{"id":51015,"date":"2022-03-05T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-03-06T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/?p=51015"},"modified":"2022-03-08T01:46:16","modified_gmt":"2022-03-08T09:46:16","slug":"the-electric-universe-model-and-the-future-of-cosmology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2022\/03\/05\/the-electric-universe-model-and-the-future-of-cosmology\/","title":{"rendered":"The Electric Universe Model and the Future of Cosmology"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture1.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture1.png?w=958\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1895\" width=\"550\" height=\"550\"\/><\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-heading\"><strong>The Electric Universe Model and the Future of Cosmology<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-heading\"><strong>by Ghada Chehade, PhD<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>PART I.&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Drawing on Thomas Kuhn\u2019s paradigm shift framework, I\u2019ve established that cosmology is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=yEe_Zh9Pn0Q\">presently in crisis<\/a>&nbsp;and inevitably heading towards <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=S2uDQWBGJRA\">a revolution<\/a> (or paradigm shift). When a scientific model reaches a crisis point\u2014marked by mounting anomalies and contradictions that the model cannot resolve\u2014then it can no longer serve as a reliable guide to problem-solving and will eventually be replaced by a different model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is the Model Revolution Stage of the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2021\/04\/10\/not-if-but-when-cosmology-in-crisis-the-coming-paradigm-shift-part-2\/\">Paradigm Shift Cycle<\/a>. It begins with the emergence of a new model&nbsp;or models that speak a&nbsp;<em>fundamentally different language<\/em>, making the old and new models irreconcilable and incompatible: which means that they&nbsp;cannot coexist. Simply put, the main criteria for model revolution is a <em>new model<\/em>, that speaks <em>a fundamentally different language<\/em> and is incompatible with the existing model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To distinguish it from other uses of the word, for the purpose of this analysis, I use the word&nbsp;language<em>&nbsp;<\/em>to refer to \u201cparadigmatic language,\u201d by which I mean how a paradigm talks about and describes the things it observes in nature. A change in paradigm is ultimately a change of worldview (<em>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions<\/em>,&nbsp;pp.111; 117; 121). So, are there presently any cosmological models that speak a&nbsp;fundamentally different paradigmatic language with a different worldview?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In order to explore this question, we must first establish the lexicon of the Standard Model of Cosmology. To put a complex subject in admittedly reduced terms, I have distilled the Standard Model lexicon to the three following foundational concepts and assumptions (in order of significance):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong>Gravity<\/strong>\u2014as the principal cosmological force<\/li><li><strong>General Relativity<\/strong>\u2014as defining and\/or in relation to gravity<\/li><li><strong>The Big Bang<\/strong>\u2014an expanding universe birthed by the big bang<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These concepts are complementary and interdependent, while also engendering the majority of other concepts and hypotheses contained within the Standard Model, which exist to explain (often contradictory or anomalous) observational data related to one or more of these foundational assumptions. In other words, the paradigmatic language or lexicon of the Standard Model is premised on and couched within, one or more of these foundational notions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>PART II.&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture2png.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture2png.png?w=974\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1897\" width=\"487\" height=\"366\"\/><\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>A Fundamentally Different Cosmology?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, are there presently any alternative theories or models that deviate from one or all of these foundational concepts and assumptions?&nbsp;Let\u2019s look at what mainstream science has to say about alternative cosmologies. In the mainstream, alternatives are sometimes described as physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM).&nbsp;\u201cPhysics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the deficiencies of the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Standard_Model\">Standard Model<\/a>. . . \u201d <sup>1<\/sup> According to mainstream scientists, \u201ctheories that lie beyond the Standard Model include various extensions of the standard model\u2026and entirely novel explanations, such as <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/String_theory\">string theory<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/M-theory\">M-theory<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Extra_dimensions\">extra dimensions<\/a>. . .<sup>2<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Examples of extensions include&nbsp;the <strong>Eternal Inflation Theory<\/strong> and the <strong>Oscillating model <\/strong>of the universe.<sup>3<\/sup> I leave it to cosmologists and astrophysicists to explore the details of these hypotheses. For our purposes, what matters is that both of these theories rely on the Standard Model\u2019s foundational assumption, and lexicon, about a big bang, and are, therefore, not sufficiently different. Even early big bang rivals such as Steady State Theory still rely on foundational assumptions and concepts\u2013such as gravity as the sole driving force of the universe as well as expansion.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Another mainstream alternative is <strong>Modified Newtonian Dynamics<\/strong> or MOND. MOND \u201cis a <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hypothesis\">hypothesis<\/a>&nbsp;that proposes a modification of <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation\">Newton\u2019s law of universal gravitation<\/a>&nbsp;to account for observed properties of <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Galaxies\">galaxies<\/a>.\u201d Specifically, It is \u201can alternative to the hypothesis of <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Dark_matter\">dark matter<\/a> in terms of explaining why galaxies do not appear to obey the currently understood laws of physics.\u201d<sup>4<\/sup> In other words, MOND (and its variants) are an attempt to address one of the many anomalies\u2014and crises\u2014of the Standard Model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While it is touted as an alternative that can eliminate the problems and anomalies created by the hypothesis of dark matter, MOND is still gravity-centric (and actually increases the galactic effects of gravity.<sup>5<\/sup>) It also relies on many of the main assumptions and concepts of the Standard Model (with the obvious exception of dark matter.)&nbsp;Thus, as is the case with the previously mentioned extensions,&nbsp;MOND is&nbsp;also not a viable alternative in the Kuhnian sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Overall, an extension to the Standard Model,&nbsp;by its very definition, could never be seen as containing a fundamentally different paradigmatic language. What\u2019s more, while these extensions arose to address problems and deficiencies in the Standard Model, by further contributing to the complexity of the Model, they ultimately exacerbate the crisis in contemporary cosmology. Let us recall, as noted in previous articles, increasing complexity is an indication of crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Moving on to the \u201centirely novel explanations\u201d such as String Theory, M-theory, and extra dimensions, the main thing worth noting for our purposes is that these still treat gravity as the main driving force in the universe. As such, they too cannot be seen as speaking a fundamentally different paradigmatic language and do not qualify as serious theoretical considerations for a new model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These are but a few examples of mainstream alternatives that exist. I leave it to those more versed in the hard sciences to sift through and evaluate all of the possible add-ons and extensions to the Standard Model.&nbsp;As a critical discourse analyst working within the Kuhnian framework, I am primarily interested in identifying alternative models that meet the criteria for Model Revolution; ones that self-consciously and directly espouse <em>a fundamentally different language<\/em> with a different view of the cosmos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture3.png\"><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture3.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture3.png?w=974\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1898\" width=\"487\" height=\"303\"\/><\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>The Electric Universe Model<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One model that I am familiar with, and that also stands out for speaking a radically different language, is the <strong>Electric Universe Model of Cosmology<\/strong>&nbsp;(or EU Model for short). Proponents of this model self-consciously espouse an entirely different paradigmatic. Let\u2019s look at some examples in the words of its proponents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In an introduction to an essay in <em>The Secular Heretic<\/em> by Electric Universe physicist and pioneer, Wal Thornhill, the magazine\u2019s editors describe the EU Model as the science of the 21<sup>st<\/sup>&nbsp;century, telling its readers: \u201cSet aside everything <em>you think you know<\/em>&nbsp;about all things great and small because the ideas presented\u201d in the Electric Universe \u201coverturn it all.\u201d<sup>6<\/sup> Referring to the EU Model\u2019s take on the primary assumptions of the Standard Model, they note:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWas there a big bang? Not likely. Einstein\u2019s Relativity? Doesn\u2019t hold up. Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor that will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope. Are there black holes? No such thing. What about dark matter and dark energy? Forget about that nonsense and start learning about the science of the 21st century.