Electric Universe

[Gold Bearer]

No image.

[sajungzak]

Fixed it. Sorry 'bout that. Neat theory. Highlights the singular in universe.

* edit. I guess it's not going to work. Stupid joke anyway.*

Sjeng, I thought of the analogy: If you break your foot or it becomes infected, does your eye cry out, "Cut me out, I'm dying!"
No. So maybe things can still be connected electro/magnetically on a galactic scale without a direct major influence on each other in the case of, say, a cataclysmic event in another galaxy, far, far away.

Either way, it's fun to think about. And I like to hear other peoples ideas in subjects such as these. I watch a lot of documentaries too.

[el_flesh]

If you can't supply equations that proves conventional physics is wrong, and that includes Newtonian Mechanics that I used in an experiment to derive acceleration due to gravity and not electromagnetism, (the metallic puck was sparking at a constant rate as it slid down an inclined plane; the EM force it made would have screwed up the acceleration due to "electrical" Gravity,) then what you are saying amounts to nothing more than your say-so. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You accuse current Cosmology of being a "belief" system (which it cannot allow itself to be, since 'belief' does not need facts to be engaged in, while Science does). The EU hypothesis is not being held down and censored. It is being ignored for the falsity it is. There are severe mathematical problems with it that are listed. Either put up (the correct equations to explain this), or shut up. Saying Science has been wrong for centuries and your new idea is instead correct without proving it or even addressing the disproofs gets you a score on the crackpot index.
You're going to need to provide substantially more than your good word.

[Gold Bearer]

No one knows what causes gravity. General relativity is a model of the effects of gravity with no explanation of what causes it. Do you see the irony of using a convention that the standard model recognises as in inaccurate approximation (Newtonian gravitation) to disprove an alternative model?

It's not possible to use equations to prove a model wrong. Only experimental observation can do that. Having said that, you can show that a mathematical model isn't self consistent. Special relativity works but general relativity (held up as the greatest scientific theory ever) doesn't even make sense. Why does it only work when the ricci tensor is set to zero? That's describing a universe with matter! What does the R value represent? Sometimes it's the radius of a 2-sphere, sometimes is the Schwarzschild radius and it's a least a couple of other things. The goal posts have to keep being moved to make it work and it leads to a description of gravity that contradicts itself.

The burden of proof is on neither side. When there's two or competing models their is no burden of proof. Besides, it's impossible to prove a model right, it can only be proved wrong. The question is which one agrees more with observation. The standard model ignores many facts that don't just cast doubt on it, but outright disprove it. I suppose it depends on how exactly you define the standard model though, and it doesn't mean that all parts of it are wrong.

Your overly defensive posture is symptom of desperation. There's two main fallback turtling up mechanisms that are prevalent when someone is unable to support their position with logic and reason. The first is to demand equations as if a working mathematical model is proof of anything rather than an quantised form of an idea. The other is to accuse the other side of being a crack pot as way to side step the actual arguments that they're putting forward. Tackle the ball, not the man.

[knightkrawler]

It's impossible to prove a model right, it can only be proved wrong.

In other words: a theory can be falsified, but never verified. This is something anybody should know and really live their lives after. It's not just about science, it's also about what people tell you. Thinking for yourself is the key.

[Gold Bearer]

Well technically any observation that is agreement with the model is a verification of the theory, but there's no way to prove it right. Newtonian gravitation was considered the correct description of gravity until more accurate measurements showed that it wasn't. The word atom means indivisible. Science learned not to claim anything as proven but it's a lesson that seems to have been forgotten.

Every time the standard model is shown to be wrong the issue gets sidestepped. Sometimes it gets misrepresented, sometimes the only data that is shown is the data that supports the model (you can create a very different impression just by cutting the end off a graph for example), sometimes data is outright falsified like with the W-map and sometimes observations simply get ignored and when someone points it out they get ignored or verbally attacked. If the data refuting the standard model is too much for any of these options then they invent something that's purely theoretical and has never been observed and call it a solution. Now we have dark energy holding galaxies together and dark energy pushing them away from each other. Instead of questioning their assumptions and using a theory that agrees with observations, they make the observations fit the failed model.

Some of the EU ideas may be wrong but the basic electrical nature of the universe is beyond doubt. On every scale it can be shown that there has to be a strong electrical influence.

On a planetary and stellar scale there is a proven direct connection between the activity of the sun and effects on Earth and sun spots show that the interior of the sun is cool, not hot.

p4.jpg

It's now been shown that there's no heat convection from the centre of the sun so all the activity is close to the surface. Stars are electrified balls of charged plasma, not nuclear fusion reactors.

On the scale of the Solar System the Solar wind moves away from the sun faster at a distance than it does closer to the sun. It's being accelerated away against the force of gravity. There's only four forces to work with and two of those are nuclear, so the charged particles streaming away from the sun are obviously being accelerated by an electrical field. Comets are supposed to flare up due to heat from the sun but they've been seen flaring dramatically and then dying down again outside the orbit of Jupiter, meaning they're responding to moving from one area to another with a different charge.

On an interstellar scale, some nebulae completely defy the explanation of a supernova with nothing but gravity to slow the expansion of the exploding star.

600px-Crab-nebula.jpg

Cats_Eye.jpg

m2-9-butterfly.jpg

red_square_cropped_250x250.jpg

On a galactic scale, the shape of spiral galaxies can't be explained by gravity. All gravity can do is make a spheroid. The disks should be made up of evenly distributed matter, not barbed spiral arms.

And on an intergalactic scale there is a cosmic web that connects the galaxies and looks very much like a biological brain, and just as the neural pathways of the brain carry electricity the same is true of the pathways that connect the universe because there's no other reason why that filamentary structure would form. They're Birkland currents.

The universe has complex magnetic fields on all scales. There is no way to sustain a magnetic field in space in the absence of an electrical current.

[el_flesh]

Sure you can use equations to prove a model wrong. Einstein did it with Newton. Newton's still a pretty damn good approximation for back of the envelope calculations, but it is wrong compared to Einstein. It can't prove the full picture, another set of equations proves it far better, so it's wrong. I was hoping you could do the same. Seems you can't.
Since the cores of galaxies are all bound to be supermassive black holes, the galactic disk is lined up along the equator. Just like planetary orbits are lined up along Sun's equator until collisions knocks them off of it.
I am afraid I don't see how collapsing PARSECS of gas can be STOPPED from igniting in nuclear fusion. Please explain and demonstrate how this is circumvented. Also, Sunspots aren't dark. They are simply darkER than the surrounding fission fire and do appear alot darker. Some NASA Scientists looked inside them at some point I think.

Saying that the brain carries electricity is inaccurate. Impulse transmission is due to IONS, not electrons. Charged Potassium changing for Chlorine through a double HC membrane is not the same as electron sea swarming over metal crystal lattice.

Science means that you could easily convince me if you put up undeniable proof. But it seems you cannot...it is not "protection" of the old paradigm; I am totally adaptable to a more accurate way of seeing reality. You have yet to do it.

[Gold Bearer]

Sure you can use equations to prove a model wrong. Einstein did it with Newton.

No you can't. Observational evidence showed that Newton's formulas are an inaccurate approximation of reality. No amount of equations could have possibly shown that Newton was wrong. Einstein's work would have been rejected out of hand if Newton's held up because Newton's are much simpler. Einstein provided a set of equations that were in agreement with observational evidence, and they're still not an accurate description of gravity because they don't hold up under extreme conditions and lead to self contradictory conclusions, paradoxes.

Newton's still a pretty damn good approximation for back of the envelope calculations, but it is wrong compared to Einstein. It can't prove the full picture, another set of equations proves it far better, so it's wrong. I was hoping you could do the same. Seems you can't.

What are you talking about? Be specific. The equations for what exactly? And how would that prove anything?

Since the cores of galaxies are all bound to be supermassive black holes, the galactic disk is lined up along the equator. Just like planetary orbits are lined up along Sun's equator until collisions knocks them off of it.

What does that have to do with anything? Gravity can only create a spheroid (a spherical shape in two dimensions with freedom in the other, in other words a disk). The galaxy isn't just a disk. It's made up of extremely regular higher and lower density regions that form the spiral arms. They even have sharp right angles close to the galactic centre and the arms themselves have regular structure within them.

I am afraid I don't see how collapsing PARSECS of gas can be STOPPED from igniting in nuclear fusion. Please explain and demonstrate how this is circumvented.

The nuclear explanation of a stars energy output is not based on what should happen with a ball of gravitationally collapsed gas. It's based on the fact that stars give off energy, that's it. No one has ever shown that there should be any nuclear fusion in a stars core. Billions have been spent on trying to replicate it and it's never happened. There is no explanation for why there would be any nuclear fusion. The onus is on you to show why there would be and why it can't be replicated.

Also, Sunspots aren't dark. They are simply darkER than the surrounding fission fire and do appear alot darker. Some NASA Scientists looked inside them at some point I think.

Yes, and they found less than 1% of the convection they expected. If there's no convection then heat isn't coming from the sun's interior, it's as simple as that. If the interior of the sun was hotter than the exterior then the interior would also be brighter, not darker.

Saying that the brain carries electricity is inaccurate. Impulse transmission is due to IONS, not electrons. Charged Potassium changing for Chlorine through a double HC membrane is not the same as electron sea swarming over metal crystal lattice.

It's still a bio-electrical reaction. It holds a charge. How are neurons carried? Is it nuclear, gravitational or electrical? How would they propagate in the absence of a sustained electrical current?

Science means that you could easily convince me if you put up undeniable proof. But it seems you cannot...it is not "protection" of the old paradigm; I am totally adaptable to a more accurate way of seeing reality. You have yet to do it.

There is no such thing as proof in science! Not ever. It's an impossibility. All you can do is show that a model either agrees or disagrees with observation. I've provided a list of reasons why the standard model fails. Gravity can't explain the observations. That doesn't prove beyond all doubt that the explanation is electrical because there's four known forces and it's always possible that there could be more we don't know about, but it's far more likely that the electro-magnetic force is responsible rather than an unknown and never seen before force.


Why does the interior of the sun appear cooler than the exterior and how can heat be coming from the interior if there's no convection?

How does the solar wind accelerate against gravity as if moves away from the sun? What provides the energy? Is it nuclear, gravitational or electrical?

Why do comets flare up at distances from the sun that aren't anywhere near hot enough to melt them? What provides the energy? Is it nuclear, gravitational or electrical?

How do nebulae, galaxies and the large scale filamentary structure of the universe get their intricate and highly regular shapes through gravitational processes? What force is capable of produce those structures?


You say that you're have shown that you're totally adaptable to a more accurate way of seeing reality but your posts in this thread directly contradict this statement. I have demonstrated more than enough to show that the standard model doesn't get anywhere near to providing an accurate description of what's observed. You have yet to acknowledge it. My failure to convince you reflects on your willingness to question your assumptions, not on the validity of electrical interpretation of the evidence.

[el_flesh]

Yes you can use equations to prove a model wrong, and Einstein did indeed do it with Newton. Go back to your Physics text books, please.
The equations are based in math, which is how we describe reality. The relations of numbers is part and parcel of this Universe; all the phenomena in it can be described by the relations of these numbers. You use observations to corroborate it and be sure, but Einstein was correct right off the bat, using numbers in equations to show it.
You are the one putting forth a new model. The onus is on you to prove it. It isn't proven at all if:
1) Your equations do not fit observations better than conventional Physics http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html Stop dodging and put them up, please. Otherwise, we will think you don't have them.
2) You cannot show that collapsing gas parsecs wide into the diameter of a star does NOT superheat and cause a fusion reaction http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html - Please demonstrate how this is wrong.
3) You have yet to show http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html as the incorrect Physics - when it shows the electric sun physics to be wrong. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.ca/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html

"Outlandish claims" is being generous. I say crackpot. That is not an ad hominem; it is an observation based on the disproofs listed here. Also, the so-called "desperation" you attribute to me would only apply if I were trying to hide reality against your showdown call, assuming the system you present had merit.
You may fantasize that is the situation all you want; I do not waste time on crackpottery is all.
So sorry, but you must put up - or else shut up.

[Gold Bearer]

Yes you can use equations to prove a model wrong, and Einstein did indeed do it with Newton. Go back to your Physics text books, please.

No you can't. Einstein did no such thing. Newton's equations were self-consistant, they made perfect sense mathematically. You can't use equations to disprove a mathematically sound description of nature, that's absured. Also, ironically, Einstein used a mathematically inconsistant theory to replace Newton's. General relativity is not a valid description of anything. It keeps changing what R is supposed to represent in the equations and it sets one of the tensors to 0 (the Rici tensor) which automatically means that everything that follows is a description of a massless universe. Special relativity is the most profound, beautiful and elegant description we have and general relativity is built on the back of its success but it's a meaningless pile of dog turd.

The equations are based in math, which is how we describe reality. The relations of numbers is part and parcel of this Universe; all the phenomena in it can be described by the relations of these numbers. You use observations to corroborate it and be sure, but Einstein was correct right off the bat, using numbers in equations to show it.

You seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of the roll of mathematics with regards to describing actual physical processes.

Firstly, a description of a specific process needs to be well defined or it can't be tested. It is possible to describe, using only words, every single physical process that can be thought of but it's inaficient and leaves room for misinterpretation. The tighter the description, the less of a problem this is. Mathmatics is used to produce an entirely unambigous description (if it's written properly) that can't be any more well defined. This does absolutely nothing that can possibly have any kind of effect of the validity of a model. An incorect but perfectly defined model is still wrong. The only thing that has an effect on its validity is whether or not it agrees with reality. This can only be determined through experimentation. It simply isn't possible to validate an idea using equations or to refute one by doing the same unless those equations are used to test predictions or are shown to not be mathmatically self consistant.

Secondly, it makes absolutely no sense to ask for the equations describing a non-specific process, especially one as broad as the electric universe hypothosis. Equations are used to describe very specific relationships, and each one has it's own individual set. There isn't one underlying equation or set of equations that cover each process within a broad description. You need to specify the exact process you're refering to, and often which specific aspect of that process you wish to be mathematically defined.

Thirdly, I would only be giving equations derived be other people and I wouldn't have the confidence to presume they're correct without first rediriving them for myself, and that would take much more time than I'm willing to spend, not least because I'm not even completely sure of what some of shorthand they often use represents.

You are the one putting forth a new model. The onus is on you to prove it. It isn't proven at all if:
1) Your equations do not fit observations better than conventional Physics http://www.tim-thompson.com/grey-areas.html Stop dodging and put them up, please. Otherwise, we will think you don't have them.
2) You cannot show that collapsing gas parsecs wide into the diameter of a star does NOT superheat and cause a fusion reaction http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html - Please demonstrate how this is wrong.
3) You have yet to show http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html as the incorrect Physics - when it shows the electric sun physics to be wrong. http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.ca/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html.

This isn't a new model, it's at least as old as the standard model. It lost out because of politics/a conspiacy by the power companies/a lack of technology to test it and therefore get grants at the time, depending on who you talk to.

Please don't link to other pages of other peoples conversations. Speak for yourself and if you want to use information from an external souce then please specify which partically piece you're referencing and how it relates to the current points of discussion. I have no interest in reading through pages and pages of rebuttles from people that have probably also decided what to believe before they've even looked at the evidence. I could link countless pages that refute the standard model and support the electric universe but what's the point? I'm not dodging anything. You need to be specific about what you believe disproves the electrical interpretation and I'll respond to it. Stop relying on others to make your arguments for you or this would just be thread of trading links. If you understand it then you are capable of describing it in your own words/equations, it's as simple as that. If you're going to use equations you'll need to be explicit in the derivations and state exactly what the varibles pertain to or I won't have a clue what you're talking about.

The current (at the time) pressure supposedly needed to generate nuclear fusion has been proved wrong countless times as they keep failing to reproduce it. That one will be changed when they fail again. There's nothing to support the idea that a cloud of gas like that would even collapse in the first place. Gravity's farr to weak to collapse it and accretion can only help after it's collapsed to a certain density. Shock waves from supernovea are the only explanition the standard model gives and that's now been refuted with the recent pictures of the interior of nebulea that show newly born stars looking like "beads on a string", exactly as the electric universe model predicted.

"Outlandish claims" is being generous. I say crackpot. That is not an ad hominem; it is an observation based on the disproofs listed here. Also, the so-called "desperation" you attribute to me would only apply if I were trying to hide reality against your showdown call, assuming the system you present had merit.
You may fantasize that is the situation all you want; I do not waste time on crackpottery is all.
So sorry, but you must put up - or else shut up.

Of course it's an ad hominem, and it does nothing to add anything to the argument or any weight to your assertions. Anyone can call anyone else a crackpot or any name they like. That's why I interpret it as desperation. Put what up? I'm not the one who keeps ducking questions! You haven't listed any "disproofs", not a single one. I've listed plenty, and you still haven't answered my questions.

Why does the interior of the sun appear cooler than the exterior and how can heat be coming from the interior if there's no convection?

How does the solar wind accelerate against gravity as if moves away from the sun? What provides the energy? Is it nuclear, gravitational or electrical?

Why do comets flare up at distances from the sun that aren't anywhere near hot enough to melt them? What provides the energy? Is it nuclear, gravitational or electrical?

How do nebulae, galaxies and the large scale filamentary structure of the universe get their intricate and highly regular shapes through gravitational processes? What force is capable of produce those structures?

There's lots more examples but you haven't answered these ones yet. I wouldn't feel too bad, nobody else has been able to either. There is one more I'd like to point out though, the Solar system. The processes govening the formation of star systems is a huge mystery in the stardard model (just one of very many). The old accretion hypothisis has been proven wrong now, or at least nowhere near close to the complete explanation. Exo-planets have been found that are many times the mass of jupiter but orbiting extremely close to their host star. The first few were written off as oddities but now it's been show to be the norm.

Planets like that can't form anywhere near that close to a star in the standard model (it has to be outside the frost line). The only explanation that's possible in this model is that these planets migrated from outside the frost line to a very close orbit. One problem with that that I can see (I'm not sure if there's an official explanation for this) is that there woud have to be something stopping the planets from their spiral into their stars. Something must stabalise their orbits or we wouldn't see so many this close to stars. I know there's no official explanation for what causes the planets to migrate in the first place.

And then there's the orbits of the planets in our star system (and presumably other systems will also be shown to share this feature) that are all almost exactly the same distance from each other. Even more bizzare is that fact that they have stable orbits to begin with. There's a small gravitational influence from every planet that should affect the orbit of every other planet, but it doesn't. The planets orbit around the sun as if they're on rails. It seems that only gravitational influences over a certain magnitude have an effect on their obits. The Solar system should only be stable for a matter of centeries. If the planets orbit in the regions that separate areas of different electrical potential it would explain both.


The standard model is the standard model for a reason. The people who support it want other people to think it's because the evidence has lead to that model, and most people do but that isn't anywhere close to being true. Mainstream physics is a very political and dogmatic place where the author of a paper and their standing with the more senior pysisists and peer reviewers has far more of an effect on the success of the paper than merit does. It's also a very ridgid system in which change is far too hard to force. It has to be to some extent or it would change all the time but it's gone way too far.

The only way a physicist can become successful is by following the generally accepted and well established models and adding to them. Anyone who disagrees and takes a different point of view is labled a 'crackpot'. This creates an enviroment in which most phyisists are well aware that what they have been taught and what they teach to others is wrong but they're waiting for the tide to turn before they publically admit it, but that can't happen while all the others are doing the same thing. It means that thories last well past their sell by date and are still around for decades after they've been falsified many times over.

The change is happening, slowly. The mainstream has already started to accept electrical interpretations of various processes but only in very limited ways and restricted to very specific situations. The tipping point is coming and it will happen when they admit that plasma is not a perfect conductor and so is able to sustain an electrical currents in space.