EU fascinating but nearly impossible to understand

[Open Mind]

New member here. Fell down the rabbit hole of ancient advanced civilizations a couple years ago and am consumed with Hancock, Carlson, Dunn, etc. My background as a artisan builder aligns my interests with the physical evidence of ancient architecture, and affords me a reasonable instinct to identify where Egyptologists and Archeologists have lost their way from their own myopic over simplification. All fun stuff.

However, having stumbled onto EU, I'm intrigued and want to understand, but I'm not sure if its even possible to make this kind of subject matter more accessible to anyone who isn't an electrical engineer.

So, two questions.

1. For those who have a much better ability to understand this theory, is there any chance it can be explained in a way to make it more accessible to the general public? Are there absolute minimums in electrical theory comprehension necessary to even have a hope of understanding? If so, how would you summarize that minimum in terms of concepts, theories, university level courses, or specific texts available.

2. As an admitted novice, I'm going to float a question out there that might be ridiculous but I need some direction to figure out how to explore it. I'm curious about Pole Shift and I struggle with the implication according to its original author Hapgood, that it requires that there has to be a crustal shift as a result. If I consider through the EU that all things in cosmology are electrical in nature and that gravity is only an unnecessary redefinition of basic electromagnetism, then through the prism of the EU theory, how are the following explained:

a) Position of the earth in the solar system
b) Specific position of the axis of rotation on the earth
c) Specific rate of rotation of the earth.
c) What kind of 'disturbance' could disturb those positions and movements?
d) Can I imagine the forces that hold planets in place as a simple magnetic force would therefore hold planets in these positions and specific movements as an equilibrium state that even after a disturbance of some kind, would then force a return to those points and motions.

I'm mostly curious to understand these things because I'm stuck at the cause of the Younger Dryas events. If a pole shift is possible without it necessarily meaning a crustal shift, it has fascinating possibilities with respect to the YD and also the credibility of the Greenland Ice core data.

Thanks for any responses.

[kodybatill]

I might be able to help with this!!! I do not represent this site or the EU theory - but I love it, it means that the oldest but maybe not fastest energy of thought, was electrical, positrons - and then for original green positrons or colors around opposites, - the original green positrons, that color in relationship to those positrons themselves, were most like the magnetic - the relationship between any proton type energy and positrons, is magnetic - and then all original orbits of 5 or 6 different colored positrons united to create the original Muonic Hydrogen - different from today's Muonic Hydrogen - penetrated by a pentagonal disk of heaviest infra-red inert gas - and then came a time of the aspirations of material colors but before matter, 28 colors each containing it's own opposite from where ever they came from - and then after a time of unique completely silent phase conjugance - something amazing started to happen - and that is not something I can explain right now without the very fabric of creation trying to make it look hard to handle and anti-climatic - because the best time to witness it is under the influence of really only caring about one's motherland and the perfect dwelling land. But one could say that it is where the electrons, neutrons, protons, and electron neutrinos that we know today, came from.

But I have just wrote that to show you a tiny bit about what I think about magnetic energies and where they came from. And in a way if you think positrons are anything like electrons, you could also consider that the sub-beginning of electric energies - is simply positrons which are colors around opposites - maybe not even the whole type of light we know today. Instead positrons are a fractional part of light, and even have to rely on other forces to remind them what to do.

Now! About the polar shift.
I have recently discovered that when Bismuth particles are doped on silicon fiber optic wires - it creates something like a laser. This one is with Erbium as well:
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/OPJ_2013072209304754.pdf

While this one - with the average fiber optic wire doped with Bismuth - creates access to un used areas of broad-band, and also created Luminescence and quicker delivers of information: http://www.nature.com/lsa/journal/v1/n5 ... lback=true

So see, there is a lot of Bismuth and Silicon in the Earth. Not many people know this, but almost all Magma and Lava has bismuth in it, or was created by bismuth with silicon. Silicon threads around Bismuth can create laser TYPE conditions, and under pressure and around pressurized water, who knows what else. This pole would be the first place where fiber optics is used to create indestructible information and possibly lava - while the generator of the signal into the wire is used in nature by magnesium and radium type elements - which magnesium is found in most serpentinite - and radium is found in a lot of granite, with also some magnesium - so these would be the centers or poles of twin intertwining complexes of Fiber Optics core in nature - which creates permanent indestructible information at the point it reaches Silicon - and then also silicon and bismuth -which especially with bismuth - allows the magma to be used by the invisible indestructible information of fiber optics as well. This is really like free energy and does not appear to be controlled completely by the stars or electricity or magnetism - instead only supplemented by these things. If anything it is most controlled by people's thoughts and also the centers of the signal itself - the granite - serpentinite and all of the silicon mainly - bismuth is just there to help magma fall under the same effect - But fiber optics IS electric AND magnetic, it uses all forms of energy at once - even sound - it is brilliant even though merging it with the cell phone waves they use today is not healthy.

So I say that the poles of the Earth are probably not created by fiber optics alone - but also by some other element that accelerates them to the point of creating poles - some low mass, low heat, and inertia low element.

If this "Wind" - this extremely quick and light element slows down, the poles may go down - but the fiber optic energy is kept alive and even held up by the Granite and Serpentine and Silicon with bismuth, amongst others. Maybe electric measurements that don't have their own fiber optic source will go a little off? Maybe smaller "partial' fiber optic cores will be effected? I kind of doubt it - because honestly - the heaviest form of near infra-red inert gas has countless single atoms that rotate very fast around a certain orbit of every single other Atom. Not many people know this. It is the heaviest element of all - even amongst the metals - but it moves so fast because of creating shells of the only inert-less, mass-less and temperature-less element - and because the infra-red elements connected to it are a lot less massive, and so tries to use more infra-red, more of itself, infra-red from every-where, to project this heaviest inert gas - and also it is propelled by people's thoughts - but is not really primarily propelled by fiber optics. So I honestly think there is a nice little copy of this heaviest inert gas, for every single function the Earth may need - to keep and store information about every part of the previous magnetic field. That would be the electrical force of the Universe saving us by the way - because this heaviest inert gas's inner super basic atomic state is replacing the electron of moving closer to infra-red, with the electron neutrino of taking positrons or colors around opposites. I think the Earth's crust might not need to slide - and if it does - definitely from all of the underground activity from mankind - but I don't think it will.

[Michael Mozina]

1. For those who have a much better ability to understand this theory, is there any chance it can be explained in a way to make it more accessible to the general public? Are there absolute minimums in electrical theory comprehension necessary to even have a hope of understanding? If so, how would you summarize that minimum in terms of concepts, theories, university level courses, or specific texts available.

Welcome to Thunderbolts. I don't envy the learning curve ahead of you, but I'll try to point you to the right material along the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Kristian Birkeland is probably the "grandfather" of EU/PC theory. Birkeland was curious about the cause of the Earth's aurora and he did a large number of experiments to test various electrical configurations of objects in his lab. He successfully predicted fission/fusion, both types of charged particles in solar with, cathode rays/electron beams from the sun, polar jets, coronal loops, and pretty much everything we see today in satellite imagery of the sun. You'll find that all his work is available to you on the internet. His volume/book is really long, to read, but you'll find a short basic presentation here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... egacy=true

You'll find the links to his huge volume on WIKI.

Hannes Alfven was the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory (plasma physics) and the 'father" of EU/PC cosmology theory. He essentially applied circuit theory and MHD theory to cosmology in general. His student Anthony Peratt works(ed) for Los Alamos. Peratt has done a lot of great computer modeling and he has a really wonderful book out on this topic. It's somewhat pricey, but well worth it if you're into math and physics rather than conceptual theory. Alfven's own book, 'Cosmic Plasma' is also a bit pricey. You can actually get most of the materials in that book just from reading his published papers, most of which are free on the internet. I've collected a bunch of them here:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/

I'd start with those three references and then work you way up to the materials by Ralph Juergen's, Charles Bruce, Wal Thornhill and Donald Scott. Thornhill and Scott both have great introductory books that are relatively inexpensive compared to Alfven's books and Peratt's books. If you just want a short intro, I recommend their books as well. I'll round you up book links when I get time if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

I'll warn you up front that there are at *least* three different EU/PC solar models to choose from, including a cathode version by Birkeland as you see in that video, Alfvens 'standard model", and Juergen's (Thornhill/Scott) anode model which is currently being studied by SAFIRE. They're all worth learning about and there probably isn't a consensus yet on which is the right one even within our community. SAFIRE is getting most of the funding at the moment, but they have only studied Juergen's anode solar model to date.

2. As an admitted novice, I'm going to float a question out there that might be ridiculous but I need some direction to figure out how to explore it. I'm curious about Pole Shift and I struggle with the implication according to its original author Hapgood, that it requires that there has to be a crustal shift as a result. If I consider through the EU that all things in cosmology are electrical in nature and that gravity is only an unnecessary redefinition of basic electromagnetism, then through the prism of the EU theory, how are the following explained:

Although Velikovsky's work isn't my personal cup of tea, your mileage may vary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

a) Position of the earth in the solar system

Gravity would work fine, however you wish to describe gravity. There's a "hope" within our community (some more formal hypotheses to read about to) that gravity is related to EM fields. I'm personally fine with GR theory or Newton's definition of gravity, although I entertain a QM oriented definition of gravity. I just can't pick one at the moment so I'm sticking with GR for the time being.

b) Specific position of the axis of rotation on the earth

The magnetic field of the planet moves around over time, but not the axis of rotation although it does experience precession. The axis of rotation has mostly to do with kinetic energy and motion and the way the Earth formed. Neptune's axis of rotation is quite different from our planet.

c) Specific rate of rotation of the earth.

I'd say that's a formation issue as well. The rotational energy may have some electrical influences, but simple kinetic energy and preexisting motion describe it's rotation quite well without additional factors.

c) What kind of 'disturbance' could disturb those positions and movements?

Something major, that's for sure. Velekovski might offer you some ideas. I personally doubt they move around very much compared to human existence.

d) Can I imagine the forces that hold planets in place as a simple magnetic force would therefore hold planets in these positions and specific movements as an equilibrium state that even after a disturbance of some kind, would then force a return to those points and motions.

I personally doubt it. Other EU/PC proponents should perhaps answer that question for you however. I think you'll find that we're a bunch of 'individuals' and there's not a lot of consensus just yet.

Good luck on your journey of discovery. It's a big field with lots of topics to choose from. Enjoy yourself.

[BeAChooser]

Open Mind, I would add one more reference to Michael's great post ... Eric Lerner's book "The Big Bang Never Happened". I read it back in the 90s and found his explanation of EU/PC far more appealing than believing in a litany of gnomes (dark matter, black holes, dark energy, inflation, big bang, etc). His use of plasmoids to explain phenomena such as jets, quasars and pulsars was and still is quite appealing. He also discussed plasma filaments at great length, which are central to the EU and a phenomena that the mainstream astrophysics have a great deal of trouble explaining.

Let me also say I was particularly taken with the explanation by Hannes Alfven and Gustaf Arrhenius of the solar system's formation (as opposed to the handwaving from the mainstream), Alfven’s homopolar model of galaxies, and the work by Anthony Peratt, who showed that one could reproduce the formation of galaxies and their rotation curves using just the known interaction of plasma and electromagnetic forces. The later was particularly important in convincing me that something was amiss in the mainstream because the inability of gravity from the observed mass to explain those rotation curves is what led to the *invention* of the dark matter gnome in the first place. So when the mainstream claimed that dark matter is the only explanation for the rotation curves, they were lying. All of these topics are touched on in Alfven's book, in addition to a little of what led you to be interested in EU, too.

All in all, it just seems to me that viewing the universe in terms of plasma and electromagnetism (phenomena that can study in Earth's labs) in addition to gravity, rather than just gravity, seemed more scientific than believing in singularities (which no one has actually proven exist), inflation (which no one has proven occurred), dark matter (which no one has yet observed or satisfactorily explained) and dark energy (an even more gnomic gnome).

[Michael Mozina]

Open Mind, I would add one more reference to Michael's great post ... Eric Lerner's book "The Big Bang Never Happened". I read it back in the 90s and found his explanation of EU/PC far more appealing than believing in a litany of gnomes (dark matter, black holes, dark energy, inflation, big bang, etc). His use of plasmoids to explain phenomena such as jets, quasars and pulsars was and still is quite appealing. He also discussed plasma filaments at great length, which are central to the EU and a phenomena that the mainstream astrophysics have a great deal of trouble explaining.

Gah. What a huge oversight. I can't believe I left Lerner off my list. Good catch.

FYI, here's a few appropriate links to books that you can choose from. Some are free, while the math intensive books tend to be more pricey.

Birkeland's full volume:
https://archive.org/download/norwegiana ... ririch.pdf

Hannes Alfven:
Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma is considered to be the foundation of plasma cosmology theory. It's really just a collection of all of Alfven's published papers which are organized in a logical manner. You can read some of his chapters for free at that link, and you can find a lot of his paper on the ADS server, as well as the link I cited earlier.
https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Plasma-As ... 9027711518
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007% ... 009-8374-8
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-a ... 00S%00T%00
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/

Anthony Peratt:
If you're looking for a college level presentation that lays out all the mathematical modeling, this is the place to begin IMO. You'll need some math background to follow his work, but it's really excellent material. Anyone that tells you that there is no math to support EU/PC theory is totally full of it by the way, and this book proves it. He also did some computer modelling based on Alfven's concepts and the PDF file below is a great short (and free) introduction to this topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-U ... b_image_bk
http://www.theplasmaverse.com/pdfs/Plas ... Peratt.pdf

Eric Lerner:
This is a fabulous book to transition yourself from a big bang perspective over to EU/PC theory. He takes apart BB theory and explains why EU/PC theory is far better. He also wrote a relatively recent paper based on the galaxy brightness at larger redshifts which suggests that the universe does not expand.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-H ... r+happened
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/scien ... 01940.html

Donald Scott:
Scott's book was one of the first books that I personally read on this topic and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's very light reading, and easy to follow. It's a very nice introduction to EU/PC theory. His book was a little less pricey a few years ago, but it's still well worth the investment. The Kindle price is still very reasonable. Scott also wrote a very important (IMO mandatory reading) paper related to Birkeland currents and their ability to form bi-directional currents. His Birkeland current paper requires more of a mathematical background to follow along whereas his book is actually very easy to understand without any math skills required.
https://www.amazon.com/Electric-Sky-Don ... t+electric
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF

Wall Thornhill and Dave Talbott:
This is another really great introduction to EU/PC theory which I had not read until just recently. Scott and Thornhill share very similar views.
https://www.amazon.com/Electric-Univers ... ill+talbot

Immanuel Velikovski:
I haven't personally spent a lot of time reading his work for myself, but from your previous questions, I think this might be right up your alley. Based on your intrerests, you might also be interested in youtube videos by Dave Talbott and Wal Thornhill.
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Collision ... GTBH4EH21H
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aLCWwLdelo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okckWp5tF-E

Birkeland's work is available on the internet for free. A lot of Alfven's papers are also freely available, as is Scott's Birkeland current paper and Peratt's introduction paper. The youtube videos are also free.

If you are able to spend some money on your education, or you have access to a great library in your area, those are your best resources IMO. I've personally read all of those books except the book by Veikovski, and I'll try to rectify that soon. If you have a math background and you already understand basic EM field theory, Peratt's book is by far the most comprehensive and extensive mathematical presentation of this material. It's also very well written. Cosmic Plasma by Alfven is also mathematically oriented. For anyone without a strong math background any of the other introductory books is probably a better place to begin. I'm trying hard no to play favorites, but it pains me greatly that I left off Lerner's name out of my first post. That was a bonehead oversight.

Good luck with your studies.

[D_Archer]

2. As an admitted novice, I'm going to float a question out there that might be ridiculous but I need some direction to figure out how to explore it. I'm curious about Pole Shift and I struggle with the implication according to its original author Hapgood, that it requires that there has to be a crustal shift as a result. If I consider through the EU that all things in cosmology are electrical in nature and that gravity is only an unnecessary redefinition of basic electromagnetism, then through the prism of the EU theory, how are the following explained:

a) Position of the earth in the solar system
b) Specific position of the axis of rotation on the earth
c) Specific rate of rotation of the earth.
c) What kind of 'disturbance' could disturb those positions and movements?
d) Can I imagine the forces that hold planets in place as a simple magnetic force would therefore hold planets in these positions and specific movements as an equilibrium state that even after a disturbance of some kind, would then force a return to those points and motions.

I'm mostly curious to understand these things because I'm stuck at the cause of the Younger Dryas events. If a pole shift is possible without it necessarily meaning a crustal shift, it has fascinating possibilities with respect to the YD and also the credibility of the Greenland Ice core data.

Thanks for any responses.

Pole shifts is an interesting topic, i think Mario Buildreps has the best evidence for the occurrence of this based on pyramid alignments all over the world https://mariobuildreps.com/ .

Physically it works either way as a crustal displacement or actual pole shift, then the pole of the earth does not change positions gradually but suddenly.

I think EU can help to understand how/why this happens, Wal Thornhill has said that the EU solar is not a 'clockwork solar system', changes do happen, newly captured planets, other energetic events. And of course a different "gravity" model. The best part about solar system dynamics based on E/M (and charge) is that it can incorporate cymatics as well, ie an harmonic solar system, a change in frequency leads to a change in orbits (and pole positions?)

I have not yet worked out how the pole shifts (exactly) and by how much for any given 'event', or if it catastrophic only or also maybe natural progression etc. Food for thought.

Regards,
Daniel

[querious]

I think EU can help to understand how/why this happens, Wal Thornhill has said that the EU solar is not a 'clockwork solar system', changes do happen, newly captured planets, other energetic events. And of course a different "gravity" model.

Regards,
Daniel

You mean the dipole model which NOBODY on this forum can even begin to defend?

[kodybatill]

Electric color theory could help to explain the dipole.

It would be difficult though - for any one of you to search the internet or even any book for that matter with what I have to say - but there are ways to prove and measure it - primarily by measuring the sun in a certain way when it is the highest in the sky - specifically when a majority of the blue of the sky and yellow of the sun stay their original colors and DONT make green - unlike sun-rise and sun-set. It has a lot to do with the QGR team E8 research for quasi-crystals that make up every material element, energy or even color.

See, colors around opposites are primarily electric-like - fractional electric elements that even then, CAN STILL EXPAND. So an energy such as positrons or colors around opposites, that even when without and before full electrical force was created, these positrons still had the ability to expand - but maybe not contract, but could mimic contracting - especially in geometry expanding.
There are 28 main positrons or colors around opposites in a pattern, each one having an opposite in space that can be a combination of these 28 colors:
Yellow and blue as two but in one whole - THEN, yellow. White. Blue. Black. Purple, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, pink, infra-red. Pink, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple. Magenta, Cyan, Yellow, white, orange, material purple, material white-green.

When all of these are compiled in one single whole - you could call it the core of the sun - able to freely trade positron and electrical relationships with every element in the Universe, because of containing every single form of bonding, which as CAN be researched on the internet and books, is caused by energy complexes which amongst them, most are Positron-electric like reactions. BUT these positrons could never be contained to not start breaking apart because of so many connections - UNLESS this heaviest inert gas I have mentioned in my previous post on this thread - orbits and hold together not only the atoms of each element on the periodic table - but also sub-atomic particles like positrons, but ONLY when all 28 of them are together in one whole - and treating them as a whole orbit, and each one individually orbited at the same time. These then actually mate together the way a living thing would - creating more and more particles of these 28 positrons with the heaviest inert gas atoms - and when these suns receive light and sound from PLANETS and other celestial objects - the suns start fission and fusion - or the breaking apart and joining together of different periodic elements, right?

Well every single atom in the Universe AND on Earth is orbited by this heaviest near infra-red inert gas - BUT only Suns contain self replicating complexes of all 28 positrons - so the Dipole for the electrical circuit of the Universe, would itself be the infra-red inert gas - to 28-positron/infra-red inert gas bonding ratio. This gets into some complex stuff that I am just sorry, but IS still primarily about electricity, and also you will need to start working with either the military or some VERY fancy Collage University - to learn any more about this - Unless your speed of thought is something fancy to. Lol.

I make a prediction that this infra-red inert gas - to 28-positron/infra-red inert gas bonding ratio - not only reproduces itself - but also reproduces every single living thing - as well as a third - causing everything reproduced to be composed of the most advanced fiber optics system, which is used to create indestructible information.

I suppose I can say that I have a team working on this stuff - and I will let you know - when we discover that fiber optics is separated in shells, by these poles.

[Michael Mozina]

You mean the dipole model which NOBODY on this forum can even begin to defend?

FYI, I should point out that EU/PC theory is fully compatible with GR theory, Newton's laws of gravity and a QM definition of gravity. I currently prefer GR theory to describe gravity, but I remain open to the possibility of finding a "theory of everything" that ties all four known forces of nature together based on QM. I haven't personally seen one that I'm excited by at the moment, but I really haven't researched it all that much.

I think all EU/PC proponents simply understand that gravity isn't the *only* important force of nature when describing a plasma universe. EM fields play a much larger role in EU theory than in mainstream theory.

As a community we're interested in seeking a "theory of everything" which merges gravity with EM fields, whereas the mainstream is way too comfortable with GR theory so they can stuff magic into it's formulas. GR gives them a lot of "flexibility" to use magic and all. The mainstream's abuse of GR theory might be why there's so little appreciation of GR around here. I also think part of that bias is due to a fuzzy understanding of the difference between GR theory itself and the LCDM model. One must have a decent grasp of GR theory itself to realize when mainstream proponents are adding 'optional' elements to the formulas.

Peratt's models put EM fields front and center as it relates to galaxy mass layouts and such in his computer models. Suffice to say gravity does play a role in the processes in space, but it's not the only thing that influences objects in space.

For instance, the mainstream tries to use GR theory exclusively like a sledge hammer with respect to the highest energy events in space, whereas our community would be more inclined to add electrical theory to the mix rather than rely upon 'singularities' where none may be required or warranted.

[querious]

Electric color theory could help to explain the dipole.

It would be difficult though - for any one of you to search the internet or even any book for that matter with what I have to say - but there are ways to prove and measure it - primarily by measuring the sun in a certain way when it is the highest in the sky - specifically when a majority of the blue of the sky and yellow of the sun stay their original colors and DONT make green - unlike sun-rise and sun-set. It has a lot to do with the QGR team E8 research for quasi-crystals that make up every material element, energy or even color.

See, colors around opposites are primarily electric-like - fractional electric elements that even then, CAN STILL EXPAND. . . . .

LOL, Kody. A lot of posts I read on here are just like this.

[Open Mind]

Lol. Kody, I appreciate the enthusiasm but you and I are separated by a language barrier of boarderline myopic over estimation of my knowledge base.

Thanks very much the rest of you for the list and breakdown. I'm excited to check out a few starters. While math was my minor 25 years ago, sadly the only math I've kept up is geometry for design challenges, and I recall a first year physics course that lightly touched on electricity, but after that it was all statics/dynamics, so I feel like I'm starting from square one. Might be a few books away from enjoying the math proofs.

As for the "mainstream" dogma phenomenon, I've become familiar with it through the telling ridiculous leaps of Egyptologist in the totally unfamiliar territory of engineering and basic construction execution, so I was ripe for the suggestion by Wall that that dynamic is evident in all fields of science and humanities.

I have always felt a bit dissapointed in the cop out of dark matter. The only thing that concept achieves is to stifle any confidence that these problems are solvable. It's like the classic parent response "because I said so", the death of curiosity.

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks very much the rest of you for the list and breakdown. I'm excited to check out a few starters. While math was my minor 25 years ago, sadly the only math I've kept up is geometry for design challenges, and I recall a first year physics course that lightly touched on electricity, but after that it was all statics/dynamics, so I feel like I'm starting from square one. Might be a few books away from enjoying the math proofs.

If you elect to invest in books, you might start with Thornill/Talbot, Lerner and/or Scott. They're all more about conceptual understanding than about math. Scott's paper on Birkeland currents is accessible for free. If you feel like dusting off your math skills, that would be a good place to start. Birkeland currents are *highly* important to almost every aspect of EU/PC theory. IMO that's a very important paper. Peratt's free paper is a great introduction to this cosmology theory too.

As for the "mainstream" dogma phenomenon, I've become familiar with it through the telling ridiculous leaps of Egyptologist in the totally unfamiliar territory of engineering and basic construction execution, so I was ripe for the suggestion by Wall that that dynamic is evident in all fields of science and humanities.

I have always felt a bit dissapointed in the cop out of dark matter. The only thing that concept achieves is to stifle any confidence that these problems are solvable. It's like the classic parent response "because I said so", the death of curiosity.

I can't think of any physics hypothesis that has enjoyed as much financial support, and produced so little in the lab than dark matter theory. It's the quintessential 'argument of the gaps" claim at this point. The next LUX experiment (already funded) should push the "constraints" right down into the neutrino zone, in which case there's no logical way to proceed down that mythical rabbit hole.

LCDM is headed for disaster, sooner or later. It's irrational to believe that any cosmology theory that relies on 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance can continue to compete with empirical physics over the long haul. I suspect that the Xenoon-1T experiments and the LUX-LZ experiments are likely to drive the final nails into the coffin of exotic matter theory. Particularly since the discovery of two different "halos', one composed of high temperature oxygen plasma and another one of cooler hydrogen gas, 'dark matter' theory is hanging on by a thread. Were it not for the funding channels being highly protected, that particular metaphysical snipe hunt would already be over. LCMD is no better than astrology at this point in terms of it's useful predictive value in the lab.

[querious]

Lol. Kody, I appreciate the enthusiasm but you and I are separated by a language barrier of boarderline myopic over estimation of my knowledge base.

Ah geez, Open Mind. You're totally missing the joke. Kody is using a random word generator to create word salad posts.

[kodybatill]

Haha, No I am Not! But thank you for complimenting me on my knowledge? Or is that my cowardice to say that? Lol. It is not random.

[Zyxzevn]

The Electric Universe is harder to understand, because it sees that plasma is everywhere,
and it adds many electromagnetic interactions.
This makes it much more dynamic and complex, because now we have 2 more forces and
one very complex substance to deal with.

The mainstream models plasma as simple as possible. This leads to many oversimplifications,
like: "there is not electric field in plasma, because plasma is a good conductor".
The electric universe sees that plasma reacts to electric fields by generating currents.
These currents again generate magnetic fields, which change again generates electric fields.
This causes the plasma electric currents to act layered and in possible even in waves.
And unlike normal matter, the plasma shapes and moves according to the electromagnetic fields.

This is very hard to model. But if small currents can already shape plasma, it is not so hard
to understand that they are likely to have a huge influence on the sun and in the formation of stars.
And we see very similar structures in electric currents as plasma on the sun looks very similar to
that in a common plasma ball. And the structures of newly formed stars look very similar
to the structure of lightning.
So from the similarity alone it is already clear that electric forces are in play.

But the mainstream is still in utter denial, and wants to use invisible and unproven dark matter instead.
That is because it is easier to follow the same methodology and thinking, instead of accepting
a small mistake due to the oversimplification in the model of plasma.