Please repeat this for the posts that followed..nick c wrote:The above post has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Could you do the same for the straw man tactics?
Please repeat this for the posts that followed..nick c wrote:The above post has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
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.David wrote:With all due respect, Stephen Crothers was one of the few individuals that Shermer specifically singled out for honorable mention:
You can start such a thread if you like.On a side note, perhaps we can encourage someone to start a “Why Stephen Crothers is wrong!” thread;
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.reminiscent of fallen idol Miles Mathis.
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.And who knows, our good friend noblackhole might even show up and participate –
You are misinformed and absolutely wrong! See:but then he’s been unusually silent lately; one can only wonder why?
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:Mjolnir wrote: Honorable mention? Surely you are being ironic. Shermer is sarcastic, although not nearly as brilliantly so as Stephen Crothers in his reply...
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:Stephen Crothers wrote: What evidence does Shermer present in his article for his charge that I am a "self-taught mathematician"? None!
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.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.
Again, what exactly is Crothers incensed about? Is it the word "amateur"? "Scientist"? "Part-time"? He never tells us.Stephen Crothers wrote: What evidence does Shermer present to substantiate his additional allegation that I am a "part-time amateur scientist"? None, of course!
Prior to Shermer's article, we were told that one of the highlights of the conference was Shermer's attendance: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.
Well, maybe not so wonderful after all. Again, who knows?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.
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.Mjolnir wrote: Like Shermer, I don't understand any of it. It seems to me he claims Einstein is dividing by zero or something.
I totally agree with him. And it seems that you don't understand him.David wrote: Actually, Crothers is claiming that General Relativity is comparable to "numerology", which is an outlandish and ridiculous assertion.
Why don't you start a Crothers thread and place your entire comment there? I would be delighted to participate.Zyxzevn wrote:I thought this thread was not for discussing Crothers.
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: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?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...
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.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
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" 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. "
Michael Shermer is "an economist"?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...
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/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.
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.querious wrote: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.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
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."
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.celeste wrote:Nick, his PhD from Claremont does matter. It is why he enforces his wrong view.
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.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...
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest