Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[mzungu]

There have been many threads and countless posts debating Electric Universe hypothesis.Here is a peer review that refutes the claims of EU.

Enjoy the reading: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2

 

[lesliedellow]

There have been many threads and countless posts debating Electric Universe hypothesis.Here is a peer review that refutes the claims of EU.

Enjoy the reading: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2

You know that is going to have as much effect as posting an "Idiot's Guide to Evolution," on a creationist website, don't you?

 

[Michael]

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2

If I rip that particular post to shreds, will that accomplish anything in terms of your opinions? I'll do it if you like, but why bother? You've made up your mind already apparently.

Shall I "tease" you a little and point out the obvious diversion in the first paragraph for you?

"It is a fact that major "theories" of popular cosmology and its Standard Model have not been tested because they cannot be"​

This statement has been repeatedly demonstrated as false. The solution to many cosmic-scale problems often provided solutions that were subsequently demonstrated in earth-based experiments (Astronomy as an 'Unprovable' science, The Cosmos in Your Pocket). By Smith's standard, in 1956 there was no laboratory evidence that you could launch a satellite into orbit. Those who designed the launch trajectory used the same gravitational theory they used to predict planet locations with no other evidence than its success in predicting planetary trajectories.

What a snow job. He failed to mention that not a single one of their cause/effect claims can be tested in the lab, or falsified in the lab. Inflation won't show up on Earth in a lab. They can't even name a *source* of "dark energy". They came up empty four times with CDM over the past 18 months. It's a completely *unfalsifiable* theory, and no cause/effect claims have ever been demonstrated in the first place!

Wow. I'm completely underwhelmed already, and we're exactly one paragraph into it.

 

[mzungu]

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2

If I rip that particular post to shreds, will that accomplish anything in terms of your opinions? I'll do it if you like, but why bother? You've made up your mind already apparently.

Shall I "tease" you a little and point out the obvious diversion in the first paragraph for you?

What a snow job. He failed to mention that not a single one of their cause/effect claims can be tested in the lab, or falsified in the lab. Inflation won't show up on Earth in a lab. They can't even name a *source* of "dark energy". They came up empty four times with CDM over the past 18 months. It's a completely *unfalsifiable* theory, and no cause/effect claims have ever been demonstrated in the first place!

Wow. I'm completely underwhelmed already, and we're exactly one paragraph into it.

Do you mean to tell me you people have created a galaxy in a lab

 

[Michael]

Do you mean to tell me you people have created a galaxy in a lab

You can't possibly still be confusing *scaling* issues with demonstrating basic *cause/effect* relationships can you? Anything you can find and demonstrate here on Earth, you're welcome to scale to whatever size you'd like.

You cannot however scale invisible leprechauns, and gnomes without demonstrating they aren't a figment of your imagination.

 

[lesliedellow]

Anything you can find and demonstrate here on Earth, you're welcome to scale to whatever size you'd like.

So a plasma ball is your basis for telling cosmologists world wide that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Michael]

So a plasma ball is your basis for telling cosmologists world wide that they don't know what they are talking about.

Of course not. My basis for telling them that they don't know what they're talking about are based on the following facts:

Not one of them can name a single source of 'dark energy' and it makes up the *vast* majority of their theory.

Not one them has come up with a *successful* prediction for CDM. Every single 'test' that your "experts' have come up with has failed *epically* in the lab.

I've seen *many* of them sit there on JREF and *ignore* the fact that "magnetic reconnection" is not a plasma optional process, and claim exactly the opposite to be true. Not one of them however can cite a *published work* to support that claim and nobody at JREF corrected that error over a period of *months*, not days or weeks. What they do not know about plasma physics and even basic EM field theory *could fill volumes*. I've spent almost 10 years now debating them in cyberspace. They can't even handle an honest online debate. They therefore ban all their heretics, and hide from all criticisms of their supernatural claims.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can't possibly still be confusing *scaling* issues with demonstrating basic *cause/effect* relationships can you? Anything you can find and demonstrate here on Earth, you're welcome to scale to whatever size you'd like.

You cannot however scale invisible leprechauns, and gnomes without demonstrating they aren't a figment of your imagination.

We have machines which briefly create black holes, I think.

 

[Michael]

We have machines which briefly create black holes, I think.

Sorry but that's an urban legend. Particle physicists 'speculated' that 'might' happen at LHC. Never happened.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry but that's an urban legend. Particle physicists 'speculated' that 'might' happen at LHC. Never happened.

Ah, well, I wasn't hoping they would succeed. Sounds dangerous in my opinion to be messing with that sort of thing, they aren't exactly known to be predictable.

 

[Michael]

Ah, well, I wasn't hoping they would succeed. Sounds dangerous in my opinion to be messing with that sort of thing, they aren't exactly known to be predictable.

I simply don't buy the concept of 'infinite density', and therefore I don't buy the concept of 'tiny' black holes. You'd need a lot of mass to create an event horizon around an object.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I simply don't buy the concept of 'infinite density', and therefore I don't buy the concept of 'tiny' black holes. You'd need a lot of mass to create an event horizon around an object.

Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be any less dangerous if they were successful.

 

[Michael]

Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be any less dangerous if they were successful.

True.

 

[mzungu]

I simply don't buy the concept of 'infinite density', and therefore I don't buy the concept of 'tiny' black holes. You'd need a lot of mass to create an event horizon around an object.

True but it is a fact that black holes have been discovered as predicted and that galaxies harbour at their core supermassive black holes. In fact we know they are there from the orbits of stars around the black holes or when they are in the process of feeding.

You may not see the air but you can see its effects.

Don't even try to convince me that black holes do not exist and that Galaxies are held together by electricity because that is not accepted by the mainstream and so long as it stays that way I will dismiss EU.

Whew! There I said it!

Did you watch the documentary on Science and Islam? I guarantee you if you watch it all you will come out having learnt quite a few new things about the history of science. You will be surprised at what is in there.

 

[Michael]

True but it is a fact that black holes have been discovered as predicted and that galaxies harbour at their core supermassive black holes. In fact we know they are there from the orbits of stars around the black holes or when they are in the process of feeding.

I assume they are all simply neutron stars of massive proportions. Maybe there's quark matter in there, but I doubt it.

You may not see the air but you can see its effects.

If you read our papers, you know I support the idea of a heavy massive object in the core of various galaxies. I simply lack belief that any of them ever achieve 'infinite' density at a 'point'.

Don't even try to convince me that black holes do not exist

You didn't read my papers apparently .

and that Galaxies are held together by electricity because that is not accepted by the mainstream and so long as it stays that way I will dismiss EU.

Ya know......
The mainstream can't explain galaxy rotation patterns without *making up* some exotic form of supernatural ad hoc gap filler. Peratt had no such problem. The mainstream made four unique testable 'predictions' about CDM, all of which *failed* epically within the last 18 months. Dismiss it all you like, but your supernatural religion is more pathetic than YEC. There is a *natural* (MHD) solution to galaxy rotation patterns in plasma. Your invisible sky deities are impotent, irrelevant, falsified and useless.

Whew! There I said it!

You tried to hide behind an appeal to authority fallacy.

Did you watch the documentary on Science and Islam? I guarantee you if you watch it all you will come out having learnt quite a few new things about the history of science. You will be surprised at what is in there.

Unfortunately I haven't finished yet, but you've already spoiled me. I had a hard time even watching Cosmos after that last series you had me watch. I hate to admit it, but Tyson's work isn't even in his league I'm afraid.

I will finish watching it as I get time. I'm current slogging through a 78 page paper on Bicep2 lab tests on the camera. Ugly stuff, and not particularly useful so far either.

 

[mzungu]

I assume they are all simply neutron stars of massive proportions. Maybe there's quark matter in there, but I doubt it.

A neutron star capable of holding a galaxy together would be so massive that many stars orbiting it would be hidden when passing behind it. This is not being observed when a sequential series of photos were taken of our galactic centre where stars are seen orbiting an invisible object of very small proportions. Can you with any certainty conclude that a supermassive object that collapses under its own gravity cannot reach a point where the laws of physics simply fall apart? For all we know black holes are spacetime wrapped unto itself. Nobody really knows what is in a black hole. Anyway even with your hypothesis that a neutron star resides at the centre of galaxies only goes to confirm that it is gravity that is the leading force in galactic formation

If you read our papers, you know I support the idea of a heavy massive object in the core of various galaxies. I simply lack belief that any of them ever achieve 'infinite' density at a 'point'.

Point taken but the mainstream begs to differ.

You didn't read my papers apparently .

I admit I did not

Ya know......
The mainstream can't explain galaxy rotation patterns without *making up* some exotic form of supernatural ad hoc gap filler. Peratt had no such problem. The mainstream made four unique testable 'predictions' about CDM, all of which *failed* epically within the last 18 months. Dismiss it all you like, but your supernatural religion is more pathetic than YEC. There is a *natural* (MHD) solution to galaxy rotation patterns in plasma. Your invisible sky deities are impotent, irrelevant, falsified and useless.

Until EU becomes mainstream I shall remain with the accepted model.

You tried to hide behind an appeal to authority fallacy.

Nope!

Unfortunately I haven't finished yet, but you've already spoiled me. I had a hard time even watching Cosmos after that last series you had me watch. I hate to admit it, but Tyson's work isn't even in his league I'm afraid.

I will finish watching it as I get time. I'm current slogging through a 78 page paper on Bicep2 lab tests on the camera. Ugly stuff, and not particularly useful so far either.

BBC make the best documentaries. Presenters like Attenborough, Sam Niell, Jim Al Khalili, to name but a few are a breed apart. Not that I have not seen excellent American documentaries mind you but the majority of American documentaries fall short. The reason being that they do not delve into details and tend to be sensationalistic in the way they present their subject.

Another BBC documentary that you will find very interesting is "The 2,000 year old computer".
Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q124C7W0WYA

 

[lesliedellow]

I simply don't buy the concept of 'infinite density', and therefore I don't buy the concept of 'tiny' black holes. You'd need a lot of mass to create an event horizon around an object.

A black whole is a spherical mass whose Schwarzschild radius is greater than the radius of the said mass.

 

[Strathos]

You could have a black hole of arbitrary mass, it would just be very small for low masses.

 

[Michael]

You could have a black hole of arbitrary mass, it would just be very small for low masses.

I didn't say it *couldn't* happen. I'd just need to see it happen to believe it.

 

[Michael]

A neutron star capable of holding a galaxy together would be so massive that many stars orbiting it would be hidden when passing behind it. This is not being observed when a sequential series of photos were taken of our galactic centre where stars are seen orbiting an invisible object of very small proportions.

I'm pretty sure that would likely require greater sensitivity than is currently available. Do you have a link to a published paper that attempts to define a black hole's physical0 size (of the event horizon)? How can you be sure stars are passing directly 'behind' that massive object relative to Earth anyway?

Can you with any certainty conclude that a supermassive object that collapses under its own gravity cannot reach a point where the laws of physics simply fall apart?

Technically I can't rule out invisible elephants living in the middle of it. Why 'assume' something like that in first place?

For all we know black holes are spacetime wrapped unto itself. Nobody really knows what is in a black hole. Anyway even with your hypothesis that a neutron star resides at the centre of galaxies only goes to confirm that it is gravity that is the leading force in galactic formation

Since nobody *really* knows what they are, you can't logically rule out my theory then either. I'm not trying to suggest it's an 'either/or' proposition in the first place. I'm not trying to eliminate gravity. I'm just trying to explain the whole physics of a mostly plasma universe with *only* gravity.

Point taken but the mainstream begs to differ.

Actually, while they do differ, that particular idea is probably the *least* objectionable part of my beliefs from their perspective. Even they admit that neutron stars are larger than they first thought, and they are also capable of producing jets, just like black holes.

Until EU becomes mainstream I shall remain with the accepted model.

From my perspective that's like sticking with an earth centric viewpoint only because it happened to be 'popular' with the scientists at that moment in time, even though their epicycle claims aren't necessary.

BBC make the best documentaries. Presenters like Attenborough, Sam Niell, Jim Al Khalili, to name but a few are a breed apart. Not that I have not seen excellent American documentaries mind you but the majority of American documentaries fall short. The reason being that they do not delve into details and tend to be sensationalistic in the way they present their subject.

You definitely did me a favor by turning me on to Al Khalili. I'd never even heard of him until you suggested his videos, but now I'm hooked. I like his presentation style quite a bit.

Another BBC documentary that you will find very interesting is "The 2,000 year old computer".
Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q124C7W0WYA

I think I've seen that one already, and it was indeed very interesting.