I did something very mean to some big bang theorists

[rcglinsk]

I was in a bad mood. It wasn't right but it made me feel a little better.

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answ ... tions.html

[junglelord]

Well I have heard how they are at that forum.
I guess I will have to read their view of the EU.
Not sure why, but I will.
But this post says it all concerning their view of the EU.

posted by nereid at baut

Just this one, very quickly ...

It's not science, and is quite blunt about it.

There's an interesting thread in the JREF Forum's Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology section, called Plasma Cosmology - woo or not. The thread's extremely long, but in the end the conclusion is stark: "electric universe theory"* is anti-science.
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answ ... ons-2.html

Anti-science?
Is that like the anti-christ?


I have yet to see any thing not based on science presented by the EU. Its kinda maddening to even read crap like that from them. I did read the entire three pages. I get the same all the time. If so many scientist, (who are way smarter then me, more then I could ever be) say its so, then I truly am an idiot.

That really burns me. That is some rebuttal. All it is, is rude. I see so much anger against the EU theory, thats its really a interesting game of psychology and dogma. However in the end, its just sad.

[substance]

It`s absolutely pointless to try convincing these people to give EU a try by asking them fundamental and logical questions.
They have simply made their minds! I guess for most people the fact that "some of the smartest geniuses" have worked on this theory is enough argument to prove that it`s right. It`s ridiculous, but that`s the sad truth. Where we have to really focus is convincing the general person, not interested in either kind of astronomy.

[nick c]

Hello rcglinsk,
Your treading on thin ice mister Am I going to be reading your name in the "banned posters log" of BAUT in the near future?

What experiment do I conduct to try to disprove any or all of that hypothesis? What apparatus would I build? What would the experiment entail? How would I tell my results have disproved the hypothesis?

As I read your question, you wanted to know how the BB theory could be falsified. Some posters followed up with their opionions of how various observations and experiments would answer, in full or in part, that question. The reaction is curious, I detect an undercurrent in many responses in the thread that give me the impression that they feel you are assaulting the concept of "science" in general, equating acceptance of the BB theory with the validity of "science." That is, the BB theory is science, to question BB is to assault the scientific method.

"Why is physics a science? So, this discussion is, fundamentally, about what 'science' is (in the last century or three)?"

It seems, rcglinsk, that you are asking about the extent to which certain forms of logic are applicable, or used (or both), in modern science or not.

The irony is, of course, that your question is the quintessential inquiry of science...how can I conduct a test that could prove this theory wrong?
nick c

[junglelord]

Here is the thread that is referenced above in the Baut forum
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661

I will read it and get back to you about the anti-science of plasma cosmology.
(edit: do not waste your time, there is no rebuttal in the link, just internet squable)


I will say this about charge in space.

Watching the MIT lecture series on EM and knowing what the EU has taught me has given me several astounding
relationships that are never put into practice, dispite what they teach. Leaving space in their infinite wisdom as being charge netural.

However the same lecture severals times notes glaring problems with this view, but no one would see it without the EU information, because we would never question our professor at MIT the way the information is presented. Yet deep within the lecture series is the glaring fact that they could be wrong. One major trump card is that theory NEVER predicted superconductors above a set temperature, yet amazingly enough, they do exist and they still cannot explain why.

So we have proof that theory does not all ways predict the outcome, dispite how well the theory works in principle.
I believe its quite simple to put charge back in space. Watch the MIT lectures and watch with the knowledge of EU.
Since my own backgroung was in electronic circuit design and analysis, it taught me things I did not know about charge.
So it is worth watching. The one fascinating thing was watching him put charge in a bucket. That was cool.

I will say this, that when it come to Tesla, he is left out. Sure they mention the B field is measured in tesla's, but he never once acknowledges who he is, or what he did. That is in my estimation the same thing as leaving out EU. That always comes back to my own education and my first real thread here. Maxwells equations and the Heaviside reduction. Watching the lecture series with the knowledge of quaterions, I know that vectoral analysis is only part of the story of EU. In reality we are looking at 4 degrees of freedom. Of course I also now recognize the importance of dimensional analysis and what it means to view this math in distributed planes vs linear planes. I also love watching the geometry of the Aether expressed in the equations. The professor does mention that they are looking at geometry. The way EU and APM and my thread on Tesla fill in the blanks is very compelling and I would think almost complete.

[rcglinsk]

Hi y'all,

Thanks to any and everyone who trudged through the conversation. I was motivated by the recent court case between evolution theorists and advocates of intelligent design. I am agnostic but I firmly support the right of people and families to form and pursue religious traditions through their institutions and work toward these institutions lasting through the generations. I don't think there is any other way to support freedom of religious expression.

I am against any government establishment of religion, as per the first amendment. In the federal lawsuit regarding intelligent design the principle that decided the difference between a scientific idea and a religions one was the basic traditional notion of the scientific method. Nick C said in response to my post:

The irony is, of course, that your question is the quintessential inquiry of science...how can I conduct a test that could prove this theory wrong?

One major turning point of the intelligent design trial was when an advocate was asked "what experiment do I conduct to disprove the theory of intelligent design?" To save some words, the reply basically comprised, "get a beaker with the supposed building blocks of life and sit them on a lab bench for thirty thousand years. When you see no life evolve, you'll have your proof."

There is one person on the BAUT forum who goes by the handle of Nereid who seems to me to be quite legitimately brilliant. But when I finally pressed her to describe a test of the big bang theory one reply was...

Another might be the constancy of the CMB, and the apparatus you'd build would be exact replicas of WMAP, that you'd launch every decade for the next ten millennia.

Nereid again strikes me as very smart and honest. She even said in regard to the idea of the big bang itself,

rcglinsk, that's not a testable hypothesis.

The thing is, if the big bang theory, the idea that once what was small is now big, is not a testable hypothesis, it is not a scientific idea. Rather it is a religion. Well, at least according to the principle behind the intelligent design ruling, in my opinion.

The other thing I found just plain dumbfounding was the most common reply to my demand for observational evidence. Several people talked about ratios of isotopes of hydrogen, helium and lithium to other quantities. But, and it took a bit of investigation to get this out, they were not referring to present day observations, but rather to estimations of what the universe was like thirteen billion years ago. I was truly amazed. No ordinary person would call "observation" a quantitiy that depends on the truth of the theory being evaluated. And when I pointed this out I encountered a sort of cognitive dissonance, like their minds would not let them recognize what was observation and what was theory.

And might i reference another of Nick C's insights...

Your treading on thin ice mister Am I going to be reading your name in the "banned posters log" of BAUT in the near future?

Perhaps. I stopped posting on the thread when someone linked a poll to ban me. Hilarious right?

[junglelord]

Funny, I am not laughing.

[Solar]

Some of it was of pure self-aggrandizing egotism, 'We clever, we're smarter, we're numerous'. As if that also means 'We're correct'.

Eric J Lerner slapped this light element abundance issue down long ago:

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities:

The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion. Big Bang Never Happened

Plus a few other things.

The thing is, if the big bang theory, the idea that once what was small is now big, is not a testable hypothesis, it is not a scientific idea. Rather it is a religion. Well, at least according to the principle behind the intelligent design ruling, in my opinion.

That's an interesting take. It's not even a religion; just an idea. An idea that incorporates anything that would seem to support it. So it as more than just a few free parameters.

The Big Bang theory of the universe allows plenty of room for variations in the details (parameters) of the actual structure and behavior of our universe. These "free parameters" are important, but must be determined by observations, not theory. The parameters effect very basic aspects of our universe...

It's very unusual that there are conceptualizations that when conveyed seem to be saying 'Our view, through this model, should be telling us what or how the universe should be'. Or, as written above, "The parameters effect very basic aspects of our universe..." Well they don't. They effect one's perspective of aspects of the universe via the application of subjective of interpretation.

Eric J Lerner addresses some of these here: Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang

Wonder how a judge would rule after reading that?

[robinson]

rcglinsk has been banned for life...

Dude! What the heck did you think was going to happen?

[junglelord]

Cosmology is ran by the golden rule.
The Golden Rule, He who has the gold makes the rules.

Today, the situation is similar, although the penalties for dissent are milder: loss of funding rather than loss of liberty or life. The Big Bang survives not because of its scientific merits, but overwhelmingly because it is a state-supported theory. Funds for astronomical research and time on astronomical satellites are allocated almost exclusively by various governmental bodies, such as NSF and NASA in the United States. It is no secret that today, no one who pursues research that questions the Big Bang, who develops alternatives to the Big Bang, or, for the most part, who even investigates evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, will receive funding. The review committees that allocate these funds are controlled tightly by advocates of the Big Bang theory who refuse to fund anything that calls their work into question.


As a result, with very few exceptions, those who want to make a career in cosmology are constrained to work within the Big Bang framework--to do otherwise is to risk being cut off from funding, and, if a junior researcher, from tenure.


It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss how the Big Bang came to be state-supported theory. However, as long as such state support continues, it will be extremely difficult for cosmology to extricate itself from the dead-end of the Big Bang.

[robinson]

New topic.

The Big Bang Theorist did something very mean to me.

[Solar]

New topic.

The Big Bang Theorist did something very mean to me.

DING

That forum has proven themselves remarkably consistent and in lock-step with the earlier quote from JL.

[rcglinsk]

rcglinsk has been banned for life...

Dude! What the heck did you think was going to happen?

LOL

Really though, I was kind of wrong to make fun of them on this post. I can see why they did that. I still think they settled on the big bang idea for no good reason, and that it is not a scientific notion because it's non-falsifiable.

[rcglinsk]

Cosmology is ran by the golden rule.
The Golden Rule, He who has the gold makes the rules.

Today, the situation is similar, although the penalties for dissent are milder: loss of funding rather than loss of liberty or life. The Big Bang survives not because of its scientific merits, but overwhelmingly because it is a state-supported theory. Funds for astronomical research and time on astronomical satellites are allocated almost exclusively by various governmental bodies, such as NSF and NASA in the United States. It is no secret that today, no one who pursues research that questions the Big Bang, who develops alternatives to the Big Bang, or, for the most part, who even investigates evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, will receive funding. The review committees that allocate these funds are controlled tightly by advocates of the Big Bang theory who refuse to fund anything that calls their work into question.


As a result, with very few exceptions, those who want to make a career in cosmology are constrained to work within the Big Bang framework--to do otherwise is to risk being cut off from funding, and, if a junior researcher, from tenure.


It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss how the Big Bang came to be state-supported theory. However, as long as such state support continues, it will be extremely difficult for cosmology to extricate itself from the dead-end of the Big Bang.

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

it's just so sad.

[rcglinsk]

By the way,

Left, right or center, I don't buy their hurt feelings. Twice I asked them to defend general relativity against the attacks in the most recent thunderblog. They ignored me the first time an then found this post when I mentioned posting replies on thunderbolts. Their Hector called plasma cosmology "anti-science" because it implied general relativity was false. This is a religion. I'd encourage anyone who has posting capability to relink the black hole thunderblog from the 30th and ask for replies.