Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
WhiteLight
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:18 am
Location: Directly under the Electric Sun

Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by WhiteLight » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:56 am

How does one deal with this narrow minded arrogant view of Plasma/Electric Model of the Universe ?
Physics in an Electric Universe

As I mentioned in my post earlier, some of the best examples of bad math are really examples of no math. One of my favorite examples of this kind of bogosity is the Electric Universe. The Electric Universe is fun, both because of the utter bizzareness of its ideas, and the fact that it's not just a single crackpot spewing it, but rather a whole active community of crackpots working together. So there are multiple different threads of it - a veritable cornucipia of of lunacy!

There are two main threads to the EU gibberish: the mythology, and the physics. Let's take a look at the physics. Here's one version of the fundamental physics of the electric universe:

The Electric Universe takes a simplifying leap by unifying the nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity as manifestations of a near instantaneous electrostatic force. Instead of being "spooked" by the concept of action-at-a-distance, like most physicists this century, the Electric Universe accepts it as an observational fact. Anyone who has tried to force two like poles of magnets together has demonstrated action-at-a-distance. "Electromagnetic" radiation is then simply the result of an oscillating electrostatic force.

At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles. The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated.

Now, how's that for a wacky idea?

The thing to note is that it alludes to some math, but nowhere can you actually find a full, detailed presentation of it. In fact, you can go through all of the books, conferences, papers, websites, and pamphlets from the EU folks, and you'll never see so much as one equation, or one actual mathematically defined relationship. They make arguments like "the simple assumption that the proton, neutron, and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits", completely ignoring the fact that such a claim is (a) meaningless, and (b) unsupportable.

Then they try to build on the first meaningless claim, again alluding to math which is never, ever shown: "A simple calculation shows that the sub-particules... must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light...". It's a simple calculation, but we will never show it to you, no matter how many times you ask!


I also really, really love the bit about how "spooky action at a distance" is obviously real, because you can see it when you play with magnets! It's obvious that that's an instantaneously transmitted force! All of modern physics is wrong, because I can feel it with my hands!

Quantum Theory

For the first time the highly successful quantum theory gains a physical explanation in terms of resonant motion of charged particles, mediated by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force. A quantum electron orbit is one in which the exchange of energy between all of the sub-particles in the nucleus of an atom and those in an orbiting electron, sum to zero over the orbit. Exchange of energy takes the form of distortion of a particle to form an electrostatic dipole or a move to a new resonant orbit.

Yep, the electric universe guys can explain quantum physics in a way that's intuitively easy to understand! Of course, the fact that quantum physics has a spectacular amount of complex mathematics supporting it, which make precise predictions, none of which are explained by the EU handwaving is unimportant. Because it just makes sense! (Now would be a good time to quote Feinman: "anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying or crazy")

Relativity Theory Einstein's Special Theory was designed to define simultaneity in a universe where the fastest force or signal was restricted to the measured speed of detection of light from a distant source. With an electrostatic force of near-infinite speed acting between the sub-particles of all matter, relativity theory reduces to classical physics. This leaves open the question of what we are measuring when we determine the speed of light. The speed of light in galactic terms is exceedingly slow, requiring about 150,000 years to cross our galaxy. However, the astronomer Halton Arp has shown that the redshifts of entire galaxies are quantized which requires some form of near instantaneous, galaxy-wide communication at the sub-atomic level. There are now several reported experiments that demonstrate faster than light effects. With the Special Theory gone, and the universe in communication with its parts effectively in real-time, there can be no time travel and space and time are independent. Common sense has always suggested that this was so. Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects. This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object. But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model.

Yeah, Einstein had it all wrong. Quantized redshifts of galaxies means that all of the particles in the galaxy are communicating instantaneously! Relatavistic explanations of gravity are just garbage!

Einstein's famous mathematical expression E=mc2, equating energy and mass is known by almost everyone. However, most textbooks go on to use the word "matter" in place of "mass." But nowhere has it been shown that mass and matter are interchangeable. In fact, we are entirely ignorant of what constitutes the mass of an object. So it is inadmissible to imply that energy and matter are interchangeable. The ultimate expression of this idea led to the nonsense of the big bang. It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles. It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force. The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration.

This paragraph is one of my favorite bits of crackpottery ever. It's all just "common sense" and "simple". Because the EU guys can't understand relativity and how it defines mass and energy, it must be junk. It's not clear and obvious, like the idea that mass is actually the "elastic deformation" of the orbital systems of sub-nuclear particles that make up matter.

Of course, we can't describe how that works mathematically. And we can't predict how things will behave. But that's no problem, because it's just common sense that it's right. Who needs all that equation nonsense when common sense will do?

This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects. But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed. The first question to be asked is - if it is that simple, why hasn't it been thought of long ago? The answer seems to lie in the propensity for mathematical theory to supersede common sense and observation. There is also a problem of language when mathematicians attempt to provide real meaning for their symbols.

And finally, the coup de grace of this essay: of course we don't waste our time on math. The reason that this obvious stuff was never noticed before was because all of those supposedly brilliant scientists were wasting their times on "the propensity for mathematical theory to supersede common sense"!

Now that my friends, is truly bad math.
************************************************************************

1) I ask how does one defeat this sort of arrogant non-argument

2) Could I be pointed to the best simple mathematical explanation of Plasma/Electric Cosmology ?

3) I understand plasma doesn't like to conform to mathematical rules so how does one best argue this model from a mathematical point of view

4) Are any on Thunderbolts interested in joining together in a concerted group effort to stop this blind ignorance on the net in forums and blogs , preferably with different angles and expertise ?
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934.
Fast forward 74Yrs->yawn! :)

earls
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:48 am

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by earls » Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:08 am

1) Don't. The best policy in my opinion is to ignore such small minded arrogant rants

2) Unfortunately, he's sort of right about the lack of "science" of EU. Because many aspects and claims of the EU theory have not be experimentally measured, equations governing the described physics don't really exist. Certainly, one can take known Electrical Engineering equations and substitute values for the variables to compose a picture of how the physics should work, but until those physics are measured there's no grounding in reality.

3) It doesn't, eh? Plasma absolutely conforms to mathematical rules. It's just that because plasma is not an everyday experience for the majority of us, the extent of the physics of plasma is not as complete as gasses, liquids and solids.

4) Not I. There's no sense in blindly arguing with the deaf. They demand all of the answers, and all of the answers have to be verifiable. Without calculation or experiment, they cannot be verified. A much more helpful endeavor would be to organize an effort to experimentally verify the claims of EU. The facts will speak for themselves, and ignorance will crumble on it's own.

It's just that no one's interested in doing "science" and/or accepting the results. Down half the page I have proposed an experiment for Electric Gravity - the turn out was mediocre. Had I posted something about space ghosts from the sixth dimension made of ubertrons that have come to earth to use the magnets in their head to draw pictures in corn fields on the parallel lines of the power source of buried electrical crystals kept secret from the public by government conspiracy, suddenly everyone has an opinion or an anecdote about how their grandfather felt a tingle in his hand and found a quarter in the dirt.

Ties to such do not further the understanding of EU at all. People have been making these claims for centuries and a majority have been scientifically debunked... Yet perhaps, just perhaps, there's an ancient mystical secret lurking about that will grant us universal powers of the gods!

That's really what frustrated me the most about MattCC's critcism of EU... From the outset, he believes EU is strictly based on "subtrons". That is NOT EU. Some EU theorists attribute some of the physics of EU to subtrons, but they are not accepted as the basis of the EU theory by the community as a whole. "takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury" Takes a lead?! Absolutely not. Ralph Sansbury is completely separate from EU theory. It just happen to be that Ralph Sansbury's work apparently fills in some gaps in EU in some peoples' eyes.

Again, he rants on and on about how the electrostatic force can't do this and that and hence the entire theory is impossible. While the electrostatic force DOES play a role in the EU, and the electrostatic force faces physical limitations, he totally ignores the electroDYNAMIC force(s) - the branch of physics which deals with rapidly changing electric and magnetic fields.

He also makes the accusation that the book(s) were written as if they were works of fiction. Like the authors just sat down and started making up the physics of never-never-land. The books are a collection, compilation and interpretation of a VAST body of solid scientific works. They take what is known, stitch it together into a paradigm, and the extrapolate the paradigm to make predictions to further encompass the unknown. Many of which predictions have been proven true, or while very shortly as "third party" data and research continues to pour in! That is why I subscribe to EU - because it DOES work! It has predictive power in a larger more complete universal picture.

Mr. MattCC's arguments are the perfectly pure example of a "straw man" argument: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

He fabricates his version of the Electric Universe, beats the living hell out of it, and then claims the entire paradigm is non-sense never having understood nor addressed the actual subject.

'It's all just "common sense" and "simple".' And that it is. The fact that he fails to grasp such elementary concepts speaks volumes about his lack of mental capability.

Now that my friends, is truly bad argument.

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by Solar » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:19 pm

earls wrote: He fabricates his version of the Electric Universe, beats the living hell out of it, and then claims the entire paradigm is non-sense never having understood nor addressed the actual subject.

'It's all just "common sense" and "simple".' And that it is. The fact that he fails to grasp such elementary concepts speaks volumes about his lack of mental capability.

Now that my friends, is truly bad argument.
Very true. But I'm afraid it's even worse. Pure laziness resting on the laurels of ego.

Straw man indeed.

This is precisely why I don’t bother with this type of trolling for attention.

This chap is typical of the internet ten second commercial attention span. At no time did he bother correlating the fact that EU is based on the findings of plasma physics. At no time did he bother to cite a single scientific paper by Anthony Peratt – which has all the math he needs. Or, any other paper for that matter. He could’ve even ventured to investigate Plasma Physics via the nuttiest informational source on the I-tube; Wakapedia; follow, then READ a few links.

Or, perhaps a trip to the Plasma Astrophysics section of Perspectives on Plasma. Maybe the Alternative Cosmology Group and the work of Eric Lerner’s Dense Plasma Focus and it’s cosmological application as relates the formation of “galactic jets”.

Or, maybe he could’ve realized that the Plasma Physics is a recognized discipline. So much so that even the U.S. and Russia have collaborated with an eye towards “astrophysical environments” under the heading of “Plasma Astrophysics”. Try reading some of the papers in the Publications section.

Here is a basic magnetohydrodynamics paper at arXiv.org on “Drift instabilities in the solar corona within the multi-fluid description” by someone at the Max Planck Institute which notes in the abstract alone:
Recent observations revealed that the solar atmosphere is highly structured in density, temperature and magnetic field. The presence of these gradients may lead to the appearance of currents in the plasma, which in the weakly collisional corona can constitute sources of free energy for driving micro-instabilities. Such instabilities are very important since they represent a possible source of ion-cyclotron waves which have been conjectured to play a prominent role in coronal heating, but whose solar origin remains unclear. Considering a density stratification transverse to the magnetic field, this paper aims at studying the possible occurrence of gradient-induced plasma micro-instabilities under typical conditions of coronal holes.
That took a whopping 15 seconds to search for magnetohydrodynamics. You could do the same search with "plasma+astrophysics", "astrophysical plasma" etc.

Or, might I suggest the mathematically erudite work of Stephen Crouther’s refutation of “black holes”:
The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics

Peer Reviewed Papers In Cosmology via Cosmology Quest?

Looking For More Published Papers?

No. This chap is not really interested in anything but promoting his website and ego. He didn’t take the time to research anything at all. So, we’ll just sit here exchanging vitriolic word salad owing to the fact that what he’s complaining about is, and has been, readily available if he would’ve simply put forth effort to seek it out. Failure to do so = open mouth; insert foot.

I have a headache. I had no idea that discussing qualitative assessments of data *already existing in the scientific literature* would require the carrying of bottle warmers to feed all the crying PhD no-it-all babies we keep running into.

I can appreciate your want to put forth a concerted effort Earls, but these people just need to get off their asses and do some research!!! It’s already there by their own hands! It's been there for decades. This is a classic example of overspecialization. This is a resource heavy rebuttal. Let him put forth some effort.

Anyone seen my f-ing chew toy?
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
WhiteLight
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:18 am
Location: Directly under the Electric Sun

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by WhiteLight » Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:31 pm

Thanks for the replies , the reason I asked about this is because as a non-technical adherent of EU I find it hard to present a technical argument explaining EU , I find myself involved in arguments on the web and in the real world where I'm in over my head . I've been following EU for quite a while but I must admit there are many aspects I don't understand and can easily find myself unable to present a logical argument with people who are involved with physics or maths professionally , so this is why I've asked these questions , thanks Solar for the links you provided .

What are the main mathematical underpinnings of the circuitry of EU for instance ?

By what mechanism is electricity produced on a galactic scale ?

Any one else have suggestions ?
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934.
Fast forward 74Yrs->yawn! :)

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:21 pm

What are the main mathematical underpinnings of the circuitry of EU for instance ?
By what mechanism is electricity produced on a galactic scale ?
* You'll find answers to most of your questions, if you read enough. Thornhill and others have suggested how electric currents are produced at http://holoscience.com, http://kronia.com/thoth.html etc.

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by mharratsc » Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:08 pm

He's just another mathematician afraid for his job, bud. The moment everyone gets it that we can do experiments in the lab that correlate almost identically with what's going on 'Out There', a whole lot of fuzzy math theorists are gonna be flippin burgers down at McDonalds...
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

User avatar
StevenJay
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by StevenJay » Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:50 am

mharratsc wrote:The moment everyone gets it that we can do experiments in the lab that correlate almost identically with what's going on 'Out There', a whole lot of fuzzy math theorists are gonna be flippin burgers down at McDonalds...
As soon as I envision one or more fuzzy mathemagicians in that environment, the possible scenarios (centered mostly around burning cow and potato parts, due to cerebral distraction) begin to run rampant in my decidedly skewed and incorrigable imagination. . .

Mickey-D's latest promo:

Hey, kids! Buy a Happy Meal today and get a free, unpublished, non-peer-reviewed McTheorum inside! Prove that the McTheorum is flawed, and YOUR Happy Meal is FREE!!

Manager: "Okay, Poindexter, that's over 50 free Happy Meals we've had to give away this week. For crying out loud, do the math! Then turn in your embarrassing uniform - YOU'RE FIRED!"

Poindexter cringes at the thought of an even bleaker future as a WIDGETS WORLD telemarketer. . .


I often wake up in the morning convinced that the world has turned into something akin to a Rodger Rabbit cartoon - ya know? :shock:
It's all about perception.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:00 am

StevenJay wrote:
I often wake up in the morning convinced that the world has turned into something akin to a Rodger Rabbit cartoon - ya know?
Oh yes.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by junglelord » Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:49 pm

Well I got a letter from NASA on proper terminology, soo how bogus is their line????
Yes, I realize all that, and I still chose to describe prominences as "clouds of hydrogen held aloft by solar magnetic fields." At the level of technical detail I am aiming for on spaceweather.com, I could also call them "twisted spirals of plasma," but that's not what I chose to write this morning.

At 11:11 AM 4/4/2009, you wrote:

Why do you insist on calling Plasma, the first state of matter, Hot Gas? Clouds of Hydrogen create a prominence?
Do you not realize that gas and clouds are a state of matter that is not equal to Plasma? It is correct to state the Plasma forms huge twisted spirals to form a prominece...but clouds? Come on!
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
303vegas
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:55 am
Location: Rochdale, england

Re: Bogus Physics in an Electric Universe-so they say !

Unread post by 303vegas » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:39 am

in light of the 'math' (i'm english so i prefer the plural :lol: ) as a non-boffin i prefer the less technical approach. if you can't explain things to the lay-person in plain language then you're knackered. with support from the photographic evidence i can see the validity of EU. the gravity boys seem to only see the 'math' and end up putting the cart before the horse. they should get out more...
love from lancashire!

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests