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

[Zeuzzz]

Do you just want a few individual cases where this has clearly happened?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's a misrepresentation. Modern cosmologists do indeed practice empirical physics.

Ya, about 4% empirical physics mixed with 96% faith in the unseen. By unseen, I mean unseen in a lab with real control mechanisms.

Contrary to your repeated assertions, I haven't seen any evidence that cosmologists dislike its constraints.

You mean besides inflation, dark energy and dark matter?

To take just one example, a growing body of empirical evidence has delivered quite a blow to the old consensus that cosmological mass/energy lies well below the critical value, raising that question anew. Are cosmologists rejecting that empirical evidence, or shirking their obligation to develop new hypotheses consistent with that evidence? Far from it.

If mainstream theory wasn't depending upon 96% metaphysics, your argument wouldn't ring so hollow from my perspective. Many branches of 'science" produce real tangible goods. I don't have to have a lot of 'faith' in electrical engineers. They produce real goods that come to market. They produce useful tangible goods that have a positive effect on my life. That's true of the field of chemistry too, and particle physics as well. Some branches of science are less productive than others.

I think you're misinterpreting Tim Thompson's views. When I read his brief essay, I understood full well that I'm mostly a lurker, an amateur with respect to physics and cosmology, and professional only in certain narrow areas that seldom arise in this forum.

That doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between a good scientific argument and a poor or nonexistent argument.

Well, the implication as I read it was that only a "professional" really has the right to have a 'correct' opinion. Amateurs seem to be "fair game". PhD's seem to represent the "scientific clergy process" and anyone going into the clergy better toe the party line. Sounds remarkably similar to a religion if you ask me. I wonder how many pastors would pass through the religious clergy system they started in if they suddenly changed their religious views half way through the process? I wonder how many astronomers would get their PhD if they promoted PC/EU theory?

The way I see it, I'm evidently "fair game" for the "where's your PhD" archery hour. Anyone that doesn't have one isn't evidently allowed to have a "correct opinion", just a misinformed one if they happen to disagree with the "clergy' and sooner or later they better come around or the personal attacks will begin.

Tim Thompson did not presume (A). He qualified his statements about lurkers with the word "most", used twice. Your "necessarily" is a misrepresentation of his position.

That last criticism is valid. I have a bad habit of quoting words for emphasis, not necessarily as actual quotes. My bad. He did however setup a three tear structure that is something remarkably similar to religious organization in many respects. The lurkers are simply the "lost sheep" that Tim is trying to protect from the evil amateurs. Honestly Mr. Spock there are a lot a parallels going on here between religious groups and scientific ones if you really look at it from the perspective of psychology. From Tim's viewpoint, he's on a mission to save the lost sheep from the likes of evil old me. If he can't win me over by arguments, he'll go personal. It's his "duty" as he sees it to crusade against evil EU theory. I just happen to be a proponent of the concept that he's intent on snuffing out. I just got tin the way of the 'professional' on crusade. At this point I'm fair game for any sort of attack, personal or otherwise because I haven't agreed with him yet, and he's put in effort to change my opinion. Since I didn't conform, it's open season.

As for (B), you put "less trustworthy" in quotes as though you were quoting Tim Thompson, but he did not write that phrase.

I agree with that criticism. I'll try to rid myself of the evils of quotes as soon as possible.

Although I am mostly a lurker, I did not read Tim Thompson's post as an attack on my ability "to determine the scientific validity of" an argument. I don't believe he was saying that amateurs are less trustworthy by definition; I believe he was simply stating the empirical (!) fact that amateurs such as myself tend to be less trustworthy than professionals.

In the final analysis however, that's really just an appeal to authority. Frankly I trust your opinions on these topics far more than most "professionals". That's mostly due to the fact that you do not seem to be emotionally invested in crusading for or against any specific idea, nor are your arguments personal in any way. They are never offensive on a personal level because they are never directed at individuals. That's very different than the style of some individuals. Some go personal and continue going personal until they get what they want. They'll abuse the individual forever if necessary. These are very different ways of reacting to ideas one dislikes. One is a open minded and fair approach, and one is akin to a religious zealot during the inquisitions.

He certainly did not claim that only PhDs can discuss science. He didn't even mention the PhD degree, aside from his quotation of your previous post. He did assume your mention of PhD degrees was a "dismissal of education & knowledge, as if they are impediments rather than accomplishments," but I think that's a fair summary of your attitude.

It is not a fair summary of my attitude. I'm as big of a fan of education as the next guy. I don't however have to have a PhD in biology to discuss the theory of evolution. Likewise I don't have to have a Phd in divinity to discuss religion. That appeal to the "professional" fallacy ultimately represents the clergy type system of any religion. It's like telling me I can't discuss the topic of God with a pastor and be correct by virtue of the fact that I didn't go through a "formal education" on that topic. Sorry, I don't buy it. Professionals often know their stuff. They bring products to market. In this case however, the "professionals" dabble in the "dark" arts, and their gods fail to show up in the lab every much as any religion concept might fail to show up in the lab. I'm telling you, the parallels to religious faith in the unseen are uncanny.

To exemplify fallacious appeal to authority, you cited the very same appeal to authority that you've been using for years. Well done.

Thanks.

Alfvén won his Nobel prize for MHD. In my amateur opinion, he made significant contributions to solar, interplanetary, and galactic physics.

You wouldn't know it based on what gets published in his name or using his theories. Solar atmospheric physics today seems to be predicated upon a concept he rejected his entire life, and his particle/circuit approach to events in space virtually never sees the light of publishing day anymore.

That's not how I see it. Although both you and I are amateurs with respect to this debate, you've done a lot to convince me that I'm in a better position to judge it---partly because I have a stronger background in mathematics and physics, but mainly because my emotions are less wrapped.

I agree with you on the emotional aspect. IMO that is what sets you apart from the crusaders. IMO it's therefore enjoyable to discuss things with you, even if we never agree. There's nothing personal about it. Your criticism have in fact been valid in many/most cases IMO. That is the type of behavior that is likely to have a positive effect on me from your perspective. The crusaders however tend to have just the opposite effect. They tend to highlight the similarities between intolerant religious zealots and intolerant scientific zealots.

FYI, Tim isn't actually saving anyone from the evils of PC/EU theory. He's crusade is much like an Earth centric "believer" crusading against the "ignorant evil" individuals that are promoting a solar centric view of the universe. It's not really going to go well for Tim over time IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ants cannot "take" themselves or be aware of what they are really doing, they can only respond to certain stimuli.

You know I love you Z, but.....


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/icl-ha100907.php

It turns out that ants use and herd aphids like we herd and use cattle.

 

[GeeMack]

Ya, about 4% empirical physics mixed with 96% faith in the unseen. By unseen, I mean unseen in a lab with real control mechanisms.

You make up numbers because it makes you feel good. Religious? Check.

You mean besides inflation, dark energy and dark matter?

You shun legitimate science, express a contempt for it because it works against the idea that your fantasy might be real. Exactly the same tactic as a creationist. Religious? Check.

If mainstream theory wasn't depending upon 96% metaphysics, your argument wouldn't ring so hollow from my perspective. Many branches of 'science" produce real tangible goods. I don't have to have a lot of 'faith' in electrical engineers. They produce real goods that come to market. They produce useful tangible goods that have a positive effect on my life. That's true of the field of chemistry too, and particle physics as well. Some branches of science are less productive than others.

There's your made up from scratch 96% thing again. You keep saying it. Absolutely no evidence and no support. But you believe it. Religious? Check.

Well, the implication as I read it was that only a "professional" really has the right to have a 'correct' opinion. Amateurs seem to be "fair game". PhD's seem to represent the "scientific clergy process" and anyone going into the clergy better toe the party line. Sounds remarkably similar to a religion if you ask me. I wonder how many pastors would pass through the religious clergy system they started in if they suddenly changed their religious views half way through the process? I wonder how many astronomers would get their PhD if they promoted PC/EU theory?

