tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post4182872742036968890..comments2022-04-12T17:03:00.195-04:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Donald Scott, of "The Electric Sky", presents at GSFCW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-20658127634236335392010-07-18T18:47:00.460-04:002010-07-18T18:47:00.460-04:00To Anonymous:
Some Preliminary Comments on Crothe...To Anonymous:<br /><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/some-preliminary-comments-on-crothers.html" rel="nofollow">Some Preliminary Comments on Crothers' Relativity Claims</a><br /><br /><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html" rel="nofollow">A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors</a><br /><br />The comments in the second article have been quite active of late. Clearly you are new here or you haven't been paying attention...W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-13552381961270331842010-07-18T13:07:38.371-04:002010-07-18T13:07:38.371-04:00"I have read some of Mr. Crothers' work o..."I have read some of Mr. Crothers' work on his web site linked from plasmaresources.com and am in very early stages of presenting a response pointing out some serious mathematical and physical misunderstandings."<br /><br />Well it's been over 15 months now and we're still waiting - does it really take this long to point out "serious mathematical and physical misunderstandings." ? I don't think I can hold my breath for much longer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-23995916782560832342009-09-10T21:14:14.408-04:002009-09-10T21:14:14.408-04:00To DR: Thanks. It's fixed now.To DR: Thanks. It's fixed now.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-62141746395452462882009-09-04T14:52:26.868-04:002009-09-04T14:52:26.868-04:00First link in the entry does not work.First link in the entry does not work.S F Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09243333698937728871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-8688619376977908122009-09-04T11:28:53.113-04:002009-09-04T11:28:53.113-04:00Scott: [Bridgman] ridicules Halton Arp‘s statement...Scott: <i>[Bridgman] ridicules Halton Arp‘s statement that "we cannot see through Seyfert galaxies" and presents a hand-waving argument [...] to 'show' that we can indeed see through galactic disks. Really? Well, take a look at this image that I took [from my observatory]: [...] and tell me you would be able to see a star (QSO) far beyond this galaxy, directly behind it. And this galaxy, M31, isn‘t even a Seyfert. He also states (using all upper case letters) that, "We see through the disk of our own galaxy." This is simply a false proclamation thrown down from authority. There are many completely opaque dark nebular regions within our galaxy. But a galactic core can also be opaque because it is too bright to see through.</i><br />This is so good, as parody, it's almost worthy of being published in the Onion! :-)<br /><br />For starters, Scott was only able to make that image of M31 because he could see through the disk of our Milky Way galaxy.<br /><br />Then there's the fact that Seyferts are no different from ordinary spiral galaxies wrt their arms (they're Seyferts because of the unusual brightness of their nuclei, and the presence of strong narrow and/or broad emission lines in the spectra of those nuclei).<br /><br />How clearly one can 'see' through a galactic disk is partly a matter of resolution; at the resolution of Scott's M31 image, individual stars are not resolved, and the transparency of the disk not intuitively obvious. However, images taken with greater resolution - such as by the Subaru telescope - demonstrate that the solid wall of colour is an illusion.<br />(http://subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2001/09/07/index.html)<br /><br />Images from the Hubble Space Telescope, taken for the ANGST project, illustrate this even better.<br /><br />Scott is also in error re the brightness of the nucleus preventing one from seeing background objects. A good illustration of this is in a paper entitled "A search for the most massive galaxies: Double Trouble?": giant elliptical nuclear velocity dispersion outliers are found to be overlapping galactic nuclei!<br />http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510696<br />(link is to the abstract of the arXiv preprint).<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-74207467469166046382009-08-11T19:22:50.706-04:002009-08-11T19:22:50.706-04:00Good catch. I was going to concentrate on the neu...Good catch. I was going to concentrate on the neutrinos.<br /><br />However, claiming that the particles/light we receive from space tells us nothing about the source would really invalidate <i>all</i> of astronomy.<br /><br />This is very similar to the "Light created in transit" argument used by young-earth creationists. Another tidbit to add to part two of <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/electric-universe-creationism.html" rel="nofollow">The Electric Universe & Creationism</a>.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-39544276315904416142009-08-10T14:17:52.134-04:002009-08-10T14:17:52.134-04:00I don't know how I could have missed this earl...I don't know how I could have missed this earlier ...<br /><br />Scott: "<i>What TB ignores is that I do start by stating a simple obvious fact, "<b>There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel.</b>" That is what the SNO researchers did and it is a blatant logical error in their experimental procedure.</i>" (bold in original)<br /><br />I'm sure I'm missing something really important here (Scott can't be saying <i>that</i>, can he?), but I can't see what.<br /><br />Here goes: substitute "photons" for "neutrinos", and read Scott's statement again (the one in bold).<br /><br />We make measurements at one end of "<i>a transmission channel</i>" - using CCDs, or silver halide crystals say, at the focus of a telescope on a mountaintop - and build an entire branch of science on the assumption that these measurements "<i>can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel</i>", through the chromosphere, corona, solar wind, Earth's magnetosphere, and its atmosphere (if we're discussing the Sun), or through the interstellar medium (ISM) of the source, the medium between said galaxy and ours, the ISM of the Milky Way, the heliosphere, etc (if a high-z quasar), etc.<br /><br />Somebody - preferably a keen student of Scott and his EU ideas - please tell me that Scott has not, using this logic, declared the whole of astronomy to be built on "<i>a blatant logical error</i>"? And - assuming I'm wrong - how does he address the apparent inconsistency of being OK with measurement at one end of a transmission channel revealing changes further up the channel for photons, but not OK for neutrinos?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-53047712699730946772009-08-06T10:41:13.448-04:002009-08-06T10:41:13.448-04:00(continued)
Scott: "GRAVITATIONAL LENSING TB...(continued)<br /><br />Scott: "<i>GRAVITATIONAL LENSING TB says I "describe gravitational lensing (GL) as untested." This is a total fabrication. I resent it. A complete reading of that section of TES will reveal that, in my opinion, it is not that GL is untested but rather that it has been misapplied in ways that Einstein never intended. He described it as being an effect between two stellar (point) sources. In order to interpret it as being an effect observable between a galaxy and a distant QSO, the galaxy would have to behave in a way such that all its mass is acting at a point, a so-called 'point-mass singularity'. There is no astronomical (or laboratory) evidence of infinitely dense point-masses. When relativists discuss 'point-masses' what they mean is a mathematical abstraction – the center of mass – which is not a physical object. <br /><br />So my opinion is that the original Einstein prediction has been hijacked for purposes of explaining away enigmatic observations to which its application is inappropriate.</i>"<br /><br />I think this is (yet another) example of how Scott seems to have a fundamentally different view of the nature of science than Bridgman (and almost all other scientists).<br /><br />Scott seems to be saying Einstein is inerrant <i>not only</i> wrt the scientific theories in his published papers, <i>but also</i> wrt their application; i.e. if General Relativity (GR) was not applied, by Einstein, wrt problem X or in situation Y, then it can <b>never</b> be so used! IIRC, Scott has much the same attitude (opinion) wrt the works of Alfvén.<br /><br />The similarity with creationism (biblical inerrancy) is striking; it would be interesting to know if there are any counter-examples.<br /><br />(to be continued)<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-7971074951885083102009-08-06T10:22:53.071-04:002009-08-06T10:22:53.071-04:00I doubt this comment of mine will be read by many ...I doubt this comment of mine will be read by many people, but at least it will be public (if you allow it through moderation Tom), and so should come up when a search is done on Scott's rebuttal of "<b>The Electric Sky Short-Circuited</b>" (ESSS) (the rebuttal is entitled "<b>D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman</b>", and the copy I'm working from is subtitled "(Revised 3/20/09)").<br /><br />Scott "<i>It is also ironic that Bridgman should object so strongly to my suggestion that, in so many cases in his field, totally erroneous early pronouncements have been corrected only after we have gone there and made close (in situ) observations</i>". In the century since Birkeland, we have been able to make some <i>in situ</i> measurements of the IPM (interplanetary medium, a.k.a. solar wind) as well as several planetary magnetospheres and on several solar system bodies (including their atmospheres: planets, moons, asteroids, comets). Within the lifetime of people reading this today (6 August, 2009), a limited region of the ISM (interstellar medium) and some parts of the heliosheath will also likely be studied <i>in situ</i>, as will parts of the Sun's corona (and, just possibly, its chromosphere and photosphere). The results from these <i>in situ</i> studies will certainly inform astronomy, especially stellar astronomy, but it will remain a science based on remote observation.<br /><br />In other words, Scott does not actually address Bridgman's point.<br /><br />Further, "<i>in so many cases</i>" is an underwhelming tactic ... are these the <i>only</i> such cases? how many cases are there where "<i>early pronouncements</i>" were <b>confirmed</b> by later <i>in situ</i> observations? What is the relative importance of each type of case? How can <b>all</b> such cases - erroneous and spot-on and in between - lead to improvements in who we do science?<br /><br />(to be continued)<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-45223400967289344512009-06-15T20:29:31.521-04:002009-06-15T20:29:31.521-04:00Ian,
Thanks for the pointer. I've posted my m...Ian,<br /><br />Thanks for the pointer. I've posted my main piece on the Peratt galaxy model <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The JREF link currently appears to be offline but I'll add it in the comments for that thread at a later time.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-22874123095722041602009-06-10T22:18:29.680-04:002009-06-10T22:18:29.680-04:00With regards to Peratt's model, you may want t...With regards to Peratt's model, you may want to have a look at <a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=144610" rel="nofollow">Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation</a> on the JREF forum.<br /><br />The real problem with the results from his computer simulation seems more basic than you would imagine. He generates the maps of the positions of plasma particles (essentially a mass distribution). These are then compared to optical images of (for example) spiral galaxies. These match.<br />But the mass distribution in spiral galaxies is not in actual spirals as in the <b>optical</b> images! The mass is found in a disk plus a central bulge. The disk has some variation in density but never goes to zero as in Peratt's results.<br />Another example is his comparison of double lobe radio galaxy mass distribution to their radio output. But radio galaxies are actually hosted by elliptical galaxies (possibly not known in 1986).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703641911383894358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-85834247257076020082009-06-07T20:43:37.329-04:002009-06-07T20:43:37.329-04:00A reply to Dave Smith has been posted under Whines...A reply to Dave Smith has been posted under <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/05/whines-of-electric-universe.html" rel="nofollow">Whines of the Electric Universe...</a>W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-8654345825522049412009-04-30T22:16:00.000-04:002009-04-30T22:16:00.000-04:00Bridgman wrote: "I have two points of disagreement...<B>Bridgman wrote: </B><I>"I have two points of disagreement.<br /><br />"1) The point is relevant to Newtonian gravity as a similar issue arises in the general 1/r^2 case, elliptical orbits. I just thought solving the full Kepler equation would be a little too involved. Perhaps I should have specified as Galilean gravity.<br /><br />"2) It was a simple case that illustrates apparent mathematical inconsistencies which arise due to limited ways of expressing the problem. Some 'inconsistences' in GR may be more due to our interpretation of the problem. Similar 'inconsistencies' exist in QM which generate non-local effects in experiments and appear illogical to our 'classical' thinking."</I>That Bridgman has posted my previous comments without alteration is to his credit, and so perhaps all is not lost for free and open scientific discussion, although we are, generally speaking, very far from achieving that kind of forum within the global circles of scientific inquiry, as the current parlous state of science testifies damningly against itself. <br /><br />Now Bridgman makes two points in disagreement in relation to my previous post. He says that what he initially presented is relevant to Newtonian gravity. But this is certainly incorrect. The scenario he presented has nothing to do with Newtonian gravitation whatsoever. Newton's theory of gravitation plays no part in the situation Bridgman presented, which is clear from the fact that Newton's law of gravitation is not involved in the mathematical model for the situation. As Bridgman has now conceded, the situation he initially presented is not Newtonian, but Galilean in nature, insofar as its physical aspects are involved. Bridgman's initial scenario, I reiterate, is one in kinematics, not dynamics, and hence not a problem in Newtonian gravitation. Newton's theory of gravitation accounts for Kepler's empirical laws of planetary motion. The two scenarios are very different in character, contrary to what Bridgman has now indicated. A problem in kinematics has nothing to do with forces, but Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation involves forces. Bridgman has confused the two types of problems. At best, a similar issue involving the physical interpretation of solutions of <B>equations</B> arises in Newtonian gravitation, as I described in my previous post (on Bridgman's initial scenario, which has nothing to do with Newtonian gravitation), where t < 0, although a solution to the quadratic equation, is irrelevant by the very construction of the physical problem the equations are used to model. That is not an issue in pure mathematics, which leads me directly on to Bridgman's second element of disagreement. <br /><br />On his second point of disagreement, Bridgman is again incorrect. There are no mathematical inconsistencies, apparent or otherwise, in the equations used to deal with the scenario he initially presented. A polynomial of degree n has n roots, pure and simple. In the case of the quadratic equation, which is degree 2, there are two roots, as were obtained in my previous post. The mathematics involved there is not in any way inconsistent (otherwise it would not be legitimate mathematics). The confounding of mathematics for physics is a mistake that is very often made by physicists, Bridgman included, as his initial presentation betrays. Such errors are made either in ignorance or by failing to think carefully enough about the statement of the problem, or deliberately to mislead. Which was the cause of Bridgman's inaccuracies I will not hazard a guess (guessing is not scientific). He now mentions General Relativity: but General Relativity actually contains genuine mathematical inconsistencies, i.e. it violates the rules of mathematics, yet it is supposed to be mathematical physics, fundamentally; and so General Relativity is fatally flawed. In addition, the physicists have compounded their genuine mathematical inconsistencies related to General Relativity with contradictions in their application of the very physical principles upon which General Relativity is founded, producing a meaningless mess that pretends to be profound but is in reality anything but. This is very different to the picture Bridgman has now tried to paint of General Relativity. One cannot arbitrarily identify a definite mathematical entity as one pleases, in many different ways, in order to manufacture various objects, such as black holes, and then proclaim derivation from a theory, as the relativists do, or invent apparent mathematical entities (apparent because they look like mathematics but actually have no mathematical existence) for similar <I>ad hoc</I> purposes, as Einstein did. This is not a matter of interpretation, but one of fundamental logic, particularly of the mathematical kind, from which the relativists will find no escape. I wonder if Bridgman would concede that black holes, and indeed General Relativity, are fatally flawed, if confronted with the simple proofs. I have yet to see a relativist, when confronted with the facts, do anything other than put his head in the sand and hope that the inconvenient truth goes away in time for lunch. For some unscientific reasons that they hide, relativists can't tolerate the very idea that their hero Einstein made a botch of things. Hero worship itself has no place in science: it is childish, and pernicious, and leads directly to intellectual decrepitude; but relativists revel in it.fromthesidelinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-57328955228546559192009-04-30T20:19:00.000-04:002009-04-30T20:19:00.000-04:00Congrats to 'fromthesideline'.
I have two points ...Congrats to 'fromthesideline'.<br /><br />I have two points of disagreement.<br /><br />1) The point is relevant to Newtonian gravity as a similar issue arises in the general 1/r^2 case, elliptical orbits. I just thought solving the full Kepler equation would be a little too involved. Perhaps I should have specified as Galilean gravity.<br /><br />2) It was a simple case that illustrates apparent mathematical inconsistencies which arise due to limited ways of expressing the problem. Some 'inconsistences' in GR may be more due to our interpretation of the problem. Similar 'inconsistencies' exist in QM which generate non-local effects in experiments and appear illogical to our 'classical' thinking.<br /><br />I'm open to a better, simple example.<br /><br />TomW.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-74343998179217577792009-04-30T05:23:00.000-04:002009-04-30T05:23:00.000-04:00Bridgman wrote:
"I toss a rock from a cliff of he...Bridgman wrote:<br /><br /><I>"I toss a rock from a cliff of height h. It leaves my hand with a speed v, and angle theta from the horizontal. The rock hits the ground, h=0, at some time t, yet the quadratic equation that explains the motion has *two* solutions! According to the math, the rock must hit the ground twice? Is even Newtonian gravity mathematically inconsistent? Explain."</I>This is a simple high school problem and so requires only high school methods to solve, although Bridgman has introduced some falsehoods into his rendition of the problem. Whether or not he did this deliberately is anyone's guess. So readers with no mathematics beyond high school will have no trouble at all with this problem, and it is they whom I address.<br /> <br />We know from high school that the position 'x' of a point moving with constant acceleration 'a' along a straight line is given by<br /><br />x = xo + vo t + (at^2)/2<br /><br />where xo is the initial position, at t = 0, and vo = the initial speed. Usually we take t to represent time. So x is a function of t, i.e. x = x(t).<br /><br />If we neglect drag due to the atmosphere and, if h is not large, any variation in the acceleration attributed to gravity, and if we take t as time, then x = h is construed as the height of an object (actually point) at time t >= 0 and xo = ho at the time t = 0 and a = -g, the acceleration (downward) attributed to gravity when h is taken positive upwards. Then the height of the object taken as a moving point, as a function of time, is given by <br /><br />h = ho + vo t - (gt^2)/2.<br /><br />If the initial velocity is at an angle theta above the horizontal and over the edge of the cliff (so that 0 <= theta < 90 degrees) then the equation becomes<br /><br />h = ho + [vo sin(theta)] t - (gt^2)/2. <br /><br />For the height of the cliff, ho > 0. <br /><br />Setting h = 0 yields the quadratic equation Bridgman alludes to,<br /><br />0 = ho + [vo sin(theta)] t - (gt^2)/2.<br /><br />Using the well-known expression for the solutions to a quadratic equation which we learnt in high school, we get the two solutions<br /><br />t = {vo sin(theta) + or - sqrt[ vo^2sin^2theta + 2g ho]}/g<br /><br />Taking the plus sign in this expression yields a value t > 0, for when the object hits the ground, below the cliff, at a distance D = vo cos(theta) t, at this value of t, in the horizontal direction away from the cliff. Since the quantity under the radical sign is positive and greater than vo sin(theta), taking the minus sign gives a value of t < 0. But we know from the very construction of the problem that t >= 0 is required for a physical correlation, and so any t < 0 does not have any relation to the problem, and so it is not involved. Thus, there is only one instant when the object hits the ground, not two, assuming that it does not bounce after impact. The physics of the problem sets restrictions upon the permissible values of t subsequently obtained from the purely mathematical operations. So the claim by Bridgman that the mathematics says that the object hits the ground twice is false. The mathematics says no such thing; it merely gives two roots of a quadratic equation and says nothing about hitting the ground. Hitting the ground involves physics whereas the formal solution to a quadratic equation does not. Bridgman's mixing of mathematical formalities with physics to suggest two bounces is disingenuous. That the quadratic equation has two solutions is an issue in algebra (roots of polynomials), not with Newtonian gravity. <br /><br />If ho = 0 then the object is launched from ground level at t = 0. Then the quadratic equation becomes <br /><br />0 = [vo sin(theta)] t - (gt^2)/2<br /><br />which has the solutions t1 = 0 (as expected, from construction) and t2 = [2vo sin(theta)]/g > 0, as expected. The object is on the ground twice; at launch (t1 = 0) where horizontal distance is D = 0, and at impact (again assuming no bounce) at distance from D = vo cos(theta) t2. <br /><br />Note that there is no appeal to Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation required in this analysis. The forces that give rise to the motion modelled by the equations are not considered in the analysis at all, and so this is not a problem in Newtonian dynamics:- it is a problem in kinematics. So Bridgeman's suggestion that Newtonian gravitation is somehow involved is also patently false. His association of the quadratic equation involved with Newton's theory of gravitation is misleading. <br /><br />Bridgman's assertion that the quadratic equation <I>"explains the motion"</I> is also false, because the equation explains nothing: it merely describes how a point will move given initial position ho and constant acceleration a = -g. The quadratic equation cares not what its terms are taken to correspond to in any physical problem it is used to model. The fundamental expression is, as given above,<br /><br />x = xo + vo t + (at^2)/2<br /><br />where x is the location of a point on the number line, with location reckoned from x = 0. <br /><br />Bridgman's scenario is an example of obfuscation in action: attempting to lead people up the proverbial garden path. One can only wonder as to the mental processes involved in presenting such a scenario in the first place.fromthesidelinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-18956634771826588132009-04-27T00:48:00.000-04:002009-04-27T00:48:00.000-04:00Tom wrote:
"Dave,
I find it funny that you try to...Tom wrote:<br /><I>"Dave,<br /><br />I find it funny that you try to make a big deal of 'problems' in General Relativity that don't seem to impact experimental prediction while cowardly avoiding problems of EU claims that are SIGNIFICANTLY contrary to observation. Considering that your models imply particle fluxes near the Earth that imperil the lives of astronauts, the EU community is somewhat morally obligated to explain these discrepancies."</I>Tom, I find it funny that you seem to make a big deal out of 'problems' with EU theory which don't seem to impact on creationism in astronomy, while cowardly avoiding the valid and relevant questions and points those who have contributed to this thread raise.<br /><br />Tom wrote:<br /><I>"If EU models can't be used to reliably predict space weather conditions, then EU models are USELESS and therefore WRONG."</I>If the standard model can't be used to reliably predict galaxy rotation curves (without invoking the unobserved, physics-defying, mystical dark matter) then at least that part of it is USELESS and therefore WRONG. EU, on the other hand, finds much confirmation in space weather phenomena. BTW I find it funny that you resort to using UPPERCASE to make your HANDWAVING louder, whilst throwing RED HERRINGS all over the place.<br /><br />Tom wrote:<br /><I>"It's funny how the EU crowd claims they're talking about the science but seem to avoid it. I've not had a response from the EU crowd on ANY of the threads below, and these are the ones with the hard science."</I>It's funny that you somehow expect the EU crowd to even be bothered looking at ANY of your other threads, as you still have not displayed a genuine interest in the model, but rather some drive to connect it erroneously with creationism, a subject not related to EU in any manner. As you display the characteristics of a zealot, no-one cares what you write. Said non-responses are a good indication of this.<br /><br />Tom wrote:<br /><I>"I plan to ignore you until you present a clear SCIENTIFIC and RELEVANT response to at least one of these topics:"</I>I don't care one iota if you plan to ignore me, I am not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one, nor do I aspire to be one. My concern is that you are prepared to engage those of us who are not scientists, whilst leaving the more valid and scientific points alone. Why is that? Do you find it easier to "talk down" to non-scientists? You cannot order me to respond to anything.<br /><br />Tom wrote:<br /><I>"And while you're at it, answer this question:<br />I toss a rock from a cliff of height h. It leaves my hand with a speed v, and angle theta from the horizontal. The rock hits the ground, h=0, at some time t, yet the quadratic equation that explains the motion has *two* solutions! According to the math, the rock must hit the ground twice? Is even Newtonian gravity mathematically inconsistent? Explain."</I>And while you're at it, answer this question:<br />I fart in the forest with a force <I>f</I>, and it leaves my butt with a speed <I>v</I>, and angle <I>theta</I> from the horizontal, and no-one is nearby to hear it, does it make a sound <I>s</I>? Does it even smell <I>phew</I>? Explain. This has about as much relevance...<br /><br />I await your insults.<br /><br />Cheers, Dave.Dave Smithhttp://www.plasmaresources.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-21576770901876944222009-04-26T18:41:00.000-04:002009-04-26T18:41:00.000-04:00Dave,
I find it funny that you try to make a big ...Dave,<br /><br />I find it funny that you try to make a big deal of 'problems' in General Relativity that don't seem to impact experimental prediction while cowardly avoiding problems of EU claims that are SIGNIFICANTLY contrary to observation. Considering that your models imply particle fluxes near the Earth that imperil the lives of astronauts, the EU community is somewhat morally obligated to explain these discrepancies.<br /><br />If EU models can't be used to reliably predict space weather conditions, then EU models are USELESS and therefore WRONG.<br /><br />It's funny how the EU crowd claims they're talking about the science but seem to avoid it. I've not had a response from the EU crowd on ANY of the threads below, and these are the ones with the hard science.<br /><br />I plan to ignore you until you present a clear SCIENTIFIC and RELEVANT response to at least one of these topics:<br /><br /><A HREF="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/04/scott-rebuttal-i-gps-relativity.html" REL="nofollow">Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity</A><A HREF="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/11/electric-cosmos-solar-resistor-model.html" REL="nofollow">Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model</A><A HREF="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/11/electric-cosmos-solar-capacitor-model-i.html" REL="nofollow">Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I.</A><A HREF="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/12/electric-cosmos-solar-capacitor-model.html" REL="nofollow">Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II.