Electric Sky(and other libertarian pseudoscience)

Post Reply New Topic

There is a popular pseudoscientific theory, first proposed in the early 1970s but now thoroughly discredited because its predictions do not agree with astrophysical observations called the "electric universe theory". Websites promoting this theory have sprung up all over the internet and one of the things these crackpots are pushing is the idea that black holes do not exist and that this theory allows for limitless "free energy"(violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics).

An example of this BS can be seen here in this Youtube crank video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdSZBCRSjno[/youtube]



I saw another video of a "free energy circuit" that supposedly extracts energy from the air(overunity or so the designer claims).


Now when I was a lad, I had a hobbyist electronics console(with a battery socket but now power cord to plug into an outlet) with a book of circuits and one of the more interesting circuits I built was a radio receiver that did not use a battery. It was powered by the energy in radio waves. Harvesting energy from radio waves in the atmosphere can indeed be done, but that is NOT actually "free energy". Energy must be used to generate the electricity which gets tranduced into electromagnetic radiation. Small portions of that energy can be used and that appears to be what this circuit does.

Now the free energy stuff is clearly an example of libertarians trying to make money off of gullible idiots by selling snake oil. But how did this plamsa universe theory become so damn popular with them?

I don't see how libertarian ideology 'clearly' ties into any of this at all. For the most part, I get the sense that these cranks really do believe in their pseudoscientific nonsense.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

So, I shouldn't call Don Pedro a troll, because it can be explained other ways?

Why "Libertarian"?

Also, it doesn't seem at all likely that anyone with any scientific understanding and knowledge at all would ever give credence to anything this bizarre. In my undergraduate course in astronomy (70s), my undergraduate and graduate courses in relativity (70s), and my reading on relativity and cosmology over the years, I certainly never came across this notion. It's hard to see how it could possibly be called a "theory". Perhaps "hallucination" would be more appropriate.

I know, right? I honestly see no intellectual or ideological connection between libertarianism and the electric universe theory. But for some reason, the proponents of this theory are libetarians. That's how I found out about it in the first place: On a political discussion facebook group where a libertarian tried to argue that black holes don't exist and promoted this theory.

Correlation does not equal causation. I am a libertarian, and find this free energy woo laughably idiotic to the point of not even being worth my time to argue against. I'm sure if you look hard enough, such scientific quackery spans the entire political spectrum, as well.

Ahhh.

A secondary reason that I don't consider myself a Libertarian is to distance myself from the kooks it seems to attract.

The main reason is that I object strongly to their admiration of Ayn Rand. As far as I'm concerned, Ayn Rand was the founder of a second (or third) rate philosophy that is very Nietzschean in spite of her avowed interest in distancing herself from Nietzsche's philosophy. Her worst sin was her admiration for William Edward Hickman who kidnapped and ransomed a little girl. After getting the money, the girl was not only found dead but was also horrifically dismembered. Ayn Rand's adoration for Hickman is nothing short of despicable.

Er, what? Libertarians don't, usually, admire Ayn Rand... you're thinking of Objectivists, who are different.

From everything I have seen, today's Libertarian Party is notoriously pro-Ayn Rand.

I don't think it's pseudoscience. It's just poorly named.

Energy is all around us, and we don't know jack poop about how the universe works beyond what we are capable of measuring and testing on our little spot in the universe.

Who knows what is possible or how much "energy" swirls around us that we don't tap into that could provide for our needs.

We don't need infinite energy...just "unlimited for our needs."

If what I heard is correct, a single hurricane generates more power than all of our nuclear stockpiles combined. Imagine what we could do if we could harness just a fraction of that energy that nature does without trying.

So? Do the Democrats represent what believing in democracy means, or the Republicans what it means to believe in having a republic?

That doesn't even make sense.

How so? It's pretty clear what I said...

What you said greatly implied that the Libertarian Party is all about Ayn Rand and her writings. In fact, Ayn Rand did not accept the Libertarians and there is nothing about Ayn Rand that is needed to be Libertarian.

In fact, an approach to Libertarianism via Classical Liberalism is far cleaner -- philosophically, morally, and ethically -- than that of following Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was hardly Libertarian in any sense of the word.

I agree. I dislike Rand and her followers for the dogmatism and moralistic approach they take. Rejection of Rand isn't so uncommon amongst libertarians.

You must know a better class of Libertarians than I do.

Of course, the ones I know are really not much more than frustrated Republicans who look toward Libertarianism for only one or two issues instead of embracing any particular philosophy.