Ask a physicist anything. (8)

[Subduction Zone]

Great, I look forward to it. Lets do a little side by side comparison of evidence in the appropriate thread of course:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137/

I started a thread on that topic too by the way. You're welcome to add your two cents worth:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7775767/

What exactly did you try to "help me learn"? I think if you check around the internet, you'll quickly discover that I never "run away". I've been virtually executed for my heresy a few times, but running away really just isn't my style I'm afraid.

Sorry to burst your bubble but even the mainstream doesn't make such a ridiculous claim. They add stuff like inflation and dark energy.

Considering the fact that supernatural add-ons make up about 95 percent of Lambda-CDM, you're blowing up the irony meter.

The rest of this post looks to be better suited to the be dealt with in the Empirical Theory of God thread and/or the evidence thread. Feel free to start wherever you want, and feel free to 'teach' me about *your personal* definition of evidence.

Maybe you weren't one of the chickens when it came to discussing evidence.

I may check out your theory of God site, but if it is pure male bovine end product like I suspect it is you will not hear from me.

And lastly I suggest you look up the meaning of supernatural.

 

[Michael]

Maybe you weren't one of the chickens when it came to discussing evidence.

I may check out your theory of God site, but if it is pure male bovine end product like I suspect it is you will not hear from me.

And lastly I suggest you look up the meaning of supernatural.

Compared to the bovine excrement that passes for "science" today in the field of astronomy, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to complain about in terms of an Empirical theory of God (as the living universe). No new forces of nature are required to explain the existence of God, whereas you apparently need at least three supernatural invisible friends (more actually) to explain our universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Compared to the bovine excrement that passes for "science" today in the field of astronomy, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to complain about in terms of an Empirical theory of God (as the living universe). No new forces of nature are required to explain the existence of God, whereas you apparently need at least three supernatural invisible friends (more actually) to explain our universe.

That is the sort of complaint that someone who cannot do the math would make. You have to do better than that.

Meanwhile, a nice little article on EU "theory":


Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

 

[Subduction Zone]

And a serious question for EU supporters. If there was anything to this so called "science" then why are there no articles in main stream peer reviewed scientific journals? Why can you only find articles in the vanity press, the refuges of crackpots and nutjobs of all kinds?

Now there are some valid articles in the vanity press. I am not automatically dismissing the theory because an article or two is found there. Why can't EU's sell their theory to the journals where real physics is done?

 

[Michael]

That is the sort of complaint that someone who cannot do the math would make. You have to do better than that.

Meanwhile, a nice little article on EU "theory":


Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

I already explained to them, on that very website in fact, that their objection applies to only one of *three* primary (probably 1/6 dozen other less popular) "electric sun" models. If you wish to discuss these issues, please take it to one of the two threads I supplied you with, lest *I* be accused of hijacking yet another thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already explained to them, on that very website in fact, that their objection applies to only one of *three* primary (probably 1/6 dozen other less popular) "electric sun" models. If you wish to discuss these issues, please take it to one of the two threads I supplied you with, lest *I* be accused of hijacking yet another thread.

I am not sure who you would accuse, me or Justa. He may have made a reference to that nonsense here and I may have responded to him.

At any rate until you get some traction in the real world you really have nothing.

 

[Michael]

And a serious question for EU supporters. If there was anything to this so called "science" then why are there no articles in main stream peer reviewed scientific journals?

Perhaps because they are 'mainstream' publications?

Why can you only find articles in the vanity press, the refuges of crackpots and nutjobs of all kinds?

None of the published papers I handed you fall into that category. Notice the personal attack nonsense? That would be akin to me calling you "evil" in every single post, simply because you won't agree with me over some arcane scientific issue.

Hannes Alfven literally wrote the book on plasma physics and MHD theory and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts. He also literally wrote the first mathematical book on PC/EU theory, and published over a 100 papers on the topic, but of course you've never bothered to read and of it, so you *imagine* there's no mathematical basis for the theory. Even Kristian Birkeland produced *dozens* of pages of maths related to the charged particle movements from a cathode sphere. It took the 'mainstream' nearly 60 years to figure out Birkeland was right about aurora. At the rate they are going it may be another 60 years before they figure out that he was right about the sun acting as a cathode with respect to space/"the heliosphere" in more modern parlance.

Really, go to the Empirical theory of God thread and show me how you have more "evidence' for your invisible friends in the sky. I'm all ears in the *appropriate* thread.

 

[Michael]

I am not sure who you would accuse, me or Justa. He may have made a reference to that nonsense here and I may have responded to him.

At any rate until you get some traction in the real world you really have nothing.

Birkeland's cathode sun model worked in the lab. He didn't replicate sustained fusion in the lab of course, but in every other respect his model was a working model of a sun, including atmospheric discharges that he associated with solar flares, polar jets, both types of high speed charged particles flowing from the sun, and cathode rays. All these were verified 'predictions' of his working model.

Compared to the concept of God as the living universe, you have *zero* evidence to support your three invisible friends in the sky. I will thoroughly and happily demonstrate that point for you if you take it to the right thread.

 

[Chesterton]

Presumably, that is correct. Early remotes used ultrasonic frequencies.

Yeah I think ours was a sonic one. IIRC it had little metal balls inside that struck a bar. Ancient Alien Tech.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Birkeland's cathode sun model worked in the lab. He didn't replicate sustained fusion in the lab of course, but in every other respect his model was a working model of a sun, including atmospheric discharges that he associated with solar flares, polar jets, both types of high speed charged particles flowing from the sun, and cathode rays. All these were verified 'predictions' of his working model.

Compared to the concept of God as the living universe, you have *zero* evidence to support your three invisible friends in the sky. I will thoroughly and happily demonstrate that point for you if you take it to the right thread.

There is a huge problem with his "cathode sun". Do you know what it is?

And flat denial of evidence shows that you do not understand what qualifies as evidence.

It is a lose/lose situation for you. Either you admit that there is evidence that backs up the claims of astronomers, or it is proven that you do not know what qualifies as evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps because they are 'mainstream' publications?

None of the published papers I handed you fall into that category. Notice the personal attack nonsense? That would be akin to me calling you "evil" in every single post, simply because you won't agree with me over some arcane scientific issue.

Hannes Alfven literally wrote the book on plasma physics and MHD theory and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts. He also literally wrote the first mathematical book on PC/EU theory, and published over a 100 papers on the topic, but of course you've never bothered to read and of it, so you *imagine* there's no mathematical basis for the theory. Even Kristian Birkeland produced *dozens* of pages of maths related to the charged particle movements from a cathode sphere. It took the 'mainstream' nearly 60 years to figure out Birkeland was right about aurora. At the rate they are going it may be another 60 years before they figure out that he was right about the sun acting as a cathode with respect to space/"the heliosphere" in more modern parlance.

Really, go to the Empirical theory of God thread and show me how you have more "evidence' for your invisible friends in the sky. I'm all ears in the *appropriate* thread.

You cherry pick your own sources. Have you no shame?

Hannes Alfven may have received an a Nobel Prize for MHD, he did not receive on for his EU nonsense. Just because a scientist is right once does not make him right always. Scientists are human and almost all of them make mistakes.

I have seen the thread you run on your EU nonsense and you cherry pick there too. Anything that has anything to do at all with plasma you try to claim supports your beliefs. Yet you can find no peer reviewed articles that actually support the subject.

Denying the EU is not denying MHD or other related studies. That is a false conclusion that you and Justa make all of the time. Treating a hot gas as a hot gas is not denying EU.

 

[Michael]

There is a huge problem with his "cathode sun". Do you know what it is?

Please tell me all about it in the appropriate thread. There's no point in talking about the term 'evidence' until you define it for us in one of the appropriate threads. If you're talking about controlled experimental evidence, you have absolutely nothing. Perhaps you better start by defining the term for us in that second thread I started on the topic of evidence.

Really, I'd honestly prefer you take our conversation to the right thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please tell me all about it in the appropriate thread. There's no point in talking about the term 'evidence' until you define it for us in one of the appropriate threads. If you're talking about controlled experimental evidence, you have absolutely nothing. Perhaps you better start by defining the term for us in that second thread I started on the topic of evidence.

Really, I'd honestly prefer you take our conversation to the right thread.

Nope, you just failed and since this is "ask a physicist anything you have shown that you do not know what scientific evidence is. I have no wish to go to your "woo" thread.

 

[Michael]

Nope, you just failed and since this is "ask a physicist anything you have shown that you do not know what scientific evidence is. I have no wish to go to your "woo" thread.

Pure cop out. Your sky full of invisible friends are more impotent on Earth than any typical description of God. I started a very appropriate thread on that specific topic anytime you with to quit running from the debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pure cop out. Your sky full of invisible friends are more impotent on Earth than any typical description of God. I started a very appropriate thread on that specific topic anytime you with to quit running from the debate.

Nope. I have already shown that you are not fit to judge the evidence involved.

 

[Michael]

Nope. I have already shown that you are not fit to judge the evidence involved.

You don't have any tangible physical evidence. You have a few math formulas (I have some related to soul by the way) and not a lick of empirical laboratory support for your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't have any tangible physical evidence. You have a few math formulas (I have some related to soul by the way) and not a lick of empirical laboratory support for your claim.

Nope, there is more than that.

And you continue to show that you have no idea of what constitutes evidence.

I tell you what, after we wrap up the gravity problem I will have a short quick class on evidence.

 

[Michael]

Nope, there is more than that.

And you continue to show that you have no idea of what constitutes evidence.

I tell you what, after we wrap up the gravity problem I will have a short quick class on evidence.

Great, I look forward to it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And a serious question for EU supporters. If there was anything to this so called "science" then why are there no articles in main stream peer reviewed scientific journals? Why can you only find articles in the vanity press, the refuges of crackpots and nutjobs of all kinds?

Now there are some valid articles in the vanity press. I am not automatically dismissing the theory because an article or two is found there. Why can't EU's sell their theory to the journals where real physics is done?

Because my friend, plasma engineers publish in the IEEE, which deals with plasma science, not fantasy land astronomy clubs.


All articles - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Choose any article you like, at the bottom you will find all the peer reviewed papers you could ever want, along with textbooks. I pointed this out to you before, but you ignored it then as well.

http://www.ieee.org/index.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because my friend, plasma engineers publish in the IEEE, which deals with plasma science, not fantasy land astronomy clubs.


All articles - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Choose any article you like, at the bottom you will find all the peer reviewed papers you could ever want, along with textbooks. I pointed this out to you before, but you ignored it then as well.

IEEE - The world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology

ROFl, the IEEE is not a physics journal. It is an engineering journal.

Why would a physicist publish in an EE journal?