[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Thanks Carl,

It seems as though you have a fixation on Mathematical theoretical physics, and is probably why you seem to be comfortable and hold onto hope for notions such as hypothetical strings and wait that the next discovery of nature will not come from an empirical eye of discovery, rather a hand connected to a chalk board and complex number system inventions of mans mind.

No, that's where you're wrong about myself. I am quite comfortable with theory, but I'm also equally comfortable with empirical, experimental science as well. I wouldn't be competent scientist if I wasn't. Sometimes discoveries don't come through looking but through the imagination first. Much of science works that way...look at all the major discoveries ....relativity, atomic theory, gravity, etc etc. They came about through both theory and observation. But that doesn't invalidate anything purely theoretical. Nor does it validate anything empirical.

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

It is as ok for you to endorse and or protect the wisdom of mathematical constructs such as inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, gravitational waves all of which have absolutely no on earth empirical verification.... as it is for me to talk of charge separation and magnetic fields in plasma, of which is now know to make up 99.9% of the matter in the universe and is well... as does NOT require abstract mathematical entities to be invented adhock to save the day, without any experimental verification of basic processes.

Oh please...inflation, gravitational waves, dark energy and dark matter....yes. Black holes and neutron stars. Have you ever looked at M1 at any stage. See that dim star in the centre of the nebula. That's a neutron star. They've observed hundreds of them, both in supernova remnants and alone. Plus, they've seen concentration of mass in the centres of galaxies and detected movements of stars about these concentrations which could only be black holes. Then you have X-ray binaries where the invisible companions in orbit about the stars could only be either a black hole or neutron star. Usually a black hole. All perfectly observable.

You do realise that for all your protestations about electrical fields and plasmas, you have little evidence to prove your point. Whether they see these things on Earth is neither here nor there. You have to prove that the same processes are occurring in space, and in the dominant fashion that you believe they do. Whilst these processes do occur in space, they are not the dominant factor in the large scale processes which affect the universe.

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

I certainly do not discount the effect we call gravity, I am just skeptical of many of BBT's and gravitationally dominant adhock explanations... for example: Large scale structures being as result of cosmic strings in space-time-fabric near the early (unverfiable, highly mathematical) big bang event...
When something as simple as lab verified plasma filaments can describe such things. There are many more examples of where lab physics can answer some questions.

If you have another explanation for the large scale structure of the universe, the CMB, universal expansion etc, feel free to express it here. Feel free to do the research and publish it in the appropriate journals or bring it up at a conference. If you can show good observable and theoretical reasons as to why they should reconsider their ideas about the large scale structure of the universe, how stars are formed and powered, why the spiral structure of galaxies forms, the distribution of dust and gas in galaxies, the nature of the intergalactic medium and how it forms etc etc etc, then feel free to mention those ideas. If they're good enough to withstand scrutiny, the you'll have a goer. If not, then you're going to have to reappraise your position.

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

You are correct Tesla was an inventor, and empiricist. The quote highlighted the different approaches to science... There are many more quotes, from many more empiricists past and modern...

And is why it was followed by 'each to their own', we all have our own choice.

one might like "dark matter".... i'll go with empirical magnetic fields (perrat spiral model)
one might like "cosmic inflation strings".... i'll go with large scale birkeland currents
one might like "bbt".... ill go with my eyes 'yes Arp, that quasar is connected to that galaxy'

I think it's important for alternatives to be talked about... people can make their own choices.

I bet if i said "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy", "Black Hole", "Worm Hole", "Strange Matter".... i'd ruffle less feathers... hehhe

I like to explore all areas including alternatives, as there is alot of excellent work in the mainstream of which i learn alot of here.

Like I said earlier, what you see is not necessarily the truth. You only decry BBT because it doesn't fit in with your own preconceived notions of what constitutes reality. Yet despite all your talk about Birkeland currents and such, you have no evidence to the contrary that will uphold your position. Only what a few scientist, who have had their pet ideas dismissed by years and years of observation and theoretical analysis, have begrudgingly held onto in the hope that a miracle will vindicate their position. Unfortunately for them, those miracles of vindication have not happened, despite their continued looking. It may come with further observation, then again it may not.

I'm not dismissing the effect of EM processes on the various scale of structures in the universe, but what I am questioning is your insistence in those EM processes being the dominant driving force in creating what we see. If it was obvious that EM was the driving force behind the formation of galaxies, the large scale structure of the universe etc etc, they would've found it many years ago and this whole discussion would be moot. It's not they've dismissed it out of hand. They have considered the effects of large scale electrical forces in the universe and they've found the idea wanting. It's not that they aren't there entirely, they're not as dominant as some would like them to be.