Nereid wrote:
You see, I was commenting on what seb wrote ("The question is [...] one of deciding which formulae to apply to astronomical phenomena. That decision is inherently qualitative and subject to further observations.") I was - and still am - interested to learn what further observations seb (or you, or any electrical theorist) could suggest should be done.
Wow. I'm glad I found this post of yours, Nereid, because I almost missed it. So let's see if we can communicate. Where should the new telescopes be pointed, you ask. If we live in an electric universe, why not let each telescope go where its targeted slice of the electromagnetic spectrum is most abundantly exhibited? That's what they're all doing anyway, and it's amongst the primary reasons for the growing interest in the Electric Universe. Why would we complain about the direction telescopes have been pointed, for heaven's sake? Everything revealed about hourglass discharge formations of nebulas and galaxies, or polar jets of Herbig Haro objects, or synchrotron radiation sources, or dozens of other electromagnetic phenomena are of spectacular interest. This is the universe that caught astronomers by surprise in the space age. Why would we need to be selective?
I had good reason to write above: "At some point it's going to register with folks that almost all of the surprises of the space involve the signature of electric currents and magnetic fields, associated with electromagnetic radiation across the entire spectrum--the one thing that standard theory, prior to the space age, consistently overlooked."
But in your rhetorical response you imply the reverse of the truth, effectively denying what has occurred as a matter of historic fact. With the endless surprises of the space age, advocates of a gravity-only universe lost the opportunity to falsify the Electric Universe hypothesis. Instead, discovery after discovery has dragged them to the gate of a new paradigm, a change of mind with one inescapable requirement: that they consider the role of electric currents across the cosmos. I can't imagine what useful purpose could be served by attempting to deflect readers from the truth of the matter, as when you write:
Nereid wrote:
From the rest of your post, would it be reasonable to conclude that it doesn't matter what further observations are done, because any and all are equally good (because there's nothing quantitative to test)?
Also, surely the answer to your question ("Do any of the abundant observations and measurements since the space age began falsify the EU hypothesis?") would be something like this, wouldn't it?: since the EU hypothesis is not quantitative, no measurement or observation could falsify it, even in principle.
That last sentence is going to irritate a lot of folks. When you find a corner of the universe that is not dominated by the signature of electromagnetic emissions and high energy electric discharge, you will have a foothold for a counterargument to the EU. The quantitative tests are being carried out every day. The raw data
are quantitative, up to a level that categorically precludes what was an undeniable assumption of orthodox astronomy prior to the space age. Radio sources in space are confirmed and quantified. It was engineers who built the first radio telescopes and astonished astronomers with their findings. X-ray sources are confirmed and quantified, thanks to electrical engineers. (As electrical engineers understand, nothing in nature compares with the efficiency of electric fields in generating X-rays.) Synchrotron radiation in space is quantified. It was predicted by Hannes Alfvén, but the astronomical community was certainly not looking for it. Acceleration of charged particles to nearly the speed of light was never expected, and only electric fields can accomplish that feat.
In the hope of communication, I'll rephrase my earlier challenge to you, Nereid. Consider Hannes Alfvén and Sydney Chapman pondering the universe in 1950 and for the following sixty years. Which one will have had to change his mind a thousand times? To me the question seems incredibly simple. Sydney Chapman, expressing disdain for Alfvén's predecessor Kristian Birkeland, categorically denied any role of electric currents across interplanetary space, and by extension any currents across interstellar or intergalactic distances. He saw only disconnected islands, such as the earth's ionosphere, with no electric connectivity between Earth and the Sun.
But what is the value today of Chapman's elegant mathematical model of the ionosphere, or his celebrated peer reviewed articles on the subject? If Chapman had been redeemed, discrediting Birkeland and Alfvén, you'd have something to shout about and your last comment would make some sense. But the space age took science in a radically different direction, and it is still doing so. The opportunity to falsify the electric universe hypothesis as a whole has been categorically lost due to decades of discovery. What remains is the opportunity to falsify discrete components of the hypothesis, such as the electric sun, electric comet, or electrical scarring of planets and moons. I certainly won't have the time to match your abundant posting here, but this, again, is why I'd really like to see us proceed with the debate on the electric Sun. That's a reasonable starting point for a focused discussion based on things that
are now known, something our readers are eagerly awaiting.