Confused!

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Confused!

Unread postby Matt82 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:15 am

I came across the EU a while ago and was instantly intreagued. The more I found out about it the more I came to believe in it as I've never accepted the BB theory, it just didn't seem right to a logically minded person as myself.
Yesterday I came across Brian Koberlein and his blog debunking the EU theory, here it is https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... mment-2095.
Throughout his blog his comments to EU followers are pretty rude and he constantly gives links to so called "evidence' for the standard model. I replied to one of his comments after he said how the video "The lightning scarred planet" was mostly rubbish. I basically said how the standard model is psuedo-science (like they say about the EU theory)because they make up stuff like dark matter/energy etc. In his reply to me he said "The big canyon on Mars (Valles Marineris) isn’t a river canyon, it’s a rift canyon formed by geologic activity. Dark matter, dark energy, black holes and neutron stars have all been found. Their existence isn’t in doubt. Then gives a link to so called "evidence' where he states "We have indirect evidence of its existence, and even some evidence of its characteristics, but we have YET TO DETECT DARK MATTER DIRECTLY" lol.
So Iguess my question is, who should I believe when it comes to evidence because they say evidence for EU is flawed and vice-versa, EU people say evidence for the standard model is flawed.
Also, what main peice of scientific FACT would you say is best when it comes to giving credential to the EU?
Matt82
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:02 pm

Matt82 wrote:what main peice of scientific FACT would you say is best when it comes to giving credential to the EU?


Fact: Electricity is everywhere.

Perceiving it is key.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Confused!

Unread postby fractal-geoff » Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:10 pm

Re Brian Koberleins arguments: While physics offers that ‘you can’t get something out of nothing’, Koberlein has built his arguments from the conventional premise that there was once a beginning to the universe, where ‘everything came from nothing’.
The very real energy particle waveform known as neutrinos has been written into the conventional story of a beginning along with many assumptions of cause and nature.
Koberlein then uses both conventions perceptions of the cause of neutrinos and some common perceptions of electricity and plasma to form his first argument.
Ignoring his occasional cheap shots; the rest of his arguments have the same perceived potential fault.
EU has a theory that can adapt to an infinite universe while convention is stuck on a finite universe with a start.
I can only keep pointing this out until people click that this is a major fault in conventional perceptions.
Geoff
fractal-geoff
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:06 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby Webbman » Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:59 pm

the complete and utter disregard for electricity as a major factor in any standard model should be the first clue you need to determine they are lying to you.

you cant even make a thought without electricity.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Confused!

Unread postby fractal-geoff » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:49 pm

Can you truly explain what electricity is?
We have many analogies in common use that are descriptive in nature but really conflict with each other between disciplines of particle physics, electrical and chemistry.
There are many terms which fall under the general banner of electricity but which encompass a lot of separate phenomena in different scales.
Since the days of the “Particle Zoo” the modern atom has had progressively fewer descriptions referencing positive and negative bits. Sub components of the atom have quantities of energy within them and sometimes clockwise and anticlockwise spin. The old proton neutron and electron holy trilogy seem unlikely.
Visualizations based on latest results are always moving ahead of our older references and jargon.
In material science you can usually tell if something is going to conduct or not or show magnetic properties by the bond angles with other structures. I’m just saying that Std older perceptions of electricity aren’t quite there anymore.
Geoff
fractal-geoff
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:06 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby Webbman » Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:34 am

[quote="fractal-geoff"]Can you truly explain what electricity is?
We have many analogies in common use that are descriptive in nature but really conflict with each other between disciplines of particle physics, electrical and chemistry.
There are many terms which fall under the general banner of electricity but which encompass a lot of separate phenomena in different scales.
Since the days of the “Particle Zoo” the modern atom has had progressively fewer descriptions referencing positive and negative bits. Sub components of the atom have quantities of energy within them and sometimes clockwise and anticlockwise spin. The old proton neutron and electron holy trilogy seem unlikely.
Visualizations based on latest results are always moving ahead of our older references and jargon.
In material science you can usually tell if something is going to conduct or not or show magnetic properties by the bond angles with other structures. I’m just saying that Std older perceptions of electricity aren’t quite there anymore.
Geoff[/quote/]

"seem" is the appropriate word.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Confused!

Unread postby fractal-geoff » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:05 am

Re: "Seem" is the appropriate word.

