SHEEPEOPLE

[OliviaMay]

Big bang theory is 'gospel' however.

Not true either. There are alternatives to the big bang. What is most widely accepted is that the universe is expanding, but even that is debated.

 

[Davian]

...

True but they started it.

And this excuses your behaviour?

It's properties were "made up' in the imagination of one person,

Or, he was building on the work of others.

As we discussed in this thread in 2011, that is a falsehood. Guth is credited with the coining of the "inflation" label.

No they aren't "natural". They are only *alleged* to be natural. You can't demonstrate them 'naturally' in any lab however.

Again with the inadequacies of your... lab.

 

[Davian]

A new world is coming. A time of peace and prosperity. The age we are in is soon coming to an end.

How do you know this?

 

[Michael]

Not true either. There are alternatives to the big bang. What is most widely accepted is that the universe is expanding, but even that is debated.

Where? You can't even discuss "against the mainstream" ideas for more than 30 days on some astronomy oriented websites. For crying out loud, they even hold witch hunts on that forum. Anyone and everyone who promotes any other alternative theory is labeled a "crackpot", a "crank", yada, yada, yada.

As someone who's been around the block debating various cosmology ideas on the internet, I think you have a very naive view of how 'open minded' astronomers are today. They've pretty much made up their mind that Hubble was *incorrect* and yet they constantly base their claims upon his work! They do the very same thing to Alfven with respect to 'magnetic reconnection", an idea that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience", and made obsolete by his double layer paper. The mainstream has no shame in terms of misrepresenting Einstein's work, Alfven's work and Hubble's work.

 

[OliviaMay]

Where? You can't even discuss "against the mainstream" ideas for more than 30 days on some astronomy oriented websites. For crying out loud, they even hold witch hunts on that forum. Anyone and everyone who promotes any other alternative theory is labeled a "crackpot", a "crank", yada, yada, yada.

As someone who's been around the block debating various cosmology ideas on the internet, I think you have a very naive view of how 'open minded' astronomers are today. They've pretty much made up their mind that Hubble was *incorrect* and yet they constantly base their claims upon his work! They do the very same thing to Alfven with respect to 'magnetic reconnection", an idea that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience", and made obsolete by his double layer paper. The mainstream has no shame in terms of misrepresenting Einstein's work, Alfven's work and Hubble's work.

If you want to find out alternative theories of cosmology you don't go looking for them on crackpot debate websites. You go to the physics department of universities. That is where you find them. You find non because you don't look.

 

[Michael]

And this excuses your behaviour?

Which exact "behavior" did you take exception to? I get the feeling you just don't like the fact that science isn't limited to empirical physics and you blame me for it.

Or, he was building on the work of others.

Who's exact work did he built upon in your opinion?

As we discussed in this thread in 2011, that is a falsehood. Guth is credited with the coining of the "inflation" label.

Ya, because he personally invented the whole concept in his overactive imagination!

Again with the inadequacies of your... lab.

And yet you reject God due to your perception of a lack of a cause/effect justification? That sounds down right hypocritical from my vantage point.

 

[Michael]

If you want to find out alternative theories of cosmology you don't go looking for them on crackpot debate websites.

Well, I'd have to agree with you that Cosmoquest is a crackpot debate website.

You go to the physics department of universities. That is where you find them. You find non because you don't look.

Huh? Over the past 30+ years I've read lots of various cosmology theories and I've found one, and chosen one that I do like. I doubt that you've done the kind of research that I've done into EU/PC theory, therefore I seriously doubt that you're capable of passing fair judgement upon it.

FYI, I'm *very* happy with "science", and I quite happily support a "scientific" theory of the universe. I just don't happen to like *one* particular cosmology model that just so happens to be "popular" at the moment, but I certainly do not reject science, rather I embrace it wholeheartedly.

I simply note that 'science' has never been limited to empirical physics, and atheists typically misrepresent *empiricism* as the scientific method. They aren't one and the same method. I actually prefer empiricism to be honest, but science prefers a much more flexible standard of evidence.

 

[OliviaMay]

Well, I'd have to agree with you that Cosmoquest is a crackpot debate website.



Huh? Over the past 30+ years I've read lots of various cosmology theories and I've found one, and chosen one that I do like. I doubt that you've done the kind of research that I've done into EU/PC theory, therefore I seriously doubt that you're capable of passing fair judgement upon it.

FYI, I'm *very* happy with "science", and I quite happily support a "scientific" theory of the universe. I just don't happen to like *one* particular cosmology model that just so happens to be "popular" at the moment, but I certainly do not reject science, rather I embrace it wholeheartedly.

I simply note that 'science' has never been limited to empirical physics, and atheists typically misrepresent *empiricism* as the scientific method. They aren't one and the same method. I actually prefer empiricism to be honest, but science prefers a much more flexible standard of evidence.

Science requires observation of phenomena and experimentation. That is all. There are many theories. As experimentation prove theories to be flawed they are revised or discarded. That is the process.

 

[Michael]

Science requires observation of phenomena and experimentation. That is all. There are many theories. As experimentation prove theories to be flawed they are revised or discarded. That is the process.

So why hasn't the mainstream discarded dark matter theory yet?

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=11849079fe3a9edfad0042897508c862

All the early predictions and mathematical models of SUSY theory were falsified by LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness 'tests'. It's clear that the mainstream has a horrible case of confirmation bias, and a bad habit of simply ignoring their own failed predictions when it suits them.

 

[OliviaMay]

So why hasn't the mainstream discarded dark matter theory yet?

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=11849079fe3a9edfad0042897508c862

All the early predictions and mathematical models of SUSY theory were falsified by LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness 'tests'. It's clear that the mainstream has a horrible case of confirmation bias, and a bad habit of simply ignoring their own failed predictions when it suits them.

The mainstream? You should stop tilting against windmills. If you want to discuss academics read what academics and physicists say. Stop with building straw men and lamenting things you construct in your mind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Meh. I think we all wear our own unique shade of rose colored glasses.

Nah, I just think some won't put those View Masters down.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The mainstream? You should stop tilting against windmills. If you want to discuss academics read what academics and physicists say. Stop with building straw men and lamenting things you construct in your mind.

Put them down, they blind you to the truth!!!!!

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/sheepeople.7898632/page-10#post-68350086

So then we should still believe the Milky-Way is the entire universe right, since that was claimed as fact once too? What you fail to comprehend is belief in a theory when the data seems to confirm it, and belief in a theory when all the data falsifies it, yet refuses to put that View Master down and "see." You are required to ignore every experiment ever performed to keep your belief in Fairie Dust - that is the sad thing. And then you actually talk about other people having "faith."

 

[MichelleNoel]

On many debates here the scientific community demands that scientific evidence be given that would prove the existence of God.

I have tried to reason and suggest that internal evidence could not possibly prove external matters. I mean, doesn't that make perfect sense? Still, the demand is the same.

There have been two analogies that have come out of recent discussions that I think are worth offering as reason, if not evidence:

1. The New World: History shows that the naysayers of the time stood on the shores of discovery and poo pooed the ideas of western exploration. There were those who looked at things positively, and those who looked at things negatively. History often proves the skeptic wrong. So, the whole historic lesson makes a good example in completely, natural and internal terms. The only thing that would have been required to consider whether the prospects were believable or not, would be a little bit of history, science, and a spirit of adventure...and maybe faith, but not even. But now that we are on the shores of an even bigger step of possibilities, once again there are the naysayers poo pooing. To me, that says, that personality type simply has not learned from history, and given a more complex equation, hasn't changed a thing.
2. Sheep's Tail: A bit of a self-pun on Christians, this analogy asserts that the external realm of God is like unto a sheep, and the internal realm of space, time, and matter, is like unto a tail. The tail was created as a point where God would PM evil all over his tail...and then...cut it off. The unseen spiritual sheep is God, the visible tail is made up of the universe and all the little sheep are his flock made in his image. Among the sheep then came the Lamb of God, who, after taking on the evil (sins) of the world, was cut off.

...Both, are analogies made within the realm of scientific capabilities and understanding. One is from recorded history, while the other is simply a synopsis of the biblical story. That may be the best we can do. And realistically, who within the scientific community could go outside the realm of space, time and matter, to view an overview of the proof...anyway?

You can't prove God. It is God who opens ears and hearts to both hear and understand his Word, not man. It's an old cliche, but we really are just the planters of seed. God grows the faith. I do find this frustrating at times, wondering WHY He chooses not to open the ears and hearts of more people (especially my loved ones!). My husband is not a Christian and has long wanted proof from God himself. What I have come to understand is that no matter what kind of "proof" God gave my husband, he would find a way to explain it away and continue to look for proof. Have you heard the old joke about the guy stranded on his roof during a flood? All kinds of people came by to rescue him in boats and helicopters. But he stubbornly refused to leave with any of them, saying that God would rescue him. In the end and still on the roof, he asked God why he had not rescued him. God said something like, "I sent two boats and a helicopter. What more do you want?" Again I say: You can't prove God. Hebrews 11:1.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You've made the claim that atheists only apply a 100 percent standard for god, yet that's not true. I hold the god question to the same standard that I would anything else. Is it reasonable to accept the claim based on the evidence that we have? I would argue it is not. The claim has not stood up to scrutiny.

What evidence are you relying on to hold such a belief?

 

[ScottA]

What's my middle name?

Need to know? No.

 

[OliviaMay]

Put them down, they blind you to the truth!!!!!

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/sheepeople.7898632/page-10#post-68350086

So then we should still believe the Milky-Way is the entire universe right, since that was claimed as fact once too? What you fail to comprehend is belief in a theory when the data seems to confirm it, and belief in a theory when all the data falsifies it, yet refuses to put that View Master down and "see." You are required to ignore every experiment ever performed to keep your belief in Fairie Dust - that is the sad thing. And then you actually talk about other people having "faith."

Again petulance isn't conducive to discussion. Theories change with new data. That is what science is about. You know this already. There are alternative theories to the big bang being researched at top tier universities. There is no conspiracy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fantasies are not demonstrable, either.

We agree - as your 95% Fairie Dust is not demonstrable either. So we can logically conclude that you are basing your beliefs upon theory known to require 95% ad-hoc assumptions. Of which only 5% has been empirically tested within the solar system, and the other 95% was required because you applied the wrong physics to the wrong states of matter.

No one denies that gravitational theory describes the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses. But these neutral states of matter make up only at most 5% of the universe (planetary systems). The other 95% is plasma - which does not obey the gravitational laws - but electromagnetic laws. So of course when you try to apply gravitational theory outside of planetary systems - you are required to add those 95% ad-hoc theories to force fit plasma to have a semblance of gravitational behavior. Just as any plasma physicist would require 95% ad-hoc assumptions to force fit plasma behavior to solids, liquids and gasses.

Every one of you knows the truth of this - yet you continue to ignore 95% of the universe to keep Fairie Dust alive.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Again petulance isn't conducive to discussion. Theories change with new data. That is what science is about. You know this already. There are alternative theories to the big bang being researched at top tier universities. There is no conspiracy.

Theories that each and every one are considering modifying gravity, or adding extra dimensions, blah, blah, blah - instead of just admitting it doesn't apply to 95% of the universe. We do not use gravitational theory to describe plasma behavior in any single laboratory anywhere on this earth or in space. Just cosmologists do, but that's probably whey they are not plasma physicists.

 

[OliviaMay]

Theories that each and every one are considering modifying gravity, or adding extra dimensions, blah, blah, blah - instead of just admitting it doesn't apply to 95% of the universe. We do not use gravitational theory to describe plasma behavior in any single laboratory anywhere on this earth or in space. Just cosmologists do, but that's probably whey they are not plasma physicists.

What? Really it is like you can't be even bothered to research anything. You just make it up as you go along. No plasma physicists lol.

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

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What? Really it is like you can't be even bothered to research anything. You just make it up as you go along. No plasma physicists lol.

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

And the first one on the list had repeatedly told you all about your pseudo-science of how you treat plasma in space. And Birkeland also told you you were wrong. And Peratt and on and on and on.....

But go ahead - show me one single plasma laboratory experiment in which gravitational theory was used to describe the plasma behavior.

Just one, and I'll accept any false claim you want to make. But if you can't show even one - then you give up the Fairie Dust. Deal?