Infuriating: Another model of Cosmology.

[busterdog]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374&q=%22thunderbolts+of+the+gods%22&total=17&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Interesting video. Suggests that conventional cosmologists got it all wrong.

Without enough gravity, maybe electromagnetism explains the sky.

As previously noted, gravity does a poor job of explaining the big bang and the nebula for the formation of celestial bodies. The plasma model gets it done much more quickly, as in the biblical model.

It is an incipient theory, but one that does not fit convention.

Video is fun to watch. So is throwing a rock at a hornets nest.

 

[shernren]

Is this another one of those plasma cosmology videos? The only connection I had which was good enough to watch videos on cost 7c/MB, and I don't have even that right now.

I should remind everyone here that busterdog has gone on record quoting an article by Setterfield stating that plasma filaments might explain both the large-scale structure of galaxy formation and placement, and the arrangement of atoms in Earth's layers (all without, for example, specifying how a filament might pinch into the Earth's spherical shape without massive disruption, explaining baryonic acoustic oscillations, or justifying a mathematical statement that an increase of 10% in volume is the same as an increase in 18% in diameter or something such in the same article). Now, the distance between our galaxy and the closest one, Andromeda, is about 2 million light years, or 2.4 x 10^22 meters. The radius of the Earth, on the other hand, is about 6.4 x 10^6 meters.

That's a scale difference of 10 to the power of 15. Trying to invoke the identical plasma filament mechanism for both observations is like expecting a round pollen grain dancing in the air to behave like a round meteor from Deep Impact striking the Earth, just because both are round and involve air.

Plasma cosmology has a long way to go.

(If you look upon your work here as nothing more than throwing rocks at hornets' nests, why do you even bother? You know, I think most people would think that someone who posts purely for the enjoyment of irritating people is known as a troll. I'm kinder than most.)

 

[Mallon]

I watched the video, but having recently been told by busterdog that I can't trust my own eyes, I don't think I believe it.

 

[juvenissun]

Plasma cosmology has a long way to go.

(If you look upon your work here as nothing more than throwing rocks at hornets' nests, why do you even bother?

It is fine that an honest scientist like Shernren keep working on science by the established model. When a correction on the value of a constant is made, it is relatively easy to make corrections to every applications of the constant.

Consider the short history of plasma theory and consider how much it could explain, the "long way to go" may not take very long if more people like Shernren is willing to work on it. Of course, if it prevailed in the future, it is, of course, built upon all the data collected by millions of people worked under the gravitational model. Why would a promising star like Shernren be reluctant to work on the plasma hypothesis? He he ... Is this a question needs a very practical answer?

The big nest (internally consistent) is attached to its support by a weak link. If that link is shaken loose, the whole nest will drop. That is why.

 

[busterdog]

I watched the video, but having recently been told by busterdog that I can't trust my own eyes, I don't think I believe it.

Mallon says Jesus was an idiot.

Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

That invent a straw man thing is so fun. If we can't have logic, well, I guess we can have that.

Now go find an irrelevant interpretation of the John 20 to dispute about and forget about the fact that the evidence of your eyes destroys the supposed sanctity of human convention, as distinct from the Word, and then pretend again that I am making a different argument than that one.

 

[busterdog]

It is fine that an honest scientist like Shernren keep working on science by the established model. When a correction on the value of a constant is made, it is relatively easy to make corrections to every applications of the constant.

Consider the short history of plasma theory and consider how much it could explain, the "long way to go" may not take very long if more people like Shernren is willing to work on it. Of course, if it prevailed in the future, it is, of course, built upon all the data collected by millions of people worked under the gravitational model. Why would a promising star like Shernren be reluctant to work on the plasma hypothesis? He he ... Is this a question needs a very practical answer?

The big nest (internally consistent) is attached to its support by a weak link. If that link is shaken loose, the whole nest will drop. That is why.

If "long way to go" means disregard it, then put Big Bang in the dustbin as well. Isn't that what creationists have been saying all along, that by its own terms, Big Bang has a long way to go.

Oh wait. We think there were dinosaurs on the ark. So nothing we say about Big Bang can be relevant, even if correct.

Now, you TEs go back and nail us for saying something wrong about something so that you can pretend that we judged by the standard of being right about everything, when all we are asking is recognition of the correctness of isolated comments.

But admitting some facts would lead to admissions for some merit in creationism. They might have to be met on their own terms. Think of the plague of madness that would follow!

You see, hitting the hornet's nest is fun. You get to see what was inside.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon says Jesus was an idiot.

Not at all.
I'm saying your position is inconsistent.
In a previous thread, while we were discussing the relationship between science and the Bible, you said that human observation is unreliable, and we must therefore default to a plain reading of the Bible in order to understand the universe. I'm not making this up. You said it here:

"Ramble on" ???? You have wounded me.

Well, it is an assumption. However, doesn't it go back to the essential point of whether conventional science or the Bible is the ultimate frame of reference? One must make an assumption to begin any origins analysis. You assume that observation is reliable. We assume that an inerrant witness is reliable.

Now you're taking a complete 180 degree turn, trumpeting a new cosmology stemming from human observation. This completely contradicts what you said above. This isn't a strawman of my own making. Your own words are preserved here for everyone to see.

And your only response so far has been:

Well, wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

 

[shernren]

Consider the short history of plasma theory and consider how much it could explain, the "long way to go" may not take very long if more people like Shernren is willing to work on it. Of course, if it prevailed in the future, it is, of course, built upon all the data collected by millions of people worked under the gravitational model. Why would a promising star like Shernren be reluctant to work on the plasma hypothesis? He he ... Is this a question needs a very practical answer?

The practical answer, of course, is that Shern Ren has just finished his first year of uni and isn't even sure if he is going to go into astrophysics or not. (Gone are the days of gentlemen scientists, to whom science was still such a small field that one could indulge in all of it at once.)

More practically, plasma cosmology is fairly lost when it comes to the details of things. Quoting Wikipedia:

No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced. Proposed explanations are relying on integrated starlight and do not provide any indication of how to explain that the observed angular anisotropies of CMB power spectrum is (so low as) one part in 105. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP. The fact that the CMB was measured to be so isotropic, inline with the predictions of the big bang model, was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[25] These measurements showed the "acoustic peaks" were fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model and conditions of the early universe.
Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang, and even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration.
​

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

Note that the COBE data's first main analysis was completed in 1992. That's a long time ago. The field of physical cosmology is relatively young; the accelerating expansion of the universe was only discovered in 1998 or later. So plasma cosmologists have had 15 years to explain results that the Big Bang theory could explain in a snap.