gocrew wrote:a hater for the sake of hating.
Time to write some new material; that harangue is getting old and stale.
gocrew wrote:a hater for the sake of hating.
David wrote:Eaol wrote:@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?
Eaol wrote:
Whoops. I just read the first part, my mistake. I'm not sure what celeste is talking about.
David wrote:Eaol wrote:
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.
antosarai wrote: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.
Eaol wrote:Celeste, where can I read about Donald Scott's magnetic fields?
Celeste wrote: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.
celeste wrote:precession
orbital inclination
orbital eccentricity
Titius-Bode law
dark matter
David Talbott wrote:... 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? ...
David Talbott wrote:No one—not a single person involved in the EU2015 conference planning—expected Shermer to change his mind on anything.
David wrote:gocrew wrote:a hater for the sake of hating.
Time to write some new material; that harangue is getting old and stale.
gocrew wrote:Interesting that you ignored everything else in the post. I wonder why that might be...
gocrew wrote:So which one is supposed to be the official Relativity theory: Lorentz's model, or Einstein's model?
gocrew wrote:So which one is supposed to be the official Heliocentric theory: Galileo's circular model, or Copernicus's elliptical model?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest