Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
chrimony wrote:
meemoe_uk wrote:
CC wrote: I definitely understand the concern there — look at how much time has been wasted on this thread alone. I just don't know how to conceptualize "minimum standards". I know what I think is correct. But I don't know how to turn that into "standards".
With a ban hammer. You say the forum used to be far more active 3-5 years ago. Why do you think so many have left?
With a topic of electricity in space, it should be easy to attract 20-30 IEEE professionals from a pool of 425,000 and another 20-30 competent physicistsmathsengineersastronomers from a pool of millions. Yet this forum has failed to do this. There is a reason, and I don't see any other than 'inundation with charlatans'.
First of all, this is the New Insights and Mad Ideas subforum, so if you don't like these topics you should just ignore them. Second, and even more importantly, Electric Universe has its own "mad ideas" in the form of Velikovsky-ian ideas. Not many scientific professionals are going to accept that the planets were doing a mad, electric dance within human memory and then settled into their present-day orbits.
The fact that Dr Velikovsky proposed a "mad electric dance" of the planets is partly responsible for the birth of "The Electric Universe".
Just curious Chrimony, have You read Worlds in Collision?
Some scientists have been impressed with Dr V. Below is a translated quote.
"I would have written to you: The historical arguments for violent events in the crust of the earth are quite convincing. The attempt to explain them is, however, adventurous and should have been offered only as tentative. Otherwise the well-oriented reader loses confidence also in what is solidly established by you."
The leaders of the EU movement rarely bother with the Thunderbolts Forum because the majority of active members have no clue about or interest in EU concepts, IMHO.
michael steinbacher
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
>First of all, this is the New Insights and Mad Ideas subforum,
It's a good place to start in the criticizing the forum. Why put these 2 things together? The greatest achievements of science are new insights. Mad ideas have no use. So in this sub-forum the idea is we take the cream of the EU community and their cutting edge ideas and models and chuck them in with people who have abandoned all reason and are now mediating over nonsense such as 1+1=3 . What is this? A deliberate attempt to sabotage intellectual debate from outsiders so that only Thornhill and Co culture a circle of people for sensible discussion? Why do you think Thornhill never uses his own forum to bounce ideas around?
Well I've got 2 'ayes' from CC and starbiter, both longer term members than me. So looks like this has been noted to the owners of this forum b4, and the response was the same then as it is now " Yes we know its happening, and guess what? we're just going to let it keep happening "
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote: >First of all, this is the New Insights and Mad Ideas subforum,
It's a good place to start in the criticizing the forum. Why put these 2 things together? The greatest achievements of science are new insights. Mad ideas have no use.
That's absolutely false.
Many innovations are born among ridicule and derision.
This site in its entirety, including Thornhill and company, are maligned with free abandon with regularity. This corner of the forum was put here for members who wish to stray from traditional science, including electrical engineering and plasma physics, to say what they wish. But post at your own peril. You, too, may be pilloried.
chrimony
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
starbiter wrote: The fact that Dr Velikovsky proposed a "mad electric dance" of the planets is partly responsible for the birth of "The Electric Universe".
No disagreement there. That's part of my point.
Just curious Chrimony, have You read Worlds in Collision?
Nope, but I've read of it, seen videos, etc.
Some scientists have been impressed with Dr V. Below is a translated quote.
"I would have written to you: The historical arguments for violent events in the crust of the earth are quite convincing. The attempt to explain them is, however, adventurous and should have been offered only as tentative. Otherwise the well-oriented reader loses confidence also in what is solidly established by you."
So apparently that's a letter from Einstein, who was a theoretical physicist, not a geologist nor qualified to comment on the historical sources Velikovsky used. Lots of other scientists dispute(d) Velikovsky.
But here's the main thing: Even if Velikovsky was right, it's still a mad idea. At one point that the Earth was spinning and orbiting about the sun was a maad idea. That's just the way it goes until enough people become convinced of the evidence.
The leaders of the EU movement rarely bother with the Thunderbolts Forum because the majority of active members have no clue about or interest in EU concepts, IMHO.
Isn't it the same when EU members push EU concepts in traditional physics? Everybody has their own interests. I think the EU forum should be a big tent place, especially when there's a dedicated sub-forum to it. If EU members want more EU-focused posts, then they should post more about the EU, not go offline.
nick c
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe wrote: Why put these 2 things together? The greatest achievements of science are new insights. Mad ideas have no use.
They are put together because the point is, that we do not always know which is an insight and which is a mad idea. New insights are often perceived as being mad ideas, it is only after time has passed that we can get a better perspective on which is which. So who is qualified to make that judgment?
The disclaimer at the bottom of the weekly Thunderbolts Newsletter: "Note: The opinions expressed by forum members do not necessarily reflect those of The Thunderbolts Project(TM) staff."
chrimony wrote: I think the EU forum should be a big tent place, especially when there's a dedicated sub-forum to it. If EU members want more EU-focused posts, then they should post more about the EU, not go offline.
Exactly!
Solar
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote: >First of all, this is the New Insights and Mad Ideas subforum,
It's a good place to start in the criticizing the forum. Why put these 2 things together? The greatest achievements of science are new insights. Mad ideas have no use. So in this sub-forum the idea is we take the cream of the EU community and their cutting edge ideas and models and chuck them in with people who have abandoned all reason and are now mediating over nonsense such as 1+1=3 . What is this? A deliberate attempt to sabotage intellectual debate from outsiders so that only Thornhill and Co culture a circle of people for sensible discussion? Why do you think Thornhill never uses his own forum to bounce ideas around?
Well I've got 2 'ayes' from CC and starbiter, both longer term members than me. So looks like this has been noted to the owners of this forum b4, and the response was the same then as it is now " Yes we know its happening, and guess what? we're just going to let it keep happening "
I disagree with this. Somewhere on this forum I seem to recall Chandler mentioning 'crowd sourcing' as a valuable asset with regard to science. The "Zooniverse" project is specifically designed to invite the public to participate its scientific endeavors as does its sister project "Galaxy Zoo". There is obvious value in other perspectives. I think the mainstays of the Thunderbolts Project actually do read these boards but I don't necessarily see their direct participation as 'mandatory'. Its the internet for goodness sake and anyone with an opinion can post on any number of internet fora. Offering an alternative section (even for 'science' based on an alternative idea) is exactly how one constrains the wayward tendencies that fora discussions may take.
To then participate in such a section as though it somehow represent the totality of a forum as a whole is to miss the point. We're having discussion of Dr. Scott's paper for example (he has chimed in by way of e-mail/ other referenced material has been cited), "Transmission Lines" etc in the main section of the forum and you're letting other alternative ideas give you the wrong impression of what's occurring here?
Seriously?
This section of the forum is exactly where that kind of thing belongs. Don't let it characterize all of the other efforts that go on here; take the time to pick the topics that you participate in instead of having knee jerk reactions to the ideas that may be expressed in the NIAMI section. Some of them are good ideas; some - not.
This forum underwent a 'purging' earlier this year because of the amount of bogus spam signups. It has been whittled down to more active posters who have a tendency to post directly related discussions. That is why there is less activity even for the NIAMI section:
davesmith_au wrote: OK everyone, we've now finished the latest cull, and at the same time we've instigated a newer, much more difficult system to register for the forum.
I apologize if any bona fide members got caught up in the cull. We had over 10,000 inactivated accounts, as well as over 4000 activated accounts with zero posts, which have almost all been culled. So you can see how difficult it was to sort the wheat from the chaff. If you're one of the unlucky users who has been caught in the cull, please go through the new registration process to renew your membership. I know there will likely be a few folk who had to do this last time we culled the excess too, but this time around, with the new registration system in place, it should negate the need to go through such a harsh culling process again in the future.
The first two years of the forum's existence may be said to have been the 'Age of Discovery' for quite a lot of people at that time with regard to EU/PC. However, not everyone is going to continue on beyond a certain point. I'm sure several remember the days of the vigorous debates that used to occur between several members of this forum and 'the mainstream' forums. I for one am glad that is all but over and done with. Many people came here, found out what they needed to know, and became content with no further participation being necessary.
So, and perhaps, with the EU embarking upon the 'science' aspect with SAFIRE there may be some renewed interest once some experiment based docs start to come out. Hopefully we can get access to some of them. If you look at Chandler's website (I like Chandler) you'll see the same thing. An initial wave of discussions that have tapered off only to be rekindled by a new perspective as seen at the tail end of the "Online scientific discourse is broken and it can be fixed" thread. Waxing and waning is the natural order of things for various reasons.
This section of the forum has had its share of 'someone on the internet with a new grand theory' before. It's not the first nor the last time it will happen on this and/or any other forum.
marengo
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
CharlesChandler wrote: There's just no way that I'm going to get into a discussion of the Pound–Rebka experiment with someone who doesn't even acknowledge that gravitational lensing cannot be measured without taking the mirage effect into account.
I take that to be an admission of your defeat. If you think the mirage effect caused Edddingtons light bending then why do you not publish the calculations to prove your assertion.
marengo
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: The first part is just about the EM spectrum @ c. That's basic physics. The 2nd part is about the speed of gravity. Some in the mainstream would disagree with you via "action at a distance" and say that the speed of gravity is superluminal. It has infinite potential.
The thing about "action at a distance" is that a mechanism of propagation is required. That mechanism is supplied by the Aether in that the Aether generates a field of propagation velocity sourced by a mass. How it is sourced by the mass is a more difficult question. Hence the action across a distance is actually accomplished by the establishment of the field. The effect of a grav. field on matter therefore does not, at the time, require an action across distance. This is because the field was previously established.
marengo
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: I think that's part of the issue here. I suggest you not take this forum very seriously nor any chat forum. If you do you are setting yourself up for a bad time. Chat forum culture by its nature attracts all types of people from sane to entirely whacko. I suggest you enjoy the ride. Otherwise it becomes too "sticky" and personally attached. If you're going to make professional inroads it most often won't be on a chat forum.
I will take my chances.
marengo
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote: It's a good place to start in the criticizing the forum. Why put these 2 things together? The greatest achievements of science are new insights. Mad ideas have no use.
And who is the arbiter of what is a "new insight" and what is a "mad idea" You, I suppose. That would make you the dictator of this forum.
marengo
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: That's absolutely false.
Many innovations are born among ridicule and derision.
I am beginning to like you.
marengo
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
I am afraid that I must persist with Gravitational Redshift. The Pound-Rebka experiment proves it. Furthermore it is a direct consequence of my assertion that the grav. potential is the speed of light. The bending of tangential light (the Eddington effect) is also a direct consequence of my statement. The proof is in my paper on Gravity
I am trying to show you that gravity is simpler than you might think. (Of course there are still some unknowns)
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
marengo wrote: If you think the mirage effect caused Edddingtons light bending then why do you not publish the calculations to prove your assertion.
No, Eddington said that the mirage effect did most of the bending, but that there was a discrepancy of couple of arc-seconds that he attributed to GR. The criticism is that he didn't have the instrumentation necessary to estimate the mirage effect to that accuracy. We still don't. Maybe you should check out Edward Dowdye's presentation entitled, "The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing":
Dowdye, Jr., E. H., 2007: Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity. Astronomische Nachrichten, 328 (2): 186-191
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
marengo wrote:
viscount aero wrote: The first part is just about the EM spectrum @ c. That's basic physics. The 2nd part is about the speed of gravity. Some in the mainstream would disagree with you via "action at a distance" and say that the speed of gravity is superluminal. It has infinite potential.
The thing about "action at a distance" is that a mechanism of propagation is required. That mechanism is supplied by the Aether in that the Aether generates a field of propagation velocity sourced by a mass. How it is sourced by the mass is a more difficult question. Hence the action across a distance is actually accomplished by the establishment of the field. The effect of a grav. field on matter therefore does not, at the time, require an action across distance. This is because the field was previously established.
Then would you agree that the propagation velocity is superluminal? Action at a distance violates c. I would agree that if such a thing is true then it would originate in a field. The question is what is it. And is action at distance actually something that happens. The mainstream alleges it does as it proposes that local masses and their gravity affect everything immediately and instantly, no matter how far away things are. To me this paints them into a corner as they have a lot of explaining to do yet they don't really explain it.
Sparky
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Maybe you should check out Edward Dowdye's presentation entitled, "The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing":
But I don't know how to turn that into "standards".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek
I don't think so!
