Poor form, do you want to explain any data that Scott's theory explains or is this just grand hand waving ?
Not here, I started a separate thread for the electric star theory before, and I'll revive that in the future if you want to discuss that. But most of Scotts star theory (ie, alternate power source) doesn't belong in this thread.
Its not poor form. What is poor form is asking questions that you already know the answer to, like DRD continually does.
Theres no point her asking the question "What does Scott say powers the sun" if she already knows the answer to it. Asking a specific question about this idea would be more suitable. Like "Does the heat energy derive from ohmic dissipation?" "Does the electrical power produce the majority of the suns power output, or just a percentage?" "In this model, is the surface current and voltage sufficient enough to produce Z-pinch fusion?" "Is the energy internal to the system, or resulting from an interaction between the photosphere and the heliosphere?" something like that. But it seems impossible to have any type of productive conversation with DRD.
If I make a valid point its usually ignored. Usually, her favourite technique is to ignore what I say about a certain subject, and just say afterwards "none of this works as Arp's personal beliefs about redshift rule this model out completely", without actually discussing the subject I brought up. Like the fractal structure of the universe. This would be an example of where PC, just like the various theories involved in mainstream astronomy, does not try to use all their various theories all at once. I could spend ages complaining how the dozens of "mainstream" accounts for galactic rotation curves are all amazingly inconsistent, and so this
obviously means that mainstream science is pure woo filled with huge internal inconsistencies that the authors of the papers never acknowledge, but that would be stupid, because they are different theories. Or if I make a valid point about Glow discharges, instead of asking me about the properties of glow discharges that could account for the spectra of stars, I just got a barrage of DRDs personal opinion on the style of Thornhills paper, without ever discussing the physics of Glow Discharges (the fundamental point behind the whole of that paper that seems to have eluded DRD, despite her reading it). A productive discussion does not seem possible while DRD seems to have so much ego vested in *winning* this long running debate. I have made many concessions in this thread and others, DRD seems incapable of doing so.
I think that Scott summed this type of approach pretty well in this article.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm#_ftn2up
Dr Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSICOP, coined the term pseudoskepticism to denote what is becoming an increasingly common form of scientific fundamentalism and vigilantism. [[DRD]] adopts the stance of the pseudoskeptic, one of “those who shout their objections but don’t take proper note of what is going on.”
It may be a good idea to see how many of Nereids points fall into these categories;
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudoskepticism
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics
The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 claimed that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]
* Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]
* The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]
* Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]
* Tendency to dismiss all evidence
Nereid; why did you not join this forum with an already long list of problems with PC/EU from your considerably large amount of previous discussions on this subject online? Or have you not really been paying any attention to what the people in the large amount of threads you lock at various fora have been saying? Who appointed you as the internets obsequious sycophant to popular scientific ideology?, with the mission of purging the internet of any soul that commits the crime of having a different opinion to that of yourself and your personal 'mainstream' world view? Or is your crusade purely self inspired? It seems that you've only actually started to become aware of what PC is in this thread, where you don’t have the admin privilege of silencing opposing views by simply locking threads or banning people. Hardly a scientific approach. At least now you seem to know roughly what you've been arguing against all these years.
Lets take a look at another list and see how it applies;
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Josephson_disbelief.pdf
Characteristics of scientific sceptics, according to Beaudette:
1. They do not express their criticisms in those venues where it
will be subject to peer review.
2. They do not go into the laboratory and practise the
experiment along with the practitioner.
3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically
based when in fact they are mere guesses.
4. Satire, dismissal and slander are freely employed.
5. When explanations are advanced ... ad hoc reasons are
constantly advanced for their rejection. These reasons often
assert offhand that the explanation violates some conservation
law.
6. Evidence is rejected outright if it does not answer every
possible question at the outset.
lets see:
1. No-one on this forum has come up with a
peer reviewed refutation of plasma cosmology to date. Very odd that.
2. This is true as no-one seems interested in the experiments that PC advocates carry out. The various phenomenon that Birkeland simulated on his Teralla that we also observe in space were just
mere co-incidence apparently. They are dismissed before even done, and certainly not reproduced or examined by 'mainstreamers'.
3. Very true, especially when asked to quantify why a certain observation actually proves a problem to PC, a concrete reason is rarely given. PC may not explain the dipole of the CMB, but you have to state why this is a problem for PC (ie, why it proves the Big Bang)
4. From the sheer amount of posts we have spent talking about the people who write the material, and not the material itself in this thread, we can safely say that this tactic applies here.
5. This has not been a tactic used so much here. Touch wood.
6. Soooo true. If theres one minor problem with a theory the whole theory is often far to readily dismissed. Relativity contains plenty of inexplicable paradoxes; but we dont dismiss it.
I'm done here for the day, I'm going to answer the questions DRD/Nereid has assembled in previous posts, to try to stop all these offhand accusations of me not answering questions, or avoiding answers. Questions posted from now on will have to wait a while until I've answered these previous ones. And when I've answered them, I'll return to more accusations that theres more questions I havent answered, from my previous answers. Then we'll argue about that for a while. Eventually I'll answer them too. And when I've answered them I'll get more accusations that theres more questions I havent answered, from the answers given from my previous answers. Then I'll answer them. Then I'll get accused of not answering more questions from the questions I just answered, then I'll answer them aswell. And then everything will be answered, everyone will be happy, and we can all hold hands and skip off into the sunset.
