[Music]
We previously developed the criteria for model revolution, drawing on Thomas
Kuhn's paradigm shift cycle, and explored whether any cosmological models,
including the Electric Universe, meet these new criteria. Now, let's take a deeper look at the
distinction between the Standard Model and the EU model, as we continue on the
path to the next model of cosmology. Implied by the major differences between
the two models, is a difference in world view. According to Thornhill,
Electric Universe proponents believe in a resonantly connected Universe which is
self-organizing and where entropy can decrease. In the EU worldview, quote,
”The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The Universe is consciousness-filled...
with instantaneous information transfer via resonant connection.” End quote.
Overall, the EU worldview highlights and emphasizes cosmic connectivity.
While the Standard Model does not have a formally articulated or expressed world
view, the EU infers from what the Standard Model says and, more importantly,
what it is silent on, a worldview that is quote, “Disconnected, random, chaotic
unconscious, purposeless, with ever increasing entropy.” End quote. A
world view that is very much in contrast with that of the EU model. Given their differences,
Standard Model scientists and EU scientists are living in two different
and incompatible worlds. As mentioned earlier, a change of
paradigm is ultimately a change of worldview. As noted in “The Structure Of Scientific
Revolutions,” quote, “Though the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the
scientist afterward works in a different world.... Rather than being an interpreter, the
scientist who embraces a new paradigm is like the man wearing inverting lenses.
Confronting the same constellation of objects as before, and knowing that he
does so, he nevertheless finds them trans- formed through... and through...” End quote.
From this statement, we can conclude that a change of paradigm will upset the
scientists’ worldview and field of study, turning them on their head. In light of
this, let's look at how proponents of the Standard Model have reacted to the Electric Universe.
For a long time, mainstream or dominant science responded as one might expect.
Once science becomes institutionalized and entrenched, it tends to function much
like other dominant institutions in that it is dogmatic, and unyielding to falsification or change.
For years, mainstream scientists have ignored, dismissed and/or mocked the EU
model. For instance, why isn't anyone seriously challenging the Big Bang?
Mainstream astrophysicist Ethan Siegel dismisses the EU model and lumps it in
with what he describes as absurd hypo- theses held by quote ”... crackpots and a
few fringe contrarians.” End quote. He also claims that the EU model is not to be
taken seriously and that its predictions are, quote, “...in absurd conflict with
observations of the Big Bang.” This is ironic, given the EU's claim of a
history of accurate predictions. According to Wal Thornhill, examples include
1. That solar radiant energy is due largely to transmutation of elements in the
electrically active solar plasma, which was confirmed by an independent SAFIRE experiment in 2019.
2. The electrical “flash” discharge preceding the impact of a copper projectile on
Comet Temple One. 3. That the surface of Saturn's moon Titan has distinctive
lightning scars - called Lichtenberg patterns - with virtually no large craters.
4. Successful predictions about what would be found at the heliopause.
and 5. Successful predictions about the heat from Saturn's north pole.
These predictions notwithstanding however, it is not surprising that the Standard
Model would dismiss the EU, especially given what Kuhn says about incommensurability.
In the course of a paradigm shift, new ideas and assertions cannot be strictly
compared to, or judged by, those of the old model. Especially since the two models will
have no common measure. From the perspective of my own field, Critical Discourse Analysis,
judging the EU model by the existing model standards and/or categorizing it as a model that
is not to be taken seriously, are prime examples of how language is linked to power.
In CDA, power is understood in broader symbolic terms, including the power to
represent someone or something in a certain way. For CDA, quote,
”...language.... is not simply a tool of communication, but a means by which
people demonstrate their commitment, in one way or another, to certain ideologies or dogmas.” End quote.
From this perspective, language is always about power and control and is never arbitrary.
With respect to science, those working within a model that is as deeply
entrenched and as heavily funded as the current Standard Model, ultimately you
have the power to define and control the very discourse around cosmology,
including what is acceptable, or not to be taken seriously. Given the careers and
funding at stake, and given the power it has to define and shape the discourse, it
is not surprising that mainstream science and cosmology would dismiss or
mock, any truly alternative model that threatens or undermines it. Moreover,
once this becomes the official discourse on cosmology, i.e that the Standard Model is
acceptable and alternative models that deviate from it, unacceptable,
it functions as a form of neuro-linguistic programming that ultimately signals to the broader
population how they should think about cosmology. Ironically however,
it is the very resistance to new ideas that eventually forces institutionalized science to change.
By resisting novelty, normal science, or dominant science, prepares the way for
its own change, not least because crises that are left unresolved eventually
force individuals, including scientists working within the existing model,
to look elsewhere for new and better answers and explanations. It must be stressed that this entails
fully abandoning the existing broken model. New models demand the destruction of the old paradigm.
In a scientific revolution, the new paradigm does not simply revise the old model, it replaces it.
Now, while mainstream science has typically ignored or dismissed the EU model, more recently
there has been what I describe as Electric Universe adjacent language in the mainstream.
Examples include the following titles. -- How Magnetism Shapes the Universe - PBS Spacetime;
-- The magnetic field in the Milky Way filamentary bone G47 - phys.org;
-- Juno and Hubble data reveal electromagnetic ‘tug-of-war’ lights up
Jupiter's upper atmosphere - phys.org again; and -- Astronomers discover
1,000 strange ‘filaments’ of radio energy bursting from the galaxy’s center -
Live Science. From the titles alone, we can see that this language is different
and uncharacteristic from what's been typically reported by the mainstream in
the past and appears to be more closely aligned with the discourse of
electromagnetism. One title even mentions filaments and while two of the titles
deal exclusively with magnetism, according to the EU model, it is
meaningless to talk about magnetism without also considering the electric force.
So, what might this recent change in mainstream discourse foretell? While it
is too early to say for sure, one possibility is that more advanced
technology, with more sophisticated probes, will make it increasingly
impossible to deny the role of electricity in space. Thornhill notes that the Electric
Universe paradigm has an unparalleled record of successful predictions in the
space age. He expects that this will continue and that images and findings
from the new James Webb Space Telescope will further support the predictions of the Electric Universe.
Given the recent additions to their lexicon, can proponents of the Standard
Model be preparing to get ahead of the curve, and make room in their discourse
for electromagnetism and cosmic electrical forces, all the while maintaining their
authority? In other words, could they be preparing to include electricity as an add-on or
an extension? Will we suddenly be reading about e-gravity for instance?
Kuhn's framework and everything discussed so far, clearly demonstrate that this is not
sustainable in the long run. Mixing incommensurate models with
fundamentally different paradigmatic languages, would only hurt science and
could not be considered a true paradigm shift, or scientific revolution.
Due to their fundamental differences, the Electric Universe model and the Standard
Model cannot coexist in the same paradigm. They are too different.
As Mel Acheson aptly maintains, trying to add the Electric Universe as
an extension to the Standard Model would simply muddy the waters.
Given everything we know about the paradigm shift process, including Kuhn's clearly articulated
criteria for a model revolution stage, we must conclude that the future of
cosmology cannot, and will not, be an ad hoc revision to the Standard Model.
On the contrary, due to the very nature and definition of a scientific revolution,
the only way forward is a truly alternative cosmological model with a
radically different paradigmatic language and world view.
Could this be the Electric Universe model of cosmology? Time will tell.
[Music]