A Response to Tom Bridgman

[Siggy_G]

Tom Bridgman wrote a blog post in response to one of my comments. Since I've had issues with getting one of my replies through that blog system, I'd like to post my reply in a thread here.

Tom Bridgman: Pseudoscience and the Technomystic II

Most of Bridgman's (leading) questions have rather obvious answers, and overall they seem to be directed towards the notion that new knowledge is based upon previous knowledge. In other words, his point seems to be that our current state of astrophysics and cosmology is a mere product of empirical data, just like science should be.

First of all, at the principle level, I don't really see how these questions are supposed to work as attacks towards Electric Universe views. Generally, I view Tom Bridgman as a respected opponent, but could it be that Bridgeman has problems with hitting the nail on this subject which his blog post is a response to?

Is the labeling of Electric Universe advocates as Technomystics and believers some sort of proactive attempt to dodge the obvious argument that Bridgeman in fact is a supporter of funded myth makers? Whether or not vivid myths such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the Big Bang are a result of scientific methods, they are no less established unquestionable entities and to some a belief system. There are numerous peer-reviewed papers questioning these esablished notions, based on available data interpretation, but they numerically drown among the papers that carry on the above-mentioned myths.

Bridgman's continous linking between our technology to the current state of cosmology is supposed to work as an attack on the Electric Universe models in favour of the consensus ones. Provide the technology that is driven by dark energy, dark matter og tiny black holes created at CERN, and there may be some substance to that argument. Otherwise, isn't the astrophysical linking to digital technology, if anything, more a strengthening of Alfven's (and Peratt's and Thornhill's etc.) point that electricity should be applied to interpretation and testing of astrophysical data? Does that mean that I personally need to provide Bridgman that kind of work with successful results for our entire cosmology, before it is a reasonable approach? There have been escalating varifications of current systems at both planetary and cosmic scales.

Nereid commented in one of Bridgman's blogs that "The elevation of "electricity" to pre-eminance is, surely, a sign of unhealthy obsession, no?". Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology advocates have the thing in common that they have a preference towards explaining the universe with physical processes we know and can test, as opposed to explain it with mystical particles and energies. Is that really a sign of unhealthy obsession? It is not the first time one sees mainstream supporters view people who ask questions about consensus models, as if they need psychological treatment or salvation of some sort.

When science get to the point where scientists stop asking fundamental questions (or get ridiculed for doing so) or stop revising their models above the detail level, stagnation and magic ad hoc approaches occur. This means one may be digging deeper into the wrong cave. Especially so when nature show something different than hypothesized over and over agan – and prehistory provide signatures we can make no current meaning of. The forementioned astrophysical myths should be labeled questionable and treated as alternative approaches to dynamics that need proper models. Any scientific model must be able to explain what is going on on a qualitative level, be physically testable at several magnitudes and empirically verifiable with data to the point they are predictive. Otherwise, they must be treated as exotic and alternative approaches untill we get to the state of knowledge the provided model claims to require.

Now, if science (here: astrophysics and cosmology) is supposed to be empirical and provisional, how come the corner stones of the consensus models are based on energies and particles we can only guess at what might be (pun intended)? Can we really take for granted that every new postulated particle or form of energy, is going to have the same successful history as the electron or the neutrino? Doesn't that mean scientists can postulate just about anything, and in absense of detection, point to exotic or non-detectable features that may or may not be available after endless funding? This is equivalent to letting new knowledge be based on future knowledge. Wouldn't that be backwards of Bridgman's main message – and does it at all work as an attack on Electric Universe proponents?

[tayga]

Siggy, I think you are wasting your time and intelligence arguing with Tom Bridgman, especially on his own blogsite.

You posted a comment which any intelligent person would understand. In essence, you suggested it would be absurd if someone were to claim that every piece of electrical technology owed its inception and existence to EU theory. Tom deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented your comment as if you had made the very claim you implied was absurd.

It's a despicable piece of falsification worthy of a politician or some other species of professional liar. It does not deserve you reply.

[squiz]

Wow Siggy! I'd say it's a kind of honour to be singled out like that. The twisting of you words is self evident.
I agree with Tayga, Don't bother.

Is it just me or does anyone else get a giggle out of the term "creationism in astronomy"? You know with the big bang and all, kind of ironic don't you think?

[tayga]

Is it just me or does anyone else get a giggle out of the term "creationism in astronomy"? You know with the big bang and all, kind of ironic don't you think?

Me too. It's an irony completely undetected by big bangers but it is just another creation myth - based on less evidence than most creation myths!

[orrery]

So does this guy want a history of plasma cosmology that traces all the way back to Anaxagoras or something? The idea of the infinite universe has far more historical support than virtually any other view on the planet IMO.

Creation ex nihilo theories have always and will always fail in the long run.

[mharratsc]

Bridgeman and his ilk simply realize that they will be the first ones out of a job when the paradigm shift occurs...

[MrAmsterdam]

I found a radio blog of W.T. Bridgman speech about the "electric universe"

February 16th: The Electric Universe, Podcaster: W.T. Bridgman

http://365daysofastronomy.org/2012/02/1 ... -universe/

Bio: W.T. Bridgman is a support scientist and blogger with an interest in making debunking of “Creation Science” and similar pseudo-science accessible to more students and to the general public. Years ago, he discovered just how poor the science was in many of these pseudo-sciences and realized that many of the errors and misinformation were accessible to students at a more introductory level, especially when they could be linked to the science behind specific technologies. He obtained his Masters and Ph.D. in Physics at Clemson University working with the nuclear astrophysics group. His specific fields of study included x-ray processes in supernova remnants and high-time resolution variability of the black-hole candidate, Cygnus X-1.
-
-
-
-

So with all these examples, why don’t astronomers talk about cosmic electric fields more? There are several key reasons.

Electric fields are very difficult to measure with remote sensing technologies. George Ellery Hale tried to measure electric fields on the Sun as early as 1915 but was only able to place an upper limit on the strength of such a field. Measurement techniques have improved since then, but still, it’s difficult to talk about it if you can’t reliably measure it in the first place.
Since matter is normally electrically neutral in bulk quantities, it takes at least as much energy to separate the positive and negative charges in neutral matter as you obtain when the charges recombine. This is because energy is conserved and the fact that moving charges radiate photons, resulting in an additional energy loss in both the separation and recombination process.
If an electric field is created purely by charge separation with no additional forces keeping the charges apart, it can’t last very long in free space. Opposite charges attract each other and eventually they will move to cancel the electric field.
The flip side of this cancellation process is that for a time, the moving charges create an electric current. Electric currents create magnetic fields, and since the current changes with time, so does the magnetic field. And the process can repeat, maintaining this field for quite some time after the original current is gone. Magnetic fields are much easier to detect with remote sensing techniques. Since the magnetic field is easy to tie back to actual observations, astronomers principally talk about the magnetic field, and use Maxwell’s equations and plasma physics to infer the electric fields behind them.

This is just an introduction to the long history of how astronomers have recognized the action of electric fields in space. All of these mechanisms create the charge separations and resulting currents using energy from other processes, which can usually be traced back to processes driven by gravity. The charge-separation itself is not the original energy process, but can provide a mechanism to convert energy in thermal processes to non-thermal energy distributions.

Now if you do an online search for information on electrical processes in space, you will no doubt eventually come across the pseudo-science of the “Electric Universe” whose central creed is that astronomers ignore the contributions of electric fields in space. Electric Universe ‘theorists’ go so far as use discoveries in mainstream astronomy’s understanding of electric fields described above, to justify their own more bizarre claims such as that the Sun is powered not by internal nuclear fusion, but by cosmic-scale external electric current streams. Their cosmology essentially depends on the Universe being filled with gigantic, invisible, electric currents powered by similar generators. Of course, we don’t detect the currents and they provide no information on the origin, nature, or even location of those generators.

So with this gentle introduction, perhaps you have a new appreciation for the real role of electric fields in the cosmos. And you have a way to counter those who claim that astronomers ignore cosmic electric fields.

So astronomers know about electrical phenomena in space, yet they do choose not to talk about it? That sounds a little "bizarre" in my ears.

[Goldminer]

BTW, when you catch up with "Nereid," Give "her" my regards, and be sure and remind "her" that "she" never gave a cogent refutation to this expert's logic!

I don't have time or inclination to chase loose marbles or buried walnuts.

[hertz]

got to admit MrAmsterdam there's a certain irony here as well as a bizarre quality to that podcast (http://365daysofastronomy.org/2012/02/16/february-16th-the-electric-universe/)...i mean, in all honesty, this was probably the most cogent description of double layers i'd ever read:

This means the faster moving electrons can form a thin ‘atmosphere’ around the ions. This charge separation generates an electric field, forming a structure sometimes called a ‘double layer’ by laboratory plasma researchers...

to then go on and admit that accretion disks are one environment where the mainstream accepts that this process is going on, well, quite frankly heartened me...i mean, here's arguably the most staunch defender of the mainstream openly acknowledging that 1) these are real processes and 2) they extend outside the laboratory and into the cosmos seems a huge departure from his usual rants...what still puzzles me however, is how he continues to equate the EU with creationism? what the? i've never seen that taken seriously here...weird, but maybe now the mainstream can start talking about plasma phenomena again w/out going into conniptions about ATM, lol...hope springs eternal brother

[orrery]

A big banger calling EU 'creationism' is what we call in these parts "irony"

It is merely an attempt to mislead the gullible. Big Bang is Creationism in full retard mode. Hopefully he has been corrected and retracted this false association.