"Electric Universe Theory"

[iwonder]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sirius, if you take that as an off- hand dismissal, and you think that I am not as "open-minded" as you, it really shows how closed minded you are.<br /><br />I made that statement because I want to open discussion on this topic, one that you obviously are very interested in, as am I. To be honest, I am quite fascinated by the fact that there are scientists who support EU theories, and I want to learn more about them. HOWEVER, I want views from both sides ("camps" if you will), and I am not supporting either. I just want to hear what everyone has to say. <br /><br />The reason I made that statement is because I am throwing a bone to the other "camp" to try and get them to admit that, whether or not they agree with you, there are still things about the universe, gravity, and electricity that are not fully understood by ANYONE. (Including you.)

 

[siriusmre]

Iwonder, I apologize. I did not mean to offend you. Actually, I am quite pleased that you have raised these questions--as I think I posted.<br /><br />I do not claim to know ALL the answers. Neither should ANYONE. And you're right; I am included in the group of people who does not fully understand every aspect of the universe. Absolutely. Aren't we all?<br /><br />I, too, would like to have an open discussion about the merits and failings of each paradigm, but the fact that electric universe adherents sometimes take diametrically opposing views to standard model proponents on things--such as whether Earth's ionosphere gets electrically charged because of lightning, or there is lightning because the ionosphere is electrically charged. Sometimes the differences seem too large to bridge.<br /><br />Also, I'm with bozelite on the whole math thing. Physics has been taken over by mathematicians, who often confuse their mathematically derived solutions with an actual description of reality. I've posted it before, but this quote from the book <i>Science at the Crossroads</i> (1972) by astrophysicist Herbert Dingle--who for many years wrote the Special Relativity entry in the <i>Encyclopaedia Brittanica</i> until he realized that the logic was flawed--really says it all about mathematics' relationship to physics:<br /><br />"<b>It is usually taken for granted that the processes of mathematics are identical with the processes of reasoning, whereas they are quite different.</b> The mathematician is more akin to a spider than to a civil engineer, to a chess player than to one endowed with exceptional critical power. The faculty by which a chess expert intuitively sees the possibilities that lie in a particular configuration of pieces on the board is paralleled by that which shows the mathematician the much more general possibilities latent in an array of symbols. <b>He proceeds automatically and faultlessly to bring them to light, but his subsequent correlation of his symbols with fac</b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">. Physics has been taken over by mathematicians, who often confuse their mathematically derived solutions with an actual description of reality.</font><br /><br />thank you. yes. <br /><br />math is a tool in a box. it is not the box itself.

 

[Saiph]

we do have to be careful with mathematics, I agree. Ignoring errors in the math itself, it's prone to bad data in, bad data out.<br /><br />If you start from false premises, you could end up with a false result (or a true one, but for the wrong reasons). <br /><br />However, if you correctly assertain the initial conditions, and properly quantize the factors in play, math will lead you to the right answer.<br /><br />E.g.<br /><br />We could say gravity is F=GM/R^2. It depends only on the larger mass. We'd get some pretty accurate results if we only consider human sized objects compared to the mass of the earth.<br /><br />The math leads to accurate results.<br /><br />However, upon close inspection we find it's inaccurate, we've misrepresented a factor in play. By correctly incorporating all aspects of the graviational attraction, giving F=GMm/r^2, we get spot on answers....until we get to really extremem masses or really small radii (enter another calibration and restructuring).<br /><br />In this case, the logic of the math is correct, but the answers are not entirely in line with reality. As you said.<br /><br />However, math is a language, and when understood is a wonderful tool.<br /><br />When things get really abstract, and beyond our common experience though, math is harder to grasp as just a descriptive tool. We have to interpret the mathematical results to understand what they're describing.<br /><br />If the math that correctly and accurately predicts quantum effects can only be expressed as probabilities...does that mean the effects themselves are entirely probabilistic? or is that just the math?<br /><br />At the level of investigation possible, there is no way to tell one way or another if it's just the tool, or if it's the phenomena that behaves that way.<br /><br />thus enters the two realms of thought: Is math just a description? Or is it a mandate?<br /><br />With the caveat of: when done correctly and from true premises. <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]

saiph, good post; as well, i'm not dissing math. i hope you see that i am not coming from this position. we need math absolutely. it is not only powerful, but highly necessary in nearly every cranny of our existence. there wouldn't really be much of a science field without it. <br /><br />and math is man-made. the cosmos is inhuman and beyond definition. i err on the side of description. <br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you start from false premises, you could end up with a false result (or a true one, but for the wrong reasons). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />An interesting example of the latter is Pluto. Some astronomers had calculated based on unexplained deviations in the orbit of Neptune that there had to be a massive ninth planet. They eventually derived an orbit and predicted where this object could be found. (A similar process was successfully and correctly used to find Neptune, so they weren't totally offbase in thinking this might work.) Not all astronomers felt there actually was a tenth large planet out there; there had been a fair amount of controversy with several calculated and predicted planets which proved to be nonexistent. But this didn't dissuade Clyde Tombaugh from looking for Planet 9. He did a rigorous and painstaking search using the "blink" technique (two photographic plates are taken of the same spot in the sky at different times; you "blink" between them to look for anything that moves between the pictures) and lo and behold, in approximately the right part of the sky, he found Pluto. It took him some effort to get it accepted as a major planet; the criterion at the time was that it had to show a disk when observed through a telescope. (Asteroids didn't; the word "asteroid" actually means starlike, which means most telescopes just see them as point sources of light.) He came up with a complicated way of persuading astronomers that it did in fact have a disk, and Pluto became officially the ninth planet.<br /><br />It wasn't long, however, before it was conclusively shown that disk or not, Pluto was too small to cause the perturbations to Neptune. Planet X searches continued. The hunt is now virtually over; accurate mass measurements of Uranus and Neptune, courtesy of Voyager 2, have eliminated the perceived errors in Neptune's orbit. Planet X does not exist, and not only was Pluto not r <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]

calli, good post --a celestial witch hunt. <br /><br />i suggest there are lots of such cases. too many. yes, some render truth. and some perpetuate falsehoods. some are just perpetual hunts. white elephants. <br /><br />i need to eat lunch now. back later. this is a great dialogue.

 

[CalliArcale]

Or snipe hunts, even. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I think the only way to tell truth from falsehood is to continually search and explore. <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>