I am not a believer in black holes, I'll challenge you with an alternative theory ;)
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2019/02/06/do-black-holes-matter/
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I am not a believer in black holes, I'll challenge you with an alternative theory ;)
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2019/02/06/do-black-holes-matter/
Hi,
However, we have proofs for black holes. Why disregarding observations?
On the other hand, the 'theory' you mention has in contrast issues with various observations. Those are well documented online. For that reason, it is not considered by most scientists today. At some point, when an idea contradicts data, it has to be abandoned or modified...
this is actually quite a puzzling argument, because as far as I understand the situation it is exactly the other way around.
First, I'd point out that there are no proofs in science. We can only falsify hypotheses or theories. A black hole has never been proven to exist.
Why use fanciful theories when Occam's razor would suggest a far simpler solution to this problem?
I am not an astrophysicist so I can't go too deep into this matter, but I do find it strange that an alternative theory (the electric universe theory which is gaining more traction) which can be empirically verified in plasma laboratories is being dismissed so quickly when it could potentially offer so many insights.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2019/02/06/do-black-holes-matter/
There are actually proofs in science: in maths for instance. But maybe not here, in the physics context. I thus agree with you. I wrote proof but I was actually meaning evidence. We are on a social media platform after all ;)
So to go back to my point: we have evidence for black holes: gravitational waves and Event Horizon results.
I disagree with this. In both conferences and scientific journals, no one works on this. The reason is simple. Such a “theory” (note the quotes) has never been consistently and rigorously formulated. In addition, there are many flaws (just google “electric universe debunked” to get some).
But there are so many flaws with the standard model, too, right? There is almost daily an article about something that astronomers are "perplexed" about and can't make sense of it.
I am not necessarily a proponent of the EU theory, but I see how it makes very elegant predictions and has a framework that "makes sense". Of course there is a lot of criticism against this model (as it should be in science), but it's not like they aren't aware of this or are ignoring it: https://www.everythingselectric.com/electric-universe-debunked/
I think this whole debate actually reveals more about the process of how we learn as a human species about our world. And as it has been pointed out science in specific is rarely a linear progressive path towards more understanding. Instead, it seems to evolve in scientific revolutions in which established ideas and theories have to be fundamentally revised according with new empirical evidence.
There are issues with the standard model of cosmology, for sure. However, when you account for the issues and compare with what is correctly predicted, it is the best setup on the market. On many aspects, it makes very precise predictions that can be compared with very precise data: it works. In addition, this is the simplest model. So a lot of great predictions from a few basic principles and some free parameters.
On the other hand, from my understanding, the electric universe does not make really any quantitative prediction. The page you linked actually goes in that direction: only words, videos, no quantitative statement. I would like to see one of the proponent using the theory to quantitatively derive its signature. This has never been done. For that reasons, most scientists simoly discards it. When something does not work, it does not work and one should move on. It is good to try things, but it is also good to move on when they do not work.
Personally, I have more interests in theories of modified gravity at large scales (that are now in quite big troubles after the discovery of the gravitational waves by the way, but they can still resist in some ways).
This is what a lot of people would want to see. Although there is work in that area. For example, a paper by Donald Scott "Birkeland Currents and Dark Matter":
http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-01.PDF
I guess what fascinates a lot of people, myself included is especially the qualitative aspect of the theory. And I think one should not dismiss a theory purely on methodological grounds. It is a new way of looking at human history (mythology) as well as the space that surrounds us. Of course we don't have to throw the gravitational model out of the window, as it works very well in describing e.g. the movements of planets in our solar system as well as many other things. But there are other phenomena like comets which very strongly support the basic ideas of the EU model. It has made many predictions about them which have been proven to be very accurate and they would seem to point to the electrical nature of the universe at large.
The paper you mentioned provide an explanation for the motion of the star velocity profile. But what about the structure of the galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, etc. Dark matter does much more than that.
If one wants to change a paradigm, it is better to propose something that does at least as good as the paradigm one aims at changing. This is not the case here.
Now back to the paper that I quickly read (I won't spend too much time on this, sorry... see above). They explain the velocity curves by currents. But they don't provide any potential source for those currents. So not only the model is not as good in trying to explain all observations, but it has some big problems....
To come back to the second part of your comment. It is nice to understand qualitatively what is going on. Sure. But at the end of the day, one needs to work out the maths and see whether data and theory agree. Science is not qualitative.