-
BTW I found the Madame Blavatsky video intriguing. But I found myself not really learning anything from it. I find von Mises more interesting than any of her spiritual "teachers". I have no trouble accepting an electron as an infinetismal organism that seeks what it desires and avoids what it dislikes. The mechanical is akin to but simpler
-
[quote]The Earth's magnetic field is altered by its interaction with the Sun's magnetic field, which must necessarily affect (apply mechanical force to and/or alter electrical current flow) whatever is responsible for the Earth's magnetic field.[/quote] Yes, that's what causes aurorae. But the motion of the planets is explained entirely
-
[quote]The precession in the perihelion of Mercury was no evidence of GR. The first decisive evidence of GR in history was Gravity Probe B.[/quote] Whatever. It has survived 94 years worth of testing. [quote]I don't want to get into it right now but both SR and GR can be re-interpreted in less exotic ways[/quote] No, they cannot. Space is non-Euclidean
-
[quote]Prescience is the stuff of fortune-tellers, not science. Prediction just means you have a strong mathematical generalization - it says nothing about whether you have causality.[/quote] I meant that Einstein used GR to make bold predictions of previously unknown phenomenon (the bending of starlight) and instructed experimenters to wait for an
-
The "plasma cosmology/electric universe" stuff seems to scream "pseudoscience" and "crackpot". I also ask, where's the math? It won't dethrone GR (General Relativity), with its simple and aesthetically pleasing equations, its derivation from simple principles, its explanation of the success of the Newtonian gravity