Electric Universe - Free Chat, Mobile Dating Forums

Topic: Electric Universe

tao1949

Fri 12/20/19 04:04 PM

Learn about it on you tube. Science that answers the logic missing.

Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.

tao1949

Tue 03/31/20 09:23 PM

So not true. I'd like to discuss what people like most about it rather than judgemental ridicule.

Tom4Uhere

Tue 03/31/20 11:22 PM

I posted an excerpt from wiki?
Aether-base Universe has been disproved for decades.
Frankly, I liked the idea and it did make sense till I learned it was bunk.

I also realize a gravity alone explanation doesn't explain it either.
I'm thinking it might have components of both theories plus unknowns which have yet to be theorized.

Tom4Uhere

Wed 04/01/20 09:51 AM

More from wiki ~ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups. The first are garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate, revolutionary scientific theory, and that the scientific establishment is either blindly ignoring them out of misplaced faith in their own theories, or deliberately suppressing them for some greater, nefarious purpose.

The second group is composed of various other woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). For these people, the EU hypothesis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The more common subsets of this group include some Young Earth creationists, who wish to discredit the mainstream cosmology and geology suggesting that Earth is billions of years old, and some of the loonier fringes of global warming denialism (such as Vault-Co), who are trying to find some process outside human control that they can attribute climate change to. The latter particularly like the hypotheses of Pierre-Marie Robitaille.

In contrast: The Electric Universe Theory website ~ http://www.electricuniverse.info/
Defines it as

The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields. Much of the material considered by the Electric Universe is peer-reviewed, but not all (see Speculative Theories, below).

Other support comes from The Thunderbolts Project ~ http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/misconceptions/

Historical and current discoveries in the sciences have placed a spotlight on the electromagnetic force in nature, from quantum worlds and biological systems to planetary, stellar, and galactic domains. On the following pages, we address a selection of questions that reflect common misconceptions, not only of the Electric Universe but also of the way that science is practiced, and the manner in which scientific results are interpreted and absorbed into the fabric of our world view.

There are 12 misconception articles on this page. Each is trunicated and offers a link to read more...

common misconception 1 — where’s the problem?
Misconception: Science is self-correcting. Answer: This misconception can be validly answered by both yes and no. No matter how glowingly scientists describe the virtues of the scientific method, it is and always shall be a human system operated by people. Whether science is in practice self-correcting will depend upon that ...

common misconception 2 — where’s the real science?
Misconception: Electric Universe proponents reject the laws of physics. Answer: Science is the study of patterns in nature to uncover dependable relationships between causes and effects. As they are confirmed, these relationships lead to formulations of useful “laws” governing the natural world. We have to learn again that science without contact ...

common misconception 3 — where’s the math?
Misconception: If you're not doing math, you're not doing real science. Answer: Science does not begin with mathematics, but with direct observation, experiment, and special insights into cause-and-effect relationships. Many popular mathematical constructs today were devised early in the 20th century to help explain aspects of gravity-centric theory. Now, the ...

common misconception 4 — where’s the peer reviewed research?
Misconception: The absence of peer reviewed papers by Electric Universe authors means the ideas cannot be taken seriously. Answer: Peer review is a practice that provides both benefits and drawbacks. The path of specialized knowledge radiates out as the spokes of a wheel, leaving pioneers ever more remote and isolated ...

common misconception 5 — what about gravity?
Misconception: The EU concept seeks to replace gravity with electromagnetism. The Electric Universe paradigm fully accepts the existence and importance of gravitation to the practice of physical science and cosmological modelling. But it adds the crucial caveat that gravitation does not tell the whole story. What if the Sun is ...

common misconception 6 — how big is the universe?
Misconception: Astronomers can reliably calculate cosmological distances. Answer: Quantifying depth or radial distance from our point of observation is arguably the most daunting and pressing problem facing astrophysics. Location relative to Earth is a primary property of celestial objects, but almost the entire 3-D map of the observable universe is ...

common misconception 7 — where’s the conductor?
Misconception: Electric currents are impossible across the vacuum of deep space. Answer: A vacuum is an empty physical space, a complete absence of matter. It is a volume containing no mass and thus has zero density and pressure. Because of the relatively high speeds of ubiquitous interstellar particles, one would ...

common misconception 8 — where’s the educational deficiency?
Misconception: Astronomers are well-trained in electric phenomena and have always known about the electric currents in space. Answer: As a general rule, astronomers do not receive well-balanced education from universities. If physics curricula and set priorities were designed from the experience of the world, instead of mathematical formalism, they would ...

common misconception 9 — who disproved einstein?
Misconception: Einstein’s relativity theory has been proven. Answer: Einstein’s Relativity theory is actually two related theories—the Special Relativity (SR) theory of 1905 and the General Relativity (GR) theory of 1915. Broadly speaking, both examine the motion of physical bodies in relation to the role of frames of reference. More specifically, ...

common misconception 10 — why dispute the big bang?
Misconception: The Big Bang was proved by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Answer: It seemed that Big Bang Theory had been proven beyond doubt by what had been observed in the universe. Diligent work by independent scientists has shown multiple catastrophic flaws inherent in a Big Bang-aligned interpretation of Cosmic ...

common misconception 11 — isn’t the matter settled?
Misconception: The existence of Dark Matter has been settled. Answer: If the Standard Model of cosmology is true, then Dark Matter must be causing discrepancies in motions; therefore, observed discrepancies in motions prove the existence of Dark Matter. The theory bites its tail and turns in a circle. The universe ...

common misconception 12 — why electricity over magnetism?
Misconception: Why electricity over magnetism? The Magnetic Universe does not require an Electric Universe. Answer: In the real world, electricity and magnetism occur together as a unitary electromagnetic phenomenon. Scientists and engineers often focus their attention on one aspect or the other in order to solve a particular problem. That ...

Tom4Uhere

Wed 04/01/20 10:12 AM

I decided to search Google Scholar for Electric Universe.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C25&q=electric+universe&btnG=
About 638,000 results

Fisrt page results:

[BOOK] Electric Universe: how electricity switched on the modern world
D Bodanis - 2005 - books.google.com

[BOOK] The Electric Universe
W Thornhill, D Talbott - 2007 - thunderbolts.info

[CITATION] Electric universe
D Bodanis - 2005 - olin.tind.io

Electric charge asymmetry of the universe and magnetic field generation
A Dolgov, J Silk - Physical Review D, 1993 - APS

Strings in an electric field, and the Milne universe
M Berkooz, B Pioline - Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle …, 2003 - iopscience.iop.org

[PDF] The Electric Universe illuminates recent discoveries
W Thornhill - Proceedings of the NPA - worldnpa.org

[PDF] The Essential Guide to the Electric Universe
J Johnson - Proceeding of the NPA - naturalphilosophy.org

[PDF] Introductory Guide to the Electric Universe
T Findlay - Proceeding of the NPA - worldnpa.org

[PDF] The Paradigm of the Electric Universe
RNJG Sykes - Proceeding of the NPA - unariunwisdom.com

[PDF] An Electric Universe View of Stellar and Galactic Formation
DE Scott - Proceedings of the NPA - everythingselectric.com

From the rational wiki (Linked previously)

Claims

Einstein's postulates are wrong.[8]
General relativity (GR) is wrong.[9]
The Universe is not expanding.[10]
The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.[8]
Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.[11]
A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.[8]
Planets give birth to comets.[12]
Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.[13]
Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[14] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[15]
The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged — the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)[16]
EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.[17][18]
The sun is a space lamp getting power from something somewhere, we've never observed this stream of electricity nor any of these power sources that are on the center of each galaxy powering every star in them.
That things like comets are electric, we've never observed such a thing as an electric comet.
That craters are scars left from space thunderstorms, we've never observed such a phenomenon. It also claims that things like meteors are not what causes them despite the fact that we literally have video footage of meteor impacts.
That gravity is electromagnetic in nature which implies that it can be repulsive too, yet it has failed to demonstrate antigravity.

Critics

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy, Tom Bridgman's blog that deals with Electric Universe claims along with other things (posts labeled Electric Universe)
Electric Universe category at the Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog
Electric Universe Theory debunked, a blog entry which discusses 5 major claims by EU
Electric Universe Theory, RIP: New Discovery of Why Sun's Corona is Hot, thread at Above Top Secret
On The Electric Sun Hypothesis, Tim Thompson -- physicist formerly employed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
An Antidote To Velikovskian Delusions, Leroy Ellenberger

Supporters

The Electric Universe, Wallace Thornhill's website
Thunderbolts Forum, probably the most popular EU advocate website, run by David Talbott
Electric Cosmos (by Donald E. Scott, Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering))
The Electric Universe, László Körtvélyessy's website

See also

David Talbott
Stephen J. Crothers
Pierre-Marie Robitaille
Jeffrey Wolynski
Ben Davidson [25]

References

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-difference-between-science-and-pseudoscience/
http://qhwiki.com/video:eu-nov-2014-wal-thornhill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/01/31/eu2015-home-page/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5zyElJrAGI&list=PLpWsAr1Jo6PFstB8EKdcIo3tq4G8WeWKO
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/08aug/electricuniverse.html
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/a-nobel-prize-for-the-dark-side/
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/a-nobel-prize-for-the-dark-side/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iky2k8MtMno
http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/planets.htm
http://www.holoscience.com/views/view_mars.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/solarwind.html
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/09/29/electrical-geology-of-pluto-and-comet-67p/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/08/30/predictions-for-comet-science-after-rosetta/

The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited (archived 2015-04-16), page 2:
This loss of interest was very possibly the result of the all-sky microwave maps of COBE and later WMAP, which exhibited no evidence of radio emission from these galaxy-forming currents.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/01/montgomery-childs-safire-project-update-eu2015/ at 5:20 in the video.
http://isciencefoundation.org/safire/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K_GBBspZjs
http://solarprobe.gsfc.nasa.gov/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/01/montgomery-childs-safire-project-update-eu2015/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwylwL9KnjU

YOU

So not true. I'd like to discuss what people like most about it rather than judgemental ridicule.

Okay, lets...
Where would you like to start discussing?

Personally, I would like to discuss aether physics.
Specifically:
Zero point energy and mass accumulation
Strings and string clusters
Absolute zero and energy generation
Physics related to magnetism
Quanta and elementary particle interactions
Higgs boson field and speed of mass

Tom4Uhere

Wed 04/01/20 10:31 AM

The thing about scientific discussion is the fact that discussion with like minded people never yeilds new information.
Science theory NEEDs opposing views.

Carl Sagan:
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

7. If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

The scientific method consists of six steps:

Define purpose.
Construct hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and collect data.
Analyze data.
Draw conclusion.
Communicate results.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Most scientific discussions worth having have opposing views. If everyone agrees...Boring!

Boo

Wed 05/06/20 07:23 AM

I agree with you. LOA fits in the universe. There are things that we are yet to learn about the universe.

ivegotthegirth

Wed 05/06/20 08:21 AM

No beard here...............no shaved head either. I keep saying "shave your head and grow a beard and you can shower once a week weather you need it or not".
I retired about three years ago after being in the music business for 30 years and living in the SE US. Been through and to Roanke a thousand times.
Hi and welcome to Mingle2.

Tom4Uhere

Wed 05/06/20 08:31 AM

There are things that we are yet to learn about the universe.

We don't even understand ourselves or the planet we live on.
What we do know we don't even know if we actually know it.
For Example:
We knew atoms were the smallest form of matter.
Then we learned about particle physics.
For years the Higgs boson was theory, now its fact.

If we round off our civilization to 200,000 years.
We have been trying to figure out the Universe which is over 14 billion years old for the last 200,000 years.
We haven't a clue what is really going on.

Community > Science & Philosophy