String theory and creationism tactics

[becomingagodo]

Now, string theory has not been confrimed even worse it has not made any prediction that differ from other TOE's. So why is their popular string theory books and even programmes on TV about string theory.

See string theory could and proberly is completely wrong. However, I can't judge this theory because I am a layman. Which, is the problem as laypeople would read the popular books and watch the programme about string theory. How can they judge if string theory is correct when your reading a string theory book?

The problem is that string theory books inhibit critical thinking as your not a scientist, you don't understand the mathematics. Popular science books can be good like explaining Einstein's theories or looking at quantum mechanics, however when we are dealing with a theory that has not been confrimed it is bad.

Creationist write book to get the layperson to get them to believe in their theory, however string theorist are doing the same. String theory has more merit then creationism, however it has not been confrimed and you have to believe in string theory.

[drkitten]

Now, string theory has not been confrimed even worse it has not made any prediction that differ from other TOE's. So why is their popular string theory books and even programmes on TV about string theory.

See string theory could and proberly is completely wrong. However, I can't judge this theory because I am a layman. Which, is the problem as laypeople would read the popular books and watch the programme about string theory. How can they judge if string theory is correct when your reading a string theory book?

The problem is that string theory books inhibit critical thinking as your not a scientist, you don't understand the mathematics. Popular science books can be good like explaining Einstein's theories or looking at quantum mechanics, however when we are dealing with a theory that has not been confrimed it is bad.

Creationist write book to get the layperson to get them to believe in their theory, however string theorist are doing the same. String theory has more merit then creationism, however it has not been confrimed and you have to believe in string theory.

Have you visited a doctor yet? This is probably treatable, you know.

[Jimbo07]

See string theory could and proberly is completely wrong.

It proberly is...

[T-Diddy]

See string theory could and proberly is completely wrong.

And when somebody who speaks English and has a PhD in physics talks about its shortcomings, I'll listen. Until then I'll proberly sit it out.

[slyjoe]

Now, string theory has not been confrimed even worse it has not made any prediction that differ from other TOE's. So why is their popular string theory books and even programmes on TV about string theory.

Did you look and see what string theory may predict?

See string theory could and proberly is completely wrong. However, I can't judge this theory because I am a layman. Which, is the problem as laypeople would read the popular books and watch the programme about string theory. How can they judge if string theory is correct when your reading a string theory book?

I'm curious - how can you say it is probably wrong but you can't judge it? I think you just did judge it.

The problem is that string theory books inhibit critical thinking as your not a scientist, you don't understand the mathematics. Popular science books can be good like explaining Einstein's theories or looking at quantum mechanics, however when we are dealing with a theory that has not been confrimed it is bad.

How do they inhibit critical thinking? I would think they would stimulate it. You know, trying to figure out what the predictions should be and looking for evidence of them.

Creationist write book to get the layperson to get them to believe in their theory, however string theorist are doing the same. String theory has more merit then creationism, however it has not been confrimed and you have to believe in string theory.

Creationists don't have a theory.

[Molinaro]

Now, string theory has not been confrimed even worse it has not made any prediction that differ from other TOE's.

Well doesn't it say things like, if we could figure out this math problem here we could make some predictions.. and they're seeing if anyone can come up with some new math to figure it out?

I don't have a problem with science going through a period like that. In the end you either keep it or throw it away. But without the math being 'done', no need to quit.

[BeAChooser]

And when somebody who speaks English and has a PhD in physics talks about its shortcomings, I'll listen.

I suggest you read a recent book titled "The Trouble With Physics" by a PhD in physics named Lee Smolin. Smolin is a long time string theorist who has grown quite disillusioned with the notion as well as the process by which it is investigated and promoted. He indicts not only String Theory but modern physics in general. In fact, he suggests that in the last 30 years or so, physicists have discovered almost nothing fundamentally new, in contrast to what they did in each 30 year period before that. He says it is a problem with the way physics is now being taught, funded and conducted.

Ironically, the same complaints he levies against those who control the physics education/research/publishing/funding community also apply to the Big Bang/astrophysics community. But he can't see that because he's an outsider and therefore just trusts that the process leading astrophysicists to gnomes like black holes and dark matter is working too. But it's not.

[skeptical]

Now, string theory has not been confrimed even worse it has not made any prediction that differ from other TOE's. So why is their popular string theory books and even programmes on TV about string theory.

See string theory could and proberly is completely wrong. However, I can't judge this theory because I am a layman. Which, is the problem as laypeople would read the popular books and watch the programme about string theory. How can they judge if string theory is correct when your reading a string theory book?

The problem is that string theory books inhibit critical thinking as your not a scientist, you don't understand the mathematics. Popular science books can be good like explaining Einstein's theories or looking at quantum mechanics, however when we are dealing with a theory that has not been confrimed it is bad.

Creationist write book to get the layperson to get them to believe in their theory, however string theorist are doing the same. String theory has more merit then creationism, however it has not been confrimed and you have to believe in string theory.

String theory has its detractors in the scientific community, but I am not aware that it is not falsifiable. My admittedly limited understanding of it is that it does make testable predictions that would allow it to be falsified.

Creationism is not scientific because it either makes predictions which have been falsified, i.e. there was a worldwide flood, there should not be any transitional fossils, etc., or it simply says "god did it", which is compatible with any state of affairs because god could choose whatever methods it wants, and so, while it may be true, is useless as an explanatory model. i.e. you cannot use it to make any predictions, because by definition whatever you discover is what god did

You do make a good point that sometimes a lay person is not in a position to properly evaluate pseudo-scientific ideas from validly scientific ones, especially in areas of esoteric knowledge, like Quantum or string theory. There are many sources on the Internet that you can use to separate the wheat from the chaffe, in particular you can google "baloney detection kit", an idea spawned by Carl Sagan. Here is a list of ways to detect pseudo-science from one site that came up after such a search:
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?The last one is particularly useful. If a field is to have any scientific respectability, the best of theories must always yield to reality. If a practice has a predetermined conclusion, and is not willing to yield its conclusions in the face of disconfirming evidence, then it is, by definition, not scientific.

This is a perfect description of creationism. It is not just that its practitioners are unwilling to change their personal beliefs in the face of overwhelming disconfirming evidence, this is the entire foundation of the practice itself. Creationism entails that that facts must fit the conclusions, because the conclusions have already been revealed, its proponents believe, by the all mighty deity in their holy book.

No amount of evidence can ever change this, because no amount of evidence can change what was written in their book thousands of years ago. Fossils? DNA? Chromosome fusion? Radiometric dating? - all nonsense as far as creationism is concerned because they already HAVE their answer, its completely untethered from any amount of data. That is the exact opposite of the scientific approach, which is entirely data driven at its core.

I am not aware that the same can be said of string theory. It definitely cannot be said of any widely accepted scientific theory I am aware of.

[skeptical]

Ironically, the same complaints he levies against those who control the physics education/research/publishing/funding community also apply to the Big Bang/astrophysics community. But he can't see that because he's an outsider and therefore just trusts that the process leading astrophysicists to gnomes like black holes and dark matter is working too. But it's not.

Please explain how black holes, which:

1) are well understood mathematically
2) an absolute prediction of relativity theory (which is incredibly solid) and
3) have actually been observed

is a "gnome"?

[sol invictus]

I suggest you read a recent book titled "The Trouble With Physics" by a PhD in physics named Lee Smolin.

You would like that book - typical. It's essentially one long rant about how more money should be given to Smolin's particular stripe of quantum gravity theory (which incidentally is probably indistinguishable from string theory to any non-expert), and how string theorists are misogynists that beat their pets (I'm not making that up, he really said that) and have no scientific vision.

Smolin is a long time string theorist who has grown quite disillusioned with the notion as well as the process by which it is investigated and promoted.

Nonsense. He wrote a few crappy papers on string theory 30 years ago.

He says it is a problem with the way physics is now being taught, funded and conducted.

Because that's the only reason he can think of that students aren't flocking to his research program.

Ironically, the same complaints he levies against those who control the physics education/research/publishing/funding community also apply to the Big Bang/astrophysics community.

The quackulence comes fully into view...

String theory has its detractors in the scientific community, but I am not aware that it is not falsifiable. My admittedly limited understanding of it is that it does make testable predictions that would allow it to be falsified.

That is correct. But there are other reasons to regard it as scientific.

Basically, science does not (and never has) proceed according to the naive version of the scientific method we were taught in grade school - formulate hypothesis, test it, modify hypothesis, etc. It just doesn't work that way, and never has. It's more like formulate hypothesis, and then cling to it with all your might for the rest of your career. When contrary evidence becomes irrefutable, modify hypothesis just enough so that it can survive, and go on clinging.

I don't know if that's the best way to do science, but it's the way it IS done, always has been, and probably always will be. People choose to work on something for reasons that are not easy to quantify, but whatever they are, they seem to be working - every year we build faster airplanes, cheaper TVs, better computers.

So maybe we should just chill out a little and let them work on what they, the experts, the ones that do this for a living, think is best. Crazy idea, huh?

[Radrook]

The problem stems from the presentation of what is said to be evidence but which is really nothing more than cunning manipulation or biased interpretation of data so that it dovetails nicely with preconceptions. It has become an annoying, recurring modus operandi with evolutionists and is a serious violation of the scientific method. Add to this the illogical premises involved and the whole thing becomes nothing more than quackery dignified with the facade of academe.

Evolution fraud in current biology textbooks
Exposed as fakes decades ago, major publishers still include themhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23532


Evolution: None Dare Call it Quackery!
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=10091

[Kotatsu]

Evolution: None Dare Call it Quackery!
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=10091

I seem to be unable to find anything of actual substance in this piece, apart form the humourous juxtaposition of

Don Boys, Ph.D.

and

and a Ph.D. doesn’t add credibility to a phony

The rest is just opinion and a variety of quotes. Should evolution be called quackery because Don Boys says so? That's a curious way to do things.

Further, I'd say that it's a bit misleading to claim that Haeckel's embryo pictures are a pillar of evolutionary theory.

[skeptic griggsy]

What does the theory have to do with LQG and the polyverse? Anyway, the law of conservation points to an eternal universe.The Big Bang was not a real origination of the Universe but a recombination thereof. What would Smolin say about all this?

[Complexity]

Bago -

[Cainkane1]

And when somebody who speaks English and has a PhD in physics talks about its shortcomings, I'll listen. Until then I'll proberly sit it out.

Heres a good site for laymen. http://discovermagazine.com/twominutesorless

[Henners]

Add to this the illogical premises involved and the whole thing becomes nothing more than quackery dignified with the facade of academe.

As you are clearly expert in the relevant fields, I bow to your wizdom.

I love the way you wiz up the wall.

[Dancing David]

The problem is that string theory books inhibit critical thinking as your not a scientist, you don't understand the mathematics.

This seems like a totally unsupported assertion, what is your logic here? String theory does have some implications that eventually can be tested for.

[Dancing David]

The problem stems from the presentation of what is said to be evidence but which is really nothing more than cunning manipulation or biased interpretation of data so that it dovetails nicely with preconceptions.

Huh?

I take it that layer after layer of seashells that make a nice series of changing species are fabricated by magic Sky Pixie?

It has become an annoying, recurring modus operandi with evolutionists and is a serious violation of the scientific method.

Nice arms waving, no substance.

Add to this the illogical premises involved and the whole thing becomes nothing more than quackery dignified with the facade of academe.


Maybe you should work for FOX News.


Evolution fraud in current biology textbooks
Exposed as fakes decades ago, major publishers still include themhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23532


Evolution: None Dare Call it Quackery!
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=10091

[Dancing David]

Uh, the thing about the embyros is old hat. If some people actualy read about current theory they would now that this is a bogus red herring. Text books are often written by state committees, I wonder how scintific that is?

Um text books have a lot of errors in general.

Don Boys supports Natural Biotics
http://www.lifescienceproducts.com/main

[Radrook]

Uh, the thing about the embyros is old hat. If some people actualy read about current theory they would now that this is a bogus red herring. Text books are often written by state committees, I wonder how scintific that is?

Um text books have a lot of errors in general.

Don Boys supports Natural Biotics
http://www.lifescienceproducts.com/main


Not very scientific and very damaging to the objectivity of future adults.

[Belz...]

The problem stems from the presentation of what is said to be evidence but which is really nothing more than cunning manipulation or biased interpretation of data so that it dovetails nicely with preconceptions. It has become an annoying, recurring modus operandi with evolutionists and is a serious violation of the scientific method. Add to this the illogical premises involved and the whole thing becomes nothing more than quackery dignified with the facade of academe.

Evolution fraud in current biology textbooks
Exposed as fakes decades ago, major publishers still include themhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23532


Evolution: None Dare Call it Quackery!
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=10091

:rolleyes:

[Radrook]

Huh?

I take it that layer after layer of seashells that make a nice series of changing species are fabricated by magic Sky Pixie? Nice arms waving, no substance.

Obviously you have been thoroughly duped!

The geological record isn't as neatly sequential as you imagine it to be. In fact, it sometimes blatantly contradicts the neat layer by layer evolutionary requirements. When that happens, of course, then evidence is either ignored, or shelved away as a fluke since it doesn't fit in with the preconception. No intermediary forms are present for example and these claimed to be intermediary are suspect and highly questionable examples.

But even if it were as you describe, which it isn't, it still wouldn't prove evolution. Why? Well, because temporal priority and geographical propinquity or sequence of appearance do not in themselves constitute evidence of causation. Actually, that's a very basic logical fallacy called "post hoc propter hoc" which renders conclusions reached by using it as totally fallacious and makes the one using it susceptible to being considered dishonest.
Especially so when the person employing it is cognizant of it but enthusiastically and cunningly plows ahead anyway.

In view of this, the conclusions reached can only be viewed merely assumptions by objective evaluators and those who adhere strictly to the exigencies of the scientific method. Which, BTW, requires that such claims be proven via repeatable demonstrations or
experiments to prove such things are true. Where are they? There are none which makes the claims unscientific via default. Abiogenesis, for example, its very foundation has never been demonstrated in his way. In short, the very foundation on which your precious idea is based lacks basic scientific methodology support.


None of the following ever has:

1. Matter comes from nothing.
2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
3. Species can change from one to another.
4. Explosions produce order.

Especially numbers two and three.

Maybe you should work for FOX News.

Really? How quaint of you to suggest that. A bit irrelevant to the subject though.

BTW

I am not against skepticism. In fact, I am applying it to your evolution idea. Neither do I believe in believing things simply because Joe Moe over there says so and because he has a Ph.D..
No, instead I believe in holding that Ph.D. to the requirements of his own profession-and if he violates those requirements then his statements are worthless regardless of his educational credentials. But this seems to be symptomatic of people who believe in these outlandish claims. Flash a Ph.D. in their direction and they believe it regardless of the lack of TRUE scientific evidence. A very sad situation indeed!

Ironically, these are the very gullibles who vehemently reject anything which is shown to contradict their ideas because a Joe Moe --um is saying it. Weird! Since that Joe Moe might very well be more true to the scientific method than the Joe Moes they place their blind faith in. Funny in a way. LOL

Actually, it constitutes fallacious reasdoning since an argument must be evaluated on its content and not on who is putting it forth. Attacking the source instead of the argument's merit might very well be taken as evidence of rebuttal insufficiency. : )

Also, my apologies to those whom I might seem to b ignoring.
I am only able to cover so much ground. But I'll try to respond to each worthy objection as I go along. : )

[Henners]

Obviously you have been thoroughly duped!

Obviously someone has.

(1) There are no fossils out of place in the geological record. If there were any, common descent would be under question. It isn't. Even that "mind-numbingly" special Behe accepts it.

(2) Every fossil found to date is intermediary. ALL of them. Every single one.

(3) Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories cannot be proven. So when you say that some twaddle or other doesn't prove evolution, you would be dead right. But the fact that evolution has occurred is not under question by the likes of Behe and Dembski. They just think that the mechanism is "special". (Of course, it's hard to tell when they are lying, unless under oath.)

(4) The "post hoc propter hoc" argument that you are attempting to expound is hamstrung by the fact that the liar that wrote it, and who you seem to be ripping off, didn't understand what he was rambling on about either.

(5) Again you claim to understand the scientific method, and you claim that it tries to prove things to be true. However, one of those claims has to be false. Either you don't understand what you are talking about and are mistaken, or you do understand and are lying. You choose.

(6) Abiogenesis is a different subject from evolution. Have you read any of the research on it? Thought not.

(7) And what about this nonsense:


1. Matter comes from nothing.
2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
3. Species can change from one to another.
4. Explosions produce order.


You claim that you don't need a PhD to understand this stuff.

Honestly, rooky, why don't you just tell us the truth:-

You don't even think that you need to understand this stuff, to understand this stuff


...and you think that is a tenable position.

[TV's Frank]

Please explain how black holes, which:

1) are well understood mathematically
2) an absolute prediction of relativity theory (which is incredibly solid) and
3) have actually been observed

is a "gnome"?

Don't tread here! It is a hard and dangerous path!

(See, for example, this knot of a thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90595)

[skeptical]

Abiogenesis, for example, its very foundation has never been demonstrated in his way. In short, the very foundation on which your precious idea is based lacks basic scientific methodology support.


None of the following ever has:

1. Matter comes from nothing.
2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.
3. Species can change from one to another.
4. Explosions produce order.

Especially numbers two and three.

Evolutionary theory does not attempt to deal with origins or the universe nor origins of live. It assumes a common ancestral life form, and goes from there. For all evolutionary theory cares, aliens could have created the first cell and gotten it going, and then variation and selection pressure take over from there. So, out of the 4 options above, the only item that is relevant to evolutionary theory is 3.

You are simply wrong that speciation has not been observed, unless you are using a non-scientific definition of species. Talkorigins has a list of several specific examples of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

As for 1, I have no idea where you got the idea of matter coming from "nothing". There is no scientific theory that says matter came from "nothing". The Big Bang theory presupposes some fundamental particles and energy, not "nothing".

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

As for 2, abiogenesis has not been directly observed, but what has been observed is:

1) amino acids and nucleic acids spontaneously generated from common elements of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor (Miller experiment)
2) subsequent experiments showed that ALL major organic compounds can be synthesized under similar conditions
3) hot clay, abundant on the early earth, has been shown to produce polypeptides and chains of nucleic acids spontaneously
4) laboratory experiments have created cell-like structures called protobionts that contain enzymes and perform basic chemistry typical of living systems
5) Coacervates are protobionts that self-assemble from a solution of polypeptides, nucleic acids, and polysaccharides under certain conditions. When enzymes are added, they are taken inside the coacervate and function normally

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/coacervate.html

So, while it is true that no complete cell has been shown to self-create from chemical reactions alone, MANY of the precursors for a primitive cell HAVE been shown to spontaneously arise from basic chemical reactions under the right conditions, and this is an area of active research.

As for 4, I have no idea what you are talking about. The Big Bang was not an "explosion", it was a rapid expansion of space-time, matter precursors and energy. Calling it an "explosion" is a misunderstanding of Big Bang theory, just like saying matter came from "nothing". The use of the term "bang" is metaphorical.

The real question is can order come from non-order given basic materials and a natural process. The answer is clearly yes, the simplest example is crystals, which form spontaneously from basic chemical materials using natural processes, under certain conditions. Crystals are clearly "ordered", and the process by which they form is clearly natural, so the answer is yes, order can come from non-order, the rest is just details of the processes, energy and precursors.



Also, my apologies to those whom I might seem to b ignoring.
I am only able to cover so much ground. But I'll try to respond to each worthy objection as I go along. : )

Take your time. BTW, I'd be interested to hear your explanation of human chromosome 2 and why it is not very strong evidence of a common ancestor between apes and humans.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Cheers.

[skeptical]

Don't tread here! It is a hard and dangerous path!

(See, for example, this knot of a thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90595)

Yikes. Didn't read the whole thread, but I get the gist.

[Dancing David]

Not very scientific and very damaging to the objectivity of future adults.


Not really, look at all the foolishness that is out there, Milton Friedman and the 'free markets lead to democracy' meme, so you find one text book that has an error that the leading scientists in the field of natural selection don't happen to agree on. Text books are frequently full of errors, that does not mean that the theory of natural selection through inherited traits is without merit.

What is your beef?

Is it that there is error in a text book?

Or that you don't like the theory of evolution?

[Dancing David]

Obviously you have been thoroughly duped!

The geological record isn't as neatly sequential as you imagine it to be.

Yeah, so, that is well know to geologists and those who study sea shells and the shells of plankton.

What planet are you from? You are making up an arbitrary standard that doesn't exist. the strata are what they are, they are not continuous at any location. And in fact the suggested theory of punctuated equilibria would say that there would be discontinuities in the morphologies of evolving species.

In fact, it sometimes blatantly contradicts the neat layer by layer evolutionary requirements.

Who says that is a requirement?

[BeAChooser]

Please explain how black holes, which:

1) are well understood mathematically
2) an absolute prediction of relativity theory (which is incredibly solid) and
3) have actually been observed

is a "gnome"?

Gladly. Let's take those claims in reverse order.

3) Black hole have not been "observed". They have only been *inferred* ... just like dark matter has been inferred. Mainstream astrophysicists, ignoring the explanations offered by electromagnetism, rely on the notion of black holes to explain certain observed motions, jets, and the supposed energy release from quasars. But these observations can be explained in other ways that are a lot less fantastical.

Now I already noted the existence of observations that contradict the claim that all quasars are distant objects. For example, in that case I cited, a quasar is supposed to be 93 times farther away than the galaxy according to Big Bang's redshift equates to distance assumption. Yet the observations suggest (even to some mainstream astronomers) that the quasar is on this side of the galaxy. All we get from Big Bang cosmologists is silence.

Now the energy release from quasars, if they are as remote as Big Bang claims, can supposedly only be explained by black holes. If they aren't as remote, we don't need black holes to explain the energy release. Indeed, in the source I linked above from Dr Peratt, computer simulations using known and validated physics show that the energy output of the plasmoid at the center of a proto-galaxy, if formed by not just gravity but electromagnetic effects on plasmas, is consistent with observations from such objects as Cygnus A. Peratt and Lerner would argue that quasars are z-pinches which not only can release the immense amounts of energy over the durations observed but also synchrotron radiation which is the form the energy in the jets from quasars takes.

To explain the jets using black holes, mainstream astrophysicists have had to invent yet more gnomes ... magnetic reconnection and tangled magnetic field lines. My challenge stands ... show us the laboratory experiments that prove the reality of magnetic reconnection of the type envisioned in black holes or even in solar flares and the corona of our sun. And field lines can't tangle because there is no such "thing" as a field line. A field line a notional concept, not a real entity. Magnetic fields are a continuum.

Hannes Alfven, a Nobel prize winner in physics in this field and the father of MagnetoHydroDynamics, said unequivocally that magnetic reconnection as envisioned by astrophysicists is pure woo. He said "we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudoscience which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics."

Plasma experts outside the astrophysics (and unfortunately now the fusion) community, such as Dr Peratt, as well as electrical engineers, such as Donald Scott, will tell you that the notion of magnetic field lines opening up, merging or recombining is fallacious. As Donald Scott noted in his recent book, "The Electric Sky", those propositions "result from an error (violation of Maxwell's equations) compounded by another error (the mistaken belief that the lines are real 3D entities in the first place)."

Donald Scott also wrote this in a peer reviewed article published in the IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/35tps04-scott-pt2.pdf, "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos, Donald Scott, October 2006". "It is clear that a rigorous understanding of the real physical properties of magnetic fields in plasmas is crucial for astrophysicists and cosmologists. Incorrect pronouncements about the properties of magnetic fields and currents in plasma will be counterproductive if these conceptual errors are propagated into publications and then used as the basis of new investigations. There are some popular misconceptions. 1) Magnetic “lines of force” really exist as extant entities in 3-D space and are involved in cosmic mechanisms when they move. 2) Magnetic fields can be open ended and can release energy by “merging” or “reconnecting.” 3) Behavior of magnetic fields can be explained without any reference to the currents that produce them. 4) Cosmic plasma is infinitely conductive, so magnetic fields are “frozen into” it. ... snip ... Maxwell showed that magnetic fields are the inseparable handmaidens of electric currents and vice versa. This is as true in the cosmos as it is here on Earth. Those investigators who, for whatever reason, have not been exposed to the now well-known properties of real plasmas and electromagnetic field theory must refrain from inventing “new” mechanisms in efforts to support current-free cosmic models. “New science” should not be invoked until all of what is now known about electromagnetic fields and electric currents in space plasma has been considered. Pronouncements that are in contradiction to Maxwell’s equations ought to be openly challenged by responsible scientists and engineers."

And even with the magnetic reconnection and tangled field line gnomes to play with, mainstream astrophysicists are still struggling to explain the jets.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_jets_040817.html from August of 2004 claims that "jets are the result of some really twisted physics ... snip ... spinning of the black hole drags space and time, which twists magnetic field lines and generates a coiled force." Then later it states "However, the specifics are controversial." and "The field is still very much up in the air".

I'll say. ;)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1947654.htm "Oldest black hole ever found, 11 June 2007, An ongoing survey of the heavens has spotted the most distant, and therefore earliest, giant black hole in the universe. The object, a quasar given the catchy name CFHQS J2329-0301 ... snip ... is about 13 billion light-years away, say the scientists. ... snip ... So how can there be any light from a black hole about 500 million times the mass of the Sun? It comes from the superheated material falling into it. ... snip ... The problem is, 13 billion years ago is just 700 million years after the Big Bang. That's generally thought to be a time before galaxies were constructed, says team member Dr John Hutchings of the National Research Council Canada's Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics. It could be that galaxies formed earlier than expected or something else entirely is going on. It's a puzzle, says Hutchings."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21348916/ "Monster black hole busts theory, Oct. 17, 2007, A stellar black hole much more massive than theory predicts is possible has astronomers puzzled. ... snip ... "We're having trouble using standard theories to explain this system because it is so massive," study team member Jerome Orosz of the University of California, San Diego, told SPACE.com. ... snip ... The team estimates the black hole's progenitor must have shed gas at a rate about 10 times less than models predicted before it exploded."

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Black_Hole_Record_Shattered_999.html "Black Hole Record Shattered ... snip ... Oct 31, 2007 ... snip ... On October 17, astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory announced that a black hole in the galaxy M33 contains 16 times the mass of the Sun. For two weeks it was the heaviest known black hole of its type. ... snip ... But in a paper to be published on November 1, another team is announcing a stellar-mass black hole with at least 24 times the mass of the Sun, and perhaps as many as 33 solar masses. ... snip ... The discovery raises the obvious question of how this black hole got to be so big. Calculations performed on computers suggest that even the most massive stars in our Milky Way Galaxy leave behind black holes with no more than 15 or 20 solar masses."

By they way ... the mass of black holes is also INFERRED. And there's more bad news.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9620-mysterious-quasar-casts-doubt-on-black-holes.html "Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes, 27 July 2006 ... snip ... Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, led a team that observed a quasar situated 9 billion light years from Earth. ... snip ... "The structure of the quasar is not at all what had been theorised," Schild told New Scientist. ... snip ... "I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study.'

http://www.physorg.com/news73057202.html "Astronomer Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) and his colleagues studied the quasar known as Q0957+561 ...snip ... Most would consider that object to be a 'black hole,' but ... snip ... 'We don't call this object a black hole because we have found evidence that it contains an internally anchored magnetic field that penetrates right through the surface of the collapsed central object, and that interacts with the quasar environment' ... snip ... "Our finding challenges the accepted view of black holes," said Leiter. "We've even proposed a new name for them - Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects, or MECOs".

You see what they did in the above case? They invented yet another gnome, MECOs, which sadly still rely on bogus magnetic field physics (anchored fields and tangled, reconnecting magnetic field lines) to explain the jets. Not one of them appears to have heard of double layers, plasmoids (z-pinches) and the research of Peratt and Lerner. Or understood what Alfven, Falthammar, and Heikkila published years ago.

Mainstream astrophysicist aren't performing science anymore ... they are inventing gnomes to explain what they otherwise can't explain in their universe where electromagnetic effects on plasmas are virtually ignored. I think Donald Scott summed their methods up best: "Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories (FAIRIE DUST)". All because they refuse to understand electromagnetic effects on plasma or accept the fact that space is filled with plasma, electric currents, and electric/magnetic fields created by those currents.

In most cases, the phenomena they've identified as evidence of tangled fields and magnetic reconnection is actually evidence of double layers, z-pinches and Birkeland currents ... phenomena that occur on earth, can be reproduced in labs, and modeled in computers using the known laws of physics. No gnomes needed. Black holes are NOT needed to explain the energy level or jets from quasars. Magnetic reconnection as envisioned by mainstream astrophysicists doesn't exist so it can't explain the jets from black holes (or a host of other space phenomena that mainstream astrophysicists now call on it to explain). But Peratt and the electric universe community can ... with physics they can actually demonstrate here on earth.

2) Next, let's consider your the assertion that black holes are "an absolute prediction of relativity theory (which is incredibly solid)".

I'm not saying black holes don't exist ... somewhere ... sometimes. Just that they aren't needed to explain the phenomena they are alleged to explain in countless objects. And if you need to invent even more gnomes (like magnetic reconnection) to use them to explain phenomena, and those gnomes don't exist, then you have an even bigger problem.

1) Finally, you say that black holes "are well understood mathematically".

Well perhaps you just stated the underlying problem without realizing it. ;)

Here's some good reading to that effect ...

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9kpgc4td

http://www.rense.com/general78/rdod.htm

***********

I found this of interest ... mainstream astrophysicists yet again calling on black holes and bogus tangled/twisted/reconnected magnetic field line gnomes:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020604073033.htm "June 4, 2002, Black Hole Dynamo May Be Cosmos' Ultimate Electricity Generator ... snip ... June 3, 2002 - Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory believe that magnetic field lines extending a few million light years from galaxies into space may be the result of incredibly efficient energy-producing dynamos within black holes that are somewhat analogous to an electric motor. ... snip ... In other words, the black hole energy is being efficiently converted into magnetic fields. The mechanism is not yet fully understood, but Kronberg and his colleagues believe a black hole accretion disk could be acting similarly to an electric motor."

What is ironic is that Hannes Alfven proposed an electric motor model, sans the black hole because it wasn't needed, nearly 30 years ago (see http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm ).

The Science Daily source continues:

"The Los Alamos researchers are calculating methods by which enormous amounts of expelled magnetic energy are converted into heat - manifested in the form of a relativistic gas of cosmic rays that create radio energy that can be detected by radio telescopes such as the Very Large Array. Although the exact mechanism is still a mystery, the Los Alamos researchers believe that a sudden reconnection or fusing of the magnetic field lines creates and accelerates the cosmic rays. The researchers still don't understand why this fast magnetic field reconnection occurs. "

That's because it doesn't. Hannes Alfven, a Nobel Prize winner in the field ... the man who invented magnetohydrodynamics ... proved years ago that "magnetic field reconnection" as envisioned by astrophysicists is a fairy tale. He said anyone claiming it should be ignored ... dismissed ... because they don't know what they are talking about.

[Dancing David]

In view of this, the conclusions reached can only be viewed merely assumptions by objective evaluators and those who adhere strictly to the exigencies of the scientific method. Which, BTW, requires that such claims be proven via repeatable demonstrations or
experiments to prove such things are true. Where are they? There are none which makes the claims unscientific via default. Abiogenesis, for example, its very foundation has never been demonstrated in his way. In short, the very foundation on which your precious idea is based lacks basic scientific methodology support.

That is cute assembly of words and it ignore the fact that often all people can do is look at the theory which best matches the observation. The theory of natural selection is falsifiable, it makes predictions which the evidence could contradict.

Are you sure you understand science? Astrophysics is in the same boat, yet it makes predictions that can be falsified.

Where is your beef?




None of the following ever has:

1. Matter comes from nothing.

Hmm, that is funny and probably a misstatement of something. the Big band event theory does not require that the universe came from nothing. It comes from something/nothing which is unknowable and currently beyond anything other than speculation.

Virtual particles do no come from nothing, they come from the vacuum energy.

2. Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.

That is not a claim either.
1. Do catalysts exist?
2. Is it possible to have an catalyst that catalyses anothere catalyst?
3. Is it possible to have a set of catalysts that act to help support each other?
4. Is it possible that such a set could be in a tide pool or in a pond?
5. Is it possible it could be contained in a lipid layer?
6. What are the odds, how many players are there over how much time?

Life is not theorised to have developed in a flash.

3. Species can change from one to another.

That is a matter of debate, what is a species, how do you define it?

4. Explosions produce order.

Who made that claim?



Especially numbers two and three.



Really? How quaint of you to suggest that. A bit irrelevant to the subject though.

BTW

I am not against skepticism. In fact, I am applying it to your evolution idea. Neither do I believe in believing things simply because Joe Moe over there says so and because he has a Ph.D..
No, instead I believe in holding that Ph.D. to the requirements of his own profession-and if he violates those requirements then his statements are worthless regardless of his educational credentials. But this seems to be symptomatic of people who believe in these outlandish claims. Flash a Ph.D. in their direction and they believe it regardless of the lack of TRUE scientific evidence. A very sad situation indeed!

Ironically, these are the very gullibles who vehemently reject anything which is shown to contradict their ideas because a Joe Moe --um is saying it. Weird! Since that Joe Moe might very well be more true to the scientific method than the Joe Moes they place their blind faith in. Funny in a way. LOL

Actually, it constitutes fallacious reasdoning since an argument must be evaluated on its content and not on who is putting it forth. Attacking the source instead of the argument's merit might very well be taken as evidence of rebuttal insufficiency. : )

Also, my apologies to those whom I might seem to b ignoring.
I am only able to cover so much ground. But I'll try to respond to each worthy objection as I go along. : )

[skeptical]

Gladly. Let's take those claims in reverse order.

3) Black hole have not been "observed". They have only been *inferred* ... just like dark matter has been inferred. Mainstream astrophysicists, ignoring the explanations offered by electromagnetism, rely on the notion of black holes to explain certain observed motions, jets, and the supposed energy release from quasars. But these observations can be explained in other ways that are a lot less fantastical.

Ok, that is true, but it is also true that much of physics can only be inferred, particularly in particle physics. You have posted copious links, which I will look at. However, knowing how the scientific community operates, I am always suspicious when an idea has been around for decades, and is not accepted. Despite initial resistance, if a theory has the goods and agrees with experiment better than the next, it will win out. If this theory has legs, I wonder why there are only a handful of supporters. That seems very strange to me right off the bat.


Mainstream astrophysicist aren't performing science anymore ... they are inventing gnomes to explain what they otherwise can't explain in their universe where electromagnetic effects on plasmas are virtually ignored. I think Donald Scott summed their methods up best: "Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories (FAIRIE DUST)". All because they refuse to understand electromagnetic effects on plasma or accept the fact that space is filled with plasma, electric currents, and electric/magnetic fields created by those currents.

Another red flag. If a theory has the goods, it is not necessary to resort to name calling and ad-hom, that is a classic psuedoscience tactic. If this theory is so much better and can explain all the data, why is no one else accepting it. It is not enough to just make a broad claim that they "aren't doing science", I don't buy it. Quantum theory is about as weird as it gets, but it was nearly universally accepted in time. This theory you support has been around since the 70's and has only a handful of adherents. That has all the markings of a bad theory.


2) Next, let's consider your the assertion that black holes are "an absolute prediction of relativity theory (which is incredibly solid)".

I'm not saying black holes don't exist ... somewhere ... sometimes. Just that they aren't needed to explain the phenomena they are alleged to explain in countless objects. And if you need to invent even more gnomes (like magnetic reconnection) to use them to explain phenomena, and those gnomes don't exist, then you have an even bigger problem.

If they exist, then they are not "gnomes". Period. This sort of name calling does not give me great confidence in this theory you support. Good theories don't need this sort of childishness to convince people.

BTW, I googled "magnetic reconnection", which I will admit I had never heard of, and the very first hit was: http://mrx.pppl.gov
It looks like there are a large numbers of physicists who have experimental evidence confirming MR, contrary to your assertions that it is a "gnome".


1) Finally, you say that black holes "are well understood mathematically".

Well perhaps you just stated the underlying problem without realizing it. ;)

I am not saying that mathematics alone proves the existence of black holes, but in many cases if a phenomenon cannot be explained mathematically based on known physics models, then this is a big red flag. In any case, you admit that black holes exist, so this point is irrelevant.


Here's some good reading to that effect ...

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9kpgc4td

http://www.rense.com/general78/rdod.htm


Thx for the links, but I generally don't get my science from "popular" web sites, especially ones that have a big link on their page to "cures they don't want you to know about".

I said I would look at your links, and I will, but my initial observations are that this has all the classic makings of woo because:

1) Your repeated references to Hannes Alfven as a "nobel prize winner", which is simply an argument from authority. Linus Pauling won 2 nobel prizes, but later in life thought that massive doses of vitamin C would cure anything. Einstein refused to accept Quantum theory. Newton experimented with Alchemy. No lone scientist is immune to error, which is why the communal effort and the body of literature is far more important than any single person or experiment.

2) This theory has been around since the 70's and has not made any progress in convincing the scientific community. That is a huge red flag.

3) Despite your assertion and arguments from authority that magnetic reconnection is a "gnome", in a few minutes searching I found organizations actively conducting experiments and publishing papers in peer reviewed journals that demonstrate its existence. That does not give me much confidence in your other assertions.

As I said, I will look at your links, but what you have presented basically amounts to arguments from an authority, backed by a small group of "mavericks", supported by extravagant claims, and evidenced by name calling and claims that the entire astrophysical community is suffering under a grand delusion despite all the experiments they are actually performing. This looks very similar to the ID movement, just not as well funded.

I am not hopeful that this is not going to be a complete waste of my time.

[Jimbo07]

I am not hopeful that this is not going to be a complete waste of my time.

My plasma expertise is next to nil. That is, if the layman's plasma expertise is nil, mine is just a hair above it, due to my educational background and specifically, one experiment with genuine plasma physics apparatus.

I don't know what BAC's background is, or what axe BAC has to grind, but it seems that what BAC does not know about plasma physics could fill volumes (specifically, journals on plasma and fusion physics ;) ). It's also been my (limited) experience that genuine working plasma physicists are not rabid plasma cosmologists.

Finally, and this is directed at BAC: What, exactly, do you think is going on with the education of astrophysicists, and why do you imagine they could get their degrees without having some passing knowledge of E&M? :boggled:

[Radrook]

That is cute assembly of words and it ignore the fact that often all people can do is look at the theory which best matches the observation. The theory of natural selection is falsifiable, it makes predictions which the evidence could contradict. Are you sure you understand science? Astrophysics is in the same boat, yet it makes predictions that can be falsified.



I understand the scientific method. Are you sure you do?
The not falsifiable argumernt is yours not mine.


That is not a claim either.
1. Do catalysts exist?
2. Is it possible to have an catalyst that catalyses anothere catalyst?
3. Is it possible to have a set of catalysts that act to help support each other?
4. Is it possible that such a set could be in a tide pool or in a pond?
5. Is it possible it could be contained in a lipid layer?
6. What are the odds, how many players are there over how much time? Life is not theorised to have developed in a flash.



I never said nor suggested that life came into existence in a flash or that evolutionist sugggest that it came in a flash.

As for the steps you just mentioned, I guess I choose to agree with the scientists who consider it impossible while you choose to agree with those who don't.

[mijopaalmc]

I understand the scientific method. Are you sure you do?
The not falsifiable argumernt is yours not mine.

So how is natural selection not falsifiable?

I never said nor suggested that life came into existence in a flash or that evolutionist sugggest that it came in a flash.

As for the steps you just mentioned, I guess I choose to agree with the scientists who consider it impossible while you choose to agree with those who don't.

Except the "scientists who consider [abiogenesis] impossible" don't exist.

[Henners]

As for the steps you just mentioned, I guess I choose to agree with the scientists who consider it impossible while you choose to agree with those who don't.

In other words, you elect to believe that the probability of such an occurrence is zero.

But no reasoning is involved, just a choice of belief.

Worthless speculation in other words.

Well, gosh, I am surprised.

And the "scientists" who "consider it impossible" have Phony Doctorates is what? Spiritualism? Conjuring ghosts? Astrology?

Go on. Do tell what these "scientists" you keep referring to actually did to become "scientists" - other than forking over fifty bucks for the privilege.

[skeptical]

As for the steps you just mentioned, I guess I choose to agree with the scientists who consider it impossible while you choose to agree with those who don't.

Any scientist who says anything is "impossible" is not doing science. All one is allowed to say is that under the currently understood laws of nature, there is no way for a given event to occur. That is a subtle distinction, but an important one. I would never say anything is impossible, just that it violates all known laws of science at our present understanding, and that is what anyone committed to the scientific method would say.

Also, simply choosing to agree with someone is again not science, that is just an argument from authority. The only relevant question is what is the data and what reasonable inferences can be drawn. If you say "I choose to agree with so and so" just because someone says so, that is not science.

You seem to be ignoring me, so let me post again 2 points from my previous response, first in regards to abiogenesis:

As for 2, abiogenesis has not been directly observed, but what has been observed is:

1) amino acids and nucleic acids spontaneously generated from common elements of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor (Miller experiment)
2) subsequent experiments showed that ALL major organic compounds can be synthesized under similar conditions
3) hot clay, abundant on the early earth, has been shown to produce polypeptides and chains of nucleic acids spontaneously
4) laboratory experiments have created cell-like structures called protobionts that contain enzymes and perform basic chemistry typical of living systems
5) Coacervates are protobionts that self-assemble from a solution of polypeptides, nucleic acids, and polysaccharides under certain conditions. When enzymes are added, they are taken inside the coacervate and function normally

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...oacervate.html

So, while it is true that no complete cell has been shown to self-create from chemical reactions alone, MANY of the precursors for a primitive cell HAVE been shown to spontaneously arise from basic chemical reactions under the right conditions, and this is an area of active research.

Given the progress so far, it would seem very presumptive to state categorically that some combination of coacervates, nucleic acids and chemical processes could NEVER lead to a simple cell. Of course, if one has predetermined that evidence doesn't matter it is an easy enough jump to make that it is "impossible". A jump you clearly are comfortable with.

Second: I'd be interested to hear your explanation of human chromosome 2 and why it is not very strong evidence of a common ancestor between apes and humans.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

[BeAChooser]

It's essentially one long rant about how more money should be given to Smolin's particular stripe of quantum gravity theory

A gross mischaracterization of the book but then you apparently skipped most of it. Here's are excerpts from several reviews of the book:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/08/lee-smolins-trouble-with-physics.html "The fourth - and in my opinion most important - part then analyzes why and how science works best, what sociological problems we face, and under which circumstances research flourishes best. It addresses the problem of groupthink in the string community, the disastrous low-risk-attitude of current funding, and the inefficiency in hiring decisions when it comes to preserving diversity. Lee points out that many of today's research strategies might have been appropriate some decades ago, but do now hinder progress. Political pressure on young as well as senior scientists has grown to become a reason for concern. He concludes in a summarizing chapter What can we do for science with a plea for open-mindedness and "intellectual freedom". Lee tells a story of a frustrating time, of waiting, but also a story of hope. It's a story told by someone who knows what he is talking about, someone who has a vision, and who doesn't get tired repeating and fighting. Fighting for science to stay scientific."

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050 " String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture." As Smolin reminds his readers, string theorists haven't been able to prove any of their exotic ideas, and he says there isn't much chance that they will in the foreseeable future. The discovery of "dark energy," which seems to be pushing the universe apart faster and faster, isn't explained by string theory and is proving troublesome for that theory's advocates. Smolin (The Life of the Cosmos) believes that physicists are making the mistake of searching for a theory that is "beautiful" and "elegant" instead of one that's actually backed up by experiments. He encourages physicists to investigate new alternatives and highlights several young physicists whose work he finds promising."

Of course, that sounds just like the situation now facing Big Bang.

And by the way, how many books have you written that received a 4.5 out of 5 stars from 84 customer reviews???

Here's some more favorable reviews (I'm linking them in the order they came up when I googled). They show, by the way, that you didn't really read or try to understand Smolin's book.

http://realityconditions.blogspot.com/2006/12/book-review-lee-smolin-trouble-with.html

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/01/06/053331.php

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_10_28.html

And I could go on and on and on.

Tell you what ... why don't you list some reviews that didn't like the book. Written by someone other than a string theorist. LOL!

[Davidlpf]

I am not convinced either that string thory has proven itself, but it is alot closer then the electric universe. At the the moment we do not have anyway of detecting the strings directly. Also BAC book reviews do not prove your point neither do pretty pictures.

[Dancing David]

I understand the scientific method. Are you sure you do?
The not falsifiable argumernt is yours not mine.





I never said nor suggested that life came into existence in a flash or that evolutionist sugggest that it came in a flash.


Your own words.

Non-living material can spontaneously become alive.


As though that was a claim you were disputing.


As for the steps you just mentioned, I guess I choose to agree with the scientists who consider it impossible while you choose to agree with those who don't.

Fair enough , who says that abiogenesis is not possible?

[Henners]

I understand the scientific method.

So how come everything that you post concerning it is complete baloney?

Are you genuinely incompetent, or just pretending to be?

[BeAChooser]

it is also true that much of physics can only be inferred, particularly in particle physics.

But Electric Universe theorists don't have the same problem. Their physics aren't inferred. They are demonstrable in labs here on earth and can be modeled in state of the art computer codes that are regularly used to solve real life problems here on earth.

knowing how the scientific community operates, I am always suspicious when an idea has been around for decades, and is not accepted.

What if the criticisms of Lerner, Smolin and these folks (http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ ) are valid? What if science is broken because of the way science is NOW being taught, funded, and published? Science is supposed to be an empirical approach to understanding the world. Mainstream astrophysicists seem to have forgotten that. All the gnomes they've invented to prop up Big Bang are the result of a deductive approach. There is no hard evidence that ANY of them are real. And that can lead to trouble if the underlying assumptions are wrong. For example, did you know that it is ASSUMED that no matter has been created since the Big Bang? There are other solutions to the equations of General Relativity which do not assume this and the universe they would produce looks decidedly different ... in fact, more in line with the observations that plasma/electric universe advocates point to as inconsistent with Big Bang.

Despite initial resistance, if a theory has the goods and agrees with experiment better than the next, it will win out. If this theory has legs, I wonder why there are only a handful of supporters. That seems very strange to me right off the bat.

Why not just address the question of why NONE of the mainstream models of galaxy formation and behavior account for electromagnetic effects on plasmas that have been known for more than 30 years? And when they are accounted for in peer reviewed work they appear to explain phenomena that mainstream astrophysicists continue to insist result only from their gnomes.

Why not address the question of why NASA will not even consider the electric theory of comets despite the fact that electric theorists predicted most of the phenomena observed during recent experiments on comets ... phenenena which came as complete surprises to the mainstream community.

Maybe the problem is that science is now BIG BUSINESS (which it wasn't a century ago when it still worked) and there are now too many pay checks, too many expensive big science projects, and too many important people in positions of decision making who have staked their reputations on Big Bang to do anything but try to and keep Big Bang alive by whatever means ... even if it means ignoring known electromagnetic effects on plasma and dreaming up new ones that clearly violate Maxwell's laws??

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Mainstream astrophysicist aren't performing science anymore ... they are inventing gnomes to explain what they otherwise can't explain in their universe where electromagnetic effects on plasmas are virtually ignored. I think Donald Scott summed their methods up best: "Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories (FAIRIE DUST)". All because they refuse to understand electromagnetic effects on plasma or accept the fact that space is filled with plasma, electric currents, and electric/magnetic fields created by those currents.

Another red flag. If a theory has the goods, it is not necessary to resort to name calling and ad-hom, that is a classic psuedoscience tactic.

The only pseudo-science here is that being promoted by the mainstream astrophysics community. They are the ones with the gnomes that they just can't seem to prove exist ... even after 30 years of expensive experiments. NOTHING that I said above is untrue. If you want to prove me wrong, you are going to have to address the data I put forth ... and I have plenty more where that came from on numerous other aspects of the overall issue.


If this theory is so much better and can explain all the data, why is no one else accepting it.

Why do most people not know about the facts in Filegate, the death of Ron Brown, and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick? Because the media didn't inform them. Most people (including many scientists) are completely unaware of the case that Electric Universe theorists have made about quasars, black holes, the work of Peratt, the electric sun model, the electric comet model. Astrophysicists are not taught about them or electromagnetic effects in college. They are brainwashed into thinking everything is about gravity. And those inside the astrophysics world who make the decisions now have a vested interest in not accepting anything but Big Bang. It's a recipe for disaster. That sort of process leads to beliefs like epicycles.

It is not enough to just make a broad claim that they "aren't doing science", I don't buy it.

I'm not. I'm noting specific experimental problems with mainstream astrophysics and telling you specifically why the electric universe/plasma cosmology offers a solution.

Quantum theory is about as weird as it gets, but it was nearly universally accepted in time.

Because it was experimentally proven here on earth. Because at the time Quantum theory was first put forth, there were no vested interests with absolute control over what got researched and published with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And I'll bet you if that national security depended tomorrow on whether Big Bang is right or wrong, you'd see some changes.

This theory you support has been around since the 70's and has only a handful of adherents. That has all the markings of a bad theory.

I still don't see you making any effort to address the specific complaints I've raised or alternatives I offered. That's a "red flag", as you say. That's not the way science is conducted. If you want to challenge what I put forth, do so. You can start by explaining why none of the models of galactic formation or behavior include electromagnetic effects on plasma that have been known since the time of Birkeland and Alfven despite peer reviewed work that says they should be included if you want to correctly model galaxies.

If they exist, then they are not "gnomes". Period.

But you haven't proven black holes exist. You haven't actually "seen" them. You've just inferred them from observations that actually have a much simpler and more ordinary explanation that we can even model in our laboratories (scaled, of course). Period.

BTW, I googled "magnetic reconnection", which I will admit I had never heard of

ROTFLOL! You haven't heard of it? How could that be when a google search of "magnetic reconnection" yields 150,000 hits? How could that be when for several decades astrophysicists have been using it to explain away just about any energetic event seen in space that they couldn't otherwise explain ... from solar flares to coronal temperatures to the jets from quasars, black holes, neutron stars, quark stars and proto-stars? Perhaps, having never heard of this, you are ill prepared to weigh in on this discussion. Because I bet you've never heard of double layers, Birkeland currents or z-pinches either.

You mentioned "pseudo-science"? Well here is what Hannes Alfven, a renowned Nobel Prize winner in physics in the area of plasma and the father of magnetohydrodynamics said about *magnetic reconnection*. "We have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudoscience which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics."

From Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma: "If a double layer has been formed by a current I, energy at rate P=IV(sub)D is released in the double layer. This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles. A small fraction is usually dissipated as noise. Of course, the accelerated particles interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released energy finally is dissipated as heating and radiation. Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of magnetic merging or of magnetic field-line reconnection, or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II3.3, II.5.3). In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field."

Everyone who promotes these bogus magnetic gnomes should be forced to read this peer reviewed article in the IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science by an electrical engineering professor: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/35tps04-scott-pt2.pdf, "Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos, Donald Scott, October 2006". Here is an excerpt: "It is clear that a rigorous understanding of the real physical properties of magnetic fields in plasmas is crucial for astrophysicists and cosmologists. Incorrect pronouncements about the properties of magnetic fields and currents in plasma will be counterproductive if these conceptual errors are propagated into publications and then used as the basis of new investigations. There are some popular misconceptions. 1) Magnetic “lines of force” really exist as extant entities in 3-D space and are involved in cosmic mechanisms when they move. 2) Magnetic fields can be open ended and can release energy by “merging” or “reconnecting.” 3) Behavior of magnetic fields can be explained without any reference to the currents that produce them. 4) Cosmic plasma is infinitely conductive, so magnetic fields are “frozen into” it. ... snip ... Maxwell showed that magnetic fields are the inseparable handmaidens of electric currents and vice versa. This is as true in the cosmos as it is here on Earth. Those investigators who, for whatever reason, have not been exposed to the now well-known properties of real plasmas and electromagnetic field theory must refrain from inventing “new” mechanisms in efforts to support current-free cosmic models. “New science” should not be invoked until all of what is now known about electromagnetic fields and electric currents in space plasma has been considered. Pronouncements that are in contradiction to Maxwell’s equations ought to be openly challenged by responsible scientists and engineers." Read the article and you'll find that Donald Scott goes into great detail as to why astrophysicists have no clue what they are talking about when they speak of tangled, open, reconnected, and frozen magnetic field lines. And if they don't understand something they can study here on earth in laboratories, then what makes anyone think astrophysicists understand black holes at the very edge of the universe? If astrophysicists can't logically explain what creates the jets from objects they claim contain black holes without violating known physics, maybe the reason is that those objects don't contain black holes and something else is producing those jets ... electromagnetic phenomena that actually have been studied and observed here on earth.

and the very first hit was: http://mrx.pppl.gov It looks like there are a large numbers of physicists who have experimental evidence confirming MR, contrary to your assertions that it is a "gnome".

Wrong. They do not have experimental evidence of the type of magnetic reconnection required to explain astronomical objects. Did you actually read the source you cited? Nowhere in there do they describe an experiment which results in the reconnection rates and level of energy transfer found in space.

These experiments are just now taking place when for decades astrophysicists have claimed with absolute certainty that reconnection existed and explains the phenomena. That should tell you something. I can post paper after paper where they did experiments and could not produce the rates and energy tranfers needed. And I still see no actual data proving they have.

More important, a good case can be made that the MRX researchers are totally misinterpreting the data. Alfven warned that the "tests" that are currently being conducted to look for magnetic reconnection are "misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention". That's because what they describe seeing in experiments are actually collapsing double layers, Birkeland currents and z-pinches ... phenomena that electrical engineers and plasma physicists outside the astrophysics (and apparently fusion research) area have known about, studied and modeled for more than 30 years.

The description of magnetic reconnection at that site is nonsense. It states magnetic reconnection "refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma." Notice that there is no mention of electric currents. The astrophysics community seems to believe that magnetic fields just appear out of thin air ... or vacuum as the case may be. Wrong. They are created by currents.

The MRX description further states that "it is well known that magnetic field lines are 'frozen-in' to an infinitely conductive plasma." Again, this is nonsense. Alfven originally reasoned that if plasma is an ideal conductor, then magnetic fields inside them are frozen-in. He invented the idea. But Alfven soon realized that plasmas are not perfect conductors and thus electric fields can and do exist within them. Therefore, according to the equations of Maxwell, magnetic fields cannot be frozen inside them. The fact that the MRX researchers talk as if they are shows how misguided they are in their approach ... how little they understand the physics. Regarding "the concepts of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' and 'field-line reconnection'", Alfven wrote "in the present paper, it is demonstrated that both concepts are unnecessary and often misleading. The frozen-in concept is shown to belong to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases." And this is not one of those cases. Sorry, but magnetic fields are NOT frozen inside the plasmas we are talking about. And who better would know than the Nobel prize winning father of magnetohydrodynamics?

The MRX description states "since charged plasma particles are confined to circular orbits around magnetic field lines, this means that infinitely conductive plasmas will not diffuse across field lines and mix. Conversely, two distinct field lines will remain separate since they cannot penetrate the intervening plasma." They seem to think field lines are real entities. They are not. They are conceptual notions that help visualize physics. That's all they are and all they should be used for. Magnetic fields are a continuum ... not discrete entities. The fact that they continue to view magnetic field lines as if they are real entities that open, merge, tangle, pull, and stick again shows how disconnected from reality the mainstream MRX researchers have become.

What the MRX site is describing is actually called a double layer. It consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge (and magnetic fields). The charge in the layers cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in electrical potential across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. They and z-pinches produce the sort of radiation observed coming from locations where the phenomena astrophysicists claim reconnection occurs. And they can explode, violently releasing a portion of the energy stored in the entire current-carrying circuit (hence, solar flares). This has been studied in labs and observed in real world cases here on earth for decades. Yet the current crop of astrophysicists (and unfortunately now controlled fusion researchers) don't seem to have ever heard of it. So they dream up this bogus reconnection idea and call it original, while ignoring everything else to do with electromagnetic effects on plasmas. That's not science.

And note this. Mainstream astrophysicists use MHD codes to model these phenomena. They've simply ignored the wisdom and warning of Alfven. Hannes Alfven said in 1986 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986stpr.rept..409A ) their use of MHD is improper. "As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the Sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth." And interestingly enough, they recently discovered plasma jets emanating from the sun's axes just as Alfven predicted.

And to prove how uncertain mainstream astrophysicists are regarding their theories, here's a brand new gnome now being promoted by some in the community who are waking up to the realization that the reconnection gnome is not working. They suggest "sound fountains". I kid you not.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11635-sound-waves-reverberate-through-solar-pipes.html "Sound waves reverberate through solar 'pipes', 19 April 2007 ... snip ... Sound waves reverberate through loops in the Sun's outer atmosphere in response to explosions from down below, a new study reveals. The sound waves should help scientists understand the Sun's still mysterious outer atmosphere, or corona. The waves are observed vibrating in structures called coronal loops – long filaments of charged gas that are attached to the Sun at both ends. They trace the Sun's magnetic field in its outer atmosphere. ... snip ... The observations revealed that the waves are triggered by explosions called microflares in the Sun's lower atmosphere. 'We can now say that these are acoustic waves and these waves are excited by explosions at the foot points of these loops,' Taroyan told New Scientist. Studying the sound waves may help solve the mystery of why temperatures in the corona are so high – measuring in the millions of degrees – even though the Sun's visible surface, which lies two layers beneath the corona, is only a few thousand degrees. The sound waves themselves do not have enough energy to account for the mysterious heat. But the way they vibrate in the coronal loops sheds light on the corona's properties, revealing the way heat energy is distributed there."

http://www.physorg.com/news99672854.html "Magnetic Field Uses Sound Waves To Ignite Sun's Ring Of Fire. May 29, 2007 ... snip ... 'We've been able to show how the sound can escape the building and travel a long way using the magnetic field as a guide.' The new result also helps explain a mystery that's existed since the middle of the last century -- why the sun's chromosphere (and the corona above) is much hotter than the visible surface of the star. ... snip ... The observations gave detailed insights into how some of the trapped waves and their pent-up energy manage to leak out through magnetic 'cracks' in the photosphere, sending mass and energy shooting upwards into the atmosphere above. By analyzing motions of the solar atmosphere in detail, the scientists observed that where there are strong knots in the Sun's magnetic field, sound waves from the interior can leak out and propagate upward into its atmosphere."

It's hard not to laugh when mainstream *astrophysicists* keep inventing gnomes but miss the obvious ... the presence of double layers and other electrical/plasma phenomena at these "fountain" sites.

Here's another recent attempt by some in the mainstream to explain Coronal temperatures (and I ask you, why would they have to do this if they were so sure about their recent reconnection gnome tests?). Notice the date ...

http://space.newscientist.com/channel/solar-system/dn12564-magnetic-ripples-may-solve-mystery-of-suns-heat.html Magnetic ripples may solve mystery of Sun's heat, 30 August 2007 ... Elusive magnetic ripples called Alfvén waves have been spotted shimmering in the Sun's outer atmosphere, or corona, for the first time. The waves travel 10 times faster than the speed of sound and may help crack the mystery of why the corona is so much hotter than the Sun's visible surface. At 2 million degrees Celsius, the corona is hundreds of times hotter than the Sun's visible surface, which lies beneath it and simmers at a mere 5000° C. But figuring out what injects so much heat into the corona has eluded scientists for decades. One idea is that the corona is heated by magnetic ripples called Alfvén waves. These waves – which had been observed in the solar wind but never in the corona – are vibrations of the Sun's magnetic field lines. ... snip ... The waves Tomczyk's team has observed appear to carry too little energy to account for the heating of the corona, by a factor of at least 10,000."

Gee ... only a factor of 10,000! That's an indication how badly these *scientists* grasp what is really going on out there.

In fact, the various mainstream articles on this lead one to believe the researchers don't have any appreciation of why they are called Alfven waves, what a towering figure Alfven was, and what else Alfven believed. They've missed the obvious. Alfven wrote in a letter to Nature in 1942 that "If a conducting liquid is placed in a constant magnetic field, every motion of the liquid gives rise to an E.M.F. which produces electric currents. Owing to the magnetic field, these currents give mechanical forces which change the state of motion of the liquid. Thus a kind of combined electromagnetic-hydrodynamic wave is produced." In short, an Alfvén wave is a wave that occurs in a plasma due to the interaction of the magnetic fields and electric currents within it. These Alfven waves are indicative of electric currents flowing in a plasma filament where the field aligned currents flow in parallel to the magnetic fields.

This is not inconsistent with the Electric Sun model. Indeed, this discovery should be considered supportive evidence of the Electric Sun model. And it would be if these so-called *physicists* weren't guided by one overriding principle ... *anything but electricity*. Alfven predicted these field-align currents in 1939 based on work by Kristian Birkeland. He predicted Alfven waves in 1942. That prediction led to the development of his theory of magnetohydrodynamics, which resulted in a Nobel Prize in physics in 1970. He predicted astrophysical double layers in 1958. They have subsequently been discovered in magnetospheres, the Sun, and other places. Yet mainstream astrophysicists remain clueless and ignore the double layer explanation. And they appear equally ignorant of Birkeland currents and z-pinch phenomena.

In any case, you admit that black holes exist, so this point is irrelevant.

I did not admit that. I said I'm not arguing that black holes don't exist at all. I have no idea. Just that they don't exist in all the objects they are currently claimed to exist in ... by the billions. Because something much simpler that we do know exists for certain can explain all the phenomena claimed to prove the existence of black holes ... and neutron stars ... and quark stars ... etc.

Thx for the links, but I generally don't get my science from "popular" web sites,

Given that you were unaware of magnetic reconnection, you obviously don't get your science from "scientific" websites either. ;)

1) Your repeated references to Hannes Alfven as a "nobel prize winner", which is simply an argument from authority.

:D Right. And your argument is to stick your head in the mud.

2) This theory has been around since the 70's and has not made any progress in convincing the scientific community. That is a huge red flag.

You want to draw examples from history? I offer one word ... epicycles.

3) Despite your assertion and arguments from authority that magnetic reconnection is a "gnome", in a few minutes searching I found organizations actively conducting experiments and publishing papers in peer reviewed journals that demonstrate its existence. That does not give me much confidence in your other assertions.

They don't even recognize a double layer when the description of one is staring them in the face. Just like they haven't recognized the description of a Birkeland current when its stared them in the face. That doesn't give me much confidence in their assertions concerning magnetic reconnection.

You might not be aware of it, but what is happening before our eyes is that the scientific community is splitting into two groups. One is the mainstream astrophysicists who continue to rely on the deductive method (which isn't science). The other group consists of electrical engineers and plasma experts who insist we return to empirically based methods. The latter group have given up on changing the mainstream after 30 years of having astrophysicists basically ignore them. They are now holding their own IEEE sponsored conferences on cosmology and publishing their peer reviewed articles in IEEE journals rather than astronomy magazines. You may not be aware of the fact that the American Institute of Physics even recently announced that they will now officially recognize the Plasma Universe as an official field of study.

And you may not be aware of the fact that there are many other observations that have mainstream astrophysicists scratching their heads but which electric universe proponents have no trouble explaining in a consistent manner using their already proven physics. Want to talk about comets?

[sol invictus]

Why not just address the question of why NONE of the mainstream models of galaxy formation and behavior account for electromagnetic effects on plasmas that have been known for more than 30 years?

Hmmm... maybe because there are no such effects?

why NASA will not even consider the electric theory of comets

Yeah - what could the reason possibly be??

Maybe the problem is that science is now BIG BUSINESS...that clearly violate Maxwell's laws??

An evil conspiracy suppressing electromagnetism. Strange, since every single astro and physics major is required by that same evil establishment to spend several semesters studying Maxwell's equations as an undergrad, and typically another year in a Ph.D. program. But I guess they're all stupid.

NOTHING that I said above is untrue.

:jaw-dropp

Why do most people not know about the facts in Filegate, the death of Ron Brown, and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick? ... Most people (including many scientists) are completely unaware of the case that Electric Universe theorists...

That's the most valid argument you've made so far.

Astrophysicists are not taught about them or electromagnetic effects in college.

News to EVERY SINGLE ASTRO AND PHYSICS MAJOR in the world, all of whom suffer through semesters of E&M classes.

And I'll bet you if that national security depended tomorrow on whether Big Bang is right or wrong, you'd see some changes.

Great point!! Clearly our political leaders, with a proven track record of solid decision making, should dictate to us what we should think about the big bang.

Well here is what Hannes Alfven, a renowned Nobel Prize winner in physics in the area of plasma and the father of magnetohydrodynamics
and a crackpot loon.

Wrong. They do not have experimental evidence of the type of magnetic reconnection required to explain astronomical objects. Did you actually read the source you cited? Nowhere in there do they describe an experiment which results in the reconnection rates and level of energy transfer found in space.

Oh, you mean just like the "evidence" you keep citing for your ridiculous theory?

And by the way, some of the experiments on magnetic reconnection are being conducted at plasma physics labs. You might not be aware of this, but 99.9% of plasma physicists aren't nutjobs.

The description of magnetic reconnection at that site is nonsense. It states magnetic reconnection "refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma." Notice that there is no mention of electric currents. The astrophysics community seems to believe that magnetic fields just appear out of thin air ... or vacuum as the case may be. Wrong. They are created by currents.

So you don't understand basic E&M. Next.

The fact that they continue to view magnetic field lines as if they are real entities that open, merge, tangle, pull, and stick again shows how disconnected from reality the mainstream MRX researchers have become.

You have no idea what you are talking about. What they are talking about is standard E&M, governed by Maxwell's equations (the ones they learned about in high school and college and grad school).

They suggest "sound fountains". I kid you not.

It's hard not to laugh when mainstream *astrophysicists* keep inventing gnomes but miss the obvious ...

The irony of that pair of statements is breathtaking. Anyway, this is getting boring.

[BeAChooser]

Strange, since every single astro and physics major is required by that same evil establishment to spend several semesters studying Maxwell's equations as an undergrad, and typically another year in a Ph.D. program.

Care to prove they've been taught about birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches? Or did they spend most of that time being indoctrinated in the myth of frozen-in/tangled/open/merging/reconnecting field lines? :rolleyes:


And by the way, some of the experiments on magnetic reconnection are being conducted at plasma physics labs.


Except they aren't studying reconnection. They are actually seeing double layers, exploding double layers and Birkeland currents in their experiments. And don't know it because they weren't properly taught about those things in college (and in fact were told there are no or limited currents in space).


Quote:
The description of magnetic reconnection at that site is nonsense. It states magnetic reconnection "refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma." Notice that there is no mention of electric currents. The astrophysics community seems to believe that magnetic fields just appear out of thin air ... or vacuum as the case may be. Wrong. They are created by currents.

So you don't understand basic E&M.

And you think you do? ROTFLOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Magnetic fields surround electric currents, magnetic dipoles, and changing electric fields." "The magnetic field generated by a steady current (a continual flow of charges, for example through a wire, which is constant in time and in which charge is neither building up nor depleting at any point), is described by the Biot-Savart law" "Two parallel wires carrying an electric current in the same direction will generate a magnetic field that will cause a force of attraction between them. "

http://www.trifield.com/magnetic_fields.htm "Unlike the electric field, the magnetic field is not fundamental, That is, the concept of a magnetic force is not a separate force, but arises directly from the electric force" "The current in the first wire is said to create a magnetic field that acts on the current in the second wire. In a similar way, the second wire also acts on the first." "Besides being influenced by a magnetic field, a wire that is carrying a current also produces a magnetic field"

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/MagField.html "Electric fields come from charges. So do magnetic fields, but from moving charges, or currents, which are simply a whole bunch of moving charges."

Must I go on demonstrating your ignorance?

[sol invictus]

Care to prove they've been taught about birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches? Or did they spend most of that time being indoctrinated in the myth of frozen-in/tangled/open/merging/reconnecting field lines? :rolleyes:

Actually, the spend that time learning the physics, starting from the fundamental equations.

Except they aren't studying reconnection. They are actually seeing double layers, exploding double layers and Birkeland currents in their experiments. And don't know it because they weren't properly taught about those things in college (and in fact were told there are no or limited currents in space).

OK, I guess you should go down to the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (one of several places where this research is being done) and explain to them that they are fools and totally wrong about everything. Maybe you can help them build a useful fusion reactor at the same time.

And you think you do? ROTFLOL!

Yes, actually, I do.


Must I go on demonstrating your ignorance?

Those links demonstrate that currents generate magnetic fields. They do not demonstrate that magnetic fields are impossible without currents, which would be false.

I'm not sure there is much point in reasoning with you, though. Instead I have a challenge - please estimate the order of magnitude of the plasma effects you think are important for galactic rotation curves. Post your estimate here, and compare its size to the size of gravitational effects.

I'm waiting.

[fuelair]

A gross mischaracterization of the book but then you apparently skipped most of it.

And by the way, how many books have you written that received a 4.5 out of 5 stars from 84 customer reviews???

And I could go on and on and on.

Tell you what ... why don't you list some reviews that didn't like the book. Written by someone other than a string theorist. LOL!


"And by the way, how many books have you written that received a 4.5 out of 5 stars from 84 customer reviews???"

http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Back-Psychics-Beyond/dp/0451198638/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197833592&sr=1-25

This one has ca. 4.5 stars and 198 reviews. So I guess it must be even more good than Smollins. OOOOR............In a system where any person, no matter how incompetant or how competant is able to produce a review that can be seen by anyone with a computer and time to waste mayhaps reviews are becoming much more meaningless and essentially useless EXCEPT when they are written by a person knowledgeable in the field, with no axes to grind (or his grindable axes are known/acknowledged) and with the ability to make review points clearly understandable to the non-expert. Just asking?!:)

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Care to prove they've been taught about birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches? Or did they spend most of that time being indoctrinated in the myth of frozen-in/tangled/open/merging/reconnecting field lines?

Actually, the spend that time learning the physics, starting from the fundamental equations.

You are being non-response. And everyone reading this can see that.

Prove the astrophysicists who dominate the community now were taught about birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches. You do know what those are, don't you? And you say they learned fundamental equations? Would those include Maxwell's Laws? Well if so, did they decide on their own to just ignore the one that states the divergence of any magnetic field is zero? Because that's what they do when they invoke the notion of open and reconnecting magnetic field lines.


Quote:
Except they aren't studying reconnection. They are actually seeing double layers, exploding double layers and Birkeland currents in their experiments. And don't know it because they weren't properly taught about those things in college (and in fact were told there are no or limited currents in space).

OK, I guess you should go down to the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (one of several places where this research is being done) and explain to them that they are fools and totally wrong about everything.

Believe me, better people than I have tried. They aren't listening because their beliefs have become dogmatic. That's the problem. Too many careers and big expensive experiments depend on that dogma for them to rock the boat. That's the problem. And they've been indoctrinated by a faulty education. That's the problem. Same problem that Lee Smolin has observed in the string physics community.

Maybe you can help them build a useful fusion reactor at the same time.

Actually, that's being worked on too. I guess you've never heard of a focus fusion device. It's based on the principles that plasma cosmologists think is producing the jets seen in countless astronomical objects (as opposed to the black hole, neutron star, quark star and magnetic reconnection gnomes). In a focus fusion device a plasmoid forms and stores energy. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies. Focus fusion is real physics, sol. In fact, it is now giving the mainstream fusion scientists (with their Tokamaks, etc.), a run for their money in generating the first usable fusion power (see http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php).


Those links demonstrate that currents generate magnetic fields. They do not demonstrate that magnetic fields are impossible without currents, which would be false.

Well by all means, explain to us what is generating the magnetic fields observed in outer space. For instance, the ones on the sun or the ones detected around galaxies. Can you do that without invoking currents? Or one of those inductive gnomes you can't actually prove exist?


I'm not sure there is much point in reasoning with you, though. Instead I have a challenge - please estimate the order of magnitude of the plasma effects you think are important for galactic rotation curves. Post your estimate here, and compare its size to the size of gravitational effects.

I'm waiting.

See http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf , particularly Section 3.3 which focuses on galactic rotational velocities and the results from that modeling. Also check out Section 4. Also read http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf . This one lists these primary references for the calculations: (1) “Physics of the Plasma Universe” by Anthony Peratt. (Springer-Verlag, 1992). (2) “Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets”, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986, and (3) “Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies”, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986."

If you read the second link above you will find that it states "When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies." Also "Following are the measured velocity profiles for four specific Spiral Galaxies from Ref 4, Fig 14. “Velocity Profile” means the rotational speed of the spiral galaxy as measured from the center of the spiral galaxy. The peculiarities are that the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed away from the center. This is completely different than expected from gravitational forces alone. ... snip ... Following is a computer simulation of the velocity profile for a Spiral Galaxy from Ref 4, Fig 14 including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects. Notice the similarity of the measured velocity profiles with the computer simulation including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects for these Spiral Galaxies. The plasma core rotates very nearly as a solid body, while the spiral arms grow in length as they trail out along the magnetic isobars. ... snip ... The measured behavior is all very different than that obtained from gravitational effects alone, but the inclusion of ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects mimic the observed behavior. That is, the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises very quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed at distances away from the center."

As to how big that effect is, well obviously, it must be the portion that they currently attribute to this still undetermined (after more than 30 years) dark matter. This should give you an idea of it's importance ...

http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/rotcurve.gif

Say, you wouldn't happen to be in a position to help the mainstream astrophysicists finally figure out what dark matter is, would you? They still seem to be struggling. So that's YOUR challenge. That and actually reading the above links. ROTFLOL!

[BeAChooser]

This one has ca. 4.5 stars and 198 reviews. So I guess it must be even more good than Smollins.

But surely you admit that the two books are trying to appeal to a very different sort of audience. I doubt the second audience tends to read books on science at all. Just thought I'd point that out. :)

[fuelair]

But surely you admit that the two books are trying to appeal to a very different sort of audience. I doubt the second audience tends to read books on science at all. Just thought I'd point that out. :)
Actually,there was a similarity in audiences - at least in my mind - both groups include a large number of members who ,for whatever excuse for a reason, need/want/choose to believe that the real world is not the REAL World - that they are being lied to by the real scientists due to some gigantic cover-up but they are able to recognize the ACTUAL Situation. Just another group of Troofers in other words.

[sol invictus]

Believe me, better people than I have tried. They aren't listening because their beliefs have become dogmatic. That's the problem. Too many careers and big expensive experiments depend on that dogma for them to rock the boat. That's the problem. And they've been indoctrinated by a faulty education. That's the problem. Same problem that Lee Smolin has observed in the string physics community.

So string theorists, astrophysicists, AND plasma physicists are all brainwashed idiots. Wow!

Actually, that's being worked on too. I guess you've never heard of a focus fusion device.

No, I haven't.

It's based on the principles that plasma cosmologists think is producing the jets seen in countless astronomical objects (as opposed to the black hole, neutron star, quark star and magnetic reconnection gnomes).

ROTFL. Good luck with that.

No, I don't want links. I want a very simple estimate which should take you five minutes to do and type up.

We know how much plasma there is in galaxies, its density, how strong the B field is, etc. So I want you to estimate how much of an effect electromagnetic forces have on galactic rotation. It's a very simple thing to do; I just did it. Then compare that to gravity on the same scales. Just order of magnitude, the exact numbers are totally irrelevant.

I'm waiting.

[Radrook]

Now I'm being accused of being against inferences. This is really hilarious. That's like saying that a person is against thinking itself. Suyrely you jest! Its not inference per se that is suspect. It's the justification given for the inference that is.

[skeptical]

Now I'm being accused of being against inferences. This is really hilarious. That's like saying that a person is against thinking itself. Suyrely you jest! Its not inference per se that is suspect. It's the justification given for the inference that is.

Who and what are you responding to? While your clarifying, I would appreciate a response to my post #36.

[Jimbo07]

Just a question, BeAChooser... what do you do for a living and what is your educational background?

[skeptic griggsy]

''''''''''''''''''''''Skeptical, thanks.One would profitfrom ingesting Kai Nielsen's two books and Richard Carrier's one on naturalim to see its truth and the falsity of theism.
Special creationosts love to revel in their lunacy,thinking that others would fall for it.
Radrook, gee, why do you bray at the truth?

[skeptic griggsy]

''''''''''''''''''''''Skeptical, thanks.One would profitfrom ingesting Kai Nielsen's two books and Richard Carrier's one on naturalism to see its truth and the falsity of theism.
Special creationosts love to revel in their lunacy,thinking that others would fall for it.
Radrook, gee, why do you bray at the truth?

[Darth Rotor]

No, I don't want links. I want a very simple estimate which should take you five minutes to do and type up.

We know how much plasma there is in galaxies, its density, how strong the B field is, etc. So I want you to estimate how much of an effect electromagnetic forces have on galactic rotation. It's a very simple thing to do; I just did it. Then compare that to gravity on the same scales. Just order of magnitude, the exact numbers are totally irrelevant.

I'm waiting.
Sol:

If you recall the thread back in september,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90595

BAC discussed with a bunch of nice folks some problems with the Big Bang Theory.

He did not oblige anyone with such calculations then, so I'd bet the under on him doing it now.

DR

[BeAChooser]

He did not oblige anyone with such calculations then, so I'd bet the under on him doing it now.


What's your problem, DR? You too lazy to read the two linked peer reviewed articles that I supplied Sol, too?

And for the record, TV's Frank's request for 4 numbers in that other thread was nonsense and just a way to avoid addressing the inconsistencies I pointed out in Big Bang cosmology and astrophysics when he found no logical response was possible. Instead he did what Big Bang proponents always do ... hide from the evidence and launch a red herring. He demanded I explain the following observations:


-the age of the universe (at least older than the solar system!)
-the abundance of light elements (e.g., hydrogen, helium, and lithium)
-the existence of the CMB (e.g., temperature)
-the power spectrum of the CMB (e.g., the l=200 peak, isotropy)
-the spectral index of CMB fluctuations
-the flatness of spatial curvature
-the matter power spectrum (e.g., scale of non-linear growth, presence of BAO peak)
-the lyman-alpha forest
-the luminosity-distance relations of type 1a supernova

I suggest you read post #90 of that thread, my response, and ask yourself if I didn't in fact address each of his questions in a reasonable manner. He wanted to pick apart minutia (as a debating tactic) while ignoring the problems in the bigger picture. And after my response, rather than address my points, he threw out 4 more questions (see post 101) which were again meant to obscure rather than clarify the issue. He didn't want to address my questions, he wanted to change the playing field ... as I told him, in post #137 when I provided further answers to his initial questions as well as commented on the true nature of his four additional questions.

Debate is a two way activity. He got a chance to ask questions and I responded. I asked questions and he just ignored them. I'm not going to play that game with anyone, including you and sol. In fact, that in a nutshell is also the reason why a number of scientists in the plasma and electric universe communities have now essentially split off from the mainstream in terms of where they publish papers and which conferences they attend. Because the Big Bang community's response to their data and concern has basically been to ignore them. And that's not the way science is supposed to work. Science is also supposed to be a mostly empirical rather than mostly deductive. You have a comment about that or you going to just ignore it like the others? :)

[Radrook]

''''''''''''''''''''''Skeptical, thanks.One would profitfrom ingesting Kai Nielsen's two books and Richard Carrier's one on naturalism to see its truth and the falsity of theism.
Special creationosts love to revel in their lunacy,thinking that others would fall for it.
Radrook, gee, why do you bray at the truth?


What you call braying is the truth. Why do you keen and defecate whenever you hear it?

[steenkh]

As for the steps you just mentioned, I guess I choose to agree with the scientists who consider it impossible while you choose to agree with those who don't.
"Scientists who consider it impossible": would they not be arguing from personal incredulity, which is a well-known logical error? Unless they can actually prove that it is impossible, they have no argument, only a belief.

[skeptic griggsy]

So, what is the evidence for string theory anyway? We don't need input from creationists.

[steenkh]

As far as I know, there is no actual evidence for string theory, and for a long time there will be none. Appararently, the advent of gravity telescopes will make it possible to confirm certain predictions made by string theory, but it could take more than a hundred years before such telescopes will be available.

[Elizabeth I]

Now, string theory has not been confrimed even worse it has not made any prediction that differ from other TOE's. So why is their popular string theory books and even programmes on TV about string theory.

See string theory could and proberly is completely wrong. However, I can't judge this theory because I am a layman. Which, is the problem as laypeople would read the popular books and watch the programme about string theory. How can they judge if string theory is correct when your reading a string theory book?

The problem is that string theory books inhibit critical thinking as your not a scientist, you don't understand the mathematics. Popular science books can be good like explaining Einstein's theories or looking at quantum mechanics, however when we are dealing with a theory that has not been confrimed it is bad.

Creationist write book to get the layperson to get them to believe in their theory, however string theorist are doing the same. String theory has more merit then creationism, however it has not been confrimed and you have to believe in string theory.

I have two questions:

1. Why do I "have to" believe in string theory?

2. What does string theory have to do with the theory of evolution?

[steenkh]

1. Why do I "have to" believe in string theory?
You do not, of course. There are many physicists working on different theories. This one just happens to be in vogue.

2. What does string theory have to do with the theory of evolution?
Nothing, whatsoever.

[Elizabeth I]

I have two questions:

1. Why do I "have to" believe in string theory?

You do not, of course. There are many physicists working on different theories. This one just happens to be in vogue.

2. What does string theory have to do with the theory of evolution?

Nothing, whatsoever.

Well, that's a relief! :D

[skeptic griggsy]

:)The law of conservation and the fact that the Big Bang was not an absolute beginning of Existence and the theistic cosmological arguments fail, show probaly an eternal Existence. As it is all, there can be no transcendent god and any god would be immanent and contingent! :eye-poppi[This is what I contend in the Existence thread.]