The Antiquity of Dinosaurs

Well since you were actually finally nice enough to answer my questions rather than running and hiding like Real Life. I'll tell you the purpose of them.

First, the "what is eternal question." It was to help me try to explain why your physical interpretation is incorrect. There would be different reasons depending on if you believe just the "universe" was eternal, if we could somehow separate the things in it from the universe itself. Current science says we can't. I'll come back to that shortly.

If you thought the stars are also eternal it would mean I would use different physical arguments to show where your conclusions are not supported by science. How could the fuel burn forever, etc? If you thought the galaxies are eternal but not the stars I could point to implications of the magnetic fields around galaxies and their lifespan, etc.

To get back to the always existing universe, the only real accepted challenge to the BB in my lifetime was Hoyle's steady state theory. This has subsequently been disproved. His idea was the red shift is caused by "tired light". No one has ever been able to demonstrate this phenomenon. The other problem was the discovery of quasars. In his theory they would need to be evenly distributed in space, they are not. They are all at cosmological distances. His fix was to say they were actually getting a red-shift from high local velocities. Yet no quasar has ever been shown to be blue-shifted. It would be an amazing coincidence if ALL quasars just happened to be moving away from us but not one toward us. The relatively recent discovery of gravitational lensing has reinforced the true distance of quasars. I won't go into the details of this you can look it up if interested.

H. Arp tried to use a group of galaxies called Stephens quintet to disprove the interpretation of the red-shift. He said they had gas streams that interacted although their red shifts (actually one galaxy in particular) showed that they were too far apart for that. When better observations were made over the years it turned out that Stephens quintet was actually Stephens quartet and the galaxy he based his theory on was not in anyway physically connected.

To show how long ago these theories were disproved, Hoyle's theory fell apart when among other things the 3 Kelvin black body radiation was detected about 1965. Arp's mis-grouping of the galaxies was demonstrated with observations in the 1970's. There have been no new discoveries that weaken the BB theory they only strengthen it. At least according to cosmologists.

Next your dino vs. UFO argument is, in my opinion weak. I won't lengthen the post to explain why, they would be the standard scientific arguments, but at least I can follow your reasoning which seems to be there appears to be ample evidence of dinos so you interpret something that you feel looks like a representation of them as showing coexistence. You don't know about the spacemen/UFOs so you feel free to disregard this "evidence".

Lastly to your "large numbers of competent scientists". First, it would make a better argument if these were noted people in the field of cosmology. What does a nuclear weapons expert know about cosmology? Its like saying a bunch of podiatrists disagree with cardiologists over the cause of heart attacks.

Second, for scientists articles in peer reviewed journals are the standard measure of what to investigate. An article that asks for people to sign a petition says I can ignore it. To have as a main author (H. Arp) be someone who is rehashing ideas that have been put to rest 30 years ago reinforces that for me.

Third scientists can say anything they want, even stupid stuff, what can be demonstrated is what counts. That's the beauty of the scientific method. This is why quoting Einstein's stance against the quantum theory, for instance, just shows his opinion. He could never disprove QM and has been shown, of course, to be radically incorrect on the subject.

It reminds me of a poll that was taken at a cosmology conference in the 1960's that had two questions:

Do you accept the BB theory: 90% yes 10% no
Do you think this type of a poll leads to valid scientific conclusions 0% yes 100% no.

I would restate a question for you: since you do not accept standard dating methods how to you come up with your age for the Earth?

Plasma is the basic reality of matter in the universe and there is no reason which I am aware of to think it has a beginning or end. Unlike "dark matter(TM)" and/or "dark energy(TM)", plasma is real and it actually does comprise something like 99% of the material in the universe.

Stars and galaxies both are created by the z-pinch effect of Birkland currents arcing through plasmas and that explains the filamentary structure of much of the observable universe.

Stars themselves once formed behave like focal points of cosmic electrical discharges and are powered by electrical currents and are not thermonuclear engines as has been taught; that is why our sun behaves more like a plasma physics phenomena than a thermonuclear one. The fires on the surface of the sun are basically of the same nature as what you see in an arc welder.

As a star moves through regions of space with lesser or greater electrical potential difference wrt itself, it heats up and cools off periodically, which is the reason for things like the little ice age of the 1600s, the medieval climate optimum, and the present warming period.

Rush Limbaugh is entirely right in claiming that man has less than nothing to do with the world's weather. The sum total pollution man has ever produced is less than one medium sized volcano and if WW-II did not cause the great man-made eco-disaster, it's never gonna happen.

There are so many incorrect statements here I wouldn't know where to start and when someone quotes Rush I know there is no need to start. There would be little point. I would still like to know how you came to your age for the Earth though.

The answers are not incorrect. Places to start would include:

holoscience.com
thunderbolts.info
kronia.com
http://electric-cosmos.org/
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/

There're several others but those would do, as you noted you seem to need a place to start....

This might help as well:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NRm5gGKz1aE

I could point out where even on these sites there are obvious falicies but you would not accept that so I won't bother. Scott is NOT a cosmologist as far as I can determine. Why would an Electircal Engineer know more about cosmology than all the people actually trained in cosmology? OR is cosmology another left-wing conspiricy?

Since I cannot, no matter how many times I ask the question, get you to tell me how you get your age for the Earth I'll try this question.

Why is it easier for you to disbelieve all the science of those brilliant minds that have given us the basis for all the technology we use today for a single book? Other than it is what you want to believe I can't come up with any other plausible reason.

Just one more point, none of these web sites reference ANY refereed articles in a peer reviewed journal. Why has no one published this ground-breaking information? It would put them at the top of the profession, they would be getting research grants up the wazoo. It can't all be some grand conspiricy. If I wrote a book demonstrating the existence of unicorns and put up a web site would you accept that as a fact.

And just coincidentally when I go to the publisher's web site. ALL the books seem to be the born agian christian veiw of science etc. Hummmm.

The problem isn't communism in this case. The problem is that the field has been largely taken over by pure mathematicians who have lost track of the reality that mathematics is a metaphysical discipline and that you cannot argue from the realm of metaphysics into the realm of real things. That was the problem with the so-called ontological proof of God's existence in the middle ages.

There is a war brewing between plasma physicists and "cosmologists", and the latter are going to lose it.

What the **** are you talking about?? WHAT publisher's website?

There might be a war going on between the "born again" electrical engineers and the cosmologists but that is about it. And I don't think the cosmologists give a darn. I do a lot of consulting and so often have access to large corporate libraries that contain tons of peer-reviewed journals. Please point me to the journals that are covering this war that you are speaking of. I would love to research it further.

Also name three prominent cosmologists that are "pure" mathematicians.

Gunga:
The publisher of the book that you sent me to look at. Didn't you even look at your own links?

But we've got bigger fish to fry.


Your mention of communism just caused me a great shock. You have been so busy worrying about science you seem to have completely missed George Bush's new world order. The godless communists are no longer our enemies they are the saviors of the western world. No longer left wing but RED RIGHT and BLUE. If not why would Bush and the Republican Party have sided with the godless…er…I mean our saviors, against God-fearing patriotic workers in America.

When business started moving jobs and hi-tech technology to China, even from the God-fearing bible-belt south did the republicans say NO! Actually they said we'll give you tax breaks to do it because when it comes to the lazy good for nothing God-fearing patriots…well we just can't trust them. Not like our good friends in communist China.

In fact when was the last time that you heard Bush or any other republican call it Communist China? They are even trying their best to increase the trade deficit we have with Vietnam; another shining example of our good friends. Aren't you glad we helped that hero Ho Che Min defeat that evil democratic South Vietnam?

I can't believe you missed all this. Of course a lot of it was happening during the years when Rush was a drug addict so he might have been too fogged out to let you know. Well, I won't dwell on it anymore as I know how embarrassed you must be to have missed this. I won't keep you messing around on a science thread when you have so much of Bush's new world order stuff to catch up on!

Maybe you could start by reading Mao's "Little Red Book". I hear Chaney keeps it on him…even has a waterproof version to take in the bathtub. Well, happy reading! Comrade!

Hey Gunga, where ya hidin', I see you on other threads. Come lets you and me join your buddies Bush and Cheney for a little reading of Mao's little red book. Come on embrace your communist saviors, you know you want to! You've followed Bush this far you can't stop now!

LOL i wish was more intelligenter.

Why are you covering for your commie loving Republican buddies gunga. WTO entrance for Communist China: under Bush administration
Preferred Nation Status for Communist China: under Bush Administration
$230+ Billion trade deficit with Communist China: under Bush Adminstration
Massive move of high technology and tons of jobs to Communist China: under Bush Administration

Gunga bravely hides under nearest rock and refuses response for two weeks.

What a man!

When somebody basically just makes noise without having anything to say, I pretty much ignore them.

Point out one statement that I made that was false!

The AIG Museum:

http://creationmuseum.org/

Which of course means you can't because they are all true, as everyone knows.

Oh great! Now we have to spend X posts debunking every single lie the Creation Musem perpetuates.

Oh, wait...

No, I don't have to.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

The truth about talk.origins:

http://www.trueorigins.org