by Michael Mozina » Fri May 08, 2020 2:09 pm
crudebuster wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 6:33 am
He hadn't erased my comments yet, I wonder why. But that's the thing, all of those professional popsci parrots can't beat anything much more complex than flatearthers, so they try to hammer everything as these and then make their audience correlate them altogether.
Dave's whole presentation is based on willful misrepresentation, and projection. Think about it for a moment. Only two "macroscopic" (outside the atomic nucleus) forces exist in nature that we know of, specifically gravity (whatever its cause) and EM fields. EU/PC theory is essentially the use of the two *known* macroscopic forces of nature to explain the universe. There is nothing usual or complicated or metaphysical about it. It's pure physics, and pure science. There's no sort of "faith' in the 'unseen' (in the lab) required to study the universe in that manner. The concept of EU theory is entirely consistent with all the known laws of physics, and every laboratory test to date. It's consistent with every other branch of physics, including the standard particle physics model, circuit theory, laboratory plasma physics, EM theory, etc. It's consistent with every observation in space, including high redshift observations.
The LCDM model however essentially attempts to *exclude* or minimize the roll of the electric field, and electrical current when trying to describe the universe. It embraces exactly one half of EM field theory in terms trying to explain events in space. It's proponents talk about the observation of *magnetic* fields in plasma in space, yet they pretend they somehow manifest themselves in the *absence* of current flow and electric fields which is simply *inconsistent* with everything that we know about EM fields. The LCDM model then tries to "make up the difference" of ignoring the electrical aspects of plasma by stuffing in all sorts of metaphysical nonsense, like exotic matter, exotic energies, space expansion, etc, none of which are even known to exist in nature. The LCDM model violates the known laws of conservation of energy. It's inconsistent with the standard model of particle physics. It's inconsistent with EM theory. It's inconsistent with circuit theory. It's inconsistent with laboratory experimentation with plasma. It's even inconsistent with direct observation at higher redshifts. A full 95 percent of the model is based on absolute and unwavering "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab.
When they irrationally compare EU theory to astrology or flat earth concepts, or pseudoscience, they're actually projecting their own scientific inadequacies onto the EU model. They don't have a valid scientific rebuttal to EU theory so they simply make up false accusations out of whole cloth, like claiming that EU theory is somehow incompatible with gravity, or that EU solar models predict "no neutrinos". They simply *lie* about the EU model outright and make up ridiculous nonsense to deflect the fact that own their model is so scientifically bankrupt. If anyone dares to publicly call them on their unethical behavior, or point out the scientific flaws of their own model, they ridicule them or simply ban them and forcefully silence them.
LCDM proponents constantly use ad hominems and personal attacks to debase the whole EU concept because unless they engage in purely unethical behavior, they really have nothing to criticize. Dave didn't even bother to spend a whole hour *studying* the EU topic in earnest. He doesn't even understand the intellectual difference between a solar model and a cosmology model. He just watched a couple of Youtube videos apparently and then he just made up a bunch of crap so he could produce a "click bait" video to earn some money on Youtube. Anyone that points out any flaws in his presentation is then subject to personal attacks and ad hominems galore, both from Dave, and by other LCDM 'proponents. In may case Dave just banned me entirely.
The lack of ethics exhibited by public EU/PC "debunkers'/haters is absolutely appalling. In most cases they don't even use their real names. In this case, Dave unethically tries to pass himself off as a "professor", when in fact the lacks the degrees that are required to become a professor. Nothing about his presentation was honest, not even his phony-baloney title of "professor". Nothing about Dave's behavior is ethical. The whole purpose of creating the video was motivated by personal greed in fact.
Vocal EU haters on the internet are pretty much all alike. They're lazy, they're cowards and they're liars. We see that time and time and time again. None of them even *understand* the EU cosmology model, or understand the difference between solar theory or cosmology theory. None of them could explain the difference between the solar model that Birkeland proposed/used, the model Alfven used, or tell the difference between the various EU solar models. They don't dare try to learn about this stuff either, lest their entire willful ignorance of the topic fall apart and leave them defenseless. So instead of being honest, doing the work that's necessary to learn about EU theory, they just make stuff up, willfully lie about it and ban or personally attack anyone who points out their errors. Lather, rinse, repeat, over and over and over again. It's like talking to a brick wall.
The worst part is that many of the worst offenders have been engaging in that unethical behavior for *years*, sometimes for entire *decades*. Wow.
I do however think we need to recognize that the worst offenders are probably *not* even real astrophysicists. Dave certainly isn't one. They derived their ego gratification by *pretending* to understand cosmology theories (plural), when in fact they probably don't even correctly understand *any* of them. About the only exception is Brian Koberlein who is gainfully employed as an astrophysicist and spends his free time making up stuff about EU theory and willfully misrepresenting it on the internet.
These publc debates are undoubtedly a lot like the debates between Ptolemy and heliocentrism. For 18 centuries astronomers dissed on and ignored the heliocentric model first proposed by Aristarchus of Samos. Copernicus didn't invent the concept of heliocentrism, he read about it from Aristarchus and explained as much. Instead of the mainstream giving the credit where credit was actually due, they spent 18 centuries ridiculing the concept and the man, and then they eventually gave the credit for the idea to the wrong person, blamed the "Church" for their own sins, all in an attempt to cover up 18 centuries of willful ignorance by so called "scientists".
Today is no different. They've ridiculed Birkeland's work for a century, ridiculed Alfven' work for more than a half of a century, ridiculed Peratt's work for decades, and ridiculed the EU model for as long as it's been discussed. What they *won't* do however is actually try to understand it correctly and present it correctly and let others make up their own minds based on a valid comparison of both concepts. They live in fear that their own reputations will bite the dust, never seeming to realize that they are actually on the wrong side of history and science. Welcome to the Machiavellian world of astronomy.
https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counsel ... hology.htm[quote=crudebuster post_id=2084 time=1588919599 user_id=29964]
He hadn't erased my comments yet, I wonder why. But that's the thing, all of those professional popsci parrots can't beat anything much more complex than flatearthers, so they try to hammer everything as these and then make their audience correlate them altogether.
[/quote]
Dave's whole presentation is based on willful misrepresentation, and projection. Think about it for a moment. Only two "macroscopic" (outside the atomic nucleus) forces exist in nature that we know of, specifically gravity (whatever its cause) and EM fields. EU/PC theory is essentially the use of the two *known* macroscopic forces of nature to explain the universe. There is nothing usual or complicated or metaphysical about it. It's pure physics, and pure science. There's no sort of "faith' in the 'unseen' (in the lab) required to study the universe in that manner. The concept of EU theory is entirely consistent with all the known laws of physics, and every laboratory test to date. It's consistent with every other branch of physics, including the standard particle physics model, circuit theory, laboratory plasma physics, EM theory, etc. It's consistent with every observation in space, including high redshift observations.
The LCDM model however essentially attempts to *exclude* or minimize the roll of the electric field, and electrical current when trying to describe the universe. It embraces exactly one half of EM field theory in terms trying to explain events in space. It's proponents talk about the observation of *magnetic* fields in plasma in space, yet they pretend they somehow manifest themselves in the *absence* of current flow and electric fields which is simply *inconsistent* with everything that we know about EM fields. The LCDM model then tries to "make up the difference" of ignoring the electrical aspects of plasma by stuffing in all sorts of metaphysical nonsense, like exotic matter, exotic energies, space expansion, etc, none of which are even known to exist in nature. The LCDM model violates the known laws of conservation of energy. It's inconsistent with the standard model of particle physics. It's inconsistent with EM theory. It's inconsistent with circuit theory. It's inconsistent with laboratory experimentation with plasma. It's even inconsistent with direct observation at higher redshifts. A full 95 percent of the model is based on absolute and unwavering "faith" in the "unseen" in the lab.
When they irrationally compare EU theory to astrology or flat earth concepts, or pseudoscience, they're actually projecting their own scientific inadequacies onto the EU model. They don't have a valid scientific rebuttal to EU theory so they simply make up false accusations out of whole cloth, like claiming that EU theory is somehow incompatible with gravity, or that EU solar models predict "no neutrinos". They simply *lie* about the EU model outright and make up ridiculous nonsense to deflect the fact that own their model is so scientifically bankrupt. If anyone dares to publicly call them on their unethical behavior, or point out the scientific flaws of their own model, they ridicule them or simply ban them and forcefully silence them.
LCDM proponents constantly use ad hominems and personal attacks to debase the whole EU concept because unless they engage in purely unethical behavior, they really have nothing to criticize. Dave didn't even bother to spend a whole hour *studying* the EU topic in earnest. He doesn't even understand the intellectual difference between a solar model and a cosmology model. He just watched a couple of Youtube videos apparently and then he just made up a bunch of crap so he could produce a "click bait" video to earn some money on Youtube. Anyone that points out any flaws in his presentation is then subject to personal attacks and ad hominems galore, both from Dave, and by other LCDM 'proponents. In may case Dave just banned me entirely.
The lack of ethics exhibited by public EU/PC "debunkers'/haters is absolutely appalling. In most cases they don't even use their real names. In this case, Dave unethically tries to pass himself off as a "professor", when in fact the lacks the degrees that are required to become a professor. Nothing about his presentation was honest, not even his phony-baloney title of "professor". Nothing about Dave's behavior is ethical. The whole purpose of creating the video was motivated by personal greed in fact.
Vocal EU haters on the internet are pretty much all alike. They're lazy, they're cowards and they're liars. We see that time and time and time again. None of them even *understand* the EU cosmology model, or understand the difference between solar theory or cosmology theory. None of them could explain the difference between the solar model that Birkeland proposed/used, the model Alfven used, or tell the difference between the various EU solar models. They don't dare try to learn about this stuff either, lest their entire willful ignorance of the topic fall apart and leave them defenseless. So instead of being honest, doing the work that's necessary to learn about EU theory, they just make stuff up, willfully lie about it and ban or personally attack anyone who points out their errors. Lather, rinse, repeat, over and over and over again. It's like talking to a brick wall.
The worst part is that many of the worst offenders have been engaging in that unethical behavior for *years*, sometimes for entire *decades*. Wow.
I do however think we need to recognize that the worst offenders are probably *not* even real astrophysicists. Dave certainly isn't one. They derived their ego gratification by *pretending* to understand cosmology theories (plural), when in fact they probably don't even correctly understand *any* of them. About the only exception is Brian Koberlein who is gainfully employed as an astrophysicist and spends his free time making up stuff about EU theory and willfully misrepresenting it on the internet.
These publc debates are undoubtedly a lot like the debates between Ptolemy and heliocentrism. For 18 centuries astronomers dissed on and ignored the heliocentric model first proposed by Aristarchus of Samos. Copernicus didn't invent the concept of heliocentrism, he read about it from Aristarchus and explained as much. Instead of the mainstream giving the credit where credit was actually due, they spent 18 centuries ridiculing the concept and the man, and then they eventually gave the credit for the idea to the wrong person, blamed the "Church" for their own sins, all in an attempt to cover up 18 centuries of willful ignorance by so called "scientists".
Today is no different. They've ridiculed Birkeland's work for a century, ridiculed Alfven' work for more than a half of a century, ridiculed Peratt's work for decades, and ridiculed the EU model for as long as it's been discussed. What they *won't* do however is actually try to understand it correctly and present it correctly and let others make up their own minds based on a valid comparison of both concepts. They live in fear that their own reputations will bite the dust, never seeming to realize that they are actually on the wrong side of history and science. Welcome to the Machiavellian world of astronomy.
https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/machiavellianism-psychology.htm