Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[Michael]

Wal Thornhill is not the only ignorant or deluded EU author.

Since you cannot *honestly* answer my simple question about the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's model, one can only assume that it's *you* who are actually ignorant of his beliefs, and/or you intentionally bear false witness against him. You do that to *every* EU/PC proponent too, along with your constant stream of personal attacks. I guess a degree in science doesn't matter in your case since you obviously do not understand, or at least do not accurately represent Thornhill's beliefs.

Do have any idea how many quacks use LCDM models RC?

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violations-energy-early-universe-dark.html

Your side blatantly violates known and proven *laws* of physics so what right do you have to criticize EU/PC models? Pure hypocrisy on a stick and another great example of your "personal smear" campaign.

Talbot is welcome to believe whatever he wants, just like Josset and Perez are welcome to believe whatever they want. Their goofy personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of any particular cosmology theory.

Since you have never presented Thornhill's models correctly or accurately, or Peratt's statements correctly, or Somov's statements correctly, I have zero confidence that you will present Talbot's beliefs honestly either.

It is clear that the EU has delusions about comets so onto the next EU delusion:

No RC. EU/PC is a *cosmology* theory. Some specific people in the EU/PC community may hold beliefs about comets, but such individual beliefs do not have any effect on Alfven's *cosmology* theory.

Your side has a ton of "delusions" about dark matter too, and none of those delusions worked out well in the lab for you either.

Who cares about comets? Certainly not me.

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.

The folks at ISF willfully misrepresent both Thornhills neutrino predictions and he water predictions related to comets, so evidently they're blaming their own ignorance of Thornhill's model on Thornhill. That nonsense, along with the ethics problems at ISF have already been dealt with on Thunderbolts.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Cults, religions, falsification, LCDM, EU/PC theory
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

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

To my knowledge *all* EU/PC solar models are expected to produce the exact same number of neutrinos as we observe from the sun. There is no "calculation" necessary because it's a completely postdicted number.

Pretty much all of them also predict that fusion occurs near the surface too, and neutrino counts can vary over time. They all share those predictions in common.

 

[Michael]

13 February 2017 Michael: Are you parroting another EU delusion about comets?

Me? No. I personally hold no specific beliefs about comets. Whatever they might be composed of, I really couldn't care less.

Then answer:
13 February 2017 Michael: What is the maximum measured density of comets?

Why? I don't even care in the first place!

13 February 2017 Michael: What is the minimum measured density of asteroids?

Same answer. I don't personally care.

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.?

When did you honestly answer my question about Thornhill's neutrino predictions?

 

[Michael]

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.)

Clinger's nonsense was *never published* and you're the one that evidently has a tough time with English since even WIKI demonstrates that the term 'magnetic reconnection' is more than just a change in field topology, it's a process that requires a *transfer of field energy*.

Worse still, his presentation is "mathematically challenged" and incomplete because it's missing any calculation related to a non zero *rate* of reconnection.

Where's you math RC?

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Magnetic Reconnection

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"?

Because even though both example *include* charged particles, the first example is *simpler* than the second example. Unfortunately for you *both* examples demonstrate a *transfer of energy* which you and Clinger cannot do with your vacuum contraption.

22 November 2016 Michael: Quote the description of any current ("plasma" or otherwise) going through the point X in Somov 4.4.2.

The *reconnection* process is a *transfer of energy*. The "reconnection" doesn't happen at the X, it happens to the particle themselves RC. You really have no idea what you're talking about because you *refuse* to read a real textbook on this topic.

14 October 2015 Michael: Should a list of confirmed predictions only contain predictions that have been confirmed?

If so, your falsified dark matter claims would be toast by now.

(Thornhill's lies about confirmed predictions about the Deep Impact mission)

If being wrong is a "lie", then all dark matter proponents are liars RC. You have a sleazy debate style that is focused exclusively on misinformation and personal attacks galore. You have no ethics whatsoever.

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 !

The corona doesn't need to be the same temperature of the surface, and the coronal loops are simply a *light source* that makes the surface visible in RD images.

Your solar model was *falsified* in 2012 when it was revealed that your convection predictions were off by two whole orders of magnitude. Do you admit that they *lied* about the speed of convection, or is your personal attack campaign an example of pure hypocrisy on a stick?

 

[Michael]

The next EU delusion is insisting that the Alfvén-Klein model is valid,

Why? Because you say so? Where is the mathematical error in *any* of Alfven's papers RC? You have not shown any evidence that you even correctly *understand* any concept related to EU/PC theory.

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

Do you understand that the mainsteam "lied* about the speed of convection RC? I don't think you understand what the term lie means, or maybe you do and you just don't care because you wish to engage in personal attacks. Either way, by your definition of a lie, your own solar model is a *lie*! Get off your high horse already and stop *lying* about dark matter and stop *lying* about solar physics too.

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.

Alfven is considered to be the father of EU.PC theory, and I've personally published papers on the topic as recently as 2005.

 

[Michael]

Not an EU delusion but a very wrong explanation from proponents: Dark matter = "dark mode plasma".

Since all your "dark matter" experiments and tests *failed*, we know that you simply *lied* about dark matter (your definition of a lie of course). What right do you have to criticize anyone on that particular topic? Talk about pure hypocrisy and irony overload.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why? ...

Plasma (Alfvén-Klein) cosmology was shown to be physically invalid in 1993.

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "mainsteam "lied* about the speed of convection" !
Astrophysicists have used computer simulations to calculate what the convection currents should be. That is the truth.
Anomalously Weak Solar Convection (2012) measured solar convection currents and found the currents at 0.96 solar radii to be 20-100 times slower than the simulation results. That is the truth.
See Convection in the Sun is Slower than We Thought

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "personally published papers" on EU/PC theory as recently as 2005.
You contributed a fantasy about "iron mountain ranges" to a totally deluded idea that the Sun contains a neutron star. The Sun explodes and we get a fatter neutron star !

That better not be the EU/PC theory of solar structure or even one of the several different EU "theories' other wise it is even more deluded than I thought.

The ignorance contained in the following two published papers was exposed at ISF years ago.
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass Phys.Atom.Nucl.69:1847-1856,2006
Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle Journal of Fusion Energy, volume 25 (2006) pages 107-114

 

[RealityCheck01]

Since all your "dark matter" experiments and tests *failed*, ...

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of all dark matter "experiments and tests" failed.
Observational evidence for dark matter are "experiments and tests" that have detected dark matter. For example we test Newtonian gravitation and found that it cannot explain what visible matter does without adding dark matter.
What we do not yet have is credible (IMO) direct detection of dark matter candidates. But
The DAMA/NaI experiment claims to have detected dark matter.
The DAMA/LIBRA experiment claims to have detected dark matter.
The CoGeNT experiment has an dark matter signal.

 

[Michael]

Wal Thornhill is not the only ignorant or deluded EU author.

Since you cannot *honestly* answer my simple question about the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's model, one can only assume that it's *you* who are actually ignorant of his beliefs, and/or you intentionally bear false witness against him. You do that to *every* EU/PC proponent too, along with your constant stream of personal attacks. I guess a degree in science doesn't matter in your case since you obviously do not understand, or at least do not accurately represent Thornhill's beliefs.

Do have any idea how many quacks use LCDM models RC?

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violations-energy-early-universe-dark.html

Your side blatantly violates known and proven *laws* of physics so what right do you have to criticize EU/PC models? Pure hypocrisy on a stick and another great example of your "personal smear" campaign.

Talbot is welcome to believe whatever he wants, just like Josset and Perez are welcome to believe whatever they want. Their goofy personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the legitimacy of any particular cosmology theory.

Since you have never correctly presented Thornhill's models correctly, or Peratt's statements correctly, or Somov's statements correctly, I have zero confidence that you will present Talbot's beliefs honestly either.

It is clear that the EU has delusions about comets so onto the next EU delusion:

No RC. EU/PC is a *cosmology* theory. Some specific people in the EU/PC community may hold beliefs about comets, but such individual beliefs do not have any effect on Alfven's *cosmology* theory.

Your side has a ton of "delusions" about dark matter too, and none of those delusions worked out well in the lab for you either.

Who cares about comets? Certainly not me.

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.

The folks at ISF willfully misrepresent both Thornhills neutrino predictions and he water predictions related to comets, so evidently they're blaming their own ignorance of Thornhill's model on Thornhill. That nonsense, along with the ethics problems at ISF have already been dealt with on Thunderbolts.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Cults, religions, falsification, LCDM, EU/PC theory

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

To my knowledge *all* EU/PC solar models are expected to produce the exact same number of neutrinos as we observe from the sun. There is no "calculation" necessary because it's a completely postdicted number.

Pretty much all of them also predict that fusion occurs near the surface too, and they they can vary over time. They all share those predictions in common.

 

[Michael]

Plasma (Alfvén-Klein) cosmology was shown to be physically invalid in 1993.

Er, so you think that because *one guy* criticized his work in 1993, it somehow invalidates all potential EU/PC cosmology models? Even if *one guy* really could overturn one of Alfven's papers, it would have little or no effect on any other paper. Alfven's circuit models can be applied to "expanding" plasma, "contracting" plasma, and "static" plasma, with or without that one paper. Wow.

Explain to us how Pebbles showed that the idea was "physically invalid". This should be a riot.

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "mainsteam "lied* about the speed of convection" !

Whatever you say oh great verbally abusive scientific demigod.

Astrophysicists have used computer simulations to calculate what the convection currents should be. That is the truth.

What they "should" be in your model does not jive at all with the SDO findings. You solar model computer simulations *lied*. Your solar model is big fact phoney a liar!

Why do you feel the need to interject the term "lie" into every post simply because you disagree with someone. How childish and ridiculous can you be?

Anomalously Weak Solar Convection (2012) measured solar convection currents and found the currents at 0.96 solar radii to be 20-100 times slower than the simulation results. That is the truth.

Your solar model lied, and that's the truth. It lied by two orders of magnitude and that's the truth. Your solar model is a big fat no good liar.

See Convection in the Sun is Slower than We Thought

That lying stinking, lower than a snake's belly good for nothing solar model!

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "personally published papers" on EU/PC theory as recently as 2005.
You contributed a fantasy about "iron mountain ranges" to a totally deluded idea that the Sun contains a neutron star. The Sun explodes and we get a fatter neutron star !

Yep, you lied about me too:

arXiv.org Search

Unless you have a *published* rebuttal, I don't care what you think.

That better not be the EU/PC theory of solar structure or even one of the several different EU "theories' other wise it is even more deluded than I thought.

Birkeland's solar model works in the lab, and generate the solar corona and planetary aurora too, unlike your deluded, lying no good for nothing in the lab, or in SDO data solar model.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Er, so you think that because *one guy* criticized his work in 1993, ...

It was a cosmology textbook that invalidated Alfven's plasma cosmology in 1993
P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, (1993) Princeton University Press

The model was already dubious in 1967: On the cosmology of Alfvén and Klein (no CMB unless the universe is rotating).

If you want to try to support the obviously invalid Alfven's plasma cosmology:
14 February 2017 Michael: Cite and quote where Alfven's plasma cosmology predicts the observed properties of the CMB.

1. Existence
2. Temperature
3. Perfect black body spectrum.
4. Power spectrum.
5. Increase with distance.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Irrelevant ranting does not address:
14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "mainsteam "lied* about the speed of convection" !
14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "personally published papers" on EU/PC theory as recently as 2005.

You contributed a fantasy about "iron mountain ranges" to a totally deluded idea that the Sun contains a neutron star. The Sun explodes and we get a fatter neutron star !

But in case you have learned anything in the last 11 years.
14 February 2017 Michael: Show with scientific evidence that a neutron star at the center of the Sun is not a a totally deluded idea.
This is a neutron star.

1. Show that Sun will not explode if a neutron star is in its center.
2. Show that trillions of g at the surface of a neutron star will not plaster the plasma of the Sun into a thin layer.
3. Show that Sun has the same magnetic field as a neutron star.
4. If the minimum detected mass of a neutron star is 1.1 solar masses then what is the mass of the Sun's non-neutron part?
5. Is it only the Sun is special in having a neutron star at its center?
6. What comes first - the stars that are needed to create neutron stars or the neutron stars at the center at each star?

This should be easy !

 

[Michael]

It was a cosmology textbook that invalidated Alfven's plasma cosmology in 1993

So supposedly one guy invalidated everything Alfven ever wrote in a non peer reviewed textbook? This is getting rich already. No peer review required anymore eh?

P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, (1993) Princeton University Press

The model was already dubious in 1967: On the cosmology of Alfvén and Klein (no CMB unless the universe is rotating).

That's already pure bunk because Eddington calculated the background temp of spacetime to within 1/2 of degree of the correct number using nothing but scattering of starlight on dust.

There's no possible way that the universe could *not* have a CMB. Every sun emits those wavelengths and they get scattered around.

If that's the whole basis of his argument, it's a complete joke.

If you want to try to support the obviously invalid Alfven's plasma cosmology:
14 February 2017 Michael: Cite and quote where Alfven's plasma cosmology predicts the observed properties of the CMB.

I don't have to. Eddington already did that to within 1/2 of one degree, and his method to predict a background temp is not even technically dependent on Alfven's cosmology model.

(Que the unpublished rants from the website of Ned Write)......

 

[Michael]

Irrelevant ranting does not address:

Face it RC, your solar model *lied* to you . It doesn't work right. It's convection predictions were off by two entire orders of magnitude. By your definition of a lie, your solar model is a lie.

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "mainsteam "lied* about the speed of convection" !

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a "lie" is simply any false statement, your convection predictions were a lie, and your dark matter claims were the biggest and most consistent liar of the past decade.

14 February 2017 Michael: A lie of "personally published papers" on EU/PC theory as recently as 2005.

I cited the links to the papers, so everyone can look for themselves.

But in case you have learned anything in the last 11 years.

Certainly not from you. [/quote]

 

[Michael]

The model was already dubious in 1967: On the cosmology of Alfvén and Klein (no CMB unless the universe is rotating).

The more I think about this claim, the dumber it sounds. The CMB would exist, and Eddington's calculations would apply to *almost any* cosmology theory. There would have to be a CMB due to starlight alone! Rotation is *irrelevant*. Bah. More pure handwave.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The CMB would exist, and Eddington's calculations would apply to *almost any* cosmology theory. There would have to be a CMB due to starlight alone!

Fantasies and ignorance.
15 February 2017 Michael: Quote the reference to Eddington in my "The model was already dubious in 1967" post.

It was a cosmology textbook that invalidated Alfven's plasma cosmology in 1993
P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, (1993) Princeton University Press

The model was already dubious in 1967: On the cosmology of Alfvén and Klein (no CMB unless the universe is rotating).
...

15 February 2017 Michael: Why is a paper calculating that Alfven's plasma cosmology requires a rotating universe to produce the CMB irrelevant to Alfven's plasma cosmology?

15 February 2017 Michael: Irrelevant ignorance about Eddington calculation of the temperature of space that is not the CMB !
Eddington's Temperature of Space

Before your Eddington's Temperature of Space mistake was a dust fantasy.
21 November 2016 Michael: Eddington never predicted the temperature of the CMB (specifically in his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars).

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has been moved from Physical & Life Sciences as discussions involving creationism should be in this forum.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hi FreeinChrist
I am not really worried about where the thread is but FYI:
The blog being discussed does have the title "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy" but that is a historical accident. The author had a web site with that title with analysis of creationist arguments about astronomy. The focus of the blog is more general. For example in 2015 the only really relevant article is a review of a book.

The thread itself is about Electric Universe pseudoscience (comets are electrical, the Sun is electrical, etc.) as in the OP:

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

 

[FredVB]

Electric forces exist in this universe but do not adequately explain what gravitation, or strong and weak nuclear forces, explain. However none of those explains the universe beginning. Creationism has viable explanations, that don't need to be dismissed from science, while what is established from science shouldn't be dismissed. What is established from science does not eliminate creationist explanations, and those should still be considered.

 

[FredVB]

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.

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

It is good we are still here after plenty of bad or unwise things have been done from among humanity. We could be on borrowed time until an unwise direction in which we are heading does us in.

But we wouldn't be here at all, without there being existence that is necessary, if we can admit that to ourselves. Nothing would exist otherwise, and we or any at all wouldn't be around anywhere to ponder any of that or anything at all.

Creationism provides perspective for explanations that science will otherwise be lacking. None of the universe, with anything of it, explains the universe at all. We each have to accept there is transcendence beyond.

 

[FredVB]

I once found out about the electric universe explanation when I found a book on it years ago in a library. I had never heard of any such thing said by anyone before. So I checked the book out from there, and looked through it and read it. All things in the universe can be explained with electric forces, and matter consists of things held together by electric forces. But it failed in acknowledgement of gravitational force being understood with it explaining the behavior of bodies in the universe and the development of the universe, with expanding space, so well by itself. With this explanation in place, an electric universe still needs confirmational evidence for it on that great scale to be used for explanation instead.