OK: I wouldn’t deny these energy particles exist [protons, neutrons & electrons]; they do.
I would argue that they are icon terms that get used in the descriptions of all sorts of processes including the construction of an atom.
I would argue against the concept that they represent positive, negative and neutral energy particles.
I would argue against the ‘in built concept’ that positive bits repel positive bits but attract negative bits. OR That negative bits repel negative bits while attracting positive bits.
And finally I argue that the fundamental atom is not “constructed” from positive negative or neutron energy particles.
Aside from that yeah sure…
fractal-geoff
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:06 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:25 pm

Throughout his blog his comments to EU followers are pretty rude and he constantly gives links to so called "evidence' for the standard model.

That is pretty common. These "scientists" really want to hold on to their believe systems, so they get angry each time this belief is challenged.
If the "evidence" was so clear, it would not be doubted so much and the models would really be in line with the observations.


..the video "The lightning scarred planet" was mostly rubbish.

The video is evidence based. Not based on wild theories. It compares common features of electric erosion with features that are visible on mars. It is clearly very similar.

"We have indirect evidence of its existence, and even some evidence of its characteristics, but we have YET TO DETECT DARK MATTER DIRECTLY" lol.

If you really look at the evidence, it is a lot of bullshit.
What it shows is that there are a lot of interesting phenomena going on in the universe which can not be explained with normal means. But dark matter/ dark energy/ dark holes do not explain them either!!

mainstream model != observation => EU-explanation
Dark matter != constant rotation speed of matter in galaxies. => magnetism and electric currents
Dark energy != deviation in the redshift curve. => redshift is not (always) expansion
Dark holes != places with large gravity and a lot of expelled energy. => known electrical circuits

Theoretical problems with the mainstream models:
Dark matter can not cause constant rotation speed. It is still gravity.
Dark energy can not just change problems in the redshift curve.
Dark holes are theoretically impossible and light does not change in direction/frequency (when not within plasma).
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby fractal-geoff » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:29 pm

I know I probably sound like a broken record but the ‘dark energy & dark matter’ “thing” is an indirect product of the belief system that the universe had a start.
It’s about moving the pieces around the chess board to match expectations. Dark matter & energy are ‘sort for’ because a set of logic paths that ‘lead to the need’.
Neither our gravity or electricity perceptions, ‘alone or together’, actually match observations of bodies of mass in orbit. The number differences are small but relevant; it’s not an n-body math fault either.
Cause of matter in an infinite universe is different than a finite one where the fuel and energy just turn up at the beginning. I offer the difference solves the problem. [Yes there are a lot of logic steps in between]
fractal-geoff
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:06 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby perpetual motion » Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:33 pm

I think that the people with their scientific minds should spend more
of their time looking into our solar system, than trying to figure out
what is beyond our own eye sight. Like the photos of everything
that is outside of our solar system, which is color enhanced, photo
shopped, computer generated, why they don’t even know if our
brains can comprehend all this mumbo jumbo imagery, let alone the colors that they put into them.
They say that there are light (waves) out there traveling in all directions.
I say that there are no light (waves) but as they say, protons and electrons
+ and -, there isn’t any light out there. There is a spectrum of energy that travels in a straight line that is turned into light when it hits an atmosphere of gas, which gas I have not read about as of yet.
Like my grandma used to say, "everything in made in this planets
atmosphere”.
The sun starts it all, but has to intermingle with what is in and around
these planets for matter to begin forming.
perpetual motion
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:42 pm

"everything in made in this planets
atmosphere”


How do you account for the fact that we get clearer pictures from telescopes in space?
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Confused!

Unread postby IgorTesla » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:10 pm

To be honest, i truly believe that the people promoting the BB are in it for the money only.
The more they convince people that our galaxy is dangerously close to a 'black hole' the more money will be received for research.
I wouldn't place my bets on them espescially since they are unflexible to adepting new theories in contrast to EU followers.

Even if the EU theory would be proven wrong then i think that the EU followers would adept quickly and re-integrate any new knowledge that comes available ...
User avatar
IgorTesla
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby Anti University Dean » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:23 am

One source of possible confusion is an alleged error by Maxwell whose wave equation places the electric and magnetic fields in phase, while engineers use a 90° phase difference for all design work, as exposed by Robert Distinti. Other errors incoporated into both mainstream and EU thinking may be the various mathematical errors noted by Miles Mathis. When you consider how convoluted all these errors become and even include possible errors the error-correctors themselves make when trying to untangle the mess, you should be confused. I know I am too. If we can mix and match all the ideas until we have something satisfactory it may lead to a higher level of truth...I hope.
Anti University Dean
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby Eaol » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:22 pm

I think we ought to be more directly addressing the actual content of the linked article by Brian Koberlein. I summarized what I thought were his major claims:

---

Claim 1: The Electric Sun predicts there ought to be no solar neutrinos.

Claim 2: The Sun exhibits a continuous spectrum of thermal radiation, not the emission spectrum an electrically excited gas would exhibit.

Claim 3: Special and General Relativity have been confirmed in the lab.

Claim 4: Using your mobile phone's GPS to locate a coffee shop involves communicating with satellites that correct for the effects of general and special relativity.

Claim 5: If stars are born electrically and "give birth" to other stars and planets, we should "see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems", but instead we see protostars surrounded by protoplanetary disks.

Claim 6: If the EU model is right, we should only see quasars with high redshifts. Quasar 3C 273 contradicts this, as it is only 2.4 billion light years away in its redshift distance.

Claim 7: The more redshifted a galaxy, the less developed it should look. And they don't.
User avatar
Eaol
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Confused!

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:58 am

Thanks Eol, I'll have a go.

(Anybody, feel free to jump in and correct me, if you see I say a wrong thing.)

Claim 1: The Electric Sun predicts there ought to be no solar neutrinos.

Maybe someone's Electric Sun theory predicts that.

But in general, believing the Sun to be powered by cosmic electric currents doesn't force a particular number on neutrinos.

It was the known fact that hydrogen fusion emits a known number neutrinos that caused a predicted number for neutrinos, if the Sun should happen to be powered by hydrogen fusion.

On electric powered Stars, nuclear fusion is not necessarily expressly omitted.
In fact, electricity could easily be the source of power to ignite the fusion.
But the amount of fusion, and even the type of fusion, is not predictable at this time - is what I think EU theory is saying.

Claim 2: The Sun exhibits a continuous spectrum of thermal radiation, not the emission spectrum an electrically excited gas would exhibit.
The claim is worthless, because he presents a false "expected" spectrum, which we don't see.
And which nobody but he himself is predicting we should see, if the Sun was electric.

The Sun is electrically excited, but it is not made of gas.

Electric Sun theories which I have liked are based upon observation, and the latest observations show a solid surface beneath the Sun's photosphere.
Also, I observe my electric bar heater exhibits a continuous spectrum of thermal radiation, while it is turned on.
It isn't hard for me to imagine how an electric powered Sun can give warmth.

Claim 3: Special and General Relativity have been confirmed in the lab.
They have.
And technologies have been developed, based on the theories, that work.
Brian reminded us of this many times.

But he is not receptive when he is reminded that Black Holes and Dark Matter were the solutions for when GR didn't work, in the greater Universe.

Claim 4: Using your mobile phone's GPS to locate a coffee shop involves communicating with satellites that correct for the effects of general and special relativity.
There are interesting stories from when we first ventured out into space, and missed the moon by several thousands of miles.
The theories at that time had to be corrected to account for the effects of reality.

Claim 5: If stars are born electrically and "give birth" to other stars and planets, we should "see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems", but instead we see protostars surrounded by protoplanetary disks.
We see stars surrounded by disks.
I don't think the condensation of any of these disks into planets has been directly witnessed yet, so the assumption that these will form into planets is still just a theory. Not observed fact.

And the problems with this planetary formation theory are publicly well known.

Claim 6: If the EU model is right, we should only see quasars with high redshifts. Quasar 3C 273 contradicts this, as it is only 2.4 billion light years away in its redshift distance.
EU proponents only point out that quasars should have the same red shifts as the galaxies which they are observably linked with, if red shift truly is the indication of distance and speed from us, as Big Bang theory states.

So the real contradiction is that different objects of the same speed and distance from us can and do have different red shifts, which contradicts the Big Bang theory.

Claim 7: The more redshifted a galaxy, the less developed it should look. And they don't.
BK is basing these red shift claims, going by what one person has suggested, that red shift might be more an indicator of age.

But GR also says, the more red shifted a galaxy, the less developed it should look, because we're looking back to earlier times in the Universe, when the galaxies should be less developed. And they don't look less developed.

So the same thing which demolishes EU for BK, is true also for the GR model.

Quasar 3C 273 may contradict the theory which says that red shift indicates the age of a galaxy, and which also says quasars are baby galaxies. But that's not the EU theory.

I think EU theory tends towards a perpetual Universe, which should indicate well developed galaxies no matter how far we can get to see.

~~~~
I read through the whole thing (well, almost - I started skipping through some posts which were repetitive, towards the end).
Rather than tackle individual claims (some posters were trying that), I tried a different approach, for my response.

I'll post it here for a backup, in case I get moderated, and my post disappears.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Next

Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest