anonrobt

Some even question black holes as the correct answer -

regarding the experimental and verification approach, here's from Plasmacosmology.net, over the difference between its view and the 'big bang' - ................... The 'Actualistic' versus the 'Prophetic' Following in the footsteps of their famous predecessors, plasma physicists are keen to take an Actualistic approach, that of working backwards from observation, and taking a broad approach to science. Birkeland, for example, believed in experimentation and observation in addition to mathematical modelling, despite having trained as a mathematician. He was famous for his Terella experiments , and for expeditions to polar regions to observe auroras at first hand. Big Bangers, by contrast, exhibit a preference for the Prophetic approach, that of starting out from idealised mathematical principles. This theoretical approach, however, is fraught with problems, as the history of science testifies. For example: 1. Sidney Chapman's mathematical models failed to predict the complex three dimensional nature of the Earth's magnetosphere. 2. The Kinetic theory of Ordinary gases fails to predict the behaviour of Plasmas (originally called ionised gases), because of their electrodynamic interactions. The mathematics may work for ordinary gases, but it fails hopelessly for plasmas. 3. Ptolemaic epicycles were mathematically elegant, and they worked, but they failed to recognise the underlying mechanism. 4. The prophetic approach postulates a number of entities prior to their discovery. Hypotheticals like Dark Matter and dark Energy are required to balance the equations in Big Bang cosmology. 5. Mathematical proofs were cited to support the claim that heavier-than-air flight was impossible! These, of course, turned out to be total nonsense. "After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility." Halton Arp “We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” Hannes Alfvén Mathematics and Science The importance of mathematics in science cannot be denied. It is an essential tool for both measurement and prediction, principles on which science is based, but history teaches us to be cautious before relying on mathematics as a starting point. Ptolemaic epicycles, mentioned above, highlight the dangers of the mathematical approach. They were a series of circular orbits within orbits, and with a few tweaks they would probably still work today, but the point is that -- although mathematically correct, and indeed elegant -- they failed to reflect the underlying reality. Einstein himself had reservations about the mathematical approach favoured by expanding universe proponents: "Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." "To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality." In other words, Math should be subordinate to Physics, and not the other way around, as it is now. “... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...” Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads. Epicycles "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein Math and Logic It is all too often assumed that mathematics is a form of pure logic, and therefore above reproach. Although it contains many logical elements, the relationship between math and logic is not simple. Bertrand Russell and a number of other philosophers have dedicated no little time in trying to prove the relationship, but all have failed. Math is only pure in so far as much of it reflects the realm of pure thought, and not necessarily reality. Unfortunataly, math all too often drives modern cosmology. The trouble is, math should be our slave ... not our master. Plasma Cosmology works backwards from observation, not forwards from perfect theoretical principals. Additionally, plasma behaviours are not always easy to model mathematically. Langmuir, after all, borrowed the term from blood plasma because of its life-like qualities. Russell's Paradox highlights a math-logic problem via the agent of Set Theory. "Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand Russell Matters of some gravity It is easy to forget that we do not understand the mechanism behind gravity. It is a force which is described mathematically. Newton admitted as much: "But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses." Isaac Newton Einstein further muddied the waters when he replaced a mathematical description of gravity with an abstract mathematical description, by factoring in time as a physical dimension. Can empty space really be curved? “Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies .......... Doesn't speak well of the mathematical methodology as opposed to the experimental...

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/ http://vodpod.com/watch/1806765-comets-extended-ver-plasma-cosmology-electric-universe http://vodpod.com/watch/1806785-plasma-cosmology-a-brief-introduction http://www.amazon.com/Electric-Sky-Donald-E-Scott/dp/0977285111/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in_f http://vodpod.com/watch/1806715-cosmology-quest-2-plasma-cosmology-part-1-of-5 To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth devised to explain creation: "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing. "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago. "Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

The plasma cosmology view of the universe handles those weaknesses of the 'big bang' theory much better...

If God does exist, then It is no omnipotent. Proof: If It were omnipotent it could bake a cake so big It could not eat it all. But what if It could not bake such a cake? Then it is not omnipotent. Ba'al Chatzaf This explains my indigestion. --Brant in over my head but it tasted good if you're going with "God does exist" as a premise, wouldn't you have to first adduce evidence that he does? to know God is omnipotent wouldn't we first have to have other knowledge of God?--an old white guy with a beard in the sky?--maybe He's not omnipotent all it seems you are trying to prove is that nothing does not exist and you start with the idea that nothing has this characteristic: omnipotence--so you prove omnipotence does not exist, not God still in over my head But - nothing does NOT exist - it is not some 'thing' in opposition to 'something' , but merely the ABSENCE of something... as far as "God" goes, always love the line Peter O'Toole says in The Ruling Class - How do I know I am God? because every time I pray, I find I am talking to myself...

All of what Beck said, then, is basically in Liberal Fascism, Goldberg's great book...

Korzybski claimed that 'concsiouness' by itself was an incomplete term and he proposed 'consciouness of abstracting' instead. So you can't simply be concious, it has no meaning unless you are conscious of something and that something is our abstractions. In a sense it seems mystical to have reached a point in our evolution where we have become aware that our entire experience of life is a result of microscopic and sub-microscopic processes. Since animals, even the higher ones, do not abstract [and perceptual concretes are not abstractions, as that is a conceptualness], then animals are not conscious?? [sapients abstract, not mere sentients]

Interesting ye pull this out - when, by the records of the past couple years [such as ACORN for instance], as seen on many blogs, that it is the Democrats who in reality engage in nefarious tactics, not the Republicans who are oft accused of such...

assuming the Rodin position - really? as in The Thinker? - ever try that? [and note the elbow is on the opposite thigh, not the normal same side thigh?] - http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rodin20thinker.jpg [contrary to the usual notion of this being a paean to thinking, it is about the agony and tortuousness of thinking - a negative]

In this regard, I think there has been a slight misunderstanding of what justice is - and as such, how it is to properly be applied...

Oddly, this is the one Rand novel I've never completed, even after several attempts, tho have seen the movie version several times... the horrors of the life in those times bothers me too much to keep reading to the end... Like Schindler's List, too much to take in for me...

........... And what of the animals - ye saying they do not perceive reality as they go about their affairs? the reality-orienting the animals have is the same one used by humans, who are but higher animals able to analyze their senses...

Indeed very interesting...

And to carry further, it is the mindset behind decorative arts which evolved into the 'non-objective' arts [and 'art for the sake of art' mentality]...

Ideas are evil when they translate into evil actions. Before that, they are merely mistaken. People ought not to be punished for ideas. Only for actions. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al is absolutely correct in this post. Thinking about killing someone is not the same as killing someone. Yep - evil is as evil does - it is the actioning which is evil...

You know, autism is more prevalent among highly intelligent groups? Counterpoints?

As opposed to Branden's Honoring the Self... one is an otherism mindset, the other is a selfism one... the same can be said of several others in that list...

I should add there is one other, a book of poetry by John Paul Sherman [bridgeberg Books] called - Sing Me a Sky... John was an Objectivist and his poems [and there are loads more than was published] are, as far as I know [including Enright], the best 'Objectivist' poetry written...

I for one would not endorse a constitutional convention - it'd end up being a nightmare with worse consequences than ever anticipated... unlike the original convention, which was actually a coup over what had been merely altering some of the Articles of Confederation, and which was managed in an age where communication took longer and the true nature not exposed until it was a fate accompli, this new convention would open all manner of odds and unprincipled efforts to make it more to the tune of those now in power as never before - to officialize what they now are seeking to instill... and no, do not think there'd be measures of reasoned thoughts as were in the original, with federalists and anti-federalists arguing in coherent thoughts on the merits or not - rather, there'd be violence amok from every manner of powerlusters, a last ditch standing of coercion to achieving what it seems they might not now be able or willing to achieve...

Excellent. You are correct John. Moreover, he has pushed Ayn and Atlas Shrugged and her ideas more than any major voice in media ever. Shall we not look a really great gift horse in the mouth. I would walk with the Devil himself on the same path to move our agenda forward. Adam True - after all, walking with Lucifer is like walking with the 'bringer of light'...

sincere reason, with Christianity??

yes, from other readings, that indeed about sums it up...

If it truly doesn't exist, then whatever I've been stimulating in my relationships of pleasuring is a terrific substitute!

http://www.amazon.com/Separate-Tables-Rita-Hayworth/dp/B00005PJ6X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1262628298&sr=1-1

I quite agree... the pervasiveness of the Taking Syndrome - one's gain is another's loss, business is a form of combat, all relationships are adversarial and hierarchical, and so on, has made it very difficult to even among 'friends' grasp how to properly address the trader mindeset of relationships - of the sum-plus view of win-win for each party... and the idea that others have had ideas worth considering, even if in part, and that getting total non-contradictory understandings is hard to come by almost anyone - is difficult to get across to those who have not acquired that vast store of knowledge... easier to damn than to learn... [except when it comes to pc, where the others' views are to be taken as benign and those dissidents among are thus aberrant and not exemplar... until it is one's own head rolling on the chopping block]