You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Electric Universe: 1,800 thunderstorms occurring at any time around the world - Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
The electric universe has been disproved in the 1950's. There is no electric current running through our solar system lighting up our sun like a light bulb.
Speaking of electricity and money, I can't wait until we get rid of money. I am tired of paying for my electricity! Let's get rid of money so someone, for some reason, will give me all the electricity I want for free. lolz
"The electric universe has been disproved in the 1950's"
Can you please be just a little bit vaguer?
Here, let me be of assistance, because I know google can be tricky:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
http://web.archive.org/web/20150416003346/http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/the-electic-sky-book-by-donaldescott-review-discussion-against.pdf
The first link you provided is just what the title expresses a rational or an opinion. As far as the second one is concerned not only is the 1st assumption incorrect. In "The Gamut of Science and Physics Conceptual Failures." It states "Scott states that astronomers assume that the physical laws in the distant cosmos are different from those known on the Earth"
No the electric universe uses the same laws that are found on earth. To debunk this please give a quote from any of the proponents of the electric universe who states otherwise.
2 : In the post it states "The appearance of a difference can arise because some measurements may not currently be possible in Earth laboratories. The vacuum between stars is still less dense than the best vacuum possible in the laboratory.
But one can see the effects with one's own eyes "best vacuum possible in the laboratory not withstanding.
After reading that I became disinterested in reading more. But if you find that quote from a proponents of the electric universe I would be more than willing to look at it.
And your right "google can be tricky" I don't care to fall for the tricks. Old books are a bit better.
First link: not an opinion, just a statement of fact.
Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.
Second link: A paper debunking a electric universe book called, The Electric Sky. Scott states on page 7 of that book that the physical laws in the distant cosmos are different. So take that up with you electric buddy.
Yes, old discarded texts are best for propping up discarded theories, I will give you that.
One can not name that which he has not created. which is what whoever is written this is attempting to do. Again give me a statement where a proponent of the electric universe is stating that "this is a pseudo-scientific cosmological idea." You cant. People have an opinion and that cool but it does not make their opinions fact.
I have never heard of Dr.Scoot saying anything like that and I believe that it was never a statement that he made but just an enturptation of something he said (The most likly topic would be on the pinch affect). And the statement "and often vary from one delusional crank to the next." If that is not an opinion, I'll rest my case on lack of common ground.
So only proponents of electric universe are capable of stating facts? That is an interesting way of looking at things. And if you personally haven't heard of something, well it couldn't possibly have happened then.
I will leave you with a small excerpt from Micheal Shermer's (author of the skeptic column in Scientific American) column after he attended the electric universe conference in 2015:
"The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.
The EU folks I met were unfailingly polite, unquestionably smart and steadfastly unwavering in their belief that they have made one of the most important discoveries in the history of science. Have they? Probably not. The problem was articulated in a comment Thornhill made when I asked for their peer-reviewed papers: “In an interdisciplinary science like the Electric Universe, you could say we have no peers, so peer review is not available.”
I never stated that " only proponents of the electric universe are capable of stating facts?" But if you turn that around one could say that only the
big bang proponents are allow to state facts.
First of all I thought I was having a conversation with you not Micheal Shermer.
With respect, I have to wonder do you ever think for yourself? That's cool if you can't come up with anything yourself, I'll deal with what you got. But before I do let me state that no one lease of all me is questioning Newton. Having said that, did you know that there at least 4 types of black holes and 3 types of big bangs. Having 4 types of black holes and 3 types of big bangs to me is like hedging cosmological bets.
Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. There are some major question and many small ones. I'll just state the major ones, some of the biggest. 1. It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. As you know the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. 2. The formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current univiserse shows signs of obeying the law of entropy. 3. Scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies (this is a fact demostrated by Halton Arp's work) and the cosmic microwave background radiation . Also some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been according to the theory (which is why they spend many millions looking for them with the LHC.) also the early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. So Einstein theorys are far from perfect but that is not saying that it is totlly unuseable. Last thing peer review means just that, being review by your peers. As this is a new field you can't ask someone without an understanding of the work to review it. That would be like asking a steam boat manufacturer to evaluate the blueprints of a nuclear submarine. As far as "practical applications" we live and work under the light of a scientist who disagreed with the big bang theory his name is Nikola Tesla.
Please don't take this personal it is just an observaion.
Oh yes, I almost forgot your statement
I'd say old discarded texts are best for propping up old (should be) discarded theories
If I'm not mistaken is it not the Big Bang theory that is from the 1930's or is it the electric universe.
Sometimes I get them mixed up.
I never heard of Micheal Shermer before so naturally I had to look him up. Seem he thinks there is no problem with the 911 official story, he a big fan of big pharma so ofcause there is no corruption in medicine. The government never conducts false operations. and last but not at the lease is he want to rename cognitive dissonance as the "back fire affect". Does he think we are not smart enough to remember cognitive dissonance?
All this comes from the introductory video on his home page
https://michaelshermer.com/
Maybe you should think about the quote on water!
I don't see that as a great source!
Let me understand this correctly, what he said in that quote should be discounted because he doesn't believe in your favorite conspiracy theories?
lolz, just lolz. Thank god I had my oven mitt on for the epic facepalm.