Can Electricity Travel Through Space on Astrophysical Jets? (mdpi.com)

Slashdot reader Chris Reeve writes: An October 2017 paper titled Electric Currents along Astrophysical Jets reports that "Several researchers have reported direct evidence for large scale electric currents along astrophysical jets." A review of the citations at the end of that paper and others (here and here, for instance) would seem to suggest that one of the great Internet science debates has finally been settled: Electricity does indeed travel through space over vast cosmic distances.

What has been interesting to watch about this unexpected development is that science journalists have so far not explicitly reported this as a shift in theory, and commenters on sites like phys.org appear to deny that any change has even occurred: "The jets have been shown not to be electric currents, the energy and the physics involved are certainly not electromagnetic." This comment completely rejecting these new findings was highly rated by other phys.org readers, suggesting that the failure to explicitly report this as a change in theory has left this controversial topic in a highly confused state.
The paper summarizes what it calls "observational evidence for the existence of large scale electric currents and their associated grand design helical magnetic fields in kpc-scale astrophysical jets." And the original submitter details the history of the question in a follow-up comment arguing that at our current moment in time, "a mistaken bias against electricity in space continues to dominate conversations."

Comments

An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Dear Slashdot Community,

Some 11 years ago, I watched a curious thing happen in the comments of a Slashdot article, and it would forever change my life. I watched on as members of the tech community labeled as pseudoscience the simple idea that electricity can travel through space over plasma (and actually do stuff of importance at the largest observable scales). Since that day, I have systematically tracked this electricity in space debate, and I have come to view the reporting on this topic as the greatest science journalism failure of our time.

To review, a plasma is just a gas with some percentage of unbound charged particles. We call it plasma, rather than gas, because it observably behaves differently. With less than even just 1% ionization, the ionospheric gas is observed to respond to electromagnetic fields. In the laboratory, plasmas can form into very complex structures like filaments. These filaments exhibit a long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with one another, which causes them to pair up without combining. Careful inspection of a novelty plasma globe will reveal that the filaments will tend to separate when they come into contact with the glass. The filaments can also link up with one another into very complex networks. All of this complexity is rather remarkable given that we are just talking about the "fourth" state of matter.

Now, let's review the current state of this electricity in space debate as it should be reported by science journalists.

1. It is not widely known, but definitely a fact that proper galactic rotation curves were simulated in the early 80's on government supercomputers by one of the world's leading plasma physicists, without the need for any dark matter. The reason that the arms appear to rotate as almost fixed plates, in this view, is that they are conducting electrical currents.

Galactic expert, Tim Thompson, has claimed that Peratt's decision to publish in IEEE was an attempt to avoid scrutiny. He admitted that no galactic researcher has ever read IEEE and they wouldn't know that the journal even exists (it's the largest technical organization in the world); and Thompson even went so far as to advise that galactic researchers intentionally avoid reading IEEE. You can see an annotated snapshot of his online forum post here.

2. We have been left with the impression that the CMB can only be explained as a remnant of the Big Bang expansion. This is simply not true:

"High-power microwave generation on earth belongs exclusively to devices using relativistic electron beams ... A relativistic electron beam that does not produce microwave radiation is unknown. These same basic mechanisms are likely to have their natural analogs in cosmic plasmas."

That quote comes from one of the world's leading plasma physicists, Anthony L. Peratt (Physics of the Plasma Universe, Second Edition, 2015, p.33-34.) Peratt would go on to publish a paper revealing more than a hundred local hydrogen filament structures which he claimed correlate with structures in the WMAP cosmic microwave background.

It would seem that people are not yet connecting the dots here between these recent admissions by astrophysicists that large-scale electric currents are real, and this faint microwave fog that is apparently coming at us from all directions. There is, without a doubt, more than one way to explain this cosmic microwave background; but you'd never know this from the science

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[110010001000]

Oh, are you one of those Electrical Universe crackpots? That makes sense. Nutters.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[rpresser]

I didn't. In actual fact, my first sentence admitted that I have accepted there are electrical currents in space.

I don't accept that admitting electrical currents in space in any way disproves these three constructs are thoroughly invalid.

To take only one, dark matter, and one bit of very persuasive evidence. If dark matter is not real, please explain gravitational lensing.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Lensing was introduced as a way to explain discordant redshifts. If you go back to the original papers where it was proposed, the theorists readily admit that they did not consider any alternative hypotheses. Thus, it does not make a whole lot of sense to call this a proof for anything really.

"All that can be said in rebuttal is that it would be even more remarkable if the 4 images, all with the same redshift, existed for some other reason, in a configuration which can be so well modelled by the lensing hypothesis"

The Impact of Gravitating Lensing on Astrophysics, Martin J. Rees Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 OHA

Well, actually, an alternative ejection hypothesis was put forward by Halton Arp to explain exactly this type of observation. The theorists simply ignored it.

Some lenses are probably valid, but this presumption that there is only one way to create a lens is probably not.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[Goldsmith]

I am a physicist. You caught one, congratulations.

I think you're spending a lot of time looking at web forums and not spending any time learning actual physics. In 11 years, you could have started from scratch with a Physics BS and finished a PhD by about now. If you'd done that, you would see that actual physicists have long ago incorporated much of what you're saying we don't acknowledge, and thrown out the things that don't match actual observations. It's great to be inspired by interesting theories to enter physics. I love science fiction, and it's why I got into physics. Being a professional physicist doesn't keep me from still appreciating science fiction.

Modern models can incorporate MHD at galactic scale, along with all of the other physical interactions we know of, and so we do incorporate all those things. If you don't like the way it's done, I encourage you to go get a Physics PhD and write your own models. If you don't like the typical assumptions, spend more time coding and less time complaining. Modeling is so easy today that these questions can be posed in a homework assignment for a grad student. (Really, you're getting worked up over homework assignment level physics.)

To physicists, "The Electric Universe" is an antiquated idea, with arguments many generations out of date. You're quoting 30 year old computer models, the proceedings of a minor conference 20 years ago, and a "this is your life, Jim Dungey" review focused on 1960s physics to complain about how modern astrophysics is done. You're referencing a theorist who's a retired engineer. The detail required for a convincing publication has increased dramatically over the last few decades, vocabulary changes every few years, and an understanding of what is "mainstream" changes about every year. It's hard to keep up for full time physicists. Referencing writing published to a much lower standard than what we're used to reading is not convincing.

I've worked with an older theoretician who wanted to get a modern take on his old approach. He sponsored (paid the salary & tuition of) a grad student in a different group with modern computational resources. That's the appropriate way to make the argument you're trying to make. Instead the Electric Universe guys are pretending that 30 year old techniques and publishing standards are good enough. They're not.

