Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

[David]

a hater for the sake of hating.

Time to write some new material; that harangue is getting old and stale.

[Eaol]

@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?

Whoops. I just read the first part, my mistake. I'm not sure what celeste is talking about.

[David]

Whoops. I just read the first part, my mistake. I'm not sure what celeste is talking about.

There is little doubt in my mind what he is talking about.

In addition to “dark matter”, there are also references to “precession”, “orbital inclination”, and “orbital eccentricity”.

Now that all sounds suspiciously like a gravitational theory to me. But don’t take my word for it; I’m just here “for the sake of hating”, or so I’ve been told.

[Webbman]

some people should go out and get themselves a permanent magnet generator or better yet make one.

if they did they might see how the movement of the planets about the sun and especially precession about the planetary disc makes the solar system look a lot like a very impressive electric generator. Just watch out for eddy currents.

[Eaol]

Whoops. I just read the first part, my mistake. I'm not sure what celeste is talking about.

There is little doubt in my mind what he is talking about.

In addition to “dark matter”, there are also references to “precession”, “orbital inclination”, and “orbital eccentricity”.

Now that all sounds suspiciously like a gravitational theory to me. But don’t take my word for it; I’m just here “for the sake of hating”, or so I’ve been told.

Okay, I get you. I didn't quite mean it that way. I meant that celeste was citing Donald Scott's "filament model" (not sure what that would be) and then talking about gravity. I'm pretty close to certain Donald Scott doesn't claim to have any model of gravity, though. Therefore, I have no idea what celeste is talking about.

[celeste]

Sorry about the delay in response, but there does seem to be some confusion here, and I didn't want to make it worse. So maybe we can do a quick recap on some of the ideas, seeing if/where we are on the same page?

We start with Kepler, and his observations that lead to his three laws for elliptical orbits. Newton comes along, and says that we get those laws from an inverse square force. Newton does not a have mechanism for this force, but that inverse square force does seem to predict orbits of planets and comets pretty well.
Here we get to Einstein's curved space, Wal Thornhill's dipole model, LeSage's pushing gravity,etc, all as models to explain the mechanism for that inverse square force.

In the meantime, we find that galactic rotation curves, the expansion of the universe, the rotation of Gould's Belt, etc, can not be explained by inverse square gravity alone. So we get ideas of dark matter and dark energy, to balance the gravity only equations. We also get MOND (the idea that maybe gravitational forces don't remain inverse square at huge distances) . We get the reawakening of the pushing gravity idea ( which predicts a finite range for gravity). We also get the idea that maybe electromagnetic forces are acting. Finally, there is the question of redshifts, which makes some wonder if we are even observing correct velocities in the first place.

Here is where Michael Shermer comes in, and makes those comments about how well the mainstream can predict orbits in our solar system. He is smart enough to stay away from the larger scale where everything seems to break down, and sticks to the solar system scale, where gravity "seems" to work.

The problem is, gravity does not explain everything even in solar system orbits. Here I was disappointed that Wal Thornhill did not point out to Michael Shermer the flyby anomaly, or the anomalous acceleration problem for spacecraft. The short of it is, spacecraft don't appear to obey strictly the inverse square law.
Also, there is the Titius-Bode law, which has no mechanism in the gravity only model. Here is where Donald's Scott's filament model comes in. His model is a model of magnetic fields only, and he tries to use it to explain Titius Bode. His model also explains the relationship between inclination and eccentricity for orbits, which has at least two different and conflicting ad hoc explanations in the mainstream model.

Let me break in here with one clarification: Wal's model is a mechanism for gravity. Don's is a model for magnetic fields, which may work with or instead of gravity. In other words, the two models don't confirm or conflict with each other.

So,summing up:
Michael Shermer knows there are problems with the gravity only model on the large scale, and focuses the argument on the solar system scale. But even here, we need a force working in addition to gravity to explain the spacecraft orbits. Michael is obviously unaware of this, and the EU team did fail to bring that up. With Titius-Bode, gravity only orbits seem to work for planets, but we need a mechanism to show why only some of the allowed gravity only orbits seem to appear. Here Donald did show why this happens, but Michael was obviously not paying attention.

[Eaol]

Celeste, where can I read about Donald Scott's magnetic fields?

[David Talbott]

At the begining of the "When Radical Ideas..." panel around 5:00 min in the video, Mr. David Talbot states the idea is to perform the 'acid test' of convincing "a good person who has no advanced prejudices in one direction or another" of EU ideas. And these selected good persons are people, he states at ~5:22: ""I have real respect for Michael Shermer and Gary Schwartz".

Obviously, from Mr. Shermer's words on the panel and his article in Scientific American he wasn't at all convinced.
The test — "Who have you convinced?" — blatantly failed.

But apparently it wasn't EU ideas being tested — for the consequence of the failed test was not any change in such ideas, not even a dispassionate rebuttal of the "dismissive review", but an acid, generalized attack, a total lack of respect for Michael Shermer, transmuted into a very BAD person.

Seems there's a major misunderstand here. No one—not a single person involved in the EU2015 conference planning—expected Shermer to change his mind on anything. The "acid test" is our ability to affect the perception of independent-minded folks who have nothing to sell and simply want to know. On that test, the EU message is provably working. Amongst the many pointers to our success is the effectiveness of the message with qualified scientists now engaged in crucial experimental work, all with potential far-reaching implications for the EU perspective.

Michael Shermer, on the other hand, is a paid salesman for conventional theory, and his response did not vary in the slightest from his predictable role. Look for a video summary on our YouTube channel by the first week of November.

We found him to be a friendly fellow. We all had a good time in both private and public conversation, irrespective of the competing theoretical positions. Is genuine communication across the gap actually possible? That remains to be seen, but some of us are cautiously optimistic about the incremental gains already being made.

Whatever the outcome of this very brief exchange, you can be certain we will never abandon our foundational principle: we will never allow ourselves to become dependent on approval from any entrenched institution or ideology.

[David]

Celeste, where can I read about Donald Scott's magnetic fields?

Likewise, I would like to read it for myself firsthand. Specifically, I am interested in confirmation of the following claims:

Here is where Donald's Scott's filament model comes in. His model is a model of magnetic fields only, and he tries to use it to explain Titius Bode. His model also explains the relationship between inclination and eccentricity for orbits...

Wal's model is a mechanism for gravity. Don's is a model for magnetic fields, which may work with or instead of gravity. In other words, the two models don't confirm or conflict with each other.

"Instead of gravity"? Magnetic fields instead of gravity?

Would someone please provide a link to a Donald Scott article that discusses this topic in detail?

[celeste]

http://electric-cosmos.org/BirkelandFields.pdf

Eaol and David, here is the link to Scott's work

[David]

I looked over the article, and there is not so much as a single mention of any the following:

precession
orbital inclination
orbital eccentricity
Titius-Bode law
dark matter

Where does Donald Scott use magnetic fields in relation to these topics?

[antosarai]

... The "acid test" is our ability to affect the perception of independent-minded folks who have nothing to sell and simply want to know. On that test, the EU message is provably working. Amongst the many pointers to our success is the effectiveness of the message with qualified scientists now engaged in crucial experimental work, all with potential far-reaching implications for the EU perspective.

Michael Shermer, on the other hand, is a paid salesman for conventional theory, and his response did not vary in the slightest from his predictable role. Look for a video summary on our YouTube channel by the first week of November.

We found him to be a friendly fellow. We all had a good time in both private and public conversation, irrespective of the competing theoretical positions. Is genuine communication across the gap actually possible? ...

More or less intensely, with more or less expertise aren't we all predictable salesmen of our theories?

Doesn't meaningful communication across a gap starts by nonbelligerency?

[Zyxzevn]

No one—not a single person involved in the EU2015 conference planning—expected Shermer to change his mind on anything.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[gocrew]

a hater for the sake of hating.

Time to write some new material; that harangue is getting old and stale.

No older or staler than the actions which it describes.

Interesting that you ignored everything else in the post. I wonder why that might be...

[David]

Interesting that you ignored everything else in the post. I wonder why that might be...

I didn’t respond to your questions in large part to spare you further embarrassment. But since you appear to be a glutton for punishment, it will be my pleasure to draw attention to your misconceptions.

So which one is supposed to be the official Relativity theory: Lorentz's model, or Einstein's model?

Lorentz’s model is an aether-based theory initially developed in 1892. Over two decades later, Einstein introduced his space-time curvature model (General Relativity), which is widely considered to be the de facto official Relativity theory.

So which one is supposed to be the official Heliocentric theory: Galileo's circular model, or Copernicus's elliptical model?

The discovery that the planets are moving around the Sun in elliptical orbits is attributed to Johannes Kepler. Reference: Kepler’s first law of planetary motion.