I only recently found about this modern physics theory of Electric Universe, wow! this is incredible racional theory. For me this is eyes opener, also maybe it will be for you.
??? What you are talking about?
Youtube chanel on the subject:
There are no Black Holes, no Travel in Time, no Big Bang, no Expanding Universe and other hypothetical phenomena of modern physics.
New leap for mankind in understanding Universe!
Wallace Thornhill: The Elegant Simplicity of the Electric Universe
This is stupid in the first place.
But what makes you really really stupid is that you think posting this in an OS development forum makes sense.
If this is an example of your thinking … well.
No, I find this theory very reasonable.
If you like say otherwise, give some examples of some stupid things in there.
So helpful, thanks for that post - nice.
Does this mean that one day the world will be run by those electro-engineery-type ppls?
Probably yes,… those types make computers, you know.
I think this is a old struggle between theorists and practitioners.
They must work together, and best if the theorist and the practitioner are the same person.
This is real science.
What would you say is the most convincing paper from a peer reviewed journal?
I don’t understand what you say. Can you rephrase in other words?
The world has past the line where computers will run the world in the future!!!
Scientific journals publish the papers sent in by scientists where they detail their findings. In order to be published these papers have to pass the scrutiny of other scientists in that field (that’s the “peer review”).
While no a perfect process. It usually weeds out the most crackpot ideas.
And what they do if they do not have “scientists in that field”?
I can answer — they do what would do any bureaucrat in that position: say “no”, because there is no place for that new thing in his established bureocratic system of what is known. And pure theoriatician is in the trap of his own theories, only practice can tell what is true, not teoretical discusion or some autority.
The field is physics and maybe cosmology(?).
Anyway, pretty much the expected response. So… Bye.
Basics ideas of the Electric Universe theory in one hour:
WAL THORNHILL ON THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE
Don’t take me bad, computer science stand to math like experimental physics to theoretical one, so that’s just an habit to raise doubts.
I wanted to note as premise, I tried to find informations about this guy, and “unexpectly” I found his book on sale for 250€ (and another for 184€). So this is just the best preamble for a serious scientist. Other than that no relevant publications on any academic site. Isn’t it enough to evaluate the true intentions of this person? Do you think Einstein sold the Quantum Theory of Light for 250$ on amazon?.
Tomorrow I can write a book, because I think there are no blackholes and god is a pizza maker. Do you know that dark matter is in reality just bechamel, and the dimensions are just the layers of pasta between that.
In the end, what matters is that my theory is able to explain things scientifically, and for scientifically I mean Galileo Galilei formulation of the scientific method.
Now look yourself around and see how many theories like that you can find.
Some people tend to confuse Believe with Knowledge. Only first can be enforced with blind authority, second only by looking, learning and understanding. And only real knowledge can be based on real facts.
And here are real prices on books:
…And, be reasonable, do not criticize what you do not know.
The book price I see on Amazon is obviously inflated. But you still fail to take the whole point of my comment. Trust me I’m not the believer here.
Each time a new theory make a statement, like “there are not black holes”, this theory will have to face out with thousands of counterexamples. There is a handful of theories out there that claims to explain things, and I’m even talking about more accepted theories like the strings theory, so I understand you may be fascinated by this theory, but I invite you to look more forward.
It’s not like the International System (that by the way is modeled around proven physics) exists because some old academic wanted to blind our eyes with a false vision of the world.
It’s just there’s a process of acceptance and proof of theories. If a theory is ignored by the scientific community, there’s a high chance this is just philosophy.
Every theory needs to have predictive value to be considered a theory. What does this theory predict, that is testable, that existing theories do not predict?
This is the difference between something like astrology and science. Astrology doesn’t predict anything specifically testable. Like, for instance, because you are a Libra, you will meet a red head person at 4 PM tomorrow.
What are you talking about? What you want to say? That you do not believe? You do not find authority blessing for this new theory?
Is science for you is some sort of religion? Or maybe some military or business structure? Or maybe science is some process of voting in parlament or some goverment institution?
I do not think so.