Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

Um Zeuzzz, I will ask you the exact same question I asked you before:
Which data can be explained by the PC or EU theories?

Choose a specific set of data and we will talk about it.

Choose one or choose many, as in the pastw e can then discuss the merits of that application of the theory.

For example, since you seem to have started down the dark matter path, explain hwo PC would explain galaxy rotation curves as observed?
1. Mass of stars
2. Field strengths
3. What electric charges would be needed?

Does this sound familiar?

And yet again the BBt is not 'ex nihilio' it is 'from we don't know'.

And as in the past we will see how they do not match observations.
 
Tubbythin, glad you've posted in this thread, but I had hoped you would pick up on what I said earlier. You need to stop taking small snips out of context and also give more verifying reasons for your proclamations, your posting style can tend to just end up as a load of subjective waffle that I cant respond to in any civil way (though in this thread its was not as bad as usual)

Zeuzzz you need to stop your philsophical and political rants and pony up with a specific PC theory and the data is explains.

You have a really poor track record in that regard.

So tell us something that PC does actually provide a model for.
 
Zeuzzz you need to stop your philsophical and political rants and pony up with a specific PC theory and the data is explains.

You have a really poor track record in that regard.

So tell us something that PC does actually provide a model for.


Oh there were plenty david, many of alfvens PC/PU theories are now just standard plasma physics that won him a nobel prize. Any effect properties of plasma have on galactic or above scales can be considered plasma cosmology. There were attempts in the past to guess at these, some of the models still stand (read above paper) I expect that standard plasma physicists will discover pretty much the same thing plasma cosmology has been getting at in the coming years. Its an extremely exciting area of science, and an area still in its infancy.

Right I have no more time for getting deep back into this debate fun as it is. I have far more pressing matters to attend to in the real world, theres no point arguing with a group of people content on ignoring valid points I make while handpicking others, in a pathetic attempt to somehow imply the valid points somehow wrong by default.
 
Last edited:
I don't have time for a full response at the minute but to get started...

tbh I dont care for people like geemack. Unless a miraculous change of conduct is apparent I never will. And if "Geemack quite clearly states he was arguing like a creationist" the converse is true in my opinion, as anyone that believes in BBT has to believe in creationism. BBT is creationism in a different guise.
I believe that the Big Bang theory accurately describes the evolution of the Universe over the last ~13.7 million years. Am I a creationist? No. So why do I hold this "belief". Because of the data: Because of Hubble's observations. Because of the excellent agreement with the predictions for the light elements. Because of the CMBR predictions. Because of the distributions of cosmological radio sources. I'm not aware of any of these things being described in any religious texts.

This is the science, math, and tech section, not the "make completely unverified statements" section.
I know. That's why I was objecting to Michael's claim about 96% made up stuff. It is completely false.


Cant be bothered to point them all out again, Lerners little list will do very well for now, though is not complete.

No Conservation of Energy. The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale Voids are too old. The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant. One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation. The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter. While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.
Ah yes. Lerner's big list of how not to do cosmology.
 
Right I have no more time for getting deep back into this debate fun as it is. I have far more pressing matters to attend to in the real world, theres no point arguing with a group of people content on ignoring valid points I make while handpicking others, in a pathetic attempt to somehow imply the valid points somehow wrong by default.

Valid points like the BBT is creationism because I said so?
 
Ah yes, that thoroughly unrepresentative and debunked article that Lerner responded to here and blew all Wrights arguments from ignorance out of the water.

First paragraph, last sentence:
And, second, there is no evidence that dark matter exists.

Hmm, do I really need to read any more of this nonsense?
 
Lerner has completely valid scientific reasons for his opinions which are shared by many other reputable scientists. If you refuse to read anything that you object to or take out of context you will never understand other scientific models. His position on dark matter is irrelevant to the reason why I asked you to read the paper above, which was showing the scientific predictions plasma cosmology made, and comparing them to the Big Bang predictions. But since the PC predictions match the data better, by many orders of magnitude in some cases, you obviously find it hard to read. Just try to open your mind for a day or something at least.
 
Last edited:
Oh there were plenty david, many of alfvens PC/PU theories are now just standard plasma physics that won him a nobel prize. Any effect properties of plasma have on galactic or above scales can be considered plasma cosmology.
So which part of that paper, I will read it but will yuo stand by it?
There were attempts in the past to guess at these, some of the models still stand (read above paper) I expect that standard plasma physicists will discover pretty much the same thing plasma cosmology has been getting at in the coming years. Its an extremely exciting area of science, and an area still in its infancy.
Nice rehetoric, so what does it explain?
tell us.
Right I have no more time for getting deep back into this debate fun as it is. I have far more pressing matters to attend to in the real world, theres no point arguing with a group of people content on ignoring valid points I make while handpicking others, in a pathetic attempt to somehow imply the valid points somehow wrong by default.

Excuse me Zeuzzz, that is really objectionable, as usual you have given nothing and now you just run away and blame the attitude of others.

So what part of PC stands up to scrutiny Zeuzzz, give us a theory and data.
 
You going to participate in anything productive pax I can reply to, or just keep trolling this thread?
"Productive" is word you seem completely unfamiliar with.

So have you produced any research to support your pet belief?
Professor Mozina apparently can't be bothered...to do anything apparently; so what about you? What's your contribution to your pet belief?
 
You mean this paper by Lerner?
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
is this supposed to be an explanation for the bubble nature of large scale cosmology?
The plasma cosmology approach can, however, easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts a fractal distribution of matter with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects[10]. This relation flows naturally from the necessity for collapsed objects to be collisional, and from the scale invariance of the critical velocities of magnetic vortex filaments, which are crucial to gravitational collapse. This fractal scaling relationship (fractal dimension=2) has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe[39]. In the plasma model, where superlcusers, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments, a break in the scaling relationship is only anticipated at scales greater than approximately 3Gpc. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.
I notice there is a total disregard for saying how the model works, very weak Zeuzzz, especially since Lerner could do the math, nice magic handwavey there.

It gets worse:
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He.
Um sure Lerner, how does that work, I notice a lack of any explanation more hand wavey.

Then he just pretends to explain it, sorry Zeuzzz, this is a fail as well. Especially since Lerner could do better. Just saying "it is scattering" is not an explanation.
 
So have you produced any research to support your pet belief?


I have no pet belief, current "plasma cosmology" is going to be proved just as wrong as the Big Bang in the future as cosmology progresses, and I intend to create no emotional attachment to any theory in an scientific area as uncertain as cosmology. However by examining the predictions PC has made and comparing them with the BBT predictions its obvious that PCs mathematical results and deductions for each parameter has proven more accurate with time, thus oddly makes PC the more successful theory at explaining the data that people to this day promote as proof of the Big Bangs veracity. That is the current situation as I see it.
 
I have no pet belief, current "plasma cosmology" is going to be proved just as wrong as the Big Bang in the future as cosmology progresses, and I intend to create no emotional attachment to any theory in an scientific area as uncertain as cosmology. However by examining the predictions PC has made and comparing them with the BBT predictions its obvious that PCs mathematical results and deductions for each parameter has proven more accurate with time, thus oddly makes PC the more successful theory at explaining the data that people to this day promote as proof of the Big Bangs veracity. That is the current situation as I see it.
So have YOU produced ANY RESEARCH?
 
No, I'm a mere researcher at the mo. I may do some research when I can use my qualifications to go into a field of my choice. If it ends up being cosmology then you will be in luck. I'm not sure I want to get involved in such a vague science though tbh, interesting as it is. More likely a neurophysics area I suspect.
 
Reading its conclusion, I was struck by its resemblance to the explicitly religious arguments of Hannes Alfvén. (I quoted some of Alfvén's religious arguments in a post that got moved to its own thread.) Compare Alfvén's conclusion (quoted in that other thread) to Lerner's:
Four hundred years ago, a similar situation existed, at least in Catholic countries. Sixty year after the formulation of Copernican hypothesis, the Ptolemaic view of the solar system remained the dominant one among Continental astronomers. Galileo's elegant comparison of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, his Dialog on Two World Systems, should have ended any scientific doubt as to the validity of the Copernican approach. Yet many additional decades would past before the Copernican system, already accepted at that time in England, would be accepted in the Catholic areas of Europe.

There is no mystery as to why this was so in the sixteenth century. The Ptolemaic theory was a state-supported scientific theory. The Catholic Church's advocacy of this theory would not have much mattered if the Catholic states had not given the Church the power to enforce, with state backing, its ideological edicts. Galileo, for his pro-Copernican writing, was subject to a civil penalty--house arrest-- and famously forced to recant under threat of far worse penalties.
To please the moderators, I will refrain from commenting upon any non-religious content of Lerner's paper.
 
We do have more than one theory of cosmology in a sense. That is, we have several different versions of inflation (a fact that Michael for some bizarre reason finds objectionable).

FYI, *WOW* Z, thanks for taking the time to respond to GM. You taught me a lot. :) I appreciate it.

I don't really know where to begin trying to catch up, so I will just start here.

The problem is that you've created an army of metaphysical options to choose from, and not a shred of empirical cause/effect evidence of any connection between any of them and "expansion". With so many brands of inflation to choose from, how can you not pull one out the metaphysical closet and make it fit? There is now no possible way to falsify inflation theory. Guth's brand was already falsified evidently, but another has taken it's place. It's literally become "dogma" at this point, and you're tweaking the metaphysical properties of your invisible friend to suit yourself, just like any religious "believer" might do. Inflation is now a religion unto itself. There are nearly as many metaphysical "brands" to chose from as there are religions to choose from. While you might falsify one or two of them, that infinite potential of metaphysical replacements is entirely unfalsifiable. It's pure "dogma" at this point. The "properties" of the various brands of inflation are simply 'ad hoc" and "made up". Not a single one of them can demonstrated in a lab, with actual control mechanisms.

The bottom line here is that there is no empirical cause/effect relationship between inflation and expansions, or dark energy and acceleration. Those cause/effect relationships are *assumed* just like any religious person "assumes* a cause and works the problem backwards.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that you've created an army of metaphysical options to choose from, and not a shred of empirical cause/effect evidence of any connection between any of them and "expansion". With so many brands of inflation to choose from, how can you not pull one out the metaphysical closet and make it fit? There is now no possible way to falsify inflation theory. Guth's brand was already falsified evidently, but another has taken it's place.
There's nothing wrong with proposing a number of incompatible hypotheses or theories while relying on future observations to select between them. That's the situation you described (albeit pejoratively). It's called science.

Religion is subtly different. Religions may propose incompatible doctrines, but religious doctrines are not proposed in the hope that most will be contradicted by empirical evidence.

It's literally become "dogma" at this point, and you're tweaking the metaphysical properties of your invisible friend to suit yourself, just like any religious "believer" might do. Inflation is now a religion unto itself. There are nearly as many metaphysical "brands" to chose from as there are religions to choose from. While you might falsify one or two of them, that infinite potential of metaphysical replacements is entirely unfalsifiable. It's pure "dogma" at this point. The "properties" of the various brands of inflation are simply 'ad hoc" and "made up".
Yet you suggested above that Guth's original brand of inflation has been falsified. If I understand your argument correctly, you are complaining that new ideas are being proposed just as fast as old ideas are being shot down by empirical evidence. That sounds like progress, not dogma.

Not a single one of them can demonstrated in a lab, with actual control mechanisms.
But they can be refuted by observations, as you (inadvertently?) admitted. Not all empirical tests are conducted within a lab.
 
I believe that the Big Bang theory accurately describes the evolution of the Universe over the last ~13.7 million years. Am I a creationist? No. So why do I hold this "belief". Because of the data:

Do you mind if we explore those statements a bit? Do you believe that all matter and energy were once condensed to a singular 'clump' (lest Sol bust my chops over the term point again)? If so, what caused this connected clump of matter and energy to "separate'? Did time exist before this separation process occurred? How are your answers inconsistent with a "creation event'?

Because of Hubble's observations.

But Hubble only observed a pattern of redshifted photons. You're personally (and subjectively) interpreting those observations of redshift.

Because of the excellent agreement with the predictions for the light elements.

All of those assumptions about the various quantities of elements in the universe are predicated on the notion that in suns, iron stays evenly mixed with hydrogen, nickel and lead stay suspended in helium, and no appreciable mass separation of elements occurs in stars. That's a very weak argument IMO and it is entirely dependent on many other subjective 'interpretations' of data sets.

Because of the CMBR predictions.

It seems to me that this is the one and only real claim to fame about Lambda-CDM theory, but since "fudge factors' (that never show up in a lab) make up most of the theory, how could it *NOT* be made to fit? From a skeptics perspective, it's a lot like attributing those same events to Zeus, Apollo and couple of their pantheon friends.

Because of the distributions of cosmological radio sources.

Unfortunately you've never shown an empirical cause/effect relationship between radio sources and inflation/DE/DM.

I'm not aware of any of these things being described in any religious texts.

Guth's original paper on inflation is like the genesis chapter of the mainstream bible. "In the beginning the mysterious dead inflation god created the heavens and the earth". The dark energy chapter of the Lambda-CDM bible came much later. :)

The dark matter god chapter is really interesting. At the beginning of the chapter the dark matter god looks pretty boring. He starts out as mostly ordinary "MACHO" matter but over time he morphs himself into something called "cold dark matter" that is entirely exotic. CDM can pass through walls and ordinary matter without working up a sweat. It can emit gamma rays for dinner. It picks up all sorts of exotic and unseen superpowers by the end of the chapter.

I know. That's why I was objecting to Michael's claim about 96% made up stuff. It is completely false.

Bull. You guys need to come clean and at least be honest about your beliefs. How much of the universe (percentage wise) is made of ordinary matter and energy (the kind that has shown up in the lab)?

Ah yes. Lerner's big list of how not to do cosmology.

IMO the pitiful part is that the mainstream refuses to acknowledge it even exists. They keep claiming there is no mathematical basis for PC/EU theory. That's an utterly irrational claim, but I hear it all the time.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom