Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Greg M

Is the Electric Universe theory a better integrated cosmological view?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I just started researching this topic and so far it seems to make much more sense to me than the current gravity based cosmological model. I am only a laymen with basic college physics and astronomy. It is concerning that the current model says nothing of electrical forces in the universe and the Electric Universe model would account for several philosophical conundrums such as the ‘vacuum of space’ and the ‘Big Bang’.

I am wondering if anyone else has heard of this theory or if there is anyone here more qualified than myself that better judge such things?

Edited by Greg M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to ask whether one fundamental force is more "important" than another, but when it comes to the structure of the universe, gravity is special in two regards:

The first is that gravity has an infinite range, like that of electromagnetism. The second reason why gravity is important at long distances is because all masses are positive and therefore gravity's interaction can not be screened like in electromagnetism. Thus large celestial bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies dominantly feel gravitational forces. In comparison, the total electric charge of these bodies is zero because half of all charges are negative. In addition, unlike the other interactions, gravity acts universally on all matter. There are no objects that lack a gravitational "charge".

See fundamental interaction in Wikipedia.

Edited by GreedyCapitalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this "theory" even actually a theory? For instance, I don't see any math. Is that in later chapters? If the electric universe explains something like the orbit of Mercury, or gravitational lensing, where are the derived results? And what about the electric universe's claim that the source of a star's energy is not nuclear fusion, but something to do with electricity? Sounds like crankery to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this "theory" even actually a theory? For instance, I don't see any math. Is that in later chapters? If the electric universe explains something like the orbit of Mercury, or gravitational lensing, where are the derived results? And what about the electric universe's claim that the source of a star's energy is not nuclear fusion, but something to do with electricity? Sounds like crankery to me.

It is crankery. I responded to some of it when it was first posted--I didn't even go into the relativity and quantum theory he was trying to vanquish but restricted myself to the appalling errors in classical mechanics and, ironically, electro-magnetism. The response was underwhelming. Most of the points were just ignored. I remember somewhat substantive responses on only two matters. One, comets, was of such minor, secondary importance that even if this plasma theory were correct in that case it would say nothing at all about any of the other issues in cosmology and astrophysics that the fellow is on about. As for the other, the fellow dismissed a well-known phenomenon (plasmas created by ionization at high temperatures due to high-energy atomic collisions stripping electrons from neutral atoms) with an argument, or rather a one-liner, from assumed authority that I suspect the authority, Hannes Alfven, would have been appalled to have been associated with. In other words, not even worth responding to further.

Edited by Adrian Hester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is crankery. I responded to some of it when it was first posted--I didn't even go into the relativity and quantum theory he was trying to vanquish but restricted myself to the appalling errors in classical mechanics and, ironically, electro-magnetism. The response was underwhelming. Most of the points were just ignored. I remember somewhat substantive responses on only two matters. One, comets, was of such minor, secondary importance that even if this plasma theory were correct in that case it would say nothing at all about any of the other issues in cosmology and astrophysics that the fellow is on about. As for the other, the fellow dismissed a well-known phenomenon (plasmas created by ionization at high temperatures due to high-energy atomic collisions stripping electrons from neutral atoms) with an argument, or rather a one-liner, from assumed authority that I suspect the authority, Hannes Alfven, would have been appalled to have been associated with. In other words, not even worth responding to further.

Hi Adrian Im sorry for the lazy responses before on certain issues. I asked you to cite an example on your assertion on plasma because you made a claim yourself without support. Hannes Alvfen is known as the father of PLasma Cosmology and MegnetoHydridynamics.When he won his nobel prize he himself cautioned as to his earlier work misleading scientist to refer to plasma as having "frozen in " magnetic fields apart from Electric currents. I am not the author of such theories , and your comments do not reflect this , as you are responding as if Greg is asking you what I think. If you have support for thermal creation of magnetic fields apart from electric current I invite you to submit it . Ill respond to your citation. Ive supplied several links for your review . Granted some of the Anti matter topic i found need to review futher and am still doing. My main point was "anti" as is used in this context is "non essential" to the concept. If I charge a metal rod it does not become a "Anti" rod but a rod with a positive charge . I still await your submition on this topic of Plasma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have support for thermal creation of magnetic fields apart from electric current I invite you to submit it . Ill respond to your citation.

Here's a tutorial in plasma physics, the first plasma physics tutorial I found, second paragraph--basic stuff anyone doing plasma physics knows from very early on:

"Above a temperature of about 100,000K most matter exists in an ionized state. For this reason the plasma state is frequently called the fourth state of matter. That is, if one adds heat to a solid one obtains a liquid, add heat to a liquid and one obtains a gas, add sufficient heat to a gas and the atoms themselves become ionized and one obtains a plasma. Such high temperatures are, however, not necessary, for a plasma to exist. Provided there is a mechanism for ionizing the gas and the density is sufficiently low for recombination to be slow, a plasma can exist at relatively low temperatures. This is frequently the case in laboratory produced plasmas and, indeed, in the Earth's own ionosphere--an example of a plasma produced by photoionization of the tenous outer layers of the atmosphere." (My emphasis in italics.)

http://www.hmo.ac.za/old_site/Space_Physics/tut/tut.html

This is basic stuff. There's no need to supply a journal reference--it's included in the textbooks and tutorials. It's a shame you're not familiar with it.

Edited by Adrian Hester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the whole video several weeks ago because "electric universe" kept showing up on this forum. The movie doesn't help your case. It claims that gravitational phenomena can be explained using electricity, but it never gets more specific than that. It is a bunch of vague claims backed up only by the claim that a flash before an impact with a comet is supposed to prove something. To say that the whole universe is connected by intergalactic electric circuits is so vague that it is completely meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I watched the whole video several weeks ago because "electric universe" kept showing up on this forum. The movie doesn't help your case. It claims that gravitational phenomena can be explained using electricity, but it never gets more specific than that. It is a bunch of vague claims backed up only by the claim that a flash before an impact with a comet is supposed to prove something. To say that the whole universe is connected by intergalactic electric circuits is so vague that it is completely meaningless.

The movie claims we can measure these currents and magnetic fields with radio telescopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like this is easily explained with EU theory where the current gravity model must essentially insert unobservable postulations to attempt and explanination and then it still comes up short.

Edited by Greg M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atlas51184 Posted 21 minutes ago

I watched the whole video several weeks ago because "electric universe" kept showing up on this forum. The movie doesn't help your case. It claims that gravitational phenomena can be explained using electricity, but it never gets more specific than that. It is a bunch of vague claims backed up only by the claim that a flash before an impact with a comet is supposed to prove something. To say that the whole universe is connected by intergalactic electric circuits is so vague that it is completely meaningless.

You may be unaware that the video is associated with the Book THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE . The ELECTRIC SKY is another one.The video is intended to draw folks to the book and the website for further investigation. Essentially they are saying that we can explain the universe with out the postulation of imaginary other dimensions , and invisible "Dark" matter , with the inclusion of every day electrodynamics as proven in Laboratory Plasma Physics.

The reason the Electric force is more "important" in the context of celestial mechanics is because ionized particles are influenced by a force 10 to the 39th power more powerful than gravity. And the shapes galaxies take are demonstrable electromagnetic properties inherent in the identity of plasmas. Mechanical forces alone do not explain the dynamics we observe in space.

Adrians statement that "its a shame i don't know" is quite dramatic as I'm simply an individual seeking to integrate his concepts with reality. I make no claims of professional expertise. I didn't respond in large part , because the level of ad hominem displayed , was frankly undesirable as to a discussion.

Adrian you seem unaware that the theory I'm pointing at claims that many "text books" are incorrect , and specifically the ones related to plasma. Alfven himself claimed as much.

You may be interested in this link in relation to your citation:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Critical_velocity

However your initial claim was that magnetic fields were created thermally, if I'm not mistaken.

I will investigate your citation further however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this "theory" even actually a theory? For instance, I don't see any math.

That is like saying is Ayn Rands theory of ethics even a theory because I don't see any math?

There is no number 7 in reality. Math is just a conceptual tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a documentary on E.U. and am quite interested in the theory, especially in relation to Plasma Cosmology.

Might have to buy some books on it.

I would expect this would get more interest in O'ist circles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some vids of some experiments I did in regards to their claims about electric crater formation and other things.

The university were Alfven was is offering a class on astrophysical plasmas and are considering offering a online course of somekind...I can find out more for anyone interested.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...mp;search_type=

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The university were Alfven was is offering a class on astrophysical plasmas and are considering offering a online course of somekind...I can find out more for anyone interested.

Plasmatic, I'm still trying to grok the various aspects and implications of EU theory, and would certainly appreciate finding out more about this course. How much math does one need and is the course in English?

Stay Focused,

<Φ>aj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that plasma cosmology rejects relativity, how is it that the companies relying on relativistic frequency corrections on their satellites find that these corrections work perfectly for them? What is the equivalent EU explanation for the necessity of this correction?

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that plasma cosmology rejects relativity, how is it that the companies relying on relativistic frequency corrections on their satellites find that these corrections work perfectly for them? What is the equivalent EU explanation for the necessity of this correction?

Not only that, but consider statements such as "Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning!" What is the precise definition of a "concentrated ball of lightning"? What experimental data or causal explanations make such a statement anything more than meaningless nonsense? What of the mountains of spectral evidence for the theory that stars are powered by nuclear reactions? One more example: "Stellar evolution theory and the age of stars is an elaborate fiction." Based on what evidence? What of the fact that stellar evolution theory explains and predicts the concentrations of different types of stars? Fortunately, we are told that "Stars behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge." Huh?

I find this "theory" very similar to Creationism: it points out that there are problems with the existing theory, and uses this fact as a motivation for accepting an arbitrary alternative. Even if modern astrophysics has philosophical problems, it contains a tremendous amount of truth as well, and should not be dismissed so casually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plasmatic, I'm still trying to grok the various aspects and implications of EU theory, and would certainly appreciate finding out more about this course. How much math does one need and is the course in English?

This whole thing appears to be nothing more than pseudo science. I wouldn't waste my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there is *some* tendency on the part of conventional cosmologists to think in terms of gravity to the exclusion of E-M, and Lerner, et. al. (he wrote the book I read on this) are right to call them on it. BUT the sun being a ball of lightning is absurd. A ball of lightning will not generate neutrinos, the sun does so. As for the problem of why the neutrino count is one third what is predicted, that has been solved by a new theory which furthermore was verified in the lab.

In other words, bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only that, but consider statements such as "Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning!" What is the precise definition of a "concentrated ball of lightning"? What experimental data or causal explanations make such a statement anything more than meaningless nonsense? What of the mountains of spectral evidence for the theory that stars are powered by nuclear reactions? One more example: "Stellar evolution theory and the age of stars is an elaborate fiction." Based on what evidence? What of the fact that stellar evolution theory explains and predicts the concentrations of different types of stars? Fortunately, we are told that "Stars behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge." Huh?

I find this "theory" very similar to Creationism: it points out that there are problems with the existing theory, and uses this fact as a motivation for accepting an arbitrary alternative. Even if modern astrophysics has philosophical problems, it contains a tremendous amount of truth as well, and should not be dismissed so casually.

Hmmm, I never heard those quoted arguments. Admittedly I have only watched a couple of documentaries and read on published paper on this, but I don't think PC attempts to refute existing evidence. I will obviously have to read more, but so far I am still intrigued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect there is *some* tendency on the part of conventional cosmologists to think in terms of gravity to the exclusion of E-M, and Lerner, et. al. (he wrote the book I read on this) are right to call them on it. BUT the sun being a ball of lightning is absurd. A ball of lightning will not generate neutrinos, the sun does so. As for the problem of why the neutrino count is one third what is predicted, that has been solved by a new theory which furthermore was verified in the lab.

In other words, bullshit.

"Ball of lightening"? That does sound absurd.

Please provide a link of where the theory states this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plasmatic, I'm still trying to grok the various aspects and implications of EU theory, and would certainly appreciate finding out more about this course. How much math does one need and is the course in English?

Stay Focused,

<Φ>aj

This is all I can do for tonight:

http://www.alfvenlab.kth.se/edu/courses/EF2240/

http://www.kth.se/ees/omskolan/organisatio...peopleid%3D452/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...