Has anyone here heard of this theory? What do you think of it? I think it makes a lot more sense than the Big Bang Theory - http://www.holoscience.com/wp/
What about Immanuel Velikovsky 's works? Any opinion?
Perhaps we live in something like the Matrix after all :)
DanielMuff: Who on this forum has a degree in economics?
Who on this forum has a degree in economics?
I do, so never ever ever question what I say on Economics because those without a degree in the subject can't say anything of use about it. Further never ever question my brother on physics since he has a Theoretical Physics masters. Bow before the might of government accredited institutions.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
About action at a distance. In Newton's time, it seemed odd that you could move something without actually putting your hand on it and pushing it. That two things have some magical effect on each other without being in contact was a novel idea, and people were sceptical. Everyone would have felt much better if we lived in water, so that if you move object A, it moves the water, which moves other water, until water finally touches object B. That would be a satifactory explanation of gravity to their minds, since there was no action at a distance.
And indeed, the search began for a water substitute, ether, that we live in without knowing it, as fish live in water, and it's the ether that connects objects to each other, like water does in the above example.
But the thing is, if we retain that way of looking at things, and don't like the concept of action at a distance, then we have to reject electricity as well, because it too, works exactly like gravity, object A exerting its magical electromagnetic influence at a distance without being in contact with object B.
So giving an electrical explanation for the universe doesn't improve the situation.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
This electric physics is such bullshit, really. LOL @ the sun not working by nuclear reactions.
By the way, theories spoused before importants parts were known or understood will always commit gross mistakes.
This "all eletric" theory came before the strong and weak forces were clearly understood, so it had a very incomplete set of the puzzle, the same way that trying to do an all encompassing economic treatise before the SVT would eventually lead to some dead ends.
It's not just "Electric Physics", they are using established and understood physics of Plasma. The problem is that modern cosmologists have yet to fully digest and utilize plasma physics in their model's. Plasma physics is incredibly complex and does many things that do not seem obvious or common sense. I can understand the reason folks reject it out of hand, I did myself when I first came across it, but you have to actually look at it as a whole to see how all the pieces fit together. I was unconvinced for a long time until it finally clicked.
They don't reject quantitiative physics, they just state the obvious, that Mathematical model's can only describe, not explain. We need a qualitative understanding first before we can develop a mathematical model to describe it. Not the other way around.
They have some really interesting projects in the works now. The SAFIRE project, in which they've enlisted some scientists from establishment physics, is going to test the hypothesis of the electric sun model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIR6QOLPo4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYDPdobASI
The traditional Fusion based sun model has a lot of anomolies. It cannot intrinsically explain the Sun's differential rotation, sun spots, the existence of a Corona, the acceleration of the solar wind and many more. The establishment theory just believes they are transient or secondary phenomena, with details just left to be filled in. Clearly the current model is lacking. There is really not direct proof of the Fusion based sun. The electrical model on the other hand, explain all observed dynamic and steady state phenomena naturally.
I think it this thread will benefit greatly if everyone expressing an opinion on technical matters states his qualifications.
A few examples:
1. PhD in Astrophysics.
2. MA in Physics, specialized in quantum mechanics.
3. Read a lot of comic books.
That last line fits me, which is why I don't venture an opinion.
What about you, Orthogonal, Vital, everyone else?
Masters in Electrical Engineering
Occupation in Semi-conductors
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
@Orthogonal - thank you for your reply! It is quite fascinating to hear that they are currently working on testing their hypothesis on the electric sun model. I cannot wait to see the result of the experiment. If you have any more information on this, please update it on this thread and perhaps it will change a lot of people's minds about the electric university theory.
For some reason, the electric universe theory appears to make a lot of sense to me.
I'd love to get a degree in economics, but I don't think it would pay as well...
I'm glad you asked, because I think it important to emphasize the differences between economics and physics since, say, Newton. I see three huge differences.
1. Economics is still simple enough that all results can be deduced [and explained] in a short time from first principles.
Physics, on the other hand, is so advanced that it takes whole books full of intricate reasoning to prove something. In particular, you have to know tons of math to even understand the statement of some ideas.
2. The first principles themselves are intuitive and one might say self evident.
In physics, this is not true at all. F=ma is far from intuive, not mention things like the uncertainty principle.
3. A degree in Economics from a standard instituion of learning is worse than useless. It has no predictive value, quite the opposite. Plus, many a mind on this very site has been forever twisted and ruined by what it was exposed to in universities.
What is taught in physics courses is generally accepted as useful, and the proof is the predictive value.
Coclusion: without studying physics, one has no clue. Vitor wrote that it's ridiculous to the point of an LOL to think that the Sun isn't powered by nuclear explosions, but by electricity. Can anyone here who has not studied physics explain why he is right or wrong?
Contrast this with economics, where articles are written here all the time debunking various mainstream notions. There is nothing complicated about them, and they build on obvious first principles. An intelligent five year old can understand.
That's why I ask when someone makes an assertion about this particular thread about their cred.
It would be better still if they would lay out the gist of their arguments. For example, something like, "The daily energy produced by the sun is X [with link provided]. Only nuclear reactions can possibly produce that kind of energy, given the Sun's mass [equation plus link]. Electricity will not provide enough energy [equation plus link].
The other side could then show the flaw, if any, in that proof.
Orthogonal: I'd love to get a degree in economics, but I don't think it would pay as well...
With a bachelor degree in economics you can make a solid $60K+ as analyst for a top tier BB. And that's just base salary, not including bonus (which is not so great for first year analysts, something like $20K or less).
And if you have an MS or PhD you can apply for an associate position and earn well into $100K, with a bigger bonus. Not many people get a 6-figure salary on their first job, and most of them are Ivy League lawyers and doctors.
If you're reasonably competent and hardworking you can expect to get promoted to VP in 5-7 years and managing director in 10-13.
Managing Directors are paid $300K-$600K plus bonuses that are often more than $1M.
So if you graduate from a good school with a MS on economics and finance at the age of 23 you are not being unrealistic to expect to be making $1M+ a year at the age of 35 and retire quite rich at any point after 45.
Of course you don't need a degree in economics and finance to work for Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs, there are a lot of engineers, physicists and mathematicians, and of course the large majority of MBAs doing the less quantitative (boring) stuff bankers do (and making good money).
But it will help to have studied these fields. Of course MBAs have the possibility of becoming senior executives and making some real money, but MS and PhDs do cooler things during their careers, so that's a tradeoff.
Of course all these figures were way juicier before 2008.
1. http://www.epi.org/publication/college_graduates_supply_and_demand/
The gist of that article:
Employers are now filling vacancies for recent college graduates in a number equal to only 20% of their class.
Many of the largest areas of future job growth in the American economy are in occupations requiring little skill, not even a two-year post-secondary credential – waiters and waitresses, retail salespersons, truck drivers, janitors, home health aides.
2. http://www.aeaweb.org/students/Careers.php
Average Starting Salary Offers to Inexperienced Bachelor’s Degree Recipients by Curriculum, Summer 2007
3. http://www.numberof.net/number-of-economics-majors/
How many economics majors are there?
89,000.
In 2003, there were 89,000 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in economics courses in the United States. This represents 0.4% of all enrolment for the year. 82.2% of economics students are under the age of 25, and almost 79% are enrolled in 4-year undergraduate institutions. In 2006 a total of 22,821 Economics degrees were awarded throughout the United States.
So every single year there are 22,000 new job openings in economics? Why is there a need for 22,000 new economists each and every year, forever? What is crying out to be done out there that needs an army of 22,000 economists more every single year to do it? Which companies are tearing their hair in frustrations as we speak, crying out, "If only I had a few hundred more economists working for me, then I could really make money! My kingdom for an economist! What a lost opportunity, what a shame, that all 22,000 economists from last year's batch were hired by the competition. Now I'll have to wait for next year, and grab me some economists from the new crop. Oh, had I only acted sooner!"
And they will all be making $1M+ a year at the age of 35? This means, of course, that their companies are making more than $1M+ a year because that economist is sitting there in his office, or else he would be laid off. What exactly are these 22,000 people going to be doing at age 35 that is worth a million dollars a year to their employers?
Putting these statistics together, every year all the companies across America are pulling in over $22 billion more than the year before, each and every year. And all because they hire 22,000 economists each and every year.
I dunno, maybe this is all true. Maybe all I have to do is hire an economist and my business will grow exponentially. I better get in on the ground floor here, and hire ten or fifteen.
Dude, there are a lot of things an economics major can do in the private sector besides being a government technocrat or a professor of economics.
My post was about one career path in the business of financial quantitative analysis, for which I have more knowledge, but there are many others, like trading, actuaries, logistics, marketing research, big data and so on.
Of course few or none of these jobs are offered exclusively to economics majors, but most white collar jobs are like that.
Of course job offers for junior engineer in a chemical plant cannot be filled by an accountant, but these are the exceptions.
Most engineers end up doing something more or less unrelated with their major.
Toxic, that last post of yours does read like something a university trained economist would write in response to my questions.
So yes, expect success in your chosen field.
Walter Block must be an incompetent economist, as he is supposed to make only $160,000-$180,000 a year, much of which he makes from selling books and giving speeches. What a dummy for not making $1,000,000+.