Electric Universe

[Anderas]

KK, if you're against politics, if i am really not nice, i put you in the same corner like PEGIDA; which makes you conservative Just a joke, don't take me serious on that.

Gold Bearer, KK;
please acknowledge the fact that Scientists are their own biggest enemy. A scientist that can tear down a well-built theory is like a rockstar. It is the ultimative goal of any young scientist to relativate the newtons of this world. So close to every talent tries first to disprove existing theories. If a theory continues to exist, it is because it wasn't possible to disprove it. This applies to physics, but also for theories of other branches; like Evolution or others. ESPECIALLY theories like Darwin's evolution, disliked by many, have THOUSANDS of people trying to disprove it. Darwins theory was acknowledged as theory only after church fundamentalists tried to find failures or not-working parts for years and years. Only after it was recognized that it is apparently not possible to disprove Darwin, he was accepted.

This is what "theory" means. It means you have won against all the disprovers; your formula has the shield and Borins armour and a helmet and can't be destroyed.
The other things are called "working hypothesis". They are the Goblins of science, killed in large amounts, but appearing in even larger amounts.

Back to physics:
If you find a new theory, it doesn't even mean that the before-theory was wrong - you can still calculate with newton and have super-good results, good enough to build mechanical machines and houses and such stuff - it is sufficient if you change the scope of a theory so deeply that it is much smaller than before - thus reducing Newton to daily physics, whereas everything including a little bit of tidal force, high speed and precision measurements goes into Einstein's basket today.
We all know that Einstein's theory needs replacement. Bell's formula was there to decide who's right, Einstein or Quantum Mechanics; and the experiments done to measure the details in Bell's formulas proved Einstein's theory wrong and Quantum Theory right.
Small problem here: We know the Quantum theory is either not complete or it is wrong, too.

That said, until we have nothing better, they still get used. There's a good chance that they will be continued to be used both even if someone finally finds the correct string to explain everything, just because they are practical and deliver what people need.

That can't be said about the electric universe. Every serious attemt to try and disprove the electric universe is a success. If there would be only one or two small things wrong with it, the hypothesis would be changed a little bit and survive. But it's not the case. In this theory, nearly everything is wrong, and the disprove has been documented.


So yes, especially in science, it is worth to hear what the majority says. If you don't want to stick with the majority, stick with the minority. No problem. If you take a close look at "the majority" or "the minority" you will see that they are but branches of a tree with A LOT of opinions and that inside these groups there are a lot sub-opinions.
But if the majority and the minority and several small groups all say "you're wrong"; and they tell you why, in detail, then it is really not longer necessary as private person without special knowledge to discuss this special branch:

If it is disproven in it's core concepts, it is disproven. Rule it out and forget it.

[cornixt]

Just found this thread. Hilarious, keep it up!

What's hilarious? The standard model and the idotts who believe in it despite all the evidence disproving it? I agree.

There isn't much disproving it, just a couple of unexplained forces on the macro level. An electric universe has far more unexplained forces and events in it, the whole thing is full of holes and mostly nonsensical. On a high level you could say "That would make sense" but as soon as you go below that it makes no sense at all. I don't know how you could explain the Mars probes, satellites, as being successful given how gravity theory is at the core of how they were programmed. As an electrical engineer who has done some college-level astrophysics, I have a pretty good grounding (pun unintended) in both areas. If I had to guess, I'd say that this was made up by a crazy guy to pin his even more crazy ideas onto - ancient advanced civilizations for a start.

[Gold Bearer]

Gold Bearer, KK;
please acknowledge the fact that Scientists are their own biggest enemy. A scientist that can tear down a well-built theory is like a rockstar. It is the ultimative goal of any young scientist to relativate the newtons of this world. So close to every talent tries first to disprove existing theories. If a theory continues to exist, it is because it wasn't possible to disprove it.

That's incredibly naive. Theories survive well past their sell by date. Possession is nine tenths of the law in science as well as in law.

This is what "theory" means. It means you have won against all the disprovers; your formula has the shield and Borins armour and a helmet and can't be destroyed.
The other things are called "working hypothesis". They are the Goblins of science, killed in large amounts, but appearing in even larger amounts.

And the standard model isn't even a working hypothesis, because it doesn't work!

That said, until we have nothing better, they still get used. There's a good chance that they will be continued to be used both even if someone finally finds the correct string to explain everything, just because they are practical and deliver what people need.

Of course but they're not an accurate picture of reality.

That can't be said about the electric universe. Every serious attemt to try and disprove the electric universe is a success. If there would be only one or two small things wrong with it, the hypothesis would be changed a little bit and survive. But it's not the case. In this theory, nearly everything is wrong, and the disprove has been documented.

Examples please! What exactly do you believe has disproven the EU model?

If it is disproven in it's core concepts, it is disproven. Rule it out and forget it.

I totally agree. So why hasn't this been done with the standard model?

There isn't much disproving it, just a couple of unexplained forces on the macro level.

oh, Holy Empress of Laurel! I don't know where you're getting your information from but you really need to check up on it before believing it because the standard model fails on all almost every description of nature it tries to make.

An electric universe has far more unexplained forces and events in it, the whole thing is full of holes and mostly nonsensical. On a high level you could say "That would make sense" but as soon as you go below that it makes no sense at all. I don't know how you could explain the Mars probes, satellites, as being successful given how gravity theory is at the core of how they were programmed.

What? What does that have to do with anything?

As an electrical engineer who has done some college-level astrophysics, I have a pretty good grounding (pun unintended) in both areas. If I had to guess, I'd say that this was made up by a crazy guy to pin his even more crazy ideas onto - ancient advanced civilizations for a start.

Ancient advanced civilisations is a plausible but highly speculative theory that it's extremely interesting but unfounded and needs more evidence for to be anything more than a nice idea. The electric universe on the other hand has more to support it than the standard model could ever have despite far more people working on it and immensely more money thrown at it. It's also made some really impressive predictions that were completely unexpected using the standard model.


Make some kind of counter argument or you're just stating completely unfounded and wrong information. I've made my case. If you don't do the same then I'm going to assume that you can't.


Edit: "Holy Empress of Laurel" I don't remember saying that.

[Big Bene]

Gold Bearer, KK;
please acknowledge the fact that Scientists are their own biggest enemy. A scientist that can tear down a well-built theory is like a rockstar.

This.
I already wanted to write something like this, but well, I already spent too much time in the forum today...
I don't want to say that this is a prove that the majrity is always (or mostly) right. Well built theories are teared down, not every day but ever again. That's how science works.
It is also not true that the scientist will gain rockstar status instantly. He will have a hard time to establish his new theory and will certainly find some resistance by more "conservative" collegues. Scientists are still humans. But still, it is the only way to become a "star", and the very thing every scientist dreams of. Stick with the established theory and stay mediocre or disprove it and be the king. What I want to say, there is no conspiracy of "established science" to "supress" new theories that contradict the mainstream, but a constant and active search for such theories.

[cornixt]

From earlier in this thread:

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.

That's not true even for a standard model that you disagree with. I'm now unsure exactly what you are claiming in regard to gravity. There seem to be several different EU theories, nothing consistent at all, so I don't want to judge based on something different to what you are claiming - something other than a web video would be nice since I am usually not in a place I can view them. Do you think gravity doesn't exist and it is purely electrical charge that attracts objects? How does it act differently to gravity? Are there any parts of the standard model that you think are correct?

[Gold Bearer]

I don't even understand what GB and Flesh have posted here.

I'll write a summary, starting with the sun. In the electric universe model the sun is a plasma arc discharge caused by an electric z-pinch rather than a nuclear fusion reactor. That's not as complicated as it sounds. Plasma has three modes, dark mode (real dark matter), glow mode (visible when a strong enough electrical current is moving through it) and arc move (when it's give off radiation including UV light and shorter wavelengths when an even stronger current is moving through it). When current passes through dense matter it creates a z-pinch. This just means a focusing of the energy as the width of the current stream is reduced. The overall voltage doesn't change but the voltage intensity in the area of the pinch is greatly increased. This is all established plasma physics and is part of mainstream science.

The idea is that there's electrical circuits on all scales and the galactic current stream enters and exists the sun through the poles and creates a z-pinch as it does and forcing the plasma from dark mode into glow mode. Virtually every aspect of the sun, from the super rotation of the equatorial region to the darkness of sunspots and the lack of convection support this model of the sun. There's also a circuit connecting the solar system which enters and exits a planets magnetosphere through the poles as well which can be seen on Earth as the northern and southern lights. This model of the solar system is supported by the recently discovered lack of a bow show at the edge of the suns heliosphere as well as the detection of large amounts of energetic neutral atoms amongst other things.

The galactic current flows into the galactic core and out through the galactic poles. This model of the galaxy is supported by the recently discovered nebulae aligned exactly as they should be with the current stream, stars seem forming in lines tens of lightyears long like beads on a string and the detection of faint jets emanating from our galaxy to name a few. This would explain why galaxies have shapes and structure that gravity is incapable of producing but that match exactly with the shape of plasmoids created in labs. There's also a universal current that connects the galaxies as supported by the large scale maps of the universe showing a filamentary structure almost indistinguishable from our brains.

There's also attempts to apply it in the other direction by using the same principles to explain gravity by looking at atomic and sub-atomic structure electrically. The idea is that electrons have the same structure as the atoms on a smaller scale and the lining up of electric dipole positive to negative (they're just little magnets) would produce an overall force that would be towards any concentration of matter (electrical dipoles effect neutral atoms as well as charged ones). Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity as well as being inaccurate models make no attempt to explain the underlying cause of gravity. This could be it. There's a long way to go though and I don't know how easy this idea of gravitation would be to test.

Not every idea within huge umbrella of the electric universe model has enough to support it to claim it as the correct answer but the overall model is solid. Nobody with both a basic understanding of the topic and unbiased mind would claim that there's no electricity in space. It's everywhere.

From earlier in this thread:

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.

That's not true even for a standard model that you disagree with. I'm now unsure exactly what you are claiming in regard to gravity.

That all it can produce is spheriods and not the barbed spiraled ared galaxies we observe.

There seem to be several different EU theories, nothing consistent at all, so I don't want to judge based on something different to what you are claiming - something other than a web video would be nice since I am usually not in a place I can view them.

The EU model is the overall idea that electrical currents in space not only exist but are te dominant force in the universe. Within that there are lots of individual (but connected) aspects.

Do you think gravity doesn't exist and it is purely electrical charge that attracts objects?

I think gravity propably can be explained electrically. I think most physicists would agree that the four forces are different aspects of the same underlying process.

How does it act differently to gravity?

You mean general relativity? It doesn't produce gravitational sigularities for one thing.

Are there any parts of the standard model that you think are correct?

Yes! Check out the relativity made simple topic.

[Anderas]

Gold Bearer, we use the standard model because nothing better exists today. There are, however, hordes of scientists trying to develop something better.

EU is not better.
You assume electrical current flowing through plasma that has one molecule per cubic metre; and this electric current shall be strong enough to light up our sun, but directed exact enough not to harm the earth or any other planet at the same time.

Assumed that electric current is possible in space even if there is nearly nothing to conduct it, then it would take the way of the slowest resistance. If there is more than one possible way, it would take all of them at the same time. As the Earth Core is made of large amounts of iron; we are a pretty good conductor - not the best, but quite good. We would indeed face large amounts of currents going through the atmosphere, through the surface, crossing the earth, exiting the other side again. Currents, strong enough to light up the sun.
Where is the destruction these currents would do to our earth surface? Where is the permanent lightning bolt that should be the visible proof of this theory?

Now be careful with your answer. I was working some time on lightning protection for aircrafts and know what damage would be done by which current. This amount of electrical current would damage us. It would also flow through us. Assuming it is there in the space to light up the sun, it would flow here too. So tell me where it is.

[Gold Bearer]

Assumed that electric current is possible in space even if there is nearly nothing to conduct it, then it would take the way of the slowest resistance. If there is more than one possible way, it would take all of them at the same time. As the Earth Core is made of large amounts of iron; we are a pretty good conductor - not the best, but quite good. We would indeed face large amounts of currents going through the atmosphere, through the surface, crossing the earth, exiting the other side again. Currents, strong enough to light up the sun.
Where is the destruction these currents would do to our earth surface? Where is the permanent lightning bolt that should be the visible proof of this theory?

The EU model is better because it exlpains far more and has far less evidence to discredit it. Compare it to the standard model with an open mind as if there was no accepted theory and just two equally established contenders and compare the number of predictions each one makes and the number of supporting factors for each one. It's a very one sided contest.

Now be careful with your answer. I was working some time on lightning protection for aircrafts and know what damage would be done by which current. This amount of electrical current would damage us. It would also flow through us. Assuming it is there in the space to light up the sun, it would flow here too. So tell me where it is.

Good question. You kind of answered it yourself. Electricity will always follow the easiest path, in this case right through the sun. If there were no sun then Jupiter would light up. If a larger body moved into the solar system then the sun would stop shining because the current would have an easier path to follow.

The idea is that there's electrical circuits on all scales and the galactic current stream enters and exists the sun through the poles and creates a z-pinch as it does and forcing the plasma from dark mode into glow mode.

The current follows the easiest path by moving around the outside of the sun (like a Faraday cage) and causing the intense heat we see above the corona while leaving the interior cool.

[Anderas]

Intergalactic medium has magnetic fields.of 10^-7 gauss. Tell me how that ca fuel the solar corona which has 10^2 gauss and more. Electric currents are always accompanied by magnetic fields.

Electric currents, particular strong currents, are always taking all the paths. Even if 99 per cent is going through the easiest path there is still something going through other paths. Except of course, if they are entirely interrupted somewhere. For earthy currents this rule of thumb boils down to "it takes only one path". But as the vacuum is apparently not isolating but conducting, the earth is in the eu not electrically disconnected from the sun.

I think it is the main failure of EU, trying to tell us that the interstellar vacuum is indeed conductive. Ask any satellite technician why they don't protect their circuits from the conducting vacuum.

[Gold Bearer]

Intergalactic medium has magnetic fields.of 10^-7 gauss. Tell me how that ca fuel the solar corona which has 10^2 gauss and more.

Because of the pinch. The surrounding current is funnelled and focused on small area.

Electric currents are always accompanied by magnetic fields.

Yes! And magnetic fields are always accompanied by an electrical current, proving that there has to be lots of very powerful electric currents moving through space to accompany the vast magnetic fields of planets, stars, and galaxies.

Electric currents, particular strong currents, are always taking all the paths. Even if 99 per cent is going through the easiest path there is still something going through other paths. Except of course, if they are entirely interrupted somewhere. For earthy currents this rule of thumb boils down to "it takes only one path". But as the vacuum is apparently not isolating but conducting, the earth is in the eu not electrically disconnected from the sun.

Yes, it’s electrically connected to the sun. All of the planets and moons with magnetic fields are, and so are comets. The sun acts as a positively charged anode and as a transistor. It has the electrical signature of a transistor at the surface.

I think it is the main failure of EU, trying to tell us that the interstellar vacuum is indeed conductive.

Because that’s exactly what it is. You can’t get a better conductor than plasma.

Ask any satellite technician why they don't protect their circuits from the conducting vacuum.

They’re orbiting between the Van Allan belts (where there is current I think) and so don't need protecting and most of the current enters and exists the Earth through the poles and travels around the magnetosphere. Plasma in glow mode can be seen as the northern and southern lights because of the current passing through it. Those are electrically charged particles from the sun.


I get the distinct impression that you’d already decided that it’s not true and are working backwards from that assumption. It’s good that you’re trying to find flaws though.