Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The Electric Universe Theory

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 4:30:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just read a small book called "The Electric Universe." It offers an alternative theory of how the universe works by proposing that electromagnetic currents spread out and cover and travel vast distances in space, rather than cancel out over long distances. They travel along self-organizing Birkland(?) filaments in the form of tenuous plasma. As a result, the electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity. This is offered as an explanation as to why the galaxies can spin faster than gravity can hold them together, without appealing to unproven and thusfar undetected exotic materials like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.
This appeals to me, because ever since I seriously looked into what dark matter is, I have been under the impression that it is a fabrication to explain bad math.

I'm not educated in this field enough to say 100% one way or another, but if you asked me to choose conventional theory over electric, right now I'd go with electric.

The most compelling arguments they make can be found online regarding phenomena surrounding comets and the surface of Mars.

One thing I don't like is that the loudest proponents of the electric theory, Talbot and Thornhill, didn't come up with the idea, but are trying to use it to prove the earth orbited a different star thousands of years ago which split up and became Saturn and some other celestial bodies. If they can prove that happened, that's one thing, but it seems far-fetched to me.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 8:49:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 7:50:51 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Black holes have been proven.

#learntoastronomy

Your detailed explanation is very persuasive.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 8:50:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not sure this is theory is right, just wondering if anyone else has heard of it, and what they think.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:47:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As a result, the electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity. This is offered as an explanation as to why the galaxies can spin faster than gravity can hold them together, without appealing to unproven and thusfar undetected exotic materials like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

1.) Electromagnetic waves do spread out over long distances rather than cancel. You see the light from distant stars don't you? Who said they don't? It sounds like either the authors of the their are ignorant of science or are intentionally creating phantom problems to solve.

2.) Electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity... gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. This is also well known and points back to my above issue.

3.) This is why science can see an issue with spinning galaxies: we can take all the models we have and predict how galaxies should spin. When we then look at galaxies we see them spinning faster than predicted so our model is wrong. We can then calculate the fudge factors needed to make it right, place an easy to remember name on those fudge factors (dark energy/matter) and go about looking to see if we can find and justify that fudge factor.

So your basic problem is that science is appealing to unproven tweaks (dark matter/dark energy) to quantitative theories that are accurate through a range of test. Instead you would turn to a theory that as far as I can tell makes no quantitative predictions and is entirely unproven.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:47:20 AM, Floid wrote:
As a result, the electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity. This is offered as an explanation as to why the galaxies can spin faster than gravity can hold them together, without appealing to unproven and thusfar undetected exotic materials like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

1.) Electromagnetic waves do spread out over long distances rather than cancel. You see the light from distant stars don't you? Who said they don't? It sounds like either the authors of the their are ignorant of science or are intentionally creating phantom problems to solve.

2.) Electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity... gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. This is also well known and points back to my above issue.

3.) This is why science can see an issue with spinning galaxies: we can take all the models we have and predict how galaxies should spin. When we then look at galaxies we see them spinning faster than predicted so our model is wrong. We can then calculate the fudge factors needed to make it right, place an easy to remember name on those fudge factors (dark energy/matter) and go about looking to see if we can find and justify that fudge factor.

So your basic problem is that science is appealing to unproven tweaks (dark matter/dark energy) to quantitative theories that are accurate through a range of test. Instead you would turn to a theory that as far as I can tell makes no quantitative predictions and is entirely unproven.

I would like to know if have watched the videos or read any of the material? We're not talking about electromagenetic rays in the myriad forms of light, but a galactic magnetic field that powers the stars and galactic spin.

The "fudge factor" seems to be more of a problem to me than you are implying.

From one of NASA's websites:

"More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe."

and

" Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy."

http://science.nasa.gov...

They have a BIG problem with their model, so they propose possible solutions, but never seem to question their underlying assumptions that led to the problem that needed the solution of dark energy/dark matter.

If their model was more accurate, it would probably be able to account for 95% of all matter without appealing to an unknown and unobservable factor.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 3:03:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 8:49:20 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/14/2013 7:50:51 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Black holes have been proven.

#learntoastronomy

Your detailed explanation is very persuasive.

Perjaps, but we have convincing evidence of them.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a reason why there's not so much as a Wikipedia page on the electric universe theory. Notably, there aren't even any peer reviewed scientific papers on the electric universe. At best, electric universe proponents cite peer reviewed papers on the plasma universe which is not the same thing and neither better explain empirical observations than standard cosmology despite not requiring dark matter.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:39:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 3:01:30 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:47:20 AM, Floid wrote:
As a result, the electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity. This is offered as an explanation as to why the galaxies can spin faster than gravity can hold them together, without appealing to unproven and thusfar undetected exotic materials like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

1.) Electromagnetic waves do spread out over long distances rather than cancel. You see the light from distant stars don't you? Who said they don't? It sounds like either the authors of the their are ignorant of science or are intentionally creating phantom problems to solve.

2.) Electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity... gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. This is also well known and points back to my above issue.

3.) This is why science can see an issue with spinning galaxies: we can take all the models we have and predict how galaxies should spin. When we then look at galaxies we see them spinning faster than predicted so our model is wrong. We can then calculate the fudge factors needed to make it right, place an easy to remember name on those fudge factors (dark energy/matter) and go about looking to see if we can find and justify that fudge factor.

So your basic problem is that science is appealing to unproven tweaks (dark matter/dark energy) to quantitative theories that are accurate through a range of test. Instead you would turn to a theory that as far as I can tell makes no quantitative predictions and is entirely unproven.
I would like to know if have watched the videos or read any of the material? We're not talking about electromagenetic rays in the myriad forms of light, but a galactic magnetic field that powers the stars and galactic spin.
You say that as if there's a difference in physics; there isn't. There are 4 fundamental forces (from strongest to weakest): Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak, and Gravity.

The "fudge factor" seems to be more of a problem to me than you are implying.
And what does that mean for the solution to the problem? Answer: not much, it still needs to be solved.

They have a BIG problem with their model, so they propose possible solutions, but never seem to question their underlying assumptions that led to the problem that needed the solution of dark energy/dark matter.
When you come up with better "underlying assumptions" that can effectively predict and have been tried and tested time and again, then perhaps there would be some merit to what you're trying to push...but till then, there's no merit.

If their model was more accurate, it would probably be able to account for 95% of all matter without appealing to an unknown and unobservable factor.
Yet Electric Universe doesn't explain a fraction of what Relativity does.

Perhaps this will help you: http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:49:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 8:50:27 PM, Skynet wrote:
I'm not sure this is theory is right, just wondering if anyone else has heard of it, and what they think.

The theory has no validity because there's no way you could find an extension cord long enough.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:12:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:39:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:01:30 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:47:20 AM, Floid wrote:
As a result, the electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity. This is offered as an explanation as to why the galaxies can spin faster than gravity can hold them together, without appealing to unproven and thusfar undetected exotic materials like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

1.) Electromagnetic waves do spread out over long distances rather than cancel. You see the light from distant stars don't you? Who said they don't? It sounds like either the authors of the their are ignorant of science or are intentionally creating phantom problems to solve.

2.) Electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity... gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. This is also well known and points back to my above issue.

3.) This is why science can see an issue with spinning galaxies: we can take all the models we have and predict how galaxies should spin. When we then look at galaxies we see them spinning faster than predicted so our model is wrong. We can then calculate the fudge factors needed to make it right, place an easy to remember name on those fudge factors (dark energy/matter) and go about looking to see if we can find and justify that fudge factor.

So your basic problem is that science is appealing to unproven tweaks (dark matter/dark energy) to quantitative theories that are accurate through a range of test. Instead you would turn to a theory that as far as I can tell makes no quantitative predictions and is entirely unproven.
I would like to know if have watched the videos or read any of the material? We're not talking about electromagenetic rays in the myriad forms of light, but a galactic magnetic field that powers the stars and galactic spin.
You say that as if there's a difference in physics; there isn't. There are 4 fundamental forces (from strongest to weakest): Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak, and Gravity.

The "fudge factor" seems to be more of a problem to me than you are implying.
And what does that mean for the solution to the problem? Answer: not much, it still needs to be solved.


They have a BIG problem with their model, so they propose possible solutions, but never seem to question their underlying assumptions that led to the problem that needed the solution of dark energy/dark matter.
When you come up with better "underlying assumptions" that can effectively predict and have been tried and tested time and again, then perhaps there would be some merit to what you're trying to push...but till then, there's no merit.

If their model was more accurate, it would probably be able to account for 95% of all matter without appealing to an unknown and unobservable factor.
Yet Electric Universe doesn't explain a fraction of what Relativity does.

Perhaps this will help you: http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com...

@tBoonePickens: Thanks for providing some kind of explanation of your views and not just completely blowing me off. I read the article you cited, but I don't know what a Tau Neutrino is, or what detecting it would have to do with anything. Do they think the total mass of neutrinos and tau neutrinos adds up to the missing mass?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 9:33:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:39:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2013 3:01:30 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/15/2013 7:47:20 AM, Floid wrote:
As a result, the electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity. This is offered as an explanation as to why the galaxies can spin faster than gravity can hold them together, without appealing to unproven and thusfar undetected exotic materials like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.

1.) Electromagnetic waves do spread out over long distances rather than cancel. You see the light from distant stars don't you? Who said they don't? It sounds like either the authors of the their are ignorant of science or are intentionally creating phantom problems to solve.

2.) Electromagnetic forces are more dominant than gravity... gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. This is also well known and points back to my above issue.

3.) This is why science can see an issue with spinning galaxies: we can take all the models we have and predict how galaxies should spin. When we then look at galaxies we see them spinning faster than predicted so our model is wrong. We can then calculate the fudge factors needed to make it right, place an easy to remember name on those fudge factors (dark energy/matter) and go about looking to see if we can find and justify that fudge factor.

Why must that fudge factor be gravity? How far off is the model that it's held together by a magnetic field?

So your basic problem is that science is appealing to unproven tweaks (dark matter/dark energy) to quantitative theories that are accurate through a range of test. Instead you would turn to a theory that as far as I can tell makes no quantitative predictions and is entirely unproven.
I would like to know if have watched the videos or read any of the material? We're not talking about electromagenetic rays in the myriad forms of light, but a galactic magnetic field that powers the stars and galactic spin.
You say that as if there's a difference in physics; there isn't. There are 4 fundamental forces (from strongest to weakest): Strong, Electromagnetic, Weak, and Gravity.

There's a difference between a beam of light and a magnetic field surrounding a conductor with current going through it. I know they're both part of electromagnetism, but they behave much differently. You can't normally hold stuff together with beams of light.
The "fudge factor" seems to be more of a problem to me than you are implying.
And what does that mean for the solution to the problem? Answer: not much, it still needs to be solved.


They have a BIG problem with their model, so they propose possible solutions, but never seem to question their underlying assumptions that led to the problem that needed the solution of dark energy/dark matter.
When you come up with better "underlying assumptions" that can effectively predict and have been tried and tested time and again, then perhaps there would be some merit to what you're trying to push...but till then, there's no merit.

If their model was more accurate, it would probably be able to account for 95% of all matter without appealing to an unknown and unobservable factor.
Yet Electric Universe doesn't explain a fraction of what Relativity does.
Dark Matter still sounds like bad math to me. If I understand the attempts to make a unified theory, we have been only partially successful with Relativity, and Quantum. If a unified theory is possible, it seems like it would be neither Relativity or Quantum.

Perhaps this will help you: http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com...
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:26:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 9:12:39 PM, Skynet wrote:
Perhaps this will help you: http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com...

@tBoonePickens: Thanks for providing some kind of explanation of your views and not just completely blowing me off. I read the article you cited, but I don't know what a Tau Neutrino is, or what detecting it would have to do with anything. Do they think the total mass of neutrinos and tau neutrinos adds up to the missing mass?
Yes, it should add up to the total mass of neutrinos emitted from the sun.

Why must that fudge factor be gravity?
Because that's what observation and current theory points to.

How far off is the model that it's held together by a magnetic field?
For one, the scale of it makes it unlikely to be a magnetic field. Also, it's unlikely because so many base assumptions would have to be different than they are.

There's a difference between a beam of light and a magnetic field surrounding a conductor with current going through it. I know they're both part of electromagnetism, but they behave much differently. You can't normally hold stuff together with beams of light.
As far as fundamental forces go, they are the same forces at play. I understand your point about a magnetic field generated from current flowing through a conductor, but there's no good reason to accept that as the explanation because there is no underlying theories to support the base assumptions needed to get to that point; there are too many flaws and gaps in the theory.

Dark Matter still sounds like bad math to me.
Not sure that's the case, but the point is that it is an unknown that we are attempting to make known. It's like if a theory were clothes: current theory explains pants and shirts but only has short sleeve shirts and so we are attempting to explain long sleeves (dark matter/energy etc.) You are proposing a theory that can explain long sleeves but doesn't explain how threads work and is sketchy on pants at best. I hate analogies, though.

If I understand the attempts to make a unified theory, we have been only partially successful with Relativity, and Quantum.
One theory does very well explaining things on the astronomical scale (General Relativity) the other does a fantastic job explaining things on the micro-scale (Quantum Mechanics.) We've been partially successful at UNIFYING them but these these theories have been EXTREMELY successful in their respective areas which is of MUCH MORE usefulness than having them unified.

If a unified theory is possible, it seems like it would be neither Relativity or Quantum.
Or a combination of both. We have such theories: String, M-Theory, etc. I personally don't adhere to them, but they are out there.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:09:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dark Matter still sounds like bad math to me.

Not sure that's the case, but the point is that it is an unknown that we are attempting to make known. It's like if a theory were clothes: current theory explains pants and shirts but only has short sleeve shirts and so we are attempting to explain long sleeves (dark matter/energy etc.) You are proposing a theory that can explain long sleeves but doesn't explain how threads work and is sketchy on pants at best. I hate analogies, though.


lol. I like the analogy, though.

Ok, I'll remain skeptical of both theories until I learn more about advanced physics.

Let's look at some of the easier to grasp phenomena the Electric Universe Theory claims to explain. Many surface features on the Moon and Mars are claimed to come from mostly lava flows/water flows, and meteor impacts. But if you look at many of the meteor impacts on both bodies, they come in winding chains that taper off after a while, and many of the individual craters overlap or merge unlike impacts, and more like electron machining scars. One of the last Apollo missions was crewed by all military officers, and landed in an area where there was apparently large volcanic evidence, but none was found. (Learned that completely from articles on Google Earth's Moon map, not Electric Universe.) I will try to locate the pictures of the impact chains I'm talking about, and post them here.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 8:00:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 9:09:10 PM, Skynet wrote:
Dark Matter still sounds like bad math to me.

Not sure that's the case, but the point is that it is an unknown that we are attempting to make known. It's like if a theory were clothes: current theory explains pants and shirts but only has short sleeve shirts and so we are attempting to explain long sleeves (dark matter/energy etc.) You are proposing a theory that can explain long sleeves but doesn't explain how threads work and is sketchy on pants at best. I hate analogies, though.


lol. I like the analogy, though.

Ok, I'll remain skeptical of both theories until I learn more about advanced physics.

Let's look at some of the easier to grasp phenomena the Electric Universe Theory claims to explain. Many surface features on the Moon and Mars are claimed to come from mostly lava flows/water flows, and meteor impacts. But if you look at many of the meteor impacts on both bodies, they come in winding chains that taper off after a while, and many of the individual craters overlap or merge unlike impacts, and more like electron machining scars. One of the last Apollo missions was crewed by all military officers, and landed in an area where there was apparently large volcanic evidence, but none was found. (Learned that completely from articles on Google Earth's Moon map, not Electric Universe.) I will try to locate the pictures of the impact chains I'm talking about, and post them here.

However we have actively observed hundreds of meteors hitting the moon [http://www.nasa.gov...].
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 9:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 8:00:00 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:09:10 PM, Skynet wrote:
Dark Matter still sounds like bad math to me.

Not sure that's the case, but the point is that it is an unknown that we are attempting to make known. It's like if a theory were clothes: current theory explains pants and shirts but only has short sleeve shirts and so we are attempting to explain long sleeves (dark matter/energy etc.) You are proposing a theory that can explain long sleeves but doesn't explain how threads work and is sketchy on pants at best. I hate analogies, though.


lol. I like the analogy, though.

Ok, I'll remain skeptical of both theories until I learn more about advanced physics.

Let's look at some of the easier to grasp phenomena the Electric Universe Theory claims to explain. Many surface features on the Moon and Mars are claimed to come from mostly lava flows/water flows, and meteor impacts. But if you look at many of the meteor impacts on both bodies, they come in winding chains that taper off after a while, and many of the individual craters overlap or merge unlike impacts, and more like electron machining scars. One of the last Apollo missions was crewed by all military officers, and landed in an area where there was apparently large volcanic evidence, but none was found. (Learned that completely from articles on Google Earth's Moon map, not Electric Universe.) I will try to locate the pictures of the impact chains I'm talking about, and post them here.

However we have actively observed hundreds of meteors hitting the moon [http://www.nasa.gov...].

Thanks for the informative link. I believe I saw a sizable one in my father's homemade telescope when I was a child, but I was so young, it may have been something else I misinterpreted.

The problem I have here is that the impact flashes are also claimed to be explained by EU theory. They say that electrical potential is exchanged between two bodies who have a large enough difference in electrical potential to cause arcing. This is explained better in the Tempel 1 comet video at the beginning of the thread. The object impacts, but may be mostly destroyed by the electrical arcing before it touches the surface. As I have the unfortunate experience of downed powerlines in my yard, I know electrical discharge into the earth can also produce glass from dirt, as is found in the craters on the moon.

What evidence can be presented to show that craters and flashes are more often caused by direct impact than arcing?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2013 10:17:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 9:09:10 PM, Skynet wrote:
Ok, I'll remain skeptical of both theories until I learn more about advanced physics.

Let's look at some of the easier to grasp phenomena the Electric Universe Theory claims to explain. Many surface features on the Moon and Mars are claimed to come from mostly lava flows/water flows, and meteor impacts. But if you look at many of the meteor impacts on both bodies, they come in winding chains that taper off after a while, and many of the individual craters overlap or merge unlike impacts, and more like electron machining scars. One of the last Apollo missions was crewed by all military officers, and landed in an area where there was apparently large volcanic evidence, but none was found. (Learned that completely from articles on Google Earth's Moon map, not Electric Universe.) I will try to locate the pictures of the impact chains I'm talking about, and post them here.

Here's a link to many pictures of crater chains on the Moon.
http://moonscience.yolasite.com...
And Mars
http://www.boulder.swri.edu...
http://www.boulder.swri.edu...

Still trying to reaccess Google Mars.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:19:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/22/2013 9:50:50 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/18/2013 8:00:00 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:09:10 PM, Skynet wrote:
Dark Matter still sounds like bad math to me.

Not sure that's the case, but the point is that it is an unknown that we are attempting to make known. It's like if a theory were clothes: current theory explains pants and shirts but only has short sleeve shirts and so we are attempting to explain long sleeves (dark matter/energy etc.) You are proposing a theory that can explain long sleeves but doesn't explain how threads work and is sketchy on pants at best. I hate analogies, though.


lol. I like the analogy, though.

Ok, I'll remain skeptical of both theories until I learn more about advanced physics.

Let's look at some of the easier to grasp phenomena the Electric Universe Theory claims to explain. Many surface features on the Moon and Mars are claimed to come from mostly lava flows/water flows, and meteor impacts. But if you look at many of the meteor impacts on both bodies, they come in winding chains that taper off after a while, and many of the individual craters overlap or merge unlike impacts, and more like electron machining scars. One of the last Apollo missions was crewed by all military officers, and landed in an area where there was apparently large volcanic evidence, but none was found. (Learned that completely from articles on Google Earth's Moon map, not Electric Universe.) I will try to locate the pictures of the impact chains I'm talking about, and post them here.

However we have actively observed hundreds of meteors hitting the moon [http://www.nasa.gov...].

Thanks for the informative link. I believe I saw a sizable one in my father's homemade telescope when I was a child, but I was so young, it may have been something else I misinterpreted.

The problem I have here is that the impact flashes are also claimed to be explained by EU theory. They say that electrical potential is exchanged between two bodies who have a large enough difference in electrical potential to cause arcing. This is explained better in the Tempel 1 comet video at the beginning of the thread. The object impacts, but may be mostly destroyed by the electrical arcing before it touches the surface. As I have the unfortunate experience of downed powerlines in my yard, I know electrical discharge into the earth can also produce glass from dirt, as is found in the craters on the moon.

What evidence can be presented to show that craters and flashes are more often caused by direct impact than arcing?

Meteorite impacts cause seismic activity which can be monitored; such seismic activity would not be expected if craters were created by electrical discharge instead.[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...] Additionally, impact flashes don't resemble what would be expected from an electrical discharge (which would resemble something much like a lightning flash); instead what we find is a correlation between the duration of the flash and the magnitude of the flash - something which would be expected from black body radiation. And indeed, modelling based on the black body radiation of cooling impact sites coincides with observations. [http://www.sciencedirect.com...]
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:31:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thanks for the input Enji, and the rest. Much more skeptical of the EU theory now. I had a hard time finding anyone saying much about it besides the authors, let alone criticizing it, that's why I started this thread.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 7:43:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:31:09 PM, Skynet wrote:
Thanks for the input Enji, and the rest. Much more skeptical of the EU theory now. I had a hard time finding anyone saying much about it besides the authors, let alone criticizing it, that's why I started this thread.

You won't find a lot of literature criticising it, simply because it does absolutely nothing to challenge existing knowledge. It's like people who still claim the galaxy rotates around Earth. A lot of claims, no hard maths, no predictive ability and all a lot of speculation and claims that's easily debunked by things we already know. It's just no one can generally be arsed because it's fringe stupidity. Want to debunk it, just learn the basics of astronomy and astrophysics and more importantly the how we know of what we know. Also, big clue should be the "Theory" in the title. No it's not. It's an unfounded conjecture. Theory is a very specific thing, with specific criteria in hard sciences.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 8:04:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 7:43:31 PM, Fractals wrote:
At 7/31/2013 7:31:09 PM, Skynet wrote:
Thanks for the input Enji, and the rest. Much more skeptical of the EU theory now. I had a hard time finding anyone saying much about it besides the authors, let alone criticizing it, that's why I started this thread.

You won't find a lot of literature criticising it, simply because it does absolutely nothing to challenge existing knowledge. It's like people who still claim the galaxy rotates around Earth. A lot of claims, no hard maths, no predictive ability and all a lot of speculation and claims that's easily debunked by things we already know. It's just no one can generally be arsed because it's fringe stupidity. Want to debunk it, just learn the basics of astronomy and astrophysics and more importantly the how we know of what we know. Also, big clue should be the "Theory" in the title. No it's not. It's an unfounded conjecture. Theory is a very specific thing, with specific criteria in hard sciences.

Well the hard math thing gets me. I was discouraged from math at a very young age by a terrible teacher, so I struggled with it throughout most of my education. Now that I'm older I don't have the full time education thing going on, I finally have an appreciation of it.
I just finished a book by the EU guys, that's why I have some understanding of it, and they laid it out in an easy to understand way.

One big problem I have with the modern conventional theory is that it's often directly tied to the Big Bang, and keeps getting more absurd. While many observations that are made have merit, they want to explain the beginnings assuming only a materialistic universe. To do that, they have to go back to a point when the universe exploded from something that no longer exists within our laws of nature. Essentially, give us one free miracle, and we'll take care of the rest.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 10:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 8:04:24 PM, Skynet wrote:
To do that, they have to go back to a point when the universe exploded from something that no longer exists within our laws of nature. Essentially, give us one free miracle, and we'll take care of the rest.

No, the problem is taking "we don't know" and turning that into "therefore anything goes". Also calling it a miracle presupposes the knowledge that it could not have occurred naturally - contradicting the need to call it a miracle in the first place.

There is quite a lot we know about the origin of the universe and good ideas as to the how and why. It's not so up in the air magic as you make it.
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 6:09:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In my opinion it is not necessary to invent new " Electric Universe Theory "
It is enough to understand what old Vacuum is.
Because according to Quantum Theory the Vacuum itself is some kind
of Energetic space in which virtual energetic particles exist.
And somehow they can change into real particles:
for example - an Electric particle electron.
====.
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Raspberry.Special
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:26:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Black holes are not hard science. The claimed evidence for black holes allways lacks some fundemental aspecs of the theory and where it comes from or doesn't realy lift trough black holes as the only viable explenation. It is a fudge factor, to save big bang from it's knees. The subject contains so much pseudoscience that it is rediculouse. And don't come to me with your math. Complex math which explains abstract physicsal concepts are no better than simple math explaining abstract physical concept.
-
The only reason why cosmologists and astronomers do not hesitate to use fudge factors to save their theories, is because they are aware of how fundamentally wrong they have to be to not be right. Rewrighting that much theory is a bitch. Ofcource we allso have thoes who thinks: "No way this theory could be wrong, I have been told over and over that it is the truth".
-
The idea that electric plasma currents cancel them selves out at longer distances has no foundation in science, the idea that magnetic fields made from materials with extremely low resistance doesn't decay is pure pseudoscience and using magneto hydro dynamics to explain plasma dynamics has no foundation in science as well. If we clean out the scientific community from these dogmas. There would be unscientific to asume what we live in a allmost electrically neutral universe, especialy when we take all of the observations in to acount.
-
To you skynet. The electric universe does not explain with magnetic fields, it explains with electric currents and their electromagnetic fields. The current astronomers use magnetic fields to explain everything which gravity can't explain. But the problem is that they have no scientific explenation to why magnetic fields exists from the beginning.
What is good science is neither which math is the best. Good science are the theories which follows it's prinicples best, and that is not special or general relativity.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 11:25:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 10:26:44 AM, Raspberry.Special wrote:
Black holes are not hard science. The claimed evidence for black holes allways lacks some fundemental aspecs of the theory and where it comes from or doesn't realy lift trough black holes as the only viable explenation. It is a fudge factor, to save big bang from it's knees. The subject contains so much pseudoscience that it is rediculouse. And don't come to me with your math. Complex math which explains abstract physicsal concepts are no better than simple math explaining abstract physical concept.

