Concerning the EU (Electric Universe) Theory - Page 4

Outbackmanyep · #61 03-09-2010, 05:03 PM

Does anyone know of an EU theorist who has sent a space probe or space telescope out there to do their dirty work for them?

renormalised (Carl) · #62 03-09-2010, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

Does anyone know of an EU theorist who has sent a space probe or space telescope out there to do their dirty work for them?

None of them have.

sjastro · #63 03-09-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

Does anyone know of an EU theorist who has sent a space probe or space telescope out there to do their dirty work for them?

The EU people complain that since most funding is directed towards mainstream cosmology such opportunities do not exist.

I very certain however that many people are prepared to fund a Space Ark for them.

Regards

Steven

renormalised (Carl) · #64 03-09-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

The EU people complain that since most funding is directed towards mainstream cosmology such opportunities do not exist.

I very certain however that many people are prepared to fund a Space Ark for them.

Regards

Steven

Yep, we can hollow out one of their "electric" asteroids/comets, make them use the static to power their warp drives and send them off to places unknown. They'll be able to get real acquainted with the galactic z pinch in all its glory, then

sjastro · #65 03-09-2010, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yep, we can hollow out one of their "electric" asteroids/comets, make them use the static to power their warp drives and send them off to places unknown. They'll be able to get real acquainted with the galactic z pinch in all its glory, then

Unfortunately they might misread "Space Ark" as "Space Arc" and think of it as a validation of their theories.

Steven

CraigS · #66 03-09-2010, 06:06 PM

Mainstream conceived, funded and built "PEACE" which has been running for 10 years collecting data on the Earth's magnetic fields.

Beats me why they they can't use some of that data to disprove some of their theories! ?

Cheers

renormalised (Carl) · #67 03-09-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

Unfortunately they might misread "Space Ark" as "Space Arc" and think of it as a validation of their theories.

Steven

Hadn't thought of that!!!!

renormalised (Carl) · #68 03-09-2010, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Mainstream conceived, funded and built "PEACE" which has been running for 10 years collecting data on the Earth's magnetic fields.

Beats me why they they can't use some of that data to disprove some of their theories! ?

Cheers

That would be tantamount to heresy

Outbackmanyep · #69 13-09-2010, 10:12 AM

It seems to me that the EU people have been riding mainstream science data and pick it to pieces to suit themselves, mind you, that electromagnetism is rife within our universe (how else do we get our cars to start!?) and we can't ignore that.
But to explain various phenomena by asserting their beliefs without quantitative measurements makes mainstream science reel at the thought!

Electric comet theory was proved by a "physicist" who saw a flash of light before an explosion and was supposedly predicted, makes me cringe everytime i read or hear about it.
If a "mainstream science" probe wasn't there with a "mainstream scientific" camera taking pics while a "mainstream science" projectile was hitting the comet then EU theorists would have nothing!!!!

Fundamentally flawed i say!

CraigS · #70 13-09-2010, 10:28 AM

Ok .. so I thought this thread was over but if people are still reading it then take a look at this link.

It is a blog by:

Quote:

W.T."Tom" Bridgman Maryland, United States. He says ...
I obtained my doctorate in physics and astronomy in 1994. I currently work in scientific data visualization for the media and public outreach. For more information on how I became involved in the creationism issue, visit my main page.

So he's a PhD in physics & astronomy and he's become a full-time debunker of creationism etc in science. He has done a tremendous amount in legitimately dealing with the EU in a professional way. Most of what he's written has been said in this Forum but this guy's actually gone about disproving EU 'hypotheses' using mainstream science !

A very patient guy, it seems ..

Cheers & Rgds

sjastro · #71 13-09-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok .. so I thought this thread was over but if people are still reading it then take a look at this link.

So he's a PhD in physics & astronomy and he's become a full-time debunker of creationism etc in science. He has done a tremendous amount in legitimately dealing with the EU in a professional way. Most of what he's written has been said in this Forum but this guy's actually gone about disproving EU 'hypotheses' using mainstream science !

A very patient guy, it seems ..

Cheers & Rgds

What a smart bloke.
He uses Neptune as an example of "dark matter" of the 1840s.

(I wonder if he borrowed this idea.

)

Regards

Steven

CraigS · #72 13-09-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

What a smart bloke.
He uses Neptune as an example of "dark matter" of the 1840s.

(I wonder if he borrowed this idea.

)

Regards

Steven

I presume you're referring to rule number one on Fraud detection?:

Quote:

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
The deception here is that it conveniently ignores the experiment itself. The non observation may be due to experimental design, the experiment not being sensitive enough or the simply finding the evidence is like looking for a needle in the haystack.
A non observation is only a null result if the theory is shown to be wrong.

There's something about Irving Langmuir's work underpinning these distinctions of yours, Steven.

Are they your distinctions or Langmuir's ??

Now that WOULD be fraud !

Cheers

sjastro · #73 13-09-2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

I presume you're referring to rule number one on Fraud detection?:

There's something about Irving Langmuir's work underpinning these distinctions of yours, Steven.

Are they your distinctions or Langmuir's ??

Now that WOULD be fraud !

Cheers

Like Tom Bridgeman, I used Neptune as an example to show the similarities confronting scientists of the 1840's with todays mainstream scientists dealing with dark matter.

In both cases scientists didn't invent Neptune and dark matter to support existing theories. Instead both are outcomes of applying unmodified Newtonian theory as a perturbation to existing orbits.

In the 1840s the orbit in question was Uranus.
Today it is the rotation curves of outer lying stars.

This contradicts EU's assertion that dark matter is an ad hoc mathematical invention to support observation.

Regards

Steven

avandonk · #74 13-09-2010, 11:36 AM

REAL scientists have better things to do than endlessly refute drivel propounded by deluded charlatans. Unfortunately even the most ignorant proponents of either pseudoscience or religious claptrap posing as pseudoscience are difficult to argue with as they set the goal posts for science far higher than their pathetic assertions.

The usual technique is to point at one tiny bit of science that is contentious then claim 'you scientists just do not know'. Then sit back smugly and say that proves that they are correct with whatever ridiculous assertion of theirs they quote without any evidence. These people are fools of the lowest order. In fact most of them would have to do a Tafe course just to qualify for a fool!

The really sad thing is these battles were fought out and won with the enlightenment a few hundred years ago against even more deeply societal ingrained ignorance and superstition.

Belief alone does not allow a 400 tonne 747 to take off and fly between continents. Knowledge of science and application through good engineering does.

The only place that these people should be ever considered for their ideas is the same place we all do. It is called peer reviewed science.

When you see a 'scientific' announcement in the main stream media before publication in peer reviewed journals you can bet it is dodgy!

Pons and Fleischmann with cold fusion in a glass jar comes to mind.

Bert

CraigS · #75 13-09-2010, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

Like Tom Bridgeman, I used Neptune as an example to show the similarities confronting scientists of the 1840's with todays mainstream scientists dealing with dark matter.

In both cases scientists didn't invent Neptune and dark matter to support existing theories. Instead both are outcomes of applying unmodified Newtonian theory as a perturbation to existing orbits.

In the 1840s the orbit in question was Uranus.
Today it is the rotation curves of outer lying stars.

This contradicts EU's assertion that dark matter is an ad hoc mathematical invention to support observation.

Regards

Steven

Yep ... great example ... what's more, I think I got it !!

Different topic ... could I con you into replying to "5D Strings" and "Origins of Magnetic Fields & SR" posts ? Love to get your take on all that .. I'm left hanging !!

Cheers

CraigS · #76 13-09-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

Belief alone does not allow a 400 tonne 747 to take off and fly between continents. Knowledge of science and application through good engineering does.

Bert

Bert ... a compliment for engineers !!
That's made my day !

Cheers & Rgds
PS: Happy birthday for yesterday .. see "General Chat". Cheers.

avandonk · #77 13-09-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Bert ... a compliment for engineers !!
That's made my day !

Cheers & Rgds
PS: Happy birthday for yesterday .. see "General Chat". Cheers.

It was not a compliment. It was a mere statement of fact!

Bert

CraigS · #78 13-09-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

The only place that these people should be ever considered for their ideas is the same place we all do. It is called peer reviewed science.

When you see a 'scientific' announcement in the main stream media before publication in peer reviewed jounals you can bet it is dodgy!

Pons and Fleischmann with cold fusion in a glass jar comes to mind.

Bert

I think that qualifies for number (5) on our 'list of pseudoscience detection distinctions' (ie: 'Fraud in Science' thread). How's this sound:

(5) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review'. Announcements made in made stream media, before journal publication.

Thanks Bert .. the list grows, yet again !

Cheers & Rgds

Outbackmanyep · #79 14-09-2010, 03:39 PM

Another wanky lot of pseudo-science BS

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews...riccraters.htm

Laughable, honestly!

CraigS · #80 14-09-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

Another wanky lot of pseudo-science BS

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews...riccraters.htm

Laughable, honestly!

Y'know for training prior to the moon landing, scientists went out into a desert landscape and blew it up, in a very particular way, to mimic almost exactly, the terrain that the lunar lander would be flying over, just before touchdown.

Perhaps the craters on the moon were created by aliens with lots of dynamite!

Come to think of it, there's actually proof now, that this could've been so, from the initial Apollo landscaping experiments !!

Cheers