[_ Old Earth _] Electric Universe theory & Plasma cosmology

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
This is the usual dodge. If there's a tiny unknown in anything "it's proof our new theory is correct." Except it's not. You're talking an acceleration of 13 millimeters per second, in a spacecraft moving well over 2,400,000,000 millimeters per second. A discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion. Which is why they don't have to worry about it. And there are many different things that might be causing it. And the notion that such tiny effects can move planets around, is just laughable.

I wasn't presenting an anomaly as positive evidence for plasma cosmology or electric universe theory.

Of course you were.

It was directed at this comment "You might talk to NASA. Space craft are navigated with the assumption that gravity and inertia are the two things that determine speed and direction. So far, it's always worked."

And it has. Even with the anomaly (which has several possible explanations, none of which supports your ideas) the error is less than one part in ten billion. Hardly detectable. And less than other navigational errors.

Barbarian suggests:
Don't see how. Show us your calculations.

(declines to show any math, but draws a diagram of a galaxy)

(still declines to show us any)

I'm beginning to suspect you don't know how to do these calculations.

Barbarian said: ↑

Sorry, that won't help. Show us your calculations that these forces that act at a few millimeters, can move the planets about. So far, you've claimed, but can't show, that a discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion is support for your theory. Let's see some numbers.​

(declines to show us any)

Gravity alone fails to explain galaxies.

Sorry, what we don't know, doesn't support anything.

Plasma physics gives scientists more tools to explain phenomenon.

Except, as in the case of NASA spacecraft, none of it works. You've assumed these imagined effects can move planets, and it can't even make a detectable difference in the flight of spacecraft.

"Acceptance of the plasma universe model is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe.

Acceptance of the gravity fairy is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe. But neither of these is accepted by astrophysicists. For reasons we've already covered.

Barbarian notes that Vaccine's link denies the "electric universe" belief:

The problem is, real physicists aren't buying that, for a variety of reasons. BTW, that guy says the "electric universe" buffs have it wrong. So he's not much help for your beliefs.​

Sort of like 'evolutionary' biologists are the only 'real' biologists?

Well, according to the guys you posted, about 97.7% are. The other 0.3% all have religious objections.

These guys are 'real' physicists, trying to discredit them that way only exposes a bias.

Even your link denies what you're trying to show us. That should be a tip-off in itself.

They aren't from ICR or creationists as far as I know, what they are doing is bucking the status quo. When scientists reject empirical evidence in favor of ideology, they're going to be bucked.

Their ideology is incompatible with physics. Even the link you posted says so.

This is Darwin's legacy, scientists adhering to their theories, in spite of evidence against it.

If you think so, you know nothing of Darwin or his book. It has evidence in great detail. And it was the evidence that convinced other scientists that he was right. As you know, those who still object to him, do so for ideological reasons.

Yes, I saw where the primer fields guy distanced himself from EU theory. The problem is his theory supports EU whether he likes it or not.

I looked at his numbers. Do us a favor and show us his calculations and how he is wrong. And explain why you touted him, if you didn't accept his conclusions.

It may be possible the universe is 130 billion years old but the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Nope. Not a chance. There are human artifacts much, much older than that.

The inference the Earth is 4.6 billion years old is on equal footing as inferring the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

As long as you toss out all the evidence. Even many YE creationists admit this fact. YE creationist Harold Coffin admitted under oath that if it were not for his view of Scripture, the evidence would lead him to believe the world was very old.

There's just no way to overcome all that evidence, unless like Coffin, you just deny it.

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
This is the usual dodge. If there's a tiny unknown in anything "it's proof our new theory is correct." Except it's not. You're talking an acceleration of 13 millimeters per second, in a spacecraft moving well over 2,400,000,000 millimeters per second. A discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion. Which is why they don't have to worry about it. And there are many different things that might be causing it. And the notion that such tiny effects can move planets around, is just laughable.

As I said, I wouldn't use an anomaly as positive evidence of plasma cosmology but I would to show this overconfidence in gravity only is unwarranted.

And it has. Even with the anomaly (which has several possible explanations, none of which supports your ideas) the error is less than one part in ten billion. Hardly detectable. And less than other navigational errors.

One possible explanation listed is a halo of dark matter. If people want to believe in dark matter fine, but plasma physics is an alternative explanation to dark matter.

Barbarian suggests:
Don't see how. Show us your calculations.

(declines to show any math, but draws a diagram of a galaxy)

(still declines to show us any)

I'm beginning to suspect you don't know how to do these calculations.

I admit much of the math is beyond me. What I do know is Ptolemy's elliptical orbits are mathematically possible. Geocentrism is rejected on the observations, not the math. Dark matter and dark energy are created by physicists so the math matches the observations. That is unnecessary as plasma physics explains the observations. Considering in the past I've shown the math behind intelligent design theory and cosmological special relativity (5th dimension) only to have it ignored, I hesitate presenting the math behind plasma cosmology. But here it is:

"This mechanism was first brought to the attention of astronomers by Alfvén and Herlofson (1950); a remarkable suggestion at a time when plasma, magnetic fields, and laboratory physics were thought to have little, if anything, to do with a cosmos filled with isolated 'island" universes (galaxies)."
"During the 1980's a series of unexpected observations showed filamentary structure on the Galactic, intergalactic, and supergalactic scale"
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1995Ap&SS.227...97P&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

Barbarian said: ↑

Sorry, that won't help. Show us your calculations that these forces that act at a few millimeters, can move the planets about. So far, you've claimed, but can't show, that a discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion is support for your theory. Let's see some numbers.​

(declines to show us any)

Here is more of the math behind plasma cosmology. Plasma physics are part of Newtonian and Relativity, applying those physics to the galactic scale is what's new.

Sorry, what we don't know, doesn't support anything.

But from what we do know big bang theory conflicts with many of the observations.
Where are the monopole magnets? There aren't any, so rather than reject their theory, they retrofitted 'inflation' as part of it.

Acceptance of the gravity fairy is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe. But neither of these is accepted by astrophysicists. For reasons we've already covered.

It more accepted than you think. This is from a peer reviewed paper:
"Although Plasma Physics and Cosmology are two well-
established fields of Theoretical Physics, the formulation
of magnetohydrodynamics in curved spacetime is a rel-
atively new development"
"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time
that a direct connection between gravitational instabil-
ity and cosmic-ray acceleration has been suggested and
discussed."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0512131.pdf

Here's the real issue:
"Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end. Many astrophysicists still claim that magnetic fields are ldquofrozen intordquo electric plasma. The ldquomagnetic mergingrdquo (reconnection) mechanism is also falsified by both theoretical and experimental investigations."
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4287080&url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287080

Barbarian notes that Vaccine's link denies the "electric universe" belief

Show me where?

Well, according to the guys you posted, about 97.7% are. The other 0.3% all have religious objections.

Where did you get those numbers from? There are plenty of objections apart from religious ones:
"When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?"
""When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled."
"The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn't right about the organisms we've been studying," Cardinale says. "It doesn't mean the hypothesis won't hold for other organisms, but it's enough that we want to get biologists to rethink the generality of Darwin's hypothesis."
"But if scientists ultimately prove Darwin wrong on a larger scale, "then we need to stop using his hypothesis as a basis for conservation decisions," Cardinale says. "We risk conserving things that are the least important, and losing things that are the most important. This does bring up the question: How do we prioritize?"
http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

If you think so, you know nothing of Darwin or his book. It has evidence in great detail. And it was the evidence that convinced other scientists that he was right. As you know, those who still object to him, do so for ideological reasons.

See above:"..it was hard for us to give it up". If you conflate guessing with evidence, then yes there is plenty of evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
This is the usual dodge. If there's a tiny unknown in anything "it's proof our new theory is correct." Except it's not. You're talking an acceleration of 13 millimeters per second, in a spacecraft moving well over 2,400,000,000 millimeters per second. A discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion. Which is why they don't have to worry about it. And there are many different things that might be causing it. And the notion that such tiny effects can move planets around, is just laughable.

As I said, I wouldn't use an anomaly as positive evidence of plasma cosmology but I would to show this overconfidence in gravity only is unwarranted.

Overconfidence in anything is unwarranted. However, the fact that NASA can precisely navigate the solar system considering only gravity and intertia, makes it clear that the electric universe assumptions are wrong. The imagined forces just aren't there.

Barbarian said: ↑
And it has. Even with the anomaly (which has several possible explanations, none of which supports your ideas) the error is less than one part in ten billion. Hardly detectable. And less than other navigational errors.

One possible explanation listed is a halo of dark matter.

One of many. Dark matter is only matter that doesn't give off or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation for us to see. But as you saw, that's only one of many possible causes.

If people want to believe in dark matter fine, but plasma physics is an alternative explanation to dark matter.

See above. The electric universe people claim it's the force that makes the solar system work. And yet, no sign at all of it, when we send spacecraft out. In science, you first note a phenomenon, and only later propose a theory for it.

Barbarian suggests:
Don't see how. Show us your calculations.

(declines to show any math, but draws a diagram of a galaxy)

(still declines to show us any)

I'm beginning to suspect you don't know how to do these calculations.

I admit much of the math is beyond me.

What I do know is Ptolemy's elliptical orbits are mathematically possible.

Not only possible, but directly observed.

Geocentrism is rejected on the observations, not the math.

No, that's wrong. Tycho had all the observations in the world, but he got it wrong. Kepler's math is what solved the problem. Go and see for yourself.

Dark matter and dark energy are created by physicists so the math matches the observations.

So was relativity. Turned out, that was observed later, even though it was based on math. One of the remarkable things about nature, is it is often predictable on mathematical grounds.

That is unnecessary as plasma physics explains the observations.

See above. The only direct data we have is from NASA, and no sign of the electric universe.

Considering in the past I've shown the math behind intelligent design theory and cosmological special relativity (5th dimension) only to have it ignored

There is no math behind ID. It's a religious belief. The "math" was just post hoc scribbling to try to make it scientific. Your pasted article has no math. Math isn't just posting some numbers. There needs to be some calculations, not just scientific notation.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, that won't help. Show us your calculations that these forces that act at a few millimeters, can move the planets about. So far, you've claimed, but can't show, that a discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion is support for your theory. Let's see some numbers.

(declines to show us any)

Here is more of the math behind plasma cosmology. Plasma physics are part of Newtonian and Relativity, applying those physics to the galactic scale is what's new.

The authors postulate the anisotropy of the universe due to Alfven waves. Which can only work under gravitational conditions. This undercuts the electric universe notion, again.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, what we don't know, doesn't support anything.

But from what we do know big bang theory conflicts with many of the observations.

It's the fact that it so nicely predicted many of the things later found, that makes it the most probable event, in the opinion of physicists.

Where are the monopole magnets?

This is known as the Dirac quantization condition. The hypothetical existence of a magnetic monopole would imply that the electric charge must be quantized in certain units; also, the existence of the electric charges implies that the magnetic charges of the hypothetical magnetic monopoles, if they exist, must be quantized in units inversely proportional to the elementary electric charge.


At the time it was not clear if such a thing existed, or even had to. After all, another theory could come along that would explain charge quantization without need for the monopole. The concept remained something of a curiosity. However, in the time since the publication of this seminal work, no other widely accepted explanation of charge quantization has appeared. (The concept of local gauge invariance—see gauge theory below—provides a natural explanation of charge quantization, without invoking the need for magnetic monopoles; but only if the U(1) gauge group is compact, in which case we will have magnetic monopoles anyway.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

They are a consequence of Maxwell's equations, which so far, have been confirmed. So the search goes on.


Barbarian spoofs:

Acceptance of the gravity fairy is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe. But neither of these is accepted by astrophysicists. For reasons we've already covered.​

It more accepted than you think. This is from a peer reviewed paper:
"Although Plasma Physics and Cosmology are two well-
established fields of Theoretical Physics,

I don't think conflating plasma physics and the "electric universe" beliefs are going to help you much.

Barbarian notes that Vaccine's link denies the "electric universe" belief​

Show me where?

The person you linked to says that the electric universe beliefs are wrong.

Barbarian observes:

Well, according to the guys you posted, about 97.7% are. The other 0.3% all have religious objections.​

Where did you get those numbers from?

Discovery Institute's list of scientists who doubt Darwin, compared to Project Steve's list of those who accept evolutionary theory.

There are plenty of objections apart from religious ones:

So far, no one's been able to show us any.

"When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?"

Sorry, quote-mining isn't evidence for anything. Show us some data, not quotes.

Barbarian chuckles:

If you think so, you know nothing of Darwin or his book. It has evidence in great detail. And it was the evidence that convinced other scientists that he was right. As you know, those who still object to him, do so for ideological reasons.​

See above

Sorry, no good. Show us evidence, not edited quotes.

 

[Vaccine]

This is the usual dodge. If there's a tiny unknown in anything "it's proof our new theory is correct." Except it's not. You're talking an acceleration of 13 millimeters per second, in a spacecraft moving well over 2,400,000,000 millimeters per second. A discrepancy of less than one part in ten billion. Which is why they don't have to worry about it. And there are many different things that might be causing it. And the notion that such tiny effects can move planets around, is just laughable.

So what you're saying is because classical physics such as Newtons laws of motion can explain the movements of spaceships and planets with only gravity and inertia, that disproves plasma cosmology or electric universe theory?
That's apples to oranges. Classical physics applies at speeds much slower than the speed of light and to masses smaller than galaxies. When we talk of speeds approaching the speed of light and masses on a galactic scale, the laws of classical physics break down and no longer apply. At these speeds and masses the physics of general relativity applies. This is also the realm plasma cosmology is addressing. Newton's physics are irrelevant to this discussion.

"I admit much of the math is beyond me.

What I do know is Ptolemy's elliptical orbits are mathematically possible."

Not only possible, but directly observed.

Wait, what? You can't mean that, that elliptical orbits are directly observed. Are you simply disagreeing with everything I say without reading it?

"Geocentrism is rejected on the observations, not the math."

No, that's wrong. Tycho had all the observations in the world, but he got it wrong. Kepler's math is what solved the problem. Go and see for yourself.

I did, Ptolemy's math works. "Kepler questioned how a planet could “know” to move at a constant rate around an empty point. Yet as a computational tool, Ptolemy's "equant" worked surprisingly well."
http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Equant.html

See, crazy as it sounds Ptolemy's math works. What it came down to was Occam's razor, the theory with the fewest assumptions is generally the right one. Kepler's math has fewer assumptions is all. Even Einstein believed math should have some link to observations. Science based purely on math can get crazy.

"Considering in the past I've shown the math behind intelligent design theory and cosmological special relativity (5th dimension) only to have it ignored"

There is no math behind ID. It's a religious belief. The "math" was just post hoc scribbling to try to make it scientific.

Which is it: there's no math behind ID, or the math is scribbling? I think this is a case where "people are down on things they're not up on".

"Here is more of the math behind plasma cosmology. Plasma physics are part of Newtonian and Relativity, applying those physics to the galactic scale is what's new."

The authors postulate the anisotropy of the universe due to Alfven waves. Which can only work under gravitational conditions. This undercuts the electric universe notion, again.

Since the title of that peer-reviewed paper is "Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Cosmology" I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude that paper 'undercuts' the very notion the paper intended to support.

Here's what they found:
1 We have found that, a magnetic field frozen onto
a fluid of finite viscosity, may alter the standard
picture of the gravitational instability.
2 We have discussed how the preferential, anisotropic
magnetic amplification may increase the induced
electric currents on a plane perpendicular to the
main axis of the collapse.
3 These gravitationally induced current-sheets will,
in turn, trigger electrostatic instabilities, which
may lead to anomalously high values of the resis-
tivity and, consequently, to strong electric fields.
4 These electric fields can be strong enough, in order
to accelerate free electrons up to ultra high ener-
gies, producing [Ultra High Energy Cosmic Ray] UHECRs

Barbarian notes that Vaccine's link denies the "electric universe" belief

Show me where?

The person you linked to says that the electric universe beliefs are wrong.

So what? Even if he's personally against EU theory, his evidence supports it. The link I provided was about primer fields and nowhere in that video did he 'deny electric universe'. So to say "Even your link denies what you're trying to show us" is quite the false accusation and I've heard false accusation is more than just a sin; it's diagnostic of hatred. We might disagree but there's no hatred here.

"When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?"

Sorry, quote-mining isn't evidence for anything. Show us some data, not quotes.

Quote mining is quoting out of context. The context was "Unsettling Data: Algae findings rock principle dating back to Darwin", doubting Darwin was the very point of the article.

http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

 

[Barbarian]

So what you're saying is because classical physics such as Newtons laws of motion can explain the movements of spaceships and planets with only gravity and inertia, that disproves plasma cosmology or electric universe theory?

It demonstrates that the predicted effects are just not there. That being the case, we're back to the problem of devising a theory without phenomena to explain.

That's apples to oranges. Classical physics applies at speeds much slower than the speed of light and to masses smaller than galaxies.

"Thus, the electric star model originated with an erroneous conception of what turbulence and chaos entail and, despite an impressive argument by analogy with electric discharges, it fails, as will be explained, because of a feature of solar structure discovered through observations from Skylab in 1973, but which was never discussed by either Juergens or Milton - the coronal hole [..]
"Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this observation, the electric star model can be given no credence; and de Grazia's remark that "Juergens had fully disestablished the thermonuclear theory of the Sun . . ." [Cosmic Heretics (1984), p. 186] is painfully premature at the very least. This point about the absence of electrons in coronal holes is neither abstruse nor esoteric; it is fundamental and elementary in any discussion of solar structure."
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory

So, the predicted solar behavior is absent. Where we can test these beliefs, they fail. Why then, would you think that they might succeed where we can't yet test them?

When we talk of speeds approaching the speed of light and masses on a galactic scale, the laws of classical physics break down and no longer apply.

Actually they do. We just need to correct for relativistic effects, just as for a falling body we need to correct for wind resistance in some cases.

At these speeds and masses the physics of general relativity applies. This is also the realm plasma cosmology is addressing. Newton's physics are irrelevant to this discussion.

See above. We still use Newton's laws for motion, albeit with correct for relativistic effects where necessary.

Vaccine admits:

"I admit much of the math is beyond me.

What I do know is Ptolemy's elliptical orbits are mathematically possible."

Barbarian chuckles:
Not only possible, but directly observed.

Wait, what? You can't mean that, that elliptical orbits are directly observed.

Yep. Kepler was the first to notice them. All planetary orbits are ellipses, with the Sun at one major focus.

You may think that most objects in space that orbit something else move in circles, but that isn't the case. Although some objects follow circular orbits, most orbits are shaped more like "stretched out" circles or ovals. Mathematicians and astronomers call this oval shape an ellipse. All of the planets in our Solar System, many satellites, and most moons move along elliptical orbits.
http://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/physics/mechanics/orbit/ellipse.html

Are you simply disagreeing with everything I say without reading it?

I'm just pointing out the fact, Vaccine.


Barbarian said: ↑
"Geocentrism is rejected on the observations, not the math."

No, that's wrong. Tycho had all the observations in the world, but he got it wrong. Kepler's math is what solved the problem. Go and see for yourself.
I did, Ptolemy's math works. "Kepler questioned how a planet could “know” to move at a constant rate around an empty point. Yet as a computational tool, Ptolemy's "equant" worked surprisingly well."
http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Equant.html

See, crazy as it sounds Ptolemy's math works.

Any sufficiently complex system can describe virtually anything. You just keep adding correction factors.

What it came down to was Occam's razor, the theory with the fewest assumptions is generally the right one. Kepler's math has fewer assumptions is all. Even Einstein believed math should have some link to observations. Science based purely on math can get crazy.

It turns out, Einstein's predictions made purely on math, were correct. That seems to be a property of the universe.

Vaccine writes:

"Considering in the past I've shown the math behind intelligent design theory and cosmological special relativity (5th dimension) only to have it ignored"

There is no math behind ID. It's a religious belief. The "math" was just post hoc scribbling to try to make it scientific.

Which is it: there's no math behind ID, or the math is scribbling? I think this is a case where "people are down on things they're not up on".

There's the probability argument. The likelihood of life being as it is, is very tiny. But the likelihood of most things is equally tiny. You, for example, given the genomes of your great, great grandparents, are so unlikely as to be impossible under "ID math."

"Here is more of the math behind plasma cosmology. Plasma physics are part of Newtonian and Relativity, applying those physics to the galactic scale is what's new."​

The authors postulate the anisotropy of the universe due to Alfven waves. Which can only work under gravitational conditions. This undercuts the electric universe notion, again.​

Since the title of that peer-reviewed paper is "Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Cosmology" I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude that paper 'undercuts' the very notion the paper intended to support.

Here's why:
1 We have found that, a magnetic field frozen onto
a fluid of finite viscosity, may alter the standard
picture of the gravitational instability.
2 We have discussed how the preferential, anisotropic
magnetic amplification may increase the induced
electric currents on a plane perpendicular to the
main axis of the collapse.
3 These gravitationally induced current-sheets will,
in turn, trigger electrostatic instabilities, which
may lead to anomalously high values of the resis-
tivity and, consequently, to strong electric fields.
4 These electric fields can be strong enough, in order
to accelerate free electrons up to ultra high ener-
gies, producing [Ultra High Energy Cosmic Ray] UHECRs

Do you not see the problem?

Barbarian notes that Vaccine's link denies the "electric universe" belief

Show me where?

The person you linked to says that the electric universe beliefs are wrong.​

So what?

He points out that the electric universe belief is wrong.

Even if he's personally against EU theory, his evidence supports it.

Doesn't seem so. Even the author points out that it doesn't.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, quote-mining isn't evidence for anything. Show us some data, not quotes.

Quote mining is quoting out of context.

Quote-mining is substituting quotes for evidence. Show us some data, not quotes.

 

[Vaccine]

It demonstrates that the predicted effects are just not there.

It doesn't work that way. Different physics apply to different phenomenon. Here was their prediction about our Sun:

Prediction in 2006:
"“The expectations of NASA scientists are not being met because their shock front model is incorrect. The boundary that Voyager has reached is more complex and structured than a mechanical impact. It conforms more closely to the effects seen in electric discharges in gases at low pressures, discovered by Irving Langmuir in the 1920′s and 30′s. Until the fabulous journey of the Voyager spacecrafts scientists have not been so confronted with the electrical nature of the Sun and its galactic environment.”
—Wal Thornhill, 29 September 2006.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/voyager-probes-the-suns-electrical-environment/?article=55fx8yeh

Discovery:

"In 2009, NASA's Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) mission science team constructed the first-ever all-sky map of the interactions occurring at the edge of the solar system, where the sun's influence diminishes and interacts with the interstellar medium."

"Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, says McComas, but how they got there “is still a big mystery. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised.” “I’m blown away completely,” says space physicist Neil Murphy of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “It’s amazing, it’s opened up a new kind of astronomy.”

"This is a shocking new result," says IBEX principal investigator Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute. "We had no idea this ribbon existed--or what has created it. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised."

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/15oct_ibex/

"What we are learning with IBEX is that the interaction between the sun's magnetic fields and the galactic magnetic field is much more complicated than we previously thought," says Eric Christian, the mission scientist for IBEX at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md."

Confirmation:
"The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly."

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/?article=74fgmwne

That being the case, we're back to the problem of devising a theory without phenomena to explain.

It's not the case at all. It's a misapplication of plasma physics. Nobody would try to fly spacecraft using quantum physics anymore that Newton's laws of motion explain spiral galaxies. Quantum physics, quantum fields, Newton's laws and general relativity are all physics, they just are just applied to different realms of physics. Plasma physics doesn't replace any of those, it adds to them.

"Thus, the electric star model originated with an erroneous conception of what turbulence and chaos entail and, despite an impressive argument by analogy with electric discharges, it fails, as will be explained, because of a feature of solar structure discovered through observations from Skylab in 1973, but which was never discussed by either Juergens or Milton - the coronal hole [..]
"Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this observation, the electric star model can be given no credence; and de Grazia's remark that "Juergens had fully disestablished the thermonuclear theory of the Sun . . ." [Cosmic Heretics (1984), p. 186] is painfully premature at the very least. This point about the absence of electrons in coronal holes is neither abstruse nor esoteric; it is fundamental and elementary in any discussion of solar structure."
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory

So, the predicted solar behavior is absent. Where we can test these beliefs, they fail. Why then, would you think that they might succeed where we can't yet test them?

The answer was in the next paragraph:
"Don Scott has replied that "Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics."

They're applying the wrong set of physics to the issue.

The authors postulate the anisotropy of the universe due to Alfven waves. Which can only work under gravitational conditions. This undercuts the electric universe notion, again.
Since the title of that peer-reviewed paper is "Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Cosmology" I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude that paper 'undercuts' the very notion the paper intended to support.

Here's why:
1 We have found that, a magnetic field frozen onto
a fluid of finite viscosity, may alter the standard
picture of the gravitational instability.
2 We have discussed how the preferential, anisotropic
magnetic amplification may increase the induced
electric currents on a plane perpendicular to the
main axis of the collapse.
3 These gravitationally induced current-sheets will,
in turn, trigger electrostatic instabilities, which
may lead to anomalously high values of the resis-
tivity and, consequently, to strong electric fields.
4 These electric fields can be strong enough, in order
to accelerate free electrons up to ultra high ener-
gies, producing [Ultra High Energy Cosmic Ray] UHECRs

Do you not see the problem?

Nope. It seems this may be leading up to a strawman argument where the forces have to be either 'gravity' or 'electricity', but not both. Electric universe theory doesn't replace gravity, it debunks a gravity only model and adds another set of physics (plasma physics) with which to explain the universe.

"Summarizing, the suggestion made here is that, in the
context of Newtonian Cosmology, production of UHE-
CRs may have started almost simultaneously with the
formation of galaxies, through the electrodynamic char-
acteristics of the gravitational instability. This process
may be continued until today, since the previously de-
scribed instability is active on all cosmic scales."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0512131.pdf

There's the probability argument. The likelihood of life being as it is, is very tiny. But the likelihood of most things is equally tiny. You, for example, given the genomes of your great, great grandparents, are so unlikely as to be impossible under "ID math."

Impossible for accidental causes but not for intentional causes. By ID math an event as a result of random chances are eliminated by those tiny probabilities. So accidental causes are eliminated while intentional causes are still considered. The odds of dealing a straight flush several times in a row are incredibly small too, so if that happened we can safely conclude someone intentionally stacked the deck. Under ID math life is no accident, it was intentional. In Dembski's book he did formulate a minimum threshold that would make a distinction between random chances and intentional ones to avoid false positives.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, quote-mining isn't evidence for anything. Show us some data, not quotes.

Quote mining is quoting out of context.

Quote-mining is substituting quotes for evidence. Show us some data, not quotes.

There can't be data for something that didn't happen.
"If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly — but that's not what happened," Cardinale says. "We didn't see any evidence of that at all. We found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America where evolution cannot tell us which species co-exist in lakes in nature."
http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

From the Abstract of "Experimental evidence that evolutionary relatedness does not affect the ecological mechanisms of coexistence in freshwater green algae"
"Darwin proposed that evolution causes species' niches to diverge, but the influence of evolution on relative fitness differences, and the importance of both niche and fitness differences in determining coexistence have not yet been studied together. We tested whether the phylogenetic distances between species of green freshwater algae determined their abilities to coexist in a microcosm experiment. We found that niche differences were more important in explaining coexistence than relative fitness differences, and that phylogenetic distance had no effect on either coexistence or on the sizes of niche and fitness differences."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It demonstrates that the predicted effects are just not there.

It doesn't work that way.

That's how science works. An effect is predicted, and when it's tested, and found not to be, the theory is wrong.

Different physics apply to different phenomenon.

The "electric universe" belief is that electric and magnetic effects govern the solar system. As you see, that's just wrong.

And of course, the charged particles at the edge of the solar system is incompatible with the electric universe belief. Your source is engaging in "postdiction" making up a story to cover the fact that they got it wrong the first time.

Barbarian observes:
That being the case, we're back to the problem of devising a theory without phenomena to explain.

It's not the case at all. It's a misapplication of plasma physics. Nobody would try to fly spacecraft using quantum physics anymore that Newton's laws of motion explain spiral galaxies. Quantum physics, quantum fields, Newton's laws and general relativity are all physics, they just are just applied to different realms of physics. Plasma physics doesn't replace any of those, it adds to them.

So if the "electric universe" doesn't even explain gravity and the observed motions of the solar system, what exactly, does it do?

Physicists write:
"Thus, the electric star model originated with an erroneous conception of what turbulence and chaos entail and, despite an impressive argument by analogy with electric discharges, it fails, as will be explained, because of a feature of solar structure discovered through observations from Skylab in 1973, but which was never discussed by either Juergens or Milton - the coronal hole [..]
"Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this observation, the electric star model can be given no credence; and de Grazia's remark that "Juergens had fully disestablished the thermonuclear theory of the Sun . . ." [Cosmic Heretics (1984), p. 186] is painfully premature at the very least. This point about the absence of electrons in coronal holes is neither abstruse nor esoteric; it is fundamental and elementary in any discussion of solar structure."
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory

So, the predicted solar behavior is absent. Where we can test these beliefs, they fail. Why then, would you think that they might succeed where we can't yet test them?
..

The answer was in the next paragraph:

"Don Scott has replied that "Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics."

They're applying the wrong set of physics to the issue.

Every time their predictions tank, they decide to change the story. That's not surprising, either. So show us the numbers that support a coronal hole with "low pressure gas discharge physics."

Look here:

Discharge from a neon tube. Notice that curren stablizes at pressures very much less than found in the Sun, and yet, your guys are telling us the Sun shines because of this effect. That's absurd. And notice, the glow discharge would be inconsistent with a lack of electrons in coronal holes.

Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.

Barbarian observes:

The authors postulate the anisotropy of the universe due to Alfven waves. Which can only work under gravitational conditions. This undercuts the electric universe notion, again.

Since the title of that peer-reviewed paper is "Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Cosmology" I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude that paper 'undercuts' the very notion the paper intended to support.

You're conflating "electric universe", a pseudoscientific belief, with plasma physics. Two different things.
Some common plasmas are found in stars and neon signs. In the universe, plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter, most of which is in the rarefied intergalactic plasma (particularly intracluster medium) and in stars. Much of the understanding of plasmas has come from the pursuit of controlled nuclear fusion and fusion power, for which plasma physics provides the scientific basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)


Do you not see the problem?
Click to expand...​

Nope. It seems this may be leading up to a strawman argument where the forces have to be either 'gravity' or 'electricity', but not both. Electric universe theory doesn't replace gravity, it debunks a gravity only model and adds another set of physics (plasma physics) with which to explain the universe.

"Summarizing, the suggestion made here is that, in the
context of Newtonian Cosmology, production of UHE-
CRs may have started almost simultaneously with the
formation of galaxies, through the electrodynamic char-
acteristics of the gravitational instability. This process
may be continued until today, since the previously de-
scribed instability is active on all cosmic scales."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0512131.pdf

Notice that it supposes that these effect started after galaxies formed, directly contradicting the "electric universe" believers.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the "math" supposed to disprove evolution:

There's the probability argument. The likelihood of life being as it is, is very tiny. But the likelihood of most things is equally tiny. You, for example, given the genomes of your great, great grandparents, are so unlikely as to be impossible under "ID math."​

Impossible for accidental causes

No, that wrong, too. The likelihood of the order of a well-shuffled deck of cards is so low as to be effectively impossible by creationist math. Yet it happens every time.

Who intends that specific order in a shuffled deck of cards? It has a probability of 1.2397999308571485923950341988946e-68 (about one with 67 zeros in front of it). If all the people in history were shuffling cards every day, you wouldn't expect to find that result. Yet it happens every time.

but not for intentional causes.

So who do you think is planning the order in shuffled cards?

By ID math an event as a result of random chances are eliminated by those tiny probabilities.

You don't think shuffling is a random process?

So accidental causes are eliminated while intentional causes are still considered.

Show us that for cards.

The odds of dealing a straight flush several times in a row are incredibly small too, so if that happened we can safely conclude someone intentionally stacked the deck.

Here, you're just painting a bullseye around an arrow stuck in a tree. The likelihood of you, given your ancestor's genes, is astonishingly small. But here you are. Like a straight flush, any particular order is prohibitively unlikely, but there's always an equally unlikely combination that does come up. Now, if someone could predict your particular genome from your ancestors, that would be something. But of course, that won't happen.

Under ID math life is no accident, it was intentional.

The major problem for IDers, is that they think God isn't capable enough to make a universe in which He knows life will appear as He intends. An omnipotent God scares them, it seems so they opt for a less capable "designer" who they say might be a "space alien."

In Dembski's book he did formulate a minimum threshold that would make a distinction between random chances and intentional ones to avoid false positives.

So life and poker hands are so unlikely, Dembski thinks God is rigging the game.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, quote-mining isn't evidence for anything. Show us some data, not quotes. Quote-mining is substituting quotes for evidence. Show us some data, not quotes.​

There can't be data for something that didn't happen.

You've just summed up why ID failed as a scientific theory. Nothing to show.

"If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly — but that's not what happened," Cardinale says. "We didn't see any evidence of that at all. We found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America where evolution cannot tell us which species co-exist in lakes in nature."
http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

From the Abstract of "Experimental evidence that evolutionary relatedness does not affect the ecological mechanisms of coexistence in freshwater green algae"
"Darwin proposed that evolution causes species' niches to diverge, but the influence of evolution on relative fitness differences, and the importance of both niche and fitness differences in determining coexistence have not yet been studied together. We tested whether the phylogenetic distances between species of green freshwater algae determined their abilities to coexist in a microcosm experiment. We found that niche differences were more important in explaining coexistence than relative fitness differences, and that phylogenetic distance had no effect on either coexistence or on the sizes of niche and fitness differences."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

And this article seems to show that Darwin was wrong in some details of his theory. There are several examples of that, such as genetics, which is part of modern evolutionary theory, not Darwin's theory. But it confirms the fact of evolution from evidence that showed Darwin was mistaken. You've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
It demonstrates that the predicted effects are just not there.

I've shown their predictions and validations about the heliosphere. There's also their prediction and validation about comets and asteroids.

The "electric universe" belief is that electric and magnetic effects govern the solar system. As you see, that's just wrong.

That's just your framing of their theory. Science doesn't work that way, they don't redefine someone's theory, show that caricature is wrong, then declare victory. That's what internet scientists do. Believe them or don't believe them but these are cutting edge physicists making groundbreaking discoveries. I'm just passing along their information.

And of course, the charged particles at the edge of the solar system is incompatible with the electric universe belief. Your source is engaging in "postdiction" making up a story to cover the fact that they got it wrong the first time.

Let me repeat that back to you, "charged" particles is incompatible with electric universe belief. EU theory highlights the importance of electricity, charged particles, in the universe. Also, those articles were dated. His predictions were in 2006, the ribbon of charged particles was discovered in 2009, within 2 weeks he published a valid explanation of the "new" discovery since it fit so well within electric universe theory. NASA didn't know of or just didn't like his explanation, so they were baffled for a few years until in 2014 they came up with an explanation that involves redefining magnetic fields. The electric universe model explains the heliosphere with fewer assumptions and with established physics of plasma. NASA has to rely on magnetism doing all sorts of weird things to explain the ribbon of charged particles. I have a feeling NASA ignored his explanation for ideological reasons, accepting EU means rejecting big bang.

Every time their predictions tank, they decide to change the story. That's not surprising, either. So show us the numbers that support a coronal hole with "low pressure gas discharge physics."

Show some evidence where their predictions tank.

Look here:

Discharge from a neon tube. Notice that curren stablizes at pressures very much less than found in the Sun, and yet, your guys are telling us the Sun shines because of this effect. That's absurd. And notice, the glow discharge would be inconsistent with a lack of electrons in coronal holes.

"Unlike the thin neon tube, the Sun occupies a vast sphere more than 16 billion miles across, so the positive column disappears and the current is carried throughout that volume by a low density of ionization. It requires only that the Sun’s electric field has sufficient strength to cause a drift of electrons toward the Sun, superimposed on their random thermal motion. In other words, it is immeasurably small. Notice that the net charge density in the positive column is zero. In other words, there are an equal number of negative and positive charges in interplanetary space. That is what spacecraft have generally found."
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/a-mystery-solved-welcome-to-the-electric-universe/

Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.

Got any evidence for those claims?

You're conflating "electric universe", a pseudoscientific belief, with plasma physics. Two different things.

Some common plasmas are found in stars and neon signs. In the universe, plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter, most of which is in the rarefied intergalactic plasma (particularly intracluster medium) and in stars. Much of the understanding of plasmas has come from the pursuit of controlled nuclear fusion and fusion power, for which plasma physics provides the scientific basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
​

Peer reviewed papers > Wiki
"Although Plasma Physics and Cosmology are two well-
established fields of Theoretical Physics, "
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0512131.pdf


​

"Summarizing, the suggestion made here is that, in the
context of Newtonian Cosmology, production of UHE-
CRs may have started almost simultaneously with the
formation of galaxies, through the electrodynamic char-
acteristics of the gravitational instability. This process
may be continued until today, since the previously de-
scribed instability is active on all cosmic scales."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0512131.pdf

Notice that it supposes that these effect started after galaxies formed, directly contradicting the "electric universe" believers.

Again, the title of that paper is "Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Cosmology". Plasma cosmology is under the umbrella of electric universe. Peer reviewed papers don't contradict themselves.

 

[Vaccine]

No, that wrong, too. The likelihood of the order of a well-shuffled deck of cards is so low as to be effectively impossible by creationist math. Yet it happens every time.

Low probability is only [i[half[/i] the picture. Learn more here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ability-is-only-half-of-specified-complexity/

Now it's creationist math? No offense, but when the tactic to debunk something relies heavily on deriding them, it exposes a weak case.

Here, you're just painting a bullseye around an arrow stuck in a tree. The likelihood of you, given your ancestor's genes, is astonishingly small. But here you are. Like a straight flush, any particular order is prohibitively unlikely, but there's always an equally unlikely combination that does come up. Now, if someone could predict your particular genome from your ancestors, that would be something. But of course, that won't happen.

That's not how specified-complexity is defined. The specified and complexity are defined prior to any calculations. Painting a bullseye on a tree would be unspecified-complexity, since there was no specificity involved. The specificity was added ad hoc.

So life and poker hands are so unlikely, Dembski thinks God is rigging the game.

One poker hand is not specified complexity. One hand is specific, but not complex, therefore is explained by chance. Any poker hand 20 times in a row is specific but not complex, again explained by chance. The same hand (bullseye before shot arrow) 20 times in a row is specific and complex, therefore is explained by design. "rigging the game" is just a figure of speech for intentional result or designed.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, that wrong, too. The likelihood of the order of a well-shuffled deck of cards is so low as to be effectively impossible by creationist math. Yet it happens every time.

Low probability is only [i[half[/i] the picture.

The other half, is your ID guys are trying to apply probabilities to things that have already happened. That's why it's absurd to say that you are so unlikely as to be impossible, given IDer reasoning. They pick something that happened, point out how unlikely it would be to predict, and figure that God must have stepped in to do it.

But the same reasoning would have God intervening in every poker game ever played.

Learn more here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ability-is-only-half-of-specified-complexity/

The same foolishness. Dembski thinks there's something special about royal flushes. But there isn't. If you got any particular hand, exactly the same, 13 times, that would be precisely as unlikely as 13 royal flushes in a row. Hard to say if he doesn't understand probability well enough to see this, or if he's just hoping you don't.

Now it's creationist math? No offense, but when the tactic to debunk something relies heavily on deriding them, it exposes a weak case.

Just pointing out the obvious. Dembski's either monumentally dense, or he's distributing taffy.

Barbarian observes:
Here, you're just painting a bullseye around an arrow stuck in a tree. The likelihood of you, given your ancestor's genes, is astonishingly small. But here you are. Like a straight flush, any particular order is prohibitively unlikely, but there's always an equally unlikely combination that does come up. Now, if someone could predict your particular genome from your ancestors, that would be something. But of course, that won't happen.

That's not how specified-complexity is defined.

Of course not. But it doesn't have anything to do with mathematics. It's a religious belief that there's some kind of magic "specified complexity." Problem is, Dembski is unable to detect the difference, unless he's already decided what it is beforehand.

The specified and complexity are defined prior to any calculations. Painting a bullseye on a tree would be unspecified-complexity, since there was no specificity involved.

Ah, so what feature of living things did Dembski predict before it appeared?

The specificity was added ad hoc.

That's precisely what Dembski did. Now, if he were to predict something before it happened, that would be a remarkable result.

Barbarian observes:

So life and poker hands are so unlikely, Dembski thinks God is rigging the game.​

One poker hand is not specified complexity.

Neither are biological systems. It's just a story they tell people.

One hand is specific, but not complex, therefore is explained by chance. Any poker hand 20 times in a row is specific but not complex, again explained by chance.

Wrong. Any poker hand 20 times in a row is just as unlikely as a royal flush 20 times in a row. And that's the reason Dembki's story falls apart. It's mathematically wrong.

The same hand (bullseye before shot arrow) 20 times in a row is specific and complex,

Show us some biological feature Dembski predicted before it happened.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It demonstrates that the predicted effects are just not there.

I've shown their predictions and validations about the heliosphere.

As you've seen they don't predict what's actually there. And yes, I know they changed the story to something else, but it still doesn't fit.

There's also their prediction and validation about comets and asteroids.

Nope. But if you think so, tell us about it.

Barbarian observes:
The "electric universe" belief is that electric and magnetic effects govern the solar system. As you see, that's just wrong.

That's just your framing of their theory.

Nope:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/assembling-the-solar-system/

Science doesn't work that way, they don't redefine someone's theory, show that caricature is wrong, then declare victory. That's what internet scientists do.

The Electric Universe is found mostly on the internet. So maybe you're right.

Believe them or don't believe them but these are cutting edge physicists making groundbreaking discoveries. I'm just passing along their information.

As you see, their beliefs don't match reality.

Barbarian observes:
And of course, the charged particles at the edge of the solar system is incompatible with the electric universe belief. Your source is engaging in "postdiction" making up a story to cover the fact that they got it wrong the first time.

Let me repeat that back to you, "charged" particles is incompatible with electric universe belief. EU theory highlights the importance of electricity, charged particles, in the universe. Also, those articles were dated. His predictions were in 2006, the ribbon of charged particles was discovered in 2009, within 2 weeks he published a valid explanation of the "new" discovery since it fit so well within electric universe theory.

Show us that. The old prediction got adjusted a bit to fit reality.

Barbarian observes:
Every time their predictions tank, they decide to change the story. That's not surprising, either. So show us the numbers that support a coronal hole with "low pressure gas discharge physics."

Show some evidence where their predictions tank.

We astronomers often stumble across new theories, and after a while a certain degree of ‘learned scepticism’ enters the fray. So I decided to take a closer look at this theory. The theory seemed to be all encompassing and rather difficult to pin down, so in order to do this, I focused on what the theory has to say about our sun in particular. Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that:

1. we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction;
2. that the granular structure we see on the sun would not be possible, because convection is impossible due to the conditions there;
3. the energy emitted from the sun does not display the inverse square law;
4. periodic fluctuations in the sun’s output resemble electric discharge patterns; and
5. the solar wind is and effect of charged particles being accelerated in an electric field.

Well that all sounds very plausible and ‘scientificy’. But let’s take a closer look at the arguments one by one.


Some of you will be familiar with quantum mechanics, where all particles can have both wave and particle properties. Well, neutrinos are confusing too, as they have mass and therefore qualify as a particle. When they are detected they have a probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ will add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem. So maybe it is a bit premature to throw physics out just yet.

Electric universe theory argues that the granulation we observe on the surface of the sun cannot be caused by convection bubbling up the layers of the sun. This is based on an assumption by a man called Juergen, that one of the values used in fluid dynamics, the Reynolds number, causes the convection, and at certain values convection cannot occur.
If you imagine a parcel of matter inside the sun towards the surface as the sun’s heat causes it to rise and falling back towards the centre as it cools (like boiling water), the Reynolds number describes a function of the parcel size, length and stickiness.

Juergen assumes that the Reynolds number controls convection but it doesn’t; convection is controlled by the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh number is a function of the temperature, gravity, the degree of temperature change, stickiness and how diffuse the temperature is. So Juergen made a mistake, oops. The convection that we see on the sun can be explained without throwing away physics.

At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it. (Barbarian notes, this one involves the rookie error of conflating temperature and thermal energy)

Electric universe theory says that the variations in the sun every 2 hours and 40 minutes or
so can only be explained if the sun was a big bag of gas undergoing periodic electrical discharge. Juergen cites some research that shows this period is what we would expect from a homogenous sphere, rather than the accepted layered model of the sun found in
textbooks. Well that is a problem ... isn’t it?
OK, time for some context here. The research cited was in 1976 and the authors stated that it applies only if they are p-mode oscillations. But back then we didn’t have the technology to distinguish between p-mode and g-mode oscillations. Later research, available to the electric universe theorists, showed they were gmode, so basically all the assumptions based on this research went out the window. It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!

In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate. The
Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Well, it seems this is not a theory that anyone should be hanging their hat on. However, I will say that my little exploration did lead me to learn an awful lot about neutrinos, and our Sun. I hope that next time you read an outlandish theory you might take this journey too. You never know what you might learn.

Lots of huge holes in the electric universe.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:

Look here:

Discharge from a neon tube. Notice that curren stablizes at pressures very much less than found in the Sun, and yet, your guys are telling us the Sun shines because of this effect. That's absurd. And notice, the glow discharge would be inconsistent with a lack of electrons in coronal holes.
Click to expand...​

Unlike the thin neon tube, the Sun occupies a vast sphere more than 16 billion miles across, so the positive column disappears and the current is carried throughout that volume by a low density of ionization. It requires only that the Sun’s electric field has sufficient strength to cause a drift of electrons toward the Sun, superimposed on their random thermal motion. In other words, it is immeasurably small.

Like every other supposed effect of the electric universe. But as you see, if the Sun was electric, the particles would only be of one charge. The rest of them would be drawn into the sun.

Barbarian observes:

Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.​

Got any evidence for those claims?

Yep. Which one would you like me to show you first?

Barbarian observes:

You're conflating "electric universe", a pseudoscientific belief, with plasma physics. Two different things.

Some common plasmas are found in stars and neon signs. In the universe, plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter, most of which is in the rarefied intergalactic plasma (particularly intracluster medium) and in stars. Much of the understanding of plasmas has come from the pursuit of controlled nuclear fusion and fusion power, for which plasma physics provides the scientific basis.

But as you learned, plasma physics is a scientific discipline, unlike the electric universe.
​

"Although Plasma Physics and Cosmology are two well-
established fields of Theoretical Physics, "
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0512131.pdf

Notice that the electric universe didn't make the cut.

Barbarian observes:

"Summarizing, the suggestion made here is that, in the
context of Newtonian Cosmology, production of UHE-
CRs may have started almost simultaneously with the
formation of galaxies, through the electrodynamic char-
acteristics of the gravitational instability. This process
may be continued until today, since the previously de-
scribed instability is active on all cosmic scales."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0512131.pdf

Notice that it supposes that these effect started after galaxies formed, directly contradicting the "electric universe" believers.
Click to expand...​

Again, the title of that paper is "Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Cosmology". Plasma cosmology is under the umbrella of electric universe.

Nope. Plasma physics is a real scientific discipline. Unlike your electric universe.

Peer reviewed papers don't contradict themselves.

Notice, no peer reviewed papers for electric universe.

 

[Vaccine]

The other half, is your ID guys are trying to apply probabilities to things that have already happened.

Evolution is applying Darwin's ideas to 'things that have already happened'. One of the key points Steven Meyer makes about ID theory is that it uses the same science Darwin does. ID begins by using what we see in the present, taking those known causes and applying them to past events to infer the best explanation. If we know code is the product of intelligence, we infer genetic code of life is designed. We know gears are the product of intelligent causes. We see them built into a bugs legs and infer design.

That's why it's absurd to say that you are so unlikely as to be impossible, given IDer reasoning.

It's unlikely I'm here by accident, very likely an intentional act by my parents.

But the same reasoning would have God intervening in every poker game ever played.

Poker is a game of chance. Winning several hands is not specified-complexity, therefore explained by chance. Winning several hands with the same hand, is specified-complexity, therefore it could be a dealer rigging the deck, the house or yes, even God. That assumes more than the theory states though.

The same foolishness. Dembski thinks there's something special about royal flushes. But there isn't. If you got any particular hand, exactly the same, 13 times, that would be precisely as unlikely as 13 royal flushes in a row. Hard to say if he doesn't understand probability well enough to see this, or if he's just hoping you don't.

As I said before, the tactic of ridicule only exposes a weak argument. Ok, so any hand, exactly the same dealt 13 times in a row. We can safely say that was no accident, it was intentional.

Ah, so what feature of living things did Dembski predict before it appeared?

example of a successful ID-based prediction:

Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

These Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed. e.g., ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk” DNA regions, including pseudogenes.

In short, it is a matter of simple fact that scientists working in the ID paradigm – despite harassment, slander and even outright career-busting — carry out and publish research, and that they have made significant and successful ID-based predictions.

A similar, but more general and long term prediction of ID is that the real complexity of living beings will be shown to be much higher than currently thought. That kind of “prediction” has been constantly verified in the last few decades, and we can easily anticipate, in an ID scenario, that such a process will go on for a long time. We quote here from a recent post by Gil Dodgen on UD (with minor editing):

“With the aid of improved technology, the formerly fuzzy [appearances of design] of biology (Darwin’s blobs of gelatinous combinations of carbon) are not becoming fuzzier and more easily explained by non-ID theses — they are now known to be high-tech information processing systems, with superbly functionally integrated machinery, error-correction-and-repair systems, and much more that surpasses the most sophisticated efforts of the best human mathematicians, mechanical, electrical, chemical, and software engineers.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#nopred​

Wrong. Any poker hand 20 times in a row is just as unlikely as a royal flush 20 times in a row. And that's the reason Dembki's story falls apart. It's mathematically wrong.

"There are two types of complex patterns, those that warrant a design inference (we call this a ‘specification’ and those that do not (which we call a ‘fabrication’). The difference between a specification and a fabrication is the descriptive complexity of the underlying patterns [see Professor Sewell's paper linked to his post below for a more detailed explanation of this]. A specification has a very simple description, in our case ’13 royal flushes in spades in a row.’ A fabrication has a very complex description. For example, another 13 hand sequence could be described as ’1 pair; 3 of a kind; no pair; no pair; 2 pair; straight; no pair; full house; no pair; 2 pair; 1 pair; 1 pair; flush.’ In summary, BarryA, our fellow players’ intuition has not led them astray. Not only is the series of hands you delt yourself massively improbable, it is also clearly a specification".
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ability-is-only-half-of-specified-complexity/

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:

Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.​

That they know what's going on in the Sun is exaggerated since current fusion models don't account for several features. If the source of the Suns' energy was fusion, heat would radiate from the center outward. If the energy is radiating from the core, the inside should be hotter than the surface, and the surface should be hotter than the corona. But that's not the case. Sunspots are darker, so cooler temperatures are inside. The surface is 5770 degrees, while the corona is millions of degrees.
If the Sun is millions of years old these temperatures should have stabilized long ago. The fusion model has to invoke magnetic fields doing all sorts of weird things to explain these features. They are normal, expected features of the electric model.
​

Nope. Plasma physics is a real scientific discipline. Unlike your electric universe.

It's not my personal theory, I just find it interesting. These are physicists making groundbreaking discoveries. People seem to object based on ideological grounds, they don't want to give up the big bang and billions of years

​

Notice, no peer reviewed papers for electric universe.

Here are some:

• Peratt, A. L., "Electric space: evolution of the plasma universe", Astrophysics & Space Science, 244, 89-103 (1996)

• Peratt, Anthony L., "The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 26-32 full text

• Carlqvist, Per, "Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation", Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 144, no. 1-2, May 1988, p. 73-84

• Peratt, Anthony L., "The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe", Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 471-491. full text

• Alfvén, Hannes, , "Electric currents in cosmic plasmas]", Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, vol. 15, Aug. 1977, p. 271-284.

• Alfvén, Hannes, "Electricity in Space", in The New Astronomy, a Scientific American Book. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955., p.74

• Alfvén, H., "On the Importance of Electric Fields in the Magnetosphere and Interplanetary Space", Space Science Reviews, Volume 7, Issue 2-3, pp. 140-148. 10/1967

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The other half, is your ID guys are trying to apply probabilities to things that have already happened.

Evolution is applying Darwin's ideas to 'things that have already happened'.

Nope. Darwin predicted very specific things which were only discovered after his theory was published. For example, he predicted that a novel trait could be established in a population, even though the prevailing view of heredity (which he accepted, himself) said that it couldn't. Only after Mendel's work became know, did we understand why. There are many, many such verified predictions. Would you like to see some more of them?

One of the key points Steven Meyer makes about ID theory is that it uses the same science Darwin does.

Except it never predicts anything without making sure that the "prediction" is already known to be true. Like Dembski's "specified complexity" never predicting anything that hasn't yet happened.

ID begins by using what we see in the present, taking those known causes and applying them to past events to infer the best explanation.

Nope. For example, natural selection is ignored or relegated to an irrelevant process, even though Darwin's predictions about it have been repeatedly verified.

If we know code is the product of intelligence, we infer genetic code of life is designed.

Because IDers are uncomfortable with a God so great that He can create a universe in which such things can evolve. BTW, we now have confirmation that the code does indeed evolve, so it's a moot point.

We know gears are the product of intelligent causes.

No, that's wrong. For example, we see "gears" not quite like the ones humans build in nature.

We see them built into a bugs legs and infer design.

Except we can show simpler versions of such things, which ends that argument.

Barbarian observes:
That's why it's absurd to say that you are so unlikely as to be impossible, given IDer reasoning.

It's unlikely I'm here by accident,

No doubt God intended you. He just used a random process of selecting your genes.

Barbarian observes:
But the same reasoning would have God intervening in every poker game ever played.

Poker is a game of chance.

So is the process by which your genes are determined. So you're back to square one.

Winning several hands is not specified-complexity, therefore explained by chance.

The point, which the author of that article didn't realize, was that any particular hand, 20 times in a row, would be just as unlikely as a royal flush 20 times in a row.

Barbarian chuckles:

The same foolishness. Dembski thinks there's something special about royal flushes. But there isn't. If you got any particular hand, exactly the same, 13 times, that would be precisely as unlikely as 13 royal flushes in a row. Hard to say if he doesn't understand probability well enough to see this, or if he's just hoping you don't.​

As I said before, the tactic of ridicule only exposes a weak argument.

A weak argument is proposing something mathematically incorrect.

Ok, so any hand, exactly the same dealt 13 times in a row. We can safely say that was no accident, it was intentional.

Unless there's some physical reason that it happens. For example, a snowflake forms a hexagonal crystal every time. But there's no intentionality; it's just a physical process that does it. To someone unfamiliar with chemistry, it might look like the snow fairies are designing snowflakes. But there's no intentionality in it at all.

Barbarian asks:
Ah, so what feature of living things did Dembski predict before it appeared?

example of a successful ID-based prediction:

Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

When I was an undergraduate in the late 60s, people were proposing functions for non-coding (what IDers call "junk") DNA, based on evolutionary theory. So you've got that story wrong.
I can probably find some of the papers for you, if you like.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Well after mainline science had determined that some non-coding DNA had functions. You just made my point for me.

Eur J Biochem. 1978 Jan 2;82(1):55-63.
The 3'-Terminal nucleotide sequence of encephalomyocarditis virus RNA.
Merregaert J, van Emmelo J, Devos R, Porter A, Fellner P, Fiers W.
Abstract
Poly(A)-containing encephalomyocarditis virus RNA functions as an excellent template for cDNA synthesis in vitro with an RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in the presence of an oligothymidylate primer. Under appropriate conditions, discrete transcripts of increasing chain length were obtained, suitable for sequence analysis. A limited cDNA fragment of 36 nucleotides, primer (dT)10 included, was synthesized when dGTP was omitted from the reaction mixture and its primary structure was elucidated using direct DNA-sequencing methods. The complement corresponds to the 3' end of encephalomyocarditis RNA. The hexanucleotide (5'-3')(A-A-U-A-A-A) found in this sequence is also present in all 3' non-coding regions of poly(A)-containing eukaryotic mRNAs studied until now, in nearly identical positions relative to the poly(A) tail. The possible biological significance of this structural homology is discussed.

These Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed.

See above. Your guys are "postdicting", using information already determined by scientists, to make it appear that they actually discovered something. Surprise.

A similar, but more general and long term prediction of ID is that the real complexity of living beings will be shown to be much higher than currently thought.

Sorry, first proposed by an "evolutionist" (Thomas Hunt Morgan) prior to 1933, regarding the complexity of genetics in chromosomes. Again, IDers score a "postdiction", but did no science at all. They just borrowed from real science.

Barbarian observes:

Wrong. Any poker hand 20 times in a row is just as unlikely as a royal flush 20 times in a row. And that's the reason Dembki's story falls apart. It's mathematically wrong.​

"There are two types of complex patterns, those that warrant a design inference (we call this a ‘specification’ and those that do not (which we call a ‘fabrication’). The difference between a specification and a fabrication is the descriptive complexity of the underlying patterns [see Professor Sewell's paper linked to his post below for a more detailed explanation of this]. A specification has a very simple description, in our case ’13 royal flushes in spades in a row.’ A fabrication has a very complex description. For example, another 13 hand sequence could be described as ’1 pair; 3 of a kind; no pair; no pair; 2 pair; straight; no pair; full house; no pair; 2 pair; 1 pair; 1 pair; flush.’ In summary, BarryA, our fellow players’ intuition has not led them astray. Not only is the series of hands you delt yourself massively improbable, it is also clearly a specification".

Because it's predicted in advance. So let's go back and see where an IDer, using that belief, actually predicted something that he didn't borrow from real science.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.

That they know what's going on in the Sun is exaggerated since current fusion models don't account for several features.

That fusion is going on in the sun is clearly and unambiguously shown. That some other things aren't known is not support for your beliefs, nor does it contradict the fusion process we observe.

If the source of the Suns' energy was fusion, heat would radiate from the center outward. If the energy is radiating from the core, the inside should be hotter than the surface, and the surface should be hotter than the corona.

It should have more thermal energy. And it does. Temperature is not thermal energy.

But that's not the case. Sunspots are darker, so cooler temperatures are inside.

Sunspots are on the surface. Which should be cooler than the interior. And it is.

The surface is 5770 degrees, while the corona is millions of degrees.

You're still confusing thermal energy and temperature. Look it up and see.

If the Sun is millions of years old these temperatures should have stabilized long ago.

No. So long as fusion goes on, you should see continuing changes.

The fusion model has to invoke magnetic fields doing all sorts of weird things to explain these features. They are normal, expected features of the electric model.

We see that in fusion experiments on Earth. It works the way physicists predicted. No magic electric effects needed. Standard physics does it nicely.

Barbarian Observes:
Nope. Plasma physics is a real scientific discipline. Unlike your electric universe.

These are physicists making groundbreaking discoveries.

Yep. But it's not part of the "electric universe" belief.

People seem to object based on ideological grounds, they don't want to give up the big bang and billions of years

I notice that standard physics seems to be objectionable to you on ideological grounds.

Here are some:

(Barbarian checks)
The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma
Authors: Peratt, Anthony L.
Affiliation: AA(Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM)
Publication: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 26-32

Abstract
With the advent of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations, investigations of Birkeland currents and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields have become possible in plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement, i.e., in plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. The necessity for a three-dimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time-dependence. A comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extragalactic sources provides observational evidence for galactic-dimensional Birkeland currents.

Nothing about electric universe there. You're claiming Peratt is an electric universe believer? I don't think so. I gather you pick this up from a list somewhere. Some crank just listed something he thought might support his beliefs, without understanding the paper.

Show us something of substance.

 

[Vaccine]

Nope. Darwin predicted very specific things which were only discovered after his theory was published. For example, he predicted that a novel trait could be established in a population, even though the prevailing view of heredity (which he accepted, himself) said that it couldn't. Only after Mendel's work became know, did we understand why. There are many, many such verified predictions. Would you like to see some more of them?

Micro-evolution isn't being disputed and I'd rather see where Darwin predicted that. Mendel's work was the groundwork for genetic homeostasis, which explains why variation and selection don't produce completely new species.

Nope. For example, natural selection is ignored or relegated to an irrelevant process, even though Darwin's predictions about it have been repeatedly verified.

ID theory explains origins, it doesn't replace natural selection. Natural selection was originally a creationist idea Darwin hijacked:

"There has been, strangely enough, a difference of opinion among naturalists, as to whether these seasonal changes of colour were intended by Providence as an adaptation to change of temperature10, or as a means of preserving the various species from the observation of their foes, by adapting their hues to the colour of the surface; against which latter opinion it has been plausibly enough argued, that "nature provides for the preyer as well as for the prey." The fact is, they answer both purposes; and they are among those striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause. Experiment demonstrates the soundness of the first opinion; and sufficient proof can be adduced to show that the other is also sound. Some arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodies [VI. 79.]; but when we perceive that the colour of nocturnal animals, and of those defenceless species whose habits lead them to be much exposed, especially to enemies from above, are invariably of the same colour with their respective natural haunts, we can only presume that this is because they should not appear too conspicuous to their enemies.".
Blyth, Magazine of Natural History, 1835
http://www.questiondarwin.com/edward_blyth-discoverer_of_natural_selection_before_darwin

No, that's wrong. For example, we see "gears" not quite like the ones humans build in nature.

Sure there are:

Who could look at gears on a bugs legs think, that a chance process by chance?

Except we can show simpler versions of such things, which ends that argument.

Let's see the simpler versions of those gears before we jump to that conclusion.

Barbarian observes:
But the same reasoning would have God intervening in every poker game ever played.

Why invoke God being involved at all? A dealer could stack the deck. Just because someone wins every round doesn't mean ID concludes design.
Looked at from another perspective: four people sit down to play poker. After 3 hands player 1 has been dealt a full house, a straight, and a flush. Coincidence, perhaps. After 10 hands player 1 has still been dealt full houses, straights, and flushes. Suspicious arise. After 20 hands player 1 has still been dealt unlikely hands of full houses, straights, flushes. At this point who would think they're playing a game of chance? Something besides chance is involved in that game of poker.
In Dembski's book he set a threshold so false positives would not be made with the theory. If I remember right, in the poker game example he set it at like 50 hands. He wanted to make sure the probabilities were beyond any doubt that an intelligent agent was at work.

Barbarian chuckles:

The same foolishness. Dembski thinks there's something special about royal flushes. But there isn't. If you got any particular hand, exactly the same, 13 times, that would be precisely as unlikely as 13 royal flushes in a row. Hard to say if he doesn't understand probability well enough to see this, or if he's just hoping you don't.​

​

He's only using flushes to simplify specified information. You're right, it doesn't have to be a flush, we could pick any 5 cards do define our specified information. Unspecified information is your example of drawing a bullseye around an arrow after the fact. That's why information is independently specified, the bullseye is there before we add complexity (shoot an arrow).

Unless there's some physical reason that it happens. For example, a snowflake forms a hexagonal crystal every time. But there's no intentionality; it's just a physical process that does it. To someone unfamiliar with chemistry, it might look like the snow fairies are designing snowflakes. But there's no intentionality in it at all.[/quote}

Snowflakes fail the test of specified complexity, so no design. It passes complexity test. It fails the specified test, it's a simple repeating pattern. Like finding this message: XyXyXyXyXyXyXyXyXy. Complex but not specific. This is specific but not complex: Hi. This is specified-complexity: This is specifies-complexity.

When I was an undergraduate in the late 60s, people were proposing functions for non-coding (what IDers call "junk") DNA, based on evolutionary theory. So you've got that story wrong.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. They provided their sources to back their predictions

Well after mainline science had determined that some non-coding DNA had functions. You just made my point for me.

Eur J Biochem. 1978 Jan 2;82(1):55-63.
The 3'-Terminal nucleotide sequence of encephalomyocarditis virus RNA.
Merregaert J, van Emmelo J, Devos R, Porter A, Fellner P, Fiers W.
Abstract
Poly(A)-containing encephalomyocarditis virus RNA functions as an excellent template for cDNA synthesis in vitro with an RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in the presence of an oligothymidylate primer. Under appropriate conditions, discrete transcripts of increasing chain length were obtained, suitable for sequence analysis. A limited cDNA fragment of 36 nucleotides, primer (dT)10 included, was synthesized when dGTP was omitted from the reaction mixture and its primary structure was elucidated using direct DNA-sequencing methods. The complement corresponds to the 3' end of encephalomyocarditis RNA. The hexanucleotide (5'-3')(A-A-U-A-A-A) found in this sequence is also present in all 3' non-coding regions of poly(A)-containing eukaryotic mRNAs studied until now, in nearly identical positions relative to the poly(A) tail. The possible biological significance of this structural homology is discussed.

That isn't about non-coding DNA. It's about the possible function of non-coding RNA.

"The presence of an homologous sequence
in the presumably non-coding region of
several eukaryotic mRNAs as well as in
the plus strand of an RNA virus, the life
cycle of which is entirely cytoplasmic,
suggests an important role in either
translation or interaction with cytoplasmic
factors or in polyadenylation."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1978.tb11996.x/pdf

As far as the possible function of this non-coding RNA? A copying error or
"..in the viral RNA replication mechanism."
It's part of the virus life cycle. This doesn't have any bearing on the mistake evolutionary biologists made calling it junk-DNA.

Sorry, first proposed by an "evolutionist" (Thomas Hunt Morgan) prior to 1933, regarding the complexity of genetics in chromosomes. Again, IDers score a "postdiction", but did no science at all. They just borrowed from real science.

Let's see where he predicted complexity of living beings. Or was it that he just discovered the tip of this complexity?

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian observes:
Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.

The electric model simply explains the sun with less assumptions and complications then the fusion model.

That fusion is going on in the sun is clearly and unambiguously shown. That some other things aren't known is not support for your beliefs, nor does it contradict the fusion process we observe.

The same thing happens with an arc welder. They don't deny fusion is happening, just that it's the main event so to speak.

Sunspots are on the surface. Which should be cooler than the interior. And it is.

Sunspots open up and allow the interior to be seen, which is cooler than the surface. The opposite of a fusion model.
Why is the corona millions of degrees?

No. So long as fusion goes on, you should see continuing changes.

What makes you think that? If our sun is has achieved a "stable" fusion process, the temperatures should have stabilized as well. The plasma model explains this simpler and with fewer assumptions than the fusion model.

We see that in fusion experiments on Earth. It works the way physicists predicted. No magic electric effects needed. Standard physics does it nicely.

The fusion model goes against standard physics:
1. Particles speed up after being ejected - http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/714/1/68
"The flux-injection hypothesis for driving coronal mass ejections (CMEs) requires the transport of substantial magnetic energy and helicity flux through the photosphere concomitant with the eruption"
"The observed Doppler signatures are insufficient to account for the required energy and helicity budgets of the flux-injection hypothesis."

2. Fusion model inverts convection - http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/725/1/11
"Recent numerical simulations of sunspots suggest that overturning convection is responsible for the existence of penumbral filaments and the Evershed flow, but there is little observational evidence of this process."
"The fact that they are visible in high layers casts doubts on their convective origin. Overall, we do not find indications of downflows that could be associated with overturning convection at our detection limit of 150 m s–1. Either no downflows exist, or we have been unable to observe them because they occur beneath τ = 1 or the spatial resolution/height resolution of the measurements is still insufficient."

(Barbarian checks)
The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma
Authors: Peratt, Anthony L.
Affiliation: AA(Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM)
Publication: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 26-32

Abstract
With the advent of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations, investigations of Birkeland currents and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields have become possible in plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement, i.e., in plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. The necessity for a three-dimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time-dependence. A comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extragalactic sources provides observational evidence for galactic-dimensional Birkeland currents.

Nothing about electric universe there. You're claiming Peratt is an electric universe believer? I don't think so. I gather you pick this up from a list somewhere. Some crank just listed something he thought might support his beliefs, without understanding the paper.

Show us something of substance.

I think you're confused. You act as if these physicists are YEC and have an axe to grind with them. They're physicists. They found plasma and electricity play an important role in our universe. Accept their findings or don't. Science is moving on. A few of their discoveries may be interpreted to support a YEC point of view, unfortunately some may be interpreted to support a steady state universe of infinite age. The big bang is on it's way out. MIT, no lightweight as far as cutting edge science goes rejected BBT in favor of a steady state model:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Darwin predicted very specific things which were only discovered after his theory was published. For example, he predicted that a novel trait could be established in a population, even though the prevailing view of heredity (which he accepted, himself) said that it couldn't. Only after Mendel's work became know, did we understand why. There are many, many such verified predictions. Would you like to see some more of them?

Micro-evolution isn't being disputed

Neither is Macro-evolution for about 97.7 of biologists. The rest have religious objections.

and I'd rather see where Darwin predicted that.

The Origin of Species. This theory was that new traits appear, and under natural selection, become common in a population. If inheritance was like mixing paint, this would be impossible. Darwin admitted this was a difficulty for his theory, but when Mendel's work was rediscovered, Darwin was vindicated.

Mendel's work was the groundwork for genetic homeostasis, which explains why variation and selection don't produce completely new species.

No, that's wrong. Mendel showed how new traits could remain in the gene pool for a long time, and even increase.

Barbarian said: ↑
Nope. For example, natural selection is ignored or relegated to an irrelevant process, even though Darwin's predictions about it have been repeatedly verified.

ID theory explains origins

They say it might be a space alien who designed living things, for example. Problem is, it's just a belief with no evidence for it.

Barbarian chuckles:
No, that's wrong. For example, we see "gears" not quite like the ones humans build in nature.

Sure there are:

Nope. They don't rotate, they just move back and forth. Wheels would be a terrific advantage as a structure, but for anything larger than a molecule, it just won't work as a part on a living thing. Pre-existing structures just don't allow it to evolve.

Who could look at gears on a bugs legs think, that a chance process by chance?

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

We can show simpler versions of such things, which ends that argument.

Let's see the simpler versions of those gears before we jump to that conclusion.

Sure. The simplest form of a gear would be just one tooth. Springtails have that. A single cog that does the same thing the more complex planthopper cogs do, assist in leaps.

Then would come additional teeth. There's a problem, though. If even one cog is damaged, the insect is unable to leap. Bad deal for a plant hopper. So the adults don't have them. Now there's a need to find the intermediate states between one and many cogs, but in juvenile planthoppers.

Barbarian observes:

But the same reasoning would have God intervening in every poker game ever played.​

Why invoke God being involved at all? A dealer could stack the deck.

So either honest card games are impossible, or God is stacking every deck, or Dembski is stuffed with prunes. One of those.

Looked at from another perspective: four people sit down to play poker. After 3 hands player 1 has been dealt a full house, a straight, and a flush. Coincidence, perhaps. After 10 hands player 1 has still been dealt full houses, straights, and flushes. Suspicious arise. After 20 hands player 1 has still been dealt unlikely hands of full houses, straights, flushes. At this point who would think they're playing a game of chance? Something besides chance is involved in that game of poker.

Suppose all players got the same hand every single time, but no player has a very good hand. Does that change things?

Barbarian chuckles:
The same foolishness. Dembski thinks there's something special about royal flushes. But there isn't. If you got any particular hand, exactly the same, 13 times, that would be precisely as unlikely as 13 royal flushes in a row. Hard to say if he doesn't understand probability well enough to see this, or if he's just hoping you don't.​

He's only using flushes to simplify specified information. You're right, it doesn't have to be a flush, we could pick any 5 cards do define our specified information. Unspecified information is your example of drawing a bullseye around an arrow after the fact. That's why information is independently specified, the bullseye is there before we add complexity (shoot an arrow).

Which is what Dembski can't do with biology. So far, he's utterly failed to specify in advance.

That failure doomed ID to continue only as a religious belief.