-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp10285750
:rotfl:
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
The idea that the universe is expanding is predicated that red shift happens solely due to a light wave Doppler Effect.
There are some serious problems with this hypothesis. This is one of the most interesting points that is commonly made by the Thunderbolts Project videos. There is a such a thing as intrinsic (i.e. non-cosmological) red shift which has nothing at all to do with how fast something is moving or what direction it is moving in. In fact, it appears to be a function of a celestial objects age. I have no doubt that it will be covered in one of these "Top 10 Reasons" videos but since I brought it up, if you're interested, watch this...
There is, nevertheless, a nagging suspicion, among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where galaxies and a quasar or a pair of galaxies that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts." - Carl Sagan
My comment was intended to be funny but I wonder just how many people are aware of the ad hoc nature of very large portions of modern cosmology. Things that people just take for granted where conjured out of thin air to explain things that didn't fit the theory. There is no such thing as falsifying evidence. Any piece of falsifying evidence is buried and ignored until it eventually sprouts into a new ad hoc "explanation" that is plugged into the hole that the observational evidence blew in the theory. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Pulsars are all examples. All of which were invented to preserve gravity as the dominate force in cosmology.
The problem isn't limited to big picture cosmology, either. Seemingly every aspect of astronomy is effected by it. Every weird thing the Solar System presents is answered with a magic collision. Every time we go to a new planet, nearly every idea we had about what we'd find turns out to be wrong or we find something that the current theories suggest should be impossible but do we ever discard the theories? Nope, not ever. We just start the search for the next ad hoc plug to fill the theoretical holes.
So, we laugh at the idea of Dark Magnets or Dark Dynamos or whatever, but don't be too surprised if that isn't exactly what they say is responsible for it. The thing that'll slow such a thing from happening is the fact that to do so will be a tacit admission that the EU isn't complete bunk, but that's an admission that they are already starting to have to make anyway.
Clete
Barbarian chuckles:
I know your guy believes the "fluttering crust" made it all happen. But show us your evidence for that belief. He just declared it, and then failed to show his evidence.
That wasn't in the first sentence. Did you even read it? But why don't you just post what you think is his best evidence for fluttering Earth producing that kind of energy?
I know your guy believes the "fluttering crust" made it all happen. But show us your evidence for that belief. He just declared it, and then failed to show his evidence.
That wasn't in the first sentence. Did you even read it? But why don't you just post what you think is his best evidence for fluttering Earth producing that kind of energy?
Get back to us when you've read past the first sentence. :up:
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Is there a means to tell whether red shift is from motion or from other effects?
I think gravity is the dominant force. But I also appreciate mockery of the "dark" talk from evolutionists.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
No, I don't see how there could be. The spectrum is either shifted or it isn't. As a result, there is no known way of knowing the size of the universe. In addition, intrinsic redshift undermines the sole foundation for the BBT (Big Bang Theory). Heresy in modern scientific circles. It will be ignored, made fun of, shunned and ostracized. Arp lost his telescope time (i.e. his career as an astronomer) over it.
I think gravity is the dominant force. But I also appreciate mockery of the "dark" talk from evolutionists.
Well, believing that gravity is the dominant force and believing that space is electrically neutral and carrying no charge that would permit electromagnetism to play any significant role are not exactly the same thing. As I've said a few times already, I am not an EU proponent, at least not a full throated one anyway. There is a lot of what their proponents say that I reject entirely. Walt Thornhill says, for example, that the Earth is hollow as are the gas giants and that magnetism is a dipole force that propagates instantaneously. These things (well, some of them) can be easily tested. Even I, a total amateur can easily think of ways of proving that gravity acts instantaneously or it doesn't. That could be measured in a laboratory with equipment that was available decades ago and yet you never see a Thunderbolts Project video showing the experimental results showing the immeasurable speed of gravity. If I were running their show, I'd continue to try to get things published but would stop worrying about whether I was successful in the attempt. I'd just start publishing the work myself. The fact that they don't do so but are instead content to have a website and a YouTube channel and one or two published books that they don't mind selling you, is an obvious big red flag.
But just because they are clearly wrong on some things, doesn't mean that they are wrong on everything. Especially when they have observational evidence to support their ideas. Take video one for example, by what conceivable mechanism could gravity create magnetic fields that stretch across whole galaxies and even connect two (or more) separate galaxies? Gravity doesn't generate magnetic fields but electricity does. And if we know that electricity creates magnetic fields and we know that magnetic fields are capable of creating focused jets of charged particles and we have galaxies producing both, wouldn't Occam's razor require that we say that electricity is involved before conjuring up some new force of nature or before postulating that gravity is doing something we've never seen it do before?
I mean, I get the fact that someone at some point decided to accept the notion that space was electrically neutral. They probable had really good reasons to think that. What I don't get is the resistance to the idea that they were wrong in the face of contrary evidence? If scientists are so sure that electromagnetism, the by far strongest force known in nature that could potentially act on cosmological scales, can't possibly be playing a significant role in the formation and life cycles of galaxies and other cosmological processes, then, instead of blowing off the EU as crack pot nonsense and calling them all names and snickering, why not say, "Okay guys, A for effort but this is why you're wrong and why the universe is not and cannot be electric....".
Instead of anything like that, all I've ever seen is threats of boycotts and mass resignations whenever someone is successful in getting a paper on a related topic published. The pressure against the EU is not scientific, it's political. The Barbarian, here on this thread is the very first person I've ever seen who actually made real arguments and some pretty good ones too, I might add. They didn't address the topics of the videos but at least they weren't the ad hominem, "You're wrong because you're an idiot" sort of arguments that I see all over the place on other forums or in responses to videos and at websites supposedly dedicated to debunking the EU where you don't get two sentences into the site before reading, "However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next." If the exact details and claims are ambiguous and lack mathematical formalism then just say so and let the truth of that work its ministry. Adding the "delusional crank" comment just makes me doubt both the veracity of the previous claim and the author's ability to present falsifying evidence.
Clete
Last edited:
If you went past the first sentence, you'd know that your guy offered no evidence whatever that "fluttering crust" would generate enough electricity to cause the effects he thinks happened.
Perhaps he did it elsewhere. For the second time:
Could you show us the numbers?
There never were any numbers, were there, Stipe?
You're showing some progress; you've tacitly conceded that the first sentence does indeed speak of the crust's action during the Rupture phase of the Hydroplate theory. :up:
Well done.
Keep going. :thumb:
Get back to us when you've read past the first sentence. :up:
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Last edited:
Barbarian observes:
If you went past the first sentence, you'd know that your guy offered no evidence whatever that "fluttering crust" would generate enough electricity to cause the effects he thinks happened.Perhaps he did it elsewhere. For the second time:Could you show us the numbers?There never were any numbers, were there, Stipe?
(Stipe admits there were no numbers to support his belief:
Just wanted to make sure. You've dodged the question a second time. Obviously, you're not going to admit it, but this is sufficient.
If you went past the first sentence, you'd know that your guy offered no evidence whatever that "fluttering crust" would generate enough electricity to cause the effects he thinks happened.Perhaps he did it elsewhere. For the second time:Could you show us the numbers?There never were any numbers, were there, Stipe?
(Stipe admits there were no numbers to support his belief:
Just wanted to make sure. You've dodged the question a second time. Obviously, you're not going to admit it, but this is sufficient.
:blabla:
Nope.
Wake us up when you've got something useful to contribute.
The only thing we can gather from your repeated nonsense is that you tacitly admit that heavy elements can be generated by enough electricity focused in the right way.
Why not just admit that your assertion about stars being the only source is wrong?
Or are you only interested in being contrary?
You've tacitly denied this "fact."
Show some spine and retract it explicitly. Then we will be more likely to believe you are interested in a conversation.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Barbarian chuckles:
If you went past the first sentence, you'd know that your guy offered no evidence whatever that "fluttering crust" would generate enough electricity to cause the effects he thinks happened.Perhaps he did it elsewhere. For the second time:Could you show us the numbers?There never were any numbers, were there, Stipe?(Stipe admits there were no numbers to support his belief:Just wanted to make sure. You've dodged the question a second time. Obviously, you're not going to admit it, but this is sufficient.
I pointed that out to you some time ago. And I've asked you to show us your evidence that "fluttering crust" produces those sorts of energies. As you learned, elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions. We can watch the process. As you also learned, main sequence stars can't make anything heavier than iron.
(Stipe "cleverly" tries to build a strawman)
I showed you that scientists can produce energies high enough to make tiny amounts of heavier elements in labs. Your assignment was to show that those energies were caused by "fluttering crust", making huge quantities of such elements. Since you were asked three times, and declined to show any such evidence, we've concluded that you're blowing smoke again.
Barbarian observes:
However, any elements heavier than iron are made in supernova explosions, so there's really no point in denying the fact.
Nope. And everyone reading this knows it, Stipe. As you now realize scientists can watch the process in supernovae, and record the data. Stop whining, get that evidence together, and we'll be more likely to believe you're interested in a conversation.
For the record, this is the 4th time you've declined to support your claims.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
The next one will be his fifth (amendment...)
:roses:
lain: (Tough crowd as ever)
The next one will be his fifth (amendment...)
:roses:
(Tough crowd as ever)
And we have five. Time to pack him in again. But he couldn't leave without one dishonesty...
Stipe tries another "clever deception":
I showed you that heavy elements are made in stars. Never told you that was the only way. They can also be made in labs where huge energies focused on tiny amounts of matter can do it too. And I told you that. Would you like me to show you, again?
This is why you have the reputation you have here, Stipe.
Ah. Your wording made it look like you believed it was stars only.
This...
Should have used "most" or "some" instead of "any."
And to be fair, I've asked you numerous times to clarify.
They can also be made in labs with huge energies focused on tiny amounts of matter.
Would you like me to show you how that might work on a large scale within the planet?
You could read it for yourself. :idunno:
Hint: It involves reading past the first sentence. :up:
:darwinsm:
Just have the conversation; we can eventually work out what you're saying through all the grammatical errors. Not if you're just copying and pasting the same stuff, though.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Huge amounts of what kind of energy?
Barbarian observes:
I showed you that heavy elements are made in stars. Never told you that was the only way. They can also be made in labs where huge energies focused on tiny amounts of matter can do it too. And I told you that. Would you like me to show you, again?
Kinetic energy. They shoot heavy atoms into other atoms at relativistic speeds. Occasionally, they fuse into something heavier.
In an experiment that required prodigious patience, researchers at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, spent almost five months last year firing titanium-50 ions — each with 22 protons and 28 neutrons — into a berkelium-249 target at the rate of about 5 trillion particles per second. The hope was that, just once or twice, two atoms would fuse to make an element with 119 protons, more than any created before.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-heavy-and-hollow-physicists-create-extreme-atoms/
But this takes huge energies applied to very tiny amounts of matter. You see, those new elements are only a few atoms. It's been so far impossible, even with that kind of energy, to make a visible amount of it. That might change...
That is what scientists will attempt next year at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia. They plan to make neutron-rich isotopes of element 118 by firing beams of calcium-48 into radioactive californium-251.
The Russian team and others also want go back to the elements already made and create hundreds or thousands of atoms, rather than the handful necessary to claim a discovery. “We should set ourselves the goal of making not one or two atoms, but macroscopic quantities that we can use to study chemistry and nuclear structure in much greater detail,” says Rolf-Dietmar Herzberg, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, UK. That might allow theorists to make more accurate predictions about where the island of stability lies.
I showed you that heavy elements are made in stars. Never told you that was the only way. They can also be made in labs where huge energies focused on tiny amounts of matter can do it too. And I told you that. Would you like me to show you, again?
Kinetic energy. They shoot heavy atoms into other atoms at relativistic speeds. Occasionally, they fuse into something heavier.
In an experiment that required prodigious patience, researchers at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, spent almost five months last year firing titanium-50 ions — each with 22 protons and 28 neutrons — into a berkelium-249 target at the rate of about 5 trillion particles per second. The hope was that, just once or twice, two atoms would fuse to make an element with 119 protons, more than any created before.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-heavy-and-hollow-physicists-create-extreme-atoms/
But this takes huge energies applied to very tiny amounts of matter. You see, those new elements are only a few atoms. It's been so far impossible, even with that kind of energy, to make a visible amount of it. That might change...
That is what scientists will attempt next year at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia. They plan to make neutron-rich isotopes of element 118 by firing beams of calcium-48 into radioactive californium-251.
The Russian team and others also want go back to the elements already made and create hundreds or thousands of atoms, rather than the handful necessary to claim a discovery. “We should set ourselves the goal of making not one or two atoms, but macroscopic quantities that we can use to study chemistry and nuclear structure in much greater detail,” says Rolf-Dietmar Herzberg, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, UK. That might allow theorists to make more accurate predictions about where the island of stability lies.
No, that excuse won't work for you, Stipe. I pointed out in this thread that they can also be made in very tiny quantities on labs,using energies that aren't found anywhere but in supernovae.
You know this. Everyone reading the thread knows this. Learn from it and move on.