I know Nereid's game. If we go back to the beginning of this thread, we'll see that Nereid wanted to disassociate herself from the Nereid connected with the BAUT and JREF forum. Okay. Fair enough. However, in attempting to dispel this association, Nereid of this forum boxed herself into a conundrum. Now, she had to present an argument that had to rely on smoke and mirrors in that her responses on the TB forum are different from that of Thompson's as presented as the premise in this topic.davesmith_au wrote:Shame on you Aristarchus, throwing such facts in the face of Nereid's obfuscation. Funny how when she wants to post huge diatribes of nonsense she can, but when challenged by a few facts out come a few short posts to conveniently take her to the "daily limit"...
Nereid than relies on her standard modus operandi of presenting premises posed from the view of the establishment science, as well as obfuscation techniques. See, any logic can be posed or imposed, if one accepts the premise, but she cannot justify the premise if one invalidates it as being outside the context of what is actually presented by the author, let alone its relation to the topic.
For example, regarding the book by Anthony Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, she stated the following in on this topic:
Now, there's no real context for why this is relevant, or why it is somehow a consideration of anything that really matters at the time it was posted. It's just dropped into the discussion with the middle paragraph providing I believe three seperate links with no quotes or specifics from any of them - then it's unto to PIC code. Everything prior from fellow TB board members on this topic was really a general discussion of something appropriate for a topic placed under the heading "Net Talk."Nereid wrote:This sparked some discussion, which is really off-topic for that thread. Siggy_G recommended that discussion of Peratt's work on this topic be continued in a separate thread, and I think this established thread is appropriate.
Peratt's published papers relevant to "the rotation velocity curves of galaxies" are essentially only two, namely "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic JetsEvolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets" and "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies". Peratt myself cites one or both these in several subsequent papers - for example, "The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe", a review paper - but as far as I know there is nothing new in any of them (of course these later papers by Peratt are interesting, and do contain new material, but not on "the rotation velocity curves of galaxies").
Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer 1991 (ISBN 978-0387975757), provides details of some of the key background to his two 1986 papers, including the PIC code.
But her sentences just hang there with some kind of tacit implication through an inferred authority, namely Nereid's, who appears to be able to cite papers from Peratt and Arp at the drop of the hat, except when she thinks she can test her fellow TB board members and request them to provide papers, articles, and texts from Arp, Peratt, etc, that she is just mystify to think they even exist. More importantly, Nereid at this point is now manuevering the discussion into her favorite technique - e.g., (viz)
Referring to a book by Peratt, which is 372 pages long, mind you, but what is presented in those 372 pages can now be excluded because Nereid wants the information contained within be placed in her proposed premise - without her offering any quotes to give the reader any context. Everyone is now supposed to grab their copy of Physics of the Plasma Universe and somehow comport with the absurd arrangement of trying to establishing something that doesn't really have a context. I feel like the character Robert played by Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces, when he returns home and spends one evening in the living room listening to the pedantic pandering of the high-brow set, and his response to it is certainly one I would like to deliver in these kinds of situations.
And yet, when one does supply research papers and books in response to Nereid's requests, one is either face with the sound of <crickets> - or receives the following response:
Nereid wrote:Thanks for these Aristarchus. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in either paper that differs from what's in Paper I or II (or Peratt's book).
That's it. Nereid can now control the dialogue without actually stating anything, except to divert the topic to adhering to what is offered as valid from the establishment science. BTW, what Nereid is responding to in the instance above was not anything directed towards her, but rather, I was supplying these links in response to what seb had stated:
seb wrote:The biggest question in my mind is why the galaxy forms a plane so thin relative to the distances between galaxies. What makes one form where it does and then you have to go millions of light years to the next one?
See? The topic might explore something beyond the control of Nereid. This must not happen for the self-designated schoolmarm, and when confronted, one is then reprimanded by her for not following her self-prescribed rules. I didn't mention Paper I & II. Nope. I was simply replying to seb without making any concrete assertion outside that I was seeking to lead up to further exploration and research of how the entire universe might revolve around another point of center, but without realizing the full scope of the universe, it might not prove condusive. I was never able to focus on this, which I hadn't even come to any conclusion about it, or even if it was plausible, or if it was placing seb's statement with proper understanding on my part. Nope. never went forward. Instead, Nereid then introduced her little caveat, and, so, by default, it had now become my argument as assumed under the tutelage of Nereid. This is a ruse used by interrogators, not in academic discourse.
Which makes the following comment from her an absolute hoot:
There you go. The topic has been summarily dismissed by the schoolmarm. How dare I revert back to the topic at hand! Further along when the topic had been commandeered away from its original purpose - Nereid thought that this was just dandy - she was downright gleeful:Nereid wrote:Aristarchus , Dave, shame on you! Who cares what Thompson thinks of IEEE publications!
Worthy, mind you. - as in (viz)Nereid wrote:Now that discussion is worthy of a separate thread!
1. (postpositive; often foll by of or an infinitive) having sufficient merit or value (for something or someone specified); deserving
2. having worth, value, or merit
I can't for the life of me think how someone that started the topic would not be insulted when it is decided it can move unto another topic/thread when it has been established as "worthy." <sarcasm>
Make no mistake, Nereid is assuming the attitude of Thompson. Whereas, Thompson dismisses the IEEE to the inane extent of claiming that those that were trained through graduate level of a physics department at a major university and moved on to their own research may not have even heard of IEEE publications:
But now read the following from Thompson:Thompson wrote:Based on my experience with those astronomers & astrophysicists and their collaborators, I am quite certain that most of them do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all (I have reviewed papers for the group from astronomy journals that were readily online in our library which they had never heard of, so IEEE is in another universe).
So, I demonstrate that this is not entirely the case for those researching plasma cosmology physics, as noted above in my previous post, but there's a military pincer like move going on here, because at one end you have the statements from Thompson that are obviously easy to dismiss on so many levels, but then comes a flanking move from the right that states another assumed premise, "yeah, but Peratt's paper doesn't deal with these specified issues, as they concern research based in the establishment science." We never end up discussing what it actually is as presented by Peratt. Nereid must at all cost make sure that the BAUT & JREF mentality litters this site to detract from any real exploration of the EU model and plasma cosmology.Thompson wrote:There are several journal well known to have higher quality peer review, for example ...
The Astrophysical Journal
The Astronomical Journal
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
The first 2 are American journals and the latter 2 are European. There are a number of other journals that are not as heavily read for various reasons, though they are not inferior; i.e., Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific does not publish much on theoretical topics, but covers instrumentation and data analysis, observational reports and historical perspectives.
Not only does one assume when a topic is "worthy," of moving on, but one also establishes 11-12 different topics on the "Nature" of astrophysics. Yep, the very "Nature" of it. That sure does sound important, aye?
It's no wonder that the most contrived arguments come from pseudo skeptics in the likes of the Amazing Randi magician and another one that indulges invectives to the point that one would think he suffers from Tourette syndrome, namely Penn Jillette. It's all smoke and mirrors by them - all smoke and mirrors.