No "streamers"

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
Metryq
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

No "streamers"

Unread post by Metryq » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:08 am

I ran into this on another forum after presenting some information about the EU. I do not subscribe to New Scientist, and I cannot find the letter on the Web site. Anyway, someone else posted:
A letter in this week's New Scientist, 19th January, page 31:

From W.T. Bridgman

Peratt's plasma galaxy model, while an interesting alternative in the 1980s, failed later key observational tests.

The orbiting Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the later Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe found no trace of the spaghetti-like streamers of microwave emission that Peratt predicted would be created by galaxy-powering electric currents. Peratt's models could not reproduce the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background.

And if stars were powered by external electric currents rather than fusion then the accompanying particle fluxes and fields would damage satellites and kill astronauts, which of course is not something we see happening.

Silver Spring, Maryland, US
I'm sure I don't need to pick this one apart for the members of this forum. But "no trace" of spaghetti-like streamers? It seems that every new astro photo is filled with filaments.

CTJG 1986
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: No "streamers"

Unread post by CTJG 1986 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:30 am

Metryq wrote:I ran into this on another forum after presenting some information about the EU. I do not subscribe to New Scientist, and I cannot find the letter on the Web site. Anyway, someone else posted:
A letter in this week's New Scientist, 19th January, page 31:

From W.T. Bridgman

Peratt's plasma galaxy model, while an interesting alternative in the 1980s, failed later key observational tests.

The orbiting Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and the later Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe found no trace of the spaghetti-like streamers of microwave emission that Peratt predicted would be created by galaxy-powering electric currents. Peratt's models could not reproduce the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background.

And if stars were powered by external electric currents rather than fusion then the accompanying particle fluxes and fields would damage satellites and kill astronauts, which of course is not something we see happening.

Silver Spring, Maryland, US
I'm sure I don't need to pick this one apart for the members of this forum. But "no trace" of spaghetti-like streamers? It seems that every new astro photo is filled with filaments.
It is important to note the context here as he is referring to the Cosmic Microwave Background, and in the standard disconnected model the CMB is a separate entity to the vast amounts of plasma filaments that are observed throughout the universe in galactic, nebulae, stellar, etc. structures.

As far as I know, and I could be wrong, I don't think Peratt's model requires any filamentary structure in the CMB, though it does suggest some filamentary structure is more likely than a clean uniformity. Though it's entirely possible there is an underlying filamentary structure to the CMB at a level we simply can't discern yet.

And as far as I know the EU view has no problem with the "uniformity" of the CMB, and raises a number of points in criticism to the standard view that call the entire interpretation of the CMB into question.

There are plasma filaments all over the place out there in space, but like most of the pseudo-scientists that try to "debunk" the EU and PC they just look with a very narrow view at one specific area where those plasma features are not abundant to make red-herring attacks.

Just like that mathematical equation a couple years ago that "debunked" EU theory by showing the Sun's magnetic moment was not enough to hold the solar system together - something the EU has never claimed, they just "debunked" their own made-up bs claims.

We may as well prove the Big Bang theory is wrong by formulating an equation that proves unicorns can't exist... it just makes no sense, but sense is not needed for mainstream defenders doing "debunking" of theories that challenge the dogma.

Edit: note that even the mainstream has observed vast amounts of filamentary structure in the universe lately but rather than seeing it for what it is they have chosen to view it as evidence of "dark matter".

If they could just see dark matter for what it is - electricity - then they could amalgamate "dark energy" and "dark matter" into a single entity, then scratch that out and give it the correct name of Electricity.

From that it would make a good platform to make it easy to right all the other wrongs of modern science.

Cheers,
Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: No "streamers"

Unread post by tayga » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:14 pm

IMO Tom Bridgman will go to the grave denying evidence for EU/PC; he has too much personal capital invested in opposing it to ever engage in a proper argument.

The trick of putting words into your opponent's mouth and then refuting them is called erecting and demolishing a strawman argument. Even in my limited experience I've seen it used time and again to discredit EU/PC.

A while ago we were preoccupied on these boards with trying to answer some of Bridgman's supporters. In retrospect, the decision taken to leave them to their obfuscation has been borne out by the number of academics who have been attracted to the Thunderbolts Project by the weight of the evidence for its arguments.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests