mistie wrote:I recently introduced Electric Universe Theory in some correspondence between myself and my philosophy professor. We were discussing ontological issues and consciousness and I could no longer refrain. I am usually filled with trepidation in bringing EU up as I have had encountered negative reactions from professors in the past. His wasn’t so negative but he did pose a challenge. Since I am a mere layman, I have trouble explaining EU concepts. Here is what he said:
“I'm not sure I can make much sense of the Electric Universe Theory. I don't know why electromagnetism would be so much more powerful than it is.
"I mean, astrophysicists certainly account for electromagnetic forces in the universe already."
"As far as I understand, the main puzzle is not that there appears to be an excess of attractive forces, but that there appears to be a repulsive force in the universe that we can't explain.”
My first thought is that the repulsive force is only an issue if you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the universe is electrically neutral.
I have read plenty on why the Big Bang is a weak and unsubstantiated theory and it all makes total sense to me, yet I lack the ability to sum it up in a brief and coherent way. How would you EU experts respond to what my professor said? Please, help a girl out. I’d really like to better understand this myself. Thanks!
webolife wrote:The biggest difficulty I've encountered when presenting a new paradigm is that the old paradigm has such a strong grip -- some of the reasons may be:
1. "Smart" people believe it. [Many don't.]
2. It's in "all" the books. [Only the ones the paradigm guardians want you to read.]
3. This has been taught for generations. [That's what makes it a paradigm.]
4. "All" the evidence supports it. [Until you look at all the evidence with an open mind.]
5. Who cares? [Most folks don't consider the billions of dollars spent each year trying to affirm or confirm standard theoretical models and their predictions. No one needs or wants to spend that much money to disprove a theory.]
For most people, either a total breakdown of the old paradigm [an earthshattering discovery or crisis], or an outstanding technological breakthrough requiring a shift in perspective, are the only ways you will get them to shift their assumptions about the universe. There's not all that many of us who are willing to spend hours, days, months, and years just to chip away at the facade of academia.
Welcome to the forum, Mistie.
This is because many of them are narrow-minded and pompous.
foxoldrose wrote:I am so sorry . I can't help you with this question . I have not meet a question like this . But I want to make friends with you . Please contect .
Siggy_G wrote:I think the professor's answer was fine, in the sense that he explains why he can't grasp the EU theory and what seems to be the issue in cosmology.
For the first part, EU advocates ought to take some "self critisism". There needs to be more refined and coherent explanations of the EU model. I believe I have a good overview, but I would have to agree that the available information currently is too scattered. For the details, the resources Jim pointed to are good, as well as Plasma Cosmology papers by Alfvén, Fälthammar and Peratt, which makes the foundation for the EU model.
For the latter part, the major question or counter argument is; what are the methods and underlying assumptions used for measuring and assuming an overall repulsive force/dynamic in the universe? (redshift/supernovae/space-time) Also, EU or PC processes don't point to an excess of attractive forces, but charge separation, double layers, electrodynamics and the pinch effect are among the key terms.
mistie wrote:“I don't know why electromagnetism would be so much more powerful than it is. I mean, astrophysicists certainly account for electromagnetic forces in the universe already.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests