| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Brian Ambrose
|
|
 |
|
Thanks. It felt the most disappointing welcome since The Prodigal Son returned and they threw a party for the pigs.
| I got lost in the sheer size of the list. I got lost in the sheer size of the list. |
That's because when there was an apparent lack of interest in my hypothesis, I decided I would just post the bullet points of the reasons why mine is a better explanation than the Standard Model. The most of the salient stuff is my posts above anyway, and I figured if anyone wanted any more, I would explain further.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
We had a meeting about it and decided you deserved no better. A lack of interest in new theories is a point in their favour--it shows they are not populist tripe. It is for you to tickle the trout not for the trout to leap into your keep net.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
If tickling the trout doesn't work, trying electrocuting it.
By which I mean:
Apply the Electric Universe Theory.
Executive Summary
| The standard model of Astronomy and Cosmology would have you believe that the structure of the Universe is due purely to Gravity, and that there is no Electricity flowing in space. The key premise of Electric Universe Theory is that Electricity is not only present in space but common, and this causes plasma to self-organise into wire-like structures which then creates Magnetic fields. That then leads to the structure of the cosmos, meaning Electromagnetism is key to what we see when we look up at night, with Gravity only contributing a small amount. |
Details
| The basic idea of the Electric Universe Theory (EUT), also known as Plasma Cosmology (PC, although PC is really a subset of EUT), is that everything in the Universe is connected, mainly via electric currents flowing through plasma. Think of stars in the Electric Universe as Christmas tree lights; at night you can see lights, often in lines or some other patterns, but not the wires connecting them. |
https://thehonestscientist.com/electric-universe/
Footnote:
When applying the Electric Universe Theory to traditional Newtonian Astrophysicists, the results can be remarkably similar to an electric cattle prod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
We have discussed this with approval in these threads. It is AE because it reduces two orthodox forces to one. Can't remember which. Magnetism and gravity, was it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Boreades, yes Electric Universe - back in the day I was big on it, I posted here about it. My planets model officially starts with a binary star which the Sun begat babies that became planets. But what begat the Sun (and its companion)? I don't buy the clumping bits hypothesis to create a spinning star any more than the planet clumping bits theory. The fact is, electromagnetic forces can create dynamic and spinning objects - a simple wire has three forces, 90 degrees from each of them. So I was planning to move on to that too, but of course it's more contentious and tenuous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| On a side note it would be helpful--or just interesting--if you would explain why you departed |
The obvious fatuous reply would be 'the relentless jokey posts'. But if you want the truth, I was bullied and I decided to take a break. Actually, it was a relief to be out. Some time after that I had a stroke (bleed) that affected my language and logic (there's probably a better description) centres -it was weird: for example, I insisted that I could make a cup of tea, but when taken to the kitchen I wasn't able to begin to do it. That was 9 years ago; I can make tea now, drive, and do all the things I used to do apart from, I still have mild Aphasia (expressive and receptive) - so I have to work hard to write and express myself, and in conversation I easily miss words or cannot recognize a word until I see the word or have it spelt. So, to go back to your question, I haven't had the energy or confidence to converse here.
I miss it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Brian, consider yourself honoured that you got asked that question.
| On a side note it would be helpful--or just interesting--if you would explain why you departed |
It almosts shows care and concern. Almost.
But glad you are back and healthy again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back Brian. You were missed. There really aren't enough annoying old buggers here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| But if you want the truth, I was bullied and I decided to take a break. |
This is an ongoing problem, of which I am one but not the chief contributor. Though I probably am, which is the problem. Generally speaking, people (here) don't consciously bully. They think they are being Hegelian. The House Rule is that new ideas are not to be criticised until they become old ideas whereupon they get no protection. What that means is anyone's guess. I'd like it to be 'gentlemanly but ferocious'. But I don't know what that means.
I have been exploring the situation in the wider world in the AE threads. I am never rude for reasons of Polemics 101 but get 'bullied' back because people experience disagreement as something akin to bullying. You are always in danger of getting banned in one way or another because people experience disagreement as trolling.
It really is weird.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Being "gentlemanly" is a mixed blessing.
Round here, it means people wot can talk proper. Also well-educated (self-educated included), tending towards the polymath, able to hold their own in rigorous debate.
But liable to apply a shotgun to anything that threatens to endanger that which they hold most precious.
It might be protecting my backyard hens, or it might be some arrant piece of intelligentsia nonsense that flies by.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You are always in danger of getting banned in one way or another because people experience disagreement as trolling. |
This should be an AEL topic of concern and inquiry.
I'm struggling to find a suitable phrase, but it's around the phenomenon of people who live in online bubbles, conversing with people who seem to be of similar mindset and attitude.
All goes well until somebody crosses some unseen and unspoken red line. When they suddenly appear to be "not one of us".
It's clearly a tribal thing, of the intelligentsia kind. When you suddenly reveal yourself as a conceptual Liverpool supporter, while standing in a crowd of conceptual Man U supporters. All the time they thought you were "one of them" because your top looked red. Until the ghastly truth is revealed, and all hell breaks loose.
"Intellectual Tribalism" is the best phrase I can think of (so far).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | There really aren't enough annoying old buggers here. |
Do the few of us that are here have to be extra-annoying to make up for the deficit?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Being "gentlemanly" is a mixed blessing. Round here, it means people wot can talk proper. Also well-educated (self-educated included), tending towards the polymath, able to hold their own in rigorous debate. |
It's a sine qua non, if that's what you mean.
| But liable to apply a shotgun to anything that threatens to endanger that which they hold most precious. |
That is what we are discussing, yes. But if you mean behaviour here you will have to be more specific.
| It might be protecting my backyard hens, or it might be some arrant piece of intelligentsia nonsense that flies by. |
Not that specific.
You are always in danger of getting banned in one way or another because people experience disagreement as trolling.
This should be an AEL topic of concern and inquiry. |
It is. On the AE threads.
| I'm struggling to find a suitable phrase, but it's around the phenomena of people who live in online bubbles, conversing with people who seem to be of similar mindset and attitude. All goes well until somebody crosses some unseen and unspoken red line. When they suddenly appear to be "not one of us". |
It is part of the human condition and has nothing to do with online bubbles.
| It's clearly a tribal thing, of the intelligentsia kind. When you suddenly reveal yourself as a conceptual Liverpool supporter, while standing in a crowd of conceptual Man U supporters. All the time they thought you were "one of them" because your top looked red. Until the ghastly truth is revealed, and all hell breaks loose. "Intellectual Tribalism" is the best phrase I can think of (so far). |
Not bad. I trust you are noting your own.
Grant wrote: There really aren't enough annoying old buggers here.
Do the few of us that are here have to be extra-annoying to make up for the deficit? |
You are annoying, Borry, but not for the reason we are dealing with here. Grant himself is an interesting case. As a self-consciously Fascist beast he is careful to be very unannoying. Not something that worries our other Fascist beast, Ishmael.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Fascism is perhaps a case in point, typically applied to people with whom you disagree even good-humouredly. Only last week I got accused of spouting 'Trumpian tripe' by someone in the Medieval England group on Facebook for questioning the authenticity of the 'Alfred Jewel'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe President Trump has been questioning the authenticity of the 'Alfred Jewel'. Did you consider that? No, I thought not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
