Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[gnostic]

Did the heavens as it gases begin in space?

No they began inside God womb mass.

Not inside mass stone where science converts mass for machine to have gases. From its womb. Not a status beginning. It was a cause of a stone body sitting in space. Natural.

Another mother of God status. God told me so.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not usually considered propagation loss in astronomy since it is energy preserving.

Maybe we have a difference in convention in different specialties?

My field, if you had not guessed, was radio communications, free space path loss calculations are fundamental..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have been following what you and other have been saying about the Casimir Effect, but you are forgetting one important thing about what the experiment have demonstrated about Casimir Effect, the very limited "range".

It was shown that the as you pull away two plates from each other, further away, its strength became weak to nonexistence. Hence, it has nothing to do with gravity, since gravitation fields, despite being the weakest of forces, has infinite range, like electromagnetic fields and forces.

Sure gnostic, there are many objections, I will take it all on board.

 

[rational experiences]

Satan is first pondered as God in hell.

God stone our entity was never in hell.

Satan was by sun theme.

Then observer theist wants Satan cold star thesis machine reaction.

Also not God.

We do an assessment upon a theist. Why do you think non reality,?

God O held mass in a vacuum given a quote to be God as origin form. Mass O cooled in space formed God.

History science caused vacuum changed by heating space from God conversions knew,.........O God mass had blown in vacuum by colder pressure into satan.

He themes God being changed by Satan.

Yet infers the ",being" to self.

The bio life sacrifice.

The origin change was with God first.

Earth.

Words changed subliminal lying inferred possession.

That if his brother is sacrificed then it is okay by his thinking status.

Claiming falsely as you were Satan.

No human was ever Satan.

What false theorising is. Conscious males in science naturally aware of this type of human male belief.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
"Point sources" i CMBR can be interpreted in all directions and taken to account for anything when the detection is filtered in order to find biased "confirmations of a theory". In such a filtering proces, alternate informations and interpretations are lost,

Full Sky Maps and Point Sources Tall Tales from Planck!


The, by orthodox scientific persons is named as a "crank", Pierre-Marie Robitaille, have several such relevant Youtube videos, as for instants this one.

Yes, he is a crack, a crackpot, and idiot. Good luck being taken seriously if you follow this guy.

Of course he is. Anyone who reveals unscientific fiddlings with their theories and making data photoshopping with their observations, is of course an anoying crack, crackpot and idiot.

Well, I prefere those guys who makes serious independent thinking efforts to analyze what´s going on. Apparently, several others in this Forum don´t like such scientific methods.

 

[Native]

I am no expert when it comes to cosmology, astrophysics, or on Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics or Relativity... they are subjects that I am still learning about each of these areas.

I accept this pleasent humble attitude.

But I can recognize pseudoscience when I see them. And your Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology are debunked concepts. So why would I give them more consideration when they are already in trash can labelled as pseudoscience?

So you think you can judge Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology when you, by your own definition, are no expert in cosmology and astrophysics?

And lastly, despite my limits in certain areas in science, I know enough to see that you don’t understand basic science, and I am not only ones that can see your ignorance and incompetence when it come to sciences.

And with your "limits in certain areas", you judge others to have no understanding at all?

Can´t you see yourself how inconsistent, illogic and conceited your arguments are put together?

 

[exchemist]

Nonsense, the inverse square law is how you calculate propagation loss.

That's not loss, that is just the spreading out of the radiation. No energy is lost by that process at all.

 

[exchemist]

I have been following what you and other have been saying about the Casimir Effect, but you are forgetting one important thing about what the experiment have demonstrated about Casimir Effect, the very limited "range".

It was shown that the as you pull away two plates from each other, further away, its strength became weak to nonexistence. Hence, it has nothing to do with gravity, since gravitation fields, despite being the weakest of forces, has infinite range, like electromagnetic fields and forces.

Quite. As I understand it, the effect falls off with the 4th power of the distance between the plates.

 

[exchemist]

Nonsense, the inverse square law is how you calculate propagation loss.

Once again, I notice you speak with a remarkable degree of assurance, for someone who is not a scientist.

 

[exchemist]

My field, if you had not guessed, was radio communications, free space path loss calculations are fundamental..

BINGO! A retired radio technician, just as I guessed.

But this helps. Now we know your background it will be easier to guess where you may be coming from. Funny that you have a blind spot about diffraction, though. And Faraday cages.

 

[gnostic]

So you think you can judge Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology when you, by your own definition, are no expert in cosmology and astrophysics?

Do you i the only one here, who think these are pseudoscience?

And need I remind you, that this is a forum, not a peer-reviewed science journal. So I can express my own views on the matters.

Plus, there are people who better in physics and more informed about the latest physics than me, and certainly better than you.

And not only that some members also some do read peer-reviewed articles.

Lastly, the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe have never been peer-reviewed, most likely because they never made pass Scientific Method. Failing to test or find evidence that should back up these two alternative cosmologies’ predictions, tell us, they aren’t doing science.

 

[exchemist]

Do you i the only one here, who think these are pseudoscience?

And need I remind you, that this is a forum, not a peer-reviewed science journal. So I can express my own views on the matters.

Plus, there are people who better in physics and more informed about the latest physics than me, and certainly better than you.

And not only that some members also some do read peer-reviewed articles.

Lastly, the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe have never been peer-reviewed, most likely because they never made pass Scientific Method. Failing to test or find evidence that should back up these two alternative cosmologies’ predictions, tell us, they aren’t doing science.

Yeah the Electric Universe is a bunch of incoherent and nonsensical ideas, that attracts people who want to attack science for one reason or another. There is a summary here: Electric Universe - RationalWiki

I note the following passages:

".....usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology"

and

"EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups. The first are garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate, revolutionary scientific theory, and that the scientific establishment is either blindly ignoring them out of misplaced faith in their own theories, or deliberately suppressing them for some greater, nefarious purpose.

The second group is composed of various other woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). For these people, the EU hypothesis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The more common subsets of this group include some Young Earth creationists, who wish to discredit the mainstream cosmology and geology suggesting that Earth is billions of years old, and some of the loonier fringes of global warming denialism (such as Vault-Co), who are trying to find some process outside human control that they can attribute climate change to. The latter particularly like the hypotheses of Pierre-Marie Robitaille."

Ring any bells on this thread?

 

[Native]

And need I remind you, that this is a forum, not a peer-reviewed science journal. So I can express my own views on the matters.

Of course you can - and so can I..

Plus, there are people who better in physics and more informed about the latest physics than me, and certainly better than you.

There you go again, judging other persons from your own restrictions.

Lastly, the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe have never been peer-reviewed, most likely because they never made pass Scientific Method.

Do you state that issues and articles of plasma physics aren´t peer reviewed because they don´t pass the scientific method?

You keep on being inconsistent all over the places.

Opponents of Electric Universe are that cosmologically blind, that one wouldn´t be surprised if they also officially refused electromagnetism to work on the Sun which radiates electromagnetic charges.

Or if they refuses that it is via electromagnetic frequensies which makes it possible for telescopes to observe what is going on in the observable electric Universe.

 

[Native]

I note the following passages:

".....usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology"

For your apparently needed information, the mythical, historic and modern term "aether" refers earliest to the mythological term "Cosmic Ocean" meaning "primordial waters" which directs to the cosmic abundance of unformed fluent gaseous matters in space = the Aether.

I addmit that there are some strange ideas in some societies which promote an Electric Universe but this doesn´t make the genuine electromagnetism and an Electric Universe as such to go away.

If you still think so, you´ll have to abandon all fundamental forces but "gravity".

 

[Native]

Yeah the Electric Universe is a bunch of incoherent and nonsensical ideas, that attracts people who want to attack science for one reason or another. There is a summary here: Electric Universe - RationalWiki

Obviously Mr. Rational in Wiki ignores the genuine values in an Electric Universe and he also should have taken the video content below into his consideration and judgment.

I posted earlier this

I´m NOT an uncritical proponent of the "ThunderboltsProject Society" (TBP) but they have several serious perceptions of electromagnetic conditions in space, as mentioned and illustrated in this video:

"How Magnetic Fields Challenge Gravity-Centric Cosmology"

Watch it and see whether you yourself are positioned in the case of being closed or open minded for new perceptions.

Edit:
Maybe I better explain in which areas I don´t agree with the TBP ideas:
1) I don´t believe in the mythical interpretations in where ancient myths are taken to count for planets.
2) I don´t believe in the TBP ideas that "some planets once (back in 10.000-6.000 BC) were different located (via "electromagnetical capturing") closer to Earth and hovering in a line over the northern celestial pole over the Earth", their so called "ancient alien polar configuration".
3) As a result of this misconception, the TBP proponents also have the ideas of "electromagnetic disharges causing electric scarrings on the Earth and other planets", in which I also don´t believe.

Otherwise, I´m logically convinced of the strict scientific E&M perception in the TBP of an Electric Universe and a Plasma Cosmology.

 

[Polymath257]

My field, if you had not guessed, was radio communications, free space path loss calculations are fundamental..

Among other things, the inverse square law is used to find distances once the absolute brightness of an object is found. Stars are inherently bright objects, although their brightness varies a lot. For example, our sun is a fairly dim star on the scale of things. If it were 10 light years away, it would be hard to see from any but a dark site.

In cosmology, the inverse square law is countered by the issue of surface brightness, which tends to be the most relevant thing for visibility. But there is a square dependency on area that cancels the inverse square loss. So galaxies tend to have a pretty constant visibility, no matter their distance.

So while this aspect of things is important, it tends to be less important than other considerations,
such whether there is dust or other things in the path. Because of this, the spectrum is much more valuable.

So, yeah, this looks like a difference in conventions in different specialties.

 

[Polymath257]

Opponents of Electric Universe are that cosmologically blind, that one wouldn´t be surprised if they also officially refused electromagnetism to work on the Sun which radiates electromagnetic charges.

Well known and part of the consensus version of things.

Or if they refuses that it is via electromagnetic frequensies which makes it possible for telescopes to observe what is going on in the observable electric Universe.

Consensus cosmology doesn't deny that E&M forces are present in the universe. I notice that some people are denying that gravity is present.

So which is the one in denial?

 

[Native]

In the real natural world, "time" is initially observed and measured by the rotation of the Earth, it´s orbit around the Sun and by the precessional motion of the Earth´s celestial axis - and lastly by the Solar System orbiting the galactic center. All circular and cyclical motions.

But in modern cosmology and astronomy, the concept of "time" is a linear motion in a 3D space, causing scientist to believe in a 4 dimensional Space-Time.

"Cosmic Time" is also measured linearily despite all motions of objects in space are revolving and orbiting in a cyclical pattern.

Still, modern science has an basic linear time-scale and a beginning of all these revolving and orbiting objects in the observable Universe.

This linear time-perception was also the beginning of cosmological Gobbledygook in modern cosmology. A period which was the start of The Dark Age of Cosmology

Quote:
"Time is what keep everything from happening at once" - said Ray Cummings

Still, everything hypothetically happend at once in the strange idea of Big Bang.

 

[Native]

Consensus cosmology doesn't deny that E&M forces are present in the universe.

That doesn´t matter as long the same consensus cosmology denies E&M to have important formational influences in the Universe.

I notice that some people are denying that gravity is present.

Attractive forces are present everywhere in the Universe - and so are repulsive forces, both united in the E&M force.

In "standard cosmology" the similar motions are helplessly and unscientific described as "accreations via a distance force and explosions via another unexplained force".

You could have learned more cosmology than that by studying the formational process via the human Egg & Sperm Cell.

So which is the one in denial?

Which of the two explanations are the most scientific one?

 

[Polymath257]

That doesn´t matter as long the same consensus cosmology denies E&M to have important formational influences in the Universe.

Give evidence that it does.

Attractive forces are present everywhere in the Universe - and so are repulsive forces, both united in the E&M force.

But the attractive force of gravity is the crucial one for most structure.

In "standard cosmology" the similar motions are helplessly and unscientific described as "accreations via a distance force and explosions via another unexplained force".

Your lack of understanding doesn't make the descriptions unscientific.

Which of the two explanations are the most scientific one?

Obvious answer: consensus cosmology. Hands down.