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.
OPPS!
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.
Posts
3 comments:
One often cited example (by EU proponents), where EU ‘theory’ is leading towards useful technologies, is debunked-Plasma-Cosmology-theorist Eric Lerner’s: ‘Focus Fusion Society (FFS)’.
I have witnessed EU proponents stating that Lerner has taken his Cosmological theories and applied them to fusion research as an alternative energy source. So, the implication is that if the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) experiment/venture is successful, this would then validate Lerner’s visions of a plasma based cosmology.
But alas, due to the lack of logical connections involved in the argument, I find this to be yet another good example of the principle:
"Joe is really smart and invented 'X', and he believes 'Y'. Therefore 'Y' must be true."
I’m sure that the theoretical physics underpinning the Dense Plasma Focus apparatus is derived from legitimate mainstream plasma physical theory, but does this in any way validate Lerner’s views on Plasma Cosmology ?
Are we to be ‘Technomystified’ by the EU notion that because he can create a momentary ‘plasmoid’, (courtesy of a plasma gun, precision engineered from first physics principles), which then somewhat resembles a photograph of a quasar in an AGN core, we are then supposed to believe’ that this then validates Plasma Cosmology, which therefore represents reality ?
Luckily I’m not just a ‘believer’ !
Regards.
I've followed some reports about FFS (A Step Closer To Cheap Nuclear Fusion). Considering how incomplete Lerner's papers are on cosmic nucleosynthesis in a plasma model, I really wonder about the chances for success.
Siggy_G's A Response to Tom Bridgman
Notice Siggy_G's total evasion of the direct questions I posed. If Siggy_G doubts my information, he certainly has not addressed how it is incorrect beyond having uncomfortable implications for Electric Universe (EU) claims.
Siggy_G seems to think my queries were EU specific. If he followed claims by the geocentrists, etc. I've talked about here, he might notice that these pseudo-sciences are defended with many of the same rhetorical methods that Siggy_G uses to defend EU. As for claiming that mainstream scientists are funded mythmakers, considering their success rate for producing 'myths' that have testable predictions, and from those 'myths' - technologies, mainstream science is doing just fine. We've yet to see the equivalent from EU 'theorists'. We still haven't seen an orbit calculation, or even a space weather prediction comparable to
Solar Weather Forecasting Gets More Reliable
from EU theorists. And yet space exploration has had all these successes without any of EU's 'science'. And don't try to claim EU could do this if they had millions of dollars in funding. Most of the models now utilized in this process were initially developed and tested on small computer systems and/or shoestring budgets. They had to give reasonable agreement with satellite measurements to justify further development - something EU has still failed to do (see Challenges).
Siggy_G: "When science get to the point where scientists stop asking fundamental questions (or get ridiculed for doing so) or stop revising their models above the detail level, stagnation and magic ad hoc approaches occur."
And you find similar complaints from geocentrists, flat-earthers, biblical creationists, etc. What make EU's claims better than theirs?
Siggy_G: "Provide the technology that is driven by dark energy, dark matter og tiny black holes created at CERN, and there may be some substance to that argument."
Technology based on dark matter & dark energy are irrelevant as many EU theories, such as the Electric Sun, the Peratt Galaxy model, etc., fail based on already established science (including electromagnetism). Siggy_G conveniently ignores the things that we know today were unknown at one time - such as the energy source of stars, the nature of gravity - and that the science behind them are parts of technologies today.
Siggy_G: "Does that mean that I personally need to provide Bridgman that kind of work with successful results for our entire cosmology, before it is a reasonable approach? There have been escalating varifications of current systems at both planetary and cosmic scales."
That's what the mainstream scientists have to do, and they have to publish their algorithms that can make predictions we can compare to measurements. Why do EU 'theorists' and their supporters insist that they not be held to the same standards? What makes EU 'theorists' exempt from those standards?
Post a Comment