\u201d <sup>7<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Implied in this statement is the idea that the Electric Universe Model calls into question <em>many<\/em> of the foundational concepts and suppositions of Standard Cosmology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What about gravity? This is arguably<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>the most important point of departure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For the EU Model, the universe\u2019s nature <em>cannot\u00a0<\/em>be explained\u00a0by gravity alone.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, according to Wal Thornhill, \u201cunlike the Standard Model, the EU Model has a physical model for gravity as a manifestation of the electric dipole force.\u201d\u00a0 In the Standard Model, gravity is the fundamental organizing force in the Universe. On the macro scale, the Universe is dominated by gravity. But in the Electric Universe Model, \u201cThe Electric Force is the fundamental organising force at all scales.\u201d <sup>8<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to EU proponents:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>\u201c<\/strong>. . . the gravitational theorem . . . does not single-handedly provide all the answers required by physical science, particularly in deep space. . . gravitational theory struggles to explain many anomalies in observation . . . Today\u2019s most vexing scientific anomalies point to an unexpected\u2014at times dominating\u2014role of the electric force.\u201d <sup>9<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The EU Model does not deny the role of gravity in the universe. On the contrary, as The Model explains:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe Electric Universe concept emerged from the principles of empirical physical science as expressed by such pioneers as Galileo, Kepler and Newton . . . However, there is an important corollary to the gravitational theorem . . .\u201d <sup>11<\/sup> and that is the Electrical Force.<sup>12<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture-extra.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture-extra.jpg?w=1024\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1903\" width=\"512\" height=\"341\"\/><\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>Due to the hierarchical structure of the gravity-relativity-big bang lexicon that I identify at the beginning, if the first foundational concept\u2014i.e., gravity as the organizing force in the universe\u2014is compromised, then it stands to reason that the other two would also be called into question. If the Standard Model\u2019s views on gravity as an organizing force are wrong, then general relativity would be rendered irrelevant, and the big bang improbable. For instance, based on what the EU Model has to say about gravity, the question of a big bang becomes moot. According to Wal Thornhill, \u201cthere was no big bang\u201d and \u201cwe do not know the origins of the universe.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What about theories such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, gravitational waves, etc.? While they are presented as declarative truths or foregone conclusions by mainstream science, EU advocates would caution that these concepts are physically undefined and remain ad hoc hypotheses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Paradigmatic Traps<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, it is not likely that the Standard Model will easily let go of these, and other, foundational concepts.\u00a0Paradigmatic lexicons can trap scientists in a discursive prison that limits the way they can talk about\u2014or even think about\u2014what is observed. In a paradigm shift, the new paradigm typically understands the language of the old or existing model (but does not agree with it). The old paradigm,\u00a0however,\u00a0is restricted in its ability to understand\u2014<em>or even consider<\/em>\u2014the language of the new model.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For example, because the Standard Model does not allow for cohesive electrical effects in space, they are limited to describing much of the\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Interstellar_medium\">interstellar medium<\/a>\u00a0as gas, whereas the EU Model describes it as <em>plasma<\/em> (not least because over 99 percent of the known universe is\u00a0made up\u00a0of electrically-charged plasma).<sup>[10]<\/sup> Standard Model scientists\u00a0<em>know what plasma is<\/em>, but given their paradigmatic assumptions, they\u00a0default to the language, and,\u00a0therefore, the\u00a0physical properties,\u00a0of gas.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For more on the differences between the Electric Universe Model and the Standard Model refer to <a href=\"https:\/\/thesecularheretic.com\/the-electric-universe-heresy\/\">The Electric Universe Heresy<\/a> by Wallace Thornhill and this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=GvoucRqv1k8\">recent video<\/a> by Mel Acheson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In exploring some of the most important differences between the two models, I do not claim to assert whether or not the EU Model is poised to replace the Standard Model. As&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=GvoucRqv1k8\">Acheson<\/a>&nbsp;and others have noted, the EU Model is still evolving and remains a work-in-progress.&nbsp;However, looking at Kuhn\u2019s&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=yEe_Zh9Pn0Q\">paradigm shift framework<\/a>,&nbsp;one could not ask for a better example of a model that meets all of the requirements for the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=S2uDQWBGJRA\">Model Revolution Stage<\/a>,&nbsp;embodying what it means for a model to speak a fundamentally different language than\u2014and be incompatible with\u2014the dominant or existing model. Moreover, as I have shown in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2021\/06\/26\/not-if-but-when-cosmology-in-crisis-the-coming-paradigm-shift-part-3\/\">previous work<\/a>,&nbsp;the Electric Universe Model is also arguably less complex than the existing Standard Model, thereby satisfying part of Kuhn\u2019s requirements for paradigm change (see Structure, p.154).&nbsp;&nbsp;In this respect, the EU Model cannot be considered as an add-on or extension to the Standard Model. It is by the aforementioned measures, a&nbsp;<strong>fundamentally different cosmological paradigm.&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture4.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/picture4.png?w=974\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1900\" width=\"487\" height=\"259\"\/><\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>A Note on Worldview<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Implied by the major differences between the Standard Model and Electric Universe Model&nbsp;is a difference in worldview.<em>&nbsp;<\/em>Electric Universe proponents believe in a \u201cresonantly connected universe,\u201d which is \u201cself-organising,\u201d and where \u201centropy can decrease.\u201d&nbsp;In the Electric Universe worldview, &nbsp;\u201cthe whole is greater than the sum of the parts.\u201d The universe is \u201cconsciousness-filled . . .\u201d with \u201cinstantaneous information transfer via resonant connection.\u201d <sup>14<\/sup> The EU worldview highlights and emphasizes&nbsp;cosmic connectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While the Standard Model does not have a formally articulated and expressed worldview, the Electric Universe infers from what the Standard Model says and, more importantly, what it is silent on,&nbsp;a worldview of&nbsp;&nbsp;\u201cdisconnected, random, chaotic, unconscious, purposeless, ever-increasing entropy.\u201d<sup>15<\/sup> A worldview that is very much&nbsp;in contrast&nbsp;to its own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Given these differences, Standard Model Scientists and Electric Universe scientists are ultimately living in two different\u2014and incompatible\u2014worlds.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As stated earlier, a paradigm shift or scientific revolution is ultimately a change of worldview for scientists. As noted in&nbsp;<em>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThough the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientist afterward works in a different world . . . Rather than being an interpreter, the scientist who embraces a new paradigm is like the man wearing&nbsp;<em>inverting lenses<\/em>. Confronting the same constellation of objects as before, and&nbsp;<em>knowing that he does so<\/em>, he nevertheless finds them&nbsp;<em>transforme<\/em> . . . through and through . . .\u201d (pp.121-122).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>From this statement, we can conclude that a change of paradigm will ultimately upset the scientist\u2019s worldview and field of study\u2013turning them on their head. In light of this, let\u2019s look at how proponents of the Standard Model have reacted to the Electric Universe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Part III.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/language-power-1.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/language-power-1.jpg?w=1024\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1957\" width=\"512\" height=\"284\"\/><\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Mainstream Response to the EU Model?&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/language-power.jpg\"><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For a long time, mainstream Science and media responded as Kuhn\u2019s work would suggest. Once science becomes Institutionalized and entrenched, it tends to function like other dominant Institutions\u2014such as Religion and Politics\u2014in that it is dogmatic and unyielding to falsification and change or newness. For years, mainstream scientists have ignored, dismissed, and\/or mocked the Electric Universe Model. Some even going as far as to lump it in with absurd hypotheses held by\u00a0\u201ccrackpots and a few fringe contrarians.\u201d <sup>17<\/sup> There are also claims that EU Model\u2019s predictions are\u00a0\u00a0\u201cin absurd conflict with observations of the big bang.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is ironic given the Electric Universe\u2019s claim of a history of&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Dh3YBg1fqJ4\">accurate predictions<\/a>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Examples include:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>That solar radiant energy is due largely to transmutation of elements in the electrically active solar plasma, which was confirmed by an independent SAFIRE experiment in 2019.<\/li><li>The&nbsp;electrical \u201cflash\u201d&nbsp;discharge&nbsp;preceding the impact of a&nbsp;copper projectile&nbsp;on&nbsp;Comet Tempel One<\/li><li>That&nbsp;the surface of&nbsp;Saturn\u2019s moon Titan&nbsp;has distinctive lightning scars\u2014called Lichtenberg patterns\u2014with virtually no&nbsp;large craters.&nbsp;<\/li><li>Successful predictions about what would be found at the heliopause<\/li><li>Successful predictions about the heat from Saturn\u2019s north pole<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These predictions, notwithstanding, it is not surprising that the Standard Model would dismiss the EU, especially given what Kuhn says about incommensurability.&nbsp;In the course of a paradigm shift, new ideas and assertions cannot be strictly compared to\u2014or&nbsp;<em>judged by<\/em>\u2014those of the old model, since the two models will have no common measure.&nbsp;From the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis, judging the EU Model by the existing Model\u2019s standards and\/or categorizing it as a model that is not to be taken seriously, are prime examples of how language is linked to power.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In CDA, power is understood in broader symbolic terms, including the power to represent someone or something in a certain way.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For CDA\u00a0\u201clanguage . . . is not simply a tool of communication, but a means by which people demonstrate their commitment, in one way or another, to certain ideologies\u201d or dogmas (&#8220;A critical discourse analysis of power and ideology&#8221; 2011).\u00a0From the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is always about power and control and is never arbitrary (see Birch, 1991; Hall, 1981\u2013cited in\u00a0\u201cA critical discourse analysis of power and ideology,\u201d\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.grin.com\/document\/350636\">2011<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>With respect to science, those working in a <em>model that is as\u00a0deeply entrenched and as heavily funded as the current Standard Mode<\/em>l, ultimately have the power to define and control the very discourse around cosmology\u2014including what is considered acceptable and not acceptable. Given the careers and funding at stake, and given the power it has to define and shape the discourse, it is not surprising that mainstream science and cosmology would dismiss or mock any truly alternative model that threatens or undermines it.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Once&nbsp;this becomes the<strong><em>&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><em>official discourse<\/em>&nbsp;on cosmology\u2014i.e., that the Standard Model is acceptable and alternative models that deviate from Standard Model are unacceptable and not to be taken seriously\u2014it functions as a form of&nbsp;neuro-linguistic programming<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>that signals to the broader population how they should think about cosmology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ironically, however, it is the very resistance to new ideas that eventually forces Institutionalized Science to change.&nbsp;As Kuhn explains, by resisting novelty, normal science (or dominant science) prepares the way for its own change (p.65), not least because&nbsp;crises&nbsp;left unresolved eventually force individuals\u2014<strong><em>i<\/em><\/strong><em>ncluding<\/em>&nbsp;scientists&nbsp;<em>working within the existing model<\/em>\u2014to look elsewhere for new and better answers or explanations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It must be stressed that this entails\u00a0<strong><em>fully\u00a0abandoning<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0the existing, broken model.\u00a0New models demand the destruction of the old paradigm. In a scientific revolution, the new paradigm does not simply revise\u2014or extend and add on to\u2014the old paradigm\/model, it\u00a0<em>replaces it.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><a href=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/flip-script-1.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/soapboxblogdotcom.files.wordpress.com\/2022\/02\/flip-script-1.png?w=974\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1958\" width=\"487\" height=\"272\"\/><\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>While mainstream science has typically ignored and\/or dismissed the Electric Universe Model, more recently, there has been what I describe as \u201celectric universe adjacent\u201d language in the mainstream.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Examples include the following titles:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=_H4xrVzd65Q\">How Magnetism Shapes the Universe<\/a>&nbsp;<\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/phys.org\/news\/2022-02-magnetic-field-milky-filamentary-bone.html?fbclid=IwAR1K3wZDylFDGBJIOhRts4poRzTqkf_wf4mqiOtDd1gbT6d42Nd2qczlOZ4\">The magnetic field in the Milky Way filamentary bone G47<\/a>&nbsp;<\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/phys.org\/news\/2022-02-juno-hubble-reveal-electromagnetic-tug-of-war.html\">Juno and Hubble data reveal electromagnetic \u2018tug-of-war\u2019 lights up Jupiter\u2019s upper atmosphere<\/a>&nbsp;<\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.livescience.com\/radio-filaments-milky-way-center\">Astronomers discover 1,000 strange \u2018filaments\u2019 of radio energy bursting from the galaxy\u2019s center<\/a>&nbsp;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>From the titles alone, we can see that this language is different and uncharacteristic from what\u2019s been typically reported by the mainstream in the past and appears to be more closely aligned with the discourse of electromagnetism.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One title even mentions filaments. And while two of the titles deal exclusively with magnetism, according to the EU Model, it is meaningless to talk about magnetism without also considering the Electric Force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>What might this recent change in mainstream discourse foretell?&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While it is too early to say for sure, one possibility is that more advanced technology (with more sophisticated probes) will make it increasingly impossible to deny the role of electricity in space.<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>Something the EU Model has long claimed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Wal Thornhill&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=cZDqWKTky6U\">notes<\/a>&nbsp;that&nbsp;<strong>\u201c<\/strong>the Electric Universe paradigm has an unparalleled record of successful predictions in the space age.\u201d He expects that this will continue; and that images and findings from the new James Webb Space Telescope will further support the predictions of the Electric Universe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Given the recent additions to their lexicon, could proponents of the Standard Model be preparing or attempting to get ahead the curve and make room in their discourse for electromagnetism, and cosmic electrical forces; while maintaining their authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In other words, could they be preparing to include electricity as an add-on or extension?&nbsp;Will we suddenly be reading about E-Gravity, for instance?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Kuhn\u2019s paradigm shift framework and everything discussed so far, clearly demonstrate that this is&nbsp;<em>not sustainable<\/em>&nbsp;in the long run. Mixing incommensurate models\u2014with&nbsp;<em>fundamentally different paradigmatic languages<\/em>\u2014would only hurt science and could not be considered a true paradigm shift or scientific revolution.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Due to their fundamental differences, the Electric Universe Model and the Standard Model&nbsp;cannot co-exist in the same paradigm. They are too different. As Mel Acheson&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=GvoucRqv1k8\">aptly maintains<\/a>,&nbsp;trying to add the Electric Universe as an extension to the Standard Model would simply muddy the waters.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Given everything we know about the paradigm shift process (including Kuhn\u2019s clearly articulated criteria for a Model Revolution stage), we must conclude that the future of cosmology cannot, and will not, be an ad hoc revision to the Standard Model. On the contrary, due to the very nature and definition of a scientific revolution, the only way forward is a&nbsp;<strong><em>truly alternative&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong>cosmological model, with a radically different paradigmatic language and worldview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Could this be the Electric Universe Model&nbsp;of Cosmology?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Time Will Tell <\/em>. . . <\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p>NOTES<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>1<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/hep.info.yorku.ca\/beyond-the-standard-model\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/hep.info.yorku.ca\/beyond-the-standard-model\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>2<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/en-academic.com\/dic.nsf\/enwiki\/11813627\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/en-academic.com\/dic.nsf\/enwiki\/11813627<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>3<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.space.com\/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.space.com\/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>4<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>5<\/sup> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>6<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/thesecularheretic.com\/the-electric-universe-heresy\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/thesecularheretic.com\/the-electric-universe-heresy\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>7<\/sup> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>8<\/sup> As cited in a chart created and provided by Wallace Thornhill, February 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>9<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2013\/11\/28\/common-misconception-5-what-about-gravity\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2013\/11\/28\/common-misconception-5-what-about-gravity\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>10<\/sup> See <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Uzw6s4nbTZA&amp;feature=emb_logo\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Uzw6s4nbTZA&amp;feature=emb_logo<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>11<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2013\/11\/28\/common-misconception-5-what-about-gravity\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2013\/11\/28\/common-misconception-5-what-about-gravity\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>12<\/sup> As cited in a chart created and provided by Wallace Thornhill, February 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>13<\/sup> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>14<\/sup> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>15<\/sup> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>16<\/sup> See <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=3ap0nxgg9Ws\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=3ap0nxgg9Ws<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>17<\/sup> See <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/startswithabang\/2021\/05\/06\/why-isnt-anyone-seriously-challenging-the-big-bang\/?sh=2275dfa1689f\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/startswithabang\/2021\/05\/06\/why-isnt-anyone-seriously-challenging-the-big-bang\/?sh=2275dfa1689f<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>18<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.grin.com\/document\/350636\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.grin.com\/document\/350636<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>19<\/sup> Ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>20<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2021\/06\/26\/not-if-but-when-cosmology-in-crisis-the-coming-paradigm-shift-part-3\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2021\/06\/26\/not-if-but-when-cosmology-in-crisis-the-coming-paradigm-shift-part-3\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><sup>21<\/sup> <a href=\"https:\/\/politicalanthropologist.com\/2018\/04\/24\/identity-politics-diversion-growing-economic-crisis\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">https:\/\/politicalanthropologist.com\/2018\/04\/24\/identity-politics-diversion-growing-economic-crisis\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-small-font-size\"><em>Copyright \u00a9 2022 Ghada Chehade. All content in this article is the sole property of the author and can only be reproduced with the expressed permission of the author, Ghada Chehade.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"alignleft size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"150\" height=\"166\" src=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Ghada_Chehade_bio.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-47340\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Ghada_Chehade_bio.jpg 150w, https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Ghada_Chehade_bio-136x150.jpg 136w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Ghada Chehade, PhD,<\/strong> is an award-winning writer, social critic and performance poet. She spent over a decade as a political analyst, specializing in geopolitics and the study of socio-political change. Her articles and essays have been published in international publications such as <em>Asia Times<\/em>, <em>The Political Anthropologist<\/em>, and <em>The Global Analyst<\/em>. She recently broadened her focus to include an analysis of how changes in science and cosmology impact the larger culture. Dr. Chehade holds a Bachelor\u2019s degree in Political Science, an MA in Communication Studies and a PhD in Discourse Analysis, from McGill University. Her doctoral research won the award for Best Dissertation from the Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing and was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Dr. Chehade&#8217;s earlier articles on the Electric Universe model can be found at <a href=\"https:\/\/soapbox-blog.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">soapbox-blog.com<\/a>.<br> Email <a href=\"mailto:info@ghadachehade.com\">info@ghadachehade.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-small-font-size\"><em>The ideas expressed in Thunderblogs do not necessarily express the views of T-Bolts Group Inc. or The Thunderbolts Project.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Electric Universe Model and the Future of Cosmology by Ghada Chehade, PhD PART I.&nbsp; Drawing on Thomas Kuhn\u2019s paradigm shift framework, I\u2019ve established that cosmology is presently in crisis&nbsp;and inevitably heading towards a revolution (or paradigm shift). When a scientific model reaches a crisis point\u2014marked by mounting anomalies and&#8230;<\/p>\n<p class=\"continue-reading-button\"> <a class=\"continue-reading-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/2022\/03\/05\/the-electric-universe-model-and-the-future-of-cosmology\/\">Continue reading<i class=\"crycon-right-dir\"><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":51037,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tblogs"],"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"The Thunderbolts Project\u2122","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51015","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51015"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51015\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51055,"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51015\/revisions\/51055"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/51037"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thunderbolts.info\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}