So the universe is electric

[Indras9]

Hey everyone

Great website and forum. I've been following the TPOD section for the best part of a year now as a guest and I have taken some time to read through many of the topics here on this forum, I've just got through the net talk thread about magnetic reconnection, which read like some weird script out of the twighlight zone.

So the universe is electric... other than loss of funding, reputations being destroyed, and humiliation being dished out on a global scale, why does mainstream respond to the EU theory in such an abhorrent manner?

From what I have read there seems to be a fair amount of literature dating back well over a hundred years that talks about a universal force permeating through the universe, I assume mainstream sees this force as gravity and EU theorists sees this as electricity. Tesla immediately springs to mind and Planck for this unusual quote:

"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

I assume most people would write this off based on the mind being an epiphenomenon, but does anyone consider electricity as the matrix or medium of all matter - or am I just making a complete tit of myself

Anyway, enough of my pre-ramble - these are my questions for you good people:

1. What are EU's weakest links? (we know mainstream is littered with them)
2. What is the layman interpretation of charge and the magnetism force?
3. The universe is filled with electricity but what is the power source?

My apologies if this has caused a yawn but you guys have ignited a spark (excuse the pun) in my mind. From what I have read we can't have magnetic fields without a cause, i.e electric current. Does this mean that current (is it okay to say charge) is an effect of some other cause, i.e. power source?

If so what the fook may that be

[junglelord]

Hi and Welcome


We can say without a doubt that all mass is charge.
At some point, a gathering of mass creates life and consciousness.
We can begin at the virus level and observe a icoshedron shape.
Or the one cell bacteria...spherical...MMMM

I believe in the idea of the electron being a conscious unit.
Information = Energy
Just a thought in the direction you mentioned.

Cheers,
PS, everyone knows that I believe in the conspiracy theory of why the EU is so "dangerous" to their methods of brainwashing....just my two cents.

[earls]

It's the ego factor.

People don't like to be told they're wrong and/or idiots. Mainstream has A LOT invested in the current paradigm and for "nonacademic outsiders" to take "potshots" as what as deemed a concrete theory, is just unbearable.

1. EU's weakest links are data and maths. The data problem is shared with mainstream, but they have the resources to gather it. It just so happens that their data keeps baffling them, yet increasing clarity of the Electric Universe.

Here's a great example of everything I've said so far: http://www.physorg.com/news185730873.html

2. What aspects?

3. The "power source" is the potential or difference in the system. Consider the tile game:

http://www.c4dcreations.com/admin1/imag ... ame_01.jpg

One tile is missing, so the system must move to fill that void. Now if the tiles were like a liquid or gas they would just completely fill the space and the system would quickly reach equilibrium. But thanks to Quantum Mechanics, the Universe is like the tile game and can only operate in "quanta" or chunks aka tiles.

Simply put the Universe is playing an eternal game of equalization it will never reach.

Certainly, you can adapt this view to gel with Mainstream by adding a "beginning" and an "end", aka pre-equilibrium and post-equilibrium, but I see no reason to cloud the issue with unanswerables - "what/who created the Universe"; "where are the edges"; "what is it expanding into" ...

It's what's known in mainstream as the Steady State Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

Big Bangers feel this idea is completely discredited by redshift (Universal Expansion) and the CMB.

I prefer to think of it as the "here and now" theory, as in how can we maintain the here and now forever. Certainly you'll have pockets of high density (galaxies) and low density (empty space) and in time both will exchange place through known physics, but will never stop, as the physical process takes time, and the time it takes is the difference!

If we wish to relate my gibberish to Junglelord's "information theory" which indeed seems to be emerging as the "fabric" of the cosmos, simply: It is impossible to know everything about the entire Universe at one time. You will always be missing at least one tile.

[Indras9]

Thanks Junglelord

We can say without a doubt that all mass is charge

Does EU have a better understanding or idea of what mass is without resorting to mysterious god particles?

I believe in the idea of the electron being a conscious unit.
Information = Energy
Just a thought in the direction you mentioned.

Did I lead in that direction... although I like the idea that information = energy and visa versa?

PS, everyone knows that I believe in the conspiracy theory of why the EU is so "dangerous" to their methods of brainwashing....just my two cents

Unfortunately I've not been here long enough to know this conspiracy theory about why EU is so 'dangerous', any links to some threads to read about this?

Cheers

[borut]

Hi all

I am also quite new her. I have been reading for some three months now about Plasma universe and I must say you got a new believer here . I also ended first reading of Miles articles and I must say he is good...very good.

I took this opportunity, not so to answer the 3 questions above, but more to express my opinion.

1. I have found that weak point of all models is mechanic and math. I also believe that that electric force and magnetism must be explained mechanically.

2. I believe that Miles Mathis has the best answer to both.

3. The power to everything is gravity. Don’t kill me yet. I will explain... I believe that Miles gravity is actually a power to everything but charge, electricity, magnetism is order, creativity and energy distribution of universe.


I must ask you to be gentle on my opinion and my English.

lp
Borut

[Indras9]

Thanks earls for taking the time to respond to what must feel like basic questions:

It's the ego factor.

Fair enough that people don't like to be told they're wrong or that they are idiots. I appreciate that a lot of money has been invested into constructing some bizarre cul-de-sac where abstract architects have been given a free reign to create all manner of outlandish stuff, but even when presented with EU arguments, which appear 'scientifically' valid - for example: concerning magnetic reconnection, the sun-earth birkeland connection, electric comets etc - why do intelligent people still reject the idea that the arguments are wrong.

I suppose what I am trying to say, are there parts of the EU counter-claims that are 'genuinely' rejectable to these guys or is EU that water-tight it really scares the bee-jesus outta them?

1. EU's weakest links are data and maths. The data problem is shared with mainstream, but they have the resources to gather it. It just so happens that their data keeps baffling them, yet increasing clarity of the Electric Universe.

Is the math a weak link because of modelling electricity or magnetism?

Here's a great example of everything I've said so far: http://www.physorg.com/news185730873.html

Thanks for the link I will take a look

2. What aspects?

Do we have a complete understanding of what 'charge' is and what causes it to be...?

3. The "power source" is the potential or difference in the system

.
Okay... this melted a few grey cells LOL. Is it wrong for me to say the 'lighting' network in my house is a system and that I am the potential or difference in the system if I choose to get off my butt and flick the switch?

http://www.c4dcreations.com/admin1/imag ... ame_01.jpg

One tile is missing, so the system must move to fill that void. Now if the tiles were like a liquid or gas they would just completely fill the space and the system would quickly reach equilibrium. But thanks to Quantum Mechanics, the Universe is like the tile game and can only operate in "quanta" or chunks aka tiles.

Simply put the Universe is playing an eternal game of equalization it will never reach.

Thanks for the analogy. You say if the tiles were like liquid or gas they would completely fill the space and the system would quickly reach equilibrium - is this because we're talking about a 'closed' system here? Even with QM tip toeing around in quanta steps wouldn't the closed system 'eventually' reach equilibrium?

Big Bangers feel this idea is completely discredited by redshift (Universal Expansion) and the CMB.

Hasn't Arp discredited this and didn't steady state advocates punch closer to CMBR than Gamow

I prefer to think of it as the "here and now" theory, as in how can we maintain the here and now forever

Yeah but we are here now because we evolved from 'there' wherever 'there' was. That statement doesn't mean I am a supporter of Darwinian theory because I am not, but it seems obvious that we as humans have got to the here and now by evolving (in some capacity) from 'there'. In terms of the universe being a steady-state, i.e. it's always been there, albeit changing, growing or evolving - isn't the here and now already forever maintained?

[Indras9]

Hey Borut thanks for jumping in

I believe that Miles Mathis has the best answer to both

Does Miles explain what charge is or is pointing to two fields in vector opposition simply saying charge is a field?

The power to everything is gravity. Don’t kill me yet

LOL I don't even know what gravity is yet.

best

[borut]

>>Does Miles explain what charge is or is pointing to two fields in vector opposition simply saying charge is a field?


Yes , he explain this beautifully


>>LOL I don't even know what gravity is yet.


Go to Miles page. Gravity by physics or math is only and just acceleration. What is cause of that. Miles can answer you. Einstein model is curvature of space. But Einstein cant explain force.

[borut]

>>Does Miles explain what charge is or is pointing to two fields in vector opposition simply saying charge is a field?


He explains charge, he explains force over distance, he explains atractive force and much more.

[Indras9]

Does Miles explain what charge is or is pointing to two fields in vector opposition simply saying charge is a field?


Yes , he explain this beautifully

I have read some of Miles work and he is a great writer and I assume equally great mathematician, I can't judge him on his math because I am not a mathematician - he does accept certain mainstream ideas that are challenged by EU into his work though.

He also talks tongue-in-cheek about messenger photons and then re-dubs them b-photons - have we detected these b-photons?

Go to Miles page. Gravity by physics or math is only and just acceleration. What is cause of that. Miles can answer you. Einstein model is curvature of space. But Einstein cant explain force.

I thought the common consensus was that gravity has been explained mathematically but that doesn't tell us what gravity is..?

Best

[Indras9]

Sorry junglelord:

We can say without a doubt that all mass is charge

What I meant to say was how is charge mass? Does charge weave itself into solidity?

[borut]

>>I have read some of Miles work and he is a great writer and I assume equally great mathematician, I can't judge him on his math because I am not a mathematician - he does accept certain mainstream ideas that are challenged by EU into his work though.

He also talks tongue-in-cheek about messenger photons and then re-dubs them b-photons - have we detected these b-photons?


wow...sorry you are wrong. His b-photons are not even close to messenger photons. B-photos are just photons. For him B-photon is simply IR photon.

I can show how Miles is right and also EU.

I 'll put some numbers here

gravity earth 9.8 EM 0.01 = 9,81 we have for G
moon 2.671 EM 1.051 ...and so on

Now imagine comets. EU is right. You can see how EM force is rising.

[Indras9]

wow...sorry you are wrong. His b-photons are not even close to messenger photons. B-photos are just photons. For him B-photon is simply IR photon.

Why are you jumping on me... I haven't claimed Miles or EU are wrong. I am simply trying to understand something that is all.

Miles Mathis and I quote:

The way that all this impacts the problem of charge is that we can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive. It is caused by radiation of these messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact. Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.

[borut]

>> Why are you jumping on me... I haven't claimed Miles or EU are wrong. I am simply trying to understand something that is all.

Sorry it was not my intention. Now I can see what went wrong. By mainstream messenger photons are virtual photons. By Miles not.

So now I can answer you the question:

All photons can be B-photons. What maters is that radiating photons from moon are charge of a moon. Not just IR photons...all photons IR,X,gama, visible light...

[Indras9]

Thanks for the speedy response and apology accepted

I am not trying to be a pain, just seeking some understanding that's all. I like the EU theory alot, that's why I am here trying to learn more about it.

By mainstream messenger photons are virtual photons. By Miles not

So now I can answer you the question:

All photons can be B-photons. What maters is that radiating photons from moon are charge of a moon. Not just IR photons...all photons IR,X,gama, visible light

So photons are actual particles, they are not phantom messengers? Does this mean photons come in different flavors so to speak and that we will be able to detect IR particles, Xray particles, gamma particles etc

Best