@ Crumby:
As I stated before I appreciate your comment and will respond to it in the fashion I believe it was offered: Constructive dialogue designed to reconcile competing views of cosmology.
Crumby wrote:
"I am certainly worried you are both missing the point. While EU/PC might have its useful place in astrophysics, it is becoming apparent that it is not the only exclusive explanation nor the only valid explanation. "
Yes, I have consistently maintained that gravity and mechanical forces need to be included, regretfully, most acknowledgments by one side or the other in the debate get drowned out by the extremes, and most of the "extreme" rejection comes from the "modern" astronomy side of the debate, although, not entirely.
Sometimes, from quarters, one would least expect are tokens of acknowledgment that should be built on, not torn down.
In example, Tim Thompson, an objector of some note to the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis had this to say about 'Electric Currents in Space':
Tim Thompson was challenged by an interlocutor:
"...somehow you've managed to convince yourself that electricity does not play a vital role in events in space."
And Tim Thompson responded:
"Wrong. I believe no such thing and neither does anyone else I know. Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space, on every spatial scale from the smallest to the largest. They are incorporated into standard physical models of the solar system and cosmology. There are whole books and reams of papers on the topic. Electric currents do play a vital role in events in space without question."
So, even someone who has serious disagreements with aspects of Electric Universe ideas, acknowledges the significance of electric currents in space, not just in the solar system, but beyond into deep-space large structures.
Surely, the competing viewpoints have significant points of agreement that can be expanded upon.
Crumby wrote:
"The difficulty lies in the fact that observations and measures are so hard to obtain from mostly distance far away places. EU has exactly the same problem..."
I agree with you, Crumby,
both competing viewpoints labor under the same constraints, however, I can only partially agree with the next part of your statement:
"but is far less convincing because of the gross complexity of the mathematical of its theories. Worst thing is that few direct observations exists in the deepest reaches of space because you can't really see the magnetic fields behaviour directly."
Yes, the mathematics of electromagnetism is more complex because electromagnetism is non-linear and is known to have multiple instabilities which make it almost completely impossible to predict with perfect accuracy. But I'm not persuaded it is "far less convincing" because of the mathematical difficulties. And it seems that observation & measurement even at distance can resolve magnetic fields and electromagnetic wave lengths (radiation) like synchrotron and X-rays that have a high corollation with the presence of electric currents.
It seems that the extremes dominate the dialogue, as those that should know better, hardly ever take aside, less knowledgable commenters and explain what Tim Thompson stated, above, namely that electric currents permeate the Universe at all cosmological levels of complexity, size, and distance.
Crumby wrote:
"Yet you never answer the question why is it that it cannot be BOTH? I.e. Some combination of a complex gravitational field as the source of the black hole and the powerful EU fields generated by the consequences of matter interacting with the field!"
Yes, I have heard that argument, in fact, I had a long running dialogue with an interlocutor that held just that viewpoint.
Anything is possible, but my point with him was the same as the one I've expressed at Universe Today: So-called "black holes" are not constrained or quantified at a theoretical, fundamental level, it is an a priori abstraction reified into a physical object with little or no observational confirmation. "Infinite" density in an "infinitely" small volume, is simply an imaginary concept with no quantitative constraints at all, yet, it is held out to the general public as if it is a most quantified thing. It most assuredly is not. And no known physical objects suggest such density is even possible and on the off chance it was possible, no quantified empirical observation has confirmed that any density of matter or any strength of gravity can capture light.
I couldn't look in the mirror and call myself an objective scientific observer that respects the Scientific Method if I subscribed to "black holes".
It's that simple, and, yes, that harsh.
Crumby wrote:
"Yet really Anaconda has also made probably a worst sin - especially on UT. Most novices in the sciences of have little concept of the universe, astronomy or astrophysics. When you plainly say "'black holes don't exist" then attack the science behind it, all your doing is putting their simple question into total disinterest altogether! So instead of slapping everyone so hard in the face or hitting everything with a sledgehammer, why don't you just as an approach mainly highlight the EU component (and the science behind it), then show how the EU is generated or interacts by the gravitational source. I.e. You catch more flies with honey."
I agree that at times my approach has been too strong.
Yet, at others, I've attempted to extend an open-hand and not a clinched fist and only received the usual harsh slap down, regardless. Also, as stated, above, there are certain objects & and concepts that in my opinion can't be coddled in "modern" astronomy, to do so is simply to propagate inexcusable error.
"Most novices in the sciences of have little concept of the universe, astronomy or astrophysics. When you plainly say "'black holes don't exist" then attack the science behind it, all your doing is putting their simple question into total disinterest altogether!"
I grant you that some novices do get "disinterested" or "chased away" and that is wrong. And I have suspicion that is the exact reason some interlocutors are so harsh and personal, to repel novices from following the discussion, anything to keep them from seriously considering the scientific evidence that supports Electric Universe theory or which would dissuade them from doing independent research on their own.
Crumby wrote:
"Personally, your complaints here about the bloggers and writing off UT are pretty extreme."
Anybody, who has followed the threads over at Universe Today would find the personal attacks are very harsh, but I certainly haven't "written off" Universe Today because there are folks who don't participate in comment threads, either experienced or novice who have reasnoable scepticism and an open-mind, and will do research on their own.
But they won't if they never see or hear the ideas and supporting scientific evidence.
Clearly, some interlocutors over at Universe Today, also, want to make it clear that anybody & everybody who publically subscribes & espouses Electric Universe theory will be treated with utter contempt: This is intellectual "gangsterism" at its worst.
Crumby wrote:
"Both of you have been so aggressive and headstrong, all you have done is alienate not only those who do know how to debate but those who don't know any better! I personally think you are fighting on the wrong battlefield, whose voices are more rallying mostly angry negative dissuasion than persuading any positives towards the EU's cause."
You may have a point, although, both solrey (he's better than I've been) and myself have at times tried to present the "kinder and gentler" version only to be met with the same derision as if we came in taking names and kicking ass.
You can't make people aware of competing viewpoints, if they never hear about it in the first place. And that seems to be the goal of many of the commenters over at UT: "kill it before it grows."
So, the question becomes how to make a reasonable and balanced presentation, all the while having hecklers attempting to shout you down?
I will give that thought, Crumby, because while I hate to give-in to intellectual "gangsterism", I fear you maybe right that some are turning away from EU without ever hearing the supporting scientific evidence.
Crumby wrote:
"However, what IS missing is the open displays of integrity and honesty."
This works two ways, you understand, and, frankly, the false allegations and misrepresentations are legion on the other side, and rarely does the other side ever acknowledge mistakes or errors, while, believe it or not, I do try to acknowledge the mistakes and errors I become aware of, whether by myself or pointed out by others.
Crumby wrote:
"The problem is perception that radical EU proponents are just (mostly) so unwilling to fit into mainstream science nor are prepared to show where EU and GM do interlay."
Of course, part of the problem is that "mainstream" science (read "modern" astronomy) is so far off course in many of its ideas, and doesn't follow accepted scientific methods, that compromise is difficult from the EU perspective and possibly there is a self-awareness of the "slippery slope" astronomy sits upon that has caused many "modern" astronomers to engage in their own harsh, slash and burn tactics for fear that anything less will lead to their "untimely demise".
And followers take their que and copy the style of commenters who they perceive to be more experienced and knowledgable. Sadly, the "leaders" are often the most harsh and uncompromising, which encourages the more inexperienced or "wanna bes" to act in similar fashion.
Perhaps, the above concern is an area that your side could work to improve on.
I suspect the crisis will intensify sooner rather than later unless Tim Thompson's quote and your expression of good will are shared by more followers of "modern" astronomy. I hope your positive expressions of good will and a more wide-spread acknowledgment of electromagnetism in space become a real permanent fixture of Astronomy.
I do sincerely hope for more not less cooperation and mutual understanding
