Log In   or  Sign Up for Free
A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.
Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.
Geordie Ross wrote:I'm always open to new ideas and theories if they're supported by strong enough evidence.Not exactly new but not very acceptable to standard cosmology.
Geordie Ross wrote:Why do you think there's some kind of scientific conspiracy?There is academic investment in many concepts. If any are seriously questioned careers may be threatened.The new holy cow.
Geordie Ross wrote:Wrong. Most scientists strive to disprove their own theories and hypotheses, their face and name would be in every scientific journal for the rest of their lives, Nobel prizes, massive government grants, cash incentives etc etc. However, covering up and hiding evidence would end the career and tarnish the reputation of a scientist.So you have faith. I'm pleased for you.So why do the standard cosmologist discount plasma cosmology with such vitriolic speaches? Why when they find that dark energy is no longer required do they simply erase it. Argue with them less than a year ago against its existence and I would have been classified as stupid. When will they realise that no matter how far they manage to look back in time and find fully formed galaxies they might be wrong? When will they explain what quantum fluctuations actually are.Its not about science in general but the reasonable novel science of cosmology. Not about hiding evidence but constantly adjusting the concept, ignoring or discounting any alternative reasoning.
Scientific conspiracy just doesn't add up.
Geordie Ross wrote:You're using the fact that science updates itself against it? Do you realise that changing and revising ideas is what makes science so potent? If science were ridged and unchanging, it would break, it simply wouldn't work.Good science might but we are not talking about science in general. We are debating theoretical cosmology. Would you say that two conflicting sciences are both right or both wrong? Both deny the other with absolute certainty.
Geordie Ross wrote:Which two conflicting sciences? And why are they mutually exclusive?Standard cosmology based on particle physics and plasma cosmology based on the electric universe. They contradict each other. You will see no common ground, no mutual respect. Each one accuses the other of falsity and invention.
Geordie Ross wrote:I did a quick Google search of electric universe and plasma cosmology, the first few results say "debunked" "pseudoscience" "obsolete"... I'll research further in time, but its not looking good...Exactly. Who has debunked them.Guess who?
Geordie Ross wrote:You want me to guess? Was it illuminati shape shifting reptilian overlords?....You have the faith.Allelula brother, allelula.
I don't know, probably by scientists that are rather more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. I'm certainly not convinced of electric universe, nor plasma cosmology. Gravity, general relativity, the standard model and big bang have no been refuted by either.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
Most decisions don't matter. We can be decisive be[…]