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 Zyxzevn » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:02 am

nick c wrote:The above post has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


Please repeat this for the posts that followed..
Could you do the same for the straw man tactics?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby nick c » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:05 am

All right let us keep our posts civil and on topic.
David wrote:With all due respect, Stephen Crothers was one of the few individuals that Shermer specifically singled out for honorable mention:

Posting about Shermer's criticisms of Crothers is on topic and appropriate for this thread. However, though querious mentioned Crothers in his post there was nothing of substance pertaining to Shermer's article, in fact there was nothing of substance at all in the post. The post in itself, was basically an unsubstantiated sarcastic innuendo (and seemed to pertain to posts on another thread.) As such it was off topic.
We should be dealing with facts, not ad hominem attacks; whether directed at Thornhill, Crothers, or Shermer.

On a side note, perhaps we can encourage someone to start a “Why Stephen Crothers is wrong!” thread;
You can start such a thread if you like.

reminiscent of fallen idol Miles Mathis.
This is a strawman and has nothing to do with this thread or the EU. The Electric Universe does not endorse Miles Mathis and never has. Of course, there may be agreement on some topics, MM seems to have a propensity to write about everything. But a perusal of the Holoscience, Electric Sky, or TPoD's siites will find very little if anything substantial that references Mathis. In the past, on this forum, Mathis threads have been moved to the NIAMI board and at least one has been locked.

And who knows, our good friend noblackhole might even show up and participate –
He is not a forum regular and there is no obligation for any of the TB team to participate here. This forum works within the limitations of its' format. You make it seem as though he is cowering in a corner in fear of your criticisms! Nothing could be further from the truth (see below). Crothers regularly engages in (still ongoing) debates through papers, rejoinders, and correspondences with mainstream's leading theorists (including a Nobel prize winner). David, please excuse him if he does not take the time to lock horns with you! Anyway, one has to be a top notch mathematician to (even if wrong) enter into such an elite debating circle.

but then he’s been unusually silent lately; one can only wonder why?
You are misinformed and absolutely wrong! See:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Shermer.html

Regardless of who is right or wrong. In my opinion, having read the work of both gentlemen, Shermer is out of his league if he chooses to engage in debate with Crothers.

In order to keep this thread on topic.... if you have a response to my post then respond to me via PM. If you have something to post pertaining to this thread then by all means post it on this thread.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:29 am

I think people like Shermer should be avoided.
He is also the reason I unsubscribed from Scientific American.
If I look at other reports he operates very much like a "sociopath", but I don't want to go into it.
His psychological behavior is weird. He seems friendly, but on another layer he is continuously
attacking people's ideas. Not with reason, but with prejudice.
His writing clearly shows what is going on in his mind when he visits a conference.
While successful in career, he seems only good in the bashing of other people's ideas.
Psychologically he is clearly a result of a traumatized youth as I stated above,
It is a pity he did not continue to study psychology, because it would have helped him (and humanity).

Why did the other scientists on the EU even bother to talk to him?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:40 am

Mjolnir wrote:Honorable mention? Surely you are being ironic. Shermer is sarcastic, although not nearly as brilliantly so as Stephen Crothers in his reply...

More sarcastic than "ironic". But I fail to see any indication of brilliance in Stephen Crothers reply. In fact, it isn't even clear what Crothers is up in arms over:

Stephen Crothers wrote:What evidence does Shermer present in his article for his charge that I am a "self-taught mathematician"? None!

Is Crothers offended by the label "self-taught"? We can only guess, because he never does set the record straight. And to add even more confusion, Donald Scott comes to his defense with this argument:

Donald Scott wrote:Shermer scorns S. Crothers as being a “self-taught” mathematician, yet seems to honor Newton even though he (Newton) was clearly self-taught in the physics that now bears his name. Being self-taught does not imply someone is wrong. It is the essence of cutting-edge research. But Crothers is much more than self-taught.

Scott argues that "Crothers is much more than self-taught", but we still don't know what that "much more" is supposed to be. Much more in what way? We are given two articles (Scott and Crothers) without any clarification at all.

And then Crothers goes on to complain about this:

Stephen Crothers wrote:What evidence does Shermer present to substantiate his additional allegation that I am a "part-time amateur scientist"? None, of course!

Again, what exactly is Crothers incensed about? Is it the word "amateur"? "Scientist"? "Part-time"? He never tells us.

Mjolnir wrote:Nobody should have expected anything else from Shermer, and whoever is writing comments on behalf of Thunderbolts on the youtube video says they didn't. Then the reactions from Crothers and Scott seems a bit overblown. It doesn't reflect well upon EU proponents if they first invite him, and then jump into the trenches at the first sight of critisism.

Prior to Shermer's article, we were told that one of the highlights of the conference was Shermer's attendance:

The Electric Universe wrote:EU2015 has been a wonderful success. One of the conference highlights this year was the attendance of and presentation by Michael Shermer, Founding Publisher of Sceptic magazine and writer for Scientific American. Michael presented on the topic of ‘Pseudoscience’ and was a panelist in one of the Q&A sessions.

Well, maybe not so wonderful after all. Again, who knows?

Mjolnir wrote:Like Shermer, I don't understand any of it. It seems to me he claims Einstein is dividing by zero or something.

Actually, Crothers is claiming that General Relativity is comparable to "numerology", which is an outlandish and ridiculous assertion. General Relativity can predict the elliptical orbits and precessions of the planets in our solar system with near perfect precision. To label that monumental feat and accomplishment as "numerology" is at best woeful ignorance.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:29 pm

I thought this thread was not for discussing Crothers.

David wrote:Actually, Crothers is claiming that General Relativity is comparable to "numerology", which is an outlandish and ridiculous assertion.


I totally agree with him. And it seems that you don't understand him.
You do not seem to understand general relativity either.
General relativity is a system to convert time/space-coordinate system to a special relativity time/space system,
using tensors. A Hilbert space. And in this new coordinate system the original time and space kind of disappear.
This was not invented by Einstein, but Einstein used this coordinate system and started adding gravity
by inserting a formula with G in it in the Hilbert Space. Somehow it did not work very well, but he could
make it work by assuming that space was empty.
Also did he add a lambda term. There was no reason for him to do so, and he removed it later.
After Hubble's discovery it was added again.
So there is some magic of changing numbers. This is not even what Crothers is reffering to.
He is listing much more of this formula magic, and shows that the scientists involved are not doing
very clear mathematical work. Instead they seem to fumble around with constants and formulas, which
either represent actual space/time coordinates or Hilbert-space coordinates.
And because he is a mathematician he clears out some formulas, and comes to different conclusions.
His work should not be pushed aside with nonsense. It should be mathematically studied.
It is very interesting and has helped me to learn more about general relativity.

The above comments show that you do not understand his work.
So instead of criticizing him for something that you don't understand, you could start studying
the different approaches to general relativity. The Hillbert Space is very interesting.

If you are some years further you can discuss with me the usage of r in the black-hole formula.
I and 't Hooft and Crothers totally agree that it referes to the Hilbert Space. So when we know
the r of a black hole in Hilbert Space, then what is its actual radius in space-time?

Also interesting what the Lambda represents in Hilbert Space. This is my question, not Crothers.
Why should there be only a Lambda and no other constants? What effect does it have on energy?
Does it have a linear effect in Real Space or is it somehow different?

How many people can answer all these questions by themselves?
From actually understanding of the formulas and consequences in the real world,
and not from copying somebody else's work.

And if so few people actually understand it, is that not a huge problem in education and science?
Now I go back to my story on the delayed choice quantum eraser.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:22 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:I thought this thread was not for discussing Crothers.

Why don't you start a Crothers thread and place your entire comment there? I would be delighted to participate.

Zyxzevn wrote:And it seems that you don't understand him.
You do not seem to understand general relativity either.
The above comments show that you do not understand his work.
So instead of criticizing him for something that you don't understand...

If that is your crude way of laying down the gauntlet, I eagerly accept. Let's delve into the nitty-gritty of Crothers papers, and see if they can stand up to scrutiny (Hint: they don't). Let's start with his latest article:

"To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass"
http://vixra.org/abs/1508.0106
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:49 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:And it seems that you don't understand him.
You do not seem to understand general relativity either.
The above comments show that you do not understand his work.
So instead of criticizing him for something that you don't understand...

Zyxzevn, you have now had ample time to study the article (it’s only 4 pages long). So are you ready to defend the indefensible?

This will be a wonderful opportunity for you to dazzle us with your in-depth knowledge of mathematics – not to mention, school me on the math that I purportedly “do not understand”.

And to any who might complain that this thread has gone off topic, if necessary, we can start a separate Stephen Crothers thread; or just hash it out right here. And of course, Mr. Crothers is more than welcome to participate.

Also, since this is the material that Stephen Crothers presented in his lecture at the Electric Universe Conference EU20151, we are basically still on topic; in a circuitous way.

So let's get started.

It is my firm contention that Stephen Crothers' most recent article is completely wrong; literally riddled with errors and misconceptions from one end to the other:

“To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass" -- Stephen Crothers
http://vixra.org/abs/1508.0106

1General Relativity – A Case Study in Numerology -- Stephen Crothers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBorBKDnE3U
Watch segment (6:25 to 8:43)

Zyxzevn, are you ready to vouch for and defend Crothers' latest article? Or was this just a case of all bark and no bite?
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby querious » Thu Oct 15, 2015 4:27 am

David wrote:It is my firm contention that Stephen Crothers' most recent article is completely wrong; literally riddled with errors and misconceptions from one end to the other:

“To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass" -- Stephen Crothers
http://vixra.org/abs/1508.0106

I am reluctant to wade into GR because I don't have the requisite mathematics training required to speak intelligently about it. However, I decided to take a peek at the above paper, not expecting to be able to say anything one way or the other, but just out of curiosity.

Even so, the very first (math-free) lines struck me as odd, in that he confuses mass (one of several properties of matter) and matter. He then uses his own misconception to say...

"Einstein’s gravitational field having a
mass of its own is like the man who
thought himself a poached egg."
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby MrAmsterdam » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:16 am

A few things.

1. the writer of this little article is an economist. From 2008 onwards my perspective changed on all economists. A very very very few predicted the crisis. Therefore all the economic models they had in their computer simulations and in their brains were wrong, or at least these models were not applicable on the economic reality. Do not forget that these models are essentially mathematical models based on assumptions/perspectives/theories!
2. Not understanding or not willing or trying to understand criticism from a mathematician, says something about the writer and his assumptions and maybe even his mathematical skills.
3. Still don’t know if this gentleman acknowledges electric natural phenomena in space. (yes or no will do for me)
4. Article was short and superficially scratched the surface.
5. I’m personally interested in empiricism and empirical lab results, so not mentioning the Sapphire experiment makes his article ( and any or all criticism from anyone) uninteresting for me.
6.
" I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. "


if you want to sail the oceans with a ship, you need to understand the natural forces of gasses liquids and pressures within the framework of oceans . If you want to sail space with a spacecraft you need to understand the natural forces in space.....plasma, dust and the electric force is the key or a very good start.... IMHO
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -Nikola Tesla -1934
User avatar
MrAmsterdam
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:01 am

MrAmsterdam wrote:A few things.

1. the writer of this little article is an economist. From 2008 onwards my perspective changed on all economists. A very very very few predicted the crisis...

Michael Shermer is "an economist"?

I find that "very very very" hard to believe.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby nick c » Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:06 pm

Shermer did not major in economics.
from Wiki:
BA (psychology/biology) from Peperdine Univ 1976
MA (experimental psychology) California State University 1978
PhD (History of Science) Claremont Graduate University 1991

Not to say that this or that is a requirement for anything! or makes any of his writings any more or less credible.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby celeste » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:16 pm

nick c wrote:Shermer did not major in economics.
from Wiki:
BA (psychology/biology) from Peperdine Univ 1976
MA (experimental psychology) California State University 1978
PhD (History of Science) Claremont Graduate University 1991

Not to say that this or that is a requirement for anything! or makes any of his writings any more or less credible.


Nick, his PhD from Claremont does matter. It is why he enforces his wrong view. Remember, Claremont was founded by a theologian and minister as described in the first couple of paragraphs here. https://www.beloit.edu/archives/documen ... blaisdell/
Also note the praise given by Time magazine. The same Time magazine as Shermer says, that makes Einstein "Person of the Century"
Finally, remember, that it was a Jesuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
that gave us the "Big Bang". A very important part of the mainstream view that Shermer is defending.

Nick, I understand the emphasis that Thunderbolts is putting on keeping us free from religious and political agendas.
It is nice to have a forum free from rants, and also, we don't want to alienate anyone. But it is also important to remember that the current mainstream scientific viewpoint is supported by the religious/ political (and mostly economic)group in power currently. That group did not get into power by convincing everyone that their scientific world view was correct. They are also not going to let go, simply because EU points out a few opposing facts. Sooner or later, Thunderbolts will have to face what is up against.
celeste
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Thu Oct 15, 2015 11:10 pm

querious wrote:
David wrote:It is my firm contention that Stephen Crothers' most recent article is completely wrong; literally riddled with errors and misconceptions from one end to the other:

“To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass" -- Stephen Crothers
http://vixra.org/abs/1508.0106

I am reluctant to wade into GR because I don't have the requisite mathematics training required to speak intelligently about it. However, I decided to take a peek at the above paper, not expecting to be able to say anything one way or the other, but just out of curiosity.

Even so, the very first (math-free) lines struck me as odd, in that he confuses mass (one of several properties of matter) and matter. He then uses his own misconception to say...

"Einstein’s gravitational field having a
mass of its own is like the man who
thought himself a poached egg."

The first section of Crothers’ article is just too brief, scant and shallow. He doesn’t even put forth a scientific argument, just a reference to a “man who thought himself a poached egg”. And that’s all you get; he then moves on to the next section. So you can safely just ignore section one, until Crothers gets around to filling in nearly all of the gone missing details. I will though, give him high marks for brevity.

But do pay extra close attention to sections three and four; that is where Crothers falls flat on his face. These sections are not only the crux of the article, but they are also Crothers Achilles heel. It is here that we see the foundational mistakes and his near complete lack of understanding of even the most basic, introductory tensor calculus (the underlying mathematics of general relativity). There is no polite way to say it: Crothers is hopelessly confused.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby nick c » Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:42 am

celeste wrote:Nick, his PhD from Claremont does matter. It is why he enforces his wrong view.
Yes, it does provide some insight into his motivation, or, put another way..."where he is coming from." But ultimately his writings (or anyone's) must be judged on its' own factual accuracy, logic, and reasoning.
Last edited by nick c on Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: attribution of quote corrected
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Fri Oct 16, 2015 8:38 am

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
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