10 ms·

EDIT- WHY IS THIS STATEMENT DOWNVOTED? REALLY? There are huge flaws in the art as it is practiced today. They aren't finding what they're looking for because

EDIT- WHY IS THIS STATEMENT DOWNVOTED? REALLY? There are huge flaws in the art as it is practiced today. They aren't finding what they're looking for because it IS NOT THERE. Go to the following site, and understand the gap between the fantastic but invented idea-chasers that are currently en vogue, and the scientists that are taking measurements and fitting the results to known phenomena. This will change your view of modern science forever, and I humbly assert that it should. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

scarmig 15y ago
"When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and 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." Uh huh.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- phyllotaxis 15y ago
  Read the site. Why cherry-pick and post something to make the entire premises look foolish? This is not what I expected in this place. I would not post this here if there were not absolute scientific work backing much of the work. Mocking the phraseology of the opening paragraphs makes you out as someone that can't be bothered to look at the evidence presented, weigh it with reason, and reply in kind.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
flatline 15y ago
He claims that: all modern physicists are intellectually dishonest; Einstein only conducted thought experiments and GR is therefore unsubstantiated; the author is being persecuted for harboring unpopular ideas. I am not a physicist but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which seems lacking here.
- phyllotaxis 15y ago
  Flatline, read the site. Read the links. I would never spam this site with wacked out bullshit. Look past personality here and read the science of plasma and electricity explaining, repeatedly, many questions that the popular hypotheses simply don't, at least not without creating mathematically abstract "things" that "must be there, except we can't see them, or measure them, or even prove via experiment that they exist. Dark matter and energy, for example. The plasma explainations DO address these things, and to my critical eyes, very compellingly. Just give it your time, and be objectively critical.
  - RainFlutter 15y ago
    The dude thinks neutron stars and black holes are unfindable pseudoscience. You could legitimately claim that there are better ways to interpret the evidence for those phenomena, but claiming that there is no evidence only demonstrates how confused he is about the field. This site doesn't get past a first-pass bullshit filter, which is why nobody's investing any more of their time on it. Do you understand how many people come up with "theories" out of left field in exactly this fashion?
    - phyllotaxis 15y ago
      People like Galileo? Einstein? Maxwell? Crick? Pasteur? I apologize for offending sensibilies here. For those that are actually intellectually curious, I ask you to read the data. Read the data. Read the data. THEN make up your mind.
      - phyllotaxis 15y ago
chc 15y ago
I see little actual science on that site. What concrete claims there are appear mostly to be conspiracy theories and attempts at "logical refutation" that are extremely similar to the kind you'll find on holocaust denial sites. Moreover, the "electric universe" hypothesis is well-known and widely rejected by those with expertise in the subject matter. We should not simply trust extraordinary claims by some shoddy website that does little to establish its credibility.
- phyllotaxis 15y ago
  http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Bayes.pdf http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Bayes.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/AppendixB.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/AppendixB.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Au... http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclus... http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_for_le_sage_gravity http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_... http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals
  - chc 15y ago
    I clicked on one, and it was discouragingly bad. It pivots on the phrase "as the picture shows…" — which is a hallmark of crackpot claims, from Bigfoot to canals on Mars. The fact that two galaxies appear to be connected by "light" in a photograph is no more evidence that they are actually connected than a photo where the sun blows out a tree's leaves is proof that the sun is a small orb floating a few feet above the earth.

scarmig 15y ago

"When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and 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." Uh huh.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
phyllotaxis 15y ago
Read the site. Why cherry-pick and post something to make the entire premises look foolish? This is not what I expected in this place. I would not post this here if there were not absolute scientific work backing much of the work. Mocking the phraseology of the opening paragraphs makes you out as someone that can't be bothered to look at the evidence presented, weigh it with reason, and reply in kind.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

flatline 15y ago

He claims that: all modern physicists are intellectually dishonest; Einstein only conducted thought experiments and GR is therefore unsubstantiated; the author is being persecuted for harboring unpopular ideas. I am not a physicist but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which seems lacking here.

phyllotaxis 15y ago
Flatline, read the site. Read the links. I would never spam this site with wacked out bullshit. Look past personality here and read the science of plasma and electricity explaining, repeatedly, many questions that the popular hypotheses simply don't, at least not without creating mathematically abstract "things" that "must be there, except we can't see them, or measure them, or even prove via experiment that they exist. Dark matter and energy, for example. The plasma explainations DO address these things, and to my critical eyes, very compellingly. Just give it your time, and be objectively critical.
- RainFlutter 15y ago
  The dude thinks neutron stars and black holes are unfindable pseudoscience. You could legitimately claim that there are better ways to interpret the evidence for those phenomena, but claiming that there is no evidence only demonstrates how confused he is about the field. This site doesn't get past a first-pass bullshit filter, which is why nobody's investing any more of their time on it. Do you understand how many people come up with "theories" out of left field in exactly this fashion?
  - phyllotaxis 15y ago
    People like Galileo? Einstein? Maxwell? Crick? Pasteur? I apologize for offending sensibilies here. For those that are actually intellectually curious, I ask you to read the data. Read the data. Read the data. THEN make up your mind.
    - phyllotaxis 15y ago

chc 15y ago

I see little actual science on that site. What concrete claims there are appear mostly to be conspiracy theories and attempts at "logical refutation" that are extremely similar to the kind you'll find on holocaust denial sites. Moreover, the "electric universe" hypothesis is well-known and widely rejected by those with expertise in the subject matter. We should not simply trust extraordinary claims by some shoddy website that does little to establish its credibility.

phyllotaxis 15y ago
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Bayes.pdf http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Bayes.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/AppendixB.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/AppendixB.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Au... http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclus... http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_for_le_sage_gravity http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_... http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals
- chc 15y ago
  I clicked on one, and it was discouragingly bad. It pivots on the phrase "as the picture shows…" — which is a hallmark of crackpot claims, from Bigfoot to canals on Mars. The fact that two galaxies appear to be connected by "light" in a photograph is no more evidence that they are actually connected than a photo where the sun blows out a tree's leaves is proof that the sun is a small orb floating a few feet above the earth.