The eyes that mock me sign the way
Whereto I pass at eve of day.

Grey way whose violet signals are
The trysting and the twining star.

Ah star of evil! star of pain!
Highhearted youth comes not again

Nor old heart's wisdom yet to know
The signs that mock me as I go.

James Joyce

So, taking a deep breath, I ask, "What is the Electric Universe theory's interpretation of the data collected from the NOAO?"

Is there somewhere I can find a coherent argument as to why the NOAO data should be interpreted in a gravity-centric manner? At the moment all I'm finding is assertions.

Please forgive me if the question has already been asked and answered here and (please?) direct me to the relevant posts.

PS I just noticed a flaw in my question. Someone's going to dismiss my question by asking which electric universe theory I mean. In that case I'd probably have to admit that I have no tertiary training on the subject at all and skulk away with my tail between my legs. I would, however, be wanting to say "the theory that the universe is not electrically inert, and that observed phenomena can be better described in terms of electrical processes and their associated magnetic fields."

I would kindly thank you in advance for not making fun of my curiousity.

The use of anonymous/pseudonymous names facilitates this, but it is possible to publish the i.p. address of each poster with each post. This would help responsible commentary would it not?

Use of a pseudonym is helpful to objectivity. If an identity is attacked, even though it was used by me, I should feel more secure and more likely to refrain from counter attack?

Exposing emails to others seems a great idea! Rereading a post, before it is made is good too? Fewer spelling mistakes and greater clarity of thought enable the reader who is the target of our writing, to grasp and respond.

We are hopefully building a community interested in science and discussing different theories so as to clarify them and to judge what if any experiments or observations may further our joint interest?

Or just sharing an appreciation of the immensity of reality?

For teh record, I also do not consider that I let OIM off the hook – in my experience this is a typical pattern for him. He'll be back, maybe in this thread, certainly in another, trolling, and pushing the same message, probably as if nothing has happened, maybe with an out of context quote that he thinks negates a specific point you've made against him here.

If you look through this topic, I made my first comment relatively early on. As far as the timing of my comment goes, I work, full time, and live in a different time zone to most of the posters on this site (GMT +13:00), so take that for what it's worth, but I don't have the time to post here regularly, so on a thread where between getting up in the morning and checking, and then checking again during my lunch break, the number of posts almost doubles?

And I'm sorry, but as far as I'm aware deliberately making a misleading or deceitful statement meets the definition of lying.

(According to Merriam Webster online:
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression ).

So yes, technically, he was making untrue statements with intent to deceive, and was creating a false or misleading impression (this second part should be especially apparent with the specific wording of the ban).

The other thing that I'm going to say on the issue is that if you take a look around, you will find that In "Titan Dunes Turn Climate Models Upside Down" OIM called me an 'illiterate liar' without provocation because I pointed out that the article has nothing to do with climate change, and he doesn't distinguish between climate modelling and climate change modelling.

So that's twice now? That he's explicitly accused me of lying, the first example of which was with not provocation what so ever, and predates my comments on this thread about his banning from sciforums by a number of days…

Honestly, you're chewing on the wrong ear.

I strongly suggest you go bacl and re-read my two posts then if this is what you genuinely think.

I did not actually accuse OIM of being a liar, nor did I actually call him a liar, but stated that he had been banned from somewhere for lying (or being a liar).

There is a very real difference there. One is me making the accusation, the other is me communicating something that someone else has been said.

This is the official reason that was given for his ban over on Sciforums:
"continual trolling and deliberately attempting to deceive readers on scientific topics."

I've given you all the information you need to go and verify the facts and form your own opinion.

The only thing I haven't done is provide specific examples, and i've given a good reason as to why I haven't done that.

Perhaps on a future thread (if the moderators again show such remarkable constraint.)

About 1/4 of people have authoritarian mentalities, otherwise known as true believers. Your religious fundamentalists, conspiracy "theory" mavens, political extremists and so forth usually are of this sort. People who are pangyrics for alt-science ideas, often comparing themselves to Gallileo with claims of a mass conspiracy by the scientific mainstream, usually fit this sort of profile. This includes the ardent creationist as well as the firm upholder of cold-fusion and other ideas.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Salacious B. Cumb.

Previously, you have struck me as being a relatively well read poster, you ordinarily have some interesting things to say. I have an inkling that you might have said some things that I ordinarily would disagree with, but, I haven't commented because I've considered your view point to be well thought out and logical.

I was simply making the point that trying to convince someone that displays all the traits of a relgious zealot (OIM in this case, and bear in mind, I can only speak from my experience of his posts) that they're wrong is a waste of the time of a poster your calibre.

Oh, and for the record, OIM has Plasma Cosmology completely wrong, Alfven, Birkeland, and Perat (and everybody else) didn't seek to replace gravity with electromagnetism, the 'simply' sought to include the effects in their calculations, convinced that if they combined it with the calculations of GR that they could do away with the need for Dark Matter, and Dark Energy,

Case in point.
As near as I can tell, I have made 23 or 24 posts on this site.
As near as I can tell, I have posted on the same article as you three times, and in none of those cases were my comments directed at you.

If you choose not to believe me, you have two choices, you can go through every article on this website, or do a Google search.

I'm about done with this conversation.

I think you over reacted to what was intended to be a harmless comment, and I don't appreciate being accused of being responsible for OIM's attitude and posting style.

I honestly don't care if you want to try and handle OIM a 'different way'. I tried reasoned debate with verifiable peer reviewed sources, and it didn't work.

Don't beleieve me? Go over to Sciforums and check it out for yourself. I'd post direct links to threads and posts, but I don't want anyone getting the mistaken impression that i'm soliciting traffic for Sciforums, because i'm not. I could just have easily pointed out, and have in another article, that OIM has also been banned from the BAUT forum. You can't blame me for that, because that happened well before I first encountered OIM (I think).

I don't honestly care if you think you're better than me, and it's not something that I'm going to claim to know. I'm not emotionally vested in this argument.

I was simply expressing an opinion, that is completely verifiable if you want to do the work – that trying to convince OIM of anything he doesn't want to hear is a waste of time. He is, quite simply, as has been already pointed out, a Troll with an agenda.

The only reason why I mentioned some of the specific conversations I've had with him, was to point out that everything he says seems to have stemmed from his belief that Oil must ultimately be of Abiotic origin.

Of course, that's just my opinion, but it's opinion based on observation of the evolution of his arguments.

Once again, allow me to explicitly state (or reiterate) that you have taken my post in completely the wrong vein, and have taken offense where none was intended.

Chill out dude.

You've taken what I was saying completely the wrong way.

You don't have to trust me, and I wasn't literally asking you to trust me, I was simply using a turn of phrase. If you were genuinely interested in verifying anything i've said it's as simple as going to the afformentioned forum and looking into it for yourself (for the record, I've named the forum, and implicit in the fact that OIM and I have recognized each other is the assumption that we use the same handles over there).

I'm not trying to take credit for anything.

As for my not contributing anything, I've pointed out at least once that Alfven, and Perat, and Arp (et al) predicted the existence of Ambiplasmas, something which haven't been found in a laboratory yet (which is one of the main draw cards of Plasma Cosmology the whole 'Triple Jump' aspect, and the fact that experiments that can be conducted in a laboratory can be scaled up and extended to systems like the sun earth system).

Also note that I originally didn't say he was just banned for lying.

And no, I haven't made OilIsMastery any more difficult to deal with, his posting style and his method of arguing is exactly the same here as it was over there.

The only thing I have done, which you seem to find objectionable, is plainly state that I have argued with OIM on another forum, and on that forum he would routinely use false or doctored evidence to support his case.

Take it however you want, in all honesty I don't really care, ignore it or take it as a warning, no skin off my nose.

As for attacking you? In all honesty, I have no idea what you're going on about that. I don't specifically recall attacking you.

Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence to back up your assertions, or I am I supposed to take it on faith?

Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but perhaps you should check your assumptions before you start attacking people.

You just lost it, big time.

Since Universe Today's comment section can't count as being about _astronomy_ any more, I don't hesitate contributing to the "bad behaviour" topic, as I call it.

The informations you have found about OilIsMastery are impressive, but, sorry to say, I think, you are wasting your time, which is no problem for me. But above that in publishing your results here you are wasting the time of readers who are interested in astronomy but have to wade through OilIsMastery's post _and_ your posts. Like before.

Some say simply ignoring the person showing bad behaviour won't work. I don't believe this, because on each and every website where I have met people showing bad behaviour, some participants say routinely "simply ignoring won't work", they continue _not_ ignoring (they have never tried ignoring, haven't they), and the bad behaviour continues. Like before.

An interesting policy working against bad behaviour I have found on a website about something completely different from astronomy. The publishers says, the "broken windows theory" applies successfully to websites like it does to urban environments.

"Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside." (Google to find more.)

A successful policy for preventing bad behaviour on websites is to fix problems when they are small. Moderate small scale bad behaviour within a short time, and the tendency is that bad people are much less likely to show more of this. Do this every day, and the tendency is bad behaviour not to accumulate. Problems do not escalate and thus respectable participants do not flee a website.

I have seen this happening on the website of a newspaper I'm reading, which has been invaded more and more by trolls, vandales, offenders, one-issue-promoters, anti-what-you-wants, etc. I'm not sure, but, may be, an important reason for doing something considerable, was some of the respectable readers threatening they won't pay for this no longer (I did this too). For several years now they successfully use a policy which is effectively identical to the one described above.

For Universe Today this means, the publisher and the moderators have to learn their tasks. — "Ugh, originally I wanted to moderate an interesting astronomy website only, because I love astronomy, and you know …" — "This is not possible any more. Welcome to web-reality, you sheep".

If the publisher and the moderators don't want to learn the easy way, they have to learn the hard way. We, the respectable readers, are able of keeping away. We don't need and don't want this annoying mess. We want astronomy.

Whether Oilismastery lied on another site is irrelevant. I see no evidence he is doing here, even though his comments are mostly irrelevant or nonsense. I.e. He hasn't lied to me!
Clearly someone lying or stating falsehood about something is not a reason for to toss someone of some site. As Oilmastery in the thread you were referring to was just breaching rules of general discussion. No guideline say you will be banned for lying, as sometimes ideas beliefs or words can be misplaced or said in ignorance.
You have had you own go at destroying the PC arguments and illogic of Oilismastery, please let someone else try a different tact and let them find out for themselves If someone was to be banned from this site, you too would now be added to the list.

As for your comments;
"'I've dealt with OIM over at sciforums.com for a number of months." So what. Clearly all you have done is made Oilismastery even more impossible to deal with. Are you saying this because you are better than me? eh?

"Trust me when I say you're waisting your breath and your time, simply ignoring him won't work either." Trust you? What? You sound like snake oil salesman or some money pinching evangelist. I trust you mush less than than anyone else so far who has placed an opinion in this whole thread! Frankly, I think Oilismastery illogic is much preferable that this ego driven assumption.
Realy, if I need your help, I'd ask!!
I do say as I say, and really don't need you butt in even if you were 100% correct. [Got it!]
I noticed the last time you posted about my comments you were desperately attacking me in the exact same way. How hypocritical is that?
Please just mind your own business next time!

As to…
"So I poined out to him…" I think you mean "pointed." So really, so what?
All this looks like is gloating you were right and he was banned, and so this validates you own inflated ego.

Both Oilismastery and Anaconda at seem less egotistical then you. Or am I now a liar?

You too just lost it big guy!! Bye, Bye.

You were banned for being a Liar, and I was able to prove on multiple occasions that you were lying. It IS that simple.

You're a liar.

I was banned from Sci Forums because James R. was afraid of my words and therefore had to censor them.

Yes, that's right. And a note to add:
It's interesting that neither OiM nor Anaconda ever mentioned what EM is… it's light! The EM interaction is provided by light since it is the boson of the EM interaction. So EM cannot "act" on light since it is light "itself".

Gravitation on the other hand can act on light. Gravitational redshift (not the cosmological one…) is the best proof for that!

Do you want to "search" for my professor (papers or personally)?

The name is Prof. R. Schlickeiser. He is working on blazar models and related stuff (he also collaborates with the HESS telescope in Namibia). Quite interesting thing. I made my Bachelor work (thesis) under his guidance last summer and I will soon start my Master thesis, again with his supervision.
Btw: My study makes good progress. Right now I'm attending a lecture about cosmic rays and their interaction with magnetic fields…. THAT would be something for Anaconda and OiM

@ (my close (non)personal friend (TM)) ANACONDA

If you will ever read this: I urge you to take a look at the AAS5 thread over at BA, where we first met, 2 month ago. I have made some brief calculations about your "fact" that the sun is on a 10^10 V potential! Probably you are interested in it.

@Lawrence B. Crowell

Now I see why the mathematics are important. The argument with the rotational groups is excellent but I wouldn't have thought of it!

A really simple thing, which they couldn't ever begin to understand.

If they were one in the same, they would both affect light the same way, and obviously they do not.
Since he's so fond of Plasma. They also both affect plasma in different ways. So if he still doesn't get it, then he doesn't understand plasma like he believes he does.

If a post receives a positive push above treshhold it becomes yellow (marking it as well written and understandable, not necessarily the universal truth)

If a post receives negative push below threshhold (negative value, so below) it becomes collapsed and can only be read by opening it up.

This would obviously require software upgrade, but in the long end it would allow the community to filter away unrelated posts without automatically prohibiting any view. And it would allow the casual reader to get a decent view of what is generally supported, and what is generally called fringe, without having to filter through huge amounts of posts with no real content.