Last point, I promise. IEEE is an engineering society with no astrophysics community. It is inappropriate to publish an astrophysics paper there. That's journal shopping, and it is a violation of scientific ethics.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[Fluctuating Matter]

Anyone who has spent the time to really follow the controversy about the existence and primacy of electricity in space will immediately understand that the controversy cannot be solved by getting a Ph.D. and "writing a new model". There are lots of deep patterns at play that are effectively blocking the possibility for a conceptual revolution, e.g. a complete replacement for Big Bang Creationism, i.e. the idea that the whole physical world actually “began” some time ago; the conservation-defying and hence unscientific proposition of the creation of all physical existence out of an “initial singularity” of “infinite density.”

Martin Corredoira is an astrophysicist and academic whistleblower. In his critique of academic research, The Twilight of the Scientific Age, he wrote:

"Creativity is blocked. It seems that the system gives the message that no ideas are needed. It seems the system, through its higher authorities, is saying that science only needs to work out the details. It is accepted that the basis of what is now known is correct, that present-day theories are more or less correct and only manpower is needed to sort out some parameters of minor importance. A Copernican revolution is totally unthinkable within the current system."

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "I think you're spending a lot of time looking at web forums and not spending any time learning actual physics."

So, your suggestion for resolving the debate seems to be that I should just study one side of it.

Re: "Being a professional physicist doesn't keep me from still appreciating science fiction."

A crucial part of the process of untangling controversial science is to become fluent in the critiques of modern science. One of these critics wrote a stunning critique of what it means to be a "professional"

Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives
Jeff Schmidt
(p41, 2001)

"Professionals generally avoid the risk inherent in real critical thinking and cannot properly be called critical thinkers. They are simply ideologically disciplined thinkers. Real critical thinking means uncovering and questioning social, political and moral assumptions; applying and refining a personally developed worldview; and calling for action that advances a personally created agenda. An approach that backs away from any of these three components lacks the critical spirit ... Ideologically disciplined thinkers, especially the more gung-ho ones, often give the appearance of being critical thinkers as they go around deftly applying the official ideology and confidently reporting their judgments. The fact that professionals are usually more well-informed than nonprofessionals contributes to the illusion that they are critical thinkers."

Here's another ...

MR: "When you first thought of writing this book, you were in graduate school, right?"

JS: "Yes, that’s right. I got interested in the topic when I was going to professional training myself, getting a PhD in physics at the University of California, Irvine. It seemed like the best of my fellow graduate students were either dropping out or being kicked out. And by ‘best,’ those were the most concerned about other people and seemed less self-centered, less narrowly-focused, most friendly people ... they seemed to be handicapped in the competition. They seemed to be at a disadvantage not only because their attention was divided, but because their concerns about big picture issues like justice and the social role of the profession and so on, caused them to stop and think and question, whereas their unquestioning gung-ho classmates just plowed right through with nothing to hold them back. As I mentioned, there’s about a 50% drop-out rate for students entering University programs in all fields; and what I found was that this weeding out is not politically neutral. To put it bluntly, the programs favor ass-kissers. I don’t know if that’s an acceptable term on KFAI, but that’s the fact of the matter ...."

Jeff Schmidt was actually fired by the AIP for publishing this book. He had up to that point been one of Physics Today's best editors for 19 years. He sued the AIP (and won), and the case became North American physics' largest freedom-of-expression case in its history. I get the impression that many professional physicists have somehow failed to notice the book. But, either way, no, I completely disagree that I have made a mistake by choosing to not become a physicist. In fact, that decision has allowed me a freedom to study both sides of scientific controversies, as well as a freedom to diverge from the consensus view when the evidence is plainly suggesting that the consensus view is just plain wrong.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[lgw]

Or, you know, angular momentum from before formation being conserved. From your one scientific link:

When examined as a function of distance from the filament axis, a much stronger correlation is found in outer parts, suggesting that the alignment is driven by the laminar infall of gas from sheets to filaments.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[Goldsmith]

Wow, you picked the wrong person to argue with here.

I spent my time in grad school leading the student government, and bringing to light the issue of the 50% of people who leave PhD programs. There is a lack of a link between dropping out and academic problems. I got bad administrators fired, I talked about this nationally, I lobbied Congress. What are you doing? Posting online?

I've chewed out Chancellors, Deans, Admirals, Grant Managers, and CEOs. I've quit jobs, left tenured positions, and put myself in financial distress to prove my points. And I'm a more successful, better scientist for it.

You don't study physics because it's too hard for you.

"Physics" isn't a side. It's work. It's offensive to use people like Jeff in your argument. He's put in the work. And the physics community ended up supporting him.

Go away back to the corners of the internet and know that you can't compete with people like me. You're too lazy to walk into the room where the discussions happen.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[joe_frisch]

Science is a very complex web of interacting theories and experiments. Any new theory has to not only explain a particular phenomena, but to not contradict a great many other experiments. This rules out a great many alternate theories. This isn't taking "sides", it is just trying to find theories that are consistent with experiments.

There is some "bias" against non-scientists, but that is because people outside of the field are unlikely to know all of the measurements that have been done. Scientists don't have infinite time, so they are not likely to be willing to do the leg-work of doing research for people who haven't already done a lot of that work themselves.

It is pretty rare for someone outside of a well established field to make a major contribution.

Scientists do try to find entirely new theories. I was at conference where one of the speakers mentioned how many theories had died the day that LIGO saw gravity waves from the neutron star collision - the measurement that gravity waves traveled at the same speed as electromagnetic radiation to very high precision, ruled out a range of alternative gravity theories.

In this case though, there are lots of effects that depend on the strength of magnetic fields in galaxies so they can't be very far from what is predicted by conventional astrophysics.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[DamnOregonian]

Worse, really.

Some bullshit theory about how the extremely macro-scale universe is predominantly shaped by the electromagnetic force is vindicated by scientific paper that indicates there's more electricity in the universe than was generally thought.

It's a lot like claiming your theory about perpetual motion cars has been vindicated because you slightly miscalculated your car's fuel economy.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[BadDreamer]

So, your suggestion for resolving the debate seems to be that I should just study one side of it.

The suggestion is that in order to resolve the debate, you should learn what the debate actually is about, and how to evaluate the claims made on all sides. You do that by learning physics.

Physics is not a series of dogma you memorize. It is methods to analyze the world, and tools you use to examine whether a proposal actually matches up with observed reality.

If you study physics, you do not study either side of this debate. You study the tools used to determine what is actually consistent with reality, and learn to use them, and then you can use them to analyze all sides of the debate to see what actually matches up with observation.

Your "freedom" now is to treat both sides as dogma, because you do not have the tools to evaluate either side. And dogma is not physics, and physics is not dogma, so you end up doing nothing at all.

Re: An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Because there is an observable bias in the tech community against electricity in space -- and if you look at the nature of the rebuttals that are being put forward, it's easy to see that the rejections generally do not base upon the technical merits. There is a sense that people feel a bit too strongly that electricity in space cannot do anything of any importance, in the light of their refusal to actually learn the details of the debate. This has been going on for a very long time now, and these strong feelings are increasingly out-of-sync with the actual observational trends.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "It's a lot like claiming your theory about perpetual motion cars has been vindicated because you slightly miscalculated your car's fuel economy."

This really seems quite unfair. All you've done is misstated the breadth of the claims. There were 10 main points presented in the first comment, so what does it mean that people are so enthusiastic when somebody misstates the breadth of the presented argument?

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "Ok explain to me how the electric universe works on materials that are not magnetic. Gravity works on everything that has mass. Take me same physics problem and explain how it works on non ionized carbon."

You seem to be asking how electric forces at the largest scales can influence the structure of the universe, even when we are talking about neutral matter.

If you've played with an electrostatic lifter, then you basically already know the answer to this question: The air in the atmosphere is of course an insulator, yet the application of an electric field induces a movement of this neutral air such that it can temporarily raise the lifter.

So, what is going on there? What appears to be happening is that the movement of the charged particles is exerting a drag upon the neutrals. In the plasma laboratory, you may see this mentioned as an "ion sump" or part of a larger process known as "Marklund convection". There would seem to be little discussion of this phenomenon in astrophysics circles, yet notice this observation from Herschel:

the material along filaments is not at all static: astronomers have detected what appear to be accretion flows, with the most prominent filaments drawing matter from their surroundings through a network of smaller filaments.

At the point where we are talking about a complex field of accretions along filaments, it's important to realize that we have really strayed rather far from the original idea of gravitational accretion, as it was portrayed within the textbooks; and people need to be cognizant of the tendency to push parameters in simulations towards unrealistic numbers, in order to replicate these observations with gravity.

It's worth noting, further, that plasma is widely acknowledged as the most common state for matter. It's important to never forget this even as you observe radio astronomers discussing neutral HI filaments. The instruments detect the neutral matter, but this should not be confused as meaning that this region is dominated -- either in terms of its forces or by the percentage of matter present -- by neutral matter. The Marklund convection process can easily explain why the cores of these electrodynamic plasma filaments should be neutral, and it is arguably a better fit for the morphology of these accretion fields revealed by the Herschel observations.

Re: An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The map is not the territory. You've devised a test for the analogy which says nothing about its application.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "You need to make testable predictions that differ from the current model."

There are many examples of observations at the level of planetary --> intergalactic scales which are expected in an electrical cosmology, but not in a gravitational one (and realize that it is acknowledged that gravity dominates at the smaller scales). To give a few examples ...

1. The failure of the solar wind to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the Earth's orbit. In the laboratory, we accelerate charged particles with an electric field. Basic physics is suggestive of the idea that the Sun is the center of an electric field, and it extends outwards to the heliopause.

2. The fact that galactic rotation curves are easily produced by modeling the cosmic plasma as laboratory plasma. The reason it is so is because the spiral arms trace out electric currents. Very simple physics compared to the dark matter conjecture. In fact, Winston Bostick produced spiral galaxy forms in the plasma laboratory many, many years ago, and Anthony Peratt created his supercomputer simulations as a reaction to that former experimental work.

3. The CMB itself can be argued to be evidence for electric currents in space, because

"High-power microwave generation on earth belongs exclusively to devices using relativistic electron beams ... A relativistic electron beam that does not produce microwave radiation is unknown. These same basic mechanisms are likely to have their natural analogs in cosmic plasmas."

As for the unexpected bell-curve shape of this signal, it could very well result from the signal passing through the heliopause, but even if that proves to be problematic, it's not at all scientific to rush to judge that this is evidence for a creation event.

4. The layering of the ionosphere is evidence that the Earth has a net charge to it. Why? Because we can do the experiment in the laboratory: Set up a metal sphere in a vacuum, and pump it full of charge until the charge density becomes very high. What happens? Layering of charge. These are actually called double layers in the plasma laboratory, and they are recognized as electrodynamic phenomena (which is likely why astrophysicists have so far refused to catalog double layers as astrophysical entities, even though they've been observed in the Van Allen radiation belts).

5. The Earth is observed to electrically interact with the Sun every 8 minutes. You didn't recognize this as an electric current because the scientists called it either a "magnetic portal" or a "flux transfer event", but it is obvious that the magnetic field is caused by an electric current. What we've yet to see any acknowledgement of from mainstream scientists is that these discharges every 8 minutes might be acting as a feedback which stabilizes our solar system.

6. The Cassini spacecraft was struck in 2005 by an electric current from Hyperion, even though it was a full 1,200 miles away from the small object.

during a 2005 flyby of Saturn's moon Hyperion, the spacecraft was briefly bathed in a beam of electrons coming from the moon's electrostatically charged surface

The scientists referred to it as an "electrostatic shock", but this was an obvious violation of Debye screening, which should have limited the electrostatic discharges in this region to 10 meters. Incidentally, the researchers sat on the news of this event for a full 9 years before reporting it to the public.

In each case, we see something happening which is expected for electricity in space, but u

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

One perfectly legitimate way to explain why it is rare that outsiders of a well-established field can make major contributions is with gatekeeping. In fact, that is exactly one of the points made by Dr. Gerald Pollack of the University of Washington.

Cellular and Molecular Biology 51, 815-820 (2005)
Revitalizing Science In A Risk-averse Culture: Reflections On The Syndrome And Prescriptions For Its Cure G.H. Pollack

... A half-century ago, breakthroughs were fairly common events that could be counted on to occur from time to time on an unpredictable but not infrequent basis. Pioneering such breakthroughs were scientific heroes -- legendary figures such as Linus Pauling, Jonas Salk, Richard Feynman, James Watson, Francis Crick, and others, names familiar even to lay people ...

But things have changed. While the past 30 years have brought a great outpouring of scientific results, breakthroughs are less common. Modern equivalents of Pauling, Salk, and Watson-Crick are not easy to identify. Considering the massive investment in science today, why is it that scientific heroes have become so scarce? Why so few conceptual breakthroughs? I refer to realized breakthroughs such as the biochemical nature of heredity or the polio vaccine, not incipient breakthroughs whose realization seems always just around the corner. Can you name more than a handful of realized breakthroughs that have come during the past three decades?

Some argue that this settling down is all but inevitable. After all, science today is far more complicated than it has been, often requiring teams of investigators and large groups to pursue effectively. Others argue that there is simply not much more to be discovered -- that the breakthroughs have had their heyday and we need content ourselves with merely filling in the gaps. Thus, breakthroughs might not be expected to occur on an everyday basis.

Perhaps some of this is true -- but a significant role may also be played by another factor: the growing aversion to risk taking. Although funding agencies have much to be proud of for past achievements, it is broadly perceived that they have become less agile in dealing with proposals that dissent from orthodoxy...

Challengers of the status quo rarely succeed in today’s scientific climate. Hence, those approaches most apt to generate conceptual breakthroughs are throttled before they can emerge from the scientific womb.

The funding agencies worldwide are aware of this problem. Several agencies have held recent workshops to deal with the issue, and some measures have been taken over and above existing remedial programs. In the US, for example, the term 'high risk' now permeates review guidelines. And, both the NSF and the NIH have established special programs to encourage novel approaches ...

These institutional responses acknowledge the problem. Yet, it is broadly felt that the responses are nominal. Few dissenters from orthodoxy report any more success than before. The reviewers are largely the same, and have not abruptly changed their well-honed views. Admonishing them to be 'less conservative' comes with no guarantee that they will be. Thus, effective action has yet to be taken.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

On the importance of learning the context of science ...

The Golem: What You Should Know About Science
Collins / Pinch

citizens as citizens need understand only controversial science. One reviewer argues: 'it is quite easy to think of political science. One reviewer argues: 'it is quite easy to think of political decisions with a scientific side to them where the science is noncontroversial' and offers as an example the effect on medical institutions of the development of a predictive test for Huntingdon's disease. But if the science is non-controversial, why do those running the medical institutions need to understand the deep nature of the science that gave rise to the results? If the test is uncontroversially valid they can make their decisions without understanding how agreement about the test was reached. Thus, while thanking our reviewers for the many generous comments about the importance, the informativeness, and they style of the book, we stand by our claim that 'For citizens who want to take part in the democratic processes of a technological society, all the science they need to know about is controversial.' For this purpose, The Golem represents science properly ...

Science and the citizen

The debate about the public understanding of science is equally confounded by confusion over method and content. What should be explained is methods of science, but what most people concerned with the issues want the public to know about is the truth about the natural world -- that is, what the powerful believe to be the truth about the natural world. The laudable reason for concern with public understanding is that scientific and technological issues figure more and more in the political process. Citizens, when they vote, need to know enough to come to some decision about whether they prefer more coal mines or more nuclear power stations, more corn or clearer rivers, more tortured animals or more healthy children, or whether these really are the choices. Perhaps there are novel solutions: wave power, organic farming, drug testing without torture. The 'public understanders', as we might call them, seem to think that if the person in the street knows more science -- as opposed to more about science -- they will be able to make more sensible decisions about these things ...

How strange that they should think this; it ranks among the great fallacies of our age. Why? -- because PhDs and professors are found on all sides in these debates. The arguments have largely been invented in universities. Thus, all sides have expertise way beyond what can ever be hoped of the person in the street, and all sides know how to argue their case clearly and without obvious fallacies. Why such debates are unresolvable, in spite of all this expertise, is what we have tried to show in the descriptive chapters of this book. That is, we have shown that scientists at the research front cannot settle their deep disagreements through better experimentation, more knowledge, more advanced theories, or clearer thinking. It is ridiculous to expect the general public to do better ...

We agree with the public understanders that the citizen needs to be informed enough to vote on technical issues, but the information needed is not about the content of science; it is about the relationship of experts to politicians, to the media, and to the rest of us. The citizen has great experience in the matter of how to cope with divided expertise -- isn't this what party politics is? What the citizen cannot do is cope with divided expertise pretending to be something else. Instead of one question -- 'Who to believe?' -- there are two questions -- 'Who to believe?' and 'Are scientists and technologists Gods or charlatans?'. The second question is what makes the whole debate so unstable because, as we have argued, there are only two positions available ...

Re: An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Tracking controversies does not imply that a person is "obsessed" with them, and when somebody demonstrates with a large number of examples that the tech community has a bias against electricity in space, they are hardly "ranting". If the science journalists were reporting on this subject in the properly objective manner, these ideas would have been mainstream many years ago.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The way that cosmology -- and scientific frameworks more generally -- have traditionally operated is that there is a solid foundation of claims which are then supplemented by a variety of -- hopefully peripheral -- conjectures and speculations. To the extent that people think that they can throw away the entire framework (e.g., the core claim that electricity dominates at the larger scales) because of the less supported conjectures and speculations (e.g., Wal Thornhill's suggestion that electrons have structure), you are actually diverging from the established tradition of scientific frameworks. We need to allow theorists some room to propose conjectures, because some of them will end up as actual hypotheses or theories.

There is of course no shortage in mainstream cosmology of unsupported wacky ideas. Countless articles and papers have been written on these questionable topics, but they do not by themselves discount the core claim that gravity might dominate at all scales. The speculations can only be judged as possibly problematic if the solid parts of the theories somehow rest upon the weaker conjectures, as a necessary support.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "These "fudge factors" fit the data with way more than 5 sigmas."

Absolutely meaningless. You are referring to accuracy and precision when the debate is actually over the interpretation of the physical mechanism.

Re: "Inflation is currently being observed."

Absolutely incorrect. Edwin Hubble was never persuaded, and one of his protege's, Halton Arp, was able to fill a couple of books with all of the exceptions to the assumption that redshift can only have one explanation. Here is a short list of Arp's vindications:

(1) Alignment of quasar minor axes (vindication of Arp ejection model)

(2) Numerous apparent interactions of objects of wildly different redshifts (not possible with Big Bang, vindication of Arp)

(3) Numerous instances where high-redshift quasars appear aligned with the axes of low-redshift "foreground" galaxies (statistics indicate this occurs far too often for a strict recession velocity interpretation of redshift)

(4) Intervening galaxies are 4 times more prevalent along lines of sight to GRB's than quasars (shouldn't happen if quasars are at extreme distances)

(5) Quasars seemingly observed in front of foreground galaxies (has led to mainstream invocation of transparent sightlines through galactic bulges)

(6) A quasar that exhibits 10x superluminal motions at inferred distance (this is merely the worst case, but the most common examples of this are 2x superluminal; requires invocation of Relativity illusion)

(7) A quasar group so large that it spans 5% of the known universe at inferred distance (not expected from Big Bang theory because it's a violation of the Cosmological Principle that says that the universe is uniform)

(8) No observation of time dilation in quasar variations (no explanation has been accepted, to my knowledge)

(9) Quasars have been shown to exhibit proper motion (should not be possible at extreme inferred distances, and was once considered a rule for differentiating galactic from extragalactic objects)

(10) Quasar clustering (not expected from Big Bang theory because it's a violation of the Cosmological Principle that says that the universe is uniform)

(11) The Burbidges, Karlsson, the Bamothy's, Depaquit, Peeker and Vigier have all agreed with Halton Arp that there are preferred values for redshift, and numerous investigators have attempted to disprove it only to find the effect in their own dataset (Disproves the Big Bang's recession velocity interpretation for redshift)

Re: "And the whole Dark Matter issue. You completely ignore data that nearly perfectly matches the theory, but then propose theories that do not match any modern data."

The facts:

(1) Dark matter remains hypothetical; it has never been identified, and yet we are told it must represent a significant fraction of the total universe.

(2) Dark matter instruments have increased in sensitivity by a million times over the past 15 years, yet none has been found.

(3) Galactic rotation curves were produced by plasma physicist Anthony Peratt on government supercomputers in the early 80's by simply modeling the cosmic plasma as laboratory plasmas (capable of holding E-fields and transmitting electrical currents). Those simulations were based upon earlier laboratory work by Winston Bostick which showed the same spiral galaxy forms.

Your statement is a complete mischaracterization of the situation.

Re: "Seems to have no predictive power. I only ever see a) Gravity is wrong b) ??? c) Galaxy is stabilized"

The argument which has been put forward is that gravity is simply a localized force, and does not dominate at the larger scales. This would seem to be a reasonable assessment when you consider the actual distances between stars. If the Earth was just an inch from the Sun, then the next nearest star would typically be about 4 miles away. Put into these terms, it seems extremely unlikely that gravity can ever bridge these vast distances.

Re: "what about the new version of

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "I think the place to look for breakthroughs is in new science, not fields that have been extensively studied like astrophysics.People are doing laboratory scale experiments in quantum entanglement for example, so some breakthrough there is quite possible."

... problem being that we already know that there exist contradictions between some of the established disciplines (large and small scale theories), so the recipe you've provided us with here does not address the possibility of mistakes existing within one of these two domains.

Re: "Over lunch I was laughing with a colleague about how completely absurd the idea was that the universe isn't expanding - it is supported by such a huge wealth of data. At the very least, how could someone explain the supernova red-shift data without cosmological expansion?"

Vindications for Halton Arp which he discusses within his two books (Seeing Red and Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies), where he goes into great detail about why quasars are not at their redshift-inferred distances:

(1) Alignment of quasar minor axes (vindication of Arp ejection model)

(2) Numerous apparent interactions of objects of wildly different redshifts (not possible with Big Bang, vindication of Arp)

(3) Numerous instances where high-redshift quasars appear aligned with the axes of low-redshift "foreground" galaxies (statistics indicate this occurs far too often for a strict recession velocity interpretation of redshift)

(4) Intervening galaxies are 4 times more prevalent along lines of sight to GRB's than quasars (shouldn't happen if quasars are at extreme distances)

(5) Quasars seemingly observed in front of foreground galaxies (has led to mainstream invocation of transparent sightlines through galactic bulges)

(6) A quasar that exhibits 10x superluminal motions at inferred distance (this is merely the worst case, but the most common examples of this are 2x superluminal; requires invocation of Relativity illusion)

(7) A quasar group so large that it spans 5% of the known universe at inferred distance (not expected from Big Bang theory because it's a violation of the Cosmological Principle that says that the universe is uniform)

(8) No observation of time dilation in quasar variations (no explanation has been accepted, to my knowledge)

(9) Quasars have been shown to exhibit proper motion! (should not be possible at extreme inferred distances, and was once considered a rule for differentiating galactic from extragalactic objects)

(10) Quasar clustering (not expected from Big Bang theory because it's a violation of the Cosmological Principle that says that the universe is uniform)

(11) The Burbidges, Karlsson, the Bamothy's, Depaquit, Peeker and Vigier have all agreed with Halton Arp that there are preferred values for redshift, and numerous investigators have attempted to disprove it only to find the effect in their own dataset (Disproves the Big Bang's recession velocity interpretation for redshift)

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

You're adopting a very limited view of the word "methods" that is not in line with what these two sociologists are referring to. The point of the text is to describe the social and evidential processes of science by looking at what they call disputed science.

A review of even just the Amazon reviews would have clarified this. For example:

"The cases laid out by the authors demonstrate how much science and scientific results can be hidden under personal interests, believes (superstition is a better word), wishes and inaccuracy. One example is the "proof" of Einstein's gravitaion theory by Sir Arthur Eddington by systematically dismissing data in conflict with the theory."

Re: "You're doing exactly what you're quoting as the wrong thing to do, and you claim that the right thing to do - based on your quotes - is "studying one side"."

I absolutely do NOT recommend shutting out arguments from any side. What I am proposing is the construction of a social network where information about scientific controversies can over time be aggregated with crowdsourcing. I've recently described the details of this social network I'm advocating for in an article titled Tracking Scientific Controversies.

Constructing such a social network is not in the least equivalent to arguing that one side should be ignored. As the situation stands, academia implies that certain questions should no longer be asked because they are considered "settled science". What I'm arguing is that the public can participate in scientific discourse as a check upon scientific authority by double-checking that their "settled" science is indeed settled. The way we do this is to check for vindications over time of these supposedly settled science claims -- a process which benefits from a diverse crowd (which means that the public can be better at this than the scientific community).

What I am reporting to you right now is that I have been practicing this method for a full decade now for this Electric Universe debate, and what I have found is that you are not being properly informed by science journalists. There have been many vindications and completely legitimate explanations which have not been reported to the public. If you had been tracking the EU with me, you'd know of them. I'm trying to report them to you, and doing so does not in any way suggest that you should only pay attention to one side of the debate.

To the extent that a person only pays attention to one side of a debate, they become subject to it. Once we make a conscious decision to track controversies over time -- which is of course easier if we have help from a community -- then this helps us to treat each side of the debate as an object. The premise of my social network design is that we can actually make people smarter by helping them to make this subject-object transition. If you go to any International Baccalaureate-level high school literature class, that is exactly what you will find the teachers instructing the students how to do: They are inviting the students to interpret the text from competing worldviews. But, notice the problem: Science instruction completely lacks a similar tradition -- and so what we end up with, whenever somebody criticizes modern science in some manner, is an angry mob which defends the claims of science for the very reason that these students have not been trained to transition from subject to object.

The mistake you are making here is to interpret the presentation of critique and competing claims as inherently one-sided. But, the whole point of critique is to make us smarter and wiser about our current worldview, and to provide the possibility for change. It's to replace one single thought with two or more. When we learn about critique and competing ideas, we think at a higher level for the very reason that we stop being subject to the information we've b

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "To answer the is it even worth considering question, though- of course it is. And it has been, at great lengths. And plasma physics play a huge role in even standard cosmology. They just don't play a huge role in large-scale cosmology."

Let me give you a very simple example which I hope you will recognize as an earnest attempt to demonstrate how difficult it is to judge vindications when we are not actively tracking scientific controversies.

Today, for the first time, I noticed that a couple of galaxy artists were suddenly drawing the Milky Way's galactic bulge as a pair, as if a memo went out (which I missed). I had never before noticed this, but having learned about Anthony Peratt's galactic simulation as a pair of rotating Birkeland currents, I immediately tuned into this pattern.

To somebody who has not paid any attention to Peratt's simulation, the explanation offered in a July 2016 article would seem good enough to assume the issue is basically settled:

Many disc galaxies, including our own Milky Way, have a central bulge that resembles either a box or an unshelled peanut. This bulge may form when the circular orbits of stars become elongated, creating a “bar” of stars that runs through the centre and tilts out of the disc’s plane. The combined effect makes the once-flat galaxy look like it has buckled under enormous pressure.

But, hold on just a second. This is a completely ad hoc explanation. Although I have no doubt that somebody somewhere can generate a tweak to the original galactic models -- perhaps involving dark matter -- which can explain with actual numbers why this may occur in the conventional model, the fact of the matter is that this is a completely expected feature when you are modeling a galaxy as an interaction of two Birkeland currents. -- and the choice to refuse to systematically track the Electric Universe controversy has left everybody failing to recognize that this actually vindicates the against-the-mainstream claim.

You think that's just a coincidence? Okay, let's go back a few days to the release of these new pictures from the Juno spacecraft of one of Jupiter's poles in infrared. The article states:

Jupiter’s poles are a stark contrast to the more familiar orange and white belts and zones encircling the planet at lower latitudes. Its north pole is dominated by a central cyclone surrounded by eight circumpolar cyclones with diameters ranging from 2,500 to 2,900 miles (4,000 to 4,600 kilometers) across. Jupiter’s south pole also contains a central cyclone, but it is surrounded by five cyclones with diameters ranging from 3,500 to 4,300 miles (5,600 to 7,000 kilometers) in diameter. Almost all the polar cyclones, at both poles, are so densely packed that their spiral arms come in contact with adjacent cyclones. However, as tightly spaced as the cyclones are, they have remained distinct, with individual morphologies over the seven months of observations detailed in the paper.

“The question is, why do they not merge?” said Adriani. “We know with Cassini data that Saturn has a single cyclonic vortex at each pole. We are beginning to realize that not all gas giants are created equal.”

Once again, I sprung into action because I have tracked Peratt's work sufficient to understand the inherent geometry of electricity over plasma. In his efforts to explain petroglyphs as z-pinch instab

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

But, in science, we do not just settle for "what works" because epicycles also work; we have to identify "what works best" -- and the only way to do that in a rigorous manner is through tracking controversies. If academia -- and the people who subscribe to their preferred ideas -- want to have confidence that their preferred theories are "what works best", then they would focus more upon creating a system of checks-and-balances, in the spirit of the United States government. As things stand, there is nobody reviewing the peer reviewers, and that is a recipe for abuse.

Guess what? I personally noticed two vindications for the Electric Universe just this week (one actually traces back to 2016 and I just didn't notice it when it happened). If you had been tracking the topic with me, you would have noticed them as well.

I explain them in this other thread. Please read this to better appreciate with live, recent examples the importance of tracking controversies. I promise: I am not crazy. When the world convinces itself that nobody needs to pay attention to something, stuff starts to fall through the cracks.

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

That's nice. Would you care to explain why galaxies with two central bulges are not a vindication for Peratt's solution to the dark matter problem?

Re:An epic failure in science journalism

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Thanks! Care to explain why two central bulges for galaxies is not a vindication for Peratt's dark matter solution (as is shown in the thread I directed you to?).

If it takes that many words

[DCFusor]

To say someone is wrong, Wolfgang Pauli would say "you're not even wrong".

I will agree, and after reading the utter BS, not even rational, and very self and observation-contradicting commenters on phys.org who keyboard-warrior instead of do real science and make actual observations, I'm glad I didn't sign up. One might as well sign up to some alt-politics conspiracy theory site...for all the effect it'll have.

At least physorg keeps the nuts all together.. maybe one grenade....

Quoting tons of other errors doesn't make it right. Truth isn't up for vote.

Re:If it takes that many words

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Does it really make sense to expect that one of the most complex ongoing scientific debates can be explained in a paragraph?

Re: If it takes that many words

[paradigmsareconstruc]

"Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today 'are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.'"

Re: If it takes that many words

[Fluctuating Matter]

Plasma seems to be the quintessential complex system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Although the underlying equations governing plasmas are relatively simple, plasma behavior is extraordinarily varied and subtle: the emergence of unexpected behavior from a simple model is a typical feature of a complex system. Such systems lie in some sense on the boundary between ordered and disordered behavior and cannot typically be described either by simple, smooth, mathematical functions, or by pure randomness. The spontaneous formation of interesting spatial features on a wide range of length scales is one manifestation of plasma complexity. The features are interesting, for example, because they are very sharp, spatially intermittent (the distance between features is much larger than the features themselves), or have a fractal form. Many of these features were first studied in the laboratory, and have subsequently been recognized throughout the universe."

Re:If it takes that many words

[quenda]

homosexuality was Scientifically acknowledged by Scientific experts to be a disorder.

Not to contradict the point you are awkwardly trying to make, but this part is wrong.
Whether or not homosexuality is classified as a disorder, or a benign variation, has little to do with science. Like the medical definition of addiction, it depends on how it affects your life.
If you live in a society where sodomy is frequently punished by death, but you keep doing it, you have an illness.
Societies fault perhaps, but an illness still. Social context can change the medical classification, without any changes in the hard science.

Re:If it takes that many words

[ceoyoyo]

Generally we prefer that the medical definitions follow the science, as opposed to the other way around....

Re:If it takes that many words

[quenda]

What science? The causes of homosexuality, and evolutionary advantages (if any) remain a mystery, the subject of mere speculation.

We all love to say how tolerant we are, but if science tomorrow found that homosexuality was a result of a deficiency of a particular mineral at a critical stage of development, almost every mother would be popping it down with the folic acid. (and not talking about it.) And the world might be all the poorer for it.

Re:If it takes that many words

[ceoyoyo]

There's a fair amount of scientific study of sexuality, and homosexuality in particular. The fact that homosexuality is very widespread among other species suggests the trait has some fairly general survival utility (i.e. it's normal, as asserted by the OP). Your observation that the basis of homosexuality is complex tends to agree with the idea that it plays some fairly important role.

Your observation that if a preventative supplement existed "every mother would be popping it down" is an observation about your society. Which is why we usually prefer that medical definitions follow science, rather than fashion. Admittedly, that idea isn't very old, and it's certainly not universal yet.

Re:If it takes that many words

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The fact that homosexuality is very widespread among other species suggests the trait has some fairly general survival utility (i.e. it's normal, as asserted by the OP).

It's probably more than just a speculation at this point.

Here we go

[flopsquad]

"All aboard the armchair astrophysics train! Next stop, Electric Universe! Red Line right to Not Even Wrong, making stops at Time Cube, Flat Earth, Luminiferous Aether, and Turtles-All-the-Way-Down Town."

Re: Here we go

[flopsquad]

Now now. I'm sure we can have a discussion without stooping to insults. For example, I'd wager you have the intellectual capacity to understand what a strawman is, even though right now you clearly don't.

Do not be misled

[rknop]

It is telling that all papers by this author and his collaborators seem to be in a closed ecosystem of citation where they only are cited each other. I am not familiar with the "Galaxies" journal. At least one of these papers is from A&A, which *is* a real peer-reviewed journal.

There are many red herrings here. First of all, the whole "we have a model that can explain galaxy rotation curves without dark matter" is not nearly as meaningful as some seem to say it is. There is a whole host of observations explained by dark matter, in detail, and with precision. Explaining just one of them doesn't do much if you can't explain all of the rest of the observations.

Likewise, the Big Bang model has a host of observations that support it, in detail, and with numerical precision.

The "electric universe" is not something that is worth paying attention to.

For popular-level information about the problems with the whole electric universe business, see this site: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

Re: Do not be misled

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "I am willing to admit filaments exist but they are streams of charged ions from the stars. These are moving through the magnetic field of the star or vice versa, so of course they have a current. This doesn't give rise to a force holding the galaxy together."

Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics by Stephen G. Brush, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 20, No. 6, Dec 1992

According to some scientists and philosophers of science, a theory is or should be judged by its ability to make successful predictions. This paper examines a case from the history of recent science -- the research of Hannes Alfvén and his colleagues on solar system physics -- in order to see whether scientists actually follow this policy. Tests of seven predictions are considered: magnetic braking magnetohydrodynamic waves, field-aligned ('Birkeland') currents, critical ionization velocity and the rings of Uranus, jet streams, electrostatic double layers, and partial corotation ('2/3 effect') ...

... It is found that the success or failure of these predictions had essentially no effect on the acceptance of Alfvén's theories, even though concepts such as ‘Alfvén waves' have become firmly entrenched in space physics. Perhaps the importance of predictions in such has been exaggerated: if a theory is not acceptable to the scientific community, it may not gain any credit from successful predictions.

Good grief

[93 Escort Wagon]

So the submitter is apparently extremely distressed regarding what goes on in internet discussion threads, both on phys.org and on Slashdot (based on his extremely long comment further up), for some reason.

My advice is - don’t get so worked up over what people say on the internet.

Mistaken Bias?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

The submitter write, "a mistaken bias against electricity in space continues to dominate conversations." What dominates conversations is a complete lack of credible evidence for this. It reminds me of the old days when Archimedes Plutonium invaded sci.physics and talk.origins.

Can we moderate submissions?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is clearly a troll submission. Bullshit paper in a bullshit journal. Basically the equivalent of a crackpot posting on his own blog. How did this shit get posted?

Re:Can we moderate submissions?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Alfvén's Programme in Solar System Physics by Stephen G. Brush, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 20, No. 6, Dec 1992

According to some scientists and philosophers of science, a theory is or should be judged by its ability to make successful predictions. This paper examines a case from the history of recent science -- the research of Hannes Alfvén and his colleagues on solar system physics -- in order to see whether scientists actually follow this policy. Tests of seven predictions are considered: magnetic braking magnetohydrodynamic waves, field-aligned ('Birkeland') currents, critical ionization velocity and the rings of Uranus, jet streams, electrostatic double layers, and partial corotation ('2/3 effect') ...

... It is found that the success or failure of these predictions had essentially no effect on the acceptance of Alfvén's theories, even though concepts such as ‘Alfvén waves' have become firmly entrenched in space physics. Perhaps the importance of predictions in such has been exaggerated: if a theory is not acceptable to the scientific community, it may not gain any credit from successful predictions.

Re:Can we moderate submissions?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

If you were to actually read what the whistleblower astrophysicists are arguing, you'd observe that they would disagree with your approach. These people are risking their careers in order to convince the public to alter its focus.

The Twilight of the Scientific Age
Martín López Corredoira
Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead / Academic Whistleblower

A superficial view may lead us to think that we live in the golden age of science but the fact is that the present-day results of science are mostly mean, unimportant, or just technical applications of ideas conceived in the past.

There are several reasons to write about this topic. First of all, because I feel that things are not as they seem, and the apparent success of scientific research in our societies, announced with a lot of ballyhoo by the mass media, does not reflect the real state of things.

the more controversial the topic, and the more of a challenge it is to established ideas, and the newer the approach, then the more difficult will be the problems in publishing it, and the higher the probability of its being rejected. Gillies (2008, ch. 2) argues that when a researcher makes an advance which is later seen as a key innovation and a major breakthrough, a peer review may very well judge it to be absurd and of no values. As noted by Van Flandern (1993, ch. 21), peer review in journals interferes with the objective examination of extraordinary ideas on their merits. Maddox (1993), who was editor of the journal Nature, has said that if Newton submitted his theory of gravity to a journal today, it would almost certainly be rejected as being too preposterous to believe. On the one hand, there is a failure to select novel ideas (Brezis, 2007; Horrobin, 1990). On the other hand, the refereeing process trends to conformity.

From my own experiences and those of others, I have observed that doors are opened and offers made to those who are servile and uncritical. A lot of work must be produced, but without any great aspiration towards saying something important. To obtain an academic position, to obtain tenure, to be successful in obtaining research funds, etc. it is necessary to conform.

In the last two decades, I have observed, at least in my speciality, how the number of offers of postdoctoral positions with a free choice of research topic has been much reduced, substituted by positions working on a major project under the orders of senior 'priests'. This is, in my opinion, a huge obstacle for the creativity of young scientists, an unfortunate trend in the present-day bureacratized system. Moreover, among people who are going to develop a topic freely, there is also a strong bias against all the applications which propose topics which are not suitable according to the mainstream of normal science. Certainly, this is the perfect way to uphold the power of tradition and to castrate new ideas. No revolution is possible within this system; only an outsider can do it.

Scientists are educated nowadays in a habit of self-censorship. The system promotes self-repression in the spread of ideas, so most scientists, when writing a paper, think something like 'I think this and that, but I cannot say so in my paper because this will not pass the referee's control, so I will not say it'. This causes serious harm to creativity among people who dare to think new things.

... scientists have to choose between developing their own ideas freely or being constrained by subjects which allow academic success.

The situation is that society is drowned in ideas and information without assimilating any of it, and only a few ideas, those selected by the establishment, will make some impact. We are in the era of mass

Re:Can we moderate submissions?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Look at how narrow your focus has become. We are literally talking about some of the most complex questions man has ever asked, and you're imagining that you can reduce this very complex discussion to this single paper. In any debate like this, there are going to be winners and losers, but to produce a meaningful assessment, we have to look at the full breadth of all of the individual pieces: the claims, the critiques, the sociological patterns, psychological biases, the history of science, yes the validity of the math (but also whether or not it applies), unexpected vindications, basically the whole fabric of what is happening.

For example, here is an unexpected vindication below from this past January. Rather than simply accepting that galaxy experts don't read IEEE, perhaps we should view that admission as reason to suspect that that practice has an effect upon their ability to replicate (and by extension, self-correct).

Centralized "big science" communities more likely generate non-replicable results

Abstract: Growing concern that most published results, including those widely agreed upon, may be false are rarely examined against rapidly expanding research production. Replications have only occurred on small scales due to prohibitive expense and limited professional incentive. We introduce a novel, high-throughput replication strategy aligning 51,292 published claims about drug-gene interactions with high-throughput experiments performed through the NIH LINCS L1000 program. We show (1) that unique claims replicate 19% more frequently than at random, while those widely agreed upon replicate 45% more frequently, manifesting collective correction mechanisms in science; but (2) centralized scientific communities perpetuate claims that are less likely to replicate even if widely agreed upon, demonstrating how centralized, overlapping collaborations weaken collective understanding. Decentralized research communities involve more independent teams and use more diverse methodologies, generating the most robust, replicable results. Our findings highlight the importance of science policies that foster decentralized collaboration to promote robust scientific advance.

In other words, when a group of electrical engineers launches a critique of mainstream cosmology, the cosmologists can decide to either collaborate with this group to form new sets of questions and lines of investigation; or, they can just ignore or dismiss the critiques. Historically speaking, the pattern in the astrophysics and cosmology domains has been to centralize and ostracize outsiders:

The Death of $cience: A Companion Study to Martin Lopez Corredoira's The Twilight of the Scientific Age
by Andrew Holster

p.73:

Professional opposition to outsiders crossing boundaries of specialisations is one of the defining features of modern science, and one of the most powerful forces against heterodox thinkers. But combining insights from multiple fields is often the essential ingredient for making progress.

p.77:

Because of the number of severe and unexplained anomalies in modern physics and cosmology, foundational physics is open to revolutionary change. Indeed, I believe it would have gone through such a revolution over the last few decades, were it not for the severe repression of ideas in modern physics. And any such revolution will deeply affect other natural sciences, including theories of mind. Yet while I believe a revolution is immanent, I also think it is unlikely to be made through our present scientific institutions. It will be made by outsiders. The new approach required to advance physics will be attacked from within conventional physics, because it has to revolutionize certain foundational concepts of quantum theory and relativity theory, but this goes profoundly against the interests of professional physicists.

Re:Lou Reed was right

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Electricity comes from other planets.

Yeah, all these astro-folks have been asking the wrong questions about Mars:

"Is there life on Mars . . . ?", "Is there water on Mars . . . ?", "Is there oxygen on Mars . . . ?"

Instead, they should have been asking, "Is there electricity on Mars . . . ?"

This is why Elon Musk is planning to fly his Tesla to Mars. He will plug it into Mars, and see if it charges.

Then we will have the electricity on Mars question answered.

These electric astrophysical plasmatic jet thingies are also good news. We can build spacecraft like electric trains and trolleys, and they can tap into the space currents to zip them around!

We need to be careful, though. The electricity inside could be the theorized "Dark Electricity", causing the spacecraft to travel backwards in time.

What is this pseudo-science doing on slashdot?

[najajomo]

What is this pseudo-science doing on slashdot, it this the best you can find as an article on what used to be a top tech site?

Re:What is this pseudo-science doing on slashdot?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Again, we see somebody arguing that the best way to understand the debate is to learn just one side of it. The reality of the situation is that the math is in service to the concepts and models of the framework, so when we change frameworks, the math can also -- and quite dramatically -- change. This cannot, by itself, be a complete process for judging scientific controversies.

Re:What is this pseudo-science doing on slashdot?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

The critiques of Robert Goddard were remarkably similar.

This foolish idea of shooting at the Moon is an example of the absurd lengths to which vicious specialisation will carry scientists ... For a projectile entirely to escape the gravitation of the Earth, it needs a velocity of 7 miles a second. The thermal energy of a gramme at this speed is 15180 calories ... The energy of our most violent explosive -- nitroglycerine -- is less than 1500 colories per gramme. Consequently, even had the explosive nothing to carry, it has only one tenth of the energy to escape the Earth ... hence the proposition appears to be basically unsound.

- A.W. Bickerton, New Zealand Professor of Physics & Chemistry

Learn the math!

Re:What is this pseudo-science doing on slashdot?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

Re: "I am not bothering to watch the YouTube video"

It appears that the entire argument against electricity in space could basically be summarized with:

I am not bothering to [read/watch] the [paper/book/video].

What is a bit strange is that this is how the person begins their response. It is of course a statement upon the person's rigor, motivation to learn, and overall process for judging disagreements in science., and most people here who are doing this are of course not so honest about it.

Re:What is this pseudo-science doing on slashdot?

[paradigmsareconstruc]

"There is no such thing as 'the' scientific method. Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question 'what is science'. The very notion that there could be a pat answer bespeaks an attachment to rote learning that is incompatible with scientific thinking."

- Richard Feynman

How did this shit get posted

[najajomo]

@Anon: "This is clearly a troll submission. Bullshit paper in a bullshit journal. Basically the equivalent of a crackpot posting on his own blog. How did this shit get posted?"

Slashdot are hiring on ten year olds to do the article vetting.

Re:Patent lawyer

[paradigmsareconstruc]

By your own logic, Don Scott, author of The Electric Sky is an academic insider. So, you've managed to profoundly confuse the conversation with this approach of calling anybody who has a PhD an insider.