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
It is not a matter of being mainstream or not mainstream. The idea was interesting, but nature has chosen not to be like this.
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.
Teasing and discussions are always good (sorry, I was quite away, as I am currently attending a conference and have thus very little time for on-chain activities).
as an actual scientist holding a degree I couldn't agree more!
There are 2 types of people who graduate with a science degree.
Actual scientists who apply the scientific method to all aspects of life, most importantly their own thought processes. They are always atheists science they effectively applied the scientific method to their own thought processes.
Science project researcher who just learnt how to perform a trick of a scientific task in the lab/research centre. They perform these tasks automatically as part of their daily work routine.
They lack the ability to understand science past their field of automated research work. And they always failed to apply the scientific method to their own thought process. That's why there are so many of them indulging in religiosity and other nonsense.
Even a dog can learn to perform a trick ( a cognitive task to repeat it like a robot)
Which one are you?
Also, what is your science degree?
I presume that you must have a degree in Particle Physics since you are attempting to refute an expert in this field who worked at CERN.