Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason.

Wha…? You woke me to ask that?

Tom Sarbeck wrote:

[…]
The EU model says electricity (lightning bolts far larger than any we know) made the craters–be they round or any other shape.
[…]

But the video shows no such lightning. Why should its analogous cosmic process differ?

Reg, this group is about science; it’s NOT about debate.

Let’s park this one Tom.

Rreg, I did not say you should not debate.

I did say, but not clearly, that I will let the evidence prevail.

Just like me Tom you have rights but your ideas don’t. Telling me I should not debate an idea in a forum is suspicious. It is not name calling. I have read most of the pdf. I cannot see the value of the EU hypothesis.

When someone tells me that their idea, … is not open for debate I am immediately suspicious. It is not debate that they want to stifle, it is dissent.

…calls to not allow debate (in a Forum that demands evidence and reason in its title!) smacks of quackery rather than dissent.

Please point out where I engaged in name calling or ad hominem.

Reg, I will ignore the name calling in that post and briefly answer two points in it.

It is only through peer review and open debate that we arrive at a theory that has any scientific merit.

1) Currently there are no EUers among the peers.
2) peer review + open debate. Without evidence?

Einstein’s ideas on Gravity and Electromagnetism are a…

[Read more]

Science without debate is not science. It is only through peer review and open debate that we arrive at a theory that has any scientific merit. When someone tells me that their idea, be it religious, scientific or political, is not open for debate I am immediately suspicious.  It is not debate that they want to stifle, it is dissent.

This…[Read more]

Reg, this group is about science; it’s NOT about debate.

Nice video, Beanie. But, prepare yourself for the real shocker–and “shocker” isn’t a pun.

The EU model says electricity (lightning bolts far larger than any we know) made the craters–be they round or any other shape.

There is reason for the name “Electric Universe”.

A couple primary issues top my list about EU, but I have to admit, it took me a couple of fricken hours to discover evidence against the first one, which is their argument supposedly “debunking” the now, well-known physics of how circular craters are created from angled impacts.

I.e., when a projectile hits (say) a planet or moon at hypervelocity…[Read more]

My debunking of some of the statements is not meant to be a proof of or evidence for the merits of BB theory. It is a critic of the claims made in the pdf you linked. It ignores the proofs for Relativity and makes other statements that are false. I will debunk more of them later and you can then tell me where I am wrong.

Reg, in 436 words you debunked nothing. Bangers have produced evidence for nothing.

…[modern physicists] put Inflation before the Big Bang.

By putting Inflation before the Big Bang, they moved what contradicts the laws of physics, is untested and untestable, to where it can never be tested.

I have debunked some of its major arguments already. What do you consider to be the essence of the EU model?