Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I claimed that EM fields cause plasma acceleration, I can demonstrate that claim in a lab, and tell you how to generate EM fields from stuff you'll find at Walmart to test that idea in the lab. How do I generate "dark energy" and how do I get it to accelerate even a single electron in a lab?
And that's my fault somehow? Most of them haven't read Alfven's work, or Birkeland's work either. Is that my fault too?
What exactly makes them 'authorities' or 'experts' when they can't even name a single source of dark energy, and their 'standard candle' claims have been falsified by later date? If they're 'experts' on dark matter, why have dark matter models failed every single lab test done over past decade?
You're comparing empirical tangible physics to hypothetical mumbo jumbo.
Imagine your doctor telling you that the only thing that can help you is some invisible magical energy that is contained in these invisible pill that he wants you to take every day? Oh, and by the way the cost 1000 bucks each. Would you take them and take him at his word that they exist and hand over your cash?
It's clearly your choice of course, but I'm not just "one guy". EU/PC theory is a growing community, and I'm simply one member of that growing community. It's not me against the scientific world as you seem to think.
So there goes Einstein, Darwin, and pretty much everyone that's changed the scientific world. You'd always be behind the curve, and always wrong, mainly because you're basing your opinions on an appeal to authority fallacy, not physics.
That's fine by me. It seems to me that the harsh scrutiny of science has pretty much devastated Lambda-CDM over the past decade. The walls are starting to crumble. Empirical physics has always trumped metaphysical nonsense over the long haul and I'm a patient guy.
What I don't understand however is why you're embracing empirical physics in the realm of modern medicine, and simply rejecting it with a handwave in favor of metaphysics with respect to astronomy.
Your commitment isn't to empirical physics, it's to "group think".
Unfortunately astronomy has a long history of being wrong, and *eventually* figuring it out, usually decades or centuries later.
It took the mainstream over 60 years to figure out that Birkeland was right about aurora. At the rate they are going, it will take them another 100 years to figure out he was right about solar physics. The mainstream still can't explain things that Birkeland actually *predicted* via empirical lab tested physics.
It took four years for General Relativity to be experimentally confirmed, if you leave aside the fact that it had already accounted for the anomalous orbit of Mercury. Special Relativity may have been ignored at first, but it took only until the following year before Max Planck's eyes fell upon it, and from then on it was generally accepted.
So when are we going to see your name up in lights, eh Michael?
The same way you generate gravity in a "lab".
I hope your lab is large enough to accommodate a universe, and I hope your name is God.
I guess you didn't get the sarcasm.
I was making half a joke. I was sarcastically implying that "if they read your work, they surely agree with it" and since the mainstream doesn't seem to impressed by "the electric universe", or whatever it is, that would lead to the conclusion that they must not have read it either.
pfffffffffff come on dude.....
This is like saying "if doctors are 'authorities' or 'experts' then why can't they cure AIDS?"
Again, I'm not a physicist nore a cosmologist. And while I find it a very interesting subject, I don't understand most of it.
And I see no reason to believe a random guy on the internet when he tells me that "all mainstream cosmologists are wrong and I'm right".
It's not me you need to convince.... it's those mainstream cosmologists.
That would be a reason for me to accept your ideas.
I'm not qualified to evaluate your ideas, nore am I particularly interested.
If you wish to reach me, you'll have to do it like every other scientist has to do it: facing the community and convincing THEM.
There's nothing hypothetical about a guy going against the mainstream.
And there's certainly nothing hypothetical about "alternative medicine".
It's funny how you first incorrectly say that I'm using hypotheticals and then you ask me something like this........
Perhaps it's you who should stick to examples of reality.
Well, poke me when your "growing community" is simply "the community".
Errrrrrrrr..... no.
I explicitly stated that it would be irrational to accept the views of the minority or the one guy UNLESS these views could actually be demonstrated
- at which point the minority or the one guy would no longer stand alone, as now it has been demonstrated that they were correct.
Nobody took Einstein's, Darwin's or Newton's word for it on faith.
They demanded evidence. And Einstein, Darwin and Newton provided that evidence. And that evidence was then accepted, along with their ideas. And not a second sooner.
Awesome. As always the future (and the evidence) will tell.
I wish you good luck. But again, before it happens........
Surely you can understand that?
I'm not "embracing" anything. Nothing in my life is dependend on whatever the latest hypothesis or theory is on a certain subject of crazy physics.
I'm content letting scientists do their jobs while I enjoy the technological fruits of their labor.
No. My trust (not "commitment" - trust) is in the scientific process.
Yes, it's called "learning".
Yes, yes... the "mainstream" is "stupid"
and only you guys know how everything works. I get it.
FYI, it took the mainstream over 1500 years to catch up to Aristarchus, and then they gave all the credit to Galileo!
Therefor, we should not listen to the mainstream and always go with any and all against-the-mainstream ideas?
Therefore you should appreciate the value of empirical physics over metaphysics, and you should show empirical physics some respect even if it's not 'popular' at the moment.
Why don't you apply that same appeal to popularity fallacy toward the topic of God?
An appeal to scientific consensus is not an appeal to popularity Michael.
It's an appeal to the scientific process.
False. Gravity shows up in the lab, and it's always attractive in nature. What a ridiculous claim.
Funny how you need a giant lab to do what I can do from materials you can pick up at Walmart.
"I can demonstrate that claim in a lab, and tell you how to generate EM fields from stuff you'll find at Walmart"
So let's see you generate a gravitational field from stuff you'll find at Walmart, because that is apparently your test before accepting the reality of something. and in particular dark energy.
Yet that process failed Aristarchus and the rest of humanity miserably for over 1500 years.
We have machines which briefly create black holes, I think.
Um, I don't think Karl Popper had been born at the time. Come to think of it, I don't think peer reviewed journals had been invented yet either. Anachronisms are the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Then why debate me on these ideas at all?
Convincing them can take decades, and sometimes *centuries*. You'll always be having faith in ideas that will eventually be replaced, but maybe only long after your death.
The irony from my perspective is that Birkeland's ideas actually worked in the lab and they're based upon empirical physics. Lambda-CDM is more like "dark voodoo", and your little community believes in dark voodoo, so you're going to reject the empirical physical alternative because it's not 'popular in your tribe yet.
So basically you'd be waiting around for 1500 years to believe Aristarchus of Samos about the virtues of heliocentricity while extolling the virtues of the mainstream epicycles.
But that's the funny part because Birkeland *did* empirically demonstrate his ideas in the lab. The mainstream took Chapmans ideas anyway and lived in ignorance for 6 decades with respect to aurora. They're still living in ignorance with respect to solar physics. Birkekand *predicted* that discharges in the solar atmosphere were hotter than the surface of the sun, and he was correct. The mainstreams explanation however is *still* based upon a claim that Alfven himself called 'pseudoscience' till the day he died, yet the mainstream still uses Alfven's maths to make their claims, while ignorantly ignoring his double layer paper that falsified their claims.
Nobody had to. Nobody has to take EU/PC theory on "faith" either since all it's core tenets work in the lab. On the other hand you need four unique forms of faith to believe in Lambda-magic theory.
I'd understand it if you embraced your same popularity fallacy with respect to the topic of God, just like you do with dark voodoo theory. Since your faith in metaphysics seems to change on a whim based on the topic, no, I don't really understand it.
The only crazy physics is Lambda-CDM. EU/PC theory works in the lab. Your life might be changed by EU/PC theory,
You enjoy the technological fruits of *empirical physics*, not theoretical physics. EU/PC theory is a form of empirical physics. Lambda-CDM is not.
Why? It didn't work for Aristarchus of Samos, or for Birkeland. They never lived to see any of their ideas 'accepted' by the mainstream, even though they were correct. The process failed them miserably, and every human for 1500 years in the case of Aristarchus.
Strawman. I never said that.
What you don't seem to "get" is that your "process" of mainstream acceptance can take over a 1000 years, and therefore you have faith in a flawed process.
You ultimately trust empirical physics not hypothetical physics, but in this particular case you choose to reject empirical physics in favor of four forms of metaphysics.
Um, I hate to state the obvious, but *anything* that you might buy at Walmart will generate a gravitational field.
His faith ultimately amounts to nothing more than an appeal to popularity fallacy
Not if it is going to be powerful enough to be the subject of an experiment in your precious "lab".
No it isn't. It is an appeal to people who spend their lives doing research into astrophysics, and therefore ought to have a better idea what they are talking about than somebody who writes applications software.
It’s quite obvious now from all the blatant errors that Mr. Bridgman made in his last response that he either didn’t actually bother to read Birkeland’s work, or he didn’t understand it at all. Since Mr. Bridgman apparently missed the positive ion flow solution that Birkeland offered in the very quote that Bridgman selected from Birkeland’s work, apparently it’s a comprehension problem rather than pure laziness on Tom’s part. Then again until I see some reference to a mythical second and third solar model that Mr. Bridgman claimed that Birkeland promoted, I’m not sure that Bridgman actually even read Birkeland’s work, let alone read it thoroughly enough to understand it.
That would definitely be Mr. Bridgman, as the NYT article and the very quote that he personally selected demonstrate rather clearly. Birkeland most certainly correctly predicted that the transmutation of elements., now known as fusion, was the power source of the sun. He also correctly predicted a constant positive ion flow from the sun which allowed for/facilitated the discharge process to continue over extended periods of time. Mr. Bridgman simply stuck his own foot in his mouth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?