Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tubbythin said:
Current theories predict a lot.
Click to expand...


:dl:

Give me some of the next amazing predictions then that the Big Bang theory has in store for us.

... the predictive power of BBT has basically faded away to nothing now. Just extrapolating from already existing data or refining parameters is not a prediction. Still to this day PC predictions about galaxy formations, cluster size, element abundances, the filamentary structure of space, and many other things remain far more accurate than the original BBT predictions.
 
Tubbythin said:
And your evidence that it is "faith" rather than a good understanding of the relevant science comes from... where?
Click to expand...


Where does the evidence come from? My in depth evaluation of both sides of the argument here which I do with an open mind, without the myopic assumption many people here seem to suffer from that any theory thats a fringe theory not fully accepted by todays "mainstream" is wrong.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Give me some of the next amazing predictions then that the Big Bang theory has in store for us.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'm not a cosmologist. Maybe I should have said current theories have predicted a lot.

... the predictive power of BBT has basically faded away to nothing now. Just extrapolating from already existing data or refining parameters is not a prediction. Still to this day PC predictions about galaxy formations, cluster size, element abundances, the filamentary structure of space, and many other things remain far more accurate than the original BBT predictions.
Click to expand...
Actually refining parameters is of extreme importance. When the measurement of a free parameter is made more precise we can compare it with the old predictions and see whether things still match up or not. For example, the elements of the CKM matrix and the search for "new physics" beyond the standard model (of particle physics).
As for your other claims... links to each please (and if you post anything by Lerner I may be forced to use that dog on you).
 
Zeuzzz said:
Where does the evidence come from? My in depth evaluation of both sides of the argument here which I do with an open mind, without the myopic assumption many people here seem to suffer from that any theory thats a fringe theory not fully accepted by todays "mainstream" is wrong.
Click to expand...

I was asking you for evidence that it was "faith" that led Bridman to support the current scientific paradigm. Do you have any evidence?
 
I dont know Bridman well enough to tell if hes the type that bases his opinions on the big bang theory for religous based faith reasons like many do here or whether hes a genuine scientist that knows that all theories, especially in the area of cosmology and big bang theory, are most likely wrong and to be disproven and expanded in the future as data collecting techniques start to show more interesting info.

If he appreciates that cosmology is a science truly in its infant form compared to most others and suffers from extremely strict constraints as a scientific discipline so is likely all wrong, despite all the hard work and progress thats been made, I would have great respect for him. Plasma cosmologies completely wrong too. So is any cosmology. We are merely guessing at questions far too deep and profound for our current technological abilities to answer.
 
Siggy G and Zeuzzz,

So what of the observations does plasma consmology explain?
There aseems to be a huge amount of assertion but no theory, no data to support it.

Choose your favorite part of PC, tell us what it is and then show us teh data that supports it.
[Iteration 1]

Siggy G, how do you get anything beyond the Debye length to have an effect in palsma structures?
[Iteration 1]

Siggy G and Zeuzzz, how does plasma consmology explain galaxy rotation curves?
[Iteration 1]
 
Why on earth would it be the wrong thread.
Up to now, apart from Peratt's failing model, there has not been anything substantial from either EU or PU (if you really want to make a distinction there) or PC or ES or EC for that matter. We only get, once again, the platitudes about not doing math but real physics in EU/PU/PC/ES/EC using observations, and then we get fizzlefizzle nothing, even when the "great masters" like Alfvén, Peratt and sum them up, have written extensive books full of math to propagate their ideas.

Methinks, the EU/PU/PC/ES/EC community is just lazy, don't want to do any real hard plasma physics, and rather kick against the mainstream bucket hoping that, when a bit spills over, their imaginary theories will automatically be proven correct.
 
Siggy_G said:
"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.
Click to expand...
It is correct to say the Big Bang Model traces the evolution of our universe, the one we know anything about, back to (but not including!) its origin. Popular accounts, such as the ones you cited, are often sloppy or may fail to distinguish speculation that assumes the model from the model itself. Hawking's scientific publications are more precise than his popularizations.

Siggy_G said:
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.
Click to expand...
No sane and informed person thinks we know everything about those first seconds or the entire time line.

The Big Bang Model has made testable predictions about those first few seconds, which is amazing in its own right. That some of those predictions have been confirmed or partially confirmed is even more amazing. That not all of those predictions have been confirmed, while many puzzling questions have been raised, makes this a fascinating and active area of research.

That doesn't mean the BB model is right, or even close to right. On the other hand, "pretentious" isn't quite the right word for EU advocates who point to phenomena that haven't yet been reconciled with the BB model while failing to propose alternative explanations for the BB model's successful predictions.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
No sane and informed person thinks we know everything about those first seconds or the entire time line.
Click to expand...

lol

I could go back and find some very funny quotes from some of the BBT adherents here from some of the mega threads years back (electric universe, plasma cosmology, LCDM, etc) that no longer bother arguing with me where they claim exactly this, that we know the exact time to nano seconds blah blah, its all irrefutable, blah blah. And everyone agreed with them at the time :rolleyes: Some of them even claimed that our models accuracy increases as we go back in time, saying that we know more about the initial moments of the Big Bang than anything after it. Which is just plain bizarre.
 
Last edited:
Dammit! did it again.

No cosmology in this thread or things get really confusing and people just end up thinking that the wealth of scientifically sound highly mathematical peer reviewed plasma cosmology material is related to a lot of the EU nonsense that people see online.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I dont know Bridman well enough to tell if hes the type that bases his opinions on the big bang theory for religous based faith reasons like many do here or whether hes a genuine scientist that knows that all theories, especially in the area of cosmology and big bang theory, are most likely wrong and to be disproven and expanded in the future as data collecting techniques start to show more interesting info.
Click to expand...
Ok. D you have any evidence that many here base there "opinions on the big bang theory for religous based faith reasons" rather than say the CMBR, the radio sources, the Hubble observations etc etc? Or is this just another unsupported assertion from someone who was very recently complaining about other people's supposedly unsupported assertion.

If he appreciates that cosmology is a science truly in its infant form compared to most others and suffers from extremely strict constraints as a scientific discipline so is likely all wrong, despite all the hard work and progress thats been made, I would have great respect for him.
Click to expand...
Why is it likely all wrong? If we have a theory that is extremely good at matching large amounts of the data, why would you assume it all to be wrong?

Plasma cosmologies completely wrong too. So is any cosmology. We are merely guessing at questions far too deep and profound for our current technological abilities to answer.
Click to expand...
So we should just give up? (That's a genuine question.)
 
Zeuzzz said:
lol

I could go back and find some very funny quotes from some of the BBT adherents here from some of the mega threads years back (electric universe, plasma cosmology, LCDM, etc) that no longer bother arguing with me where they claim exactly this, that we know the exact time to nano seconds blah blah, its all irrefutable, blah blah. And everyone agreed with them at the time :rolleyes: Some of them even claimed that our models accuracy increases as we go back in time, saying that we know more about the initial moments of the Big Bang than anything after it. Which is just plain bizarre.
Click to expand...

Go on then.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Some of them even claimed that our models accuracy increases as we go back in time, saying that we know more about the initial moments of the Big Bang than anything after it. Which is just plain bizarre.
Click to expand...
Astounding, but not bizarre. Assuming the big bang, the universe's entire mass/energy passed through a near-equilibrium state for which the most general principles of statistical mechanics would hold. More complex structures could not have developed until the universe began to emerge from that early equilibrium.

The main problem, as I understand it, is that we don't know enough about extremely high-energy physics to model the very early universe. Assuming the big bang, however, there would have been a brief period during which our current knowledge of high-energy physics is adequate to model the near-equilibrium universe more completely than at any post-equilibrium epoch.

Big bang nucleosynthesis took place during that time, and our current models of that period are good enough to explain the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in today's universe.
 
Siggy_G said:
Make sure to read the comment field of such posts as well, as they may or may not balance the monologes a bit.
Click to expand...

And here goes Dave Smith's extensive reply to Tom Bridgman's blog post. Dave Smith has named it "Refuting Pseudoskeptisism". As I've said before, there are so many misconceptions and eye-rolling attempts of belittling by people trying to "debunk" the Electric Universe.
 
Last edited:
Um, so no theory or explanations Siggy, that is sad.
ETA:
I just read your link Siggy G., so what theory expalin what part of plasma consmology or electric universe. I see teh waving of the name of Alven around.

So what part of the observable universe do these theories acurately model? Your comment is vasgue and has no hard data.
 
Last edited:
Siggy_G said:
And here goes Dave Smith's extensive reply to Tom Bridgman's blog post. Dave Smith has named it "Refuting Pseudoskeptisism". As I've said before, there are so many misconceptions and eye-rolling attempts of belittling by people trying to "debunk" the Electric Universe.
Click to expand...
Dude, Peratt published his 'galaxy formation and evolution' computer codes, in the book that EU proponents love to quote (but which I doubt very few have actually read - have you, Siggy_G?).

The code is quite straight-forward, and any one of a dozen professed IT guys^ (as far as I can tell, they're all guys) who hang out at Thunderdolts.com could easily have developed it, modified it - in ways Peratt took pains to specify - and run it on an ordinary desktop (which has far more grunt than the supercomputers Peratt had to use, back then). They could then write up their results, and publish them - even on Thunderdolts, or their own websites, if not in some obscure IEEE paper or on arXiv.

Yet, in well over two decades, no one has done so.

Why not?

OTOH, the astrophysical literature is replete with astrophysically relevant codes which incorporate MHD (and more besides) far better than Peratt's code does (example).

Why have no EU proponents ever even acknowledged the existence of such codes, much less sought to download them and do their own simulations?

And so on.

In short, if the EU has legs, why has there been essentially nothing done, for well over a decade now? I'm referring to scientific work, as opposed to thousands of person-hours devoted to marketing and recruitment (to the cult).

^ I think MM is among this number
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom