-- The Other Group --
the success and failure of arguments
countering alternative cosmologies

[Jan 23 2009]

Tom Bridgman's Pdf

At http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/ W. T. "Tom" Bridgman, Phd, presented a critique of Don Scott's book, "The Electric Sky" (2006). This is how he starts out:

"I found I could hardly go 2-3 pages in Scott's book without finding major ridiculous claims."

Tom then points out what real scientists do. This is a typcal knee-jerk reaction to meeting up with the radical thinking of others:

"The difference between the successful scientists and the unsuccessful or crank is the latter's continued pursuit of unsupportable claims."

Quoted from W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D. Sunday, March 23, 2008, http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/.

"But The Electric Sky is worse, for it does a poor job of representing the standard plasma cosmology claims of Alfvén and Peratt. Much of Scott's material, particularly the Electric Stars claim, do not appear to be part of Alfvén's cosmology, but part of something far more bizarre"

"In a book so incredibly wrong, it was difficult to write something short. Even this analysis is far longer than I originally expected This paper is a subset of my complaints. I have notes on far more issues than are presented in this monograph."

"Considering how much of this type of bad science is being regurgitated in the Creationist community to support their claims, I suspect I will be revisiting some of these issues."

"Dr. Scott states that astronomers assume that the physical laws in the distant cosmos are different from those known on the Earth (page 7). Wrong. The default assumption is that the laws of are identical on the Earth and in distant space."

.....................

I looked at page 7. Bridgman must be a speedreader, What Scott writes is just the opposite:

".. The hypotheses of these plasma scientists on the subject of solar, stellar, and galactic behaviour are careful extrapolations of their demonstrated experimental results and physical principles."

Scott follows this with..

"They do *not* involve invisible matter or unseen forces or "new science" -- claims that the laws of physics must be different out there in deep space (where we cannot verify them) from what they are here on Earth."

enuf!!

The ease with which Scott was misread says more than all the quotations and references. Bridgman apparently was deeply disturbed by Scott's book, especially since he found it quoted by the young-earth creationist Barry Setterfield.

I looked over the remainder of the pdf and was not impressed. Illustrated with the graphic below, Bridgman writes the following about double layers..

"The Problem with Double Layers"

"One of the favorite devices used by the EU/PC advocates is the concept of double layers in a plasma as a source of high-energy particles. A double layer is a region with two parallel layer with opposite electric charge, between which there is a strong electric field. Some researchers describe double layers in regions were the electric field is roughly constant and parallel to a reference surface. Invariably, their description must include the motion of electrons and ions between fixed anodes and cathodes. In a laboratory environment, the laboratory equipment performs the role of holding these electrodes fixed for the analysis (Figure 5)."

[figure 
5]
[Double layer diagram from Bridgman pdf]

What are we looking at here? It is not a double layer, it is a capacitor. It would function the same way as a double layer in principle, but the 'electrodes' are not needed. There is more.

We might do better to ask after Bridgman's desperate clinging to orthodoxy and his violent reaction to Scott. I wrote, in http://saturniancosmology.org/cos.php:

"Those familiar with the work of Julian Jayes will recognize the syndrome. Anything learned before the age at which subjective consciousness is reached, 7 or 8 years, or what Fraser [referenced in the original text] calls 'prepubescence,' is held as an absolute by the right brain, for facts received early in life have never been consciously examined or explored systematically by the left brain. There are no conceivable alternatives to these 'facts' and there will be no reinvestigation."

"It is not just facts and science learned before the 'age of reason,' which aren't susceptable to rational analysis, but the unqualified absorption of views, even when supported by mathematics, which extends to anything learned under a system which provides approval on acceptance. What I am talking about, of course, is advanced studies in the sciences."

"For graduate students in hard science, the 'age of reason' does not dawn until later in life, if ever. At that point a hegemony of special interests keeps everyone in line. The silence of scientists on some topics speaks volumes."

Others have expressed similar thoughts.

See also a mirrored file by Stephen J. Crothers, saved [here].


URL of this page: http://othergroup.net/bridgman.php
This page last updated: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012
[home page]


Feel free to email me with any comments or corrections.
jno (at) othergroup (dot) net
I'll be glad to add relevant comments or essays

Copyright © 2010 - 2017 Jno Cook

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is granted,
provided full credit is given.