The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Well I've had a browse of the sight and even to my layman's eye it seems that the author does not know what he is talking about.For instance this odd interpretation of a quote: [qs] Dr. John A. Wheeler, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University and originator of the concept of black holes, has said:
"To me, the formation of a naked singularity is equivalent to jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can't be done. But I can't prove that it can't be done."What he is actually saying is - YOU can't prove that black holes don't exist, so I am free to use the concept as often as I like! [qs] Obviously what Wheeler is saying is that he strongly believes that naked singularities cannot form. Of course that does NOT mean that Black Holes do exist. Nor does the quote even go into Wheeler's REASONS for his belief which is surely the real issue if the author wished to be scientific.But if we read on a little way, it gets even stranger: Why follow a quote where Wheeler said that there should be no such things with an assertion that Wheeler had claimed to have discovered one, with no explanation ? And without any reference to such a claim (and I am not aware that ANYONE has claimed such a discovery - and I am highly skeptical of the idea that anyone has made such a claim).

Well I'd take the guys qualifications more seriously if he wasn't too busy ranting to make sense. But even then they aren't exactly GOOD. He certainly doesn't have the qualifications in physics he would need to raise sensible objectiosn to Dark MatterBut I'm certainly not going to accept him as an authority when it appears that he doesn't even understand simple English and invents claims. So unless you can explain his use of the Wheeler quote and support the claim that Wheeler claimed to have discovered a naked singularity then I am afraid that I will have to stick with the impression that the author is a poorly informed crank.

quote:

---

Instead, I read :
"When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicistss have conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S. "

---

Well yes that is what you read. But given the clear bias of the author how do you know that it is accurate and that it does not leave out important facts ?I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the author could quote Wheeler as claiming that it is highly unlikely that a naked singularity could form and then say that Wheeler should be derided for having claimed to have found one. Without the slightest evidence that Wheeler ever claimed to have made such a discovery. It seems pretty clear that the attack on Wheeler is inaccurate (and we can tell that it is incomplete since it never even mentions Wheeler's reasons for claiming that naked singularities could not form at all).There's a clear double standard when your attacks on the people here would be far better applied to the authors of the websites you are promoting.

Well you still haven't really addressed my questions.How do you know that the bits you find interesting are any better than the bits you reject ?So far your only argument was to repeat one of the author's attacks on mainstream astronomy. But as I've pointed out the attack on Wheeler appears to be highly inaccurate (involving an obvious misreading of a quoted statement and the assertion that a Wheeler should be derieded for a claim - that so far as anyone here can tell - Wheeler never made). Unless you can give some evidence that I am wrong on these points we have to conclude that the author does not understand the science he is attacking. And if that is true we certainly can't assume that he is correct on other points.

So when you wrote the title of this thread you didn't know whether the webpage told the "The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment" - and you don't even care. But the fact is that either the author does not know what he is talking about or he is outright lying. Yet you ask us to trust him simply because he is opposed to mainstream science ?And quite frankly I find the impact explanation a more plausible explanation of the craters. We don't know if the "experiment" would scale up (an argument you are happy to use against mainstream explanations but somehow are unable to think of when it workd against the claims you are promoting). Worse, we don't see any plausible explanation of how the massive static charge required could build up (in a universe that is electrically conductive everywhere ?) or how it was delivered to the required point. Again and again ? Why should we prefer this to the impact theory when we know impacts can and do happen ?As for the Galileo probe the author offers no reasons to prefer his explanation at all. And given your own bias I'm certainly not going to trust you over your claims about Venus for which you offer no reference at all.

quote:

---

Following your arguement, you should be rejecting Newtons law's of physics as well. After all, he believed in creationism, and (appearently) if someone is making non of what he is saying is true, right?

---

WRONG. The errors I put forward relate directly to the author's understanding of mainstream cosmology. In the first he misunderstands a quite clear statement, in the second he either invents a claim that was never made or incorrectly beleives that such a claim was made.

quote:

---

You keep on hammering this one small side issue. You refuse to eat the burger, because a fly sat on a single chip?

---

I hammered on at it because you didn't answer it. Not because I had no other points to raise.

quote:

---

It makes me think you didn't read anything else. Maybe Wheeler said it during a lecture the author attended, who knows. If mainstream cosmologists react in the same way as you do, I am not at all suprised at the authors contempt towards them.

---

Oh so in your opinion it is right to be contemptuous of anyone who doesn't uncritically agree with anything you say.

quote:

---

Hmm. Forgive me, but I can simply not believe that you watched that image link I placed. You are perfectly free to believe in the impossible coincidence that this formation was formed by a liquid and impacts. Just don't expext me to mindlessly accept that as well.

---

What "coincidence" are you talking about ?

quote:

---

Hey, don't shoot the mesenger. I'm only telling you what it says,
since you have obviously no interest to read it yourself.

---

And I criticised what it said. AFTER checking the pages you referenced. THat is neither "shooting the messenger" nor does it show any unwillingness to actually read the site.

quote:

---

Solar Wind is charged particles, right? Well that is what we call "plasma". Plasma is one of the best conductors we know, and it is everywhere.

---

Which argues AGAINST the formation of large static charges.

quote:

---

Many of the observed "mysterious phenomena" can be explained by the plasma model. Time and time again, the plasma model is proven correct through observation. If observation proofs the theory, then the "how" is not an excuse to dismiss it.

---

Rubbish - the "how" has to be part of it. We can't ignore inconsistencies just because they are convenient

quote:

---

Him being able to explain it, and not NASA, is reason enough for me. Besides. The evidence has grown to such a point that even NASA can not deny electrical activity on Io.

---

NASA DID explain it.

quote:

---

It's on that website, and it is not "my" claims.

---

So it's SOMEWHERE on that website. Where's the full NASA report (you don't think that the quoted bit was it, do you ?)

quote:

---

If only you bothered to read it. I am biased towards a convincing arguement. So far, the author is winning you 10/0

---

You mean you are convinced by claims that happen to fit with your prejudices. You are the one who argued that we should accept this guy as an authority on cosmology because he happens to be an electricial engineer. YOu even argued that we should accept his assertions because he made unsubstantiated attacks on mainstream scientists. And then you argue that it doesn't matter if what he says is true or not ! I am very glad that my arguments are NOT of that "quality"

A rather uninformed criticism. Really just looking for excuses to dismiss the results. Certainly he offers no viable explanation himself. Unfortunately for him, later results have confirmed the initial findings.http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/results_04_02/

I did not say that the author was lying - only that there were no references to check on the complete story - and that's still the case. Your reference changes nothing.As for the rest of your post I have to say that preteending that I challenged a quote that you can provide some very limited support for (we still don't even have the context or the original quote !) gives you no grounds to conclude that other claims that you cannot support are true. Obviously you want an excuse to pretend that Wheeler really did claim to find a naked singularity - even though the only person who seems to have noticed such a revolutionary claim is the author of a crank website who doesn't even seem to understand the quote from Wheeler he DOES offer !Aod since you are runnign away from discussion lets point out what has already been revealed:1) You don't know enough about mainstream cosmology to evaluate the "Electric Universe"2) You don't know enough about electricity to evaluate that side either (not even basic high school stuff)3) You are either unwilling or unable to even critically read the website (since you didn't notice the conflict between Wheeler saying that naked singularities almost certainly could not form and the claim that Wheeler said that he had discovered one)4) You don't even care if the claims made on the website are true.5) Nonetheless you are prpeared to claim that it presents the truth and get very upset if it is questioned.If you are not prepared to put your opinions up for citical examination it was a big mistake to post here on this site. You were bound to get your feelings hurt. And I have no sympathy whatsoever.

quote:

---

I agree that the term "stringy things" seems a bit casual as a technical term, but I tried to track down the source of this Nasa quote, and a search of the Internet for "stringy things" venus nasa only returns sites advocating an electric universe.

---

To be fair the one page Hanno2 did list was NOT from a website advocating an Electric Universe. However the archived email in question was a repost from the Kronia list which IS definitely linked to supporters of the "Electric Universe". (Kronia is a publication which pushes the neo-Velikovskian "Saturn Hypothesis" which seems to be clearly linked to the "Electric Universe" claims).The quote is listed as coming from New Scientist and probably does come from a NASA press release aimed at a popular level. But this really does not tell us anything useful - we still have no evidence as to what they are or what the mainstream view is on their nature.

Well the big question is whether we DO observe the effects of electricity that are claimed. I don't see any reason to prefer electromagnetic forces to gravitational a priori. What I would like ot see is a clear and more detailed explanation of how it could work - and for someone whose knowledge of physics is better than mine to check the numbers. At present I see no reason to even believe that the necessary calculations have been done.However I must add that if space is really full of highly conductive plasma you can't expect to see much in the way of electrostatic forces and I would like to see evidence that there are electrical currents strong enough to account for the motion we see in terms of electromagnetism..

Well lets reply with another question - what evidence is there that these charges are true ?Start with an easy one - what evidence is there that there is any formal "ban" on giving Arp telescope time or that his papers are unfairly rejected ? Bear in mind that time on the big telescopes is a limited resource and my understanding is that there is considerable competition for time on the major instruments. If Arp's work is poor - say because he is sticking with a pet theory past the point where it is really viable - then it is to be expected that he would find it difficult to get work published in the major journals or to get telescope time on major instruments.

You remember wrongly - I wasn't prejudiced in FAVOUR of it enough to overlook obvious errors. So obviously it is entirely possible that the author of the website is doing exactly the same thing as you are and making wholly false accusations of bias because his claims do not stand up to critical examination.

But you are quite prepared to assert that the Electric Universe propoenents are right even though they do NOT share relevant knowledge held by cosmologists (even knowledge that is readily available in popular level sources).Moroever you havbe no problems asking for evidence from those who share other views but when YOU are asked for evidence then you start this same old routine of hostility and lies to avoid admitting that you don't have any.And just as you falsely accuse me of bias - simply for not sharing your bias now you falsely accuse me of not backing up claims because YOU can't back up the claims that YOU make.Well I don't back down when faced with this sort of verbal bullying. I WON'T stop asking awkward questions just because you react with hostility and lies.

Or I could point out that I have not made any claim one way or the other on the matter. All I am asking for is evidence for the claims that YOU are putting forward. And that - according to you - is proof of extreme bias.Look, it is NOT the case that I have to refute the claim or accept it. So far it's an unsupported assertion and I am under no obligation to do either. The obligation is on you to support it. The fact that you choose to make false accusations instead speaks volumes.The fact is that you don't know if ANY of it is true. You know that it comes from an unreliable source. And you STILL insist that it should be accepted as true unless disproven. THAT is bias !

quote:

---

Instead you dwelled on a single quote, which you yourself admitted that it is not mentioned anywhere in the piece again, and therefore has no inpact on the theory what so ever.

---

And THIS little piece of misrepresentation deserves seprate treatment.When you say that I "dwelled" on a single quote you mena that I would not let you drop ithe issue and ignore it.And the reason you want to ignore it is that it speaks directly to the knowledge and understandiung of the author of the website. THe fact that he misunderstands the quote and uses it to make a groundless attack on Wheeler IS relevant. It shows that his knowledge of cosmology is lacking AND that he is prepared to make groundless attacks without bothering to understand the issues. These are prof that the website is NOT a reliable source and its claims cannot be accepted as automatically true. And that is information you DON'T want us to know - hence the false accusations to try and suppress the truth.