The reason why they claim it's a rhino is the fact in one verse it mentions one horn is bigger than the other.
Upvote
0
SHEEPEOPLE
- Thread starter ScottA
- Start date
- Status
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Science can study anything it wants.
The spirit I believe in leads me to believe in spirits. I don't know anything about spirits "that don't exist" (is there such a thing?).
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm not sure that can be substantiated, I think it's simply popular myth.
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
That's because they ignore all that plasma in space that is bending that light - just like we observe every day in the bending of light in the atmosphere. It is plasma that deflects it near the sun.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/index.html
And as for gravitational lensing - they also ignore all that plasma around every galaxy, blaming it on gravity acting on a massless photon.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-s-hubble-finds-giant-halo-around-the-andromeda-galaxy
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/ngc6240.html
Claiming gravity can act on a massless photon bending and slowing it - when only it's transference through matter has been shown to bend and slow light.
Upvote
0
- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Testable and falsifiable according to what - you are not here to promote science or any belief, make no claims at all, remember - or did you forget that already? So what are you going to use to see if I can present my claims in an evidenced, testable, falsifiable manner? Your "beliefs"?
No doubt we both are in some aspects of any belief.
Or you are just unable to defend it, being you have no knowledge of it?
Fundamental beliefs, we agree. Which has nothing to do with religion - just other philosophical beliefs. So you are implying what?
Are we discussing Philosophical Theology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theology
Upvote
0
I reject your Electric Universe crackpottery because science falsifies it. For example, the Cathode Sun championed by the EU community should fry astronauts with the massive amounts of radiation that it produces:
"In the 'solar cathode' electric sun model, radiation exposure at the orbit of Earth is 38,000 rads in one hour!"
http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...2/09/death-by-electric-universe-ii-solar.html
Upvote
0
What a bunch of nonsense. Bridgman is rather ignorant of EU/PC theory and he needs to do a little research:
First of all, the cathode solar model was first proposed by Kristian Birkeland around 1908, long before Juergens. Contrary to Bridgman's statements, Birkeland's cathode solar model was an internally powered solar model and did not require an external power source as Bridgman erroneously claims. Furthermore Jeurgen's solar model was an *anode* solar model, not a cathode solar model! Sheeesh! 0 for 2. The ignorance of the mainstream is simply astounding.
While Bridgman's claims and complaints might apply to a 100 percent externally powered solar model, it doesn't actually apply to any solar model that is at least partially internally powered, particularly and most specifically the cathode solar model proposed by Kristian Birkeland.
Contrary to Bridgman's erroneous statements, Jeurgen's solar model was an *anode* solar model! Bridgman is simply misrepresenting facts, and misrepresenting the EU/PC models plural. There are *at least* four unique EU/PC solar models, and his criticisms apply to only one of them, and contrary to his erroneous claims, it does not apply to any cathode models at all! Bridgman is clearly misrepresenting fact, and his criticisms have *never* applied to Kristian Birkeland's cathode model. Birkeland assumed the sun was *internally* powered, which does not require a "solar capacitor". Epic fail by Bridgman. Pure misrepresentation of fact, either willfully or just due to pure ignorance of fact.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The worst part about Bridgman is that he simply refuses to correct his numerous errors, even when they've been pointed out. That's simply unethical.
Upvote
0
And by the way.....
With Birkeland's cathode sun theory, he was able to "predict" (yes Martha, real empirical predictions) several solar atmospheric phenomenon that were not predicted with the standard model, including the existence of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, cathode rays from the sun, both types of high speed particles in solar wind, polar 'jets', and a corona that is hotter than the photosphere.
Each and every one of those predictions has been demonstrated to be true based upon satellite technologies starting in the 1970's.
Bridgman blatantly misrepresents the empirical facts, and he refuses to correct his numerous public errors. Wow! How unprofessional can you get?
