Is there any real science behind the Electric Universe model

[joaquie]

I've heard people say it's all bullcrap, but others say there is lots of observational evidence for it.

[Oracle_911]

I've heard people say it's all bullcrap, but others say there is lots of observational evidence for it.

Good question, you should ask the same thing about standard model.
Electric Universe (EU) is based on plasma behavior and behavior of electrical discharges in plasma. These discharges are replicable in laboratory and gives similar patterns which are observed in space.
You should read books, blogs, the picture of day chronological archive (there is a thematical archive too) or at least essential guide to EU.

[tayga]

I've heard people say it's all bullcrap, but others say there is lots of observational evidence for it.

That's the sort of question you should answer for yourself by reading, as Oracle suggested. You could buy a book as well.

What you need to look for is evidence and rational interpretation. Anyone who would label EU bullcrap but accept Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Black Holes as fact probably borrows their opinions from others and can't be bothered to do their own study and evaluate the evidence.

If you really want to know, read and use your intelligence.

[orrery]

Yes, it is real science supported by many scientists including prominent Plasma Physicists of Los Alamos National Laboratories and other prestigious institutions.

The Electric Universe
The Electric Sky
The Big Bang Never Happened
Physics of the Plasma Universe

Are all very good books for the educated lay person. Of the 4, Physics of the Plasma Universe is the keystone but there are many others. The works of Nikola Tesla, Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven are all very important works that form the foundation of all of our modern technology.

There are many people who like to twist it and expand on it into New Age stuff but that is their business. Thunderbolts will mostly concentrate on what is verifiable.

[orrery]

If you would like a brief introduction before getting more detailed with the books read the Official EU Guide here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/category/eg/

The Big Bang Never Happened & Physics of the Plasma Universe can be found on several eBook sites. Some for free, and others with the standard monthly eBook subscription fees. Most are available for very low prices in eBook form.

[Bengt Nyman]

Why the Standard Model needs the Electric Universe

The inability of the Standard Model to accept and incorporate what we know about electric charge leaves the Standard Model incomplete. The Electric Universe itself is not a complete model either. The reality of the universe is described in part by both of them.
The most obvious evidence that the Standard Model needs help is it's stubborn reliance on antiquated nonsense like Einsteinian "gravity" and "space-time".
We know today what causes gravity. It is caused by interactive bipolarity between electrically charged subatomic constituents. It is not caused by masses warping an imaginary space-time fabric in such a way that other masses roll into each others space-time pits. That is a nonsensical circular argument. Why would anything roll downhill if gravity was not caused by something else ?
Einsteinian gravity and space-time is a stain on science comparable to a flat earth being the center of the universe.
Will the Standard Model ever accept the wisdom of the Electric Universe and use it to paint the missing part of the picture ?
I sure hope so !

[kell1990]

It seems to me that as each day goes by and more data become available, it becomes more obvious that there is a very great great influence by an "electrical" force on the world we live in. Much of this data is coming from observations by satellites, something we didn't have when the "big bang" theory was promulgated. (Yes, I am aware of all the delicious mathematics that support the "big bang").

Frankly, I do not understand what this "electrical" force really is, but I do know the pattern of science. The "big bang" has gotten (ahem) "out of pattern." Whenever a theory or hypothesis is postulated, it is based on certain assumptions. In the case of the "big bang" all matter in the observable universe was concentrated into a single point (one of those delicious mathematical goodies) and at a point CERTAIN one of the known forces (the "weak force") overwhelmed all the others and the whole thing went KABLOOEY! The result is what we see in the cosmos today, according to the "big bang".

When the "big bang" was first thrust upon the world, gravity was supposed to be the unifying element. But as time went by and the observations poured in, it became obvious that gravity alone could not account for the behavior observed. So the theorists began to invent other mechanisms to try to explain the observational results.

First they came up with the idea of "black holes" (another in the panoply of mathematical wonders). That seemed to fill the void until more data came in. When that wasn't enough to provide a plausible explanation, then "dark matter" was proposed. What is "dark matter"? No one knows, and no one has ever been able to directly record its existence. When the calculations were re-run and the theory still didn't fit the observations, another prospect was offered: this time is was "dark energy," a thing so mysterious that not only has no one ever seen it but it probably can't even be measured.

This is how science becomes a religion, a dogma. When the theory doesn't fit, then stretch the theory. And the "big bang" theory has been streched beyond the breaking point, to an extent that it has become unrecognizable, with each new observation being contorted to fit a grotesque description of Nature itself.

The EU theorists claim that every phenomenom observed in the universe can be reproduced in a plasma physics laboratory. It seems to me that the rest of the world should take note of this.

[mjv1121]

kell1990,

Agreed.
A significant factor that blocks the path of theoretical models that more accurately represent the real physical universe, is censorship. There are those whose theories lack logic and rigour, and in most cases no hint of physical mechanics, but whose position gives them the ability to deny their opponents the opportunity of free speech. Perhaps in due course a sense of scientific and moral conscience will prevail, but I doubt it.

Michael

[iantresman]

I've heard people say it's all bullcrap, but others say there is lots of observational evidence for it.

Generally, the Electric Universe model says that electricity plays an important role in astronomy. So we only need to find a handful of examples which are readily accepted by science, to contradict the statement that "it's all bullcrap". In fact, there are many examples of electricity throughout the universe, as exemplified by the peer reviewed papers on this page.

However, there are aspects of the Electric Universe model which are more speculative, and for which there is less evidence, but that doesn't necessarily make it bullcrap. At the end of the day, that's a conclusion you must draw for yourself. But keep asking the questions.

[mharratsc]

Way to knock the ball outta the park, Ian! Well said.

Your site gets better and better every time I swing by there to check things out... thanks for linking that again.

[orrery]

Bah, what annoys me is the OP did a drive-by ninja posting. Created his account for the soul purpose of making that one post and then scramming. wtf man wtf

[Sparky]

the OP did a drive-by ninja posting. Created his account for the soul purpose of making that one post and then scramming.

Nothing wrong with the OP post....allows for scientific argument by EU advocates. OP may be reading through all the info that was suggested. It is their choice to continue posting or not.

[Siggy_G]

I've heard people say it's all bullcrap, but others say there is lots of observational evidence for it.

One should ask a fundamental question of the Standard model - what are the observational evidences for it? Are they even in favour of cosmic expansion - and all the oddities defining it?

After some hunting, one will come to realize it's a matter of established interpretation models, not observational evidence, and many historical decissions are still open for discussion. The argumentation is extensive, so I would, in addition to the daily pictures on this site and recommandations by previous posters, recommend two books by astronomer and physiscist Hilton Ratcliffe, namely "The Virtue of Heresy" and especially the quite recent "The Static Universe - Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion".

There are some serious issues in astrophysics and cosmology today in regards to explaining observations. The questions asked aren't along the lines of "Is the standard model of the Sun [stars/galaxies/formation etc.] correct?", but usually the questions are more like "What is the true nature of dark matter then?", which really isn't a revision of consensus theories. As a paradox, considering the purpose of science, it seems the revisional questions are mainly asked by eager people outside the institutions and even retired/resigned people that once were a part of it. It should be a sign.

Unsure if it was brought up above, but here's a link to some recent and interesting papers related to Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe ("Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century" by Wallace Thornhill is hereby a highlight, in my opinion):

Recent papers on Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe

In brief, the science behind it is related to electric and magnetic fields, and how they are a part of cosmic plasma and affecting large scale structures, galaxies, stars and smaller objects like comets. Observations keep pointing in this direction, while contradicting the standard model, requiring the latter to come up with the absurdest of concepts in order to fight for its survival (and funding). I don't thing all astrophysiscist or cosmologist are aware of this, but I think it is a natural, paradoxal and sad cause of how sciene and empirical methods work, somewhat nudged by the need for funding. However, I've read documentation by solar physiscists that is surprisingly honest about our lack of understanding of the Sun and the need for more missions and extensive data mapping, which is good.

We should hold on to empirical methods, but knowing what to keep and realizing what to discard is an artform by itself, that I feel the Electric Universe is opening a better understanding of.

[MrAmsterdam]

I've heard people say it's all bullcrap, but others say there is lots of observational evidence for it.

All depends on YOUR view...
In YOUR view, is this the sound of a plasma antenna?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwnpXll_A_E

[GaryN]

All depends on YOUR view...
In YOUR view, is this the sound of a plasma antenna?

Like most of the Hubble images, those sounds are artistic interpretations. Must say though, I like
Neptune sounds more than Jupiter, the big Vox Planeta of the Solar system. I'll definitely have to
meditate on that one, maybe along with some EM brainwave modification.
All those planets singing to each other. Cool.