Quote:
Originally Posted by Extropia DaSilva
The EU model has been dismissed on the grounds that it is more of a set of ideas than a propper theory. But you are extremely unlikely to be granted the right to study EU under any scientific establishment that has the requisite facilities to turn these ideas into something more substantial. And until these ideas are turned into something more substantial, it is going to be hard to argue the case that study time and research money be spent on an alternative to the BB (particularly when, according to cosmologystatement.org, 'funding comes from only a few sources, and supporters of BB dominate all the peer-review committees that control the funds').
|
(My bold) Well, this does not make sense at all. All over the world people are working on plasma(astro)physics, which, if you look at it closely, is EU, because all the theories that the EU proponents say that are barred from investigation, are used in plasma(astro)physics, be it Birkeland currents, double layers etc.
The problem is that up until now no EU theory has been able to show any good results, starting with the "electric sun" to stay close at home, and moving outward to the BB.
Now please note, that plasma(astro)physics is an element that has to be taken along in cosmology (how else are you going to describe the early universe?). EU proponenst seem to think that plasma physics and electric fields are forbidden terrain for mainstream scientists.
If you can show that your EU idea has merit, which means put it to the scrutiny of your peers, and it is found to be valid then it will be accepted over a period of time (to go into details e.g. in space physics the discussion between the reconnection and the current disruption models, where the latter could be seen as the "EU" in this discussion, and I happen to think both processes take place). Nothing goes immediately, people (even scientists) need time to digest new ideas.
So, if you
Extropia DaSilva have any ideas on EU, please share them with us, and we discuss them.