Brandolini’s law states it takes ten times the effort to debunk rubbish as it takes to produce it.
It takes an investment of time just to stay up to date up with the incredible discoveries continually made in astronomy. Just this week we have a report on a neutron star hyperburst. Who knows what the James Webb Telescope will deliver? Why distract oneself to investigate [ derogatory adjectives here ] ideas which make no sense even given the Ohm’s law you learned in high school? The Electric Universe cosmology is completely fanciful to explain crater formations. We have impactors sitting in museums; there is an iridium layer covering the globe from the Chicxulub event, we witnessed in Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hitting Jupiter right before our very eyes.
One of the immediate tip offs that one is dealing with pseudo science is that there are proposed solutions for phenomena where there are already well established solutions, and problems are proposed where there is no problem to begin with. I grant you, I do not have time, patience, or sense of obligation, to engage in any depth with Electric Universe, flat earth, and such cosmologies. That does not make me close minded. That just reflects a understanding of science available to any reasonably informed lay person.
Sometimes, the more efficient cure for nonsense is not refutation but rather valid information. I would suggest you learn more about stellar formation and processes, and what is happening in cosmology. There are plenty of good resources at a lay level; even BBC and PBS documentaries would be a step in the right direction. An annotated picture book of Hubble photographs is a start. You can see for yourself that gravity defines the large scale structures in the universe.
As well as they provide no reasonable alternative to the theories they reject. What is the equation that they use to describe gravity’s effects (or lack of) on the motion of planetary bodies? By what process does the neutrinos come from in stars if not nuclear fusion? What is the data from astronomical imaging systems showing if not a black hole? What is the recent composite picture of a black hole then? The only error these theories have is not their difficulty in explaining the natural order, but by being in conflict with the EU.
We could add cosmological redshift to the list. They try to explain it away with such things as plasma redshift, but they usually ignore serious problems. For example, plasma would scatter light so all we would see is a fog of light instead of sharply focused galaxies. Next, plasma redshifts shorter wavelengths more than longer wavelengths, but we observe a wavelength independent redshift.
EU is really nothing more than people feeling special about being iconoclasts.
Interesting. I have my own insights into this universe, and I know we exist within an electrical system that is separated from gravitational space-time. I will learn about EU, but I’m certain it is a gravitational universe we live in, but electrical forces may have been at the root of the birth to gravity, like electrical forces from a past generation may have become transformed into gravity at the beginning of our universe’s clock.
There are other groups (at least I did not rapidly find a link between them) making somewhat similar claims, also not credible. The Quantum Futures Group claims that plasma explains everything in astronomy, etc. They invoke Alfven, who did get a Nobel Prize for his work on plasmas and who developed an anti-Big Bang plasma model of the universe. As inflation models of the Big Bang explained the problems invoked by his model of the universe, it hasn’t gotten any significant support from physics. The Quantum Futures Group’s invoking of Alfven appears to be merely an attempt to use big sciencey words rather than having any clue what Alfven actually proposed. As Alfven definitely did not get the Nobel prize for amiability, I do not think he’d be happy with QFG. Quantum Futures Group “knows” their claims are true because their claims are obtained psychically direct from the space aliens. The video trending on Youtube a few years back, “Sinkholes: the Groundbreaking Truth” was their work. It made the false claim that sinkholes are suddenly more frequent; claimed that leaking pipes was the only conventional explanation (although leaky pipes are visible in some of the sinkholes in their video, natural sinkholes are caves that caved in), and invoked some plasma mumbo-jumbo as a cause instead. They also misleadingly tried to make it sound more authoritative by claiming that two other groups were involved in making the video. One of the two was actually the Quantum Futures Group’s own video production team. Searching online for the other did not find any exact matches, and the closest match was identified by Google as a producer of feminist pornography.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
55
What is the origin of these insights that science doesn’t possess?
@Geneo Yes, some of the EU ideas are legit. They don’t have a magic bullet in plasma physics that explains everything (I don’t buy gravity as EM, for instance); but some of their ideas explain things better than the standard model which is hampered by a gravity-only mindset and paradigm.
And every theory now accepted by the mainstream was once ‘fringe’, so don’t let naysayers, cherry-pickers, and people who can’t eat the meat and spit out the bones distract you from always challenging the mainstream.
Advances are made by challenging existing paradigms, and modern cosmology is ripe for the challenge. EU doesn’t solve everything, but it does answer some questions much better than the existing gravity-only theories, and it is backed by actual, scalable laboratory experiments that have been known about for a century. Dark matter/energy doesn’t come close to the experimental data that plasma physics does.
That’s not 100% false – but 100% seems like a reasonable approximation to me. Lots of successful theories were viewed as speculative or unlikely to be correct when first advanced, but I can’t think of any successful theories in physics or astronomy that were viewed as crackpottery.
EU is new to me. And quoting from the Book of Revelation is like Muslims providing “scientific prophesy” from the Qur’an.
I suggest both are bad theology, and bad exegesis.
I did a quick Google search. There are plenty of articles from scientists and others who find EU suspect… My cursory “research” agrees with the skeptics. Biologos to me is Conservative
Bible Believers with an interest in science who continue to believe the Bible is “God’s Word to Man” rather than “Man’s Words about their chosen God”. But Baby Steps are better than continuing to crawl. Best regards. Really.
Why choose to limit that to either/or? Is the both/and possibility being excluded?
And treating “the Bible” as though it is a homogenous, undifferentiated, uniform lump of some sort misses the subtlety. “God’s Word to Man” is Jesus Christ, perhaps most closely represented in the gospel accounts. “Man’s words about [the Judeao-Christian] God” seems a reasonable approach to, say, Lamentations and Psalms.
It’s more subtle that a lumped “the Bible”, isn’t it? And more subtle that “either/or”, isn’t it?
