Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris wrote:And I keep refering to them but you are not listening. We are not talking about a scientist siting in his lab, striving to find the truth like some ancient mystic.

No, we are not. When I say "science," I am talking about hundreds of thousands of individual scientists each trying to make sense of some little, specific puzzle that personally interests them. What are you talking about?

The academic world has formed a consensus of opinion to which they have all subscribed.

Yes, they have. All of the folks who spend time on this forum agree that it appears to be operated by a man named Scott. If we decide to tell our friends and neighbors who don't visit the site that this is the case, are we then each of us conspiring to oppress those neighbors of ours who think it's actually operated by a woman named Thelma?

All the people who know the most about a topic tend to agree about that topic in general. What would be your preferred alternative - every individual expert in a field thinking something completely different from any other? Your complaint at the moment is the consensus on big bang cosmology, and how plasma cosmoloy is not generally accepted. What if big bang cosmology was overturned tonight and all the experts suddenly agreed on plasma cosmology? We'd be in the same situation you find so disagreeable. So despite your charge of conspiracy because "the academic world has formed a consensus of opinion to which they have all subscribed," clearly your complaint cannot actually be with mere scientific consensus; it seems to be with the consensus on a particular theory.

Would you really expect them to stand up and risk their reputation, their careers?

Do you know how a scientific career is etched into history? Think about your Einsteins, your Galileos, your Darwins. Overthrowing the worldwide consensus is precisely what a career-oriented scientist wants to do to hit it big. That alone is a fatal blow to your conception of science as a process, and it is why conspiratorial scientific oppression could never actually work (particularly in our environment of instantaneous and worldwide information access).

The proof is out there but you need to look and more importantly use your logic to question. Plasma cosmologists are questioning the BB. By their questions all the other theoretical concepts become questionable. The Higgs particle, we are told by particle physicists, came into existence at the BB. So do we then question all their theories if the BB has no value? You should start with you googling plasma cosmologists and the BB initially.

Fair enough. If I really want to understand the science, it is my responsibility to self-educate.

For a basic grasp, we start with Wikipedia:

Wikipedia article on plasma cosmology wrote:Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies[8] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[19] In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei.[8][37] This is controversial, as theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[20] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (say 1018 Amps) for galaxy formation are thought to not exist.[16]
Light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis (as required in e.g. Alfvén-Klein cosmology) has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed.[40][41] This issue has not been completely addressed by plasma cosmology proponents in their proposals.[42]
In 1995 Eric Lerner published the only proposal based on plasma cosmology to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) since the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) results were announced in 1992.[43] He argues that his model can explain both the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP. The fact that the CMB is so isotropic, in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[44] These measurements show the acoustic peaks in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model. There has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology.

Well, okay. So the there is a certain magnetic current that must exist if the plasma model is a plausible explanation, but no such current has yet been observed and theoretical analysis doesn't think they exist. Also, it seems that certain effects of a plasma model that should be observed in the universe if it's correct directly contradict current observations of our universe. As well, it seems our most advanced measurements have confirmed data that fit the big bang model while being at odds with the plasma model (among other alternatives).

But that's just Wikipedia. We can't rest on it alone. So I checked a mathematical claim made by plasma modelers with its review by a working cosmologist (i.e. somebody who would be more familiar than I would with the basic facts shared by both paradigms). Oh, for anyone interested, the difference between the plasma model and the big bang model is that plasma says electromagnetic forces (where the plasma comes in) are far more powerful and important in explaining the physical phenomenon of this universe than gravity, while big bang has it the other way around. Anyway, on to the science:

plasma cosmology wrote:This behaviour derives from Ampére's Law or the Biot-Savart force law which states that currents in the same direction attract while currents in the opposite direction repel. They do so inversely in relation to the distance between them. This results in a far larger ranging force of interaction than the gravitational force between two masses. Gravitational force is only attractive and varies inversely with the square of the distance.

a cosmologist wrote:Except for one crucial omission, this statement is correct. It is true that if you calculate the attractive force between two long parallel currents, it only goes as 1/r, whereas gravity goes as 1/r2. This means that the strength of gravity drops off faster with distance than the magnetic attraction of the two currents, so even if gravity dominates, eventually you will reach a point where the strength of gravity drops below the magnetic strength. So, it seems, you really ought to be taking all this current stuff seriously.

Here's the problem though. The result that the magnetic attraction between two parallel currents drops off as 1/r only applies to infinitely long parallel currents. Practically speaking, that means that the length of each current (the length of the wire carrying the current, for example) must be a substantially bigger than the distance between the two currents. In other words, for this 1/r law to be relevant in the Solar System, there would have to be some current associated with (say) the Earth, perpendicular to the plane of the Solar System, whose length is at least several times the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The Sun would likewise have to have a current that long associated with it. And that's just batty.

The mistake here is a common mistake, actually. It involves taking a legitimate result from legitimate equations, and applying it where it does not apply. This is why, in physics, you shouldn't just do algebra blindly. You should understand what you're doing. Even if you understand the vector algebra that leads to the derivation of the 1/r force law, you need to understand why you used the equations you did, and why you made the simplifying assumptions that you did, in deriving that law. And, in understanding that you need to understand the limitations on when you can apply your result.

If you (somehow) manage to have two short parallel lengths of current all going in one direction, then the strength of the force between them drops off as 1/r2, just like gravity, once the distance between the two currents is large compared to their length. But, you can't have this, as all the charge from that current has to go somewhere. So, in practice, if you have a small bit of current, you have to have a loop. The force between two loops of current drops off faster than 1/r2. In other words, even if it's significant at smallish distances, eventually it will become insignificant compared to gravity.

That's why you can trivially make an electromagnet and pick up paper clips with it, easily overcoming Earth's gravity. However, once you move that electromagnet (say) a meter away from the paperclip (unless you've really gone nuts with your current), the Earth's gravity overcomes it and you no longer pick up the paperclip.

So here we have a review of a core plasma cosmology theorem, and both a mathematical and more tangible explanation of how it is mistaken. I'm no physicist, but I can certainly understand magnets and paperclips! I'll stop short of looking for technical literature - and Wikipedia alluded to only one peer-reviewed published paper - because I'm losing interest and I'm not likely to understand any of the math or physics involved anyway.

(Also, creepily enough, the Google results for searching "plasma cosmology" turn up links to plasma cosmological sites that use language like "mainstream dogma," "a return to real science," "soulless, Godless, depressing propaganda," and "big bang charlatans." If you'll allow me a bit of caution here, this is not exactly reputable scientific communication and my hogwash alert is on notice. Please take note that the scientist here actually took the time to show clearly how the model was incorrect. He/she didn't suppress the theory, as Xris claims scientists do - he/she laid it out publically and explained where it was right and where it wasn't.)


I've done my part, then. I found a source that let me understand how the competing claims were made and how they lead (or don't) to their conclusions. Now I'll request your evidence once more, Xris. I want you to give me evidence that science is a conspiracy, and that scientists are egoistic oppressors who forcefully hide truth from us laymen for their own gain. There must be evidence that has convinced you - let me look at the same evidence with my own eyes, please.

A final note: The logic of conspiratorial thinking is flawed logic. The simple existence of an alternative theory doesn't prove the plausibility of the alternative theory, nor is the truth of a theory inversely proportional to the number of people who believe the theory.

If you only post those who support the BB theory and not the full explaination given by plasma cosmologists you are proving exactly what I have been saying. The BB as a concept has been constantly adjusted and invested with millions of dollars. Not to investigate it but prove it. There has been many occassions where the BB suffered incredible difficulties explaining the observations. It could not exist if dark energy had not been invented. Now do you find that just not a little suspect? Do you find the idea that micro wave background has not been exactly as they have predicted and any alternative for it has never been considered. The shape of the universe was not as expected, so quantum thermal fluctuations had to be invented. Galaxies supposedly moving increasingly further away from each other are strangely merging. I am no plasma cosmologist and I know they are no where nearly as well funded as those who propose the BB. If the BB was accepted without all its failings and inventions over fifty years would it stand scrutiny? No one has seen a photon or even given a valid description of it as a particle. Does that imply they do not exist? Not one electron has been seen, do they cease to exist? Have you ever been shown a real picture of a black hole? I doubt it. Wickitomfoolery are not exactly given to giving an unbiased and accurate picture but if thats all it takes for you dismis it. I am happy for you..


If you have the time watch all of these..You tube ..The big bang never happened.

Cogniphile wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)


No, we are not. When I say "science," I am talking about hundreds of thousands of individual scientists each trying to make sense of some little, specific puzzle that personally interests them. What are you talking about?


(Nested quote removed.)


Yes, they have. All of the folks who spend time on this forum agree that it appears to be operated by a man named Scott. If we decide to tell our friends and neighbors who don't visit the site that this is the case, are we then each of us conspiring to oppress those neighbors of ours who think it's actually operated by a woman named Thelma?

All the people who know the most about a topic tend to agree about that topic in general. What would be your preferred alternative - every individual expert in a field thinking something completely different from any other? Your complaint at the moment is the consensus on big bang cosmology, and how plasma cosmoloy is not generally accepted. What if big bang cosmology was overturned tonight and all the experts suddenly agreed on plasma cosmology? We'd be in the same situation you find so disagreeable. So despite your charge of conspiracy because "the academic world has formed a consensus of opinion to which they have all subscribed," clearly your complaint cannot actually be with mere scientific consensus; it seems to be with the consensus on a particular theory.


(Nested quote removed.)


Do you know how a scientific career is etched into history? Think about your Einsteins, your Galileos, your Darwins. Overthrowing the worldwide consensus is precisely what a career-oriented scientist wants to do to hit it big. That alone is a fatal blow to your conception of science as a process, and it is why conspiratorial scientific oppression could never actually work (particularly in our environment of instantaneous and worldwide information access).


(Nested quote removed.)


Fair enough. If I really want to understand the science, it is my responsibility to self-educate.

For a basic grasp, we start with Wikipedia:


(Nested quote removed.)


Well, okay. So the there is a certain magnetic current that must exist if the plasma model is a plausible explanation, but no such current has yet been observed and theoretical analysis doesn't think they exist. Also, it seems that certain effects of a plasma model that should be observed in the universe if it's correct directly contradict current observations of our universe. As well, it seems our most advanced measurements have confirmed data that fit the big bang model while being at odds with the plasma model (among other alternatives).

But that's just Wikipedia. We can't rest on it alone. So I checked a mathematical claim made by plasma modelers with its review by a working cosmologist (i.e. somebody who would be more familiar than I would with the basic facts shared by both paradigms). Oh, for anyone interested, the difference between the plasma model and the big bang model is that plasma says electromagnetic forces (where the plasma comes in) are far more powerful and important in explaining the physical phenomenon of this universe than gravity, while big bang has it the other way around. Anyway, on to the science:


(Nested quote removed.)



(Nested quote removed.)


So here we have a review of a core plasma cosmology theorem, and both a mathematical and more tangible explanation of how it is mistaken. I'm no physicist, but I can certainly understand magnets and paperclips! I'll stop short of looking for technical literature - and Wikipedia alluded to only one peer-reviewed published paper - because I'm losing interest and I'm not likely to understand any of the math or physics involved anyway.

(Also, creepily enough, the Google results for searching "plasma cosmology" turn up links to plasma cosmological sites that use language like "mainstream dogma," "a return to real science," "soulless, Godless, depressing propaganda," and "big bang charlatans." If you'll allow me a bit of caution here, this is not exactly reputable scientific communication and my hogwash alert is on notice. Please take note that the scientist here actually took the time to show clearly how the model was incorrect. He/she didn't suppress the theory, as Xris claims scientists do - he/she laid it out publically and explained where it was right and where it wasn't.)


I've done my part, then. I found a source that let me understand how the competing claims were made and how they lead (or don't) to their conclusions. Now I'll request your evidence once more, Xris. I want you to give me evidence that science is a conspiracy, and that scientists are egoistic oppressors who forcefully hide truth from us laymen for their own gain. There must be evidence that has convinced you - let me look at the same evidence with my own eyes, please.

A final note: The logic of conspiratorial thinking is flawed logic. The simple existence of an alternative theory doesn't prove the plausibility of the alternative theory, nor is the truth of a theory inversely proportional to the number of people who believe the theory.

All people are subject to temptation by original sin, which is the knowledge of good and evil. There is a conspiracy in science towards knowledge of good and evil. So every conspirator has this natural temptation towards original sin, and personally engages in it. And then the sinners conspire with each other to force knowledge of good and evil on everybody. Biological determinism and dialectic materialism are examples of such conspiracies stemming from science.

A doctrine of knowledge of good and evil must have the attributes:
- to state what is good and evil as matter of fact, so to acknowledge differences between good and evil together with material differences, or together with observable differences in behaviour
- a denial of freedom in the sense of that a decision in the moment can turn out A or B
- a rejection of subjectivity as a legitemate way of reaching a conclusion about what is there, or to redefine subjectivity to make it a subset of objectivity, so to equate subjectivity with objectivity, towards objectivity

We can see that there exist groupings in science along these lines. Scientists who don't believe free will is real, group together. So there is grouping around Daniel Dennett. There is also grouping around the multi-universe theory which denies free will. There is grouping around Darwinism which also denies free will. The quantity of science produced by these scientists is comparitively little, compared to the amount of sociological discourse produced.

Xris wrote:The BB as a concept has been constantly adjusted and invested with millions of dollars.

Adjustment, refinement, and financial investment occurs with all scientific theories, not just the big bang theory.

Not to investigate it but prove it.

Show me your evidence of this claim.

There has been many occassions where the BB suffered incredible difficulties explaining the observations.

I'll grant you this claim without asking for evidence, but the same can be said for most if not all theories. Difficulty explaining all observations means our knowledge is incomplete and our theories only approximations at best - big bang or otherwise. May I remind you that plasma cosmology also fails to account for some observations?

It could not exist if dark energy had not been invented. . . . The shape of the universe was not as expected, so quantum thermal fluctuations had to be invented. . . . Do you find the idea that micro wave background has not been exactly as they have predicted and any alternative for it has never been considered.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough detail to intelligently evaluate all of these claims. I do know that, before microwave background radiation was observed, there were three competing theories for the qualities of the universe, and each one predicted a different pattern and temperature of leftover radiation. When scientists finally managed to observe the radiation, its pattern and temperature matched that of the one predicted by the shape of the universe predicted by big bang theory. See "http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html" for more.

Knowledge of these experiments is as far as my comprehension of the science goes, so I may be unable to engage you further where details are required.

Galaxies supposedly moving increasingly further away from each other are strangely merging.

Show me your evidence for this claim.

I am no plasma cosmologist and I know they are no where nearly as well funded as those who propose the BB.

Correlation is not causation. It may be that more funding leads to theories with better evidence supporting them, or it may be that theories which are better supported by the evidence receive more funding. If you are claiming that the former is what happened in the case of the big bang theory, show me the evidence for your claim.

If the BB was accepted without all its failings and inventions over fifty years would it stand scrutiny? No one has seen a photon or even given a valid description of it as a particle. Does that imply they do not exist? Not one electron has been seen, do they cease to exist? Have you ever been shown a real picture of a black hole? I doubt it.

I don't know what you mean here.

If you have the time watch all of these..You tube ..The big bang never happened.

I found a couple of plasma cosmology videos on Youtube, yes. But if Wikipedia is "not exactly given to giving an unbiased and accurate picture," then how much better should we expect Youtube to be? Here is the description of a plasma cosmology video within Google's top search results for the term:

a Youtuber wrote:There are many false ideas that are derived from Big Bang dogma. But the point is simple: This dismal, depressing, lifeless, soulless, disconnected, Godless, pessimistic goo is what allegedly constitutes our reality. Although this reality is promoted by the editors at Wikipedia, those gatekeepers did not sanctify Albert Einstein or contrive the Big Bang. This propaganda is perpetuated by establishment cosmologists who reside in the ivory towers of big government and big academia. Intellectually these have been reduced to vested interests that have a lot to lose! Decades-long academic reputations, self-effacing public proclamations, thousands of peer-reviewed PhD theses, and billions in research grants funded by the taxpayers are all at stake. But like their gravity-only theory, the Big Bang charlatans are rife to keeping the taxpayer and layperson disconnected from the emerging reality wrought by hard scientific data. The latest scientific discoveries that refute the gatekeepers emerge from a discipline called plasma cosmology.

When it gets right down to it, I can't understand all of the science involved, so I do have to rely on scientific authority. And that's not really the ideal situation, you're right. But experience with relying on scientific authority has done me well in life so far, while experience on listening to the kind of stuff quoted above hasn't gotten anybody anywhere. Besides, as I've already mentioned, conspiracy theories employ faulty logic to justify their claims, so that alone weakens the convincing power of those claims.

But the book of science is never finished. Big bang cosmology is accepted right now. That can change. If and when plasma cosmology succeeds in supporting itself with as much evidence as has the big bang, then tides will turn, just as the tides have turned countless times in the history of science. Yes, it will be resisted strongly, but so are all new ideas until the evidence bears out.

If you only post those who support the BB theory and not the full explaination given by plasma cosmologists you are proving exactly what I have been saying.

Wickitomfoolery are not exactly given to giving an unbiased and accurate picture but if thats all it takes for you dismis it. I am happy for you..

I quoted you text from multiple sources, both pro- and anti-plasma cosmology. I didn't dismiss the theory based on Wikipedia alone. I read Wiki to get a basic understanding, then I read a description from a fully pro-plasma cosmology website (and quoted from them), and then I read a response by another cosmologist. That is all included in my post, even the part where I explicitly say Wikipedia isn't good enough by itself! If you're going to say things that are demonstrably false, we won't get anywhere.

So you have decided after two or three biased views, your search carried you to, plasma cosmology is crucially flawed but after X amount of years, hearing about the BB you do not believe that galaxies are colliding. Have you ever read the arguments against the BB and did you assume they were biased? I am interested in how you decide from a layman's perspective who are charlatans and who are the heroes? I urge you to search out those videos on you tube.

Xris wrote:So you have decided after two or three biased views, your search carried you to, plasma cosmology is crucially flawed but after X amount of years, hearing about the BB you do not believe that galaxies are colliding. Have you ever read the arguments against the BB and did you assume they were biased? I am interested in how you decide from a layman's perspective who are charlatans and who are the heroes? I urge you to search out those videos on you tube.

Before I answer, I want to reiterate that my Google search involved three sources (not including the Youtube videos): Wikipedia for a basic definition of the field, which because it is edited by the public, identifies biased contributions and controversial topics, and cites its sources can be reasonably expected to cover a topic neutrally; the pro-plasma model website "plasmacosmology.net," which is biased in favor of their namesake; and a science article by a professional cosmologist who accepts the standard big bang model, and therefore can be said to be biased against plasma cosmology. I tried to conduct as equitable a brief study as possible.


Anyway, speaking with you here is the first time I've ever had to go looking for arguments against the big bang. As I said before, my knowledge of big bang cosmology comes from having read about a bunch of experiments that lent the theory support, and that mostly from popular science books or articles online. I read those kinds of things occasionally because I enjoy learning science, and so I don't take them on with as critical an eye as I would the science of my own chosen fields, psychology and biology - in that sense I assume the writer is biased in favor of what he's writing, but not to the extent there'll be huge intentional factual errors.

Because I don't have the time (or, in all honesty, the intellectual ability) to really become technically literate in extra fields like cosmology and astrophysics, I rely on the self-correcting process of science to produce generally well-supported consensuses. That doesn't always work, though, and a good example would be the discussion between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism in evolutionary biology - there are strong empirical cases to be made for both interpretations, and therefore no easy, obvious consensus to rely on.

I wouldn't go as far as grouping folks into charlatans and heroes. If somebody's mistaken, they're just mistaken. In addition to relying on the advice of the consensus of experts in a field, I also try to read about the opposing claims myself, when I can. I've read some stuff on both sides of the vaccines-cause-autism debate, for instance. It's also usually a solid indicator that somebody is not completely trustworthy if they present their claims like the Youtuber I quoted for you before. It's very difficult to take seriously someone who expresses their points with more derogatory and ideologically-charged language than with facts, figures, and explanations.

Fortunately, doing science as part of my education and career, and reading a lot of different science books (as well as books about the philosophy of science) has the effect of improving my scientific literacy. As with anything, practice and experience contribute to skill.

Cogniphile wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Before I answer, I want to reiterate that my Google search involved three sources (not including the Youtube videos): Wikipedia for a basic definition of the field, which because it is edited by the public, identifies biased contributions and controversial topics, and cites its sources can be reasonably expected to cover a topic neutrally; the pro-plasma model website "plasmacosmology.net," which is biased in favor of their namesake; and a science article by a professional cosmologist who accepts the standard big bang model, and therefore can be said to be biased against plasma cosmology. I tried to conduct as equitable a brief study as possible.

Don't feed the troll! You have already wasted too much of your life on this clap-trap crackpot idea. Stop wasting your time! Nowhere in science, or academia in general will you find a substantial literature debunking nonsense. No one cares, no one has the time, and everyone has more important and productive things to do. Search for the theory that there is NOT a magical unicorn in my shed ruling space-time, and you won't find it.

Name one single prediction, technological advance, or any single thing that palsma-em-string-nonsense has achieved. The theory is not event Lorentz invariant, which doesn't matter to the uneducared who advocate for plasma cosmology, because they don't have a clue what that means.

The mysterious aspect to the plasma-nutters is that they are anti-science, yet believe pseudo-science. I have yet to figure out why they do that, and don't plan to devote much time to figuring out the reason for their prejudice.

Teh wrote:
The mysterious aspect to the plasma-nutters is that they are anti-science, yet believe pseudo-science. I have yet to figure out why they do that, and don't plan to devote much time to figuring out the reason for their prejudice.

Pseudo-sience is popular because it is so much simpler than real science. You don't have to worry about mathematics or any correlation with the facts. You can just make the stuff up as you go along. Perfect!

A_Seagull wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Pseudo-sience is popular because it is so much simpler than real science. You don't have to worry about mathematics or any correlation with the facts. You can just make the stuff up as you go along. Perfect!

Indeed, where is the fear of death gene that you alluded to elsewhere?

Cogniphile wrote: Do you know how a scientific career is etched into history? Think about your Einsteins, your Galileos, your Darwins. Overthrowing the worldwide consensus is precisely what a career-oriented scientist wants to do to hit it big. That alone is a fatal blow to your conception of science as a process, and it is why conspiratorial scientific oppression could never actually work (particularly in our environment of instantaneous and worldwide information access).

Even Einstein and Darwin believe what other scientists say in other sectors of science based on faith only. Do you really think that Einstein had the time to double-check the mathematics on which he based his theory? He even asked for help in this matter by others.

I suggest that the justification for people's faith in science has the same origins as faith in technologies. Bodies of knowledge are moving apart like specks of dust on the surface of an expanding balloon. The bodies of knowledge are themselves proliferating into subsections of knowledge which are themselves esoteric specialisms.

We evaluate a technique by its results.The results of past scientific investigations have bestowed fertile technologies on us. Our civilisatiion depends upon those technologies and techniques. Skakos has specialist post graduate degrees but he cannot be a man of parts like his knowledgeable ancestors because now there is too much knowledge for one man to be an expert in everything.

Physics is not amenable to superficial descriptions such as the one I have just provided. Knowledge of physics requires specialist study at the top end of secondary school and at university for six or seven years. By contrast we can dip into philosophy and reap benefits at almost any academic level. I suppose this is because philosophy is a set of skills.

Religious myths are unlike physics because the former decribe but do not explain. Explaining is founded upon grand theory of knowledge whereas decribing is founded upon piecemeal rhetoric.

As for scientists they have good reputations not only for enabling the progress of useful technolohies and techniques but also for the integrity of the objective ethos upon which scientists have to work to do science at all. Scientists in general are not guilty of hubris as religionists so often are:

scientists are careful in the main to employ the language of objectivity and not of poetry.

The safest way for undereducated lay people to evaluate scientists and their products is to study where they may be tempted to stray from the path of integrity through ideologies or temptations of the flesh such as money rewards.

But religion and its teaching DO work! Try to live your life with compassion and forgiveness and you will see difference. On the other hand, how does String Theory work? What is the difference between the two?

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Don't feed the troll! You have already wasted too much of your life on this clap-trap crackpot idea. Stop wasting your time! Nowhere in science, or academia in general will you find a substantial literature debunking nonsense. No one cares, no one has the time, and everyone has more important and productive things to do. Search for the theory that there is NOT a magical unicorn in my shed ruling space-time, and you won't find it.

Name one single prediction, technological advance, or any single thing that palsma-em-string-nonsense has achieved. The theory is not event Lorentz invariant, which doesn't matter to the uneducared who advocate for plasma cosmology, because they don't have a clue what that means.

The mysterious aspect to the plasma-nutters is that they are anti-science, yet believe pseudo-science. I have yet to figure out why they do that, and don't plan to devote much time to figuring out the reason for their prejudice.

I love your responses. You are indicative of the closed minded, arogant nature of those you represent. I suppose even the likes of nobel laureat, Hannes Alfen are a crack pots,charlatans. Yes you will find lots of hog wash dismissing plasma cosmology but if you might have noticed they are all avid supporters of the BB. When you can produce one ounce of the dark stuff or show me one real picture of a black hole I might just take your venomous replies as valid. Did you respond to my last post. Have you found a reason why galaxies are colliding. Or is it like the anomolies in the back ground radiation, local variations brought about by some local fluctuations invented to deny what is blatantly obvious to those who have the courage to question.

Skakos wrote:But religion and its teaching DO work! Try to live your life with compassion and forgiveness and you will see difference. On the other hand, how does String Theory work? What is the difference between the two?

1. A religious myth is not the same as that religion's set of ethical precepts.'A religious myth' means an explanatory narrative.

2. Compassion and forgiveness are not limited to religious people. I invite you to retract your insulting comment.

Skakos wrote:But religion and its teaching DO work! Try to live your life with compassion and forgiveness and you will see difference. On the other hand, how does String Theory work? What is the difference between the two?

String theory has experts that still believe it has possibilities. They are not cranks or charlatans. It appears that anyone in the scientific field that does not abide to the mother church of science and attempts to find alternatives to the consensus are infidels. Plasma cosmology has problems proving what it proposes but so to has the BB. The difference being is that the BB has had sixty odd years to refine and answer its critics. It had vast amounts of invested dollars to explore and experiment but it still can not answer the most simplest of questions. It does not require a degree in cosmology or physics to question the illogical consequences of the BB.