-
>Does anyone here know any other fascinating theories like the Electric Universe theory? Immanual Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision (1950) Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? (1968)
-
>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
-
>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
-
>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
-
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
-
>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
-
>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
-
A physics theory without quantitative predictions? It sounds like BS. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe
-
>He once told me that he was rothbardian in the 80's, so he must be an expert on the topic... >wheylous, I barely understand any of his arguments. So you are asking me to choose between: 1. An "expert", whose arguments you don't understand 2. Clear and cogent arguments from guys like Rothbard and Hoppe Got it.
-
OK, if "objective beauty" per se is valid, please let's hear a definition of it.