Sorry for being frank, but the whole concept of dark matter/energy is a complete dead end in my humble opinion. Have you researched about the Plasma/Electric Universe?
You can be frank. There is no problem with this. Everyone has the right to have their preference or opinion. Note however that science is not a matter of preference or opinion. it is a matter of facts: data, predictions, and conclusions.
There is one important point here: data has not excluded the dark matter hypothesis (and the standard model of cosmology in general), whereas it has excluded the electric universe one. There are many flaws in the electric universe setup (please check online, you can find many articles on the topic).
It is not a matter of being mainstream or not mainstream. The idea was interesting, but nature has chosen not to be like this.
Their idea is that all of these concepts were created ad hoc to explain what gravity alone can't explain as it is essentially the only force that cosmologists use. I
The concept of dark matter has been created in an ad hoc way 100 years ago. However, today, there are many independent pieces of evidence that seem to point in the same direction. So this option seems today to be the right one.
In general, as long as a theory/model/idea has not been excluded by data, we must be pragmatic and consider it. That's how science works and progress is made. The rest (i.e. "do I prefer this or that option") is a matter of subjective taste.
What is important at the end of the day is that research is done for all (viable) options, to be sure not to miss anything. Modified gravity, for instance, is still very alive, even if data seems to favour the dark matter hypothesis. Note that on the other hand, data does not exclude modified gravity too. This is the reason why research is made on the two options.
thanks for the reply. You couldn't have known that I have a scientific background so it felt a bit strange that you were reminding/lecturing me about how science works. But of course it is always important, especially as scientists to bring this to our attention again.
We can't really expand too much about our arguments here in too great of a detail I guess as this would require several pages, so my only point I want to make it clear that statements such as
are simply false. It sets up a strawman which is not worth arguing if the person arguing against e.g. the EU theory is not even familiar with the basic concepts as well as their many experimentally tested ideas. I am not necessarily a proponent of this theory, I just see it as a viable alternative to a model that itself has been falsified by observational evidence.
While the standard model has had its moments, we must acknowledge that all models are simply placeholders for the next paradigmatic revolution (Thomas Kuhn's work here is compelling)
I agree with the fact that we are eagerly waiting for the next revolution. There are issues with the current standard paradigms, and those issues point to the fact that we only see the tip of the iceberg. For what lies under sea level, many things are possible. I just hope to see a few of them (even one of them) within my lifetime.
As a side note, I have never really dug into the EU setup by myself, mainly because my interests lie elsewhere (a single person cannot focus on everything). From what I have found after a quick search, there seem to be quite a bunch of problems with the EU. In particular it is not quantitative, cannot be used for predictions and thus cannot be falsified (it is thus not a theory strictly speaking). I have tried to find some information on how the EU is mathematically formulated, but I didn't manage, even on their website. That confirmed my initial findings and I didn't look further. This is also why I wrote what I wrote (which is probably not the best choice of words, I agree).
I understand where you are coming from (at least I think ;) It's a busy place out there! I am quite interested in this idea of paradigms and how we function inside of it and are often now willing to look beyond (e.g., the Copernican or Darwin revolutions which changed how we looked at the world). Now that science has become the main framework in which we see "truth" I think it's important to look at the "fringes" as well as this is where often the ideas for the next shift have come from (this is a major draw back to how institutional science currently works in my opinion, e.g. it is often too dismissive of new ideas). This is why I am so interested in the EU and have dedicated many years of looking into it. It is quite comprehensive, but it also has some short comings of course!
One paper you can see some math is with Donald E. Scotts paper about birkeland currents.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF
If you don't have a lot of time, just have a look at this one
Thanks! I have quickly checked out the paper (not much time left for anything today), and the equations look fine. Section 10 seems rather qualitative and I need to dig further to see the links with the EU setup. I mean, how to go from this paper to quantitative predictions in the EU. This is still very unclear to me. Let's see whether I will find the time later this week to investigate further.
Cheers!
You'll find more here:
https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-universe-resources/
https://www.electricuniverse.info/peer-reviewed-papers/
On a general note: quantitative papers are lacking, but that is also because they don't have a lot of resources/researchers. Also, a big part of the EU is qualitative (historic mythology, Biology of life etc.) as it tries to develop a much more comprehensive picture/understanding of the universe. Much work is about laying down the building blocks so to speak on which more can be built/researched.
That's true. Resources are scarce (as everywhere), and people prefer to work on what they think is interesting for them. That's of course fair, and that's how suddenly one research direction can get a boom and another not.
I am looking forward for more quantitative predictions addressing all the cons we can find online (I apologies, but I definitely don't have the time to read all those papers this week; exam duties, juries, etc.).
don't worry about reading those papers! I think I just wanted to tease you a bit about there being an alternative explanation for these cosmological phenomena.
as an actual scientist holding a degree I couldn't agree more!