Stephen Crothers’ Latest Numerology Presentation

[David]

I have no objections whatsoever to you fellows discussing gravitational theories; have at it with my blessings. But on occasion (and this is one), I may rudely interrupt the proceedings with comments regarding Stephen Crothers’ EU2015 presentation and his 88 papers. Please forgive the intrusion.

The following is a list of five noteworthy Stephen Crothers critics and their analysis of his work. Crothers has specifically singled out these five individuals for derision (all are highly regarded mathematicians or physicists), referring to them as "My Malicious, Gormless Critics": http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/critics.html

"Gormless", in case you are wondering, means stupid. So without further ado, I present the evidence against Stephen Crothers' claims as told by his top 5 critics:

Dr. William D. Clinger:

• “Mathematics of Black Hole Denialism”
  http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/ ... alism.html
  
  "Black holes: history versus mathematics”
  http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st10777342

Dr. Jason J. Sharples:

• "Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension: a Rebuttal
  to the Relativistic Claims of Stephen J. Crothers"
  http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -20-L1.PDF
  
  "On Crothers' counter-examples to the Kruskal-Szekeres extension"
  http://crankastronomy.org/contrib/sharples/KSdoc.pdf
  
  "Watching the World Cup"
  http://crankastronomy.org/contrib/sharples/ReplyBS.pdf

Dr. Gerard ‘t Hooft:

• "Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity"
  http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft10 ... onceptions

Dr. Christian Corda:

• "A clarification on the debate on the original Schwarzschild solution"
  http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.6031

Dr. Gerhard W. Bruhn:

• "Enemies or Opponents?"
  http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... 41008.html
  
  "Discussion of S. Crothers' Views on Black Hole Analysis in GRT"
  http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~ ... Views.html

[querious]

How could it be that this ref. index just so happens to cause exactly the same amount of bending as GR?

And i'm going to assume that claim is bogus, just like Eddington's 1919 claim of a detection of GR bending close to the sun (despite none of his measurements matching GR predictions, although by throwing away the measurements he didn't like he could manufacture an average that fitted).

You should read this article which lays that myth to rest...
Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition

[David]

You should read this article which lays that myth to rest...
Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition

Excellent article. I have read many just like it over the years, but this one is particularly good.

However, just like its predecessors, this article will most likely have no influence at all on the anti-General Relativity zealots who won't allow plain and simple facts to get in the way of their seething hatred of Einstein's mathematical-based theory.

[Zendo]

You should read this article which lays that myth to rest...
Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition

Excellent article. I have read many just like it over the years, but this one is particularly good.

However, just like its predecessors, this article will most likely have no influence at all on the anti-General Relativity zealots who won't allow plain and simple facts to get in the way of their seething hatred of Einstein's mathematical-based theory.

And then you have results in from more modern observations: https://youtu.be/CnvOybT2WwU?list=PLwOA ... kSAw50fCfc

[David]

And then you have results in from more modern observations: https://youtu.be/CnvOybT2WwU?list=PLwOA ... kSAw50fCfc

With all due respect to Ed Dowdye, an EU conference presentation is about as reliable as Emily Litella (Gilda Radner’s SNL character).

Has Dowdye published his analysis in a credible peer reviewed journal? Or is this just another instance of:

In an interdisciplinary science like the Electric Universe, you could say we have no peers, so peer review is not available.

I’m not saying Dowdye is necessarily wrong (I haven’t studied his analysis), but only asking if it has undergone peer review?

[nick c]

I’m not saying Dowdye is necessarily wrong (I haven’t studied his analysis), but only asking if it has undergone peer review?

I am not defending or saying Dowdye is necessarily correct (since I too, have not studied his analysis); but is this the same peer review system that has given us reams of papers on dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang (and what happened in each millisecond afterward), parallel universes, etc. etc.?
One of the main themes in the Electric Universe is that the present Peer review system is broken and in need of repair.

[querious]

I’m not saying Dowdye is necessarily wrong (I haven’t studied his analysis), but only asking if it has undergone peer review?

I am not defending or saying Dowdye is necessarily correct (since I too, have not studied his analysis); but is this the same peer review system that has given us reams of papers on dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang (and what happened in each millisecond afterward), parallel universes, etc. etc.?
One of the main themes in the Electric Universe is that the present Peer review system is broken and in need of repair.

Dowdye argues, without any basis other than a slide showing straight lines, than the sun only bends starlight through the corona. This is simply an utterly preposterous argument. Reminds me of the very recent assertions that the pyramids were built to store grain.

[David]

One of the main themes in the Electric Universe is that the present Peer review system is broken and in need of repair.

The peer review system does not prevent anyone from making a case against the prevailing theories. It only flags mathematical errors, direct violations of well established laws of physics, and checks on the validity of any quotes and references listed.

Dowdye can have his analysis published in a peer reviewed journal, but only if it is determined to be mathematically error free. And should the argument directly conflict with an established law (for instance, the second law of thermodynamics), the article must convincing argue why the analysis has circumvented this law.

[David Talbott]

And then you have results in from more modern observations: https://youtu.be/CnvOybT2WwU?list=PLwOA ... kSAw50fCfc

With all due respect to Ed Dowdye, an EU conference presentation is about as reliable as Emily Litella (Gilda Radner’s SNL character).

"With all due respect," I do not believe you are nearly as wise or knowledgeable as you pretend to be. All I can see in your recent posts is pretentiousness and a descent into perpetual ad hominem. We call that wasting other people's time. Therefore, we're going to say adios for now.

Dave Talbott

[David Talbott]

I’m not saying Dowdye is necessarily wrong (I haven’t studied his analysis), but only asking if it has undergone peer review?

I am not defending or saying Dowdye is necessarily correct (since I too, have not studied his analysis); but is this the same peer review system that has given us reams of papers on dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang (and what happened in each millisecond afterward), parallel universes, etc. etc.?
One of the main themes in the Electric Universe is that the present Peer review system is broken and in need of repair.

Dowdye argues, without any basis other than a slide showing straight lines, than the sun only bends starlight through the corona. This is simply an utterly preposterous argument. Reminds me of the very recent assertions that the pyramids were built to store grain.

It would be nice if this discussion could take a turn toward factual accuracy. While I'm in no position to assess Ed Dowdye's work at the level of technical detail, he most definitely does NOT say that "the sun ONLY bends starlight through the corona." He says that scientific discussion of light close to the Sun must take into account the "self-focusing" that occurs when an electric field is present in a plasma region, increasing the refractive index of the plasma. That effect will presumably be quite pronounced in the solar corona but I sincerely doubt that Dowdye limits it strictly to the corona.

[Steve Smith]

I applaud your action, Dave. There's such a thing as open-mindedness and then there's allowing the trolls to piss all over the topic.

[BecomingTesla]

I don't applaud anything, to be frank. I thought this was the community where we chose not to censor one another. David might have been mildly condescending in the way he commented, but he's far from being the only person on this forum with a similar attitude, and I found his counter argument to Crother's to be perfectly valid. He asked Crothers a legitimate question: what are the specific arguments you're using as parameters in the equations of General Relativity, to which Crothers didn't answer. Then after he posts multiple posts to published papers claiming that Crothers is mistaken, he gets banned?

I post here very regularly, with free courses, my own notes on old texts, notes on astrophysical observations that point to Alfven's hypotheses, and my own hypothesis about celestial motion. I'm a fan of the EU, but what just happened was bullshit...

[David Talbott]

BecomingTesla, here's the story in a nutshell. Over the years we've seen it all. A total free-for-all goes nowhere, and if you're not aware of this you haven't seen what we've seen when discussion becomes increasingly juvenile and all of the more intelligent contributors begin to leave. This Forum is for people with an authentic interest in the Electric Universe. There are hundreds of other Internet sites that would be happy to indulge one more Inquisitor on a mission to mock the EU.

Truth is, we've been quite lax in maintaining our purpose, though it's been explicitly stated many times. But if you're looking for total anarchy you will no doubt be periodically disappointed.

[querious]

I’m not saying Dowdye is necessarily wrong (I haven’t studied his analysis), but only asking if it has undergone peer review?

I am not defending or saying Dowdye is necessarily correct (since I too, have not studied his analysis); but is this the same peer review system that has given us reams of papers on dark matter, dark energy, the Big Bang (and what happened in each millisecond afterward), parallel universes, etc. etc.?
One of the main themes in the Electric Universe is that the present Peer review system is broken and in need of repair.

Dowdye argues, without any basis other than a slide showing straight lines, than the sun only bends starlight through the corona. This is simply an utterly preposterous argument. Reminds me of the very recent assertions that the pyramids were built to store grain.

It would be nice if this discussion could take a turn toward factual accuracy. While I'm in no position to assess Ed Dowdye's work at the level of technical detail, he most definitely does NOT say that "the sun ONLY bends starlight through the corona." He says that scientific discussion of light close to the Sun must take into account the "self-focusing" that occurs when an electric field is present in a plasma region, increasing the refractive index of the plasma. That effect will presumably be quite pronounced in the solar corona but I sincerely doubt that Dowdye limits it strictly to the corona.

As crazy as it seems, that's exactly what he says...

Microwaves from Radio Quasar Sources deflected only at the Solar Plasma Limb
observed to deflect only at the angle of exactly 1.75 arcsec
only at the impact parameter of one (1) solar radius R

...and...

If the light bending rule of General Relativity were actually valid then a gravitational deflection of microwaves should also be observable at other impact parameters, namely, at the impact parameter of 2R to reveal a gravitational deflection of exactly 0.875 arcsec, at 3R to reveal a gravitational deflection of exactly 1/3 of 1.75 arcsec, etc., etc. Historically, deflections of microwaves are yet to be recorded at impact parameters greater than that of the solar radius R to observe deflections at angles less than that of 1.75 arcsec.

..and...

Remarkably as it may seem, however, historically the solar light bending effect has been observed only at the solar rim, the refractive plasma atmosphere of the sun. This is strongly confirmed by a large number of very-long-baseline-interferometer (VLBI) measurements on the gravitational deflection of microwaves from radio pulsar sources that were deflected at the thin plasma rim of the sun at precisely the angle of 1.75 arcsec.

All you have to do is read his material. If you're going to argue about something, please look it up yourself before accusing me of misrepresenting things.

I'm not going to do the homework for you of chasing down a bunch of links to prove how wrong he is. Although there's a section of the book "Was Einstein Right?" that covers these quasar measurements by VLBI very well, starting on pg80.

Also, was David banned?

[kiwi]

Also, was David banned?

Probably been to sent to the time-out chair to cool his jets

I hope he does come back to address the information Solar has shared regards SagA .. cheers Solar

The refraction-at-the-limb (only) is an issue? ... I wouldnt have thought so, the process due its EM explanation is valid and that should be that. Should it be expected to be seen in area's beneath the Corona?

Thanks SiggyG also for your post's, good stuff...