Electric Universe

[cynthialee]

Every time I come across this theory I see a well reasoned and calm person challenge the status quo then a defender of the status quo goes ballistic in defending their pet theory.
Why?
Not like those theories changing will have any reflection on anyone except the crackpots who invented them long before we were born.

Due to the over the top reaction that pro electric universe scholars receive...I believe they are likely right. We live in an electric universe and the sun is not a giant hydrogen reaction.
Regardless, neither explanation changes what I will have for dinner or when the sun will set.

[Gold Bearer]

It definitely tends to strike a nerve. The sun still has some nuclear fusion going on by the looks of it, at the surface though where it's hottest in the electrical model. It's putting out neutrinos which is a sign of fusion, but only trace amounts of what was predicted by the standard model.

It's funny that all that's really left to support the standard model is hidden from view. In the core of stars or inside black holes where it can't be tested. The electrical model is right out in the open. It makes solid predictions that will be easily tested in the future, and it's been close to perfect so far with the predictions it's made.

If the sun is powered by neclear fusion it wouldn't kill the model but it would put a huge dent in it. What would really kill is showing that there's absolutely no electrical resistance in plasma and so a current is impossible to maintain. There's fairly good evidence to show that it does have a small resistance from what I've heard but I haven't looked into that yet.

[Anderas]

Gold Bearer,
Maybe you want to look up the plasma experiments Jet, Wendelstein and ITER before you're talking about fusion again. Also there has been an interesting press release of Mitsubishi regarding fusion of late.

Currents in the brain to propel the ions? Do you have a link to a prove?

Cyntia, i guess it is more his "i don't read your Arguments" argument that makes other people react agressive.

[el_flesh]

I agree with this:

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. (sic.)

This is how Einstein disproved Newton. As I said, it appeared correct at first, and was proven later.
The role of maths is our notation for what happens in reality. We might not see ALL of reality, as Newton did not find out in his lifetime - it took awhile for relativistic effects to add up and put the planets out of whack with Newton. Since they were in the correct place from their initial Newton time = 0 using Einstein's equations, those equations proved Newton's equations wrong.
Since that case was only once observations of the planets were used, I would have to concede the point that equations in and of themselves cannot disprove other equations without observation. I don't know, but I'm sure Einstein checked this himself before even publishing.
In any case, since you doubtless have observation-supported equations for the electric universe, we cannot imagine why you have failed three times now to put them up when asked for. Surely you don't object on the grounds that I did not fully define how equations are used in disproof? Your punishment of withholding them seems a little extreme for my lack of splitting a hair...that would make NO difference, since your equations would show General Relativity to be wrong if you include the observations supporting them! They wouldn't be published otherwise, now would they? So where are they? It's so incredible that much of what I was taught about maths is WRONG! Well, I'm sure to be educated now! I await your next masterful post with bated breath.

The links I gave show why the questions you asked me are utterly wrong. It's a shorter effort for me to copy paste than it is to rewrite what has already been done, particularly when it isn't my field. If we both have an understanding, then reading source material and discussing it is fine - Scientists do this all the time. I also think the original author should be get the credit for all the work they did. If you won't read through the disproofs that show the electric universe to be wrong, that is your loss, not mine. I have read through them. They satisfy me. Anyone with any interest can surely take the time to read a few pages. I have read the basics of the electric universe, too. I knew enough to know it's bunk. Really GOOD sounding bunk - I will give it that. It did sound vaguely worth looking into at first, despite sounding like a National Enquirer article.
Having completed an online course in Exoplanets last summer, I can say that "Jupiters" near their star is NOT the norm. It is common, but not in all systems. It is because close-in hot gas giants are easiest to see; and are therefore the first types of planes we will find when the technology is in its infancy! More modern methods are finding smaller planets now. If we can get the James Webb out in orbit, we will be spotting even smaller ones.
Forgive me, but your demonstration of ignorance in this area is telling. It's a support for your electric universe that collapsed. That doesn't mean the whole thing does....the pages I linked before do that when you add them all together.
Planet formation http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form for anyone who wants to learn. Proven by Hubble; ignore it at your own cost.
Star formation http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2001/21/image/a/ as above; ignore it at your own cost.
Why would the Gas Giants replicate the solar system among their moons, following the same gravitational rules of stable planetary orbital distances? Why does Saturn and Uranus also do it with their respective ring systems? For an "electrical" system, they sure do correspond to gravitational binding to an uncanny degree! Be sure to educate us all on that one with electrical equations, too!
Since all rocketry needs to take into account the gravity of Jupiter, especially when going to the moon or farther, I rest the case that every planet DOES affect every other with its gravity. Why would that need to be done at all in your electric system? Newton gave up when he had a three body problem and invoked 'gaaaahhhhddd' - this was corrected in the next century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo You're disproven at ~ 10:35, but by all means watch the whole thing.
The interior of a star would appear darker if a) the photons are being absorbed in the chain reaction that is fusion...pretty much what we expect. b) the surface brightness washes out the interior details like any other over-exposed photograph. d'uh.
The Standard Model is standard for a reason: it WORKS. People are labelled 'crackpots' when they insist on a system for which they FAIL to provide equations using observations to back them up, yesss,. You have a very easy job of escaping the title, then. Provide the equations and the observations to plug into them.

