• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science and Religion

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
And you "explained" away the double/multiple supernova glimses as a result of "gravitatitonal lensing", which is a cosmological nonsense and just an "explanation" which is fitted to conserve a false cosmological perception.
Scientists STILL talks of double supernovaes wich explodes several times so dont deny this or explain it away. NASA - NASA's Swift Sees Double Supernova in Galaxy

Once again, that is being actively discussed in the astronomical community and in NO way supports your claims about other supernova.

The other thing was your false and hiughly biased definition of "intuition" - just in order to deminish the fact that our ancestors had this genuine skill. It is NOT thrustworty for any debaters to be that wrong in a debate. And certainly not for a Moderator, correct?

First, not correct.

Second, I don't think I am wrong.

I´m not denying current science just the idiotic part of it, like the gravitational assumptions. I really would like to be a fly over your shoulders when you studied Plasma-Universe and the Electric Universe. I bet you just follow the conventional scientists without even have spend many minutes thinking for yourself over the possibilities.

OK I´m refusing 1/4 part of the fundamental forces and the weakest of them all - and you refuses the rest 3/4 of the fundamental and formative force which are much stronger and ALL Electromagnetic in their nature.

I think this just says it all.

No, I do NOT refuse those other 3 forces. In fact, I fully acknowledge all 4 of the basic forces. Have I said anything otherwise? Gravity is the dominant force on the cosmological scale because most matter is electrically neutral. E&M is significant, but not in the ways you claim. Both the strong and weak nuclear forces are limited in range to within nuclei.

I do recognize that there are regions of the universe with plasmas. This is nothing new. High temperature gases surround many galactic clusters, but they are incredibly low density and are, overall electrically neutral. They don't affect the gravitational dynamics all that much.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
And a good science should not be in conflict with religion as in their Stories of Creation.
Nope, All good science should must fall in line with whatever the Bible says. How else could a good Christian ever be a scientist? Huh? Answer me that!
A good hypothetical reply to my also hypothetical comment :)

Besides this: A good Christian should NOT take the biblical Story of Creation literary :)
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Second, I don't think I am wrong.
Of course not. It was just the official definition of "intuition" which was wrong, right?
No, I do NOT refuse those other 3 forces. In fact, I fully acknowledge all 4 of the basic forces. Have I said anything otherwise? Gravity is the dominant force on the cosmological scale because most matter is electrically neutral. E&M is significant, but not in the ways you claim. Both the strong and weak nuclear forces are limited in range to within nuclei.
You just categorical turned off the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe - which just shows that you don´t have any clues of what it is, as I assumed above. This is just an automatic reflexe reaction against a logical cosmology compared to the strange ideas of the apple-pie gravity.

I do recognize that there are regions of the universe with plasmas. This is nothing new. High temperature gases surround many galactic clusters, but they are incredibly low density and are, overall electrically neutral. They don't affect the gravitational dynamics all that much.
Are you serious? They in fact are the causes of ALL rotational and orbital motions in the galaxy and otherwhere. But then again, you don´t understand the plasma cosmology and Electric Universe, so you are excused in your ignorances.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you serious? They in fact are the causes of ALL rotational and orbital motions in the galaxy and otherwhere. But then again, you don´t understand the plasma cosmology and Electric Universe, so you are excused in your ignorances.

But this isn't true. Gravity is the reason for the orbits, not E&M. That is clear to anyone with a basic understanding of physics, I'm afraid. E&M simply doens't work like that.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So, is the story of creation the only thing in the Bible that should not be taken literally?
It shall be taken seriously but not literally - as several other dogmatic things and "divene nonsense" in the Bible. I don´t have the time to mention examples :)
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You just categorical turned off the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe - which just shows that you don´t have any clues of what it is, as I assumed above. This is just an automatic reflexe reaction against a logical cosmology compared to the strange ideas of the apple-pie gravity.

Not just me. From the Wikipedia article:

"Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s."

"
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[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] 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.[29][30] However, 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]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[32] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe.

Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which, in the context of Alfvén–Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed.[33][34] Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances, but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed.[35] In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[36] He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found, even while the level of isotropy at 1:105 is not accounted for to that precision by any alternative models. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP and the Planck satellite and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[37] The acoustic peaks in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model."

Oh well.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Not just me. From the Wikipedia article:

"Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s."

"
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[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] 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.[29][30] However, 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]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[32] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe.

Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which, in the context of Alfvén–Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed.[33][34] Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances, but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed.[35] In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[36] He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found, even while the level of isotropy at 1:105 is not accounted for to that precision by any alternative models. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP and the Planck satellite and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[37] The acoustic peaks in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model."

Oh well.

What percent of the visible universe is in a plasma state? Answer is 99.999%.
And that's probably why they chase the plasma universe theory.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
But this isn't true. Gravity is the reason for the orbits, not E&M. That is clear to anyone with a basic understanding of physics, I'm afraid. E&M simply doens't work like that.
You simply don´t fool me with your outdated explanations of the fairy tales of an over three hundred years old one way apple pie force applied with cosmic explosions en masse.

But it is of course a nice good night telling in order to sleep well - it works for many persons in a lifetime.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
What percent of the visible universe is in a plasma state? Answer is 99.999%.
And that's probably why they chase the plasma universe theory.
I agree of course :) Consensus scientists are scared to death of loosing face, personal identity and scientific importance.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
"Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology have rejected it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s."
Inform me of the wikipedia authors and I shall tell you why they reject the PC and EU.

Besides everything else. You cannot judge the PC and EU with anything from the strange gravity ideas - they are pr definition fundamental different you know.

But then again: You´re having your obvious troubles with definitions :)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I agree of course :) Consensus scientists are scared to death of loosing face, personal identity and scientific importance.

Except that fame and glory and immortality in name is always reserved for those scientists who proves all his/her peers wrong and/or who turns his/her field upside down.

This is why we remember people like Darwin, Newton, Gallileo, Einstein,...

And why we don't remember people who's work only serves to maintain the status quo.

You don't get a nobel prize for confirming what everybody already knew.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Do you believe there is a correlation between science and religion or not?
Western science developed in the historical context of Christianity. I think the question you are asking is: "Without Christianity providing the philosophical backdrop, would science have developed at all?"

Yes, science didn't need Christianity as a requirement. It would have started anyway as civilization progressed to the required level.

For example: the early Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato were tinkering with scientific thinking, but they predated Christianity. Probably, Christianity interfered with the progression of this philosophy. All they needed to do was begin measuring things and they would have been scientific, but Christian superstition prevented this from happening for 1,500 years.
 
Top