http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012...c-heliosphere/
http://www.space.com/18743-voyager-s...stem-edge.html
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012...-electric-sun/
This electric universe theory is certainly gaining ground and proponents fast. Anyone looked into this?
Who are the proponents?Originally Posted by Unregisturd
When Sheldrake is the top of the bill, you know you're dealing with something not quite based in reality.
Rupert has a psychic Parrot which has not been debunked (seemingly...?)
With just a cursory glance it appears to be pseudoscience. More research would be needed to fully debunk it, but the third article seemed to make a lot of assumptions that run counter to mainstream science. For instance, our understanding of the process that causes auroras is, to my understanding, fully explained, but he presents an entirely different explanation as evidence to support his theory.
Let's not sit in our ivory towers. Of course it doesn't fit with mainstream because it offers a different view of the mechanics of the universe. Sheldrake is not an active contributor, nor was he top billing as a speaker at their latest conference, but yes he was a speaker. Why not go after Hannes Alfven, the so called father of plasma physics/cosmology whose science is behind much of this modern day groups endeavors. He was also the 1970 Nobel laureate for physics. Or Irving Langmuir who got the 1932 Nobel prize in chemistry, whose Langmuir sheath is a critical component of the electric sun model.... if it is mainstream credentials that are required.
Kristian birkeland predicted what the cause of auroras were and recreated them under laboratory conditions in 1895. Called birkeland currents, he argued that these currents flowed from the sun to the earth and the resulting excitation of electrons in the atmosphere caused the auroras. NASA's THEMIS sattelite measured exactly that, yet they refuse to call them birkeland currents, opting for magnetic ropes. (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news.../11dec_themis/) We also stopped recreating the experiments years ago opting for mathematical theory and super computers instead... that's not science. The mainstream basis of magnetic reconnection causing the auroras is also an impossibility known by those versed well enough in electrical engineering. A magnetic field line is no more real than an isobar on a weather map. To snap a line is to loose the entire field. Either the field is there or it is not.
I would hope that you can be open minded enough to spend some time reading from their side what it is they are presenting. You wouldn't ask a plumber to explain to you the wiring in your house, so don't search for answers from theoretical physicists to understand what electrical engineers (and their ilk) are trying to explain. They are not on a witch to bring down the mainstream, quite the contrary. They search for collaboration and seek to bring the disciplines together. They contradict much of the mainstream because they are using a different model. It's a model that doesn't hold all the answers, but certainly deals with a number of big problems that are arising through our new observations in a much more logical and consistent manner.
And of course you can attack me any which way you like for saying these things, but we must overcome our own arrogance and complacency that we have got everything right thus far, and accept that tenure and politics play a massive role in the direction we're headed, often times at the expense of progress and with great costs to resources and finance.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=9EPly...%3D9EPlyiW-xGI
Results look compelling especially given the scalable nature of plasma. No rift between quantum mechanics and GR or SR, but a cohesive theory with experimental evidence that can fit the observational evidence. All these guys need are some of their instruments attached to a few probes sent into space to measure what they expect, not a multi billion dollar collider.
I think on this theory I'm perfectly happy to wait for science to confirm or deny it. It either works or it does not work. Millions of experiments have been done that conform to the current model of the sun. Does the new model offer a useful, practical, difference?
This 'new' model offers an entirely different view of what powers the sun and solar system creation. As a scalable phenomena it utilizes the same model to explain subatomic properties as it does galaxy formation, though more is still needed to confirm these things. It's implications are as far reaching as invalidating much of the carbon 14 decay rates (or other dating methods and not in any way to support creationist claims) and fossilization; the cause and potential for prediction of major weather systems and earthquakes; offers a better understanding of our past through a collaboration between comparative mythologists and the study of some 4,000,000 petroglyphs worldwide with an overwhelming similarity to plasma instabilities in the laboratory and more. The overall understanding of which can lead to cheaper (it will be a long time before certain groups allow it to be free) and clean energy, anti-gravity, quantum processing, faster than light travel and so on. Though much of this is not in the scope of what they are trying to achieve at this time, and plausible if we don't confine ourselves to the current paradigms of GR, SR, black holes, dark matter/energy, the Big Bang, cosmic background radiation and more. But again, have to be open minded enough first to hear their argument and view the universe through their eyes.
Specific to the sun, the 'millions of experiments' in the standard model are largely confined to mathematical equations placed inside a super computer. These conclusions have not been fitting with more recent observations. Issues with the current model show that as of yet we have not been able to replicate the nuclear fusion happening at the centre of the sun; it cannot explain the change in temperature between the surface of the sun (5,800 k) and the corona above it (1,000,000 k); it cannot explain how particles accelerate away from the sun; and more recently the missing 100% of convection at the surface of the sun needed to support energy welling up from the centre (http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-public...r-motions.html) . There are also missing neutrinos, a missing adequate explanation for the surface granulation, the relative coolness of sunspots to the surounding environment and a host of other things that I can't think of off the top of my head, that cannot be explained by the standard thermonuclear fusion model but are expected in an electric sun model. Worth the read, though I haven't read this article in a while, so I should. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012...tipping-point/
The implications of their model are indeed quite far reaching, and they have a willingness to admit that some things we are simply unable to answer at this stage, like the age of the universe and when it all began. But before writing them off for having an alternative model, we must remember that the world was once flat, then the centre of the solar system and then we were the only galaxy. How things have changed and much of that has been against great resistance. It's not for me to say they're right, but I've read Hawking and learned Einstein and Newton. I've thoroughly enjoyed listening to Martin Rees and still watch the made for TV docos with Degrasse Tyson (probably my favourite), Michio Kaku, Brian Cox and so on. But what the electric universe guys offer up is compelling to say the least and you don't have to be one of three mathematicians in this world to understand how the model works. Given a bit more support they will be able to answer even more and it will be a huge game changer IMO, not only for the sciences and the new energy it would inject into the schools but also for humanity's way forward.
I'm assuming though that there is no experiment or observation that is demonstrates the "electric" model and falsifies the "nuclear" model?
RolandD (January 12th, 2013)
Please excuse me if I misinterpret, but no experiment to my knowledge has been conducted for the purpose of falsifying the 'nuclear' model via an electric one. I don't believe that is their reasoning, and in reality there is no need to falsify it, as the nuclear model has yet to be replicated experimentally itself. We have shown it can work with the maths we write, but we must learn to accept maths as a language used to try to explain something (a slave to science if you will), which does not neccessarily make it so, especially without experimentation. To defer to Einstein, 'As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.' The first point of concern, is that we the lay people have learned to accept the sun as powered by a 'nuclear furnace', without it having been replicated, and secondly, which I believe is the largest and truest schism between the electric and standard model (and not excluding other sciences), is the movement away from the experimental nature of science in the early 20th century to the theoretical and mathematical. Supercomputers are necessary and mathematics essential, but they must be utilized with responsibility.
As far as experiments to replicate the sun are concerned my knowledge at hand cannot suggest that there is an experiment called say, 'the electric sun experiment'. Rather it is better to understand some of the basics to electricity and it's application, to see how the model works (not that I am the best person for the job, but as mere mortal perhaps my ability to interpret what I've understood is a good indicator, though it does not mean what I say is without error), then we can indicate how certain investigations into specific elements of solar observations are indeed recreated... if that makes sense??? I am also a simple person with a job like most (or not considering the awesome state of this world these days and the people that run it), so I will always suggest to read from 'the horse's mouth', as they give more in depth and accurate explanation. I also would hope that one would be able to dig a little deeper when a 'standard' idea/theory is challenged or potentially 'falsified' in the accepted sense, as the normal reaction, which was certainly mine for a number of years, was to say that's not possible because it went against what the mainstream suggests and what I had come to accept as 'fact' in my life. As with any topic, you have to start somewhere and you can't have an overall understanding until you have more of the information. Just why it takes so long to become a doctor say. But in this instance it is even harder, as the different ideas here are also going against what we've come to believe, or rather have been taught, so our willingness to accept these challenges are more greatly resisted.
And one final point, and one which is the most pertinent in this particular case, is the fact that this electric theory is not a pseudoscience, in as much as it has a grounding in accepted and testable science that has been around since the 19th century. It is rather the application of a different discipline to explain the observations of the universe around us. No doubt the likes of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the largest professional association in the world, would be a little concerned that their science was in fact 'pseudo'. And I will refrain from listing all the people in history whose own efforts in advancing this discipline through discovery and experimentation, are now being utilized to explain the observations coming back from our incredible telescopes. And it becomes in many ways refreshing to see their application to the wave of information coming back from space and offering answers to expected observations, rather than our usual sources in science magazines and the like, which are filled with articles fraught with phrases like, 'we were surprised to find', 'we didn't expect' and so on. I've certainly found that I notice this more in articles now that I'm aware of it.
I of course digress from providing some of that experimental evidence and explanatory information I said very much exists, and now I would ask your patience in letting me take a break (if you would care for that information), as it is Sunday morning, I'm hungry, dog has to go for a walk, wife has to be loved so that I'm able to watch the playoffs without pressure and some time has to be invested into my employment so that I can afford to pay for the Internet to allow me to come to this site... the circle of life! I'll be back...
Well, is there at least one observation that is explained by the electric model, but not by the nuclear? Is there any practical difference at all?
Here is an interesting lecture that outlines, as far as I know, the first attempt at testing the electric sun hypothesis through established experimental criteria. It is important to note that these ideas are not new - these researchers are merely standing on the shoulders of giants who have been either forgotten or deliberately ignored within the mainstream dogmatic consensus which masquerades as modern scientific enquiry.
...do I detect an avid Dawkins fan in our midst Evo?When Sheldrake is the top of the bill, you know you're dealing with something not quite based in reality.
Anyway here are the links to the lecture, take time to watch, listen and debunk if desired (inevitable but truly think before you react with aversion to something which does not fit your paradigm).
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013...ic-sun-part-1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYDPdobASI
Sorry, for some reason first link doesn't work, here it is agin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIR6QOLPo4
It would seem to me that the Sun is kicking off a rather large amount of energy. Where is that energy coming from? If we look at the composition of the Sun (lots of Hydrogen, some Helium), that is very consistent with the idea of a (fusion) nuclear reaction occurring - the nuclear theory gives us an explanation of where the energy is coming from.
If we say that the sun is primarily an electrical critter, then where is the electrical energy coming from? Is hydrogen chemically reacting with hydrogen to form hydrogen, which gives off electricity? Hard to believe that.
Of course, the energy from the sun can be converted into electricity in the sun (or in photovoltaics on Earth) ... but that is secondary to its existence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks