Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin
I like the EU theory, but the majority of people refer to it as pseudo-science. I would like to know what evidence they have to discredit it.
Here is a excerpt from the Wikipedia article on plasma cosmology:
In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology of Klein (1971), and Alfvén's 1966 book, Worlds-Antiworlds, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".
Now common sense says to me (and I admit I am quite the layman) that if the universe has always existed then it should have a uniform nature, hence the cmbr, and since the cmbr is not absolute zero there must be a mechanism for uniformly distributing power, hence electricity. Maybe I am completely off base, what are your ideas regarding examples of EU criticism?
I am mainly looking to compile a list of criticisms. Thanks in advance.
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:20 am
- Location: La Quinta, California
I, too, am a layman in electricity and cosmology. It is my understanding from some of the TPODs and Thunderblogs that cosmologists are assuming
that the cmbr is generated throughout the universe, when, in fact, it may be generated within the Milky Way and the source may be relatively close to Earth. See TPODs "Temperature in Space" and "Temperature of Space" Here http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... sspace.htm
here http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... cetemp.htm
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
- Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Overall charge is "neutral" throughout the universe (same number of positives and negatives, so it all cancels out).
There is also an assumption of "charge neutrality" or "complete mixing" of charged particles. This is based on the assumption (invalidated, of course) that plasma is more-or-less a superconductor and that any significant local charge imbalance will "immediately neutralize." That seems to exclude the understanding that "double layers" can form that screen off materials of one composition, temperature, charge, from differing materials, etc.
There also seems to be an assumption that magnetic fields in plasma can be modeled solely by recourse to "frozen-in" magnetic field lines in plasma (the plasma is thought to "drag" magnetic field lines with it, as though field lines are a real entity), and "magnetic reconnection." Both of which concepts have been more or less debunked.
(Double layers and circuits in astrophysics)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... db_key=AST
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 013880.pdf
(Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-Tr ... ug2007.pdf
Those are just a few of the assumptions and such typically encountered.
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests