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 :)
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.
One more thing I should have put in my first post that is worth clarifying. The Electric Model of the Sun does not reject fusion occuring in the Sun, only that it rejects the current theory of fusion occuring at the core of the Sun as the primary reaction. The Electric Model claims that very little if anything is happening below the surface. Instead, the model explains that whatever fusion is occuring is happining in the Chromosphere, just above the surface of the Sun in electro-magnetic z-pinches.. Interestingly, the z-pinch is the primary method that most fusion energy projects on earth are attempting to re-create.
An interesting side note. Eric Lerner, who is a Plasma Physicist and a man who also rejects the Big Bang as evidenced by his book "The Big Bang Never Happened". He's not affiliated with the Electric Universe folks, but he has collaborated with them, I think he advocates Steady State Universe He is currently working on an anutronic Dense Plasma Focus device using a pinch method quite different than Tokamok (the Gov't boondogle) to achieve fusion. As of the end of 2012 they are the closest to achieving net positive energy fusion. They have achieved 2 out of 3 requirements for fusion: confinement time and minimum temperature threshold, they only lack the necessary plasma density. Lerner predicts they will achieve this in 2013. It would be a momentus occasion in fusion development, and the fact that it came from some scientific outcasts, working basically in a garage and funded solely on donations and private investors, is a fantastic statement about the power of markets and idea's outside of government funded establishment dogma.
If you are interested, here is a 2007 Google Tech talk Lerner gave on his DPF device.
I'm glad Physiocrat understands how things really work.
>Clayton: Prove what?? Physicists themselves tell us that the center of a black hole is a point of infinite density... "Physics" that invoke infinite physical magnitudes is not physics, it is metaphysics.
Infinities have shown up before in physics. Usually they are taken to indicate a lack of understanding, rather than accepted at face value. For example, this infinity was a harbinger of QM theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
Electric Universe theory would probably have infinities too, if it had actual equations.
>Orthogonal: The Electric Model claims that very little if anything is happening below the surface.
>They have achieved 2 out of 3 requirements for fusion: confinement time and minimum temperature threshold, they only lack the necessary plasma density.
If only the plasma had enough density... like, for example, from having the weight of a frigging star bearing down on it.
Huh? The Fusion projects are using electromagnetic Z-Pinches, a completely different mechanism than the CNO Fusion cycle proposed in the core of stars.
As for black holes, they are non-sense. They don't even satisfy the mathematical model for their existence. The assertion of black holes came about because Cosmologists were at a loss to explain extreme energy events in space but only having Gravity, a relatively weak force, to explain it. However, the solutions for the black hole are not consistent with General Relativity.
There are 2 known solutions to the alleged black hole using Einstein's field equations. The first solution uses a set of field equations that define a universe with no ojbects, just empty space. Obviously, the universe is not empty so this solution is irrelevant. The 2nd solution for black holes uses a set of field equations with only 1 object in the Universe. This is non-sense, since the universe obviously has more than 1 object, it's further non-sense because gravity requires a minimum of 2 objects. There needs to be one to pull on the other.
There are no known solutions for a Black Hole using field equations with 2 or more bodies. However, that didn't stop mathemeticians from substituting the solution for a black hole with equtions from single body field equations and putting them into field equations for N bodies and then finding a solution. It is a qualitative illegal operation.
@Orthogonal : do you happen to know if there was any response from the Electric Universe community regarding the recently discovered Higgs' Boson particle? How is this discovery (if proven to exist) fit into the electric universe theory/model? What do you think about the Hadron Collider? Please lend me your thoughts.
I haven't heard any response from them and a quick search on their main site didn't yield any results. I'm not sure they even care what establishment physics claims any more.
Quantum physics is just a theory of particles, so the only explanation it can have for anything is another particle. What's never explained ithe physical model for how the particle does what it's supposed to do?
Strong Force? The gluon, how does a gluon pull on a proton? They never explain, they just say its a field, like gravity, but what is a field? If you ask them to draw it or make a movie about it, they are at a loss because it is just a concept. The "field" explanation is just a placeholder to tell you something is going on, but they can't explain it rationally.
Gravity? It's a graviton, it imparts Negative Momentum. It's like saying if you were hit with a baseball, instead of being knocked back, you were pushed towards the impact. Nevermind the fact that this sounds like complete lunacy, you are supposedly emitting graviton particles as we speak, you are also being relentlessly pelted by gravitons by every other object in the universe that impart negative momentum to push you towards them. Considering how absurd this is, it's been mostly shelved and no serious investigation is being pursued, but Quantum demands it exists.
Higgs is no different. It's a particle that imparts "Mass" on other particles. Ok, then what gives mass to the Higgs? It's just moving the goal posts. There will always be more particles for them to find, otherwise their funding will dry up so don't worry, they'll postulate more and keep building ever bigger colliders to find them.
Not sure if you're trolling or just seriously misinformed... anyway you're being the exact opposite of what Mises is pleading for here:
"What is needed to prevent a scholar from garbling economic studies by resorting to the methods of mathematics, physics, biology, history or jurisprudence is not slighting and neglecting these sciences, but, on the contrary, trying to comprehend and to master them. He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history, and jurisprudence" - Ludwig von Mises, Ultimate Foundation of Economics
>The assertion of black holes came about because Cosmologists were at a loss to explain extreme energy events in space but only having Gravity, a relatively weak force, to explain it.
Wrong. "The idea of a body so massive that even light could not escape was first put forward by geologist John Michell in a letter written to Henry Cavendish in 1783" - See "Black hole" on Wikipedia
>However, the solutions for the black hole are not consistent with General Relativity.
Wrong again. "The Schwarzschild solution, taken to be valid for all r > 0, is called a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a perfectly valid solution of the Einstein field equations" - See "Schwarzschild metric" on Wikipedia
>The first solution uses a set of field equations that define a universe with no ojbects, just empty space. Obviously, the universe is not empty so this solution is irrelevant. The 2nd solution for black holes uses a set of field equations with only 1 object in the Universe. This is non-sense, since the universe obviously has more than 1 object
That's incredibly dumb. So every equation in physics is irrelevant because it doesn't account for every object in the universe? Meanwhile you are typing this drivel on a device built up on simple formulas like V=IR.
>it's further non-sense because gravity requires a minimum of 2 objects. There needs to be one to pull on the other.
Protip: objects are generally made up of multiple pieces. The Einstein field equations involve a stress-energy tensor: "a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime" - See "Stress-energy tensor" on Wikipedia
>There are no known solutions for a Black Hole using field equations with 2 or more bodies.
And there are no known closed-form solutions for 3 or more rocks: "it is currently necessary to approximate solutions by numerical analysis in the form of numerical integration or, for some cases, classical trigonometric series approximations" - See "Three-body problem" on Wikipedia. Yet, people still produce ephemerides.
OK, I'm tired of refuting the BS for now. Try growing a few neurons and reading a few physics and math books.
>Strong Force? The gluon, how does a gluon pull on a proton? They never explain, they just say its a field, like gravity, but what is a field? If you ask them to draw it or make a movie about it, they are at a loss because it is just a concept.
The protons have little hooks on their periphery and the gluons attach grappling hooks and cables to effect their tiny pulls. Also, water molecules appear blue because the constituent atoms are surrounded by a shell of tiny blue pigment particles.
Is that the explanation you're hoping for? That microscopic events aren't at all subtle or abstract, but rather it's turtles all the way down?
>Higgs is no different. It's a particle that imparts "Mass" on other particles.
No, the Higgs field imparts mass. The Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field.
>There will always be more particles for them to find, otherwise their funding will dry up so don't worry, they'll postulate more and keep building ever bigger colliders to find them.
I know... predicting fundamental particles and then finding and measuring them... like Electric Universe theory hand-waving would be a better way to do science.
Your silly retort is more rational than anything they've come up with. Physics is the science of how the physical world works. Quantum Mechanics is a branch of physics that deals exclusively with particles or corpuscules. If they are going to posit the existence of a particle that carries a Force, like a gluon, they had better come up with a rational physical interpretation of what it does. Otherwise what are they going to prove? You brush it off like it's insignificant because it's microscopic, but the physical interpretation is the core piece of its existence and if we can't verify what it is actually doing, then it becomes unfalsifiable. That's not science, that is religion.
They probably didn't give a physical interpretation because when they tried to do it with the graviton, it backfired on them. So they ignored it and hoped no one would notice.
And the Higgs boson is an excitation of the Higgs field? Please tell, what is this field? No one in science has ever defined what a "field" is. It's just a throw away word to say something is happening that we can't explain. A field only exists in math, it has no physical interpretation.
Also, the Electric Universe is no better in this regard, they don't explain the fundamental forces either, but as a discipline, they aren't really trying too.
>the physical interpretation [of the gluon] is the core piece of its existence and if we can't verify what it is actually doing, then it becomes unfalsifiable. That's not science, that is religion.
Religion? "Lattice QCD has already made successful contact with many experiments. For example the mass of the proton has been determined theoretically with an error of less than 2 percent." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_QCD
>No one in science has ever defined what a "field" is. It's just a throw away word to say something is happening that we can't explain. A field only exists in math, it has no physical interpretation.
"Field" is a word and a concept. You are estopped from objecting to that fact, because even the nonsense you are posting comprises words and concepts.
Since you're on mises.org, maybe you can learn something from von Mises:
"There is always in science some ultimate given. For contemporary physics the behavior of the atoms appears as such an ultimate given. The physicists are today at a loss to reduce certain atomic processes to their causes. One does not detract from the marvelous achievements of physics by establishing the fact that this state of affairs is what is commonly called ignorance." - Ludwig von Mises, Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science http://mises.org/books/ultimate.pdf
Basically, your attacks on physics aren't profound, but merely pathetic, annoying, and tiresome.
>"Field" is a word and a concept. You are estopped from objecting to that fact, because even the nonsense you are posting comprises words and concepts.
To this I do not object, a field is definitely a concept. However, we do not do physics with concepts, we do physics with objects. The study of concepts is reserved for philosphy.
Physics has no marvelous achievements in the last 100 years, only mathematical model's, unless you or Mises are confusing technology with physics. Technology progresses through empiricism.
Further, you are the one who ventured into this thread with passive aggressive comments towards EU, so maybe you were trolling for this reaction.
For anyone interested in something a little more substantial, this is one of the most compelling papers published for E.U. in the IEEE. Anthony Peratt's - Characteristics for the Occurence of a High-Current Z-Pinch as Recorded in Antiquity.
Note: His investigation and thesis was completely independant of E.U. theory. He knew nothing of it at the time.
Cliff notes version: Peratt is a plasma phycisist who works at Los Alamos Labs in NM. He noticed that ancient rock art in the American Southwest where he lived looked remakably similar to plasma discharge formations he saw in the lab. It piqued his curiousity and he started investigating. He found that these rock art petroglyphs were found all over the world on every habitable continent. He postulated there was a giant plasma discharge above the earth's poles, something akin to a mega-aurora but probably two order's magnitude greater.
The hypothesis gained strength when analysing the rock art that he found that in most cases, the rock art was in such a place that the artist would have been facing either the north pole or south pole. Even more astonishing was that each lattitude would have seen the discharge from a different vantage point and thus a different orientation of the formation. The rock art images match exactly what would be expected from each vantage point when witnessing the same event. The fit is too great to be an accident.
The paper has been mostly ignored by the scientific community
>Physics has no marvelous achievements in the last 100 years
Wow, you've really retreated to depths of idiocy where few will be interested in following.
>He postulated there was a giant plasma discharge above the earth's poles, something akin to a mega-aurora but probably two order's magnitude greater.
Sounds similar to a Carrington event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
"A solar flare and/or coronal mass ejection produced a solar storm which hit earth's magnetosphere and induced the largest known geomagnetic solar storm... On September 1–2, 1859, the largest recorded geomagnetic storm occurred. Aurorae were seen around the world, even over the Caribbean"
Anyway, I don't see how it helps out the Electric Universe crackpottery.