Which aspects of EU resonate most with you?

[seasmith]

Is that why she is now an internet journalist seeking truth ?

[jacmac]

Regardless of the quality and scope of the article(leaves a lot to be desired) her link to the Thunderbolt video on Motherboard should help to spread the EU ideas to new people.

[BeAChooser]

With all the research funds going into looking for gravity waves and dark matter, and none going into discovering the complex circuitry in space, what did you expect?

Exactly.

[BeAChooser]

Regardless of the quality and scope of the article(leaves a lot to be desired) her link to the Thunderbolt video on Motherboard should help to spread the EU ideas to new people.

Perhaps. My challenge to any new visitors (and Sarah, if she's still around) is to explain the helically wound filaments in the upper right portion of this image using mainstream astrophysics ...

http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/enlarge ... Nebula.jpg

[GenesisAria]

This was textbook journalism, they write something that'll sell, it's their job. Don't expect much else.

[Michael Mozina]

Well Sarah Scoles, i've read your finished piece on Motherboard and must say,
your writings sound more than a bit like from a touchy-feely sociology major who is just totally flumoxed by the
threat of physics and science.
cheers

Hey, we all knew it was going to be a hit piece, didn't we? After all, Sarah was taught to be a mainstream astrophysicist. And once someone is indoctrinated, it's almost impossible to make them open minded.

It's one thing to not remain open mined, but it's another thing entirely to go out of one's way to solicit feedback about the community from the larger community, and then completely ignore everything that they said. The whole "no math" misinformation campaign was pure sleaze. Between Birkeland, Alfven, Bruce, Peratt, Lerner etc, there's really no excuse for such ignorant nonsense, but apparently it's their only line of defense, AKA *pure denial*.

With the 10+ failed experiments on DM and revelations of huge stellar miscounts in that flawed 2006 lensing study over the past decade, the recent revelations that SN1A events are not really all the same, and the BICEP2 fiasco, you'd think they'd actually be considering empirical physics as a logical alternative, but no. They'd rather wallow around in the dark ages of astronomy where 95 percent of their beliefs amount to placeholder terms for pure human ignorance, and the other 5 percent is pure pseudoscience according to the author of plasma physics "mathematics".

[Michael Mozina]

This was textbook journalism, they write something that'll sell, it's their job. Don't expect much else.

I'd say that the New York Times article describing Birkeland's cathode sun theory was classic textbook journalism, and really quite professionally done in terms of the writing.

On the other hand, I'd call Sarah's childish nonsense a great example of classic yellow journalism with a really pathetic political agenda.

[BeAChooser]

Sarah Scoles recently published an article titled “What Does Beauty Have To Do with Physics?”.

It contained this beautiful picture of the Veil Nebula:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg

I mention this because that's pretty much the same picture I sent her in my reply to her question about EU.

In that reply I had noted that the mainstream has been unable to offer a convincing explanation for the helical winding of the filaments seen in the upper right portion of that image.

So seeing her now using that image in another article, I emailed her to ask if she'd now like to offer something that can convince me that the helical structure in the Veil results from shock, winds and/or turbulance, as the mainstream theorists claim?    

I told her that I, a layman, clearly see the interaction of two current carrying Birkeland filaments in that image and noted that such filaments are a fundamental part of the cosmology that she simply dismissed out of hand.

I closed by saying that, to me, that image is proof that the EU theorists are right … "and not you gnome-loving Big Bangers".  

I guess she didn't like my last little remark, since she didn't respond.

Actually I suspect she wouldn't have responded even without that little jab at her.

[Michael Mozina]

Sarah Scoles recently published an article titled “What Does Beauty Have To Do with Physics?”.

It contained this beautiful picture of the Veil Nebula:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg

I mention this because that's pretty much the same picture I sent her in my reply to her question about EU.

In that reply I had noted that the mainstream has been unable to offer a convincing explanation for the helical winding of the filaments seen in the upper right portion of that image.

So seeing her now using that image in another article, I emailed her to ask if she'd now like to offer something that can convince me that the helical structure in the Veil results from shock, winds and/or turbulance, as the mainstream theorists claim?    

I told her that I, a layman, clearly see the interaction of two current carrying Birkeland filaments in that image and noted that such filaments are a fundamental part of the cosmology that she simply dismissed out of hand.

I closed by saying that, to me, that image is proof that the EU theorists are right … "and not you gnome-loving Big Bangers".  

I guess she didn't like my last little remark, since she didn't respond.

Actually I suspect she wouldn't have responded even without that little jab at her.

Based on my observation of their behaviors over the past decade, I would have to assume at this point that their constant misuse of scientific terms is intentional. It is specifically *because* EU/PC theory would necessarily 'predict the wide spread existence of various different sizes of Birkeland currents spread throughout spacetime that the mainstream now goes to great lengths to deny/ignore/suppress the use of proper scientific terms as applied to plasma in spacetime.

Instead of properly identifying a magnetically pinched plasma current as a Birkeland current, they constantly use euphemisms like "magnetic slinky":

http://www.space.com/22486-hubble-takes ... video.html
http://www.space.com/1940-space-slinky- ... twist.html

The moment that they actually start using proper scientific terms applied to plasma in space, they would actually have to acknowledge the existence of real *currents* that are the continuous backbone of those "Birkeland currents", and they'd have to acknowledge the electrical nature of spacetime.

I'm pretty sure that's also why they continuously misrepresent various hot plasma in space as a "hot gas". Whenever they can avoid using proper scientific terms that even hint at EU/PC theory, they avoid them. Instead of proper scientific terms applied to events in the plasma of spacetime, we get bizarre terms that only the LCDM cult understands. I think they're quite intent on keeping the public in the dark (ages of astronomy), so the more irrational euphemisms the better as far as they're concerned.

[BeAChooser]

I think they're quite intent on keeping the public in the dark (ages of astronomy), so the more irrational euphemisms the better as far as they're concerned.

I agree.

The mainstream's behavior is clearly the result of their greed ... for more money, power and prestige.

They've lost sight of what real science is all about and a media hack like Sarah Coles is a tool.

She may have a *degree* but she's at best a useful idiot to the ones running the show now.