Top Ten Reasons the Universe is Electric: #1 Cosmic Magnetic Fields

Cosmic magnetic fields is the first in the series because only electric current flow can create magnetic fields.

“Though we cannot directly measure the strength of the current flow across cosmic distances,” says the Thunderbolts Project, “the magnetic signature of such currents is seen wherever we look in space.”

To start seeing the evidence for what the Standard Model (the Big Bang) is unable to explain, visit the Thunderbolts Update newsletter sign-up page.

Views: 279

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ruth you are correct in that we all support free speech and ideas ( I hope ) but John Elder was merely returning fire at Tom. Tom constantly insults anybody for daring to dispute his pseudo science. He constantly states that those of us who respect the scientific achievements of Newton, Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Greene, Kaku, Tyson etc. are merely being faithful to a religion. That is a major insult and belittling some of the greatest scientific achievements of the last 4 centuries, as well as the cutting edge technology of today such as LIGO, CERN and the Webb space telescope.

If EU critics were to state their reasons once and without their long attacks on the content and on me, people who want to learn about the EU would find this thread easy to read and the reasoning easy to follow.

When critics do as John D and John E have done here, they show no respect for other Nexus members or visitors. Their deleting their attacks and my deleting my responses would greatly improve this thread's on screen appearance and viewers could easily evaluate its content.

Sorry Tom but the only word for your response is pitiful. You can not rationally argue the pseudoscience, conspiratorial proselytizing of EU, so now you want to censor those of us that call it out for what it is. That is disgusting, as is your constant trolling of science and your attempts to convert people in an atheist forum. You even bemoan yourself as the martyr of EU.

Rather than civil discourse you resort to insulting anyone that dares to accept long proven scientific achievements. You declare the greatest minds in Astrophysics are the equivalent of Baptist ministers. How dare I say that the sun is, in fact, powered by nuclear fusion and is not a light bulb. Ohh, the blasphemy indeed.

John, surely you know a word besides 'pitiful'. There are so many.
Your spirited defense of the BB faith merits a reward at least as eternal as the reward xianity's defenders have been promised.

You have been down this road multiple times on Atheist Nexus with the same results. What is the definition of insanity ???

John, the people at the Thunderbolts Project make a strong case for the EU. You are making a strong case for the Bang's being a religion--neither has evidence but both have authorities, words, and believers.

Also, the Bang and religion both have attackers.

How is it a religion that General Relativity predicted gravitational lensing then, lo and behold, it was proven / observed that light bends around large bodies, like the sun, during an eclipse? How is it dogma that relativity predicted time dilation, then lo and behold, it was proven with clocks - one moving and one stationary ? It ( special relativity ) was also proven with one clock at sea level and one 10,000 ft above sea level. How is it religion that we use relativity, all the time, with satellites ?

Despite this you claim Einstein was wrong and call it religion ? That all of the worlds brightest astrophysicists are completely wrong, and the classical model is mere dogma.

Take a look in the mirror if you want to see dogma. Loren is right that this doesn't even merit a response. Have the decency to leave it alone on this forum though.

C'mon, John, a vigorous debate is good mental exercise.

You are as committed as any theist I've ever debated.

I''m not saying relativity is a religion, John.

I'm saying the Bang is a religion. There's no evidence for it but it has authorities, words, believers, and attackers.

The universe expanding as predicted by equations ( Einstein ) and proven with observation ( Hubble ) is as solid evidence as you can get.

You still havent provided an example of EU application in the real world ? Where, when and how is it used other than for youtube speculation ?

You still havent provided an example of EU application in the real world ? Where, when and how is it used other than for youtube speculation ?

I did my homework, John; you can cotton-picking well do yours.

Here's a tip. I added the bolding you see.

The Expansion of the Universe Debunked


The Hubble law for the large scale redshift of galaxies (i.e. redshift proportional to distance) is usually taken as evidence (if not proof) for the picture of an expanding universe in general and the Big Bang theory in particular. However, recessional velocities have by no means been actually measured, and the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift was only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations (for the sake of historical correctness it should be pointed out that Hubble himself was apparently never certain about this interpretation of the redshift (see http://sites.google.com/site/bigbangcosmythology/home/edwinhubble)).

[sigh] Tom, I am neither a professional physicist nor a politician ... but I will say this: the day when you're willing to go head-to-head with someone like Lawrence Krauss or Sean Carroll or Carolyn Porco regarding this supposed "electric universe" and at least get them to consider this badly conceived supposition (no, I won't call it a hypothesis), if not convince them, you will have earned some credibility with me.  As it is, all you come across as in the here and now is a very determined dog with a badly insubstantial bone.  Do you genuinely believe that the entire physics community has been co-opted by a lie?  Do you seriously think you know more about this topic than those who have spent a lifetime invested in its study?

Insofar as I'm concerned, it is YOUR credibility that is in question, not Krauss' or Carroll's or Porco's or Hawking's or the hundreds if not thousands of other scientists who have posited and studied and quantified the effects of dark matter and dark energy over the years.  Personally, I'm sick to death of watching you attempt to unseat an established theory with something that can't even gain serious consideration in the scientific community, indeed, what amounts to the physics equivalent of the Kennedy multiple-shooter conspiracy, promoted by those who couldn't deal with the truth of that event.

Convincing us is meaningless.  We have no more expertise in this arena than you do, yet you persist.  If you want to be believed, convince THEM ... because they are the ones that count.  Oh, and before I forget, rant at me all you want; this is the only comment I intend to make on this particular post.

I have better things to do ... and if you bothered to think about it, so do you.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service