Is another OTC headed our way? Another question. Is Dr. Porco evidence of a NASA hire-the-banal policy? Yet another question. Why can't scientists find a way to just zap the "religious" gene? Indeed, they want to embrace it and thus burden the world with another OTC. Go figure.

http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo9/9nicoll.php

This Spacetime Religion could be the biggest superstition of humans yet.

I've watched it and been leery of it for years.

Brent

There's a spirituality, a art, a literature, a music in the world that ain't buying this religious science. And for these things that have proven themselves in history and living, how can they be discounted, or why aren't they help shaping this religious science?

Brent

This doesn't seem all that new. L. Ron Hubbard, Asimov and others have been doing this for years now.

Mark, how can you put Hubbard and Asimov together in the same sentence? Do you know what these guys believed? Hubbard was a quack, and the only one mentioned so far who is guilty of Genes assertion of space religion. The science fiction of Asimov was based on actual science. Read what Scientology is really about, and you will never use Hubbard and Asimov in the same sentence again.

Gene; The one huge difference between Sagans (so called) science religion and actual religion is that Sagans was based on actual empirical evidence. Religion has no evidence on its side. So I really cant understand your position.

I agree so much with Sagans awe of the universe. It is a scientific fact that the sun and stars are thermo-nuclear reactors where the elements above hydrogen are formed. Our earth and all the elements in it were formed in one of these star factories. This is not religious speculation, but strongly evidence-based fact (totally unlike religion). This means that the carbon and oxygen and all the elements in our bodies were originally formed in a star that has long since died.

How can one ponder such evidence and not be awed and humbled by the power and the continuing saga of the universe? I dont have to invent an awe inspiring reverence for the physics and vastness and history of our universe. It comes naturally with a little education.

Look, Gene. Everyone who has a bit of introspective in them naturally feels a reverence when they gaze into the stars. You can attribute that reverence to some supernatural cause, but if you choose to follow evidence instead of man-written legends, you will still feel that reverence, and I would argue along with Sagan that the reverence is even more intense. So why do you want to trash it? Are you saying if you dont believe in the supernatural, it is not right to feel an awe and reverence? If so, you are taking away from the very essence of the human experience. And I'm sorry Brent my friend, but you should know that also.

Stan, I do know what you're talking about as deeply as you.

Brent

>>>...you are taking away from the very essence of the human experience.<< <br>

Stan, forgive me for my lack of sophistication and social delicacy. Worshiping a creatorless "creation" is like masturbation-feels good, might even be more intense in some respects than the real thing, but has no meaning. When scientific fundamentalists like Sagan reduced the essence of the human experience to a mere collection of electrochemical interactions and nothing more, what could possibly be left for ME to take away?


But this isn't about creation vs. evolution and all that.


The particular religious aspect of modern, modern science that brought on the original post was the mainstream's tendency to rabidly defend existing dogma rather than seek real discovery. New data is pouring in from Hubble and CHANDRA etc. that just screams for a new interpretation but woe unto them who dare do so. Gone is the child-like wonder of discovery and in its place is this very adult-like religious response. There is no spirited debate, only pontificating and banishment of the heretics from the realm. This is something of real value that has been taken away. Very frustrating.

"New data is pouring in from Hubble and CHANDRA etc. that just screams for a new interpretation but woe unto them who dare do so."

This peaks my interest. Could you point me to a reference?

You are evidently hooked into a different science news source than I am. We would probably both claim the other's source is biased. How can we tell? Which institution is producing provable technologies and verifyable facts that stand the test of time? The modern institution of Science, grandfathered by the likes of Darwin, Einstein, Hubble, Bohr, and Crick, or the deniers on the fringe?

Gene said, "Worshiping a creatorless "creation" is like masturbation-feels good, might even be more intense in some respects than the real thing, but has no meaning."

Does everything have to have meaning? Must I figure out what the meaning is to anything before I express my amazement and awe about it's existance? I don't follow your logic.

Where is the line between "worship" and respect and admiration? My point is that if you believe, as did Sagan, that the evidence shows natural progression as far back as you can detect, how can you critisize him for being impressed and awed by the workings of the universe? I think "worship" is your interpetation, not Sagans. Am I correct?

OK, so Sagan probably didn't engage in some ceremony of worship. Ceremony is incidental. Worship comes from worth-ship, something worthy of respect and awe. In that sense I think worship is not a bad interpretation.


Must everything be meaningful? Only if it's to be, well, meaningful. Must we understand the meaning behind everything? No, and I'd guess few of us do. But it's kinda nice to know there is meaning in the universe.


Anyway, that's all I have to say about that sort of thing as that's not, as I said, what prompted this whole thing. I'm trying to deal with something more empirical and less philosophical for a change.



Good questions, Stan, but they indicate that we're still not exactly on the same wavelength. This is not about the modern institution of science vs. medieval superstition or whatever. This is simply about here's the data now what the hell do we do with it. Do we keep on trying to fit it to the current model or do we seek another model? And remember that most people today are quite comfortable with the notion that Newton's work needed to be modified despite the fact that it produced workable tech and sttod the test of time etc. Could our understanding be improved in a new and similar way? Ptolemy's system is workable today with a little tweeking but do we likewise want to just keep twiddling the adjustment knobs on our current model as though this constituted discovery or is it time for a new model?

Do I think there is bias? Yes, I think confirmation bias is running at full speed on the reigning side. Perhaps by painting a brief picture of the controversy you'll understand why I'm of that opinion.


Here is what is uncontested by both sides:

Plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe.
Electricity is somewhere around one thousand billion, billion, billion times more powerful than the force of gravity.
Plasma is an excellent conductor of electricity.
Magnetic fields permeate space.
The universe is seething with high-energy events.


Here is the main dogma of modern cosmologists:

Charge separation cannot be maintained in space, therefore there can be no (large scale) electric currents in space. It follows from this that the presense of any magnetic fields in space are "frozen in" by some, as yet, unexplained means.


Here is the main dogma of the plasma cosmologists:

Magnetic fields are created only by electric currents, therefore, despite modern cosmological dogma to the contrary, large scale electric currents DO exist in space.


The questions being asked in relation to this:

Is it sound science to ignore observational, empirical evidence from Hubble, CHANDRA etc. that looks identical to plasma phenomena in the lab in favor of theoretical, mathmatical entities like black holes, dark matter etc. being the cause of these things but that cannot be reproduced in the lab?

Is it sound science to favor these same grossly counter-intuitive mathmatical entities as the source of the magnetic fields permeating space in the face of the fact that where you find magnetic fields you find electric current? Is it really that big a stretch of the imagination to think perhaps the notion that charge separation can't be maintained in space is wrong?

Is it sound science to attempt to credit the incredibly weak gravitational force as the sole cause of all the high-energy events being observed by, again, invoking improbable if not impossible, mathmatical unicorns rather than considering the possibility that they are electrical in nature?

Is it sound science to ignore the successful predictions of the electric model proponents in favor of the ad hoc explanations of the continually surprised proponents of the current, gravity-only, model? By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that black holes, dark matter, dark energy etc. are predicted by the gravity-only model. They are the result of its failure.


These questions are not being raised by incompetent lunatics but by practical engineers who don't "know" better, perhaps proving the saying that what we "think" we know rather than ignorance is the greatest impediment to discovery.


Anyway, here's a link to an article with pictures. Thunderbolts Home as a huge picture-of-the-day archive and loads of stuff can be found by googling electric universe or plasma cosmology.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html

Another great link.

http://www.plasmaresources.com/

Gene, I appreciate the effort you went to to answer my questions. You brought up some good points. I just need some time to study this Plasma phenomenom and try to get an understanding of it before I can comment. I'm not convinced that science is stiffling legit questions and research about a parallel cosmology yet, but you bring up some good points and a place to start researching it. It might be a few days before I have time, but I'll try to get back with some comments.

Take your time, Stan. I've been looking at it for over two years now. It just keeps growing. The idea itself is so profoundly simple, yet the implications of an electric universe are so all-encompassing that, if true, the revolution brought on in the Middle Ages will pale in comparison.

Happy sifting.