"Electric Universe Theory"

[bonzelite]

thanks, peeps, for the replies. i may pick up a copy of hawking's brief history of time book. i used to have it, but lost it. it's been revised to "a briefer history of time." i think that book is standard fare for the layman.

 

[savagehenry]

I appreciate Hawking and all great minds for sharing the vision to allow me and us all to stretch and push our minds to new limits. I think all of these theories serve the same purpose for the whole as baby steps do for infants.<br />They work for a while, and then must be modified or new means need to be assimilated.<br /><br />I love this subject and try my best to devour all available information on it.<br /><br />And yet, <br /><br />I wont be purchasing anymore books from anyone. Untill they can answer things like how Quasars pump out the equivilant energy to 12 avg size galaxies...( friggen mind blowing)<br /><br />Or how a Quasar can be in front of a Galaxy the red shift of the Quasar "tells us" that it should be 90 times further away then the Galaxy it is clearly in front of...NGC 7319 I believe.<br /><br />Quasar's are real observable objects that we know very little about. In fact I bet 'they' know more about black holes.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="yellow">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?</font><br /><br />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."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You misunderstood the question.<br /><br />If you reject the Big Bang because one seemingly simple question doesn't have a logical answer within the Big Bang's framework, why do you not reject mathematics on a similar basis?<br /><br />I'll be frank. I think you are trying to rationalize your aesthetic dislike of the Big Bang. You are not rejecting it because it can't answer a particular question; you are rejecting it because you don't like it. That's okay, as I said before. But it's wise to be honest with yourself about that.<br /><br />You do not understand the Big Bang well enough to reject it on the basis of its merits. Neither do I, so please don't take that as a slight against your considerable intellect. You understand math well enough to be okay with the assertion that there is no sensible square root of -1; you understand that within math, this is not a flaw but merely a logical absurdity. But you don't understand the Big Bang theory well enough to realize that there is nothing inherently wrong, within its own context, of there being no "there" beyond the universe. Could the Big Bang be wrong? Of course. Could inflation be wrong? I find that less likely, but it nevertheless possible. However, you can't really disprove the model based on the logical absurdity of there being no "there" outside of the Universe. It would be like trying to disprove Kepler by saying that there are no epicycles in his proposed circular orbits around the Sun; they jus <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

not to nitpick...well, that's what I'm doing, take it as a bit of trivia: Copernicus <i>also</i> had epicycles in his system.<br /><br />It wasn't until keplar that heliocentric models could do without them (since properly constructed circles with epicycles behave exactly like ellipses). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

I also have "Aesthetic" issues with the concept of Faster-Than-Light-Inflation during the early universe, (the first few seconds of time), but I believe it's merely due to our incomplete understanding of the singularity and BB event; which Hawking himself admits defies comprehension.<br /><br />I think it's just a matter of the sequence in which things developed during the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe's creation:<br /><br />Did time or space occur first within the singularity?<br /><br />Was the unfolding of time and space an excruciatingly slow process or was this an instantaneous development?<br /><br />When did light occur and was it always related to "c"? <br /><br />Are the mass and energy in our universe simply left over remnants of the BB that failed to become spacetime?

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />No, you are rejecting it based on asthetics. It looks ugly to you to have a universe with nothing beyond it, or a finite reality. This is preventing you from understanding it well enough to reject it logically. That's okay. But, it's not logic. It's a gut feeling. People have been using gut feelings for centuries, and they can be very useful, so it's not a bad thing. But it's not the same as logic.</font><br /><br />no, sunshine. i've stated why. <br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I also have "Aesthetic" issues with the concept of Faster-Than-Light-Inflation during the early universe, (the first few seconds of time), but I believe it's merely due to our incomplete understanding of the singularity and BB event; which Hawking himself admits defies comprehension. <br /></font><br /><br />that alone can lead one to regard it as an interesting guess. as i've said before, you have to break every rule in the book, only to then say that is perfectly ok, to buy the BB. i will read his book nonetheless and check out his genius opinion on creation.

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Bonzelite -</b><br /><br />Be careful reading Hawking; he'll turn you into a <i>true believer!</i>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>no, sunshine. i've stated why.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I know you *think* you're being logical about it, but you're not. You have closed your mind, which is somewhat ironic in the circumstances. I believe you are falling prey to your own biases, but are not aware of the fact.<br /><br />For most theories, there is a simple question that doesn't make sense, but it doesn't invalidate the theory. (For instance, in theology there's the old question "can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?", commonly and mistakenly touted by some of the less astute atheists as an argument against an omnipotent creator God. Wiser atheists know it's absurd and instead go for much more sophisticated and effective arguments.) If you want to invalidate a theory, you're going to have to work harder than that. You're going to have to understand what you're invalidating. Until you do that, your efforts merely demonstrate your lack of understanding, not any weakness in the theory.<br /><br />BTW, it is very possible to understand a theory without believing it. For instance, it is quite possible to understand Lamarckian evolution, even though plenty of scientific discoveries have since invalidated it. You can understand the ancient Greek models of the geocentric universe without considering them to be an accurate or even useful depiction of the universe. In fact, getting to know theories that were later rejected can be very interesting. It gives fascinating insight into the thought processes of some very brilliant human beings throughout history. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

Those are all good questions, Iwonder. I notice, though, that none of the more learned SdC-ers here have actually answered any of them. But that is also where my interests lie: What do "standard" theories NOT explain well? Where are their blindspots? What else could it be?<br /><br />Given your off-hand dismissal of most things Electric Universe ("First let us assume that most of what SiriusMrE and his camp claims is untrue."), I would argue that I am a bit more open-minded than you would appear. And that's OK.<br /><br />But, let me ask you and all the others here who are are clearly steeped in the hypotheses, mathematics and lore of the gravity-only universe just how many "alternative" hypotheses has anyone FULLY investigated at least as fully as they have come to know the "standard" hypotheses? Since so many here seem to think that math tells the story of reality, how many have put in the time to work through the math used to describe an electric universe? I am not a mathematician nor a science professional and I will freely admit that I have not done the math. But, was it not "the child's mind" that Einstein employed to come up with some of the most important questions and answers of the last century? Was it not his strength that he was able to ask some very simple and basic questions whose answers had profound ramifications? Einstein was not a trained physicist, either. Many of his experiments were "thought experiments." Perhaps that is precisely why he was able to think outside the box so effectively. He was not constrained--in a way--by years of post-graduate studies (brainwashing) that drilled into him what he was supposed to think about the cosmos.<br /><br />Not that I am claiming to be on a par with Einstein, but that is essentially what I am trying to do: present a particular problem or ask a certain question about "standard" theory conundra whose answers may have far-reaching implications. I am attempting to use a child's mind and ask uncomfortable questions <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

calli, i'm not closed to learning. my frequent visits to this site should speak to that. it is closed to assume that we have the moment of all creation all figured out. <br /><br />there are many theories that are full of holes that are accepted. it is often the case that further knowledge is unobtainable, but the theory is sound. or the converse can be true. Mars is a classic case of this. there are historically many theories about that world that have come and gone as more accurate observations have trumped prior ideas. there are no canals on mars. the sky is not blue on mars. there are no seas on mars. but at one time, everyone bought that such structures existed there. <br /><br />because one disagrees with a theory does not demostrate right away a lack of understanding. many scientists with advanced degrees and myriad awards, disagree with many accepted theories. not only the big bang. but more mundane ones. there is conflict about such things as the Martian atmosphere. how thick was it? was it wetter? in light of new evidence, many people now think Mars has been bone dry for longer than popular theory had everyone believe. as more knowledge comes online, things evolve. even then things may be indeterminant. <br /><br />the big bang is a sacred cow. and until enough individuals trump this theory, it will remain sacred and untouchable. i have said before that it is very difficult to refute a popular idea. it is far easier to refute an unpopular one. the big bang is "it." no time soon will it be replaced. so don't worry! <br /><br />

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"because one disagrees with a theory does not demostrate right away a lack of understanding. many scientists with advanced degrees and myriad awards, disagree with many accepted theories. not only the big bang."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />How true, bonz!<br /><br />Some would argue that the "Big Bang" was refuted many, many years ago and has been stubbornly held onto and tweaked to fit the new data. Sacred cow, indeed.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>it is closed to assume that we have the moment of all creation all figured out. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Very true. In fact one thing you may not realize is that there isn't one Big Bang theory -- there are many. They don't all have the same ideas about how the first moments of the universe happened -- or what happened before the Big Bang (if anything). Some are frankly more philosophical than scientific, in my opinion, or at least edge into the philosophical.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>because one disagrees with a theory does not demostrate right away a lack of understanding. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Absolutely. However, sometimes the way one expresses that disagreement does. If one disputes a theory because of a perceived flaw, which in fact the theory encompasses, unbeknownst to the disputer, then it reveals a very specific igorance. Not ignorance overall, but ignorance of that specific aspect of the particular theory.<br /><br />You are a very intelligent person, and I love reading your posts. I really do. You contribute a lot to this place, and I have learned from you. I don't want to give the impression that I have a low opinion of you or anything. Quite the contrary! I apologize if I have offended you in any way.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the big bang is a sacred cow. and until enough individuals trump this theory, it will remain sacred and untouchable.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, it only takes one individual to trump a theory. Sure, it can take time for it to leak into the popular press and average high school level science class, but it only takes one. The trick is to be able to back it up. There's a thread over in Human Nature about the Nobel Prize in medicine, which was just awarded to the discoverer of the fact that Helicobacter pylori can not only thrive in the stomach (previously bel <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

Yet another blow to the "standard" theories; they--including "M Theory"--are in big trouble. From an editorial in the 10 Dec 05 issue of <i>New Scientist</i>: <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Physics' greatest endeavour has ground to a halt. <b>We are in 'a period of utter confusion,' said Nobel laureate David Gross</b>, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the quantum structure of space and time. That is worrying because the topic is central to finding a 'theory of everything' that will describe every force and particle in nature. <br /><br />"<b>Einstein's relativity, which reigned supreme for a century, is a flawed basis for such a theory.</b> Although it deals with gravity, it tells us nothing else about the nature and interactions of matter. Crucially, general relativity is incompatible with quantum theory. Since the 1960s, theorists have struggled to solve this problem, so far to no avail. <b>And the trouble is we have nothing to put in relativity's place.</b><br /><br />"The great hope, string theory, which views particles as emanating from minuscule strings, has generated myriad mathematical descriptions linked to the dance of particles. But these equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. <b>At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes.</b> <br /><br />"For decades, string theorists have been excused from testing their ideas against experimental results. When astronomers discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe, which string theory fails to account for, many string theorists took shelter in a remarkable excuse: that their equations describe all possible universes and should not be tied to matching data in just one of them. <br /><br />"But when the theory does not match the one data set we have, is it science? There is a joke circulating on physics blogs: that we can, after all, call our universe unique. Why? Because</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

calli, thank you for the nice words. i enjoy hanging out here and value the debates and your insights very much. all is well. you're cool with me. <br /><br />i'm under a tight deadline right now so i need to work. i'd rather keep chatting about this. but i will pick this back up maybe later tonight or tomorrow. the conversation has gotten pretty good. <br /><br />another point, consider, too, that science IS philosophy. a PhD is doctor of philosophy. and the sciences are but one area of this broader field. so it SHOULD be a philosophical dialogue with specifics to the discipline. as you say, it must be supported.

 

[jatslo]

Iwonder said, "...<font color="yellow">are there properties of electricity that we still don't understand fully? Is it possible that electrical discharges can occur between planetary or cosmological bodies?</font><br /><br />[1] There is much work left to do in electrodynamics, and electricity is still a very good field to pursue.<br /><br />[2] I do not like the word cosmological, so I will just confidently state that interstellar masses of energy and/or matter are undoubtedly linked, and I imagine that there are independent events in space-time, as well. It is this space between independents that is instantaneous, in which cause and effect are indistinguishable from one another.<br /><br />"...<font color="yellow">we really don't fully understand lightning, its causes and possible effects. Is this true?</font><br /><br />Lightning falls into the response I provided in answer [1]; of course, lighting is not fully understood, Tesla is my favorite electro-icon.<br /><br />"...<font color="yellow">does the mainstream scientific community think electrical forces can interact between cosmological bodies? Do they interact with, or are they possibly the cause of gravitational forces? Like an electromagnet?</font><br /><br />[1] There are electrical forces, yes.<br /><br />[2] Compacted electrical forces make gravity, yes, but I do not know if that is a main stream perception, or not; it is just me talking.<br /><br />[3] Like an electromagnet? Like electromagnets? Magnets that attract, or magnets that repel? Are the magnets spinning? Gravity is kind of like a magnet, but at what magnitude? Is it possible that 99% of gravity is generated in the first 1% of the core?

 

[CalliArcale]

I'm very glad, bonzelite. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> And don't fret too much about the conversation; make your deadline at work and keep employed! That's way more important than this place. (I may also be disappearing much fo the time in the near future; I just got a bombshell dropped on me at work, and I suddenly am getting some unexpected work dumped in my lap.)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>another point, consider, too, that science IS philosophy. a PhD is doctor of philosophy. and the sciences are but one area of this broader field. so it SHOULD be a philosophical dialogue with specifics to the discipline. as you say, it must be supported.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Once, the words were completely synonymous, which is why a PhD is what it is. But today, you can have a PhD in philosophy, or in something different, and that isn't weird anymore. The vagaries of natural language! The words have shifted. Science probably <i>should</i> be a subset of philosophy, but now fewer people think of it that way and instead confine philosophy to a much smaller area -- basically, thinking in the areas where there isn't enough evidence for science to be useful. It does cause confusion when reading older texts. I mean, modern readers don't tend to quite get what Shakespeare was saying when he wrote "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." He didn't mean the stuff that most people today would think of as philosophy (which most people take as little more than ethics and ponderings on the intangibles of human nature); he meant what we'd now think of as science.<br /><br />Glad to meet somebody else who knows that history! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

bravo, Calli.<br /><br />i tend to approach science from a philosophical view. largely because i am not a scientitst by trade, perhaps, and because i see an overlap in the arts and sciences, as i am a visual artist by trade. daVinci is a perfect example of this ---philosophy.

 

[drwayne]

One could make the case that many Ph.D. degrees should really be something more like a Doctor of Science degree (which is in fact a different degree, but that was not the point I was making).<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Actually, the major logical method that is attached to the sciences, the scientific method - which some would argue is a philosophy of examination, you would be surprised how many graduate students could not convey what it means.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

in my opinion, the avent of higher and higher mathematical studies and theories has begun to replace "philosophy," so what we have is a math-skewed science, and less of a philosophical one. however i think string theory is a modern philosophical idiom of science and math --fraught with outlandish ideas of parallel universes and worm holes-- fantasy-like and almost spiritual in connotation, seemingly highly inventive and very out of the box. it's often far more interesting an area than the watching-paint-dry ideas of the cold and old universe that walks like a math snail to create anything --even if it is all true. <br /><br />even if string theory is b.s., i am happy to see such creative imagination in science and math insofar as cosmology. we need more of that. this is why i find electric universe theory so exciting, as it is dynamic and amazing and offers a lot of sensical theories for mechanics, even if it carries, as well, myriad half-baked ideas.

 

[Saiph]

I really dislike the connotations behind "math-skewed" science. Math is a logical framework that tells us what logically follows from a set of statements.<br /><br />As such, a mathematical theory, if consistent, is far more rigourous and supported than the general philosophies based on a logical framework depending on the not so clear cut definitions of words and ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

then that's maybe why you're where you are. and i am where i am. i do not come from a left-brained genetic predelection. i am prone to think in a non-linear fashion before linear thinking occurs to me. <br /><br />i need special short-bus assistance to comprehend higher mathematics. <br /><br />

 

[Saiph]

the left brain is only "required" to confirm and support things. Using the right brain to whip things up is just fine.<br /><br />Arriving at the answer through shear elbow grease, or by intuitive thought are both valid approaches. Unfortunately, once there, you've got to justify it, and with the intuitive answers it isn't as easy (though not uncommon, there are plenty of success stories of people who are sure of something and working to prove it) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i agree. what typically occurs to me is a wave of images and vivid what-ifs --->i see the planets. i see the particles accreting. i see the big bang exploding in it's hyper-bizarre geometric sense of happening from every point within the expanding medium --regardless of whether it happened, i often need a moving illustration in my mind's eye to propell the vision into accessibility. in this way it becomes tenable. <br /><br />for example, i can see a compelling and apocalyptic hyper-real scene of a planet colliding with the early earth to then reconstitute and create the moon. the event is beyond description and awesome to the point of being nearly like a hallucination you'd experience with a high fever. and once i have that within my palm, i can assess whether or not it seems viable -- this is all a matter of my own opinion, of course. <br /><br />for math principles, i require slowness. as it comes off as very sequential and linear-based, requiring an imagination that is nearly binary, if you will, with a greater sense of confinement. <br /><br />yet the beauty in both manners of working through a premise, in unison, is, for me, the closest approximation to beholding the essence of the higher creator, whatever it is. and it is beyond all heaven and hell, the most unfathomable ocean of mysteries. as in 2001 A Space Odyssey -- beyond the infinite.