Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael" data-source="post: 64341464" data-attributes="member: 627"><p><a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy</a></p><p></p><p>Ya know.....</p><p></p><p>It's become *painfully* clear that the mainstream "method" of dealing with electric universe theory is to begin by *oversimplifying* the *range* of various options in EU/PC theory, and then building a strawman case out of a *single* EU/PC option.</p><p></p><p>Such is the case with Tom Bridgman, one of perhaps the universe's greatest offenders in this activity.</p><p></p><p>In his last Blog entry, Bridgman makes several oversimplification fallacies, several factual errors, and demonstrates a *fundamental ignorance* of 2/3rds of of EU/PC theory.</p><p></p><p>EU/PC theory comes with three fundamentally unique solar models, two of which are *internally*, not externally powered. Bridgman's most recent attack on PC theory based on Peratt's models that used an *externally* powered solar model are an excellent example of this oversimplification process in motion in mainstream circles.</p><p></p><p>While it's technically correct that not *all* galaxies are "strung together" via columnated Birkeland currents with other galaxies, it's still *far* from clear that this is *never* the case in all instances. Furthermore he neglects to mention several of the *correct* predictions that both Birkeland *and* Peratt made with their models.</p><p></p><p>Birkeland's "electric universe" begins differently than Jurgen's "electric universe", and both are fundmentally different from Alfven's "electric universe models". There are *at least* three fundamentally *unique* "electric universe/plasma cosmology' concepts to consider within the EU/PC framework. </p><p></p><p>Bridgman begins (and ends) his oversimplification campaign against whole range of EU/PC theories by attempting to fundamentally 'dumb it down" to but a single concept, and only 1/3 of the possible range of options to choose from. This attempt of pure oversimplification is a *constant pattern* found among all Eu/PC theory "haters" IMO. They know just a tiny little bit about it, and insist on limiting it to *their own ignorant understanding* of the topic!</p><p></p><p>Even still, I'd like to address two fundamental problems with Bridgman's last oversimplified blog entry:</p><p></p><p>That's actually a factually untrue statement for two reasons. First of all we do observe well defined microwave emitting columns of *current* carrying plasma flowing into and out of galaxies, particularly around galaxies with 'active' central cores. They connect not necessarily to *other galaxies* directly, but to the surrounding plasma mediums, and *in some cases* they B) may in fact connect to other galaxy cores, and connect through that surrounding plasma medium.</p><p></p><p>Bridgman *assumes* that only one of three possible "configurations" of EU theory is somehow fully representative of the whole of EU/PC theory. He also *assumes* that the "wiring diagram" has to look *exactly* (and I mean exactly) like Peratt *assumed* in some mythical (not even named) quote from Peratt, otherwise the whole of EU/PC theory is falsified in his oversimplified hater world. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /> <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p>Let's start with what a real galaxy looks like (our own) in a *raw* (rather than heavily processed) microwave image:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/07/microwave-universe-plancks-fir.html" target="_blank">Short Sharp Science: Microwave universe: Planck's first hi-res image</a></p><p></p><p><img src="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/PLANCK.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>Just as *all* versions of EU/PC theory "predict", there are *tons* of electrically active current flowing to and from various locations *within* our own galaxy that do indeed radiate microwave energy just as *predicted* in EU/PC theory. Bridgman fails to note that successful prediction *entirely*.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuwP0/UmPDoxCKHHI/AAAAAAAAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg" target="_blank">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuwP0/UmPDoxCKHHI/AAAAAAAAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg</a></p><p></p><p>He also points us to his own selected image of a galaxy *with* an active core that *does* "wire itself' to the surrounding plasma, in well defined 'Birkeland currents" that are indeed predicted by *every* EU/PC theory. Again Bridgman fails to note this *successful prediction*, while concentrating on *one possible wiring configuration* that turned out to be 'oversimplified' even in early EU/PC models. Oh well. Nothing like ignoring all the *correct* predictions, and fixating on only one claim that actually isn't falsified by the image Bridgman selected.</p><p></p><p>Note that the *distance between* various galaxies is likely to play a large (read that *huge*) contributing factor in any likelihood of current traveling in well columnated jets for great distances. They clearly do travel great distances, but eventually they run into plasma that is dense enough to carry current without the need of well defined jets.</p><p></p><p>Bridgman also fails to note the fact that we *have found* well defined connecting bridges of *hot gas* (bait and switch term for current carrying plasma), between whole galaxy clusters!</p><p></p><p style="text-align: left"><a href="http://www.universetoday.com/98573/hot-gas-bridge-discovered-connecting-galaxy-clusters/" target="_blank">Hot Gas Bridge Discovered Connecting Galaxy Clusters</a></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"><img src="http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Planck_A399_A401_SZE_optical_H1-580x580.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">Not only are the galaxies "wired together" individually via the surrounding plasma medium, they're also 'wired together' at the galaxy cluster level! Bridgman fails to note or ever mention this *successful prediction* of all EU/PC models.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">I can only surmise from his most recent blog entry that Bridgman *assumes* that only *one possible wiring configuration* of Peratt's model was relevant, and only one specific prediction matters in terms of trying to falsify *every* EU/PC model.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">By "blobs", apparently he means "more dense regions of plasma".</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">How did he *decide* that based upon the images he presented?</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuwP0/UmPDoxCKHHI/AAAAAAAAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg" target="_blank">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuwP0/UmPDoxCKHHI/AAAAAAAAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg</a></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">What Bridgman failed to note is that the currents *are* well defined *close to* the galaxies themselves, but once the medium is "more dense" the current can flow through the more dense medium *without* the need for strong columnized jets to form. It's not true that the IGM is empty, so it's not true that they currents must form *thin* streams of currents in *all* instances and densities of plasmas.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">This is a flat out misstatement of fact. Birkeland was the first proponent of the 'electric universe' concept and he used an *internally* powered solar model, not an *externally* powered model. Bridgman's question was addressed more than 100 years ago by the *original proponent* of EU/PC theory. He's apparently ignorant of history, and *assumes* everyone else must be ignorant of history as well.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">The fundamental difference between Alfven's solar model and Birkeland's solar model, vs. a Jurgen's solar model is the fact that the previous (first two) solar models were *internally* powered. Only the *last* and my personally *least favorite* solar model is *externally powered* at all, and even in that case it's not clear that the *whole thing* must necessarily be *externally* powered.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">Bridgman is clearly ignorant of the whole of EU/PC history, and what he does think of "EU/PC theory' is really just a cartoon characterature of the actual theory. Even though the universe is indeed filled with currents that connect galaxies and whole galaxy clusters together, Bridgman ignorantly believes those currents have to flow in *tightly wound jets* in every location in spacetime! I doubt even Peratt himself ever said such a thing in a published paper which is why Bridgman never quoted him in the first place!</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left">Grrr. The pure ignorance of EU/PC haters is just absurd. Bridgman seems to be destined to be the last "flat earther" left in cosmology theory, while he continues to whack away at his own ignorant little strawmen.</p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p> <p style="text-align: left"></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael, post: 64341464, member: 627"] [URL="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/"]Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy[/URL] Ya know..... It's become *painfully* clear that the mainstream "method" of dealing with electric universe theory is to begin by *oversimplifying* the *range* of various options in EU/PC theory, and then building a strawman case out of a *single* EU/PC option. Such is the case with Tom Bridgman, one of perhaps the universe's greatest offenders in this activity. In his last Blog entry, Bridgman makes several oversimplification fallacies, several factual errors, and demonstrates a *fundamental ignorance* of 2/3rds of of EU/PC theory. EU/PC theory comes with three fundamentally unique solar models, two of which are *internally*, not externally powered. Bridgman's most recent attack on PC theory based on Peratt's models that used an *externally* powered solar model are an excellent example of this oversimplification process in motion in mainstream circles. While it's technically correct that not *all* galaxies are "strung together" via columnated Birkeland currents with other galaxies, it's still *far* from clear that this is *never* the case in all instances. Furthermore he neglects to mention several of the *correct* predictions that both Birkeland *and* Peratt made with their models. Birkeland's "electric universe" begins differently than Jurgen's "electric universe", and both are fundmentally different from Alfven's "electric universe models". There are *at least* three fundamentally *unique* "electric universe/plasma cosmology' concepts to consider within the EU/PC framework. Bridgman begins (and ends) his oversimplification campaign against whole range of EU/PC theories by attempting to fundamentally 'dumb it down" to but a single concept, and only 1/3 of the possible range of options to choose from. This attempt of pure oversimplification is a *constant pattern* found among all Eu/PC theory "haters" IMO. They know just a tiny little bit about it, and insist on limiting it to *their own ignorant understanding* of the topic! Even still, I'd like to address two fundamental problems with Bridgman's last oversimplified blog entry: That's actually a factually untrue statement for two reasons. First of all we do observe well defined microwave emitting columns of *current* carrying plasma flowing into and out of galaxies, particularly around galaxies with 'active' central cores. They connect not necessarily to *other galaxies* directly, but to the surrounding plasma mediums, and *in some cases* they B) may in fact connect to other galaxy cores, and connect through that surrounding plasma medium. Bridgman *assumes* that only one of three possible "configurations" of EU theory is somehow fully representative of the whole of EU/PC theory. He also *assumes* that the "wiring diagram" has to look *exactly* (and I mean exactly) like Peratt *assumed* in some mythical (not even named) quote from Peratt, otherwise the whole of EU/PC theory is falsified in his oversimplified hater world. :confused: :doh: Let's start with what a real galaxy looks like (our own) in a *raw* (rather than heavily processed) microwave image: [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/07/microwave-universe-plancks-fir.html"]Short Sharp Science: Microwave universe: Planck's first hi-res image[/URL] [IMG]http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/PLANCK.jpg[/IMG] Just as *all* versions of EU/PC theory "predict", there are *tons* of electrically active current flowing to and from various locations *within* our own galaxy that do indeed radiate microwave energy just as *predicted* in EU/PC theory. Bridgman fails to note that successful prediction *entirely*. [URL]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuwP0/UmPDoxCKHHI/AAAAAAAAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg[/URL] He also points us to his own selected image of a galaxy *with* an active core that *does* "wire itself' to the surrounding plasma, in well defined 'Birkeland currents" that are indeed predicted by *every* EU/PC theory. Again Bridgman fails to note this *successful prediction*, while concentrating on *one possible wiring configuration* that turned out to be 'oversimplified' even in early EU/PC models. Oh well. Nothing like ignoring all the *correct* predictions, and fixating on only one claim that actually isn't falsified by the image Bridgman selected. Note that the *distance between* various galaxies is likely to play a large (read that *huge*) contributing factor in any likelihood of current traveling in well columnated jets for great distances. They clearly do travel great distances, but eventually they run into plasma that is dense enough to carry current without the need of well defined jets. Bridgman also fails to note the fact that we *have found* well defined connecting bridges of *hot gas* (bait and switch term for current carrying plasma), between whole galaxy clusters! [LEFT][URL="http://www.universetoday.com/98573/hot-gas-bridge-discovered-connecting-galaxy-clusters/"]Hot Gas Bridge Discovered Connecting Galaxy Clusters[/URL] [IMG]http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Planck_A399_A401_SZE_optical_H1-580x580.jpg[/IMG] Not only are the galaxies "wired together" individually via the surrounding plasma medium, they're also 'wired together' at the galaxy cluster level! Bridgman fails to note or ever mention this *successful prediction* of all EU/PC models. I can only surmise from his most recent blog entry that Bridgman *assumes* that only *one possible wiring configuration* of Peratt's model was relevant, and only one specific prediction matters in terms of trying to falsify *every* EU/PC model. By "blobs", apparently he means "more dense regions of plasma". How did he *decide* that based upon the images he presented? [URL]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuwP0/UmPDoxCKHHI/AAAAAAAAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg[/URL] What Bridgman failed to note is that the currents *are* well defined *close to* the galaxies themselves, but once the medium is "more dense" the current can flow through the more dense medium *without* the need for strong columnized jets to form. It's not true that the IGM is empty, so it's not true that they currents must form *thin* streams of currents in *all* instances and densities of plasmas. This is a flat out misstatement of fact. Birkeland was the first proponent of the 'electric universe' concept and he used an *internally* powered solar model, not an *externally* powered model. Bridgman's question was addressed more than 100 years ago by the *original proponent* of EU/PC theory. He's apparently ignorant of history, and *assumes* everyone else must be ignorant of history as well. The fundamental difference between Alfven's solar model and Birkeland's solar model, vs. a Jurgen's solar model is the fact that the previous (first two) solar models were *internally* powered. Only the *last* and my personally *least favorite* solar model is *externally powered* at all, and even in that case it's not clear that the *whole thing* must necessarily be *externally* powered. Bridgman is clearly ignorant of the whole of EU/PC history, and what he does think of "EU/PC theory' is really just a cartoon characterature of the actual theory. Even though the universe is indeed filled with currents that connect galaxies and whole galaxy clusters together, Bridgman ignorantly believes those currents have to flow in *tightly wound jets* in every location in spacetime! I doubt even Peratt himself ever said such a thing in a published paper which is why Bridgman never quoted him in the first place! Grrr. The pure ignorance of EU/PC haters is just absurd. Bridgman seems to be destined to be the last "flat earther" left in cosmology theory, while he continues to whack away at his own ignorant little strawmen. [/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection
Top
Bottom