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.
It's one thing to call an idea quack science, another to use insult like "whack job". Let's be respectful when we disagree, please. I'm not aware of any Atheist Nexus rules that support "complete and permanent boycott of the topic".
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.
With all due respect Ruth the phrase was :"This whack job of quack science " referring to the pseudoscience, not the man. It was no more disrespectful than anything said by others constantly about those of us who disagree with "EU" and hold with the evaluation of the entire body of modern science instead.
And, No, when it comes to pseudoscience, I disagree that it should be shown any respect what so ever. It is a dangerous voice crying for the equivalence of opinion and ignorance in the world as compared with valid knowledge and science. It should be loudly denounced for what it is, disgraced and dragged out into the light where it will hopefully wither to nothing. As a scientist you well know, science has no obligation to tolerate the proven false and absurd in order to assume the guise of an open mind. There is no obligation to constantly revisit the discredited in order to appear impartial and polite. Or, for that matter, to assume any PC persona of tolerance, a word that has no meaning, nor place, in evaluating scientific validity.
If this isn't the case here why has this EU business not being dealt with in valid and appropriate scientific forums of which there are many instead of being proselytized constantly on the Nexus?
I did not say there were rules on the Nexus for censuring anyone. I said we should refrain from (boycott) any pointless response that lends credibility to the pseudoscience of EU. That of course is a choice. As for continuing to "discuss" EU ,those who wish to do so are of course free to do as they please.
Again, I strongly respect your opinions Ruth, and I have read many of your writings here on Nexus. But I must also strongly disagree in this case. I have said nothing undeserved nor inappropriate in the context of this so called "debate". And I strongly object to politely tolerating pseudoscience as valid on the Nexus. Such things are anti-rational and anti-science. Science is not a debate. But no worry, I'll have no more to do with the whole topic.
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.
You have been down this road multiple times on Atheist Nexus with the same results. What is the definition of insanity ???
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.