Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the Electric Universe theory a better integrated cosmological view?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm open to the idea that astronomers do not integrate electrical phenomena into their explanations, or that comets are denser and more like asteroids than ice cubes, but the hand waving here is just

The "electric universe" theory is unscientific nonsense.  I'm closing this topic to discourage real science from being posted here to give it an air of legitimacy.

On the subject of neutrinos being generated by plasma:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arc...90707fusion.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...s-in-action.htm

http://www.holoscience.com/news/puzzle.html

Im only posting this for those curious enough to go into this for themselves.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
On the subject of neutrinos being generated by plasma:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arc...90707fusion.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...s-in-action.htm

http://www.holoscience.com/news/puzzle.html

Im only posting this for those curious enough to go into this for themselves.

Just read the one fusion and the sun, the first three quarters of it is a general explanation of how the sun works, then it just says 'but thats not how it happens' and goes on to present its alternative.

Not very "Scientific".

This may just be complete garbage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly if your wanting info I suggest going to the thunderbolts forum.I have not spent much time on the topic in quite a while. I'd rather be integrating induction more explicitly.

Spending time integrating induction it time better spent.

I can safely say that although initially interesting, after further investigation, PC is mere crackpottery.

Edited by Axiomatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a thread from the Thunderbolts forum on the subject of GPS and Relativity.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/...?f=6&t=1651

The original poster on that page basically refutes what they claim, and they're left linking to articles with no citations whatsoever - e.g. the last one, which makes claims about how GPS engineers don't bother utilizing a relativistic correction. What would make them decide to do that and risk crashing satellites and losing their jobs? With no citations, there's no way to verify his statements about these engineers' actions. For a guy claiming to do "meta research" - you'd think he would bother to provide sources for his claims.

Their argument doesn't even make sense - the correction is a cumulative one - it increases every day to make the error worse. Saying that "oh, 0.8 cm [per day] is smaller than the accuracy of GPS" completely ignores the fact that this error increases every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The original poster on that page basically refutes what they claim, and they're left linking to articles with no citations whatsoever - e.g. the last one, which makes claims about how GPS engineers don't bother utilizing a relativistic correction. What would make them decide to do that and risk crashing satellites and losing their jobs? With no citations, there's no way to verify his statements about these engineers' actions. For a guy claiming to do "meta research" - you'd think he would bother to provide sources for his claims.

Their argument doesn't even make sense - the correction is a cumulative one - it increases every day to make the error worse. Saying that "oh, 0.8 cm [per day] is smaller than the accuracy of GPS" completely ignores the fact that this error increases every day.

If you do a search you will find that Van Flandern was actually involved in designing GPS. Honestly all of the EU claims are "bold" in keeping with the whole Popperian theme. The premises they challenge are massive and what I've observed is those who ,for what ever reason, dig into it find that more and more the initialially preposterously unfamiliar claims continue to pan out. Repeatedly were the standard model is "surprised" and have no idea why they are finding what they are, theorist like Thornhill have actually predicted the very thing that happened. Thornhills comet prediction for the deep impact mission is an example.

My lack of interest in convincing others of what they haven't a desire to question here,is honestly because I see the fundemental problem of the whole analytic-synthetic dichotomy to be a more important problem in the sciences than any application of these premises.

There are a ton of folks who will flood you with peer reviewed papers on any polite challenge to their claims on the Thunderbolts forum.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you do a search you will find that Van Flandern was actually involved in designing GPS.

I cannot take him on faith, nonetheless.

You should run all this by Objectivist and physics professor Travis Norsen. He rejects the contradictory, anti-conceptual nature of quantum theory in favor of Bohmian mechanics. I would also like to see the paper where Thornhill lays down the groundwork for his predictions. I only have a BS in physics but should be able to wade through his work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After researching a little further there seems to be a real distinction between Plasma Cosmology and E.U. Just to point this out as I was confusing and conflating the two. At least Plasma Cosmology was based upon real science, but it has been debunked many years ago. E.U. is just flat out crackpot nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
After researching a little further there seems to be a real distinction between Plasma Cosmology and E.U. Just to point this out as I was confusing and conflating the two. At least Plasma Cosmology was based upon real science, but it has been debunked many years ago. E.U. is just flat out crackpot nonsense.

PC is distinct from EU. What did you find was the specifics of the arguments that convinced you of this "debunking"? Id like to review them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally cool Plasmatic. Thanx!

Once my life shuts up and sits down, I'm going to audit this course.

And the local detractors say there's no math to back up the the theory.

Actually, there are ample observations to back up the theory as well, but nobody is willing to open their eyes...

And me thinking I was in a forum of objective epistemologists...

When a man plugs his ears, what is the sound of a straw man falling?

Stay Focused,

<Φ>aj

This topic got me thinking about logical fallacies.

Thanks to Tina from the Thunderbolts group for these:

Argumentum ad Stupido

(You're Stupid :wacko: ) If you're not an expert in this field you don't know anything.

Argumentum ad Arroganto

(I'm Superior :smartass: ) I'm an expert so I'm right.

Argumentum ad Incredulo

(Unbelievable :fool: ) I can't believe this so it must be false.

Edited by aristotlejones
Link to post
Share on other sites
And me thinking I was in a forum of objective epistemologists...

When a man plugs his ears, what is the sound of a straw man falling?

Here's something I came across, on http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=3:

And if anyone believes that Newton's laws guarantee a stable planetary system - think again! Any gravitational system with more than two orbiting bodies is unstable. Yet the question is hardly ever asked, let alone answered, "what produces the observed stability of the solar system?" Velikovsky was convinced that the clue lay in his discovery that electrical forces dominate the incredibly weak force of gravity at times of planetary close encounters. Although he was unable to explain at the time how this would create the observed stability of the solar system, with his uncanny prescience he had pointed the way to the Electric Universe.

Since then sceptical scholars have shown Velikovsky's historical perspective of cataclysmic events to be wrong. However, his basic premise of planetary encounters has been confirmed and the details fleshed out to an extraordinary degree. Several pioneering researchers in this new field now agree that awe-inspiring planetary encounters did occur in pre-history. To the most ancient civilizations they were a culturally defining memory. They were the inspiration for pyramids, megaliths, statues, totems and sacred rock art. The survivors of global upheaval felt it imperative that the memory be preserved and passed down faithfully to future generations in the expectation that the "gods" would return. The memorialization took the form of architecture, ritual and story to re-enact the apocalyptic power of the planetary gods over human destiny. Such a catastrophic beginning explains why civilization appeared like a thunderclap out of nowhere. Unfortunately, with no reference points in the present behavior of the planets, the stories lost their real meaning. This short explanation may seem contrived until the wealth of supporting evidence can be presented. However, it highlights the crucial distinction between the planetary catastrophism of the Electric Universe and that of neo-catastrophists who attempt to explain the evidence for planetary encounters in terms of cometary phenomena. Modern comets simply do not fit the descriptions from the past. Nor can they account for abundant evidence of fresh looking planetary cratering and scarring. Besides, in an Electric Universe comets are not the apocalyptic threat to the Earth imaginatively portrayed by artists. Such pictures are entirely fanciful because a comet would be disrupted electrically by a cosmic thunderbolt before it hit the Earth. The only visible evidence remaining would be an electric arc crater like Meteor Crater in Arizona.

How about you demonstrate how to be a properly objectivist epistemologist, and prove to us the above paragraph, especially the parts I highlighted in red. (I'm not sure what planetary encounters are, but they sure sound interesting...do they also involve cosmic thunderbolts that will (as in you have epistemologically correct proof available that they will) separate two planets when they close on each other?)

As for gravitational systems with more than two bodies being unstable, how do you account for the accurate prediction of the position of every single planet in the solar system, year after year, based on the current model of the Solar System?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Within our lifetimes, not prehistory, a comet impacted Jupiter. No thunderbolts annihilated the fragments, they impacted.

Thornihill addresses this topic in the book The Electric Universe. But here is a TPOD article breifly discussing the subject:

Any interest can be further developed with material on the forum and site itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How about you demonstrate how to be a properly objectivist epistemologist, and prove to us the above paragraph, especially the parts I highlighted in red. (I'm not sure what planetary encounters are, but they sure sound interesting...do they also involve cosmic thunderbolts that will (as in you have epistemologically correct proof available that they will) separate two planets when they close on each other?)

Anthony Perrat of Los Alamos national labratory has detailed the carving of high energy plasma disharge phenomenon on petroglyphs on every continent.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14145750/Anthony...ed-in-Antiquity

The evidence for electrical scarring on planets is overwhelming.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/12070...triccraters.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Craters

This is just some clues for one to dig further if they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thornihill addresses this topic in the book The Electric Universe. But here is a TPOD article breifly discussing the subject:

Wait, so the website that tells me that this cannot happen ("Such pictures are entirely fanciful because a comet would be disrupted electrically by a cosmic thunderbolt before it hit the Earth."), is not a credible source? I believe there is a link in this thread to it, so you should really make sure people know which are the official websites, that carry information that is indeed claimed by EU, and which contain fabrications that contradict EU. (like the universal, in no way mitigated, claim that a comet cannot impact Earth, because a thunderbolt would stop this)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, so the website that tells me that this cannot happen ("Such pictures are entirely fanciful because a comet would be disrupted electrically by a cosmic thunderbolt before it hit the Earth."), is not a credible source? I believe there is a link in this thread to it, so you should really make sure people know which are the official websites, that carry information that is indeed claimed by EU, and which contain fabrications that contradict EU. (like the universal, in no way mitigated, claim that a comet cannot impact Earth, because a thunderbolt would stop this)

"Disruption" does not equal "comet cannot impact Earth". This seems to leave the rest of your comments unfounded.

On the orbit question you asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the above:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arc...dayasteroid.htm

In fact, our planet may not be so vulnerable to a globally-devastating event as astronomers have led us to believe. From the Electric Universe perspective, as explained by Wallace Thornhill, Earth, the asteroids, and comets are charged bodies moving in the electric field of the Sun. Thornhill believes that the charge difference between these bodies provides the earth with a natural defense against asteroids and comets, particularly very large ones. When an asteroid or comet enters the electric field of the Earth, which is contained within its "magnetosphere," or more accurately-plasma sheath, there will be a powerful discharge between the two bodies. (See earlier TPODs on the Tunguska event and the Chicago Fire.)

The internal electrical stress caused by the discharge of the interloping asteroid or comet will generally cause it to detonate like an exploding capacitor—just as comets have frequently exploded "inexplicably" as they moved toward the Sun on their elongated orbits. (See The Explosive Demise of Comet Linear, and When Comets Break Apart. Also Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 Disintegrates)

Of course, we have already witnessed the electrical destruction of a colliding comet. Comet Shoemaker-Levy fragments were destroyed in a series of brilliant, unexpected flashes high above Jupiter's atmosphere.

This is not to say that the Electric theorists believe comets and asteroids pose no threat to human beings. But the havoc these bodies might wreak would likely be limited to localized disasters—perhaps a series of Tunguska-like events producing regional devastation with falls of sand and dust, perhaps electrical craters, fires and earthquakes, but no single impact crater at all. The devastation of a global extinction requires an encounter with something much larger than a puny comet or asteroid. In all likelihood, it requires electrical exchanges with a body the size of a planet.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthony Perrat of Los Alamos national labratory has detailed the carving of high energy plasma disharge phenomenon on petroglyphs on every continent.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14145750/Anthony...ed-in-Antiquity

The evidence for electrical scarring on planets is overwhelming.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/12070...triccraters.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Craters

This is just some clues for one to dig further if they like.

I'm not looking to learn more, I don't read fiction unless there's good character development. But since aristotlejones expressed his consternation that the critics of this didn't substantiate their opinions, I'm willing to address any arguments he can present, on this website. But if he doesn't, then he shouldn't expect me to do the work for him. It's not my theory, it's not my job to argument it. My job is to shoot down any arguments you guys present me with: and the standard for your arguments has been set pretty claerly, you can read it in aristotlejones's post. So no aproximations, or painting with a wide brush, please, give me specific, conclusive evidence. Either that, or stop complaining that we're not "objective epistemologists". There's nothing to be objective about, this thread contains arbitrary claims (that I had to go looking for) and links. (that I'm not gonna click)

Speaking of which, I'll follow your lead and substantiate my opinion that this is a crackpot theory with links. So here you go:

Relativity By Albert Einstein

The principle of relativity: a collection of original memoirs on the special ... By Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Hermann Minkowski

Einstein's theory of relativity By Max Born

Is this epistemologically correct enough?

So, if anyone wants actual arguments, on this site, to defend the opinion that it's nonsense, then you'll have to start presenting arguments in favor of your theory, on this website. If you want to argue with links, then why don't you start by reading and debunking my three links, to show some good faith, and then I'll consider reading some of yours?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not looking to learn more, I don't read fiction unless there's good character development. But since aristotlejones expressed his consternation that the critics of this didn't substantiate their opinions, I'm willing to address any arguments he can present, on this website. But if he doesn't, then he shouldn't expect me to do the work for him. It's not my theory, it's not my job to argument it. My job is to shoot down any arguments you guys present me with: and the standard for your arguments has been set pretty claerly, you can read it in aristotlejones's post. So no aproximations, or painting with a wide brush, please, give me specific, conclusive evidence. Either that, or stop complaining that we're not "objective epistemologists". There's nothing to be objective about, this thread contains arbitrary claims (that I had to go looking for) and links. (that I'm not gonna click)

Speaking of which, I'll follow your lead and substantiate my opinion that this is a crackpot theory with links. So here you go:

Relativity By Albert Einstein

The principle of relativity: a collection of original memoirs on the special ... By Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Hermann Minkowski

Einstein's theory of relativity By Max Born

Is this epistemologically correct enough?

So, if anyone wants actual arguments, on this site, to defend the opinion that it's nonsense, then you'll have to start presenting arguments in favor of your theory, on this website. If you want to argue with links, then why don't you start by reading and debunking my three links, to show some good faith, and then I'll consider reading some of yours?

Jake Im not interested in arguing as ive said before. While I did post info that pertains to particular challenges, the links are for one who considers checking these premises worth it. You dont and thats fine with me.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Disruption" does not equal "comet cannot impact Earth". This seems to leave the rest of your comments unfounded.

On the orbit question you asked.

You're right, disruption is vague. Luckily, they clarify what they mean by disruption, in no uncertain terms: they mean no impact, no marks whatsoever, only a crater from the thunderbolt:

Besides, in an Electric Universe comets are not the apocalyptic threat to the Earth imaginatively portrayed by artists. Such pictures are entirely fanciful because a comet would be disrupted electrically by a cosmic thunderbolt before it hit the Earth. The only visible evidence remaining would be an electric arc crater like Meteor Crater in Arizona.

This is not to say that the Electric theorists believe comets and asteroids pose no threat to human beings. But the havoc these bodies might wreak would likely be limited to localized disasters—perhaps a series of Tunguska-like events producing regional devastation with falls of sand and dust, perhaps electrical craters, fires and earthquakes, but no single impact crater at all.

The plot thickens. Now there is nothing falling to Earth at all. We're talking not even asteroids, not only comets get disintegrated. Only sand and dust can fall to Earth, everything else, puff...big lightning.

Alright, hang on a second.... googleing......if only half the human population on Earth had a a cellphone camera with them all the time....

Neuschwanstein, 2002:

n1h.jpg

And part of the meteorite:

Neuschwanstein01.gif

Groningen (Netherlands) (there's video, too, available for download)

g3h.jpg

Austin, Texas: (photos, video)

http://fireball.meteorite.free.fr/2009_02_...video_west.html

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm open to the idea that astronomers do not integrate electrical phenomena into their explanations, or that comets are denser and more like asteroids than ice cubes, but the hand waving here is just too much. Its too easy to hand wave refutations.

Of course, we have already witnessed the electrical destruction of a colliding comet. Comet Shoemaker-Levy fragments were destroyed in a series of brilliant, unexpected flashes high above Jupiter's atmosphere.

Just what voltage and total energy delivered are required to vaporize a comet? Are these numbers consistent or contradictory with anything else we know? No numbers are given.

The linked article only claimed a brightening at 2.3 million km away from Jupiter, not a destruction. That is a distance beyond the orbit of Callisto, the outermost of the galilean moons. This could be corona discharge due to a high electric field difference between the comet fragments and the planet, just as they claim cometary discharges are. There is no way in hell lightning discharges from Jupiter's atmosphere are reaching out that far. Electrical force is subject to an inverse square law, and 2.3 million km squared is pretty damn big number.

There is no discussion of which way the current is moving, but I'll assume the Sun is positive and the cometary halo is negative, and comet fragments are still negatively charged with respect to Jupiter. Charge distributions on charged solid bodies are on the surface, not distributed within the volume. There is no way electrons leaping from the surface of a comet fragment can destroy it. If the charge and current were reversed, the surface would light up but charge recombination would occur only on the surface and not penetrate to the core of a dense body. The sudden thermal gradient of a hot outside and cool inside can cause some damage (fracturing) but it isn't going to explode from the inside.

There is a limit to how much a comet can be electrically charged. Because like charges repel, there is an equilibrium point where the mass of an electron attracted to the mass of the comet is equal to the total repulsive force from the the net electric charge. Has anyone done the math on that? (and from googling a bit, the photoelectric effect of starlight will be knocking electrons off thus lowering the practical maximum charge.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

From Science Daily

Magnetar formation mystery solved? Supernova explosions and dizzying spins in a binary system

 

This discovery allowed the astronomers to reconstruct the stellar life story that permitted the magnetar to form, in place of the expected black hole [3]. In the first stage of this process, the more massive star of the pair begins to run out of fuel, transferring its outer layers to its less massive companion -- which is destined to become the magnetar -- causing it to rotate more and more quickly. This rapid rotation appears to be the essential ingredient in the formation of the magnetar's ultra-strong magnetic field.

 

Edited to add, also from this article:

It seems that being a component of a double star may therefore be an essential ingredient in the recipe for forming a magnetar. The rapid rotation created by mass transfer between the two stars appears necessary to generate the ultra-strong magnetic field and then a second mass transfer phase allows the magnetar-to-be to slim down sufficiently so that it does not collapse into a black hole at the moment of its death

 

From Thunderbolts

Precessional Magnetar

 

It is a well-established fact that magnetic fields are induced by electric currents. Therefore, there must be an electric current generating the intense fields in magnetars. It is also indisputable that the input current must exist in a circuit, since persistent electric charge can only move that way.

 

A screwdriver can be magnetized by winding a copper wire along its length and running an electrical charge through it.

 

Is there a known method that would magnetize a screwdriver by rapidly rotating it? Or is this phenomenon (edited to add clarification: the description from Science Daily) one to study to discover a means of doing so?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpts from Science Daily

High-speed solar winds increase lightning strikes on Earth

Scientists have discovered new evidence to suggest that lightning on Earth is triggered not only by cosmic rays from space, but also by energetic particles from the sun. Researchers found a link between increased thunderstorm activity on Earth and streams of high-energy particles accelerated by the solar wind, offering compelling evidence that particles from space help trigger lightning bolts.

 

Meteorology found a substantial and significant increase in lightning rates across Europe for up to 40 days after the arrival of high-speed solar winds, which can travel at more than a million miles per hour, into Earth's atmosphere.

 

Lead author of the study, Dr Chris Scott, said: "Our main result is that we have found evidence that high-speed solar wind streams can increase lightning rates. This may be an actual increase in lightning or an increase in the magnitude of lightning, lifting it above the detection threshold of measurement instruments.

 

The solar wind consists of a constant stream of energetic particles -- mainly electrons and protons -- that are propelled from the Sun's atmosphere at around a million miles per hour. The streams of particles can vary in density, temperature and speed and sweep past Earth every 27 days or so, in line with the time it takes the Sun to make one complete rotation relative to Earth.

 

Excerpt from Thunderbolts

Solar Electricity

The discovery that a "solar wind" escapes the Sun at between 400 and 700 kilometers per second was a surprise for the nuclear theory. In a gravity-driven Universe, the Sun's heat and radiation pressure are insufficient to explain how the particles of the solar wind accelerate past Venus, Earth and the rest of the planets. Since they are not rocket powered particles, no one expected such acceleration.

 

According to the electric Sun theory, an electric field focused on the Sun accelerates charged particles: the faster they accelerate, the stronger the field. But as noted, the interplanetary electric field is extremely weak. No instrument would be able to measure the voltage differential across 100 meters, but the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers does confirm the Sun's e-field, enough to sustain a drift current across the Solar System. Within the spatial volume, the implied current is sufficient to power the Sun.
 

 

The solar wind consists of a constant stream of energetic particles -- mainly electrons and protons...

 

Aren't electrons and protons what essentially comprise an electric field?

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...