If you look at the history of scientific revolutions, they start with a mathematical basis to explain unexplained or unexpected phenomena. Einstein started with physical visualization, but he didn’t propose theories then. Rather, he provided mathematical equations to describe the phenomena, then presented his theory. The EU only provided the physical description when it proposed it.
No.
Yet the probe provided data that was eventually used to explain existing problems with magnetic fields.
I’ve already explained GR is limited, which has been known for about 70 years by physicists. What do you think the fields of theoretical and particle physics have been focusing on instead?
Magnetic flux.
Probe data cleared that up a bit.
Nuclear fusion works with elements other than hydrogen.
There have been explanations and work on these problems already, if you are willing to look.
Except for GR, the theories you have been disputing have no real bearing on the origin of the universe except for them acknowledging the vast amount of time that has passed. With GR, disputing the Big Bang theory doesn’t mean you need to reject GR. Disputing the whole doesn’t mean you dispute every part, but rather the sum of them. I would much rather you just dispute the Big Bang rather than GR.
I think I have given the EU way more attention than it deserved. I didn’t dispute it outright, but I looked at it to see if there was any real merit to be had to it or its parts. You seem to say “only if you had an open mind”, but I had one going into this, and had vastly different conclusions. I don’t reject it because it is not compatible with how I would like to view the world and science, but I reject it because it is bad science.
Well if the “new ideas” do not have either a rigorous mathematical basis, or a coherent set of evidence and measurements to substantiate them, then yes it is. Certainly in the exact sciences, such as maths and physics, which is what we are talking about here.
There’s something you need to understand here, Eugene. Science is not a free-for-all. There are rules that have to be followed and standards that have to be maintained. If this weren’t the case then you would be able to come up with “new ideas” that said that bananas are marsupials, that cars run on gravy, and that salmon live in trees and eat pencils.
It may be helpful to distinguish between multiple questions:
Does the scientific evidence support the EU model?
How does one interpret the EU model, the Big Bang, or other alternatives theologically?
The answer to the first is no. Electric forces are a worse explanation than conventional astronomy for the features invoked by the EU advocates - it’s a standard bad “conventional science can’t explain X, so my idea is valid” approach. The reality is that we do have explanations for many of the features, and that the electric universe is not a better explanation for the features that we have problems explaining.
As to the second, although the EU advocates may be claiming all sorts of philosophical/theological implications, the reality is that it isn’t more compatible with the Bible. If we approach science with a biblical theology, we will recognize that God is at work in whatever happens, including whatever the laws of nature may be. If we approach science with the assumption that the universe is ultimately meaningless, we won’t be able to detect any meaning within science. As Genesis 1 emphasizes, nature is just God’s creation. It doesn’t have goals of its own. The forces of nature are not gods or monsters. Thus, if we study them, we can find out the physical workings of the universe. But we can’t find meaning within those - to find meaning, we need to look to God.
Interesting that the recent posts here continue to think the EU is something to be completely rejected because it doesn’t compete with all the many decades of research and knowledge in all the fields of science of our current cosmology. So I am to conclude from the posts above that EU scientists are bunk as a whole, and there is no evidence that any of it is worth looking at. Meanwhile I’ll continue to read about Big Bang cosmologists who double down on each new crisis observed by telescopes and probes, and come up with new “probable” explanations based on math. I wonder when the math of the original theory (the Big Bang) fails enough to merit looking at other ideas.
I know math is important in providing a basis for a theory. The current cosmology math may be correct to support the theory (and correct enough to provide useful products along the way), but it’s not the only evidence needed in real science of course, which includes what is observable and experimentally repeatable, etc… And yes I know there are many parts of the sciences of our cosmology that are observable, and experimentally repeatable, but the theory of the beginning of the universe remains a mystery - not to mention black holes and dark matter, and etc. The same is true for the beginnings of evolution. Somehow these big theories got built on questions that still can’t be explained.
Maybe the next book I read will have more answers - bringing science into perspective with the Bible. I hope to read a new one; Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, which traces DNA of humans back to Noah.
I chose to keep an open mind and try to discern what is the knowledge of “the world” versus the wisdom of God and how that fits together. As a Christian, I think it is irrational to separate science from Christianity. Of course, if you do not believe in a spiritual dimension, you have every right to say science has all the answers, but I’d suggest considering both.
The personal loving God of the Bible, as I understand it, intends for us to embrace, understand and enjoy our physical world as His creation. And that includes understanding all of us as fallen human beings. We have free will to reject the Creator God, or believe in a Creator God and have a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus existed here on earth and provided a way for us to be in relationship with our Creator God. The Bible speaks to our hearts and leads to understanding our journey here -with joy and peace. The Holy Spirit helps us discern man’s knowledge - what is good, what isn’t, and what is a waste of time. I sure need that help from Him on all of that.
Best wishes to everyone that posted in this thread. May the Creator God, also guide your journey.
In that all truth is God’s truth, I would agree. But is not the attainment of truth about the domain of nature the object of science? The entire exercise is dedicated to winnowing what is true from what is false about the natural world. Scientific results are hard won. That is the point of all the testing, math, peer review, experimentation, precise measurement, critical appraisal, and technological innovation. It works. If science did not make valid progress, we would not benefit from the applied technology. There are millions of scientists around the world right now, who are our representatives in dedicating their careers to embracing and understanding our physical world.
Nothing wrong with embracing and understanding our physical world, but is the consensus of those millions of scientists necessarily “truth” when many do not believe in a Creator God to begin with? What percentage of scientists today even believe the Bible is God’s Word, or that it is a foundation for truth?
I suspect careers, incomes, the next research grant, questions of origin and personal significance, etc. are driving a lot of research too. I’m sure there are many sincere scientists, but aren’t there also many who are furthering the theories of cosmology and evolution to disprove the need for a Creator God and validity of the Bible - and many that do not even consider a Creator God and the Bible relevant anymore?
Interestingly, though, we do have objective evidence of God’s M.O. when he sovereignly and providentially intervenes into his children’s lives. You might have a more productive effort if you were to investigate that.
It is probably safe to say very few of the former and a good many of the latter.
It should be noted that the majority of Christians who work in research are also accepting of mainstream science, due in part to the general competencies required to be successful as a scientist. For instance, I know Christian petroleum geologists, but no YEC petroleum geologists. YEC scientists on the staff of organizations such as AiG do not speak for Christian scientists in general.
Certainly. There is the necessity to make a living. But the decision of a young talent to enter the sciences as opposed to other opportunities usually has the common denominator of curiosity. Most scientists seem to have a fascination with their area of research. Curiosity is innate, which is why results from high profile science such as particle physics, gravitational wave observations, and images from Hubble attract wide layperson attention.
Supposedly that’s an image of a black hole, the first ever that astronomers pulled off, making national news. The picture was taken on April 10, 2019. The general public, having no idea that alternative theories exist, readily accept this news. They accepting it as another part of the cosmology narrative, deepening the beliefs of the masses in the Big Bang theory.
Meanwhile plasma cosmology has been offering another perspective. For several decades now plasma cosmologists have produced this kind of physically real object in laboratories. it’s called a Plasmoid. That was discovered in the 1950s by Winston H. Bostick who performed many experiments in a plasma lab which reproduced the formation of spiral galaxies. The Electric Universe explains this in detail.
Actually the image you provide here is a virtual image provided by the Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. The thing is, these pictures from deep space are created from data, and algorithms fill in the gaps to complete the picture. Those are based on “understandings and assumptions” of what they are looking at. The creators actually say they fill in the gaps where there is “missing data.” To get some perspective, one could say it’s like enlarging a picture of the moon to show a golf ball by filling in the needed pixels. There’s plenty of room to make it what you think it should be.
The notion of black holes at the center of galaxies is based on gravitational theory and induced from the theory of general relativity, whereas plasma cosmology believes the center of galaxies are Plasmoids which are a concentration of electromagnetic energy caused by electric currents flowing in along the spiral arms into the center of the galaxy.
A description of all of this and the physics behind it was given by Eric Lerner in his book ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’ which was published in 1991. It’s easily understood, it makes sense, it conforms to electromagnetic theory, and it is all about electrodynamics - the movement of charged particles.
EU says the universe is formed by moving charged particles and the governing force in the universe is what’s known as electrodynamics, not gravity. Spiral galaxies, their form and the way they move is more easily explained in terms of electrodynamics instead of gravity. And this picture is quite likely produced by electromagnetic forces, because Plasmoids produce this doughnut shape.
So there are sensible, more easily understood explanations for the universe out there that could be considered, but current cosmology is controlled by this idea of consensus science - which is nonsense anyway because the truth is not found by a vote.
If it is research on invertebrates, other than ones with medical significance, research is pretty much guaranteed to be because that is what the researcher enjoys; given that pay or grants for invertebrate research, especially invertebrate paleo, is all but non-existent for most.
Overall, the “electric universe” idea actually includes several different ideas. None actually are good matches to the data, but the differences are worth noting.
Some “electric universe” ideas come someone who think’s he’s hit on something in physics overlooked by everyone else. Given how well conventional physics works (e.g., GPS is real; Mercury’s orbit precisely follows the predictions of relativity; rocket launches function; etc.) and the major problems and errors typical of these claims, these electric universe ideas are not very promising, but they are presented solely as alternative physics.
Various groups, typically somewhat new agey, seize on the fact that electric universe stuff sounds cool and sciencey and invoke it in support of weird philosophical and religious claims. The “Quantum Futures Group” is one example of this, claiming that their leader is channeling essential insights from the space aliens. The silly claims of the “Thunderbolts” group is another. The electric universe idea is a far worse description of craters and other geographic features than conventional physics, for example.
Thirdly, various groups that are skeptical about science with a focus on some unrelated issue are quick to accept bogus science claims on other issues. Certain young-earthers have endorsed the electric universe, for example, though it doesn’t actually provide support for a young earth and tends more to bring young earth into disrepute by association than to help.
