Mar 28, 2013
Astronomical research in the virtual realm instigates foregone conclusions.
“It is only because the majority opinion will always be opposed by some that our knowledge and understanding progress.”
— Friedrich Hayek
The most important issue separating the Electric Universe from conventional views is that evidence based in laboratory experiments can be used to support EU theories of cosmogony and cosmology. The mainstream sinks its foundations in ground where computer models and complex equations are used for support. It is this philosophical divergence that inhibits the general acceptance of plasma and electricity as active agents in space.
The Thunderbolts Picture of the Day does not consider questions that involve the search for subjective meaning in the Universe. It is enough in most instances to draw correspondence between the theories proposed in peer-reviewed journals and those embodied in Electric Universe hypotheses. The so-called “anomalies” in consensus opinions tend to disappear in most cases when EU theory is brought to bear on the questions.
This begs the question: “What is truth?” In the “correspondence view” of truth, any statement is true if it corresponds to factual reality. An assertion such as “there is a bird in that tree” is true only if there is “actually” a bird there. In this case, the corollary is not true. Saying “there is no bird in the tree” does not correspond to a true condition of fact when the bird is resting amidst the foliage.
The correspondence view requires that statements can be proven false if they disagree with “real” conditions. The EU hypothesis rests its premises in that foundation, so there is no mention of the beginning of things—no speculation into the origin of the Universe or where the energy comes from that sustains it.
The Electric Universe approach is to offer speculations into the nature of phenomena that often run counter to those concepts elucidated by the majority. Paul Feyerabend, a gifted philosopher of science, and author of Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge wrote:
“Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient, or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is comparable with a humanitarian outlook.”
In that light, viewpoints such as an electronic Sun, rather than a nuclear powered fusion reactor; electrical scarring on planets and moons, rather than meteorite bombardment or fluvial and aeolian processes; solid bodies born from stellar objects through electrodynamic expulsion, rather than gravitationally compressed dusty whirlpools are some of the contrary opinions provided by those who advocate an electromagnetically active cosmos, not one that operates through gravity and kinetics alone.
Karl Popper once said: “Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”