The Lone Ranger

J.B.S. Haldane: "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Cheers,

Michael

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>

Steven S

More crap from the 'electric universe' club. We discussed their cosmology and electric star model a while ago.

Shadow Wraith

"Crap"? That doesn't sound very scientific. In any case, until we actually have the ability to go to these things and observe them first hand, then we don't know for sure. It is most likely that quark stars and other rather interesting things are out there, but I wouldn't be so quick as to outright dismiss a different model. For example, while they are well-founded, there is a possibility that quarks may not exist. It would just take more research to find out whether we're still in the dark or if we've got it right. I say the more models the better, just as long as they're founded by science and not ideology. Of course, that's just my amateur-ish opinion. I could be wrong.

Steven S

Ok, you're right, crackpot is a better word for the Electric Universe proponents.

What model? The website doesn't give a competing model nor have I ever seen the electric star proponents give anything but vague, handwavy type arguments. If it's in the archive I would find the discussion Tim Thompson & I had awhile back on this subject.

Steven S

Shadow Wraith

If base insults are all I can look for (even if they're not directed at me), then I see no actual discussions taking place here. I've had this happen before in email discussions, where it usually takes only 2 replies to get into an insult-fest. And this is from professional scientists. I was planning on getting into either astrophysics or rocket propulsion as a career, but if even ambivalence towards currently accepted ideas (though the mean streak I've come across in numerous discussions has caused me to lean more and more in favor of the plasma cosmologists) in astrophysics gets often-times harsh critisicm, i.e. more insults than refutations (sometimes nothing but insults), maybe I should settle for the latter. In any case, like I mentioned above, the only theories that I consider "crackpot" are ones that are based on ideological concepts, like creationism. Besides, you should really chill out. It's not like its a matter of life or death.

[/quote]What model? The website doesn't give a competing model nor have I ever seen the electric star proponents give anything but vague, handwavy type arguments. If it's in the archive I would find the discussion Tim Thompson & I had awhile back on this subject.

Steven S</strong>[/QUOTE]
Holoscience is a very generalistic site--good for starting off on the basics of plasma cosmology. The above site only gave a combination of plasma and electric effects in points 11, 12, and 13.<a href="http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm" target="_blank">This site</a> and <a href="http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htmt" target="_blank">this site</a> are more detailed (oh yeah, <a href="http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm." target="_blank"> and about that neutrino debate</a>). It is no more or less complex than most astronomy sites I've come across. Granted, it doesn't have a plethora of the complex equations that are popular and that are the major constituent(sp?) of most theories in astronomy, but as I've heard some people say before, "The universe is not made of mathematics." Plasma cosmologists argue more in favour of physical models than detailed mathematics. It may be atypical of modern astrophysics, but it is in no way, shape, or form the wrong way of doing things. Numerous other fields in science rely very little or not at all on mathematical theories but on physical models. For exapmple, it is very hard to put living things and the weather (and plasmas, as many argue) into the form of equations. There have been/are/will be many mathematically tractable things that are/were/will turn out to be incorrect, like the Ptolemaic system (falsified 400-something-odd years ago), and possibly even quarks, black holes, and other popular things of today. Of course they could be correct, but many people feel that there are cogent reasons to argue against such things. Not only the particle accelerator/airplane comparison given in the site on my first post, but that (besides the purely mathematical theories describing the situations) there is no solid proof that matter can exist in states much denser than we find here on Earth, and that neutron stars violate what we do know about neutrons in the real world. This is not to say that hyper-dense objects are not real--they are possible, as practically anything is--but there are reasons to argue against them.

IMO, it doesn't matter which theory is right in this whole "gravity vs. plasma" arguement. If the conventional ideas turn out to be right, more power to you. If the ideas of plasma cosmologists turn out to be right, just as good. Either result will lead to a better understanding of the universe. It is even possible that everyone is, for the general picture of things, wrong in the fields of cosmology and astophysics. Even if we have the tools of modern 20th/21st century space and particle sciences, we could all still be not much closer to the truth than we were 100 years ago. Just a thought. In any case, the ones who are incorrect will not be out of a job, but they will most likely have to start over from scratch. But that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing.

Well, I've said my peace in this discussion. Later.

Steven S

I'm sorry, but this is a very amateurish attitude towards physics. Physics is more than just saying "what goes up must come down" but finding when and where it comes down. We don't deal with detailed mathematics (at least not often) but apply mathemtics to construct models which have predictive and explanatory power. If the electric star theory could explain and predict major phenomena like the sun's stability, radius, evolution, internal structure, composition, HR diagram, etc. then I would grant it as a competitor to the standard theory. However, I've not seen this done and futhermore--and more serious--the handwavy type arguments put forth contradict observation.

Steven S

lpetrich

I find it interesting that the electric-star guys brag that their mathematics is relatively simple. I'm almost reminded of Hanns Hoerbiger, inventor of the Cosmic Ice Theory; to anyone who claimed that this or that of his assertions did not work out correctly, he would claim that "calculation can only lead you astray."