Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby davesmith_au » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:26 am

Influx, your accusation of "deityphobia" is as unfounded as an accusation of "nodeityphobia" would be. That is to say the published EU materials say nothing, either way, about the existence or non-existence of any deity.

To address the proper context of the quote you gave, you must realize that Bridgman is attempting to imply some sort of link between EU theory and creationism, which simply does not exist. Bridgman often uses phrases like 'EU proponents use the same tactics as creationists' or 'young-Earth creationists quote EU material' in an attempt to perpetuate his erroneous implication. He seems to do this in the hope that most readers of his blog are likely to be "deityphobic" and hence will look no further into EU if he makes that kind of connection.

Whether individuals choose to believe in a deity or not is their own business. EU has supporters who adhere to a faith of one kind or another, some who don't, and many yet to decide what they 'believe'. My point is that EU makes no claims EITHER WAY (as the quoted passage asserts) which is as it should be. Let's not allow this thread to become a discussion of deity vs non-deity and keep it about pseudoskepticism.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:31 pm

davesmith_au wrote:
Nereid wrote:With this background in hand, the answer to your question is that Nereid is not DeiRenDopa.


In which case I unreservedly and sincerely apologise for any false assertions or offence caused by my thinking you were one and the same. Strangely, a lot of people get the same idea due to the similarities in posting styles. I'm not saying that in a backhanded way, just an observation which may explain why lots of people accuse you of things you may not in fact have done. If I've helped perpetuate the myth of Nereid = DRD (which I may have, having never seen a claim from you to the contrary until now) again, I unreservedly apologise and I thank you for helping to clear the confusion.

I understand the reasoning behing the pseudonym thing, and I wouldn't press anyone to change especially not knowing their personal circumstances, but it's something I still find a little odd. And I'm not THAT old! :lol:

Cheers, Dave.

Thanks Dave; I'm glad I had the opportunity to provide some clarification. At one level, it is interesting - even remarkable - that I (Nereid) have attained (if that's the right word) the online reputation that I seem to have, based on nothing more than the content of my posts (which have mostly been in just three fora, PhysicsForums, BAUT (and its two ancestors), and what is today called Starship Asterisk*); particularly as I have tried very hard to say nothing whatsoever about my IRL identity!
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:16 pm

David Talbott wrote:Nereid,

To save yourself from the embarrassment of having made a false accusation, you might have queried me as to the two poster presentations I gave at the 2006 IEEE Plasma Sciences conference (ICOPS) in Travers City, Michigan. The request to give the presentations came from Anthony Peratt, after the official booklet had gone to press. I had just a few days to develop the presentations, but they were received very well.

One good reason to check this out before making the accusation is that no one in his right mind would falsely claim to have made a presentation at the event, particularly when his work is controversial and would naturally invite scrutiny.

As for copyright notices, it's a practice we regularly follow on the Thunderbolts site. Whether a hurried poster presentation falls into that category I'll let others decide. Let's just say it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

Thanks David Talbott.

I did not know that you gave two (not one) poster presentations at the 2006 IEEE Plasma Sciences conference (ICOPS) in Travers City; may I ask what they were and where one can obtain copies of them?

There is a link in my BAUT post (that I quoted) to the official list of poster presentations at that conference; do you know why it does not include yours? I'm curious because, unlike a paper document, a webpage can be easily updated.

Given that the PDF available on the link I noted has been widely cited, and given that you (and your co-author) do not, in fact, have copyright over (many? most of?) the images in it, don't you think it would be a good idea to edit it to add the proper credits (etc)?

I must say I'm a little surprised to read what you wrote; it seems to me rather similar to what got the internet abuzz recently ("But honestly Monica" - one source).
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby David Talbott » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:46 pm

The name of my second poster presentation was "Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons. My two co-authors were CJ Ransom, Ph.D in plasma physics, and Mel Acheson, managing editor of the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD) at the time.

One surprise at the event was the remarkable receptivity of electrical experts to the ideas. (The fact that the group as a whole was highly qualified to discuss such issues was not a small matter in my mind.) In fact, in dozens of personal contacts at the ICOPS conference, I never ran into anyone who had a hard time appreciating the Electric Universe. Listening to some folks, you'd think they always knew the universe was electric. Maybe some really did.
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:55 am

David Talbott wrote:The name of my second poster presentation was "Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons. My two co-authors were CJ Ransom, Ph.D in plasma physics, and Mel Acheson, managing editor of the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD) at the time.

Thanks.

Is that poster available on the internet? If so, where?

One surprise at the event was the remarkable receptivity of electrical experts to the ideas. (The fact that the group as a whole was highly qualified to discuss such issues was not a small matter in my mind.) In fact, in dozens of personal contacts at the ICOPS conference, I never ran into anyone who had a hard time appreciating the Electric Universe. Listening to some folks, you'd think they always knew the universe was electric. Maybe some really did.

Did you get guidelines on what format, conventions, etc your posters should follow, before you started to write them?

While you were there at the conference, did you find any other posters which had similar formats to yours?

Do you happen to remember whether your posters where exhibited on the Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday Poster Session(s)? Did the organisers give you a poster number, like 3P123?

I notice that several (at least) people who exhibited posters at ICOPS 2006 also presented similar material at other conferences, later published papers based on that material, and/or put a document up on the arXiv preprint server. Did you consider doing something like that too?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sat Nov 20, 2010 9:35 am

Nereid did you ever consider addressing content rather than nit-picking? A gadfly springs to mind... Is it proper for someone who is nothing more than a self-proclaimed internet entity to be leading the inquisition?

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:30 pm

davesmith_au wrote:Nereid did you ever consider addressing content rather than nit-picking? A gadfly springs to mind... Is it proper for someone who is nothing more than a self-proclaimed internet entity to be leading the inquisition?

Cheers, Dave.

Dave,

I have, and am, seriously considering the content.

Unfortunately, I cannot consider the content of "Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons" (Talbott, Ransom, and Acheson (2006)) because I do not have a copy of it; do you know where I can obtain one?

As to nit-picking, well, since my last post consists of only one non-question (and three questions), and as I do not understand how asking questions is nit-picking, well, I'm afraid I don't understand. Would you be kind enough to tell me how asking questions comes across to you as nit-picking?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:54 pm

Nereid wrote:
davesmith_au wrote:Nereid did you ever consider addressing content rather than nit-picking? A gadfly springs to mind... Is it proper for someone who is nothing more than a self-proclaimed internet entity to be leading the inquisition?

Cheers, Dave.

Dave,

I have, and am, seriously considering the content.

Unfortunately, I cannot consider the content of "Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons" (Talbott, Ransom, and Acheson (2006)) because I do not have a copy of it; do you know where I can obtain one?

As to nit-picking, well, since my last post consists of only one non-question (and three questions), and as I do not understand how asking questions is nit-picking, well, I'm afraid I don't understand. Would you be kind enough to tell me how asking questions comes across to you as nit-picking?


Nereid, It's all on the site (TPODS/TBLOGS), or in the books referenced on this site. Explore the site first, many of these questions have been asked before.

Much like all forums. Once you've worked your way through: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm and the search engine, ask your questions.

'Nit picking' here is the line by line requests here from a mysterious online entity.... to familiarize yourself with the material in full would be the best way to approach this with genuine skepticism.

It's all there for you, go for it. Or grab one of EU's many books. "The Electric Sky" is a great start ;)
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:35 pm

Jarvamundo wrote:
Nereid wrote:
davesmith_au wrote:Nereid did you ever consider addressing content rather than nit-picking? A gadfly springs to mind... Is it proper for someone who is nothing more than a self-proclaimed internet entity to be leading the inquisition?

Cheers, Dave.

Dave,

I have, and am, seriously considering the content.

Unfortunately, I cannot consider the content of "Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons" (Talbott, Ransom, and Acheson (2006)) because I do not have a copy of it; do you know where I can obtain one?

As to nit-picking, well, since my last post consists of only one non-question (and three questions), and as I do not understand how asking questions is nit-picking, well, I'm afraid I don't understand. Would you be kind enough to tell me how asking questions comes across to you as nit-picking?


Nereid, It's all on the site (TPODS/TBLOGS), or in the books referenced on this site. Explore the site first, many of these questions have been asked before.

Much like all forums. Once you've worked your way through: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm and the search engine, ask your questions.

'Nit picking' here is the line by line requests here from a mysterious online entity.... to familiarize yourself with the material in full would be the best way to approach this with genuine skepticism.

It's all there for you, go for it. Or grab one of EU's many books. "The Electric Sky" is a great start ;)

Thanks Jarvamundo.

Unfortunately, I cannot find "Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons" (Talbott, Ransom, and Acheson (2006)) anywhere! :cry: Not in TPODs, not in TBLOGs, not anywhere on the whole internet (maybe my search terms are not correct?). It's particularly frustrating as I have never had any particular difficulty finding anything published by Peratt, for example (OK, some stuff is behind a paywall, and his book is pricey, but what are libraries for, right?).

I really, really do want to get my hands on it; can you help please?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:10 pm

Ask your IRL to get their wallet out and grab an (e)-book, or browse the freely published material.

There is *plenty* of freely available material on this. Check out Steve Smith's NPA video talk on planetary scarring.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Nereid » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:32 am

Jarvamundo wrote:Ask your IRL to get their wallet out and grab an (e)-book, or browse the freely published material.

There is *plenty* of freely available material on this. Check out Steve Smith's NPA video talk on planetary scarring.

Thanks Jarvamundo.

Does that mean that even you do not know where "Electrical Scarring of Planets and Moons" (Talbott, Ransom, and Acheson (2006)) can be obtained?

In terms of primary sources, what I have learned, so far, about PC/EU ideas is that, in the last half-century or so:
* Hannes Alvén (and some colleagues) published many papers, in relevant, peer-reviewed journals
* Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner have also published some such papers
* Wal Thornhill published one such paper (in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science)

... and that's it, so far as material which has been subject to at least some critical scrutiny by scientific peers (in this case, at least those well-versed in plasma physics) before being published.

Now I have learned, from David Talbott's posts in this thread, that two posters were read by a number of plasma physicists, at least some of who were quite impressed. While this is not the same, by a long shot, as the critical review papers to be published in journals undergo, it makes them potentially close to primary sources.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby davesmith_au » Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:00 am

"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:28 pm

Yes, seems you have much reading to do.

Nereid wrote:In terms of primary sources, what I have learned, so far, about PC/EU ideas is that, in the last half-century or so:
* Hannes Alvén (and some colleagues) published many papers, in relevant, peer-reviewed journals
* Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner have also published some such papers
* Wal Thornhill published one such paper (in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science)

... and that's it, so far as material which has been subject to at least some critical scrutiny by scientific peers (in this case, at least those well-versed in plasma physics) before being published.


If you have actually studied those mentioned names, you would not have made that comment. Start with those, follow the references. ;-)

I've already mentioned, several times to you, a good book to start with, that author is also well published and the work is very important to electrical interactions of celestial bodies.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...

Unread postby mharratsc » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:00 pm

I woiuld also like to mention, if I may- any papers treating the fundamental properties of plasmas are applicable to this cosmological model.

Thus there is a wealth of papers applicable to the topic.

PC/EU stands on the principles of the electrodynamics of plasmas over a scale of 27 orders of magnitude. This is its strength.

Modern cosmology seems to me to be disassociated at different levels, and hence this quest for the 'holy grail' of Grand Unification, which is obviously considered a weakness or else the efforts to find a Grand Unification Theory would not be underway.

If nothing else, I would think that this validates EU theory as a valid cosmological model for serious consideration, because it alone (based upon its tenets) stands contiguously from the micro to the macro... no breaks in the middle. :)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am


PreviousNext

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests