What can the mainstream explain that the EU can't??

[raisey]

Hi All...

Long time reader and EU supporter, but new member and poster here on the forum. I have a question. We all know the many things that EU provides economical and elegant explanations for, but what about the opposite situation?? Is there anything that the mainstream can provide a reasonable explanation for and that EU fails on??

Many Thanks

[moses]

Is there anything that the mainstream can provide a reasonable explanation for and that EU fails on??
raisey
A perceived failure of EU is the argument that electricity is insignificant
in the universe, and the proof being given as the planets all nicely following
gravity. ie the position of the planets can be determined by gravity alone.
Now the EU argues that the double layer around the Earth, say, effectively
shields the magnetic field of the Earth from the Solar magnetic field. Thus
no electrical force on the Earth by the Sun. I think about this often.

It is extremely counter intuitive that two large charged bodies do not exert
a force on each other due to their charged state. As an experiment I'd like
to see two charged balls hanging in a plasma, and brought closer together and
measure the angle of the dangle ! So we could measure if there is some force
on the charged balls. So simple someone must have done it !
Mo

[raisey]

The way I understand it, this isn't counter-intuitive because via their plasma sheaths, the bodies are effectively insulated from one another and have settled into orbits of least resistance (maybe that's the wrong term, most stable orbits might be better).

Anyway, I'm not wondering about perceived failures, I want to know actual failures. Are their any? Or am I asking the wrong question...

[longcircuit]

Raisey, please take a gander at this:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 281731d7b3.

longcircuit

[earls]

How to obtain funding and gather data.

[junglelord]

How to obtain funding and gather data.

OMG, thats so funny....


Sadly its the one correct answer.

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

What is mainstream?

This is such a missused word.

Science has no division.

oops I think I said something wrong.

==================================

Mainstream fails to explain the workings of the universe.

[nick c]

hello Harry Costas,

What is mainstream?

Usually, in the context of this forum and EU literature, "mainstream" refers to the consensus philosophical or theoretical framework , ie. paradigm, of establishment science. While within that scientific establishment (aka mainstream) there is disagreement and debate on particular details, the basic parameters of the paradigm are almost never questioned. For example: gravity only cosmology, uniformitarianism in geology and evolution, etc. etc.
The control of scientific thought lies in the institutional hierarchy and the system of approval of lines of inquiry and research. This involves the peer review system to determine acceptability for publishing in professional journals, the political process of rewarding research grants, academic standing, and so on.

Science has no division

I agree. Unfortunately, in the mainstream (as described above) world, Science has many divisions (and divisions within the divisions). All members must generally, stay within their area of expertise to maintain credibility and position.

These procedures involve human beings relating to other human beings and in that sense, political, economic, and psychological processes play a most important role.

nick c

[Harry Costas]

G'day Nic

I know too well of the system.

History keeps on repeating itself.

To this date I do not know how the BBT become the standard model with very weak foundations.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537
Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

[nick c]

Harry Costas,
Thanks for the link to [url2=http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537]Sociology of Modern Cosmology[/url2], an excellent paper. I especially like the cited quote from Geoffrey R. Burbidge, as I think he hits the nail on the head:

“Let me start on a somewhat pessimistic note. We all know that
new ideas and revolutions in science in general come from the younger
generation, who look critically at the contemporary schemes, and
having absorbed the new evidence, overthrow the old views. This,
in general, is the way that science advances. However, in modern
astronomy and cosmology, at present, this is emphatically not the
case. Over the last decade or more, the vast majority of the younger
astronomers have been conformists in the extreme, passionately believing
what their leaders have told them, particularly in cosmology.
In the modern era the reasons for this are even stronger than they
were in the past. To obtain an academic position, to obtain tenure,
to be successful in obtaining research funds, and to obtain observing
time on major telescopes, it is necessary to conform.” (G. R.
Burbidge 1997)

nick c

[Harry Costas]

G'day Nic

This is what I call:

Science gone MAD.