Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:59 pm

David quoted:

He accepts the labels agnostic, nontheist, atheist and others. He has expressed reservations about such labels for his lack of belief in a God, however, as he sees them being used in the service of "pigeonholing", and prefers to simply be called a skeptic.


The cowardly out ..
.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby celeste » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:04 pm

David wrote:
celeste wrote:
His PhD from Claremont does matter. It is why he enforces his wrong view. Remember, Claremont was founded by a theologian and minister...
Finally, remember, that it was a Jesuit (Georges Lemaitre) that gave us the "Big Bang". A very important part of the mainstream view that Shermer is defending...

If you are going to smear Michael Shermer for his religious beliefs (Caution! He’s a fire breathing religious fanatic!), put a little effort into getting the facts straight: Shermer is an atheist.

Wkipedia wrote:
Shermer was once a fundamentalist Christian, but ceased to believe in the existence of God during his graduate studies. He accepts the labels agnostic, nontheist, atheist and others. He has expressed reservations about such labels for his lack of belief in a God, however, as he sees them being used in the service of "pigeonholing", and prefers to simply be called a skeptic.

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


I am well aware that Shermer is an athiest. So are many of the modern mainstream scientists who push the Judeo-Christian mainstream view. The point is, it was the educational system under the control of this particular system that brought us our current scientific world view. So, while guys like Michael Shermer may have broken away from the religious traditions that brought us these ideas, they did NOT, in fact, go back and question the scientific basis of the ideas themselves.

An example I often use:
We once had a world view that the universe was eternal, or at the very least, was around long enough to undergo cycles on the order of millions of years or more. Or so thought the Mayans, the pagans in Europe, those who brought us the Vedic texts, etc. Then we have a period where a certain religious tradition spreads (by force) , and it says our universe was created in the recent past. Created out of nothing, by a power who sat "outside" this universe. Here is where it is important to realize the religious background of the Jesuit scientist who brought us the "Big Bang" . I absolutely do give him credit for trying to patch that religious view of creation out of nothingness, with the perceived expansion of the universe.

Along come those, like Halton Arp, who show that perhaps the universe is not expanding at all. So here is where you might think that those "atheist" scientists, may have stopped to rethink first principles. They don't. So ingrained is the education they have received in these predominately Judeo-Christian run schools, that they CAN'T even question the scientific assumptions they are making. So we get this crazy world, where "atheist" scientists defend to the death a world view that was brought to us by the very religious traditions that they claim to



The point is, Michael Shermer did study the history of science, at a school founded by a minister and theologian. He learned the Big Bang as proposed by that Jesuit. He can claim all he want's that he is an athiest. For the rest of us who are interested in going back to first principles, it becomes very clear to which religious world view Michael Shermer ascribes
celeste
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:05 am

celeste wrote:
The point is, Michael Shermer did study the history of science, at a school founded by a minister and theologian. He learned the Big Bang as proposed by that Jesuit. He can claim all he want's that he is an atheist.

I don’t have a dog in this fight. As long as it is reasonably accurate, say what you will of Shermer; his worldview is not my foremost concern. I’m after someone else’s scalp -- "A self-taught part-time amateur", as Shermer describes him.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby jacmac » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:49 am

I was at the EU2015 conference. I heard Mr. Shermer's talk, but did not hear the group discussion that followed.
His article was a disappointment. He seems to have given equal weight to anything he heard at the conference, either from a main speaker, or some random person in the elevator.

I wonder to what extent the principle players at the EU conference explained to Mr. Shermer why we "are not even on the bus" That is, that the EU community as a whole, IMO, thinks 2 basic assumptions of mainstream astronomy are in error.
1. That gravity does all the heavy lifting in space. And
2. That the Uniformitarian view of earth history(and solar system, and galaxy etc.) is correct.

We believe there is electricity in space and Catastrophic events have shaped our past. But there is no definite and succinct EU theory that explains everything.
Mr. Shermer's article Is a small example of the Halton Arp treatment.
In a book on astronomy(I cannot remember the author and title at the moment, but I can find it) a group of astronomers were talking with Halton Arp at a big meeting, and they said something like this: You may have some interesting anomalous data to our big bang theory but you do not have a theory that explains everything. We do and we are sticking with it. Arp was kicked out of U. S. astronomy and he was an award winning astronomer who worked with Hubble.

I have E-mailed Mr. Shermer and told him we know we are not on the bus and that his bus is headed down a dead end highway.
jacmac
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:22 pm

jacmac wrote:
I have E-mailed Mr. Shermer and told him we know we are not on the bus and that his bus is headed down a dead end highway.

I didn’t attend the conference, but I have watched all of the released videos. And from what I have seen so far, the conference consisted of a “part-time amateur scientist” claiming that general relativity is essentially “numerology”, and Wallace Thornhill’s latest brainchild: dipole gravity.

If anything, Michael Shermer should be criticized for being overly kind and generous. “Not on the bus” doesn’t even begin to describe the lame and embarrassing spectacle. A more appropriate and fitting description would have been: “EU Roadkill”.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Eaol » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:27 am

I looked at the comments section on the article and noticed Nallan's comment. It's partially representative of how I feel about things. However, I think Shermer's comments are important because they point out the problem that I think Electric Universe proponents often have with communication. People get turned off from even considering a larger role for electricity in space when the person telling them about it is adamantly supporting claims that sound insane. People will shy away from that, and who can blame them?

The most emphasis should be placed on any actual experimental work, observations coming from space from an EU perspective, et cetera. As Shermer suggested, perhaps submitting papers to journals and work with people whose research can be helped by the application of some novel Electric Universe idea.
User avatar
Eaol
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby IgorTesla » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:47 am

I am surprised to see soo many arguments against the EU theory which point to the lack of communication.
People should realize that the Thunderbolts Project was and never will be an attack on mainstream science and all knowledge is freely shared through various media (youtube, facebook, forae, dvd, websites etc.)
None of the mainstream science share their knowledge in such detail as the Thunderbolts Project and mostly depend on 'ancient' maths to do their bidding.
The mainstream science and media seem to be struggling with the idea of an EU, yet they blindly believe them as they propagate stuff like : black holes, big bang, nuclear sun, dark matter, dark energy, god particle etc.
Wthout proof you can not expect people to just believe in those things.
Incomming data is not being discussed openly in mainstream media but simply presented and wrapped in a shroud of mystical scientific statements (black holes, nuclear sun etc.) which in turn is nothing more or less then an unproofable idea.
The reason perhaps why there is a problem with communication is because a lack of understanding from both sides although i personally tend to experience a constant attack on the EU theory.

Anyhow, people like M.Shermer do not intend to be open and constructive and therefor unsuitable for getting a breakthrough in science at all.
User avatar
IgorTesla
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:10 am

IgorTesla wrote:None of the mainstream science share their knowledge in such detail as the Thunderbolts Project

Cornell University Library (arXiv.org e-print archives), recently announced having reached the “1 million paper milestone”. Free access to over a million articles submitted by the very best and brightest scientists in the world, including famous mathematicians such as Dr. Roy Kerr and Dr. Malcolm MacCallum, and Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. Gerard ‘t Hooft – just to mention a few notables, and to also sprinkle some salt into an open wound. (http://arxiv.org/)

IgorTesla wrote:and mostly depend on 'ancient' maths to do their bidding.

The Electric Universe will never be taken seriously if they adopt an open hostility towards mathematics. Like it or not, the mathematics is crucial and should be given top priority; without it you basically have little more than hand waving and theatrics.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby jacmac » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:34 pm

Someone set me straight if incorrect please.
The EU people are not against mathematics.
They are trying to point out that, for example,when you divide by zero to get infinite mass density in the core of a Black Hole that it is a misuse of math and has no basis in the real world.

The establishment astronomy community is selling a package deal.
They will not let go of their beliefs until they have a new package.
The EU ideas are not a finished product.

I think the EU community needs to figure out how our sun works.
jacmac
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:42 pm

Gotta agree with David and jacmac; let's stick with figuring out our own solar system before we hold anything against anyone. And let's definitely not go throwing away math lol. Mathematics isn't the enemy. I'd argue that the appeal to mathematical formalism has taken place ahead of genuine mechanics in astronomy, and that's a problem. After all, GR is not a mechanical explanation of gravitation, or celestial motion. Even Feynman admitted that. But General Relativity works...ish. At least, within the solar system it's perfect. It's just not mechanics, so we don't understand the physical, environmental factors that determine what happens in our solar system. The bodies are all still just acting at a distance on each other.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby celeste » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:57 pm

BecomingTesla wrote:Gotta agree with David and jacmac; let's stick with figuring out our own solar system before we hold anything against anyone. And let's definitely not go throwing away math lol.


Now we are getting back to Donald Scott and his filament model. His model was PREDOMINANTLY mathematical. So much so, that Donald himself warned against accepting it, unless it first fit with the observational evidence.

As it turns out, the Titius-Bode law, the relationship between orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity, the ACTUAL mechanism for precession, all come straight forward from this idea. Even the polar alignment of planets (not yet accepted by the mainstream), comes straight out of the filament model as Donald Scott describes. Most impotantly, we don't need to add in any fudge factors (dark matter or dark energy), to make the model work.

Again, start with the math. If you find yourself having to add lots of fudge factors (dark matter, dark energy), or "coincidental" properties (we just happen to find ourselves in one of the infinite number of universes that could support life), then be prepared to reconsider you model. On the other hand, if you find that your model does make accurate predictions (as Donald Scott's model does with Titius-Bode), I would encourage taking that purely mathematical model to it's logical next step.
celeste
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:38 pm

celeste wrote:Now we are getting back to Donald Scott and his filament model. His model was PREDOMINANTLY mathematical. So much so, that Donald himself warned against accepting it, unless it first fit with the observational evidence.

As it turns out, the Titius-Bode law, the relationship between orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity, the ACTUAL mechanism for precession, all come straight forward from this idea. Even the polar alignment of planets (not yet accepted by the mainstream), comes straight out of the filament model as Donald Scott describes. Most impotantly, we don't need to add in any fudge factors (dark matter or dark energy), to make the model work.

Again, start with the math. If you find yourself having to add lots of fudge factors (dark matter, dark energy), or "coincidental" properties (we just happen to find ourselves in one of the infinite number of universes that could support life), then be prepared to reconsider you model. On the other hand, if you find that your model does make accurate predictions (as Donald Scott's model does with Titius-Bode), I would encourage taking that purely mathematical model to it's logical next step.

So which one is supposed to be the official Electric Universe theory: Wallace Thornhill’s dipole model, or Donald Scott’s filament model? And are these guys on the same page? If they don't even agree with each other, do they really expect us to swallow any of it?
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Eaol » Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:00 pm

@David, To clarify, I don't think celeste was talking about a gravity model. Donald Scott has an electric sun model which I think celeste is talking about, while Wal Thornhill has a conception of electric gravity (based on dipoles).
User avatar
Eaol
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby gocrew » Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:20 pm

David wrote:So which one is supposed to be the official Electric Universe theory: Wallace Thornhill’s dipole model, or Donald Scott’s filament model? And are these guys on the same page? If they don't even agree with each other, do they really expect us to swallow any of it?


So which one is supposed to be the official Relativity theory: Lorentz's model, or Einstein's model? And are these guys on the same page? If they don't even agree with each other, do they really expect us to swallow any of it?

So which one is supposed to be the official Heliocentric theory: Galileo's circular model, or Copernicus's elliptical model? And are these guys on the same page? If they don't even agree with each other, do they really expect us to swallow any of it?

David, when you make arguments that poor, it makes it hard to accept that you are a sincere skeptic and not just a hater for the sake of hating.

This of course is in addition to the problem that you didn't take the time to even realize Thornhill was talking about gravity and Scott about the sun.
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:30 pm

Eaol wrote:@David, To clarify, I don't think celeste was talking about a gravity model. Donald Scott has an electric sun model which I think celeste is talking about, while Wal Thornhill has a conception of electric gravity (based on dipoles).

Oh yeah, then why the repeated reference to "dark matter", which is a hypothetical explanation for gravitational discrepancies that have been observed several million light years from Earth?
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest