Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[RealityCheck01]

Lemaitre abused GR theory to make claims about "space expansion", and even Einstein wasn't pleased.

8 February 2017 Michael: Insulting Lemaitre and lying about Lemaitre's work does not change the physics.
Lemaitre made a valid derivation from GR about the properties of an expanding universe.
Lemaitre supported that derivation with empirical data matching his predictions. If he had not published in a little known French journal Hubble's Law would be Lemaitre's Law. He skipped the empirical part of his paper when it was translated to English and published in 1930, possibly because of the better data from Hubble.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You smear by association. I don't believe in any of Velikovsky's ideas and I post to TB regularly.

I did not say that you believed in any of Velikovsky's invalid ideas or even the extremely deluded Thunderbolts ideas.
You joined a forum on a web site run by obviously deluded people (Talbott and Thornhill). Anyone in their forum thus has an presumption of ignorance or delusion to dispel. You have not done that in this forum.
You could have joined a knowledgeable science based forum but instead joined a forum run by deluded cranks which is a problem with your credibility.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I read that when they first tested the Atomic Bomb in the USA they were not 100% certain that Earth's entire atmosphere would catch fire but they detonated it anyway.

Yeah, not smart, but glad it worked out ok.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Ignorant fantasies don't work in the lab RC

You seem to be ignorant about what the Thunderbolts version of EU is, Michael.
That is EU includes electrical discharges between the Earth and Venus in recent history, that the Sun is externally powered by electric currents, etc.
An unsupported assertion about the deluded and lying* Thunderbolts author (Thornhill)
8 February 2017 Michael: Which of the Thunderbolts solar models matches the observed neutrino flux from the Sun?

* Deluded, e.g. he believes in electric discharges between the Earth and Venus digging out the Grand Canyon and basically doing everything including slicing bread! The most obvious delusion is that comets are rocks blasted in recent history from the Earth by those electric discharges.
Lying because he lied about the results of the Deep Impact mission to Tempel 1, e.g. he "predicted" a flash before impact and still reports that as a confirmed prediction but there were two flashes on and after impact.

Will you honestly answer questions about Thornhill's beliefs?
8 February 2017 Michael: Is it deluded to assert that comets are rocks given e.g. their measured density, the Rosetta mission results, etc.?
8 February 2017 Michael: Is it a lie that there was a flash before impact in the Deep Impact mission?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The fact you can't replicate if that much of his work over a whole sphere with "magnetic reconnection" shows that your claims are based upon pure pseudoscience, just as Alfven claimed.

Persisting in trying to make Alfven ignorant !
In a 1986 workshop speech, Alfven pointed pout what everyone knew - the frozen in field assumption used in magnetic reconnection needed to be applied carefully.

The Big Bang starts with an existing universe full of matter.
That is what the nonexistent EU/PC cosmology also does. People who cherry pick the theories they want to include in whatever they think EU/PC is have a universe full of matter.

Bridgman blogged about the similarities in the thought processes between creationist and EU proponents, not your imagined "EU theory is creationism".

 

[Michael]

You seem to be ignorant about what the Thunderbolts version of EU is, Michael.

LOL! You guys can't even get the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's solar model right, or his claims about water concentrations on comets. Who he heck are you to lecture me about any type of EU/PC model? Why would I believe you when you're constantly misrepresenting my beliefs as well as everyone associated with EU/PC theory?

That is EU includes electrical discharges between the Earth and Venus in recent history,

There are in fact verified observations of magnetic ropes connecting the sun to various planets. I wouldn't doubt it happens to Venus too. They certainly form between the sun and the Earth and the sun and Saturn.

Oh wait, you have your own personal definition of everything.

that the Sun is externally powered by electric currents,]

Maybe partially.

An unsupported assertion about the deluded and lying* Thunderbolts author (Thornhill)

The only one lying is you and you're only lying to yourself.

