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 Pi sees » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:51 pm

willendure wrote:
Pi sees wrote:EU will not gain credibility with the wider community until it distances itself from far-out ideas like dipole gravity, morphic resonance, psi and homeopathy. Such ideas are like parasites on the body of the EU paradigm.


+1 from me.

The issue is that to move away from mainstream views you have to become open minded, and if you become too open minded then you lose your grip on what is plausible and what is not.


I think there is a common misconception shared by all sides of the debate about what it means to be open-minded. 'Skeptics' and 'believers' alike both seem to think that being open-minded simply means being open to the possibility that a claim might be true. But true open-mindedness also means being open to the possibility that a claim might *not* be true. Such a notion is difficult to grasp because it almost seems like a form of cognitive dissonance. It is even more difficult to put into practice because people naturally incline towards belief, narrative and certainty. Hence the overwhelming tendency of people to fall into dogmatic 'skeptic' or 'believer' camps.

The result is that the good stuff is being dismissed along with the bad stuff. That is, if Thornhill babbles on about dipole gravity, no-one is going to give his material on the electric sun a chance, and that would be a shame. I mean I don't think he is totally right on that either, but I have seen a very good presentation by him that points out the obvious flaws in the nuclear fusion model.


This is why the EU community needs to have "evidence, logic and experiment" as its mantra (and not in the repetitive chanting sense). If Thornhill can't back up his ideas about dipole gravity with evidence, logic and/or experiment (ideally all three), then he should stop talking about it so that other, stronger aspects of the EU paradigm can receive greater attention and development. Thornhill's prominent position in the EU community makes it all the more important that he maintain a rigorous standard and set a good example.
Pi sees
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby querious » Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:39 pm

Metryq wrote:
querious wrote:
willendure wrote: but I have seen a very good presentation by him that points out the obvious flaws in the nuclear fusion model.


And what would those be?


I'm not trying to be rude, Querious, but are you asking a serious question? The problems have been listed on this site and in these forums often enough.

Yes, it was a serious question.

Willendure,
What "obvious flaws in the nuclear fusion model", that Wal presents, do you find compelling?

Thanks in advance for any time you can devote to this,
Querious
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby willendure » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:37 am

querious wrote:Willendure,
What "obvious flaws in the nuclear fusion model", that Wal presents, do you find compelling?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kin9zqPMPaI

Actually, I made a mistake, the presentation I was thinking of is the one above by Don Scott.

He points out that the sun is cooler underneath than in the corona, a nuclear furnace would surely be hotter the closer you get. Also the temperature dip as charged material is accelerated out of the sun indicates that a strong voltage field exists, causing the temp. dip as brownian motion is restricted by the strong directional acceleration. And generally pokes a lot more holes in the accepted theory.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:43 am

I don't understand what these aggressive EU opponents are going on this forum ?
Is SM feeling threatened by dipole gravity and EU ?
Ban these destructive, disruptive and non-contributing torpedos from EU forums !

Bengt Nyman
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:16 am

@Bengt Nyman: You do not get to call for bans because people in this forum don't agree with your personal pet theory. No one in here is an EU opponent just because they don't agree with the theoretical logic behind dipole gravitation - which is all that backs the idea up, because there isn't a single experiment to valid or falsify the hypothesis. Unless you have something other to demonstrate than a mathematical proof, which by the way, is the same thing that Newton and Einstein have to offer - with significantly more success.

Everyone here has their own ideas and hypothesis, including myself. None of it counts for shit until you can produce the proof a lab.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby gocrew » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:17 am

BecomingTesla wrote:@Bengt Nyman: You do not get to call for bans because people in this forum don't agree with your personal pet theory. No one in here is an EU opponent just because they don't agree with the theoretical logic behind dipole gravitation - which is all that backs the idea up, because there isn't a single experiment to valid or falsify the hypothesis. Unless you have something other to demonstrate than a mathematical proof, which by the way, is the same thing that Newton and Einstein have to offer - with significantly more success.

Everyone here has their own ideas and hypothesis, including myself. None of it counts for shit until you can produce the proof a lab.


Naw, dude. let's not become insular.
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:43 am

@gocrew: Insular is one thing, and vigilant is another. Bengt has been having a conversation with willendure and querious for the last two weeks at least about his hypothesis on this forum, and that's all well and good. The free flow of ideas, however outrageous they may seem at first, is the only thing that's going to clear up the mess that astrophysics and cosmology current sits in. Everyone here needs to be able to discuss their own ideas, demonstrate their proofs, and present their evidence.

What no one here needs are people calling for bans and even more censorship than already exists in science, because they don't agree with a theory that lacks any kind of evidence for support. Which is what Bengt is calling for. No one here has to agree blindly with Wallace Thornhill in order to support the overall ideas/framework of plasma cosmology, or the electric universe.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:26 pm

BecomingTesla wrote:@Bengt Nyman: You do not get to call for bans because people in this forum don't agree with your personal pet theory...

I am calling for the ban of consistently destructive and disruptive non-contributors.

I wellcome factual discussions and objections. So far nobody on this forum has presented any factual objections to electrostatic dipole gravity. Please be aware that Wallace Thornhill's version of dipole gravity is based on mass, resulting in a circular, invalid argument.
Some of the "contributors" on this forum do not even seem to understand the difference.

