Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)

[Clete]

I give you a science area where electromagnetism on a large scale is thoroughly dominant in astrophysics, undermining a key claim of EU, and you still claim that scientists don't treat it as a significant force. Didn't you read what I wrote?

(If you want a primer, check out the Wikipedia entry on "centrifugal mechanism of acceleration", and see if you still believe what you wrote above.)

I read what you wrote and responded directly to it.

You have clearly not watched the videos and I am not interested in researching every alternative everyone randomly mentions. If you want me to give it the time of day, give me the gist in more detail and answer specific questions I ask or go find someone else's time to waste.

 

[Right Divider]

The theory of evolution has been put through the utmost tests and processing and is established as much if not more so than gravity. Why would you question this? I apologize for what you consider an insult but when people consider Alex Jones a viable source of information then it's kinda hard to resist...

Ah... the old unverifiable slam dunk. You're a hoot.

:mock: ... "if not more so than gravity"

 

[patrick jane]

Clete, is Plasma Cosmology the sane as EU Theory?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ah... the old unverifiable slam dunk. You're a hoot.

:mock: ... "if not more so than gravity"

Not gonna get involved as it would effectively derail the thread and little time for people who think the earth is a few thousand years old or something anyway.

 

[Clete]

Not gonna get involved as it would effectively derail the thread and little time for people who think the earth is a few thousand years old or something anyway.

The EU has NOTHING whatsoever to do with young earth creationism nor any other doctrine of any sort.

You are on a CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY FORUM!!! What are you even doing here if you're not willing to have conversations with people who believe the bible even when the discussion has nothing to do with your pet peeve?

STUPID!

 

[Clete]

Clete, is Plasma Cosmology the sane as EU Theory?

Similar but no, not quite the same thing. I only know this because I've read a few times where people in one group distance themselves from the other group. What the difference is, I don't know. As far as I can tell, there are so similar that they may as well be the same but maybe there's some important distinction that I'm just not aware of.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The EU has NOTHING whatsoever to do with young earth creationism nor any other doctrine of any sort.

You are on a CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY FORUM!!! What are you even doing here if you're not willing to have conversation with people who believe the bible even when the discussion has nothing to do with your pet peeve?

STUPID!

Well, it's not my "pet peeve" and I was addressing RD. In respect to your wishes I was willing to let it go at that and wouldn't have even bothered coming back onto your thread were it not for his or her reply. I've been on this forum for eleven years in total thanks so I don't need you 'shouting' about what this place is and it happens to be a bit more than just a theology forum regardless. So calm down and carry on with your thread.

:e4e:

 

[gcthomas]

I read what you wrote and responded directly to it.

You have clearly not watched the videos and I am not interested in researching every alternative everyone randomly mentions. If you want me to give it the time of day, give me the gist in more detail and answer specific questions I ask or go find someone else's time to waste.

I even typed up a quote from the audio of the video (I had to keep rewinding it to get the quote right - Difficult to do without watching it, unless I have developed psychic powers. ) yet you summarily dismissed the comments I made. Why DID you start this thread only to reject comments without even attempting to address the issues? What was the point?

To paraphrase my post, the first key point made in the video demonstrably misrepresented the views of scientists to make its point, and you don't care enough even to rebut it.

 

[gcthomas]

The EU has NOTHING whatsoever to do with young earth creationism nor any other doctrine of any sort.

If you have trawled the internets for this EU thing, you will have found that EU proponents fall into two camps: cranks who think that they can do, without education or training, better than actual scientists who have devoted careers to filtering out the wheat from the chaff in a small field of study in a verifiable and repeatable way. The others are creationists who like the suggestion that billions of years are not necessary and adopt the idea unquestioningly, without realising it is crank science. (The ICR promotes the almost indistinguishable plasma universe ideas, for instance)

The EU cranks claim it is nothing to do with creationism, while the creationists claim it isn't crank OR creationist. Ho Hum.

 

[Clete]

I even typed up a quote from the audio of the video (I had to keep rewinding it to get the quote right - Difficult to do without watching it, unless I have developed psychic powers. ) yet you summarily dismissed the comments I made. Why DID you start this thread only to reject comments without even attempting to address the issues? What was the point?

To paraphrase my post, the first key point made in the video demonstrably misrepresented the views of scientists to make its point, and you don't care enough even to rebut it.

I responded to what you said.

I've said that twice now, it'll be the last.

You've repeatedly demonstrated yourself to be a waste of time. Don't blame me when I assume you've not changed. Consider yourself lucky that I even bothered to read your post at all. If you want to be substantive then I'm all for it but you'll have to watch more than two minutes of one of the videos and will have to demonstrate a keener understanding of what's been presented than arguing with "a misrepresentation" that is obviously true to anyone who's half way paying attention.
In short, this thread is intended to discuss the merits of the EU, not the introduction of as many irrelevant alternative theories that we can all find on the internet somewhere. If you want to discuss centrifugal theory then do so in the context of how and why it is superior to the EU. You aren't going to be able to do that without having watched the videos.

Clete

 

[Clete]

If you have trawled the internets for this EU thing, you will have found that EU proponents fall into two camps: cranks who think that they can do, without education or training, better than actual scientists who have devoted careers to filtering out the wheat from the chaff in a small field of study in a verifiable and repeatable way. The others are creationists who like the suggestion that billions of years are not necessary and adopt the idea unquestioningly, without realising it is crank science. (The ICR promotes the almost indistinguishable plasma universe ideas, for instance)

The EU cranks claim it is nothing to do with creationism, while the creationists claim it isn't crank OR creationist. Ho Hum.

Ok, that's it. You're back on ignore and permanently this time. I will never read another word you type.

Good bye.

Something tells me that this is the way this thread is going to go. I haven't found 10 honest people on this site in two years.

If nothing else, I'll post the videos and anyone who wants to watch them can and the rest can...well...I'll let you finish the sentence.

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

In general, when someone says "I'm not going to explain it to you, just watch the video", something's really wrong.

If it needs a fancy presentation to be credible, it's probably wrong.

 

[User Name]

Why does scientific consensus matter at all?

.

 

[User Name]

Why does scientific consensus matter at all?

Alex Jones is no worse than the MSM.

Hilarious! Tell us more!

 

[gcthomas]

Hilarious! Tell us more!

Isn't it fun watching people who are desperate for modern science to to be wrong so they can pretend that their niche interpretation of their faith can be right, are also desperate for their faith to be bolstered by credible science. They not only want their own opinions to be valued, they want their own facts to be accepted as well. Can't their faith be enough without having to adopt crank science as a buttress?

 

[gcthomas]

In general, when someone says "I'm not going to explain it to you, just watch the video", something's really wrong.

If it needs a fancy presentation to be credible, it's probably wrong.

Whenever you get YouTube videos instead of academic papers you just know the authors are cranks. The willful misrepresentation of science and scientists tells me that they are only trying to persuade the uneducated or gullible. There is no effort to persuade scientists. No physical principles derived from universal symmetries, no consistency with the observations or the rest of science. No equations, or quantitative modeling. The rather hopeful and self serving claim that consensus doesn't play a part in scorbutic advance. It is so obviously crank science that I don't know how Clete keeps it up.

And Clete keeps threatening to stop reading my comments every time I point out another inconsistency just so he can pretend to himself that there is a consensus for his ideas! Haha.

 

[Clete]

In general, when someone says "I'm not going to explain it to you, just watch the video", something's really wrong.

It means that they either haven't watched the video, that they don't understand the material presented in the video or that they are just lazy. Either way, I'd say you're right.

If it needs a fancy presentation to be credible, it's probably wrong.

The important word here is "needs". There's nothing wrong with videos per se, but you're right about production quality not equaling veracity. It would, however, be making the same mistake in reverse to blow off material because it was presented in a "fancy video".

 

[The Barbarian]

The important word here is "needs". There's nothing wrong with videos per se, but you're right about production quality not equaling veracity. It would, however, be making the same mistake in reverse to blow off material because it was presented in a "fancy video".

Very true. It's only when proponents won't explain the idea, and say "just watch the video" that there's reason to be skeptical.

What do you think the most important idea in the video is, and what is the evidence for it? Or if there are several, what are they, and what evidence supports them?

 

[Lon]

If you have trawled the internets for this EU thing, you will have found that EU proponents fall into two camps: cranks who think that they can do, without education or training, better than actual scientists who have devoted careers to filtering out the wheat from the chaff in a small field of study in a verifiable and repeatable way. The others are creationists who like the suggestion that billions of years are not necessary and adopt the idea unquestioningly, without realising it is crank science. (The ICR promotes the almost indistinguishable plasma universe ideas, for instance)

The EU cranks claim it is nothing to do with creationism, while the creationists claim it isn't crank OR creationist. Ho Hum.

Isn't it fun watching people who are desperate for modern science to to be wrong so they can pretend that their niche interpretation of their faith can be right, are also desperate for their faith to be bolstered by credible science. They not only want their own opinions to be valued, they want their own facts to be accepted as well. Can't their faith be enough without having to adopt crank science as a buttress?

:doh: False dichotomy. You don't have to be a wizard to do good science or math lain: I don't have a science degree but have all A's in science. Another has a science degree with all C's. Who is better at science? Nobody asks what your grades were unless perhaps you are applying for NASA and even they can mistake metric for American standard.

 

[Tambora]

Isn't it fun watching people who are desperate for modern science to to be wrong so they can pretend that their niche interpretation of their faith can be right, are also desperate for their faith to be bolstered by credible science. They not only want their own opinions to be valued, they want their own facts to be accepted as well. Can't their faith be enough without having to adopt crank science as a buttress?

What on earth does Clete's faith have to do with EU????
The data presented in the videos could have just as easily been presented by a non-Christian for discussion.