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.
okay so this should start an interesting conversation :)
I would argue that it would be hard to squeeze all people with a science degree into two categories. In fact, this seems like a very reductionist way of approaching just about any topic. But if one ponders about that a bit more one might realize that it is thought itself that tries to categorize just about any topic into neatly ordered sets. Why is that? Probably because we want to simplify things. And why do we want to do that? Because our brain/thoughts are inherently limited and we can therefore not grasp the whole. My point is that there is more than meets the eye: our thinking is a very limited way of making sense of the world around us and within us. But it is the tool that scientists work with, so we are stuck with that human limitation. Once we open our minds to this limitation we start to see more. For example, I might have thought that only what I can see is real. But science has now shown us that the visible light is only a sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. In other words, there is much more than meets the eye and we have to stay open to new possibilities which within our scientific framework should be grounded in experimentation and replication. As such the EU has made some extraordinary predictions which have been confirmed multiple times (e.g. the electric comet theory). It has of course limitations, but to dismiss it simply out of hand (perhaps even without first getting acquainted with it) is not just a hastened decision, but also a very unscientific one. Most scientific progress has come from the "fringes" of the mainstream, that which we might consider orthodox knowledge. So why be so dismissive of something new, rather than looking at a new idea with scientific curiosity and rigor?
"Most scientific progress has come from the "fringes" of the mainstream, that which we might consider orthodox knowledge"
What was before was a science that was just fledgling (protoscience) with the scientific method clearly defined in the 19th century. Although before that the humanity used tools that resembled principles of the scientific method.
Currently, the mainstream understanding of the universe is actually mostly pseudoscience and BS contradicting scientific discovery, starting with including religions or hippy mumbo jumbo beliefs.
You didn't answer my questions.