• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thunderbolts of the Gods

sol invictus said:
What total nonsense.

The big bang has is origins in overwhelming observational evidence together with a very successful theory of gravity.
Click to expand...
.
There is no doubt that the Big Bang has a scientific basis as you describe, but that does not exclude the possibility that Georges Lemaître "said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo — creation out of nothing."

Lemaître's motivations and science are not mutually exclusive.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
This post is (partly) a test of whether I can now post links (etc) without running afoul of the JREF 'newbie' filter ...

Zeuzzz, Google tells me that the material you quoted comes from Plasma cosmology .net (undated, no author),
Click to expand...


correct, my quote was from plasmacosmology.net.

"]PhysicsForums[/URL] (a post, #9, by PlasmaSphere, dated 30 December, 2007), though the last involves some re-writing ("[...] i feel that a distinction needs to be made between the two. While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that E.U. ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more cautious approach of Plasma Cosmology. While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe.

Plasma cosmology is more conservative in its approach and thus has recieved more approvement from various science journals over the years, partly due to the fact that they include areas of cosmology that the more unorthodox E.U. proponents have since disregarded.").
Click to expand...


Hint: I am plasmasphere :) I wrote that myself, thats why they are similar.

Ian probably didn't know this even though he was posting on that thread aswell, but i couldn't use my usual nickname as that website banned me previously (three times now :D ). I'll probably be banned again now from physicsforums for admitting I am a returned banned member here, although i dont care, they have some ridiculously high standards at PF when you are dealing with material deemed as 'controversial' which does not allow any sort of open discussion about alternative ideas. In that thread i was banned once, let back, and within a few days the thread was locked before anything substancial had been posted there. At least here you get a chance to see both sides of the story, even if copyright rules are stricter.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
correct, my quote was from plasmacosmology.net.
Click to expand...
Google, the internet's gift to all snoops (Hi CIA! Hi FSB!) :)
Hint: I am plasmasphere :) I wrote that myself, thats why they are similar.
Click to expand...
OK, so now I have learned that "Quote" doesn't pick up embedded quotes - does anyone know how to include them (other than by copy/pasting them)?
Ian probably didn't know this even though he was posting on that thread aswell, but i couldn't use my usual nickname as that website banned me previously (three times now :D ).
Click to expand...
Oh you bad, bad boy you! :p

It does seem, doesn't it, that many discussion forums are pretty uptight about sock puppets?

I guess too that this means 'Zeuzzz' is not a JREF sock puppet (or, if so, then you'd better not admit it!).
I'll probably be banned again now from physicsforums for admitting I am a returned banned member here,
Click to expand...
Only if someone reading this snitches on you to the admins there ... and no one would do that, would they. :eek:
although i dont care, they have some ridiculously high standards at PF when you are dealing with material deemed as 'controversial' which does not allow any sort of open discussion about alternative ideas. In that thread i was banned once, let back, and within a few days the thread was locked before anything substancial had been posted there. At least here you get a chance to see both sides of the story, even if copyright rules are stricter.
Click to expand...
Cool!

Anyway, any PhysicsForums member can see all the posts you wrote there (and so can any non-member, given some patience with Google). Quite relevant to this JREF thread, and even (perhaps) to my questions on 'studying the Sun, are your posts in this thread on 'magnetic reconnection' (#238, #250, and #330; BeAChooser also posted on this topic, in this thread) ... it seems PlasmaSphere started a thread, in PhysicsForums, on just this topic - Magnetic reconnection, and that your questions were all answered (well, to be precise, you seem to have not responded to the last two, lengthy, answers). I confess to being a little bit curious ... the three 'magnetic reconnection' posts of yours here all post-date the posts in the PhysicsForums' thread on that topic, yet you seem to have not incorporated the answers to your questions in your JREF posts - may I ask why not?

Anyway, back to my questions.

Would you mind having a go at answering them?

(and that applies to you - Terry, Wolverine, MattusMaximus, and iantresman - too; many thanks to The Man and Ziggurat for your answers).

Here they are again (with preamble):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assuming that we - collectively - are studying the Sun (not any other topic related to Thunderblots of the Gods, or the Electric universe, or ...), I would like to ask those who've actively contributed to this thread the following simple questions:

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm satisfied with Sol's previous answer.
Click to expand...


Ditto, it seems that Sol pretty much covered it. The only thing that I'd add is that since our Sun is the closest star to us, the more we understand it the more we can come to understand about stars in general. And by learning more about stars in general, we can further our understanding of all manner of astrophysical phenomena.
 
Ziggurat said:
iantresman said:
Lemaître's motivations and science are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
His motivations are also fairly irrelevant if the science can stand on its own. And it does.
Click to expand...
.
Credit where credit is due. And cosmological science has been trying to stand on its own for decades :)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Anyway, any PhysicsForums member can see all the posts you wrote there (and so can any non-member, given some patience with Google). Quite relevant to this JREF thread, and even (perhaps) to my questions on 'studying the Sun, are your posts in this thread on 'magnetic reconnection' (#238, #250, and #330; BeAChooser also posted on this topic, in this thread) ... it seems PlasmaSphere started a thread, in PhysicsForums, on just this topic - Magnetic reconnection, and that your questions were all answered (well, to be precise, you seem to have not responded to the last two, lengthy, answers). I confess to being a little bit curious ... the three 'magnetic reconnection' posts of yours here all post-date the posts in the PhysicsForums' thread on that topic, yet you seem to have not incorporated the answers to your questions in your JREF posts - may I ask why not?
Click to expand...


Because they are based on a faulty premise that the laws of magnetism can be violated to account for various observations in space. I continued some of that conversation by private message aswell, due to the other threads all being locked there. I indicated to her (Neried) that i would continue that thread soon when i have more time, and i even promised to post my research paper on the electric sun hypothesis in the independant research section when it is complete after my End of year exams. I have posted a further comment on that thread to remind Neried that i have not forgotten (and to prove that i am not a sockpuppet as people repeatedly keep claiming)

Anyway, back to my questions.

Would you mind having a go at answering them?
Click to expand...


tommorrow i'll gladly respond to those queries, pressed for time at the mo,,,
 
Zeuzzz said:
Because they are based on a faulty premise that the laws of magnetism can be violated to account for various observations in space.
Click to expand...

This is simply false. I've seen sloppy language used to describe magnetic reconnection which suggests if violates Gauss's law, but there's actually no need to do so in order to have magnetic reconnection. I've demonstrated this by posting a magnetic field which can be varied to produce magnetic reconnection without violating Gauss's law in any way, shape, or form. BAC is on the same kick you are, and he's just as wrong. If you want to prove that astrophysicists are actually violating Gauss's law, show that violation by demonstrating a nonzero divergence for the fields they use. Reference to their words don't really matter if the actual fields they use are divergenceless.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Anyway, back to my questions.

Would you mind having a go at answering them?

(and that applies to you - Terry, Wolverine, MattusMaximus, and iantresman - too; many thanks to The Man and Ziggurat for your answers).

Here they are again (with preamble):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assuming that we - collectively - are studying the Sun (not any other topic related to Thunderblots of the Gods, or the Electric universe, or ...), I would like to ask those who've actively contributed to this thread the following simple questions:

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Click to expand...

I don't understand the relevance of the questions, but I'd say physics is the area of science, that we are trying to understand how the sun works, legitimate data is derived from good observations and measurements, whether from ground- or space-based instruments, and that the normal standard analytic methods are fine, things such as testing hypotheses against observation, making predictions and designing observations that can test them, and so on.

Does that help?
 
sol invictus said:
To not believe in the big bang requires denying that GR is correct, denying that the evidence for GR is valid, and denying the obvious observational facts you see when you look at the sky (which have been known for 80 years). Basically you just have to deny everything. Now THAT's faith.
Click to expand...


What's even better is that Zeuzzz is arguing on the "Something new under the sun" thread that he accepts GR as a well-established and tested theory, yet he then turns around and claims big bang cosmology "is a joke."

He's trying to have it both ways, and he won't admit the inherent contradiction in his own arguments!

Wow, can't help fools... :rolleyes:
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I, for one, wasn't aware the 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' had been 'disproven'.
Click to expand...


They haven't been "disproven" - Robinson just finds it "too hard to believe" that they exist, so they must not, right?

Skeptical inquiry doesn't give claims about dark matter and dark energy a free pass. People have to understand that these ideas, though they have only recently made their way into the public consciousness, were being knocked around long ago in astronomical circles. It took many years for the scientific community to accept these ideas, and many of the details are still being explored with strong disagreements about the nature of these things.

And yes, there is strong and consistent evidence for dark matter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

... and here's more info on dark energy and its discovery...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_for_dark_energy

So yes, these are extraordinary claims that qualify as "weird" - but I should note that quantum mechanics is pretty damn weird, yet we know that it accurately describes the small scale structure of our universe. We know that quantum mechanics works so well, in fact, that you and I are both using computer technology that was a direct result of that theory.

So just because something is "weird" doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means it's outside of our everyday experience.

Check out those links I provided on dark matter & dark energy. I know it's Wikipedia, but it'll be a good place to start for a layperson. One more cool link to check out is this one about the Large Hadron Collider coming online at CERN; it is hoped that the LHC could be used to probe the nature of dark matter and dark energy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Enjoy the reads!
 
BeAChooser said:
Only with the help of a still growing list of gnomes. :D
Click to expand...
Good to see you are still around, BeAChooser.

Would you mind answering my questions?

As you have been one of the most prolific posters in this thread, and as what you have posted has attracted considerable comment, I feel your inputs would be particularly valuable.

Here they are again (with preamble):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Assuming that we - collectively - are studying the Sun (not any other topic related to Thunderblots of the Gods, or the Electric universe, or ...), I would like to ask those who've actively contributed to this thread the following simple questions:

How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Thanks Terry and MattusMaximus for your answers to my questions, and thanks Zeuzzz for agreeing to answer them shortly.

I'll respond to your post a bit later Terry.

That only leaves Wolverine, iantresman, and now BeAChooser! :D

How about guys? Would you please take a few minutes to reply to a newbie's simple questions?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
How would you describe the scope of the science (only physics?) you (we) could, or should or would, use?

What would you say are the objectives of such science (physics), for the purposes of our study?

What are the criteria for deciding what sorts of things are legitimate evidence (or data) for our study?

What methods of analysis - including what logic - do you consider legitimate for our study?
Click to expand...

All I sense is that science is not going to be advanced by ignoring challenges to dearly held gnomes when they are peer reviewed and published in reputable journals. Opposing scientists need to directly and honestly deal with those works ... or science won't function as we'd want.

I'm also deeply skeptical of a cosmology/astrophysics with so many deductively based gnomes which even after 30 years of searching remain essentially gnomes. The problem is that science is now big business ... and as we've seen in any business, profit comes first.
 
BeAChooser said:
All I sense is that science is not going to be advanced by ignoring challenges to dearly held gnomes when they are peer reviewed and published in reputable journals. Opposing scientists need to directly and honestly deal with those works ... or science won't function as we'd want.

I'm also deeply skeptical of a cosmology/astrophysics with so many deductively based gnomes which even after 30 years of searching remain essentially gnomes. The problem is that science is now big business ... and as we've seen in any business, profit comes first.
Click to expand...

Brilliant. I'd never have expected profit to come into a discussion about one of the least commercially useful sciences there is.
 
Hmm, Thunderbolts of the Gods (the DVD) is for sale. I wonder if there is profit involved in that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom