideas to be endlessly repeated, without anyone becoming any wiser.

These days it’s such a fringe activity perhaps it’s best to just ignore it.
...
I just dropped in to EU central ... same old, same old.
I think so, also.

One could even take the position that, in the overall 'rankings' from amongst the set of 'Non-standard cosmologies', EU (& TBolts) has even done considerable damage to say, Plasma Cosmology.

The recent CQ ATM thread 'Is the Universe Static?' and Crawford's accompanying paper, at least demonstrated his willingness to put pen-to-paper, and perform analysis on what he thought was raw SN data. That he showed no particular affiliations with the EU nonsense, also raised the credibility of his arguments, thereby warranting more attention than EU ramblings, (IMO).
SelfSim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.