Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)

[gcthomas]

:doh: False dichotomy. You don't have to be a wizard to do good science or math lain: I don't have a science degree but have all A's in science. Another has a science degree with all C's. Who is better at science? Nobody asks what your grades were unless perhaps you are applying for NASA and even they can mistake metric for American standard.

Lon, you know how much I enjoy for interjections ...

I didn't mention qualifications, let alone grades, but I know you can't resist telling me about your high school grades (you have mentioned it several times already - you must still be so proud. )

Do you have anything to say about the issue of EU being promoted by cranks, creationists, and some crank creationists? If not, perhaps you can just tell me about acing high school exams again. I'd enjoy that.

 

[gcthomas]

What on earth does Clete's faith have to do with EU????
The data presented in the videos could have just as easily been presented by a non-Christian for discussion.

It just fits the pattern. Proponents of this theory are almost exclusively crank scientists or creationists. Look about and you'd see. Clete hasn't created any of this, so he isn't the crank. But he is a creationist, he does believe in a young earth, and adopting a crank theory that he thinks supports his faith would be a reasonable conclusion.

Why do YOU think that a YEC would reject all of modern science in favour of a crank theory that allows for a young universe in his eyes? He doesn't know enough science to make a valid critique of the actual science, so that just leaves blind faith.

 

[Tambora]

It just fits the pattern. Proponents of this theory are almost exclusively crank scientists or creationists. Look about and you'd see. Clete hasn't created any of this, so he isn't the crank. But he is a creationist, he does believe in a young earth, and adopting a crank theory that he thinks supports his faith would be a reasonable conclusion.

Again, Clete's faith does not change the data presented.
This thread is not about anyone's personal faith, it's about the science data presented and if the data conflicts with other science data.

Why do YOU think that a YEC would reject all of modern science in favour of a crank theory that allows for a young universe in his eyes? He doesn't know enough science to make a valid critique of the actual science, so that just leaves blind faith.

Dufus, he has already said he is just starting to look into it more and what it's all about.

So why do you keep harping on his personal faith instead of the data presented?

That's about as helpful as if you started a thread on some scientific theory, and I come along and say, "Well, you are just an atheist, so naturally you are just wanting to discuss data that appears to go against Christian beliefs".
A statement like that is just as lame as what you are claiming.

Either the data can be substantiated or it cannot, no matter who presented it.

And we all know that scientific data has had to be reevaluated when other data is found.
So even if we could confirm the new data as reasonable, other new data could show up in the future as to have to reevaluate again.
Theories in science are ever changing.

 

[Nihilo]

But he is a creationist, he does believe in a young earth

So do I.

, and adopting a crank theory that he thinks supports his faith would be a reasonable conclusion.

I disagree.

 

[Lon]

It just fits the pattern. Proponents of this theory are almost exclusively crank scientists or creationists. Look about and you'd see. Clete hasn't created any of this, so he isn't the crank. But he is a creationist, he does believe in a young earth, and adopting a crank theory that he thinks supports his faith would be a reasonable conclusion.

Why do YOU think that a YEC would reject all of modern science in favour of a crank theory that allows for a young universe in his eyes? He doesn't know enough science to make a valid critique of the actual science, so that just leaves blind faith.

AGAIN elevating scientists as if it were the only where-with-all we have to find intelligent answers. :nono: Science, but I certainly don't have to take any Tom, Dick, Harry's word. Not even Dr. Tom, Dr. Dick, Dr. Harry. :noway: You just bought what every prof said hook,line, sinker with no questions? Sometimes 'my' professors were wrong AND I knew it! :think: Your fallacies: 1) appeal to authority, 2) appeal to majority. Such do NOT a fact make. Science is better than you and other scientists: It (and they that represent it) don't get their noses bent out of shape at the prospect. They literally don't care but to do better science. Try to remember that over this posturing junk. There is no 'crank' science, per say. You toss it too loosely.

Lon, you know how much I enjoy for interjections ...

I didn't mention qualifications, let alone grades, but I know you can't resist telling me about your high school grades (you have mentioned it several times already - you must still be so proud. )

College grades. Yeah I am. What were yours??? :think: YOU are the one that places 'scientists' on a pedestal. See your own three fingers. It is 'misplaced' trust, as if men are infallible 'together.' :dizzy:

Do you have anything to say about the issue of EU being promoted by cranks, creationists, and some crank creationists? If not, perhaps you can just tell me about acing high school exams again. I'd enjoy that.

Yes. Stop stacking 'your' guru's against other 'guru's.' :e4e:

(try treating the message instead of the messenger sometimes. Discrediting the messenger (AGAIN) is trolling, even if you believe the data is crank)

 

[Clete]

What on earth does Clete's faith have to do with EU????
The data presented in the videos could have just as easily been presented by a non-Christian for discussion.

This is exactly right. In fact, I've seen enough of the Thunderbolts Project's material to strongly suspect that Walt Thornhill, the clear leader of the whole EU "movement", if it can be called that, is not a Christian. I could be wrong about that though, which sort of goes to show just how unrelated the theory is to anything theological. They don't seem to care how old the universe is. They just have a problem with the unscientific way that modern science is done and, in fact, basically put it on par with faith based cosmologies, because that's what it is.

 

[Clete]

These first three videos are excellent in my view. I discovered the EUT while studying magnets and different ideas about just what causes magnetism as well as the nature of magnetic and electric fields. It turns out that magnetic fields don't simply loop from one pole to the other as is commonly depicted with two bar magnets. Instead, they sort of spin in a counter rotating double vortex...

A magnetic field doesn't look like this...
View attachment 25959

It looks more like this...

View attachment 25958

From there my studies led to plasma physics and Birkeland Currents and from there to the Electric Universe theory.

Note that nothing I was studying had anything to do with theology whatsoever. I wasn't even looking for it when I stumbled upon it while looking into magnetism. The fact that it happens to be more consistent with my Christian worldview is just a happy accident. In fact, a lot of the magnetism stuff was written by Ken Wheeler, a totally tattooed from head to toe weirdo that, if his tattoos are any indication, must be a Wiccan or something - certainly not a Christian - but he seems to know about everything there is to know about magnets and photography. Not that I'm recommending anyone read his stuff. While he's clearly knowledgeable about magnetism, he's intentionally hyper-intellectual and likes to bloviate and say things that don't seem to make sense and then acts like you're the idiot if you don't understand. Come to think of it, he'd fit right in with the other atheists here at TOL.

At any rate, the things that started to convince me to give these ideas some credibility is their ability to recreate nearly every cosmological formation we see in space, in the lab using well known plasma physics, some of which have been shown in the first three videos already with many more to come, I'm sure.


Clete

 

[gcthomas]

These first three videos are excellent in my view. I discovered the EUT while studying magnets and different ideas about just what causes magnetism as well as the nature of magnetic and electric fields. It turns out that magnetic fields don't simply loop from one pole to the other as is commonly depicted with two bar magnets. Instead, they sort of spin in a counter rotating double vortex...

A magnetic field doesn't look like this...
View attachment 25959

It looks more like this...

View attachment 25958

From there my studies led to plasma physics and Birkeland Currents and from there to the Electric Universe theory.

Note that nothing I was studying had anything to do with theology whatsoever. I wasn't even looking for it when I stumbled upon it while looking into magnetism. The fact that it happens to be more consistent with my Christian worldview is just a happy accident. In fact, a lot of the magnetism stuff was written by Ken Wheeler, a totally tattooed from head to toe weirdo that, if his tattoos are any indication, must be a Wiccan or something - certainly not a Christian - but he seems to know about everything there is to know about magnets and photography. Not that I'm recommending anyone read his stuff. While he's clearly knowledgeable about magnetism, he's intentionally hyper-intellectual and likes to bloviate and say things that don't seem to make sense and then acts like you're the idiot if you don't understand. Come to think of it, he'd fit right in with the other atheists here at TOL.

At any rate, the things that started to convince me to give these ideas some credibility is their ability to recreate nearly every cosmological formation we see in space, in the lab using well known plasma physics, some of which have been shown in the first three videos already with many more to come, I'm sure.


Clete

As I said, the supporters of EU fall into two camps, cranks and YECs. I have not claimed that the EU idea was religiously inspired, so your criticism here is misplaced.

 

[gcthomas]

Your fallacies: 1) appeal to authority, 2) appeal to majority. Such do NOT a fact make. Science is better than you and other scientists: It (and they that represent it) don't get their noses bent out of shape at the prospect. They literally don't care but to do better science.

Know your fallacies, Lon. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the group is not a recognised authority. Read up on it and get your facts straight.

Try to remember that over this posturing junk. There is no 'crank' science, per say. You toss it too loosely.

Crank science is stuff that postures as science yet has few of the properties of science. EU has no body of coherent knowledge, no quantitative predictive or modelling capability, no way of testing it to see if the predictions are better than the current science, no papers detailing the theory to enable external critiquing and inprovement …

So yes, crank science does exist, and EU is a representative sample.

(Please, tell me your grades again, I just love it when you present them to make yourself look like a suitable authority to trust on scientific judgements. Now, there is a real appeal to authority. )

 

[ClimateSanity]

Know your fallacies, Lon. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the group is not a recognised authority. Read up on it and get your facts straight.




Crank science is stuff that postures as science yet has few of the properties of science. EU has no body of coherent knowledge, no quantitative predictive or modelling capability, no way of testing it to see if the predictions are better than the current science, no papers detailing the theory to enable external critiquing and inprovement …

So yes, crank science does exist, and EU is a representative sample.

(Please, tell me your grades again, I just love it when you present them to make yourself look like a suitable authority to trust on scientific judgements. Now, there is a real appeal to authority. )

What properties of science are missing from EU?

Sent from my SM-G930V using TOL mobile app

 

[gcthomas]

What properties of science are missing from EU?

Sent from my SM-G930V using TOL mobile app

Quantitative theory, mechanisms of action and fundamental principles. All I see are handwaving videos and some vaguely related, ancient, failed papers from the 1960s

More specifically by way of examples:

How does the Sun produce a continuous spectrum of light when plasma discharge would produce discrete emission spectra as in gas discharge tubes. Gravity/pressure/heat/nuclear reactions gives outcomes that match the observations.

What is the source of solar neutrinos? Nuclear physics has fantastically robust quantitative predictions, and these are met by the observations. How does EU predict the right amounts of neutrinos?

What is the formula for calculating the redshifts of galaxy clusters and what is the quantitative mechanism and physical principles of this?

I'll find you more if you want.

 

[Clete]

I have gcthomas on ignore but I noticed him saying something stupid about the appeal to authority fallacy in something ClimateInsanity quoted. An appeal to authority is never a valid form of argument. Authorities can be sited as something equivalent to witness testimony but nothing is ever true because an authority says so, which is what the fallacy is all about. A claim is either true or it is false - period. No authority is able to change that on the basis of his say so.

So, whether the citation of some expert is valid or not depends on just what it is that you're appealing too. If, on the one hand, you are basing your argument on the veracity of his science then that is not an appeal to authority. If, on the other hand, you are basing your argument on the experts say so then it is a fallacy. In either case, it is always better to make the argument yourself rather than leaning of the reputation of someone else (or a group of others) to make it for you.

If, for example, there is evidence of global warming, then a presentation of that evidence is a good argument while saying "a consensus of scientists believe..." is an appeal to authority and is invalid. The reason it is invalid is not only because there is no way to define or establish the existence of a consensus of scientists but science isn't about consensus in the first place (consensus has to do with politics, not science) and really what you are arguing is that there no way that a large number of scientists can all be wrong. The problem is that they can be and often have been.

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

I suppose that the ultimate argument for EU being a crock is the fact that NASA and other space agencies navigate the solar system relying entirely on Newton's gravitation theory (with an occasional nudge from relativity) and totally ignore EU.

Now, EU proponents can say "but you don't get it; EU works exactly the way gravity does." But then it's as useful as supposing that things work because gravity fairies move everything in a certain way.

 

[Lon]

Know your fallacies, Lon. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the group is not a recognised authority. Read up on it and get your facts straight.

:chuckle: in a conversation about whether that 'fact' is true or not. Funny stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Crank science is stuff that postures as science yet has few of the properties of science. EU has no body of coherent knowledge, no quantitative predictive or modelling capability, no way of testing it to see if the predictions are better than the current science, no papers detailing the theory to enable external critiquing and inprovement …

Incorrect. It is simply your posturing "as-if" some form of science investigation is preferred over another. Question: Who taught you that? Where did you get it from? Do you have an imperical statement that says 'Physical Science (by example) is to be preferred for reality over such-and-so"? :nono: You need to introspect. You've been indoctrinated without even knowing you were. Your trust is in what you perceive and you pit it against another's as if it stands without controversy :nono: To my analysis, THAT really is the central problem of all Theology/Science confrontations. One holds the other 'less' substantial so each and every conversation is really unproductive and merely posturing over and over again. Such has always been. See the bigger picture and don't be a part of the problem. Neanderthal sentiment "science good/theology bad" (or vise versa) needs to be beyond all of us. Sadly, it is the anthem ever presented and seen since the two ever collided.

So yes, crank science does exist, and EU is a representative sample.

:nono: In science, though my professors said the same as you, they are wrong. In science, it is 'part' of the science inquiry process. Rather, be a good scientist: Keep going! I realize we can and should look at presentation with scrutiny, but actually scrutinize.

(Please, tell me your grades again, I just love it when you present them to make yourself look like a suitable authority to trust on scientific judgements. Now, there is a real appeal to authority. )

You mean because mine were better than yours? That I understood better than you? :up: (just example, the point being that there is a connection). Who cares about the degree. Let's see who ACTUALLY does it better! Appeal to authority? A grade is produced by one who accurately represents the material after all. Such indeed accurately represent my knowledge. You? Let's revisit these authority appeals. I think actual grades speak for themselves without a need for appeal. They just 'represent' actuals. Try again?

 

[Right Divider]

Know your fallacies, Lon. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the group is not a recognised authority. Read up on it and get your facts straight.

That is hilarious. :rotfl:

 

[Clete]

I suppose that the ultimate argument for EU being a crock is the fact that NASA and other space agencies navigate the solar system relying entirely on Newton's gravitation theory (with an occasional nudge from relativity) and totally ignore EU.

Well, since the EU folks acknowledge this, I sort of doubt that it's "the ultimate argument" against their paradigm.

Now, EU proponents can say "but you don't get it; EU works exactly the way gravity does." But then it's as useful as supposing that things work because gravity fairies move everything in a certain way.

The EU does not dispute the existence of gravity nor do the dispute Newton's laws. On the contrary, they repeatedly point to Newton's laws in support of one of their main points (a point that hasn't been brought up in the videos yet). The EU is not about replacing gravity or anything similar to rejecting the existence of or discounting the effects of gravity.

It would be more constructive if you kept your arguments aimed directly at the what is presented in the videos rather than making generalized arguments based on your perceptions of what they seem to be saying.

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, since the EU folks acknowledge this, I sort of doubt that it's "the ultimate argument" against their paradigm.

If things work without EU exactly as they do if one assumes EU, it is unnecessary.

The EU does not dispute the existence of gravity nor do the dispute Newton's laws. On the contrary, they repeatedly point to Newton's laws in support of one of their main points (a point that hasn't been brought up in the videos yet). The EU is not about replacing gravity or anything similar to rejecting the existence of or discounting the effects of gravity.

If electrical forces were affecting the movement of objects in the solar system, it would have been noticed when spacecraft didn't move as predicted. But they do.

It would be more constructive if you kept your arguments aimed directly at the what is presented in the videos

I asked for someone to tell me what they thought the important points in the video actually are, and I got no response. So I'm guessing, not very much.

 

[gcthomas]

That is hilarious. :rotfl:

You should know that fallacies are a fault in formal logic proofs. Proofs play little part in empirical science, which is merely looking for the theories that have the best fit to the data and for differences between predictions and observations.

A more productive discussion for science would be Bayes' Theorem, which deals with how to modify your probability estimates (beliefs, of you like) in the light of new evidence. References to actual authorities should modify your judgements on the relative merits of alternative propositions.

Consider this: a friends thinks a lump they have is cancer, but you persuade them to see a medical doctor who says that it is benign. Is it a logical fallacy to take that information into account? Should your friend ignore the advice of the doctor? Of course not. This is not a situation involving formal logical proofs, so fallacies play no part.

 

[Selaphiel]

That is hilarious. :rotfl:

Nope, it is accurate.

The fallacy of appeal to authority is to make a claim like: "Climate change is real because the king says it is", if you by that mean that in virtue of being king he makes the statement true.

Appeal to scientific consensus is not the fallacy of appeal to authority. Because it is an appeal to an instance who have authority relevant to the statement, they are authorities in the relevant field. Ironically enough, those who tend to make the fallacy of appeals to authority by appealing to scientists are creationists: They constantly refer to some "doctor" or "PhD" (no one is more diligent when it comes to noting the titles of their sources), but they are doctors of irrelevant fields. Appealing to a NASA engineer on questions of evolutionary theory would be the fallacy of appeal to authority.

 

[Clete]

If things work without EU exactly as they do if one assumes EU, it is unnecessary.

Well, since things don't work exactly the same in both paradigms then this is a moot point.

If electrical forces were affecting the movement of objects in the solar system, it would have been noticed when spacecraft didn't move as predicted. But they do.

Therefore electricity is not currently affecting the movement of object in the solar system.

Exactly as the EU openly acknowledges.

You are aware that there are things going on outside our solar system.

I asked for someone to tell me what they thought the important points in the video actually are, and I got no response. So I'm guessing, not very much.

I failed to notice the request. Sorry about that. I wasn't trying to ignore you.

I haven't the time this morning but as soon as time allows, I'll try to put together a gist of each video. That's actually something I should have done to begin with.

It really would help if you'd simply watch the videos. It will prevent you from arguing against points that the EU doesn't make.


Clete