The Electric Universe and Mainstream Attention

[TheElfishGene]

Hello everybody, first straight off the bat i'm no egghead or scientist but The whole electric universe theory intrigues me incredibly and i lap up every article and paper i see posted or printed about the subject, to me as a normal rational human being (well i like to think of myself as normal tho not so sure about the rationality ) the whole theory makes complete and utter sense.
My question is why is this subject completely ignored by mainstream science and the media surely even the most blinkered and obstinate can only hold out for so long without accepting the inevitable, oh and surely the LHC is proving some of the theories correct?

[Siggy_G]

Hi! Mainstream science is a very broad term. But astrophysics and cosmology are built on an academical foundation, so that anyone wanting to study and work within these fields, will go through a long rigid program with heavy weight on math and established physics. Not much wrong about that by itself, but the notion about the universe being gravity-only driven, acceptance of highly abstract math and electricity playing a negliable role seems so nailed, that anything indicating otherwize probably just causes lifting shoulders.

Further, there is a difference between what astrophysicists/cosmologist know and what is presented to the public. (There are many interesting scientific papers in favour of electrical aspects of the universe). For some strange reason, the term plasma and electricity are avoided at all cost, while other weird or substituting terms are gladly presented - abstract math in particular. Articles and books with Einstein, Hawking or LHC in it, probably sells.

Projects, funding and daily jobs. Anyone wanting to achieve funding must justify their competence and team - usually with an academic background and preferably working within an institution/university (which likely already makes you a standard model proponent). They also ought to point to how they can utilize established models/theory. So, among all applicants, Electric Universe related programs would seem quite challenging. (However, EU proponents should still try, if they have an idea and are in the position to carry on a project.)

Also, I think many cosmologist would consider anything different from the Big Bang theory as something far-fetched or just alternative. On the other hand, I have a feeling many in fact do find the electric universe intriguing. But don't expect any revolution anytime soon. The system is generally slow, rigid and somewhat self-protected. Despite what science is meant to be, this decade slow process is actually and ironically meant to be this way.

I do think though, that EU advocates should take more use of the expected channels for distributing the hypotheses and models - some of which Anthony Peratt (Plasma Cosmology related), Wall Thornhill and Donald E Scott have done through IEEE. More of this, and perhaps make something equivalent of press releases and invite certain journalists to write about the theory or aspects of it. Considering the width and extremeties of what astronomical media have communicated so far, among the standard model odd balls, I don't see why they shouldn't take a look at the Electric Universe at some point. Wired magazine had an article about the Electric Comet a few years ago, but I haven't seen much else.

[Harry Costas]

G'day

Every time I here Maintream I feel that people float down the stream accepting whatever logs come along.

Within the so called main stream there are groups of clubs and this is the same with any thinking , even with the Electric Universe.

We are only now at the footsteps of research and understanding of Plasma and the Electric dynamics.

[Jarvamundo]

Much of the scientific training process of our public schooling program and institutional learning is to create 'knowledge' collectors. And Kudos to these collectors, they are darn good ones.

However, knowledge is different from understanding.

Text books give you knowledge, experiments and study (referred to by Isaac Watts as meditation) give you understanding. Interestingly at the time of the 20th century revolution, experiment and study was recommended to be at least double that of knowledge by text-absorption, when applying your efforts.

EU seems simple and intuitive to you, because as Alfven says it starts from understanding and works *out* to the cosmos.

MS starts from knowledge of formulas and works back in to what should be. It is highly non-intuitive, this is the conditioning that a modern scientist must overcome, ie to train you that paradox's and weirdness are good things. This is a conditioning process of knowledge to trumph understanding of reality. There are many motives for this.

But one thing is clear. If you are a knowledge collector, and you spend 20 years doing so, when you meet an idea that conflicts with your collections it will be rejected. *This* is *not* a scientific rejection.

"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton Arp.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
Attempting to explain the resistance to his ideas, Alfvén pointed to the increasing specialization of science during this century. "We should remember that there was once a discipline called natural philosophy," he said in 1986. "Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect." Among the causes of this transition, Alfvén believed, are territorial dominance, greed, and fear of the unknown. "Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research."

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934
US (Serbian-born) electrical inventor (1857 - 1943)

Knowledge Vs Understanding

[solrey]

Welcome TheElfishGene.

One should also consider that for the past couple of decades, at least, the media is more concerned about entertainment value than informative value. Even though a significant percentage of the population would be interested. If they make it entertaining people will get into it. There's a science museum in Portland Oregon that holds an after hours, no kids allowed fun open house with music, special interactive exhibits, food and, hehe...beverages. Exceptionally well attended by the way.

As time goes on and as more data is analyzed, astrophysicists and cosmologists are coming to understand how important is plasma's role in the universe, and how poorly they actually understand it.

You probably didn't hear in the media about the Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics held in January 2010.
The outcome was a 132 page pdf document; Research Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics

The opportunities represented by these technical advances can only be fully realized through a
coordinated effort that brings together the communities of astrophysicists and laboratory plasma physicists. These communities involve observers, laboratory experimentalists, theorists, and computational physicists. Recent years have seen very significant beginnings of such coordinated efforts.
These beginnings indicate the large potential for accelerated progress and the need for an articulation of the major scientific challenges and opportunities in plasma astrophysics. Such an articulation would also express the unity and coherence of plasma astrophysics as a scientific discipline. Since it merges multiple areas of expertise, its unity can be overlooked, as reflected in the absence of a clear funding home for plasma astrophysics in the U.S.

A list of ten major questions was produced:

1. How do magnetic explosions work?
2. How are cosmic rays accelerated to ultrahigh energies?
3. What is the origin of coronae and winds in virtually all stars, including Sun?
4. How are magnetic fields generated in stars, galaxies, and clusters?
5. What powers the most luminous sources in the universe?
6. How is star and planet formation impacted by plasma dynamics?
7. How do magnetic field, radiation and turbulence impact supernova explosions?
8. How are jets launched and collimated?
9. How is the plasma state altered by ultra-strong magnetic field?
10. Can magnetic fields affect cosmological structure formation?


Plasma Cosmology and/or Electric Universe have already answered each of those questions. At least now a portion of the scientific community recognizes the importance in understanding the true nature of plasma in order to understand the universe. The first step is to admit how much you don't know, eh? That goes for ourselves as well.

cheers

[TheElfishGene]

Thankyou all for the wonderful replies you've certainly given me something to think about, it still irks me everytime i switch on the TV/radio and have to listen to the established theories on the universe put across as fact and woe betide those who kick against the grain.
I agree a lot of science shows are only broadcast as entertainment, who doesn't enjoy watching Michio Kaku," perhaps somebody in the media should commision a show about the EU....now that would be entertaining!

[Nereid]

But one thing is clear. If you are a knowledge collector, and you spend 20 years doing so, when you meet an idea that conflicts with your collections it will be rejected. *This* is *not* a scientific rejection.

I'm curious about this Jarvamundo.

In one of my first explorations of content (as Dave puts it) here in this forum, I read a recently published paper (by Sawangwit and Shanks) that was referenced by a TPOD. To quote from that post:

The Acknowlegements contains a couple of interesting bits: "We acknowledge the use of NASA WMAP data. We thank G. Hinshaw and E. Wright for useful comments. We thank an anonymous referee for very useful suggestions and comments."

Now G. Hinshaw and E. Wright have devoted a great many years to the study of the CMB, and have been on the WMAP team since its inception (I need to confirm this).

Further, the Sawangwit and Shanks paper most definitely "conflicts with your collections" (per the TPOD), yet neither Hinshaw nor Wright seem to have rejected Sawangwit and Shanks' findings! Instead, they offered them "useful comments".

[Jarvamundo]

read my post again

[Jarvamundo]

But one thing is clear. If you are a knowledge collector, and you spend 20 years doing so, when you meet an idea that conflicts with your collections it will be rejected. *This* is *not* a scientific rejection.

[Nereid]

read my post again

OK, I did that.

So, to clarify, because G. Hinshaw and E. Wright did not reject the idea (published in the paper I cited) which conflicts with the analyses they have published (and spent a great many years working on; I assume this is exactly the sort of thing you call 'collection'), G. Hinshaw and E. Wright are not 'knowledge collectors'?

[Jarvamundo]

I don't think Ned Wright and his work on WMAP is the best example to draw specific conclusions on anything , i'm gad you seem to suggest they are open to ideas to help formulate something meaningful.

I see Penrose is now weighing in.

My OP on the philosophy of science should be read as a whole, take what you want from it, or don't. If it confuses you still, probably best to just leave it.

PS: It may come as a shock. I did not have Ned in my mind when writing the OP.

[Nereid]

PS: It may come as a shock. I did not have Ned in my mind when writing the OP.

So who did you have in mind?

[Jarvamundo]

Nereid, i tried for ya, i really did... but they wouldnt let me talk.... some waffle over revealing IRL indentities...