Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The next thing to mention is Inflation. This is the name for the process said to have taken place just after the Big Bang. (Page 34).

This is not what modern physicists say. They put Inflation before the Big Bang.

The following paragraph, on the “Horizon Problem” is only a problem because of another misunderstanding about the “observable” Universe.

Page 47 suggests that LIGO has not detected anything. It has. It detected the Gravitational waves which prove (yes, evidence as proof) that Einstein’s theory is correct. In fact they have been detected on 3 separate occasions.

Page 72: We need to remember that the important things we have been told about gravity have not been proved and that what we have been given is at best, only opinion.

This is utter rubbish.

The whole thing is written to sound like it is debunking a conspiracy theory rather than offering an alternative. It is pseudoscience at best. On page 26 it states “Note here that Einstein’s theories really did spring from his own imagination.” This is exactly where the author got his EU ideas.

On the same page: “Again, nobody seemed to have cause or motivation to object to Einstein’s latest theory, so it stood strong for a while before becoming acceptable scientific ‘fact’”.

Yes, because it is proven. It is peer reviewed. Where is the peer-review for any of EU hypothesis?

Einstein did not suddenly arrive at his theory in 1915. He spent the previous 10 years considering the electric and magnetic forces of gravitational fields. Relativity may have come about via a thought experiment but this is how all ideas start. He figured out that the gravitational field is what Newtonian Space actually is. The Universe is made up of particles that exist within fields and they can be deemed to be the same thing at the quantum level. I am all for new theories but I am not sure what EU offers that the Standard Model does not explain more eloquently. I am quite content to throw out everything I understand and start again but EU does not make sense and insisting that Einstein’s ideas are unproven does not endear me to giving EU any more consideration. It adds no value to anything.

The end of page 26 tells me all I need to know.

This means that anything currently promoted as solid fact regarding the assumed powerful influence of the force of gravity on large scales can summarily be explained as only being the output of athletic, imaginative thinking. This fact alone should be enough to set some alarm bells ringing for us!

[Tom SarbeckParticipant]

Reg, Tom Findlay’s book and the Electric Universe will survive the reviews Bangers give them. The Bang will not survive the end of taxpayer subsidies.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I have debunked some of its major arguments already. What do you consider to be the essence of the EU model?

[tom sarbeckParticipant]

Reg, in 436 words you debunked nothing. Bangers have produced evidence for nothing.

…[modern physicists] put Inflation before the Big Bang.

By putting Inflation before the Big Bang, they moved what contradicts the laws of physics, is untested and untestable, to where it can never be tested.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by  tom sarbeck.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by  tom sarbeck.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

My debunking of some of the statements is not meant to be a proof of or evidence for the merits of BB theory. It is a critic of the claims made in the pdf you linked. It ignores the proofs for Relativity and makes other statements that are false. I will debunk more of them later and you can then tell me where I am wrong.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

A couple primary issues top my list about EU, but I have to admit, it took me a couple of fricken hours to discover evidence against the first one, which is their argument supposedly “debunking” the now, well-known physics of how circular craters are created from angled impacts.

I.e., when a projectile hits (say) a planet or moon at hypervelocity and at an angle other than perpendicular, why does the impact leave a circular crater with so little evidence of the direction of where the projectile came from?

If you throw a rock in the mud (but not straight down), you’ll usually see a mound of mud in front of the rock, with a trench of missing mud behind it. But not with craters made by cosmic-speed objects. The reason is because the explosive energy imparted to the surface of the moon or planet gets reflected upward.

Now, here’s a pic of a crater made by a small plastic pellet at hyper-velocity, from a 30 degree angle off of horizontal:

In the following laboratory video, you can see how the initial impact of the projectile pushes some of the target material forward (in the same direction of motion), which in this case is left to right. But the majority of the energy is translated into ejection of material pointed directly upward from the plane of the target surface. The upward ejection is caused not by the inertial energy of the projectile, but by the reflection of compression and rarefaction waves in the remaining material of the target.

Making impacts: experimental hypervelocity crater generation

Here’s the video.

(You actually have to pause the video within its first second in order to see the brief period of forward-directed ejecta.)

[Tom SarbeckParticipant]

Nice video, Beanie. But, prepare yourself for the real shocker–and “shocker” isn’t a pun.

The EU model says electricity (lightning bolts far larger than any we know) made the craters–be they round or any other shape.

There is reason for the name “Electric Universe”.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by  Tom Sarbeck.

[Tom SarbeckParticipant]

Reg, this group is about science; it’s NOT about debate.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Science without debate is not science. It is only through peer review and open debate that we arrive at a theory that has any scientific merit. When someone tells me that their idea, be it religious, scientific or political, is not open for debate I am immediately suspicious.  It is not debate that they want to stifle, it is dissent.

This website is all about debate. That is one of the reasons it exists. Have you noticed that new topics are filed under the “Forum” tab?  In this market place for ideas dissenting views that have supporting evidence for them are always welcome.

Einstein’s ideas on Gravity and Electromagnetism are accepted science. We know that the mass of an object warps SpaceTime just as we know water freezes below certain temperatures. I am happy to hear the alternative views of EU proponents but calls to not allow debate (in a Forum that demands evidence and reason in its title!) smacks of quackery rather than dissent.

I am sure Tom that this won’t seem like a thunderbolt to you but it is my Universe too.

[tom sarbeckParticipant]

Reg, I will ignore the name calling in that post and briefly answer two points in it.

It is only through peer review and open debate that we arrive at a theory that has any scientific merit.

1) Currently there are no EUers among the peers.
2) peer review + open debate. Without evidence?

Einstein’s ideas on Gravity and Electromagnetism are accepted science.

Accepted by whom?
His thought experiments left him poorly informed about gravity.
How fast does gravity’s attraction travel?
If it travels as slowly as light, the earth orbits where the sun was eight-plus minutes ago. The other planets orbit places closer to the sun or farther from it.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by  tom sarbeck.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Please point out where I engaged in name calling or ad hominem.

[tom sarbeckParticipant]

When someone tells me that their idea, … is not open for debate I am immediately suspicious. It is not debate that they want to stifle, it is dissent.

…calls to not allow debate (in a Forum that demands evidence and reason in its title!) smacks of quackery rather than dissent.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Just like me Tom you have rights but your ideas don’t. Telling me I should not debate an idea in a forum is suspicious. It is not name calling. I have read most of the pdf. I cannot see the value of the EU hypothesis.

[Tom SarbeckParticipant]

Rreg, I did not say you should not debate.

I did say, but not clearly, that I will let the evidence prevail.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Reg, this group is about science; it’s NOT about debate.

Let’s park this one Tom.

 

[Author]

Posts