"Electric Universe Theory"

jatslo · Jan 2, 2006

That is a good thing, because we need more alternative thinking around here.

bonzelite · Jan 2, 2006

thanks. most on here hate alternative thinking from uneducated and ******** laypeople like myself.

jatslo · Jan 2, 2006

Yeah, right! I have seen your intelligence, and you are not fooling me. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

Saiph · Jan 3, 2006

Actually, i don't care what the source is. I only care about how it's presented. I don't enjoy things like: Standard model doesn't work! Sun is electric! and stating a few parameters, static charges, plasma, 1,000,000,000 volts! yada yada.... Now, if it's presented like: Standard model doesn't account for these observations, the electric sun idea does account for them because of a, b, c. The ES theory also accounts for d,e, and F just like the standard model... Then I don't mind actually. The important thing is that the idea is supported. If the poster refuses to do that, all that ends up happening is I chat about some physics for the benefit of others, as the poster and I will only ever be able to agree to disagree. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jan 3, 2006

Actually, i don't care what the source is. I only care about how it's presented. +1 good point --i have learned this technique as i've been on here: it is better to create a dialogue rather than just a contrarian hard-ball assault upon something-- especially if the one making the contrarian claim is a mere hobbyist. i'm more likely to gain at least temporary audience from a pro if i do not personally insult or attack them. or outright declare something is wrong when i really have little experience in the area. indeed, i am frustrated that standard models do not always provide the answers that i personally like or feel are definitive. but they are standard for a reason, and so they remain. it is far more difficult to refute a popular idea than an unpopular one. and electric universe theory is very unpopular. plasma dynamics is a very intriguing field, and i have learned my share of cursory knowledge of it. i do see a bias against introducing it's relevance in myriad news releases and papers. and it is probably because it is a very esoteric field with few working in it. fewer still feel it is worth overturning the tried and true models of known mechanics and creation to then put all of their marbles into a fairly fringe-centric paradigm of everything being electrical, including the seed of all creation. even if it is true, it little matters because the EM paradigm is not regarded as a serious or airtight enough alternative to BB and gravity-bound phenomena, particulary in light of STR and GR and quantum mechanics (which is still very esoteric in it's own right and not understood). inasmuch as i love alternative and highly creative things, as i am a visual artist by trade in hollywood, i cannot fully support electric universe theory as a 300% replacement to all of known cosmology --one would be remiss and blind to wave that banner. but i do not fully buy into what standar

bonzelite · Jan 3, 2006

thanks, jat-man <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i always enjoy your posts, btw. you're a fellow freak.

Saiph · Jan 3, 2006

just a note on how you often find the "standard model fails to have definitive answers" to your questions. The answers are often far more definitive than presented here. The posters own inexperience and lack of familiarity, along with the desire to transform the material into something understandable by a layperson, often rid the answer of that definitive quality. If you'd like, I can probably find and bump a more "definitive" critique of the the ES theory, primarily based on the question: Where does the energy come from? and that directly evaluates the consequences of several statements on the Electric Cosmos website (like a 1 billion volt surface potential on the sun). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jan 3, 2006

The answers are often far more definitive than presented here. The posters own inexperience and lack of familiarity, along with the desire to transform the material into something understandable by a layperson, often rid the answer of that definitive quality. that is not always the case. simple individual assessment can raise very basic questions that science is conveniently not accountable for. such as: what was before the moment of the BB? and what is the universe expanding into? simple questions. but every time i raise this idiot-level question, there is no answer, or there is the pat response that the theory is only responsible for the moment of the BB and thereafter = evading the issue. you don't need super-human mind power to see that. children ask the question regularly. and they are beaten into intellectual submission to just overlook the obvious and accept a flawed idea.

CalliArcale · Jan 3, 2006

That's actually a good example of the over-simplified answer. Is it a flaw that scientists don't know what the universe is expanding into, or what was there before the Big Bang occured? No, although it may seem so. Expansion theory says that there isn't any "there" for the universe to expand into -- "there" is expanding along with the universe -- so the question of what it's expanding into actually doesn't have a sensible answer. It's a bit like asking what the square root of -1 is. Within the framework of mathematics, that question has no sensible answer -- mathematicians use an imaginary number (represented by "i") instead, but it doesn't have a real value in any normal sense. Is that a fatal flaw in mathematics, that there are quite simple questions without sensible answers? A theory is accepted in science if it is sufficiently predictive. It will be either abandoned or limited if a more accurately predictive theory comes along to displace it. (How can a theory be limited? A good example is Newtonian physics. When Einstein's General Theory of Relativity came along, it predicted reality better than Newtonian physics could, especially in cases like the orbit of Mercury which had been a stickler for physicists for many years. But Newtonian physics is a lot simpler, and is accurate at most everyday scales, so it remains in use despite its lack of precision.) Because of this, a theory really doesn't have to account for everything unless it represents itself as a grand unified field theory of everything or somesuch. The theory of gravitation need not explain magnetism, for instance. The Big Bang explains the expansion of the universe, which is observed. A supplanting theory must predict the observations at least as well before it will be accepted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jan 3, 2006

the debate will never cease about what is observed and what it means. the BB doesn't explain jack. the universe may not even being expanding. it may be expanding in part. or in regions. or not at all. redshift does not absolutely confirm expansion. background radiation does not confirm the BB. to say that the "there" is expanding with the universe is another way of avoiding dealing with the question! your answer is very much like a politician. it seemingly says a lot but says very little. you restate boilerplate standard information without saying very much.

kmarinas86 · Jan 3, 2006

the BB doesn't explain jack. The core principle of the big bang, is well the big bang. Everything else is either an add on to this theory (i.e. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc.) The big bang by itself can explain the redshift. It doesn't need relativity. But it is not the only theory which can explain the redshift. My Cyclic Multiverse Theory explains the redshift, but it must accept some form of gravitational redshift involving large balls of matter with the weight of 10^52 kg or more. That shouldn't be any more shocking to us than the heliocentric theory was to past people. Many people of that time thought a sun of that size and so far away was scandalous. The big bang (est. 1927) does not predict dark matter (est. 1933), cosmic background radiation (est. 1965), inflation (est. 1981), not even dark energy (est. 1998). My Cyclical Mutliverse Theory, which accepts the notion of hyperbolic space-time with "complex" distances, has the conceptual base to explain those observations which lead big bang theorists to dark matter, cosmic background radiation, inflation, and dark energy. http://academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Cyclic_Multiverse_Theory

kmarinas86 · Jan 3, 2006

Calli is a nice person. Try not to mess with her =D

smartie · Jan 3, 2006

Who else beleives the theory of inflation is total garbage. It is only there to tie up the loose ends of a misunderstood portion of the more accurate big bang theory. kmarinas86, I totally agree with your previous post about the big bang, and your cyclic universe although I don't totally agree with it, I'm sure you're on the right track.

smartie · Jan 3, 2006

When you add microscopic little bangs to steady state theory you don't need inflation!

CalliArcale · Jan 3, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Who else beleives the theory of inflation is total garbage. It is only there to tie up the loose ends of a misunderstood portion of the more accurate big bang theory. /quote] Actually, the observation of inflation predates the big bang theory, so you've got the cart before the horse there. The Big Bang is an attempt to explain expansion, not the other way around.</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jan 3, 2006

i have no doubt Calli is a nice person. but we're debating BB theory and the common practice of invalidating the skeptic by maligning their views as "overly simpleton." non-scientists are just as able to individually assess popular ideas --nobody holds all the cards.

CalliArcale · Jan 3, 2006

the debate will never cease about what is observed and what it means. Very true. This is because mortal humans are not omniscient. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I don't think that's an excuse to stop trying, though. Just because it's hard to understand the universe doesn't mean we shouldn't keep exploring. the BB doesn't explain jack. the universe may not even being expanding. it may be expanding in part. or in regions. or not at all. redshift does not absolutely confirm expansion. background radiation does not confirm the BB. to say that the "there" is expanding with the universe is another way of avoiding dealing with the question! Only if you aren't trying to understand what the theory is trying to say. According to Big Bang theory (and a number of other theories; it is not the only one to go with this idea), the limits of the universe are the limits, period. According to the theory, there is nothing beyond the universe -- not even space. So what they are saying really is that there isn't a "there" beyond the universe. It's not just a pat answer. It's something that a lot of people have put a lot of thought into -- people much smarter than me. Now, because this seems silly to you, you want to reject the Big Bang. That's fine. Nobody said you have to accept the Big Bang. Certainly not me. But understand that you are essentially rejecting it on asthetic principles. You want to reject the Big Bang because it can't tell you what's beyond the universe. Let's go back to my earlier example. Will you also reject mathematics because it can't tell you the square root of -1 in any way that makes sense? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

smartie · Jan 3, 2006

Yes the universe is expanding this is fact. There is a great deal of evidence supporting the big bang theory. But I am refering to the rapid inflation that occured 1second after the big bang. This is what I call garbage. How on Earth can the universe expand from the size of a pin head to a size much larger than the observable universe. This is 'inflation theory' and has no foundation of fact supporting it. We have evidence for the big bang yes and we have the present universe to show the end result, but inflation theory is a guess to link the two together. How on Earth can the universe expand faster than the speed of light! I do not reject the big bang at all. On the contrary I require it to explain creation of matter in the steady state theory! There is no outside to the universe,It folds back on itself. It is self contained system. .. Ok then tell me whats outside the universe... nothing? Nothing by its very nature does not exist. Its less than a tiny thing, it is nothing zero zilch. How can a universe expand into something that has no size at all.

CalliArcale · Jan 3, 2006

Ah, now I understand you. Thank you. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Yes, that inflation has not been observed; if I recollect the theory correctly, that rapid period of expansion occured during the "cosmic dark ages", the period into which none of our instrumentation can penetrate -- ergo, it's probably not possible (at least with current technology) to really put the issue to rest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

smartie · Jan 3, 2006

So what do you think to mixing the two great theories together. Then we can dispence with inflation all together. It means we have microscopic bangs occuring all the time, even today, everywhere, all across the universe, deep in the sub atomic world.

jatslo · Jan 3, 2006

Great compromise!!!

CalliArcale · Jan 3, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So what do you think to mixing the two great theories together. Then we can dispence with inflation all together. It means we have microscopic bangs occuring all the time, even today, everywhere, all across the universe, deep in the sub atomic world.<hr /></blockquote> I don't think I understand either theory well enough to answer that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Sorry. If it works, great! But I'll let smarter people figure that out. Fortunately, we have quite a few of them here, so hopefully they'll speak up and say whether or not that's plausible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

savster · Jan 4, 2006

Exactly what is the evidence supporting the BBT? I'm sorry, but redshifts and CMB radiation is not what I would call "evidence".

bonzelite · Jan 4, 2006

So what they are saying really is that there isn't a "there" beyond the universe. It's not just a pat answer. It's something that a lot of people have put a lot of thought into it is exactly a pat answer. it is a lack of accountability. it is evading very basic questions. Now, because this seems silly to you, you want to reject the Big Bang. That's fine. Nobody said you have to accept the Big Bang. Certainly not me. But understand that you are essentially rejecting it on asthetic principles. it seems silly to many people. i'm rejecting it on principles of logic. and gaping holes in the idea. a child can point out such flaws. You want to reject the Big Bang because it can't tell you what's beyond the universe. Let's go back to my earlier example. Will you also reject mathematics because it can't tell you the square root of -1 in any way that makes sense? a wholesale rejection of math is not necessary to reject the big bang religion. it is simpler than that. you can say "i don't really buy that idea." the big bang is similar in believability to a Noah's Ark story. Noah could not have possibly put a pair of every species of animal on board in order to survive the flood to today. that is illogical an impossible. there was likewise no such global flood. nor was there an infinite density of matter that suddenly decided to explode to create every element of existence today. it is a profound and mind-bending concept that is perfect for classroom lecture, but highly unbelievable in actuality. an infinite state would remain infinite as it is indivisible. it would not propagate in a finite manner and have a boundary that expands --movement, expansion and perhaps contraction of vast regions in the cosmos is nearly undeniable. but does not predicate a primordial singularity to create s

Saiph · Jan 4, 2006

bonzelite: the issues you bring up are explored in detail in GR theory and cosmology. And the answers aren't trivial, nor as easily disproven as you seem to believe. They are, however, far more complicated than I'm able to go into at this point. Maybe in a couple of years, when/if I finish my graduate coursework. Lets just say one solution (or set of solutions, it may be "the" solution, not sure myself) to the GR equations dealing with an expanding spacetime has all the spacetime converging at a point, this includes time. This is often interpreted as the beginning of time itself, before that one can say there wasn't any (or if there was, it can't interact or affect us like things in the past normally determine the present). The actual dynamics or workings of the singularity are hard to grasp, and still ill defined, just as doing mathematics near a "asymtotic line" are hard to do. As you get away from that, some approximations and simplifications allow us to actually solve some of the problems and make meaningful predictions. So everything works out pretty close to the BB, just not at it. If you're unsatisfied with how the singularity itself is handled, join the crowd. Lots of people, even those that understand BB and believe it has significant merit acknowledge that it's a hard nut to crack. Now, as for the question of what evidence there is for the BB: Expansion (though BB was developed in reaction to that, so it doesn't count much). CMBR is a significant piece of evidence, because BB theory predicted it's existence, it's shape, and initial estimates were close to it's observed values. Over time a better understanding of the science that goes into those estimates allowed it to be refined (basically the calculations were done with better information, better approximations, allow for less error and more accurate answers). The re-calculated answers were actually closer to the observations. This is <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

"Electric Universe Theory"

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

smartie

Guest

smartie

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

smartie

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

smartie

Guest

jatslo

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

savster

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page