PDA

View Full Version : Stephen Crothers' style of presentation



wd40
2013-Mar-03, 08:05 PM
What is the informed opinion of the presentational ability/disabilty of Stephen Crothers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q185InpONK4

Solfe
2013-Mar-04, 12:55 AM
That is a poor video to take away an opinion of his performance on his presentation abilities. I say this as a certified Toastmaster with a decade or so of experience and several awards.

The issue is the editing of the video is masking the performance of the speaker. He is not timed up to the switch between him and the images on the screen, so he could be giving his best performance while the camera is not on him. Second, the camera and mike are pinning him to the podium, giving him no chance to move around and engage the audience. He seems to be doing fine from behind the podium, but between having his body blocked and the background close to the same shade as his suit, he doesn't stand out.

If I did this speech, I would have taken off my jacket and stepped in front of the podium. This would have completely killed the video presentation so there is a big trade off for doing this. It might not have even be possible, that could place him in the audience which doesn't really work, either. Whipping off your jacket also changes the tone of the speech and can be very unwelcome in many settings.

Up to this point, the setting is killing him before he even starts to speak.

The only issue I have with the speaker himself is all of his information appears to be in the negative and he has a slight tendency to speak from the side of his mouth. A negative speech is tricky to pull off. The talking out the side of the mouth sends the message "I am being sly" or "I mean the opposite of what I am saying" or "I hold what I am saying in disdain". From his manner, I think he naturally speaks out with one side of his mouth which he should stop doing as quick as possible due to the subject matter. It appears that he doesn't mean what he is saying.

One other thing that he does and shouldn't is gesture at the presentation screen. You shouldn't do that when you have a wall of text and the gesture doesn't indicate what text is being highlighted. He had the whole speech memorized, he isn't looking at any text himself, so he should say the words he means the highlight and gesture in a way that says "Ok, look at me!".

He has a noticeable lack of "helpers", meaning he doesn't reuse a single word too often and does not say "ah", "um" or "er". This is mostly good, but an occasional use may improve the timing of speech. This is highly debatable, some people will claim to ding you for any use of a helper. In practice, I have actually found that even expert judges will accept a helper from time to time and actually can't detect all of them, or actually rank you better when the helper corrects the pacing to something more pleasing.

99% of the issues I have with this presentation is the stage, not the speaker. To be blunt, the staging is horrible.

I didn't evaluate anything the speaker said, only how he said it.

Recap:
Pluses - full memorization, good eye contact, excellent gestures for punctuation, no helper words.
Minuses - duration: too long, side of mouth talking, pointing to the screen, the whole stage.

Selfsim
2013-Mar-04, 02:21 AM
Well, interestingly, Crothers' style has had the opposite impact on me.

I think his style is very enrolling, authoritative, and very clear about the complex math involved. To me, his style oozes credibility, (unfortunately), and the message I'm getting is that he is being very authentic and honest about the message he is attempting to convey. Its comin' from the heart, (even if it is all based on gross misconceptions). I don't get any rote memorisation involved either .. he's gone over it so many times, he's generating the concepts as he speaks, which usually comes from an intimate understanding of the perspective being presented.

Basically quite disturbingly effective, unfortunately.

I think this one will convince many armchair amateur mathematicians/cosmologists, so I'd rate the damage factor in the 'high' range, as a result of this particular delivery.

Solfe
2013-Mar-04, 04:35 AM
Maybe I should elaborate more on my background, because I seem to becoming across as overly harsh.

Toastmasters International is a communication and leadership program focusing on public speaking, especially thinking on your feet and engaging the audience. There are a series of 10-11 different speech to attain the Competent Communicator/Certified Toastmaster title. Each speech is different and focuses on different skills. There are 10 more for each step of bronze, silver and gold for the Advanced Communicator rating and the whole thing tops out at Distinguished Toastmaster. Every speech give is rated by first the speakers goals and then compared to one or more other public speakers performance. Coming in first place is not required for advancement and members can repeat a give speech (another time, another speech) if they didn't like their ranking on personal skill or how they performed. Personally, I have give over 100 (edit) different speeches.

Once you give 6 (different) speeches, you can compete internationally for the title of "World Champion of Public Speaking". To compete, you need to win at club level, area level, and division level. When there are more than 10 divisions, the top 3 winners from each division are broken up into 2 equal groups and compete against each other. The winner of this event goes on to the district level and the winner of that goes to the semifinals for the world wide competition. I've been to the district level twice.

I can be a little intense when assessing public speakers. You don't want to sit next to me while I watch one of those TED talks.

Selfsim
2013-Mar-04, 05:47 AM
No problems there Solfe. :)

Its interesting to see the different perspectives ... everyone's going to have different 'takeaways', I guess.
(I actually don't mind your being 'harsh' about his style .. go for it! .. :) )

I guess it should also be considered that he was addressing a 'non-hostile' audience, most of which was probably looking to him to provide reassuring arguments for rejecting modern cosmology, black holes and GR/Einstein(??) He may have been 'turning up the volume', because he knew he wouldn't be met with opposition from the audience .. I'd loved to have seen the questions/answers following his talk, (if there ever was any such session).

This guy basically rejects any perspectives other than his own on the matters he raises. They refer to him somewhat affectionality as the 'Tassie Devil, as I recall. He has an established track record of aggresive opposition to mainstream physics interpretation, which he makes pretty clear from the outset, given the bluntness of the title of his talk (on his opening slide), which would clearly offend 99.9% of mainstream physicists, if he was taken seriously by them in the first place (which appears to not be the case).

Cheers

publiusr
2013-Mar-05, 12:25 AM
So no relation to Scatman Crothers then :)

Selfsim
2013-Mar-05, 08:37 AM
So no relation to Scatman Crothers then :)Could be ...
Oh well, why not .. the words sound about the same ... :p:)

ASTRO BOY
2013-Apr-08, 10:11 PM
Well, interestingly, Crothers' style has had the opposite impact on me.

I think his style is very enrolling, authoritative, and very clear about the complex math involved. To me, his style oozes credibility, (unfortunately), and the message I'm getting is that he is being very authentic and honest about the message he is attempting to convey. Its comin' from the heart, (even if it is all based on gross misconceptions). I don't get any rote memorisation involved either .. he's gone over it so many times, he's generating the concepts as he speaks, which usually comes from an intimate understanding of the perspective being presented.

Basically quite disturbingly effective, unfortunately.

I think this one will convince many armchair amateur mathematicians/cosmologists, so I'd rate the damage factor in the 'high' range, as a result of this particular delivery.


I couldn't disagree anymore with your summation.
Being an armchair cosmologist of the most basic kind, I find his argument quite unconvincing....
His denigrating, facetious style in my opinion, is much like that used by religious zealots when trying to denigrate science.
I believe that most armchair cosmologists, especially ones devoid of the knowledge of complicated maths as I am, would be asking the obvious questions....
Who is this bloke?
How come he can reach the conclusions he does when others over many years have not?
Why would "mainstream" cosmologists/scientists be covering up his "supposed" correct solutions?

Sorry, while being open-minded [I have read Eric J Learner's book "The BB Never happened"]I'm not at all impressed by conspiracies and conspiracy nutters.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Apr-08, 10:34 PM
Like I said...A conspiracy nutter.....

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html

Selfsim
2013-Apr-09, 10:43 AM
Crothers' presentation was published on 1st March. Since then there have been about 129 comments (https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=Q185InpONK4) .. almost all of them extolling his 'virtues'. A small sample follows:

"Steve Crothers is brilliant" ... "Thanks for this Stephen! Your a brilliant man."... "Brilliant. We need to get you on TV." ... "I wish this chap had been my maths teacher!" ... "All comes down to the assumptions made before the theory as usual. Thanks Mr Crothers for pointing out the false assumptions that were made (a universe without mass and only 1 gravitational field)." ... "Brilliant......"Science !"..bamboozaling the nations for a century."

Yep .. I'd say he's convinced many 'armchair cosmologists' .. as evidenced by the extensive moral support expressed in the above comments ... and the bulk of the rest of them in the link.

Crothers continues to propagate pure pseudoscientific claptrap with his completely and utterly distorted misconceptions of Hilbert's version of the Schwarzschild metric and Ric=0; his complete cluelessness about the physical meaning of the Einstein energy tensor; and his nonsensical claim that gravity is a force between two bodies in spite of his acceptance of the Newtonian version of a gravitational field. (The latter indicating his complete misunderstanding of the concept of potentials in gravitational fields).

His anti-science, anti-mainstream themes, (seemingly resulting from the chip he has on his shoulder caused by his initial rebuke by his academic supervisors), is clearly inspiring many to support and sign up in his ridiculous cause.

More nonsensical support from another well-known pseudo/anti-science haven (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9607&start=15) ... expounded in this post:

"We should probably respect the excellent job Stephen Crothers has done in demolishing the theory by calling them what they are, active galactic nuclei, say, and stop lending credibility to this piece of second-rate science fiction."

Then again by the same poster (in reponse to this comment): "I did not like the black hole idea or the gravity bending space idea even before I discovered EU"
.. and the response ..
> Good for you for listening to your own sense. The value of intuition, 'gut-feeling', is often overlooked. I am guilty of having let clever mathematicians pull the wool over my eyes for years, even when I couldn't fully grasp what they were saying. I'm over it now."

Well, I guess this kind of rubbish 'rationale' is exactly where the often extolled 'intuition' and 'gut feeling' takes one eh ... all led by the 'Pied Piper of Hamelin', ... the 'Tassie Devil' himself - Stephen J Crothers.

Overall damage factor: Very High to Extreme (IMO).

ASTRO BOY
2013-Apr-10, 01:17 AM
Crothers' presentation was published on 1st March. Since then there have been about 129 comments (https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=Q185InpONK4) .. almost all of them extolling his 'virtues'. A small sample follows:

"Steve Crothers is brilliant" ... "Thanks for this Stephen! Your a brilliant man."... "Brilliant. We need to get you on TV." ... "I wish this chap had been my maths teacher!" ... "All comes down to the assumptions made before the theory as usual. Thanks Mr Crothers for pointing out the false assumptions that were made (a universe without mass and only 1 gravitational field)." ... "Brilliant......"Science !"..bamboozaling the nations for a century."

Yep .. I'd say he's convinced many 'armchair cosmologists' .. as evidenced by the extensive moral support expressed in the above comments ... and the bulk of the rest of them in the link.



Your full post is quite admirable and would reflect the views and opinions of any reasonable rational being.
My only criticism is presuming that those that support his irrational thinking are armchair astronomers/cosmologists.
I would say its far more likely they that do agree , are already fully paid members to the anti establishment brigade and the conspiracy nutters that it attracts.
Like I said, I'm one armchair cosmologist that while being open minded and Imaginative, find his diatribe along with Eric J Learner's rubbish, as quite unconvincing to put it mildly.

But as with some scientific applications, especially astronomy and cosmology, there are differences of opnions based on different interpretations, and these sidetracks from mainstream science, are pushed by fully professional scientists.
Who could forget the incredible Fred Hoyle and his "Steady State" model?
But otherwise a noted and generally respected astronomer.
And there have been other wayward scientists since.
So to pidgeon hole the amateur/Armchair Astronomer/Cosmologist is quite unfair.
Not forgetting that most armchair Cosmologists, would not be mathematically astute enough to fully comprehend his diatribe.
In those areas they accept on faith that the mainstream interpretation and the scientific method which has lead to the mainstream interpretation is the correct one.

Of course that does not mean that the mainstream version is entirely correct.
But if that were the case, I personally still have faith that any possible interpretation against the mainstream, would be looked at on its merits and the scientific method would prevail.
If science has any currently acceptable fact that needs over turning, the scientific method should see that happening in the course of time and with the presentation of observable evidence and experimental results supporting it.

Selfsim
2013-Apr-10, 07:15 AM
In the comments link I posted, it seems that a 'Stephen Crothers' makes an appearance .. along with his own comments.

One such comment is:

Furthermore, as proven in my talk, GR violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and is therefore in conflict with experiment on a deep level. The Black Hole is a fiction.Ok, so if GR is in conflict with experiment on a deep level, then Crothers should provide his explanations/alternatives for the gravitational bending of light, the perihelion advance of Mercury's orbit and the concept of gravitational redshift (or at least show how these are 'in conflict' with GR) .. I mean after all, there's plenty of correlated observational evidence of such things .. so what's his explanation for these? Are we supposed to accept the incohesive stories told by the 'EU theorists' (and EU 'armchair cosmologists') when they hijack Robitaille's and Kozyrev's works and then somehow claim that it supports their own nonsense? (Robitallie's actually contradicts key parts of EU 'theory' (which is the really hilarious thing about all this)).

Crothers speaks with derision in his presentation about such scientists as Kerr, Davies, Schmidt, etc, with GR being the source of such disrespect. If he feels this communications 'style ' is justified, then where is his more credible alternative?

galacsi
2013-Apr-10, 09:09 AM
Like I said...A conspiracy nutter.....

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html

I did not invest time and energy to see by myself if he is right or wrong and probably has not the hability . But I cannot understand how from his pro-domo presentation you can deduce he is a nutter.. . .

The fact he has been rejected from university and does not submit to authority ? I cannot see your logic.

galacsi
2013-Apr-10, 09:15 AM
I couldn't disagree anymore with your summation.
Being an armchair cosmologist of the most basic kind, I find his argument quite unconvincing....
His denigrating, facetious style in my opinion, is much like that used by religious zealots when trying to denigrate science.
I believe that most armchair cosmologists, especially ones devoid of the knowledge of complicated maths as I am, would be asking the obvious questions....
Who is this bloke?
How come he can reach the conclusions he does when others over many years have not?
Why would "mainstream" cosmologists/scientists be covering up his "supposed" correct solutions?

Sorry, while being open-minded [I have read Eric J Learner's book "The BB Never happened"]I'm not at all impressed by conspiracies and conspiracy nutters.

And I have an other question for you Astro-boy : I know what is an armchair astronomer and a real one and I try to become one of this last kind , but what is the difference between an armchair cosmologist and a non armchair one ? Don't they both work behind a desk and do purely speculative tasks ?

ASTRO BOY
2013-Apr-10, 07:58 PM
I did not invest time and energy to see by myself if he is right or wrong and probably has not the hability . But I cannot understand how from his pro-domo presentation you can deduce he is a nutter.. . .

The fact he has been rejected from university and does not submit to authority ? I cannot see your logic.

He infers a number of times that the establishment have conspired against him.
I see that conspiracy as the nutter type.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/

ASTRO BOY
2013-Apr-10, 08:05 PM
And I have an other question for you Astro-boy : I know what is an armchair astronomer and a real one and I try to become one of this last kind , but what is the difference between an armchair cosmologist and a non armchair one ? Don't they both work behind a desk and do purely speculative tasks ?

I probably see the arm chair variety as both "near professional" and amateur or a dabbler.
My point anyway was that his followers would in the main be already anti-mainstream and slightly biased and of course even some professionals have strayed off the mainstream path, let alone arm chair cosmologists and astronomers.

NEOWatcher
2013-Apr-10, 08:23 PM
I probably see the arm chair variety as both "near professional" and amateur or a dabbler.
Good you clarified that, because I hear "arm chair" more in the reference to someone who doesn't dabble but likes to comment anyway. For instance; an arm chair quarterback is usually just someone second guessing a game, not someone who has quarterbacked as a hobby.

Selfsim
2013-Apr-10, 09:51 PM
Regardless of a need to label others as the sole means for knowing how to interpret what they're saying, Crothers' biggest failing is in his application of physical interpretation to the GR equations. His biggest flaw is in assuming that Newtonian gravity and the notion of gravity in GR, are equivalent. He then applies the Newtonian version to GR, and therefore concludes the equations are inconsistent.

He incorrectly associates the physical meaning of the Einstein energy tensor with the energy and momentum of a particle in a gravitational field, whereas its correct interpretation is that it represents the effect of external gravitational (and electromagnetic) forces in the field, acting on the particle. He clearly doesn't understand when a gravitational field acts intrinsically or externally on a particle. Newton's third law doesn't exist in Crothers version of events. Which is completely absurd.
All of the above insight only becomes visible upon study of Physics and Applied Mathematics, at Tertiary levels (or at equivalent standards).

So I ask: "How could someone, (ie: a Crothers 'supporter'), who is so dominated by the need to express ill-informed (or intuitive) opinions about a topic they have only superficial depth in, and who is too lazy (or close-minded) to get to the bottom of the GR physics position, ever going to come round to seeing the errors of their own views on Physics? What possible means is left available to them, via their own choices?"
I reference the previous quote, from a Thunderbolts forum poster .. ie: a typical EU 'Armchair Cosmologist', (using ASTROBOY's terminology, that is):

Good for you for listening to your own sense. The value of intuition, 'gut-feeling', is often overlooked. I am guilty of having let clever mathematicians pull the wool over my eyes for years, even when I couldn't fully grasp what they were saying. I'm over it now.Such an attitude amidst a topic which demands a knowledge of the physical application of mathematics is analogous to describing something visual, which has never been sighted, for reasons of deliberate self-induced blindness.

The relevance of all this comes back to Crothers' presentation style. It is a very powerful and effective style for seducing those who have only had glimpses into their own ignorance, when exploring the technical complexities in the physical interpretations of the GR equations. Ignorance is not something to deride, but when it deliberately results in ill-informed, strongly expressed opinions and criticism of carefully analysed physical sciences, it most certainly is.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Apr-11, 09:30 PM
I reference the previous quote, from a Thunderbolts forum poster .. ie: a typical EU 'Armchair Cosmologist', (using ASTROBOY's terminology, that is):


Well actually it should be pointed out that the "armchair Cosmologist" remark was first used by yourself.....I will although take credit for the "dabbler" remark.

Let me again re-establish my view as it seems to have been missed.
As an armchair dabbler person who has a general interest in all of the sciences particularly Astronomy, Cosmology and Astro-Physics and Astro-Biology, I must take on faith the views and say so's of scientists in general.
That of course aligns with probably at least 90% of the population.
Although speaking for myself I will always find out all there is to know regarding any contentious areas of science, where differences in professional opinions exist.
I mentioned the remarkable Fred Hoyle as an example earlier.

So in areas of contentious opinions amongst the experts, us lay people need to make a judgement on what limited knowledge we do have.

Again I will always try to extend that "limited knowledge" of mine as much as is humanly possible.
I have done that by reading many reputable books such as Hawking's Brief History of Time, Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps, Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman's Gravity's Fatal Attraction and many of Carl Sagan's books, amongst many others by many reputable people such as Paul Davis and Max tegmark.

With that limited knowledge, boosted somewhat by what I have read, I conclude that Crother's views are wrong and generally quite misleading for three reasons....
[1] If there was any substance at all to what he was saying and preaching, other mainstream scientists in general would not just completely write his diatribe off as the ranting's of a conspiracy nutter.
Someone somewhere would say "HOLD ON FOR A MINUTE!"

[2] The BB/Inflationary model of Cosmology and GR have so far aligned with observational evidence and as with any general accepted models that have stood the tests of observation and experiment, it is going to take and should take extraordinary evidence to over turn that view.

[3] With armchair and dabbler types like myself, who does not have the mathematical know how to positively enhance one view over another, we must go on faith with the mainstream established view, if all other aspects of the subject in question stands up to scrutiny.

Finally I mostly agree with your views on Crothers but would label his supporters as "the occasional professional who has an "establishment" size chip on his shoulder, the avid conspiracy nutter who will see a conspiracy in everything, and the raw layman who knows nothing about astronomy/cosmology and the scientific method.
And of course they are well in the minority with such unsupportive views.

krikkitz
2013-Jun-18, 03:45 PM
Hello, everyone. I'm new here, so please be kind. I just wanted to say that I know Stephen personally, and I was there at the presentation that is under discussion. One further piece of information about me that you should know is that I am neither a mathematician, nor a physicist. I am a mental health professional with an avid layman's interest in physics. But now about Stephen's presentation style and etc.

It is true that Stephen was presenting in this case to a friendly crowd. It is also true that Stephen seems to have a chip on his shoulder. However, what you don't know is that this chip has grown over the years because every time he tries to bring his mathematical proofs and dis-proofs to the attention of the astrophysicists, he is excoriated and his proofs are disregarded out of hand. This is despite the fact that his work is based on the shoulders of both accepted mathematics and the works of mathematical giants that came before himself. Please don't make the same mistake by labeling him as anything except the fine mathematician that he is.

As already indicated, I am no mathematician. Please don't assume that statement also indicated a general lack of intelligence on my part. I happen to fall within the genius range of I.Q. In a "general" crowd, I have no need to make this statement. However, I have found that associating myself with Stephen tends to bring out the worst in people who want to tear down everything associated with him, when he challenges what people think they already know. As someone with a great deal of knowledge about human psychology, I understand that dynamic at a very deep level. We self-identify with what we think we know, so a challenge to what we think we know can seem like an attack on our persons, even when that isn't the actual case at all. Thus, when Stephen presents his mathematical disproofs, he is greeted as if he were an invading horde. That would put a chip on anyone's shoulder.

In an ideal world, scientists would be able to put aside their psychological defenses and dispassionately evaluate what is before them. But we're all human, aren't we?

slang
2013-Jun-18, 06:47 PM
1 I am neither a mathematician, nor a physicist.[...]

[...]2 the fine mathematician that he is.[...]

Given 1, how can you possibly know that 2 is correct?

NEOWatcher
2013-Jun-18, 07:08 PM
However, what you don't know is that this chip has grown over the years because every time he tries to bring his mathematical proofs and dis-proofs to...
I think my bolded part is the key to this.
Science is about explaining things in the most comprehensive way possible, not proving someone else wrong.
Even if he has latched onto something, he's going to get dismissed by using "wrong" as a scientific argument.

Selfsim
2013-Jun-18, 11:49 PM
… This is despite the fact that his work is based on the shoulders of both accepted mathematics and the works of mathematical giants that came before himself. Please don't make the same mistake by labeling him as anything except the fine mathematician that he is.Crothers may have had extensive formal training in pure mathematics .. but the 'issues' he tries to find, are in the application of that mathematics, to the physical observation. This is the field of applied mathematics/physics. There is an extensive conceptual physical framework behind GR, with a mass of empirical evidence supporting it. I have never seen Crothers analyse this evidence and framework, so it appears that he is either unaware that it exists, or he deliberately turns a blind eye to it .. If one follows this body of evidence within its framework (as it is layed out), one cannot logically end up with the dilemma Crothers continues to propagate. This almost, denial, generates frustration in the minds of those who do have knowledge of that build-up, because it is this which dispels the misconceptions he has arrived at. He then goes one step beyond what seems to be ignorance of that body of work, and derides those who have done that groundwork .. how do you think that feels for those folk, eh?

His adopting the stance of 'the victim', is simply a 'front', to disguise his deep-seated bitterness. He is no victim.


As already indicated, I am no mathematician. Please don't assume that statement also indicated a general lack of intelligence on my part. I happen to fall within the genius range of I.Q. In a "general" crowd, I have no need to make this statement. Then why make it? What does intelligence have to do with this? Why bring this up? Its completely tangential and irrelevant to Crothers' position.


However, I have found that associating myself with Stephen tends to bring out the worst in people who want to tear down everything associated with him, when he challenges what people think they already know. As someone with a great deal of knowledge about human psychology, I understand that dynamic at a very deep level. We self-identify with what we think we know, so a challenge to what we think we know can seem like an attack on our persons, even when that isn't the actual case at all. Thus, when Stephen presents his mathematical disproofs, he is greeted as if he were an invading horde. That would put a chip on anyone's shoulder.Crothers already possessed 'the shoulder chip' which became evident during the various incidents with his academic advisers.

Whilst I agree with the general psychology aspects of what you say, (I myself feel the same 'heat' constantly, here at CQ*), there is the dimension of knowledge of the subject matter, which in the 'Crothers case', makes all the difference. The responses to the entity 'Stephen J. Crothers', cannot all be explained solely on the basis of human psychology. He projects an image of ignorance of the conceptual bases, when challenged by others having expertise in the topic. I personally, (for what it may be worth), find that folk such as Jason Sharples, (for eg), have exposed this aspect in numerous engagements with Crothers (over the details).

If Crothers produced some equally productive conceptual alternatives, which could be shown to lead towards viable tests and results, then his 'agitation' may be perceived as being of some scientific value. Unfortunately, he has never done this. (Others have, however).


In an ideal world, scientists would be able to put aside their psychological defenses and dispassionately evaluate what is before them. But we're all human, aren't we?They have .. many, many times in the past .. (and these are well documented). Crothers is so fixed in his position, further engagement with him, will not change his mind. This is dogmatically driven denial in its purest form, methinks.

* The 'heat' I allude to here (at CQ) .. is on the topic of the presumed existence/non existence of 'exo-life', in which there happens to be specifically an absence of the knowledge needed to make the difference. The reaction you mention is plainly evident, nonetheless.

Selfsim
2013-Jun-19, 07:01 AM
As an example of the kind of posts typically arising from a Crothers web presentation (or posting), just take a look at the most recent posts on the OP YouTube.
(https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=Q185InpONK4)
This is what I mean by 'damage factor' against mainstream science:


Poster#1:
Are some Scientists purposefully saying stupid things just to keep the funding coming and/or as some kind of larger scheme to keep the money coming for all their buddies too?

Poster#2:
Yes

Poster#3:
Yes scientists have careers to uphold. They spent years at university level itching to get one *glimpse* out of a new telescope or get a large sum of money in the form of a "research grant". They will do whatever it takes, lie, steal, cheat, and even stoop to the level of ridiculing others and using insults as a means to "protect" what they have.Clearly, Crothers' sarcastic presentation style, encourages these kinds of baseless attacks on science.

How is this a responsible approach for a science professional?

How then, does Crothers leadership style distinguish itself from the anti-science cranks it evidently generates?

Does he rebuke or repudiate such comments? I notice he may actually be participating in that thread .. I guess we'll find out soon enough, eh?

noblackhole
2013-Aug-21, 04:49 PM
I can now add the plentiful and fanciful epithets applied to me on this forum to all the others I have had poured upon my head, such as the fanciful claims that I am a library assistant, a creationist, an anti-Semite, a failed PhD, etc. That I have a ‘chip’ on my shoulder has already been used many times and so does not make the list a second time. Similarly the conspiracy nutter angle has been resorted to a lot – it too is already on the list. All this supposedly comes from rational people? I don’t see anything rational in bleating out epithets.

[Accusations of fraud and other wrongdoing redacted]

I leave you with this.

All alleged black hole models pertain to a universe that is spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat or asymptotically
not flat (i.e. asymptotic to a particular curved spacetime). But the alleged big bang cosmology pertains to a universe that is spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), is of finite age, contains radiation and many masses including multiple black holes (some of which are primordial), is expanding, and is not asymptotically anything. Thus the black hole and the big bang contradict one another - they are mutually exclusive by their very definitions. Furthermore, Einstein’s field equations are nonlinear and so the Principle of Superposition does not hold in General Relativity; but it does hold in Newton’s theory. Consequently it is not possible to insert a black hole universe into a big bang universe or into another black hole universe, or to insert a big bang universe into a black hole universe or another big bang universe. Nonetheless astrophysical scientists routinely claim the existence of multiple black holes and the formation of black holes from objects such as stars by means of irresistible gravitational collapse, all in an expanding universe of finite age that sprang into being from nothingness. Marvellous!

Stephen J. Crothers
(aka The Pied Piper of Hamelin, and conspiracy nutter)
Unlike the rest of you I don’t hide my identity, and my email address is Public Domain.

Selfsim
2013-Aug-23, 08:16 PM
And I leave readers of this thread with this ..

At the end of the day, in spite of Crothers’ presentation style, Einstein, Schwarzschild, and Hilbert have left behind models which have proven their effectiveness in predicting the gravitational bending of light, the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit, and by providing descriptions of the connection between GR and SR for gravitational redshift, (which was subsequently experimentally verified by the Pound-Rebka experiment).

If the metric has been as badly misinterpreted as Crothers propagates in his lectures/papers, why has empirical experimentation supported the opposite view so closely?

What value can we get from Crothers' presentation/message? Where does it lead?

Can Crothers provide us with equivalent descriptions using EU ‘theory’ as its basis?

If so, why is this not included in his presentations?

PetersCreek
2013-Aug-23, 09:11 PM
noblackhole,

I have redacted your accusations. If you wish to level such charges, please do so in an appropriate venue. CosmoQuest isn't one of those venues.

noblackhole
2013-Aug-24, 01:55 PM
noblackhole,

I have redacted your accusations. If you wish to level such charges, please do so in an appropriate venue. CosmoQuest isn't one of those venues.

PetersCreek, I understand of course. You don’t like the truth and so you just take measures to ensure that it is suppressed and justify your misbehaviour with deceit. Well done! Why don’t you let the others on this forum, particularly those who have vilified me, see for themselves?

Stephen J. Crothers

Swift
2013-Aug-24, 02:13 PM
noblackhole,

If you wish to debate your ideas about black holes, please start your own thread in the ATM forum (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?17-Against-the-Mainstream). You will be expected to follow the rules of the ATM forum.

If you wish to publicly discuss how this forum is run, please start your own thread in Feedback (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?4-Forum-Introductions-and-Feedback).

This thread has exceeded its usefulness and is closed.