Concerning the EU (Electric Universe) Theory

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I find it difficult to accept that any person is entitled to a belief that only their view is the correct one... and the saying ...a little knowledge be a dangerous thing... springs to mind. In time one must realize that one knows little and most of what were our facts are not worthy of such qualification.

I find it difficult to accept that some folk believe that their science is infallible and then call any alternative nonsense.... and another saying comes to mind...listen to the dull and the ignorant for they to have a story.

The EU group is little different to any other group...they believe they are right because they have "facts"... they are no different to big bangers who say they have the facts....those facts tell us to believe in many things we can not prove...no one can prove the big bang no more than someone can prove the existence of God... but all camps offer their evidence of absolute proof...the bible or the science does not prove what each believe they have established beyond doubt.

The facts are however all are mere humans and as great and wonderful they believe their knowledge base and scientific approach what we/they know is not that much really...and so who has the right to say they know it all.

One could go to uni all their life and still find they know zip about everything... in fact I feel the more one learns the more one is faced with a realization that we know much less than we originally thought.


Those who hold the standard model up as the correct and the only reasonable view would be well advised to look at some of the notions that the standard model suggest are reasonable. AND while taking such a long look to remember that speculation is not science.. It is easy to uncover areas where the term science is used as authority but in fact a scientific approach was clearly abandoned. Just look at the crap on time travel speculation that is generated by those claiming GR as valid science...GR may be valid science but there are more using it and quoting it than folk who understand it.... and when they speculate upon stupid things they say it is science...no it is not.

the speculation upon what happens inside a black hole seems so reasonable as it is science... but speculation is not science...

Anyways when one argues with passion that their view is the correct one it could point to a careless abandonment of respect for another s point of view and an arrogant belief that they know everything.

I have learn these things by looking hard at the approach of others as well as my own approach.



alex

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but do you know in what context that was written?? A little knowledge, with the emphasis on little. Ignorance maybe bliss, but only to those that are, Alex.

It's like this....when the work of thousands of scientist over many decades is called in question by someone or a group of people who have no respect for those scientists and their work, who denigrate them and denigrate the science and mathematics they study, who have little or no respect for science itself and take views from within the scientific community that maybe at odds with the general consensus and then twist those views to suit their own agendas, who actually have little or no understanding of science and have exhibited that in nearly everything they have espoused, who, when challenged run away from the challenge because they have no intention of exposing themselves to proper scrutiny which will show how lacking they are....it's then that it can be clearly seen that what these people have to say has no real worth about it at all, except as stories, as you say. Mythology and religion.

No one has claimed that their science is infallible in any case here, and I would be the last one to do so. However, what I have said, and what countless others before me have said in the face of what is at the very best just speculation, with little or no observational evidence whatsoever, is that if you're going to espouse a certain point of view, it has to undergo scrutiny and survive the test of validation. If it doesn't and in fact has predictions which are not borne out by the evidence that is readily available, then it has been falsified. It has no basis for being accepted. That is how science works, but it's something that the average person in the street seems to find a little difficult to grasp. Seeing is not believing, nor is coming up with the first idea that springs to mind going to always be the correct one.

You were talking about reasonable notions as suggested by a model of reality that is generally accepted by most scientists. Yes, it's model, but one that has strong predictive powers and has stood the test of time and scrutiny, more or less. It's not perfect, but no scientist would say that it was and it maybe replaced in the future by something else even better. But until then, it's what we have and it works very well. Much better than many of the competing ideas that have been proposed. But what we find is that some of those competing ideas end up incorporated into the standard model anyway. That's how the standard model develops over time. However, they only get incorporated when over time they are found to have some veracity in themselves which adds to the model that already exists.

In any case, who's to say that reality is reasonable. Nothing you see, touch, taste or smell has anything to do with the nature of reality. In fact, you have no idea of what reality actually is because your senses are so easily fooled. Just because your senses tell you one thing doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be the case. The same goes for your "common sense" which is ultimately based on your sensory perceptions in any case. Your logic is dictated by your senses, your experiences and you extrapolate from that. If you knew anything about science and you had experience with the experimentation that goes on, you would know that the nature of reality is far otherwise. That's why people such as yourself and the public in general have such a hard time understanding science. You come at it from a limited perspective and you get lost when something unexpected comes up. You then grasp at straws for answers and invariably the answers you come up with are wrong....full stop. No ifs or buts, because you're coming to your conclusions from a knowledge base which is severely limited and faulty to begin with. That's why scientist sometimes appear to be condescending to the general public, because they "dumb" down the science in order for the general public to be able to understand what they're doing. It's just lucky that we have some excellent communicators in both science and journalism who can breakdown the complexities into reasonably easy to understand concepts. You seems to think that scientist have an easy time of things....they don't. It takes years of study and practice to become a competent scientist and even then they can still find themselves perplexed and bothered by what they find. How then, do you expect most people, who have little or no training or experience, to then come out and understand what's going on or have "the answers". The fact that some think they do is nothing more than sheer and utter arrogance and hubris, all predicated on their own ignorance and misguided beliefs.

Yes, one could go to uni for years and know zip, but they would know far more than those who have done nothing and know less than zip.

You talk about speculation and science....you mentioned time travel and GR and say that "speculation about that time travel crap"....that's precisely what I was talking about in the last few paragraphs. How do you know any better than someone who has spent years studying this to come out and say that it's crap??!!!!. You've never studied the science behind it, you've never spent time gaining the experience through research to try and understand it, so how can you make such a pronouncement??!!. You can't!!!!. All you're stating is an opinion but one based on very little knowledge at all and no understanding of the subject. It only really holds weight as an opinion amongst those who are also in the same position as yourself. Still, it's your opinion and that is to be respected, but that still doesn't make it any more worthy of consideration in the context of the actual science. That goes for everyone....even amongst scientist, when they come up with an idea, it has to pass scrutiny. If it doesn't then it doesn't hold, no matter what that scientist may think of his/her idea. They can stubbornly hold onto it forever and a day, but that still doesn't make it right. Or wrong, but that is to be determined by that scrutiny I have been talking about.

That's why scientist get pissed at people sometimes. They ask questions about something or want to learn about particular things and in most cases a scientist will be happy to help out and teach others about their field(s) of study. However, when people repeatedly show that they have no intention of listening to what is being said and they keep challenging scientists with throw away notions and other such nonsense, keep asking the same questions over and over again or make statements repeatedly just to hear themselves repeat their same old diatribe, denigrate the scientist and the science and then expect to be taken seriously, then you know why they lose patience and just ignore them. Acting like that is just a sign of being an ignoramus and an idiot.

At least that is something you aren't....you may have some wild ideas, but you have respect for others and you know when to say "you have the knowledge and training, so I'm willing to listen". You may not agree, but at least you acknowledge the science and have some respect for it.

The EU crowd have little respect for anyone or anything, even for those they misguidedly believe uphold their notions.

[sjastro]

Well put Carl.

Here is a scientist dealing with the same issues.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Steven

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but do you know in what context that was written?? A little knowledge, with the emphasis on little. Ignorance maybe bliss, but only to those that are, Alex.

It's like this....when the work of thousands of scientist over many decades is called in question by someone or a group of people who have no respect for those scientists and their work, who denigrate them and denigrate the science and mathematics they study, who have little or no respect for science itself and take views from within the scientific community that maybe at odds with the general consensus and then twist those views to suit their own agendas, who actually have little or no understanding of science and have exhibited that in nearly everything they have espoused, who, when challenged run away from the challenge because they have no intention of exposing themselves to proper scrutiny which will show how lacking they are....it's then that it can be clearly seen that what these people have to say has no real worth about it at all, except as stories, as you say. Mythology and religion.

No one has claimed that their science is infallible in any case here, and I would be the last one to do so. However, what I have said, and what countless others before me have said in the face of what is at the very best just speculation, with little or no observational evidence whatsoever, is that if you're going to espouse a certain point of view, it has to undergo scrutiny and survive the test of validation. If it doesn't and in fact has predictions which are not borne out by the evidence that is readily available, then it has been falsified. It has no basis for being accepted. That is how science works, but it's something that the average person in the street seems to find a little difficult to grasp. Seeing is not believing, nor is coming up with the first idea that springs to mind going to always be the correct one.

You were talking about reasonable notions as suggested by a model of reality that is generally accepted by most scientists. Yes, it's model, but one that has strong predictive powers and has stood the test of time and scrutiny, more or less. It's not perfect, but no scientist would say that it was and it maybe replaced in the future by something else even better. But until then, it's what we have and it works very well. Much better than many of the competing ideas that have been proposed. But what we find is that some of those competing ideas end up incorporated into the standard model anyway. That's how the standard model develops over time. However, they only get incorporated when over time they are found to have some veracity in themselves which adds to the model that already exists.

In any case, who's to say that reality is reasonable. Nothing you see, touch, taste or smell has anything to do with the nature of reality. In fact, you have no idea of what reality actually is because your senses are so easily fooled. Just because your senses tell you one thing doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be the case. The same goes for your "common sense" which is ultimately based on your sensory perceptions in any case. Your logic is dictated by your senses, your experiences and you extrapolate from that. If you knew anything about science and you had experience with the experimentation that goes on, you would know that the nature of reality is far otherwise. That's why people such as yourself and the public in general have such a hard time understanding science. You come at it from a limited perspective and you get lost when something unexpected comes up. You then grasp at straws for answers and invariably the answers you come up with are wrong....full stop. No ifs or buts, because you're coming to your conclusions from a knowledge base which is severely limited and faulty to begin with. That's why scientist sometimes appear to be condescending to the general public, because they "dumb" down the science in order for the general public to be able to understand what they're doing. It's just lucky that we have some excellent communicators in both science and journalism who can breakdown the complexities into reasonably easy to understand concepts. You seems to think that scientist have an easy time of things....they don't. It takes years of study and practice to become a competent scientist and even then they can still find themselves perplexed and bothered by what they find. How then, do you expect most people, who have little or no training or experience, to then come out and understand what's going on or have "the answers". The fact that some think they do is nothing more than sheer and utter arrogance and hubris, all predicated on their own ignorance and misguided beliefs.

Yes, one could go to uni for years and know zip, but they would know far more than those who have done nothing and know less than zip.

You talk about speculation and science....you mentioned time travel and GR and say that "speculation about that time travel crap"....that's precisely what I was talking about in the last few paragraphs. How do you know any better than someone who has spent years studying this to come out and say that it's crap??!!!!. You've never studied the science behind it, you've never spent time gaining the experience through research to try and understand it, so how can you make such a pronouncement??!!. You can't!!!!. All you're stating is an opinion but one based on very little knowledge at all and no understanding of the subject. It only really holds weight as an opinion amongst those who are also in the same position as yourself. Still, it's your opinion and that is to be respected, but that still doesn't make it any more worthy of consideration in the context of the actual science. That goes for everyone....even amongst scientist, when they come up with an idea, it has to pass scrutiny. If it doesn't then it doesn't hold, no matter what that scientist may think of his/her idea. They can stubbornly hold onto it forever and a day, but that still doesn't make it right. Or wrong, but that is to be determined by that scrutiny I have been talking about.

That's why scientist get pissed at people sometimes. They ask questions about something or want to learn about particular things and in most cases a scientist will be happy to help out and teach others about their field(s) of study. However, when people repeatedly show that they have no intention of listening to what is being said and they keep challenging scientists with throw away notions and other such nonsense, keep asking the same questions over and over again or make statements repeatedly just to hear themselves repeat their same old diatribe, denigrate the scientist and the science and then expect to be taken seriously, then you know why they lose patience and just ignore them. Acting like that is just a sign of being an ignoramus and an idiot.

At least that is something you aren't....you may have some wild ideas, but you have respect for others and you know when to say "you have the knowledge and training, so I'm willing to listen". You may not agree, but at least you acknowledge the science and have some respect for it.

The EU crowd have little respect for anyone or anything, even for those they misguidedly believe uphold their notions.

Carl thank you for taking the time to post such a well considered reply I really enjoyed reading your comments. Your understanding of the concept of reality, common sense, beliefs etc I think is excellent.

I would like to clear a few points.
I do read extensively on physics and although I approach things different to a professional scientist feel that I am not unaware of what is out there.
I think I have a fair understanding of the standard model but lack the talk to discuss it easily with someone like yourself.
I am not unaware of how some of my views are at odds but that does not mean I prefer one over the other...to me nothing is valid and I question everything.

I have taken the time to learn all I can about the standard model and consider myself fortunate to be able to call upon folk such as yourself and others here to explain many areas I dont understand.

If I had to identify what pisses me off it is those who claim science as their authority when clearly they have less understanding than I believe I can offer and that a scientific method must be used to get close to truth..... and my understanding is that the scientific method is critical to establishing a fact... many facts in my view are simply not fact... that is not because I dont respect science but because I cringe when folk offer stuff that does not follow the scientific method.


I agree with most everything you have said and my respect for science is probably much higher than my writing style shows. I am the first to recognize my limitations and try to present as knowing much less than I probably do... I can not accept that given all the lectures I have followed on GR and the standard model that I am totally ignorant of the general drift of the concepts.

I do appreciate how the current bank of knowledge was accumulated ... I enjoy studying the history of ideas... No doubt you are aware that I was not the first to have the push gravity idea...It goes back a long way..certainly to LeSage 1745 ...and I suspect that even his ideas were sparked by the early Greeks concept of an aether.
Newton was not unaware of the push gravity concept but had the sense not to buy into the force behind gravity... his answer to a question..what is the force of gravity gained a reply...it is the force of God... I doubt if a scientist such as Newton believed such but no doubt for his era that was a most intelligent reply... intelligent because Newton did not upset the church with such an answer... As to the work of many men to built our science I totally recognize such... Even Dr A built upon the extensive work of others to come up with what appeared to most as a brand new concept...Lets face it Dr A was not the first to wrestle with the concept of space and a method for measurement and quantification... He also was very clever in so far he did not irritate the church because GR mentions no force really... as DrA said you have to play within the rules of the game... rule one dont upset the church...... I feel the determination to eliminate an aether when clearly something of that nature is obvious perhaps would make the church happy because admitting the aether may infringe on the power of God.

Moreover reality is a strange combination of stuff we dont even realize we take into account... reality is very personal and failure to take into account anothers personal reality (belief and belief systems) is to deny opportunity of wider thought.

Still I affirm my point..I respect science and the scientific method no doubt a great deal more than my dibbling on gravity etc. may indicate to others.

