Executive Summary - I have summarised what I believe is a much better model of the Universe than the standard model; if you're interested please start here and work your way from left to right:
https://thehonestscientist.com/
Longer story:
I've been searching for good models of the Universe for about 50 years. I started off by reading hundreds of books and questioning family members and teachers, who were able to answer many of my questions but often said I'd have to wait until University until I learned the answer to others. However, by the time I got to University I realised that there was something fundamentally broken at the heart of chemistry, which then led me to work out the atomic model and most of subatomic physics was also broken. It was years later when I came across the Electric Comet videos that I realised astrophysics/cosmology was broken as well, and I had to do a bit of fighting and screaming with my own brain to realise yet another set of ideas I thought were correct were also full of holes.
Now that I've spent several years clearing out the theories with holes and replacing them with theories without holes (well, perhaps with smaller holes
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
- There is no clear definition of what electricity is. Yes, moving ions/electrons will result in a flow of electricity, but that is not the electricity itself - we've known for a while that electrons don't move fast enough in wires to account for the actions of electricity, and even if they were that wouldn't explain A/C. Some conventional physicists (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY) are finally starting to admit this and head in the right direction but are still using misdirection with discussion about "fields" without explaining what these are.
- Perhaps even more fundamental than electricity, there is no explanation of what charge actually is. What makes an electron negative or a positron positive? Do unlike charges really "attract" and if so how do they do this at a distance? If like charges repel then how do a bunch of protons stay close together in a plum-pudding nucleus - what causes the magic "strong force"?
- If the plum-pudding model of the atom is correct, then what gives similar elements vastly different properties in terms of magnetism, radioactivity, melting/boiling points, etc? The Structured Atom Model (https://structuredatom.org/) presents a very good case for the atom having to have a structure to explain this, but is hamstrung by its acceptance of the conventional model of charged particles, although they're happy with allowing an electron to expand to thousands of times its size to get around some holes in the theory.
I believe that there is a model that explains all of the above, and fits in neatly under EUT, and that model is the one that Miles Mathis has come up with. I know that many of Miles's works have been discussed in the forum, but it is extremely difficult to get an overall view of his model and check whether it is consistent as it is spread across hundreds of self-published papers, spread over time and often with no clear thread holding them together. Also Miles has a lot of other, shall we say, interesting views of the world - I have no intention of commenting on any of those; only his theories as they relate to science and mathematics.
As such I have spent some years compiling what I consider to be the essential bits of his theory and how they then fit into EUT, mainly leading up from virtual nothingness to the level of molecules, with electricity thrown in. EUT sits on top of that, although Miles's model is still needed to explain a few things that EUT has trouble with at a larger scale (e.g. the sunspot cycle, planetary tilt and relative distance from the Sun).
I then use Per Bak's theories of Nature as being ultimately simple at its core with complexity arising from this as glue to hold everything together, in addition to explaining why I consider these theories to all have merit, especially in comparison with the existing model. If you go to
https://thehonestscientist.com/
you can see this, working from left-to-right. I have been as succinct as I can in the explanations - I don't want some treatise of several hundred pages that no-one is going to be able to sit through. I've had several friends go through it and taken on-board many suggestions re explanatory graphics and the occasional rewording to make things clearer, and also added a section about Consensus Science and why I believe it needs fixing, in addition to a page on most of the things broken in Quantum Mechanics after someone versed in that field challenged some of the ideas, however they are extra - the key sections are "KISS", "Per Bak", "Miles Mathis" and "Electric Universe", and then in "Universe Building" I endeavour to make it even clearer how everything fits together by showing how this combination can result in the Universe we see today based on a bunch of disparate particles to being with, time, and a few simple rules and assumptions.
There's still a lot of stuff in the middle (like Life and Consciousness) to be worked out - maybe in another 50 years I'll have made a small dent there...
I hope you will find this useful. Constructive criticism or suggestions are welcome here or via email to honestscientisttas at-sign gmail dot com.