Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

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: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby DangerousDann » Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:55 am

I don't believe people cannot understand the EU. Its so logical , with obvious evidence right here on earth in lightning , sprites, etc. The Hexagonal pole of Jupiter too are signs of obvious electrical influences. Sun spots should be hotter not colder, and the list goes on and on.
But one aspect did make me very angry, despite my belief in the EU. There are a whole bunch of climate,, or rather CO2 based climate change deniers in the EU. Its quite enraging, even to me. Simply put, weather solar heat from a nuclear sun or electrical sun is irrelevant, co2 insulates regardless, hence , climate change is amplified either way. But so many voices of the EU hold fast that climate change is NOT man made. I say hogwash. There are things we can do to better care for earth besides praise the all mighty Thunderbolt Gods. That IS a HOPELESS COSMOLOGY. Besides,, after 12000 years of relative stability, I'm not expecting the EU to suddenly smite us all anytime soon, not as quickly as we Geo-engeneer our planet into a new, less stable, more chaotic , climate.
DangerousDann
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby jacmac » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:34 am

Dann said:
Simply put, weather solar heat from a nuclear sun or electrical sun is irrelevant,

It is not the heat Dann, it is the electricity.
Check out the weather predictions of Pierce Corbyn at WeatherAction.wordpress.com.
Check out the scientific papers on the connections of the earth's atmosphere to the sun
as reported by Ben Davidson at Suspicious0bserver.org (too numerous to mention)

There is a lot more going on than the man made increase in the co2 in our atmosphere.

Jack
Ps. I am totally in favor of cleaning up our man made pollution, for many reasons,
but to stop "climate change" is not one of them.
Pss. "Hogwash" is when a whole community of 'Scientists" fail to include changing solar activity
in their calculations.
jacmac
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby ja7tdo » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:01 pm

Hi,

People who believe in mainstream science are said to be brainwashed.Although brainwashing can be solved, I think the situation is more serious.

When we understand complicated phenomena, we do not think from the fundamental principle.The principle has already been proved by someone, and on top of that principle you build up your thoughts.Current thinking is established on top of unconsciousness.

When someone has talked about a new theory, the person who heard it feels that the unconscious was attacked.Reason does not work there. Instinctive self-defense function works, counterattacks begin.

The purpose of this EU forum is to talk about new theories.But here again instinctive counterattacks are taking place everywhere. :o

It is a really serious situation.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:23 pm

The misrepresentation aspect tends to shock me the most. I really didn't expect to see that type of highly unethical and unprofessional behavior from so called "scientists".


That is very interesting. In this age of the internet, colleges and universities spend a great deal of time making new students aware of policies on plagiarism, and how to properly reference their research.

But there are many other forms of scholarly misconduct, and mischaracterizing what a source has said is one of the most serious, in my view. It is also far more commonplace than most of us realize.

The story is told of an author who had his research assistants look up all of the references given in a particular book he was reading, in order to see if the original sources actually said what they were cited as saying. The results were not good. In this case, the author had inaccurately represented more than half of what the original papers or works said.

I know that's anecdotal, but I believe there are some science papers which address this very problem. Probably we can safely assume that most people rely on others to summarize the works of past authors -- and this has created distortions across many disciplines, not just science. Sometimes authors are simply importing references from other books.

In the case of the Electric Universe, I have noticed these academics deliberately refuse to accurately quote or even name what the actual published papers, books and videos are, let alone what they say. They do not want to direct any one to the real sources. It makes a big difference when someone calmly shares a direct quote. For example, Micheal Mozina gave a great example of correcting the solar neutrino problem, on another thread. Wow!


I think this is a wonderful age, in which we can find and read the original works of many neat historical figures and inventors. Probably if you can't read and understand the original, you might not be capable of knowing a good analysis from a bad one, and you are taking your chances if you let this generation summarize anything for you.
Last edited by Brigit Bara on Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:47 pm

--And no one has time to read everything, so we may sometimes use multiple sources, and perhaps a trusted author, to summarize for us. Trusted authors have to be checked too.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Metryq » Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:59 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:In this case, the author had inaccurately represented more than half of what the original papers or works said.


How many times have I read that certain concepts or statements were put forward by Einstein that he actually disagreed with? Or textbooks claiming Hubble's work "proves" an expanding universe indicated by redshift, yet Hubble disagreed with the Doppler mechanism?

There are examples everywhere one looks. Perhaps one day AI (artificial intelligence) will be able to help correlate all of this and "error check" scientific papers?
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:16 am

Metryq wrote:
Brigit Bara wrote:In this case, the author had inaccurately represented more than half of what the original papers or works said.


How many times have I read that certain concepts or statements were put forward by Einstein that he actually disagreed with? Or textbooks claiming Hubble's work "proves" an expanding universe indicated by redshift, yet Hubble disagreed with the Doppler mechanism?

There are examples everywhere one looks. Perhaps one day AI (artificial intelligence) will be able to help correlate all of this and "error check" scientific papers?


Astronomers seem to rewrite history more than most branches of science. Not only were those two good examples of rewriting history, Hannes Alfven called their "magnetic reconnection" claims "pseudoscience". Fritz Zwicky is another person that the mainstream holds up a "hero" in relationship to dark matter, but he proposed a static universe and a "tired light' explanation for redshift. Then of course there's Heinrich Olber who actually solved his own paradox based on absorption/scattering , and Thomas Digges who solved it with the inverse square laws of light before the law was fully understood, he simply assumed light faded with distance. Neither of them resorted to expansion as a solution.

I'm really *sick and tired* of hearing the mainstream erroneously claim in various videos that Hubble "proved" that the universe is expanding. He did no such thing. He simply discovered that there is a redshift/distance relationship which applies to objects in space. Period.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Webbman » Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:27 pm

Metryq wrote:
Brigit Bara wrote:In this case, the author had inaccurately represented more than half of what the original papers or works said.


How many times have I read that certain concepts or statements were put forward by Einstein that he actually disagreed with? Or textbooks claiming Hubble's work "proves" an expanding universe indicated by redshift, yet Hubble disagreed with the Doppler mechanism?

There are examples everywhere one looks. Perhaps one day AI (artificial intelligence) will be able to help correlate all of this and "error check" scientific papers?


ya the only problem is that the "error" will turn out to be you or anyone else they don't like. Actually i think we already have a rudimentary form of this.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Webbman » Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:27 pm

weird double post
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:10 pm

Nice description of how the (scientific) development process fails.
It only lists the "blame others" part, and it was made as a joke.
But it applies to science too.

Diverting Blame Effectively in Software Development
"Software" can partially be replaced with "Science"
Both try to apply models in the real world.

  • Correct your claim after the observation.
  • Place blame on other factors, like instrument failures.
    Make your problem someone else's future problem
  • Apply Logical Fallacies
    "appeal to ridicule" - I can't be wrong, it would be absurd.
    "false authority" - I can''t be wrong. because someone else did the same.
    "false attribution" - Quote someone well-credentialed authority in favor of one's position
    without actually citing the source.
    Respond to critiques with comments quoted by authorities out of context.
    (use good theories in a wrong way)
  • "muddy the waters" - We need more research.
  • Use special cases in which your theory does seem to work.
  • "Blame External Forces" - It was electric charges that caused the General relativity
    experiment to come up with a null result.
    "It always worked"
    Being outraged at people that disagree.
  • Divert blame -
    "We need more money"
    "Every other theory is pseudo science"

I am always amazed how well the development of software works compared
to the development of science.

They are very similar in basis. The software developers
apply a model to a real-world situation, which must work.
The scientist can apply a theoretical model
to an imagined-world situation. And it does not even need to work.
Especially in theoretical physics and astronomy.
Any rare observation that makes a theory seem to work
can make it the leading theory by accident.

For software the above strategies would cause the developers to be fired,
that is why the article is a joke.
Sadly, in science the same strategies can lead to promotions and higher budgets.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Phorce » Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:55 am

Michael Mozina wrote: I felt like i had stepped into the middle of an ongoing war that began *long* before my involvement in the process.


Indeed. Look at why Carl G. Jung split from Sigmund Freud. Freud regarded Jung's Collective Unconscious and investigations in Alchemy as too "occult". This has had consequences right up the present day (see The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal Defences of the Personal Spirit, by Donald Kalsched - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inner-World-Tr ... B00IN3O4DA ). Many hostile reactions to miraculous investigations like Electric Universe may have their origins in the effects of early childhood trauma. As Freud and Jung found out, we are all dealing with forms of collective trauma (shades of Velikovsky). There are other fields like archaeology where there is this split between secular "rational" science and more miraculous discoveries. I think Jung found the key, after all we are all psychological beings.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Webbman » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:05 am

or maybe part of the great con is just to keep you dumb and misdirected. You obviously cant do that if people bypass the media streams so we get the legion of hate to crush all opposing ideas.

Science is the search for the truth, not the search for excuses.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:45 am

Metryq says,
How many times have I read that certain concepts or statements were put forward by Einstein that he actually disagreed with? Or textbooks claiming Hubble's work "proves" an expanding universe indicated by redshift, yet Hubble disagreed with the Doppler mechanism?

There are examples everywhere one looks. Perhaps one day AI (artificial intelligence) will be able to help correlate all of this and "error check" scientific papers?


Actually, I think it might be just an old-fashioned virtue to be able to accurately state what someone else has said. Very old-fashioned.

By the way, although I can appreciate the thought, I don't quite share your optimism regarding AI and error checking.

And I don't think the Thunderbolts Project does either:

Google's Plan to "Estimate Web Sources' Trustworthiness" | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1W32qQy_k
2015; dur. 11:09


"A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of clima e change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to 'debate' on television." popsci com
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:54 am

Here is a smattering of issues regarding the use of AI to identify and restrict speech on the world wide web.

The Supreme Court of Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg Floats a Governance Structure for Online Speech
Lawfare (blog)-5 hours ago
As Zuckerberg acknowledged in an interview with Wired, hate speech can't be moderated by machine learning alone but requires more intensive human moderation. And while Zuckerberg said artificial intelligence is more successful at proactively identifying other categories of problematic content such as ...


Before Social Media, Hate Speech And Propaganda Spread By Phone
Fast Company-Apr 2, 2018
Today, incendiary commentary and conspiracy theories routinely capture and appall audiences on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, leading to arguments over responsibility and free speech. But decades ago, similar debates played out over content that was delivered via the cutting-edge ...


Malaysia just made fake news illegal and punishable by up to six ...
The Verge-Apr 2, 2018
Last year, Germany introduced a plan that fined social media platforms if they didn't remove posts that included hate speech. Regulators ... Meanwhile, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in an interview today that the company did not do enough to prevent the spread of sensational anti-M s11im and ...


China has a program which links a person's speech on the internet and other communications to their credit score, which then affects everything from which home they can "buy" to medical care. I am sure the masters of the universe would like to institute something like that here. But FB is in a lot of trouble for engaging in data sales to political interests. Also, many of the large tech companies have contracts with government agencies, but it really is illegal for those agencies to spy in Americans. +q
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Can someone explain EU/PC hater logic to me?

Unread postby Phorce » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:23 pm

Webbman wrote:or maybe part of the great con is just to keep you dumb and misdirected. You obviously cant do that if people bypass the media streams so we get the legion of hate to crush all opposing ideas.

Science is the search for the truth, not the search for excuses.


"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Attributed to Dorothy Parker.
Exploration and discovery without honest investigation of "extraordinary" results leads to a Double Bind (Bateson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind ) that creates loss of hope and depression. No more Double Binds !
User avatar
Phorce
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:54 am
Location: The Phorce

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest