Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see you are still avoiding the first hurdle.It seems you misunderstood me. I am sure I explained to you that Plasma cosmology cannot explain the blackbody spectrum that the COBE satellite found. Many of the predictions made by BB cosmology have been verified by many satellites and ground-based observatories.
Furthermore, how would Plasma cosmology explain the lensing effect we see? Einstein predicted if his equation was right we would see "gravitational lensing". How would Plasma cosmology explain this?
If Plasma cosmology cannot explain the above observations it is because plasma cosmology is flawed.
The explanation makes sense and is verified through Nos' experiment. That is all that matters.
Maybe you should start working on how plasma cosmology can explain the blackbody spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation...
It was Nos, my bad.
So then all of those experiments on earth to support "Plasma cosmology" do not count either. Explain how he didn't use "observed physics"?
Agreed. There's a difference between a theory that isn't testable now, and a theory that's never testable. And I'm not saying the latter can ever enter the our sphere of knowledge. My point is just that, as a tool for acquiring knowledge, science must be open to all possibilities. Obviously, hypotheses which are fundamentally incapable of being validated aren't going to get off the ground, even if they're actually true.I'm not saying that something is unscientific if it is not directly testable. There's nothing wrong with a hypothesis that makes predictions which are conceivably testable.
To use the example above, in the early years after the general relativity was formulated, black holes were put forward as a theoretical possibility, but still just a mathematical idea. Such a thing is testable because it makes predictions about reality that we could potentially observe.
I'm not saying that you must be able to stick something in a test tube or it's not scientific.
OK, I agree with you about intrinsic red-shift. Now explain why Plasma Cosmology doesn't explain the amount of gravitational lensing we observe.I'll tell you what, get over the first hurdle of red-shift and then we can address all your other concerns.
Still hand-waving counter-arguments away, I see. I wonder if you'll ever tackle rebuttals head-on? The one thing that continues to distinguish science from pseudo-science is the former's proponents actually step up to the challenge, whilst the latter faff about making excuses. Humorous, but sad.I see you are still avoiding the first hurdle.
I'll tell you what, get over the first hurdle of red-shift and then we can address all your other concerns.
In lieu of a cosmic censor, I don't see why not!Very true. Can I have a hug now
Because in Plasma Cosmology there is no such thing as "gravitational lensing".OK, I agree with you about intrinsic red-shift. Now explain why Plasma Cosmology doesn't explain the amount of gravitational lensing we observe.
You have to understand it from the perspective of the actual Cosmologists...you know...the ones who rely on the Scientific Method and not mathemagic; to them a dead hypothesis doesn't have the ability to predict anything, so what you consider to be a "prediction" they recognize as pure fiction.Still hand-waving counter-arguments away, I see. I wonder if you'll ever tackle rebuttals head-on? The one thing that continues to distinguish science from pseudo-science is the former's proponents actually step up to the challenge, whilst the latter faff about making excuses. Humorous, but sad.
Even God?As a matter of principle, science should consider every possibility as, well, possible.
Even "God did it"?As a matter of prudence, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what we intuitively suspect to be an untestable idea;
I think it's the Big Bang model that shows the universe to be "odd", not science.if science has shown us anything, it's that the universe is a lot more odd than we might think.
Oh, I see what you did there. Very droll.You have to understand it from the perspective of the actual Cosmologists...you know...the ones who rely on the Scientific Method and not mathemagic; to them a dead hypothesis doesn't have the ability to predict anything, so what you consider to be a "prediction" they recognize as pure fiction.
And I agree with them.
Yes. That's kinda what I was hinting at with the OP, if you didn't get it.Even God?
Even "God did it"?
First, the Big Bang model is science (I know you like to disagree, but by even the most stringent of definitions, it's science). Second, the oddness of the universe is shown by other models as well: Einsteinian relativity, quantum mechanics, classical thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, optics, etc.I think it's the Big Bang model that shows the universe to be "odd", not science.
Amputees being healed whenever a Christian clergyman walks by. Whatever the theological implications, it sure would point to God.What should a scientist expect to see that would constitute "God did it"?
The sun had to be just right:Amputees being healed whenever a Christian clergyman walks by.
I think what you're forgetting, is that they were in a transition period between Law and Grace, and in addition, the Apostles needed special authentication.Acts 5:15 said:Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
Yup --- and that's just what they got.Whatever the theological implications, it sure would point to God.
Amputees being healed whenever a Christian clergyman walks by. Whatever the theological implications, it sure would point to God.
I already asked them that, and got tired of listening to their noise: 1.Short of him healing amputees, what would you expect "science" to find in their search that would prove it?
Was it you that made the excellent point that scientists claim that God can neither be proven nor disproven, then turn around and demand undeniable evidence from us as to His existence?And if the answer is nothing, then is it really rational point to science and say "I need scientific proof"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?