Wintry Weather Heading Our Way
News3 mins ago
The electric universe
anyone with an open mind, and who tends to question the generally accepted theories of what the universe is and how it works should buy, borrow ,steal a copy of The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot. Also check out this website: http://www.holoscience.com/
A credible alternative to the accepted standard model of cosmology is long overdue.. Does anyone else think that Newton, Einstein, Hawking . could have gotten it all wrong?
A credible alternative to the accepted standard model of cosmology is long overdue.. Does anyone else think that Newton, Einstein, Hawking . could have gotten it all wrong?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Three of the greatest minds in history (albeit with Hawking debatable) who all follow the general laws of what we know of the universe getting it all wrong? That would be a bold statement. However they and other great minds where revolutionists of their own right, so I never say never, but I'll leave up to the mathematicians and physicists to mull over.
What they are saying is that our cherished ideas of the universe are wrong. That most of the matter in the universe is in the form of a plasma and that electrical forces shape and control everything. The big bang didn`t happen, stars are not fusion reactors,and black holes,neutron stars, dark energy etc. do not exist. I know this is bordering on heresy, but it all seems to just make sense.
Your description of this is quite nonsensical but I suspect that that is just because the theory is.
Allow me to elaborate.
There are 4 fundamental forces known electricity is just one of them.
Electro-magnetism interacts with particles that are charged like protons and electrons.
It cannot interact with uncharged particles.
The other forces interact with paricles that have other criteria gravity - mass etc.
Take a neutron it is entirely unaffected by the electromagnetic force. Do your authors believe that neutrons do not exist?
I especially like the bit that says that Halton Arp has shown that the Universe is not expanding!
The theory is that measured redshifts cluster about specific values and show that there is a problem. Pretty much everyone else say that the evidence doesn't support it.
The book states the observation as undisputed fact - it is not.
And if there was no big bang where did the microwave background radiation come from?
No I'm sorry but this is just a collection of wacko theories brought together and hammered into something that might make some money at the bookstores.
Here's the test
Does it make a prediction? Something that distinguishes it's theory from standard theory. Something that we can go out and look for that will prove it right and the other wrong.
Or does it just try to explain existing observations in new ways?
I'm betting it's the latter
Allow me to elaborate.
There are 4 fundamental forces known electricity is just one of them.
Electro-magnetism interacts with particles that are charged like protons and electrons.
It cannot interact with uncharged particles.
The other forces interact with paricles that have other criteria gravity - mass etc.
Take a neutron it is entirely unaffected by the electromagnetic force. Do your authors believe that neutrons do not exist?
I especially like the bit that says that Halton Arp has shown that the Universe is not expanding!
The theory is that measured redshifts cluster about specific values and show that there is a problem. Pretty much everyone else say that the evidence doesn't support it.
The book states the observation as undisputed fact - it is not.
And if there was no big bang where did the microwave background radiation come from?
No I'm sorry but this is just a collection of wacko theories brought together and hammered into something that might make some money at the bookstores.
Here's the test
Does it make a prediction? Something that distinguishes it's theory from standard theory. Something that we can go out and look for that will prove it right and the other wrong.
Or does it just try to explain existing observations in new ways?
I'm betting it's the latter
I'll leave jake to handle the detail, i think we mostly agree on physics but can you tell me, as stars don't exist what is that hot yellowy thing in the sky and how are heavy elements created? Now don't get me wrong, I'm, open to new ideas but I just tend to come down on the side of the last 1000 years of experiments with predictable outcomes. So forgive me if i demand some coherant reasoning.
Jake, don`t get me wrong , I am not pro one idea or the other. I just like the fact that there are people who are willing to put their reputations on the line and offer alternatives to generally accepted dogma. I am no expert, far from it , but there are always two sides to every coin and there is nothing I like better than to see long held beliefs proved wrong. Until someone comes along and says ," here is a lump of dark matter, a photograph of a black hole and this is what a gravitational wave looks like". I will keep an open mind . cheers.
I think we have an issue with what you expect for evidence.
Leave aside Gravitational waves, these are far from certain.
You're never going to get a photograph of a black-hole looking the way they appear in Sci-Fi films but you do get measurements of gas getting sucked in and then disappearing.
Here's an article on one such piece of work in 2001
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12j an_1.htm
Dark matter is interesting from a different perspective - there are a couple of good ideas out there, if one is right we may find that "dark matter" is all around us.
There is a difference between having a mind that is educated and open to one that just mindlessly considers every crackpot idea.
This one requires we reject over 100 years of work including the countless observations and data that support it.
And replace it with something that has no scientific basis in either experiment or theory
Leave aside Gravitational waves, these are far from certain.
You're never going to get a photograph of a black-hole looking the way they appear in Sci-Fi films but you do get measurements of gas getting sucked in and then disappearing.
Here's an article on one such piece of work in 2001
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12j an_1.htm
Dark matter is interesting from a different perspective - there are a couple of good ideas out there, if one is right we may find that "dark matter" is all around us.
There is a difference between having a mind that is educated and open to one that just mindlessly considers every crackpot idea.
This one requires we reject over 100 years of work including the countless observations and data that support it.
And replace it with something that has no scientific basis in either experiment or theory
claymore, there are certainly two sides to every coin and, in the case of a coin, those two sides have equal status.
To leap from that to an assumption that every 'alternative' theory is to be taken as seriously as the currently accepted one is daft. The sort of open mind you talk of is that which causes your brain to fall out - leaving you the credulous acceptor of every sort of tosh.
Surely you must give the alternative the same rigorous examination and analysis as the present theory has been subjected to. Otherwise you might think that creationism (for example) is as good an explanation for complex life as is evolution.
To leap from that to an assumption that every 'alternative' theory is to be taken as seriously as the currently accepted one is daft. The sort of open mind you talk of is that which causes your brain to fall out - leaving you the credulous acceptor of every sort of tosh.
Surely you must give the alternative the same rigorous examination and analysis as the present theory has been subjected to. Otherwise you might think that creationism (for example) is as good an explanation for complex life as is evolution.
The Electric Universe Theory predicted what actually occured with the Temple Comet 1 and the Deep Impact mission. You can read at the bottom of this page on holoscience ("In future:") what Wal Thornhill predicted. You can then compare it to what all scientists and astronomers were saying and see who was correct.
Wal Thornhill has also predicted the "surprising" poles on our gas giant planets, even when they were not in view.
For our science to be correct it needs a mysterious 95% of something that can not be seen or measured directly. This is the result of 100 years of science? Congratulations. So scientists made their predictions and theories and then they found out they were 95% wrong. Good prediction. You are talking about 95% of the Universe! Thats a lot of stuff. They did not predict that 95% of the universe was dark energy or dark matter before this but that does not matter. All that happens is they modify the ideas that got the predictions so wrong, they do not say we might have got it slightly wrong, lets get back to basics.
Maybe our standard science theories are wrong and the universe is correct? The universe does not need dark energy and there is no dark energy. What in this universe makes you think nature would create dark energy or matter? Do you think that nature and this universe would create something like a Black Hole? I know that the maths theories now predict them but from what i can see nature would not create something like that.
Black Holes suck everything in that is why they are called Black Holes? But Black Holes spit out a fantastic jet at nearly light speed and it seems that the one thing they do not do is suck things in as they were meant to do. Your scientists never predicted what Black Holes are turning into. Did they predict Black Holes at the center of each galaxy?
Dark energy and dark matter sounds the same to me as a religion, there is no p
Wal Thornhill has also predicted the "surprising" poles on our gas giant planets, even when they were not in view.
For our science to be correct it needs a mysterious 95% of something that can not be seen or measured directly. This is the result of 100 years of science? Congratulations. So scientists made their predictions and theories and then they found out they were 95% wrong. Good prediction. You are talking about 95% of the Universe! Thats a lot of stuff. They did not predict that 95% of the universe was dark energy or dark matter before this but that does not matter. All that happens is they modify the ideas that got the predictions so wrong, they do not say we might have got it slightly wrong, lets get back to basics.
Maybe our standard science theories are wrong and the universe is correct? The universe does not need dark energy and there is no dark energy. What in this universe makes you think nature would create dark energy or matter? Do you think that nature and this universe would create something like a Black Hole? I know that the maths theories now predict them but from what i can see nature would not create something like that.
Black Holes suck everything in that is why they are called Black Holes? But Black Holes spit out a fantastic jet at nearly light speed and it seems that the one thing they do not do is suck things in as they were meant to do. Your scientists never predicted what Black Holes are turning into. Did they predict Black Holes at the center of each galaxy?
Dark energy and dark matter sounds the same to me as a religion, there is no p
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Film, Media & TV23 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.