9 ms·

If you find things like this interesting I suggest you look on youtube for videos on the electric universe. The main take is that our current models having gra

If you find things like this interesting I suggest you look on youtube for videos on the electric universe. The main take is that our current models having gravity as the main driving force shaping our universe is a misunderstanding - hence rejecting the idea of dark matter / dark energy that was "invented" to make for math for gravity work with the observations of expansion.

Jweb_Guru 7y ago
Despite the similar name, dark matter really has very little to do with dark energy, and the lines of evidence for them are totally different. AFAIK there is fairly overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter at this point, and it's mostly a question of what exactly it is rather than whether the effect is real.
- briantakita 7y ago
  Dr. Anthony Perat, protege of Hannes Alfven, has a cosmological model based on plasma, which is observable & subject to physically reproducible experiments & replaces the need for both Dark Matter & Dark Energy as mathematical artifacts. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Peratt/dp/1461478189 https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Perat...
d2v 7y ago
... you mean this? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-...
_bohm 7y ago
It should be noted that among cosmologists, electric universe is widely considered to be bunk science.
- briantakita 7y ago
  And Plasma Physicists think that "dark matter", "dark energy", & the assertion of gravity (ignoring plasma) being the dominant force in the Univese is mathematics without physical evidence. Thus "pathological science". Irving Langmuir, discoverer of the double layer effect in plasmas & coined the term "plasma" physics, came up with the definition of "Pathological Science". He was also around during the birth of the "Standard Model". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    They may feel that way, but the difference is that standard cosmology is a highly-successful predictive model consistent with all popular physical theories, while plasma cosmology is proposing physically unlikely phenomena that have never been observed, interpreting prehistoric art for 'observations', and fails to account for many modern observations. It's perhaps not as bad as the so-called electric universe, but it is certainly a much more likely example of pathological science than standard cosmology is.
    - briantakita 7y ago
      Good luck finding physical evidence of "dark matter" & "dark energy" then. How many more billions will need to be spent chasing windmills? We already have the equations from Oliver Heaviside & James Maxwell, btw. But have fun playing math games with no physically reproducible experiments.
      - tsimionescu 7y ago
        Maxwell's equations won't help you understand how time works, so you can't run a successful GPS, for example. They also don't explain why stars introduce le sing effects. Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are indeed a wrong conclusion - Sabine Hofstadter, to take a mainstream scientist, thinks so as well, and proposes some explanations that don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Either way, physics thrives when we have observations which don't match our theories, and the only thing we can do to bring them closer is to experiment. If a paradigm shift turns out to be necessary, then it should happen once the new paradigm is actually capable of explaining at least most (if not all) of the currently understood phenomena. For example, special relativity was perfectly in line with Newtonian mechanics, and could be used to derive the same conclusions for planet motion that Newton had painstakingly measured 400 years ago. If it hadn't been consistent with those (and with Maxwell's equations) than it would have never been accepted. And in fact, it wasn't entirely accepted until one of its more outlandish predictions - gravitational lensing - was observed experimentally, not just in general lines, but down to the actual measurement predicted by the maths.
tsimionescu 7y ago
Unfortunately, electric universe can't explain anything, as it is not a mathematical model, and it doesn't account for the vast majority of observations successfully predicted by relativity - especially gravitational le sing and time dilation.

Jweb_Guru 7y ago

Despite the similar name, dark matter really has very little to do with dark energy, and the lines of evidence for them are totally different. AFAIK there is fairly overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter at this point, and it's mostly a question of what exactly it is rather than whether the effect is real.

briantakita 7y ago
Dr. Anthony Perat, protege of Hannes Alfven, has a cosmological model based on plasma, which is observable & subject to physically reproducible experiments & replaces the need for both Dark Matter & Dark Energy as mathematical artifacts. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Peratt/dp/1461478189 https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Perat...

d2v 7y ago

... you mean this? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-...

_bohm 7y ago

It should be noted that among cosmologists, electric universe is widely considered to be bunk science.

briantakita 7y ago
And Plasma Physicists think that "dark matter", "dark energy", & the assertion of gravity (ignoring plasma) being the dominant force in the Univese is mathematics without physical evidence. Thus "pathological science". Irving Langmuir, discoverer of the double layer effect in plasmas & coined the term "plasma" physics, came up with the definition of "Pathological Science". He was also around during the birth of the "Standard Model". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  They may feel that way, but the difference is that standard cosmology is a highly-successful predictive model consistent with all popular physical theories, while plasma cosmology is proposing physically unlikely phenomena that have never been observed, interpreting prehistoric art for 'observations', and fails to account for many modern observations. It's perhaps not as bad as the so-called electric universe, but it is certainly a much more likely example of pathological science than standard cosmology is.
  - briantakita 7y ago
    Good luck finding physical evidence of "dark matter" & "dark energy" then. How many more billions will need to be spent chasing windmills? We already have the equations from Oliver Heaviside & James Maxwell, btw. But have fun playing math games with no physically reproducible experiments.
    - tsimionescu 7y ago
      Maxwell's equations won't help you understand how time works, so you can't run a successful GPS, for example. They also don't explain why stars introduce le sing effects. Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are indeed a wrong conclusion - Sabine Hofstadter, to take a mainstream scientist, thinks so as well, and proposes some explanations that don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Either way, physics thrives when we have observations which don't match our theories, and the only thing we can do to bring them closer is to experiment. If a paradigm shift turns out to be necessary, then it should happen once the new paradigm is actually capable of explaining at least most (if not all) of the currently understood phenomena. For example, special relativity was perfectly in line with Newtonian mechanics, and could be used to derive the same conclusions for planet motion that Newton had painstakingly measured 400 years ago. If it hadn't been consistent with those (and with Maxwell's equations) than it would have never been accepted. And in fact, it wasn't entirely accepted until one of its more outlandish predictions - gravitational lensing - was observed experimentally, not just in general lines, but down to the actual measurement predicted by the maths.

tsimionescu 7y ago

Unfortunately, electric universe can't explain anything, as it is not a mathematical model, and it doesn't account for the vast majority of observations successfully predicted by relativity - especially gravitational le sing and time dilation.