Again thanks for such a well thought out post I doubt if there is any point I do not agree with you upon although I do appreciate my style may seem I have no respect for science but it is for those who are always right that I have difficulty mustering respect, and lets face it those types can be found everywhere EU and the Big bang universe...maybe even in the push universe.

You must appreciate although I live in a push universe I learn all I can about the standard model and respect generally the conclusions...

alex

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Carl, (Attention all)

* You have now clearly misrepresentented Dr Arp's hypothesis by combining his quote to fit a coalescing gas model. You are either aware this is a misrepresentation of Arps work, or not.

* You continue to try to strike some sort of wedge between plasma cosmology and Dr Arps evidence? You are either aware that plasma cosmology pays very close attention to Arp evidence, or not.

* You continue the dismiss based on authority and ad-hom slander. You are either aware of the working relationships involved with these scientists or not.

There is only 1 way to reveal the gross inconsistencies, that is to go to the horses mouth. Let us hear direct from Arp, Narlikar, Peratt, Lerner, Burbridge(s), Hoyle.

Cosmology Quest - Interviews with Halton Arp, Narlikar, Lerner, Peratt
* http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0922322808100#
* http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5&hl=en&emb=1#

Originally Posted by Carl

I am more aware of the science than you are,

Your repetitive sledging and claims to some form of authority only serve as an advertisement for curious laymen to go check for themselves.

I am more than happy to have this thread stickied.

[xelasnave]

Hi Alex why would you want this thread stickied?

Carl has his view and you have yours and there is little point for one to be trying to convince the other as to who is right etc. Carl has had his say you have had yours it does not have to go down in history via a sticky tab.
There is a danger in being a little too passionate about ones view on everything when in truth it is probable that no one knows everything.

The EU is interesting but it does not have to destroy all before it to get air time... or maybe if we talked a little nicer to each other we could get a better response.
alex

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Hi Alex,

I appreciate your concern and method. Unfortunately this thread and carls repeated adhom attacks, misrepresented Arp's body of work. I have not provided "my views" here, nor do they matter.

The horses mouth (above) will reveal.

This is extremely relevant source material, of which i am receiving messages to provide.

As mentioned i'm more than happy to address the hypothesis and differences therein. Perspective on this 'authority' is required. Unfortunately yes it is distracting, and boring, but needs to be addressed.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Hi Alex why would you want this thread stickied?

Carl has his view and you have yours and there is little point for one to be trying to convince the other as to who is right etc. Carl has had his say you have had yours it does not have to go down in history via a sticky tab.
There is a danger in being a little too passionate about ones view on everything when in truth it is probable that no one knows everything.

The EU is interesting but it does not have to destroy all before it to get air time... or maybe if we talked a little nicer to each other we could get a better response.
alex

He's trying to make a spectacle out of his own comments. It's an ego thing, Alex. He has no interest in a sensible debate. All he has ever done was to take the antithesis of anything that anyone has posted here in this forum, in order to push the ideology of the EU. He has no interest in anything other than trying to reaffirm his own beliefs in some twisted sort of fashion. By creating strawman arguments and using cherry picked, out of context and abused science in order to make his own arguments sound like they have some sort of veracity. The problem is, anyone can take science and twist it around to make it adhere to anything they like, or to back up a point of view....especially when they have little or no understanding of science to begin with. But when you confront them with any sort of challenge to explain themselves, they run a thousand mile to avoid even having to talk about it. The reason being they know full well they'll be shown up for what they are.

People like Alex and the rest of the EU crowd and others like them jump bandwagons all the time, especially when the next idea comes up that might sound like it goes against the grain. They don't know or understand enough science to be able to critically analyse what they're being told and so they believe in the first bit of BS that someone spins to them, or they hear/read about that sounds "reasonable" and/or appeals to their "common sense" in some nebulous fashion.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Carl, (Attention all)

* You have now clearly misrepresentented Dr Arp's hypothesis by combining his quote to fit a coalescing gas model. You are either aware this is a misrepresentation of Arps work, or not.

* You continue to try to strike some sort of wedge between plasma cosmology and Dr Arps evidence? You are either aware that plasma cosmology pays very close attention to Arp evidence, or not.

* You continue the dismiss based on authority and ad-hom slander. You are either aware of the working relationships involved with these scientists or not.

There is only 1 way to reveal the gross inconsistencies, that is to go to the horses mouth. Let us hear direct from Arp, Narlikar, Peratt, Lerner, Burbridge(s), Hoyle.

Cosmology Quest - Interviews with Halton Arp, Narlikar, Lerner, Peratt
* http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0922322808100#
* http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5&hl=en&emb=1#


Your repetitive sledging and claims to some form of authority only serve as an advertisement for curious laymen to go check for themselves.

I am more than happy to have this thread stickied.

I'm still waiting on your comments on how Narlikar's work is complimentary with PC.

Associating Narlikar with PC when the only common denominator is an opposition to mainstream theory is nothing more than a con job.

Given that Arp also collaborated with Narlikar puts you in the same logical bind with Arp. Since you have also mentioned Hoyle the same principles apply.

The fact is all the spin in the world isn't going to extricate you from the illogical mess created which is a byproduct of distorting the facts.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Is that all you can do Alex...post YouTube videos or quotes from Thunderbolts, Holoscience and the like??. Or your insistence on quoting selectively from other journal articles??. Where are Peratt and Scott entering their articles into...IEEE journals, not a thing to do with astrophysics (except in one particular journal that has rather lax peer review rules and a relatively poor citation index). Where are their articles in the major journals for the subjects they've written about?? Answer....nowhere. Why, because their articles would be judged for what they are and rejected. And now you'll harp on about Arp. Yes, he does get into the journals...and so he should. He is/was a talented scientist. However, you have been repeatedly told on any number of occasions as to why his theories have been repudiated, yet you persist in thinking they have some level of veracity that they clearly don't have.

In any case, how you can look yourself in the face and still follow Arp, Narlikar, Hoyle and others is beyond the pale, considering that you have a great mistrust in maths, especially in physics and other sciences. And don't try to hide from that because it's all over the place at Thunderbolts ....just as the rest of your fraternity have the same notion. How hypocritical can you be. You can't have science...of any sort (experimental or theoretical) without it. If you mistrust it so much, how in the hell do you even do your tax returns!!! Those scientist I have mentioned rely/relied on maths to quantify/qualify their own theories!!!!!!. No maths, no theories. Of that I can assure you. No maths and those theories are nothing more than educated speculation. Your whole logical premise has no veracity at all, in fact it's contradictory, completely. You hold certain theories to be true and yet you completely decry the thing which underpins those theories. How's that supposed to be logical?!!! You hold most scientist and science in contempt and yet you really on the one thing to underpin your theories...the scientist (and the science) which uses maths to derive their own ideas!!!!. You expect expect others to take you seriously and yet you carry on like your ideas are some sort of "holy text". No one else knows what they're talking about and your fraternity have access to some sort of privileged knowledge or in a position to be in access of it. Where do you get off on that??. Your whole demeanour reeks of hypocrisy. You come here sounding all reasonable and yet your behaviour towards people here at this site and towards scientists and science in general (except for your own particular brand of "science"), at Thunderbolts, shows something entirely different.

It doesn't take too much effort to see where you come from or what you think.

[xelasnave]

My parents told me not to discuss religion or politics with folk because it could get heated but I always said how could such be so if only reasonable people were in the discussion. One would think science would not be a problem but here we are getting very personal.

I see how passionate everyone is about "science" and their views on who is right who is wrong and it is sad that discussions on science can fall into an scrappy argument.

Who is to say who is right and who is wrong ...would it not be more pleasant for all not to be so aggressive to any idea that does not fit ones personal belief as to what science tells us.... science will always be right but humans can place incorrect interpretation upon even the most solid science...so I suggest as right as we feel we may be there is always a small chance that we could actually be wrong.

Lets not abuse our freedom of speech and expression by abandoning respect for other folks points of view.

I can understand the frustration that each of the parties generate in the other but it does not have to be this way.

I visited Thunderbolts and I gained the impression of lack of respect for much of our science but left it before I could determine if such lack of respect went to failure to respect the scientists who worked hard to bring us out of the dark ages... irrespective of validity of view point respect should be offered to all even if you don't think their views are correct.

I have a mate who is a tarot card reader and although I think that stuff is nonsense I give him the respect that he believes in what he does... there is no point in me trying to change his view and therefore no reason for me to get upset because he has ideas at complete opposite to mine.

If nothing else we could all be friends and remain nice.

I have reflected upon the ways I may upset people and can understand how folk may see my methods as abrasive and so I try to change my approach to be less abrasive and demonstrate the respect for others I hold but hidden because of a ruff style.

alex

[marki]

Alex, science is not about philosophy,there is no such thing as a scientific fact. Scientific method is very good at finding what does not hold up to close scrutiny but can only hint at what might be correct. In it's purest form science cannot tell us what is right but can tell us what is plain wrong. The scientific community is made up of people and as such will always be prone to human frailty but in the end passion cannot overcome what is clearly not supported by the data. Philosophy is simply not a part of it and is best left to religion and politics.


Mark

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

My parents told me not to discuss religion or politics with folk because it could get heated but I always said how could such be so if only reasonable people were in the discussion. One would think science would not be a problem but here we are getting very personal.

I see how passionate everyone is about "science" and their views on who is right who is wrong and it is sad that discussions on science can fall into an scrappy argument.

Who is to say who is right and who is wrong ...would it not be more pleasant for all not to be so aggressive to any idea that does not fit ones personal belief as to what science tells us.... science will always be right but humans can place incorrect interpretation upon even the most solid science...so I suggest as right as we feel we may be there is always a small chance that we could actually be wrong.

Lets not abuse our freedom of speech and expression by abandoning respect for other folks points of view.

I can understand the frustration that each of the parties generate in the other but it does not have to be this way.

I visited Thunderbolts and I gained the impression of lack of respect for much of our science but left it before I could determine if such lack of respect went to failure to respect the scientists who worked hard to bring us out of the dark ages... irrespective of validity of view point respect should be offered to all even if you don't think their views are correct.

I have a mate who is a tarot card reader and although I think that stuff is nonsense I give him the respect that he believes in what he does... there is no point in me trying to change his view and therefore no reason for me to get upset because he has ideas at complete opposite to mine.

If nothing else we could all be friends and remain nice.

I have reflected upon the ways I may upset people and can understand how folk may see my methods as abrasive and so I try to change my approach to be less abrasive and demonstrate the respect for others I hold but hidden because of a ruff style.

alex

Science, Alex, is about data....what's there in front of the observer and what then can be verified. That is our beef with the EU, they have no verifiable information at all from any of the observation. Just speculation that crosses over into fantasy on many occasions. They then use what science they find that is not mainstream and claim it supports their views, but a look at what that science says shows otherwise. Anyway, enough of that because it's been said a million times.

You wonder if they disrespect the scientist....yes, they do and they're rather brazen and ridiculous about it. They're a group of ignoramuses and idiots, Alex. That might sound harsh to you but that's what they are.

[CraigS]

I was going to stay out of this but I am going to say a few words.

I took the time to view the Youtube links Alex posted. I've also read some of Arp's papers. I'm aware of some of the research by Alven, Narkilar, Lerner, Peratt and Hawkins. Over the last few weeks, I've kicked off many threads probing the mainstream Cosmology Models to gain a better understanding. I am reading and learning more every day. I'll declare here that I think I'm still somewhat of a 'fence-sitter' when it comes to the confrontations which have happened, and are still underway.

I've also admitted that I have a leaning towards mainstream Science process and that I have a certain amount of 'faith' that it will correct for the fairytales it creates, as it moves forward. This correction may or may not happen in my lifetime. I've also partaken in some 'fun' & defamational conversations, at EU's expense.

I have also considered all that I could remember that has been said over the past month or so by Alex (ElectroU), Carl, Steven and yes, Alex(PushG).

With respect to all, my thoughts/comments follow (for what they're worth):

i) I don't believe that I have any major issues with anything presented by either Carl or Alex, in terms of its content. BBT and EU/PC both have real facts and fairy tales behind them.

ii) The delivery of what has been presented however, is a different matter. Alex is a spokesman for EU. He has weaknesses in his presentation of what is a complex topic, and a minority perspective. He presents the EU views as though he is not from a scientific background. In my experience, presenting from a minority stance is extremely difficult and mostly, unfortunately what emerges, is the character of the presenter. This can be separated however, from the content of EU's hypotheses.

iii) Carl (& Steven) - I have gotten to know both of you well and I greatly value your knowledge of mainstream highly, and I respect your defence of mainstream science against what seems to be attempted 'hijackers'. This stance is crucial to the survival of something we all look to Science for, ie: rational explanations, as free as possible from the 'stories' us humans associate with everything we see. We have all seen many areas of Science hijacked in modern times and the outcomes have significant & sometimes deleterious ramifications in society.

I do feel however, that this strong defence, diminishes the power of mainstream Science in the Amateur Forum, to an extent. I'm not saying it's wrong. I just feel that it may ultimately prove to be incompatible with maintaining the public perception of mainstream's high value. It is however crucial in the context of politicising the validity of the mainstream research & funding at the professional/funding level.

iv) On the technical side, EU's spin on mainstream research seems to be critically dependent on 'scaling-up' factors. From the videos & papers, it seems that there has been some work done in this area. I, for one, find it very hard to understand how lab experiments can be extrapolated to cosmic scales, but I am willing to look into it further. I also find EU's quoted field strengths due to plasma fields in space, being many orders of magnitude greater than the measured data shows, to be a super-sized stretch of 'faith'. Some would also say the same of the proportions of DM/DE in SCM CDM density models.

Having said this, it seems that whenever I take another step into researching EU papers, I feel like it becomes like a piece of slippery soap. I can never grasp the tangible substance, which re-inforces the 'thin-ness' of EU 'theory' , which mostly, is due to the minority, 'outsider renegade' position they are forced into taking.

Overall, I find parts of the EU story to be alternatives for many parts of mainstream's 'wobbly' bits (which should be kept clearly separated in discussions, from mainstream's well-supported, established, solid theory base which is built on solid, physical and empirical evidence).

It is also fairly clear to me, that mainstream has actually created 'the beast' called EU/PC. I feel that this has occurred by allowing the widespread media air-play of the 'wobbly-bits' as 'fact'. Many non-scientific folk learning about science thru this media, may perhaps, be blind to the playfulness of those who created the terminology and its mystique. It would thus seem to be appropriate that mainstream correct it, in the same way it created it in the first place .. (hypotheses, theory, empirical experimentation, etc, etc).

I don't often write long ones, so please forgive the length of this one. It seems that this thread is the appropriate one to post such views on, and explain them with as many words as it takes.

Cheers & Rgds to all (and I mean no disrespect to anyone I have mentioned in my views above. I hope none is taken).

[renormalised (Carl)]

There in lies a problem, Craig. You have EU/PC which is based on a mixture of fantasy and abused science, and BBT, whilst not perfect, is based on verifiable evidence, observation and hard science (theory). You can't compare the two. It's like chalk and cheese. You still have a bit to learn and absorb, but that's just a matter of time. The reasons why Steven and I have our objections to EU/PC is because we have the mileage under our belts and know the theory to the extent we both do. That's why we attack it in the way we do...the fact that the EU/PC crowd treat most other scientist and the science with utter contempt is that they have no understanding of it and find it easier then to attack the messenger than the message. Look at how many times we've challenged Alex to put up or shut up on any number of issues. What's he done....run away as far as he can. It's like the rest of them...confront them directly, to their faces and their haven't got the learning or the backbone to either say they don't know or just come out and give their answers. Not based on a whole heap of "videos" or cherry picked journal papers. But on what they know themselves.

I can tell you what Alex's weakness is....he has no idea of any of the science he's talking about. Either about what he would call "mainstream" or anything about his brand of "science". The further he talks on about it, the more absurd it becomes. What he's presented here is only a smattering of the nonsense that they follow over at Thunderbolts. It's not even close to science....it's just sheer crackpot, delusional fantasy mixed in with a brand of science that bears little resemblance to the origins of the subjects they talk about.

That's why we've been as vociferous in the defence of science as we have been. It has to be defended in that manner. If we just sat by and let fools and idiots have their way, where would we be and how much would that say we respected the subject we professed to partake in??. Can you imagine this sort of nonsense being taught in schools as fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. It already happens now in some countries with "Creation Science" and such. All because very impressionable people have been hoodwinked into allowing it to be accepted as having any veracity at all. There is no common sense in society....if there was none of this nonsense would even be allowed to be printed. Let alone proclaimed as some sort of "sacred" truth.

Science isn't about truth, or even the facts. Science is about trying to understanding what we believe to be happening, coming up with plausible explanations and then testing those explanations to see if they measure up to what we observe. It's not about making grand proclamations and then declaring them gospel...despite what you might be lead to believe by others. That just shows you how much they misunderstand what science is about and then misrepresent it.

If you want the "truth", or the "facts"....join a religion. That's what they're good at....claiming the "truth", stating the "facts" and demanding your obedience.

With science.....use what it gives you and make up your own mind. But be prepared to have to face up to scrutiny if you come up with an idea, no matter what it is or whether it breaks paradigms or not. If it survives scrutiny, well and good, if it doesn't then that's it. Holding onto a flawed premise just because it sounds good to you is exactly the same as treating it as a religious "truth". All it will do in the end is hold you back.

This is precisely why so many of the public (probably 90-98% of them) haven't a clue about science and scientists. They don't understand the mechanics behind it all, nor do they understand the philosophy underpinning it. That's why it gets misrepresented in the media and in the general social conscience. Most of the public have hardly any education in science, whatsoever. That in itself doesn't help either. Some scientist don't help as well...many of them aren't the best of communicators and would rather be doing the science then trying to explain difficult concepts to people who most likely won't understand them anyway. Then when science gets "dumbed down", all the problems start to raise their heads. To really be a good scientist, or at least one that can communicate well with others, you need to not only be good at your own field, but you also need to have a good broad understanding of all science, in general. You also need to be comfortable talking to and dealing with people. You really need to be a good teacher. Good at listening as well as speaking. But even then, you can't get through to all people. Some are just plain stupid, arrogant, ignorant and/or deluded....that is just a fact of life.

[sjastro]

Craig,

PC is a faith based subject which attempts to disguise itself as a science.

For example:

Data is interpreted on preconceived ideas. For example a PC adherent will look at the filamentary structure of M1 and proudly announce that the structure is due to Birkeland currents constrained in a Z pinch and yet another grand demonstration of PC.
A mainstream scientist will say "hang on Charlie (or should I say Alex), why don't we examine the spectrum of the filaments." The spectrum reveals the filaments to be Ha emissions caused by transistion of electrons into different energy levels in hydrogen atoms.
Hence the filaments are not even made of plasma let alone Birkeland currents.
Try explaining that to the PC adherent. The standard reply is "I can reproduce something in "the lab" that looks vaguely like the filamentary structure of M1 hence your Quantum mechanics and all the supporting experimental evidence must be wrong."
Note that in PC "the lab" is irrefutable, infallible and assumes godlike status. What is even more absurd is that we do not even have the technological capability of reducing cosmic scale events into a laboratory test.
So PC's own claim as an "empirical science" is highly questionable.
Note that the term "empirical science" is a tautology as science by it's very nature is empirical including "maths based" science, such as cosmology and particle physics, despite the babble from PC adherents.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

To add to what Steven has said, if you have a Z pinch and Birkeland currents occurring, in order to maintain those, you need to have an external source of energy providing power to the Z pinch, otherwise it gives out and the Birkeland currents fail. What has to be overcome is the natural tendency for the electrons within the Birkeland currents to lose energy through a process they call Compton Scattering. What happens there is you get electrons collide with other particles within the plasma being generated, or the gas through which they're moving, undergoing inelastic collisions and losing energy via bremsstrahlung. As they lose energy, the Z pinch (which is essentially an EM field within the plasma that confines the plasma...basically an application of the Lorentz force), gives out and the Birkeland currents collapse. So, no EM field, no Z pinch, no Birkeland currents.

In any case, the amount of energy that Peratt et al, believe is in these Birkeland currents, especially on a cosmologically large scale (let alone interstellar and galactic scales) would produce vasts amount of electrons moving at relativistic speeds creating what they call a Bennett Pinch. What then happens is you get vast amounts of synchrotron radiation and all sort of other emission right across the EM spectrum. Far more than what is observed in any situation, including synchrotron radiation generated by accelerated particles in the magnetic fields of neutron stars and jets produce by accretion processes via black holes. You'd be getting synchrotron radiation being given off by every single cloud of gas and dust in the galaxy, especially from the spiral arms of spiral galaxies. The nuclei of galaxies would be like beacons of synchrotron radiation, and every other radiation. How would life would even survive in such a situation...it would be worse than living beside a quasar. In actual fact, every galaxy in the universe would still be a quasar...a super-quasar in reality because it wouldn't just be the nucleus with the powerful activity but the entire galaxy. It would be almost impossible for the stars to form simply because all that radiation would heat the gas to tremendous temperatures. All you would actually have is a thin soup of ionised gas probably radiating at about 2million K or more. It would essentially look like the thin ionised gas that surrounds some large clusters of galaxies. And, if it that occurred, the whole edifice would collapse very quickly and you'd have no more high energy radiation being produced because the pinches would give out and eventually all you'd have left is a cold cloud of gas.

So, as we have repeated so often....it's not verifiable observationally, the theory is defunct and there is no evidence for its application on galactic or cosmological scales.

[CraigS]

Now this has turned into a interesting conversation.

I have no problem seeing the 'thin veneer' and vague linkages which EU adds to real science as being 'faith based'. The YouTubes attempt to link a bunch of real science facts, issues and mainstream dissention together, to create a perception that cosmic plasma 'ideas' MAY have some of the 'answers' to fill in the gaps. Mainstream always has gaps and I think that this becomes the playing field for 'pseudo sciences', which is highly problematic for everyone, (as I have pointed out previously).

Carl & Steven have cited some major physical phenomena - measurable, repeatable, observations/facts, which I get.

Nothing to do with EU, are the issues & questions left in my mind by the mainstream legitimate, respected scientists, interviewed in the YouTubes.

I'd love to understand & discuss the issues raised around NGC 7603, NGC 3516 and NGC 4319 as far as the dissimilar redshifts of objects apparently ejected by the galaxy cores within the same filaments, including the not-so-well understood aspects of quasar redshift. I know I've initiated a thread some time back on quasar redshifts/time dilation but I'd really like to understand why the famous scientists, 'used' in the EU videos, were left with the perspective that the issues raised by them in these areas, were dropped due to mainstream's adherence with BBT.

Am happy to launch some new threads on these topics throughout the week to discuss, (so we don't divert this thread's purpose/intent). If considered appropriate.

Comments welcome.

Cheers & thank you for your feedback.

Footnote: My above suggestion may not be necessary. It could be that the EU material is simply outdated and has been superseded by more recent data and hence the Burbridges', Hoyle etc's questions and issues have already been answered in modern times with more precise measurements? Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift for more info.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I would hardly call Lerner a famous scientist. He's not even a plasma physicist, let alone famous (at anything). As I have pointed out many times before, he only has an undergraduate degree in Physics. He didn't finish any of his graduate work. He is the CEO of a company that deals with plasma physics, fusion technology etc. He doesn't have the qualifications to call himself a fully qualified plasma physicist. Peratt is only known amongst the plasma physics community for the most part and the other four are the only scientists that actually have the qualifications and experience in their field of study. So, that's a "really great" start. Arp has been discussed on numerous occasions and so has his theories, but if need be that will be repeated. Fred Hoyle, amongst other things, was the originator of the Steady State Theory. When that was put to bed, he, Jayant Narlikar and Geoff Burbidge came up with the Quasi Steady State Theory.

[CraigS]

Yep. I wasn't meaning Lerner & 'EU/PC others'. I meant the 'classic' mainstreamers. Please see my footnote at the end of the previous message. I may have answered my own questions? (Ie: selective cherry-picking again ?)

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

EU's data is not just out of date in some cases, it's patently wrong...full stop. Much of it isn't even science.