If you let this go on, EU and this forum will die a slow death due to lack of valid, scientific contributions and due to a slow but sure loss of members, except for a few junk yard dogs bullying their way around the forum.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:45 pm

"So far nobody on this forum has presented any factual objections to electrostatic dipole gravity."

Here is one: you haven't demonstrated that your hypothesis is valid beyond anything other than a single mathematical proof, that involves *two* particles. You've haven't proven that it can be scaled up to three particles, or ten, or a thousand, or every particle in the universe. And the *single* fact that stands most importantly - you haven't proven your hypothesis experimentally, which is the single cornerstone of any EU hypothesis. Do you have any reason for me to think your theory is correct beyond mathematics - which, again, would make it irrelevant in the face of the overwhelming mathematical support for Newtonian and Einstein gravitation?

Querious and Willendure are not destructive, or disruptive, and I think you're going to be hard pressed to find people on this forum who agree with you. They are both very far from trolls coming here for the sole pleasure of derailing civil conversation. They just don't agree with you, and you haven't given them any reason why they should. Everyone shares their opinions, ideas, skepticisms, and doubts - including you. And that's good. It is hardly going to be the death of the EU, which by the way, is barely in its infancy as it is.

The entire reason why mainstream cosmology and astrophysics is in the toilet right now is because of a several lack of reasonable doubt/skepticism in theory, and the decision to rest all of the chips on theoretical mathematics without experimental proof. Continuing to walk *that* path is going to kill the EU. Not a few people disagreeing with you.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:49 pm

BecomingTesla wrote: Everyone here needs to be able to discuss their own ideas, demonstrate their proofs, and present their evidence.

Agreed.
To present a hypothesis you need to outline your reasoning and your support therefore, such as I have done at http://www.dipole.se.
To disprove a hypothesis you should require that the objecting party analyzed and found something wrong with your reasoning, your logic or your calculations.
If they are not capable of doing so I can understand an emotional response, saying that they do not believe in your hypothesis. Fine, express this once, express it twice, then shut up, Because not believing is not a valid scientific argument.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:01 pm

"To disprove a hypothesis you should require that the objecting party analyzed and found something wrong with your reasoning, your logic or your calculations."

Wrong. To disprove - or prove, for that matter - *any* hypothesis, you have to *test* it. With an experiment, as was done through the entire history of the electromagnetism, from the 1600's all the way up to 1915. You want to bring your hypothesis to this forum, put it on the table and see what people think? That's perfectly fair. You want to come here and demand that everyone agree with your hypothesis, or else they be banned? Show me the evidence beyond some interesting mathematics. Otherwise, no one here owes you anything.

The entire corpus of your hypothesis is a single page of HTML. Newton wrote a *volume* of geometric proofs for gravitation, that have been used successfully in the real world for centuries. So either build a lab and get to work, or start expanding your theory. A lot.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:10 pm

BecomingTesla wrote: ...

Just like your colleagues, you are proving that you have not read or understood http://www.dipole. You are just repeating their beliefs.
I challenge you to disprove electrostatic dipole gravity at www.dipole.se
I recommend that you read it and try to understand it first.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:26 pm

Okay, let's just get this done and over with.

(1) My understanding of your hypothesis has absolutely nothing to do with my post regarding your behavior. You are out of line. And no, I may not be a mod so ultimately its not my call, but if anyone else wants to chime in, they're welcome to. You don't get to come in here and recommend censorship because people here disagree with Thornhill, and find his behavior as a poor reflection on the community.

(2) I challenge you do disprove Newton's heuristic for gravitation, or for that matter, why don't you go ahead and disprove general relativity as well? Because here is the issue you don't seem to understand - if you can't approximate and demonstrate your hypothesis, empirically, as being *physically* possible with an actual experimental setup, then your hypothesis is in the exact same position as these two theories, which have hundreds upon hundreds of experiments to back them up, over the last ~300 years.

No one here is impressed because you've got a theory that seems mathematically sound. You know who else produced mathematically solid theoretical arguments? Arthur Schuster. Know who he was? The man who mathematically proved that Birkeland's theory of the aurora was impossible. I'm pretty sure everyone in this forum knows how that turned out, don't they.

*Everyone* who is here, is here because mathematics isn't enough. Everyone here questions the Big Bang, dark matter, GR, etc. *because* they don't believe that mathematics is enough. If they did, they'd be studying astrophysics at university, instead of coming here and teaching themselves. No one here has to disprove anything, or subscribe to any hypothesis/theory/framework that *is not* proven experimentally, and that includes your theory. And hey, it could very well be correct! If you think you've got a fantastic hypothesis, then go build a lab and prove it. That's the exact thing Birkeland did, and Alfven, and Tesla, and Faraday, and every other electrician that brought us here.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:34 pm

BecomingTesla wrote:Okay, let's just get this done and over with.

I agree. I am wasting my time with you guys.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Mjolnir » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:43 pm

Please stay on topic.
This thread is about Michael Shermer's article on his EU2015 experience. The Thunderbolts team has quickly published the panel debate where MS took part, Steve Crothers' speach, and D. Scottt and SC have written rebuttals.
Mjolnir
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest