View Full Version here: : How's This For Tripe....EU "Science" at Work

20-09-2010, 09:49 AM

For a start, supernova explosions can be spherical to asymmetric and everything in between and the remnants are hardly "hourglass" shaped (they're a great variety of shapes). It depends entirely on the progenitor of the explosion and its physical environment.

I suppose that the several hundred neutron stars that they have observed and those they actually have pictures of don't exist, if you want to believe these twits...and that the theory is all wrong. But they themselves are sticklers for "empirical" evidence. How much more empirical can you get....a photo. Their whole denial of their existence is based on circular argument and is illogical.

Then it just devolves into complete nonsense. What is even more laughable is this...

Yet they believe, without question, those "simulations" and "theoretical equations" that their own poster boys (e.g Peratt) come up with...Geez, we hold everyone else up to cynical scrutiny but not our own. How hypocritical.

20-09-2010, 10:02 AM
And here's some more....the planetary scientists will love this:P....


Gotta give these guys their due credit, though. They're so ignorant of the actual science that they can allow their imaginations run wild in a vain attempt of sounding like they actually know something. If only they didn't have this obsessive fixation of electricity. But maybe that's a symptom of their ignorance.

20-09-2010, 10:37 AM

Don't let them get to you - just ignore it if you dont like it
Clearly it winds you up immensely.

The internet is full of fringe groups in every possible area of interest or discipline, scientific and non scientific.
Rightly or wrongly they are entitled to have an opinion - do you really think that without scientific process its going to go anywhere ?
They will be judged on their merits along with everyone else - why fear otherwise.
You cannot make every layman a PhD of Physics, but give people at least some credit for sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

This is the colour of life - its doesn't all have to be right.
We dont live in a black and white universe.

As far as :
"Simulation algorithms can be tweaked with selected parameters to show almost anything that the designers want"

Sure thats true for much of the time - in many cases that is how some algorthms have been developed.
But not so for the String Theorists ! - a far as I know they have been trying vey hard to get a set of parameters that work to show a known environment and so far havent been able to tweak it !!!

The more attention you draw to them by your continuous criticism the more likely it is that people will one, become aware of them and two, even more likely take side with them - its one of those funny quirks of human nature.

Me - I'm not taking any sides - other than to acknowldge that the Standard model isnt working properly - yet it satisfactorily explains most everything in our normal lives so I will just have to accept that its the best we've got for now - but I dont necessarily accept it as fact - but more as a convenience.



20-09-2010, 10:37 AM

i) Supernova explosions:

Its interesting that they speak in hushed reverent tones about Solar Physicists and put their humbleness on the pedestal and then move onto astronomical empirical types:

but its only a start.
They need a translator to turn their words into something which suits their own purpose:

ii) Jupiter:

Lets face it, Jupiter has big time Magnetosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter#Magnetosphere) impacts, both in the atmosphere (around the poles), and also beyond its immediate vicinity (via cyclotron maser mechanism, etc). So what they say does have a semblance of verifiable evidence behind it.

The dissertation morphs from using terms like, 'perhaps', suddenly into 'probably' in the final paragraph .. without any supporting evidence.

This is directly from the book 'How to 'Start Rumours, for Dummies', I think.


20-09-2010, 10:47 AM
Hi Rally;
Watch this space (http://www.physorg.com/news202553083.html).

News to me why doesn't the Standard Model work properly ?

Cheers & Rgds

20-09-2010, 10:59 AM
Yes, it's a big, powerful magnetosphere, but it's still essentially a dipole. If the GRS was "powered" by Birkeland currents as they propose it would no longer be a dipole and there is zip evidence for any Birkeland currents powering anything within the magnetosphere except at the poles and within the sodium torus between Io and the planet. The CMM is also generated at or near the polar regions...here's the quote from Wiki...

That is hardly a semblance of verifiable evidence for anything the EU guys have said on this. It certainly doesn't back up their claim of what formed or "powers" the GRS.

20-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Yep. Agreed.

The quantum 'leap of faith' they continually request of their readers is always not too large a leap for those not bothering to think through, or investigate the details. This is their market and why it is worthwhile occasionally posting threads here .. to make these issues clearer !


20-09-2010, 11:23 AM

Why isnt it working properly ?
Which is different to saying its false or wont reveal itself in the future - with the addition of some more exceptions, particles and fields.

Just that its incomplete - as best I can recall it explains 5% of the universe !

But I didnt realise that this was debatable ?
I thought physicists the world over agree that there are some problems with it describing our universe and hence the need for unified theory that encompasses the Standard Model and everytyhing else, to prove or discover things such as the Higgs particle.
Some notable people like Feynman !

Because it has still yet to (satisfactorily) explain a lot of things that are either observable or hypothesised based on current interpretation of observation.
Some of the major things such as Mass, Dark matter, Dark energy, but also to offer up a better understanding of gravity, time, decay etc

But this is hardly my area of expertise, I just like to read about the science.

My original comment is more about how we react, comment and behave and not especially about the science.


20-09-2010, 11:32 AM
Nyeh, EU's just people fighting to make science a democracy (in which they are prominent citizens), when clearly it isn't. Human psychology - science battles the unknown, EU battles the incomprehensible (to them). It's a lash out at a field that in its complexity has long left the layman behind, an attempt to blindly (ignorantly?) re-establish some relevance in the scientific process. To that extent there is a lot of ego involved, but also a lot of low self-esteem that needs a whipping boy - THE ESTABLISHMENT!

Cheers -

20-09-2010, 12:01 PM
Hi Rally;

Ok. That's cool. I'm not out for a debate. Its just a terminology issue, I think. 'Not working', to me, implies that something is broken. The Standard Particle model is definitely not broken. Neither is the Standard Cosmology Model.

There's always room to extend the existing 'best fit' models. This doesn't imply that they don't work. As a matter of fact, both models in their respective areas, provide the best fit with empirical observations and evidence and both make verifiable, and not-yet-verifiable, predictions.

As you point out, the way various people react to them, is usually a direct function of their understanding, (or lack thereof), and their understanding of the underlying principles.

Interestingly, this trait also characterises the EU 'market'.

Cheers & Rgds

20-09-2010, 12:07 PM
One thing which is important...this is for everyone who decides to post to a reply here or create a thread themselves in this forum...when you mention the "Standard Model", make sure you are specific as to which model you refer to. There are quite a few and not all of them are necessarily connected with one another. For example, if you're talking about cosmology, refer to the model about cosmology. Don't go off on a tangent about particles etc, because that's a different model altogether.

Be specific, then you'll be understood and the conversation will make sense.

20-09-2010, 01:30 PM
Here's an even screwier leap in logic from the fringe:P


A classic example of the misuse of real science in order to justify a fantasy.

20-09-2010, 02:01 PM
There is actually no logic nor justification nor intelligible commentary, I can see in their entire post. The heading is presumed to be the dialogue I guess: "Scientists Prove Velikovsky Correct Again".

Its just a collection of quotes by Velikovsky, Alven, Homer, Euripides, some dudes from the 8th century BC called Sanjaya & Mahabharata, and what the heck … even Shakespeare gets thrown in for good measure !

A connect-the-dots one … more rumour creation !

Well, I mean …thats a glowing reference, right there !! I read that in a comic book once, too !

Absolute rubbish !

PS: I had more fun and intellectual challenge in our General Chat Forum => "Your showing your age when" thread, this morning !
PPS: The reference I meant was the text from Velikovsky .. I wasn't having a go at Phil Plait.

20-09-2010, 02:31 PM
So our EU friends call Phil Plait a pseudoscientist.

Now that's a title that needs to be earned.:lol:



20-09-2010, 02:38 PM
The Mahabharata are the ancient Aryan Vedic sagas. A (very) large collection of ancient writings that first appeared in written form around 1500BC. Written in Sanskrit. Quite a few dudes contributed to that:)

Apart from the general mythological stories in the books, there are a few very interesting stories floating around in them, namely about flying machines called Vimanas and about a description of a war that was fought between two nations. Reads a lot like an ancient version of Star Wars!!!:)

Might've been George Lucas' 150th Great Grandfather who wrote them down:):P:P

Heard a few old wives tails and decided to spice them up a bit:):P

20-09-2010, 02:39 PM
The quote comes from Homer Simpson, not Homer the blind Greek poet.


20-09-2010, 02:44 PM
Yeah, I was wondering about that one...I suppose they'll label Hawking, Witten, Kaku, Greene and others pseudoscientists as well...soon enough.

Well, it's in keeping with their idea on who's qualified to be a scientist...they call Lerner a physicist. They've even labeled Thornhill one!!!!!!:P

20-09-2010, 08:37 PM
It's funny isn't it?

Try this:

Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology