5 ms·

Electric Universe Theory has non-mainstream coherent and sensible explanations for these type of phenomena. Any HN users well versed in it's explanations? Bee

Electric Universe Theory has non-mainstream coherent and sensible explanations for these type of phenomena. Any HN users well versed in it's explanations? Been reading up on it lately and I'd like to discuss.

slater 11y ago
Sounds like woo.
- NobleLie 11y ago
  As much as I was hesitant to question many things taught to me as truth in my physics, electrodynamics and quantum mechanics courses, I did. And was surprised. Some of it just doesn't corroborate with physical observations. I'm obviously not saying it's all wrong; that's stupendous foolish. But you should be more open to it instead of typing three words of dismissal. "One can acquire certainty only by amputating inquiry" Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky
  - kjs3 11y ago
    "There some flaw in an otherwise well tested and understood theory, so let's give credence to an unsupported and discredited conjecture that ignores all the other theories proven virtues." That's pretty much the definition of 'woo' right there.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
> Electric Universe Theory has non-mainstream coherent and sensible explanations for these type of phenomena. What type of phenomena? "Unexpected stuff"?
- NobleLie 11y ago
  EU theory contains a lot of supposed explanations. I do it injustice (as do themselves) by labelling it as one all encompassing theory. It becomes easier to dismiss as a whole since not every single thing presented under the umbrella might be truthful. That being said, here's one that you might benefit from thinking about. The modern explanation of redshift from astronomical bodies seems just plain wrong. Why? There are large currents of plasma which are observed to connect two objects whose measured redshift (according to mainstream astrophysics) would put them at different sections of the universe. Since we use redshift to make assumptions about the nature of spacetime, the big bang and an accelerating, expanding universe; the latter invoking necessary dark matter and dark energy (a purely theoretical, abstract idea by scientists which might never be found experimentally) this point deserves more credence than other points which fall under EU.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    OK, but what in all of that explains shiny spots on Ceres, as asserted in your parent post?
  - gliptic 11y ago
    Do you have a citation for this supposed redshift failure?
    - NobleLie 11y ago
      Sure. http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/525/2/594/fulltext/39505.text.html http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/525/2/594/fulltext/39505...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
david-given 11y ago
Here's a laundry list of problems with EU: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.ch/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.ch/p/chall... (At a cursory glance it looks valid, despite the domain name.)
- NobleLie 11y ago
  Thanks for the link. Checking it out now. Anyway, after around 5 to 10 hours of investigative reading on EU, it seems quite worthy to think about/ follow up on. At the minimum it's become quite apparent that the Astronomical Standard Model has plenty of spots which are expressed as truth, when there are real problems with observation. I'm not even claiming EU is going to better, but staunch supporters do highlight some interesting inconsistencies and seemingly misguided judgements of modern astronomers. That's not to say their own pet theories are bound to be better though.
ceejayoz 11y ago
Mainstream science has coherent and sensible explanations for these type of phenomena, namely "ice has high albedo", that don't require a bunch of woo.
- kaybe 11y ago
  Probably rather "Fresnel equations" and "interestingly shaped surfaces", along with "fluorescence". (In the older gif, the spots stay bright even on the night side of the planet.)
teraflop 11y ago
Given that you seem to be the only one in this thread who has read about this theory and takes it seriously, why don't you tell us how it explains these bright spots? Otherwise there's not much here to discuss. The Wikipedia article on "plasma cosmology" doesn't make it seem particularly relevant.
_rpd 11y ago
It's a crank theory. Don't waste your time. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
FeepingCreature 11y ago
To downvoters: While EU is almost certainly nonsense, keep in mind that cranks are the people who would be most interested in finding flaws in the standard models, so if those flaws exist, one might well hear them from cranks, even if their own models are far worse. If you look at this, don't look at it to become more certain in EU, look at it to potentially become less certain in the standard model. Flaws are points of confusion we can mine for novel insight.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Unfortunately, cranks have a serious signal vs. noise problem. Even if they blunder into a correct answer, it's difficult to tell.

slater 11y ago

Sounds like woo.

NobleLie 11y ago
As much as I was hesitant to question many things taught to me as truth in my physics, electrodynamics and quantum mechanics courses, I did. And was surprised. Some of it just doesn't corroborate with physical observations. I'm obviously not saying it's all wrong; that's stupendous foolish. But you should be more open to it instead of typing three words of dismissal. "One can acquire certainty only by amputating inquiry" Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky
- kjs3 11y ago
  "There some flaw in an otherwise well tested and understood theory, so let's give credence to an unsupported and discredited conjecture that ignores all the other theories proven virtues." That's pretty much the definition of 'woo' right there.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

> Electric Universe Theory has non-mainstream coherent and sensible explanations for these type of phenomena. What type of phenomena? "Unexpected stuff"?

NobleLie 11y ago
EU theory contains a lot of supposed explanations. I do it injustice (as do themselves) by labelling it as one all encompassing theory. It becomes easier to dismiss as a whole since not every single thing presented under the umbrella might be truthful. That being said, here's one that you might benefit from thinking about. The modern explanation of redshift from astronomical bodies seems just plain wrong. Why? There are large currents of plasma which are observed to connect two objects whose measured redshift (according to mainstream astrophysics) would put them at different sections of the universe. Since we use redshift to make assumptions about the nature of spacetime, the big bang and an accelerating, expanding universe; the latter invoking necessary dark matter and dark energy (a purely theoretical, abstract idea by scientists which might never be found experimentally) this point deserves more credence than other points which fall under EU.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  OK, but what in all of that explains shiny spots on Ceres, as asserted in your parent post?
- gliptic 11y ago
  Do you have a citation for this supposed redshift failure?
  - NobleLie 11y ago
    Sure. http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/525/2/594/fulltext/39505.text.html http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/525/2/594/fulltext/39505...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

david-given 11y ago

Here's a laundry list of problems with EU: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.ch/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.ch/p/chall... (At a cursory glance it looks valid, despite the domain name.)

NobleLie 11y ago
Thanks for the link. Checking it out now. Anyway, after around 5 to 10 hours of investigative reading on EU, it seems quite worthy to think about/ follow up on. At the minimum it's become quite apparent that the Astronomical Standard Model has plenty of spots which are expressed as truth, when there are real problems with observation. I'm not even claiming EU is going to better, but staunch supporters do highlight some interesting inconsistencies and seemingly misguided judgements of modern astronomers. That's not to say their own pet theories are bound to be better though.

ceejayoz 11y ago

Mainstream science has coherent and sensible explanations for these type of phenomena, namely "ice has high albedo", that don't require a bunch of woo.

kaybe 11y ago
Probably rather "Fresnel equations" and "interestingly shaped surfaces", along with "fluorescence". (In the older gif, the spots stay bright even on the night side of the planet.)

teraflop 11y ago

Given that you seem to be the only one in this thread who has read about this theory and takes it seriously, why don't you tell us how it explains these bright spots? Otherwise there's not much here to discuss. The Wikipedia article on "plasma cosmology" doesn't make it seem particularly relevant.

_rpd 11y ago

It's a crank theory. Don't waste your time. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

FeepingCreature 11y ago

To downvoters: While EU is almost certainly nonsense, keep in mind that cranks are the people who would be most interested in finding flaws in the standard models, so if those flaws exist, one might well hear them from cranks, even if their own models are far worse. If you look at this, don't look at it to become more certain in EU, look at it to potentially become less certain in the standard model. Flaws are points of confusion we can mine for novel insight.

ceejayoz 11y ago
Unfortunately, cranks have a serious signal vs. noise problem. Even if they blunder into a correct answer, it's difficult to tell.