Greta Thunberg

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Commachio said:
it's up there, found earth and dusty..bit like this forum at the moment...


thank **** im back to work tomorrow, it sucks at the minute
@brb done his best, got rid off politics, but it still sucks, worst its ever been.
Click to expand...


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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll, Blueman, Libby and 6 others
Hoddle Is A God said:
For those of you interested in the independent work of the Saffire Project in testing the Electric Universe Model for the workings of the Cosmos...

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

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.

Hoddle Is A God said:
Correct.

It's called "Having One's Eyes Opened To The Truth" disease.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerekTheMole and PINKIE
Looney Leftie said:
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.
Click to expand...

As for Thornhil’s response. He might of well have said ‘For those who believe, no evidence is required’
 
  • Like
Reactions: Looney Leftie
Looney Leftie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ... <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Looney Leftie
Looney Leftie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Looney Leftie
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back