Newbie but very interested

[Electro]

Hello everyone!

I have always been interested in astronomy, but from a certain distance... When I got more serious about it, I started reading about astrophysics and cosmology. I still have light years to go before claiming I understand all of it, but as I read and learn, I'm becoming more and more passionate about it...

The first time I heard about the Big Bang theory, I assumed it had all started from a huge chunk of matter that accounted for all the matter that was scattered in the universe after the blast. When I learned it wasn't so at all and it had to do with a universe that had sprung forth from nothing (Singularity), that's when I became skeptical... A little too Godly for me...

The Big Bang theory was coined in the 1920's after Alexander Friedmann introduced the idea of an expanding universe. It's not surprising to learn who came up with that theory, a convenient version, with a scientific twist, of pure creationism, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest... Even Einstein wasn't convinced, as he had always thought of the universe as being static. Astrophysicists have been working from that idea now for the past 90 years or so, many without even questioning it!

The Electric Universe cosmology makes a lot more sense to me than the Big Bang and the magic stuff scientists are constantly inventing to make it stick, like dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars... EU is based more on observations and experiment than abstract theories and pure mathematics.

I do have a few questions and remarks though, before celebrating this "revelation".

I know the Electric Universe theory isn't getting the attention it should. Of course, not being in tune with the mainstream is one of the major contributers to this misfortune, but I'd like to point out a few details that in my opinion are not helping to bring credibility to the theory:

1- References to Immanuel Velikovsky as being an enlightenment for Wallace Thornhill. That's like using the Bible to explain Earth's and humanity's history and evolution...

2- References to ancient mythology and a sky that was supposedly different at the time. The world sees those symbols as simple drawings of the sun (my opinion as well), as many worshiped the sun as a god all over the world. To me, that's why the symbol is so common in ancient mythology. That was the brightest and most visible object in the sky! Quite frankly, that's the major issue turning me off in the EU theory. I can only imagine the mainstream's view...

3- Lack of math and demonstration for the theory.

4- Why couldn't the impact craters on the Moon and Mars be just that, impact craters from meteors, not electrical discharges? We're receiving meteorites here on Earth on a daily basis! We have an atmosphere to protect us, but that's not the case on the Moon or Mars.

5- I have never seen any references to electrical discharges in forming the Valles Marineris or the Grand Canyon. Why not water or lava (especially for the Valles Marineris close to giant volcanoes like Olympus Mons, Ascraeus Mons, Pavonis Mons, Arsai Mons...)?

I haven't gone through all topics on this forum, however, am I correct to assume you guy's aren't that much into that mythology nonsense (no offense to anyone)?

Thank you

[D_Archer]

1,2,3,4 and 5.

Read more and think more before commenting.

Regards,
Daniel

[Electro]

Thanks for the warm welcome...

Actually, I'd prefer answers. I have read a lot, but I haven't found answers to all my questions. I think my questions are legitimate. I really agree with the main concept of the Electric Universe, but I reject anything having to do with mythology or spirituality. I do not believe mythology was necessary to prove the concept, on the contrary. Let's keep it scientific and in the 21st century.

Besides, this forum doesn't look that busy for people to find it too hard to repeat themselves...

[Kuldebar]

Welcome Electro!

Please forgive the curt reply above to your very well thought out post.

I will agree, impoliteness aside, that some of your very good questions have been well addressed by the Thunderbolts Project even if you choose to limit yourself to their videos alone for information.

ThunderboltsProject - YouTube

1- References to Immanuel Velikovsky as being an enlightenment for Wallace Thornhill. That's like using the Bible to explain Earth's and humanity's history and evolution...

I understand this point, but you must be brave. Immanuel Velikovsky has been so denigrated that it's easy to see how people may "cringe" when his name is brought up, but you must understand that he represents a heroic first step in raising awareness to questions that needed to be asked. Here's what Sagan had to say about it:

Cosmos: "Velikovsky"

2- References to ancient mythology and a sky that was supposedly different at the time. The world sees those symbols as simple drawings of the sun (my opinion as well), as many worshiped the sun as a god all over the world. To me, that's why the symbol is so common in ancient mythology. That was the brightest and most visible object in the sky! Quite frankly, that's the major issue turning me off in the EU theory. I can only imagine the mainstream's view...

The "world" prefers to believe that our ancient ancestors were rather simple minded and institutional science also subscribes to the view that nothing has really dramatically changed within our solar system during the 250,000 years or so that biologically modern human beings have been on the scene.

No scholars have been able to adequately explain the historical significance of Saturn (and many other Cosmic Myths) in so many of the ancient traditions; David Talbott's work has addressed this deficiency in a very methodical and detailed way.

At the heart of it all is the idea that we humans are connected to a living universe, and in an Electric Universe there will indeed be awe-inspiring celestial occurrences. Talbott's focus is on fleshing out events that may have had major impacts on our distant ancestors.

3- Lack of math and demonstration for the theory.

Hard science and observation go the distance, math is a useful tool but not evidence in and of itself. The nature of plasma and electric effects can be tested and directly observed unlike the following:

-Black holes
-Neutron stars
-Supermassive black holes
-Multiple dimensions
-Dark matter
-Dark energy
-Cosmic inflation
-The Big Bang
-The Big Crunch
-Strange matter
-WIMPs
-MACHOs
-Magnetic reconnection
-The hydrogen fusion model of stars
-Gravitational waves
-The Higg's "God" particle

credit for list

Here's a good rant from 2009, still relevant to the situation:
Questions To The Astronomical Community

4- Why couldn't the impact craters on the Moon and Mars be just that, impact craters from meteors, not electrical discharges? We're receiving meteorites here on Earth on a daily basis! We have an atmosphere to protect us, but that's not the case on the Moon or Mars.

It's not mutually exclusive or a matter of totality of one mechanic versus the other. Obviously impacts can and do happen, but a closer evaluation of attributes on the Moon, Mars and other bodies reveal that not every "crater" is a result of an impact. Numerous Thunderbolts Project Video address this subject in great detail.

5- I have never seen any references to electrical discharges in forming the Valles Marineris or the Grand Canyon. Why not water or lava (especially for the Valles Marineris close to giant volcanoes like Olympus Mons, Ascraeus Mons, Pavonis Mons, Arsai Mons...)?

There's quite a bit of information of TBP's investigations into this subject, a good place to start is with The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary) and also the work of Michael Steinbacher in regards to earth geology which is trickier for the obvious reasons of erosion and climate, etc.

The key here, don't be afraid to ask scary questions, don't be "ashamed" of following a thought process. By no means is anyone asking you to "believe" or support everything proposed; sometimes it's enough just to ask the questions and never support anything because it has been "settled by consensus".

EXCERPT: An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

[Electro]

Thank you very much for the information, Kuldebar.

Perhaps I've been a little too harsh in my comments about mythology. I'm willing to give it consideration and will read more about it.

[Kuldebar]

Thank you very much for the information, Kuldebar.

Perhaps I've been a little too harsh in my comments about mythology. I'm willing to give it consideration and will read more about it.

Hey, it's cool, the EU cosmology is not the house of cards that standard cosmology has become, you can choose to simply disregard the anthropological aspects of the EU paradigm, no one will yell at you or call you a heretic.

If TBP were making the very same argument that Velikovsky proposed 65 years ago, I would have some problems accepting it as well. But TBP is far more refined than that, concerning the broader issues, TBP does not assert absolutes when it comes to speculations but neither does TBP shrink from proposing intelligent interpretations.

David Talbott is well versed when it comes to presenting established scholarly works of world mythology in the clarifying light of the Electric Universe Model, and it fits very well. It's worth considering just for that reason alone.

It's also helpful to realize that unlike Velikovsky's original work we aren't being asked to think all this happened just 3500 years ago. Velikovsky didn't have the last seven decades of archeology along with other scientific discoveries to draw upon when he boldly raised the necessary propositions back in 1950.

Human history has been pushed further and further back in time with the discoveries of Göbekli Tepe and many other findings that have radically changed our view of human history. Institutional science is slowly accepting that something catastrophic occurred at the end of the last major glacial period, roughly 12,900 years ago.

Additionally, the scientific establishment is starting to grudgingly acknowledge the relative reliability of human oral tradition and long held myth. A recent example of this:

Outback palms: Aboriginal myth proven with DNA studies

Professor David Bowman is an environmental change biologist at the University of Tasmania. He and his colleagues were amazed to find out that his research coincided with Aboriginal folklore. “We’re talking about a verbal tradition which had been transmitted through generations possibly for over 7,000, possibly 30,000 years,” he told ABC News.

An older and more widely known example is the discovery of Troy by Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann:

Ancient Troy was once a mythical city, known only through the text of the ancient Greek poet Homer’s Iliad.

[D_Archer]

ps. Sorry if it sounded harsh, i always think i am just direct.
pss. What Kuldebar said.
psss. And welcome

[Electro]

Just watched the video The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars. Extremely interesting and enlightening!

That, in itself, gives me an excellent answer to my questions #4 and 5. Still not sure about the mythology, maybe because I don't know much about it in general, nor have I ever been very interested, but I must admit some of it makes sense. I will surely look into it.

Thank you again!



What are scientists saying about that hypothesis for the scarring of Mars? It does look obvious when you compare the scars and craters with laboratory experiments. Do they give it any consideration at all???

[Electro]

And I like that video:

Questions To The Astronomical Community

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=58&v=atiR8QgGU6Q&hd=1

[Electro]

And I found this quote from Carl Sagan to be particularly important:

"Many hypotheses proposed by scientists as well as non-scientists turn out to be wrong. But science is a self-correcting enterprise. To be accepted, all new ideas must survive rigorous scientific standards of evidence. The worse aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that his hypotheses were wrong or in contradiction to firmly established facts, but that some who called themselves scientists attempted to suppress Velikovksy's works. Science is generated by and devoted to free enquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits."

EU theory deserves a lot more credit.

[Kuldebar]

Just watched the video The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars

What are scientists saying about that hypothesis for the scarring of Mars? It does look obvious when you compare the scars and craters with laboratory experiments. Do they give it any consideration at all???

It's two opposing stories.

The NASA version makes no allowance for an electrical influence; while the Thunderbolts Project model could accommodate some water on Mars, but perhaps not to the degree that NASA makes out.

Curiously, one of the first Mars terrain shots in NASA's video shows features that could not have been made by water.

The establishment science story is put forth in three minute and fifty-six second video, and the counter to that story is told in the Thunderbolts Project's eighty-three minute long documentary.

NASA | Measuring Mars' Ancient Ocean
-------------------------------

The Thunderbolts Project | The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars
-----------------------------------

[Electro]

This is a little embarrassing because I'm pretty basic when it comes to electricity, but trying to make sense of it all, and especially to understand, am I correct to assume that in an electric universe the Earth is rotating basically from this principle (same for the sun, other planets and galaxies)? A little simplistic, but bear with me, I'm no expert in the field.



Current flowing from South pole to North pole. Magnetic field going from West to East, like the Earth's rotation?

I'm trying to explain this in layman terms to friends of mine.

Thank you

[Kuldebar]

I'm no scientist, but here's how I have come to understand it:

The one dimensional image you linked will make it a little difficult to get the right idea across. Start thinking of the electrical connections and interactions between all the "bits ands pieces" of matter.

I find it helpful to view gravity as simply being a weaker electro-magnetic force. Take this statement from Wikipedia on the Four Fundamental Forces in the universe:

Fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces or interactive forces, are the interactions in physical systems that appear not to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear—each understood as the dynamics of a field.

I simply view it this way:

Weak Electrical (gravity)

Strong Electrical (electromagnetic)

Weak Nuclear

Strong Nuclear



Does Gravity Alone Rule the Cosmos? | Space News

Gravity still works in much the same manner as Newton proposed but the true nature of gravity has not been fully understood by the mainstream, largely because electrical forces have been consistently are discounted.

The common misconception is that the EU concept seeks to replace gravity with electromagnetism, it adds the crucial caveat that gravitation does not tell the whole story.


Pointers towards explaining mass and gravity electrically:

The electrical model of mass and gravity differs from the Newtonian model in this way: in the Newtonian model, it is the mass of the particles of any object that generates (though without explanation) gravitational field. In the new electrical paradigm of mass, however, quantity of mass is a measure of how easily an electric field will distort the fundamental particles that comprise it into dipolar forms, because the more dipolar the particles comprising the body become, the more response will be apparent between that body and the presenting field.

Wal Thornhill:

“Common sense suggests that it is unlikely that the laws of physics will need to be rewritten, simply that we should understand better those we have. We need not trouble ourselves with arguments about the nature of gravity in this instance because the mystery can be solved if the electrical nature of the universe is acknowledged. The mystery only arises because astrophysics is taught incorrectly. Students are taught that any separation of charge in space is quickly neutralized as electrons rush to neutralize the charge imbalance. As a result, electricity in space is almost never mentioned, except as a transient effect.”

[Electro]

Thank you.

I understand it can't be as simple as my illustration, but I'm trying to explain it to people who will definitely need an illustration to understand the basics.

Since all planets in our solar system are orbiting around the sun in the same direction, and the planets (as the sun) are rotating in that same direction as well (except Venus), I thought I would start would that simple illustration of "very basic" electrical dynamics to explain that everything is electrically related.

[Kuldebar]

Thank you.

I understand it can't be as simple as my illustration, but I'm trying to explain it to people who will definitely need an illustration to understand the basics.

Since all planets in our solar system are orbiting around the sun in the same direction, and the planets (as the sun) are rotating in that same direction as well (except Venus), I thought I would start would that simple illustration of "very basic" electrical dynamics to explain that everything is electrically related.

I guess I'd recommend you don't really need to "re-explain" gravity because there's no immediate need to do so in regards to Electric Universe theory. But, the departure from basic Newtonian gravity is where the real problems begin. Once Einstein weighed in on the subject things became rather twisted.

So, yes when you start delving into the black holes and all the similar nonsense, that's where gravity starts getting pumped up with all sorts of super powers by mathmagicians because they are forced to find ways to explain how gravity can do everything they are observing.

All that becomes unnecessary when you look at gravity as an inherently electrical force and not the "mysterious, highly theorized quantum phenomenon" that institutional science still holds:

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity, not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy. For most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that the gravitational force of two bodies of mass is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

I think the video, Does Gravity Alone Rule the Cosmos? | Space News, will illustrate quite well how the EU concepts address gravity on the planetary and cosmic scale.