IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Closed Thread
Old 1st May 2020, 03:07 AM   #2241
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A deluded "Meanwhile the thermonuclear Sun model remains theoretical and unpredictive" lie from Wal Thornhill.

The thermonuclear Sun model is based on centuries of empirical solar data and applying extensively tested theoretical physics to the Sun. One of the well known predictions is that the Sun will have a neutrino flux that matches the fusion needed for its energy output. That has been measured to be true !
A less known prediction is that the Sun is powered by specific fusion reactions - the proton–proton chain. The neutrinos from that were detected n 2018.
Comprehensive measurement of pp-chain solar neutrinos
There are other confirmed predictions, e.g. a temperature and density increasing with depth, the photosphere 'boiling' with convection cells (granules).
Not to mention that if our knowledge of the Sun were so far from the mark, we wouldn't be able to predict the appearance of sunspots prior to their emergence using helioseismology;

Detection of Emerging Sunspot Regions in the Solar Interior
Ilonidis, S. et al. (2011)
http://www.bobweigel.info/spaceweath...idis-993-6.pdf

Again, that is one hell of a trick to pull off, given that the idiot Thornhill thinks our whole model of the Sun is wrong!

It occurs to me that claims that Thornhill has a physics degree should be taken with a pinch of salt. Certainly, even in the 1960s, he cannot possibly have obtained such a degree with his level of ignorance of the subject. Undoubtedly, it cannot have been anything associated with astrophysics, plasma physics, nuclear physics and quite a few others.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 03:17 AM   #2242
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Hahahahahahaha! Sorry, but I just came across this;

https://thesecularheretic.com/the-el...iverse-heresy/

Hahahahahahahaha! The idiot has gone full retard! Wal's theory of everything! You couldn't make it up! Well, he did, actually. Yet another science-free bunch of gibberish from the Idiot-in Chief of the electric idiots! Deary me, I think I need a lie down.
I submitted a comment to that article which, for some reason, has not been published I cannot imagine why, as I merely suggested that Thornhill must have escaped from bed to use the interweb to write that article, whilst his nurses weren't looking. And that one would hope that appropriate restraints would prevent any such further occurrences.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 09:53 PM   #2243
Subduction Zone
Muse
 
Subduction Zone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 999
The flaws of the Electric Universe in a simple video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw&t=0s
__________________
humber:
Quote:
If you "feel" 1G for 1sec, how far you travel depends only on your mass.
Subduction Zone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 08:44 AM   #2244
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
Originally Posted by Subduction Zone View Post
The flaws of the Electric Universe in a simple video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw&t=0s
A pretty decent take down of the electric woo. It is pretty much on the same level of flat Earthism, creationism and astrology for me.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 01:37 PM   #2245
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
I submitted a comment to that article which, for some reason, has not been published I cannot imagine why, as I merely suggested that Thornhill must have escaped from bed to use the interweb to write that article, whilst his nurses weren't looking. And that one would hope that appropriate restraints would prevent any such further occurrences.
Which pinpoints yet another bit of insanity from Wal Thornhill. That is an small web site for art works - "Heresies Poetry Prose Art" - run by poet and a writer!
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 09:40 PM   #2246
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Which pinpoints yet another bit of insanity from Wal Thornhill. That is an small web site for art works - "Heresies Poetry Prose Art" - run by poet and a writer!
Looks like they've found their scientific level!
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 4th May 2020, 08:37 PM   #2247
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Neutrons "are a transient coupling of an electron and proton" insanity from Wal Thornhill.
Just before this in Thornhill's insane rant is "Neutrons do not exist as stable particles in atoms (see later).".

This is a promise of later insanity because neutrons do exist as (mostly) stable particles in atoms. The exception is neutrons can beta decay in radioactive elements. This is behavior predicted by QM. If an atomic nucleus has a energy state allowing neutron decay then neutron decay can occur.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th May 2020, 08:55 PM   #2248
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation "The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle", etc. insanity

"The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle", etc. insanity from Thornhill's insane rant.

The mere fact that electron is charged and has angular momentum tells us that it cannot be an expended particle otherwise its surface (his orbiting charges) would be travelling faster than the speed of light at its classic radius. The measured upper limit to an electron's radius is several orders of magnitude less.

"It must have structure" insanity.
The quantization of the spin tells us that it is impossible to be a classic spin of an extended body or a collection of orbiting bodies. The angular momentum (spin) of an electron must be intrinsic, not a physical rotation. That was shown in 1922 by the Stern–Gerlach experiment (a beam of silver atoms which must classically have a mixture of angular momentum sizes and orientations forms 2 bands when passed thru an inhomogeneous magnetic field).

"orbital motion of charges within the electron" insanity.
Classical physics states that any orbiting charges radiate energy and fall into the center. That is why atoms do not exist in classical physics .

"transfer of electrical energy" gibberish.

Applies this insanity and gibberish to the proton.

An insane "Weber’s law, being instantaneous, removes the ‘spookiness’" of quantum entanglement lie.
There is no Weber law. There is Weber electrodynamics which is an alternative to Maxwell electrodynamics. It is not instantaneous. What it does is make the Coulomb force and potential energy velocity dependent.
The Coulomb force and thus Weber electrodynamics is irrelevant to quantum entanglement. Particles with entangled spin do not use any classical physics.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th May 2020, 09:02 PM   #2249
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation A "We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter ..." delusion

A "We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent" delusion from Thornhill's insane rant.

We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the enormous body of evidence about the structure of matter ! That is basically the definition of science. That is the scientific fields called atomic and nuclear physics.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th May 2020, 09:14 PM   #2250
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Some "spinning bucket of water experiment" lies

Some "spinning bucket of water experiment" lies from Thornhill's insane rant.

Isaac Newton did not actually spin a bucket of water around. Newton had an opinion abut absolute space and absolute motion, applied that to a spinning bucket of water thought experiment and thus to the solar system.
Newton's Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion
Quote:
XII. The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of receding from the axis of circular motion. For there are no such forces in a circular motion purely relative, but in a true and absolute circular motion, they are greater or less, according to the quantity of the motion. If a vessel...
Newton was wrong about absolute space and absolute motion as the theory and experimental verification of relativity shows.
Newton is not talking about Einstein’s relativity. If Newton had read Einstein’s relativity, it is extremely probable that he would have agreed with it, especially the easily understood 1905 paper on special relativity.

Last edited by Reality Check; 4th May 2020 at 09:16 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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 05:57 AM   #2251
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,213
Originally Posted by Subduction Zone View Post
The flaws of the Electric Universe in a simple video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw&t=0s
Classic!



Gas and Gravity!
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 06:18 AM   #2252
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Classic!



Gas and Gravity!
Another idiotic, uneducated comment. Give up.
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 02:53 PM   #2253
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation A pathological "Gas and Gravity!" lie about a flaws of theEU video

A pathological "Gas and Gravity!" lie about a flaws of the Electric Universe video.
As expected - see The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma. and 101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

Debunking the Electric Universe is amazingly about the idiocy in the EU !
EU is yet another YouTube hoax similar to the Flat Earthers. EU is just another flavor of paranoia and mysticism and he goes on to demonstrate this using the Thunderbolts Project. etc.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th May 2020 at 04:25 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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 04:40 PM   #2254
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation "His principle of the equivalence of his ‘inertial frames of reference’" insanity

"His principle of the equivalence of his ‘inertial frames of reference’" insanity from Thornhill's insane rant.

Inertial frames of reference were not invented by Einstein. Newton's definitions of absolute space and time were basically them.

There is no such principle in relativity. Special relativity has the postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is constant for inertial observers. The equivalence principle is GR.

Followed by demented "has the effect of making arbitrary moving observers the centres of their own individual universes" gibberish. Observers move in Newtonian physics and do not have their own universes. Relativity preserves that fact. Relativity states that moving observers will measure different time intervals and distances in this universe. When we do the measurements in this universe we see time dilation and (indirectly) length contraction.
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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 04:46 PM   #2255
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation "Einstein went on in his general relativity to discard ... gravity" lie

"Einstein went on in his general relativity to discard the indispensable force of gravity!" lie from Thornhill's insane rant.

What general relativity does is have an extra step that makes the force of gravity closer to what it is in the real universe. Mass and energy cause curvature of spacetime. Objects in curved spacetime act as if they are under a force which is close to (but not the same as) the classical force of gravity.
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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 05:02 PM   #2256
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation "Einstein falls directly into this fallacy ..." insanity

"Einstein falls directly into this fallacy when he mistakes the measures of relative time for actual time", etc. insanity from Thornhill's insane rant.

Einstein's 1905 paper does not "confuse any clock with real time or any measure with real space" as anyone who has read it or learns about it knows. "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (PDF) is an easily understood derivation from 2 postulates using physics and mathematics.

A "makes simultaneous action impossible" lie. Relativity of simultaneity is that different observers cannot agree whether 2 events are simultaneous. This is how the real universe acts. A finite speed of light will have this effect even in classical physics (see the thought experiments in that article).

A "Simultaneity is essential for universal coherence." delusion.
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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 05:31 PM   #2257
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Cherry picking an irrelevant 1992 André Assis paper

Cherry picking an irrelevant 1992 André Assis paper in Thornhill's insane rant.
This paper is not his demented idea.

Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism by André Assis; Can. J. Phys. 70, 1992. pp. 330-40.
This has some of the signatures of a dubious paper. Singe author. Supposedly breakthrough physics not published in a high impact journal. A Brazilian author publishing in a Canadian journal. Cited 10 times in 28 years, 3 times by Assis!

Assis generalizes Weber's electrodynamics by adding more velocity dependent terms. He calculates the force between neutral dipoles: "Each dipole is supposed to consist of a positive charge at the center and a negative charge oscillating harmonically around the positive charge, as usual." and notes it looks like Newton's gravity and higher terms give a "precession of the perihelion". But
  • These dipoles are theoretical and do not exist in Nature.
  • Planets are definitely not his neutral dipoles.
There is some idiocy about inertia in protons and electrons. Protons and electron have mass and thus obviously inertia! No one thinks that inertia is only a property of neutral bodies.
There is some abysmal ignorance about protons and electrons being composite bodies because they have spin. Protons are composite bodies because they have a measurable size and quarks inside them. The spin of protons and electrons is intrinsic.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th May 2020 at 05:51 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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 05:49 PM   #2258
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Irrelevant lying about "The noted physicist, Fritz London"

Irrelevant lying about "The noted physicist, Fritz London...contemplated an electric dipole model of gravity" in Thornhill's insane rant.
Fritz London died before Thornhill's demented idea even existed.

Fritz London and other sources do not mention any "electric dipole model of gravity". London may have thought about it but no sign of any publication says he discarded he idea.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th May 2020 at 05:52 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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 06:00 PM   #2259
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Insane "the distortion of the orbits of sub-subatomic charges..." gibberish

Insane "the distortion of the orbits of sub-subatomic charges within the electrons and protons ..." gibberish as the cause of gravity in Thornhill's insane rant.

His insanity of orbiting charges is impossible in classical physics (they radiate and no longer orbit).

Insanity that his physically impossible dipoles magically sum up to a giant dipole of celestial bodies to give gravity between them.

"And as a subatomic phenomenon, gravity cannot be shielded electrically." insanity. All electromagnetic phenomenon can be shielded "electrically" - just add the appropriate charge! Atoms are in general electrically neutral because they have equal numbers of electrons and protons.
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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 06:03 PM   #2260
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Insane "... G, is neither universal nor constant" delusion

Insane "Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, or G, is neither universal nor constant" delusion in Thornhill's insane rant.

By definition, G is a proportionality constant between gravitational force and the masses causing it. It has dimensions of mass, length, and time. His insanity is that a dimension of mass make G a dependent variable!

In the same paragraph is Another insane delusion and lie from Wal Thornhill in his nonsensical rant is "comet nuclei are observed to be rocky with sharply featured geology and no surface ice—dismissing the dirty snowball model"

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th May 2020 at 06:31 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 Back to Top
Old 5th May 2020, 06:38 PM   #2261
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Insane "Comets are “Rosetta Stones” for the Electric Sun model" delusions

Insane "Comets are “Rosetta Stones” for the Electric Sun model" delusions in Thornhill's insane rant.

For comets we have measured masses and sizes that give densities that are not of rocks.
"Cometary masses derived from non-gravitational forces" by Sosa & Fernandez, 2009.
"A ballistics analysis of the Deep Impact ejecta plume: Determining Comet Tempel 1's gravity, mass, and density" by Richardson, et al., 2007.
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko: The RSI instrument measured the mass of 67P. The CONSERT instrument confirmed that 67P is not rock (~75% porosity).