8 February 2017 Michael: Which of the Thunderbolts solar models matches the observed neutrino flux from the Sun?

Both Alfven's solar model and Birkeland's solar model predict exactly the same number of neutrinos, but *none* of them predict "no" neutrinos as you guys falsely claim. I'd assume Jeurgen's original solar model could be modified accordingly as well, though it was originally *intentionally* designed to predict fewer neutrinos because it was originally conceived of during the "missing neutrino" days of solar physics. In short, neutrino measurement don't allow me to falsify any EU/PC solar model, though they do tend to favor my favorite model (Birkeland).

* Deluded, e.g. he believes in electric discharges between the Earth and Venus digging out the Grand Canyon and basically doing everything including slicing bread!

Er, why would I trust you to be honest about anything Thornhill said? Are you still claiming that Thornhill predicted "no" neutrinos, because if so, you're not credible.

The most obvious delusion is that comets are rocks blasted in recent history from the Earth by those electric discharges.

Whatever. If you say so. Comets aren't my "thing". I don't pretend to be a mind reader and know what Thornhill believes today like you do.

Lying

Speaking of lying, did Thornhill predict "no" neutrinos come from the sun, or is that a lie? I need to "Test" your credibility when it comes to his beliefs because you have a bad habit of sticking false words in my mouth and his mouth.

because he lied about the results of the Deep Impact mission to Tempel 1, e.g. he "predicted" a flash before impact and still reports that as a confirmed prediction but there were two flashes on and after impact.

Should I care if one or more of his "predictions" failed? By that logic you *lied* at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc too. Are you admitting those claims about dark matter were *lies* too, or is that just pure EU/PC bigotry on a stick?

Will you honestly answer questions about Thornhill's beliefs?

Why should I? You've never honestly answered mine. Does he predict *no* water on comets? Does he predict *no* neutrinos from the sun? Yes or no?

You know....

It's really not a *sin* to make a prediction and be wrong about it. You side does it *constantly* in fact. We don't run around calling you "liars" all the time because of every failed prediction. Where do you get off doing that to us?

 

[Michael]

Persisting in trying to make Alfven ignorant !

Only you do that.

In a 1986 workshop speech, Alfven pointed pout what everyone knew - the frozen in field assumption used in magnetic reconnection needed to be applied carefully.

He called the whole magnetic reconnection claim a form of "pseudoscience" 7 times in his keynote speech RC. You may not like it, or agree with it, but those are the facts.

The Big Bang starts with an existing universe full of matter.

But somehow the inflation deity made "space expand' when it was all close together, but somehow it's lost it's space expansion mojo in our solar system and our galaxy cluster. What a wimp.

That is what the nonexistent EU/PC cosmology also does.

The fact that you're ignorant of Alfven's work and Peratt's work doesn't mean they don't exist. Your knowledge of their work may be nonexistent, but they've both written about cosmology from the perspective of EU/PC theory.

People who cherry pick the theories they want to include in whatever they think EU/PC is have a universe full of matter.

Huh? When wasn't the universe full of matter/energy?

Bridgman blogged about the similarities in the thought processes between creationist and EU proponents, not your imagined "EU theory is creationism".

Bridgman's particle flow diagram of Birkeland's solar model is utterly FUBAR, so why should I believe anything he says about EU/PC theory?

 

[Michael]

I did not say that you believed in any of Velikovsky's invalid ideas or even the extremely deluded Thunderbolts ideas.

Who are you to be accusing anyone of "delusions"? Does Thornhill's solar model predict "no" neutrinos, yes or no? Does he predict *no* water will be found on comets, yes or no?

You joined a forum on a web site run by obviously deluded people (Talbott and Thornhill).

If by 'deluded' you mean they hold ideas that I disagree with, so what? Lot's of people on this forum hold beliefs I don't agree with, including you.

Anyone in their forum thus has an presumption of ignorance or delusion to dispel.

Only if one happens to be an EU/PC bigot. I don't try to excuse every whacky idea put forth on this forum, nor am I responsible for those whacky ideas. It's not a reflection on the whole Christian community however, let alone every individual that posts here.

You have not done that in this forum.
You could have joined a knowledgeable science based forum but instead joined a forum run by deluded cranks which is a problem with your credibility.

Your "maintream" websites have no "knowledge" to offer me to start with. 95 percent of your beliefs are placeholder terms for human ignorance and the rest is "pseudoscience' according to Alfven.

On the other hand Birkeland's solar model works in the lab, unlike all of your nonsense.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Who are you to be accusing anyone of "delusions"?

Because I have an education in science, a MSc in physics, as you know !
Unused but it gave me the ability to think rationally and logically. That comes in handy in the IT industry where I work. The background to more easily understand the science I have keep up also helps.

ETA: I know of 4 different techniques used to measure the masses of comets that all give them densities less than water. Thus even you must agree that assertion that comets are rocks is a delusion so be honest, Michael, and answer:
8 February 2017 Michael: Is it deluded to assert that comets are rocks given e.g. their measured density, the Rosetta mission results, etc.?
8 February 2017 Michael: Is it a lie that there was a flash before impact in the Deep Impact mission?
10 February 2017 Michael: Thornhill's delusions and some lies yet again !

Anyone with high school science and can understand what they read can see that Thornhill is a liar and has deluded ideas, e.g.

1. lied about confirmed Deep Impact precisions
2. Venus stopped and restarted the Earth spinning
3. electric discharges between planets.
4. comets are rocks
5. comets were created in the last few 1000 years.
6. comet jets are electric discharges
7. electric discharges formed the Grand Canyon
8. electric discharges created the craters we see
9. delusion that gravity is electromagnetic (his latest video is on that)
10. denies the detection of gravitational waves
11. what seems to be a surface fusion idea for powering the Sun that fries us and make it the size of a white dwarf.

From ISF: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly on the electric comet delusion held by Talbott, Thornhill and maybe Scott.

Uncited assertions are not an answer.
8 February 2017 Michael: Which of the Thunderbolts solar models matches the observed neutrino flux from the Sun (citation to their calculations)?

 

[RealityCheck01]

How bad can Thornhill's blog posts get? Wal Thornhill's ignorance, delusions and lies about comets, etc. in a 2004 blog article

1. Thornhill lies about forbidden spectral lines which are allowed in low density plasmas such as comet coma.
2. Thornhill has the EU delusion of electrical discharges on comets.
3. Thornhill stupidly looks at the industrial process of Electric Discharge Machining which uses "two electrodes, separated by a dielectric liquid"!
4. Thornhill ignorantly thinks that astronomy images never lack contrast or are fuzzy.
5. Thornhill ignorantly compares an "Enhanced image of the nucleus of Comet Wild 2" with EDM images and lies about the feature of the comet.
6. Thornhill ignorantly looks at overexposed image of Comet Wild 2 and is surprised that it is brightest at the center!
7. Thornhill ignorantly thinks that comets moved out to the Oort Cloud.
   They are thought to have formed there and it is the observed orbits of long period comets that show their origin in the Oort Cloud.
8. Thornhill ignorantly thinks that comets only come from the Oort Cloud.
   Short period comets come from the Kuiper belt.
9. Thornhill ignorantly thinks that "dirty snowballs" means white surfaces.
   The mainstream model of comets includes that fact that their surfaces are very dark as has been observed since the 1950's
   
   !
10. Thornhill ignorantly states that the "cratering of comets and asteroids remains an enigma for astronomers" - the formation of craters by impacts and sublimation (for comets) is no mystery.
11. Thornhill's ignorance about our understanding of gravity and the value of G.
12. Thornhill lies about sublimation of ices not expected to form "distinctive circular craters" (the pits expected from sublimation!) or "well-collimated jets".
13. Thornhill lies about "surface features of Comet Wild 2 are inexplicable by out-gassing."
14. Thornhill lies about "Solar heating should be least where the comet nucleus is brightest.".
    Solar heating is greatest where the surface is exposed to the Sun
    
    !
15. Thornhill lies about "Comet Borrelly showed no trace of the water ice needed to account for the amount of dust emitted from the nucleus."
    This is Thornhill relying on press releases and then basically lying about them: 2002 News Releases NASA Spacecraft Finds Comet Has Hot, Dry Surface
    Comet Borrelly'e surface was measured to be hot and its surface ices (including water ices) had sublimated leaving internal ices.
16. Thornhill mentions a 'major surprise" that Halley produced fine dust, as did Giotto, as expected in the mainstream model.
17. Thornhill mentions that comet dust collected in the Earths atmosphere shows tiny grains of annealed silicates that were formed at a temperature of about 1600K as expected for dust formed in the early solar system!
18. Thornhill lies about "Copious X-rays were discovered by accident coming from a comet".
    Astronomers had speculated that x-rays would be emitted from comets and on purpose pointed the RODAT satellite at Comet Hyakutake on March 27, 1996 to detect x-rays.
19. Thornhill lies about an "ad hoc explanation".
    The scientific explanation is charge-exchange collisions of highly charged solar wind ions with cometary neutral species.
    Swift Detects X-Ray Emissions from Comets
20. Thornhill's ignorance: "moving protons combining with electrons" is the definition of recombination, not any imaginary currents.
21. The delusion that EU can explain the real world, e.g. comets.
22. Thornhill ends with a New Scientist article with the opinion of the Stardust mission that Wild 2 could have impact craters.

 

[Michael]

How bad can Thornhill's blog posts get?

Not as bad as yours.

Wal Thornhill's ignorance,

Speaking of ignorance..... Does Thornhill predict neutrinos from his solar model RC? Yes or no?

delusions

Every single one of your posts includes that term, and it's obviously a form of projection.

Does Thornhill predict *no* water will be found in comets, or *less* water than the standard comet model? Do you even understand his beliefs?

 

[Michael]

FYI, by your definition of a "lie", you guys have *lied* and *lied* and *lied* and lied and lied about dark matter. Every "test" of that claim has been a *failure*, so you lie repeatedly on that topic.

Your entire method of debate is pure personal attack and bearing false witness. Proud of yourself RC? Most of the atheists that post here show some sense of integrity. You give them all a bad name.

 

[Michael]

Because I have an education in science, a MSc in physics, as you know !

And yet after *wasting* billions of dollars on your dark matter snipe hunt, you and your collective MSc buddies in physics have absolutely *nothing* to show for it. Ditto on all you supernatural constructs. Your industry was *deluded* into thinking that you could correctly estimate the mass of distant galaxy too, so you *deluded* yourself into believing in exotic nonsense. Your collective MSc;s haven't produced any tangible results in the lab.

Unused but it gave me the ability to think rationally and logically.

Not from my perspective. A rational and logical personal doesn't run around the internet stalking every EU/PC proponent. They don't willfully misrepresent every idea either the way that you do. There's no logic, and no math to your magnetic reconnection nonsense, and you cannot produce any published work to support your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. I see no evidence that you have any special "superpowers" in those areas.

That comes in handy in the IT industry where I work. The background to more easily understand the science I have keep up also helps.

It doesn't seem to help you produce that math formula I asked you and Clinger for over five years ago, so what good is that MSc?

ETA: I know of 4 different techniques used to measure the masses of comets that all give them densities less than water.

So what? As I pointed out, some of the rocks in my backyard actually float on water. Who cares about the density? I only care about the composition.

Thus even you must agree that assertion that comets are rocks is a delusion

Nope. I don't pretend that I know for a fact that every comet is a "dirty snowball" like you do. I'm fine if they have *various* compositions. I really don't even care what they are made of frankly.

so be honest, Michael, and answer:

Why on Earth would you ask me to be honest when you have been less than honest as it relates to Thornhill's *actual* beliefs?

You show no signs of "being honest" as it relates to *any* EU/PC model in fact.

8 February 2017 Michael: Is it deluded to assert that comets are rocks given e.g. their measured density, the Rosetta mission results, etc.?

It is deluded to simply *assume* that every comet is exactly the same IMO. You go right ahead and delude yourself if that makes you happy, but don't expect me to share your delusions with you.

8 February 2017 Michael: Is it a lie that there was a flash before impact in the Deep Impact mission?

Did he claim there was, or did he just predict something that didn't seem to work out in his favor, like all your dark matter "tests"? Do you call yourself a liar too for those failures, or is this a pure hypocrisy driven name calling thing with you?

Anyone with high school science and can understand what they read can see that Thornhill is a liar and has deluded ideas, e.g.

You haven't a clue what Thornhill actually predicted with respect to neutrinos the last time we talked, so I have no faith that you even know what is a "lie" someone else told, and your own lies about their beliefs. You can't seem to distinguish between the two types of lies.

You have a lot of nerve, and no business calling someone a "liar" simply for making "predictions" that failed. By that logic, all dark matter proponents are "liars". Do you accept that to be true as well? Are they all liars too?

I don't give a darn about Velkovski and you know it, so get over it already. Velikovki isn't the author of any cosmology theory RC.

I hate to break it to you but apparently everyone in physics is deluded into believing that there is a 'theory of everything' that might indeed tie gravity and EM fields back together in some way.

All of your debate tactics are related to bearing false witness against anyone and everyone you don't agree with. That's not even ethical behavior in the first place, its a sleazy way to act in fact.

Uncited assertions are not an answer.
8 February 2017 Michael: Which of the Thunderbolts solar models matches the observed neutrino flux from the Sun (citation to their calculations)?

I gave you that answer from both of their own quotes, and you simply ignored their answers, and repeated your own lies about their beliefs. That's simply unethical nonsense on your part. Either accept their model as it's written, and focus on the things that you can disprove, or don't, but stop misrepresenting their beliefs and their statements!

Did Scott and Thornill predict that *no* neutrinos come from the sun, or not? Yes or no? It's a simple question for an honest man, and I've already given you the answer from their own statements. Yes or no?

 

[Radrook]

Yeah, not smart, but glad it worked out ok.

Otherwise we wouldn't be here to ponder any of it. LOL!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Wal Thornhill is not the only ignorant or deluded EU author. David Talbot is a self-taught comparative mythologist who also fell for the Velikovsky pseudoscience and coauthored Thunderbolts of the Gods and Electric Universe. He also believes in the "comets are rocks, etc." delusion. His 1980 delusion in a published book was that Saturn used to be over the north pole leading to wholesale recent changes to the orbits of the planets.

It is clear that the EU has delusions about comets so onto the next EU delusion:
From Thunderbolts: The Craters Are Electric (2007)
13 February 2017 Michael: Do you agree that craters being created by electrical discharges is a delusion?

Working science can explain the formation of craters via impacts.

A Michael Goodspeed denies over 50 years of astronomy by citing an ignored, obscure 1965 paper ! Astronomers know about electric discharges and that there is no evidence for them between planets. There is good physical and theoretical evidence that planets have been in stabile orbits for billions of years, e.g. the Earth has not wandered out to the orbit of Mars because life exists! The usual EU inanity of comparing images and thinking that because they look alike the same physical processes must be in place.
See Quacks Like a Duck by Brian Koberlein

8 February 2017 Michael: Is it deluded to assert that comets are rocks given e.g. their measured density, the Rosetta mission results, etc.?
8 February 2017 Michael: Is it a lie that there was a flash before impact in the Deep Impact mission?
10 February 2017 Michael: Trusts hornhill's delusions and some lies yet again !

From ISF: 10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. mostly on the electric comet delusion held by Talbott, Thornhill and maybe Scott.
10 February 2017: A list of Thornhill's ignorance, delusions and lies about comets in just one of his blog posts.

8 February 2017 Michael: Which of the Thunderbolts solar models matches the observed neutrino flux from the Sun (citation to their calculations)?

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is deluded to simply *assume* that every comet is exactly the same IMO.

13 February 2017 Michael: Are you parroting another EU delusion about comets?
I have not seen that one before. Astronomers do not assume exactly the same density for comets or asteroids - they measure their densities to have a range of values that do not overlap!
The average values are 0.6 +/- 0.4 g/cc for comets versus 3.0 +/- 1.3 g/cc for asteroids.

Learn about comets or click on a link:
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc. which eventually gets to
8 December 2014: Electric comets still do not exist

Then answer:
13 February 2017 Michael: What is the maximum measured density of comets?
13 February 2017 Michael: What is the minimum measured density of asteroids?
Which makes the honest answer to the following yes:
8 February 2017 Michael: Is it deluded to assert that comets are rocks given e.g. their measured density, the Rosetta mission results, etc.?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues from Nov 2011! (includes Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger - in vacuum.)
15 March 2012 Michael: Why would a section called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" be followed by a section called "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"?
22 November 2016 Michael: Quote the description of any current ("plasma" or otherwise) going through the point X in Somov 4.4.2.

14 October 2015 Michael: Should a list of confirmed predictions only contain predictions that have been confirmed? (Thornhill's lies about confirmed predictions about the Deep Impact mission)
Wow - documented blind faith in the documented liar Thornhill for a year and a half (and maybe more).

13 October 2015 Michael: The ignorant assertions in "The Surface of the Sun" web site, e.g. iron "mountain ranges" on/under the photosphere in images of solar flares thousands of kilometers above the photosphere at temperatures of the >160,000 K !

 

[RealityCheck01]

The next EU delusion is "In an Electric Universe, stars form in “kinks” in a discharge channel" which is a delusion from 2005 because what they imagine they see in an image of the Butterfly Nebula denies science from 1989. Gets more deluded when their EU2017 page imagines a "role of bipolar electric discharge"!
At ISF: 10 February 2017 jonesdave116: Ahh, yes, that reminds me that Brian Koberlein made a post on Scott's egregious error regarding the M2-9 Butterfly nebula

As any eejit can see, Fig. 2 from Balicks paper (only 26 years for Scott to dig it out!) shows negative velocity (towards the viewer) to the left, and positive velocity (away from the viewer) to the right of the figure. I'm not aware that Z-pinches can actually do that! Apparently, neither is Scott. More 'looks like a duck' failure.

13 February 2017 Michael: Do you agree that stars being created by a vague fantasy about pinches is at least an ignorant EU fantasy?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The next EU delusion is insisting that the Alfvén-Klein model is valid, e.g. Thornhill lying about "Alfvén's plasma cosmology is an excellent theory when measured by its successful predictions", Talbott misrepresenting what Alfvén's plasma cosmology was (it was a mixture of matter and anti-matter plasma, not "vast but invisible electric currents").
Alfvén's plasma cosmology cannot explain most of the evidence for a Big Bang, e.g. there is no CMB in it ! There is no synthesis of elements. There is no explanation of how ionization of neutral H started. Annihilation of matter produces characteristic radiation which has not been detected.

13 February 2017 Michael: Do you understand that EU authors have misrepresented and even lied about the Alfvén-Klein model?

There is also the outdated concept of a "plasma universe" (not a cosmological model) which was a program that argued "plasma played an important if not dominant role in the universe". That program failed. The last person actively working on the "plasma universe" program was Eric Lerner who probably last published on it in 1991.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not an EU delusion but a very wrong explanation from proponents: Dark matter = "dark mode plasma". This is that the idea that dark matter could be plasma where a current is not strong enough to cause light emission. But dark mode plasma scatters light just like any plasma and so its amount can be measured:
Electric Boogaloo by Brian Koberlein

But since the protons and electrons are electrically charged, they still interact with light. A stream of photons passing through a plasma can still be scattered by the protons and electrons, and this is where things get interesting. The amount of scattering you get depends upon the wavelength of the light, so if shine a brief pulse of light through a plasma, you get a dispersion of the pulse due to its interaction with the plasma....

There are lots of pulsars through our Milky Way Galaxy. By observing the DM [dispersion measure] of these pulsars we can create a map of the plasma within our galaxy, so we have a really good idea of just how much “dark plasma” there actually is. It turns out there isn’t nearly enough to account for the “missing mass” in our galaxy.

So dark mode plasma is an interesting idea, but it can’t work as a substitute for dark matter