Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?

[#juan]

The entire edifice of einstiens theroy rested on the incorrect assumption of space being a vaccumm, this has been proven inncorect, it's full of plasma. In his own words he said his theroy would fall like a house of cards if space were not empty.
There is not one supporting fact about the big bang that I have been able to find and page after page of facts predictions and discoveries in the electric model.
The electric model discounts the big bang in it's entirety and the weight of steadily increaseing evidence supports it's complete irrelevancey except to invested interests, like Hawkings who continues to peddle hyped up fiction delivered in the usual manner. The jump from Newton to the electric universe can be made without consideration of black holes, dark matter, dark energy or big bangs, there is no beginning and there is no end and there is no middle, just get used to it being that way. There is literally a better chance of a fully formed sun emerging from my ass than there is of gravity pulling one into the middle of an accreation disc that couldn't exist in the first place.

My God db. Does Stephen Hawking consult you before he goes to work in the morning. You are calling down years of work by mainstream science with out any attempt to show how your "new" theory enmeshes with the elements of the old one. Since Stephen Hawking is not now running around shouting,"the sky is falling, the sky is falling", I can only assume that your bad news has not yet reached those in mainstream science, or if it has, they have chosen to ignore your tripe like most everyone else.
Are you sure you don't want to blame Velikovsky?

 

[darkbeaver]

Mainstream science as it stands right this second is a religion, now if you'll read the short article below and still insist in the big bang looney toon then I'm afraid I'll just have to finally believe that you can lead an old horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I loose nothing you loose the universe. It's a good deal for me.

Exploding the Big BangExploding the big bang


David Pratt


If light from stars or galaxies is passed through a prism or grating, a spectrum is obtained, consisting of a series of lines and bands. These spectra can be used to identify the atomic elements present in the objects concerned, as each element has a distinct spectral "signature." But if we compare the spectral lines of distant galaxies with those produced by the same elements on earth, we find that in every case the lines are displaced towards longer (redder) wavelengths. This is known as the redshift, and is the subject of intense controversy. The majority of astronomers and cosmologists subscribe to the big bang theory, and interpret the redshift to mean that all galaxies are flying apart at high speed and that the universe is expanding. A growing minority of scientists, however, maintains that the redshift is produced by other causes, and that the universe is not expanding. As astronomer Halton Arp remarks in Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, "one side must be completely and catastrophically wrong" [1].
G. de Purucker rejected the theory of an expanding universe or expanding space as "little short of being a scientific pipe-dream or fairy-tale," and suggested that the redshift might be caused by light losing energy during its long voyage through space [2]. This is known as the tired-light theory, and is supported by several astronomers. Paul LaViolette and Tom Van Flandern, for example, have rev

 

[darkbeaver]

Aaaahhh you're all nuts. God did it. Just ask eannasir.
Why does everyone always ASSume with so much certainty there has to be a beginning and an ending to the universe (something we know relatively very little about)?

That acceptance of a beginning (creation) and a frontier expanding into nothing is in fact a corner stone of the bigbang.In fact it was adopted by Einstien from a lecture by a Jesuit physisist in the thirtys.

>>Abbé Georges Lemaitre, astrophysicist and a monsignor in the Catholic church, with Einstein in 1933.

The medieval church of science now has its own miraculous version of creation, partly because the astronomer who first proposed the Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, wanted to reconcile the creation of the universe to Genesis. It is reported that after the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” But the great surrealist artist, Salvador Dali, has effectively parodied Einstein’s appreciation of aesthetics. Einstein also said, "When I examined myself and my methods of thought, I came to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge." Is it any wonder that big bang cosmology is a fantasy?

Modern astronomers have never understood what the ancients meant when they talked about "creation." It is clear from comparative religion that creation stories are NOT about the origin of the universe. In fact, our modern view of the concept of "creation" would be incomprehensible to the authors of the religious texts. What they were memorializing was the “re-creation” of a new cosmic order in the skies following apocalyptic chaos.

 

[#juan]

db. i know what a defraction grating is. I own several of them and I'm very familiar with red shift.

What you don't seem to understand is that the universe has been expanding for about fourteen billion years and virtually every mainstream scientist believes it, including Einstein, Hawking, etc..........Probably not Velikovski though...:smile:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You have a pattern of avoiding the subject matter.

Alright, deal with this then.

On the matter of Velikovsky:

AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS
A lesson from Velikovsky

A relevant observation from the document at the second link:

The less one knows about science, the more plausible Velikovsky's scenario appears, especially when most of the discussion is hand-waving. Conversely, the more knowledgeable the reader, the easier it is to see that Velikovsky's entire physical scenario is untenable.

On the matter of the electric universe:

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Cosmos: Predictions

A relevant observation from the document at that link:

The Thunderbolts forum allegedly hosts the 'brains' of the EU community - yet few of them seem be able to handle anything beyond the simplest analyses, most of which are below the level of high-school physics, and even then they are woefully incomplete. Many of the problems in the EU model could be examined at a level of high-school math and physics, yet these Ph.D. electrical engineers can't seem to figure it out!

 

[Tonington]

The Thunderbolts forum allegedly hosts the 'brains' of the EU community - yet few of them seem be able to handle anything beyond the simplest analyses, most of which are below the level of high-school physics, and even then they are woefully incomplete. Many of the problems in the EU model could be examined at a level of high-school math and physics, yet these Ph.D. electrical engineers can't seem to figure it out!

Making it more difficult than it needs to be. :lol: I love the KISS principle.

 

[darkbeaver]

Give me one verifiable fact about a/ black holes, B/dark matter, c/dark energy, d/the big bang, e/ a snowball comet just one demonstratable fact. I'll wait.

 

[darkbeaver]

db. i know what a defraction grating is. I own several of them and I'm very familiar with red shift.

What you don't seem to understand is that the universe has been expanding for about fourteen billion years and virtually every mainstream scientist believes it, including Einstein, Hawking, etc..........Probably not Velikovski though...:smile:

What I don't understand is how you understand something that isn't happening now and never happened. Prove it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Alright, deal with this then.

On the matter of Velikovsky:

AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS
A lesson from Velikovsky

A relevant observation from the document at the second link:

The less one knows about science, the more plausible Velikovsky's scenario appears, especially when most of the discussion is hand-waving. Conversely, the more knowledgeable the reader, the easier it is to see that Velikovsky's entire physical scenario is untenable.

On the matter of the electric universe:

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Cosmos: Predictions

A relevant observation from the document at that link:

The Thunderbolts forum allegedly hosts the 'brains' of the EU community - yet few of them seem be able to handle anything beyond the simplest analyses, most of which are below the level of high-school physics, and even then they are woefully incomplete. Many of the problems in the EU model could be examined at a level of high-school math and physics, yet these Ph.D. electrical engineers can't seem to figure it out!

Thanks for the reads I'll do them this evening and get back to you.

 

[Ron in Regina]

YouTube - family guy the big bang

8O

 

[darkbeaver]

YouTube - family guy the big bang

8O

That was good. It's accurate.:lol::lol::lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

Reading some of the bangers litrature this even was interesting in that the big bang (creationist) bunch see fit to attack electric thinking people with the accusation of being creationists. The praise and adulation for the true scientist as high priest of all knowledge of real worth as opposed to the poor misguided unscientific and therefore unholy Velikovsky. If read them before, remember he did threaten the very church of science itself with his blasphemous heretical stories, he had to run from the mobs and the flames for decades, all the power of the church was brought to bear to silence him and still they can't keep it from spreading, it was just an idea, but it still frightens them.
They impressed me as being religious fanatics, guys that carry kindling and coal oil arround with them hidden under thier robes. Velikovsky won't work for you forever you know, sooner or later you'll have to come up with something solid instead of stuff nobody can see,feel, believe or boil water with.

 

[darkbeaver]

Page 20 EU Introduction PDF

Astronomer Carl Sagan’s Cosmos was published a
quarter-century ago. At that time, some questions were still permitted.
On the issue of redshift, Sagan wrote: “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 a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair
of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very
different redshifts....”31
Sagan’s acknowledgment here shows a candor almost never
found in standard treatments of astronomy for the general public today.
“If Arp is right,” he wrote, “the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain
the energy source of distant quasars—supernova chain reactions,
super massive black holes and the like—would prove unnecessary.
Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism
will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something
very strange is going on in the depths of space.”
At the time of Sagan’s Cosmos, evidence contradicting the Doppler
interpretation of redshift could be discussed in popular presentations.
The paradox is that the intervening years have seen an avalanche of
evidence against Big Bang assumptions, even as public relations announcements
have ‘confirmed’ them and NASA refuses to fund any
project questioning the Big Bang.32
http://www.thunderbolts.info/EU%20Intro%20and%20Chap1.pdf

DB: Not only is something very strange going on in the depths of space but more alarming in the depths of academia. Arp is right of course that is precisely why he has been black listed from the major observatorys, he works outdides the accepted dogma of the high science church. DB:

 

[#juan]

My goodness DB. Here you are quoting a man who, just a few posts ago you called just a TV personality and who had contributed nothing to science. Mainstream science has nothing against new theories as long as they fit the evidence in hand, If they don't fit the evidence, what the hell good are they.

 

[L Gilbert]

lol They are good for a laugh, possibly good for derision, good for examples of what not to accept, etc.
I'd like to modify Juan's comment that Velikovsky wasn't a scientist to "he wasn't a good scientist". Neither am I actually. I take things for granted too much.

Scientist definition from Wiki:
"A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy."

 

[#juan]

The Big Bang Theory of the Origin of the Universe

 

[L Gilbert]

lol
"A still more recent theory has the universe evolving from a previous universe (perhaps from a black hole in that universe), which in turn developed from a previous universe, and so on. Similarily our universe may be giving birth to coutless further universes, of which we can (limited as we are to this section of space-time) know nothing. "
My view exactly.

 

[darkbeaver]

My goodness DB. Here you are quoting a man who, just a few posts ago you called just a TV personality and who had contributed nothing to science. Mainstream science has nothing against new theories as long as they fit the evidence in hand, If they don't fit the evidence, what the hell good are they.

It was the first piece of evidence of Sagans doubt I had ever seen, I thought it might add to the discussion. Mainstream science eh? That statement my learned friend is perhaps indication of the state of confusion with respects to what the public face of science is. All so called mainstream activities are subject to the exact same institutional aflictions presently destroying the western civilization. Science has not magically escaped misdirection and or corruption. As to the evidence at hand, there is no evidence to support the big bang, it is effectively dead, redshift finished it off years ago. When you read about the early days you get to wondering how an unlikely idea like something out of nothing and nowhere came from.
It's theroy that's being unjustly and stupidly defended against hard evidence that contradicts it, and that is not science IMO.

 

[darkbeaver]

lol
"A still more recent theory has the universe evolving from a previous universe (perhaps from a black hole in that universe), which in turn developed from a previous universe, and so on. Similarily our universe may be giving birth to coutless further universes, of which we can (limited as we are to this section of space-time) know nothing. "
My view exactly.

Les, us scientists build the universe from where we are standing today outward,not from where we are not standing 15.7 billion years ago and who knows in what direction. We know little, practicly nothing. What exactly is your view?:smile:

 

[darkbeaver]

Christ I do have a pattern, I'm going bald. He was right!