Cosmos - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Archaeopteryx]

Cosmos on fox is a worship of the creation instead of the Creator.


Bow down you rejector's of God and marvel at the things that already are. Funny.

Well that's just silly. Why would you worship creation?

 

[lesliedellow]

dcarrera, note that Michael will take every opportunity to rant about mainstream cosmology, as if in some way this will support his pet ideas of an eternal, aware, electrical universe. You may need heat shielding for the burning of all the strawmen he will bring to the thread.

I second that.

Of course I know phlogiston is released when something burns. I want to be different, and the "mainstream" ain't fooling me.

 

[pyramid33]

Well that's just silly. Why would you worship creation?

Weird.

 

[dcarrera]

Care to explain what 'balances out" (to net zero energy) the sunshine on my face and the universes use of energy over time?

Gravitational potential energy has a negative sign.

 

[dcarrera]

dcarrera, note that Michael will take every opportunity to rant about mainstream cosmology, as if in some way this will support his pet ideas of an eternal, aware, electrical universe. You may need heat shielding for the burning of all the strawmen he will bring to the thread.

Yeah, I am noticing that. Thanks for the advice. I have begun to largely ignore him. On occasion I give a response that I think may be interesting to other readers, but I realize that nothing will get through to him.

 

[mzungu]

Yeah, I am noticing that. Thanks for the advice. I have begun to largely ignore him. On occasion I give a response that I think may be interesting to other readers, but I realize that nothing will get through to him.

You haven't seen anything yet. As time goes by both Justa and Michael slowly give us the true picture of their belief regarding EU.
stick around, and open a bottle of Aqua Vita; you will need it to maintain your sanity

 

[madaz]

Seems there was an "operator error" at Fox Oklahoma.

Kinda funny really

 

[Michael]

Yeah, I am noticing that. Thanks for the advice. I have begun to largely ignore him. On occasion I give a response that I think may be interesting to other readers, but I realize that nothing will get through to him.

Translation: You can't handle a real debate.

FYI, in almost 10 years of online debates, I've yet to see any mainstream astronomer pick out an actual specific scientific criticism of Alfven's published works. It's easy to handwave at his material, but apparently it's a lot more challenging to actually try to critique his work "scientifically".

 

[Michael]

Gravitational potential energy has a negative sign.

So what? That's simply a handy frame of reference. If we take two bodies separated by some distance, the potential energy stored in their distance will be converted to kinetic energy at the point of impact. Have you even tried to explain yet what "offsets" all the energy use over time in Guth's mythical "net zero" energy universe?

 

[lesliedellow]

Translation: You can't handle a real debate.

FYI, in almost 10 years of online debates, I've yet to see any mainstream astronomer pick out an actual specific scientific criticism of Alfven's published works. It's easy to handwave at his material, but apparently it's a lot more challenging to actually try to critique his work "scientifically".

I have yet to see a creationist admit any mainstream scientist has evidence for evolution. So what?

 

[Michael]

I have yet to see a creationist admit that there is any evidence for evolution. So what?

When can I expect you to even *read* Alfven's work for yourself? YEC tend to dismiss evidence without ever reading it, and without ever commenting on the work *scientifically*.

 

[lesliedellow]

When can I expect you to even *read* Alfven's work for yourself? YEC tend to dismiss evidence without ever reading it, and without ever commenting on the work *scientifically*.

The day you write me a cheque for £130, for something cosmologists evidently don't think is worth the paper it is printed on.

If you have read it, how come I have never seen one equation in any of your papers you crow about?

 

[Michael]

The day you write me a cheque for £130, for something cosmologists evidently don't think is worth the paper it is printed on.

If you have read it, how come I have never seen one equation in any of your papers you crow about?

Apparently you've never seen one equation written by Alfven because you've never bothered to read even one of his absolutely *free* papers that are available to you online, anytime you wish to read them.

I've even collected a few of them for you anytime you wish to peruse them:

Index of /Alfven

 

[Lollerskates]

Gravitational potential energy has a negative sign.

That is because gravity, acceleration as a vector, has a convenience of direction as negative. Relativity. Potential is a scalar, so its 'negative' attributes come from the "dot" multiples of vectors, namely acceleration being negative in the relative direction (losing altitude; -y axis/-z axis.)

 

[dcarrera]

That is because gravity, acceleration as a vector, has a convenience of direction as negative. Relativity. Potential is a scalar, so its 'negative' attributes come from the "dot" multiples of vectors, namely acceleration being negative in the relative direction (losing altitude; -y axis/-z axis.)

It is more than just convention. A particle at rest at infinity should have zero energy.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is more than just convention. A particle at rest at infinity should have zero energy.

Quite.

 

[Michael]

It is more than just convention. A particle at rest at infinity should have zero energy.

But in the real universe particles are not at rest, and they aren't at infinity and you keep running away from my energy use over time objection to Guth's "net zero energy" claims. Do you really expect me to buy his free lunch, net zero energy universe nonsense?

 

[lesliedellow]

But in the real universe particles are not at rest, and they aren't at infinity and you keep running away from my energy use over time objection to Guth's "net zero energy" claims.

In the real universe, particles would effectively be at rest long before reaching infinity. In any case, the point remains; energy has to be conserved.

Do you really expect me to buy his free lunch, net zero energy universe nonsense?

You can buy anything you want. Even the electric universe if you are gullible enough.

 

[Michael]

In the real universe, particles would effectively be at rest long before reaching infinity. In any case, the point remains; energy has to be conserved.

Except of course while you violate those conservation laws with 'space expansion', and Guths "free lunch" 'inflation' claims, ect?

You can buy anything you want. Even the electric universe if you are gullible enough.

That's far less gullible than believing that 95 percent of the universe is ruled by "dark spirits".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In the real universe, particles would effectively be at rest long before reaching infinity. In any case, the point remains; energy has to be conserved.

And yet in the real world you claim those particles are continuing to accelerate, already at fractions of c. And what conserves the energy that is apparently still being produced as the velocities are continually increasing, not remaining conserved? In order to increase expansion, more energy than the initial blast must be continued to be pumped into the circuit, else it will never continue to accelerate.

You can buy anything you want. Even the electric universe if you are gullible enough.

There is no other interpretation but one that involves an electric universe. The shift in paradigms has already begun. You just don't realize they are slowly bringing it in to avoid a sudden jump and the costs associated thereof.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

2001 News Releases - Jupiter's Io Generates Power and Noise, But No Magnetic Field

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute

They are just trying to be gentle with you, while I am not so circumspect about it.