Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

The Electric Universe

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 1 verified answer | 61 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
203 Posts
Points 5,615
rosstaylor posted on Sun, Mar 10 2013 11:27 PM

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 :)

 

  • | Post Points: 65

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 100 Contributor
Male
814 Posts
Points 14,875
Moderator
Verified by rosstaylor

DanielMuff:

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

  • | Post Points: 65

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
Male
139 Posts
Points 2,270

Except that it difers from the carrington event in that this one lasted for decades, if not centuries. They surmise it may have been the origin of worldwide sky god worship and mythology.

 

I'll leave one more comment on traditional physics and leave it at that. It's well known that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible. It's not something they'll be able to rectify down the road either, they are wholly incompatible at a fundamental level due to radically different physical interpretations of the way things work. Science accepts them both as they are, yet logically, they can't both be correct. At a minimum, one of them is complete garbage. Which one do you cast your lot with?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775

At a minimum, one of them is complete garbage.

Isn't that going a bit far, since they both have predictive value? I think people have figured out by now when one theory will be useful and when the other [big things and little things].

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
139 Posts
Points 2,270

That's a fair question. They certainly like to compartmentalize it as big vs small things, but I don't think anyone believes the Universe has multiple sets of physics. Maybe they do.

To add a little meat to this. General Relativity explains gravity as a warp in space-time. You could take a snapshot of the universe and visualize the architecture of the warped space and see how each objects gravity well effects every other object. This is conceptually a static model. Contrast this with QM with a wildly different physical interpretation. Gravity is transmitted via the graviton which transfers negative momentum. You can't visualize how QM gravity works in a snapshot, it would require a movie so-to-speak, where you watch gravitons move from point A to B and deliver their negative momentum. This is conceptually a dynamic model.

 

GR gravity static, QM gravity dynamic. They are irreconcilable and never the twain shall meet. One of them has to be bogus.

 

EDIT: As far as the predictive power of the theories. I don't have any problem with the mathematical model's and I'm not saying any of their equations are wrong. Math is simply a tool used to describe. Mathemeticians may be doing a very good job of describing what is going on. Physicists on the other hand have done a terrible job of explaining what is happening.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
203 Posts
Points 5,615

@ Orthogonal - what about Immanuel Velikovsky's works?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
8 Posts
Points 160

I love this answer.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Sun, Mar 17 2013 11:32 PM

I recommend The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov. Not everything is complete garbage.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
6,885 Posts
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Mar 18 2013 12:46 AM

Infinities have shown up before in physics. Usually they are taken to indicate a lack of understanding, rather than accepted at face value.

Invoking a metaphysical entity, such as a black hole is saying "it must exist because the equations say it could exist... though even if it did exist, we could never have any direct observational confirmation of its existence short of actually getting sucked inside of it..." Astrophysicsts don't just shrug their shoulders and say "well, we are pending a better theoretical construct before rendering judgment on the infinities that arise"... they actually are searching for - and claim they are finding - evidence that "implies" the existence of these absurdities.

Electric Universe theory would probably have infinities too, if it had actual equations.

It does have equations, they're called Maxwell's Laws.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
139 Posts
Points 2,270

>what about Immanuel Velikovsky's works?

Can't really say, never read him. I do know he advocates Catastrophism and I'm open to the idea, but I can't say anything specific about his works.

>I recommend The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov. Not everything is complete garbage.

I understand what he's saying, and maybe that's partially right, but these model's are so disparate, they can't be close-but-not-quite. However, I think the real travesty is that there are no true physicists any more, they've all become mathemeticians. They don't seem to be concerned at all explaining how things work. Sure, we have equations and model's that can predict how two magnets might attract or repel each other and describe the process to very high precision, but that doesn't mean we understand what happened. No one in the world knows how two magnets physically attract or repel each other. If they just took a step back from the particle colliders and thought about solving some of these fundamental issues, it would be a major revolution and probably crack open a whole new vista of discoveries. A lot easier said than done, for sure, but that's what Physicists should be working on.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,028 Posts
Points 51,580

"The black hole is a metaphysical entity, people. Wake up!"

 

What does that mean?  Are you saying black holes are not real? I don't know much about physics so I want to catch up....

and if they are fake or not real, why would the establishment push so hard to prove them or lie about them?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
139 Posts
Points 2,270

>What does that mean?  Are you saying black holes are not real? I don't know much about physics so I want to catch up....

and if they are fake or not real, why would the establishment push so hard to prove them or lie about them?

 

I don't think they are lying about them, they genuinely believe they exist. However, their assertion came about because of necessity to explain certain phenomena, not because it's a natural extension of any of their model's. I already posted a video earlier in the thread of how they violate even the mathematical model of General Relativity field equations.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
6,885 Posts
Points 121,845

Black holes are part of a wider pattern in modern physics of passing off mumbo-jumbo as "serious" science - a phenomenon made possible primarily by the use of intimidating and alien-sounding jargon. Search "Thunderbolts of the Gods" and listen to the critiques of modern science offered by the plasma cosmology folks. Before astrophysicists start invoking exotic metaphysical entities to explain the phenomena of the heavens, they need to first incorporate all currently known physics into their models... in other words, they need to take into account the massive influence of electromagnetic force.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
101 Posts
Points 1,680

However, I think the real travesty is that there are no true physicists any more, they've all become mathemeticians.

 

That sounds a lot like economics facinating!

"Inflation has been used to pay for all wars and empires as far back as ancient Rome… Inflationism and corporatism… prompt scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself" End the Fed P.134Ron Paul
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
203 Posts
Points 5,615

Does anyone here know any other fascinating theories like the Electric Universe theory? After I discovered Austrian economics, my views of the world has changed. After reading about the EU theory, looking at the world has never really been the same.

Any other one goods? : D

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
371 Posts
Points 5,590

 

Smiling Dave:

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.

I know you're being patronizing (austrianites tend to look down upon "university trained economists"), but I have to say I'm not one. I'm a financial engineer with a general background in applied math, probability and signal analysis.

But we do share a lot of mandatory courses with economics majors (like micro and macro economics, as well as statistics and econometrics), and also some elective courses like operational research and optimal control, stochastic processes and game theory for example.

And many entry-level job offerings are open to both branches.

So I have an idea of the job market for economists. A lot of analysts I've worked with have an MS or PhD in economics.

Your previous post seemed to assume that that a degree in economics qualifies one for being a government/Fed technocrat or perhaps for writing newspaper-like diatribes for or against government economic management, when reality is that most of them find uses for some of their technical skills in a host of market niches which demand more than the usual MBA power-point master has to offer.

Of course just a plain BS degree in economics from a second tier school hasn't much market value without further complementation from experience and or additional training in some specific skillset (like, say, actuaries), but that's true for almost all such degrees.

 

"Blood alone moves the wheels of history" - Dwight Schrute
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
371 Posts
Points 5,590

 

gotlucky:

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+.

That's not true. Money is not the only professional goal for the great majority of people.

The life of an academic professor / author / public lecturer has a lot of not-so-tangible advantages compared to the life of a wall street managing director, and this is not measurable by their base salary figures.

Less risk, less stressful daily routine, more freedom to determine one's own work agenda, more vacations and vacation-like activities such as conferences, more social appreciation and so on.

They also tend to live in university campuses and/or college towns, which have much lower costs of living and are overall much healthier than cities like London. And academics tend to inbreed (marry other academics), which usually lead to more succeful marriages which are financially complementary.

As for most financial types, they tend to get trophy wives which usually turn out as large liabilities.

And also you have to consider that personality types that are likely to be successful in academic environments are not necessarily equally likely to thrive in business situations, and conversely.

That's important since we all know that being academic professor / author / public lecturer is a status that is very hard to achieve in terms of competition, as hard as an investment bank manager averaging a mil per year in total compesation.

 

 

 

"Blood alone moves the wheels of history" - Dwight Schrute
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 4 of 5 (62 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS