Im a bit confused

[Pras1986]

Hello everyone

Im an electrical and electronic engineering student, doing my second year right now. This may sound like a stupid question.

I have looked through many websites about this theory, and want to know what the flaws are?? There must be a few arguements on why this theory is wrong! because if there are not any pitfalls, why do so many people do not aghree with it? A lot of my firends i showed this theory to just seem to dismiss it, they dont even give it a chance, to me This theory makes SO MUCH SENSE. Am i missing something, are there any pitfalls or things that do not work with this theory?? Surly if this theory is the answer, the great minds in the world should start giving it a lot more attention, and im sure so many new things will be discovered and a lot of new things can be invented???? But not many people seem to know about it? sorry about repeating myself, but i just dont understand why tghis theory is being dismissed! if anyone know can us state the arguement FOR and AGAINST the electric universe theory.

Thank you for opening my eyes
Waiting eagerly for a repy


Thank You
Pras Reddy
(university of Nottingham)

[Siggy_G]

Hi Pras,
First of all, the Electric Universe (EU) theory confronts the mainstream notion of gravity ruling cosmos (not denying its existence, but its sole affection on dynamics). It also has an alternative explanation as to how the Sun and stars are formed and sustained. At this stage, most others dismiss it, because they believe the experts have found the facts, and that there's no reason to question current models... Also, the EU theory hasn't got a sufficient exposure to the scientific community, nor to the layman, for us to say for certain whether it is accepted (or found interesting) or not. It is parts of the theory that have been attempted "debunked" by some opponents, but it appears the wrong aspects are attacked or they are simply misinformed in terms of the whole concept.

I've been talking to people who states that they didn't know that there was an alternative "scientific explanation" to the universe, besides the Big Bang theory. And some may have heard bits and pieces about Plasma Cosmology or even the Electric Universe. But imagine if you were explained the Big Bang in brief for the first time - it would sound quite strange at first. It requires a certain spoon feeding and basis, such as early mentions during our education, for it to make sense. This is something EU theory hasn't had the advantage of. For the same reason, as you and many others have realized, cosmic observations make more sense with the EU theory, as soon as one has read more deeply into it. Also, it is a relatively young cosmological theory that is being developed on. If anyone states that there isn't an empirical or scientific method, or no mathematical equations, behind an electric universe, this is simply wrong (longer discussion in several threads). Dogmatism within science is another key word.

Please listen to Wallace Thornhill's explanation of the Electric Universe and his view on the conventional ideas in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71CUZu4aA8
(part 2/5... continue to the next sequences as this one ends).

[StevenJay]

Pras -

In addition to what Siggy said, you must step back and realize what a bloated behemoth mathematics (gravity)-driven, mainstream cosmology has become over the past century. A LOT of personal credibility and ego-driven social status, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in "research" money, are at stake here.

An old saying comes to mind: Those who attain positions of power and influence rarely relinquish them voluntarily. . . or something to that effect.

For the most part, it's not about the persuit of truth and knowledge. . . any more than the dogmatic heirarchy at the Vatican is about spiritual awakening.

It's about unquestioning, simple-minded control; an activity that, like fleecing, sheep are exceedingly well-versed in.

[MGmirkin]

Well, one sociological drawback is that it confronts the status quo and questions foundational assumptions. People seem not to like that. Having their ideas, in which they have invested much personal time, effort and fervor, questioned does not sit well.

Another is that, and I'm guilty of this in the past, though trying to avoid it for the future, sometimes new folks who haven't taken the time to really sit down with the material tend to go off to "proselytize the masses," as it were. But, not having a solid grounding or understanding of what is being argued, they sometimes mis-represent the ideas, are unable to answer specific questions posed by scientists in other fields, or just make patently silly statements (not intentionally, I'm sure; like I said, in the past I've probably done that, being a bit overly zealous). So, sometimes the message is diluted, not properly conveyed or erroneously "debunked" ('cause they debunked some super-duper-oversimplified-to-the-point-of-absurdity version of the thing and not the thing itself).

There are also a few pseudo-skeptics out there who like to prattle on about how EU is "not even wrong," though they often set up straw man arguments to do it.

One thing I might say, also, is that it is a relatively recent development and has little if any money dedicated to the fundamental research that would likely be needed to test/prove/demonstrate some of the ideas. It's kind of a vicious cycle. Existing paradigm is entrenched. Existing paradigm gets grant funding priority. New paradigm gets less funding thus does less research. Existing paradigm points to new paradigm's lack of research / papers as evidence that it's "not even wrong" and as a reason not to fund research into the new paradigm. New paradigm trudges along its own path, making inroads slowly but surely, sometimes taking cues from the successes and failures of the existing paradigm's experiments and data-gathering probes.

Just some off-the-cuff thoughts. But, don't take it as gospel. I ain't a preacher man.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[jjohnson]

Nice sermon, Mike!

Pras, there are few stupid questions, and yours is not one of them. All you have to do is to continue being a student of the EU as it develops, along with your other science studies, as most of us are trying to do. It is well founded on earlier observational science (not so much inferential math theory), along with the amazing developments concerning electric currents in space and the finding, according the the IEEE and others, that the plasma state is the foundational state, occurring throughout the observational Universe. Electrically-neutral gravity conditions are a miniscule minority of the state of matter in the Universe, and we are rather provincial in trying to extend the local, familiar environment out into space in general.

We look at precisely the same data as do those in mainstream astronomy (because they can afford to obtain it and we can't, except that we are taxed to help them out a little), and EU proponents have simply learned a different, somewhat simpler set of responses as to what those observations reveal and why things work the way we observe. Continue to read the TPODs and look at the many resources listed in this Forum, and buy books on the subject whenever you can. If you are good, you can listen to your instructors, and you can also look at what they are explaining with the advantage of a different perspective, of being able to compare their conclusions with those that you are able to make. Not everything you are taught is wrong, and gravity is certainly an effect that we do not reject or trivialize; The EU theory simply notes that, given the general plasma state of the universe, and the much greater forces typically present in electrostatic and electromagnetic interactions of the charged particles in those plasma conditions, that gravity is not nearly so dominant as most think, and is seldom a candidate for most of the major workings observed out in space away from Mother Earth.

Welcome and good luck. Don't worry about trying to convince others right away. The EU folks are gradually working on better and better communications, public presentations, etc. Dave Smith recently gave a talk on the EU on the Internet to the Natural Philosophy Alliance, titled Introduction to Electric Universe Theory. You can get a PDF of it or a pointer to the recorded talk with slides by e-mailing him at davesmith_au@plasmaresources.com.

Cheers!

Jim

[Osmosis]

Welcome Pras,
A little example to help explain one aspect of the Plasma universe: Think about vacuum tube operation. What happens to plate current, when a control grid in a triode is disconnected from a grid bias? No current. This "space charge" could explain a double layer in miniature.
Anybody want to agree with my simple-minded thought?

[atherophage]

I have been reading Thunderbolts.info for three years; and buying too many books from Mikamar. I was first introduced to the EU back in 1985, having had the great privilege of taking a course in this subject from Professor Milton at the University of Lethbridge. Yet still I have found it difficult to get any amount of traction with anyone on this subject, as important as it is - if for no other reason than society is spending a lot of monies exploring the gravity driven model of the universe.

This EU theory to me is fascinating as it touches on so many different topics (astronomy, physics, geology, history and religion). I want to share what I have found with others; sadly many others don't have the time or perhaps curiosity to devote to this topic. And that hurts; but I keep at it, remembering to not get too evangelical.

The fastest way to turn people off any subject is to send them a youtube link.
Today is driven by sound bytes; the EU theory does not lend itself well to a fifteen second encapsulation; I've tried, only to find people think I worship the planet Mars.

You have to go slow; helps if you have a Tesla coil.

[MGmirkin]

If you want a few more concrete, rather than philosophical differences, I suppose I can indulge a few common attacks:

The Standard Model takes as a foundational assumption that dissociated charges will tend toward neutrality (either by slapping together into neutral particles or through homogeneity of distribution [approximately equal proportions of +/- charges in a given volume]). Thus, they expect that space should contain no significant voltages (electric potentials, electric fields). Since no voltages are thought to exist in space, they dismiss basically everything electrical that the EU refers to.

Problem: This line of reasoning appears to be incorrect, based upon actual plasma researches (and certain extrapolations to space-based observations). A simple graph of the characteristics of plasma discharge regimes shows that this absence of voltages in plasma (which is not a zero-resistance superconductor) is not correct and plasma does in fact have non-zero internal voltage across all discharge regimes. So, electric fields are INHERENT to plasmas, not EXCLUDED from them.

The notions that separated charges will "instantly neutralize" and that magnetic fields can be "frozen in" to plasmas are equally dubious.

The same chart shows pretty conclusively that resistance (V/I) =/= 0. That is to say, voltage is never zero, so voltage over current is never zero, so resistance is never zero. There will always be non-zero resistance and resistive losses. It will take time for non-neutral plasmas to become neutral (or quasi-neutral) and magnetic fields REQUIRE electric currents to also be present. So, magnetic fields aren't "frozen" into plasma, they are generated by currents driven by voltages.

Honestly, this shouldn't be all that controversial. The data's out there to be had. It's just one of those assumptions that's been around forever and is hard to shake. It's also a handy "simplifying" assumption to make mathematical modeling easier. But approximations and over-simplification can miss important details in dynamic system. Hence Alfvén admonished that fluid-based models (magnetohydrodynamics) were unsuitable for modeling plasmas and a particle-based approach (while more computationally taxing) would offer a better / more accurate way forward.

Another straw-man "problem" the standard model asserts is that the Electric Universe model doesn't believe in gravity, or says that electricity replaces gravity for everything everywhere, which is simply not true of the theory.

One of the EU model's favorite historical quotes comes from Hannes Alfvén: "Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems."

I think that many here would agree with that statement still. It does not imply that gravity is non-existent or DOES NOTHING here or in the cosmos. It merely posits that electrical interactions, where present and accounted for, tend to dwarf gravitational interactions. The notion from the EU side of the fence is that large scale electric fields and currents in space play a large role in shaping cosmic structure, scavenging and concentrating elements and materials (through "Marklund convection"), and then yield to gravity in places and on scales where charges have becomes sufficiently "neutral" for the force of gravity to exceed the force of whatever non-neutral materials remain.

In those regions, gravitational laws work well for describing motions of planets around stars, or the acceleration of objects in a planet's gravitational field. But in the larger cosmos, where it is posited that currents and electric fields DO exist and do things, Maxwell's equations will play a greater role in the structure and function of things.

Independent plasma physicist Anthony Peratt's PIC simulations (which appear to replicate gross galaxy morphology, rotational curves, emission spectra for some other objects like radio lobes, etc.) incorporate both Maxwell's electromagnetic equations AND gravitational equations (recognizing that BOTH have roles to play in the cosmos), as well it should be. The EU crowd generally applauds his work, though he is a researcher independent of the EU crowd and neither makes claims nor is a direct proponent of the EU model. We hear that he occasionally gets sniped at by pseudo-skeptics because of it (but, then, they tend to like sniping at anyone they see as not sticking to the "party line" as it were: Lerner, Arp, among others).

Then there are those who take issue with the Electric Sun. They often appear to be ignorant of what is actually being proposed. Or they attack outdated papers by Ralph Juergens, rather than discussing the model(s) proposed by Wal Thornhill and/or Don Scott that while taking Juergens' ball and running with it, have made changes to major pieces of Juergens' ideas, such that attacking Juergens' papers has little bearing on what Thronhill / Scott have described. I know Don Scott has issued rebuttals to at least a couple of such [pseudo-?] skeptics, correcting errors in their analyses.

For instance, a few of them, based on Juergens' papers expect a "relativistic rain of electrons" throughout the solar system to power the sun ("but, it's NOT observed!" they cry)... IF they took the time to do their homework, they'd know that Thornhill / Scott's model(s) DO NOT expect such a "relativistic rain of electrons." Rather they liken the solar system to a glow discharge, wherein the planets are immersed most likely in the positive column (according to Thornhill; Scott may disagree on the specific portion of the glow discharge, but agrees conceptually, as far as I understand) wherein plasma is quasi-neutral, but due to the sun's weak but constant radial electric field, a drift current is thought to exist (with a slow drift of electrons inward superimposed on the plasma's random thermal motions).

Many such arguments exist wherein people seems to have not properly understood what is being argued and thus their dismissal is baseless (or at least "not even wrong"). In a few cases, people just make wholly wonky "arguments from incredulity," which are logically nonsensical arguments. Or they just appeal to ridicule...

I'm sure there's probably plenty of other stuff people have said that supposedly "debunks" the Electric Universe. If I happen to think of any more, I may add another entry or amend this one.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Just some off-the-cuff thoughts. But, don't take it as gospel. I ain't a preacher man.

Nice sermon, Mike!

Et tu, Jim Johnson?

Knew that'd make for a good one-liner,though. No worries! Hehe...

~Michael Gmirkin

[nick c]

hi atherophage,

I was first introduced to the EU back in 1985, having had the great privilege of taking a course in this subject from Professor Milton at the University of Lethbridge.

Prof. Milton was indeed a pioneer of the electric sun model. I remember being impressed with an article he wrote, in Kronos Vol. V #1, from fall 1979... "The Not So Stable Sun"; pointing out the flaws in the thermonuclear model and Eddington's assumptions. The article is still ahead of its' time, even today. It had a big effect on my thinking. I did not know what to make of Juergens' model of an external powered Sun, the theory seemed so bizarre at the time, and then Dr. Milton, an academic physicist came along with enthusiastic support.
He also brought home the sobering thought that we are at the mercy of galactic currents:

If the Sun is stabilized from the outside, we are as close to a possible nova phase for the Sun as the proximity of the nearest galactic anomaly in the external pressure and flux.

Nick

[Veejer]

Sir,

Scientific theories are not advanced nor accepted from the straightforward accumulation of facts alone, but also from a set of changing intellectual and social conditions and possibilities. In many instances, the ideas of new scientific theories are not accepted and do not take root until the proponents of the 'old' theory are dead and buried. Just think of the scientific and social resistance to the Copernican and later Galiaean revolutions. Science does not exist nor operate in a vacuum, but is influenced by the social and cultural Zeitgeist. Shifting paradigms in science are complicated processes and are initiated by bold scientists such as those of the 'revolutionary' ideas of Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe.

EU theory is challenged because it is in the nature of scientific revolutions and how science works. And it should be challenged. If the scientific community did not challenge 'new' revolutionary theories, the scientific process would not remain viable and would lose credibility. Science needs both 'revolutionary' as well as 'conservative' thinkers.

There are many examples in the history of science in which confidence in the established frame of thought was eventually vindicated. Whether the anomalies of a candidate for a new paradigm will be resolvable is almost impossible to predict. Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory's potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift in science will have occurred.

I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It is an analysis of the history of science and how scientific revolutions occur. It is a good read on the sociology of scientific knowledge and epistemology and will help allay frustrations asociated with opposition to a theory viewed as valid by its' proponents, such as the EU theory, which I also am a propronent of.

Veejer, Electrical and Electronics Engineer, USAF

[JohnMT]

For myself, any "confusion" ended many years ago when I decided to re-read Velikovsky's 'Worlds in Collision'.

Subsequently, I read all his other works too including numerous other papers and their responses.

On many occasions when asked, I have attempted to explain the role of electricity in space, particularly the formation of craters and rilles etc.
Usually and even to the interested listener, such ideas when briefly presented, do indeed seem confusing and far too improbable to contain any measure of credibility.
Fair enough, such responses are indeed quite typical, even to the point of anger in some cases, but I am not bothered.
I think one needs to have a firm grounding in the subject in order to make sense of it all...otherwise any subsequent short explanation will always appear to be too fantastic to the uninformed.
So in the meantime, let them stick to their "chunks of rock thrown into a bucket of flour" to demonstrate crater formation and of course their "gravity only" universe.

I have confidence that the "paradigm shift" shall one day be fully accepted and realised...then perhaps we can make progress in the stagnant sciences of today.

Cheers

[mharratsc]

I agree with you Veeger, and thank you for your active service to us here in the U.S.

I would like to present the observation that- over the past couple of years that I've been following the Electric Universe- I have started to see more and more new names posting articles that fall within the new paradigm of an Electric Universe. Mind you- these names and these articles are not all here- they are showing up in other physics journals and venues, quietly and without pomp nor circumstance, as though the background information regarding electrodynamics, electricity, and plasma physics were 'always known'. Just check out some of the 'peer reviewed articles' sections of the various EU/PC sites recently and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Personally I feel that this puts us into the early steps of 'Phase 3' of the Paradigm Shift hypothesis wherein everyone behaves as though the information has been known about all along.

It's almost sad too, because I'm a very firm believe in fairness, justice, and vindication where it's deserved... and this slow motion paradigm shift that is in effect never seems to lend itself to any sort of vindication of the original proponents... that is- not until years and years after the shift has occured and people start doing historical studies of the paradigm in question and mention the original proponents posthumously as historical figures (i.e.- Birkeland, Alfven).

I sincerely hope-with all my heart- that modern technology and global communications will allow for our heroic figures (Talbott, Thornhill, Scott, Peratt, Van der Sluijs, Cardona, the Achesons, the Smiths(!), and so many others) to have at least some level of vindication and credit where credit is definitely due before they shuffle off this mortal coil!

Well, from me at least then:

Cheers to ALL of you! Thanks for all you have done!