Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually Dr. Oliver Manuel did not discover this.
The unpublished preprint On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars is basically science fiction based on previous bad science that stars such as the Sun contain neutron stars and are "made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorite" with only a shell of H and He. That is insanely wrong given the measured density of the Sun.

Neutrons have not been observed to have a "layered structure". They have been observed to consist of 3 charged quarks whose movement produces a charge distribution of a "negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core".

Usual half truths to avoid the full truth.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/neutronrepulsion.htm

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78/why-do-neutrons-repel-each-other

And let me ask you this - is a particle that possesses both an electric and magnetic dipole moments because of charge separation - really neutral? Or just beyond our ability to measure?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

"The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments....

So unless you have an experiment which calls into question the Standard Model??????

I guess we could look to supersymmetry theory.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea/

Ooops, or maybe not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually special relativity was taken up by the mainstream almost immediately.
History of special relativity: "by about 1911, most theoretical physicists accepted special relativity". Most experimental physicists were probably convinced by the more accurate Michelson–Morley type experiments in the 1920s. Some may have waited until the measurement of time dilation in 1938.

And is an excellent theory describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems - 1% of the universe.

No one is denying this.

So why are you ignoring that time dilation in a universe that is continuing to accelerate at an increasing rate and not adjusting your clocks faster as you calculate backwards in time????? I mean do or do not clocks slow under acceleration? Or is that experimental evidence just to be used with imaginary twins????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

FYI Not_By_Chance.
Thunderbolts are a bunch of cranks following the fantasies of Immanuel Velikovsky and expanding them into delusions such as making comets into rocks (average measured density = ~0.6 g/cc; rocks = ~3.0 g/cc), the Sun is not powered by fusion, canyons such as the Grand Canyon were carved out by electrical discharges, gravity is basically electromagnetic, etc.
My post on another forum: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

It is a Thunderbolts lie that the evidence for dark matter has been falsified. No scientific literature has been published that falsifies the famous 2006 Clowe et. al paper or the other observation's of dark matter using similar techniques. The lie is that the paper counts stars - it does not.

It is a Thunderbolts lie that type 1a supernovae are no longer standard candles. It was found in April 2015 that type 1a supernova may have 2 populations. If this is verified then we will have 2 standard candles based on type 1a supernovae. This might reduce the measured acceleration of the expansion of the universe by a yet to be determined amount.

Anyone who can read English can read Birkeland and see that he proposes 3 different models as Tom Bridgman points out in Electric Universe: The Three Suns of Kristian Birkeland - "At the bottom of page 665 in NAPE, Birkeland proposed THREE possible solar electrical configurations". I have the book PDF open. I scroll to page 665. I read

And he puts the cathode in the places Bridgman lists.

Because Clowe's paper is flawed from the ground up.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

"we create gravitational lensing maps which show that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies.

An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen."

Of course it can't be explained with the gravitational force law. How many times must I ask you for one single laboratory experiment with plasma in which the gravitational force laws were applied? And how many times are you going to refuse to provide that paper because we both know plasma physics uses the electromagnetic force laws?

So of course the forces involved do not match the gravitational laws and you can't even alter them to make them fit - instead requiring that 26% Fairie Dust to force fit gravitational theory to plasma behavior.

It is your flawed thinking that makes you think you can apply gravitational force laws to plasma and is no different than someone thinking they can apply plasma physics to solids, liquids and gasses - both thoughts require 95% Fairie Dust.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Because Clowe's paper is flawed from the ground up.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407

Fantasies are not flaws in a paper , Justatruthseeker.
A completely ignorant question is not flaws in a paper.
A "Fairie Dust" rant is not flaws in a paper.

The basics of A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter (ignore the "proof" hype in the title) are simple.
1. Map the light emitted from the colliding material in the galaxy cluster collision.
2. Map the mass distribution of the colliding material in the galaxy cluster collision.
3. See that there is material that has not acted as plasma is seen to act here on Earth and other places. There is "plasma" that has passed through the plasma without interacting. There is "plasma" that is not emitting light. That "plasma" is matter. That "plasma" is dark. We call this dark matter !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Usual half truths to avoid the full truth.

Actual ignorance about what you read, Justatruthseeker.
Oliver Manuel has published the bad science that stars such as the Sun contain neutron stars and are "made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorite" with only a shell of H and He. That is insanely wrong given the measured density of the Sun.
You should know how insane it would be to have an neutron star inside the Sun since you should know what they are, Justatruthseeker.
Neutrons have not been observed to have a "layered structure".

Neutrons are fermions and so repel each other due to Pauli exclusion in the nuclear shell model.
Neutrons are neutral because their measured charge is zero.
Neutrons are predicted to have a permanent electric dipole moment

"The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments....

Citing a web page on nuclear physics by an economist is bad scholarship when textbooks, nuclear physicists and even Wikipedia exist!
He is wrong - the nuclear force being attractive or repulsive between nucleons depends on distance, not nucleon type.

The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 1 femtometer (fm, or 1.0 × 10−15 metres) between their centers, but rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm. At distances less than 0.7 fm, the nuclear force becomes repulsive.

 

[RealityCheck01]

And is an excellent theory describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems - 1% of the universe.

Excellent ignorance about what special relativity is, Justatruthseeker !
Solid state theory is not SR.
Fluid mechanics is not SR.
Gas laws are not SR.
For that matter, the theory of plasma (magnetohydrodynamics) is not SR either.

The universe is ~4% matter. Most of the 4% matter is plasma. Solid, liquids and gasses are a tiny amount of the universe.
The excellent theories describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses started as classical theories centuries ago. Astronomers still use the ideal gas law in some situations! There are places in astronomy where relativistic theories have to be used - the word relativistic in relativistic jet should be a clue.

What is that gibberish about "time dilation in a universe that is continuing to accelerate at an increasing rate...", Justatruthseeker?
There is "time dilation" due to the expansion of the universe - it is called cosmological redshift.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not correct. Dark means exactly what dark means - no light is detected. Dark matter and dark energy have been measured and detected - just not in labs here on Earth.
Dark matter has been detected by its gravitational effects. There is a small possibility that we can detect dark matter more directly.
Dark energy has been its effects on the expansion of the universe. No plausible experiment will detect dark energy directly.

Wrong. Dark Matter and Dark Energy have never been detected anywhere. Space or laboratory. The effect of Forces not accounted for have been detected. EDIT: At least be honest with people about what has actually been observed or detected please.

But since no one can provide a single Plasma laboratory experiment in which the gravitational force laws are used, we can begin to understand why mainstream cosmology requires that 95% Fairie Dust in a universe composed of 99% Plasma... Just as we would need 95% Fairie Dust to force fit Plasma Physics to the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses (planetary systems).

EDIT: For example - I would be unable to provide you with one single laboratory experiment in which Plasma Physics was used for planetary systems (solids, liquids and gasses) as they do not exist. As they do not exist for treating plasma with gravitational forces.

And the more we look - the less we need any of those Fairie Dust theories of imaginary particles and forces that exist.

http://www.space.com/17734-milky-way-galaxy-giant-gas-halo.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/15/full/

And suddenly the answer lies before us for the solution to the missing baryon problem and the forces which cause the flat rotation curves for galaxies. When we treat that plasma with the proper physics for the state of matter that it is. One might even theorize that such experiments even solve the Fairie Dust solution for singularities at the center of galaxies. (see 2:20 on the timeline for that empirical observational evidence) For it is not objects which orbit an infinite point mass, but objects which orbit a common electromagnetic center.

And the entire whole acts collectively - hence rotation curves are flat. (see :37 on, specifically 1:27)

But I am sure theory trumps actual plasma experimental data and observations anytime in theories that require 95% Fairie Dust...

But, being you still refuse to treat plasma like it acts on earth - let alone treat it like it acts in experiments in micro gravity (the condition that exists everywhere in the universe - except on a planet) we see even more why you still require that 95% Fairie Dust in your cosmology.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The universe is ~4% matter. Most of the 4% matter is plasma. Solid, liquids and gasses are a tiny amount of the universe.

So why are you insisting we treat 99.99% of that 4% like the other tiny .01% ???????? And you still wonder why you need 95% Fairie Dust - excuse me I have been generous, 96% Fairie Dust.

As I said, I have been waiting for over two years now for any of you to provide me with one single Plasma experiment in which the gravitational force laws instead of the electromagnetic force laws were used? And imagine that - I am still waiting.

The excellent theories describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses started as classical theories centuries ago. Astronomers still use the ideal gas law in some situations! There are places in astronomy where relativistic theories have to be used - the word relativistic in relativistic jet should be a clue.

Yes relativistic - i.e. not magical acceleration away from a claimed gravitational source. I.e., the only known way we know of to accelerate charged particles (plasma) is with electromagnetic forces. You know, like every laboratory and particle accelerator we know of uses. Or do you know this????? Perhaps you should understand (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies) a little better - that relativistic theory in which gravitational forces can be ignored.

What is that gibberish about "time dilation in a universe that is continuing to accelerate at an increasing rate...", Justatruthseeker?
There is "time dilation" due to the expansion of the universe - it is called cosmological redshift.

Wrong - redshift is an event in that Plasma you ignore (that 99.99% of your 4%). 99.99% you still treat like that other .01% and wonder why gravitational theory refuses to match any observations outside of this planetary system (solids, liquids and gasses) without the addition of 95%, excuse me, 96% ad-hoc assumptions (FAIRIE DUST).

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

You continue to ignore all that plasma over and over and over.

http://www.space.com/17734-milky-way-galaxy-giant-gas-halo.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/15/full/

So right away we see we have at the minimum of twice the plasma you imagined (and just claimed there was) when you devised your theories. And this is only plasma at 2 million plus K (hotter than the surface of the sun they claim) - and does not take into account all the plasma at lower temperatures (energies). What was "DARK" to us at one time - has suddenly become visible.

Plus we can add lots more and get rid of some more "darkness" as soon as you are willing to accept your own observations.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20090819.html

http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe-suddenly-bright.html

So basically as long as we ignore every observation in space and every laboratory experiment with plasma - we can pretend your Fairie Dust is valid.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7623-plasma-experiment-recreates-astrophysical-jets/

Notice specifically it is electric current and magnetic fields in Plasma which in the laboratory produce those jets - but in space it magically becomes a spinning infinite point mass.

"The formation soon straightened into a jet because of a simple law of physics – currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other."


How divorced from reality must one be to equate electromagnetic forces used to cause everything in the laboratory to imaginary Fairie Dust in space? Why must I continue to ignore that "simple law of physics" just because all of you do?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fantasies are not flaws in a paper , Justatruthseeker.
A completely ignorant question is not flaws in a paper.
A "Fairie Dust" rant is not flaws in a paper.

The basics of A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter (ignore the "proof" hype in the title) are simple.
1. Map the light emitted from the colliding material in the galaxy cluster collision.
2. Map the mass distribution of the colliding material in the galaxy cluster collision.
3. See that there is material that has not acted as plasma is seen to act here on Earth and other places. There is "plasma" that has passed through the plasma without interacting. There is "plasma" that is not emitting light. That "plasma" is matter. That "plasma" is dark. We call this dark matter !

1. You can't see but a tiny fraction.

You couldn't see the brightest thing in the sky by two orders of magnitude a couple years ago. Stop with the strawmen please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

"Initial data from Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), launched in October 2008, revealed a previously unpredicted "very narrow ribbon that is two to three times brighter than anything else in the sky."

So don't tell me about collision data when you cant even observe the brightest thing in the sky right next door in cosmological distances.

2. Again - you can't "see" 90% of that mass yet.

3. So now you are describing Dark Matter as Plasma in a sad attempt to incorrectly describe what it is supposed to be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

"Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but would account for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, on radiation, and on the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics."

"Dark matter neither emits nor absorbs light or any other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level."

So we can rule out all that Plasma you now want to claim is the dark matter that isn't dark any more as being dark matter - since it neither absorbs or emits electromagnetic radiation. Stop with the strawmen and incorrect statements.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because over and over and over again you and mainstream astronomers continue to make the same mistake. Treating that 99.99% (Plasma) of that 4% like the tiny little .01% (solids, liquids and gasses).

You continue to do this despite the fact there is not one single laboratory experiment in which the gravitational force laws are applied to describe the behavior of Plasma, that 99.99%.

Then tell me I need 96% Fairie Dust because you refuse to apply the proper physics to the correct states of matter. Despite the fact that it is the electromagnetic force laws we apply to describe Plasma behavior in every single laboratory experiment. The gravitational force laws no more apply to a Plasma Universe than they apply to Plasma behavior in any laboratory. And in the conditions prevailing in all of space (micro-gravity) we find that Plasma behavior (under the electromagnetic force laws matches everything we see. Including those Fairie Dust singularities and the collective behavior leading to flat rotation curves. And need I add the force that causes the rotation of galaxies, stars and planets to begin with?

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

"Note that this frequency, which is known as the Larmor frequency, does not depend on the velocity of the particle. For a negatively charged particle, the picture is exactly the same as described above, except that the particle moves in a clockwise orbit."


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/07/counterclockwise-but-there-are/

This is important. You should check the direction that things orbit the sun. But before you try your strawman about claims of negatively charged comets and planets by EU not matching, you should think about the problem a bit longer. And then perhaps, just perhaps - the solution will come to you, when you understand geographical versus true North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole

"The convention in early compasses was to call the end of the needle pointing to the Earth's North Magnetic Pole the "north pole" (or "north-seeking pole") and the other end the "south pole" (the names are often abbreviated to "N" and "S"). Because opposite poles attract, this definition means that the Earth's North Magnetic Pole is actually a magnetic south pole and the Earth's South Magnetic Pole is a magnetic north pole."

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=65

So now picture yourself above the true North pole of the earth and sun - and observe the rotation.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

It is a Thunderbolts lie that the evidence for dark matter has been falsified.

Why have you directed this at me? I didn't say that Dark [whatever] has been falsified." I merely posed the quite legitimate remark, "Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does?"

 

[Black Dog]

Why have you directed this at me? I didn't say that Dark [whatever] has been falsified." I merely posed the quite legitimate remark, "Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does?"

Let's hope that doesn't occur, or science will stop like it did in the dark ages, when religion held sway and God Did It was the answer to everything. I for one don't want to go back to living in sod huts, being malnourished, and praying for the evil spirits causing my child's cancer to be gone.

 

[Michael]

Fantasies are not flaws in a paper , Justatruthseeker.
A completely ignorant question is not flaws in a paper.
A "Fairie Dust" rant is not flaws in a paper.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=b1ac00c6341f91d9f86884c944e7223c

The "flaw" in that 2006 paper has been demonstrated over and over and over again. You folk botched the stellar mass estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. I guess your basic philosophy is if you never admit the stellar mass estimate problems in that flawed 2006 lensing study, they must not exist at all! Your denial routine is getting really old, and all your favorite mathematical models for exotic forms of "dark matter' were all falsified in the lab over the past 3 years. Ooops? Denial is your only self defense mechanism apparently.

The basics of A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter (ignore the "proof" hype in the title) are simple.

The term "proof" demonstrates what a bush league paper it was to begin with, and the pitiful state of "peer review' in science today. Such an erroneous boast should *never* have passed peer review to start with. The numerous revelations with respect to stellar estimate problems demonstrates that all they 'proved" was that their stellar mass estimates were never worth the paper they were printed on in the first place.

1. Map the light emitted from the colliding material in the galaxy cluster collision.

Based on pitifully flawed stellar mass estimates....

2. Map the mass distribution of the colliding material in the galaxy cluster collision.

All the lensing data mapping demonstrated was that your galaxy and stellar mass estimates were pitiful in 2006 as demonstrated repeatedly since 2006.

3. See that there is material that has not acted as plasma is seen to act here on Earth and other places. There is "plasma" that has passed through the plasma without interacting. There is "plasma" that is not emitting light. That "plasma" is matter. That "plasma" is dark. We call this dark matter !

Oh boloney. As that 2012 study demonstrated every galaxy is surrounded by more mass in the form of million degree plasma that exists in all the stars in the whole galaxy and we didn't "discover" it until a few years ago, *long* after that ridiculously and embarrassingly flawed 2006 lensing study.

 

[Michael]

Why have you directed this at me? I didn't say that Dark [whatever] has been falsified."

Trying to falsify every conceivable variation of supernatural forms of matter is a bit like trying to falsify every conceivable supernatural construct of 'God'. You could only ever hope to falsify *some* such claims, certainly not all of them. LHC, LUX, Panda, Xenon100, etc have falsified most of the 'popular' brands of exotic matter theory. They're basically scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point, and trying desperately to ignore all the flaws in their galaxy mass estimates that have been demonstrated since 2006.

I merely posed the quite legitimate remark, "Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does?"

Sure. Essentially a theist could choose to re-label Lambda-CDM supernatural constructs, call them "God energy", "God matter", "Godflation", etc, and thereby attempt to "explain" a mostly supernatural construct of the universe. EU/PC theory however is based upon pure empirical physics, and it attempts to explain the universe in purely empirical terms. Two entirely different philosophies of "science".

 

[Michael]

Actual ignorance about what you read, Justatruthseeker.
Oliver Manuel has published the bad science

You wouldn't know "bad" science from pure empirical physics, as demonstrated by your ignorance of electrical discharges in plasmas as Dungey explained to you over 50 years ago.

that stars such as the Sun contain neutron stars and are "made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorite" with only a shell of H and He. That is insanely wrong given the measured density of the Sun.

Huh? What the heck are you rambling on about? The chemical/mass composition says nothing about the average density of the structure. The average density simply needs to be the same as the standard model, regardless of which elements make up most of it's mass. You're confusing composition with mass.

You should know how insane it would be to have an neutron star inside the Sun since you should know what they are, Justatruthseeker.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bizarre-star-could-host-a-neutron-star-in-its-core/

You really have no idea what you're talking about RC. You just make this up as you go. Apparently the mainstream is equally "insane".

Do you even know how to have an "honest' debate without all the character assassination nonsense, and loaded language?

Neutrons have not been observed to have a "layered structure".

Ya, and I pointed that out to you years ago. It only goes to support Manuel's *previous* work RC. That negative outer shell acts to *repulse* other negative outer shells of other neutrons when the come into close enough proximity to each other.

Neutrons are fermions and so repel each other due to Pauli exclusion in the nuclear shell model.

And indeed they do.

Neutrons are neutral because their measured charge is zero.

It's only their *net* charge that's zero, but they also have a internal *layered* structure, with out outside *negative* charge.

Citing a web page on nuclear physics by an economist is bad scholarship when textbooks, nuclear physicists and even Wikipedia exist!

And yet when you're asked to produce any published reference that claims that electrical discharges are 'impossible' in plasma, you run like hell. Just watch how fast you run from that request again. Instead of quoting *published* material, you cite Clinger's unpublished nonsense which lacks any mathematical expression of a rate of reconnection that is greater than zero in a pure vacuum devoid of charged particles! Talk about pots and kettles RC. Even WIKI notes that reconnection is a *transfer of energy* from the magnetic field into charged particle acceleration, and that the acceleration of particles isn't *optional*!

He is wrong - the nuclear force being attractive or repulsive between nucleons depends on distance, not nucleon type.

You really do just make stuff up as you go. Quote Manuel, and show where's he's wrong, based on a *published* paper, not your own erroneous opinions.

 

[Michael]

There is "time dilation" due to the expansion of the universe - it is called cosmological redshift.

Really? Is that actual progress on your part? Do you mean you finally admit that cosmological redshift doesn't even require 'expanding space', dark energy or inflation?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

None of Lambda-CDM's magical aspects were ever necessary in the first place!

 

[Michael]

Let's hope that doesn't occur, or science will stop like it did in the dark ages, when religion held sway and God Did It was the answer to everything.

Actually it has stopped, it's just stopped at "dark" matter, and "dark" energy, and "inflation" sky genies of ancient lore. The supernatural constructs of Lambda-CDM currently make up a full 95 percent of the universe *after* inflation.

Astronomers long ago abandoned empirical physics and any interest in pure empirical physics.

I for one don't want to go back to living in sod huts, being malnourished, and praying for the evil spirits causing my child's cancer to be gone.

Our children aren't going to get an benefit from dead inflation genies, or dark sky voodoo, that's for sure. If however they learn to surf the electrical currents of spacetime, they might actually gain some benefit from the science of 'astronomy'. Right now there's only a 5 percent empirical difference between astrology and what passes for astronomy, and both have been a complete disaster in terms of "predicting' the outcome of empirical lab tests.

 

[Michael]

Because over and over and over again you and mainstream astronomers continue to make the same mistake. Treating that 99.99% (Plasma) of that 4% like the tiny little .01% (solids, liquids and gasses).

You continue to do this despite the fact there is not one single laboratory experiment in which the gravitational force laws are applied to describe the behavior of Plasma, that 99.99%.

It's *so* bad in RC's personal case that he actually believes that the plasma physics process known as "magnetic reconnection' is a plasma optional process, even though he and Clinger failed to provide a mathematical expression for a rate of reconnection in a vacuum that is greater than zero. Priest even explain to RC that his understanding of the process was a *toy* understanding! RC also thinks that Dungey was a putz with respect to electrical discharges in solar flares, and that electrical discharges are "impossible' in plasma, even though RC has never produced a published reference to support that erroneous claim.

RC pretty much epitomizes the state of complete ignorance of plasma physics. I doubt he's bothered to read a textbook on MHD theory to this very day, yet he makes all sorts of erroneous and ridiculous claims about plasma.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually it has stopped, it's just stopped at "dark" matter, and "dark" energy, and "inflation" sky genies of ancient lore. The supernatural constructs of Lambda-CDM currently make up a full 95 percent of the universe *after* inflation.

Astronomers long ago abandoned empirical physics and any interest in pure empirical physics.



Our children aren't going to get an benefit from dead inflation genies, or dark sky voodoo, that's for sure. If however they learn to surf the electrical currents of spacetime, they might actually gain some benefit from the science of 'astronomy'. Right now there's only a 5 percent empirical difference between astrology and what passes for astronomy, and both have been a complete disaster in terms of "predicting' the outcome of empirical lab tests.

I don't think you read my post or the post I was responding to.

Someone said maybe we should forget science and consider that "God Did It". I pointed out that mankind tried this approach before, when religions ruled society. It was called the Dark Ages. I for one don't want to go back to that.