Unread post
by jone dae » Sun Aug 03, 2014 4:02 pm
@Zyxzven,
That's a good workaround. I'm not concerned to prove anything, online or offline. I'm satisfied as a scientist that the models, experiments, predictions, and corresponding results, for the EU are adequate, and growing almost daily. So, I partly agree with the "let them find out for themselves" response. But I would like for some kind of dialog to take place, beyond separate scientists publishing papers that disagree with each other, with the scientists staying several steps away from each other. Laymen throw websites at each other to support their views; everyone there validates their opinions using the opinions of others; but none states her own view, without quoting others. (Present company excepted.) Similarly we and the big-bangers are throwing papers and videos at each other. We should each of us be able to discuss, how and why the gravity-only models have failed and the EU models have succeeded. And I don't lack communication skills; one of my B.A.s is in Communication Studies. That was a DIY degree through a private college which grants degrees for people who have designed their own degree programs and successfully completed them, and mine was a mix of "hard" and "soft" communication studies. "Soft" being, as you might guess, linguistics, psycholinguistics, semiotics, body-language, and so on; and the "hard" studies were technical, communication theory and technology, based on the works of Claude Shannon, Wiener, Von Neumann, and so on. I used a study of radio astronomy, for example, completed as part of a regular college course in Astronomy, in that degree. I include this aside since it is relevant.
What I lack is time. As my profile/bio shows, I work at two jobs within one company, and maintain blogs and so on as well; and then I have a personal life, as well. And the ideas I've seen so far here are helpful. Thanks.
If I were tutoring a student, I could, using resources from this website, and others, make a course of study for them, which would show them how and why the gravity model failed, and the EU model succeeded; and charge a fee for it, too. This is more about, conversations sometimes with scientists and sometimes with laymen, online and offline. For instance, I told a friend that plasma didn't absorb light in the way that a man on you tube had claimed that it does; and the friend made that point to the man on you tube, a big-banger.
Those are all very small activities, but if they were multiplied by a million, say, then we could bring about the success of this revolution in science which we all have started. My regular research partner is Jae Kamel, and he has been telling people online, on social media and so on, as well as offline, that we are in the midst of a revolution in science; and I agree with him, but also think he may be seeing into the future a little. Most mainstream especially astronomers are still continuing as they always have, and have no idea of what's going on, literally. For example, NASA has launched at least a dozen satellites in recent decades, which are specifically designed to gather data on EU-type phenomena: the sun, the solar wind, the toroidal energy fields around the earth and the other planets and their satellites, and so on; see what I mean? All of you reading this know about the great interest which NASA has in electrical and magnetic phenomena in space and in/around planets, but the big-bangers do not. It troubles me.