Consider this comment in a previous thread by EU supporter, Siggy_G, complaining about how I repeatedly emphasize the coupling of science with modern technology:
Siggy_G: The “bundling“ I referred to, as often seen around here: taking all achievements related to technology, the mechanical launch itself, GPS-systems and what not, mentioning that in relation to the standard sun model or big bang cosmology, and labelling it as a confirmation of the model or theory itself. It would be as if Electric Universe proponents should mention all the electric/digital engineering behind practically ALL technology today, including everything used in astrophysics, and bundle it up as a confirmation of the Electric Universe notions... Would that be acceptable?Is Siggy_G claiming that the Newton's laws of motion and gravitation used in predicting the motions of the planets are NOT the same laws of motion used to launch satellites into Earth orbit to distant parts of the solar system?
If that is the case, how does Siggy_G think it is actually done?
If physicists don't use the same knowledge base obtained in the classes we take on theoretical mechanics when they go to work for the flight dynamics division of the various space agencies around the world, WHERE do they get the knowledge to do the trajectory planing for these missions, often years in advance?
As for Siggy_G's 'challenge' to bundle modern technology with EU notions, I invite him to do so, but consider just some of the questions I had to address, and he must face:
1) Where did the “electric/digital” engineering come from? Were iPads, digital cameras, modern home computers, etc., invented with no prior knowledge? Did the inventor have a block of raw materials (silicon, copper, etc) in their garage and one day built a modern cell phone?
2) Where did the semiconductor electronics that are the active components of those devices come from? What knowledge base was needed to make them? Did someone just throw together some raw chemicals in a vat and one day a microprocessor chip came out?
3) What about the materials used to make semiconductors themselves? Were they just some random combination of materials someone thought up in their garage? Are they naturally-occurring? Some are, but most of the semiconductors we use today were designed in the lab. How did we design those semiconductors? Were they just a random combination of chemicals, or was there physics and mathematics that guided the development? If you claim this, cite relevant references.
4) Does Siggy_G know that for years, the first discovered semiconductors were used as crystal diodes (wikipedia: Crystal-diode) in early radio receivers, but no one understood why this material had the non-linear rectification behavior it had? Their electronic characteristics defied explanation by classical (Maxwell) electromagnetism. It would take the development of quantum mechanics to turn the curious properties of semiconductors into a useful tool, and astrophysics provided critical information along the way:
• Scott Rebuttal. III. The Importance of Quantum Mechanics
• More Astrophysics & Quantum Mechanics Connections
Now let's look at Siggy_G's challenge from another direction...
5) How is the use of a CCD camera to take astronomical images proof, or even evidence, of Electric Universe claims?
6) If you want to claim that the use or form of a particular tool is evidence of EU, then what about all the things we learned from astronomical images on photographic film *before* the invention of CCDs?
7) Is film chemistry as proof that the universe is actually chemical? What does that imply for EU?
8) What about all the knowledge we obtained through naked-eye observations for centuries before that, with measurements performed via spider-web reticles?
Without addressing these types of questions, any such construction that Siggy_G proposes is the equivalent of "Joe is really smart and invented 'X', and he believes 'Y'. Therefore 'Y' must be true." Let's make a concrete example by filling in X & Y:
Johannes Kepler discovered the first laws of planetary motion, and also practiced astrology. Therefore astrology must be true.And it is easy to generate even more bizarre examples from the history of science.
I've documented how equations used for computing nuclear reactions in stars are the same equations used in nuclear medicine, the development of nuclear chemistry, nuclear reactors and even nuclear weapons. Why did so many of the researchers involved in the early development of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons also have prior contributions in stellar nuclear astrophysics (individuals such as Enrico Fermi (wikipedia), Edward Teller (wikipedia) and Hans Bethe (wikipedia))?
That's the standard I've used in "Cosmos In Your Pocket". I have been considering a more tutorial-style technical appendix that shows these connections in more detail.
What about the quantum tunneling relationship which Bethe used in 1939 to compute the rate of the p+p->d nuclear reaction, the first step of the proton-proton chain (wikipedia)? Can Siggy_G demonstrate that it is NOT the same quantum relationship which Esaki used in 1950s to develop the tunnel diode (wikipedia)?
Have we seen a similar tracing of the knowledge base of basic electro-magnetism to a concise mathematical model of an electrically powered star? To make an equivalent analysis for the Electric Universe, then Siggy_G would have to demonstrate something like the amount of energy carried by a cosmic scale electric current, sufficient to power the Sun, generates a magnetic field consistent with what we measure for the Sun.
I've already done that (see Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model), and the results weren't encouraging. For Siggy_G to make a truly equivalent EU 'rebuttal', he would essentially have to solve this problem as well as answer the questions I've posed under “Challenges”.
So I invite Siggy_G to write his response, but I'm not holding my breath.