Black Winds, Black holes are where God divided by zero, Stephen Wright

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm
To say that gas can be heated until it gives off X-rays and "blows like a wind” betrays a serious lack of understanding, or a careless presentation of observations. No gas can remain intact at such temperatures because electrons will be stripped from the nuclei, causing it to change into the primal stock from which the Universe is made: plasma.

X-rays in space, no matter the source, are not created in gravity fields regardless of how strong they are theorized to be. Charged particles (plasma) accelerated by electric currents spiral in the resulting magnetic fields and shine in all high energy frequencies, extreme ultraviolet, X-rays, and sometimes gamma rays.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Your interpretation of the word 'wind' is parochial and geocentric nt

[trotsky]

3. Oh this is just more of the same crazy woo "electric universe" crap...

that the OP is constantly peddling.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. My interpretation?? I just read it and thought I would share it

with the group. It is open to interpretation.

[Liberation Angel]

2. Maybe its just Happy to see us

Well...

It LOOKS happy about something

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Indeed it does, we must be alluring and all that. n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Marvel comics. Shouldn't be a problem.n/t

[TroglodyteScholar]

8. Not a fan of subtlety, eh? n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. I just find it interesting that someone (a rather large group of

electrical engineers and plasma physicists) have a different spin to put on the whole I know how the universe does what it does thingy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. "a rather large group"

A loose connection of nuts, outnumbered by UFO and Bigfoot enthusiasts.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

49. Three to be exact.... but who cares what they think. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Is it three, or is it rather large?

Make up your mind.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

75. ...

[FarrenH]

10. Crank science

That seems to have a creationist agenda underlying it, from what I've read on various skeptic sites. Certainly the appalling ignorance of actual physics evident in the stuff HysteryDiagnosis keeps posting here is typical of creationist pseudoscience. Its a form of cargo-cultism, using sciency sounding language and following a kind of loose weave that mimics science without having any of the coherence or rigor that makes science useful.

The charitable reading is that we're seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. Damn, been wanting to say that about something ever since I learned its a named, tested phenomenon :)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. So you are saying that the universe wasn't created, then how

does it exist? There are no magic strings holding the stars in the sky, no projectors illuminating the night sky... so if God didn't divide by zero who did? I mean, let's really make it crank science with little or no underlying physical proof to back it up. Creationists indeed.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. So nothing can exist without someone "creating" it?

Who created "God"?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

16. You are truly too easy. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Can't answer it, eh?

Oh, and actually, things pop into existence all the time (and disappear) without being 'created' at the quantum level. They just do. It's a natural process, sort of like the natural process which I suspect is responsible for the universe we see around us. No creator necessary.

[Liberation Angel]

19. Something made it happen and there is intelligence and consciousness throughout the universe

or at least it seems like there is...

if any consciousness and awareness and intelligence exists at all it must be an integral part of all that is.

But human beings always think they are the smartest things in the universe...

when things like Hiroshima and the Gulf Oil slaughterhouse and the Shoah prove that we are capable of being really f*cked up and really really fucking stupid and evil.

So they deny the possibility that there can be an intelligence greater than they are.

I think that is hopelessly naive.

And hell WE are capable of creating test tube babies, cloning creatures, grafting two species together and creating hydras or monstrosities which are part human part beast) and even creating life itself.

Why COULDN'T a great intelligence (or collective intelligence) have made this place?

I'm not saying it is a "someone" or even that "God" is a decent or useful name for that (damn stiff-ass Teutonic tribal nouns - I'm just saying we are hopelessly vain if we think that it could NOT be possible.

To me the odds against all this being a total accident is just too great to e a scientifically sound possibility.

I recommend "Before the Big Bang" by physicist Dr. Ernest Sternglass (which can be found at www.radiation,org )

[FarrenH]

25. So here are my questions

The odds of what? The universe being in the form it is? Life arising around one lonely star out of countless billions? Human life arising? How do you calculate those odds, exactly?

[Liberation Angel]

34. I am relying on physicists I have read and whom I trust

Sir James Jeans (Astrophysicist)

and

Dr. Ernest Sternglass

Sternglass lays out his argument that the Big Bang and all that followed was too well synchronized to be an accident.

His book is "Before the Big Bang"

He doesn't necessarily say it was "God" , but whatever it was it was a hell of an architect.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. You're relying on phony physicists who say things you want to believe.

Not because you've looked at their evidence critically, with an education in basic physics.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

52. It's what I do. I care about the phony physicists. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Obviously.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

86. Here, have a go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x250465#250467

[Liberation Angel]

55. That is slanderous

Both the guys I trust are physicists.

James Jeans

Ernest Sternglass

you can wiki them

they are real physicists

and their views make sense to me as possibility

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Ernest Sternglass is a crank.

You can google that.

As for Jeans, he's been dead for seventy years.

[Liberation Angel]

72. That's better than being an *******

Sternglass is a Holocaust survivor, a protege of Einstein, an amazingly courageoius human being and a genius.

He holds some incredible patents including the one for the tubes which enabled the capture of the video images of the first moonlanding and moonwalk.

He was the Director, for Westinghouse and NASA of the first Apollo Lunar Scientific Station Ptoject.

He FOUNDED the School of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

He is also a man in his eighties whom I admire and I care deeply about.

So do me a favor and back off.

If anyone is a crank----

Its not my friend Ernest Sternglass.

He is a hero and an antifascist

unlike the Nuclear and oil lobbyists and shills.

[FarrenH]

84. Doesn't really answer my question

Every "what are the odds" argument I've heard, including ones from people who somehow managed to get degrees in science, relies on specious reasoning. I'd like to hear the actual reasoning.

[FarrenH]

85. Let me clarify

EVERY SINGLE argument from chance that life is somehow special starts with the proposition that life is in fact special and is therefore a form of circular argument. This quality of "specialness", as opposed to various measurable attributes of organic chemistry, is entirely a mental construct, and renders any argument unscientific the moment its slipped in.

If you proceed from the neutral, rational starting point that life is simply one configuration of one possible set of laws of nature, it instantly becomes apparent why all such arguments are simply specious. Pick any arrangement of matter in any universe with any set of laws and, accepting the possibility of an alternative set of laws and constants, you can claim the "chances" of the universe being arranged in a manner that brings about that particular arrangement are infinitesmally small. This applies to all imaginable arrangements of matter in all possible universes with every possible set of physical laws and constants. Which makes it a nonsense argument.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

32. You will probably enjoy this

http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-understand-dna-phantom-effect-274363/

[Liberation Angel]

40. Yeah - I have read about this

Not quite sure i really am convinced it works (or that the science is solid) but I do find it fascinating.

What I read was too tenuous to really rely on.

I tend to believe in the holographic intelligent universe which manifests in fractal geometric ways (from dna to time, memory and experience)

Of course it is all just Maya, a dream...

row row row your boat and all that...

[phasma ex machina]

41. +1 "To me the odds against all this being a total accident is just too great to be a scientifically

sound possibility."

The Privileged Planet walks open minded viewers through a plausible probability chain that ends in astronomical odds against a reality shaped by pure chance.

The short generation time of Drosophila "fruit flies" enables geneticist to use them to study genetic mutation.

Billions of instructions per second available in computers also arguably provide a short generation time.

In all of my decades of computer programming not once did even a shadow of an algorithmic snippet ever spring forth fully formed like Athena from Zeus' brow.

In fact, the exact opposite. Allow me to defer to Murphy and O'Toole's eloquent description of creation.

"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" - Murphy's Law.

"Murphy was an optimist." - O'Toole's Corollary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. This is standard creationist clap trap.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

51. His oil soap was second to none... yup. n/t

[Liberation Angel]

57. I don't think it likely we were "chosen" people

in the way this work makes it seem.

More likely, to me, as one possibility is that we were spawned here by an alien intelligence, because of its unique characteristics.

Although my Native brothers and susters always remind me that is why it is called "The Great Mystery"

Who the hell knows?

I don't know.

But the idea that there are intelligences greater than the humans that exist on this board or even on this earth with greater scientific knowledge and power than human beings seems pretty likley to me.

Hell Whales and Dolphins have bigger brains than ours and they neither sow nor reap and they exist naked and play all day. Whose to say they aren't more intelligent than us?

Why NOT some other intelligence having put us here?

I don't know. It wasn't my idea that I remember anyway.

[phasma ex machina]

58. From my programmer's point of view DNA is the ultimate programming language.

My Creator uses it to make life. My Creator also lets me in on little jokes. S/he whispers, "Behold how my creations must make monkeys of themselves to deny me."

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

60. You *are* a monkey. A Primate, certainly, unless you're a specially trained cat who can use the

internet.

Deal with it.

If you can't grasp that simple fact, you certainly don't understand DNA.

[phasma ex machina]

67. Bad monkey, bad, bad monkey!

[Warren DeMontague]

69. I'm not letting Kirk Cameron fix it again, that's for sure.

Fucker left sticky banana all over my dvd drive.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

88. So much DNA, so little of it in use. Old unused files should be deleted

doncha think?

[phasma ex machina]

89. Delete old unused files (bytes) at your own peril.

A binary dump of a program often reveals large areas seemingly full of unused garbage, but arbitrarily decreasing the length of the garbage sequence by even a single byte alters the algorithm, in some cases to the point of crashing (killing) the host.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

90. Ummm, byeah.... I'm just saying much of our DNA is not turned on

at all. I guess it could make a problem to trash bin a few strands.

[phasma ex machina]

92. Thanks for yet another fun thread where DU tries to apply the laws of logic to the realm of the

mystical.

Even if it ultimately is an exercise in futility. Like trying to apply the laws of logic to my extended dysfunctional family and my greater dysfunctional family (eg humanity itself).

Later.

:hi:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

93. Actually I was trying to apply the laws of science to the universe

in which we presently find ourselves.

Anatomy of a Galaxy in Evolution

Poincaré, at the conclusion of the preface to his book, `Hypthéses Cosmogoniques', states "One fact that strikes everyone is the spiral shape of some nebulae; it is encountered much too often for us to believe that it is due to chance. It is easy to understand how incomplete any theory of cosmogony which ignores this fact must be. None of the theories accounts for it satisfactorily, and the explanation I myself once gave, in a kind of toy theory, is no better than the others. Consequently, we come up against a big question mark."

Galaxies consist of a variety of objects that have been categorized into classes: normal, barred, peculiar, Seyfert, active core, elliptical, radio, quasars, and so on. The answer to why these classes occur in the universe requires a valid description of the universe.


According to the renowned plasma physicist David Bohm, "the universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." The universe is taken to be a transformation in flux, of infinite dimension and time, that, in the current plasma state necessarily leads to electrical currents and magnetic fields.

According to the Nobel lauereate Hannes Alfvén, "Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure."






The structure above is a cut of the plasma universe showing the filamentary currents produced by plasma in flux. Plasma tend to separate into regions according to temperature, density, magnetic field strength, chemical constituency, and other physical properties. Wherever these regions are in relative motion, they are coupled by electrical currents that they drive in each other. Like all electrical currents, the circuit paths are closed, sometimes over very great distances. Thus plasmas in relative motion in one part of the universe can produce prodigious amounts of electrical energy. This energy may be transferred over many billions of light years to burst suddenly from a very small and localized region representing the circuit load.

Electrical currents produce two other very important physical effects. Electrical currents produce magnetic fields and microwave radiation. If the electrons in the current flow have relativistic velocities and are in the presence of the magnetic fields, synchrotron radiation is produced. Concomittant with the generation of magnetic fields are electric fields.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. we were spawned here by an alien intelligence

oh my

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Thanks, really, for taking time out of your busy day to proseltyze.

But next time, don't bother. Not interested. Not now, not ever. Not in the slightest. No thanks.

[AmericaIsGreat]

66. Except...it wasn't an accident

Nor was it random.

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.

Calling it an accident or saying it was random makes it easy to talk about impossible odds, but that's just an uninformed view of the process.

[AmericaIsGreat]

65. "there is intelligence and consciousness throughout the universe"

is speculation presented as fact.

As for your physicists - ok, great; the vast majority of physicists don't believe or don't even go down that road (and shouldn't, really).

Very few people deny the possibility of intelligence, including that greater than humans, somewhere in the universe. But that's COMPLETELY different than claiming the universe is conscious or there's an intelligent creator.

Maybe a great intelligence did make "this place." But if it did, we've never found evidence of it, and it has never presented itself to us.

[phasma ex machina]

68. Re: "there is intelligence and consciousness throughout the universe"

Genuine scientists call it a hypothesis.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Feynman.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

91. I like the scientists who worship math results.... Observations be

damned.

[Blue-Jay]

44. I think you got "reeled in".

At least I hope so.

[alfredo]

59. Not sure who it was, but I saw her squatting behind a burning bush.

[FarrenH]

14. Um

As the poster above me has pointed out, the demand that everything that exists must have been created logically implies that whatever created it in turn must have been created. Positing a creator doesn't resolve your problem at all. And positing a creator that created everything is actually engaging in logical paradox, since that creator must have created themselves to have created everything.

But even that is besides the point. There is no reason other than the fact that you were brainwashed from birth to believe things have to brought into being by some ephemereal intelligence, to actually hold that the existence of something implies a creator. What logic leads you to that conclusion? There is no logical necessity for stuff to have a beginning or a creator. It can also just be, and could always have been.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

22. Everything just is and I don't have a problem with that... on the other

hand, the essence of all things is nothing more than positive and the negative. If you believe the status quo, there was nothing but gas in the beginning, actually there was NOTHING in the beginning out of which everything sprang. Kind of like a magic trick... and then the stars created in their cores all that we see today. I don't have a problem with that tack either. What I have a problem with is the short shrift electricity flowing in intergalactic circuits has been given by the mainstream...

[Warren DeMontague]

23. There was a constantly drunk Russian guy who used to come into my old place of work with stacks of

smudgy notebook paper, swearing up and down he had a perpetual motion machine that the nefarious PTBs were keeping him from developing...

It only takes one, I guess. :shrug:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

27. On the other hand, we do have actual working plasma generators

that produce forms strikingly familiar to what we see through our telly scopes.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. And again, you haven't bothered to look up the work of Mr. Mandelbrot, et al.

Those "strikingly familiar forms" are called fractals, and the fact that lightning bolts look like tree branches which look like riverbeds only proves that nature loves fractals.

[FarrenH]

24. And you think these guys are

doing electromagnetism justice? They're not even doing science.

[Liberation Angel]

33. Oh I believe that it always is and always was BUT in Hindu (Vedantic) thought...

The universe goes through various evolutions with expansion and contraction and returns to a seed state, a state of rest, so to speak, in between different manifestations.

If you consider the prevailing big bang theory, the entire existing universe was inside a subatomic sort of "nucleus" which was a tiny universe unto itself with ALL later exisitinf matter, light, energy, etc bound up in it.

It was TINY (maybe, according to some estimates, ten trillionths of an inch in diameter. Exceedingly heavy and immensely dense and an intense gravitational pull.

But virtually invisible if it could be seen with human eyes.

What intelligence or consciousness MAKES this happen is described as "the ineffable", that which cannot be named or even defined (one reason for the prohibition about thinking you can even NAME "God"). But nenevetheless the GROUND of intelligence, awareness, consiousness and ultimately self consciousness exists IN that primordial state. It may not exist as we know it at all. It may be a much vaster intelligence or consciousness. Who knows?

But the reality is that somehow consciousness exists and the odds of all things being in synch so that we could even have this conversation by sheer chance defies logic and the rules of science and probability.

There are as few as four constants in physics which make this existence and this conversation possible: Planks constant, the speed of light, and two others whose names or qualities evade my memory at the moment.

But according to a scientist i trust, a protege of Einstein's, the odds against these occurring simultaneously by accident are something like a trillion trillion to one. So, I kinda think that is good science if one looks at the rules of probability.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Unless it happens all the time, and so sooner or later the variables inevitably will be right.

And, despite the creationist yottle about how "tweak one variable and life as we know it couldn't exist"; there are several "sweet spots" whereby you could tweak several variables and come up with a very different universe in which, again, life might also exist.

http://news.discovery.com/space/can-life-exist-in-alternate-universes.html

[Liberation Angel]

71. And in one creation monkeys will fly out your ass

in your scenario it WILL happen

right

because it's POSSIBLE!

Right?

Totally by accident

right?

Monkeys will fly right out of your anal cavity.

BTW WHO could tweak the variables.

What created the variables?

What created the sweet apots.

Talk about Yottle!

Where did the variables originate and why and how do they result in self awareness, consciousness, dreams, and intelligent reflection?

I think what you are talking about is twaddle or twattle.

Its like if I leave my car in the yard long enough sooner or later it will fix itself, but only IF the variables are right

By accident

with no intelligence participating in any way.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Everything doesn't need to be created. Natural processes just happen.

I believe we are the result of natural processes. The Earth, the solar system, yes, our DNA and all life on Earth- again, natural processes.

Subatomic particles zip in and out of existence all the time based on quantum uncertainty; no one needs to sit there and "create" them- again, natural processes.

"how do the variables originate"? According to current theory, it's related to symmetry breaking in the early post big bang universe. There is a very vigorous area of cosmology that deals with exactly that. Is there a definitive answer yet? No, particularly because science (unlike other forms of speculation, cough) is evidence based. Merely saying "I'm not capable of understanding how this could have happened without a giant, invisible sky-man who gets mad every time someone fucks outside of marriage" doesn't constitute evidence.

