Plasma The
Electric Universe Science
and Philosophy What
is science? Skepticism
The
Big Bang
Mathematics Ancient
Testimony Cutting Edge The
Way Forward Latest
News
Video

 


"I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." Richard Feynman 





Science and Philosophy 





What is science? 





A few words from Hannes Alfvén seem appropriate
to begin a discussion on the role of philosophy in science.
Alfvén pointed to an increasing specialisation in science
during the latter half of the last century, and this cult
of the expert certainly seems to have contributed to much
of the resistance to many of his ideas. 

"There
is no such thing as philosophyfree science; there is
only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board
without examination." Daniel Dennett 


"We should remember that there was
once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately,
this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been
renamed science, but the science of today is in danger
of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect. Scientists
tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their
own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is
founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines
would compete unfairly for limited financial resources
and thus diminish their own opportunity for research."
Hannes Alfvén, 1986


It is easy to forget that science is essentially a
philosophical discipline. It is based on Empiricism,
the method by which we gain knowledge through observation
and measurement. At older universities, longestablished
Chairs of Natural Philosophy are generally now occupied
by Professors of Physics.
See the next page on skepticism for an overview of
two of the leading philosophers of science, Karl
Popper and Thomas Kuhn.


"It is the inductive science of philosopy that teaches the 'hard' scientist how to be scientific." Leonard Piekoff, Logical Leap 2010 



The NPA  Natural Philosophy Alliance 





The Natural Philosophy Alliance is an alliance of people who believe that many mainstream/consensus ideas in physics and cosmology, including relativity, quantum theory, and the big bang, are irredeemably flawed. The emphasis is on putting the philosophy bank into science, in other words; where an evidential approach is prioritised over ideology.
In recent years the Electric Universe and NPA have run a number of successful joint conferences.
In July 2013 the founder of the Electric Universe, Wal Thornhill, was awarded the prestigious Sagnac award for
lifetime achievement at the 20th annual conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance at the University of Maryland, College Park, USA. 





The Scientific method 





Traditionally we think of the scientific method comprising
the following stages.
1 Observation 2
Hypothesis 3 Prediction 4
Testing
Richard Feynman, however, argued that "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."
It is a straight forward matter, nonetheless, to differentiate
between the approaches favoured by Big Bang supporters
and Plasma Cosmologists.


"Don't
let your minds be cluttered up with the prevailing doctrine."
Alexander Fleming 



The 'Actualistic' versus the 'Prophetic' 





Following in the footsteps of their famous predecessors,
plasma physicists are keen to take an Actualistic
approach, that of working backwards from observation,
and taking a broad approach to science. Birkeland, for
example, believed in experimentation and observation
in addition to mathematical modelling, despite having
trained as a mathematician himself. He was famous for his Terella
experiments (see history I), and for expeditions to
polar regions to observe auroras at first hand.
Big Bangers, by contrast, exhibit a preference for
the Prophetic approach, that
of starting out from idealised mathematical principles.
This theoretical approach, however, is fraught with
problems, as the history of science testifies. For example:
1. Sidney Chapman's mathematical models failed to
predict the complex three dimensional nature of the
Earth's magnetosphere.
2. The Kinetic theory of Ordinary gases fails to predict
the behaviour of Plasmas (originally called ionised
gases), because of their electrodynamic interactions.
The mathematics may work for ordinary gases, but it
fails hopelessly for plasmas.
3. Ptolemaic epicycles were mathematically elegant,
and they worked, but they failed to recognise the underlying
mechanism.
4. The prophetic approach postulates
a number of entities prior to their discovery. Hypotheticals
like Dark Matter and Dark Energy are required to balance
the equations in Big Bang cosmology. There is nothing wrong with this approach in principle, but when you consider these exotic entities are now alleged to make up more than 90% of the universe you have to wonder.
5. Mathematical proofs were cited to support the claim
that heavierthanair flight was impossible! These,
of course, turned out to be nonsense.


"After all, to get the whole universe totally
wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years
merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a
modicum of humility." Halton Arp
“We have to learn again that science without contact
with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to
go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
Hannes Alfvén

Mathematics and Science 





The importance of mathematics in science cannot be
denied. It is an essential tool for both measurement
and prediction, principles on which science is based,
but history teaches us to be cautious before relying
on mathematics as a starting point.
“I am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in divorce.” Freeman Dyson
Ptolemaic epicycles, mentioned above, highlight the
dangers of the mathematical approach. They were a series
of circular orbits within orbits, and with a few tweaks
they would probably still work today, but the point
is that — although mathematically correct, and indeed
elegant — they failed to reflect the underlying reality.
Einstein himself had reservations about the mathematical
approach favoured by expanding universe proponents:
"Since the mathematicians have invaded
the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself
any more."
"To the extent that the laws of
mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and
to the extent that they are true, they do not refer
to reality."
In other words, Math should be subordinate
to Physics, and not the other way around, as it is now.
“...Lorentz, in order to justify
his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating
a physical effect of interaction between moving matter
and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics
still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was
Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther
and still retaining light waves whose properties were
expressed by formulae that were meaningless without
it, who was the first to discard physics altogether
and propose a wholly mathematical theory...“
Herbert
Dingle, Science at the CrossRoads.


"One
should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number
of entities required to explain anything". Ockham's
Razor 
Math and Logic 





It is all too often assumed that mathematics is a form
of pure logic, and therefore above reproach. Although
it contains many logical elements, the relationship
between math and logic is not simple. Bertrand Russell
and a number of other philosophers have dedicated no
little time in trying to prove the relationship, but
all have failed. Math is only pure in so far as much
of it reflects the realm of pure thought, and not necessarily
reality. Unfortunately, math all too often drives modern
cosmology. The trouble is, math should be our slave
... not our master.
Plasma Cosmology works backwards from observation,
not forwards from perfect theoretical principals. Additionally,
plasma behaviours are not always easy to model mathematically.
Langmuir, after all, borrowed the term from blood plasma
because of its lifelike qualities.
Russell's
Paradox highlights a mathlogic problem via the
agent of Set Theory.


"Physics
is mathematical not because we know so much about the
physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand
Russell 



Matters of some gravity 





It is easy to forget that we do not understand
the mechanism behind gravity. It is a force which is
described mathematically. Newton admitted as much:
"But hitherto I have not been able
to discover the cause of those properties of gravity
from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses."
Isaac
Newton
Einstein further muddied the waters when
he replaced a mathematical description of gravity with
a mathematical abstraction, by factoring
in time as a physical dimension. Can empty space really
be curved?
See also Crothers: Is Spacetime Really a FourDimensional Continuum?


"There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form." Richard Feynman




Space Balls 





In classrooms today, Einstein’s ‘solution’ is sometimes illustrated by rolling balls around on suspended blankets, with the smaller balls being attracted to the larger mass in the middle … as if falling into the well of spacetime. Balls indeed, some might say.


“I am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in divorce.” Freeman Dyson 



Time Dilation? 





Alleged Time Dilation is often cited as conclusive
evidence for General Relativity, but caution is urged
before accepting interpretations of tenuous evidence
in this regard. Could wishful thinking be the significant
factor?
When NASA put atomic clocks on aircraft and on the
space shuttle, they claim to have observed time dilation.
However, these results have been contested by Dr. A.
G. Kelly who examined the raw data. According to him,
the final published outcome had to be averaged in a
biased way in order to claim such a high degree of precision. Also, Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock,
published an article in which he discussed the inadequate
accuracy of the experiments.
It is often claimed that GPS satellites are adjusted for
Einstein's GRT, but this can also be disputed in the light of the above. Check out this fascinating
web site AntiRelativity. According to the US Naval laboratory:
“The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”
Adjustments are made, but this is because clocks at high altitudes tick faster resulting from variations in air density, not gravity. (The air is denser closer to the Earth’s surface.) Atomic clocks are also sensitive to temperature and pressure changes in their orbit.
Wal Thornhill examines the cult of Einstein, and the time dilation fallacy. "I'm no Einstein," Einstein once joked about the uncritical hero worship that began in his lifetime. To be fair to him, he was a reluctant hero.
"You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is a not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
Albert Einstein
The idea that time warps space is ridiculous on its face, and reflects the insanity that permeates cosmology. Clocks do not create time; they measure it. If a clock stops, time doesn't. Of course, gravity and EM can affect clock mechanisms, but not vice versa. A pendulum clock does not work in space, for example, because there is no gravity. Gravity can affect time in this respect, but time does not create gravity, and space can never be warped or curved.
It is important to add a caveat to the above. When time contraction and length dilation can be observed, it doesn’t lend credence to Special Relativity within the fantastical spacetime framework.
“Poincare's advancement of Lorentz's æther is mathematically indistinguishable from "Special Relativity," while being utterly opposed to Minkowski's diagrams and formalization of "isotropic constancy" found in the spacetime metaphysics regime.” Antirelativity.com


“The
first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and
you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest
enemy of truth." Albert Einstein 
Science and Religion 





It is not the purpose of this web site to enter into
any debate regarding the relative merits of science
and religion. Alfvén, however, warned against the dangers
of trying to reconcile the two:
"I was there when Abbe Georges
Lemaitre first proposed this theory [Big Bang]. Lemaitre
was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy
and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that
this theory was a way to reconcile science with St.
Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo
or creation out of nothing.
"There is no
rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed
indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth
that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either
four thousand or twenty billion years ago."


"Science
is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound
source of spirituality." Carl Sagan 
Horganism 





The belief that we know almost all there is to know,
and that there are only a few loose ends to tieup,
is sometimes referred to as Horganism, after John Horgan,
a senior writer at Scientific American. In his book, The End of Science, he rejects the idea that any major
new discoveries remain to be made.
The history of science suggests that such confidence
— arrogance, perhaps — is illfounded. Many share the
view that we have barely scratched the surface.
“The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries.“ Freeman Dyson


"Science
is a mountain of theory based on a molehill of evidence."
Anon 
 
 

