The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Well, well well, what do you know. It appears as if main stream cosmologists has forgotten the meaning of science, and is persuing .... a believe system.Basically, the first law in the religion of astronomy, is that the dominant force at work in the universe is gravity. Unfortunatly, this believe fails to explain many things in the universe. The models which the "scientists" dreamed up, is falling apart due to new data. Every time we send a probe into space, cosmologists are "suprised" by the data, and is send back to the drawing board. But instead of reviewing their model, they keep inventing new stuff to make their model work:"curved space", "neutron stars", "WIMPs" (and now "WIMPZILLAS"), "MACHOs", several different sizes of "black holes", "superluminal jets", "dark energy", and magnetic field "lines" that "pile-up" and "reconnect"All of these are fictional things that "must be there" to make the model work. And then, after they "discovered" these things, they create new theories. Theories which are then presented to the public as unshakeble facts. The poor public buying "scientific" books, are actually reading science fiction.I make these claims, not based on the Bible, but based on the findings of a small band of "rebel" scientists, of whose religious orientation is not known to me. You see, they study a field of science which cosmologists do not: Electrisism and plasmas. They have a much more simplistic model of the universe, one based on the scientific method. But don't take my word for this, I'm just the layman. Read for yourself : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htmIn this model, PLASMA AND ELECTRICITY, NOT GRAVITY, IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FORCES IN THE UNIVERSE. There is no need for an expanding universe, a big bang, even an old universe. "Impact" craters are actually the result of electrical discharge. So is the Mariner Valley on Mars. Comets are actually young planets, and Venus was a comet only a view thousand years ago. READ THIS STUFF, IT IS REALLY FACINATING, CONVINCING AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND!!! When these scientists presented their discoveries to the "scientific" establishment, they were cast out, because it destroy their model which they've attached religious devotion to. Science is no longer a search for the truth, but an effort to keep obsolute theories afloat, in order to save face.Now the question. If the majority cosmologists can be so pig headed, so stubborn to see the obvious, so arrogantly sure of themselves, one can only wonder how much of this is happening in evolutionism as well. Like cosmology, evolusionist theories can not always be tested, but that doesn't stop "scientists" from passing these untested hipothesis as "SCIENTIFIC FACTS". For instance the idea that evolution happens incremental steps, not gradually. Ofcause, they've given this idea a important sounding name, and back it up with pseudo science. It is like the so called "Dark matter" which supposedly make up 95% of the universe. And if you disagree with this, the onus is on you to PROVE that something that isn't there, doesn't exist! How much "dark matter" exists in evolusionary theory? Why should we abandon our faith for unproven (even unprovable and disprovable) hipothesis?Far too often scientists pass POSSIBLE explainations as FACTS, and then continue to invent more "FACTS" based on unproven "FACTS". In the end, I wonder if even they can still distinguish between science and science fiction.It's a pity we can't send probes into the past. With cosmology, we continually get new data, and it is only a matter of time before the cosmologists will have to give in. But evolusion is diverent.Unfortunatly, we will never be able to go back in time and actually TEST the theories.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-25-2005 12:32 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Would you please give us some specific examples of how the current model of cosmology fails?

What is "evolutionism"? Anything proposed as an explanation - a hypothesis - that can't be tested either by the predictions or retrodictions it makes, is generally excluded from mainstream theory. Please provide at least one concrete example where an untested hypothesis has been passed off as a fact. Thanks. BTW: why do you put "scientists" in quotation marks? Umm, none? Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life (i.e., biology). Dark matter, I seem to remember, has something to do with cosmology. Certainly has no place in biology.

Well, according to that website, cosmologists are using non-falsifiable hypotheses.And that you can observe that the redshift indicates youth of a stellar object not velocity.And that all these phenomena can be explained electrically. Black holes are not detectable, but cosmologists make up the concept to explain their mathematical formulas. Dark matter is another obvious example.And the OP says that such falsifiable hypotheses might very well apply to TOE as well.And you can't expect him to give up his faith for such "debating tricks."He's saying that people who believe in evolution are using a trick of argument: "How do you know that evolution is not true? Therefore, it is true. It fits our mathematical model." Like a black hole fits the model of the cosmologists.So I guess there are some non-falsifiable hypotheses in TOE.

Well I've had a browse of the sight and even to my layman's eye it seems that the author does not know what he is talking about.For instance this odd interpretation of a quote: [qs] Dr. John A. Wheeler, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University and originator of the concept of black holes, has said:
"To me, the formation of a naked singularity is equivalent to jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can't be done. But I can't prove that it can't be done."What he is actually saying is - YOU can't prove that black holes don't exist, so I am free to use the concept as often as I like! [qs] Obviously what Wheeler is saying is that he strongly believes that naked singularities cannot form. Of course that does NOT mean that Black Holes do exist. Nor does the quote even go into Wheeler's REASONS for his belief which is surely the real issue if the author wished to be scientific.But if we read on a little way, it gets even stranger: Why follow a quote where Wheeler said that there should be no such things with an assertion that Wheeler had claimed to have discovered one, with no explanation ? And without any reference to such a claim (and I am not aware that ANYONE has claimed such a discovery - and I am highly skeptical of the idea that anyone has made such a claim).

You're kidding, right?

Electromagnetic forces fall off at the square of the distance. Gravity falls off linear to the distance. Given this observable fact, how can your model be accurate?

You can pretty much count on anything that projects itself into 3D spacing dropping off by the square of the distance. The equation of gravitation attraction reflects this: --Percy

I wouldn't have responded except that Jacen seems skeptical. I agree with this. When I read it I noticed the same misinterpretation.--Percy

I'm kidding, but I assume the author of the OP is not.But let's just follow his reasoning to see where it leads. After all, you never know.comparison:
black holes are undetectable. Perhaps they do not exist. The only reason one might think they exist is that they fit a mathematical model.Maybe there is something in TOE that is undetectable.example: macroevolution.Have you ever witnessed it? Me neither.Is macroevolution a non-falsifiable hypothesis? Is there anyway to test whether macro-evolution ever happened?Is there a model that macroevolution is being forced into?

We'd have to have definitions of Macro evolution and "witness".Personally I accept that marcro evolution (at any level you care to define) has been "observed" -- not the same word as "witness".I will take witness as meaning happening in front of ones eyes (which for some levels of marco-E is close enough to true). However observation can be done in other ways. We "observe" the after effects of something for example.The biological definition of "macro-E" involves speciation. This has been seen to be happening right now.There are other definitions but they would have to be defined first. I've read some creationist material on "kinds" but they seem to have trouble being very clear on what the heck that means. Every definition that I've read that is semi clear is a case where we have "observations" for it. (and some start to tread into having humans and the great apes in the same kind :-) This seems to be part of the reason that a good definition is avoided. lol ).(I'm feeling this is getting off topic, but the topic seems to be pretty broad and we are in "Is It Science?" so I guess this is ok. The mathematics of black holes came decades before any possibility of observation existed. However, my limited understanding is that we now have observations that can only be explained by the black hole model. Is someone saying these observations can be explained in other ways?ABE Darwin did have some (not a lot compared to today of course) evidence for macroevolution before he published his theory. It is this that his model was attempting to explain.I would say that there is no "forced" at all. If you think there is please point it out.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-25-2005 16:36 AM

Oh.Well, how is it then that gravity, while weaker, has a longer-range effect? A small hand magnet can overcome the attraction of the entire planet Earth but only within a quarter-inch. The gravity of the Earth holds satellites in its sway 36,000 KM away.I'm a physics idiot, and I welcome the chance to pose questions to people who know. Percy, you just volunteered.

Such as?

The basic explanation is that forces such as electric attraction/repulsion work differently on long distances because the positive and negative charges 'cancel' eachother out.Seen from a long distance, you can more or less model a planet or a sun as a point. The charge of this point would be the total positive charge minus the total negative charge. This would most of the time come out to zero, or at least very close to it.Compare this to gravity. Gravity has no negative charge, so instead of canceling eachother out, all mass works together. Now, it requires a load of mass to have much of an effect on anything, but we have plenty of that in suns.The formulas you might want to have a look at;F(electrical attraction)=k * q1 * q2 / r^2Note that q1 and q2 can be both positive and negative, and this effects the direction of F.F(gravitational attraction=M * m1 * m2 / r^2Here m1 and m2 can only be positive.This message has been edited by Melchior, 01-25-2005 17:15 AMThis message has been edited by Melchior, 01-25-2005 17:22 AM