Unlike "God", of course, there is actual, physical evidence of the Big Bang, however your next move is to say "Ha! Where did the big bang come from", and since science doesn't have a definitive answer for that yet (despite it being a very fertile area of cosmological speculation) as always there will be some who will insist that every currently unanswered question in science must have a sex-obsessed giant invisible sky-man behind it.

"See, you can't explain where humans came from, God must have made them!"

"Actually, we can explain where humans came from"

"Okay, well, you can't explain where the planet Earth came from --- obviously God made that!"

"No, the natural process by which the Earth and the rest of the solar system formed is very well understood.

"Well, you can't explain where the big bang came from! Never mind that the people promoting blind faith in every single stripe of invisible deity have been pretty consistently wrong on almost every question pertaining to the nature of reality since humans started asking questions.... THIS TIME we're right, you need to accept our clearly superior logic"



.... and so forth.


But you know what? I'm sorry that it is seemingly painful to you that other people don't see the obvious necessity of a giant invisible man in the sky. :shrug:

Really. I'm sure there are some Atheistic souls out there that you can score some brownie points for saving, honest. But mine isn't going to be one of 'em. :cry:

[FarrenH]

87. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the

modern synthesis at all. If you like, I could try to explain the science to you? I mean hauling out the "watch assembling itself in a tornado" (or in this case an equivalent thereof) is a straight up indicator of scientific illiteracy, since the analogy has no bearing on or similarity to the evolution of organic chemistry at all.

[Liberation Angel]

13. Universal mind (universal intelligence) manifesting

is not necessarily creationist crank science.

Even Einstein allowed for the possibility of a divine intelligence.

[trotsky]

15. And Einsten denied quantum mechanics, a favorite new-agey buzzword.

The woos need to be careful with Einstein.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Although Einstein was probably wrong about that, not that the woo-woos are right in claiming

that Quantum mechanics means that you can visualize a Lexus to make one appear in your driveway ("The secret! The secret! The secret to getting rich... send me 20 bucks and I'll tell it to ya!")

[trotsky]

31. Wait a minute...

are you telling me that doesn't work?!? P'shaw - you just aren't trying hard enough! (Oh and the only people who get cancer and die in pain are the ones who didn't successfully visualize themselves healthy, you know.)

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Clearly, it worked for Oprah

look how rich SHE is! :shrug:

[FarrenH]

20. Believe it or not

metaphysically, I have a panpsychic perspective. I think there's no mystery to human consciousness, but that in the manner of Liebnitz's monads all matter has an awareness of being itself. That matter, organised in different forms, has an awareness of what its like to be in that form. And that human consciousness is just what matter feels like being human. That the universe has a consciousness of what it feels like to be the universe. But that panpsychism is actually a materialist philosophy and is compatible with science. The electric universe garble garble is not. It makes strong claims, scientific claims, which can be tested against observations. And those claims are false. What it claims about the evidence is false. What it claims about the math is wrong. What it claims about what other scientists are actually saying is false. It is crank science. Its wishful thinking and ignorance playing at being science.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. Maybe you missed this

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/the_key.shtml


Solar Magnetic Fields

Magnetism is the key to understanding the Sun. Magnetism, or magnetic field, is produced on the Sun by the flow of electrically charged ions and electrons. Sunspots are places where very intense magnetic lines of force break through the Sun's surface. The sunspot cycle results from the recycling of magnetic fields by the flow of material in the interior. The prominences seen floating above the surface of the Sun are supported, and threaded through, with magnetic fields. The streamers and loops seen in the corona are shaped by magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are at the root of virtually all of the features we see on and above the Sun. Without magnetic fields the Sun would be a rather boring star.

[FarrenH]

29. What significance is that meant to have to what I've said above?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

30. You called it crank science it is not. The sun is more electrical than

anything else... I think that is what they are trying to say without saying it in that Nasa article.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. What's the charge of the sun?

If it's a big electrode, like you claim, what's the charge? Is it positive? Negative?

[Blue-Jay]

50. Did anyone else "get that"?

I read it twice and I'm still scratching my head.

[rurallib]

17. I ain't the sharpest on space physics, but I do enjoy Stepehen Wright

Thank you for the quote.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

28. Would make a terrific sig line... and who knows, Stephen may be

absolutely right, the scientists are dividing by zero when they tell us that there are black hole goblins out there waiting to eat something that wanders too close.

[tabatha]

38. Yeah, where in the universe is there an if test to prevent dividing by 0.

(Just tongue-in-cheek)

[depakid]

48. Stephen Wright's a semantic genius

[rurallib]

77. somehow, that sounds risque.

[Catherina]

35. Interesting. Thanks n/t

[Liberation Angel]

36. Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans said the universe manifests characteristics of an artistic mind

that it is fluid like dancers at a cotillion

and not mechanical like a machine

though based on mathematics and physical laws, there were elements of artistic creativity in these laws.

It is a beautiful way of looking at it (and Jeans was hot enough stuff to have craters on Mars and the Moon named after him)

I think I read about this in "The Mysterious Universe: which he wrote.

A link for that can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hopwood_Jeans

[LeftyMom]

37. Thanks!

I needed my daily dose of amusement via the chiropteran feces craziness of others, and this thread neatly spared me having to go read rapture ready or fstdt to get it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

39. It's your dream, do with it what you will.... happy to accommodate. n/t

[phasma ex machina]

70. Was it good for you too?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. "electrons will be stripped from their nuclei"

What do you suppose causes the x-rays?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

76. The a waves, b waves and the stuff mentioned in the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma

Astrophysical plasma may be studied in a variety of ways since they emit electromagnetic radiation across a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Because astrophysical plasmas are generally hot, (meaning that they are fully ionized), electrons in the plasmas are continually emitting X-rays through a process called bremsstrahlung, when electrons nearly collide with atomic nuclei. This radiation may be detected with X-ray observatories, performed in the upper atmosphere or space, such as by the Chandra X-ray Observatory satellite. Astrophysical plasmas also emit radio waves and gamma rays.

[Cleobulus]

73. How come, from what I can tell, none of the people promoting this "theory" are cosmologists...

or astrophysicists?

Indeed, one of the authors of 2 of the books about this, ahem, idea. here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott

His only claim to fame is a degree in POLITICAL science, that the closest he get's to science in a formal educational setting. And look at his nutty ideas, laid out in black and white.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. because it is bullshit?

[Warren Stupidity]

80. David Talbot

Originally inspired by the controversial theorist Immanuel Velikovsky, Talbott envisioned a congregation of planets physically close to the earth in ancient times in which "the five planets Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth orbited the Sun as a single linear unit, which rotated about a point close to Saturn, before its break-up at the end of the Golden Age".<1> He claims that the violent evolution of this "Polar Configuration" provoked the myth-making epoch of human history.<15> Professor of Social Theory, Alfred de Grazia, noted that Talbott was one of several scholars who had "entered the full stream" of Velikovsky's work.<16>


The planetary "polar configuration" envisioned by Talbott has been subject to criticism by many, including Roger Ashton, Lynn Rose, and Peter James. Ashton concluded it was contradicted by constraints imposed by celestial mechanics, ecological continuity and the survival of flora and fauna which would not have endured the conditions implied by the model.<17> Rose found the model deficient on the grounds of "nomenclature, stability, myth, and transference".<18> James explained that the model made no attempt to account for several well-attested, global environmental crises in the Holocene while the "one major event within the memory of the human race - the break-up of proto-Saturn . . . was apparently so gentle that it is not conspicuous enough in the archaeological or geological records to yet be confidently identified."<19>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Immanuel Velikovsky

Immanuel Velikovsky (Иммануил Великовский) (Vitebsk, 10 June 1895 (NS) – 17 November 1979) was a Russian-born American independent scholar, best known as the author of a number of controversial books reinterpreting the events of ancient history, in particular the US bestseller Worlds in Collision, published in 1950.<1> Earlier, he played a role in the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, and was a respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.

His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Bible) to argue that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. In positioning Velikovsky among catastrophists including Hans Bellamy, Ignatius Donnelly, and Johann Gottlieb Radlof,<2> the British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier noted ". . . Velikovsky is not so much the first of the new catastrophists . . . ; he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to mediaeval times and probably earlier."<3> Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics. He also proposed a revised chronology for ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel and other cultures of the ancient Near East. The revised chronology aimed at explaining the so-called "dark age" of the eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1100 – 750 BCE) and reconciling biblical history with mainstream archaeology and Egyptian chronology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

[SidDithers]

83. It all goes back to Velikovsky? Really?...

given the defenders and believers in this thread, why am I not surprised?

Sid

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Wallace Thornhill doesn't even rate a wiki link.

Good grief, Velikovsky? Seriously?