The Inappropriate Language of Cosmologists

New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Inappropriate Language of Cosmologists

Unread postby davesmith_au » Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:43 am

December 25, 2008 ~ Dave Smith

If there's something wrong with my car, I take it to a mechanic. BUT if the problem looks to be electrical, he or she will likely refer me straight to the nearest auto-electrician - it's not rocket science, it simply makes sense to go to those who have the right knowledge when looking for helpful answers - and it's high time cosmologists looked to plasma physicists for some of their answers, as the cosmologists seem to have things oh, so wrong... [More...]
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: The Inappropriate Language of Cosmologists

Unread postby Jaythree » Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:34 pm

The evidence is certainly strong for validating a theory of an "EU" and for a dominant role for plasma in the cosmos. We owe tributes to pioneers--Birkeland, Alven, Velikovsky, et al. We hope establishment science will begin to absorb the evidence and expand gravity-only models. However, as the old maxim goes, honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and language such as the following may be counterproductive for gaining acceptance:

“'Eroding thickets of dusty material' - In the context of space this is an invented, meaningless phrase and thus worthy of nothing but contempt and ridicule."

Regardless of difficulties with current standard models, the fact is that traditional scientific theory and technology have brought us space exploration--the very tools for validating an EU theory. The electronic watch on your wrist, the cell phone in your hand, your PC or Mac, TV, wi-fi, Blue-Ray, synthetic fiber (fibre) clothing, modern transportation, designer medication, artificial joints, pacemakers, and, sadly, weapons of mass destruction--all have been put into service without benefit of an electrical model for the cosmos. In fact, contempt and ridicule are usually reserved for use by the successful, and studiously avoided by challengers, since the challengers know that their theories will also have a limited life span and will be replaced some time in the future by even better models. An EU still doesn't integrate quantum mechanics nor even gravity, so there is much to learn.
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:05 am

Re: The Inappropriate Language of Cosmologists

Unread postby Jaythree » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:32 am

A little more on the subject, although this may not be the right thread.

A scientific theory by definition must be falsifiable. If I say that an invisible spirit is responsible for moving electrons, it can't be disproven and therefore is not a valid theory. The validity of if and how electricity operates in the cosmos depends on experiments conducted in the cosmos and only partially on results in the lab and the inferences of scale. So far, experiments in space depend on data returned by space vehicles that are launched and guided via a gravity model. Consider the recent exploitation of the Interplanetary Transport Network (ITN), the "virtual tubes" on the intersections of gravitational fields in the solar system and undoubtedly beyond. The discovery of the ITN reinforces the gravity only model, while to my knowledge, no proposal has been made by EU theorists to harness electromagnetic fields in a similar way. For the time being, it seems that EU theory will have to rely on evidence gathered by sifting through data returned by gravity-model equipment. Having said that, there are chinks of light in the closed door. The following quotation is from a NYT article on the next generation of NASA rockets:

"Some inside the development program have complained that it is run with a my-way-or-the-highway attitude that stifles dissent and innovation. Jeffrey Finckenor, an engineer who left NASA this year, sent a goodbye letter to colleagues that expressed his frustrations with the program. “At the highest levels of the agency, there seems to be a belief that you can mandate reality,” he wrote, “followed by a refusal to accept any information that runs counter to that mandate.” The letter was posted to the independent NASA Watch Web site."

"Mandate reality" is what all theories really try to accomplish and it is the fit with observation that ultimately determines acceptance. The gravity-only theory is slowly being falsified based on the evidence of space exploration. The irony is that the hugely expensive political and technical infrastructures that had to be created in order to test the theory are of course vulnerable to this falsifiability. Many people (with human feelings) will have to eat crow once evidence makes EU a better theory. Denial is powerful, as Velikovsky and all other revisionists discover. Yet we do stand on the shoulders of giants and right now EU theorists stand on the shoulders of gravity giants.
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:05 am

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest