Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[Michael]

I don't debate you on these ideas.
I'm merely pointing out that you we are not the people you should be trying to convince.

I don't really have a lot of control over convincing anyone anywhere. I just happen to post here too, in addition to providing scientific papers for their consideration. As I've pointed out, simply being right doesn't guarantee that the idea will be accepted by the mainstream in any given lifetime, particularly in the field of astronomy. Was Aristarchus a failure in your opinion simply because he championed the correct theory but never gained widespread recognition or acceptance of his beliefs?

I'ld even dare to say that the majority of the people here, me included, don't even have enough knowledge to understand what the heck you are talking about.

I'd say it mainly depends on whether they're into astronomy. I'm sure that many folks can follow the basic arguments however.

But when you start talking trash about the entire scientific community, about how they apparantly are "boycotting" you and your growing community, how they supposedly include "supernatural bits" in theories / hypothesis etc......

That's when a red light starts to blink on my virtual dashboard.

I didn't talk about them boycotting anything. That was your own strawman. They don't however have a great track record of getting on board the correct theory at a fast pace just because it's been put out there for their consideration. I think their "best" case scenario was Einstein, and that took more than a decade.

Everytime you talk about mainstream cosmology, astronomy etc, there is this implication every time that smells suspiciously like "conspiracy!!".

Yet as I've pointed out repeatedly it's not a conspiracy since they keep shooting their own theories in the foot in published paper after published paper, so your conspiracy thing is just another strawman. I've never claimed anything of the sort.

There's also this implication that you apparantly are of the opinion that they are all stupid (and by extension, you are so much smarter...)

Wow, three strawman in one post. Congrats. I never made either of those claims either. One can be quite intelligent and still be dead wrong.

For crying out loud.... I don't require any "faith" to tentatively accept the current scientific consensus.

Sure you do. You have no idea if dark energy exists or not. You have no idea if exotic forms of matter are even necessary to explain lensing data or galaxy rotation patterns. You still seem to "have faith" that these ideas have more scientific merit than a form of pure empirical physics. Why?

If tomorrow they discard the idea of dark matter and it gets replaced by something else (for the sake of example, let's say they go with your ideas), do you think I will lose any sleep over it?

On the contrary. I will rejoice in the fact that progress was made.

Sure, and you'll immediately pat me on the back publicly too, and admit that you were wrong about it, right?

There you go again.

It was simply an analogy, and an appropriate one at that. You're acting like cultural popularity defines reality. It doesn't.

Are you trying to make a point about modern science by pointing at things that happened more then 1200 years before modern science existed?

Birkeland waited over 60 years and was long dead before they accepted even his most basic of auroral theories. What's their excuse for that, particularly since Birkeland demonstrated his beliefs in the lab?

Yes, yes. It's all a conspiracy. It's all just to boycot you.

Yet since I've never claimed either of those things, it's a two for one strawman fallacy extravaganza on your part, not anything I actually said. FYI, Birkeland and Alfven are the grandfather and father of EU/PC theory, and electric sun theories, not yours truly.

If it's a conspiracy, it's certainly the single lamest conspiracy in the history of physics because the mainstream keeps shooting their own theory in the foot, repeatedly in fact. That is probably why EU/PC theory is growing in popularity rather than shrinking.

Or it's all just because they are incredibly stupid and you are incredibly smart.

Strawman alert. I neither claimed to be smart, nor did I claim that anyone wase stupid. Intelligence doesn't guarantee one of being right however. It's a three for one fallacy! Wheee! Having fun?

There you go once more.

Unless you can show empirically that "expanding space" causes photon redshift, or that exotic forms of matter exist in nature, both claims are an "act of faith". Deal with it.

Trusting the scientific process != going with popularity.

But that process doesn't even guarantee acceptance of the truth during one's lifetime as Birkeland clearly demonstrates. The mainstream preferred Chapman's views over Birkeland till long after Birkeland's death and the scientific method was definitely in vogue by the early 1900's.

Then change it, instead of claiming it.

I don't have control over mainstream thinking, or their consensus. I simply note that EU/PC theory works in the lab, and therefore I accept it. What they do is irrelevant IMO. It's just a matter of time as I see it because empirical physics has historically destroyed metaphysics every single time.

Then demonstrate it to all those "faith based idiots" who don't have a clue in the mainstream.

Man, you've got a whole strawman army burning away.

1500 years ago, there was no "mainstream" because there was no standardized science.

So what's your excuse for Birkeland and how long it took the mainstream to accept the presence of Birkeland currents in aurora? Birkeland was dead by then. At the rate the mainstream is going it's likely to be another 100 years before they acknowledge that he was right about the electrical aspects of the sun too, and yet those coronal loops are lit up like a Christmas tree in every satellite image we see, and Alfven called their beliefs "pseudoscience' and made them obsolete and irrelevant with his double layer paper. Both of them are dead and gone and the mainstream still can't explain solar physical processes in the solar atmosphere.

You imply it every time you start ranting about them.

I didn't say anything of the sort however. The implication is your own, not mine.

Right, right, it's a "flawed" process.

Yep. Just ask Birkeland, Oh that's right, you can't because he died before they listened to any part of his theories, theories that he actually *tested* in the lab, and wrote about extensively.

So now, not only are the scientists morons that don't have a clue, the whole process stinks.

Oy vey. More strawmen.

You do realize that I accept and embrace empirical science, including evolutionary theory, biology, EM field theory, quantum mechanics, particle physics theory, and every mainstream theory *except one*, right?

Yep. Well.... unless they agree with you, I'll bet.
Then it's not flawed and then the scientists are a-okay.

Strawman alert. Your whole strawman about me rejecting "scientists" is false and misleading. I don't reject science or scientists, just *one specific* scientific theory that just so happens to be popular at the moment in favor of a form of pure empirical physics which is also a "scientific" theory. You're confusing (unintentionally or otherwise) the difference between a rejection of "science", with the rejection of *one specific, albeit popular scientific theory*.

If you say so. Have you informed the community about this?
I'm sure they'ld like to know.

I was talking about you, not them. You don't tangibly benefit from anything that runs on "dark energy" do you, so why do you believe it exists at all?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There's also this implication that you apparantly are of the opinion that they are all stupid (and by extension, you are so much smarter...)

No, just unwilling to look at alternative models that already explain what we see - when all of their models have failed miserably.

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

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

So even if all their models failed to match reality - based upon all their other pre-conceived ideas - you still refuse to consider any other theory, even if you understand that every single one of their theoretical models were wrong?

That's the dificult part to accept - knowing they were wrong in every prediction - you still choose to accept anything they say instead of looking at alternate theories.

 

[Michael]

No, just unwilling to look at alternative models that already explain what we see - when all of their models have failed miserably.

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

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

So even if all their models failed to match reality - based upon all their other pre-conceived ideas - you still refuse to consider any other theory, even if you understand that every single one of their theoretical models were wrong?

That's the dificult part to accept - knowing they were wrong in every prediction - you still choose to accept anything they say instead of looking at alternate theories.

The truly annoying aspect of Bridgman's criticisms of EU/PC theory is that he simply turns a blind eye to the falsifications of the mainstream model like that IBEX data, and the fact that their solar convection predictions were off by two whole orders of magnitude, while pretending that his napkin calculations rule our empirical physics as an alternative to their falsified models! He simply sweeps his own solar physics problems under the rug and pretends that they never happened! If we applied his logic that one napkin calculation somehow falsifies a whole range of solar models, then his own solar model is *toast* by his own logic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The truly annoying aspect of Bridgman's criticisms of EU/PC theory is that he simply turns a blind eye to the falsifications of the mainstream model like that IBEX data, and the fact that their solar convection predictions were off by two whole orders of magnitude, while pretending that his napkin calculations rule our empirical physics as an alternative to their falsified models! He simply sweeps his own solar physics problems under the rug and pretends that they never happened! If we applied his logic that one napkin calculation somehow falsifies a whole range of solar models, then his own solar model is *toast* by his own logic.

Oh, it's not Bridgman that bothers me - he's irrelevant. I can understand his stance - he has a lifetime of career and education to attempt to defend. Those on here have no stake in the matter - yet knowing every mainstream prediction was wrong - they still refuse to even consider alternate theories not put forth by the same people already known to be wrong in everything.

 

[Michael]

Oh, it's not Bridgman that bothers me - he's irrelevant. I can understand his stance - he has a lifetime of career and education to attempt to defend. Those on here have no stake in the matter - yet knowing every mainstream prediction was wrong - they still refuse to even consider alternate theories not put forth by the same people already known to be wrong in everything.

I think the part the bugs me is that the public skeptics of EU/PC theory make no effort at all to even understand the various ideas, and they seem to go out of their way to *misrepresent* the ideas, even after one attempts to correct their mistakes.

For instance, I've lost count of how many times I've heard someone ignorantly proclaim that there are no mathematical presentations to support EU/PC theory, as though Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Bruce, Birkeland, etc never existed.

I don't mind honest skepticism, but when they make no attempt to understand the idea, and they blatantly and repeatedly misrepresent the ideas, I do find it annoying. Bridgman is one of the most blatant public offenders in that respect.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think the part the bugs me is that the public skeptics of EU/PC theory make no effort at all to even understand the various ideas, and they seem to go out of their way to *misrepresent* the ideas, even after one attempts to correct their mistakes.

For instance, I've lost count of how many times I've heard someone ignorantly proclaim that there are no mathematical presentations to support EU/PC theory, as though Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Bruce, Birkeland, etc never existed.

I don't mind honest skepticism, but when they make no attempt to understand the idea, and they blatantly and repeatedly misrepresent the ideas, I do find it annoying. Bridgman is one of the most blatant public offenders in that respect.

Because of they accepted the actual scientific data - they would have no choice but to accept EU theory. So misrepresentation is their main weapon of choice.

 

[Michael]

Because of they accepted the actual scientific data - they would have no choice but to accept EU theory. So misrepresentation is their main weapon of choice.

Apparently that's their plan.

Fake "skeptics" like Bridgman cannot and will not participate in a real online debate because their ignorance would be exposed in no time. Instead Bridgman hides behind his blog and publishes only the responses that he wishes to deal with, at a timeline of his own choosing, while continuing to make false claims. It's childish and ridiculous behavior.

If one is going to play the role of skeptic, they should at least be able to do it "real time" on an open forum. They can't handle a real debate so they simply "cheat".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Apparently that's their plan.

Fake "skeptics" like Bridgman cannot and will not participate in a real online debate because their ignorance would be exposed in no time. Instead Bridgman hides behind his blog and publishes only the responses that he wishes to deal with, at a timeline of his own choosing, while continuing to make false claims. It's childish and ridiculous behavior.

If one is going to play the role of skeptic, they should at least be able to do it "real time" on an open forum. They can't handle a real debate so they simply "cheat".

Like I said, I understand Bridgman - he has a career to defend - even if it is useless being based upon the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses in a universe 99% plasma. But that's why all their models failed at that boundary between the states of matter, because they insist on trying to force fit plasma behavior to gravitational theory. Even if not one single plasma physicist in one single laboratory does so.

I'm still waiting on one of them to show me why I should accept Fairie Dust when they can't show me one single laboratory experiment with plasma where gravitational theory was used to describe it's behavior. But still insist I apply gravitational theory to a universe of 99% plasma instead of plasma physics.

 

[Michael]

Like I said, I understand Bridgman - he has a career to defend - even if it is useless being based upon the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses in a universe 99% plasma. But that's why all their models failed at that boundary between the states of matter, because they insist on trying to force fit plasma behavior to gravitational theory. Even if not one single plasma physicist in one single laboratory does so.

I'm still waiting on one of them to show me why I should accept Fairie Dust when they can't show me one single laboratory experiment with plasma where gravitational theory was used to describe it's behavior. But still insist I apply gravitational theory to a universe of 99% plasma instead of plasma physics.

I think their desire to use GR theory like a sledgehammer to attempt to explain everything that happens in space is a throwback to their 1900's view of cosmology. They used to believe that we lived in an island galaxy, and that most of space was a "vacuum". They still seem to think that the space between galaxy clusters is a "vacuum", when it fact it contains mass/energy in the form of plasma, light and neutrinos galore.

I'd have to say that even most astronomers have only a "toy" understanding of plasma physics, particularly after my conversations at JREF. They can't even distinguish between ordinary magnetic flux in a pure vacuum from the physical acceleration process in plasma that is called "magnetic reconnection". I can see why Alfven called the whole magnetic reconnection idea "pseudoscience" and rejected it outright. Even the conversion of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration is simply a form of induction. As a group, astronomers really have a pitiful grasp of plasma physics. They spend *way* too much time chasing their metaphysical invisible friends around the universe, and far too little time learning MHD theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think their desire to use GR theory like a sledgehammer to attempt to explain everything that happens in space is a throwback to their 1900's view of cosmology. They used to believe that we lived in an island galaxy, and that most of space was a "vacuum". They still seem to think that the space between galaxy clusters is a "vacuum", when it fact it contains mass/energy in the form of plasma, light and neutrinos galore.

I'd have to say that even most astronomers have only a "toy" understanding of plasma physics, particularly after my conversations at JREF. They can't even distinguish between ordinary magnetic flux in a pure vacuum from the physical acceleration process in plasma that is called "magnetic reconnection". I can see why Alfven called the whole magnetic reconnection idea "pseudoscience" and rejected it outright. Even the conversion of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration is simply a form of induction. As a group, astronomers really have a pitiful grasp of plasma physics. They spend *way* too much time chasing their metaphysical invisible friends around the universe, and far too little time learning MHD theory.

It's like Hannes Alfven said, they still use physic for plasma we know to be wrong, but refuse to give up their elegant math for the truth.

 

[Michael]

It's like Hannes Alfven said, they still use physic for plasma we know to be wrong, but refuse to give up their elegant math for the truth.

The mainstream's fear of embracing electricity in space is what keeps them stuck in the "dark" ages of physics. If and when they come out of the closet on that issue, they may actually make a little progress. As it stands, it's like time warping back 2000 years and watching them cling to Earth centric notions of the universe and no amount of reason can overcome their fear of change.

"No Michael, those are simply planetary epicycles that we observe in the night sky when other planets appear to move backwards. Your claim about the sun being the center of the solar system amounts to the rantings of a crackpot and here are our pretty epicycle maths to prove it!"

Oy Vey.

It borders on epic dishonesty when they claim that Edwin Hubble demonstrated that the universe is expanding since Hubble himself rejected that idea and promoted tired light theory and a static universe. They also continue to use Alfven's MHD maths to promote a concept that Alfven rejected as "pseudoscience", and that he made obsolete over 3 decades ago with his double layer paper. It's bad enough that they promote a supernatural "blunder" theory as GR theory and try to ride the coattails of GR, but the other blatant misrepresentations are simply inexcusable IMO. Most young students of astronomy don't even have a clue that Hubble promoted tired light theory or that Alfven used circuit theory to explain high energy plasma events. The mainstream intentionally misrepresents these issues to their students, and the supernatural dogma continues unabated. They keep claiming to unsuspecting children that "expansion is observed" rather than even explaining to those students that only *redshift* is actually observed and expansion is just *one possible* interpretation of that phenomenon. They keep using Doppler shift too as a bait and switch device for their supernatural "space expansion" claims. The dishonest representations are simply pervasive and unethical.

 

[Michael]

It's been a week now, and no response and not so much as a peep from Bridgman about my request for him to support his erroneous claim that Birkeland promoted three different solar models. Who would have guessed?

 

[bhsmte]

Nothing more entertaining than a EU love fest.

 

[Michael]

Nothing more entertaining than a EU love fest.

Unless of course it's watching those bogus sigma 5+ Bicep2 inflation claims go down in flames in mere months while Guth was running around claiming that it was Nobel Prize worthy material, and Linde was popping the cork on the Champagne. That was even more entertaining.

 

[Michael]

It's been a week now, and no response and not so much as a peep from Bridgman about my request for him to support his erroneous claim that Birkeland promoted three different solar models. Who would have guessed?

Make it two weeks now. There's something rather ironic about Bridgman discussing ego on his blog, and then having such a huge ego that he refuses to correct his numerous errors with his presentation of Birkeland's work. Typical egotistical nonsense from EU/PC haters. They bash concepts that they don't even begin to understand, and then they ignore all attempts to correct their mistakes. Any humble scientist that make those kinds of mistakes would have fixed them the moment they were pointed out to him. Since his ego is clearly the size of Texas, he simply ignores the problem.

 

[Michael]

For anyone interested in the ongoing soap opera:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

I responded to Mr. Bridgman's more recent and erroneous blog entry related to his statements about Birkeland's solar model over at thunderbolts. I pointed out that Tom Bridgman is blatantly confusing the concept of three types of 'circuits' (all of which could exist in Birkeland's one cathode solar model), with three different "suns". I've been trying for over a month to get Mr. Bridgman to fix his flawed wiring diagram of Birkeland's cathode solar model. In Birkeland's *actual* cathode solar model, the outbound solar wind from the sun is composed of both electrons and positively charged ions, and the only inbound positively charged particles would be located at the heliosphere.

Bridgman seem to insist on misrepresenting Birkeland's model with respect to particle flow inside the solar system in this diagram and page from his website:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...10/the-sad-state-of-electric-suns-not-so.html

That is absolutely *not* Birkeland's solar model as erroneously stated by Bridgman. Mr. Bridgman has the red arrow related to protons and ions flow pointed in the wrong direction. In Birkeland's cathode surface model both types of charged particles flow from the cathode surface, to the heliosphere. The inbound positively charged particles would be located outside of the heliosphere in Birkeland's one and only cathode "sun".

http://www.dnva.no/binfil/download.php?tid=44870

Electrostatic force caused sputtering which allowed intense cathode rays to escape into space. Some of these beams would intercept the Earth and cause visible light. To the objection that the cathode rays would be torn apart by Coulomb repulsion long before they reached Earth (e.g. Schuster, 1911), Birkeland responded that cathode rays escaping the Sun drag positive ions along with them. Thus, material found between the Sun and the Earth should be an electrically neutral ionized gas, with roughly the same number of positive as negative charged particles.

Instead of fixing his original wiring diagram as requested and as warranted by scientific and historical accuracy, Bridgman continues to misrepresent Birkeland's works and statements. How very very sad indeed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Dr. Oliver Manuel also discovered that neutrons tend to repulse one another:

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".

 

[RealityCheck01]

It can't be measured or detected in any way and yet it must exist, because its effects can be seen (or something like that).

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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=451d95e2d12383ac15852e6c6dccf56a

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

Sun-spots may be considered as the eruptive centres of similar disruptive discharges, and the question then immediately arises: Where shall we seek for the positive pole of these discharges, in which the spots, or that which surrounds them, represent the cathode? There are several possible solutions to this question.
In the first place, it might be imagined that the...

And he puts the cathode in the places Bridgman lists.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Actually special relativity was published in 1905 so his beliefs were ignored for more than a decade by the mainstream.

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.