Out with old & wrong...in with the new and correct

[gedlo]

Ahem....<br /><br />http://www.rense.com/general63/sadve.htm

 

[gedlo]

Where are all the big bangers and stars have nuclear cores crowd??? Are they ashamed of having been exposed as faith-based scientists???<br /><br />http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0auycyew<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Probably thinking "one or two weak theories, posted on Rense.com and Holoscience.com don't a new paradigm in science make."<br /><br />Just in case you were wondering... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

So they adjust the acretion models to take into account plasma effects. That is why they were observing the stellar nurseries to begin with. Hardly a crisis, merely a data point. As to having anything whatsoever to do with the big bang, I suggest you read this month's Scientific American article on the subject.<br />

 

[yevaud]

What Buck says.<br /><br />And besides:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Where are all the big bangers and stars have nuclear cores crowd??? Are they ashamed of having been exposed as faith-based scientists???</font><br /><br />Well, here we are. And "Faith-based?" Where did that one come from? Most of us have some or a lot of training in these subjects. That's a lot more credible than "I read two articles, and now I are a Nuculur Skientist." No offense.<br /><br />If you want to debate this though, c'mon back. Love to.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[the_masked_squiggy]

Well, since none of them take this seriously, it seems that no one deemed necessary to waste their time arguing. Besides, holoscience.com is one that keeps popping up and one that is widely viewed as very, very silly. If anyone argued, you would just quote holoscience.com and say how scientists don't understand anything. The entire purpose of this thread is just to provoke the people who take things seriously, obviously, since you talk about faith-based scientists. Which is a little odd since most scientists look for empirical evidence and never go on faith. They don't just read a poorly-argued idea and adopt it as their own, is apparently you're doing--posting links and not explaining why things work. Real scientists run the numbers themselves, and as of right now, an electrical universe just doesn't fit into the equations.

 

[gedlo]

Sure, let's begin the debate with two questions:<br />1. Where did the Big Bang take place? and<br />2. How is magnetism (not remnant magnetism) produced absent electrical currents?<br />

 

[yevaud]

Well.<br /><br />1. Best guess estimate, around 15 GY ago.<br /><br />2. Not certain what you're asking me, or how it's relevant. Are you asking how is magnetism possible?<br /><br />And even if space seems empty to a large extent, there's always free atoms potting around, even in a "hard vacuum." <br /><br />Since all atoms contain negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons, there's and answer right there. Assuming I'm interpreting your question correctly...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>How is magnetism (not remnant magnetism) produced absent electrical currents?</i><p>I dunno, go ask a lump of magnetite.</p>

 

[yurkin]

The problem is I think we just got done de-bunking a bunch of pseudo-scientific threads. So I think we’re getting kinda tired of it. So we were hoping that this one would just fall through the cracks.

 

[the_masked_squiggy]

I may have been a bit snarky, but Yurkin is right. Some of us just want a break from the pseudoscience. Plus, I personally just dealt with some stuff from holoscience. So just think of it as people needing a breather. If you don't get many responses, bump it in a week or so.<br /><br />Part of the problem with holoscience is that it says scientists don't know what they're talking about and all the textbooks are wrong. So all the experiments, testing, and all the advances in physics since Newton are wrong. So...where are holoscience's experiments, tests, and the mathematical proofs to its theories? If they could come up with something viable, that would be one thing. But so far, from everything I can tell, they haven't. And that's why we label it pseudoscience. Just some guy making up stuff without backing.

 

[gedlo]

I said "where" not "when?" An explosion took place before space time was created??? So it took place nowhere??? Puhleeze.

 

[yevaud]

Odd, you didn't ask that. <br /><br />You said <font color="yellow">Where are all the big bangers and stars have nuclear cores crowd??? Are they ashamed of having been exposed as faith-based scientists???</font><br /><br />Got a better idea? How the universe began? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Once upon a time, physical laws were developed from nothing. "Before" then, there were no physical laws. With nobody there to expect anything, the Big Bang occured.

 

[odysseus145]

This might answer some of your questions:<br />Big Bang Theory<br /><br />BTW, Rense.com is not a good source of information AT ALL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">I said "where" not "when?" An explosion took place before space time was created??? So it took place nowhere??? Puhleeze.</font><br /><br />No. First there must be space time. Then there can be an explosion of volume. Without space or time to "begin" with, you cannot have an explosion....<br /><br /><br />and by the way:<br />http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm<br /><font color="yellow">Through our own devices we have been able to produce evidence that these guesses are close to the truth. But centuries from now, will the human race compare us to those who once thought of the Earth as the center of the universe?</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[CalliArcale]

Part of the trouble with understanding the Big Bang theory (which of course may or may not prove to be correct, although it does a good job of explaining the observed universe) is that pop culture has fixated on the idea of an explosion. We like explosions; we know what they are, we know how dramatic they are, and we can understand them. But the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in the same sense, and in fact I think it's seriously misleading to think of it as an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of spacetime out of a single point (0-D space). We do not know what triggered the expansion, and although cosmologists have speculated a great deal, ultimately physics as we know it breaks down when you get back to those very early times. This is probably a limitation in our current understanding of physics, not neccesarily an indictment of the Big Bang theory. We *know* our understanding of physics is not complete, and that it breaks down at tremendous densities (as in the center of a black hole); it is thus reasonable to expect that our current understanding of physics would be inadequate to really grasp the beginning of the Universe.<br /><br />By the way, if we're talking about scientists who are religious, some consider that original point to have been God. Others say that God made the point. Obviously it's not possible to test these notions, but since they are describing events prior to the beginning of the observable universe, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference which one believes, if any. Either way, they don't affect the science of it.<br /><br />There are other theories, of course, some wilder than others. Some feel the universe is cyclical -- it starts as a point, which expands, then contracts, then expands again. Others feel there is a sort of hyperuniverse in which many universes coexist; these universes all start as points and expand within their own spacetime. There's really no good way of testing any theories about what lies beyond our Universe, h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[the_masked_squiggy]

Personally I had read it as "hollow science", but yeah.

 

[yevaud]

Another theory that's being mulled over is that the actual cause of the Big Bang was the intersection of two 11-D 'Branes. The interaction caused a sudden expansion of nothing into what we see today.<br /><br />But that's M-Theory, and so another entire thread...<br /><br />(*Hey! Thread? String Theory? Heh*) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I figured you didn't want to hear me spin a yarn...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

*GROAN*<br /><br />Now those are painful puns. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Nice of you to throw me a line so I'd catch the joke. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Calli, I didn't want to leave all of you hanging by a thread...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[nexium]

It is reasonable to assume present mainstream opinions are wrong at least in some of the details. Millions of alternatives have been suggested, so it it is irrational to adopt one or two of the alternatives, unless there are good reasons to think they will make a better working hypothesis than the mainstream is presently using. Resent science has been quite successfully at getting the ideas and disaplines to support each other with only a few loose ends. Typically pseudo-science leaves lots of loose ends. Neil

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Before we all start ridiculing this people, we better not forget once the string theory also had too many holes and was kept on the sidelines of mainstream science.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[Saiph]

I'll agree that just because it's new, doesn't mean it's invalid.<br /><br />However, they still need to prove their mettle. Heck, string theory hasn't even earned it's chops yet, and is still just something kicked around with people working on it. It isn't really "mainstream" yet, though it isn't in the boonies either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>