The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

It also has :

• The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy
• Big Bang and Cosmology
• Dates and Dating
• Faith and Belief
• Geology and the Great Flood
• Coffee House

So as you can see there's all sorts of stuff here not related directly to evolution. I don't know but I would guess it comes down to what Percy (who owns/runs the site) thinks is appropriate/wanted.I have read the site you linked to (the links to following pages all worked fine for me, so I don't know why it wouldn't for Charles et al). Oddly enough I first came across some of the ideas on it a week or so ago - indirectly from this site. Schrafinator, who is one of the regulars here, commented she had been banned from a creationist site so I went to look at it. They had a quote from Hannes Alfven in support of their Biblical Literalism so I looked it up to see if they were quote mining (they were).Anyway, back to the electric universe theory. I have to be honest and say cosmology isn't something that interests me all that much beyond the level that all science does, so I'm not all that knowledgable about current theories on star lifecycles etc. On the other hand my degree was in Electrical and Electrical Engineering so I was able to follow the ideas presented on your link.Some of the stuff on there seems interesting but other parts are either wrong, routine creationist rubbish or just plain barmy. The section "Dinosaurs Are Impossible in Today's Gravity" on this page is a hoot. Ted Holden has posted on this board in the past under the name Redwolf, and we had a whole thread on his dinosaurs and reduced gravity theory.One thing that made me chuckle was that they deride mainstream astronomy for blindly accepting unproven theories and then interpreting everything they see in terms of those theories, but then introduce the idea of inherent redshift which as far as I can tell is completely made up and then proceed to interpret a bunch of photographs as proving the theory.So in summary I retain an open mind on whether electrical effects have a significant effect in cosmolgy, but that site does itself no favours with some of the stuff it is including.

---

Confused ? You will be...

I can access every page - it must have been fixed since you and Ned tried.Some of the later pages are a hoot (citing Redwolf and his theory of reduced gravity explaining why dinosaurs were big and alternate planetary alignments that make Velikovsky seem restrained).

---

Confused ? You will be...

Hey this is a first !Being too lazy to get off my arse and install a decent product to replace the Mickey$oft version actually worked to my advantage

---

Confused ? You will be...

Yes, but not very many of them. This Scientific American article explains why (basically it is becuase of the explosive nature of such impacts. This pdf document from the Lunar And Planetary Institute (LPI) examines the number of elliptical craters predicted based on experiments and the number actually seen on the Moon, Mars and Venus. The predicted value is 1%, the actual value seen is 5%. I'll let you look up the explanation proposed for the difference (I can't be arsed to work out how to copy the formulae into a post).A few questions :

1. If the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 had impacted a solid body rather than Jupiter do you think it would have left an impact crater ?
2. How do you explain the iridium layer at the K-T boundary if it wasn't due to an impact ?
3. Have the supporters of the idea that craters are caused by electrical scaring done any experiments to back this up ?

An example of the sort of thing they might be able to check for the last one is that as described at another part of the LPI site, you can find parts of the impactor in the impact melt rocks within the crater. Also can electricity cause shock metamorphism (changes in the rocks around the impact site caused by the shock wave passing through them) ?

---

Confused ? You will be...