Electric Universes review of Deep Impact

smartie · Jan 31, 2006

Predictions http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm What was learned http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050707meaning.htm

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Ok, seperate thread wrt Electric Universe is much better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

smartie · Jan 31, 2006

Does anybody have anything meaningful to comment on the actual results and conclusions, whether they are interested or critical of this theory?

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Probably. Give them all a while to slowly appear. Just as well you started this thread, as the Deep Impact one is about due to be locked (over the 600 post limit). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Jan 31, 2006

Start your argument. I am more open to alternatives than most people in these threads. Posting a couple of links and asking people to comment on them, is not going to get much of a response.

smartie · Jan 31, 2006

To prevent me being swayed into beleiving in some kind of pseudo science can some one convince me that the statements and conclusions expressed are false. If the Electric Universe ideas can predict the results more accurately than current ideas, then why should'nt we take it seriously?

vogon13 · Jan 31, 2006

I am unaware of anyone in the Electric Universe camp disputing the planet dissolving chaos cloud headed our way in just 8 1/2 years now, so, sadly, most of the Electric Universe musings will be for not on the day of the big Zzzzththththppppt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Simple answer: it can't. For each and every "issue" raised by the EU belief, there's a reason why it won't work. Example: the "Electric Sun" idea. The problem is, the sun does not operate in the way they seem to believe. Both electrons, protons, and positive ions stream *away* from the sun. This in and of itself precludes the sun being an electric phenomenon. Whenever an Electric Sun proponent debates this, they conveniently fail to make mention of the fact. Reasons like that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Jan 31, 2006

You should consider electricity a FACT.

smartie · Jan 31, 2006

In semi conductors positive 'holes' appear to flow in one direction because negative electrons flow in the other direction. Imagine ten chairs placed in a circle with nine people seated, leaving one vacant chair. Let each of the friends represent an electron and the chairs represent positive ions, if everyone moves one seat to the right the empty chair appears to move to the left. Ions are atoms with at least one electron missing. Ions do not flow. It is the electrons that flow, and the electrons are flowing in the opposite direction. I think the Electric theorists believe electrons flow toward the sun.

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

That's precisely correct. ES proponents believe exactly that, and it's not even remotely supported by the weight of evidence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

smartie · Jan 31, 2006

To be accurate it is not supported by mainstream astronomers. Which evidence do you refer to?

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Well, for one, what the Electric Sun proponents state doesn't even relate to what we know about the Solar Wind. In the equatorial region, we have many satellites and observational platforms, and so an equally great amount of observational data. As I'd mentioned, what streams from the sun is electrons, protons, and some positive ions, all escaping at around the same velocity. No hint of incoming charged particles at all. When we observe the polar regions of the sun - where the electrical effects would/should appear, were the sun really an electrical phenomenon, everything looks pretty much the same as at the equator. When we observe the sun, we can see field lines that are lit up by confined plasma. Plasma is confined by magnetic fields, and basically torn to shreds by an electric field. If the sun were indeed an electrical circuit as they suggest, then magnetic field lines would wrap around the current - which does not happen. In point of fact, the ideas proposed by the Electric Sun people violate some very simple properties of electricity and physics. The kind of errors a Fresman would be an idiot to make. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jan 31, 2006

holes in the electric sun theory, specifically to the sun, do not necessarily mean that all accounts of electrical phenomena as causation are false. as well, holes in Kepler's laws of motion as applied to the observed flat radial velocities of galaxies, as these laws do not apply to galactic rotation or explain this phenomena, do not necessarily mean that all accounts of gravitational attraction and motion are false. to reject the entire realm of electrical phenomena as pseudo-science is blatantly negligent. there are just as many or more contradictions in standard theories, that are accepted, as there are in other models that are rejected. this is primarily due to the dominance of mathematically-based theroies, presented as irrefutable fact, when, in reality, are not factual. theoretical math is not science and should not be solely relied upon to explain the cosmos. as well, EU theory should not be solely relied upon to explain the cosmos.

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Perhaps. But the biggest failing with the Electric Universe theories is that they do not - in fact, virtually never - explains why they should supplant the standard model. All they ever do is snipe at current thought, as if the current model doesn't work - but EU does. That is the precise hallmark of Pseudoscience. Never really explain yourself - just keep telling the other guy he's wrong, and demand that he show why he thinks he's right. It precisely reverse the proper order of things around, tries to tries to flip the argument. Wrong. Conventional thought on numerous things *works* - EU theories do not. I might add, as I pointed out previously, that there are huge gaping flaws in all of the EU theories, and the proponents of it deliberately will not mention them. Edit: by the way, all of you are merely asking questions. I wasn't lumping you in with the EU crowd. Merely making mention of how they operate. We know their arguments up and down, back and forth here, oh yes indeedy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jan 31, 2006

EU theorists do explain why standard models fail. standard theorists will likewise not point out contradictions in their ideas either. it's tit for tat. as for me, i'm not bent on either one.

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Yeah well, the problem with EU is it cannot meet the requirements for most of the physical mechanisms it purports to "explain." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

smartie · Jan 31, 2006

Why if astronomers and cosmologists have nothing to fear from the EU theorists do they constantly attack and vandalise the Plasma Cosmology page on the Wikipedia web site. Is this really how so called mainstream scientists should behave? It is a total disgrace. Accepted ideas seem to be more influenced by the degree of funding rather than true scientific evidence.

bonzelite · Jan 31, 2006

right. as well, be aware that "Wikipedia" is a total sellout. science is way more about politics than anything else. it is today dominated by absolutely abstract and fetching mathematical models to explain reality. and this is exactly pseudoscience, of a sort.

Saiph · Jan 31, 2006

EU says that many of the things we see are due to electrical forces. In that, they are correct. http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html For instance, they point at the solar wind, saying that for it to be thermally created, would require a surface temperature or 24 million kelvin. Okay, sure. But "mainstream" doesn't assert that it's thermally induced. It's an affect of electrical and magnetic forces. It also fails to notice that there is a very accurate magnetohydrodynamic model (i.e. magnetic and electric fields in a plasma) that correctly models nearly the entire behavior of the sun (including the pole flips!). Mainstream science fully acknowledges that a lot of the behavior of the sun is electrical in nature. However, it disagrees almost entirely in how that nature manifests itself. Take, for instance, the idea of a negative outer layer, and a positive core. They give a good reason, electrons are more mobile (bigger velocities for the same given energies) than protons. And a lot of the forces in the sun are outward (there is a net outward energy flux)...so electrons will move out more than protons. Okay, great....but what about the energy require to seperate the protons and electrons? To assemble any of the charge the used to claim (don't see it on the page anymore... so that's progress), requires incredible amounts of energy. Nevermind, found the other site: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm This one's got lots of erroneous data on the sun. Now, while the whole theory doesn't rest on the "electric sun", it is a good example of the errors that propagate through the work, and since I know more about the sun and it's dynamics, than many other areas, that's where I focus. Heres a <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>

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Ahh, anyone can submit an article to Wikipedia. In fact, it's entirely public-written, and it is very prone to mistake (both accidental, and deliberate). Anyone can register, and then merrily post away. Mister Butch I'm "Allstonian" at the very bottom, the last comment (and we saved the reference, damnit!). So, as you see, anyone can post there. Or edit there. Or claim they're anyone they feel like. In fact, there's also a very recent story in the news as to how a Congressman's staff were going into the Wiki reference on him, and editing out some "inconvenient" facts. Most people I ever knew in science and school were pretty above boards about funding. It's not some sort of whip and evil mind-control run by a scientific money-mafia, you know. You compete in an arena of ideas, and if others who also have expertise in that area with control of funds concur, money is granted to you to try to try your hypothesis. Or disprove it. Or possibly some entirely different outcome will happen - Nobel Prizes have been awarded for such things. Witness the guys who invented the transistor, Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain - they set out to test something entirely different, and stumbled onto what we now call the "Semiconductor." Now if you were discussing ego and prestige, then you'd be closer to the mark, in some ways. There is some definite conflicting personalities at work; I once watched my advisor, Bob, almost come to blows with "Sup," another PhD in the department (one accused the other of stealing their work). Beware, because a small percentage of those types will go to any lengths to beat the competition. The recent South Korean Geneticist is a classic example. Some of these are among the RCH/Electric Universe/Cydonia crowd. And their rabid opposition. So be cautious <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Jan 31, 2006

I'll also agree that funding can be a significant influence. During the 70's or so, a lot of studies on the sun were aimed at determining it's climate impact, and was marketed as the reason for the cold snap. It got hyped pretty bad, as is mars missions now. You have a lot of people heading in one direction, because it's where they can get funding. However, the answers are still valid, and there are enough people branching off in other directions that we still explore many options. I think this is the same thing going on in atmospheric sciences today. Everything is linked to global warming...sooner or later the entire truth will come out, and the field will shift to something else (or just get less funding, as the hype is gone). But anything other than a slight bias in results (which is nearly unavoidable, we are human) is really ripped to shreds in peer review system, and in subsequent citations. For instance, most laymen know that a scientist makes his name by publishing. What they don't know is that how often the work is cited also plays a large role. Publish a lot, but not get cited...doesn't do much for you. Publish a few times, but get monster citations (meaning you did something hard to do, and everybody thinks you did it right) on a few papers...and you're doing pretty well. <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 31, 2006

science = religion

yevaud · Jan 31, 2006

Damn right. Success breeds success in those fields. That's exactly correct about the Atmospheric and Earth sciences. There's now intense competition between competing Glaciologists, Climatologists, Atmospheric Physicists, Meteorologists, Vulcanologists, Ocenographers, and so on. And yes, "Climate Change" (another damned name change) is the prize. "Money makes the world go around..." My caveat to the other viewers is many believe something sinister is going on with respect to some theories, and I'm pointing out why it may seem that way. But it's not some evil cabal trying to choke infant sciences in their cradles; it's competition (sometime vicious), egos, and so on that make it so - those who have their own die-hard agendas, and science is their vehicle. And yes, absolutely hard-core honest peer-review. But I wasn't going to mention it in the same breath with "trying to kill an idea," which is something quite different. It'd be like mentioning Mother Theresa and Caligula in the same breath - they'd self-annihilate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Jan 31, 2006

science = religion. Not that again. At most, I'll agree that some over-arching "mega" theories can focus/restrict peoples views on a subject. But that problem occurs everywhere, it isn't easy to think up something new and completely original. A lot of people do good solid work pecking away within the edges of the main theories. By doing so you get results that are for, and against these theories, and the data is collected. You get a result, it doesn't fit with BB..so you take another look at it and see why. You look at what you'd have to do to get it to fit. Why? Cause BB is very well supported in other ways. Odds are, you're wrong. BUT when you try to fit it in, you must justify everything you do. You don't just say: Oh, that number is completely different...you really end up with: Initial analysis gives A, but factoring in these other factors, which are not as insignificant as previously believed, we end up with B. Unless, of course, you still end up with A (which means you've got something that detracts from an aspect of the main theory...or you weren't smart enough to see the whole answer). But religous dogmatism....nope. Don't see it. <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 Universes review of Deep Impact

smartie

Guest

yevaud

Guest

smartie

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

smartie

Guest

vogon13

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

smartie

Guest

yevaud

Guest

smartie

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

smartie

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page