I came across a lot of alt-physics theories when writing Pale Blue Scratch, since technology played a large role in the plot, and the Tesla/Edison period was a good fit for the time period and history. I recently rediscovered one of the first sites I had explored to get a feel for all of this:
The consequences and possibilities in an Electric Universe are far-reaching. First we must acknowledge our profound ignorance! We know nothing of the origin of the universe. There was no Big Bang. The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought. We have no idea of the age or extent of the universe. We don’t know the ultimate source of the electrical energy or matter that forms the universe. Galaxies are shaped by electrical forces and form plasma focuses at their centers, which periodically eject quasars and jets of electrons. Quasars evolve into companion galaxies. Galaxies form families with identifiable “parents” and “children”. Stars are electrical “transformers” not thermonuclear devices. There are no neutron stars or Black Holes. We don’t know the age of stars because the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them. Supernovae are totally inadequate as a source of heavy elements. We do not know the age of the Earth because radioactive clocks can be upset by powerful electric discharges.
My opinion: the establishment theories or laws on the physical universe hold little weight. I just have the basic public school understanding of it, which nowhere near enough of a knowledge base. But the establishment is the establishment, and there very good reasons for the players involved to maintain the current state of affairs. Siding with them as a casual lay-observer guarantees one’s security. Establishment scientists rightly point out holes in the cranks’ counter-theories, but it’s all special pleading when their own unknowns are exposed: “Yeah, we don’t know that yet, but someday we’ll figure it out.” That’s fine, but why doesn’t that apply to the other guys?
On the flipside, I don’t side with the contrarian cranks just because they are contrarians, but it’s fun to see establishment scientists get so upset when their ideas are challenged, as though they are personally offended that someone, somewhere has a different view of things. I guess deep down I’m an agnostic about all of it. Epistemically, it’s the safest bet.
5 Comments
Another example of one of my favorites: Reality is fungible.
I like to phrase it, “reality is fun.” I try not to take any physical science theories too seriously, but I like playing with them (hence the book).
I’m okay with an electric universe. And it’s okay with me. LOL, I don’t know why; my brain just turned it into a song.
I’m okay with it, too. It certainly would be interesting to have to go back and “re-do” a lot of experiments. A lot of people would be pissed but at least they may have some job security.
An agnostic position towards scientific facts is neither epistemically safe nor detrimental. It is, however, irrational. The scientific method is rather rigorous and provides a number of tools for snuffing out bullshit. In general, pseudoscience appeals more to mysticism but is spoken in unambiguously understood scientific terms. On the other hand, there would be no science without pseudoscience. Although we innately appeal to mysticism, which can 1) creep into (e.g., “electric universe”), 2) bolster (e.g., Einstein’s Spinozism), or 3) evolve (Whitehead’s metaphysics) our endeavors to understand the external world scientifically, it’s easy to take improvements in techne, progress in scientific experimentation, and advances in mathematics for granted. Indeed, our intellectual predispositions often directly contradict other views we hold (e.g, a flat-earther may take round-trips to and from China without question).
In logic, we call this suppressive evidence, which runs riot everywhere. It also affects scientist-cum-evangelical researchers. The best of these individuals impose a boundary between knowledge derived from science and knowledge derived from religious belief. This makes sense. As Kant points out, there are limits to scientific reason; all other “knowledge” comes from faith, which is, by definition, outside the limits of reason.