Question about a certain YouTube channel

[Quilloz]

This is something that has been bothering me since December of last year, but what's the general consensus of YouTuber Ben Davidson, aka Suspicious0bservers on here?

EDIT: I should probably go on record by saying that I do not endorse, nor support the views or opinions of either the man or his channel (as such, I'm not linking to it, that's for the curious to do on their own time). This thread was just to see if anyone else had heard about him, and if they had, their thoughts on his theories about the Solar Micronova and the sun affecting the Earth to the point of causing Earthquakes.

[Marcel de Bont]

Welcome Quilloz!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course but his view on space weather is not in line with the well accepted main stream science that we want people to learn about here on this website.

[Quilloz]

59 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

Welcome Quilloz!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course but his view on space weather is not in line with the well accepted main stream science that we want people to learn about here on this website.

Thanks.

The other question I had was whether or not anyone approved of how he presents his information and his sensationalization of the End of the world-type scenarios. I've been seeing him getting recommended to people and he himself claims to have made books that people in NASA and the NOAA use.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Quilloz

[Vancanneyt Sander]

Catchy titles, click bait and Google search algorithms can get any video popular and many people fall for that without even checking if it’s real or not. And as long as it’s according to the YouTube guidelines, any channel can continue to do what they want. There is no moderation for fake news or incorrect presentation of stuff. So if you start a channel that you’re a flatlander living on the flat Earth it’s all possible 🤷‍♂️

im sure that if he made books, there would be references for these books on the internet. If I would have made books I would promote them as well. 

[Quilloz]

46 minutes ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

im sure that if he made books, there would be references for these books on the internet. If I would have made books I would promote them as well. 

That's just it, he claims his books (one of which, btw, is titled "The Next End of The World") used by institutions and collages, but outside of mentioning NASA and NOAA, he never goes into details about sales numbers or who exactly reads them.

[Archmonoth]

13 hours ago, Quilloz said:

This is something that has been bothering me since December of last year, but what's the general consensus of YouTuber Ben Davidson, aka Suspicious0bservers on here?

 

Ha Ha, Wouldn't you like to know?

Your question seems like some sleazy marketing. 

 

If you can't abstract an idea, you get no abstraction in return. 

[Quilloz]

39 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

 

Ha Ha, Wouldn't you like to know?

Your question seems like some sleazy marketing. 

 

If you can't abstract an idea, you get no abstraction in return. 

No, I'm legitimately asking people about the guy and his whole "Micronova" thing. I personally don't buy into much of what he says.

[Christopher S.]

43 minutes ago, Quilloz said:

I personally don't buy into much of what he says

I gained a rather interesting and useful perspective listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson's Startalk(with the ever-stoned Chuck Nice, of course) and I'll try to work it in here. 

Science does not rely on one's belief or disbelief to present tangible rationality. If the math can solve for something and the concept the math describes can be accurately represented in an equation or stated theory, and that explanation serves to enable people to make accurate predictions and calculations of other things, then it is called a working theory. There is no necessity of belief or disbelief because it just works.

Any time a so-called scientist asks belief or disbelief of you, whether by sensationalism or untested math, they have already made certain that what they are peddling as science is in fact not. The advantage of getting a higher education in math and physics is that you would be able to easily disprove or point out logical failures of the so-called science being presented by people like this. Even without the higher education, you can look for the signs of someone with an agenda or ulterior motive, or maybe identify one or two principles of physics(or basic logic) that are being ignored by that person, and that can help you discern fact from fiction. Ultimately, though, you'll find one of several things with people like this:

A. Their equation is oversimplified and does not work.
B. Their equation is nonsense.
C. There is no equation.
D. The equation already exists for something else, and the person is relying on your ignorance to make it look legitimate.

In other words, you should not look at hypotheses as something to "buy into" or "not buy into" because there are other methods to eliminate the feasibility of what somebody is trying to convince you of. For example, the tried-and-true Scientific Method. All new information, as in new to you, should be cemented in your brain via this method(with perhaps some exceptions, surely). In fact, even if you're relying on hearsay, you should at least confirm that the source of information has conducted some manner of experiment and has released it publicly for anyone to analyze or find the faults of. There is typically no good reason to withhold this information, and it looks ultra-suspicious when there is no data behind what appear to be sensationalized hypotheses(masquerading as something more).

Usually, you would want to back up everything you're putting into words with math. Math on its own isn't very useful, but when you plug-in raw measured data, cross-check values, refer to various working theories, and explain the function of various equations, it is one of the most reliable means of developing a working theory for when there is no viable way to experiment. 

So I ask, does this "suspicious0bservers" person provide such a thing? If not, there is nothing to say. If so, then have some experts in relevant fields review it and find any faults - only after that point and when faults are accounted for does it become tangibly real, to the extent that it can only be argued with a separate theory.

[Quilloz]

16 minutes ago, Christopher S. said:

I gained a rather interesting and useful perspective listening to Neil deGrasse Tyson's Startalk(with the ever-stoned Chuck Nice, of course) and I'll try to work it in here. 

Science does not rely on one's belief or disbelief to present tangible rationality. If the math can solve for something and the concept the math describes can be accurately represented in an equation or stated theory, and that explanation serves to enable people to make accurate predictions and calculations of other things, then it is called a working theory. There is no necessity of belief or disbelief because it just works.

Any time a so-called scientist asks belief or disbelief of you, whether by sensationalism or untested math, they have already made certain that what they are peddling as science is in fact not. The advantage of getting a higher education in math and physics is that you would be able to easily disprove or point out logical failures of the so-called science being presented by people like this. Even without the higher education, you can look for the signs of someone with an agenda or ulterior motive, or maybe identify one or two principles of physics(or basic logic) that are being ignored by that person, and that can help you discern fact from fiction. Ultimately, though, you'll find one of several things with people like this:

A. Their equation is oversimplified and does not work.
B. Their equation is nonsense.
C. There is no equation.
D. The equation already exists for something else, and the person is relying on your ignorance to make it look legitimate.

In other words, you should not look at hypotheses as something to "buy into" or "not buy into" because there are other methods to eliminate the feasibility of what somebody is trying to convince you of. For example, the tried-and-true Scientific Method. All new information, as in new to you, should be cemented in your brain via this method(with perhaps some exceptions, surely). In fact, even if you're relying on hearsay, you should at least confirm that the source of information has conducted some manner of experiment and has released it publicly for anyone to analyze or find the faults of. There is typically no good reason to withhold this information, and it looks ultra-suspicious when there is no data behind what appear to be sensationalized hypotheses(masquerading as something more).

Usually, you would want to back up everything you're putting into words with math. Math on its own isn't very useful, but when you plug-in raw measured data, cross-check values, refer to various working theories, and explain the function of various equations, it is one of the most reliable means of developing a working theory for when there is no viable way to experiment. 

So I ask, does this "suspicious0bservers" person provide such a thing? If not, there is nothing to say. If so, then have some experts in relevant fields review it and find any faults - only after that point and when faults are accounted for does it become tangibly real, to the extent that it can only be argued with a separate theory.

Well that's just the thing, he claims that he got his things peer-reviewed, but he's never stated to who exactly. And like I said, he has books on the matter that he also claims are at use by actual solar researchers, but again, it sounds like a dubious claim.

His videos tend to play out like this:
- Intro, goes over what he'll talk about that video.
- Recap of previous day's solar activity, which is pointless when this site does a live feed. He also brings up what Earthquakes happened.
- Subjects at hand- this usually includes things like the "Perfect CMEs" NASA scientists have talked about before, the Earth's decaying magnetosphere and polar shift, that sort of thing.
- At least once a video talks about the "Micronova", or something in relation to it, which is what happens when the sun decides to shoot out a cloud of gas that will send Earth into another ice age, destroy the magnetic field and wipe out most of the Earth's life. It's something he adopted and twisted into his own from Diehold founder Doug Vogt. Only Ben attempts to use science articles about solar and Geomagnetic studies to justify its existence as opposed to the Bible. Ben claims this event will happen in the late 2030s or so.
-Shills one of this books, or his new project -- The 0bserver Ranch, and caps off with a catchphrase.

Every now and again, he will also talk about his detractors (or haters, as he puts it) whenever they try to refute, or even simply question, his studies (meaning he doesn't think it's up for debate). He's also badmouthed dark matter studies and the Democratic party at times. He's on YouTube if you actually want to take a look into that rabbit hole. I mostly only know him because someone led me to him when the 5D/Great Solar Flash crowd got me worried about December 21, 2020.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Quilloz
formatting and clarification

[Vancanneyt Sander]

5 minuten geleden, Quilloz zei:

when the sun decides to shoot out a cloud of gas that will send Earth into another ice age, destroy the magnetic field and wipe out most of the Earth's life.

Okay and there it went to totally crap... new cycle is up so no new grand minimum that would put us into a new ice age. An extreme X-ray event is possible but Earth survived already many of those major CME’s so were still very safe. Our magnetosphere is not weakening, yes there’s a bit of polar shift but that doesn’t mean poles will flip and lose our magnetosphere (our sun has a polar flip every 11 years and the solar magnetic field was still there when it flipped, just to say...). So just unfollow these channels that are only out to scare people and trick people into believing fake news about these subjects.

[Christopher S.]

13 minutes ago, Quilloz said:

Well that's just the thing, he claims that he got his things peer-reviewed, but he's never stated to who exactly. And like I said, he has books on the matter that he also claims are at use by actual solar researchers, but again, it sounds like a dubious claim.

When you say "that's just the thing" it comes across as saying "this is why I doubt him" when what most people are probably looking for, to correctly connect the logic together, is "this is why I know he's full of ****". Tweak your BS detector to include the following situations:

• "Yeah man, I heard it from some guy" "Who?" "I dunno lol"
• "All the scientists agree!" "Show me one" "Hater! How dare you doubt me!"
• No referential citations at all
• Claiming other scientists endorse them, but doesn't name drop them
• Claiming to have made money off of their apparently novel and unique scientific outlook/hypotheses/propaganda without being published by a journal of Science/Math
• Conflating politics and science, particularly when showing strong bias for or against any party or group

So, it appears that your BS detector has at least saved you the trouble of actually taking his ideas and accepting them as gospel, but for your own sake, you need to save yourself a few brain cells and: 

9 minutes ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

just unfollow these channels that are only out to scare people and trick people into believing fake news about these subjects.

 

[Bedreamon]

40 minutes ago, Vancanneyt Sander said:

Our magnetosphere is not weakening, yes there’s a bit of polar shift but that doesn’t mean poles will flip and lose our magnetosphere (our sun has a polar flip every 11 years and the solar magnetic field was still there when it flipped, just to say...).

Hasn't NASA/ESA/etc. said that the magnetic field of the Earth is weakening, though? I've seen researchers say it decreases in strength at about 5%/decade so far, and that it's about 10-15% (maybe 20%?) weaker than ~150 years ago. https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html

Edited March 6, 2021 by Bedreamon

[Quilloz]

15 minutes ago, Christopher S. said:

When you say "that's just the thing" it comes across as saying "this is why I doubt him" when what most people are probably looking for, to correctly connect the logic together, is "this is why I know he's full of ****". Tweak your BS detector to include the following situations:

• "Yeah man, I heard it from some guy" "Who?" "I dunno lol"
• "All the scientists agree!" "Show me one" "Hater! How dare you doubt me!"
• No referential citations at all
• Claiming other scientists endorse them, but doesn't name drop them
• Claiming to have made money off of their apparently novel and unique scientific outlook/hypotheses/propaganda without being published by a journal of Science/Math
• Conflating politics and science, particularly when showing strong bias for or against any party or group

So, it appears that your BS detector has at least saved you the trouble of actually taking his ideas and accepting them as gospel, but for your own sake, you need to save yourself a few brain cells and: 

 

I stopped following him after he claimed that not supporting the riots on Capital Hill was un-American. I was always at least somewhat doubtful about him despite the one or two valid points about CMEs he brought up. But this video pretty much showed me a good reason not to actually take him seriously, so I just followed him to see where his nonsense was going to go on from there. I mostly asked the question to see if anyone else followed him, watched his videos, or if they had any strong opinions of him one way or the other.

7 minutes ago, Bedreamon said:

Hasn't NASA said that the magnetic field of the Earth is weakening, though? I've seen researchers say it decreases in strength at about 5%/decade so far, and that it's about 10-15% (maybe 20%?) weaker than ~150 years ago. https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html

That's about the only other valid point Ben brings up, and here's the thing I noticed. Any time he does bring up valid points, it's often been around for half a decade or more, but he also twists it into a doomsday scenario.

[Vancanneyt Sander]

22 minuten geleden, Bedreamon zei:

Hasn't NASA said that the magnetic field of the Earth is weakening, though? I've seen researchers say it decreases in strength at about 5%/decade so far, and that it's about 10-15% (maybe 20%?) weaker than ~150 years ago. https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html

Yes, but it’s not that the strengths will fall to zero in a short time. Still a few thousands years to go.

[Christopher S.]

1 hour ago, Quilloz said:

doomsday scenario

Ah, so this guy is one of those people.

I'll be honest, I've brainstormed for a letter to somebody all the feasible doomsday scenarios I could think of that actually have a non-zero % chance of occurring. I briefly considered the weakened state of Earth's geomagnetic field, but the dynamo would not cease to exist and it would only remain weak for a brief period of time. Certainly, if by that time, way in the future mind you, we haven't developed a method or infrastructure to counteract foreign/unwanted influence on power grids and circuitry, there would still need to be a catastrophic chain of events aligned perfectly with each other - and even then, it wouldn't result in direct harm, only indirect harm for those relying on powered technology in specific, unshielded areas. Such odds are akin to believing we'll all die from the "meteor we haven't found yet". Sure, it's a non-zero chance of occurring, but is it really that much above 0% that it's worth becoming a fearmongering bulls----er on the internet?

That's what I don't get about fearmongers. What sort of satisfaction are they gaining from making things up, as in, how could you explain their motive? For those who drink their own koolaid(who actually believe what they're telling others), I imagine they're sincerely afraid and stubborn to a fault, but are they really that ignorant?

[Quilloz]

3 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

That's what I don't get about fearmongers. What sort of satisfaction are they gaining from making things up, as in, how could you explain their motive? For those who drink their own koolaid(who actually believe what they're telling others), I imagine they're sincerely afraid and stubborn to a fault, but are they really that ignorant?

From the research I've done on the guy, yes, he is. I've heard stories of people trying to ask him legitimate questions about his research or trying to give him a serious debate over it, and he ended up calling them BS and blocking them.

[Archmonoth]

21 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

That's what I don't get about fearmongers. What sort of satisfaction are they gaining from making things up, as in, how could you explain their motive? For those who drink their own koolaid(who actually believe what they're telling others), I imagine they're sincerely afraid and stubborn to a fault, but are they really that ignorant?

 

Complexity overload I think. When system analysis becomes speculation, the brain likes to fill in gaps with a narrative instinct. Those who desperately want space to make sense will go at great lengths to find data to reinforce the narrative of something GREAT happening. The greatness of the event is proportionate to the amount of awe and wonder they are feeling about space/Sun.

Overwhelmed? Create a narrative where everything becomes simple through an important event. Fearmongering is a way of expressing what overwhelms them. 

 

This is just a dime store analysis, but I run into it frequently. This is the same logic for the Apocalypse fantasy; the imagination of a brutal world where rules are clear.

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Quilloz]

I know I said in my amended Opening Post I wouldn't link the guy's channel, But I thought I'd do it anyway. Get the ball rolling on the conversation again. He also uploaded this, calling out all his detractors.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Quilloz