An Empirical Theory Of God (2)

[Michael]

The Planck data are really interesting but I'm not sure that I see scientists doing the "dance" you describe. I haven't looked into it carefully, but in the past many challenging measurements had subtle errors and scientists spent a lot of time making sure the calculations were error-free. In this case, I'm not even sure I see evidence of that. Are you just hypothesizing that this is what will happen?

I'm hypothesizing about what will happen based upon what I've seen happen since 1982. Astronomy has moved progressively toward unfalsifiable and supernatural constructs (now stands at at least 95%), and it has moved steadily away from empirical physics.

Penrose *destroyed* Guth's claim about "explaining" the 'flatness problem'. Guth made it 10 to the 100th power *worse* in fact. Nobody said a word. Planck *destroys* Guth's last remaining claim about 'homogeneity on the largest scales'. Do I really believe that they will abandon their redshift interpretation now and give up on expansion claims? Absolutely not! I'd be shocked to see them do anything other than create another new ad hoc construct, move the mathematical goal posts *again*, and continue to ignore the EM fields of spacetime, and they'll keep calling plasma a "hot gas" lest anyone find out about the merits of Plasma Cosmology theory.

Sorry if I sound a tad jaded, but this has been going on now for more than 4 decades.

 

[Michael]

I can't comment on your claim about BB theory because I don't know enough about it. You may be right, I really have no idea, but that doesn't change the reality of the long long history of religious belief, as I explained and how this impacts one's own beliefs.

But the thing is, we really don't know how we got here in the first place. You can't *rule out* an empirical panentheistic concept of God, even if we use pure empirical standards. We can however rule out Lambda-CDM just with the Planck data alone, and empirical standards *utterly crush* and completely rule out Lambda-CDM.

 

[JWGU]

I have not looked carefully into plasma cosmology, and I am not an astronomer (though I do work with one, so I can ask her her take), but a quick search suggests that it does not adequately account for actual observations of the universe. Which is to say, it is not an unscientific theory, but it is a falsifiable one, and it appears to be largely falsified. I am not saying this because I believe it will convince you that you are wrong--I don't, and I'm sure you have excellent reasons for rejecting the standard cosmological model and embracing it, much of it probably spurred by some of the assumptions that have to be made in that model (dark matter and energy composed of an unknown substance). I am saying it in order to let other people reading this thread know that your posts have an agenda, that of promoting a widely discredited cosmological model. Like I said before, sometimes people with an agenda are absolutely right, so that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong; but if the model cannot account for observed experimental evidence, the odds that the model is wrong are quite high.

 

[bhsmte]

But the thing is, we really don't know how we got here in the first place. You can't *rule out* an empirical panentheistic concept of God, even if we use pure empirical standards. We can however rule out Lambda-CDM just with the Planck data alone, and empirical standards *utterly crush* and completely rule out Lambda-CDM.

I know we don't know how we got here, but that doesn't mean I plug in God to that lack of knowledge. We didn't know a lot of things 100 years ago where God got plugged in and many of those gaps have been closed. Will the gap of how we got here every be closed? I have no idea.

I have ruled out the God as explained in the bible (at least with 99% certainty), but have always readily admitted, that my percentage of discounting a more universal God is lower and I am therefor agnostic towards that potential God.

 

[Michael]

I know we don't know how we got here, but that doesn't mean I plug in God to that lack of knowledge. We didn't know a lot of things 100 years ago where God got plugged in and many of those gaps have been closed. Will the gap of how we got here every be closed? I have no idea.

I have ruled out the God as explained in the bible (at least with 99% certainty), but have always readily admitted, that my percentage of discounting a more universal God is lower and I am therefor agnostic towards that potential God.

Ruling out a religious concept of God isn't particularly special or important IMO. The only *important* issue is ruling out *every* concept of God.

I cannot rule out every concept of God. I do however personally tend to 'rule out' most if not all "supernatural" constructs. Like Elendur, I do leave room for 'other worlds' where matter and energy as I understand it are either microscopically tiny, or macroscopically crude in comparison. It's *possible* to rule out many theories, both religious and scientific by imposing pure empirical standards, but doing so may in fact overlook something important.

Just like you ruled out whatever you personally perceived at the time as "bible god", I did that too at one time in my life, and by that same logic I must necessarily rule out Lambda-CDM. That does *not* mean that God does not exist. That does not mean that a "scientific" explanation for our universe does not exist. Perhaps they even both meet in the middle.

 

[bhsmte]

Ruling out a religious concept of God isn't particularly special or important IMO. The only *important* issue is ruling out *every* concept of God.

I cannot rule out every concept of God. I do however personally tend to 'rule out' most if not all "supernatural" constructs. Like Elendur, I do leave room for 'other worlds' where matter and energy as I understand it are either microscopically tiny, or macroscopically crude in comparison. It's *possible* to rule out many theories, both religious and scientific by imposing pure empirical standards, but doing so may in fact overlook something important.

Just like you ruled out whatever you personally perceived at the time as "bible god", I did that too at one time in my life, and by that same logic I must necessarily rule out Lambda-CDM. That does *not* mean that God does not exist. That does not mean that a "scientific" explanation for our universe does not exist. Perhaps they even both meet in the middle.

What I rule out (with 99% certainty) is an; all loving, all caring, all knowing personal God, that gives a hoot about what happens to people, answers prayers etc. etc.. This is how the bible describes God, IMO.

As I stated, I don't rule out a universal type of God like Einstein thought may have existed, but still have significant doubts as well.

 

[JWGU]

What I rule out (with 99% certainty) is an; all loving, all caring, all knowing personal God, that gives a hoot about what happens to people, answers prayers etc. etc.. This is how the bible describes God, IMO.

As I stated, I don't rule out a universal type of God like Einstein thought may have existed, but still have significant doubts as well.

I would argue that the Old Testament God is none of those things (the majority of the time and for the majority of people). Indeed, the Old Testament can be read as not even rejecting polytheism, and God as simple telling the Jewish people that they may not have any other Gods before Him--essentially, an assertion of dominance. In that light, the numerous prayers and ceremonies that have been built up around that assumption can be viewed as simple terrified appeasement, and the arbitrary rules and restrictions as the cruel whimsy of an uncaring God, or the direct result of intermittent reinforcement. This beautifully simple explanation does not, unfortunately, hold water with the addition of the New Testament.

 

[Michael]

I have not looked carefully into plasma cosmology, and I am not an astronomer (though I do work with one, so I can ask her her take), but a quick search suggests that it does not adequately account for actual observations of the universe.

When you hear that, you typically hear it from the mainstream, and you hear it in relationship to WMAP data. Astronomers have *beaten* PC theory over the head with that data for decades now. It turns out however that their theory does *not* correctly or adequately predict what we see in the Planck data, the replacement, and higher resolution version of WMAP. Whatever 'claims to fame' they had prior to Planck went flying out the window since then. They are desperate at the moment to come up with a "fix' that will allow them to make similar assertions about Planck data. At moment however they can't come up with a 'consensus' on how to fix the problem, so they're basically throwing out all sorts of new supernatural ad hoc entities to 'fix' their problem.

PC/EU theory is strictly based on the empirical principles of plasma physics and gravity theory. Plasma physics does well to describe *most* of the behaviors of a *mostly* plasma universe. GR theory better describes the behaviors of the 1 percent or so of the matter of the universe that is not in the plasma state. PC/EU theory is a combination of both plasma physics and GR theory, or at least until GR theory can be explained by EM fields. It's based upon pure physics.

PC theory doesn't adequately describe the Plank data because it's built from the *ground up*, starting from inside our own solar system, and working itself into the galaxy level, and ultimately the cosmology aspects.

PC/EU (plasma physics and GR) theory *well* describes the behaviors of plasma in our solar system, inside our galaxy, and inside our universe. It does *not* attempt to "speculate" about 'creation dates', and things that humans could never hope to demonstrate. In that sense, it may never feel or seem as fully mathematically "beautifully complete" as a creation mythology that depends on a half a dozen non demonstrated claims, but looks real pretty on paper.

Which is to say, it is not an unscientific theory, but it is a falsifiable one, and it appears to be largely falsified.

How so, particularly in light of the Planck data fiasco? Guth claimed it was homogeneous on the largest scales. It's not. Now what? PC theory may have made no claims about Planck, but it can't be falsified by Planck data either. The reverse is not true. Lambda-CDM was actually *falsified* by that hemispheric differences in the data set. It shouldn't be different in different hemispheres. It's different.

I am not saying this because I believe it will convince you that you are wrong--I don't,

I'm very glad to hear that, otherwise you're definitely setting yourself up for a huge empirical disappointment.

and I'm sure you have excellent reasons for rejecting the standard cosmological model and embracing it,

I embrace it for the same reasons I embrace empirical plasma physics and gravity theory. FYI, I reject Lambda-CDM because it ignores EM fields in a mostly plasma universe.

much of it probably spurred by some of the assumptions that have to be made in that model (dark matter and energy composed of an unknown substance). I am saying it in order to let other people reading this thread know that your posts have an agenda, that of promoting a widely discredited cosmological model.

Well, I have personal opinions which I share with others like everyone, just like you shared about PC/EU theory being 'discredited'. Frankly all the discrediting has been to Lambda-CDM as of late. That Planck data is a real fiasco for mainstream theory. They can't even come up with a consensus yet on how to deal with it.

Like I said before, sometimes people with an agenda are absolutely right, so that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong; but if the model cannot account for observed experimental evidence, the odds that the model is wrong are quite high.

Again, it really depends on what you're trying to explain with the model, and how well it fits the data. If your statement is true, then the odds that Lambda-CDM is wrong are quite high, whereas PC/EU theory made no predictions about that data set to start with.

Keep in mind that PC/EU theory is based upon Plasma physics, and the concept of "circuits" that flow through plasma threads. Hannes Alfven was the first individual to apply these concepts to events inside our solar system, and galaxy and of course he won the Nobel Prize for Plasma physics. I assure you that my preference for empirical physics is well grounded in the lab, and well supported in the lab. That includes the fact that inelastic scattering can be directly linked to photon redshift, and signal broadening in a plasma, and the universe is mostly plasma.

I've actually used these principles on JREF to "predict" a 48 solar flare window, and specific active region that produced *multiple* M class flares, starting within 20 minutes after the start of of my prediction. These methods work in the solar system, and I'm sure they work everywhere.

 

[bhsmte]

I would argue that the Old Testament God is none of those things (the majority of the time and for the majority of people). Indeed, the Old Testament can be read as not even rejecting polytheism, and God as simple telling the Jewish people that they may not have any other Gods before Him--essentially, an assertion of dominance. In that light, the numerous prayers and ceremonies that have been built up around that assumption can be viewed as simple terrified appeasement, and the arbitrary rules and restrictions as the cruel whimsy of an uncaring God, or the direct result of intermittent reinforcement. This beautifully simple explanation does not, unfortunately, hold water with the addition of the New Testament.

This only shows me, the bible was man made and an attempt to control people first (the intimidation of the old testament) and later on, realizing they may have overstepped their bounds and changing things up with a more caring NT and throwing a carrot out of eternal life.

It should not be forgotten, that Jesus in quoted in the NT as saying the OT should be followed and is the word of God.

 

[JWGU]

Like I said--I do not pretend to be an astronomer. Nor do I have an unshakably firm belief in the standard cosmological model. If the Planck data are as groundbreaking as you believe them to be, we will see a shift away from that model, but if the plasma model fails to explain earlier evidence or make predictions about the latest evidence, I see no reason why scientists should then take up that particular model. Your assertion that the universe is 99% plasma is definitely something I would need to see more evidence for, because my impression based on the limited amount I have read was that this is the primary point of disagreement--or at least, that such a prevalence of non-neutrally charged bodies in the universe was at the very least highly contentious.

This only shows me, the bible was man made and an attempt to control people first (the intimidation of the old testament) and later on, realizing they may have overstepped their bounds and changing things up with a more caring NT and throwing a carrot out of eternal life.

It should not be forgotten, that Jesus in quoted in the NT as saying the OT should be followed and is the word of God.

I completely agree with you that the Old Testament holds more value as a code of laws for a nomadic tribal people than as direct proof of a God. I simply point out that such a God (not the historical events, but the description of God) would actually be relatively consistent with the universe we see.

 

[Michael]

Like I said--I do not pretend to be an astronomer. Nor do I have an unshakably firm belief in the standard cosmological model. If the Planck data are as groundbreaking as you believe them to be, we will see a shift away from that model,

Sure, but in which direction? Will they abandon the whole assertion about metric "expanding space" as the "cause" of redshift, or cling to that metaphysical kludge to GR theory like it's the sacred 'holy grail' of GR theory? FYI, that claim about the metric expansion of space is completely optional to GR theory by the way. In no way is GR theory dependent upon the metric expansion of space for it's scientific credibility, but Lambda-CDM is *completely* depending upon that assertion which cannot ever be demonstrated on Earth. By definition their claim is an "act of faith" in that "sacred" belief, even though Hubble himself wrote about *two* logical solutions to the redshift problem.

but if the plasma model fails to explain earlier evidence or make predictions about the latest evidence,

I've posted links to papers from Holushko, Ashmore and Brynjolfson that all have their various *explanations* for redshift based on inelastic scattering techniques. That assertion isn't even entirely true to start with. It may be true that there were some few aspects of WMAP that PC didn't address, but inelastic scattering that causes redshift over a distance isn't one of them. In fact, contrary to mainstream claims, inelastic scattering and signal broadening are actually *lab demonstrated* claims.

I see no reason why scientists should then take up that particular model.

Well, for starters it's a *lot* better in terms of explaining high speed solar wind, solar jets, solar flares and the physics of what goes on in plasma that humans can access.

Your assertion that the universe is 99% plasma is definitely something I would need to see more evidence for, because my impression based on the limited amount I have read was that this is the primary point of disagreement--or at least, that such a prevalence of non-neutrally charged bodies in the universe was at the very least highly contentious.

Actually.....
That's not actually the primary point of disagreement believe it or not. In fact, the mainstream just found more mass in the form of million degree plasma (they erroneously called it a 'hot gas') than all the mass in all the rest of the galaxy.

Hot-gas halo surrounds our Milky Way, scientists say | Space | EarthSky

Most of the mass of own solar system is found in the sun and it's also mostly plasma. Only about 2 percent of so of the mass inside this solar system is *not* in the plasma state, even if cathode sun theory is correct. No matter how you look at it, we all seem to agree that most of the mass of the universe is in the plasma state. For whatever reason however, mainstream astronomers include no calculations related to the EM fields of plasma in Lambda-CDM. That should be your first clue that there is a *serious* deficiency in that theory.

I completely agree with you that the Old Testament holds more value as a code of laws for a nomadic tribal people than as direct proof of a God. I simply point out that such a God (not the historical events, but the description of God) would actually be relatively consistent with the universe we see.

I agree with you. As a Christian I embrace both Christianity and the panentheism. I see no conflict between empirical physics and my "faith". I would expect that would apply to you as well were you to fully embrace a completely empirical theory of both the cosmos and "God". Panentheism isn't specific to any particular religion.

 

[JWGU]

I can't link to the results because I do not have enough posts yet, but I just read the paper that summarized the statistical results of the Planck data to which you were referring. I have not read it thoroughly and am not an astronomer, but the impression I get is that, except under a few circumstances, the results agree perfectly with the standard cosmological model. In particular, there are deviations to homogeneity in certain parts of the sky under certain tests, but not Gaussianity--we would have to see deviations to both as a prerequisite for any noninflationary theory of the universe, the plasma cosmological model included. What deviations were witnessed were in agreement with previously observed deviations in WMAP data. The authors note that it is possible that these results mean that the universe is not completely homogenous but do not seem to believe that more than a minor tweak of the model will be required (if anything, they seem hopeful that one will be required, since it will make their paper more influential). I wish I could link to the study, but it's fairly easy to find: search for "Planck 2013 Results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB".

 

[Michael]

I can't link to the results because I do not have enough posts yet, but I just read the paper that summarized the statistical results of the Planck data to which you were referring. I have not read it thoroughly and am not an astronomer, but the impression I get is that, except under a few circumstances, the results agree perfectly with the standard cosmological model. In particular, there are deviations to homogeneity in certain parts of the sky under certain tests, but not Gaussianity--we would have to see deviations to both as a prerequisite for any noninflationary theory of the universe, the plasma cosmological model included. What deviations were witnessed were in agreement with previously observed deviations in WMAP data. The authors note that it is possible that these results mean that the universe is not completely homogenous but do not seem to believe that more than a minor tweak of the model will be required (if anything, they seem hopeful that one will be required, since it will make their paper more influential). I wish I could link to the study, but it's fairly easy to find: search for "Planck 2013 Results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB".

[1303.5083] Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB

Emphasis mine.

Consider what you're saying for a moment. The "test" of inflation was homogeneity on the largest scales. That 'claim to fame' has been it's *key prediction* even though Guth just *assumed* it was homogenous because that was our best guess at the time. He did however *formally* (mathematically) predict it. It's either a falsification mechanism or it's not. Yes/no?

Of *course* these authors (and every other author) is lining up to get themselves the *next* Nobel prize for the *next* ad hoc supernatural *fix* for the failed prediction. They all know, and every other author knows that the odds of them allowing BB theory to die a natural scientific death are zero. Someone is going to therefore *necessarily* going to get the award for the *discovery* the resolves the problems in Lambda-CDM. They're clamoring all over themselves now, fighting to see who's going to get it.

Actually however, the *most dubious* aspect of Lambda-CDM theory is the fact it's trying to describe the behaviors of mostly plasma universe *without ever including* any EM field influences in the movements of the objects of spacetime! What kind of silliness is that?

 

[JWGU]

.

Emphasis mine.

Consider what you're saying for a moment. The "test" of inflation was homogeneity on the largest scales. That 'claim to fame' has been it's *key prediction* even though Guth just *assumed* it was homogenous because that was our best guess at the time. He did however *formally* (mathematically) predict it. It's either a falsification mechanism or it's not. Yes/no?

Of *course* these authors (and every other author) is lining up to get themselves the *next* Nobel prize for the *next* ad hoc supernatural *fix* for the failed prediction. They all know, and every other author knows that the odds of them allowing BB theory to die a natural scientific death are zero. Someone is going to therefore *necessarily* going to get the award for the *discovery* the resolves the problems in Lambda-CDM. They're clamoring all over themselves now, fighting to see who's going to get it.

Actually however, the *most dubious* aspect of Lambda-CDM theory is the fact it's trying to describe the behaviors of mostly plasma universe *without ever including* any EM field influences in the movements of the objects of spacetime! What kind of silliness is that?

And like I said--if the evidence is there, we will move away from the standard cosmological model. What I also said, though, was that it wasn't evident to me why the replacement in that scenario would be the plasma cosmological model, and I still don't see why that would be the case. It sounds to me like the local phenomena that you are extolling it for being able to explain, are already being explained with it. A replacement to the standard model on the basis of this new data, I think, would be comparable to quantum gravity replacing Newtonian gravity--a theory that asymptotically resolved to the standard cosmological model but explained slight variations under unusual circumstances. In fact, the measurements are explicitly singled out as not supporting any noninflationary model of the universe (at the beginning of the article)--while I don't know for sure, based on what you have said in a few posts I gather that plasma cosmology is such a noninflationary theory.

 

[Michael]

And like I said--if the evidence is there, we will move away from the standard cosmological model.

I wish I (still) had the same faith in astronomers that you do. Unfortunately I'm not expecting much other than yet *another* supernatural construct and ever moving goal posts.

What I also said, though, was that it wasn't evident to me why the replacement in that scenario would be the plasma cosmological model, and I still don't see why that would be the case.

Considering the fact that PC theory is their "arch enemy", I highly doubt it's going to 'replace' current theory anytime soon.

It sounds to me like the local phenomena that you are extolling it for being able to explain, are already being explained with it.

Not really, and not exactly. Birkeland actually built a working cathode solar model that 'predicts' (real empirical prediction from something learned from actual experimentation by the way) high speed solar wind, solar jets, solar flares and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. The standard model just lost it's most important 'power supply' last year when it was 'discovered' that convection is only 1 percent of predicted value, leaving the mainstream model high and dry.

Their model *doesn't* fully explain those "slinky's in space", since they fail to acknowledge the current that creates those corkscrew magnetic field patterns. The only thing the claimed to really "explain" fully is redshift and that turned out to be full of hot air in terms of homogeneity on the largest scales.

A replacement to the standard model on the basis of this new data, I think, would be comparable to quantum gravity replacing Newtonian gravity--a theory that asymptotically resolved to the standard cosmological model but explained slight variations under unusual circumstances. In fact, the measurements are explicitly singled out as not supporting any noninflationary model of the universe (at the beginning of the article)--while I don't know for sure, based on what you have said in a few posts I gather that plasma cosmology is such a noninflationary theory.

The *entire* Lambda-CDM claim is aimed at "explaining" the redshift phenomenon via *expansion of space*, a *supernatural* claim that defies empirical support in the lab, and will forever remain so. "Space expansion" has never been shown to have any effect on any photon in any experiment. Inflation is *predicted* to cause 'space' to expand. We have a supernatural claim followed by another. Dark energy supposedly *accelerates* space expansion. Three unsupported claims in a row. There not only into the metaphysical claims a "little', they're committed to the claim of space expansion, till death do them part in many cases.

PC theory looks at what happens to light in plasma in a lab. In the lab light loses some of it's momentum to the medium. In the lab light experiences signal broadening in plasma. When you apply these *observed principles* to the redshift phenomenon, it's not *clear* that all redshift is related either the movement of objects or just pure inelastic scattering. Both remain empirical options, but "space expansion" never was an empirical option to stat with.

You're right, the *mainstream* would like to believe they can continue to ignore EM fields in plasma, and continue to just stuff their theory with whatever supernatural gap filler then can dream up to save their claims about metric space expansion from falsification. They aren't likely to give up that nearly "sacred" beliefs anytime soon. It's the *unthinkable* to talk about inelastic scattering and moving objects as an alternative to space expansion from their perspective. It would mean they'd have to give up on their original claims and start over from scratch.

It's not even logical to talk about QM gravity theories without considering the EM field effects, but that is exactly what they're trying to do.

 

[bhsmte]

I wish I (still) had the same faith in astronomers that you do. Unfortunately I'm not expecting much other than yet *another* supernatural construct and ever moving goal posts.



Considering the fact that PC theory is their "arch enemy", I highly doubt it's going to 'replace' current theory anytime soon.



Not really, and not exactly. Birkeland actually built a working cathode solar model that 'predicts' (real empirical prediction from something learned from actual experimentation by the way) high speed solar wind, solar jets, solar flares and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. The standard model just lost it's most important 'power supply' last year when it was 'discovered' that convection is only 1 percent of predicted value, leaving the mainstream model high and dry.

Their model *doesn't* fully explain those "slinky's in space", since they fail to acknowledge the current that creates those corkscrew magnetic field patterns. The only thing the claimed to really "explain" fully is redshift and that turned out to be full of hot air in terms of homogeneity on the largest scales.



The *entire* Lambda-CDM claim is aimed at "explaining" the redshift phenomenon via *expansion of space*, a *supernatural* claim that defies empirical support in the lab, and will forever remain so. "Space expansion" has never been shown to have any effect on any photon in any experiment. Inflation is *predicted* to cause 'space' to expand. We have a supernatural claim followed by another. Dark energy supposedly *accelerates* space expansion. Three unsupported claims in a row. There not only into the metaphysical claims a "little', they're committed to the claim of space expansion, till death do them part in many cases.

PC theory looks at what happens to light in plasma in a lab. In the lab light loses some of it's momentum to the medium. In the lab light experiences signal broadening in plasma. When you apply these *observed principles* to the redshift phenomenon, it's not *clear* that all redshift is related either the movement of objects or just pure inelastic scattering. Both remain empirical options, but "space expansion" never was an empirical option to stat with.

You're right, the *mainstream* would like to believe they can continue to ignore EM fields in plasma, and continue to just stuff their theory with whatever supernatural gap filler then can dream up to save their claims about metric space expansion from falsification. They aren't likely to give up that nearly "sacred" beliefs anytime soon. It's the *unthinkable* to talk about inelastic scattering and moving objects as an alternative to space expansion from their perspective. It would mean they'd have to give up on their original claims and start over from scratch.

It's not even logical to talk about QM gravity theories without considering the EM field effects, but that is exactly what they're trying to do.

Think of it this way michael.

If christianity is a false story manufactured by man, people have been duped for 2000 years. If these astronomers are also duping people as you claim, i dont see it taking 2000 years to find out

 

[JWGU]

Michael, you aren't by any chance Michael Mozina, are you? Of "The Surface of the Sun" fame?

 

[Michael]

Michael, you aren't by any chance Michael Mozina, are you? Of "The Surface of the Sun" fame?

Oh yes indeed. Cathode sun theory is what got me into this whole melee in the first place.

 

[JWGU]

Oh yes indeed. Cathode sun theory is what got me into this whole melee in the first place.

Hah! Looks like I am talking to an internet celebrity.

For those who don't know, Michael Mozina has been tirelessly promoting his cathode sun theory--which I assume is the same as what I knew it as, the iron sun theory--that the sun is primarily ferrous and that contemporary astronomers have been fooled by a relatively thin surface layer. He has been driven off most physics-based forums as a result, but I never would have thought to look for him here! Very nice to meet you--you've provided me with a ton of (highly entertaining) reading material, and while I don't actually agree with your theory, I do respect that you are patient, courteous, and willing to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks--properties that are not always present in those you debate.

 

[Michael]

Think of it this way michael.

If christianity is a false story manufactured by man, people have been duped for 2000 years. If these astronomers are also duping people as you claim, i dont see it taking 2000 years to find out

Considering my age, it's likely to be a problem that outlives me either way you look at it.

On the other hand, the concept, and the moral standard of "love your enemy" has served me well in life in terms of my overall happiness in life, and in terms of saving me from my own ego. BB theory hasn't done a single useful thing for me in my life, and it's squandering my tax dollars even as we speak.