A few questions about Electric Universe.

[HelloNiceToMeetYou]

Hey I’m new here. I just have a few questions. I have been reading the work of Miles Mathis, Eric Dollars and Wallace Thornhill, Also Alton Harp to. I also like Dave Thompsons Aether Physics Model (but I think there is a lot of math in it like string theory sort of) now, I have a question.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/ ... 0.130.html

This article talks about quantum superposition AND in my interpretation parallel universes. Now the EU/ Plasma model does not listen to these things. So if they already experimented with this and have positive results, should the EU/plasma universe try to merge with the standard model in some ways to make a really good model? Because no offense I just don’t see how EM is the main force in the universe. The g-force even sounds more realistic, (EM,ES, Mass) ???

[Jarvamundo]

Hi& Welcome,

hmmm... You claim to have read Mathis, Dollard, Thornhill etc? but still have questions like these?

Parallel Universes / Quantum Weirdness... maybe read Miles again and again?

One must come to the conclusion that neither the physicists nor the philosophers want a simple answer. They only want to look smart, bandying a vast vocabulary and an infinite disrespect for their readers.

"The g-force sounds more realistic"?
Again, i'm not sure if you have studied the EU material in depth here... I really don't see how any comment here could provide more assistance than absorbing the direct writings and material of the mentioned authors.

Studying the TPODs may help. Take your time, there are lots of them!

[HelloNiceToMeetYou]

I said I read them. I do not agree with everything Miles says. Hes a one man show. A ittle hard to have a UFT with just being one person. Thank you for the TPODS

[Jarvamundo]

Yeah I kinda agree with you there, there are components of Mathis i still am working through. His mincing of abstract co-ordinate systems (extra dimensions) can in part be separated from 'his' theory, of which he mentions is a work in progress. We need to be mindful of how these quantum weirdness "results" confirm anything meaningful, since a quantum state is a mathematical entity. Miles minces this in his slit paper.

EU/PC replaces *some* of the abstract inventions, required by gravity dominated models, with real properties of plasma.

As far as uncertainty principles and probability clouds that result from limiting your signals to c-limit. All authors you mention touch on this.... Dollard specifically covers longitudinal waves, and recently described the c-limit physics as a "mind virus".
http://www.energeticforum.com/90090-post71.html

There are some very serious misconceptions in the world of Electrical Engineering today. (The writings of Oliver Heaviside and Proteus Steinmetz gravely warned about this...) Let us start with the YouTube MIT Physics Demo video that Armagdn03 posted a link to on 11-10-2009 on page 2 of this thread. This is a good demonstration for several reasons.

1.) Glass is a dielectric which can store electrical energy within its physical form. This should be common knowledge and not a surprise to anyone today…

2.) That this simple fact and reality “blows some people’s minds” clearly illustrates that it’s just all gone way, way, too far… The Einsteinian Lie has succeeded in instilling a mind virus in most everyone and also in confusing Main Stream “Scientists”, who today waste billions of dollars of funding each year, only to chase their own tails in a canonic sequence.

You are quite correct, a 1 man show it will not be...

[MGmirkin]

Because no offense I just don’t see how EM is the main force in the universe.

In what way do you "not see it"? Hard to refute an argument that hasn't actually been made.

What specific problems do you have with the idea that electrical interactions *could* be the motivating force of some/many large-scale processes in the universe? When one considers that the naked electrical force is 39 orders of magnitude (that's a 1 with 39 zeroes behind it!) stronger than the so-called gravitational force (which is one of the weakest forces known to Man, and if Thornhill is correct gravity may be a second order inherently electrical effect anyway), it seems to me to be 'plausible' that the stronger of the two forces *could* potentially (no pun intended) yield non-trivial effects in the universe... If the right conditions can be shown to exist (and I think anecdotal evidence shows by proxy that they DO, though the standard model doesn't apparently like to re-examine its entrenched foundational assumptions like the ASSUMED near-perfect electrical neutrality of space at all scales, which I believe pretty strongly is incorrect).

(EM,ES, Mass) ???

To what are you referring with your abbreviations, and how does one relate to the other two (that is to say, I'm not clear on what you're trying to say in this parenthetical list; your implication/question is not clear).

The g-force even sounds more realistic,

G-force? I assume you're referring to gravity... Consider that gravitational models of galaxies FAIL in the face of actual OBSERVATIONS. Hence the need for 'Dark Matter,' which has never been demonstrated to be an actual physical entity (IE, they've never observed it directly in the lab). It is an ERROR BAR on the gravitational model, that tells us quite precisely just how far off from observed reality the gravity-only 'theory' is.

(How We See Dark Matter)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/How_W ... r_999.html

The idea of dark matter was born at Caltech in 1933. (Just three years later, JPL would be born there as the "rocket boys" began their first launch experiments.) In observations of a nearby cluster of galaxies named the Coma cluster, Fritz Zwicky calculated that the collective mass of the galaxies was not nearly enough to hold them together in their orbits.

He postulated that some other form of matter was present but undetected to account for this "missing mass." Later, in the 1970's and '80's, Vera Rubin similarly found that the arms of spiral galaxies should fly off their cores as they are orbiting much too quickly.

And it's only getting worse! It seems that the smaller the galaxy, the larger the percentage of Dark Matter required to 'balance the equations.'

(Researchers discover less ordinary matter than predicted)
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8960

Just how much less [ordinary matter (and more dark matter)] depends systematically on scale, according to the researchers. The smaller an object, the further its ratio of ordinary matter to dark matter is from the cosmic mix. McGaugh says their work indicates that the largest bound structures, rich clusters of galaxies, have 14 percent of ordinary baryonic matter, close to the expected 17 percent.

"As we looked at smaller objects — individual galaxies and satellite galaxies — the normal matter content gets steadily less," he says. "By the time we reach the smallest dwarf satellite galaxies, the content of normal matter is only about 1 percent of what it should be. [Such galaxies' baryon content is about 0.2 percent instead of 17 percent.] The variation of the baryon content is very systematic with scale. The smaller the galaxy, the smaller is its ratio of normal matter to dark matter. Put another way, the smallest galaxies are very dark matter dominated.

The closer they look, the more the theory appears to unravel before them in the face of unpredicted data that does not conform to the model. They seem to have to do ever more contortions to fit the model to the data. It seems like cosmology has returned to epicycles. I think that general view is fairly widespread on this board. But, who knows, maybe it's just me.

So, at least for me, the gravitational models do not look particularly more promising, when even the basics have already been falsified by observational evidence. That astronomers and cosmologists continued using falsified models does not reflect well, in my opinion.

Personally, I tend to go with the Plasma Universe version of things, per Anthony Peratt / Winston Bostick:

(Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I & II)
http://plasmascience.net/downloadsCosmo ... 6TPS-I.pdf
http://plasmascience.net/downloadsCosmo ... TPS-II.pdf

The latter of the two (above) describes galaxy formation from the perspective of interacting clouds of charged particles, using Particle-in-Cell (PIC) simulations including both electromagnetic and gravitational equations. Allowed to run, spiral forms similar to galaxies emerge. Moreoever, rotational curves approximately match known astrophysical objects, without resort to Dark Matter.

Not to mention that Peratt's PIC simulations also appear to mirror formations seen in actual lab experiments done by Winston Bostick with real plasmoids.

(Experimental Study of Plasmoids)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958IAUS....6...87B

Had computers and 3D fully electrical / gravitational simulations of the caliber available today been available in the 50's and 60's, would we even HAVE a gravitational model of galaxies today, or would it all just be electrical? Who knows...

One must also keep in mind that Plasma Cosmology / Electric Universe proponents do not say that gravity doesn't exist.

Far from it. As Hannes Alfvén put it:

Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.

That is to say, where non-trivial electric fields and electric currents exist, they may well dominate over the gravitational force. But, where electrical forces have become largely neutralized, gravity may take over (as is largely the case in our Solar System and why Newtonian physics are largely adequate to describe the motions of the solar system; though, there seem to be a few anomalies that are tough for gravity alone to properly account for).

Again, that's all just some of the stuff 'as I understand it.' Others may disagree...

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[mharratsc]

I feel the need to prove my age by showing how incredibly opinionated I am, and throwing my unsolicited opinion out here...

***Why*** people started hypothesizing about the nature of subatomic forces, gravity, astrophysical compositions, and etc has been a question that has taken up permanent residence in the back of my forebrain (perhaps that is my midbrain? But I digress in mid-digression ).

I honestly think that Einstien was such a big hit, and started waves of hypothetical theorists going off on wild tangents, simply because electrodynamics in modern chemistry is an existing branch of science, but what everyone wanted to be was 'mavericks'- they wanted to go off into uncharted waters and discover new things that no one else had seen before!

I think it's some weird aspect of basic human nature- just wanting to be a show-off.

Even today... what gets the most attention? A story wherein which someone states "we have discovered how something we've known about for 50 years actually works"? Or "Exciting news! Never-before-seen <whatchamacallits> discovered in orbit around flashy supergiant star!!"

Yeah...

Personally, I think that by allowing this mentality to flourish early on, it became the standard modus operendi of the Sciences since then... and we still suffer for it today. :\

Anyway- off m'soapbox now.. Carry on then!