Good low-controversy intro to EU?

[Morphenius]

Greetings everyone,

I recently had an exchange with a professor in my program - a mathematical physicist by trade. He seems interested in EU and would like me to send him some website or something that he can read that will give him an idea of what it's about.

However, I'm concerned that sites like Thornhill's that claim Einstein was wrong and ether exists may be too extreme an introduction to this material. It seems to me that the deepest impact that EU has on cosmology is not in the intelligent speculations that people like Thornhill have put together, but is instead in the point that electrical influences are dominant over gravitational ones on an astronomical scale. Suggestions like Thornhill's that gravity may be electrical in nature and that the aether hypothesis may still be a tenable one are fun and may well turn out to be important down the road, but the deepest immediate value of the EU theory are points that require less speculation and are more based on taking note of fairly uncontroversial observation.

For instance, the point that the corona of the Sun follows exactly the pattern of a plasma phenomenon that can be and has been repeatedly replicated in a laboratory doesn't require any speculation. It's just an observation that suggests quite strongly that the Sun may have some sort of plasma behavior.

The acceleration of the solar wind, too, is a known and uncontroversial phenomenon. Yet it implies the existence of an electric field in much the pattern one would expect if the Sun were an anode (or cathode - I think electrons zoom away from the Sun, but I might have that backwards).

Having a very short (e.g. less than about five printed pages) introduction to EU that just makes observations and suggests a theory that ties them together would be wonderful to hand to interested people. It would avoid the problem I often face wherein people will reject EU because of the hostile and often condescending stance EU writers often take towards conventional cosmological theories. It would also be succinct enough that I could reasonably ask an interested scientist to review the theory in its rough outline and let me know what he thinks.

Does anyone know of such a low-controversy summary that has been put together, such as a PDF document or small webpage?

[moses]

Unfortunately, if there is lots of electricity in the Universe, then also
in the Solar System, then there can be electrical currents that can be
in dark, glow or arc mode. This is controversial. Considering the
possibility of a large electrical discharge into Earth is controversial.
But let me tell you that there is ample evidence this has happenned
in the past, and consequent with the human trauma involved, there
is a psychological blockage to this idea.
Mo

[Morphenius]

Unfortunately, if there is lots of electricity in the Universe, then also
in the Solar System, then there can be electrical currents that can be
in dark, glow or arc mode. This is controversial. Considering the
possibility of a large electrical discharge into Earth is controversial.
But let me tell you that there is ample evidence this has happenned
in the past, and consequent with the human trauma involved, there
is a psychological blockage to this idea.
Mo

Hello Moses,

Thank you for your contribution.

I agree that EU is inherently controversial. Even the single challenge of saying that stars are plasma phenomena rather than nuclear ones is going to ruffle some feathers, and it's a vital point to convey since it redefines how we think about the entire solar system.

However, I'm not so sure that its presentation need be confrontational, at least at first.

For instance, to pose the theory we need only present some observations that are puzzling to astronomers and conventional cosmologists. Observations are noncontroversial in the sense that denying them requires actively and consciously denying the scientific method. Some people are obviously willing to do that, but I think more scientific minds would be willing to start out agreeing with observations than hypotheses that disagree with conventional theory.

For instance, the following points out a sample of oddities that, at present, defy conventional explanation (as far as I know):

• The particles making up solar wind accelerate.
• The corona of the Sun is vastly hotter than the photosphere, seeming to defy the principles of thermodynamics.
• Comets apparently aren't "dirty snowballs," as demonstrated by the Deep Impact project investigating the comet Tempel-1. This leaves us wondering what the cause of cometary tails might be.

These could be presented in a fairly straightforward manner without making any claims. They are anomalies begging for an explanation. Then the presentation could outline the EU theory to the extent of suggesting an electrically-based explanation for each of these. In my example here, all three anomalies receive fine explanation with the EU theory of electric stars. Since that immediately suggests an external current powering stars and therefore leads to interstellar and intergalactic currents thus providing for different hypothetical explanations for corkscrew patterns in galaxies, this may be enough for a brief introduction.

Of course, the challenge at that point is to show how this theory does not contradict the known evidence that seems to be in support of the conventional model. A friend of mine with a bachelors degree in physics finds EU fascinating and generally plausible, but he doesn't give the electric theory of stars much credence because he finds the evidence for the Sun and other stars being thermonuclear reactions so overwhelmingly compelling. I'm not sure what this evidence is as I'm not an expert in astrophysics, but it seems like it would be worthwhile to give a short account of at least a few bits and pieces to show that they agree with the electric star model. It needn't be comprehensive since it's just an introduction. It just needs to make a few points to show a critical mind that the idea is tenable.

In sum, I'm looking for an introduction to EU that has these five attributes:

• It's short, introducing the ideas in brief rather than trying to divulge them in their entirety.
• It focuses on being an explanation of known anomalies rather than making a frontal assault on conventionally accepted evidence (e.g. redshift).
• It divulges a minimum needed to explain the raw idea rather than trying to offer a new physics.
• It describes EU without speaking down to conventional theories (as in Don Scott's "FAIRY DUST" - which I like, mind you, but is psychologically hard to swallow).
• It is devoid of any of the mythological material along the lines of "The Saturn Myth."

By the "new physics" point, I mean that it should avoid things like Thornhill's brilliant but highly controversial ideas about the nature of gravity and light. For instance, one anomaly I would certainly not suggest should be in this introduction would be that gravity seems to operate nearly instantaneously. That is, the Earth is pulled towards where the Sun is rather than where it visually appears in the sky. There are three compelling reasons to avoid this. The first is that I'm not sure this is accepted as true. I've asked around and have gotten mixed replies, usually resulting in the assertion that gravity must operate in the direction of the visual manifestation of the Sun due to Einstein's speed limit. Second, the suggested explanation contrasting longitudinal waves with transverse ones involves such a radical divergence from conventional views that making the case for plausibility becomes immensely challenging. Third, such a hypothesis isn't vital to the core content of EU theory. What makes EU theory important in the short term is its implications about the role of electricity in the cosmos. We can talk about electric stars, Birkeland currents, and galaxies structured by principles of plasma without questioning the nature of gravity.

In a sense, I guess that's my main goal in looking for such a low-controversy introduction to EU theory. I'd like to offer something that, instead of challenging conventional models of reality, suggests that those effects such as spacetime curvature to a singularity (i.e. a black hole) actually don't matter nearly as much as more mundane, near-classical models using electricity. In principle, the two models (EU theory and general relativity) can coexist to a very large extent. We may disagree with general relativity and think we have better explanations, but when it comes to presenting our ideas to those who believe in Einstein's ideas we have considerably greater power in working in parallel to conventional models rather than trying to oppose them directly.

It would make my life a lot easier if I had something like this to send to open-minded skeptics. I know I tend to become more critical and suspicious if the argument I'm reading keeps making jabs at the opposing side. I totally understand the frustration the Kronia group has with conventional "scientists" who reject the evidence because it disagrees with their established theories and therefore turn a deaf ear to EU theory. Unfortunately, the "opposing team" doesn't understand that. Someone who feels attacked because they were convinced by what seemed like compelling evidence and arguments is likely to balk and will be much harder to win over.

This is, indeed, the reason I'd like it to be devoid of the mythological aspects. I have a great deal of respect for the work that Talbott and colleagues have done in pointing out the connection between EU theory and catastrophic events in humanity's past. Yet this adds an entire layer of controversy that, in my experience, leads scientifically-minded people to reject the whole set of ideas as almost certainly not worth their time to investigate. And frankly, I don't blame them. They have a finite amount of time to investigate whatever interests them, and by and large people who make radical claims like this tend to be flakes in their experience. Just as a pragmatic matter of using time efficiently, it seems like a more worthwhile use of time from their perspective to investigate an experiment agreeing with conventional cosmology that has surprising results than it is to explore a theory that denies the foundation of virtually all of modern cosmology. Adding an aspect that disagrees with much of our conventional understanding of history grants a virtual guarantee in their minds of nonsense.

That was a much longer elaboration than I had intended! I hope my intent is clear, though. I'm not looking for something devoid of controversy because I agree with you. I don't think it's possible. However, I think it is possible to frame a presentation in such a way that the controversy is seen as stemming from the evidence rather than the theory and then to present the theory without making the reader feel attacked.

It's my hope that such a presentation already exists because I'm not really that qualified to write it. My background is in education research and formal mathematics. I could probably cobble something reasonable together, but I suspect that someone with greater expertise than I have could pull together something much better. I'm checking to see if someone already has.

Thank you again for your input, Moses. I hope my intent is clearer now!

~Morphenius

[davesmith_au]

Welcome Morphenius. Indeed you do raise a legitimate dilemma.

If you can wait a few weeks or a month or two, there is something in the pipeline which should, by all accounts, fit the bill of what you're looking for. The Thunderbolts Project is currently working on an e-book which will be a simple, easy to follow introduction to EU, covering most the issues you've raised. It is being designed not to insult or antagonise anyone, but to lay out the facts and evidence and let them speak for themselves. It won't be long now, and will be well worth the short wait.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[moses]

To be honest to this mathematical physicist would be to inform him that he would
likely be ostracised, and that there is ample evidence of interplanetary lightning
in the not too distant past. If he doesn't have the guts to face up to these possibilities
then perhaps EU is not for him.
Mo

[Morphenius]

Welcome Morphenius.

Thank you!

If you can wait a few weeks or a month or two, there is something in the pipeline which should, by all accounts, fit the bill of what you're looking for. The Thunderbolts Project is currently working on an e-book which will be a simple, easy to follow introduction to EU, covering most the issues you've raised. It is being designed not to insult or antagonise anyone, but to lay out the facts and evidence and let them speak for themselves. It won't be long now, and will be well worth the short wait.

Wonderful! That's very good to hear. Thank you for letting me know!

By what name will this appear?

[davesmith_au]

<snip>

If you can wait a few weeks or a month or two, there is something in the pipeline which should, by all accounts, fit the bill of what you're looking for. The Thunderbolts Project is currently working on an e-book which will be a simple, easy to follow introduction to EU, covering most the issues you've raised. It is being designed not to insult or antagonise anyone, but to lay out the facts and evidence and let them speak for themselves. It won't be long now, and will be well worth the short wait.

Wonderful! That's very good to hear. Thank you for letting me know!

By what name will this appear?

Giday again Morphenius, it's now available and called Universe Electric - Big Bang?

http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thun ... books.html

The first chapter is available for free download, the whole volume can be bought for $US20.00. It should be said this is only the first instalment of what will be a number of volumes covering different aspects of EU, as discussed on the page referenced above.

Buying the book will of course help the Thunderbolts Project in its endeavours, once the considerable costs of putting it together are recouped. We have already received outstanding feedback from various folk who have found the book enlightening and informative, and some are even suggesting it as a teaching resource.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[Morphenius]

Giday again Morphenius, it's now available and called Universe Electric - Big Bang?

http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Thun ... books.html

The first chapter is available for free download, the whole volume can be bought for $US20.00. It should be said this is only the first instalment of what will be a number of volumes covering different aspects of EU, as discussed on the page referenced above.

Buying the book will of course help the Thunderbolts Project in its endeavours, once the considerable costs of putting it together are recouped. We have already received outstanding feedback from various folk who have found the book enlightening and informative, and some are even suggesting it as a teaching resource.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

Thank you, Dave! I appreciate you letting me know.

This is exciting - though unfortunately it's a bit different than what I had been seeking. I was hoping for something short. I don't know if it's really possible to do EU justice with five to ten pages, though.

Anyway, thank you for digging this up and letting me know!

~Morphenius

[MGmirkin]

Not asking too much, are we?

Sweeping overview, slightly technical but accessible, non-controversial / inoffensive and able to fit into 4-5 pages?

I guess the answer really depends on the audience...

EU is inherently controversial as it's predicated on a more-or-less completely different paradigm. In some cases it simplifies to the standard paradigm where planetary motions may be described by current gravitational understandings. But otherwise, many aspects of the theory stand in contrast to conventional theories (the sources and/or locations of solar energy, radiance and fusion; the mechanism responsible for nebular collapse or material scavenging and for galaxy formation, evolution, morphology, rotation curves, and sustenance; the relation ship between bodies in space vs. the lack thereof under gravitational assumptions; etc.).

Without sufficient technical depth, simple hand-waving arguments against the theory are often used by skeptics or pseudo-skeptics. But with too much depth, it either becomes too technical or or too long to read efficiently.

I know that a couple of James Hogan's articles have given a light overview of plasma cosmology / EU concepts. Don't know how in depth or non-controversial / non-confrontational they are...

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/CPG.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html
http://www.jamesphogan.com/talks/talks.php

The Electric Comet is a somewhat readable accounting of comets under the electrical interpretation. Again, don't know how non-confrontational it is. It's been a while since I gave it a good skim.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf

If you're looking for technical bits, some of Juergens' work might be helpful in understanding the alternative interpretation of the sun.

http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0404-stellar.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0 ... sphere.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0 ... tric-i.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0 ... ric-ii.htm

Granted some of those are aging papers / notes, and the current understanding of processes may be more fully understood or slightly different today than when they were originally written.

The works of CER Bruce are also good technical entry points. Likewise Alfvén and Birkeland... Again, aging but nonetheless interesting.

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/index.htm
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/elec ... /index.htm
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... nd_Nebulae

Don Scott's site has a link to his old home page (prior to the newer one discussing his book The Electric Sky)

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

On it he discusses many anomalies and possible explanations, giving something of an overview of many EU concepts. Some parts may be complementary to Thornhill's interpretations. Others may be slightly different. Such happens in any scientific field where multiple viewpoints are expressed. Generalities may be agreed upon, but specific extrapolations may vary. Further discourse or refinement always appreciated I'm sure. Again, I don't know how non-confrontational it is, as perceived deficiencies are pointed out (sometimes poignantly, sometimes more forcefully) and alternatives perceived to be more evident are offered.

It's hard to keep one's biases or annoyances from creeping into one's prose and explanations. Would that everyone could speak dispassionately. "Just the facts ma'am [or man]!" Inevitably one's own life experiences tend to color one's presentation and affectations.

So far there's not really an end-all-be-all short, sweet, technical, accessible, non-controversial, inoffensive explanation of life the universe and everything. But hopefully there will be at some point.

I've had a few ideas along those lines, but always seem to find that when I start writing there is so much more to say and that pruning any of it away feels completely incomplete to do it all justice.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[jjohnson]

Morphenius, I just read this thread, so don't know how far your discussions have gone with your friend by now. Something that you might consider is, what evidentiary presentation would be least non-threatening and most interesting to this individual? I submit that something that is somewhat mathematical in treatment, coming from someone with enough time in grade in a mainstream physics organisation to have experience and be seen as reliable, might be helpful. Anthony Peratt's work at DOE, his papers on their surprising findings from direct physical observations as well as PIC computational modeling, his popular press writing (in Sky and Telescope), his association with IEEE and their plasma component, as well as his out-of-print textbook, Physics of the Plasma Universe, might conspire to be the sort of entre to the EU hypotheses and discussions that would wedge open that little crack in his body of knowledge and thought processes. After that, all the beautiful observational evidence in the literature, the early and recent books by authors thinking along these lines will be fun discoveries for him and encourage him to surf the net looking for more, just like most of us. One always gets more flies with honey. Showing that there are really interesting challenges in further progress in this alternate theory of how things work may present an unavoidable challenge to his skill set. -Especially if he sets out to try to disprove the theory, always an excellent start if one is truly curious and scientifically honest enough to try one's best to be impartial about it.

I think that for younger people a manga series of "novels" or stories, starting with the early explorations of the aurora, the terella simulations, etc. and progressing through the progress in physics, the departure from the mechanical model to the quantum/relativistic model, the subsequent rise of problems as the cosmological model fails repeatedly, problems with string theory and unification, fabrications of imperceptible explanations that therefore can't be falsified, and so on to the rise of today's EU alternative hypothesis might be a more effective introduction than physics papers. There is tension and warfare, shunning of unwanted intruders upon the comfortable world of the 'standard' model, schemes to get around the establishment's refusing to meet and discuss, and so on. Unfortunately I don't do manga or I'd try. You have to suit the message as well as the medium to the audience. Good luck!

[TalonThorn]

Have you considered popularizing the ideas by published science fiction? This is an avenue that should not be overlooked.

As for how to present it or what to present in a summary format, you might look at what you want to accomplish and consider the possible consequences. If you gloss over the controversy, what happens when they find out? Will you look bad or will they understand, having "seen the light" (or plasma glow?) by then?

If it is just a piece to entice others to look more into it, then you should probably avoid controversial subjects, as you have already surmised, and focus in on the more interesting discoveries. However, I think you'd do ok with controversial areas that mainstream science is very much unable to explain, and this might make for the most interesting reading. Then again, it might make EU look like a hobby rather than a real scientific endeavor.

For me, the most interesting EU subjects are 1) those that explain what mainstream science is baffled by, and 2) the EU substitute explanation of how things work. Since I'm avidly in favor of the EU way of looking at things, I'd suggest avoiding these two. lol.

You could try to explain the science in terms that avoid the hot buttons (such as ether) by using new terms or ways of describing the same. This would seem necessary, in my mind, regardless of who the audience is, since the old connotative meaning of ether makes the EU look like some crackpot study that doesn't deserve serious consideration.

Ultimately, I think you'll need to devise some hard-science explanations for currently known things, and make down-to-earth experiments that one can perform (or better, benefit from) before EU becomes accepted. I believe that is how all science overcomes its predecessor. Whether by bad science experiments that are glossed over and rubber stamped by the mainstream group or by making a new toaster that doesn't burn toast, that is the angle I think you will find has the best success in what you seek. But that isn't what you asked for, so I'll stop here.

One last note: If you show respect to the established way of thinking about things, and introduce your science in a way that doesn't sound like you are going to overthrow it, but rather compliment it (as much as is reasonable), then you may find that the reader is more willing to respect your alternate science. Respect begets respect, and that's a good way to start out, as it can lead to objective reasoning instead of emotional exchanges.

[MGmirkin]

Respect begets respect, and that's a good way to start out, as it can lead to objective reasoning instead of emotional exchanges.

Agreed. Hopefully my writing style in Thunderblog has changed a bit over the last year or two to incorporate this truth. IE, point out errors as dispassionately as possible and endeavor to replace errors with correct understanding. Can't say as I've always succeeded, especially where pseudo-skeptics tend to raise the ire a bit. But, I'm trying. Sometimes it simply requires IGNORING their baiting tactics (an attempt, conscious or subconscious, to raise the ire and cause you to look like a jackass when you respond hotly), and responding with a simple pointer to relevant information or an expression of your point of view.

In any event, a series of dispassionate answers may be coming at some point in the near to mid future. We'll see how things go. Can't say much more at this point, as it's still 'in the works'.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin