Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarise questions that have yet to be answered.
User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Sat Oct 22, 2022 9:54 pm

jackokie says »
"Look at the evidence"? That's crazy talk, said the chorus of astrologers - er, consensus astrophysicists.

You know, when you said "consensus astrophysicists," you really got me thinking about the order of events, and just exactly how the work of Halton Arp was so easily and completely minimized and suppressed. What he was finding all over the sky were quasar pairs which were positioned on either side of galactic centers, and these pairs of quasars had redshifts much greater than the galaxies they were connected to. But his papers were turned down in Journal after Journal, and publisher after publisher refused to print his observations.
"Just another isolated case," he was told.

By the time the radio and x-ray observations were coming in, showing bridges and jets and quasars associated with wild galaxies, "the fix was in." The Fix had already been in for more than 20 years, with none other than Einstein's relativity at the center of the Fix.

Halton Arp wrote:

"Key Events in Cosmology - The Theory
It is currently believed that rigorous cosmology started in the early 1920's after Einstein wrote down the equations of general relativity. These essentially represented the conservation of mass, energy, momentum, etc. in the most general possible coordinate system. In 1922, the Russian mathemetician, A. Friedmann, 'solved' these equations, i.e., showed how the system would behave in time. It is interesting to note that at first, Einstein felt this solution was incorrect. Later he said it was correct, but of no consequence. Finally he accepted the validity of this solution, but was so unhappy with the fact that it was not a stable solution, i.e., it either collapsed or expanded, that he retained the cosmological constant he had earlier introduced in order to keep the universe static. (This constant was later referred to as the cosmological fudge factor.)

In 1924, Hubble persuaded the world that the 'white nebulae' were really extragalactic, and a few years later announced that the redshifts of their spectral lines increased as they became fainter. This redshift-apparent magnitude relation for galaxies became known as the Hubble law (through lack of rigor, often referred to as the redshift-distance relation).

At this point Einstein dropped his cosmological constant as a great mistake, and adopted the view that his equations had been telling him all along, that the universe was expanding. Thus was born the Big Bang theory, according to which the entire universe was created instantaneously out of nothing 15 billion years ago.

This really is the entirety of the theory on which our whole concept of cosmology has rested for the last 75 years. It is interesting to note, however, that Hubble the observer, even up to his final lecture at the Royal Society, always held open the possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else."
“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
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Sat Oct 22, 2022 10:59 pm

I think we should listen to the sequence of events as Halton Arp saw them. He was there and he paid the price for showing through his telescope that the redshifted quasars were associated with wild galaxies and were 10 to 1000 times (ref needed) closer than had been claimed. These velocities had been claimed to support the expanding universe, and the expanding universe in turn supported solutions to Einstein's equations and General Relativity.

It is with amusement that Dr. Halton Arp relates the Einstein vs Einstein and the Hubble vs Hubble stories behind modern astronomy.

But wait, according to "Dave," recounting these historical arguments within science is -- what?

From the youtube video:
  • "The evidence for the existence of black holes has been undeniable for decades, such as observations of stars making hairpin turns around seemingly empty regions of space.
    31:20 And sorry, it’s no longer a hypothetical gravitational effect. It was predicted within the framework of general relativity, and then it was detected. So it’s not hypothetical. And if he had actually learned physics, he would know how we can be specific about the masses of black holes. Scientists don’t just pull numbers out of thin air. They do calculations regarding the motion of objects in the vicinity of the black hole, based on Kepler’s laws, which have been around for 400 years. He should know this.

    [Wal Thornill:] "It's a self-serving myth that Einstein’s mathematics predicts black holes. The originators of black hole theory in 1965, including Thorne, chose not to mention that Einstein’s October 1939 paper, which they refer to, concludes with: “The Schwarzschild singularity, the term black hole had not been introduced then, does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light. Einstein showed mathematically that black holes cannot form gravitationally for the same reason that stars and planets cannot, because the infalling matter begins to circle the center of mass until the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force."

    ["Dave":] Now we get to the really devious tactics. Wal is trying to cite Einstein himself to discredit the existence of black holes. The notion that black holes are not a direct result of GR is insane.
    32:51 GR is about the warping of spacetime around massive objects. The more massive an object, the more warping there is around it, and thus the greater the escape velocity. If the warping is significant enough, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. That’s a black hole. But here’s the funny part, Wal claims that Einstein was right about black holes being impossible, and that GR is wrong, even though Einstein was using GR to make this case. So if spacetime is a “meaningless concatenation of non-physical terms”, according to Wal, why is he listening to Einstein
    33:28 use that concept to pretend he’s right about anything? Furthermore, he is always whining about how Einstein’s words are revered as dogma, and yet here's an instance where Einstein was wrong, and physics evolved from where it was in his time. So do physicists just blindly repeat what Einstein said, or are you now criticizing them for disagreeing with him? Who is holding Einstein up on a pedestal now, Wal? The hypocrisy is dazzling.
According to "Dave," discussing the math of the Schwarzschild singularity, or making a note of the conclusions of the original papers, or observing the lesser known history and sociology of science is apparently "using Einstein to discredit Einstein," and is "dazzling hypocrisy."

But don't let that get in the way of enjoying the historical chapter of Seeing Red, by one who was there. (Or even a whole genera of scientific history books.) In his books Halton Arp notes that several of the key players in the expanding universe/GR paradigm got very cold feet about it. And -- had they seen the results in radio and x-ray frequencies of the quasars ejected from galaxies, which came in 20-40 years later -- would they have had the decency to admit that they had interpreted the redshift incorrectly? Maybe.

But "Dave" instead argues that this is "dazzling hypocrisy" to note Einstein's personal objections. I think there's a term for that. Is it the Fahgedaboooutit Argument ?
“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
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:28 pm

  • "["Dave":] Now we get to the really devious tactics. Wal is trying to cite Einstein himself to discredit the existence of black holes. The notion that black holes are not a direct result of GR is insane.

    32:51 GR is about the warping of spacetime around massive objects. The more massive an object, the more warping there is around it, and thus the greater the escape velocity. If the warping is significant enough, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. That’s a black hole. But here’s the funny part, Wal claims that Einstein was right about black holes being impossible, and that GR is wrong, even though Einstein was using GR to make this case. So if spacetime is a “meaningless concatenation of non-physical terms”, according to Wal, why is he listening to Einstein
    33:28 use that concept to pretend he’s right about anything?"
At this point "Dave" appears to be minimizing the fact that in real time, Einstein did have serious reservations about what astronomers and physicists ended up settling on with his work, as he did about quantum theory.

He also did not address Einstein's real objection to the formation of a Schwarzchild Singularity:
"Einstein showed mathematically that black holes cannot form gravitationally for the same reason that stars and planets cannot, because the infalling matter begins to circle the center of mass until the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force." Personally, I would say there are conditions in which Einstein's GR and Newton's equations get the same results -- and there are electromagnetic fields which must be overcome in this supposed process as well. But Einstein in his paper pointed out that the warping of spacetime did not result in arbitrarily concentrated matter. This is neither "dazzlingly hypocritical" nor "using the concept" "pretending that he's right" about GR: there was, and are, discrepancies in the math used to come up with the Schwarzchild singularity, aka black hole. The math of black holes is bad. (But that's how singularities always appear, in bad math. -- They certainly do not appear in reality.)

[Wal Thornill:] "It's a self-serving myth that Einstein’s mathematics predicts black holes. The originators of black hole theory in 1965, including Thorne, chose not to mention that Einstein’s October 1939 paper, which they refer to, concludes with: “'The Schwarzschild singularity,' the term black hole had not been introduced then, 'does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.'"
“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

crawler
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by crawler » Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:18 pm

Brigit wrote:
Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:28 pm
"Einstein showed mathematically that black holes cannot form gravitationally for the same reason that stars and planets cannot, because the infalling matter begins to circle the center of mass until the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force."

[Wal Thornill:] "It's a self-serving myth that Einstein’s mathematics predicts black holes. The originators of black hole theory in 1965, including Thorne, chose not to mention that Einstein’s October 1939 paper, which they refer to, concludes with: “'The Schwarzschild singularity,' the term black hole had not been introduced then, 'does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.'"
Yes & No & Sort Of.

Early in the gravitational infall & formation processes collisions would convert confined photons (plasma & particles etc) to free photons (including paired photons)(ie neutrinos) which would depart at the speed of light & hence rob energy & hence the plasma & particles would slow.

And not forgetting that the speed of light near a body will slow as the body gains mass.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Let's Examine "Dave" and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:50 pm

  • "[youtube channel "Dave":] Now, back to Mr. Thornhill and his lies. When lying about physics, Wal has a mantra,
    which is that most of modern physics is not really physics, but rather mathematics.

    There are two reasons for this. First, he doesn’t understand math, and would rather ignore it. Second, he knows that his target demographic probably also does not understand math, and would also like to ignore it.

    So Wal cultivates an environment where he and his followers can treat math like a mean bully, and pretend that physics can be done without it. The problem is that science requires gathering evidence. This means making quantifiable predictions that can be tested by way of some observation. And with physics, that means math. When it comes to mountains of firm quantitative, reproducible evidence supporting things like general relativity and other aspects of physics Wal denies, he either ignores the relevant experiments and applications, or attempts
    to explain how physicists are misinterpreting experimental results, to sell the story that it’s just a bunch of scary numbers that have no correlation with reality. He’s had his work cut 17:15 out for him over the past decade or so, with all the scientific breakthroughs that keep occurring."
There are quite a few ad hominem arguments here, plain and simple. This is extremely poor quality debate and he gets an F in logic also.

But the real underlying problem is that this man made a video about something that he never even researched ! While he does say that Electric Universe physicist Wal Thornhill often points out that "most of modern physics is not really physics, but rather mathematics" (which is a fair summation), he then claims that he is "cultivating an environment that treats math like a bully," "doesn't understand math," and his "targets don't understand math." That is a personal attack based on a false allegation [] and has nothing to do with what physicist Wal Thornhill has published or presented in his papers or conferences.

To illustrate, we can go back as far as you like. Here are his statements in January of 2006 for example:

A Real 'Theory of Everything'
Wal Thornhill

"To be gifted in mathematical ability does not imply comparable gifts in perception and critical reasoning. We perpetuate a popular delusion, fostered by mathematicians, by equating the two. As a result, theoretical physics has gone nowhere for the past century.

Where have the natural philosophers and epistemologists gone? Relativity theory, quantum theory and string theory cannot even claim to be physics. That the equations may appear to work says nothing about the validity of the concepts involved. We need to distinguish between mathematical representations and physical concepts, and we need to subordinate the former to the latter. Often, interpretation of data using these theories involves circular reasoning. Or the analysis may switch unnoticeably between incompatible models, for example between a wave and a particle; or between Einstein’s and Lorentz’s relativity theory.

A growing number of scientists are now questioning the hero worship of Einstein, not least because the Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null result for the existence of the æther. That tells us that the earlier Lorentz relativity theory, which has the same form as Einstein’s, is more empirically correct.

“… Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory.” 2

Einstein’s general theory of relativity continued this trend. The theory has nothing to say about why matter should affect empty space. Clearly, the mathematical concept of three dimensions being warped in a fourth dimension is meaningless in the real three-dimensional universe. String theory is far worse, proposing up to 26 mathematical dimensions. But a real physical dimension can be measured with a ruler. So time is not a dimension and the term “spacetime dimensions” is exposed as meaningless gobbledygook. It is no wonder that the layman is confused when countless books have been written on the subject of relativity by those superior minds who imagined they glimpsed some profound meaning on the other side of “Alice’s Looking Glass.”

Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night,
God said, “Let Newton be!” and all was light.
It did not last; the Devil, howling “Ho!
Let Einstein be!” restored the status quo.
– Anon

Likewise, quantum theory is purely mathematical and has no connection between cause and effect. A given atom in a radioactive element decays for reasons unknown. It is a probabilistic theory. Einstein was unhappy with quantum theory because of its probabilistic nature. So it is no surprise that quantum theory and relativity theory are incompatible. The noted science fiction author Douglas Adams hilariously parodied quantum metaphysics with his spaceship driven by an “infinite improbability drive.” Neither theory has any concept of matter that can explain the effects we observe. This kind of thinking has allowed theoreticians to propose almost anything they can imagine as having some finite probability of occurring. When mathematicians dismiss the physics principles of “every effect must have a preceding cause” and “no creation ex nihilo,” we can understand why modern physics and cosmology reads like science fiction.

So the recent news from the 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics came as no surprise. David Gross, who received a Nobel Prize for his work on the strong nuclear force and who is a leading light of string theory, admitted “we don’t know what we’re talking about.” “Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory,” he said. “But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break.”

He compared the state of physics today to that during the first Solvay conference in 1911. Then, physicists were mystified by the discovery of radioactivity. The puzzling phenomenon threatened even the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and physicists had to wait for the theory of quantum mechanics to explain it. “They were missing something absolutely fundamental,” he said. “We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.” 3 It seems not to have occurred to attendees at the Solvay conference that quantum mechanics explains nothing. It merely provides mathematical probabilities of experimental outcomes. Mathematics can only advance science when the physical concepts are correct. If we want physics to become a real science of the natural world once more, we should not allow mathematicians to take the lead. Mathematics is a useful tool once the physical concepts are correct. Mathematics ain’t physics."
Last edited by Brigit on Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:12 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
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Let's Examine "Dave"

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:56 pm

Thanks crawler, we'll unpack that and what the paper says.

But the objection is that the math of the Schwarzchild singularity is up for examination.

Einstein in his paper pointed out that the warping of spacetime did not result in arbitrarily concentrated matter. This is neither "dazzlingly hypocritical" nor "using the concept" and "pretending that Einstein's right" about GR, to highlight this.

There was, and are, discrepancies in the math used to come up with the Schwarzchild singularity, or the black hole.

The math of black holes is bad.
“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

crawler
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by crawler » Sat Oct 29, 2022 7:12 pm

Dave now has a youtube re Lerner & the BB.
I didnt have a close look -- it seems to contain the same stuff already mentioned on this forum -- eg Dave insists that Lerner cant criticize the BB if Lerner cant kumupwith a better bang or sumpen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S-mg1LMOAo&t=626s
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

crawler
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by crawler » Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:23 pm

The Science Asylum duznt i think mention JWT but duz mention the BB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSJtzn2H3Do
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

crawler
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Let's Examine Dave and See If He Has Any Valid Points

Unread post by crawler » Sat Oct 29, 2022 10:35 pm

STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Post Reply