Anti-electric universe

June 14, 2009

Close encounter of the moose kind

Filed under: Uncategorized — davidlpf @ 7:36 am

As some of you know I work the late shift at a call center. The trip between the call center and my home is about 40 km. Some of the road has guard rails because the drop off can be fairly steep. Well I was going down hill that has the rails on it and I notice some in the other lane. It was dark and light then I hit the brakes. The thing got into my lane the I realized it was a yearling moose, and I just luckily just missed hitting it by just a couple of feet. Then when I try to get a picture then it started running down the road and went into someones driveway and then into the woods.


June 6, 2009

Electricity can be cool

Filed under: Uncategorized — davidlpf @ 4:49 am

The theme from my favourite show with Telsa coils can’t get really any cooler.

Some logical fallacies of the electric universe

Filed under: electric universe — davidlpf @ 4:07 am

         One thing I want to make clear is that I have a problem with the electric universe, not the people behind the idea. In science what matters are the ideas and the evidence that supports the idea. What does not matter is person’s previous achievements or personal beliefs but, more often then not people try use these things to support their argument or counter  someone else’s idea. In the are of logical fallacies, it is referred to as the argument from authority. There are many examples of this such as Halton Arp, Newton, Einstein and many others. Arp is a brillant observational astronomer who worked under Hubble and produced a catalogue of peculiar galaxies, but his view on intrinsic red shift has no evidence to support. Newton everyone knows, was a really intelligent person who came up with  calculus, gravity and many other things, and he also wrote a lot on the bible and was interested in alchemy. Einstein came up with special relativity, general relativity and was one the founders of quantum mechanics, but he also did not like the randomness of quantum mechanics. All three had main stream ideas and ideas that would be that as against the mainstream. Now how are we to tell the difference between the two? What we need is some way of testing different ideas and that irequires evidence? But how are we suppose to get evidence from objects so far away.

Another common logical fallacy that is commented is that since a concept does make since to them, the theory must be wrong. Using this logic, you can say  your computer must not work because you do not how it works, but you are reading this on your computer. Obviously, since you do not how it works does not mean it does work. This type of argument is usually applied to things like elections, the interior of the sun, black holes and many other things they cannot get their heads around.

The next fallacy is the argument of a false dichotomy about the nature of the universe. Basically,they argue either gravity controls the universe or the electromagnetic force controls the universe. The mainstream view is that the universe in under their in fluence of 4 forces, each have their own domain.

Also most have either the Galileo or the lone scientist complex.
Galileo was persecuted. Galileo was right. I am persecuted. Ergo, I am right.
The lone scientist is that some person working by himself came up with a discovery
that will change life as we know it. In science, you need evidence and also need to make
predictions that can be tested by other scientists. If the scientists do find something they will explore in it more detail.  If there is little evidence if any for the electric universe.

Edited with help from Gillianren from the, with many thanks.

Blog at