Colliding Auroras

[solrey]

Colliding Auroras Produce an Explosion of Light

Leif Svalgaard (08:23:51) :

jack morrow (07:06:06) :
Paulmwho 04:34:16
I read about the electric universe too and for a layman it is easier to understand by far than the black hole,dark matter, big bang stuff.

That is the allure of pseudo-science. Real science is often hard and takes work to understand. It is a lot simpler to believe that angels push the planets around in their orbits, than all that gravitational field, inverse-square laws, curved space-time, etc. stuff.

Just thought I'd post this in case anyone would care to rebut that nonsense.

[Komorikid]

My original post has caused a bit of a storm.
I have posted a rebut to those who have failed to understand.
I was amazed at the state of denial by people I thought were open minded.
Thanks to Dave Smith for coming to my aid.

Paul M Who is Komorikid's climate alter-ego

[davesmith_au]

No worries Paul, Leif's dismissive attitude is something I find somewhat insulting, for the following reason.

My late brother Carl Smith (who passed away last year) used to be in regular debate with Svalgaard, and though they often disagreed, there was a level of mutal respect between the pair which was admirable, and indicative of two people who considered accuracy to be more important than ego. Quite simply, Leif would never have gotten away with the ad hominem and sweepingly dismissive tactics he's now using at WUWT. And he now seems to have a bunch of 'groupies' who have elevated him to the level of guru.

His statement "Birkeland was completely wrong" is one such instance of a sweeping and inaccurate statement, and he's now trying to defend it by stating Birkeland was wrong about a particular bit of his theory. This does not reconcile with the word "completely" and it was this kind of thing he would not have succeeded in when Carl was about.

BTW I've googled for "Svaalgard current" (a current named after him?) and find nothing (I am left to consider it may be a burst of hot air...) so it may take ploughing through hard-written literature to find out what he's talking about. But why did he even mention it as it was not the topic of discussion?

He would do well to sit back, take a deep breath, and recall some of the interactions he had with Carl and revert to scientific debate rather than lowering himself to the level of "internet debunker" which he now seems happy to be.

Cheers, Dave.

[mharratsc]

The attitudes that Leif and that Anna person (whom reminded me a whole bunch of that one lady from BadAstronomy- can't remember her name) really irritated me.

So yeah... I went and made a post there. Hopefully I didn't come across as crossly as I felt when reading their garbage... especially that one 'Anna' lady and her defense of Ptolemaic epicycles as being accurate!!

Ehh, I said my piece there, got it off my chest, had some coffee... I'm good to go again!


Mike H.

[Anaconda]

Don't take anna v too seriously.

anna v (22:54:35) wrote:
Dark matter abounds in the string theories that I was touching upon above. There are many more dimensions than the four, and the force that lives in the other dimensions is gravity. Particles that react only with gravity will be dark matter for the world.

Let's analyze the above quote, shall we.

So-called "string theory" is complete mathematical jibberish. It isn't based on any observation & measurement -- it is this type of world-view that led to "scientists", yes, I put scientists in quotes, to claim that Higgs particles from the future sabotaged the Hadron Super Collider to keep them (Higgs particle) from being discovered

There are many more dimensions than the four...

How many dimensions she doesn't say.

Particles that react only with gravity will be dark matter for the world.

Hmmm...I'm not sure what that means.

anna v (11:46:21) wrote:
…you are talking to a particle physicist…

If this is a representative attitude and belief structure of particle physicists (I seriously hope not) then particle physics is in trouble. (I suspect anna v is more mathematician than empirical scientist because it's typical for mathematicians to display this kind of attitude. The easiest to sell to is another salesmen.)

And it seems when scientists go as far as possible with observation & measurement many fall over the edge into rank speculation & conjucture dressed up by mathematical equations.

As far as Leif Svalgaard goes, it turns out his other line of work is computer programming.

Yes, Svalgaard is smart, and he knows his acceptance in the 'community" lies in defending the status quo which he does in ruthless fashion.

Watts Up With That? is a good website to checkout and comment on regularly (keeping on topic, of course) because Mr. Watts does cover all matter of scientific questions with an emphasis on climate science, but he does cover areas of interest to members of this forum.

(It could be beneficial to establish yourself as a "regular" by commenting on the climate science posts unrelated to this forum's interest area, simply so other comments recognize your handle, hopefully a positive recognition, and, thus, are more open to your evidence, facts, and arguments.)

Also, as opposed to many science forums, his website's readership is sceptical (due to the scandals in climate science) and not in the astronomy camp. Scientific facts matter as opposed to dogma. Many readers truly do have an open mind, as opposed to just paying lip service as is often the case at other forums. Also, his "hits" are in tens of thousands per day, but as Dave Smith has indicated it is important to stay closely on topic of the post (yes, I've run afoul of that stricture a few times).

It is a valuble forum.

Just a thought...

[jjohnson]

Good thought, attitude, technique. There are many useful and interesting sites with good rich background info which may not bear directly on EU subjects, but the more you know, the better prepared you are think creatively and critically, from a variety of viewpoints. Pick out the good stuff - that's critical thinking, sort of mentally panning for gold. While we may be out to change the "bad physics" part of the astronomy/cosmology paradigm, not all physics is bad. (More is bad than I realized at first, but that still doesn't mean that there is not good physics by good, competent physicists going on in other subjects.)

[mharratsc]

Well, I'll confess that I did need Dave to step in there and remind me just what the thread was about...

Sven-head torqued me off (he started it!) with that crack about pseudo-science, and Anna... well, she just wandered into things face first. :\

When I realized she was some little old retired lady who lived in the sheltered halls of scientific dogma... I felt bad about reacting (towards her) like I did.

Svengard- on the other hand- I would like to cover him in very sticky honey and day-old donuts and drop him in Yosemite National Park.

Heh heh.