Electric Universe

Originally Posted by river
It remains because mainstream science is more established and has more money
Click to expand...

No, it remains mainstream, because nothing as yet has invalidated any part of GR including BHs, and any potential new theory, so far has not been able to "run the gauntlet " and stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Oh there has been theories , such as Cosmic Plasmas , that have challenged the mainstream thinking but they get no time , funds etc.

Nor respect

Perhaps there will come a day when a University is funded with state of the art observational equipment and labs and journals dedicated to sound alternative theories
 
river said:
Oh there has been theories , such as Cosmic Plasmas , that have challenged the mainstream thinking but they get no time , funds etc.

Nor respect

Perhaps there will come a day when a University is funded with state of the art observational equipment and labs and journals dedicated to sound alternative theories
Click to expand...



And neither should they get the time, respect, or money if they have failed in [1] Showing experimental and/or observational evidence that the incumbent model is in error [just one instance will do!] and [2] They have failed to match all the present observations and tests that would be necessary to be accepted.
 
Funny Rivers, in my time in haunting [:) ] science forums, I have been called a mainstream patsy and cheer-leader for the establishment, and alternatively called an unrealistic Imaginative crackpot with ideas far in excess of what can logically be expected.

Funny that, don't you think?
 
Originally Posted by river
Oh there has been theories , such as Cosmic Plasmas , that have challenged the mainstream thinking but they get no time , funds etc.

Nor respect

Perhaps there will come a day when a University is funded with state of the art observational equipment and labs and journals dedicated to sound alternative theories
Click to expand...



paddoboy said:
And neither should they get the time, respect, or money if they have failed in [1] Showing experimental and/or observational evidence that the incumbent model is in error [just one instance will do!] and [2] They have failed to match all the present observations and tests that would be necessary to be accepted.
Click to expand...

How do you know these theories failed if they don't get all that mainstream gets in all aspects of research ?
 
river said:
This is based in 2009

The video is in march 2013
Click to expand...

So???
The link I gave was refuting Plasma/Electric Universe hypothesis, which has been hanging around for at least 2 decades.
Crother's video as you say, is taken this year, but the mathematics I presume is the same old rehash stuff which has previously been invalidated.



Dr. Jason Sharples has published a paper in 'Progress in Physics', “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension: a Rebuttal to the Relativistic Claims of Stephen J. Crothers” which points out some of the many strange errors that Stephen J. Crothers makes in his somewhat bizarre interpretation of relativity. I've written some on this topic already (See "Some Preliminary Comments on Crothers' Relativity Claims").
 
paddoboy said:
So???
The link I gave was refuting Plasma/Electric Universe hypothesis, which has been hanging around for at least 2 decades.
Crother's video as you say, is taken this year, but the mathematics I presume is the same old rehash stuff which has previously been invalidated.
Click to expand...

You PRESUME
 
river said:
Doesn't work
Click to expand...

You're to scientifically illiterate to know what works and what doesn't work. The stuff you support is crank bullshit river. Quit posting it in the science threads. The Electric Universe is crank bullshit. You must love bullshit nonsense.
 
river said:
How do you know these theories failed if they don't get all that mainstream gets in all aspects of research ?
Click to expand...
The funding excuse doesn't work. Einstein wrote four groundbreaking masterpieces while working as a patent examiner. He didn't have funding; he didn't even have a job in the scientific community. His papers were accepted for publication and adopted as the new paradigms because they worked.

There's something you (all crackpots actually) really don't get about scientists: they all want to be rock stars. Every one of them daydreams about making the big breakthrough discovery that changes the face of known science. Like Einstein. That's why there is no dogma in science; everyone is constantly trying to find something new. Crackpots see dogma when in reality there is constant attempts to change.

GR is accepted because it has produced real results. Electric universe is rejected because it doesn't take a very deep look into it to see that it is nonsense. It isn't a matter of funding, it is a matter of merit.
 
Last edited:
river said:
Try this site

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html
Click to expand...

As I previously said, I did read Eric J Lerner's book, 'The BB never happened"
It was properly refuted by an astronomer on another forum and a GR expert, and this just appears as a rehash.

The point is [1] It does nothing to refute current cosmology [2] It offers no direct observational evidence or experimental results that invalidates current cosmology [3] It has been considered, peer reviewed and subsequently passed over for the cosmology that is currently accepted and matches all existing criteria far better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top