</A><A HREF="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/04/electric-cosmos-solar-capacitor-model.html" REL="nofollow">Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III.</A>Be sure to post to the appropriate topic.<br /><br />And while you're at it, answer this question:<br />I toss a rock from a cliff of height h. It leaves my hand with a speed v, and angle theta from the horizontal. The rock hits the ground, h=0, at some time t, yet the quadratic equation that explains the motion has *two* solutions! According to the math, the rock must hit the ground twice? Is even Newtonian gravity mathematically inconsistent? Explain.<br /><br />I await your insights.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-6514193530778590662009-04-25T20:29:00.000-04:002009-04-25T20:29:00.000-04:00Tom Bridgman wrote:
"I have read some of Mr. Crot...Tom Bridgman wrote:<br /><br /><I>"I have read some of Mr. Crothers' work on his web site linked from plasmaresources.com and am in very early stages of presenting a response pointing out some serious mathematical and physical misunderstandings."</I>Now this I've really gotta see. I look forward to it. You see, I've been in the privileged position of being able to see first-hand many of the communications between Crothers and hundreds of scientists, including a good number of "peer-review" 'experts' and some very eminent folk in their respective fields.<br /><br />The ONLY ones who subjected Crothers' math to serious scruitiny (as against dismissive hand-waving arguments of ignorance) actually admitted that there is NO FAULT in said math, and no faults in the papers submitted for peer-review, but get this - that they 'believed' that black holes exist, and used the excuse that Crothers' papers were outside the scope of their publications, so could not be published - and this particular argument came from the managing editor of a publication of which the scope included the 'origin and physics of black holes'.<br /><br />Such institutionalized bias should have no place in science, yet this is typical of the way Crothers' work is received. If some of the best mathematicians and physicists in the world cannot fault Crothers' math, I doubt you will find any valid arguments against it Tom.<br /><br />Cheers, Dave.Dave Smithhttp://www.plasmaresources.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-82958642845473341562009-04-16T17:58:00.000-04:002009-04-16T17:58:00.000-04:00Oliver: I just rejected your GPS comment under thi...Oliver: I just rejected your GPS comment under this thread. Repost it under my GPS topic and I'll let it through. However, you might want to check the math you reference a little more carefully before using it.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-87532110523684419972009-04-15T17:55:00.000-04:002009-04-15T17:55:00.000-04:00I have read some of Mr. Crothers' work on his web ...I have read some of Mr. Crothers' work on his web site linked from plasmaresources.com and am in <I>very</I> early stages of presenting a response pointing out some serious mathematical and physical misunderstandings.<br /><br />In the meantime, I invite the GR doubters to take up the challenge of <B>demonstrating</B> a working GPS receiver without relativistic corrections. After all, GR corrections are part of the specification, as I note in my recent post: <br /><A HREF="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/04/scott-rebuttal-i-gps-relativity.html" REL="nofollow">Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity</A>.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-11574836024858674862009-04-15T16:43:00.000-04:002009-04-15T16:43:00.000-04:00many thanks to Stephen J. Crothers for his clear v...many thanks to Stephen J. Crothers for his clear voice!<br /><br />and just for all to understand how a person might not hear any argument: "A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07162741832935008365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-78667638046305105542009-04-03T23:31:00.000-04:002009-04-03T23:31:00.000-04:00Tom Bridgman wrote:"These comments have reached th...Tom Bridgman wrote:<BR/>"These comments have reached the point of overlapping posts I have under development as well as posing a few new topics. <B>Unless I see something more of interest</B>, I'll refrain from responding to these comments to complete those posts."<BR/><BR/>Are not the posts from Dunning-Davies and Crothers of more interest? In fact, you avoided responding to Tim too, one of the other more polite and sensible posts here. When people display intellectual integrity, do you ignore them?? The silence of your response to these three is deafening...<BR/><BR/>Cheers, Dave Smith.Dave Smithhttp://www.plasmaresources.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-85831669886180626672009-03-25T10:15:00.000-04:002009-03-25T10:15:00.000-04:00Dr. Bridgman,Dear Sir,Arguments relying upon black...Dr. Bridgman,<BR/>Dear Sir,<BR/><BR/>Arguments relying upon black holes and big bangs are completely fallacious. General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity. Indeed, according to Einstein, his laws of Special Relativity must hold locally in his gravitational field. Now the signatures of the alleged black hole are (a) an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and (b) an event horizon. Nobody has ever found either, and so all claims for black holes being found are just wishful thinking. Furthermore, a simple calculation using nothing more than high school algebra and the basic relations of Special Relativity demonstrates irrefutably that Special Relativity forbids infinite densities, for the requirement that material bodies acquire the speed of light in vacuum, or the equivalent requirement of infinite energy, which is impossible. Consequently General Relativity also forbids infinite densities howsoever they might be alleged to form in Einstein's gravitational field, because infinite density cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, which it cannot violate. Thus, General Relativity forbids the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the black hole, and hence forbids black holes. All the complicated mathematical gymnastics advanced by the astrophysical scientists cannot save the black hole from the simple truth that it is, according to the Theory of Relativity, just plain nonsense.