The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies publishes a Review and two "Workshops" a year, and in the latest of these are two articles that are highly relevant to our discussions. The first article is a report by Jill Abery on a talk given to the Society by Wallace Thornhill, co-author with David Talbott of The Electric Universe. It's too long to quote in full, and I can't find it on the Internet, but the following will give you the flavour:-"Modern cosmology is based on the sacrosanct belief in an expanding universe and progress has been completely stifled. Maths is not physics; it should only be the tool of physics, but the relationship has been turned on its head and theoretical physics is ruled by maths instead, resulting in a mass of confused ideas. The EU [Electric Universe], by contrast, offers a coherent 'big picture'.-A true understanding of the cosmos will only be achieved by following the principles of physics. i.e. to observe and to experiment. Wal mentioned several researchers whose work had led to a realization that the universe consists of plasma, the 4th state of matter, which generates the complex behaviour observed in the sky via the flow of electric currents, the power of which so exceeds that of gravity as to make the latter practically negligible. Orthodox cosmologists don't believe that electricity in space does anything, but the work of people like Hannes Alfvén and Kristian Birkeland shows that the spiral forms and constrictions which appear in plasma perfectly describe features of the cosmos, such as supernovae and chains of new stars forming in galaxies. The findings of quantum physics and the action at distance of gravity imply that all matter has a resonant substructure and its apparent cohesion at all scales requires that information passes between bodies at near-infinite speed. In relation to living organisms, this conclusion supports the theory of 'morphogenetic fields' as proposed by Rupert Sheldrake and provides an explanation for evolutionary change which Darwinian selection cannot explain."-Perhaps coincidentally the second article, by Stephen Smith, discusses a Swiss publication The Primeval Code (Der Urzeit-Code) by Luc Bürgin. Again, I can only quote parts of it:-"In laboratory experiments the researchers there Dr. Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch exposed cereal seeds and fish eggs to an 'electrostatic field' ... in other words, to a high-voltage field, in which no current flows. Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon which the English biochemist Rupert Sheldrake, for instance, believes is possible."-"Electric Universe advocates recognize that plasma is a self-organizing phenomenon. Indeed, Irving Langmuir coined the name because he saw that collections of charged particles isolate themselves from their surroundings in ways that are similar to biological systems. A cell membrane could be thought of as a Langmuir plasma sheath, sustaining a voltage difference between the negatively charged interior and the positively charged exterior. Electric currents most likely maintain charge separation across the membrane layers.
Perhaps these observations can all be tied together. Sheldrake's 'morphic fields', protein jitter, gametic alteration that leads to speciation, and the electric charges in cells might all be manifestations of plasma's emergent properties. [...] it might not be too great a stretch to think that electric currents might cause proteins to shake at varying rates, thus changing their behaviour, or triggering morphic fields to change state, creating new forms of life. Symbiosis, a longtime thorn in the side of evolutionary biology, might find its genesis in electricity." -I'm in no position to judge the scientific merits of this theory, but it would be interesting to know what our own scientists think.


> "Modern cosmology is based on the sacrosanct belief in an expanding universe and progress has been completely stifled. Maths is not physics; it should only be the tool of physics, but the relationship has been turned on its head and theoretical physics is ruled by maths instead, resulting in a mass of confused ideas. -I certainly agree with this thought.--> A true understanding of the cosmos will only be achieved by following the principles of physics. i.e. to observe and to experiment. Wal mentioned several researchers whose work had led to a realization that the universe consists of plasma, the 4th state of matter, -Weird. Plasma is a very high temperature condition with only ions present. It is within stars. Electricity and electromagnetism are produced. The aurora borealis is pretty. Solar storms can irritate us and disrupt communications. but a major disruptive theory from all of this to turn cosmology on its head? No way.-> 
> I'm in no position to judge the scientific merits of this theory, but it would be interesting to know what our own scientists think.- Has no merits. I've seen this stuff before. Read the following discussion of a distant galaxy which is gravitationally lensing a more distant galaxy which developed earlier in the universe after the Big Bang. The story gives a good discussion of early universe and plasma.-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45338


> Has no merits. I've seen this stuff before. Read the following discussion of a distant galaxy which is gravitationally lensing a more distant galaxy which developed earlier in the universe after the Big Bang. The story gives a good discussion of early universe and plasma.
> 
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45338--I am not certain how you feel that disqualifies the EU hypothesis. If anything, it actually supports it because having a galaxy that old screws up the timeline in a way that would completely toss of the Big Bang theory in its current model. -Secondly, the Big Bang can not account for counter rotational orbits with in our own solar system which we can study very easily. There are a couple of physical laws that such rotation and orbits violate. Aside from that, the EU theory also explains why when Earth passes Venus, they are always face to face(same side to same side) every single time. There are several other predictions that have proven true repeatedly in the EU theory that violate the BBT. -http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html-(I posted several more links sometime back about this subject, but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to go back through the forums or re-research the material. Sorry)-Saying it has no merits without offering up contradictions to it predictions is not really saying anything more than, "I don't like it so it can't be true."


> > Has no merits. I've seen this stuff before. Read the following discussion of a distant galaxy which is gravitationally lensing a more distant galaxy which developed earlier in the universe after the Big Bang. The story gives a good discussion of early universe and plasma.
> > 
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45338
> 
> 
> 
> I am not certain how you feel that disqualifies the EU hypothesis. If anything, it actually supports it because having a galaxy that old screws up the timeline in a way that would completely toss of the Big Bang theory in its current model. -I don't see how it screws up the timeline.
> 
> Secondly, the Big Bang can not account for counter rotational orbits with in our own solar system which we can study very easily. There are a couple of physical laws that such rotation and orbits violate. Aside from that, the EU theory also explains why when Earth passes Venus, they are always face to face(same side to same side) every single time. There are several other predictions that have proven true repeatedly in the EU theory that violate the BBT. -The BBT says nothing about Venus and Earth in the standard model. The moon keeps only one face to us also. One revolution per 28 days. Your example could easily be a coincidence of timing.
> 
> Saying it has no merits without offering up contradictions to it predictions is not really saying anything more than, "I don't like it so it can't be true."-No, it's just that I like the majority opinion which is overwhelming.

I posted extracts from an article published by the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies on the subject of the electric universe. David says the theory has no merits, whereas Tony (b_m) has responded far more positively, and has alerted us to two relevant websites giving more details of Wal Thornhill's ideas. In the meantime, I've also found an interesting piece by Wal Thornhill himself:-www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=wxsc6f8q-Click onto 'The Simple Electric Universe'. Regardless of the merits of the EU theory, there are some powerful arguments against the Big Bang, which surely deserve serious consideration.-*** In his latest post, David says: "I like the majority opinion which is overwhelming." The words "evolution" and "global warming" come to mind. This is the first time I can recall you using "the majority opinion" as justification for your beliefs!


> I don't see how it screws up the timeline.
> > -Assuming that the star is the estimated 12.8by age that they are claiming, that would put the star having formed less than 1by after the BB. That would mean that the star would have had to have formed MUCH faster that is allowed by the standard BB model. It is possible, and the EU theory EXPLAINS it instead of just ASSUMING it.-
http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html
"..about 1 billion years after the big bang the first star forming regions, conglomerates of perhaps 106 to 109 solar masses began to develop. Over the next several billion years, most of these merge to form larger units or are partially destroyed by the energetic supernovae which develop as a natural part of star formation. Within a few billion years most of these have developed into stable configurations of stars and gas and are recognisable as ``galaxies''. -Venus could be a coincidence..-No, conservation of angular momentum says that it should not be possible for the planets to have counter rotat-ions, or counter orbits. The BBT just tramples all over it and pretends that it doesn't exist. The EU theory explains it.-
Recombination/Decoupling, from 240,000 to 300,000 years:
As the temperature of the universe falls to around 3,000 degrees (about the same heat as the surface of the Sun) and its density also continues to fall, ionized hydrogen and helium atoms capture electrons (known as "recombination"), thus neutralizing their electric charge. With the electrons now bound to atoms, the universe finally becomes transparent to light, making this the earliest epoch observable today. It also releases the photons in the universe which have up till this time been interacting with electrons and protons in an opaque photon-baryon fluid (known as "decoupling"), and these photons (the same ones we see in today's cosmic background radiation) can now travel freely. By the end of this period, the universe consists of a fog of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of lithium.-
The reason that little line is highlighted is because the rate of expansion, and the subsequent speed and trajectory of matter would be constantly expanding away from each other, not collapsing inwards to form superheated balls of gas and forming stars. To say they they did would violate conservation of angular momentum. The fact that they say the uverse consists of a 'fog' negates the notion that any formation would have had enough enough mass to affect the angular momentum of surrounding particles. -They contradict themselves (again) a little further down:-Star and Galaxy Formation, 300 - 500 million years onwards:
Gravity amplifies slight irregularities in the density of the primordial gas and pockets of gas become more and more dense, even as the universe continues to expand rapidly.[/color] These small, dense clouds of cosmic gas start to collapse under their own gravity, becoming hot enough to trigger nuclear fusion reactions between hydrogen atoms, creating the very first stars.-A rapidly expanding fog would not have anything dense enough to change the angular momentum of the surrounding particles. Gravity is a WEAK force. Electromagnetism on the otherhand... -
The Big Bang Theory survives by harumphing the challengers out of the limelight in the kangaroo court of the peer review system while consistently failing to successfully make predictions, and then trying to make the data fit the theory by inventing things that can't be proven to fill in the gaps.-Read the predictions page on the website I linked, and the results of the predictions. That is how science is supposed to be performed. Study, hypothesis, prediction, observation, analysis. EU fits the data. BBT does not.

Just a few tidbits gathered up to support my argument before bed :P-"There is a general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the 'generally accepted' theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics." —Hannes Alfvén, G. Arrhenius, Evolution of the Solar System, NASA 1976--The EU model is based on a hierarchy of repeated patterns of plasma behavior, from the size of a galaxy down to a few centimeters in the laboratory. Therefore it is subject to experimental confirmation, unlike most astrophysical theory today. ~ 
Wal Thornhill-The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object. But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp's new view of the cosmos, active galaxies "give birth" to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta.-The huge puzzle for astrophysicists is why a galaxy should exhibit an atomic phenomenon. So we turn to particle physics. This difficulty highlights the fact that quantum "mechanics" applied to atoms is a theory without physical reality. The weirdness of quantum theory has been attributed to the subatomic scale to which it applies. But now that we have quantum effects in something the size of a galaxy, this convenient nonsense is exposed. If Arp is right many experts are going to look very silly. His discovery sounded the alarm in some halls of Academe and since nobody likes a loud noise - particularly if they are asleep - the knee-jerk response was to attack the guy with his finger on the alarm button. Arp's telescope time was denied, papers rejected, and he was forced to leave the US to pursue his work.
-Night all.. hope to see you around soon.


> *** In his latest post, David says: "I like the majority opinion which is overwhelming." The words "evolution" and "global warming" come to mind. This is the first time I can recall you using "the majority opinion" as justification for your beliefs!-In the area of these discussion my learning is as an autodidact. My background in math is up to the point of analytic geometry, no calculus. I do not have the background of either Matt or Tony in the physical sciences. I have had physical chemistry nd basic physics in pre-med. As a result, my knowledge of particle physics, cosmology, the standard model, etc. comes from articles and books by accepted experts. The electric universe sounds and looks like some foreign skepticism from the stands way beyond left field. With my biologic background, a little study shows Darwin's ideas fit the knowledge of his time, but can't be dragged screaming into these times with so much in bioscience findings that say there is no way to synthesize it all coherently, using Darwin's theory as a base. As for global warming, Climategate emails put a rocket under climate skepticism allowing the whole world to see, when a little knowledge of past geology (which I have) knows this has all happened before to the Earth, and will happen again and again. Besides the climate foolishness is pushed by a usurped UN to try to squeeze money out of first world countries to be sent to third world countries, where most of the money will disappear fraudulently.


> In the area of these discussion my learning is as an autodidact. My background in math is up to the point of analytic geometry, no calculus. I do not have the background of either Matt or Tony in the physical sciences. I have had physical chemistry nd basic physics in pre-med. As a result, my knowledge of particle physics, cosmology, the standard model, etc. comes from articles and books by accepted experts. The electric universe sounds and looks like some foreign skepticism from the stands way beyond left field. With my biologic background, a little study shows Darwin's ideas fit the knowledge of his time, but can't be dragged screaming into these times with so much in bioscience findings that say there is no way to synthesize it all coherently, using Darwin's theory as a base. As for global warming, Climategate emails put a rocket under climate skepticism allowing the whole world to see, when a little knowledge of past geology (which I have) knows this has all happened before to the Earth, and will happen again and again. Besides the climate foolishness is pushed by a usurped UN to try to squeeze money out of first world countries to be sent to third world countries, where most of the money will disappear fraudulently.-Which is exactly why I posted the articles and links that I did. I can only assume that you are taking your stance because the vast majority of articles that you have read that talked disparaging about the EU model were written by supporters of the BBT. If you read the articles I linked, you could analyze for yourself whether or not they are "..some foreign skepticism from the stands way beyond left field. " Particular the thunderbolts website I linked follows the strict protocols of science, hypothesis, prediction, test, analyze results, readjust the hypothesis, rinse and repeat. A few hundred years back people scoffed at those that declared the world was round... that didn't make the scoffing masses right.

David has, with characteristic honesty, explained why he was (still is?) sceptical about the Electrical Universe theory:-"I do not have the background of either Matt or Tony in the physical sciences. [..] my knowledge of particle physics, cosmology, the standard model etc. comes from articles and books by accepted experts."-In those fields that you have detailed knowledge of, you mount a powerful challenge to the "accepted experts", and you also know how difficult it is for scientists with unfashionable views to get themselves funded and published. This should teach you scepticism! My own background is in the arts, and I'm an autodidact in all matters scientific, which makes me all the more grateful to contributors like yourself, George, Matt and Tony for my ongoing education (as well as for your patience). I'm therefore rarely in a position to evaluate scientific evidence, but when this leads to inconsistencies, illogicalities, don't-knows and presumptuous don't-yet-knows, I know a hawk from a handsaw. Without taking sides on EU, I find Wal Thornhill's (and Tony's) objections to the Big Bang Theory as convincing as yours to aspects of the Theory of Evolution. Worth another look?-Here are three useful definitions of "expert":-1) Someone whose opinion we rely on until we know better.
2) Someone who knows what he's talking about so long as nobody else does.
3) Someone who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.

I am definitely not an expert in Cosmology. I have trouble with analyzing details of complex systems in strict logical forms like mathematics. My understanding of things like that is more intuitive. I understand what they are saying, and I understand the relationships and see the patterns. When something is out of place it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I can't look at the BBT without going cross-eyed because of all the things that stand out as wrong. I am at a loss as to how to explain it mathematically, though. -EU resonates deeply with me, and while I make no claim that the theory is perfect, there are far fewer sore thumbs.

The angular momentum issue isn't really an issue...-http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=358145-First; angular momentum couldn't have appeared until enough free-space had accumulated in the early universe; and as the scientist in this thread discusses, the early universe here was like, well--our own atmosphere. Quadrillions of particles all flying around at different speeds and directions; there is no reason at all to assume that a single angular momentum would coalesce in the kind of mess that soup would have been. It would have been erratic and chaotic. -In terms of Venus; an impact can knock a planet's rotation off like that. Think about the impact that clearly knocked Uranus on its side. That's not a stretch at all. -As for the deeper claims of an electric universe, I'll give out more as I look it over. It seems to suggest that since the normal state of most matter in our universe is as a plasma, that's the direction we should look. -However the WMB radiation is explained by the BBT and NOT explained by the EU at first glance.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The angular momentum issue isn't really an issue...
> 
> http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=358145
> 
> First; angular momentum couldn't have appeared until enough free-space had accumulated in the early universe; and as the scientist in this thread discusses, the early universe here was like, well--our own atmosphere. Quadrillions of particles all flying around at different speeds and directions; there is no reason at all to assume that a single angular momentum would coalesce in the kind of mess that soup would have been. It would have been erratic and chaotic. -Excellent point. 
 
> 
> As for the deeper claims of an electric universe, I'll give out more as I look it over. It seems to suggest that since the normal state of most matter in our universe is as a plasma, that's the direction we should look. -The stuff they talk about is solar wind, as an example, electrically neutral and cold. 
> 
> However the WMB radiation is explained by the BBT and NOT explained by the EU at first glance.-I certainly agree with that. Where did the WMB come from otherwise? It fits the BBT to a 't'. See the predicted waves' values in Guth's book with the actual observations later on!

From the link I posted:-"There is no correlation between the rotation of objects in the solar system and the initial rotation (or lack thereof) of the infant universe. Heck, there is no correlation between the rotation of objects in the solar system and the Milky Way. The angle between the ecliptic and galactic planes is about 62 degrees."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

(Just to put this out there up front all of my sarcasm in this post is directed towards the BBT, not to anyone here.)-Xeno, -Just to make sure we are on the same page, let me see if I can break it down into layman's what the BBT expects us to believe.-The universe expanded rapidly into emptiness at speeds exceeding the speed of light.-Yet, even though everything was expanding in every direction in a plasma state, the particles themselves were not expanding outward, they were just kind of taking a direction at random. (the universe was expanding but that which constitutes the universe was not.. even though our observations now say that everything is expanding AWAY from each other..)-And that this went on for roughly 1 billion years.. and then magically, a bunch of particles that were not only expanding, but accelerating, away from each other (while absentmindedly moving every which way including AGAINST their inertial movement) decided to stop expanding away from each other and clump together for a little while, then collapse in on themselves into a tightly packed ball of dust and gas that ignited to form a star. -Tada! Gravity Houdini strikes again... --And for goodness sake please do not misconstrue what I said to be saying that the universe expanded in a homogenous spherical shape etc.-I can't break it down much simpler, but if you can't see the flaws in that then I am not sure what else to say. --Have a look at this article.. A little ways down is a section titled "From the beginning..." Examine the second chart.-Then they go on to say that All of the galaxies are expanding AWAY from each other....(Well.. all of them except for those really close to us because of course gravity has the ability to change the inertia of massive objects moving at ultra high speeds...... yeah.. that's it!)--Tada! Gravity Houdini, ladies and gentlemen. -
The argument you guys are posting basically says that AFTER the big bang, everything was hanging around, and THEN started accelerating away from each other without a subsequent catalyst. -As for the CMBR, both the BBT and the EU theory accept they same basic premise for the first 3 minutes or so of the existence of the universe which is where the CMBR was formed if I am not mistaken. Where the theories diverge is basically over the ability of gravity to affect anything at those speeds and distances enough to overcome their momentum.--Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations....For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations....You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."


> Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations....For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations....You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."-Ellis is an excellent 'believing' scientist, and I am well-acquainted with his writings. In your quote above he doesn't mention EU. Does he anywhere?-And your sarcasm is well understood, as not directed at us in this discussion.
I'll have further to say as I finish my research into this issue.

(Just to put this out there up front all of my sarcasm in this post is directed towards the BBT, not to anyone here.)
> 
> Xeno, 
> 
> Just to make sure we are on the same page, let me see if I can break it down into layman's what the BBT expects us to believe.
> -You don't need to break it into laymen's terms, I actually understand about 60% of the actual mathematical model. (I'm shaky on topology and Lie groups, but I have the calculus and the linear algebra down.) -> The universe expanded rapidly into emptiness at speeds exceeding the speed of light.
> -Correct; it slowed down for awhile and now is has accelerated to 3x the speed of light. -> Yet, even though everything was expanding in every direction in a plasma state, the particles themselves were not expanding outward, they were just kind of taking a direction at random. (the universe was expanding but that which constitutes the universe was not.. even though our observations now say that everything is expanding AWAY from each other..)
> -In the beginning there were no particles. Quantum mechanics doesn't look at particles or waves, it looks at probability functions. If you witness a 'particle' you plug it into the function and out comes the probable quantum states that gave you that particle. Same for a wave. Particles couldn't form until the universe had expanded enough for the energy to cool. -> And that this went on for roughly 1 billion years.. and then magically, a bunch of particles that were not only expanding, but accelerating, away from each other (while absentmindedly moving every which way including AGAINST their inertial movement) decided to stop expanding away from each other and clump together for a little while, then collapse in on themselves into a tightly packed ball of dust and gas that ignited to form a star. 
> -> Tada! Gravity Houdini strikes again... -Not magically. The initial mass had an average temperature. In areas where temperature was on average cooler, this attracted more particles to those areas. (This is 2nd law of thermodynamics.) -As the universe continued expansion, these cooler areas are what began to coalesce into the structures we see today. Mathematical models for the BBT using this theory of cooler areas actually predicts a distribution of matter in the universe eerily like our own. Of course you have the right to be skeptical, but as I said before I care about working explanations... So far the BBT model is the one that best fits what we've described so far. -The problem gravity gives us in the model is that we simply don't have a theory for it in quantum mechanics. We know that gravity is proportionate to mass, but in the quantum world we're talking about particles whose mass is so tiny it essentially doesn't exist. -So the only thing missing in physics, is how to make gravity 'fall out' of the model. Luckily, the WMB data comes to the rescue to verify the model... it matches nature, we just lack a quantum theory of gravity. Certainly not a lynchpin. -> 
> 
> 
> And for goodness sake please do not misconstrue what I said to be saying that the universe expanded in a homogenous spherical shape etc.
> 
> I can't break it down much simpler, but if you can't see the flaws in that then I am not sure what else to say. 
> -Your entire argument is this: Quantum mechanics doesn't explain how gravity came to be, therefore the Big Bang Theory is false. -But when you understand that cooler areas result in more particles, even if you don't have a quantum theory of gravity the combination of inference coupled with the experimental results of classical mechanics that's as good of a verifcation as you will get; -Again:
1. Cooler areas during the initial inflationary period of the big bang result in a distribution of hotter and cooler areas.-2. The distribution of hotter and cooler areas predicts where bodies in classical mechanics should and should not appear. -3. The CMBR is the confirmation that the quantum model predicted in 1 is actually observed in 2. -I still do not know how the EU will explain this any better, but knowing what I know about the math, the only way the CMBR data will coincide with it is if it asserts that all matter began at a single point, hence recreating the Big Bang Theory.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

I am definitely not an expert in Cosmology. I have trouble with analyzing details of complex systems in strict logical forms like mathematics. My understanding of things like that is more intuitive. I understand what they are saying, and I understand the relationships and see the patterns. When something is out of place it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I can't look at the BBT without going cross-eyed because of all the things that stand out as wrong. I am at a loss as to how to explain it mathematically, though. 
> 
> EU resonates deeply with me, and while I make no claim that the theory is perfect, there are far fewer sore thumbs.-Thank you for your discussion of your analysis of yourself, as I analyze myself. I have taken the time to look at Thunderbolts and the other site. Thunderbolts contains many statements about mainline scientists reactions to new findings which are not referenced. The whole thing reads like a polemicized hoax, based on what I had previously learned. So I took your challenge, and dug into the internet. -Thornhill never completed his training. I've met dropouts like him in the medical field. They usually think they are smarter than their professors. He may not be like that, I don't know. -The Electric Universe ideas stem from Velikovsky joined later by Talbott who studied the myths that V studied. These studies contain some real confusion according tothis site:
http://www.native-science.net/Mythology.Light_White_Right.htm-This Skeptic article tears the EU concept apart:
http://www.skepdic.com/velikov.html-Note the quote from Ellenberger, a young student of Velikovsky.-
A good review of Velikovsky. He and I are similar in that we both were/are Jewish physicians, but he was a psychiatrist. From studies of budding medical students it has been shown that potential psychiatrists have many doubts abourt their own personality structures. V. was depressed in later life: -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky-A discussion of mistaken statements on Thunderbolt about 'Deep Impact' comet results:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-11_Electric_Universe_Concept,_NPOV_clarification-Critique of the book "Electric Sky': Explains the misuse of Alfv'in's theories-http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf-Thompson takes apart Thornhill with many references:-http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html-Discussion of quantized redshifts as an answer to Thornhill:-http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/quantizedz.html-Explaining why Halton Arp is wrong:-http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/discordantz.html

Without taking sides on EU, I find Wal Thornhill's (and Tony's) objections to the Big Bang Theory as convincing as yours to aspects of the Theory of Evolution. Worth another look?
> 
> Here are three useful definitions of "expert":
> 
> 1) Someone whose opinion we rely on until we know better.
> 2) Someone who knows what he's talking about so long as nobody else does.
> 3) Someone who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.-Another definition for an expert is 'self-proclaimed'. Thornhill is a drop-out.-I think I have secured my opinion re the EU. See my last entry just previous to this one!

http://www.Idonthaveasite.com - Nosite Excellent post! Really loved it, havent seen an artice this good in a while.

Great article.. really liked ur blog. That brings ur maturity. Keep going&#13;&#10;<a href=http://tsvrudow.de/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:8gmnnxqfEE>disk brake repair marietta ga</a>