Writing insane delusions does not change this physical fact about comets.
"Mineral particles and atoms" being spluttered from the surface is insane in itself. That mass being accelerated to leave the nucleus would not cause non-gravitational forces (F=ma ) is totally insane.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th May 2020, 07:15 PM   #2262
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
Originally Posted by Subduction Zone View Post
The flaws of the Electric Universe in a simple video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw&t=0s
Ahem.....might be worth keeping an eye on this channel over the coming few days or so. Ben Davidson is not going to be a happy bunny, the scientifically illiterate shyster!
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2020, 04:42 PM   #2263
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Some "misleading OH signatures attributed conventionally to water ice from the comet

Some "misleading OH signatures attributed conventionally to water ice from the comet nucleus" insanity in Thornhill's insane rant.

He has a delusion that oxygen is spluttered from rocks by electric discharges and solar wind protons combine with this magical oxygen to give OH.
This is insane because we had a mass spectrometer in orbit around 67P and detected water in its coma, e.g.
The surface distributions of the production of the major volatile species, H2O, CO2, CO and O2, from the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko throughout the Rosetta Mission as measured by the ROSINA double focusing mass spectrometer
This is insane because we have detected water ice on the surface of Tempel 1 and 67P. Laboratory experiments show that this water ice must sublimate when comets heat up in their approach to the Sun.
We have never detected O being emitted from comet nuclei.
And of course his insanity includes denying the over 70 years of evidence, including the Rosetta mission to 67P, that show that comets are less dense than water, have ice and dust and have high porosity (~75%) - they are not rocks.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2020, 04:53 PM   #2264
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Insane citation of B. J. R. Davidsson etn al. "Nucleus properties of Comet 9P ..."

Insane citation of B. J. R. Davidsson etn al. "Nucleus properties of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 estimated from non-gravitational force modelling." Icarus 187, 2007. p. 312 in Thornhill's insane rant.

Nucleus properties of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 estimated from non-gravitational force modeling by Björn J.R. Davidsson, Pedro J. Gutiérrez, Hans Rickman (2007) gives an estimate of the nucleus mass and bulk density of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 that debunks the insanity that comets are rocks. The bulk density of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 is 0.450 +/- 0.250 g/cc.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2020, 05:00 PM   #2265
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Ignorant delusions about his comet delusions

Ignorant delusions about his comet delusions in Thornhill's insane rant.

He whines about Nucleus properties of Comet 9P/Tempel 1 estimated from non-gravitational force modeling by Björn J.R. Davidsson, Pedro J. Gutiérrez, Hans Rickman (2007) saying water production rate falls off “around 30 days pre-perihelion, and continuing for the next 50 days,” and has a delusion that his fantasy can explain this. Anyone with a brain would predict that his comet insanity includes that comets will switch off at perihelion. There will be basically none of the movement thru an imaginary massive solar electric field that he needs.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2020, 06:11 PM   #2266
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Insanity that gravity is a repulsive force

Insanity that gravity is a repulsive force in Thornhill's insane rant.

"Notice that the same electro-gravitational pole faces outward in all celestial bodies. So they repel one another gravitationally ...". He has an insane delusion that the Sun repels the Earth and it is repulsion from the rest of the universe that makes the Earth orbit the Sun. Insane because of "electro-gravitational". Insane because of "pole". Insane because of the inverse square law of gravity (the Sun literally has massively more influence on the Earth than the next closest star).

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th May 2020 at 06:14 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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2020, 06:24 PM   #2267
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation More "repulsive dipole gravity" + "non-expanding Electric Universe" insanity

More "repulsive dipole gravity" + "non-expanding Electric Universe" insanity in Thornhill's insane rant.

"Of course repulsive dipole gravity forbids the formation of galaxies, stars and planets by gravitational accretion, mergers and collisions" is insane because we see galaxies, stars and planets form by gravitational accretion, mergers and collisions !
We have physical evidence that the Milky Way has eaten dwarf galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy will collide with the Milky Way and eat it in about 4 billon years. We have many images of colliding galaxies.
We have images of stars forming from the collapse of a molecular cloud to the ignition of the star.
We have images of planets forming and clearing their orbits in stellar systems.
The evidence for an expanding universe is enormous and explained by textbook physics. Thornhill's demented cult seem to be incapable of explaining any of this evidence.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2020, 06:52 PM   #2268
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation "That is why gravity applies only inside the Sun’s plasma heliosheath" insanity

"That is why gravity applies only inside the Sun’s plasma heliosheath" insanity in Thornhill's insane rant.

He has an uncited phrase from Hannes Alfvén considering gravitational systems "the ashes of former electromagnetic systems". This is not Thornhill's insane lie of Alfvén stating that gravity only exists inside the heliosheath. This would be Alfvén stating mainstream plasma physics is important in the formation of the Solar System and much less important (e.g. burnt out) in the current Solar System. Gravity has no limits and Alfvén knew that.

Thornhill labels Alfvén as the father of plasma cosmology. This is idiocy because plasma cosmology was a scientific cosmology unrelated to the electric universe woo. It was quickly realized to be either wrong or untestable.
Quote:
In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén–Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[16] In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2020, 07:17 PM   #2269
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation A blatant "The observational evidence for repulsive gravity was assembled by Arp

A blatant "The observational evidence for repulsive gravity was assembled by the ‘modern day Galileo,’ Dr. Halton Arp." lie in Thornhill's insane rant.

Arp wrote an article on Le Sage gravity which is not Thornhill's gravity from electromagnetism delusion. It is a postulated mechanical cause of Newtonian gravity from "hard" particles bouncing off each other.
His article may be similar to his The Observational Impetus For “Le Sage” Gravity web page. Unfortunately this page shows that Apr was a crank - see his Table 1, Expanding Earth section, redshifts quantization related to planetary system formation related to Bohr atom!

ETA: The idiocy of the Galileo gambit.
What makes a person a scientific genius like Galileo Galilei is a body of valid, break-through science. That is not Halton Arp who was just a competent astronomer who fell into the trap of believing in his ideas rather than empirical evidence.
The other half of the gambit is that Arp was persecuted. He had his pseudo-science about quasars which was ignored by vast majority of astronomers. The problem he had was getting telescope time at the Hale Telescope, Harvard. This is allocated according to the merits of the proposed research. For many years, his research gained him telescope time but in decreasing amounts as more viable research was done. Arp finally refused to submit an application for time and took early retirement to work at the Planck Institute for Astrophysics.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th May 2020 at 07:59 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 Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 07:34 PM   #2270
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation "Arp showed the visible universe is much smaller than cosmologists think..." lies

"Arp showed the visible universe is much smaller than cosmologists think..." lies in Thornhill's insane rant.

Arp imagined a physical association between high-redshift quasars and low-redshift active galaxies. He had some dubious statistics where his purposed alignments were unlikely. But replace his active galaxies with an arbitrary empty point and similar low probability alignments exist!

We do not use quasars to measure the size of the visible universe.

A "the quasar is in front of the galaxy" lie.
The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 does not say that the "X-ray emitting QSO" is in front of NGC 7319. That may not even a QSO.
Ultraluminous X-ray sources are one or more of
  • Beamed emission
  • Intermediate-mass black holes
  • Background QSO shining thru the galaxies
    "A significant fraction of observed ULXs are in fact background sources."
  • Supernova remnants
Burbidge et al. imagine that because the light from a background QSO interacts with a foreground galaxy, it must be in the galaxy. They ignore the fact that galaxies are fairly transparent.

"Edwin Hubble was right to believe the expanding universe hypothesis implausible" idiocy. His opinion from 1942 is irrelevant to modern cosmology.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th May 2020 at 07:35 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 Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 07:52 PM   #2271
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Redshift quantization lie and QM insanity

"Significantly, Arp also found the redshifted light from quasars is quantized" lie and "The nonsense of quantum phenomena only occurring at the atomic scale is apparent here" insanity in Thornhill's insane rant.

This is a lie by omission. Redshift quantization started with William G. Tifft, was given an empirical formula by Karlsson and Burbidge, etc. Arp published a few papers on this. We know that any periodicity in Karlsson's formula (as in Arp et al. (2005)) vanishes with more data. If there is any periodicity, it is not predicted by Arp's quasars erupting from active galaxies fantasy.

Thornhill writes the complete insanity that redshift quantization is the same quantization in quantum mechanics.
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 Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 09:04 PM   #2272
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
A nice hit piece on Ben Davidson;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOazE6M8Cc
__________________
“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 Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 07:13 AM   #2273
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,643
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
A nice hit piece on Ben Davidson;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOazE6M8Cc
Followed by a thinly veiled threat of violence from the narcissistic loon Davidson, replete with lies about his 'achievements';

The 'NASA scientist' on the 'paper' was a NASA electrical engineer, who does earthquake woo on the side! Presumably NASA have told him to keep them out of his woo, hence him not showing any institutional accreditation on that 'paper'.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN M8+ EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCES AND
THE SOLAR POLAR MAGNETIC FIELDS

Davidson, B. et al.
http://suspicious0bservers.org/wp-co...04/Paper-1.pdf *

*Beware: link directly opens a pdf full of bollocks!

As you can see, Sodapop, or whatever his name is, is showing no institution.

The 'journal', New Concepts in Global Tectonics, is a woo venture, whose E-I-C is this fruitloop;

Louis Hissink;
https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/

The only citations to the 'paper' are from other fruitloops, and the 'NASA scientists' just happen to rent space on a NASA research park!

He then claims that his 'paper' has been used to predict earthquakes! Not that I can see! And nobody has bothered referencing him if they have.

He then goes on to make the outrageous lie that his woo is part of the mission plan for this satellite;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSES_Mission

Of course, that mission is not looking at anything to do with his Sun caused earthquakes (which we have a long thread on somewhere), but is looking at the well known phenomenon of EM signatures caused by seismicity prior to an earthquake.

He does get one thing right in that email, however; "EU is plasma cosmology + the myth *****."!!!!

All in all, a nasty piece of narcissistic, Dunning-Kruger afflicted work.

EDIT: For those not au fait with this clown, we are talking about Ben Davidson, who runs a youtube channel called 'SuspiciousObservers'. He promotes all sorts of crap, including electric universe woo.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Davidson email.jpg (76.1 KB, 6 views)
__________________
“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; 14th May 2020 at 07:19 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 04:15 PM   #2274
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
...EDIT: For those not au fait with this clown, we are talking about Ben Davidson, who runs a youtube channel called 'SuspiciousObservers'. He promotes all sorts of crap, including electric universe woo.
A couple of delusions from Ben Davidson in the thumbnail.Ben Davidson is so abysmally ignorant about science and recognizing cranks that he was a speaker at the EU2017 conference. And EU2016 as in the photo of him in that video.
The ignorant fantasies of Ben Davidson about climate change in an unavailable because of copyright issues YouTube video.
The thread where Ben Davidson's earthquakes woo pops up is Haig and his Sun caused earthquakes. Haig linked to Davidson's crank YouTube channel in the Global warming discussion III thread and this thread was spun off.

More from the Response to Ben Davidson video.
Suspicious0bservers
Quote:
Suspicious Observers (Suspicious0bservers) is a pseudoscience YouTube channel run by ex-lawyer Ben Davidson who has a degree in economics from Denison University and a Juris Doctorate from Capital University Law School, but no actual science training. His ideas have been debunked by genuine climate scientists.[1] He has various websites on which he sells his scribblings and tickets to his "annual conference".[notes 1] Davidson makes far-fetched claims about dozens of scientists attending his conferences and conversing secretly with him, but there has only been one notable name at any of his meetings — John Coleman, another notable climate denier.
Insanity and lie about features on Mars at EU2026. We have his insanity that electric discharges caused the feature because his image has craters on one side and none on the other. Anyone with a brain would expect that meteor impacts have peppered the terrain and then something overwrite some of the terrain. He purposely snipped the image to omit volcanoes whose lava flows would destroy craters!
Ben Davidson's "top paper" is a paper with bad correlations and only 8 citations. One of the citations says his paper is wrong ! One is from people renting space on a NASA research park. One is a 9/11 conspiracy rant.
"New Concepts in Global Tectonics": no peer review, not in SciFinder (i.e. not real science). The paper is a vanity publication.
An unsupported claim of a textbook by Ben Davidson used in 22 universities.
More confusion by Davidson between plasma cosmology and EU. More inability to understand the plain English in Professor Dave's Electric Universe video.
"Friction driven attraction" + "static stickiness" on planets + "dark plasma" + cosmic web = electric currents + an article and its press release are 2 separate sources gibberish from Davidson.
Davidson says black holes, and neutron stars are allowed in plasma cosmology (but Davidson does not know that EU denies them!).
The infantile threats in an email (the thumbnail attached here).
Davidson does not know that "plasma cosmology is dead" because it cannot account for Hubble's law, relative abundance of light elements, cosmic microwave backgund radiation, the list goes on.
"general relativity is consistent beyond reasonable doubt (as I explained in my video with no refutation from any of you)".
"you grossly misrepresent the level of confidence astrophysicists have in the existence of dark matter".
The video description
Quote:
So I put out a debunk video centered on an absurd notion called "The Electric Universe". It pissed off a lot of people, such as a fellow named Ben Davidson, who I had never heard of, but that has a YouTube channel which talks about things sort of tangentially related to this topic. Without any provocation, he took it upon himself to slander me and threaten me by email, before making a ridiculous excuse for a response video countering my debunk. This is my response to his response, because I don't really appreciate being called a fraud, particularly when his response is full of abject nonsense as is his channel in general. Enjoy.

My original EU debunk video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v...

Solar Physicist Debunks Ben: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DFyp...
Solar Physicist Debunks Ben Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OcF...
Geologist Debunks Ben Some More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xS13...
A Mountain of Ben Debunking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxg9E...
Still More: http://whac-a-troll.blogspot.com/2015...

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th May 2020 at 05:54 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 Back to Top
Old 27th July 2021, 07:22 PM   #2276
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,213
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Which oscillating flavour are you after?
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th July 2021, 07:53 PM   #2277
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,213
It's a whole new ball game now!

The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

On the charge of the Galactic centre black hole

Quote:
Based on this test, the current upper observational limit on the charge of Sgr A* is ≲3×108C⁠.



Anyhoo, soon as they stop divinding by zero, they'll come to the conclusion "black holes" are indeed "plasma-magnetic entity's"
__________________
“No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing.” Jonesdave116.

“The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story!” Indagator

Last edited by Sol88; 27th July 2021 at 07:55 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th July 2021, 08:52 PM   #2278
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation A rather stupid question when the question answers it - all of them

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Which oscillating flavour are you after?
A rather stupid question when the question asks for all of them.
11 November 2019: What is the Thunderbolts EU cult source for the neutrinos we detect, Sol88 (so far deafening silence from Sol88!)

Most people who are not a member of the deluded Thunderbolts cult know that we have detected all of the neutrinos predicted from the amount of fusion needed to power the Sun. Knowledgeable people know that we have detected neutrinos from the dominant nuclear reaction powering the Sun - the p-p chain.
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 Back to Top
Old 27th July 2021, 09:23 PM   #2279
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Sol88's litany of lies continues - he believes black holes do not exist

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It's a whole new ball game now!...
Sol88's litany of lies continues (over 12 years of continues lies in the comet thread !).
His and his cult's deluded dogma is that black holes do not exist at all. Thus the lie of citing a paper about a black hole.
The stupidity of a random quote from On the charge of the Galactic centre black hole just derives an upper limit of that charge. Anyone who knows basic English knows that means Sgr A* can have no charge!
Sol88's stupidity of linking to a Plasmoid article with no black holes! This is a tiny part of what makes his cult so deluded that insanity becomes more appropriate. They are deluded to think any black hole is a plasmoid because they need specific conditions to exist and the cult have no idea what they are.
We have observed Sagittarius A* and it is something that emits no light having a mass ~4 million solar masses in an astronomically tiny volume. It is deluded to think that this is plasma because plasma emits light. It is literally insane to think that this is plasma because gravity exists and would collapse their imaginary plasmoid into a neutron star and beyond !
We have 6 years of observations of gravitational waves from merging black holes.
We have images of the event horizon of a black hole doing what GR predicts it does.
We have not detected any light from stellar black holes which are too dense to be plasma.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th July 2021, 08:38 AM   #2280
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 53,370
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
It's a whole new ball game now!

The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!

On the charge of the Galactic centre black hole



Tell me, Sol88, is that a large value or a small value compared to its mass?

Quote:
Anyhoo, soon as they stop divinding by zero, they'll come to the conclusion "black holes" are indeed "plasma-magnetic entity's"
You can't even figure out the difference between plural and possessive forms of nouns, and you expect people to listen to your opinions on complex physics?

And no, black holes are rather obviously not plasmoids.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

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 08:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.