<BR/><BR/>As for the alleged Big Bang phantasy, according to Einstein his Principle of Equivalence and his laws of Special Relativity must manifest in his gravitational field. Both the laws of Special Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses. Special Relativity is defined in terms of inertial frames, which are defined in terms of Newton's First Law, which is in turn defined in terms of the a priori presence of mass. Now the so-called 'Schwarzschild solution' (which is not Schwarzschild's solution at all) is a solution for the spacetime Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Furthermore, the Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity, owing to its non-linear structure. It is therefore impossible for Einstein's Principle of Equivalence and his laws of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. Thus Ric = 0 fails. It immediately follows that Einstein's field equations form an identity with zero so that the total energy of his gravitational field is always zero; the energy-momentum tensor and the Einstein tensor must then vanish identically; so there is no possibility for the localisation of gravitational energy (i.e. no Einstein gravitational waves); and so General Relativity violates the usual experimentally well-established conservation of energy and momentum, taking with it the Big Bang, the black hole, and all associated paraphernalia. In addition, Einstein's attempt to save for his theory the usual conservation of energy and momentum by means of his invention of his pseudo-tensor, is fatally flawed, owing to the fact that his pseudo-tensor implies a first-order intrinsic differential invariant that depends only upon the components of the metric tensor and their first derivatives – but the mathematicians G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita proved, in 1900, that such invariants do not exist! That is sufficient to completely invalidate Einstein's pseudo-tensor and all that relies upon it. Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. No doubt you are unaware of this 'minor detail' as well.<BR/><BR/>Now in place of electrical phenomena you would have all and sundry believe the flamboyant index raising and lowering astrophysical magicians, with their invisible and undetected black holes, their fanciful big bangs, their undetected Einstein gravitational waves, their mysterious dark matter and dark energy, their quintessence, all undetected and without any laboratory evidence whatsoever for such phenomena, when, to the best of our knowledge, most of the matter in the Universe is plasma, which can be studied in the laboratory. Nobody has ever observed a celestial body undergo irresistible gravitational collapse and there is no laboratory evidence whatsoever for such a process. General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will attract one another upon release. <BR/><BR/>Your audience is not as gullible or as technically challenged as you might like to think. Academics have no monopoly on learning. Laymen (like me) can think for themselves, and if provided with all the relevant facts and figures, can come to a rational conclusion as to what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, contemporary scientists treat we laymen as cannibals to which they think they can preach any nonsense they please, with impunity. Not so! The scientists must be and will be, ultimately, held accountable for their wanton squandering of vast sums of public money on demonstrable nonsense, and for their suppression of facts and figures that undermine their favoured conceptions and theories. Your scurrilous and uninformed attack upon Dr. Scott is indicative of the real problem with contemporary science – an inscrutable propensity to dictate rather than to objectively analyse and freely discuss ideas without fear or favour, with a concomitant all consuming vainglory and cupidity by which science has become a laughingstock. <BR/><BR/>Stephen J. Crothers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-46556315434734657812009-03-25T06:37:00.000-04:002009-03-25T06:37:00.000-04:00I do not intend going into the detailed criticism ...I do not intend going into the detailed criticism offered by Dr. Bridgeman of the work of Dr. Scott; to do so would, I fear, serve no real purpose. It seems more important for everyone to realise that scientists really know very little about the universe in which we live. Further, most of what we purport to know, is based on one model, a model solely dependent on the action of a single force - gravity! This model has served us well up to a point but still leaves many questions unanswered. The only way forward is for all concerned in the quest to be open-minded. This does not seem to be the case at present and quibbling over wording in a book - wording, incidentally, that has caused no problems for some - is hardly the way forward.<BR/> From what I read, the electric universe has no links with creationism but can the same be said of the conventional approach to studying the universe? It was Tommy Gold who said of the Steady State Theory that at least it wasn't Genesis! This is because the Big Bang theory may very easily be viewed as a rewording of the first nineteen verse of chapter one of Genesis; the remainder of the chapter giving a basic outline of evolution!<BR/> In our search for the truth, we must all be careful not to be over influenced by conventional wisdom. Gravity is a relatively weak force and there is little doubt that other forces, such as the electromagnetic force, must have a part to play. One of the attractions of the electric universe material is that so much can be demonstrated in the laboratory. This gives it a firm foundation, which is more than can be said for much of the standard model, which is based on highly abstract mathematical theory. In physics, it must always be remembered that the place of maths. is as a tool; it is not of itself of prime importance. This is reflected very well these days in much of string theory, where many of the investigators are pure mathematicians who are interested in the maths. for its own sake. Some even state they have absolutely no interest in possible physical applications.<BR/> Again, we must be careful that well-established results are, in fact, true. For example, in all the text books, the introduction to black holes is via an equation supposed to be Schwarzschild's solution to Einstein's equations, but a quick glance at Schwarzschild's original paper shows that this is not so. In the accepted theory, the foundations of this basic idea are sandy to say the least. The only sure theoretical foundation is that for the notion of a Newtonian body which possesses an escape speed equal to, or greater than, the speed of light - a so-called Michell dark body. That at least has a safe theoretical background, but whether such a body exists is another matter. Again, if criticisms of existing theory are to be explored, the whole idea of black hole thermodynamics is highly dubious. The Bekenstein-Hawking expression for the entropy of a black hole violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So, does that law not hold in the farther reaches of the universe, or is that law not universally true, or is the quoted expression simply wrong? No; the purveyors of conventional wisdom cannot have things all ways to suit themselves; they must choose at some point and do so openly.<BR/> Conventional theory simply does not explain everything. Adding in little bits, such as dark matter and dark energy, simply to preserve a model doesn't help. Surely the time has come to look afresh at the whole problem facing us and to do so with open minds, possibly constrained only by the honest observations of practicing astronomers and, even then, not excluding the work of some, such as Halton Arp, simply because their observations do not fit into some theoretical model devised by someone with a brilliant mind no doubt, but with little or no knowledge of what is out there to be viewed by professional and amateur star-gazers alike. I doubt the electric universe ideas will provide the entire answer but there the practitioners are perfectly happy to admit that gravity has a role to play. However, given the strength of the electromagnetic force, it does seem highly likely that it has a part, probably a major part, to play in a correct explanation of our universe. Surely it is for all scientists to band together in this quest, rather than continue fighting to preserve their own little corner.<BR/> If Dr. Scott's book achieves nothing other than to make people really think, he will have achieved a minor miracle!<BR/><BR/>(posted by Jeremy Dunning-Davies)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-13073531792727861222009-03-23T17:48:00.000-04:002009-03-23T17:48:00.000-04:00W.T. "Tom" Bridgman:I read in Don Scotts...W.T. "Tom" Bridgman:<BR/><BR/>I read in Don Scotts's rebuttal to your piece this passage:<BR/><BR/>"As his [W.T. "Tom" Bridgman] final "Homework Problem" [p 48] he challenges me to calculate the density of a binary pair of stars that orbit a common center in a period of one millisecond. Why? What has this got to do with anything I have said? Please read pages 173 to 188 in The Electric Sky. In there, one of the things I do say is, "The rate of this [pulsar] charge/discharge phenomenon depends on the strength of the input (Birkeland) current, the capacitances (surface areas of the stars) and the breakdown voltage of the (plasma) connection. It in no way depends on the mass or density of the stars." It is also independent of the orbital periodicity of any binary pair." -- Don Scott, electrical engineer<BR/><BR/>Dr. Bridgman, do you think it's proper and forthright to present those calculations without stating their significance or relationship to Cygnus X-1?<BR/><BR/>Why did you fail to identify the relationship to Cygnus X-1?<BR/><BR/>And may I suggest I now know what your motivation is. Your Ph.D. was earned studying Cygnus X-1. Obviously, wide-spread acceptance of Plasma Universe theory would mean the "black hole" hypothesis would be discredited.<BR/><BR/>In essence, you and your Ph.D. would become an anachronism, wouldn't it?<BR/><BR/>We can't have that, can we?<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to have to be so brutally honest in pointing out your motivation and your prior distortions, but scientific integrity demands that your tactics and motivations be revealed for all to see.<BR/><BR/>Scientific advancement can't be allowed to get stopped by the personal bias & prejudice of individuals.<BR/><BR/>The benefit of Mankind must take precedence over the personal interest of individuals.Anacondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05522474791573134808noreply@blogger.com