Electric universe theories here.

[dafydd]

Oh yeah this is EU not PC. well ... I dunno what EU really is so he can label it as he wants. Im quite sure that most EU proponents are not overtly religious people. Unorthodox, maybe.

And just plain wrong.

 

[Zeuzzz]

And just plain wrong.

Unsubstantiated off hand comment noted. Sigh. What do I say to this fella? At least gimme an example ...

 

[Zeuzzz]

And just plain wrong.

On most things maybe, but some of their models (mainly their PC based ones) are yet to be disproved, they do have some interesting models. They also do seem to have an odd knack of (although quite vague in the maths) making accurate physical predictions for events in space that take standard astronomers by surprise.

 

[Zeuzzz]

oh yea (asked this in the moderated thread but it obviously got taken by the jref police) Why were none of the lengthy threads I participated in here about plasma cosmology, or other random EU ideas, put under moderated staus? What is the point of making it moderated?

 

[Tubbythin]

On most things maybe, but some of their models (mainly their PC based ones) are yet to be disproved, they do have some interesting models. They also do seem to have an odd knack of (although quite vague in the maths) making accurate physical predictions for events in space that take standard astronomers by surprise.

If the maths is vague how can the theories make accurate physical predictions?

 

[Michael Mozina]

If the maths is vague how can the theories make accurate physical predictions?

I suppose it depends on the prediction. A human might make a fairly accurate prediction about rain or lightning or a tornado by looking at the clouds and their movement pattern and relying upon past memories, without knowing anything about the math. Some forms of knowledge aren't necessarily mathematical in nature. A conceptual understanding that a lightening strike involves "current flow" isn't necessarily a mathematical understanding, but it is a form of "knowledge" that might motivate one to get out of the water during a lightening storm.

IMO just understanding that the solar atmospheric processes involve "current flow" between the sun and the heliosphere makes it possible to conceptually understand *HOW* solar wind works, without understanding all the mathematical formulas that define the process. IMO that's a step (albeit a small one in some ways) toward being able to make accurate "predictions".

 

[Siggy_G]

If the maths is vague how can the theories make accurate physical predictions?

If it turned out that the physics behind standard cosmology were backwards, being mathematical accurate would in retrospect be pointless. Get the physics and interpretations right first, and the math will follow, not the other way around; as could be interpreted from current theoretical astronomy and the resulting standard cosmology. To be direct; most of the explanations of cosmic dynamics are derived from math. And current theories predict little.

One point EU makes, is that according to deep field Hubble observations and the various redshift mechanisms, one can assume a universe of unknown age and unknown extent. Explaining origins (as creationists would) is seen as rather pretentious, as our ignorance is so profund that we can't even ask the right questions in cosmology. It must also be added that there is no creationist aspects of the Electric Universe, and there are no theist pronouncements among the advocates. (The somewhat similar Steady State model was once loosly associated with atheism, since there was no proposed point of creation).

Having said that, is there no math behind electricity, magnetism and plasma physics? Is it less advanced than gravity formulas...?

 

[Siggy_G]

A pertinent blog entry:
Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists Use Mathematical Models![/URL]

Make sure to read the comment field of such posts as well, as they may or may not balance the monologes a bit.

 

[Dancing David]

Unsubstantiated off hand comment noted. Sigh. What do I say to this fella? At least gimme an example ...

Um Zeuzzz, which part of EU is right?

 

[Reality Check]

If it turned out that the physics behind standard cosmology were backwards, being mathematical accurate would in retrospect be pointless. Get the physics and interpretations right first, and the math will follow, not the other way around; as could be interpreted from current theoretical astronomy and the resulting standard cosmology. To be direct; most of the explanations of cosmic dynamics are derived from math. And current theories predict little.

One point EU makes, is that according to deep field Hubble observations and the various redshift mechanisms, one can assume a universe of unknown age and unknown extent. Explaining origins (as creationists would) is seen as rather pretentious, as our ignorance is so profund that we can't even ask the right questions in cosmology. It must also be added that there is no creationist aspects of the Electric Universe, and there are no theist pronouncements among the advocates. (The somewhat similar Steady State model was once loosly associated with atheism, since there was no proposed point of creation).

Having said that, is there no math behind electricity, magnetism and plasma physics? Is it less advanced than gravity formulas...?

I agree: Get the physics and interpretations right first, and the math will follow.
The problem is that EU theories tend to start with the wrong physics and the wrong interpretations, e.g. the electric sun idea.

One point that EU misses is that according to deep field Hubble observations and the various redshift mechanisms, one can measure a universe of a known age and known extent.
Amother point that EU proponents miss is that the Big Bang theory does not state anything about the origin of the universe. It merely states that the universe tells us that it was once in a hot dense state. In this respect they are as ignorant as the creationists who confuse the origin of life with evolution.

The fact is that electricity, magnetism and plasma (ang gravity) have a comprehensive mathematical background.

You need to define "advanced" for an answer to your question. Do you mean more papers? In that case yes.

 

[Reality Check]

Make sure to read the comment field of such posts as well, as they may or may not balance the monologes a bit.

I will address the many errors in your commen on the blog.

 

[Siggy_G]

I will address the many errors in your commen on the blog.

Sure, your attempts are free. However, if you want to elaborate broadly on the models/notions, or make a debate, it seems like Tom Bridgman rather sees that happen in these forums, and not in the comment field of his blogs (assuming from the guidelines that he wants the comments somewhat brief and relevant. Mine weren't too brief, admitedly.).

 

[Reality Check]

Sure, your attempts are free. However, if you want to elaborate broadly on the models/notions, or make a debate, it seems like Tom Bridgman rather sees that happen in these forums, and not in the comment field of his blogs (assuming from the guidelines that he wants the comments somewhat brief and relevant. Mine weren't too brief, admitedly.).

OK. Here is my response to your blog comment then.

There are errors in your comment:

• Dark matter and dark energy are astronomical observations not "mathematical fudge factors".
  The way I think of it is that dark matter and dark energy are placeholder terms for whatever is causing what the universe tells us. Observations tell us what properties dark matter and energy have to have, e.g. dark matter is mostly non-baryonic, dark energy exerts negative pressure.
• The observed dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters don't match what's calculated according to the observed known mass and so there is unknown (dark) mass.
  FYI: Astronomers have got really, really good at detecting visible matter. Analyzing the WMAP data tells us that the universe has no curvature with an uncertainty of ~2%. Astronomers find that visible matter only makes up ~4% of the mass/energy needed to make the universe flat. Thus ~96% of the universe must be other matter or energy.
• Plasma physics tell scientists that there are no large-scale effects from plasma in general. The exceptions are where there are large energy sources, i.e. stars and black holes. Non-equilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. In laboratories and theory these can pinch into condensed states. This has not been observed anywhere.
• The fact is that computer simulations are not the full story. This is why ALL science emphasises experiments (and observations) as underlined by 1000's of physicists through the centuries.
  Where EU proponents go wrong is that they tend to ignore these experiments and replace them with wishful thinking.
• Astrophysicists do not use plasma physics in galactic scenerios because the fact that they are quasi-neutral means that they have no effect (as Alfven stated wrt double layers) past "some tens of the Debye lengths". For the interstellar medium the Debye length is ~10 meters !
• Peratts attempt was a dismal failure.
  Alfven's plasma cosmology was a good theory for its day but was rightly thrown out when its predictions for the CMB and X-ray background failed. He never did any galaxy modeling.
• Given the weakness of plasma interactions in galaxies beyond 1000 meters ("some tens of the Debye lengths") there is a serious reason to ignore plasma in mathematical modelling of galaxies.
  There is no reason to ignore gravity in the mathematical modelling of galaxies since it is not shielded to have no measurable effect beyong a kilometer.

 

[Tubbythin]

I suppose it depends on the prediction. A human might make a fairly accurate prediction about rain or lightning or a tornado by looking at the clouds and their movement pattern and relying upon past memories, without knowing anything about the math. Some forms of knowledge aren't necessarily mathematical in nature. A conceptual understanding that a lightening strike involves "current flow" isn't necessarily a mathematical understanding, but it is a form of "knowledge" that might motivate one to get out of the water during a lightening storm.

IMO just understanding that the solar atmospheric processes involve "current flow" between the sun and the heliosphere makes it possible to conceptually understand *HOW* solar wind works, without understanding all the mathematical formulas that define the process. IMO that's a step (albeit a small one in some ways) toward being able to make accurate "predictions".

I suppose a hypothesis is accurate if its predictions match with reality. If such predictions are non-numerical (or maybe boolean: something will or will not happen) then you may have a point. But I don't really see this being the case with astronomy or cosmology (or in fact most fields in modern physics). Moreover, such a theory will never be precise. And high precision is the only real way pf seeing wear the hypothesis does and does not work.

 

[Tubbythin]

If it turned out that the physics behind standard cosmology were backwards, being mathematical accurate would in retrospect be pointless. Get the physics and interpretations right first, and the math will follow, not the other way around; as could be interpreted from current theoretical astronomy and the resulting standard cosmology. To be direct; most of the explanations of cosmic dynamics are derived from math. And current theories predict little.

False. Explanations of cosmic dynamics are derived from general relativity which has been tested to extraordinary precision. Current theories predict a lot.

One point EU makes, is that according to deep field Hubble observations and the various redshift mechanisms, one can assume a universe of unknown age and unknown extent.

This is a nonsensical sentence. Looking at the data we chose to ignore it and draw no conclusions. Well that is useful.

Explaining origins (as creationists would) is seen as rather pretentious, as our ignorance is so profund that we can't even ask the right questions in cosmology.

The BBT doesn't explain the origin of the Universe. It explains its evolution after the big bang event.

It must also be added that there is no creationist aspects of the Electric Universe, and there are no theist pronouncements among the advocates. (The somewhat similar Steady State model was once loosly associated with atheism, since there was no proposed point of creation).

There is no creationist aspect of the BBT. There is general relativity and countless observations. If some religious nuts want to pick and choose when to use science to support there cause and when to ignore it that is up to them. But all the evidence for the big bang comes from a wealth of independent sources (e.g. Hubble's observations, the CMBR, abundances of the light elements, distribution of cosmic radio sources etc). None of these have any connection whatsoever to religion so please don't pretend they do. It is unbelievably dishonest.

Having said that, is there no math behind electricity, magnetism and plasma physics? Is it less advanced than gravity formulas...?

QED is possibly the most precisely tested theory in the history of science. It is precisely because we understand EM with extraordinary precision that we can categorically rule out EU.

 

[Siggy_G]

I agree: Get the physics and interpretations right first, and the math will follow.
The problem is that EU theories tend to start with the wrong physics and the wrong interpretations, e.g. the electric sun idea.

The electric sun model is interesting in that it expects several properties of the Sun that the thermonuclear model doesn't. (Here's a debate and a thread by its own).

One point that EU misses is that according to deep field Hubble observations and the various redshift mechanisms, one can measure a universe of a known age and known extent.

The point is, the deeper we manage to detect data, the more data we detect (i.e. more galaxies etc.). The deep field galaxies are far more developed than the BB theory predicts. As to various redshift mechanisms, it means that there are some updated ones (since Hubble's days); some utilized and some hypothesized, that indicated that recession speed doesn't have to be the primary factor at all. This puts expansion and our current understanding of the universe into question.

Amother point that EU proponents miss is that the Big Bang theory does not state anything about the origin of the universe. It merely states that the universe tells us that it was once in a hot dense state. In this respect they are as ignorant as the creationists who confuse the origin of life with evolution.

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe." ( [http] map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html ). This is the prevailing definition of the BB model, even if one could argue that a Big Bang occurred after a Big Crunch, and that it could be cyclical. Hawking (and others) also elaborates on how time and everything started with the Big Bang. So the misconception you refer to, if so, is invoked by the Big Bang theorists. Also, the term origin could be interpreted as "the very early starting point", and not necessarily "the background for". But thinking we know everything about these first seconds, and even knowing the entire time line, is what EU advocates sees as a little pretentious.

The fact is that electricity, magnetism and plasma (ang gravity) have a comprehensive mathematical background. You need to define "advanced" for an answer to your question. Do you mean more papers? In that case yes.

The point is, when people state that there isn't any math behind an electrical universe, it is eye-rolling ignorant. The problem is knowing for sure which values (and in-situ measurements) to include in all formulas. For instance, the Jupiter-Io dynamo wasn't predicted properly until currents there were detected and measured.

 

[Siggy_G]

Explanations of cosmic dynamics are derived from general relativity which has been tested to extraordinary precision. Current theories predict a lot.

I believe this belongs to another thread (on standard model), but the arguments are along the lines of: the thermonuclear model of the Sun does not predict all the observed properties, the obvious electrical features of comets weren't predicted by current/previous theories, cosmic behavior and new data isn't predicted (which is why we see postulates like "dark flow" and multiple universes). And so on. GR is (among other things) mathematically modeling the effect of gravity. I wouldn't say it makes the astronomers' or cosmologists' job that easy when new observations ticks in. But hey, here's a long debate.

This is a nonsensical sentence. Looking at the data we chose to ignore it and draw no conclusions. Well that is useful

EU looks at the data differently than through the conventional lens (and sees data mostly in the view of plasma discharge configurations and degrees of electric stress acted upon objects), and doesn't attempt to draw any conclusions to the age/size of the universe just yet.

There is no creationist aspect of the BBT. (...) None of these have any connection whatsoever to religion so please don't pretend they do. It is unbelievably dishonest.

I pointed out that the Electric Universe doesn't belong under the blog site titled "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy", which was the starting point for this discussion. Tom Bridgman ought to make a separate blog site called "Dealing with the Electric Universe", since that is his intention, instead of spreading this misconception and interlinking to creationism. The offence you portray is mutual.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I pointed out that the Electric Universe doesn't belong under the blog site titled "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy", which was the starting point for this discussion. Tom Bridgman ought to make a separate blog site called "Dealing with the Electric Universe", since that is his intention, instead of spreading this misconception and interlinking to creationism. The offence you portray is mutual.

Very good point here.

Bridman has always seemed a reasonable guy to me, however he loses credibility as an open minded scientist the longer time he takes to snap out of his apparent black and white mindset, which implies he thinks that anything that is a fringe scientific theory he does not agree with, due to his personal faith in the dominant scientific paradigms of today, is somehow creationism.

 

[Tubbythin]

I believe this belongs to another thread (on standard model), but the arguments are along the lines of: the thermonuclear model of the Sun does not predict all the observed properties,

True or false, this has nothing to do with cosmic dynamics.

the obvious electrical features of comets weren't predicted by current/previous theories,

True or false, this has nothing to do with cosmic dynamics.

cosmic behavior and new data isn't predicted (which is why we see postulates like "dark flow" and multiple universes).

The observations that led to dark flow are quite possibly wrong. Multiple universes is mainly scientists speculating about stuff cos it's fun (imo) and as a bit of a retort to creationist's claims of design.

And so on. GR is (among other things) mathematically modeling the effect of gravity. I wouldn't say it makes the astronomers' or cosmologists' job that easy when new observations ticks in. But hey, here's a long debate.

GR is the cornerstone of the big bang theory.

EU looks at the data differently than through the conventional lens (and sees data mostly in the view of plasma discharge configurations and degrees of electric stress acted upon objects), and doesn't attempt to draw any conclusions to the age/size of the universe just yet.

The it appears to have no relation to cosmology.

I pointed out that the Electric Universe doesn't belong under the blog site titled "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy", which was the starting point for this discussion. Tom Bridgman ought to make a separate blog site called "Dealing with the Electric Universe", since that is his intention, instead of spreading this misconception and interlinking to creationism. The offence you portray is mutual.

Fair enough. I retract the bit about being dishonest.

 

[Tubbythin]

Very good point here.

Bridman has always seemed a reasonable guy to me, however he loses credibility as an open minded scientist the longer time he takes to snap out of his apparent black and white mindset, which implies he thinks that anything that is a fringe scientific theory he does not agree with, due to his personal faith in the dominant scientific paradigms of today, is somehow creationism.

And your evidence that it is "faith" rather than a good understanding of the relevant science comes from... where?