It's not that the professional has a right to a correct opinion. It's that the professionals are involved hands-on, every day. Their living depends on realistic understanding and application of the principles of their fields of science. Every last one of them would love to be involved in some brand new discovery that shows, scientifically, that everything we thought we knew about astrophysics was wrong because several of the common laws of physics don't apply. It's a case where if the religious zealot, the crackpot if you will, if that crackpot actually had something worthy of further serious investigation, it wouldn't be ignored by every single professional scientist on the face of this planet. As an example, the ridiculous notion that the Sun might have a solid iron surface. Those who continue to evangelize about such an inane concept, flying fully in the face of many known laws of physics, without a shred of legitimate evidence, and based completely on some radical misunderstandings of some very simple concepts, are just like the religious people who think they can make a hurricane move over and wipe out the next town if they stand in a line and pray. It's irrational. That's part of what makes it religion.

The way I see it, I'm evidently "fair game" for the "where's your PhD" archery hour. Anyone that doesn't have one isn't evidently allowed to have a "correct opinion", just a misinformed one if they happen to disagree with the "clergy' and sooner or later they better come around or the personal attacks will begin.

And the religious are quick to cry persecution when reasonable, sane observers refuse to humor their childish beliefs in invisible magical beings. They get all insecure and paranoid and whine about being personally attacked when other people point out that it's their beliefs that are scientifically unsupportable and irrational. They cling so tightly to their beliefs, religiously so, that they misperceive an attack on their religion as an attack on themselves personally. Look at how many times you've done that yourself, Michael.

That last criticism is valid. I have a bad habit of quoting words for emphasis, not necessarily as actual quotes. My bad. He did however setup a three tear structure that is something remarkably similar to religious organization in many respects. The lurkers are simply the "lost sheep" that Tim is trying to protect from the evil amateurs. Honestly Mr. Spock there are a lot a parallels going on here between religious groups and scientific ones if you really look at it from the perspective of psychology. From Tim's viewpoint, he's on a mission to save the lost sheep from the likes of evil old me. If he can't win me over by arguments, he'll go personal. It's his "duty" as he sees it to crusade against evil EU theory. I just happen to be a proponent of the concept that he's intent on snuffing out. I just got tin the way of the 'professional' on crusade. At this point I'm fair game for any sort of attack, personal or otherwise because I haven't agreed with him yet, and he's put in effort to change my opinion. Since I didn't conform, it's open season.

Nobody has any desire to snuff out any legitimate science. If there's any shut-the-hell-up going on it's because after so many years of being patient and asking the crackpots to put up or shut up, and after all those years of the crackpots bitching and moaning but never being able to put up, the time comes when the right thing for them to do is shut up. They surely can't support their crank theories by relying on simple religious faith, proclaiming that they're right, without evidence, without physics, without mathematical support. And if they think they can, they should get off their lazy asses and do the work, the kind of work that real scientists do. Science isn't done by seeing a bunny in the clouds and demanding that others see it, too. That's religion.

I agree with that criticism. I'll try to rid myself of the evils of quotes as soon as possible.

After five years of people trying to explain that your method of communication is so poor that your arguments have not been compelling enough for a single professional scientist on Earth to accept them? Don't mind me if I don't buy it.

In the final analysis however, that's really just an appeal to authority. Frankly I trust your opinions on these topics far more than most "professionals". That's mostly due to the fact that you do not seem to be emotionally invested in crusading for or against any specific idea, nor are your arguments personal in any way. They are never offensive on a personal level because they are never directed at individuals. That's very different than the style of some individuals. Some go personal and continue going personal until they get what they want. They'll abuse the individual forever if necessary. These are very different ways of reacting to ideas one dislikes. One is a open minded and fair approach, and one is akin to a religious zealot during the inquisitions.

An open minded and fair approach? Like when one of the nutty solid surface of the Sun guys tells people over and over again that nobody has ever addressed this-thing-or-that, when in fact those issues have been addressed and wholly debunked hundreds of times? It's the religious non-scientists who are the liars, Michael. That's the point of this discussion, the fact that some people take the religious tack and repeat their lies over and over, hoping that someday they'll come true. Like every generation of Christians has some notion that this is when we'll all learn the Truth.

It is not a fair summary of my attitude. I'm as big of a fan of education as the next guy. I don't however have to have a PhD in biology to discuss the theory of evolution. Likewise I don't have to have a Phd in divinity to discuss religion. That appeal to the "professional" fallacy ultimately represents the clergy type system of any religion. It's like telling me I can't discuss the topic of God with a pastor and be correct by virtue of the fact that I didn't go through a "formal education" on that topic. Sorry, I don't buy it. Professionals often know their stuff. They bring products to market. In this case however, the "professionals" dabble in the "dark" arts, and their gods fail to show up in the lab every much as any religion concept might fail to show up in the lab. I'm telling you, the parallels to religious faith in the unseen are uncanny.

The issue with education and crackpots is this: A guy demonstrates time after time that he doesn't have the math skills of a fourth grade child, yet understanding why the crackpot conjecture he preaches is wrong requires an understanding of math well beyond that. So when people point out that he has no education, abysmally poor reasoning skills, and no math skills to speak of, it is not to point out a failing in the individual, it is to point out how the individual couldn't possibly understand the failing of the object of his reverence, the crackpot claim in this case.

You wouldn't know it based on what gets published in his name or using his theories. Solar atmospheric physics today seems to be predicated upon a concept he rejected his entire life, and his particle/circuit approach to events in space virtually never sees the light of publishing day anymore.

Contemporary physics will always be further advanced than the physics from history. Those who would cling to that historical position at the expense of learning and understanding where we are today and why that stuff is no longer considered valid are akin to the religious. Real scientists, not the crackpots, discard what doesn't work, build from that which does, and change the models as necessary to accommodate new information. The religious zealots, the crackpots if you will, get all pissy when the model gets changed to work with new data, cry "Birkeland" from the pulpit, and live in willful ignorance of the things that we've learned and the real science that has been done over the past hundred years.

I agree with you on the emotional aspect. IMO that is what sets you apart from the crusaders. IMO it's therefore enjoyable to discuss things with you, even if we never agree. There's nothing personal about it. Your criticism have in fact been valid in many/most cases IMO. That is the type of behavior that is likely to have a positive effect on me from your perspective. The crusaders however tend to have just the opposite effect. They tend to highlight the similarities between intolerant religious zealots and intolerant scientific zealots.

Even the most zealous scientists will be tolerant of legitimate science, real evidence, genuine research, and a diligent application of the scientific method. Where the tolerance breaks down is when some nutty crank absolutely refuses to support his "theory" with more than arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and grade school kid looks-like-a-bunny science.

FYI, Tim isn't actually saving anyone from the evils of PC/EU theory. He's crusade is much like an Earth centric "believer" crusading against the "ignorant evil" individuals that are promoting a solar centric view of the universe. It's not really going to go well for Tim over time IMO.

Because the EU/PC crackpots have, over time, developed their "theory" to more effectively explain the data? Because there are more and more professionals in the EU field every day? Because the submissions to the scientific journals are starting to make a really good case for EU/PC? Religion again, Michael. There's a delusion that this-or-that in the Bible means the world is coming to an end, or Jesus foretold something or other, but it's a delusion. They use it to prop up their belief because they have nothing else. It's the same as your inference that somehow EU/PC is doing well in spite of Tim's often and thorough debunking.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you just want a few individual cases where this has clearly happened?

the OP seemed to indicate it is happening now, so last five years?

 

[Tricky]

Derail about cosmology split here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Michael Mozina]

You make up numbers because it makes you feel good. Religious? Check.

Talk about spin! Statistically speaking, how much of the universe is made of baryonic matter found on the periodic table, electrons and physically identified forms of matter and energy like we find here on Earth? (Please exclude your mythical "dark" things).

You shun legitimate science, express a contempt for it because it works against the idea that your fantasy might be real. Exactly the same tactic as a creationist. Religious? Check.

I don't shun science. I love empirical science. I love my computer. I love my car. I'd be miserable without the physical benefits of real empirical "science". It's "religion" and metaphysical mumbo jumbo that I don't much care for. Your emotional need to "believe" in the "unseen" (in the lab) is no different than the emotional needs found in any typical religion. That emotional need you have to attack every messenger that questions your belief systems is just like the religious zealot that feels compelled to snuff out all dissent in the world. It's more or less the scientific equivalent of terrorism. If you don't get what you want, you attack the individual.

FYI, you use the term "crackpot" exactly like a religious zealot uses the term "evil". It's your favorite villianization technique. How many times did you use that term in your last post? It's a emotional crutch, an example of irrational behavior and a classic example of intolerance for alternative ideas.

Most folks accept alternative ideas and adopt a "live and let live" approach to life. Only a select few go on crusade against individuals.

Yawn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the religious are quick to cry persecution when reasonable, sane observers refuse to humor their childish beliefs in invisible magical beings.

Ya and note how miffed you get at the fact I don't believe in your invisible magical friends? Dead inflation deities seem just as irrational to me as any brand of "religion" I've ever run across. "In the beginning the dead inflation deity and his dark energy wife created the heavens and the earth".

 

[GeeMack]

Talk about spin! Statistically speaking, how much of the universe is made of baryonic matter found on the periodic table, electrons and physically identified forms of matter and energy like we find here on Earth? (Please exclude your mythical "dark" things).

No surprise that you're attempting again to derail this thread with your pet complaints about contemporary science. But let me try this in simple terms that even the most devout minister of crackpottery can understand: In the mid 1800s there were only 56 elements. Or were there? Some idiots would have us accept that the other elements only came into being when they were added to the periodic table. In 1897 the electron was discovered. Oh wait, nobody could see it. It only existed, you know, mathematically, so it must not have existed at all. Statistically speaking 100% of the matter in the Universe exists and makes up, well golly gee, 100% of the matter in the Universe. We're still in the process of measuring the ingredients, but what we do measure isn't some kind of make believe non-entity simply because someone can't put some in a jar and sell it at Walmart. To believe otherwise would require an antiquated, faith based approach to trying to understand the Universe. Okay, maybe too complicated for the missionary crackpot, but a fifth grade child getting decent grades in science class would most likely understand.

I don't shun science. I love empirical science. I love my computer. I love my car. I'd be miserable without the physical benefits of real empirical "science". It's "religion" and metaphysical mumbo jumbo that I don't much care for. Your emotional need to "believe" in the "unseen" (in the lab) is no different than the emotional needs found in any typical religion. That emotional need you have to attack every messenger that questions your belief systems is just like the religious zealot that feels compelled to snuff out all dissent in the world. It's more or less the scientific equivalent of terrorism. If you don't get what you want, you attack the individual.

Over the years you have expressed some of the most idiotic notions about how the Universe works, Michael, and you seem to want to preach them from every pulpit you can find. Satellite images are your bible, and what you believe you see in them is literally impossible. And you want others to accept that "miracle" as truth. Your arguments are pure, unadulterated BS. I attack them with, how do they say it on the BAUT forum, vigor and glee? The simple fact that you are the container for those ridiculous arguments sort of puts you in the middle between real science, which is the antithesis of what you claim to believe, and the silly arguments you make to support those wacky notions you're preaching. It's certainly not my fault that you seem to have a hard time accepting the legitimate debunking of your arguments and choose to take it personally, very much like the most enthusiastically religious people I've met. But, you know, wahhh.

FYI, you use the term "crackpot" exactly like a religious zealot uses the term "evil". It's your favorite villianization technique. How many times did you use that term in your last post? It's a emotional crutch, an example of irrational behavior and a classic example of intolerance for alternative ideas.

Do you have a better word for crackpot than "crackpot"?

Most folks accept alternative ideas and adopt a "live and let live" approach to life. Only a select few go on crusade against individuals.

As I mentioned before, there are nutters who cling so tightly to their unsupportable beliefs that they can't differentiate between criticism of their claim and criticism of themselves. They seem to have a sense of personal persecution like some sort of weird paranoid victim fantasy. Maybe it helps them feel like there must be something to their crazy ideas if they're validated by their invented notion that people somehow fear them or their ideas and are out to get them. Sort of like hard core religious folk, wouldn't you say? And again, wahhh. Nobody has any responsibility to pat full grown adults on the head and say, "Oh poor baby, everyone has a right to believe what they want. Even though you don't have a speck of evidence, you deserve to have some people accept your crap as true." That's religion, not science.

 

[Zeuzzz]

the OP seemed to indicate it is happening now, so last five years?

Oh dear, im going to self ban myself when drunk from posting threads.

Why did you get this impression?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No surprise that you're attempting again to derail this thread with your pet complaints about contemporary science.

FYI it's a "lie" that I have a problem with contemporary science. I just have a problem with Lambda-CDM theory which isn't "science", but rather it's an "act of faith" in the "unseen" (and unseeable) on the part of the "believer". The invisible gods of Lambda-CDM theory are entirely impotent on Earth just like all metaphysical baloney.

But let me try this in simple terms that even the most devout minister of crackpottery can understand:

1 (ad hom) Shall I refer to you as the minister of personal sleaze?

In the mid 1800s there were only 56 elements. Or were there? Some idiots

2. Oh never mind counting, you get the idea....

would have us accept that the other elements only came into being when they were added to the periodic table.

These are pitiful examples because you've never ventured beyond empirical physics in terms of what can be found (or created) on Earth, and that actually can (and now does) show up in real lab experiments. It's an inapplicable analogy compared to your impotent invisible friends that can *NEVER* show up in a real experiment (well 2 out of 3 anyway). You could get lucky with the dark matter thing.

In 1897 the electron was discovered. Oh wait, nobody could see it. It only existed, you know, mathematically, so it must not have existed at all.

Oh, but it shows up on Earth even before we knew what to call it. Does dark energy show up on Earth? Where do I get a pound of "dark matter"?

Statistically speaking 100% of the matter in the Universe exists and makes up, well golly gee, 100% of the matter in the Universe.

Here's where the spins starts. Instead of being "honest" about your invisible friends and the fact they make up 96 percent of your religion, you're trying to ignore the fact that they are at least as impotent on Earth as any religious view of God. They only exist in your math formulas and have no tangible empirical effect on anything in a controlled experiment. Where do I get "dark energy"? How do I control it? How much of the universe is "dark"?

You won't even answer honestly, so what's the point of having a conversation with you? It's just an exercise in verbal abuse.

Your gods are impotent and your religion is worthless in terms of empirical physics. The only place for your invisible friends is inside your one pet (otherwise falsified) "theory". Oh ya, and let's be honest, they'll NEVER show up at Walmart.

 

[Zeuzzz]

k lets see if geemacks taken any advice on board... lets look at each paragraph and see if just one of them maybe is just about the subject in question, not personal attacks and unverified claims.


Paragraph one.

You make up numbers because it makes you feel good. Religious? Check.

Attacks person for making up numbers. Fallacy. (could have attacked the numbers, avoids confrontation, GEEMACK!)


Paragraph two.

You shun legitimate science, express a contempt for it because it works against the idea that your fantasy might be real. Exactly the same tactic as a creationist. Religious? Check.

All subjective unsubstantiated points from my view, and calling someone a religous creationist is not a very nice thing to do is it if they are not? And calling someones hard work, irrespective of its veracity, a fantasy is just not nice. Just list what you think is wrong with it. Get rid of these types of words geemack and you might have more productive and less argumentative conversations on this forum. There is no need.


Para 3.

There's your made up from scratch 96% thing again. You keep saying it. Absolutely no evidence and no support. But you believe it. Religious? Check.

Even I know what that 96% stands for Geemack, so in this case your not being hostile your just dead wrong. Oh sorry, you still are being hostile, claiming Michaels lying and calling him religous, which you know he would not like and would further the hostility between you.


Para4

It's not that the professional has a right to a correct opinion. It's that the professionals are involved hands-on, every day. Their living depends on realistic understanding and application of the principles of their fields of science. Every last one of them would love to be involved in some brand new discovery that shows, scientifically, that everything we thought we knew about astrophysics was wrong because several of the common laws of physics don't apply. It's a case where if the religious zealot, the crackpot if you will, if that crackpot actually had something worthy of further serious investigation, it wouldn't be ignored by every single professional scientist on the face of this planet. As an example, the ridiculous notion that the Sun might have a solid iron surface. Those who continue to evangelize about such an inane concept, flying fully in the face of many known laws of physics

All subjective unverified posts italicized.

Yellow = Thats obserd Geemack, this thread is about the sort of people that would be REALLY REALLY pissed off and be in denial peddling the old science due to an emotional/religous attatchment to it that is a strong part of their world view. I'm sure that a lot of scientists here if they woke up the next day to find all their lives work falsified one day would be in denial. A decent scientist should form no emotional/religous attatchment to his work in my opinion as human nature makes them bound to not want to believe it and keep promoting the outdated models.

LemonChiffon = Strawwman, michales work has not been ignored by "every single professional scientist on the face of this planet" Ive met plenty of people with degrees in this area that have read michales material and found it intriguing so asked about it on forums. Infact someone who has a PHd in astrophysics I seem to recall starting a thread on physics forums about the ideas michaels put forward, and their general plausibility. They did not agree with it by the end, but the fact that someone that experienced spent a few days looking over his work shows its no way as bad as you make it out. They were arguing about a cooling region developed in large scale double layers that would cool the temperature of the surface down to that sufficient for iron and thus make the idea much more plausible. He also, as an employed active scientist, said that he very much doubts the gas convective models of the sun are correct due to the work he has done on sunspot formation and plumes (Donald Scott gives a good summary about this from an "EU" perspective)

YellowGreen = flying fully in the face of many known laws of physics[/COLOR] Yeah so? most replacements, redevelopments or expansions of theories disprove old ones! Shock! Horror! people move on. People get over it. You cant treat the laws of physics like your bible, Geemack. They are tweaked and changed all the time as science progresses. The Big Bang flies in the face of most laws of physics. Think about that much? Or is your faith in BBT so great it never occured to you?

without a shred of legitimate evidence Unsubstantiated claim.


Para5

And the religious are quick to cry persecution when reasonable, sane observers refuse to humor their childish beliefs in invisible magical beings. They get all insecure and paranoid and whine about being personally attacked when other people point out that it's their beliefs that are scientifically unsupportable and irrational.

1) calling Michal religious, you know he wont like that.
2) mocking him by saying hes crying
3) implying hes insane by stating that your side of the argument is the "sane" one
4) Saying to a grown man that he's "childish". Nice sentiment.
5) Saying his beliefs are invisible magic beings.
6) called him insecure
7) called him paranoid
8) accusations of whining (this frankly is WAY out of order, and rather belongs in court, whining is a very serious accusation to make, Geemack, I suggest you retract this one at least. And depending on which country you and michael live in you might be ok depending on the laws*)


Para5:

They cling so tightly to their beliefs, religiously so, that they misperceive an attack on their religion as an attack on themselves personally. Look at how many times you've done that yourself, Michael.

Ok i'll try to repond to this one in a reasonable way. Lets say for example that many of michaels ideas he does have for religous reasons. It could very well be true, from someone elses point of view as they are applying a different set of belief systems to it. Michael has his reasons, and you may end up just having to either agree to disagree or just showing him what you think is wrong with it repeatedly (until it sinks in, or you realise your wrong, or Michael) Please discontinue the personal comments, just point out your actual beef, ok? Im sure michael can explain why his views are not religous but based on science.

And you raise an interesting point. "They cling so tightly to their beliefs, religiously so, that they misperceive an attack on their religion as an attack on themselves personally." There are many people on this forum who I can tell that their science is their religion, as when I point out assumptions that can not be justified in their models, areas that are left unexplained or paradoxes, they get incredibly defensive and often resort to a plethora of fallacies in response, while my original point still stands. These people tend to avoid me now.

Nobody has any desire to snuff out any legitimate science. If there's any shut-the-hell-up going on it's because after so many years of being patient and asking the crackpots to put up or shut up, and after all those years of the crackpots bitching and moaning but never being able to put up, the time comes when the right thing for them to do is shut up. They surely can't support their crank theories by relying on simple religious faith, proclaiming that they're right, without evidence, without physics, without mathematical support. And if they think they can, they should get off their lazy asses and do the work, the kind of work that real scientists do. Science isn't done by seeing a bunny in the clouds and demanding that others see it, too. That's religion.

DarkSlateGray A patently obserd statement to make. The list of scientists that cling like zealots to long disproven thus unscientific, thus religous, theories is very sizeable, and probably a similar number to those that dont (that's a complete guess, dont call me on it). The thing is they will have reasons to cling to the theories which may be valid. And the odd thing is that the opposing theories may be valid too. Theres no limit to the amount of theories you can make for places where in situ data can not be collected. Some may shine, some may fall. Its really a very nice system.

After five years of people trying to explain that your method of communication is so poor that your arguments have not been compelling enough for a single professional scientist on Earth to accept them? Don't mind me if I don't buy it.

Well I've learnt a lot from michael, on how to distinguish between a mathematical abstraction and when a mathematical abstraction has been reified into a fake (even religious I guess) existence due to basic (oddly easy to make) misunderstandings of what is part of our model and what represents reality. Like magnetic reconnection for example, giving physical real world tensions and properties to things (field lines) which DONT exist apart from on paper and in mathematical modelling. They are just the geometric tools we use to help us undstand the forces. Nothing more. There is genuine academic discourse to this day about MR's veracity compared to many novel new competing theories. Though lots here will deny it.

An open minded and fair approach? Like when one of the nutty

solid surface of the Sun guys tells people over and over again that nobody has ever addressed this-thing-or-that, when in fact those issues have been addressed and wholly debunked hundreds of times? It's the religious non-scientists who are the liars, Michael. That's the point of this discussion, the fact that some people take the religious tack and repeat their lies over and over, hoping that someday they'll come true. Like every generation of Christians has some notion that this is when we'll all learn the Truth.

No christians base it on dogmatic adherence to old texts and misguided fairy tales, michael bases it on the data he gets and draws his own conclusions. Thus he is most certainly a scientist, in the fringe theory bracket.

The issue with education and crackpots is this: A guy demonstrates time after time that he doesn't have the math skills of a fourth grade child, yet understanding why the crackpot conjecture he preaches is wrong requires an understanding of math well beyond that. So when people point out that he has no education, abysmally poor reasoning skills, and no math skills to speak of, it is not to point out a failing in the individual, it is to point out how the individual couldn't possibly understand the failing of the object of his reverence, the crackpot claim in this case.

This is one of the best points you've made. Infact I think its the only point you've made. ever. .... that I've read anyway.

However, the counter argument is rather good. Michaels approach (from what I've gathered) at glossing over much of the complex maths in favour of the scientific experimental method he has backed up continually with very good reasoning. In fact its really quite an unshakable argument I've come to discover. Answer me this: is there any point creating lots of elaborate and exotic mathematical theories if they are untestable via any physical experiment? Especially if the theory is not derived from previous experimental scientific data. Or has to invent ad hoc entities to work. They are nothing more than, as you said, fantasies, and unverifiable mathemtical fantasies. And its certainly opened my eyes to a few mistakes that have been made by treating metaphysical abstractions as real world things by people over the years.
I'm still looking for the exploding hills that result from the joining of contour lines on maps, based on the idea in magnetic reconnection that imaginary lines can do huge real world things. Still nothing, unfortunately.

Contemporary physics will always be further advanced than the physics from history. Those who would cling to that historical position at the expense of learning and understanding where we are today and why that stuff is no longer considered valid are akin to the religious. Real scientists, not the crackpots, discard what doesn't work, build from that which does, and change the models as necessary to accommodate new information. The religious zealots, the crackpots if you will, get all pissy when the model gets changed to work with new data, cry "Birkeland" from the pulpit, and live in willful ignorance of the things that we've learned and the real science that has been done over the past hundred years.

Ignorance for most people is bliss. And most of "religious zealots, the crackpots" live perfectly happy lives with their beliefs, and don't hurt a soul till the day they die. A select fews theories are later infact verified. Odd thing is that many currently well regarded great scientists were at their time regarded as cranks themselves.

So what if their beliefs are wrong anyway? what if it keeps them happy? would you shatter that happiness and security they feel for the mere sake of assuming that the current scientific model knows better and is the truth** so they should be told?. What a horrible thing to want to do. why do u care so much? Would you describe yourself as a fundamentalist for science against all opposing views? Im not sure science needs your type tbh. We need new people that think out the box and challenge current models.

tbh I can totally understand why you seem to have such a different impression of michael than me or others, as if I had been as hostile and dismissive to him as you have from the outset I doubt we would have had any really productive conversations, just got in an emotive tiffy after reading every post and defending our world view. Why do u both do this? Insecurity. Human nature. Curiosity. We all do. I do. (mm, used to) We all don't have a *********** clue whats going on. We do the best with all our fancy equipment and ever increasingly accurate data (data which may even prove pointless in the future as science evolves ) and try to build a world system that works and is consistant.

Where the tolerance breaks down is when some nutty crank absolutely refuses to support his "theory" with more than arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance, and grade school kid looks-like-a-bunny science.

I disagree that this is the situation you really describe. Thats my opinion. Does that annoy you?

Because the EU/PC crackpots have, over time, developed their "theory" to more effectively explain the data? Because there are more and more professionals in the EU field every day? Because the submissions to the scientific journals are starting to make a really good case for EU/PC? Religion again, Michael. There's a delusion that this-or-that in the Bible means the world is coming to an end, or Jesus foretold something or other, but it's a delusion. They use it to prop up their belief because they have nothing else. It's the same as your inference that somehow EU/PC is doing well in spite of Tim's often and thorough debunking.

Comparing plasma cosmology to religion is just outrageous Geemack, have you read the material I have posted in the PC thread?! back in its day it was amongst the leading competitors for the, oft touted, 'crown of science' which is cosmology. To this day some of its predictions about the CMB and element abundances remain more accurate than the ones made by the Big Bang, by a significant margin. Some others not. Unfortunately for people with religous convictions about big bang theory the assumptions and axioms that the current theory wearing the dictators crown is predicated on have not turned out to be provable. Thus I fail to see why people get so angry when people simply propose another theory. Its as if this new theory has attacked them or their way of life, and presumed what (I presume, maybe incorrectly) all your anger is about. There can (and are) many theories in the game. If you disagree with the theories fine, just tell them your opinion about the theories, to make it personal like you do too makes you come over most unscientific. Just say you think its wrong clearly, show them why, and leave it and work on a theory you put your faith in.



I have a terrible feeling that mankind in the future after much change in the way we view the world will look back and despair at how many people can mistake an extremely successfull internally self consistent scientific model thats done so many great things for humanity as some sort of ultimate truth to be pushed on people with opposing views, and dissenters ridiculed. This type of Hitchens inspired anti-religion religion thats emerging. I suspect the followers of the current standard model will be written off as another religion in the future, but none the less one with far better guiding principles, consistency and methodologies than the shambles that was "organized religion" before, our first attempts to understand the universe. While this all happens the real scientists will just disregard all the old falsified models and data and get to work on the new exciting discoveries that come along. If they have any insight they wont be as arrogant as many people are about current science, especially in the area of cosmology and distant astrophysics where all inspection is done through guessing to our best knowledge whats most likely going on out in the dark mysterious chasms of space, all resting on one type of data (EM data) and not our usual full range of forces and data collection we can receive from our familiar Earth based experiments. This makes cosmology [and to a lesser extent astronomy] in itself a very unique type of science, its much more a guessing game, and to claim that only one theory can be right massive assumptions will unavoidably have to be made. We cannot go and test our theories in situ like any other area of science, as we cannot reach our goal. So more open mindedness is needed and competing theories do not need to be seen as rivals at war with each other. Touting one theory as absolute unshakable truth, when in reality it would be much more productive to create multiple scientific frameworks to discover where different starting assumptions and axioms take you. Unfortunately dogma on the part of the dominant paradigm of the day has long ago ceased any sort of adequate funding to other cosmologies by claiming they are the truth now, the only game in town so to speak, PC and other cosmologies have subsequently suffered major shortfalls and lack of funding for research needed. But the frameworks are there. And openminded scientists are already picking up on the assumptions and playing about with them, plasma cosmology I feel was just a fleeting attempt at a soon to be much grander and intuitively and scientifically sound cosmology than the Big Bang theory is (BBT's predictive power has pretty much faded out to nothing now, its just a matter of time really)


You see Geemack, Michael me and many other extremely reputable scientists and cosmologists have chosen different starting assumptions for our cosmology than you. So using different building blocks we are able to use different methods compare the usefulness of each science. We have created a (very modest beginning of! [not just me and michael btw of course (that would be delusional!), we are mere blips on a wealthy tapestry of truly great unorthodox cosmologists who refused to be swayed by the dominant belief systems assumptions]) a completely different internally self consistent system, which is why a lot of the Big Bang critiques of plasma cosmolgy are tecnically non sequitors, as although by using the Big Bang theories various properties and attributes much of PC can be refuted, in plasma cosmology the assumptions you use to do this may not even exist! imagine them as being written in a completely different language. You probably have a lot resting on these assumptions, including much of your world view. I have chosen to favour asumptions equally as valid as yours at the end of the day, that the universe is how it is now, it exists so we have no compelling reason to think it was conjured out of nothing magically in the beginning. The CMB has offered a very vague reason to suspect this, which is easily refuted for those that want to, and easily proven by those that want to, but is basing the entire origin of the universe on the rather unique and paradoxical properties of the tiny microwave section of the huge and strong Electromagnetic spectrum really credicle? thats rhetorical, I've heard the answers, seen the evidence, it can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. Thats one of the unique things about cosmology that people fail to get. In cosmology I think people just need to admit we just dont know, its a massive guessing game that our brains can obviously not handle yet. Creating a paranormal out of nothing creationist type origin such as any BB related theory is a travesty to the entire scientific enterprise, it reads like a chapter from the bible. This type of religous woo has a name ( Ex nihilo). Do none of you Big Bang Adherents find it odd that your cherished cosmology is based entirely on an idea fundamentally at odds with the science we know? I'll quote the opening of the Ex nihilo page.

The Latin phrase ex nihilo means "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing" — chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields.

In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).

The phrase 'ex nihilo' also appears in the classical philosophical formulation ex nihilo nihil fit, which means "Out of nothing comes nothing".

Ex nihilo when used outside of religious or metaphysical contexts, also refers to something coming from nothing. For example, in a conversation, one might raise a topic "ex nihilo" if it bears no relation to the previous topic of discussion. The term has specific meanings in military and computer-science contexts.

In mathematics, ex nihilo can refer to an answer to a question provided with no working, thus appearing to have developed "out of nothing".

It is quite obviously, not even remotely, a scientific testable phenomenon. But more to do with religion. It does still seem bizarre to me that so many scientists are still happy that their primary model to explain the universe is blatently predicated on a religously inspired based idea that science refutes, that can not be tested by science and breaks most of the laws of physics we know even today.

That things/energy should appear suddenly from no-where? Its complete woo of the higest order. The big bang to me seems like the most unscientific thought ever to have landed in the scientific arena. And yes we know where the cleverly cherrypicked data said to be the proof of the big bang lead us and is pointing at the moment, we also know where the data pointed in the past, and no-one knows where the data will point in the future.

Well, maybe I do, but I am zeuzz after all, who is a god.

Christ that took long. Well hope ive libertated a few minds stuck in the science is truth mindset. Science always pwns religion. But its not ultimate truth. Don't kid yourselves. The wisest man is the man that knows he knows nothing at all.

* Had to make one sarcastic comment this threads doing my nut

** If you think that science gives you truth then there really is no help for you. All Science can give you is internal self consistancy. Thats it. And it works based on its own assumptions and axioms, always some of which are not provable or even consitant with one another, and some (seemingly) never can be. The current system works amazingly in fact, look at where its got us, its not without its flaws for sure, but its much better than all previous scientific models to attempt to explain this bizarre nonsensical place we inhabit called the universe. But when its all proven false eventually (a past example being greek epicycles, etc) in the future by new physics, as no historians of science would dispute it will eventually, I hope your still around to see how silly it is/was to get so emotive over people that dare to committhe sin of thinking outside the scientific norm and so have different ideas, faiths models and theories. Im sure having read alfvens material too that mike knows that in the distant future even his theory will be proved wrong or changed, or may have been already (depends what standards you hold it to) but eventually will be either disproved or refined till barely recognizable.


We are all contributors to understanding this fascinating universe, whether our theories are orthodox or not, right or wrong, they are all inspired by human ingenuity and have value, whether to others, whether to science, whether to history, or just to ourselves. Sometimes you have to exit the familiar confines of the scientific system you have learnt and explore some of the woo woo ideas to come back and be able to make any decent progress. Thinking out the box. Physics is also reaching many seemingly dead walls too. And there is one thing thing for sure about cosmology: We are all totally wrong about nearly everything. Especially those that think they know the truth, I find them truly tragic. Though I dont argue with them much any more, I end up feeling like im just bullying a religous person about their world view, and I dont like doing it. Wait for some breakthroughs in data collection in space coming in the next decades/centuries so we can start to test these far away places with the same scientific standards we use here on earth, and only then can cosmology truly be called a science, currently its more a guessing game trying to extrpolate too much information from extremely limited data based on huge unscientific assumptions that violate many established laws of physics. We're in for a big shock methinks in the future with cosmology, once the tiny data available from the CMB is stopped being used as the bible of revelation to cosmology and things are looked at a fresh from a common sense perspective.


Oh and how do you go and do that jref challenge thingy? Proving the Big Bang was a paranormal activity would be a piece of pie if held up to the majority of extremely well established and standard laws of physics.

 

[Reality Check]

k lets see if geemacks taken any advice on board... lets look at each paragraph and see if just one of them maybe is just about the subject in question, not personal attacks and unverified claims.....

The problem with some of that post, Zeuzzz, is that this thread is about the "religious" adherence to scientific theories by scientists.
But Mozina's idea is not a scientific theory. It is ruled out by the laws of physics such as the laws of thermodynamics. MM has never stated that his idea includes replacing existing physics, just solar models. It has no credible evidence behind it. It makes no falsifiable, testable predictions.
So GeeMacks comments about MM's idea are basically correct if a bit over the top. If someone has known for five years that their idea fails a basic hurdle (thermodynamics) then persisting in that idea without fixing its fatal flaw turns the idea into a religion (or maybe a fantasy since MM is the only one really believing it).

In any case I would say that both MM and GeeMack have gone off the thread topic. But maybe we have finished with the original topic and so can go onto other stuff?

I will address a few other minor points in your post:

Comparing plasma cosmology to religion is just outrageous Geemack, have you read the material I have posted in the PC thread?! back in its day it was amongst the leading competitors for the, oft touted, 'crown of science' which is cosmology.

GeeMack never compares the original plasma cosmology theory to a religion.
He does compare the electric universe/plasma cosmology (EU/PC) idea to a religion. The PC part of this has nothing to do with the original PC theory.
I do agree with GeeMack since EC/PC is basically a set of "tenets" that tend to believed in rather than supported by evidence (see the PC thread).

...
You see Geemack, Michael me and many other extremely reputable scientists and cosmologists have chosen different starting assumptions for our cosmology than you.

The assumptions for the standard cosmology are those of all science, basically that the universe does not lie to us (but we may misinterpret what it says). Thus we can take the measured laws of physics, assume that they apply everywhere (but test this assumption all the time), observe the universe and deduce what it has done, is doing and will do.

If you go look in the PC thread you will see that PC is not even strictly defined! Its assumptions are not that of the scientific method but seem to be that the Big Bang theory is wrong, plasma dominates and the universe is eternal.

...
The CMB has offered a very vague reason to suspect this, which is easily refuted for those that want to, and easily proven by those that want to, but is basing the entire origin of the universe on the rather unique and paradoxical properties of the tiny microwave section of the huge and strong Electromagnetic spectrum really credicle? thats rhetorical

Yes it is credible even if thats rhetorical. The CMB has provided several specific reasons for the universe once being in a hot dense state.

...
Creating a paranormal out of nothing creationist type origin such as any BB related theory is a travesty to the entire scientific enterprise, it reads like a chapter from the bible. This type of religous woo has a name ( Ex nihilo).

That "religious woo" (are you channeling Micheal Mozina ) is not part of BB theory. BB theory merely states that the evidence (Hubble's law, CMB, etc) is that the universe was once in a hot dense state.

...
Oh and how do you go and do that jref challenge thingy? Proving the Big Bang was a paranormal activity would be a piece of pie if held up to the majority of extremely well established and standard laws of physics.

That I hope is a result of writing a really long post (or a joke - did you miss the ?).
Extremely well established and standard laws of physics are the basis of the Big Bang theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

This is a long post so I'm not going to reply to all of it.

All subjective unsubstantiated points from my view, and calling someone a religous creationist is not a very nice thing to do is it if they are not?

Neither is responding to a comment in such a way as to imply someone said something they didn't. Don't do it. Geemack quite clearly states he was arguing like a creationist, not that he was a creationist. There is a huge difference that I'm sure your aware of and your decision to equate these two things is incredibly dishonest.

Even I know what that 96% stands for Geemack, so in this case your not being hostile your just dead wrong.

Nope. Michael and you are dead wrong.

LemonChiffon = Strawwman, michales work has not been ignored by "every single professional scientist on the face of this planet" Ive met plenty of people with degrees in this area that have read michales material and found it intriguing so asked about it on forums. Infact someone who has a PHd in astrophysics I seem to recall starting a thread on physics forums about the ideas michaels put forward, and their general plausibility. They did not agree with it by the end, but the fact that someone that experienced spent a few days looking over his work shows its no way as bad as you make it out. They were arguing about a cooling region developed in large scale double layers that would cool the temperature of the surface down to that sufficient for iron and thus make the idea much more plausible. He also, as an employed active scientist, said that he very much doubts the gas convective models of the sun are correct due to the work he has done on sunspot formation and plumes (Donald Scott gives a good summary about this from an "EU" perspective)

I'd love to see a link to the physics forum thread.

YellowGreen = flying fully in the face of many known laws of physics[/COLOR] Yeah so? most replacements, redevelopments or expansions of theories disprove old ones! Shock! Horror! people move on. People get over it. You cant treat the laws of physics like your bible, Geemack. They are tweaked and changed all the time as science progresses. The Big Bang flies in the face of most laws of physics. Think about that much? Or is your faith in BBT so great it never occured to you?

Name them.

5) Saying his beliefs are invisible magic beings.

I don't think Michael can have much beef with this one given how many times he's circumnavigated answering questions by ranting about invisible elves and the like.

And you raise an interesting point. "They cling so tightly to their beliefs, religiously so, that they misperceive an attack on their religion as an attack on themselves personally." There are many people on this forum who I can tell that their science is their religion, as when I point out assumptions that can not be justified in their models, areas that are left unexplained or paradoxes, they get incredibly defensive and often resort to a plethora of fallacies in response, while my original point still stands. These people tend to avoid me now.

Links please.

DarkSlateGray A patently obserd statement to make. The list of scientists that cling like zealots to long disproven thus unscientific, thus religous, theories is very sizeable, and probably a similar number to those that dont (that's a complete guess, dont call me on it).

That's one of your problems it would seem. Most of your opinions on science seem to be made up of complete guesses.

 

[Tubbythin]

Well I've learnt a lot from michael, on how to distinguish between a mathematical abstraction and when a mathematical abstraction has been reified into a fake (even religious I guess) existence due to basic (oddly easy to make) misunderstandings of what is part of our model and what represents reality. Like magnetic reconnection for example, giving physical real world tensions and properties to things (field lines) which DONT exist apart from on paper and in mathematical modelling. They are just the geometric tools we use to help us undstand the forces. Nothing more. There is genuine academic discourse to this day about MR's veracity compared to many novel new competing theories. Though lots here will deny it.

Zeuzzz, if magnetic reconnection doesn't exist then Maxwell's equations must be wrong. It's as simple as that.

No christians base it on dogmatic adherence to old texts and misguided fairy tales, michael bases it on the data he gets and draws his own conclusions. Thus he is most certainly a scientist, in the fringe theory bracket.

That doesn't make him a scientist. His conclusions are not quantified and based on rigourous analysis, they're hand-waivy and based on optical artifacts in pictures he doesn't understand.

However, the counter argument is rather good. Michaels approach (from what I've gathered) at glossing over much of the complex maths in favour of the scientific experimental method he has backed up continually with very good reasoning.

Michael has completely failed to adhere to the scientific method. You know... something like:
observation->hypothesis->test hypothesis->refine hypothesis->test hypotheis etc...
He's made an observation (seen some artifact in a picture) and constructed a theory based on what is an artifact. And then he's gone on a load of forums telling everyone else they're wrong.

In fact its really quite an unshakable argument I've come to discover. Answer me this: is there any point creating lots of elaborate and exotic mathematical theories if they are untestable via any physical experiment? Especially if the theory is not derived from previous experimental scientific data. Or has to invent ad hoc entities to work. They are nothing more than, as you said, fantasies, and unverifiable mathemtical fantasies. And its certainly opened my eyes to a few mistakes that have been made by treating metaphysical abstractions as real world things by people over the years.
I'm still looking for the exploding hills that result from the joining of contour lines on maps, based on the idea in magnetic reconnection that imaginary lines can do huge real world things. Still nothing, unfortunately.

Erm... what relation do the contour lines on a map have to the energy stored in an electromagnetic field? None. What relation do the contour lines of an electromagnetic field have to the energy stored in an electromagnetic field
If you can't see the difference then there really is no hope for you with science I'm afraid.

Ignorance for most people is bliss. And most of "religious zealots, the crackpots" live perfectly happy lives with their beliefs, and don't hurt a soul till the day they die. A select fews theories are later infact verified. Odd thing is that many currently well regarded great scientists were at their time regarded as cranks themselves.

And how did they go from cranks to great scientists. By doing great scientific work. Not by posting on internet fora.

So what if their beliefs are wrong anyway? what if it keeps them happy? would you shatter that happiness and security they feel for the mere sake of assuming that the current scientific model knows better and is the truth** so they should be told?. What a horrible thing to want to do. why do u care so much? Would you describe yourself as a fundamentalist for science against all opposing views? Im not sure science needs your type tbh. We need new people that think out the box and challenge current models.

I have no beef with cranks that keep themselves to themselves. I only object when they start telling everyone they're wrong when in fact they have no clue what they're talking about.

Comparing plasma cosmology to religion is just outrageous Geemack, have you read the material I have posted in the PC thread?! back in its day it was amongst the leading competitors for the, oft touted, 'crown of science' which is cosmology.

I don't think so. For example, the deification of certain scientists (eg. Alfven) is very reminiscent of religion. As is this tendency to pick and choose when to use scientific data to back up their attempt at science. As for the idea it was ever a leading competitor: colour me unconvinced.

To this day some of its predictions about the CMB and element abundances remain more accurate than the ones made by the Big Bang, by a significant margin.

Links please.

Some others not. Unfortunately for people with religous convictions about big bang theory the assumptions and axioms that the current theory wearing the dictators crown is predicated on have not turned out to be provable. Thus I fail to see why people get so angry when people simply propose another theory.

What are you talking about?

 

[Tubbythin]

I have a terrible feeling that mankind in the future after much change in the way we view the world will look back and despair at how many people can mistake an extremely successfull internally self consistent scientific model thats done so many great things for humanity as some sort of ultimate truth to be pushed on people with opposing views, and dissenters ridiculed. This type of Hitchens inspired anti-religion religion thats emerging. I suspect the followers of the current standard model will be written off as another religion in the future, but none the less one with far better guiding principles, consistency and methodologies than the shambles that was "organized religion" before, our first attempts to understand the universe.

I see no reason for thinking this. People who put "faith" (ie good sound scientific understanding and not really faith at all) in Newtonian dynamics and Newtonian gravity weren't written of as a religion when Einstein came along with relativity.

While this all happens the real scientists will just disregard all the old falsified models and data and get to work on the new exciting discoveries that come along. If they have any insight they wont be as arrogant as many people are about current science, especially in the area of cosmology and distant astrophysics where all inspection is done through guessing to our best knowledge whats most likely going on out in the dark mysterious chasms of space, all resting on one type of data (EM data) and not our usual full range of forces and data collection we can receive from our familiar Earth based experiments.

I've yet to see any evidence of this arrogance you speak of. Only people with (often idealogical) objections that make noises because they aren't being listened to accusing others of being arrogant.

This makes cosmology [and to a lesser extent astronomy] in itself a very unique type of science, its much more a guessing game, and to claim that only one theory can be right massive assumptions will unavoidably have to be made.

Huh? Only one theory can be right. Unless you think we live in a Universe which one set of laws on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays and another the rest of the week.

We cannot go and test our theories in situ like any other area of science, as we cannot reach our goal. So more open mindedness is needed and competing theories do not need to be seen as rivals at war with each other. Touting one theory as absolute unshakable truth, when in reality it would be much more productive to create multiple scientific frameworks to discover where different starting assumptions and axioms take you.

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). But what you seem to be wanting is a completely new theory of cosmology. Just throw out all we've learnt in the last century from science and start again. Well be my guest. But until you can produce a new theory that matches the data as well as the current one, nobody is going to care. While you're at it, why not come up with a new theory of why stuff falls or how we got from single-celled creatures to where we are today? Maybe you'd like to re-invent the periodic table?

Unfortunately dogma on the part of the dominant paradigm of the day has long ago ceased any sort of adequate funding to other cosmologies by claiming they are the truth now, the only game in town so to speak, PC and other cosmologies have subsequently suffered major shortfalls and lack of funding for research needed.

Ah brilliant. The old cosmology statement. Want me to rip this to shreds again? Or are you going to retract your inclusion of this utter garbage?

But the frameworks are there. And openminded scientists are already picking up on the assumptions and playing about with them, plasma cosmology I feel was just a fleeting attempt at a soon to be much grander and intuitively and scientifically sound cosmology than the Big Bang theory is (BBT's predictive power has pretty much faded out to nothing now, its just a matter of time really)

I have no idea where you got this idea from. BBT's predictive power is being realised more and more each week. The agreement between theory and certain aspects of the CMBR, for example, is absolutely phenomenal.

You see Geemack, Michael me and many other extremely reputable scientists and cosmologists have chosen different starting assumptions for our cosmology than you.

You believe yourself and Michael to be extremely reputable scientists?

So using different building blocks we are able to use different methods compare the usefulness of each science. We have created a (very modest beginning of! [not just me and michael btw of course (that would be delusional!), we are mere blips on a wealthy tapestry of truly great unorthodox cosmologists who refused to be swayed by the dominant belief systems assumptions]) a completely different internally self consistent system, which is why a lot of the Big Bang critiques of plasma cosmolgy are tecnically non sequitors, as although by using the Big Bang theories various properties and attributes much of PC can be refuted, in plasma cosmology the assumptions you use to do this may not even exist!

What are you talking about? And "internally self consistent"? That's the same bunch of people who harp on about how everything should be lab-based and then harp on about Arp and his redshift data. Last time I looked there were no lab-based QSOs.

imagine them as being written in a completely different language. You probably have a lot resting on these assumptions, including much of your world view. I have chosen to favour asumptions equally as valid as yours at the end of the day, that the universe is how it is now, it exists so we have no compelling reason to think it was conjured out of nothing magically in the beginning.

THe BBT doesn't say what happened at the beginning. You've been told this many many times now. Your disingenuous behaviour has been noted.

The CMB has offered a very vague reason to suspect this, which is easily refuted for those that want to, and easily proven by those that want to, but is basing the entire origin of the universe on the rather unique and paradoxical properties of the tiny microwave section of the huge and strong Electromagnetic spectrum really credicle?

There was extremely strong support for BBT before the CMBR was discovered. Now we have found it and we have made extremely precise measurements of its properties and we can see an extraordinary agreement with the BBT predictions

thats rhetorical, I've heard the answers, seen the evidence, it can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. Thats one of the unique things about cosmology that people fail to get. In cosmology I think people just need to admit we just dont know, its a massive guessing game that our brains can obviously not handle yet.

I'd like to see any other interpretations of the CMBR that give predictions as precise as the BBT.

Creating a paranormal out of nothing creationist type origin such as any BB related theory is a travesty to the entire scientific enterprise, it reads like a chapter from the bible.

Other than the fact that the Universe may have had a beginning, there is no similarity whatsoever that I have seen between BBT and the ideas of any creationist I've ever heard the opinions of. Moreover, an infinitely old Universe has some rather big problems of its unknown (not just the bit about it being inconsistent with huge amounts of experimental data).

This type of religous woo has a name ( Ex nihilo).

Since when was religious woo backed up by extraordinarily precise data from satellites in space.

Do none of you Big Bang Adherents find it odd that your cherished cosmology is based entirely on an idea fundamentally at odds with the science we know? I'll quote the opening of the Ex nihilo page.

Ironic then that it is you that has resorted to creationist tactics. The theory of evolution does not deal with how life came from non-life. The BBT does not deal with the time t = 0. Your quote is utterly irrelevant.

It is quite obviously, not even remotely, a scientific testable phenomenon. But more to do with religion.

The BBT does not deal with t = 0.

It does still seem bizarre to me that so many scientists are still happy that their primary model to explain the universe is blatently predicated on a religously inspired based idea that science refutes, that can not be tested by science and breaks most of the laws of physics we know even today.

That's because what you've just said is completely false. If you want to construct your own strawman view of BBT then fine. But keep it to yourself. Nobody cares.

That things/energy should appear suddenly from no-where? Its complete woo of the higest order.

BBT does not deal with t = 0.

The big bang to me seems like the most unscientific thought ever to have landed in the scientific arena.

That's nice. Sadly you have illustrated unequivocally that you have almost no understanding of what BBT does or doesn't say. Maybe you should actually learn about it before you go round slagging off its proponents that have actually bothered to understand it?

And yes we know where the cleverly cherrypicked data said to be the proof of the big bang lead us and is pointing at the moment, we also know where the data pointed in the past, and no-one knows where the data will point in the future.

The laws of physics don't change (at least we have no evidence that they do). The idea that things will spin round and point in the other direction is wishful thinking at best. If the laws of physics give us data that point us in one direction, unless the laws of physics change there will never be any hope for hypothesese that point in the other direction.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The assumptions for the standard cosmology are those of all science, basically that the universe does not lie to us (but we may misinterpret what it says). Thus we can take the measured laws of physics, assume that they apply everywhere (but test this assumption all the time), observe the universe and deduce what it has done, is doing and will do.

And this definition you give is interesting, as the sentence "the universe does not lie to us (but we may misinterpret what it says)" is the exact reason why there is no reasonable scientific argument for creation theories like the Big Bang. We look at the universe and it exists. Therefore the default truly scientific assumption should be that we have no reason to think otherwise. I think that this mindset of treating the universe and laws of physics like human lives that have a begging (and end) in time is an inherently wrong assumption. The idea of an infinite universe should not scare us off any more. If we find some data in space that implies that a specific spectrum shows properties of being condensed in the past, then that's what it shows. We need not assign any more of a special meaning to it than that. The microwave part of the spectrum used to be very dense. Does this mean that the entire universe was created then? No. Well, even if one band of the spectrum points to this, its going to have to take a lot more independently verifiable streams of data to back up the unscientific notions that energy can be created out of nothing and the universe is finite in time.

If you go look in the PC thread you will see that PC is not even strictly defined! Its assumptions are not that of the scientific method but seem to be that the Big Bang theory is wrong, plasma dominates and the universe is eternal.

There are many different versions and interpretations of PC, all of which roughly use the same different approaches than BBT. 1) plasma and EM forces can not be ignored on any scale due to plasma scalability and the fact that 99.9999% of matter is now known to be matter in the plasma state (not gas, liquid and solid, like was thought when BBT was formulated) This renders the fluid and gas dynamic models used in the creation of the Big Bang theory worthless, as plasma obeys obeys completely different laws of physics. 2) An origin in time for the universe is rejected, due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism. We have never in science seen energy created out of nothing, so have no reasonable scientific grounds to assume that this can ever, has ever, or will ever happen. 3) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution.

Yes it is credible even if thats rhetorical. The CMB has provided several specific reasons for the universe once being in a hot dense state.

Not really, its one tiny band of a huge spectrum. It may imply that the microwave part of the spectrum used to be really dense. That's all it proves. And you can not say why it proves there was an origin in time to the universe, you can only give a mathematical explanation of a singularity (re-ified mathematical construct, singularities dont exist apart from in models) and show lots of data implying that the microwave background has some sort of common source.

What this has to do with proving an origin in time to the ENTIRE universe however is completely beyond me, and must make some massive assumptions.

That "religious woo" (are you channeling Micheal Mozina ) is not part of BB theory. BB theory merely states that the evidence (Hubble's law, CMB, etc) is that the universe was once in a hot dense state.

Unlike any we have any evidence for today. So it will take a lot more than the CMB and hubbles law, in my opinion, to go out on a limb and say that these exotic, never scientifically tested (merely inferred), states can exist when we have no idea how really, and see no such evidence of such states in the universe we live in now.

That I hope is a result of writing a really long post (or a joke - did you miss the ?).
Extremely well established and standard laws of physics are the basis of the Big Bang theory.

Lets start with an easy one then, the Big Bang theory, and what it implies, violates the conservation of energy. Correct?

 

[quarky]

k. And to lighten up this thread a bit I'll reply completely unreasonably using the "cut peoples quotes way too short to get their right meaning" method that I often see many people on this forum use to make it look like they've won an argument. (yes, i am boooooooooooored)



Correct.




A really bad one, but correct.




Comprehension is subjective.




Exists? And? tell us something we dont know.




Yeah pretty much. Tribes too though dont forget.




Yes.




"said lighning"? Lightning cant speak




What?



Define: Stuff.
Then define: Real stuff.
I doubt you will be able to.




Wrong.




Nonsense. Not even a full sentence.



LIES LIES LIES!




Ants cannot "take" themselves or be aware of what they are really doing, they can only respond to certain stimuli.




Bend over chap (Thickest muslces there)

We wouldn't be having this argument if you knew that I look like I could have multiple PH'Ds in various fields I can't spell.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Neither is responding to a comment in such a way as to imply someone said something they didn't. Don't do it. Geemack quite clearly states he was arguing like a creationist, not that he was a creationist. There is a huge difference that I'm sure your aware of and your decision to equate these two things is incredibly dishonest.

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.

Nope. Michael and you are dead wrong.

This is the science, math, and tech section, not the "make completely unverified statements" section.

I'd love to see a link to the physics forum thread.

I've been looking.

Name them.

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.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 4.

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.

Links please.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...265349.pdf?arnumber=1265349&authDecision=-203

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on

Date of Current Version: 19 February 2004
Abstract

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (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. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

Please read it. [full text]

 

[Zeuzzz]

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)

I'll reply completely unreasonably using the "cut peoples quotes way too short to get their right meaning" method that I often see many people on this forum use to make it look like they've won an argument.