The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Oh. Cool.

Very true. However, sometimes gravity do cancel each other out. The inside of a hollow sphere for example.

You're correct that gravity is a very weak force, the weakest of the four forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravity). Moving an iron nail a few inches away from a magnet reduces the attractive force to a negligible level, while moving the nail a few more inches away from earth produces no discernable difference.The reason is that the center of earth's mass isn't really at ground level, it's 4000 miles away. When you increase the distance of the nail from the magnet from 1 inch to 4 inches, you're increasing the distance by 300%. When you increase the distance of the nail above the ground from 1 inch to 4 inches, you're actually increasing it from 4000 miles to 4000 miles plus a few more inches, a negligible amount.If you increase the distance of the nail from the earth by same proportion as for the magnet, which for 300% would be 12000 miles above the earth's surface, you would find the gravity had decreased by the same proportion as when you moved the nail 3 more inches from the magnet.--Percy

A solid sphere is another example. The net gravity at the earth's center is 0.--Ted

Observed Instances of SpeciationThis page starts with a discussion of the definition of species then carries on with examples.

My impression is that such things as speciation and macroevolution are very much off-topic here.Adminnemooseus

I can not possibly awnser everything at the rate of the replies given here, but I will note two things in reply to Quetzal: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?Ok, here is one for size. Evolution is based on the ASSUMPTION that a creator can not exist. It is based on the ASSUMPTION that if you have a certain condition for an x amount of time, simple chemical molucules can actually evolve into a complex single cell organism. So far, I know of no experiment that has proven that this is possible. It is very easy to make a lay man believe this, but any biologist that KNOWS the complexity of a single celled organism would dare to try and explain HOW EXACTLY THIS IS POSSIBLE. The starting point of all live, acording evolusionism, is therefore a hypothesis, not a theory. Untill it has actually been reproduced, this hypothesis carries no more legitimacy than creationism. I don't care HOW you prove it, that is your job. But that does not take away from the fact that proof is still lacking. And while this is true, you dish out this hypothesis as fact, untested as it is. And that is what I mean with my metaphor of "Dark matter". If we accept that dark matter make up 95% of the universe, and we assume that the earth is actually part of this universe, then surely we must have dark matter right here on earth, or at least in orbit as well. Why could no one find it? Maybe it simply isn't there. But ofcause, wise scientists, using facts selectively , will put the onus on me to proof that something that isbn't there, doesn't exist. But ofcause, it "must be there", otherwise the collective mass of a galaxy is way too little to keep it together.What I'd like to know is, how much of you who've awnsered, has the credensials of the writer of this website? Can you say you know as much about plasmas and electricity as he does? non, I presume. How many was willing to actually read this guy's theory on galaxy and stellar formation, and with an open mind at that? Non I presume.Let me tell you what it looks like from where I'm standing: You have a mainstream gravity theory, which requires a vast amount of "misterious, undetectable dark matter" to actually work, and you have a simple theory that actually uses known forces of nature, without the need of hocus pocus dark matter and other invensions. But I am supposed to believe in this stuff that doesn't exist?

It has not such assumption anywhere in it. It simply talks about how populations of living things have changed and what processes were involved. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about a creator. Evolution discusses living things and only living things. It has nothing to do with where they came from originally. The theory of gravity we have works rather well under a wide range of conditions.There are observed things about the universe which aren't totally explained. Therefore they are, as I think you might be suggesting, hypothoses for now. One hypothosis is that there is additional matter. Another might be other forces. We will need more work to pick between them.BTW I can't get to the "next page" on the post number 1's referenced site. There is nothing on the first page to support what is said.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-26-2005 02:32 AM

quote:

---

Ok, here is one for size. Evolution is based on the ASSUMPTION that a creator can not exist. It is based on the ASSUMPTION that if you have a certain condition for an x amount of time, simple chemical molucules can actually evolve into a complex single cell organism. So far, I know of no experiment that has proven that this is possible. It is very easy to make a lay man believe this, but any biologist that KNOWS the complexity of a single celled organism would dare to try and explain HOW EXACTLY THIS IS POSSIBLE. The starting point of all live, acording evolusionism, is therefore a hypothesis, not a theory.

---

1) Evolution theory says nothing about a creator either way.2) The rest of those has not at all to do with the theory of evolution. Do you think it's not a good idea to actually understand what the TOE actualy says before you try and debate about it?

quote:

---

What I'd like to know is, how much of you who've awnsered, has the credensials of the writer of this website? Can you say you know as much about plasmas and electricity as he does? non, I presume. How many was willing to actually read this guy's theory on galaxy and stellar formation, and with an open mind at that? Non I presume.

---

Ah the appeal to authority - applying that logic, his theory must be wrong because there are people out there who know more and have better qualifications.EDIT: Ned - I cannot get to a 2nd page either.Looking at the page source there is not a link to one.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26 January 2005 02:47 AM

"Evolution discusses living things and only living things. It has nothing to do with where they came from originally."You should've become a politician. I can't recall how many documentaries I've seen that make this bold statement, and now that you are put on the spot, all of a sudden evolution is no longer about the origin of live? Fair enough. Anyway, if live was not created and there is no creator, then surely the only alternative is for live to evolve from dead molecules. So, if you believe in God, good for you. If not, you need to proof that live can evolve from dead things before you can claim as a scientific fact: there is no God.As for your beloved gravity model: You KNOW that the collective mass of the galaxy is not enough to keep it together. You NEED dark matter for gravity to work. But that's ok. You'll believe in your dark matter, which does not exist, while I'll go for something that can explain phenomina using existing knowledge.

Well I'd take the guys qualifications more seriously if he wasn't too busy ranting to make sense. But even then they aren't exactly GOOD. He certainly doesn't have the qualifications in physics he would need to raise sensible objectiosn to Dark MatterBut I'm certainly not going to accept him as an authority when it appears that he doesn't even understand simple English and invents claims. So unless you can explain his use of the Wheeler quote and support the claim that Wheeler claimed to have discovered a naked singularity then I am afraid that I will have to stick with the impression that the author is a poorly informed crank.

quote:

---

You should've become a politician. I can't recall how many documentaries I've seen that make this bold statement, and now that you are put on the spot, all of a sudden evolution is no longer about the origin of live? Fair enough.

---

Oh well if it was on the telly..... It's not ALL OF A SUDDEN - Evolution has NEVER been about the origins of life.NEVER NEVER NEVER.Please go away and learn the basics.

quote:

---

Let me tell you what it looks like from where I'm standing: You have a mainstream gravity theory, which requires a vast amount of "misterious, undetectable dark matter" to actually work, and you have a simple theory that actually uses known forces of nature, without the need of hocus pocus dark matter and other invensions. But I am supposed to believe in this stuff that doesn't exist?

---

What you seem ont to understand is that the vast majority of "mainstream scientists" had exactly the same initial reaction to the idea of dark matter. From my own reading, dark matter spent at lerast 10 years as an uncomfortable hypothesis that many scientists didn't like at all.But the problem is it does provide some answers to questions. Even for those who don't actually like the idea, if the theory fits the data it fits the data. One of these bits of data is that certain properties of the universe are inexplicable without there being a lot more mass in it than we can actually see.

As I recall this forum has an entire section on the origin of live. If this is not covered in evolution theory, then that topic doesn't even belong here. If I've got some time, I might go and see what people wrote there. But the point is ... and I'm sure you'll agree ... that live has only two possible origins: either it was created by a Creator that exists outside and independantly from the universe, or it must've come about by all by itself. Since there is no proof that the latter is possible, you can not exactly blame a guy for believing the former, right? RIGHT???Secondly, how can there be a "physics of dark matter", when this dark matter has not yet been found? Maybe it sould've been called Ether: the substance that suposedly filled the universe when scientists could not explain light. Today, the universe is once more filled with a misterious substance in order to make models work. No if there were no alternative available, scientists could've been forgivin for this, but the fact is, the alternative is being rejected without it even being given a proper chance!By the way. Let me just tell you something about that website you guys should've realised yourself. When two scientists talk about something complicated, they talk in complicated terms and difficult formulas. However, when they want to explain it to the lay person, they ditch the formulas, and only explain the concept in understandeble language. In case you haven't noticed, this website is the latter. But, I wonder if any of you noticed the "Links" hyperlink. You see, this is not just "one guy", there is 'n growing number of scientists who are knowledgable in the field of electrisism and plasmas that support this view. The fact that cosmologists, who do not study this field of science, so easily dismiss their ideas, raises a serious question mark.I'd like to direct your attension to another website : holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE – A sound cosmology for the 21st century This website also has comments on new discoveries with puzzles cosmologists. Ofcause, the scientists who accept the electric universe model is not supprised by these phenomena. In fact, they EXPECT it.If you were real scientists, you would've investigate this issue further before dismissing it after reading just one web page (no doubt with a LOT of prejadice as well) But you're not interested in finding out if there is a better model to explain the universe, you're only interested in holding on to your old models.Let's take Saturn's moon Mimas. It has a crater almost the size of its diameter. Yet you are perfectly comfortable with calling it an "impact crater" though you KNOW an impact of that size would've destroyd the moon. This crater is much better explained as an elictric discharch that an impact crater.Actually, I'm dissapointed in you guys. I was actually hoping ...BELIEVING... that I'm wrong about you, and that you would actually investigate the matter further before shooting it down. I thought you scientists are curious people. But, like I said, you'd rather BELIEVE you are right, than to concider alternatives. How many of you are actually knowledgable when it comes to the characteristics of plasma? When an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER comes up with a theory about an ELECTIRCAL universe, and gets this kind of response from COSMOLIGISTS and BIOLOGISTS, whose expertize is NOT electricity, then truely, modern science is in a sorry state.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-26-2005 07:10 AM

quote:

---

As I recall this forum has an entire section on the origin of live. If this is not covered in evolution theory, then that topic doesn't even belong here. If I've got some time, I might go and see what people wrote there. But the point is ... and I'm sure you'll agree ... that live has only two possible origins: either it was created by a Creator that exists outside and independantly from the universe, or it must've come about by all by itself. Since there is no proof that the latter is possible, you can not exactly blame a guy for believing the former, right? RIGHT???

---

Right but still nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

---

By the way. Let me just tell you something about that website you guys should've realised yourself. When two scientists talk about something complicated, they talk in complicated terms and difficult formulas. However, when they want to explain it to the lay person, they ditch the formulas, and only explain the concept in understandeble language. In case you haven't noticed, this website is the latter. But, I wonder if any of you noticed the "Links" hyperlink.

---

Listen to what we are telling you - that website has some bad code on it - the "links" hyperlink does not WORK - only the link to the basics of science page is good.If you have this stored on your own machine it will (and I suspect you do) because the link is relative and points to a place on your hard drive - not of us can access it.

quote:

---

If you were real scientists, you would've investigate this issue further before dismissing it after reading just one web page (no doubt with a LOT of prejadice as well) But you're not interested in finding out if there is a better model to explain the universe, you're only interested in holding on to your old models.

---

Get the website fixed and we COULD actually look at what you are on about.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26 January 2005 07:24 AM