Reply To: Proliferation?

[zeuz]

Thanks for the replies. Will prove helpful in my relentless ongoing debate at JREF with people who seem to have a sort of religous conviction in their Big Bang cosmological perspectives. The many publications of MJ Disney do well to illustrate the errors in their attitude, for example The Case Against Cosmology and here

I’m not going to be able to argue my part there for a while (have finals to sit soon), but if anyone wants to contribute at Jref, the thread in question would be here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112661&page=72

Dont expect a warm reception! I’ve learnt to ignore the Ad Hominem attacks, and just stick to the science. The trouble is that there are many pepople that post at jref that are not well versed in basic science, and are arguing for plasma cosmology but without an in depth understanding what they are arguing for, and so this has lead most people there to think that PC is nonsense. And then theres the whole “electric universe” theory people at thunderbolts, that seem to be a more about sci-pop articles and vague models, rather than defintiive published science. Though saying that, its not all wrong, some things from Thornhill and Scott et al could very well turn out to be true, they have certainly proposed some ingteresting models in recent IEEE publications.

If eric or anyone else has the time to add a couple of posts at Jref to argue some of the points of plasma cosmology that would be great. The threads already at post number 2840 and no consensuss has been reached! Much of the material in the thread is not relevant to real plasma cosmology, just what the thunderbolts/’electric universe’ crowd think are relevant. Some of which very well may hold merit, but most of it is not cosmologically significant. And thus the contents of the thread can get very confusing with so many people bundling in and arguing from so many different perspectives.