Concerning the EU (Electric Universe) Theory

[renormalised (Carl)]

As you all know, there are individuals that have been posting here on various threads about the EU theory, and as you know I and a number of others have been trying to make these people see some sense. Their theories have no verifiable observational evidence at all, and their theories are at best circumstantial.

One of their main quotable scientific figures is Prof Halton Arp, of the Max Planck Institute, in Garching, Germany. He is best noted for his opposition to Big Bang Theory and his own ideas about redshift and quasars. Like a number of these figures, the EU crowd seem to treat them akin to "Scientific Messiahs", sort of leading lights against "mainstream" science.

A few weeks back, just to clarify the situation with regards to Prof Arp's ideas and opinions on the matter, I sent him an email explaining who I was and what I was about to talk about. I gave him some information as to what these people were proclaiming and so forth. I also mentioned to him their use of his own theories and such, in their philosophies.

Today, I got an email from Prof Arp and this is what he had to say...

Dear JCU student,
I think the galaxies start out as very low mass
charged particles.That would certainly be electric
dominated.But I see no evidence for electric
dominated matter on a galaxy scale or cosmic scale
today.
Halton Arp

I believe that is a pretty clear indication of where Prof Arp stands with regards to EU and those that profess in its veracity.

No one would dispute that galaxies start out as low density plasma clouds to begin with....as a matter of fact "mainstream" astrophysics has been saying this for decades....galaxies form from vast clouds of hydrogen and helium (plus a smattering of other elements), which are more or less ionised. It would be safe to assume that there will be very weak magnetic and electrical fields present in such objects. In these early stages, these forces can dominate over gravity, but once the clouds reach their Jeans Mass, gravity takes over completely. However, the EU's contention that electrical forces are the dominant forces that form and shape the universe has no basis for any sound observational or theoretical veracity at all. Especially at galactic and cosmic scales. There are no problems with magnetic or electrical forces being present in certain situations and at different scales and plasmas do play an important part in certain areas of astrophysics.

But to come out and say they (EMF's) are dominant over gravity at all scales and that everything is due to EMF's and plasma interactions is going way too far. Especially when those that profess these theories have little or no understanding of the basic science behind anything in the first place. Which has been made abundantly obvious from the posts here and elsewhere.

I think this post has cleared a few things up.

[CraigS]

That is cool !

Halton Arp is 83 years old and he's still answering emails !!

I'll bet he gets heaps about EU claims, as well.

I reckon that's terrific that we've gotten his perspective on all this.

Thanks, Carl ... very cool.

Cheers

[ngcles]

Hi Carl & All,

Agree Carl and well put mate. Evidence based hypothesise -- the only way to go!

Folks like these, in order to gain support will quite often point out that some of the most important discoveries are made by those who swam against the current (sorry about the pun) which is true.

But, before they gained any real recognition and or support, they had actual evidence to back their claim, or at least provided (as Einstein did) experimental methods to prove their theory which were later undertaken as technology improved and provided support for the theory.

Onya Carl

Best,

Les D

[sjastro]

Thanks for the illuminating information Carl.

It's not surprising that Arp who is also a collaborator of Narlikar repudiates the existence of EM effects at cosmic scales.

It's part of the deception process of EU supporters that anyone who has an opposing view to mainstream science is somehow vindicating EU or PC.

It gives me an idea. Although I know of a few physicists none of them are plasma physicists. The connections might lead me to one.
I'm interested in the opinions of a plasma physicist whether or not they share the same opinion as I have, that plasma science has been hijacked and repackaged into a pseudo-science called EU or PC.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Thanks for the illuminating information Carl.

It's not surprising that Arp who is also a collaborator of Narlikar repudiates the existence of EM effects at cosmic scales.

It's part of the deception process of EU supporters that anyone who has an opposing view to mainstream science is somehow vindicating EU or PC.

It gives me an idea. Although I know of a few physicists none of them are plasma physicists. The connections might lead me to one.
I'm interested in the opinions of a plasma physicist whether or not they share the same opinion as I have, that plasma science has been hijacked and repackaged into a pseudo-science called EU or PC.

Regards

Steven

That'd be awesome !!
Go for it !!



Much appreciated.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Thanks for the illuminating information Carl.

It's not surprising that Arp who is also a collaborator of Narlikar repudiates the existence of EM effects at cosmic scales.

It's part of the deception process of EU supporters that anyone who has an opposing view to mainstream science is somehow vindicating EU or PC.

It gives me an idea. Although I know of a few physicists none of them are plasma physicists. The connections might lead me to one.
I'm interested in the opinions of a plasma physicist whether or not they share the same opinion as I have, that plasma science has been hijacked and repackaged into a pseudo-science called EU or PC.

Regards

Steven

If you can get their opinions it should be very interesting to see what they have to say.

[Octane (Humayun)]

+1 to make this a sticky.

H

[CraigS]

Make that +2
I'm in !

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Carl, you state Dr Arps brief note of electrically dominated matter, but then you go on to state a separate theory for galaxy formation, which is clearly at odds with Arps hypothesis.

"galaxies form from vast clouds of hydrogen and helium "

You know this is misrepresenting his work and theories. Why would you use his quote to then lead into describing standards model which is clearly at odds with his work.

Arp's ejection model is extremely consistent with the galactic plasma z-pinch hypothesis (a plasma gun). It is infact the basis of the research work of E.Lerner and many other focus fusion teams you so often trash here.

Edit: It would be relevant to point out Arps recent published works? Look at the co-coordinator and fellow author lists.
http://www.aspbooks.org/a/volumes/ta...s/?book_id=463
conveniently leave that out Carl?

I'm happy to take note of the differences in hypothesis, but you have clearly misrepresented Arp's hypothesis, by including and confusing standard's coalescing gas model of formation with it. Arps model is ejection.

These distinctions should be made Carl.

It is also important to note that PC/EU regularly acknowledges the role of 'gravity' in comparison to EM in particular scales of matter.

Hannes Alfvén wrote:
"Gravitation is, of course, one of the dominating forces in astrophysics . However, as electromagnetic forces are stronger by a factor of 1039, gravitation is important only when electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case for large bodies. In our solar system, gravitational forces do not seem to be of primary importance in producing high energy phenomena"

EU/PC is well aware of these distinctions, it is an integral part of the theory.

You have either misunderstood the body of work, or seek to misrepresent it.

[CraigS]

G'Day Alex;
Before we get into this ...
Are you related to "Mr. Pressure" ?

Cheers

PS: I was just asking ...
Rattus ??? How rude !!

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Lets have a thread on Arp's actual hypothesis? Markarian is waiting...

[CraigS]

Sorry for interrupting your waiting but Arp's ejection hypothesis was about quasar ejections from AGNs wasn't it ?

And so, Lerner, Arp, Hawkins etc went to a conference in 2008 .. so what ?

I don't see the connection amongst these (other than perhaps Lerner wove his own connection and developed his own hypotheses) ?

Excuse if I'm not as aufait with all this as others, but there are other folk who would like a bit of background.
Ok. I'll be quiet from now on .. gotta go to dinner.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Carl, you state Dr Arps brief note of electrically dominated matter, but then you go on to state a separate theory for galaxy formation, which is clearly at odds with Arps hypothesis.

"galaxies form from vast clouds of hydrogen and helium "

You know this is misrepresenting his work and theories. Why would you use his quote to then lead into describing standards model which is clearly at odds with his work.

Arp's ejection model is extremely consistent with the galactic plasma z-pinch hypothesis (a plasma gun). It is infact the basis of the research work of E.Lerner and many other focus fusion teams you so often trash here.

I'm happy to take note of the differences in hypothesis, but you have clearly misrepresented Arp's hypothesis, by including and confusing standard's coalescing gas model of formation with it. Arps model is ejection.

These distinctions should be made Carl.

It is also important to note that PC/EU regularly acknowledges the role of 'gravity' in comparison to EM in particular scales of matter.

EU/PC is well aware of these distinctions, it is an integral part of the theory.

You have either misunderstood the body of work, or seek to misrepresent it.

Alex, as per usual, you've completely taken everything I have said out of context, added your own brand of BS and come up with an answer that has absolutely no meaning to anything I had posted.

I did not state any hypothesis, of any sort, let alone anything mentioned by Prof Arp in the journals, except for that which has been accepted by all astrophysicists/astronomers for a very long time (including Arp) and it is clear from your response that you haven't a clue about either "mainstream" science, as you would put it, or even his own hypothesis, as you would have us believe it to be.

I am more aware of the science than you are, for the simple reason of the fact it is my area of study....I have been very aware of Prof Arp's work for many years. So trying to come across all intellectual with me won't cut the mustard. Nor will you pull the wool over the eyes of most of the posters here at this site. You have consistently shown from your posts that you have little intention of actually engaging in anything like meaningful debate and are only out to cause controversy and to convert others over to your brand of "reality". And if you deem that a lie, I can easily go and put my hand on the thread over at Thunderbolts where yourself and a number of others talk about this. So, you can't hide behind anything. You have been challenged on any number of occasions to put up or shut up about your EU ramblings and on every occasion you have dodged the questions asked of you. So what is it Alex, either you know about the stuff you're so eager to preach about, or you don't. If you don't, just say so. If you do, where's the answers to our questions...we're waiting.

I've lost patience even talking to you Alex. Quite frankly trying to explain to you where your brand of nonsense is wrong is a seeming waste of time. My time and the time of the others here who have taken that time to write a response when you decide to post.

Do I need to go over to thunderbolts and copy all the posts I, and others, have seen over there decrying anything to do with gravity, accepted theory or anything else you care to like or want to comment on???. Trying to sound all reasonable and open minded Alex only goes to magnify the hypocrisy of your attitude.

As far as misrepresentation is concerned, go read what Prof Arp had wrote there. Do I need to underline the salient points of his email, because it seems you don't understand basic English.

If you can't understand this...."But I see no evidence for electric dominated matter on a galaxy scale or cosmic scale today."....then you have no business even posting anything that you have. You obviously can't understand the meaning to a simple sentence. How do you propose to understand the science, then??.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Sorry for interrupting your waiting but Arp's ejection hypothesis was about quasar ejections from AGNs wasn't it ?

And so, Lerner, Arp, Hawkins etc went to a conference in 2008 .. so what ?

I don't see the connection amongst these (other than perhaps Lerner wove his own connection and developed his own hypotheses) ?

Excuse if I'm not as aufait with all this as other, but there are other folk who would like a bit of background.
Ok. I'll be quiet from now on .. gotta go to dinner.

Cheers

It's a waste of time trying to get anything logical out of him Craig. All you're going to get back is more obfuscation and nonsense.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

A few points to take from this....

1) Carl has now invoked Dr Arp's excellent scientific method, at the same time totally walking all over the theories developed there from. Which one is it?... is Arp a man of solid evidence or not? It's a contradiction.

2) Plasma z-pinch ejection hypothesis compliments Arps hypothesis. This is well known to plasma cosmologists and EU, it is ofcourse discussed in Don Scott's nasa video.

It is actually a feature of Lerner's experiments! look at a z-pinch.

3) Arp and Hawkins seeked to publish and present in a journal in part organised and edited by Lerner. Carls incessant trashing of Lerner is clearly at odds with the respect afforded to him by colleagues, and invitations by ESO (search for lerner).
again it's a contradiction, which one is it? Carls incessant slagging of Lerner is at odds with the funding and selection criteria of ESO, and the fusion community.

Again, i'm happy to explore the differences in hypothesis... i'm also happy that we disagree on hypothesis and reasoning.... but the repeated AdHom slagging only exposes Carls misunderstandings of the body of work.... or at worst a desire to misrepresent it.

In the end, the brighter than layman audience here must not take my word, or Carls... go buy Dr Arp's Seeing Red book and read it for yourself.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

A few points to take from this....

1) Carl has now invoked Dr Arp's excellent scientific method, at the same time totally walking all over the theories developed there from. Which one is it?... is Arp a man of solid evidence or not? It's a contradiction.

2) Plasma z-pinch ejection hypothesis compliments Arps hypothesis. This is well known to plasma cosmologists and EU, it is ofcourse discussed in Don Scott's nasa video.

It is actually a feature of Lerner's experiments! look at a z-pinch.

3) Arp and Hawkins seeked to publish and present in a journal in part organised and edited by Lerner. Carls incessant trashing of Lerner is clearly at odds with the respect afforded to him by colleagues, and invitations by ESO (search for lerner).
again it's a contradiction, which one is it? Carls incessant slagging of Lerner is at odds with the funding and selection criteria of ESO, and the fusion community.

Again, i'm happy to explore the differences in hypothesis... i'm also happy that we disagree on hypothesis and reasoning.... but the repeated AdHom slagging only exposes Carls misunderstandings of the body of work.... or at worst a desire to misrepresent it.

In the end, the brighter than layman audience here must not take my word, or Carls... go buy Dr Arp's Seeing Red book and read it for yourself.

Stop appealing to the popular opinion Alex, your protestations don't wash.

Anyone can go and find out about anything I have posted about Lerner or anyone/anything else for that matter. What I have said is on record and it's up to the others reading this to find out for themselves who is correct in this instance.

I don't need to make a point of everything in order to prove my point.

[shane.mcneil]

For what it's worth, it seems to me that the difficulties in these discussions have more to do with human nature. We naturally tend to defend our cherished world views when they are challenged.

Shane

[renormalised (Carl)]

Yep, you've got that right, Shane. However, this involves a lot more than just human nature and challenged notions. This involves science and the abuse of science by people who have no concept or idea of what the subject means. They have little understanding of how it works and no understanding on the science they believe they have some insight into. But then they think they have some "divine right" to "go tell it to the mountain". They have little or no respect for anyone or anything that is the antithesis of their beliefs and roundly denigrate anyone who doesn't follow the "creed". All you have to do to see this is the case is go and visit their site(s).

It wouldn't surprise me if the founders of this nonsense didn't get it into their heads at some stage to do a "L. Ron Hubbard" and start a religion.

It's halfway there already.

[shane.mcneil]

Yes. So those who accept the "establishment" (if I can call it that) of science and the scientific process, as basically right, will work with in it. But if you don't accept that in the first place then you will feel free to argue outside the scientific method, if that makes sense. It depends a bit on what you accept in the first place.

[xelasnave]

I find it difficult to accept that any person is entitled to a belief that only their view is the correct one... and the saying ...a little knowledge be a dangerous thing... springs to mind. In time one must realize that one knows little and most of what were our facts are not worthy of such qualification.

I find it difficult to accept that some folk believe that their science is infallible and then call any alternative nonsense.... and another saying comes to mind...listen to the dull and the ignorant for they to have a story.

The EU group is little different to any other group...they believe they are right because they have "facts"... they are no different to big bangers who say they have the facts....those facts tell us to believe in many things we can not prove...no one can prove the big bang no more than someone can prove the existence of God... but all camps offer their evidence of absolute proof...the bible or the science does not prove what each believe they have established beyond doubt.

The facts are however all are mere humans and as great and wonderful they believe their knowledge base and scientific approach what we/they know is not that much really...and so who has the right to say they know it all.

One could go to uni all their life and still find they know zip about everything... in fact I feel the more one learns the more one is faced with a realization that we know much less than we originally thought.


Those who hold the standard model up as the correct and the only reasonable view would be well advised to look at some of the notions that the standard model suggest are reasonable. AND while taking such a long look to remember that speculation is not science.. It is easy to uncover areas where the term science is used as authority but in fact a scientific approach was clearly abandoned. Just look at the crap on time travel speculation that is generated by those claiming GR as valid science...GR may be valid science but there are more using it and quoting it than folk who understand it.... and when they speculate upon stupid things they say it is science...no it is not.

the speculation upon what happens inside a black hole seems so reasonable as it is science... but speculation is not science...

Anyways when one argues with passion that their view is the correct one it could point to a careless abandonment of respect for another s point of view and an arrogant belief that they know everything.

I have learn these things by looking hard at the approach of others as well as my own approach.



alex