Thoughts on the book, "A beginners guide to our Electric Universe" By Tom Findlay (Part 1) Revised (cleaner)

After consulting with John Elder I decided to post this on my blog, it’s a more polished version of my debunk of EU. I intend to debunk the entire book, however I plan on only releasing these in chunks and well-spaced out as I do not want my personal blog to be centered around this one book of falsehoods. This is a practical application of almost every other topic I've written about in my blog, so it is relevant. However there are many more valuable and important topics I do not wish to put on hold, or detract from.

It's important to note that before we begin, in no way does this debunk of the hypothesis called Electric Universe, nor do I claim to support or promote the theory of the cosmological standard model. Also known as the "Big Bang Theory." Debunking EU in no way supports Big Bang, and disproving Big Bang would in no way offer credibility or support to EU. As the writer I make no claims to have the qualifications to back up the work of the brilliant minds who study our world. All I can do is relate the claims evidence and proof from the scientific community and apply basic logic function to it and the statements, claims and assertions in this book. I do have a reasonable grasp on Math and Physics, and as the rest of my blog is mostly on Logic and the processes by which we think and discern reality, I think you can determine for yourself the reliability of my work. To reiterate this is nothing but a debunk of this book and the Hypothesis it postulates.

Chapter 1
Part 1

I'm starting with the flawed presentation of what the big bang theory actually is, since like young earth creationists this guy loves to make claims that sound trueish but are factually inaccurate. In short I'm starting from the beginning, Chapter 1 What the problem is (p10)

"Most of us will have heard of the Big Bang [1-1] , but what exactly was it? The name was invented in the 1900s during the time when ideas in astro-science about gravity and other things came together as the Standard Model (SM) of our universe. It was 13.7 billion (13,700,000,000) years ago that the Big Bang event is said to have started the creation of our universe. It took many millions of years for the sub-atomic particles produced as the only result of that ‘explosion’ to be drawn together to form atoms of gas. Then, with the assistance of gravity pulling that simple gas together, vast regions of it formed in concentrations that had shape and dimension." Source

1 The big bang did not "Start" our universe. No one claims that, the big bang is simply an answer to the question "why does the universe appear to be expanding" at least in its simplest forms and exploring the implications of that, and the evidence to support it. This claim is akin to saying "Evolution is where man came from," No evolution simply explains bio diversity over time. An Idea founded in inaccurate information is bound to only become more inaccurate as one continues. It will become clear as we go through this book how very real that concept is.

Even if the big bang happened exactly as we currently theories it in no way means that that was "the start of everything." The most one could say is it's the start of the universe as we currently know it.

I must also mention that "Astro-Science" does not appear to be at any level a real term or word used by current scientists, nor does it appear to have any historical context that I was able to find. It would appear to be a word made up by a fringe pseudoscience community that has no wider use or acceptance. (further research needed to ensure verification of this claim, but so far it appears to be the case)

Another important thing to note. The author seems to imply he knows what took place prior to the Big Bang, before the big bang there was no time, assertions of what happened prior to the big bang in this statement are totally erroneous.

I would recommend the book "A universe from nothing" by Ph.D. Lawrence Krauss for further explanation.

Part2

"It is important to appreciate how we humans tend to think. For those of us who like to think deeply, our truly limited abilities only become apparent when we attempt to consider what can be seen out there in space. We ask ourselves if we will ever be able to appreciate the fact that what we are looking at is only a tiny snapshot in time in the overall existence of our universe, whatever that scale of time may be. It is sobering to think that the best impression we can achieve would have no great relevance within a single tick of the universal clock; it would be no time at all. However, as we humans naïvely tend to do, we look out there with our current level of understanding and equipment and feel that it all does or can make sense to us. Gathering knowledge is undoubtedly among the best of pursuits, but for some of us, our know-it-all tendency goes further and leads us to think we actually do understand it all"

The author puts this section in the middle AFTER beginning with his flawed explanation of what the big bang theory is. Mistakes and flaws and failure to grasp even basic concepts is a common theme throughout this book, it seems to betray a lack of order or in thought processes and in the structure, and the presentation of ideas. More importantly seems to extend to the lack of structure even in the individual thoughts within many parts of the text.

1. The only one with a "know it all attitude" are the Young Earth Creationists, Flat Earthers, Climate Science Deniers, and Electronic Universe proselytizers. Scientist don't claim to know how the universe works, not all of it anyway. Nor do they bother with silly meaningless attempts at trying to figure out how much we do and don't know. We know the things we can prove, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. Also within all the mentioned groups you will consistently find all of the exact same logical fallacy's and bad arguments, they seem to borrow a lot from each other.

This author claims he "Can't accept it" well that's nice, an argument from ignorance, or incredulity take your pick. He goes on to write a nice fairy tale that has absolutely  no evidence whatsoever. His assertions can't be proven, and in fact much of the claims made have in fact already been disproved, many of which will be provided as we continue through this book. The reader is expected, however, to choose this book over actually learning. Why? because its "easy to understand." His words, not mine. We need to remember the universe could care less what we can or can't understand. Maybe humans can learn everything in the universe, maybe we can't. It looks pretty clear anyone who buys this bullshit can't and they may never be able develop the intellectual honesty and objectivity required to be able to.

Finally, we know what we can demonstrate to be fact. That is all. If you listen to Cosmologists you will hear them say "The science seems to indicate" -Lawrence Krauss (from nearly every speech he's ever made), this is clearly not the claim of a man who thinks he knows everything, he's reserving final judgement until there is demonstrable evidence to back up what the evidence seems to indicate. As any good scientist should.

Part 3

"The seeds from which it grew were sown back in the 1700s when an understanding of the effects of the force of gravity was first developed. Scientists and astronomers welcomed this for they saw the beginnings of a ‘fundamental golden theory’ that they could take forward and use to develop their own lines of research."

It's important to note that the earliest forms of the peer reviewed process didn't begin until possibly 1731 (quick rough down and dirty source), and early on it's possible some people had slightly more dishonest motives in supporting Issac Newton. However, science is not decided by a fucking comity, science is decided by a cage match, a brawl a brutal and competitive fight between scientists through the peer reviewed process. Even if early on there was some dishonesty, there would be huge incentives on defeating Sir Newton inside this cage match. His model for gravity stood  because despite everything, under the conditions found here on earth, they are correct. It is not the whole story however, Einstein came along and further filled out Issacs's work. This is a necessary part of how we develop knowledge over time.

Why? because science is self-correcting thanks to the methodologies it employs. It strives to be more and more accurate over time, seeing farther by standing on the shoulders of giants to paraphrase Einstein.

For example, Let's say I discover that Pi is 3.1, then someone comes along and finds that a more accurate example is 3.14, then someone else comes along and finds that a more accurate example of pie is.....3.14159265359, and we keep going until Pi extends to 1 million digits. Does that mean I was wrong? Not really, it means my answer wasn't the most accurate representation, but without it no further progress would have been made. This book postulates that simply because not EVERY prediction made by Cosmology has yet been proven, then we must throw the whole thing out and instead adopt some wild musings from a cognitive midget who has no proven predictions, no functional models, no evidence what so ever.  Admittedly dear reader, I cheated, I already read to the end months ago, so I know how this story ends already.

What's really annoying is that people are forced to waste our time on this bullshit, work like this is literally stealing people's lives. We seek to correct this simply for the purpose of nurturing critical thinking skills. None of us have a lot of time on this earth, the cost in engaging people on faith based belief systems is time we don't get back. I can only hope our effort does not go wasted.

Part 4

"Through prior auto-acceptance of the major role that gravity played, other ideas associated with it were also easily accepted as scientific fact."

This is simply not true, and even if it was it simply wouldn't matter, again science is self-correcting. Remember all those folks who love to scream Piltdown man? yea..... Exactly.

(For those unaware the Piltdown man event is strong evidence of why exactly science works and remains reliable. A short synopsis on events would be, a man named Charles Dawson, and accomplices attempted to scam the scientific community with a forged fossil. Funny enough this was not the first, or last time people attempted to do this. During their studies scientists were able to discover the facts from fiction and reported Piltdown man for what it was. A scam. Young Earth Creationists love to cite this as some form of failing of science, which is a silly claim and quite untrue. Piltdown man is evidence that scientific methodology works) Source

Part 5

"Here we have Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, White Dwarfs, Pulsars, Neutron Stars, Magnetars, Black Holes and Nova events. There are more, but these will do for now. First I will tell you that we do not know what any of these things are supposed to look like, so the following graphics in no way represent actual physical objects or events. They are included only to help in imagining the concepts being described."

This entire line of thought is meaningless bullshit. We do not need to know or represent in the physical world what these things look like. We only need to examine and measure the effects to know they exist (think about the fact that you're breathing in something and you don't know what it looks like). 

Also, we do in fact know what SOME of these things "look like" if you really didn't notice, try thinking about the objects he listed above just a little. Try harder.

Finally.... since when is "inflation" an object? and why would it need to be physically view able as an object..... I'm pretty sure you might want to check a dictionary before you start plugging a magic book to explain the origins of the universe. I mean at least put in that much effort? please?

Part 6

"He believed that by including dark matter he could account for the missing gravity that seemed to be holding things together and allowing everything to appear as it does. This extra gravity would be in addition to that already produced by the existing visible matter of galaxies and the ‘super-massive Black Holes’ that were imagined to exist at their centres. So, when all the gravity was added up the result was made to suit the requirements of the mathematician’s calculations and so everyone was happy. Zwicky had come up with an explanation for the missing amount of gravity, one that was very acceptable to the astro-science community of the day because it explained the things they had come to believe. Interestingly, however, Zwicky’s dark matter just happened to be invisible and totally undetectable. So, in the eyes of those few on the outside who saw this as a problem, the idea of dark matter appeared to be just a ‘convenient fix’."

First I must point out, I'm aware editing one's own work can be a challenge, but please, please, please, if you're going to call this thing a book, hire an editor so you can at least get the spelling mistakes out of the book. Please? I know you as an author can't do anything about the poorly formed ideas and sentences. Or the disorganized thought processes reflective in your writing. But at least remove the spelling errors. Please? I honestly began correcting the errors in this book automatically before I realized I was fixing quoted text and not my own work! Thank you, moving on.

Ok this made me face-palm so hard I almost gave myself a concussion. First, no one "invented" dark matter, or dark energy. Just like the air you're breathing right now we could see its effects so we knew something was there, we measured it,  we made models, predictions, and tests to verify and validate, and we labeled those things that we still don't really know what they are (outside of knowing what their effects are) "dark matter" and "dark energy" The scientist could have just as easily named the stuff "hairy ball matter" and "weird tit juice" and it wouldn't change a thing.

The name doesn't mean shit, what it looks like doesn't mean shit, the only thing that matters is that it's effects can be observed and measured. As we continue to grow learn and gain more accurate methods of measurement, we may answer the unanswered questions. But the existence of unanswered questions isn't a problem for science, it's only a problem to faith based and pseudo-science beliefs.

Part 7

"Dark Energy is a name coined in 1998 by the American cosmologist Michael Turner. This invention was required after the introduction of dark matter in order to counter a problem that had arisen from further observations and a subsequent period of great embarrassment."

Embarrassment? really? no dude no one needs to be embarrassed, hell if they were completely wrong about both things there would be no need for embarrassment. The only embarrassment comes in from those who push lies and bullshit and try to sell them as science. Honest mistakes and failures are expected in science and its totally ok. We keep working on the problems heading where the evidence leads and learning and growing. EU folks on the other hand sit on their collective asses write utterly stupid error riddled books that are frankly agonizing to read, then claim to know everything, and expect to be taken seriously.

Part 8

"This was a ‘great discovery’ for it fitted very well with Zwicky’s idea of dark matter. So together, these two ‘dark entities’ were able to make up the invisible 96% of matter that previously could not be accounted for. No trace of any of this dark stuff has ever been found, even though our best equipment and lots of scientists have been funded to look for it over many decades. It is abundantly clear now that both varieties of dark stuff were invented purely to save the gravity model of the universe."

Ugh anyone remember when people started screaming about "missing links"? yes this is the exact same bullshit recycled and re branded for Cosmology. And just like with evolution when they likely find a way to quantify things to the point even a 3rd grader can understand it, EU folks will still be denying science just like Young Earth Creationists deny evolution. This is why reading this shit is so annoying. It's the same old shit recycled from belief system to belief system. None of these nutters can come up with anything new. Ever. Frankly its boring, try harder.

Views: 28

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by BenGee on Thursday

In light of the subject material, I would like to point out that any comment that is not productive, or is deemed by me to be a dig, insulting anyone, harrassing anyone, or intended to cause harm to anyone will be removed by me. This is not a forum for debate, this is my personal blog to share my work and express my ideas. If anyone wants to debate me there's countless other places on the internet you can find me and I will be happy to engage in those places.

As always your encouragement, thoughts and contributions to my work are welcome :)

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service