Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Can you cite the experimental evidence that your description of magnetic reconnection was based on?I thought my description of reconnection was based entirely on experimental evidence.
I have lotsa hypotheses. Some untestable with present technology. Thats why I dont say anything. It would just degenerate into my being called names. If we want to go on that journey...... My view departs significantly from the EU Standard view. Figuring out how to test the rest.
Since your view departs significantly from the EU "standard view" (what ever that is) and so has nothing to do with EU or this thread, I suggest that you start another thread stating:
- What your hypotheses are.
- What existing observations do your hypotheses explain.
For example how do they explain.- Olbers' paradox.
- The termperature of the CMB.
- The perfect black body spectrum of the CMB.
- The CMB power spectrum.
- Hubble's law.
- The flatness of the universe.
The reason is that the EU ideas are all ridiculous and easily shown to be false. We may as well fund projects on the Flat Earth theory!There is no reason why money cant go to studying plasma in a cosmological context using a purely electrical theory at the same time the Big Bang is being studied.
I vote for my tax dollars to go into a plasma telescope for studying Flux Tubes.
There is no such thing as a "plasma telescope". Flux Tubes have been studied for decades.
The point is not their personal beliefs. That is not what science is about. The point is that their theories do not describe the real universe.There is no reason to call people crackpots or any other name for advancing what they consider to be their observations.
"Untrained" people can apply the scientific method well, as well as trained people applying it poorly(it really helps to have training(understanding), degree or not).
Not everybody has the same input through life, which means different conclusions(interpretations).
They are called crackpots or cranks because they are crackpots or cranks:
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.
Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and, in the USA, kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.
Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views. A famous example is the Indiana Pi Bill where a state legislature nearly wrote into law a crank result in geometry.
Every one will agree with you - science by consensus is a bad thing.I dont believe science by consensus is a good thing. I think that understanding what somebody says is a good thing but just accepting it because the authority says so is a bad thing.
Isn't lucky that science is not done by consensus?
Wrong.It is the current(scientific) culture that is impeding understanding the universe as a whole. No one group of people have all the answers.
It is the current scientific community that is extending our understanding the universe as a whole. It is formed of many different groups of people. None of them have all of the answers. Finding the answers is what science is about.
Wrong.I believe that causality is important. From my point of view, which is an electrical one, when you see a magnetic field you think electric current. This is why I am looking for the power source and why I believe the electric fields are more basic then magnetic fields. I'm a steady state, electrical redshift infinite always been here universe kinda guy.
That is your personal point of view formed from your employment and background.
Scientists do not start by stating what the universe must be and go looking for evidence that the universe is that way.
The evidence is that
- The universe was once in a hot dense state, i.e. it is not steady state.
- Redshift is a consequence of the expansion of the universe.
- The universe may be infinite.
- The universe may or may not have always been there.
That is obvious. Gravity causes no ionization so of course electric fields cause more!I think that electric fields cause more ionization than gravity does. Dont get me wrong I'm a firm believer in the effects of gravity, maybe it just needs to be modified a little.
...snip...
What I found as my model is outlandish and absolutely not familiar.
...snip...quote]
I suggest that you start another thread stating:
- What your model is.
- What existing observations does your model explain.
For example how do they explain.
- Olbers' paradox.
- The termperature of the CMB.
- The perfect black body spectrum of the CMB.
- The CMB power spectrum.
- Hubble's law.
- The flatness of the universe.