Help me answer EU challenge from professor, please?

[mistie]

I recently introduced Electric Universe Theory in some correspondence between myself and my philosophy professor. We were discussing ontological issues and consciousness and I could no longer refrain. I am usually filled with trepidation in bringing EU up as I have had encountered negative reactions from professors in the past. His wasn’t so negative but he did pose a challenge. Since I am a mere layman, I have trouble explaining EU concepts. Here is what he said:

“I'm not sure I can make much sense of the Electric Universe Theory. I don't know why electromagnetism would be so much more powerful than it is. I mean, astrophysicists certainly account for electromagnetic forces in the universe already. As far as I understand, the main puzzle is not that there appears to be an excess of attractive forces, but that there appears to be a repulsive force in the universe that we can't explain.”

My first thought is that the repulsive force is only an issue if you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the universe is electrically neutral. I have read plenty on why the Big Bang is a weak and unsubstantiated theory and it all makes total sense to me, yet I lack the ability to sum it up in a brief and coherent way. How would you EU experts respond to what my professor said? Please, help a girl out. I’d really like to better understand this myself. Thanks!

[Sparky]

Arguing with a titled expert, unwilling to learn, is a waste of time.

If the professor wants to expand his knowledge, have him read some of the TPODS, or one of the books on EU. HERE is a recent resource.

Point out to him/her that understanding EU, on a very basic level, is not rocket science, and that even consensus opinion has been wrong many times.

[mistie]

Thanks, Sparky! I was looking for something along the lines of the link to the 'essential guide to the eu' on the site but failed to find it. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. This is one professor who I think might acutally be interested as he is open-minded and always looking for answers. We shall see.

[webolife]

The biggest difficulty I've encountered when presenting a new paradigm is that the old paradigm has such a strong grip -- some of the reasons may be:
1. "Smart" people believe it. [Many don't.]
2. It's in "all" the books. [Only the ones the paradigm guardians want you to read.]
3. This has been taught for generations. [That's what makes it a paradigm.]
4. "All" the evidence supports it. [Until you look at all the evidence with an open mind.]
5. Who cares? [Most folks don't consider the billions of dollars spent each year trying to affirm or confirm standard theoretical models and their predictions. No one needs or wants to spend that much money to disprove a theory.]

For most people, either a total breakdown of the old paradigm [an earthshattering discovery or crisis], or an outstanding technological breakthrough requiring a shift in perspective, are the only ways you will get them to shift their assumptions about the universe. There's not all that many of us who are willing to spend hours, days, months, and years just to chip away at the facade of academia.

Welcome to the forum, Mistie.

[Michael Mozina]

I recently introduced Electric Universe Theory in some correspondence between myself and my philosophy professor. We were discussing ontological issues and consciousness and I could no longer refrain. I am usually filled with trepidation in bringing EU up as I have had encountered negative reactions from professors in the past. His wasn’t so negative but he did pose a challenge. Since I am a mere layman, I have trouble explaining EU concepts. Here is what he said:

“I'm not sure I can make much sense of the Electric Universe Theory. I don't know why electromagnetism would be so much more powerful than it is.

First of all, the EM field isn't more powerful than it is, it's just "powerful". Take a magnet and a paperclip. All the gravity from the entire Earth can be overcome with the EM field contained in something as small as a refrigerator magnet. It's simply a powerful field in comparison to gravity in SOME (not all) conditions.

"I mean, astrophysicists certainly account for electromagnetic forces in the universe already."

No, they don't. They only understand half of it. They "dumb" everything down to "magnetism". They talk about 'magnetic lines', 'magnetic fields', 'magnetic reconnection', "magnetic yada yada yada". Almost never do you hear the mainstream acknowledge the ELECTRICAL side of the equation. That's why they can't explain something as simple a solar wind even though Kristian Birkeland not only "predicted" it, he SIMULATED it in lab over 100 years ago!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 5B838DF1D3

"As far as I understand, the main puzzle is not that there appears to be an excess of attractive forces, but that there appears to be a repulsive force in the universe that we can't explain.”

http://plasmaredshift.org/Menu.html

Technically there is simply a "redshift pattern" that they can't explain that can be explained in OTHER WAYS that don't have anything at all to do with "expansion".

If there is any need to explain the acceleration of a mostly plasma universe, the mostly likely culprit are EXTERNAL (to this sliver of the visible universe) EM fields. No other force of nature would explain such a thing.

My first thought is that the repulsive force is only an issue if you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the universe is electrically neutral.

Technically it's just related to the first ASSUMPTION. If you assume a "static universe" and "tired light" is the cause of "redshift" (like Ari), expansion isn't even necessary.

I have read plenty on why the Big Bang is a weak and unsubstantiated theory and it all makes total sense to me, yet I lack the ability to sum it up in a brief and coherent way. How would you EU experts respond to what my professor said? Please, help a girl out. I’d really like to better understand this myself. Thanks!

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

You might start off by pointing out to your professor that current theory actually only 'explains' about 4% of the universe. All the other 96% of their theory amounts to nothing more than "dark" placeholder terms for human ignorance. No other theories besides Lambda-CMD theory and young earth creationism requires faster than light expansion. That should be your first clue.

[mistie]

The biggest difficulty I've encountered when presenting a new paradigm is that the old paradigm has such a strong grip -- some of the reasons may be:
1. "Smart" people believe it. [Many don't.]
2. It's in "all" the books. [Only the ones the paradigm guardians want you to read.]
3. This has been taught for generations. [That's what makes it a paradigm.]
4. "All" the evidence supports it. [Until you look at all the evidence with an open mind.]
5. Who cares? [Most folks don't consider the billions of dollars spent each year trying to affirm or confirm standard theoretical models and their predictions. No one needs or wants to spend that much money to disprove a theory.]

For most people, either a total breakdown of the old paradigm [an earthshattering discovery or crisis], or an outstanding technological breakthrough requiring a shift in perspective, are the only ways you will get them to shift their assumptions about the universe. There's not all that many of us who are willing to spend hours, days, months, and years just to chip away at the facade of academia.

Welcome to the forum, Mistie.

Yes! All of this totally resonates with me. It's all so frustrating. Especially when the new paradigm makes sense and the old one makes almost none. Thanks!

[mistie]

Brilliant, Michael! Thank you so much. Now I just might sound like I know what I'm talking about. It's a lot easier for me to converse on EU with simpatico people in a laid back setting. But when academics start in with the questions I get flustered and over-think my responses. This is because many of them are narrow-minded and pompous. You have given me everything I need to respond with confidence. Thanks again!

[Sparky]

This is because many of them are narrow-minded and pompous.

1...oh, don't forget to use, NONsense! as a short reply, to get their attention...

2..."Speculation, built upon falsified assumptions", is good too...

3..."Consensus cosmology has been falsified!" , repeated until they ask for proof. Then ask them if their mind is open enough to look at the proof. And then, if they are brave enough to change their mind if they are able to see the evidence without prejudice.

4...Give them "Homework"! Tell them it's not your job to reeducate them, but just to point them toward better answers than what they have been given.

Don't get into details until they have read their homework!
The Four steps will cull out the ideological retards, and possibly open a few others eyes.

Narrow mindedness, and arrogance is just self protection.

[Goldminer]

I am so sorry . I can't help you with this question . I have not meet a question like this . But I want to make friends with you . Please contect .

Foxoldrose, let me know how this pickup line works! Is "contect" a secret code word for contact? This information could help me with my string theory, you know.

[jjohnson]

Hi, Mistie and welcome to this forum. It is nice to see an inquiring mind who is willing to at least consider, on its own merits, something that is at odds with much of what consensus in astrophysics and cosmology are telling you in all the media these days.

I'd take it easy for a little bit and read all you can on Wal Thornhill's website. He wrote one of the most important books that we refer to, The Electric Universe. Consider buying that little paperback, and also Professor and electrical engineer Don Scott's book on how the sun (and stars in general) work, The Electric Sky. The more you read, and look up on the web by getting curious about things mentioned about which you know very little, the more confident you will become at explaining what you learn through this self-education process.

The EU is a paradigm, which is a linked set of ideas. The set of ideas is based on plasma physics and cosmology, a highly technical set of subjects taught in several grad schools in the U.S and many other nations throughout the world. No grad schools teach the EU ideas, by the way, although the EU agrees with some of the material taught in such schools. It's fair to say that the EU looks at the research conducted by funnded schools and agencies and often draws different conclusions as to the causes of the observations, which are often at variance to the ones you read in print from the current scientists' perspective.

You can easily find the set of Essential Guide (EG) to the EU chapters from the forum by clicking on the large red "Thunderbolts.info" title above. Then look under the title block to the list of subjects. Click on "What's new". The EG is listed there with a red "NEW" after it. Since it is posted in Wordpress (our web language program) in the order posted, you need to scroll all the way to the bottom of the list (Chapter 2) and then click on "older posts" to start at the beginning, an Introduction post, and a preface, and then Chapter 1. Once in, you can click back to the previous chapter or forward to the next chapter, at the top and bottom of each chapter. Easy peasy! Chapter 11 is the latest and currently last chapter in the list. There will be a couple of appendices added, and maybe more chapters. It is designed to be updated with new info and links from time to time, so a re-read once in a while can be helpful.

Most of the items for sale are handled by Mikimar Press in Portland, Oregon, USA. There are links to that, too. Click on the subject "Resources" at the top, click a book or anything and "Order", and it takes you to the (link follows here)Mikimar site for browsing or ordering - you don't actually have to order by following this path, but of course you can.

Another option is to look at the blue sidebar to the right, under "posts". The first item is the EG. There are all sorts of interesting sections to thunderbolts.info found there, including old archives of TPODs and other stuff, too.

If you want, tell us what you are studying and at what level, and we may be able to help with useful, relevant links and materials. We are open-minded and try to be critical thinkers, looking behind things that are said about the physical nature of our Universe and how things work. One is reminded to look up the rules of the Forum. Getting excited and making too many posts in one day is a common mistake, typically done by newbies without realizing there's a daily limit in order to keep things reasonably manageable and orderly. Be sensible,and polite and smart, and have fun here! Learning is almost the most fun your brain can have. Oh, yeah: don't fall for foxoldrose's line. Goldminer seems to be onto him. Forewarned is forearmed. This is not a dating society!

Jim

[mistie]

Thank you for your replies, Sparky, Goldminer, and Jim! I decided to wait until I get a better understanding of EU theory before engaging with my professor. And I'm really glad I did because you've all given me even more to think about and pursue. I plan on ordering the books Jim recommended today.

I'm mostly interested in what the implications of an electric universe are on philosophical matters that concern life and consciousness. Even more far out, I'm hoping that some of these implications can have an impressive effect on meta-ethical claims and challenges. But, I know I have to get familiar with the foundations first. So, I'm off to study. Thanks for all your help! I'll be back for more once I get all my ideas worked out.

[Siggy_G]

I think the professor's answer was fine, in the sense that he explains why he can't grasp the EU theory and what seems to be the issue in cosmology.

For the first part, EU advocates ought to take some "self critisism". There needs to be more refined and coherent explanations of the EU model. I believe I have a good overview, but I would have to agree that the available information currently is too scattered. For the details, the resources Jim pointed to are good, as well as Plasma Cosmology papers by Alfvén, Fälthammar and Peratt, which makes the foundation for the EU model.

For the latter part, the major question or counter argument is; what are the methods and underlying assumptions used for measuring and assuming an overall repulsive force/dynamic in the universe? (redshift/supernovae/space-time) Also, EU or PC processes don't point to an excess of attractive forces, but charge separation, double layers, electrodynamics and the pinch effect are among the key terms.

[Goldminer]

I think the professor's answer was fine, in the sense that he explains why he can't grasp the EU theory and what seems to be the issue in cosmology.

For the first part, EU advocates ought to take some "self critisism". There needs to be more refined and coherent explanations of the EU model. I believe I have a good overview, but I would have to agree that the available information currently is too scattered. For the details, the resources Jim pointed to are good, as well as Plasma Cosmology papers by Alfvén, Fälthammar and Peratt, which makes the foundation for the EU model.

For the latter part, the major question or counter argument is; what are the methods and underlying assumptions used for measuring and assuming an overall repulsive force/dynamic in the universe? (redshift/supernovae/space-time) Also, EU or PC processes don't point to an excess of attractive forces, but charge separation, double layers, electrodynamics and the pinch effect are among the key terms.

I am thinking back to the first impressions I found at the Electric Universe sites. Each person finding this stuff comes here with a different background of knowledge. That said, my excitement was the comparison of laboratory formed plasma shapes and images, calculated electronic structures of atoms, and the distant cosmic structures seen in pictures of "our" galaxy and others. Seeing how the comparison of plasma structures is scalable sold me without any other "theory" being necessary!

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi Mistie,
Everybody loves to convert the pretty, polite and inquisitive.
Here are my two cents worth:
The paradigm shift proposed by the Electric Universe is to reset your thinking from old fashioned mechanical particles flying around in a vacuum to an environment of electric strings and strings nested into sub-particles, photons, electrons, neutrons, protons etc. I am suggesting that the glue that nests strings together is electrostatic attraction between dissimilarly charged string sections. The same force holds neutrons and protons together in an atom nuclei. This force is called strong force and manifests itself as binding energy.
The same force causes gravity. See http://www.dipole.se.
And the same force causes magnetism. In case of gravity the force is relatively weak resulting from the small difference between attracting and the repelling forces between posturing but unaligned dipoles. In the case of magnetism the force is much stronger because the dipoles are not just posturing, but they are directionally aligned maximizing the electrostatic attraction.

How do we translate this into a more human or philosophical consequence of our universe ?
If you had two faces, one in front with a smile and one in back with a frown you would soon find yourself in a tight circle of smiling friends.
Attraction is a positive, constructive force which always wins over the repelling or negative, even if the difference between them sometimes is very small.

[MGmirkin]

“I don't know why electromagnetism would be so much more powerful than it is. I mean, astrophysicists certainly account for electromagnetic forces in the universe already.”

Fail.

Astronomers seem to have the queer notion that the universe is, on the whole, electrically neutral, that electric fields either A) DON'T EXIST (head in sand) or B) are an extremely local phenomenon (such as in the solar atmosphere) but CAN'T POSSIBLY EXIST on any of the more important "larger scales" (in my opnion, also a case of head-in-the-sand-itis).

Moreover, they also have the notion that you have to some how magically "separate charges" through some arcane process. They seem unaware of things like the Critical Ionization Velocities (CIVs), plasmoids (animation), etc. Not to mention the entire "reionization epoch" of their favored "Big Bang." It's not like there's nothing ionized out there. 99.999% of the observable cosmos is in the plasma state. The real question is why would anyone NOT think in terms of plasma??

But, again, there just seems to be this errant thought in the so-called "mainstream" that space is electrically neutral & that there are no notable electric fields. But, we see magnetic fields EVERYwhere. Y'know, 'cause we live in one of those "magnetic universes."

Seriously

Yep, we can live in a "magnetic universe" but not an "Electric Universe." 'Cause, uhh... The mysterious they say so!

But, getting real for a few minutes... Well, actually, I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll just point you to my blog post: Joined at the Hip: Magnetic Fields and Electricity.

I got tired of having to repeat myself, so I wrote it all out there. Bottom line: if we see magnetic fields it's only 'cause there's an electric current flowing somewhere to drive it. Deny it all you like, but there it is. And, assuming basic EM theory is right, it really is just that simple/undeniable.

So, if we live in a "magnetic universe," pretty much by definition we also live an "Electric Universe." One could easily call it an "Electromagnetic Universe," but we prefer to keep it to "Electric Universe" on account of it's the motion of particles and their interactions that drives everything. If the relative motion (electric current) stops, the magnetic field (force felt between electric currents) collapses... So, at its most basic, it's the electric force & the electric current that is fundamental.

We see magnetic fields. They're diagnostic for electric currents, so electric currents have to be flowing somewhere. If there are currents flowing, there pretty much have to be voltages (electric fields) to drive them. So, regardless of whether astronomers "like" electric currents or electric fields, they pretty much have to acknowledge a very simple line of deductive reasoning, tracing magnetic fields back to their acknowledged (in classical electromagnetic theory [1, 2, 3]) sources...

More or less, that's the why of why we think that ignoring magnetic fields and electric currents and electric fields is a mistake. The evidence is all around us (if we're willing to pull our heads out of [the sand *cough*] and look around) and the chain of logic is pretty simple... To me anyway. Ubiquitous magnetic fields --> ubiquitous electric currents --> ubiquitous electric fields.

Moreover, due to the ubiquity of plasma in space, it just makes sense to think in these terms to start with.

If he's really interested, I'd recommend he first read Don Scott's "The Electric Sky," then probably "The Electric Universe." Then perhaps Anthony Peratt's "Physics of the Plasma Universe" (hard to come by, but possibly available at some university libraries; I got lucky in acquiring a copy at a reasonable price, not cheap just reasonable) and Hannes Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" & "Cosmical Electrodynamics" (easier to come by than Peratt's, currently, but still not exactly cheap or readily available).

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin