Thunderbolts of The Gods

Originally posted by stander
The connection between the ancient symbolism and the photos of shapely galaxies taken by the Hubble space telescope built for the purpose of seeing something that the ancient naked eye couldn't obviously detect renders the premise fictional.

You're judging something based on a very simplified presentation in the video, and are misunderstanding the basic concepts, we are not talking specifically to galactic formations but near Earth plasma instabilities. The evidence is pretty good.
Anthony Peratt Los Alamos laboratory.
public.lanl.gov...

Originally posted by stander
If the competition among the various theories could be likened to a horse race where I would be asked to make a bet, I would put the minimum amount of money required to participate on the favorite -- the Standard Model.

If there are objections to the leading theory, which has been developing for some time, there had to be alternative views to this theory when it was developing. There surely were -- a bunch of them, but most of them are no longer advocated by their proponents or their scientific progeny. Actually a good number of those theories tended to explain questions regarding weaker spots in some of the material the Standard Model was built from -- these theories were not standalone competitors. Those that were couldn't account for certain stuff that the Standard Model could.

I'd gladly take that bet, I'm not sure which version of history your referring to but you'd find that many of the competing theories predicted the CMB far more accurately than those of the big bangers some estimates in the 50 degree range. And it was this that was supposed to have killed the steady state theory, it's a lie.

What exactly can the Standard model account for? It simply doesn't work without the inclusion of Hypothetical and unseen forces Such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, strange matter etc... It's a joke.

Originally posted by stander
I made a remark about the standard model of cosmology. The standard model of the sun is an almost separate issue.

Quite the contrary stellar formation and evolution is crucial to cosmology.

When Alfen began to speculate in terms of "ambiplasma" back in 1960s, he went against iconic Albert Einstein. The result can be compared to Charles Darwin trying to make appointment with pope Pius IX -- the mainstream science wasn't impressed. Alfen didn't know about or disregarded the existence of cosmic microwave background that, when finally discovered in 1964, supported the Standard Model. That made plasma cosmology sort of a dead-end street.

Whaaaa? The CMB was predicted by other theories and far more accurately.
Wikipedia right? Alfven didn't know about the CMB? never heard that before. Any proof?

Developing theories, such as the Standard Model, would always have competitors. The problem is that the counterpoints come from the guys who went to the same school with the guys responsible for the challenged leading theory. They all undergo the same education and stand to make the same mistakes in the way complex problems are approached. When Albert Einstein published his famous, groundbreaking theory, he was a patent office clerk; he was isolated from the mainstream views and that enabled him to cast an independent look on the works. History will not repeat itself, because the present requirements do not provide for an outsider to achieve academic sainthood. Also, cosmological stuff got very complex and an individual human brain may not be able to handle this type of task.

Rubbish! much of Einsten's work as far as relativity goes is hardly original it's a direct rip off from the likes of Lorentz and Poincare.

To me, the critical alternative views sort of resemble those get-rich-quick schemes. But the way money is made is usually through a long, hard work. So I think that the Standard Model must keep working the 9 to 5 shift and wait a bit longer.

Get rich quick? www.cosmologystatement.org...

I also think that the biggest danger to the Standard Model are future observations of the universe through advancing technologies. The astronomers may get the chance to see hitherto unknown effects that would defy the Standard Model.

Where have you been for the last 30 years? All observations seem to defy the standard model. The standard model cannot explain the spiral srtuctures of galaxies or the filamentary structure of nebula.
The problem with gravity based theory, is that the entire thing is based on something we cannot explain, Gravity.