Electric universe theory

[YOUTUBE]V026kSw4XCs[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]S_Bh-GemFRo[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]JxGT9CQVkDk[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]4uf8-CZAWsI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Rabs]

Very interesting.

 

[FreedomFight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#Comparison_to_mainstream_cosmology

Still an interesting vid, but also impossible to debunk as of now. Both gravitational and plasma base models have to be "force-fitted" To some extent. To suggest that gravity has such a small role does seem a little absurd for me.

I've only watched part 1 though, I'll be watching the other parts after dinner.

 

[Rabs]

It's so interesting to think that Einstien completely missed electricity in space.

 

[FreedomFight]

It's so interesting to think that Einstien completely missed electricity in space.

Most scientists would probably acknowledge the existence of the force, but most would also probably consider it negligible compared to the forces of gravity. I've been watching the video, it makes total sense as you watch it... then again so does gravitational theory.

The main problem I have with the video so far is that gravitational energy is extremely easy to measure and see... the correlation between mass and force is as easy as dropping an apple. The hypothetical electrical energy charges seen in the video are postulated on top of an observation, with very little directed evidence to support the claim.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#Comparison_to_mainstream_cosmology

Still an interesting vid, but also impossible to debunk as of now. Both gravitational and plasma base models have to be "force-fitted" To some extent. To suggest that gravity has such a small role does seem a little absurd for me.

I've only watched part 1 though, I'll be watching the other parts after dinner.

Is it really that absurd.

As the video points out in the first minute: gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. The entire mass of the earth pulls down on a ball bearing, and a child can overcome all of that force with a small magnet. Magnetism is a thousand billion billion billion billion times more powerful than gravity.

And that's only electromagnetism. Nuclear forces are quadrillions of quadrillions of quadrillions of quadrillions times more powerful than gravity, so how could a blackhole even exist? The gravity would be overcome instantly by nuclear forces and it would explode.

 

[Schnell]

Interesting, very interesting. It basically gives a reasonable explanation for phenomena that most scientist have to explain until you lose focus and just accept their ideas to stop their mouth.

 

Interesting, very interesting. It basically gives a reasonable explanation for phenomena that most scientist have to explain until you lose focus and just accept their ideas to stop their mouth.

When a theory makes everything simplier instead of more complex, and grows in viability the more information is collected, that's usually a good sign that the theory is correct.

In the case of electric universe, everything fits into place without all these extranatural entities such as blackholes and dark matter. It explains why the sun has a magnetic field, and why the corona of the sun is hotter than the surface.

Recently the NASA Themis mission confirmed that the northen lights are caused by electrical connections between the sun and the earth which transfer millions of amps to the upper atmosphere of the earth. Lightning is probably caused by the same phenomenon.

Everything begins to fit into place with no special mathamatics, no hypothetical particles or energy or extra dimensions. A simple and consistent theory of the universe, with many reproducable scaled experiments such as this one of the sun:

This is what I call good science.

 

[FreedomFight]

Is it really that absurd.

I don't think it's absurd at all. Nor am I going to say that my education in "mainstream science" is flawless. It just hasn't reached the threshold of evidence for me to throwaway my stubbornly rooted beliefs.

And that's only electromagnetism. Nuclear forces are quadrillions of quadrillions of quadrillions of quadrillions times more powerful than gravity, so how could a blackhole even exist? The gravity would be overcome instantly by nuclear forces and it would explode.

Well it's a matter of quantity, and heat energy.

Fusing atoms overcomes the nuclear force through extreme heat and pressure. We can see this in a laboratory when we fuse hydrogen to make helium. In a star, it's gravitational pressure driving heat (friction and energy). I find this to be apparent; although gravity itself is a weak force, it's source is mass, and we have a ridiculous amount of mass in the universe.

For an electrical universe, we'd expect large electrical currents. Where are these currents? I'd assume if there was a large amount of empirical evidence it'd be a part of mainstream science. Yet no large-scale peer reviewed investigations have been conducted http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205440. So yes, some scientists are cutthroat, but I feel its a little bit wrong to accuse them all of being evil, ignorant, and stupid.

 

I don't think it's absurd at all. Nor am I going to say that my education in "mainstream science" is flawless. It just hasn't reached the threshold of evidence for me to throwaway my stubbornly rooted beliefs.

Textbook knowledge is the modern bible. And I am the modern heretic.

Well it's a matter of quantity, and heat energy.

Fusing atoms overcomes the nuclear force through extreme heat and pressure. We can see this in a laboratory when we fuse hydrogen to make helium. In a star, it's gravitational pressure driving heat (friction and energy). I find this to be apparent; although gravity itself is a weak force, it's source is mass, and we have a ridiculous amount of mass in the universe.

Think about what you are saying. When we fuse atoms in a laboratory what force do we use? And how long does it last? How much force is unleashed with respect to the forces causing the fusion?

If you could fuse a thimble of water you would have a hydrogen bomb. It would detonate your entire laboratory and probably the surrounding country-side.

Now blow the experiment up to epic proportions. Put it in a ball big enough that the gravity causes the fusion. It still remains that the forces being unleashed are far far far far far far far greater than the forces initiating the fusion. The longer the fusion goes on the more concentrated energy there is trying to get out of the center. If a large object were causing fusion in its core then the combined energy of a hydrogen bomb going off every nanosecond would inevitably blow the whole thing apart.

If matter is energy (which it isn't) then your conversion process is basically one of matter to energy, and on the matter side you have mass (gravity) causing the fusion and on the energy side you have strong nuclear force causing the explosion. It doesn't matter how large the object is, this reaction is utterly unsustainable. Once the matter crosses the barrier into energy it is dissipating with a force 10^38 times stronger than the force it experienced to make this transition.

For an electrical universe, we'd expect large electrical currents. Where are these currents?

These currents are visible everywhere in space.

Just like an arc lamp.

I'd assume if there was a large amount of empirical evidence it'd be a part of mainstream science. Yet no large-scale peer reviewed investigations have been conducted http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=205440.

There are papers:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&q=plasma+cosmology

This is a rubbish argument. "No one else is paying attention to it therefore it must be false." No one ever pays attention to the right theory in the time that the theory is proposed. Science is awash with examples.

The point can be proven in a much simpler manner. Back in the early 20th century, universities had 'schools of thought' in almost every discipline. Since the takeover of control of universities and education systems by government the concept of 'schools of thought' has become discarded, and now there is 'the mainstream' and 'the kooks', consequently nothing is ever questioned anymore and likewise nothing is really discovered anymore, except by accident.

Education is 'without questions' -- the socialist model. It has become philosophically based in conformity, not in the search for truth.

 

[FreedomFight]

Textbook knowledge is the modern bible. And I am the modern heretic.

I wouldn't consider myself a conformist either. For the most part, these sciences are out of my basic education in physics, chem, and bio. It's only been through independent research and curiosity that I have arrived to these conclusions.

Think about what you are saying. When we fuse atoms in a laboratory what force do we use? And how long does it last? How much force is unleashed with respect to the forces causing the fusion?

If you could fuse a thimble of water you would have a hydrogen bomb. It would detonate your entire laboratory and probably the surrounding country-side.

Now blow the experiment up to epic proportions. Put it in a ball big enough that the gravity causes the fusion. It still remains that the forces being unleashed are far far far far far far far greater than the forces initiating the fusion. The longer the fusion goes on the more concentrated energy there is trying to get out of the center. If a large object were causing fusion in its core then the combined energy of a hydrogen bomb going off every nanosecond would inevitably blow the whole thing apart.

So what exactly is the alternate hypothesis? Are you trying to dispute whether or not fusion actually occurs, or that gravity is the predominant force holding the sun together?

The sun is in effect "exploding" to some extent, it emits an enormous amount of energy on a daily basis. To add to that, only a small amount of the sun's mass is being fused at any one time.

 

So what exactly is the alternate hypothesis? Are you trying to dispute whether or not fusion actually occurs, or that gravity is the predominant force holding the sun together?

Well the electric sun theory basically holds that the sun is an electrical phenomenon. The photo of the experiment I posted above is basically a scaled down a model of it.

So what exactly is the alternate hypothesis? Are you trying to dispute whether or not fusion actually occurs, or that gravity is the predominant force holding the sun together?

Think of a tesla coil in a vacuum chamber charged to a billion billion billion volts. It would have a corona, it would be very bright, it would appear larger than it actually is, due to the plasma that surrounds it. It would have 'solar flares', it would have a magnetic field, it would arc out to anything that came even remotely close to it. These are all phenomena the sun exhibits.

The electric sun theory is that basically the sun is picking up energy from outside the solar system. Birkland currents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current) are 'twisted pair' transmission arcs through plasma; When an arc discharge occurs in plasma the magnetic field caused by the passage of the charge constricts the flow of the charge. This is sometimes called z-pinch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch) In otherwords, the conductive medium -- the plasma -- changes its position based on the magnetic field of the electricity moving through it. This change in position also changes the channel through which the current is flowing, thus creating a reinforcing cycle which creates the twisted pair phenomonon.

As posted before, in space it looks something like this:

However not all birkland currents will be visible -- at least not in the visible light spectrum. Gas needs to be highly excited before it gives off light (like in an arc lamp.)

You can review the various arguments in support of this hypothesis here:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

It fits into a larger theory: the electric universe theory.

 

[FreedomFight]

You can review the various arguments in support of this hypothesis here:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

It fits into a larger theory: the electric universe theory.

There's just so many holes here that bother me. I mean according to that website, our sun is just a giant positively charged electrical pole. Ok granted, hydrogen is a cation...but there are plenty of stars out there composed of helium (and heavier elements), which do not necessarily have an electrical charge. Furthermore, it says our sun has an external energy source, so you'd assume that there would be a highly charged electrical arc running INTO the sun? And maybe gravity isn't the complete picture, but discarding it completely?

With that said, there are some really interesting points being made. I finished watching all parts of the video, and it kinda bugs me that half of it was based on observing comets (which have very little cosmological significance; that is, even if they followed the electric model, the findings wouldn't be necessarily significant). Also, there were a lot of numbers/statements being thrown around where I'm not sure they cited from...

I'll follow this debate but I'll let it run on for now. I'm not a cosmologist or anyone deeply fluid with astro/electrical physics, so what I say would probably be a bad representation of mainstream arguments. I'm also dubious that the average Sythe user would do their own investigation, or even have the basic background to understand it.

 

There's just so many holes here that bother me. I mean according to that website, our sun is just a giant positively charged electrical pole. Ok granted, hydrogen is a cation...but there are plenty of stars out there composed of helium (and heavier elements), which do not necessarily have an electrical charge.

The first thing I would say to this is all matter has a charge.

The second thing I would say is that the manner by which astrophysicists determine the composition of stars is dubious at best.

The third thing I would say is that a gas is a gas is a gas, if you run a billion billion billion volts through a gas it's gonna glow.

Furthermore, it says our sun has an external energy source, so you'd assume that there would be a highly charged electrical arc running INTO the sun? And maybe gravity isn't the complete picture, but discarding it completely?

Well gravity is a pretty weak force. And we know that there are electrical connections (birkland currents) running from the sun into the earth (that's across the span of mercury and venus remember) which cause the northern lights and possibly lightning as well. These were predicted in the early 20th century by the pioneers of the elctric universe theory, and discovered / verified in 2007 by the NASA Themis mission. Details here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/themis_power.html

With that said, there are some really interesting points being made. I finished watching all parts of the video, and it kinda bugs me that half of it was based on observing comets (which have very little cosmological significance; that is, even if they followed the electric model, the findings wouldn't be necessarily significant). Also, there were a lot of numbers/statements being thrown around where I'm not sure they cited from...

I'll follow this debate but I'll let it run on for now. I'm not a cosmologist or anyone deeply fluid with astro/electrical physics, so what I say would probably be a bad representation of mainstream arguments. I'm also dubious that the average Sythe user would do their own investigation, or even have the basic background to understand it.

Well it beats 10 dimensional blackholes any day of the week in my book. Give me a theory that I can test in a lab, and I'll give you a thumbs up. Give me a metaphysical heap of shit labeled mainstream cosmology and I will direct you to the nearest church.


Edit: had more to add...

Also this theory, aside from being so simple and elegant and largely scalable, and therefore empirically testable, also opens up so many great avenues. If the 'redness' of 'distant' stars is not caused by the doppler effect, but rather is just a result of the way in which charge is distributed or flows throughout the galaxy and other galaxies, then stuff might not actually be that far away. I'm still researching this, and I'm not sure how they square this finding with the change in angle (from our perspective) of the stars with respect to the earth's movement; But it sure would be something to find out that the earth is not only not isolated but also that faster than light travel is entirely possible.

 

[FreedomFight]

If the 'redness' of 'distant' stars is not caused by the doppler effect, but rather is just a result of the way in which charge is distributed or flows throughout the galaxy and other galaxies, then stuff might not actually be that far away. .

Haha I knew I wouldn't be able to resist. Putting the electric universe aside, I'll make a quick little correction on that theory.

The Doppler effect does not determine the actual distance of a star away from a body, only how fast it is moving to or away from an object. Redness does not neccesarily mean literally red (although it usually does), but rather an lengthening in wavelength.

Distance of most stars is measured with a parallax, which uses very basic methods of triangulation (the math is pretty basic and Euclidian). I would point out an exception; for extremely distant entities, a parallax becomes less and less accurate. Because the relative speed of an entity has a strong correlation with its distance from Earth, we often extrapolate such distances from the speed at which it moves. I can see criticism coming already, but just keep in mind that this extrapolation is only used when a more accurate method in unavailable.

 

Haha I knew I wouldn't be able to resist. Putting the electric universe aside, I'll make a quick little correction on that theory.

The Doppler effect does not determine the actual distance of a star away from a body, only how fast it is moving to or away from an object. Redness does not neccesarily mean literally red (although it usually does), but rather an lengthening in wavelength.

Distance of most stars is measured with a parallax, which uses very basic methods of triangulation (the math is pretty basic and Euclidian). I would point out an exception; for extremely distant entities, a parallax becomes less and less accurate. Because the relative speed of an entity has a strong correlation with its distance from Earth, we often extrapolate such distances from the speed at which it moves. I can see criticism coming already, but just keep in mind that this extrapolation is only used when a more accurate method in unavailable.

I understand what the doppler effect is. The point was that if galaxies are not redshifted, then they are not necessarily moving away, which means the universe isn't expanding. If the universe isn't expanding then it may not actually be that big.

As for parallax , that is what I was describing above when I said

I'm not sure how they square this finding with the change in angle (from our perspective) of the stars with respect to the earth's movement

And as far as I know parallax is the only means by which they determine the distance of cosmic objects from earth.

 

Case in point:

New class of black hole could explain cosmic leviathans
5 hours ago
PARIS (AFP) — Astronomers on Wednesday said they had identified an intermediate class of black hole that could explain how supermassive, light-sucking monsters develop in the heart of galaxies.
Their find -- a black hole more than 500 times the mass of the Sun, on the fringe of galaxy ESO 243-249 -- is reported in the latest issue of Nature, the British-based science journal.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5goktPDzxcemTK7KTx4aNwjUpMAvw