Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby celeste » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:25 pm

David wrote: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.



David,
I don't want to get to far from the topic of this thread, but do you see that if our solar system is in a filament as Donald Scott models, then Lorentz's aether based theory is not out after all?
You see, it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that seemed to prove that there was no aether. What it really proved, was that there was no motion of the solar system through the aether. So either there is no aether, OR the aether is moving along with us.
If Donald Scott is correct, the Earth is not traveling through the vacuum of space, but IN and WITH the material in one of the concentric shells of a large scale filament. In other words, the "aether", does in fact travel with us, and rotates with us.
If you don't accept Don's model, then here is another analogy you can use: remember in the "water bridge" experiments, where they found that negatively charged particles flowed down the center in one direction, and positive ions traveled in the opposite direction, spiraling on the outer edge of the filament? imagine yourself on one of those ions. Are you moving through a vacuum? Certainly not. But are you moving with respect to the other nearby ions? No. You are moving with all the like charged material in that shell. And the bit of material dragged with that shell.
celeste
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:42 am

celeste wrote:I don't want to get to far from the topic of this thread, but do you see that if our solar system is in a filament as Donald Scott models...

If I remember correctly, you are the same guy that was talking about Donald Scott's magnetic fields. You never did offer any corroborating evidence to support your wild-eyed preposterous claims. And now you're back at it again. However, I now view your comments with deep suspicion, and can't trust that you are telling it straight.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby gocrew » Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:02 am

David wrote:
gocrew wrote:Interesting that you ignored everything else in the post. I wonder why that might be... :lol:

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.

gocrew wrote: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.

gocrew wrote: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.


All you've done is show you can't follow an argument. You'll notice that I used the form of your statement, but substituted different theories for the ones you were trying to disparage.

Let me spell it out for you so that even a third grader could understand: you were trying to use a disagreement between two theories to somehow cast doubt on both of them. As if the lack of uniformity in EU must be a sign of its invalidity. I took that argument an applied it elsewhere to show that it very obviously does not apply. The fact that I mistakenly wrote Copernicus instead of Kepler doesn't change the thrust of the argument, which was to entirely demolish your logical fallacy.

I'll be here all day if you need more help on this.
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David » Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:22 am

gocrew wrote:I'll be here all day if you need more help on this.

I have already responded to your questions, and won't a second time.

Case closed.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby gocrew » Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:32 pm

David wrote:
gocrew wrote:I'll be here all day if you need more help on this.

I have already responded to your questions, and won't a second time.

Case closed.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
gocrew
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Zendo » Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:44 am

David wrote:And finally, the majority of those in attendance (both on stage and off) had no idea what Crothers was talking about either -- Crothers didn't even know, for that matter.


It's not too hard to follow Crothers if you have taken a course in linear algebra and calculus, which isn't such a stretch to believe many in attendance has. He was even explaining what the expressions mean in case you don't know it. I, for one, learned something from the talk -- and it just further cements my intuition about the fundamental problems relativity presents in describing physical reality. If you want to discuss that I'm all ears.

It's pretty obvious that mathematics has detached it self so far from physical reality that mathemagicans think they can fudge factor their equations and come up with the explanation of how stuff works post-hoc, cramming their world view into their precious equations.

The problem has always been that Newtons work and by extension relativity is purely heuristic models, i.e. they don't ultimately provide deep insights into what happens in a system for all of it's states, they are approximations of reality. As history has shown time and time again, post-hoc analysis leads to unnecessary extra parameters, tensors, exotic particles, fields and argumentation to questions like:

What is mass? A space where the Gravitational stress-energy tensor is non-zero. But space it self has a stress-energy tensor (the so called cosmological constant), so does vacuum suddenly have mass now?? No, physicists say, they now point to the quantum theoretical casimir effect to explain a non-zero stress energy tensor in vacuum where it apparently is definite proof of vacuum fluctuation caused by virtual particles between two plates close together creating 0-point energy. Interesting tidbit about the effect: "Casimir's original goal was to compute the van der Waals force between polarizable molecules" of the metallic plates. Thus it can be interpreted without any reference to the zero-point energy (vacuum energy) of quantum fields." Wow. Nice. They don't even know the experiments they use to base their arguments on.

This is one of the first things Crothers is talking about in the talk. The fact that a universe with black-holes in them are static, i.e. the vacuum stress-energy tensor should be 0, but it can't be that at the same time because we are apparently in an expanding universe where the tensor should be at least non-zero. Ok, so if the fudge factor is questionable at best, where do they really stand in terms of paradoxes happening at the boundary of black holes event horizon and escape velocities and so forth (and there goes most of the rest of Crothers talk).

Then, like before, we start teaching people these things and how supposedly "beautiful" these models are, when in reality they are based on weak or even provably mistaken premises. It's like a sick 20th-century billion dollar research funded analogy to the geocentric model. And we thought the church was bad, now look at them.
Zendo
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David Talbott » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:21 pm

querious wrote:
Metryq wrote:No one in the EU community ever said Newton was wrong because Newton never tried to explain gravity.


I disagree. Newton said gravity was proportional to mass, while EU likes to say we can't really be sure of a body's mass because gravity is actually proportional to the charge on a object.

This is the whole basis for claiming that comets could actually be solid rock, not dirty snowballs.


No promises here, but perhaps I can find a little time over the next couple of weeks to correct the misstatements of fact that Querious inserted (I presume inadvertently) into this thread.

First item: Thornhill never suggested that gravity is proportional to the charge on an object. But for those interested, here is the briefest version of Thornhill's observations concerning the electrical substructure of gravity, a concept that is certainly not unique to Thornhill's work:

"Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies."
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/

There is of course much more to Thornhill's observations on the the subject, but it would be good if people challenging Thornhill's contribution would speak directly to his explicit statements, not their own imaginary nuances.
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Eaol » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:55 am

Wal Thornhill wrote:If we remove some of the surface electrons the internal polarization is diminished causing a proportional diminution of the apparent mass and gravity of that body. Conversely, if electrons are added to a body its internal polarization increases, causing a proportional increase in mass.


Isn't that basically saying that gravity and apparent mass are changed by changing the charge on a body?

EDIT: Whoops. Here's the source:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-e ... ar-system/
User avatar
Eaol
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby David Talbott » Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:36 am

Eaoi, to avoid the mistaken “pith-ball” analogy, I was simply drawing attention to the different levels of analysis when talking about a change in charge and a resultant change in aggregate effects on internal polarization. I've presumed the first calculation would involve surface area, and the second a volumetric calculation—all well beyond my pay grade, thank you. :)
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby chrimony » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:04 pm

David Talbott wrote:No promises here, but perhaps I can find a little time over the next couple of weeks to correct the misstatements of fact that Querious inserted (I presume inadvertently) into this thread.


Why doesn't Thornhill himself come here and defend his theory? It seems strange that he doesn't do so when it's his own home turf and scientifically minded people are asking scientific questions. Now is his chance to convince people.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby BecomingTesla » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:21 pm

I've criticized Wal relatively harshly, although I believe legitimately, in this thread regarding the very same theory and my personal issue with its promotion: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16030&start=15

He's welcome to answer them if he'd like. I'd be interested to let the man defend himself, especially since I was a bit hostile.
BecomingTesla
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby querious » Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:08 pm

David Talbott wrote:
querious wrote:
Metryq wrote:No one in the EU community ever said Newton was wrong because Newton never tried to explain gravity.


I disagree. Newton said gravity was proportional to mass, while EU likes to say we can't really be sure of a body's mass because gravity is actually proportional to the charge on a object.

This is the whole basis for claiming that comets could actually be solid rock, not dirty snowballs.


No promises here, but perhaps I can find a little time over the next couple of weeks to correct the misstatements of fact that Querious inserted (I presume inadvertently) into this thread.

First item: Thornhill never suggested that gravity is proportional to the charge on an object. But for those interested, here is the briefest version of Thornhill's observations concerning the electrical substructure of gravity, a concept that is certainly not unique to Thornhill's work:

"Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies."
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/

There is of course much more to Thornhill's observations on the the subject, but it would be good if people challenging Thornhill's contribution would speak directly to his explicit statements, not their own imaginary nuances.


Hi David,
I'm well aware of the distinction between dipole gravity, which supposedly takes place even between completely neutral objects, and the pith-ball analogy, which depends on net charge.

It is fair to say that Wal has used both concepts to explain gravity: dipoles to explain earth's gravity, and pith-ball to explain why comets can seem so light even though they are thought by EU to be solid rock - which is why I linked the overall charge to comets in my initial comment that you take exception to.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu May 03, 2018 6:13 pm

Miles Mathis has just critiqued both Thunderbolts and Shermer.
See http://milesmathis.com/thunder.pdf
and http://milesmathis.com/sherm.pdf

The Thunderbolts critique is more substantial. He actually makes accusations in the Thunderbolts critique against Shermer more effectively than in the Shermer piece. He calls Thunderbolts controlled opposition, controlled by the establishment, and says he's accomplished way more since 2005 or so than Thunderbolts has. He suspects that the Thunderbolts inner circle is controlled by the establishment by way of maybe Shermer & Schwartz and more certainly via Velikovsky, Greenberg and de Grazia. He considers catastrophism to be a diversion. He said it would have taken Venus thousands of years to establish a new orbit. He says he should have been considered an ally to the EU with his findings on the charge field, but thinks it was the controllers who caused them to reject his material. He says the forums here and elsewhere have been opponents to him.

I replied to several of his points, but not all. I didn't correct him about our forum opposing him. There have been opponents here, but I think there have been more supporters than opponents. I didn't point out that Thunderbolts agrees that it took thousands of years for Venus & others to settle into their orbits. I agreed with him that his findings do make it appear that Velikovsky, Greenberg & de Grazia were part of the establishment, but I suggested that it seems there are progressive forces within the establishment. And I suggested that Catastrophism is proving to be a real challenge to the establishment, in the persons of Firestone & company regarding the Younger Dryas Impact, Clube and Napier regarding more recent cataclysms that may have ended the Roman Empire etc, and Randall Carlson regarding all of that and the Taurid Meteor Stream as the source of many of the impacts and disasters. I gave him links to Dave Talbott's video and Don Scott's paper criticizing Shermer & company after the 2015 conference. I also gave him links to de Grazia's website. I explained that it seems obvious that Velikovsky, de Grazia, the Thunderbolts team and others have been honest researchers who have done a lot of hard work and good reasoning for their models. I said Catastrophism is showing the world that there have been many cataclysms in recent millennia and that possible if not inevitable impacts in the future are a serious threat to civilization, which needs to be addressed and defended against asap.

I just learned of Mathis' conspiracy website last year at http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html and have enjoyed reading many of his papers there. He's found very interesting evidence IMO of a lot of frauds and fakery committed over the centuries by members apparently of the upper class. A lot of supposed murders were apparently faked. He often shows photographic evidence of fakery, often in the usually famous photos themselves, i.e. having been doctored. Some of the fakes were apparently the Salem witch trials, Lizzie Borden's murders, Wyatt Earp and the OK corral gunfight, Billy the Kid and his murder, Castro's communism etc. Mathis delves into genealogy quite a bit in his research. Some of it seems useful, but much of it appears very speculative. I think his research is very useful for sociology, which ain't far removed from Catastrophism, as de Grazia was a behavioral scientist, I think, who critiqued the establishment, and Velikovsky was a psychologist who explained a reasonable theory IMO of collective amnesia, which posits that humans who came after those who experienced cataclysms couldn't believe that the world had been so much different in the past, so they turned the stories into moral lessons or myths. Trauma led to amnesia. Velikovsky tried to explain that the resistance to catastrophism in the establishment was due in part to the unconscious fear of reality. Shermer & Co. are still fighting furiously to suppress the memories of ancient cataclysms, or the memories of living in a very unsafe world, IMO.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby nick c » Thu May 03, 2018 6:38 pm

The TB forum is not the place for the discussion of conspiracy theories.
Those are my orders direct from Mr. Shermer. :roll:
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Michael Shermer’s article on his EU2015 experience

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri May 04, 2018 10:18 am

Okay, Nick. Tell Shermer hi for me. Now get serious.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests