Greta Thunberg

^^^^ Somebody get a sausage thread up for comm ffs

 

So the Sunderland board got so bad, you left it for good. Now this board is the worst it’s ever been, and you’re glad you won’t be around for s while. What’s the common denominator here?

 

New page fail^^^





Haven’t seen one of them for months

 

please log in to view this image

 

F'kin new page shenanigans

 

Last 2 pages

 

Well it appears, I successfully derailed this thread last night, and tipped a pissed up Comm over the edge in the process, I call that a job well done

 

Piss off I'm claiming this one.

 

Damning.

 

Did it involve a Richmond extraction perchance?

 

Wow

 

Is it Richmond sausages and Lidl lager? ... a lack of green?

 

There is no peer reviewed paper from the SAFIRE project that I could find, the video even mentions the IEEE who do peer review submissions and yet not even they have anything from the SAFIRE researchers when I look.

The experiment does nothing we do not already know as far as I can tell and the narrator is making claims about the experiment that are simply wishful thinking, at no time does he refer to the test results and try to explain how this isn't already covered by mainstream physics. A plasma ball isn't new, neither is our knowledge of the presence of highly charged particles at the surface and in the solar wind or the effect of a large electrical charge on matter.

The most bizarre piece is when he expresses surprise at the disassociation of hydrogen, what does he think an ionised plasma is?
An example of existing research on this
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.360037

The second is the mention of the electric charge causing the formation of new elements from Hydrogen, perhaps they should've read the book on
controlled nucleosynthesis.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/140205873X/?tag=not606-20

My suspicion on this is they knew this would happen but left it hanging for the audience to think something new had occurred. The reason for this being that common held understanding for the formation of elements requires gravity and the evolution of stars, if you are going to deny this then you need to find an alternative, however this onein no way matches observations of the chemical composition of stars and so is unlikely to be the driving force.

The claims on redshift are baloney, they do not match the results of using Stellar parallax measurements to compare red shift and certainly do not tie in with the observations of the Kepler telescope. I have found no mention of how they propose to reconcile this and the denial of exoplanets when we have examples validated by multiple methods is just a joke.

I'm still not finished but my feeling is there are two groups at play, one think they've overturned the laws of physics, the others who are genuinely trying to fill in the blanks to add to what we already have. It's the difference between building on what we currently believe or throwing out the baby with the bathwater based on nothing whatsoever.

The key here is that the we have things like the Parker probe performing experiments right now and providing real world data Both electric universe and the solid sun theories are threatened by the data this probe is returning ( and quite possibly our current understanding ), likewise Rosetta visiting a comet and neowise detecting thousands of previously undiscovered asteroids throws spanners into many of these exotic theories.
These people should be able to point to the data from these real world encounters and show why the results don't fit modern theory but do fit their ideas. I don't mean in YouTube videos and podcasts, I mean by releasing peer reviewed papers with testable models to be scrutinised by the scientific community.

For now the theory's of Newton and Einstein aren't threatened but there is always more to discover and understand. Once these people find their E=MC2 then they might be taken seriously.

When asked why no science journal carried peer reviewed research this was Wal Thornhills response
“In an interdisciplinary science like the Electric Universe, you could say we have no peers, so peer review is not available.”

Not exactly what you want to hear when someone is trying to persuade you of the need to deny the rules we use to launch and control satellites.

So I opened my eyes and saw a group of well meaning individuals who think they are onto the next big thing, but they also believed Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind. For now I'm putting this with Creationism, Solid Sun and Counter Earth.

 

As for Thornhil’s response. He might of well have said ‘For those who believe, no evidence is required’

 

Quentin (sometimes known as HIAG) may need resuscitation after that most brutal of executions ... ffs don't tell him that the Soup Dragon is only a puppet ...

 

SAFIRE's own website has a page for research papers but there are none on there. There is PDF with lots of pretty pictures though.

 

Might have not might of you simpleton.

 

ooh get you, grammar bitch

You might want to consider using commas too ...

 

Should of used commas?