Typical Response to EU Support

[sjw40364]

I have included an email response to my being banned on Astronomy.com because I presented evidence that Black Holes can not exist. Of course I am still waiting for a response to my last reply, but I expect I will be waiting for eternity. I am posting this so others can see what to expect when you present evidence that contradicts current cosmology. I have of course removed all references to email addresses for privacy concerns.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven White
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 11:19 AM
To: Customer Service
Subject: Web Site Inquiry - Astronomy - astronomy.com

CSS Web Form Results:

Submission Date and Time
8/8/2011 11:19:26 AM
---------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------
Topic: Web Site Inquiry
Magazine: Astronomy
Web: astronomy.com
---------------------------------------------------------


Comment or Question:
Can I ask what gives your moderators the right to ban my access to the forums because I questioned the personal beliefs of one of the moderators about a scientific theory? I do not ask anyone to agree with me, nor have I ever been rude. In fact the only rudeness ever expressed were to me by other members and moderators, yet they still have access and I do not. I was not aware that one could not express ideas the moderator did not agree with. Is not the whole purpose of a forum to present new ideas? Has the Astronomy forums now made the policy of suppression of thought and evidence to sustain the personal beliefs of its moderators a standard practice? If so I will not be renewing my subscription as suppression of thought belongs to the dark ages, not to a free society. If Astronomy magazine agrees with such then I must decline association with such an entity. I would appreciate your looking into this matter, You may read any post I have participated in, not once have I ever resorted to rudeness or name calling, but have been the recipient of such many times contrary to the forums own rules. Whenever I question the beliefs of the moderator all posts suddenly become locked, now I am banned for that very reason.

Thank you for your time,
Steven J. White
Forum name: sjw40364
---------------------------------------------------------
On Fri Aug 12 9:13 , Karri Ferron sent:

Hi Steven,

As administrator for the Astronomy.com Forums, I was the one to give you a temporary ban, not the moderators (they do not have that power). And it wasn't the moderators that complained about your posts; it was more than a dozen members. You may believe you have followed all the rules on these Forums, but we at the magazine unfortunately see it differently. Because you refuse to listen to any logic or alternative ideas when it comes to your cosmology posts, they simply become self-publishing of ideas, which is strictly forbidden on these forums. If you think you can deviate into more reasonable conversation and accept other people's scientific refutes (not personal beliefs) of your ideas, you are welcome to return. But we cannot allow simple self-publishing of unsubstantiated ideas. It confuses newcomers and dampers Astronomy.com's ability to be a teaching source for the outside world. And as a private forum, it is under our discretion to veer conversations in a way we believe most beneficial to our visitors.

I'm truly sorry if you feel that this policy suppresses individual thought, but I hope you understand our policy and reasons for concern over your posts. Please let me know if you feel you can alter your contributions to the Forums, and I would be happy to reinstate you on a trial basis.

Best wishes,

-Karri


----------------------------
Karri Ferron
Kalmbach Publishing Co.

http://www.Astronomy.com

Sent: Fri Aug 12 12:47

Karri Ferron

RE: Web Site Inquiry - Astronomy - astronomy.com


I have no problem with a post being locked if a moderator or such feels no progress is being made. Likewise I feel those complaining have no tolerance for alternative ideas, they simply want to only hear ideas that echo their own, they are looking for substantiation of their ideas, not alternate explanations that may contradict such. The entire purpose of advancing scientific knowledge is to entertain the notion of alternative ideas, otherwise the cosmology currently in place would never have happened.

The entire purpose of scientific scrutiny is to falsify a theory, if the data does not falsify it then it may be used to support it, but in no case does data ever prove a theory, the very idea flies in the face of the rules of scientific methods.

If the evidence they present is more correct than mine then their arguments and evidence should show such and anyone reading should have no problem distinguishing between the two. If the debate seems to have no resolution then the post may be locked. My last post is an example, I asked how p=m/V could produce any number but 0, if the volume of a singularity = 0, to which no reasonable answer was given except I am to believe it is so because someone said it was. I then supplied relevant papers which show that Swrtzschild's equation is in fact not his as his original equation if one reads his original papers forbids Black Holes, to which no reply was given except to papers that rely on a formula that is indeed not Swartzschild's. And for this they complain. I then presented evidence that even if such existed, the math used to justify them requires that they exist only in a universe devoid of all matter, not my math, the math used by the very papers to explain them. I then showed that one cannot insert mass into the equations ad hoc which first requires the use of an energy tensor to describe this mass, which by coincidence happens to be set to 0, therefore no mass can exist. Yet my conclusions are wrong and theirs are right? Not once did I make a claim that is not substantiated by the very papers they are relying upon. You may of course read Swartzschild's original paper and then compare it to the formula they claim is his. If my claim is merit-less I will publicly retract my statement. You may also read Einstein's papers and if my claim that mass cannot be inserted without first using an energy momentum tensor is unsubstantiated I will again publicly retract my statement. Until such time I would rather be banned than intimidated into believing in something that is impossible by the very math used to explain them.

But I will publicly retract my statements if anyone can show me that the formula used to promote Black Holes is Swartzschild's formula or that mass can be inserted into an equation without first deriving it from an energy tensor, contrary to Einstein's own papers that require that it first be described by an energy tensor. You claim my assertions are incorrect. I simply ask that you actually investigate and if they are I will gladly recant my assertions, publicly, with full apologies to any and all involved. Until such time I must stand by what I know to be correct, that the formula attributed to Swartzschild is in fact not his and that mass cannot be inserted into any equation without first deriving it from an energy tensor.

Thank you for your time,
Steven J. White

[mharratsc]

About all I can say is- welcome to the battle, Steve. :\

[sjw40364]

Oh, I've been there on several occasions before I even discovered the Plasma/Electric Universe paradigm. I knew what would happen before I entered the debate, but I also feel that one must not sit idly by while such unproven and fantastic notions such as black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, etc are used to explain the discrepancies in the Big Bang theory. On the Phys.org forums I managed to get one post in before I was banned , no reason ever given of course except that I violated policy, although I am still trying to figure out how I managed that to such a degree with my very first post except to challenge current theory with actual evidence. I expect had I used no references and only asserted such I would not have been banned as then they could have used references against my assertions and simply claimed my assertions were false.
I used to believe strongly in the BBT, but when more and more fantastical unproven things were needed to justify it I began to question. As soon as I started reading the EU paradigm I realized that at least someone was actually using data to back up a theory instead of making up matter ad hoc. I realize the EU still has a long ways to go and that we do not have all the answers as of yet, but every time more data comes in it confirms the paradigm more and more. The problem is I enjoy debating, but I am running out of forums

[Sparky]

If you had titled this thread or some other such thread as "Astronomy dot Com Fraud" or (Scam) or (Pseudoscience), then a google search might direct some people to the email exchange and expose that site as being hypocritical, at best....

I don't know how certain google returns are moved to the top of their list, but i do know that i did a search and a post of mine was near the top...

[rjhuntington]

Your story reminds me of a guy who wanted to move a boulder that was sitting in the yard he shared with some neighbors. He felt the massive boulder blocked a larger, better view of surroundings, and was annoyed that most neighbors did not share his belief. But he was a big guy, plenty strong, had seen boulders before, and was sure he had the strength to move the boulder, so the guy decided to move it himself whether the neighbors willingly went along with that or not.

The guy was somewhat shocked when he quickly and rudely learned that most of the neighbors who also shared the yard liked the boulder the way it was. Some said it gave them comfort that no matter how violently storms lash at it, the boulder would still be there next day, calmly surveying the entire yard, which made it seem powerful and permanent. Many neighbors said they preferred the view with the boulder in place, though they could not recall why, it just seemed right to them. Others insisted that God had put the boulder where it lay and they felt it was not their place to move it.

A few others, who implied they had personally examined the evidence, said the boulder should be left as is because the mathematics describing it and its location, though inscrutable to most neighbors, were much too elegant to call into question. A lot of neighbors were put off by that attitude of intellectual superiority but because they didn't understand the math and because the math people were on their side of the boulder argument, they let it pass. In these and other ways, the neighbors did not endear themselves to the guy who dissed their boulder.

None of these arguments impressed the guy and he tried very hard to move the boulder, but it was so massive he just couldn't budge it. Pushing on it himself was quickly found to be futile, garnering him a few nasty scrapes and a painfully stubbed toe for the effort. He tried to drag it with his truck, but he tried too hard and only succeeded in digging up the yard with his big knobby tires, further angering the neighbors. Some began to threaten him. In return, he accused them of blindness, stupidity and worse: willful disregard of fact. With that, the neighbors stopped talking to him and wouldn't let him in their houses anymore.

To nurse his wounded sensibilities, the guy began to write forum posts complaining about his neighbors, their ideas (which he felt he had properly mocked), and the awful way they had treated him. One neighbor who had kept his head down during most of the verbal altercations but who had a habit of reading boulder forums saw the posts the guy had written and although even he found some of the posts annoying, he did regard them as essentially honest and finally approached the guy with the offer of a possible solution. He confided to the guy that he didn't like the boulder either and had tried to promote its removal but had been stymied in his efforts.

The solution was subtle and simple at the same time. All they had to do, the neighbor advised, was to go out under cover of anonymity and take a small chip out of the boulder with a known boulder tool, but not so anyone would notice at a glance. Every week, he reasoned, if they disposed of a tiny shard of the boulder, in the morning no one would notice that it was any different and eventually the boulder would be reduced to nothing, at which point they could shrug and say that anyway life is better without it. In this way, the guy eventually forgot about the boulder, and so did the neighbors who thought they loved it, but who realized later that the beautifully rendered lovely rock garden that replaced the boulder was much more pleasing to their own sensibilities.

[Sparky]

You can move a bolder by undermining it with water from a garden hose if ground conditions can be "quicked"...attach the end of the hose under the bolder and turn the water on...the bolder will sink by it's own weight...

[rjhuntington]

You can move a bolder by undermining it with water from a garden hose if ground conditions can be "quicked"...attach the end of the hose under the bolder and turn the water on...the bolder will sink by it's own weight...

That's a nice approach.

[sjw40364]

Lol, a good analogy, and I am certainly trying to chip away, I just have a very, very small hammer And besides, I love debate, so it doesn't really bother me that someone disagrees with me, in fact I usually find that the more someone fights against data, the more one ends up supporting the opposing viewpoint. Which is why I try not to get into esoteric discussions, as without data one idea is as good as another. And although absolute truth may have no grounds in science, there are certainly degrees, and one must decide which truth one can accept. But had the guy not complained at all he would never have found someone of like mind that eventually led to the idea of a solution and the boulder would never have become a rock garden, but instead he would still be looking at a boulder. So things are not always as simple as they seem at first glance.

[601L1n9FR09]

If you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can say to this mountain....
I have never seen a group of people so earnestly, and sincerely seeking truth as I have in this forum.
Even more remarkable is the passion being so diligently tempered with a genuine and demonstrated will to remain objective. You guys have reawakened my formerly dwindling hopes for humanity.

[sjw40364]

I agree, and even at times when I have made a conclusion not supported by evidence, one is never derided, just calmly pointed in the right direction. I think that it is because we have been mislead so many times that we have realized if we want to find the truth we are going to have to do it ourselves. Even those that are fleshing out the paradigm tell you they don't have all the answers yet, and that they probably never will. I would rather seek and be told I don't know, then seek and be told a falsehood. In all the information I have read they always tell you when they are not certain of something and are just making educated guesses. I'll give more credence to that then someone who tells me its fact when the data clearly shows it isn't.