[dinosaur_denier]

I always used to think that Electric Universe is a goa trance project from Germany formed by Boris Blenn and Michael Dressler, but it also appears to be the name of a non-standard cosmology. As a theory, it offers elegant explanations of various astrophysical phenomena. Nevertheless, it was labeled by many in the scientific establishment as pseudoscience.

The main points, as i see them, can be summarized as follows:

- The Universe is made up of plasma, not of bogus dark matter and dark energy. Plasma is a perfect conductor, so
electricity plays a much more significant role in galaxy formation than is generally accepted. Gravity is not the predominant force.

- Comet tails are electrical in nature.

- Black holes can be debunked with plasma cosmology. There is Absolutely no need for these hypothetical objects.

- And, yes, the sun and other stars are not nuclear reactors, as the mainstream science suggests, instead, they are powered electrically. This assumption may pose a serious threat to the nuke power hoaxsters (if there are any) One can speculate that here lies the main reason for suppression of the electric paradigm...



There should be even more, but i am afraid to go deeper. What if the Big bang never happened?

[voerioc]

- And, yes, the sun and other stars are not nuclear reactors, as the mainstream science suggests, instead, they are powered electrically. This assumption may pose a serious threat to the nuke power hoaxsters (if there are any) One can speculate that here lies the main reason for suppression of the electric paradigm...

Yes. Very relevant.

[rerevisionist]

Since late Victorian times, when (probably because of Darwin) the age of the earth was pushed back enormously, the nuclear reaction theory has been the only one remotely successful in explaining how the Sun radiates such a lot of heat. It was supported in many ways, for example the presence of helium as shown by spectroscopes. But of course nobody seems to have got fusion to work. An alternative theory would be a terrific advance. Perhaps dinosaur_denier could summmarise what the 'electrical universe' view is?

[Sorensen731]

Actually, it can't explain it. It fails by the faint sun paradox, the million of years old Earth needed stable conditions for evolution, and the sun was changing while it was using it's energy.
They don't even pretend to have an answer, they just hide the paradox from the public.

http://www.icr.org/article/young-faint- ... ar-system/

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes, changes perhaps comparable to the current differences between Venus, Mars, and Earth. According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

[rerevisionist]

@ Sorensen - the 'Gaia' idea, or part of it, is that if the sun gets warmer, there's more cloud cover, which reflects heat and light away - so there's something of a stabilising mechanism. I don't know if computer models can handle this, though; when the 'global warming' scare was invented, computer models were so primitive they assumed cloud cover was a fixed percentage. (According to a talk by Mason, at Kew).

What does the 'electric universe' idea say about the sun? Does anyone know? We're trying to keep things relevant to nuclear issues, and of course that is relevant.

[Sorensen731]

Sorry, I think it was obvious.

They invented the nuke hoax, and they applied it everywhere, the poor sun fall in the propaganda too!

A Jew, of course, Hans Bethe was in charge of getting the sun in the nuke idea.

Before him, there were talks even of a cold sun, of electric nature, there is absolutely no proof of it's hydrogen and helium content.
It's a theory with indirect backing by the light reflected.

You invent a great revolutionary idea, you have to sell it as better than all others, it has to re-explain and appropriate all from the past and re-explain with the new "discoveries".

They invented an age for the sun, based on their absurd and flawed nuclear theory.
Science is a mall for them, truth? No. Marketplace. "Science" is adapted to the moment, 'We have to sell evolution? Push the age of the Earth back!'
It's a mall for them, they are allowed in a university and science goes out the window, be it astronomy or medicine or biology. Their philosophy is rule the world. The world doesn't rule them. If they can't reach the Moon, they fake it. Truth doesn't matter, reality is what it is believed, it is created.
It should always be remember.

[Pan Pravda]

Hello to everyone ... I joined this forum only to answer this thread because it deals with an important subject.

To Dino the OP ...

As a layman, I have been aware of the Electric Universe model for some time. For a number of reasons, I find the theories behind it acceptable and am therefore a firm supporter of it. I hope that to some degree I can answer your questions. (If required, I can expand.)

Yes, the Electric Universe model does offer elegant explanations. These are typically best appreciated by those already with the ability or who are willing to take the trouble to understand basic electromagnetism and electrical, magnetic and plasma science. An appreciation of scale is also useful, as is an open mind uncluttered by what we are told by supporters of the Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational and relativistic standard model of the universe.

You said ...

"... labelled by many in the scientific establishment as pseudoscience." ... Yes, unfortunately this has been true to an extent. Many of those in the astro-science establishment who have great investment in the standard model see it as potentially disruptive to their current work and careers so EU theory is typically ignored, ridiculed and on some occasions, attacked.

"The universe is made up of plasma ..." ... Yes, 99.99+%. This figure represents matter in an electrically non-neutral state which is therefore susceptible to the influence of the electromagnetic force. The concepts of Dark Matter and Dark Energy play no part in the EU model.

"Plasma is a perfect conductor ..." ... No, this is one of the major wrong assumptions. Plasma has inherent resistivity and so voltages can exist within it (charge-differentiated plasma) because of voltage drop and *currents will therefore flow. If it was a perfect conductor (superconductor), like is claimed by mainstream astro-science, then their additional claim that magnetic fields exist in space without needing electrical power to create them, would indeed be the case. However, this is not the case. Powerful magnetic fields do exist out there but they are created by the current flow I referred to*.

"Gravity is not the predominant force ..." ... No, indeed it is not! Electromagnetism (EM) is 10^39 times stronger than gravity. That's one thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times more powerful. This is a proven fact that you will rarely see highlighted. Plasma Science is now an accepted discipline by the IEEE.

"Comet tails are electrical ..." ... Yes they are, but this is only one aspect of a comet's (an electrically charged object) reaction to travelling through a charged plasma gradient, the charge density of which increases rapidly as the comet gets closer to the Sun (which itself is the anode in an electrical circuit).

"Black Holes can be debunked ..." ... Yes they can. There is no need for these figments of the imagination when the fundamentals of how the EM force operates on dynamic plasma at gigantic scales are considered. Neither is there any need for Neutron Stars, Pulsars, Magnetars, Radio Stars or a multitude of astro-science's other athletic mathematical inventions. For more on the nonsense of Black Holes look at the work of Stephen Crothers and retired professor of mathematics and physics Jeremy Dunning-Davies of Hull university in England. (Crothers website: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/ and a short article by JDD: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09 ... d-matters/ - JDD also has published a very enlightening book "Exploding a Myth" which I believe is available on Amazon.)

"the sun and other stars are not nuclear reactors ..." ... Correct. All stars are electrical in nature but they do have nuclear fusion going on ... close to their photospheres! The 'dark mode' plasma environment of space supplies power to stars which themselves are created through Z-pinch (Bennet Pinch) events that occur due to instabilities within Birkeland currents. For starters on this, look up the work of Ralph Juergens in terms of the electric Sun model and the work of Prof Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven and Dr Anthony Peratt for Birkeland currents and Z-pinch theory.

Also, in the EU model there is a different interpretation of redshift than the one originally offered by Hubble (he actually came to disagree with his own original assessment of what it stood for.) In the alternative view, redshift has practically nothing to do with distance and speed of recession, so an age for the universe cannot be assumed, ergo, the big bang occurring 13.7 billion years ago is a fairy tale, and they (we) just don't know anything about its origin. Redshift in EU terms is most commonly discussed in relation to the age and composition of quasars (and active galaxy nuclei). Look at the work of Dr Halton Arp for more on this. He used to work with Hubble but got forced out by the governing committee at Mt Palomar when he produced proof that suggested a number of low redshift and high redshift objects are physically joined together. He was also disqualified from using major telescopes in the US and so he had to go to Germany to work at the Max Planck Institute where he still remains. He was awarded the SAGNAC award last year by the NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance conference in the US), this being 'maverick science's' equivalent to the Nobel Prize.

Dino ... you refer in your final words to the "suppression of the electric paradigm" ... how true this is! If it were to be more openly discussed, a very large house of cards would tumble.

To Revisionist ... You ask what the EU says about the Sun. Well, in addition to what I have already said, it also states that it is a ball of plasma in a high powered 'glow mode' (there are three modes of plasma: dark, glow and arc.) It receives electric energy from its cosmic plasma environment via current density impinging on its photosphere and also coming in at its 'poles'. Internal circulating currents exist that assist with producing "the solar wind" as a more concentrated plane of plasma through ecliptic; this actually being an accelerating flow of protons away from the positive Sun. This flow extends through the heliosphere out to the heliopause where it circulates back to the Sun's 'poles'. This defines the Sun as the anode of a circuit and the heliopause as the cathode, with everything in between (all the planets and other stuff) being negatively charged in relation to the Sun to a degree determined by their distance from the Sun. This is a big subject but if you would like to look further, you should study the work of Dr Charles Bruce and Ralph Juergens. It is worth highlighting that the electric model of the sun gets around the temperature profile and neutrino deficiency problems that exist in the nuclear model. (It gets around many other major issues as well!)

To Sorenson ... Your reference to the Faint Sun Paradox is invalid because that is basically one hypothesis (the 4+ billion year old earth) based on another hypothesis (an ongoing nuclear explosion at the centre of the Sun), neither of which are relevant within EU theory.

There is a lot to take in here so I would suggest that anyone further interested should look in the first instance at two particular websites. The Thunderbolts Project at http://www.thunderbolts.info and Wallace Thornhill's website (the science doyen of the EU model) at http://www.holoscience.com

Please note, I will only respond to questions that are unburdened by assumption and to obviously researched points of objection.

I hope this helps.

With respect ... Pan.

[rerevisionist]

Pan Pravda - thanks, and welcome. (Does Pan Pravda mean 'truth everywhere'?) I saw Wal Thornhill in person, lecturing, more than ten years ago, and one thing that impressed me was a photo of one of the solar system's planet's satellites, with what looked like a huge crater; Thornhill said it looked like the sort of etched impression found when a huge electrical discharge takes place across space. Apart from that I wasn't very convinced. If the theory really does explain the sun and stars and their incredible longevity, of course this would help demolish some nuclear mythology in passing.

[rerevisionist]

Pan Pravda - I looked at Thornhill's site, which is largely an advert for his books.

However there is a summary on the formation of stars, including, presumably, the sun.

He seems to be saying it's a ball of lightning, possibly meaning ball lightning, since ordinary lightning is a discharge and it's hard to see how it could be continuous.

I presume we all agree the sun is extremely spherical. And that it rotates. Some people (including Herschel) thought the sun must be solid, despite the high temperature; with sunspots in effect something like tornadoes, with hollow central areas allowing views of the relatively dark surface.

Thornhill seems to be saying that electricity courses through the universe, and it supplies the sun with energy. Can you explain if this electricity is conventional electricity, moving from one place to a differently charged place? If so, why should it be so regular, keeping the sun at approx the same temperature permanently? And how electricity be generated permanently? How does Thornhill explain sunspots? And what is the state of matter, or of course states, of the sun?

[Pan Pravda]

Revisionist ...

The pseudonym Pan Pravda is a mixture of Czech and Russian. I'll leave you to search the web and figure it out.

I think the image with the large crater you are referring to must have been of Mimas, a moon of Saturn. Wal would indeed have had particular things to say about it, but to understand the basis for those comments, one would need to make a personal effort to understand first the theory behind electricity and charged bodies existing in space. In short, it is the discharge of electric current between charged bodies that is mainly responsible for all cratering. His display of Mimas would no doubt be accompanied by a comment that mechanical impact would have shattered the body of that moon - mechanical impact being the failed theory here.

Re your follow-up post ...

Wal's website is not just an advert for his books. You just haven't looked far enough, so look at his archived articles under "News & Views" then those under "More News Articles", and if you still think that's not enough, look at the archive of articles since 2004 on the thunderbolts.info website. And these two sites are just for starters. You'll find information in response to all your questions about the Sun there.

You ask about 'conventional electricity' ... I guess you're meaning 'conventional current flow' which is more precise. Conventional current is the flow of positive holes from positive to negative, where the opposite 'electron flow', also being deemed as current flow, is from negative to positive. Both of these conventions are relevant in the EU model but electron (negative ion) flow is typically referred to and usually identified as such. The flow of protons (a version of positive ions) is also commonly described as well. One has to have a basic understanding of what plasma is to get one's head around this - it's not hard - plasma and ionisation are simple subjects - look at Wall's articles or search on his or the thunderbolt's site for 'plasma definition' or some term like that.

The rest of the things you pose as questions also have relevant explanations in the archives I have pointed you to. Please have a look there and come back with anything specific that remains as qualified questions.

Hope this helps ... Pan

[rerevisionist]

Yes, Mimas sounds right (assuming NASA's pictures are genuine).

Let me explain the problematical parts of this material, at least from my viewpoint.

[1] There's a lot of material on Velikovsky and supposed ancient beliefs which is simply historically irrelevant as such beliefs can't possibly extend backwards a serious length of time. It's hard to judge the scientific status; but if there was (e.g.) a Japanese theory of plasma, why didn't they ever work it up into something more coherent?

[2] There's a lot of material which isn't sceptical enough, in my opinion. Thus for example Einstein appears to be complete tosh and of no value, but Thornhill et al haven't fixed on a view here - if they had even an approximate theory, they should presumably be able to do this. As far as I can tell the confusions over particles and waves are still in there. There are also many conventional pictures, typically colour-enhanced and from sources like NASA, which seem to be accepted without question.

[3] Conversely Newtonian gravitation provides a highly convincing theory for the planet's motions, which seems inconsistent with other powers acting which are 10^39 times as powerful. There are also models of the atom, on which presumably plasma is based, and these are highly convincing. Throughout the whole presentation it's left a bit unclear whether what we regard as ordinary matter is in fact ordinary matter, or in some way a part of universal plasma. And whether 'charge' is used in the now-traditional sense of including surplus electrons or other particles.

[4] These seem reasonable enough questions to me. I'd be interested in an answer. If you're not interested, it's your choice!

Thonhill.. has a summary on the formation of stars, including, presumably, the sun.

He seems to be saying it's a ball of lightning, possibly meaning ball lightning, since ordinary lightning is a discharge and it's hard to see how it could be continuous.

I presume we all agree the sun is extremely spherical. And that it rotates. Some people (including Herschel) thought the sun must be solid, despite the high temperature; with sunspots in effect something like tornadoes, with hollow central areas allowing views of the relatively dark surface.

Thornhill seems to be saying that electricity courses through the universe, and it supplies the sun with energy. Can you explain if this electricity is conventional electricity, moving from one place to a differently charged place? If so, why should it be so regular, keeping the sun at approx the same temperature permanently? And how electricity be generated permanently? How does Thornhill explain sunspots? And what is the state of matter, or of course states, of the sun?

[Pan Pravda]

Rerevisionist ...

(1) It seems to me that you haven't looked at how Velikovsky's work is viewed by today's researchers in comparative mythology, those who are also proponents of the EU model like Dave Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, Ev Cochrane and Rens Van der Sluijs - these being the main guys, so you may want to look further at their work.

(2) You will find great but qualified respect shown for Einstein's work by those who are worth listening to. It was his work (part of which he came to doubt himself in terms of his cosmological constant) that has been taken by others and made to fit off-the-wall ideas that eventually became accepted as fact that brought most of the current problems with the standard model about. Again, you seem not to have a clear idea of what is really being said about existing astro-science, especially by Wal Thornhill. Once more I will point you to the work of Stephen Crothers and Jeremy Dunning-Davies if you want to update your viewpoint on this. And ... you seem to be chronically suspicious about imagery from NASA. I agree they are not to be trusted in many respects but I am tempted to guess that you rule out much more information than you legitimately should. They can't fool us about everything!

(3) Newtonian mechanics! - Have you ever heard of 'the two body problem'? Look into it and you will find that if Newton's laws were applied to our solar system then it would be in chaos - his laws just don't work in a multi-body system if gravity operates at the speed of light. I agree that the apparent morphology of systems at all scales is important for us to take note of and I would suggest there are further clues to find arising from this which relate to what plasma is, how it interacts and what the effects of it are in its current conducting role. I suggest you also get your head around what is meant by the four states of matter at the atomic level - plasma, gas, liquid and solid.

(4) Well, I'll go back to saying that I've already provided the links through which a study of the information found will provide responses to all the things you have raised as 'questions'.

Overall, Rerevisionist, I think you are missing the context that the EU model represents itself within. This is not something that can be laid out in text, it must be appreciated by the enquirer themselves through study. An approach to this could be to look into the range of scientific and mythological elements that the model consists of while looking for the linkages between them. Again, and with respect, I refer you to the sources, links and names I have already provided. Study what is there with an open mind then come to your own qualified conclusions. If well thought out questions arise then I'd be very pleased to help you out but I will not answer to obvious points of opinion and assumptions based on irrelevant bad science. We must get rid of these things first.

Having been a teacher of sorts within the IT world for many years in the past, I have come to know for sure that one person (the teacher) can not and should not attempt to give another person (the student) their (the teacher's) opinion in the hope that they (the student) will adopt it as their own, and the student should absolutely not look for this either. What should be done in a genuine information transfer environment is for the teacher to open the doors to relevant information and for the student to then go through, learn and make up their own mind on what they find. I would never want people to just believe what I say, I want them instead to think for themselves - otherwise, anything achieved would be open to being discarded in favour of something more superficially attractive that doesn't require much effort to form a shallow opinion on. In plain language, if you're ever going to find out about the EU model to a level from which you can hold a relevant point of view that will be respected, then you will have to research the basics for yourself and then ask good questions on the basis of what you have learned. Being critical for no reason will get you nowhere and lose you potential friends.

Sorry to be so blunt but we EU proponents are looking to engage with people who can, under their own steam and for the right reasons, become properly informed supporters of the whole EU model or aspects of it, so that we can together take the argument for it into areas that will listen because it comes from a basis of qualified argument.

With respect ... Pan.