FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Plasma vs Bang

   Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science
 


Panthrowzay
We are for the most part know the big bang, the Discovery Channel sees it as fact so i know you know. but there is the Plasma theory of the Universe too

basicly the argument rest on three things ill explain in high school physics

1.) Electromagnetic forces run the universe on a larger scale
2.) The way that current scientist are going about universal study is not all about math and they need to start observing the universe before Imaginating some answer, just becasue the equation is preety doesnt mean its right.
3.) The universe is infinite (Enisten look at number 2 hindsight is 2020 man)

One EMForces are stronger, ever use a magnet. If you want to argue that your rather dumb. The issuse of arguement lays within the transfer of that force. the though is you need alot of cable to transfer electcity, i guess you need alot of pavedroad to move a 4x4. Cable is just one way eletricity can travel, it can travel in plasma streams. (plasma: ionized gas superhot) its what cause the norther/southern lights. plasma streams hiting the earth.

Two lets say i ask you to make a forumla to find the amount of time it takes a real train to travel to a spot for vactional perposes, and give you the starting speed. If you dont go and find out more information about the route, curves, reduces in speed, and other things, there is no way that that formula is going to be right, it will be real simple(pretty) but very wrong.

3.) argumentable
Indi
Panthrowzay wrote:
1.) Electromagnetic forces run the universe on a larger scale

True. Electromagnetic forces are 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 times stronger than gravitational forces (roughly - i might have miscounted the zeros). But current models already take that into account. In fact, how the fundamental forces interacted in the earliest moments following the big bang is a key part of the big bang theory. See supersymmetry. To imply that the big bang theory doesn't consider this is false.

Panthrowzay wrote:
One EMForces are stronger, ever use a magnet. If you want to argue that your rather dumb. The issuse of arguement lays within the transfer of that force. the though is you need alot of cable to transfer electcity, i guess you need alot of pavedroad to move a 4x4. Cable is just one way eletricity can travel, it can travel in plasma streams. (plasma: ionized gas superhot) its what cause the norther/southern lights. plasma streams hiting the earth.

"Electricity" is a layman's term. The word "electricity" is applied to dozens of physical concepts, from electron flow, to potentials across electric fields, to electric power, and more. You should pick a more precise term, or you'll just end up confusing yourself and everyone else.

For example, you already have confused yourself. You don't need cable to transfer electromagnetic force. You don't need plasma either. Electromagnetic force is transmitted by photons, and this can be done in free space with no other medium.

Panthrowzay wrote:
2.) The way that current scientist are going about universal study is not all about math and they need to start observing the universe before Imaginating some answer, just becasue the equation is preety doesnt mean its right.
Panthrowzay wrote:
Two lets say i ask you to make a forumla to find the amount of time it takes a real train to travel to a spot for vactional perposes, and give you the starting speed. If you dont go and find out more information about the route, curves, reduces in speed, and other things, there is no way that that formula is going to be right, it will be real simple(pretty) but very wrong.

This characterization of science is complete and utter nonsense. If you know anything about science at all, and if you're seriously honest about using science as a means to seek out knowledge, you should be ashamed to show your face in public after saying something like this. This is the kind of pap spewed out by pseudoscientists looking to pass off their pet nonsense fantasies as science.

First, science don't just make up equations, and they don't just make up theories because equations produce some result. They observe first, and then find an equation (a law) that describes what they observe, and then formulate a theory to explain that law.

Once they have a law (or a theory), they can look at the predictions that law or theory makes, and test them. That means they make more observations, and see if they match what the law or theory says. If they do, then the law or theory stands unchallenged. If they don't, then scientists get to work. Either the law or theory has to change, or they have to find out what is wrong with their observations.

And they don't make laws and theories that are "pretty". -_- They make laws and theories that work.

Your example is idiotic. If you don't go and find out all the information about your route, then you have no way of knowing that any prediction you make will be right, regardless of whether you use a "pretty" equation or not. In fact, you can use a really ugly equation if you want. You'll still be wrong. The whole example is lame and pointless.

Panthrowzay wrote:
3.) The universe is infinite (Enisten look at number 2 hindsight is 2020 man)
Panthrowzay wrote:
3.) argumentable

And unprovable. Thus, unscientific by definition.

Plasma cosmology may be interesting, and it may or may not replace the big bang theory. But it has a long way to go before it can be seriously considered as a scientific theory.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.