For the later posters: this is not at all aggressive for me. Trust me, I go at religionists far far harder. It's hardly ballistic to insist that a system which has been around for at least thirty years puts up some proof.
Instead it seems this 'electrical system' is all philosophy and no Science. I will happily support it IF it can be proven. So far, all I have heard is used-car salesman philosophy designed to get the layman to change his mind.
I'm not a layman. Provide the proof.

[Gold Bearer]

Maybe you want to look up the plasma experiments Jet, Wendelstein and ITER before you're talking about fusion again. Also there has been an interesting press release of Mitsubishi regarding fusion of late.

Or maybe I don't want to chase up every source mentioned when you could just tell me what exactly it is that you're referring to, so please elaborate. Have they actually managed to reproduce nuclear fusion here on Earth or does it just look promising? They've been saying that for decades. In the 1950s we'd have controlled nuclear fusion within twenty years, and in 2015 we'll have controlled nuclear within twenty years. It takes more energy to confine the energy released than the you get from the nuclear reactions. To have a controlled fusion reaction like the sun supposedly uses would require a greater release of energy than the energy required to contain it and it's never been shown that it's even possible for that to happen.

Currents in the brain to propel the ions? Do you have a link to a prove?

I don't need one. If you agree that neither gravity or either of the nuclear forces is responsible then you must agree that neurons use the electro-magnetic force to send information, or think that an as yet undiscovered force is responsible. It's a well known fact that our brain work electrically. We're bio-electrical machines. So is the universe.

Cyntia, i guess it is more his "i don't read your Arguments" argument that makes other people react agressive.

I never said anything close to that. You're supposed to use quotation marks when you're actually quoting somebody. People react like that when they can't provide a counter argument. Of course I'll read the arguments he posts. What I won't do is read every link to go through pages of text to find what might be relevant to the discussion, why should I? Anyway I said that after his last (at the time) post so your point wouldn't make sense even if that was close to what I said, and it definitely wasn't. How could he get angry about something I hadn't even written yet?

I agree with this:
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. (sic.)
This is how Einstein disproved Newton. As I said, it appeared correct at first, and was proven later.

It was never proven (you can't prove a model right anyway) and it's since been shown to be false. It was supposedly confirmed when the position of stars that appeared close to the sun during a solar eclipse were measured and found to deviate from their apparent positions when their light doesn't pass close to the sun before it reaches our eyes. This was held up as confirmation that the light's path was bent slightly around the sun due to its gravity and as predicted by general relativity. The only problem is that light that passes close to the sun but outside of the corona isn't bent as general relativity predicts. It follows a straight path, which shows that the reason the light's path was curved was purely due to refraction in the sun's atmosphere. It had nothing to do with gravity. It's the same effect here of Earth when the sun sets, it appears in a slightly different position in the sky to its true location because the light is refracted in our atmosphere.

The role of maths is our notation for what happens in reality. We might not see ALL of reality, as Newton did not find out in his lifetime - it took awhile for relativistic effects to add up and put the planets out of whack with Newton. Since they were in the correct place from their initial Newton time = 0 using Einstein's equations, those equations proved Newton's equations wrong.

No they didn't! What proved Newton's gravity mechanism wrong was the fact that is made inaccurate predictions, it had nothing to do with the equations of general relativity. That's also exactly what's disproved the standard model but now when the favoured theories of the mainstream are refuted by experiment it's either brushed under the carpet and avoided at all costs or something new and untestable like dark matter and dark energy is added to it to make it fit the what's observed. Newton's theory failing and Eistein's taking it's place (which is also wrong) were two separate occurrences. General relativity replaced an already disproved description of gravitation but Newton's equations were (and still are) used because the results are so close to what's observed in most situations and Einstein's equations provide more accurate description so they replaced Newton's as the most accurate description. Neither gives any mechanism for gravity or suggests a possible cause. They only describe its behaviour in very limited situations. They both fail at giving a complete description of gravity. Newton's can be shown to be inaccurate by measuring the gravitational influence of the sun on Mercury and Einstein's fail when they produce a gravitation singularity. Einstein said that himself but relativity's supporters carried on regardless and try to insist that singularities are real.

Since that case was only once observations of the planets were used, I would have to concede the point that equations in and of themselves cannot disprove other equations without observation. I don't know, but I'm sure Einstein checked this himself before even publishing.

The measurements were made before Einstein wrote general relativity. He wrote it to explain them.

In any case, since you doubtless have observation-supported equations for the electric universe, we cannot imagine why you have failed three times now to put them up when asked for. Surely you don't object on the grounds that I did not fully define how equations are used in disproof? Your punishment of withholding them seems a little extreme for my lack of splitting a hair...that would make NO difference, since your equations would show General Relativity to be wrong if you include the observations supporting them! They wouldn't be published otherwise, now would they? So where are they?

Who's we? You said that in your last post as well when you said we're going to assume you don't have any equations. Who else am I talking to? Or are you presuming to speak for casual readers? I've already explained why general relativity isn't mathematically self-consistent (the Ricci tensor that needs to be set to zero which describes a massless universe and it's debatable whether that's even a valid universe but it certainly isn't this one and the constant changing of what one of the variables in the field equations represents to hide the fact that the theory contradicts itself) and why the evidence isn't consistent with its predictions. It doesn't work conceptually either because it can't give a self-consistent description what's supposed to happen. So it fails on all three levels; theoretically, mathematically, and evidentially. Would you like me to explain why singularities can't exist?

It's so incredible that much of what I was taught about maths is WRONG! Well, I'm sure to be educated now! I await your next masterful post with bated breath.

Is that really necessary? Which one of us do you think comments like that reflect on? Do you really think that comments like that make me look worse than they make you seem? Are you under the impression that it somehow makes me look bad or the EU wrong in some vague undefined way rather than making yourself look desperate? Stop being so childish. Clearly you have no idea what role mathematics plays in science.

The links I gave show why the questions you asked me are utterly wrong.

I seriously doubt that, but if it's true I'm puzzled by your unwillingness to post exactly what it is that you believe answers those questions.

It's a shorter effort for me to copy paste than it is to rewrite what has already been done, particularly when it isn't my field.

No don't copy and paste. Write your arguments in your own words. If you have an understanding of the source material that you're referencing then this shouldn't be a problem for you.

If we both have an understanding, then reading source material and discussing it is fine - Scientists do this all the time.

I could have given you loads of links to support my point but I haven't. I don't trust the people you're linking to because I think all main stream scientists can do is parrot back the rubbish they've been taught without understanding how little there is to support it and I'm not going to waste my time sifting through that crap to find the relevant information so stop relying on links to make your points for you.

I also think the original author should be get the credit for all the work they did.

How hard is it to mention the name of an author?

If you won't read through the disproofs that show the electric universe to be wrong, that is your loss, not mine. I have read through them. They satisfy me.

That says much more about your state of mind and willingness to accept what you're being told based on a completely unfounded and misplaced trust in the sources you use in an attempt to educate yourself than it does about the validity of what you're actually being told. How could they possibly show the whole electric universe model to be wrong? That's ridiculous! At best they show that the specific proposed method of how an individual concept within the EU that being refuted is flawed in its current formulation. To disprove the entire electric universe as a concept would require proof that plasma is incapable of prolonged charge separation. If can't sustain a current because it's a perfect conductor with absolutely no electrical resistance at all then there can be no electrical circuits in space. Otherwise, at least in principle, there's nothing to prevent sustained electrical fields.

Anyone with any interest can surely take the time to read a few pages. I have read the basics of the electric universe, too. I knew enough to know it's bunk. Really GOOD sounding bunk - I will give it that. It did sound vaguely worth looking into at first, despite sounding like a National Enquirer article.

I don't understand. If you have enough knowledge to know that the EU model is wrong then why on Earth haven't you mentioned any of what it actually is that you know that makes the electrical model "bunk" and why has nobody else been able to despite numerous laughable debunking attempts that are usually based on no understanding of the fundamentals of what they're trying to argue against?

Having completed an online course in Exoplanets last summer, I can say that "Jupiters" near their star is NOT the norm. It is common, but not in all systems. It is because close-in hot gas giants are easiest to see; and are therefore the first types of planes we will find when the technology is in its infancy! More modern methods are finding smaller planets now. If we can get the James Webb out in orbit, we will be spotting even smaller ones.

Then you should know that the amount of stars with so called hot Jupiters is far higher than the standard model of planetary system formation can account for. Of course the high mass planets and the ones closest to their stars are going to be the first ones found because of the way that they're detected, the host starts wobble because of the gravitational influence of the orbiting planets. So obviously the first ones found are going to be the closely orbiting high mass exoplanets. The issue is these planets are far more numerous than the standard model of planetary formation had predicted. Many systems have a gas giant too close to their host star for the standard model to explain and the Solar system has gas giants that are too far away for the standard model to explain. If the standard model of planetary system formation is accurate then first of all, what force is acting on these hot Jupiters that are usually much more massive than Jupiter and second and more importantly, what force then counteracts it to stop them from falling into their host stars? They form when the star moves into an area of space with a different charge and the star is forced to eject mass to maintain stability.

Forgive me, but your demonstration of ignorance in this area is telling.

What exactly have I said that you believe demonstrates ignorance? The only thing I think you could be referring to is my assertion that star systems with a closely orbiting gas giant is the norm. You've already agreed that it's a common occurrence, so at best I've slightly overstated the amount of stars that have this feature. I was under the impression that it now seems that it the case for most systems. If it's not then I apologise for my false assertion that has no baring at all on the point that I was making. Star systems commonly have gas giants with much more mass than Jupiter orbiting very close to the star, sometimes in a matter of hours. The standard model of planetary formation certainly didn't predict this and has no convincing explanation for it.

Virtually every point you've made shows how you don't have the first clue what you're talking about and are parroting back soundbites that you've heard or quotes that you've read. Anyone can do that! How much EU stuff have you read? I can virtually guarantee that I read a lot more about the standard model than you have about the electric universe. I have a much better idea of what I'm arguing against than you do.

It's a support for your electric universe that collapsed. That doesn't mean the whole thing does....the pages I linked before do that when you add them all together.

What? How the hell is it a collapsed support for the electric universe? You think my overestimation (if it was an overestimation) of the number of stars that host hot Jupiters is damaging the whole electric universe concept. Please explain.

Planet formation http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form for anyone who wants to learn. Proven by Hubble; ignore it at your own cost.

Proven by Hubble? LOL! The accretion model of planetary formation doesn't work! There's no way to create large numbers of planetary systems using that model because it relies on external influences to collapse the dust and gas so it become dense enough to collapse further through accretion and then gravity because the conditions it needed are too rare.

Star formation http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2001/21/image/a/ as above; ignore it at your own cost.

Stars form along electrical currents. There's new images that match exactly with predictions of the electrical formation of stars. Stars are referred to now as forming like beads on a string. The string is a sustained electrical discharge between areas of a molecular cloud with different charges. It's like cloud to cloud lightning on Earth but on a much bigger scale.

Why would the Gas Giants replicate the solar system among their moons, following the same gravitational rules of stable planetary orbital distances? Why does Saturn and Uranus also do it with their respective ring systems? For an "electrical" system, they sure do correspond to gravitational binding to an uncanny degree!

What? Of course they do! Gravity is what makes the planets and moons orbit around their hosts, not electromagnetism. Obviously!

Be sure to educate us all on that one with electrical equations, too!

How many electricians do you know of who express the behaviour and properties of electrical circuits using equations? Think about it. It's no different. Electricity works the same way on all scales.

Since all rocketry needs to take into account the gravity of Jupiter, especially when going to the moon or farther, I rest the case that every planet DOES affect every other with its gravity. Why would that need to be done at all in your electric system? Newton gave up when he had a three body problem and invoked 'gaaaahhhhddd' - this was corrected in the next century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo You're disproven at ~ 10:35, but by all means watch the whole thing.

Of course every planet gravitationally influences every other planet, that's the whole point! This is what makes a purely gravitational system unstable and the standard model blatantly wrong. There needs to be another force to compensate for gravitational pull that each planet exerts on the others or the cumulative effects would mean that no system could last longer than mere centuries. Electromagnetism can push an object away if its moves too close and pull on it if it moves too far away, which is exactly what's needed to correct the gravitational influences of the planets and moons on each other. That's what I meant when I said it's like they orbit on rails. They maintain a stable distance despite being under the influence of inconsistent gravitational influences as the planets and moons move close and further away from each other. Gravity can't possibly provide a self-correction mechanism like that because it can only ever attract. That's why the acceleration of the solar wind away from the sun is enough to show by itself that there is an electrical field present in the solar system.

The interior of a star would appear darker if a) the photons are being absorbed in the chain reaction that is fusion...pretty much what we expect. b) the surface brightness washes out the interior details like any other over-exposed photograph. d'uh.

What? You think the glare from the less bright surroundings is blocking out the brighter light coming from sunspots? Double d'uh, no backsies. Nobody is claiming that sun spots are as bright as the rest of the sun, it couldn't be more obvious. The mainstream's attempted explanation is that the magnetic fields generated around sunspots are overturning convection, in other words preventing the radiation from reaching the surface. That's interesting since it's totally impossible to even have a lasting magnetic field in the absence of electrical current since they're two manifestations of exactly the same thing. Are you starting to see how ridiculous the kind of crap they try to pretend is factual really is yet? They're saying that there is convection from the interior except in the only places where we can actually see to check it. There's two reasonable candidates for the cause of dark sunspots. One is simpler that they're dark because the interior of the sun is cooler than the exterior because it's powered externally be an electric current, and the other is that those regions are extremely conductive. Either way it supports an electrical sun. According to the standard model the sun is gaseous with no actual surface, just an apparent one! That's how stupid it is. Is unbelievably easy to show the sun has a liquid-like real surface. You can even see the ripples when something impacts it.

The Standard Model is standard for a reason: it WORKS.

I don't know whether that statement is more depressing than it is funny. The standard model in no way works and is no longer anywhere close to a credible theory. How can you class any model that includes most of the universe as unpredicted and not remotely understood dark energy, and with only 10% of the remaining matter predicted with the other 90% being not remotely understood dark matter and of that minority of the universe that's made of matter and of that 10% of it that isn't dark matter a gravitational force that has no apparent cause and can't even be accurately modelled, galaxy shapes that can't form under gravity alone, planetary systems that can't form in would be stable even if they could, stars that can't super nova and mysteriously accelerated charged particles as a working model? I wonder how you could accelerate an electrically charge particle, hmm. It's so naive to think that work in the sciences is judged on merit. It's judged primarily on conformity. I know that it has to be this way to a certain extent or there would be no official models but it means that anything that refutes them gets discarded out of hand. The standard model doesn't have anywhere as near as much observational evidence going for as the electric universe model has and it's been proved wrong so many times now that's its gone well beyond a joke. Anyone with more than a passing interest in these subjects who is unable to see this has proven themselves to be either unable or unwilling to think for themselves and only takes what they're told by people that they see as authority figures. There's an actual name for this but I can't remember what it is. I can think of a few though.

People are labelled 'crackpots' when they insist on a system for which they FAIL to provide equations using observations to back them up, yesss,. You have a very easy job of escaping the title, then. Provide the equations and the observations to plug into them.

What are you talking about? Equations for what exactly? You still haven't said. The electric universe, seriously? You think there's one set of equations underlying everything in the EU model? Besides, even if you do have a specific physical process in mind and keep forgetting to mention it I already told you that I'd just be posting other peoples work. I suggest you decide which aspect you want to look into and search for yourself. What do you think mathematics is for? How do you think it has any relevance to any discussion other than one in which two models make a predications that are similar enough to each other to require precise data to differentiate them? By the way don't call me names! I don't care what name it is, you need to cut that *lemony goodness* out right now! Understood? What do you hope to achieve anyway. If I were to go looking for equations that supporters of the EU model have derived and post them here the best you could hope for is to show that the equations are in some way flawed. That wouldn't in any way reflect on the validity EU model. All it would do is show that those equations are flawed and need to be redone. If what you're hoping for is a set of equations that aren't flawed and that make a definite prediction that is falsifiable by observations already made then it would never have been posted online in the first or would have been quickly disproved and removed, so I'm wondering what it is you're actually hoping to accomplish? It seems to be the default fallback position of mainstream supporters when they have no arguments to support their position.

If you really want to look at some EU related equations then Prof Donald Scott formulated a precise model for the behaviour of electrical currents and how they're confined by their own magnetic fields through the Lorentz force to create their own virtual wires in space. That's what stops the Birkland currents from spreading out in space in all directions. I suppose that's about as much at the heart of the electrical model as you can get. Search for his name and Birkland currents and it should come up. But there's people within the EU community and who work with him that don't agree with his model (not sure why, I think it's spot on but I haven't looked at the counter arguments yet). This is why it's completely pointless to ask for equations. If he's are wrong it in no way reflects on the validity of the overall model. I don't know why you're having such trouble grasping this. Mathematics is only a tool, it is not a form of evidence. It's worthless in itself. It's only use is to describe a relationship. It can perfectly describe a physical process but it can't explain it. It can only show how something works, not why it works. Unless there's observable evidence that what it's describing actually exists and behaves in the way it describes then it's purely imaginary and not a description of anything real. The standard model describes fraggle all.

Equations are only useful in so far as the can be used to derive predictions that match observational evidence. I've given you tons of observational evidence that the standard model has no explanation for. That would only be needed if the two competing ideas gave predictions so close to each other that precise calculations were needed to distinguish them. Equations can only ever describe how something works, they can never explain why it works that way. Equations aren't relevant to a discussion of whether or not electricity is the dominant force in the universe. The issue isn't how electricity works but why it's easy to show that it dominates the universe on every scale. Gravity can't accelerate charged particles away from a massive body or create barbed spiral galaxies for example and no equations are needed to show that electricity is the only viable candidate. I'm going to write a description of special relativity (the most technical classical model) to describe why it's an accurate description of nature and exactly how it works to show you that no mathematical knowledge is needed to either describe or understand it. Equations are completely meaningless in themselves. It's what they describe that has meaning.

For the later posters: this is not at all aggressive for me. Trust me, I go at religionists far far harder.

So you think it's okay to talk to people like that because your communication skills are even more lacking when you're talking to people who think even more differently to you?

It's hardly ballistic to insist that a system which has been around for at least thirty years puts up some proof.

You mean evidence, you can't ever have proof. It's been documented and shown over and over despite the huge disadvantage of all the funding going to a failed and fundamentally flawed alternate model. It still manages to kick its arse in every regard, especially supporting evidence. There's evidence everywhere, on every scale.

Instead it seems this 'electrical system' is all philosophy and no Science. I will happily support it IF it can be proven. So far, all I have heard is used-car salesman philosophy designed to get the layman to change his mind.

Because the EU model is based on observational science. The standard model isn't supported by observational evidence so it relies on purely theoretical arguments based on unproven mathematical models. It's very cheeky to imply that this is to the detriment of the EU model rather than to its credit.

I'm not a layman. Provide the proof.

Then you're doing a truly epic impersonation of one. You should know that proof doesn't exist outside of mathematics. In the real world it's only about disproving potential models and seeing which of those remaining has more evidence to support it. The electric universe model has more evidence than the standard model could ever dream of and it's growing all the time. It won't be long before it's completely undeniable the electricity is the most influential force in the universe by far and gravity plays a supporting role. It's obvious that you're not arguing from a position of knowledge or understanding but purely from faith that the source you're getting your information from is reliable. It isn't. The models that mainstream science keeps pushing have failed now on so many levels and are so easily shown to be false that the only people who left who support them are those too ignorant and close minded to accept the obvious fact that the people who should be the authority on these issues have become priests for the new age who rely only on peoples faith because there's nothing else to support what they're saying, certainly nothing resembling any form of evidence.

Dark matter is the best example. Apparently we know dark matter is there because our models of gravity doesn't agree with the large scale structure of the universe. In fact it's so far off that there must be at least nine times as much dark matter as matter that we actually know is there. Then they take more measurements and confirming how far out their predictions are and they try to claim this as evidence of what the made up in the first place to cover their initial disproof of their model. There may very well be matter that neither emits or reflects light but to include dark matter in the standard model as a matter of fact based purely on that reasoning and literally nothing else is so far beyond ridiculous that it's actually funny. That's what the standard descriptions from mainstream science have become to people who know enough to think for themselves rather than swallowing what's shoved down their throats, nothing but a joke.

It was invented when it was discovered that there's only 10% of the matter required for the gravitational model to work so now we have 90% of the matter of the universe that's purely there to prop up a failed theory, and it gets even funnier. That still left a huge gap because they needed to explain red shift. So they invented dark energy, that's it. Yes really, no deeper explanation than that. Nothing to explain what causes it or how it works. Again, it only exists to prop up a model that failed to account for experimental results. So now we have a model in which most (I think 80%) of the universe is dark energy, and of the rest 90% is dark matter. The standard model is therefore around 2% accurate, that's how utterly it fails to describe the universe. It has no basis in reality whatsoever. You can't just make stuff up and say it's dark to cover failures in a model's predictions and then expect to be taken seriously.

Future generations are going to look back at the time when people were so clueless that they accepted this rubbish and they're going to wonder how it ever went this far.


You're still avoiding the questions. No more stalling. What are your answers?

1. What force do you think is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the sun? Do you think it's gravity, one of the nuclear forces, electromagnetism or some undiscovered force? Those are your only four choices.

2. What force do you think is responsible for correcting the gravitational disturbances of the planets on each other? Same four choices.

3. Same choices again, what force do you believe is responsible for the shapes of galaxies that exactly mimic the shapes produced in labs by running a strong electrical current through plasma?

4. And same choices once more, what force is responsible for organising stars that are in the process of forming into strings that are thousands of lightyears long?

5. Oh, one more, I forgot all about this. What force do you think is responsible for the recently discovered lining up of the nebulae close to the galactic core so that they're all aligned with the electrical current flow proposed by he EU model?

6. Why is the sun so much hotter at the corona than at the surface if the sun's power is driven internally?

7. Why is the neutrino count about 1% of what was predicted if the nuclear fusion isn't less than 1% what was predicted?

8. What mechanism is responsible for the overturning of convection on the sun in the area of sunspots.

9. The Ibex mission was funded on the bases thirty predictions about the heliospheric boundary conditions, all of which failed but were completely in line with what the EU models predicted. "The models that have been thought to predict what should happen are all incorrect." - Stamatios Krimigis, Physicist, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system was exactly what the electric universe model predicted and so was the presence of exited neutral atoms. These have absolutely no explanation using the standard model. I presume you must think that the lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system which was predicted by the electrical model and has no explanation in the standard model was a lucky guess? There's also been a concentration of energetic neutral atoms detected outside the solar system which was also predicted by modelling the solar system as an electrical circuit. Another fluke I suppose? If you read the reports they all say how shocked they were to find the things that were expected and expressly predicted by EU proponents. There's no bow shock because the solar system sits in a larger electrical environment so the charged particles keep on accelerating after they reach the edge of the solar system. The build up of energetic neutral atoms was an even more impressive prediction. They're caused by the fact that positrons moving in the opposite direction to the electrons can't travel around the circuit so they build up and recombine with the electrons coming the other way to produce energised electrically neutral atoms. What's your explanation?

10. And besides all of that, given that we now know just how much magnetics is involved in the universe on large scales and it's physically impossible to produce a sustained magnetic field in the absence of an electrical current because they're two different manifestations of the exactly the same process (that's why it's called the electromagnetic force), how can anyone with even an ounce of scientific honesty claim that there are no electrical currents in space?


There's more as well, I know I've forgotten some. This is observational evidence, not theoretical models based on mathematical equations that are assumed to be an accurate description of what's never been seen. This is actual evidence! The onus is on the standard model supporters to validate their ridiculous claims because they're purely theoretical assumptions, there's no real evidence to support any of it and all the observational evidence we get keeps on refuting it. There's a huge amount of observational evidence to support the electric model and it keeps on making correct predictions that were radically different from the predictions of the standard model. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Edit:
Oh I should probably mention, I'm not the one who spotted the mathematical flaws in general relativity. I need to thank Stephen J. Crothers for that, decent bloke.

Regardless, neither explanation changes what I will have for dinner or when the sun will set.

Maybe not but it will change the lives of people in the future when we start using all the free energy that's right above our heads, like Nicola Tesla did. That's why they destroyed all of his work.

[cynthialee]

Even if the free energy is all around us claim is true, "free energy" is a misnomer.
Infrastructure would need to built and maintained. Products that run on said energy (or convert it so our household appliances can use it) would need to be produced. Homes would still need electrical system maintenance.
There would still be an entire set of industries involved.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. {even if there is, you still have to get your butt to the soup kitchen}

[Gold Bearer]

Yea okay, not exactly free energy but very very cheap once it's all set up. All that would really be needed are towers that would basically act as lightning rods but on the standard current rather than just lightning strikes.

It would be awesome if that's what the pyramids were for. There's tons of them all over the world, on every continent (the one in Bosnia is twice the size of the great pyramid and there's at least one other bigger than the great pyramid made of some type of crystal sitting on the sea bed right in the heart of the Bermuda triangle with a hole near the top that creates whirlpools and messes with radar so is probably responsible for sinking a lot of ships and planes) and they share far too much in common if it to be a whole load of primative people all independantly deciding to build the exact same thing. They're always built over flowing underground water and made from a conductive type of rock surrounded by a insulating type of rock. They're definitely not tombs. There's nothing remotly ceremonial about them and they don't house ancient corpses. They're functional buildings and a lot older than we're told. The water erosion at the base of the sphinx dates it at millions of years old. Highly speculative but fun to think about.

[knightkrawler]

Nobody who has anything to say or strive for in economical or political matters has any trace of incentive to make "free energy" available.
So, if there is such a thing as "free energy", it must not be known to the public in such an extent that it will be scientific mainstream or even an accepted and defined theory.
That is basically all one has to know to have a solid basis of thinking for oneself and coming to an opinion that is as "independent as necessary" and as "scientifically sound" as possible when occupying free time with this topic and arguing about it.

[Anderas]

Nobody who has anything to say or strive for in economical or political matters has any trace of incentive to make "free energy" available.
So, if there is such a thing as "free energy", it must not be known to the public in such an extent that it will be scientific mainstream or even an accepted and defined theory.
That is basically all one has to know to have a solid basis of thinking for oneself and coming to an opinion that is as "independent as necessary" and as "scientifically sound" as possible when occupying free time with this topic and arguing about it.

Most people i know state that cheap energy is necessary to fuel the economy, whereas expensive energy is more suited to protect the environment.

[Big Bene]

It would be awesome if that's what the pyramids were for.
There's tons of them all over the world, on every continent

"Pyramid" as in "Structure with a rectangular base, four triangular sides and a point (well, the Mesoamerian and Chinese pyrimids don't even have the latter) can indeed be found in most continents, but the design is so simple that it there is really no problem in assuming that different cultures have developed it indepentely. Most cultures above the hunter and gatherer level have cylindrical colums and rectangular houses. Do you think it is necessary to explain this by some esoteric therory (or even "normal" historical contacts through trading routes etc.)? One would think, by pure statistical chance,there should be much more pyramids then there actually are. A continent is huge, and there is not even a pyramid in every tenth country (not counting of course pyramids of modern date).
Plus, the definition is vague enough to fit a great number of clearly different structures.

(the one in Bosnia is twice the size of the great pyramid

The Bosnia pyramid is a natural mountain of vaguely rectangular shape that can be explained by geological functions without problem. There's this spleeny American millionaire who wants to prove there are artificial structures beneath. In 2006 he started an excavation and since then it has become silent around these "pyramids" (it's actually a formation of three such montains)

and there's at least one other bigger than the great pyramid made of some type of crystal sitting on the sea bed right in the heart of the Bermuda triangle with a hole near the top that creates whirlpools and messes with radar so is probably responsible for sinking a lot of ships and planes)

Please give us some source except esoteric/paraschience homepages that just cite "researchers have found a translucent pyramid...", and obviousely cross-cite each other. Are there names of the "researchers", dates, photos, some data? And even if this pyramid would exist, how would it "create whirlpools"?

and they share far too much in common if it to be a whole load of primative people all independantly deciding to build the exact same thing. They're always built over flowing underground water and made from a conductive type of rock surrounded by a insulating type of rock.

About "primitive" people not being able to idepentely develope such a simple design I've written above.
And the pyramids in different locations have nothing in common. If ou can't see that a Mesoamerican and an Egyptian pyramid are nothing alike and could never serve the same purpose (be that what it be), you must be blind. One thing they have in common, is that they are not "made from a conductive type of rock surrounded by a insulating type of rock", at least not all of them. The pyramids of egypt were build in limestone, just as the bedrock they are built on, from a quarry not far away. The Chinese pyramids are made of earth. I don't know the exact material of the mesoamerican pyramids. You will find "flowing underground water" practically everywhere you dig a hole.

They're definitely not tombs.

Nobody ever thought they all were tombs, but the Egytian ones definitely are. They have tomb chambers and sarcophages in them. They have developed from earlier types of tombs, and the steps of this developement are clearly known, many of the structures still exist. The pyramids from the 5th dynasty onwards have a rich decoration with texts, which are clearly funeral.

There's nothing remotly ceremonial about them

The Amrecan pyramids have temples on top, and the Egyptian ones are center of huge complexes of temples and funeral buildings. Perhaps you are misleaded by the well known pictures of the Gizah pyramids, where the remains of the temles can hardly be seen, both because they are mostly ruined, and the sheer height of the pyramids make for a skale of the pictures where the surrounding structures are relatively small.

and they don't house ancient corpses.

Most were robbed in old times, but grave goods and in some cases even corporal remains have indeed been found.

They're functional buildings and a lot older than we're told. The water erosion at the base of the sphinx dates it at millions of years old. Highly speculative but fun to think about.

You confuse a statue with the rock it is made of. Rock tend to be old. The Sphinx is hewn out of the bedrock, it is basically a big rock wich has been shaped in parts and build up in other parts.