Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?

[darkbeaver]

I likes cartoons.

 

[Cliffy]

YouTube - Monty python - The Universe song which also goes under the name of The Galaxy song

 

[petros]

Animaniacs are the last ones I'm familar with. The kid and I liked them.

 

[#juan]

You make Velikovsky to be some sort of David Suzuki. Who other than yourself, who claimed the Earth was involved? What ended the last ice age in a big hurry and killed the great beasts of the very recent past? How is that Big Bang Theory holding up these days? How did we gain a moon? Is water a mineral?

No. David Suzuki is a scientist who is well thought of by his fellow scientists. I don't know if he has taken any courses.
in psychiatry.
The Big Bang theory is alive and well as far as I know. What have you discovered?

 

[Cliffy]

The Big Bang was a god fart.

If the basic building block of everything in the Universe is energy, why is an electric universe such a hard theory to swallow. Do most scientists have a gag reflex?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If the basic building block of everything in the Universe is energy, why is an electric universe such a hard theory to swallow. Do most scientists have a gag reflex?

Everybody has a gag reflex. The electric universe is a hard theory to swallow because its proponents haven't adequately made the case, and it doesn't deserve to be called a theory, it's a just a hypothesis. They do a lot of qualitative talking about the physics of it, and make a lot of pretty pictures, but they don't make testable quantitative predictions. Until they do that, they're not doing physics, and physics will quite rightly pay no attention to them. And when you do try to apply quantitative methods to their claims, you get results that are wildly different from what's observed. The earth's magnetic field, for instance, is about half a gauss on average, and if there's an electric current powering the sun carrying enough energy to account for the sun's observed output, it would produce a magnetic field many orders of magnitude stronger than that, with catastrophic effects on global telecommunication and power distribution systems, quite apart from the simple result that compasses would be useless. It's a fairly simple calculation, undergraduate level physics. That field is not observed, neither is the incoming current. It's as simple as that: the hypothesis predicts major effects that are not observed, so it's wrong.

 

[darkbeaver]

Solar ions follow Earth's magnetic field down into the poles, causing atmospheric molecules to emit light: red from oxygen at high altitudes, then green from oxygen lower down, along with blue from nitrogen. The electric charges travel down magnetic flux tubes that have recently been discovered. These "electromagnetic funnels" are several kilometers wide and allow electric currents to flow directly from the Sun into the polar regions, generating colorful visible light, radio waves, and X-rays.
The power generated by electric currents in auroral storms is far greater than anything that human beings can create with every coal-burning, oil-fired, or water-driven means combined. These currents are composed of widely separated, low density charged particles and are called Birkeland currents. Despite the low current density, the volume of charge is so great that the current flow can exceed one million Amperes.
Recently, the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) satellites detected "space tornadoes", vortices of electrified plasma rotating faster than 1,600,000 kilometers per hour. These helical storms of electromagnetic energy were found approximately 64,000 kilometers from Earth. The five THEMIS satellites, together with Earth-based stations, verified their connection with the ionosphere.


The Interconnected Sun Part One

 

[petros]

No. David Suzuki is a scientist who is well thought of by his fellow scientists. I don't know if he has taken any courses.
in psychiatry.
The Big Bang theory is alive and well as far as I know. What have you discovered?

Suzuki is a geneticist turned TV commentator and activist with zero accreation in any earth science.

Big bang has been on shaky ground since the assuption was made in 1935 and microwave data in 1965 gave it some backing but the times they are a changing.


Use you google noodle. You might surprise yourself.

Everybody has a gag reflex. The electric universe is a hard theory to swallow because its proponents haven't adequately made the case, and it doesn't deserve to be called a theory, it's a just a hypothesis. They do a lot of qualitative talking about the physics of it, and make a lot of pretty pictures, but they don't make testable quantitative predictions. Until they do that, they're not doing physics, and physics will quite rightly pay no attention to them. And when you do try to apply quantitative methods to their claims, you get results that are wildly different from what's observed. The earth's magnetic field, for instance, is about half a gauss on average, and if there's an electric current powering the sun carrying enough energy to account for the sun's observed output, it would produce a magnetic field many orders of magnitude stronger than that, with catastrophic effects on global telecommunication and power distribution systems, quite apart from the simple result that compasses would be useless. It's a fairly simple calculation, undergraduate level physics. That field is not observed, neither is the incoming current. It's as simple as that: the hypothesis predicts major effects that are not observed, so it's wrong.

Can you defy gravity or is it velocity that is problematic? Let me know when you get up in the morning.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I'm up. What's your point? You might do well to remember Sturgeon's Law when googling for information, especially on fringe topics like this one. There is no end to the mystic nonsense in this culture, promoted by con artists, frauds and the merely ignorant and stupid, irresponsible mass media, an irrational world view that supports unsupportable claims, millions of Internet sites offering junk and self-serving mutual support, and a general ineffectiveness of public education, which fails to teach the basic skills of critical thinking.

 

[petros]

I'm up.

You defied gravity (the alleged binding force of the universe) all on your lonesome?

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm up. What's your point? You might do well to remember Sturgeon's Law when googling for information, especially on fringe topics like this one. There is no end to the mystic nonsense in this culture, promoted by con artists, frauds and the merely ignorant and stupid, irresponsible mass media, an irrational world view that supports unsupportable claims, millions of Internet sites offering junk and self-serving mutual support, and a general ineffectiveness of public education, which fails to teach the basic skills of critical thinking.

There you are expounding the self same position I have maintained since the beginning of our long debate. You however reserve the exception for the institutions of science. How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you so obviously cling to institutional dogma. It is that dogma which has promoted and upheld that present dismal level of critical thought too prevalent among the modern masses. That fringe you distain in defense of scientific dogmatism is more properly understood as the frontiers of the unknown.

 

[petros]

How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you so obviously cling to institutional dogma.

Science has never ever been a decocracy where the most popular girl automatically becomes Prom Queen. Thinking of science in those teams makes it a religion based on faith that the Prom Queen really was the right choice but in the mean time the girl with the pony tail and glasses gets the most dates and respect.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I defied gravity only to the limited extent of shifting from a supine to an upright position. My feet are still firmly on the floor, I was unable to float down the hall to the kitchen.

How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you so obviously cling to institutional dogma.

I don't expect you to take me seriously, it's been obvious from the beginning that you don't, and I take that as a point in favour of my position. The approval of the ignorant and ill informed is not something I care about. I cling to the "institutional dogma," as you call it (an inaccurate and inflammatory characterization), simply because it's proven beyond any doubt over the last few centuries that it works. The computer you use to promote your particular brand of nonsense, for instance, would not function, and in fact could not exist, if your views of physics and astronomy were correct.

 

[#juan]

I defied gravity only to the limited extent of shifting from a supine to an upright position. My feet are still firmly on the floor, I was unable to float down the hall to the kitchen.

I don't expect you to take me seriously, it's been obvious from the beginning that you don't, and I take that as a point in favour of my position. The approval of the ignorant and ill informed is not something I care about. I cling to the "institutional dogma," as you call it (an inaccurate and inflammatory characterization), simply because it's proven beyond any doubt over the last few centuries that it works. The computer you use to promote your particular brand of nonsense, for instance, would not function, and in fact could not exist, if your views of physics and astronomy were correct.

You know guys, my son is a working physicist. He tells me that in the absence of any reasonable alternative, Big Bang theory
is still being taught at virtually every university. No scientist questions that all the Galaxies are fleeing away from a single point.
The problem with physics is that evidence has to agree with fact and vice versa. Right now, many years of scientific investigation
has satisfactorily proven existing theory to be in reasonable sinc with the evidence regardless of how Velicovsky wanted it to be.

 

[darkbeaver]

American Science Decline: The Cause and Cure

I defied gravity only to the limited extent of shifting from a supine to an upright position. My feet are still firmly on the floor, I was unable to float down the hall to the kitchen.

I don't expect you to take me seriously, it's been obvious from the beginning that you don't, and I take that as a point in favour of my position. The approval of the ignorant and ill informed is not something I care about. I cling to the "institutional dogma," as you call it (an inaccurate and inflammatory characterization), simply because it's proven beyond any doubt over the last few centuries that it works. The computer you use to promote your particular brand of nonsense, for instance, would not function, and in fact could not exist, if your views of physics and astronomy were correct.

You are crazier than I had imagined, the fusion sun don,t work black holes don,t work dark matter don,t work, comets are rocks, and global warming don,t freeze tomatoes in Mexico and this old PC hasn,t got any dark energy in it. My particular brand of nonsense is commonly understood to be critical thinking and your's appears to be devotion to the status quo. It is just exactly the case that you do however approve of the ignorant and ill informed, otherwise you could not possibly cling to such rubbish as the Big Bang and expansion.

You know guys, my son is a working physicist. He tells me that in the absence of any reasonable alternative, Big Bang theory
is still being taught at virtually every university. No scientist questions that all the Galaxies are fleeing away from a single point.
The problem with physics is that evidence has to agree with fact and vice versa. Right now, many years of scientific investigation
has satisfactorily proven existing theory to be in reasonable sinc with the evidence regardless of how Velicovsky wanted it to be.

Well you should have the boy write a short paper about the Big Boom and we will submit it to the rigors of peer review right here. A point you can have on paper but you can,t have it in space because a point is not physics. So the suggestion that the observable universe exploded out of a dot on a piece of paper is nothing short of insane and there is no known way to work the con job save becoming a working astrophysicist that can put lipstick on theory pigs which they won,t let you do unless you believe the rubbish and can prove it with math. There are thousands of scientists who do not believe a single tenant of the big bang, and for good sound scientifically arrived at reasons that you can cook with.

Oh look at the time, it's half past beer.

 

[JLM]

I'm not sure if that stuff is good for you. :lol:

 

[petros]

You know guys, my son is a working physicist. He tells me that in the absence of any reasonable alternative, Big Bang theory
is still being taught at virtually every university.

Taught as what? A fact or a theory that has yet to be tied hard probability because it fit mathematical and religious belief?

No scientist questions that all the Galaxies are fleeing away from a single point.

They do indeed question the speed, temperature and frequency of the galaxies.

Recycled Universe: Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery | Space.com

[The Big Bang] is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms … [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation.
—Hoyle

No debate at all eh?

London, Dec 11 2010 (ANI): A recent study had claimed that concentric rings within the cosmic microwave background could provide evidence of black holes that collided in the past, before our Universe existed but three new independent studies have challenged that claim.
Vahe Gurzadyan of Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia theoretical physicist Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford, UK, had proposed that concentric rings of uniform temperature within the cosmic microwave background - the radiation left over from the Big Bang - might, in fact, be the signatures of black holes colliding in a previous cosmic ‘aeon’ that existed before our Universe, reports Nature.
After analysing seven years’ worth of data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite and calculating the change in temperature variance within progressively larger rings around more than 10,000 points in the microwave sky, Gurzadyan identified a number of rings within the WMAP data that had a temperature variance that was markedly lower than that of the surrounding sky.
But now Ingunn Wehus and Hans Kristian Eriksen of the University of Oslo2; Adam Moss, Douglas Scott and James Zibin of the University of British Columbia3 in Vancouver, Canada; and Amir Hajian of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto, Ontario4 have challenged this idea.
The teams reproduced Gurzadyan’s analysis of the WMAP data and all agree that the data do contain low-variance circles.
They point out that the WMAP data clearly show that there are far hotter and cold spots at smaller angular scales, and that it is therefore wrong to assume that the microwave sky is isotropic.
They searched for circular variance patterns in simulations of the cosmic microwave background that assume the basic properties of the inflationary Universe, and all found circles that are very similar to the ones in the WMAP data.
Moss and his colleagues even found that both the observational data and the inflationary simulations also contain concentric regions of low variance in the shape of equilateral triangles.
“The result obtained by Gurzadyan and Penrose does not in any way provide evidence for Penrose’s cyclical model of the Universe over standard inflation,” says Zibin.
Gurzadyan dismissed their analyses as “absolutely trivial”, arguing that there is bound to be agreement between the standard cosmological model and the WMAP data “at some confidence level” but that a different model, such as Penrose’s, might fit the data “even better” “.
However, he is not prepared to state that the circles constitute evidence of Penrose’s model.
“We have found some signatures that carry properties predicted by the model,” he says. (ANI)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

My particular brand of nonsense is commonly understood to be critical thinking...

Only by people who, like yourself, can't really do it very well, and I doubt you even know what it means. You seem to believe it means being shallowly critical of all accepted ideas and utterly credulous about all the fringe ones. As I've said before, anybody who thinks Velikovsky was right isn't thinking clearly.

You know Beave, the quantum theory that describes and explains nuclear processes in stars, stellar evolution, stellar spectra, the formation of elements, and so on, must have something to do with reality, because it's the same quantum theory that allows us to design and build devices like your computer that behave exactly as we expect them to. Unless you're running Windows of course, but that's software, not quantum theory.

 

[#juan]

American Science Decline: The Cause and Cure






Well you should have the boy write a short paper about the Big Boom and we will submit it to the rigors of peer review right here. A point you can have on paper but you can,t have it in space because a point is not physics. So the suggestion that the observable universe exploded out of a dot on a piece of paper is nothing short of insane and there is no known way to work the con job save becoming a working astrophysicist that can put lipstick on theory pigs which they won,t let you do unless you believe the rubbish and can prove it with math. There are thousands of scientists who do not believe a single tenant of the big bang, and for good sound scientifically arrived at reasons that you can cook with.

.

"The boy" is 43 years old and I don't think he would consider you competent to review anything he produced. Don't like the big bang?
What is your theory? This topic has been going for two years and you still haven't come up with anything to replace the big bang.

 

[Cliffy]

Just because the Big Bang is all you got doesn't make it the truth. The truth is we are still children in our intellectual and emotional (as proved on these forums every day) development so I think the definitive answer is a long way off. We live on a speck of dust in an infinite Universe. To think that we have a clue about the infinite takes a colossal ego.