I am willing to discuss examples with you; but sort of bland assertions as truth without any demonstrable evidence is probably not a good idea.

I would point out, however, that the complex math that explains abstract physical concepts that is where Big Bang calculations and theory come from are actually used in day to day life. Without the maths of black holes; your sat nav would have an incrementing error of about 15km per day.

The only reason why cosmologists and astronomers do not hesitate to use fudge factors to save their theories, is because they are aware of how fundamentally wrong they have to be to not be right. Rewrighting that much theory is a bitch. Ofcource we allso have thoes who thinks: "No way this theory could be wrong, I have been told over and over that it is the truth".

We know our theories are not correct. No scientist has ever, or will ever say that the Big Bang is 100% correct. We know this because we can't marry Quantum Theory and Relativity.

In a theory, such as the Big Bang, which has made numerous predictions, and matches the experimental evidence and is based on the consequences of other theories (that in no small part the entire modern world is built upon); when there is something unexplained, scientists posit an explanation (a hypothesis), and then attempt to prove it.

I suspect you see the world in a weird black and white and do not understand that theories can be both "wrong" and "right" at the same time. In fact, most scientific theories, including Newton (ammended by Einstein), Evolution (replaced with MES, ammended by genetics, mendelevian mechanics and about a dozen more), and the big bang change over time as more facts and evidence comes in.

Ammending a theory as new laws of physics, and additional properties of the universe come in isn't a bad thing; it means we get iteratively better and correct issues with theories. In the case of the big bang, given history, the most likely situation is that additional theories and hypothesis will be posited to explain additional evidence pass key objective tests as to veracity and prediction and be incorporated into the big bang model.

Galaxies not spinning in quite the way we expect does not mean that relativity is no longer applicable or "wrong" and should be thrown away. It is, and it shouldn't. We use it for many, many things and get exactly the right answer; but simply means that there is more to it than the specific theory as it stands now can explain.

What is good science is neither which math is the best. Good science are the theories which follows it's prinicples best, and that is not special or general relativity.

This is actually incredibly ignorant. Special and General relativity follow their principles very well, are required in real life; and actually provide numerous predictions that have proven true.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 11:25:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2013 10:26:44 AM, Raspberry.Special wrote:
Black holes are not hard science. The claimed evidence for black holes allways lacks some fundemental aspecs of the theory and where it comes from or doesn't realy lift trough black holes as the only viable explenation. It is a fudge factor, to save big bang from it's knees. The subject contains so much pseudoscience that it is rediculouse. And don't come to me with your math. Complex math which explains abstract physicsal concepts are no better than simple math explaining abstract physical concept.


I am willing to discuss examples with you; but sort of bland assertions as truth without any demonstrable evidence is probably not a good idea.

I would point out, however, that the complex math that explains abstract physical concepts that is where Big Bang calculations and theory come from are actually used in day to day life. Without the maths of black holes; your sat nav would have an incrementing error of about 15km per day.

The only reason why cosmologists and astronomers do not hesitate to use fudge factors to save their theories, is because they are aware of how fundamentally wrong they have to be to not be right. Rewrighting that much theory is a bitch. Ofcource we allso have thoes who thinks: "No way this theory could be wrong, I have been told over and over that it is the truth".

We know our theories are not correct. No scientist has ever, or will ever say that the Big Bang is 100% correct. We know this because we can't marry Quantum Theory and Relativity.

In a theory, such as the Big Bang, which has made numerous predictions, and matches the experimental evidence and is based on the consequences of other theories (that in no small part the entire modern world is built upon); when there is something unexplained, scientists posit an explanation (a hypothesis), and then attempt to prove it.

I suspect you see the world in a weird black and white and do not understand that theories can be both "wrong" and "right" at the same time. In fact, most scientific theories, including Newton (ammended by Einstein), Evolution (replaced with MES, ammended by genetics, mendelevian mechanics and about a dozen more), and the big bang change over time as more facts and evidence comes in.

Ammending a theory as new laws of physics, and additional properties of the universe come in isn't a bad thing; it means we get iteratively better and correct issues with theories. In the case of the big bang, given history, the most likely situation is that additional theories and hypothesis will be posited to explain additional evidence pass key objective tests as to veracity and prediction and be incorporated into the big bang model.

Galaxies not spinning in quite the way we expect does not mean that relativity is no longer applicable or "wrong" and should be thrown away. It is, and it shouldn't. We use it for many, many things and get exactly the right answer; but simply means that there is more to it than the specific theory as it stands now can explain.

What is good science is neither which math is the best. Good science are the theories which follows it's prinicples best, and that is not special or general relativity.

This is actually incredibly ignorant. Special and General relativity follow their principles very well, are required in real life; and actually provide numerous predictions that have proven true.

Which interpretation of special relativity are we talking about though? The minkowskian view and the neo-lorentzian view entail two completely different ontologies.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:25:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 10:29:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/30/2013 11:25:27 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/30/2013 10:26:44 AM, Raspberry.Special wrote:
Black holes are not hard science. The claimed evidence for black holes allways lacks some fundemental aspecs of the theory and where it comes from or doesn't realy lift trough black holes as the only viable explenation. It is a fudge factor, to save big bang from it's knees. The subject contains so much pseudoscience that it is rediculouse. And don't come to me with your math. Complex math which explains abstract physicsal concepts are no better than simple math explaining abstract physical concept.


I am willing to discuss examples with you; but sort of bland assertions as truth without any demonstrable evidence is probably not a good idea.

I would point out, however, that the complex math that explains abstract physical concepts that is where Big Bang calculations and theory come from are actually used in day to day life. Without the maths of black holes; your sat nav would have an incrementing error of about 15km per day.

The only reason why cosmologists and astronomers do not hesitate to use fudge factors to save their theories, is because they are aware of how fundamentally wrong they have to be to not be right. Rewrighting that much theory is a bitch. Ofcource we allso have thoes who thinks: "No way this theory could be wrong, I have been told over and over that it is the truth".

We know our theories are not correct. No scientist has ever, or will ever say that the Big Bang is 100% correct. We know this because we can't marry Quantum Theory and Relativity.

In a theory, such as the Big Bang, which has made numerous predictions, and matches the experimental evidence and is based on the consequences of other theories (that in no small part the entire modern world is built upon); when there is something unexplained, scientists posit an explanation (a hypothesis), and then attempt to prove it.

I suspect you see the world in a weird black and white and do not understand that theories can be both "wrong" and "right" at the same time. In fact, most scientific theories, including Newton (ammended by Einstein), Evolution (replaced with MES, ammended by genetics, mendelevian mechanics and about a dozen more), and the big bang change over time as more facts and evidence comes in.

Ammending a theory as new laws of physics, and additional properties of the universe come in isn't a bad thing; it means we get iteratively better and correct issues with theories. In the case of the big bang, given history, the most likely situation is that additional theories and hypothesis will be posited to explain additional evidence pass key objective tests as to veracity and prediction and be incorporated into the big bang model.

Galaxies not spinning in quite the way we expect does not mean that relativity is no longer applicable or "wrong" and should be thrown away. It is, and it shouldn't. We use it for many, many things and get exactly the right answer; but simply means that there is more to it than the specific theory as it stands now can explain.

What is good science is neither which math is the best. Good science are the theories which follows it's prinicples best, and that is not special or general relativity.

This is actually incredibly ignorant. Special and General relativity follow their principles very well, are required in real life; and actually provide numerous predictions that have proven true.

Which interpretation of special relativity are we talking about though? The minkowskian view and the neo-lorentzian view entail two completely different ontologies.

Considering the maths and physical effects are the same in both, I don't think it really matters. That becomes a metaphysical problem.

For example, it doesn't matter whether you interpret gravitational red shift, say, as changes in time/space dilation between two observers requiring wavelength changes, and a photon having to convert its energy to potential energy due to mass energy equivalence. They both red shift by the same amount.