What degrees does Wal Thornhill have ?

[davesmith_au]

@Anaconda.

I agree with your views on debate in general. Please note the qualatitive phrase "with a pig" in my post (Bridgman springs to mind...). Would you agree with that?

Not that I think your post is specifically in response to mine, but I'd like to know we're on the same page.

Cheers, Dave.

[Anaconda]

Dave,

I've debated Bridgman, and certainly he will lie his ass off, or if he's that ignorant, there's no helping him. But I made him pay the price Bridgman took his blog to "moderation" and then couldn't admit he didn't like the comments coming his way, instead he offered a lame excuse that he was "busy" and he knew his blog would draw a lot of comments and he wanted to be able to answer them.

No, he was getting his butt kicked and he couldn't take it any more.

Now, I was hard on him, yes, but considering his posts and comments, I thought he needed a complete "education"

Not everybody feels comfortable pointing out hard truths that are unpleasant for the other.

I understand that.

But "pigs" need to be put in their place.

I aim to do that

[Snakeoil]

Hmmmm, pretending to be something you are not, in order to gain the upper hand ? That do sound like a hidden agenda, is this the normal and advocated approach?

[Snakeoil]

Dave,

I've debated Bridgman, and certainly he will lie his ass off, or if he's that ignorant, there's no helping him. But I made him pay the price Bridgman took his blog to "moderation" and then couldn't admit he didn't like the comments coming his way, instead he offered a lame excuse that he was "busy" and he knew his blog would draw a lot of comments and he wanted to be able to answer them.

No, he was getting his butt kicked and he couldn't take it any more.

Now, I was hard on him, yes, but considering his posts and comments, I thought he needed a complete "education"

Not everybody feels comfortable pointing out hard truths that are unpleasant for the other.

I understand that.

But "pigs" need to be put in their place.

I aim to do that

Put the "pigs" in their place ? Is this a grown rational human being talking ?

[nick c]

Put the "pigs" in their place ? Is this a grown rational human being talking ?

This "pigs" reference is in regard to a comment from earlier in the thread concerning the value of engaging in debate with mainstream, ie they are not sincerely interested in objective discussion.
The quote in question was:
"Don't wrestle with a pig. You'll both get covered in crap but the pig will enjoy it..."
So, to answer your question... yes, this is a grown and rational human being talking.

nick c

[solrey]

It sounds like snakeoil is one of the posters on UT who has been stalking myself, anaconda and mgmirkin, at least on this forum and Watts Up With That, using some of our comments on these forums in an attempted character assassination at UT.

Hmmmm, pretending to be something you are not, in order to gain the upper hand ? That do sound like a hidden agenda, is this the normal and advocated approach?

Several regular UT posters use this fanciful "hidden agenda" fairy tale as another method of character assassination.

I enjoy good debate, but those twits at UT are nothing but rude, arrogant and hostile. After one too many personal insults, I'm done with UT altogether.

Unfortunately it appears that one of the prime culprits has crept into this forum to stalk anaconda.

Those people need to get a hobby, a life, or something.

[Anaconda]

Hi all:

Perhaps I should clarify: I felt and still do that Bridgman was being intellectually dishonest in his approach, particularly conflating Electric Universe with creationism (ironically, it is the so-called "big bang" proponents that engage in "creationism"), but also in the way he characterized Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology and misrepresented what are the basic principles of EU/PC (this is an all too typical approach by "modern" astronomers and one I find completely dishonest).

Bridgman got his Ph.D. studying a so-called "black hole", Cygnus X-1 (Bridgman's email has Cygnus X-1 as part of it), and then pretended his study of Cygnus X-1 and the fact that EU challenges the existence of "black holes" did not have any role in his negative critique of EU/PC.

(Can you imagine having your Ph.D. dissertation be revealed and exposed as an exercise in fantasy? My experience with "modern" astronomers is that they have little discipline to follow the Scientific Method and if necessary modify their views based on the best scientific evidence currrently available.)

There is a long laudry list of reasons why I thought Bridgman was being intellectually dishonest and I put my arguments directly to him on his website, but when he turned on "moderation", I wasn't interested in having Bridgman decide which comments would be printed or not.

Snakeoil, my agenda is clear: Present the alternative hypothesis and do so in a persuasive manner. And not stand still for any personal attacks in the process.

Too bad you can't open your mind and consider the scientific evidence, but the fact that you would make this foray into our little neck of the internet woods suggests the continued presence and presentation of EU/PC ideas over at Universe Today is getting bothersome to you.

Wonder why?

Could it be that folks are beginning to research EU/PC on their own and when they do such, are beyond the brow beating control of you and others like Nereid and this greatly disconcerts you and others?

I'll say this: All people have to do is start researching on their own, and in my humble opinion, they begin to see the logical consistency and evidenciary weight of EU/PC -- no wonder, you do your darndest to discourage people from doing their own researches. But I think it's not working and that is beginning to make you nervous enough to engage in this attempted personal attack (shoot the messenger any way you can -- but you know what? It's not the messenger, it's the science that carries the day).

And the scientific evidence continues to build-up, so continue to expect your frustration to grow

[Snakeoil]

Anaconda,

I think you have made your point of intent very clear..

Now, I was hard on him, yes, but considering his posts and comments, I thought he needed a complete "education"

Not everybody feels comfortable pointing out hard truths that are unpleasant for the other.

I understand that.

But "pigs" need to be put in their place.

I aim to do that

So much for intellectual discourse and debate, or as a psychiatrist might say "Hmmmm, iiiinteresting...". I did that, i asked one, and it really is true - they do go "Hmmmmm, iiiiinteresting..."

[Anaconda]

Yes, Snakeoil, I stand on my statement that you so graciously quoted.

What I have found is that many of these "modern" astronomers are not prepared to defend their ideas or even defend their attacks on EU/PC. I found Bridgman to be similar in this regard: It seemed he was used to being in an echo chamber of like-minded people that didn't question his pronouncements or his attacks on others outside the echo chamber.

So, when Bridgman was confronted with facts, evidence, and reasoning he simply wasn't prepared to deal with it. That was the "education" I was referring to

[Snakeoil]

Well Anaconda,

How large then is the magnetic field produced by the currents powering the Sun, according to EU ? I would like a reasonably detailed analysis, not handwaving numbers. Mathematic analysis sil'vous plais.

1. What are the voltage drop, and what are the currents? Are the voltage and currents distributed in any special fashion ?
2. Where and how do the energy exchange take place? Are the energy exhnage distributed in any fashion ?
3. What are the resulting magnetic fields produced by those numbers ? Are those numbers in agreement with reality ?

Those are reasonably simple questions that i think must be adressed by EU to gain any credence, so what are the answers ? I demand education!

"Snakes need to be put in their place, i intend to do that"

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Snakeoil and welcome aboard,
Your questions, while relevant, are somewhat off-topic for this thread so will probably get moved by a mod.
You wrote:

I demand education!

Then educate yourself. Nobody on the forums is in the business of educating anybody. Familiarise yourself with the set-up here on the boards, read some TPODs etc.
There are plenty of dissenting voices and doubting Thomases on these boards; plenty of disagreements on this or that. However, most folk are open-minded and willing to at least consider alternative ideas and viewpoints. If you approach it in mental lockdown then you wont get anywhere (and that applies to any subject).

Oh, and it's s'il vous plait, n'est-ce pas?

[Crumby]

Hello Mr. Anaconda and solrey (and others here)

I am certainly worried you are both missing the point. While EU/PC might have its useful place in astrophysics, it is becoming apparent that it is not the only exclusive explanation nor the only valid explanation. Some EU/PC proponents seem to have this concept that astronomy and astrophysics as a subject is somehow controlled by some hidden dogma by some mythical authority or have taboos on certain avenues of research and discovery. It is not true at all. The difficulty lies in the fact that observations and measures are so hard to obtain from mostly distance far away places. EU has exactly the same problem, but is far less convincing because of the gross complexity of the mathematical of its theories. Worst thing is that few direct observations exists in the deepest reaches of space because you can't really see the magnetic fields behaviour directly.

"Appearance" of field phenomena does not necessarily mean it is just EU or Gravitational. (or anything else for that matter). It is like your apparent disdain for "black holes". Yet you never answer the question why is it that it cannot be BOTH? I.e. Some combination of a complex gravitational field as the source of the black hole and the powerful EU fields generated by the consequences of matter interacting with the field!

Yet really Anaconda has also made probably a worst sin - especially on UT. Most novices in the sciences of have little concept of the universe, astronomy or astrophysics. When you plainly say "'black holes don't exist" then attack the science behind it, all your doing is putting their simple question into total disinterest altogether! So instead of slapping everyone so hard in the face or hitting everything with a sledgehammer, why don't you just as an approach mainly highlight the EU component (and the science behind it), then show how the EU is generated or interacts by the gravitational source. I.e. You catch more flies with honey.

Personally, your complaints here about the bloggers and writing off UT are pretty extreme. Both of you have been so aggressive and headstrong, all you have done is alienate not only those who do know how to debate but those who don't know any better! I personally think you are fighting on the wrong battlefield, whose voices are more rallying mostly angry negative dissuasion than persuading any positives towards the EU's cause.

As to Anaconda's general point here in this thread, I agree that general argument and debate is very important. However, what IS missing is the open displays of integrity and honesty. Why? Because it allows sincere conversations to see other points of view and also see the pros and cons openly. If there is no trust, there is no means of understanding or learning when it seems greatly smeared with a thick coating of other motives. Sorry. It just appears deceptive. Sadly IMO using (and directly stating) "persuasion" towards ones' beliefs does really look like some projection of a "hidden agenda.

In the end, the problems that you state here are not just with UT site (or the myriads of other blogging sites has experienced.) The problem is perception that radical EU proponents are just (mostly) so unwilling to fit into mainstream science nor are prepared to show where EU and GM do interlay. If you want to change the world it is best to start with the familiar and then discuss the exotic phenomena and their behaviours. To do this, really qualifications in science really matter little - especially as novices won't comprehend it - but instead really begin focussing on methods of education and teaching. Rejecting everything carte blanche makes everyone suspicious.
Perhaps the whole direction you are all going needs to be totally reassessed. All your doing at the moment is putting people off!

[Snakeoil]

Hi Snakeoil and welcome aboard,
Your questions, while relevant, are somewhat off-topic for this thread so will probably get moved by a mod.
You wrote:

I demand education!

Then educate yourself. Nobody on the forums is in the business of educating anybody. Familiarise yourself with the set-up here on the boards, read some TPODs etc.
There are plenty of dissenting voices and doubting Thomases on these boards; plenty of disagreements on this or that. However, most folk are open-minded and willing to at least consider alternative ideas and viewpoints. If you approach it in mental lockdown then you wont get anywhere (and that applies to any subject).

Oh, and it's s'il vous plait, n'est-ce pas?

Lets derive topic then:

What part of my post is offtopic ? Every single part of my post is a response to a previous post, or a comment to a previous post, that has not been called offtopic. So how come my post is offtopic ?

Anaconda told in a previous post that he is in the business of education

Anaconda said
Now, I was hard on him, yes, but considering his posts and comments, I thought he needed a complete "education"

Well i would like som of that complete education, is that unreasonable to ask for in this circumstance ?
And since my questions are not answered in any of the published material, i have to ask for it dont i?
And what other topic to ask for some education than in a thread where someone tells he gives complete education?

And what other tone am i supposed to use than the tone of the previous posters, that wants to put "pigs in their places"

And fact is, i did take the previos post from Anaconda to a friend of mine who happend to be a licensed psychiatrist, but as this was in private he was unable to give any public advice, he did recommend me a few things in private though concerning cases like this, or cases that are similar to this.

I do hope that this forum is a FREE SPEECH forum and not one where you have to agree with everyone on the forum to be allowed to post, because a closed forum would not look good for Thunderbolts. I posted as response to other posts in the same thread concerning the content of those posts, and then posted again as response to the given response. If any of my posts was offtopic, so must previous post have been., or am i wrong ?

[Crumby]

Snakeoil, my agenda is clear: Present the alternative hypothesis and do so in a persuasive manner. And not stand still for any personal attacks in the process.

With all due respect, it is not very clear at all. As such, the assumption can only be interpreted as being perceived as adopting some unjustified agenda. This is because you will simply fail by not openly comparing the current hypothesis to alternative hypothesis, thus totally ignoring the real basis and support of the accepted concept. Not doing so means there is no basis of comparison, and nor is it possible to weigh the evidence! Yet when you do so, most assume that you are either covering up the evidence or showing weakness in not understanding the current accepted hypothesis? My first question would be "What are you hiding?"

Also isn't "(the art) persuasion" is very negatively interpreted as using undue influence. It is often a technique used by politicians and those of religious belief, whose trustworthiness may be rather questionable or driven by another alliterative motive.

As to the "personal attacks in the process", I'd agree it is in most cases very undeserved. Yet if you do (and can be proven that you) actively deceive someone or are not 'up-front' honest or truthful in presenting your "alternative hypothesis" - well such a aggressive response by others might quite deserved and justified. (I noticed recently in a UT article, I think you were also similarly confronted with such a contention, yet you didn't respond to the complaint. Why was that? Was it really all the bloggers fault?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Snakeoil,
The title of this thread is ' What degrees does Wal Thornhill have?', (which I personally consider an irrelvant question anyway). I agree, thanks to 20/20 hindsight that my comments apply equally to Anaconda et al. Perhaps the 'Future of Science' board would be a better home for this debate?
I'll let Anaconda defend his statements re 'education' and I'll stick by mine.

I personally am not interested in the opinions of your friend the shrink or any other shrink for that matter.

For the record, I tend to agree with Crumby's comments in that I don't see either mainstream or EU science as providing all the answers. In fact, as many of my posts show, I'm not a big fan of science full stop.