What the heck is the "Electric Model of the Universe?"

[kell1990]

" A steady state universe as proposed by Fred Hoyle( the "according to Hoyle" guy) goes against the Big Bang. He started it all by being sarcastic and coming up with the term Big Bang and it caught on."

I don't know where you got this from but it's wrong. The Hoyle often cited as "according to Hoyle" was a card player who wrote a book describing the rules for various card games. He was referred to as the expert in card games, not cosmology.

[kell1990]

Hi, I'm new here, and I have some basic questions that would help me understand what the heck the "Electric Model of the Universe" is.

and I thank you ahead of time for helping this retired aerospace engineer understand what's going on.
and I would appreciate folks think of me as an average US citizen with an average high school education

As an engineer, I know a "good solution" to a problem based solely on how simple or complex it is - the more complex, the more I know that the "ideal solution" has NOT been met and thus more work needs to be done.

I know that the current "Gravitational Model of the Universe" makes no sense at all - it's based on God or magic and seems to be grotesquely complex - nature just isn't that complex when you finally understand what's really going on.

So my first question, to anyone who might reply, is this:
"1. - In as few words as possible, please describe what the Electric Model of the Universe is." This one I'd like to be geared as if I were a 5th grader.

Thanks in advance and please be gentle with me.....

Maui Sunset

Like you I do not buy the standard model. But if I had to try to explain this to a 5th grader I'd say that there are 4 forces that rule the universe. Two are micro forces; that is, they operate within the molecules and the atom. One is the strong nuclear force and the other is the weak force, which operates within the atom and within quarks, which atoms are made of.

The other two are gravity and the electric force, which is composed of the magnetic force and charge.

The Electric Universe and the Plasma Cosmos is predominately concerned with the electromagnetic force.

Neither the Electric Universe nor the Plasma Cosmos disregard gravity. Both schools of thought hold that gravity plays a minor role in the operation of the Universe, and that the electromagnetic force is predominate.

Almost every phenomenon in the Universe can be attributed to the actions of electromagnetism, whether it is Birkeland currents (which are the root cause of "black holes").

The fallacious claims by the cosmological community about "dark matter" or "dark energy" are concocted to make their Big Bang Theory work. No one has ever seen, let alone measured, either of these chimera. That's because they don't exist!

I'm going to stop here because it's getting late, but I could write much more about this subject.

[upriver]

I would say if I were to build the electric universe I would start at motion, and then order as well as true matter which is massless and has no charge. (Prana(primary matter) and Askassa(Primary matter in motion) by the Tesla, Tewari and the Vedas)

Then I would apply that to standard physics in that the most important thing are the electric field, gravity field and the electromagnetic field. Fields cause motion which leads back to the primary which is motion(kinetic energy x mass) .

From there you can use plasma physics, standard gravity and EM.

That is the causality that is missing from EU and standard physics.

Motion or kinetic energy is primary.

EU is mostly based on the idea that the sun is powered by electricity and that comets are electric phenomena.
And that plasma is one of the primary form of Standard matter.

Electricity is Momentum and Charge. Or Kinetic energy x Speed + Charge which can be reduced to a scalar, Joules and a wave function that carries kinetic energy.

Gravity also imparts kinetic energy to mass.

Electricity can be defined as momentum and Charge.
Then you can build the rest of the universe from those rules with EM having a 10^39 advantage in force....

My question has always been does that 10^39 come from the equivalent amount of energy as gravity.

[jacmac]

Kell 1990 said:

" A steady state universe as proposed by Fred Hoyle( the "according to Hoyle" guy) goes against the Big Bang. He started it all by being sarcastic and coming up with the term Big Bang and it caught on."

I don't know where you got this from but it's wrong. The Hoyle often cited as "according to Hoyle" was a card player who wrote a book describing the rules for various card games. He was referred to as the expert in card games, not cosmology.

Oops. It seems I am wrong.
I was going from memory reading about the astronomer Fred Hoyle in England.
He was on the media so often with opinions about so many things that the saying "according to Hoyle" was used about him, but I can see that it was taken from the earlier famous Edmond Hoyle of card game rule fame.
Sorry.
Jack

[kell1990]

Hi, I'm new here, and I have some basic questions that would help me understand what the heck the "Electric Model of the Universe" is.

and I thank you ahead of time for helping this retired aerospace engineer understand what's going on.
and I would appreciate folks think of me as an average US citizen with an average high school education

As an engineer, I know a "good solution" to a problem based solely on how simple or complex it is - the more complex, the more I know that the "ideal solution" has NOT been met and thus more work needs to be done.

I know that the current "Gravitational Model of the Universe" makes no sense at all - it's based on God or magic and seems to be grotesquely complex - nature just isn't that complex when you finally understand what's really going on.

So my first question, to anyone who might reply, is this:
"1. - In as few words as possible, please describe what the Electric Model of the Universe is." This one I'd like to be geared as if I were a 5th grader.

Thanks in advance and please be gentle with me.....

Maui Sunset

Like you I do not buy the standard model. But if I had to try to explain this to a 5th grader I'd say that there are 4 forces that rule the universe. Two are micro forces; that is, they operate within the molecules and the atom. One is the strong nuclear force and the other is the weak force, which operates within the atom and within quarks, which atoms are made of.

The other two are gravity and the electric force, which is composed of the magnetic force and charge.

The Electric Universe and the Plasma Cosmos is predominately concerned with the electromagnetic force.

Neither the Electric Universe nor the Plasma Cosmos disregard gravity. Both schools of thought hold that gravity plays a minor role in the operation of the Universe, and that the electromagnetic force is predominate.

Almost every phenomenon in the Universe can be attributed to the actions of electromagnetism, whether it is Birkeland currents (which are the root cause of "black holes").

The fallacious claims by the cosmological community about "dark matter" or "dark energy" are concocted to make their Big Bang Theory work. No one has ever seen, let alone measured, either of these chimera. That's because they don't exist!

I'm going to stop here because it's getting late, but I could write much more about this subject.

Let me pursue this a bit further. Let's say that matter was drawn into one of these Bennett pinches and that it began to speed up to to near the speed of light. As it was drawn into the pinch, it began to give up several of the forces that hold the the particles together, First, gamma radiation was released, then cosmic radiation was released then gamma radiation was released. All the while, the particles were drawn into the ever-increasing strength of of the Bennett pinch.

As the particles moved through the pinch, they began to self-assemble.

This process goes on through all the pinches throughout the Universe.

The Universe behaves like this throughout.

This is my own view, and I do not claim it to be a part of the Electric Universe. But based on everything that I have been able to glean, this is how it operates.

[kell1990]

Let me try to correct a problem with the previous post. First, the forces that untangle the binding energies go like this 1) X-rays; 2) Cosmic rays and 3) gamma rays.

The next time you see an illustration of an alleged "black hole" take a very good look at it. You will see matter moving into the "hole" and matter moving out of it. This stands the standard definition of a black hole on its head, in that an alleged black hole is so strong that nothing--not even light itself--can escape from it. But lo and behold, there is something moving both in and out of this alleged black hole. Unpossible according to the physicists.

More: Matter in motion is really what makes up the Universe. It is matter, coupled with the electric force, that makes the Universe tick. The entire Universe is composed of matter in motion. Always and forever. It never ceases to move.

[Electro]

What we call gravity is merely a manifestation of electricity and magnetism. The term gravity should not even exist, since it's not a unique entity. No mainstream scientist can explain what it is nor what causes it. The EU theory explains what it is in electrical terms.

[jacmac]

Kell1990 said:

Let me pursue this a bit further. Let's say that matter was drawn into one of these Bennett pinches and that it began to speed up to to near the speed of light. As it was drawn into the pinch, it began to give up several of the forces that hold the the particles together, First, gamma radiation was released, then cosmic radiation was released then gamma radiation was released. All the while, the particles were drawn into the ever-increasing strength of of the Bennett pinch.

As the particles moved through the pinch, they began to self-assemble.

This process goes on through all the pinches throughout the Universe.
The Universe behaves like this throughout.
This is my own view, and I do not claim it to be a part of the Electric Universe. But based on everything that I have been able to glean, this is how it operates.

I agree with that concept and think others here do also.
To focus on a detail though, you said,

they began to self-assemble.

I would describe what a strong electromagnetic pinch does to the random matter at hand, is to compress the matter so powerfully that it reorganizes the matter completely, creating the various elements in the process.
Jack

[Electro]

I would describe what a strong electromagnetic pinch does to the random matter at hand, is to compress the matter so powerfully that it reorganizes the matter completely, creating the various elements in the process.
Jack

And Marklund convection.

[webolife]

Maui Sunset,

What we call gravity is merely a manifestation of electricity and magnetism. The term gravity should not even exist, since it's not a unique entity. No mainstream scientist can explain what it is nor what causes it. The EU theory explains what it is in electrical terms.

I would add here my perspective that gravity is not a thing, nor is it composed of things [eg. gravitons or waves]; it is an action. It is a word denoting the stickiness of matter. If it is fundamentally electric, then the EU seeks to explain gravitation as an outcome of charge interactions. But "charge" is also just another name for stickiness. Likewise "magnetism" simply means stickiness. Ralph Sansbury attempted to describe this universal phenomenon as "electrigravitic". SOMETHING is holding the universe together, and the BB does virtually nothing to resolve this. Scalability is a key driving principle or assumption behind the drive toward a unifying physical theory of everything. Classical and modern mainstream physics don't provide scalability. The EU/PC community is trying to provide this. Plasma pinches seem to be a practical repeatable laboratory model whereby to study this stickiness at close range, so the EU/PC model evolves from experimentation, unlike other cosmologies. Early thinkers in the realm of electric cosmology, eg. Tesla and Velikovsky, were branded as lunatics. Later thinkers, eg. Peratt, Birkland, Langmuir, Arp, et.al. have gained little acceptance in the mainstream. All these folks, like many here at Thunderbolts and Holoscience, are trying to make sense out of nature while bucking the tide of ever-increasing religious fervor by mainstream paradigm advocates.
Maybe the concept that the universe is comprehensible, as it did for Einstein, makes all of its adherents just a little crazy. Well, here we are, and welcome to you.
PS: I am also rather fond of the belief that the "final answer" will be understood by a fifth grader.

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi Maui,
Your common sense approach is refreshing. I have felt most of my life that until we understand gravity without the use of circular arguments like space-time we have no business trying to understand the origin or the future of the universe. The human mind is not capable of handling the complex permutations that take place in nature and in the universe, unless we first understand the underlying fundamentals.
Science has made a couple of questionable assumptions which today prohibit us from moving forward. One is the assumption about the speed of light. The speed and the appearance of light is likely to be affected by traveling long distances through our busy universe. The assumption that red-shift is caused solely by the relative velocity between the emitter and the observer is consequently inaccurate. As a result we do not have a basis for the big bang, for calculating the expansion of the universe or for our estimates of dark materia and dark energy.
The reality is likely to be very different from what science believes today and to move forward we must first understand the fundamentals.
One certain characteristic of science is that every new day makes us realize how wrong we were yesterday.

[upriver]

Maui Sunset,

What we call gravity is merely a manifestation of electricity and magnetism. The term gravity should not even exist, since it's not a unique entity. No mainstream scientist can explain what it is nor what causes it. The EU theory explains what it is in electrical terms.

I would add here my perspective that gravity is not a thing, nor is it composed of things [eg. gravitons or waves]; it is an action. It is a word denoting the stickiness of matter. If it is fundamentally electric, then the EU seeks to explain gravitation as an outcome of charge interactions. But "charge" is also just another name for stickiness. Likewise "magnetism" simply means stickiness. Ralph Sansbury attempted to describe this universal phenomenon as "electrigravitic". SOMETHING is holding the universe together, and the BB does virtually nothing to resolve this. Scalability is a key driving principle or assumption behind the drive toward a unifying physical theory of everything. Classical and modern mainstream physics don't provide scalability. The EU/PC community is trying to provide this. Plasma pinches seem to be a practical repeatable laboratory model whereby to study this stickiness at close range, so the EU/PC model evolves from experimentation, unlike other cosmologies. Early thinkers in the realm of electric cosmology, eg. Tesla and Velikovsky, were branded as lunatics. Later thinkers, eg. Peratt, Birkland, Langmuir, Arp, et.al. have gained little acceptance in the mainstream. All these folks, like many here at Thunderbolts and Holoscience, are trying to make sense out of nature while bucking the tide of ever-increasing religious fervor by mainstream paradigm advocates.
Maybe the concept that the universe is comprehensible, as it did for Einstein, makes all of its adherents just a little crazy. Well, here we are, and welcome to you.
PS: I am also rather fond of the belief that the "final answer" will be understood by a fifth grader.

If you look at the fields by their "action" then you can say that gravity acts on neutral matter, electric fields act upon charged matter, and that magnetic fields act upon certain types of matter with 'magnetic" properties.
What the fields do is provide kinetic energy to the different types of matter i.e acceleration.

The you might be able to say that the fields draw upon a common reservoir of kinetic energy.

Nobody knows what fields are exactly but I would put them at the lowest level of a hierarchy.

[webolife]

When you say "lowest level of a hierarchy", are you thinking fundamental/elementary? or do you mean at the subatomic level? I'm curious about how you view the concept "field".

[comingfrom]

I see this error being made by the top most physicists.
It shocks me that the fundamental meanings of words get lost.
This makes it no surprise that science gets so confused, even on basic things.
This is my chance to explain. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

Nobody knows what fields are exactly but I would put them at the lowest level of a hierarchy.

Nobody looks in the dictionary anymore.

Fields are designated areas, or volumes.

The fields are set by us.
We make the fences. We define the boundaries.
Then we study what is in the field.
We try to define what is in the field, that creates the forces observed on objects in the field (or are supposed to).

Science borrowed the word "field" from farming.
We have wheat in field A, cattle in field B, field C is lying fallow, and so forth.
Fields are simply designated areas.

We designate a spherical volume field around a body, and call it the gravity field, or the charge field.
The field is the spherical area.
What the "crops" are in the fields are still a mystery.
Gravity and charge are the "crops" in science, the forces that reside in our fields, but these are yet to be physically and mechanically explained, as to what they are, and how they transmit force.

Now science has conflated the field and the crop.
The paddock has become the wheat.
They failed to define what gravity is, and what charge is, and now say it is the field that creates forces.

But if we be rigorous, and define our spherical field around Earth at time t,
then at time t + n, the Earth and her gravity has moved on, and our field is now relatively empty of gravity.
To avoid this, science designates moving fields.
Scientific fields are in motion with the bodies, so that the designated area of the field continues to contain the gravity, or charge, which we are trying track.

You can have a field of electrons.
You can have a field of asteroids.
In most science fields the "crops" are superimposed, or interspersed.
A field of electrons will also contain charge, magnetism, and gravity, for instance.
The different forces in the field may have different strengths and vectors, even at different locations in the field.

The field itself doesn't have any force.
It is just the region of space where the forces are active.
~Paul

[Bengt Nyman]

I see this error being made by the top most physicists.
It shocks me that the fundamental meanings of words get lost.
This makes it no surprise that science gets so confused, even on basic things.
This is my chance to explain. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

Nobody knows what fields are exactly but I would put them at the lowest level of a hierarchy.

Nobody looks in the dictionary anymore.

Fields are designated areas, or volumes.

The fields are set by us.
We make the fences. We define the boundaries.
Then we study what is in the field.
We try to define what is in the field, that creates the forces observed on objects in the field (or are supposed to).

Science borrowed the word "field" from farming.
We have wheat in field A, cattle in field B, field C is lying fallow, and so forth.
Fields are simply designated areas.

We designate a spherical volume field around a body, and call it the gravity field, or the charge field.
The field is the spherical area.
What the "crops" are in the fields are still a mystery.
Gravity and charge are the "crops" in science, the forces that reside in our fields, but these are yet to be physically and mechanically explained, as to what they are, and how they transmit force.

Now science has conflated the field and the crop.
The paddock has become the wheat.
They failed to define what gravity is, and what charge is, and now say it is the field that creates forces.

But if we be rigorous, and define our spherical field around Earth at time t,
then at time t + n, the Earth and her gravity has moved on, and our field is now relatively empty of gravity.
To avoid this, science designates moving fields.
Scientific fields are in motion with the bodies, so that the designated area of the field continues to contain the gravity, or charge, which we are trying track.

You can have a field of electrons.
You can have a field of asteroids.
In most science fields the "crops" are superimposed, or interspersed.
A field of electrons will also contain charge, magnetism, and gravity, for instance.
The different forces in the field may have different strengths and vectors, even at different locations in the field.

The field itself doesn't have any force.
It is just the region of space where the forces are active.
~Paul

Thank You Paul !
Bengt