With Birkeland's cathode sun theory, he was able to "predict" (yes Martha, real empirical predictions) several solar atmospheric phenomenon that were not predicted with the standard model, including the existence of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, cathode rays from the sun, both types of high speed particles in solar wind, polar 'jets', and a corona that is hotter than the photosphere.
Each and every one of those predictions has been demonstrated to be true based upon satellite technologies starting in the 1970's.
Bridgman blatantly misrepresents the empirical facts, and he refuses to correct his numerous public errors. Wow! How unprofessional can you get?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It's painfully clear based on the online debates that I've had over the past decade that the mainstream doesn't have a clue about plasma physics. As a result they fill every gap in their understanding with "made up" ad hoc gap filler. It's more than a little sad that they continue to peddle a concept that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" and which he made obsolete with his double layer paper over 30 years ago. The ignorance of the mainstream knows no bounds, hence their ridiculous need for 95 percent supernatural invisible gap filler.
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
"Okay, Davian, I accept how they used that word in the common vernacular".
Normal matter that was not observed to be there.
I love the double standard of empiricism when it suits you, when your gods fail to show up in your lab.I love the double standard of empiricism when it suits you, and pure "faith" when it suits you too.
But "hypothesize" does not have the negative connotations that "assume" does, does it? - never miss a chance to throw some mud.
Nice dodge.Made up types apparently.
Upvote
0
It has been millennia. Ben Franklin's demystification of lightning is one of the more modern examples. Lightning was seen as a manifestation of the supernatural in the natural world. Only recently have some theists invented an undetectable supernatural realm where they can protect their beliefs from questions.
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
Scroll back to the bit about astronomers lobbying to have granite monuments installed in state buildings.
"Okay, Davian, I guess I did say that. I won't make that mistake again."
Theory? All you did was slap the label of "God" on the universe and rant about mainstream cosmology.
It all seems to boil down to having "relationships" with things that don't actually, directly respond.
I. do. not. know. What part of "not a conscious decision" do you not grasp? I can only relate to you what I consciously see as flaws in it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Davian
fallible
According to the hypothesis you present to us in support of your claims.
No. Are you confusing me with someone else?
I already did that. I asked that you take your claims to an dedicated science-based forum, and present your ideas for discussion, and for you to defend them. BTW, how is that going for you?
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?155398-Expansion-Of-Space
Again with the false dichotomy. My beliefs are not on the table.
If that mind-reading hat doesn't actually work, it only serves to make you look funny.
No.
Upvote
0
Our original discussion was about subjective personal choice of various beliefs not "free will". You simply moved the goalposts to suit yourself.
Upvote
0
Their "guestimation" of the amount of ordinary baryonic matter that was present in 2006 was shown to be flawed in numerous ways:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=d4a722fb33becd41409cf30654280573
But you go right ahead and pretend it never happened, just like the mainstream pretends that it never happened.
I love the double standard of empiricism when it suits you, when your gods fail to show up in your lab.
You still don't apparently understand the concept of panentheism or pantheism. In both theories God not only shows up in the lab, God is the lab.
Unlike your invisible, impotent on Earth sky thingies, the God I believe in is quite 'visible', and quite tangible.
But "hypothesize" does not have the negative connotations that "assume" does, does it? - never miss a chance to throw some mud.
Apparently it only has a negative connotation to you when it's applied to the topic of God, and nowhere else.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Their "monuments" are simply made of metal and glass instead of granite. So what?
Having fun putting (false) words in my mouth today? You really need to stop complaining about other peoples debate tactics when you do stuff like that.
You apparently just like to twist my words and change the subject when it suits you.
Nope. I provided you published papers that demonstrate the electrical nature of the universe, along with mass layouts that functionally and physically resemble intelligent structures on Earth. In contrast, the mainstream model requires personal faith in four supernatural constructs.
It's a pity that's been your experience, but you can only speak for yourself on that score.
What you "see as flaws" is your subjective *choice* in the matter! Get it?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
