5 ms·

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hy

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hypothesis is not well formed? I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.

m4r35n357 7y ago
He is saying that the only people who preach about the "electric universe" are non-scientists. It really isn't unclear.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  That is a much clearer thesis statement, I think it would’ve been nice to see it in the original comment.
- bananabreakfast 7y ago
  More specifically, non-critical thinkers.
fsloth 7y ago
Yes, I tried to look for materials. I have an MSc in physics. I know what science is supposed to look like and what crackpot stuff looks like. Electric Universe is solidly in the crackpot section. I can expand on this if you like but the "qualitative explanation for humans" would be quite long and not really fit for a short post on this medium.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Well you seem like an authority so I will trust you on that.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    OK you don't sound convinced; let's try another way of putting it. If it were any use, scientists would be using it. They are very practical like that.
    - theaino 7y ago
      > They are very practical like that. Or not. "Science advances one funeral at a time." Related HN discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225
      - m4r35n357 7y ago
        Should I have said "physicists"?
        theaino 7y ago
        It wouldn't help your case since that's a paraphrasing of this quote from Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
        m4r35n357 7y ago
        . . . but only if it _works_, which is the point I was making.
8bitsrule 7y ago
I "recieved [sic] a scientific training" as well, and I choose not to call people names for trying out new ideas. Given the state of cosmology these days, all the questions and recent and unexplained phenomena, an open mind towards new hypotheses (yes, and encouraging following them up with tests ... in a non-snide way) is important. "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from.... Fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." - Sagan
- bananabreakfast 7y ago
  There is an ocean of difference between being open to new ideas and just letting any new concept get your equal mindshare without a compelling reason like evidence. There is a reason no one that is respected talks about these "crackpot" ideas. The established ideas are here because they survived decades of trying to be proved wrong but they survive since they fit observed nature. New ideas are just that: new. When someone introduces a new type of database HN doesn't say "why won't people take new ideas with an open mind??", they say "SQL works and has been proven. You have to prove your new idea is better before I'll use it." Exact same concept.
- fsloth 7y ago
  If it quacks like a duck... There are crackpot ideas tightly knit to a group identity like anti-vaccinations, flatearth, and so on. One way to identify crackpots is to look at the idea and figure out is it's presentation more like your CS 101 / physics 101 etc course or some nice respected physics paper, or more like one of the known looney scenes - flatearth, antivaxx, Meyers Briggs, Scientology etc. Then there are the lone looneys. If you don't know what they are talking about - at all - it's best to do some cursory education in the field using some or the other open university resources. So, rule of thumb - look what an anti-vaxx scene looks like, look what a physics basic course looks like, and figure out is it more like one or the other. Stuff that looks like some other looney stuff usually is looney stuff as well. Saying looney for a looney is completely different from disregarding new valid ideas. An example of a borderline case is the 'reactionleas thruster' they've been testing around the world. It would be awesome if it worked. It's a new idea, goes completely against physics. But it's has sufficient testing data to at least merit a second look by third parties.

m4r35n357 7y ago

He is saying that the only people who preach about the "electric universe" are non-scientists. It really isn't unclear.

erikpukinskis 7y ago
That is a much clearer thesis statement, I think it would’ve been nice to see it in the original comment.
bananabreakfast 7y ago
More specifically, non-critical thinkers.

fsloth 7y ago

Yes, I tried to look for materials. I have an MSc in physics. I know what science is supposed to look like and what crackpot stuff looks like. Electric Universe is solidly in the crackpot section. I can expand on this if you like but the "qualitative explanation for humans" would be quite long and not really fit for a short post on this medium.

erikpukinskis 7y ago
Well you seem like an authority so I will trust you on that.
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  OK you don't sound convinced; let's try another way of putting it. If it were any use, scientists would be using it. They are very practical like that.
  - theaino 7y ago
    > They are very practical like that. Or not. "Science advances one funeral at a time." Related HN discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225
    - m4r35n357 7y ago
      Should I have said "physicists"?
      - theaino 7y ago
        It wouldn't help your case since that's a paraphrasing of this quote from Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
        m4r35n357 7y ago
        . . . but only if it _works_, which is the point I was making.

8bitsrule 7y ago

I "recieved [sic] a scientific training" as well, and I choose not to call people names for trying out new ideas. Given the state of cosmology these days, all the questions and recent and unexplained phenomena, an open mind towards new hypotheses (yes, and encouraging following them up with tests ... in a non-snide way) is important. "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from.... Fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." - Sagan

bananabreakfast 7y ago
There is an ocean of difference between being open to new ideas and just letting any new concept get your equal mindshare without a compelling reason like evidence. There is a reason no one that is respected talks about these "crackpot" ideas. The established ideas are here because they survived decades of trying to be proved wrong but they survive since they fit observed nature. New ideas are just that: new. When someone introduces a new type of database HN doesn't say "why won't people take new ideas with an open mind??", they say "SQL works and has been proven. You have to prove your new idea is better before I'll use it." Exact same concept.
fsloth 7y ago
If it quacks like a duck... There are crackpot ideas tightly knit to a group identity like anti-vaccinations, flatearth, and so on. One way to identify crackpots is to look at the idea and figure out is it's presentation more like your CS 101 / physics 101 etc course or some nice respected physics paper, or more like one of the known looney scenes - flatearth, antivaxx, Meyers Briggs, Scientology etc. Then there are the lone looneys. If you don't know what they are talking about - at all - it's best to do some cursory education in the field using some or the other open university resources. So, rule of thumb - look what an anti-vaxx scene looks like, look what a physics basic course looks like, and figure out is it more like one or the other. Stuff that looks like some other looney stuff usually is looney stuff as well. Saying looney for a looney is completely different from disregarding new valid ideas. An example of a borderline case is the 'reactionleas thruster' they've been testing around the world. It would be awesome if it worked. It's a new idea, goes completely against physics. But it's has sufficient testing data to at least merit a second look by third parties.