Well, here’s what I talk about. The Electric Universe cosmology makes a lot more sense than our current cosmology to explain so many of the craters and geological formations on the moon, on Mars and on the earth. I hesitate to inject that here because our standard cosmology takes a dim view of the EU. In fact it is ignored and scoffed at, even though the EU people are predicting what our space probes will find before they get there, while cosmologist stutter and puzzle over the new data that they see from NASA’s probes. This is just one example where the life of a science narrative is so powerful it cannot accept better explanations. This is why I don’t place trust in all “accepted science”…and why I hope science catches up with the Bible. Yes, the Bible is not a science book, but it is full of prophecy and the Bible is incredibly accurate with its prophecies. So I believe the verses like Revelation 8:12 will really happen - even though they are really hard to believe with our current cosmology science. I believe God can shut off the stars like it says; " The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night." and also likewise says in Rev 6:14, 12:4, Mark 13:24-25 and Matthew 24:29. I believe God has the power to turn off the lights- and science is catching up with this example. The Electric Universe cosmology actually supports this possibility in real common sense terms (to me at least). Yet the world will resist the EU concept because the current cosmology narrative is so powerful. Powerful, but coming up with sooooo many new puzzles! So I am quite entertained at the explanations which add more theories to theories as astrophysicists double down. They have to double down, because all their education, research and credentials are at stake.
EU scientists are disregarded like the YEC / AIG scientists because they simply do not fit in. Even if they are raising possible legitimate questions and suggesting what their conclusions are, should they be lumped into a category of persons with old degrees that haven’t kept up their reading? I sure don’t know …but I sure think the jury is still out on these big narratives. I think the EU cosmology better be taken serious.
Is not the same true for the big narrative of evolution which is based on many theories as well? I understand how science rules help theories get worked out, and research findings become accepted, and then become things we teach as “the way things really are”. Unfortunately that is not an exact process and it leads to narratives that people think of as hard evidence - truth that won’t change.
Will entrenched evolutionists consider other ideas? Or will that big narrative continue to be as tightly controlled as our current cosmology - which scoffs at EU scientists -even though they are predicting what we actually find when the probes get there? Maybe the EU people are all just old retired grumblewarts too … but humm…why are they predicting what NASA will find? Comets are not icy surfaces like NASA thought …humm… the Solar Parker Probe is seeing switchbacks in magnet fields …that can’t be happening …humm … the list is long …
[Stuart Talbott: Undeniable Evidence for Electric Comets | Thunderbolts]
(https://youtu.be/_0GRQGJQSYg)
Donald E. Scott: Probing Parker’s Solar Probe Data | Thunderbolts
Just a quick drop in here … The “electric universe” is a new one for me. Could you (or anybody else here) summarize what that’s all about?
It’s a really big subject, but in a nutshell here’s some concepts:
- EU cosmology says the universe is not just a huge empty space with isolated objects floating in place, held by the very weak force of gravity. Electricity plays a bigger role than gravity. Birkeland plasma currents connect galaxies and stars. Stars are pinch points in these currents which is why some blink on and off rapidly. (lab experiments are able to reproduce these concepts)
- 99.999% of the visible universe is a plasma and all moving plasmas produce their own magnetic field and electric currents. For example, the Sun (and stars) produce current loops in solar flares, and currents flow through extragalactic jets spanning many parsecs. (This is now seen by satellites)
- EU says electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in: the Sun, interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets, their satellites, comets, interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.
- The Electric Universe theory argues some planetary features, such as craters are produced by cosmic mega-lightning electrical scarring rather than impacts with meteorites. It is also suggested that the Sun and stars are powered externally electrically, and the behavior of comets is due to their interaction with electrified interplanetary plasma.
- Plasmas are strongly influenced by electro-magnetic forces. A laboratory simulation of two interacting electric “Birkeland” currents models many characteristics of galaxy formation. The Electric Universe is based on the known properties of plasmas, in preference to unproven theoretical physics, and consequently does not require black holes, dark matter and dark energy, neutron stars and the Big Bang.
YouTube channel for one of the EU groups is at ThunderboltsProject
Thanks for that summary, Eugene. Since I’ve never heard of that theory before, despite being familiar with high school level physics texts and having good familiarity with astronomy generally, it would seem this is probably a fringe theory? Electrostatic attraction is indeed much stronger than gravity, but unlike gravity - it comes with its own “neutralizer” - in the form of repulsion being matched against attractions. So while it is certainly strong enough to be holding our molecules and atoms together, its balanced nature prevents it from being a significant actor over distances. As to craters being caused by electrical “zapping”, has that ever been observed? Evidence of meteors causing craters has been.
So at first listen, I’m wondering if the EU thing is a contrivance to arrive at some wanted conclusions (or stay away from unwanted mainstream consensus)? Would be interesting to see if other physicists here have heard about this and what they think.
Looks like it is a fringe theory, to put it mildly. Sounds like it appropriates a lot of science-y sounding jargon, but it has no mathematical basis whatsoever, and even views having a mathematical basis as a bad thing:
I expected this type of response to the EU, because new ideas, theories, and concepts that don’t fit a narrative that people have built up trust in is extremely hard. Even when the evidence is there, and even when NASA confirms what the EU predicted they would find on a comets.
Of course they didn’t give any credit to EU people, they just note things like; surprise, and wow there is a rocky surface with large boulders like a planet on this comet. In alarm, they say we must come up with new understandings of how this could happen. And of course they will stick to the Big Bang gravity based model to figure it out. Your responses are typical because it’s extremely hard for new “truth” to emerge in the big narratives of cosmology and evolution. They have life of their own - world wide - deeply entrenched.
So in this example - could regarding the math (using the math of the Big Bang that created all objects in space) be the problem? I think so, and I think the Big Bang cosmology is in trouble. But, unless people are open minded enough to accept the possibility of that, a better understanding of the creation of the cosmos is not going to be allowed, or taught. It will continue to be accepted as “the science”.
Same seems true for the problems of evolution.
Well, it seems like the EU tries to discredit multiple experimentally proven theories while having no mathematical basis or equations that I could find. If general relativity and the fact that stars use nuclear fusion is claimed to be in error, there needs to be peer reviewed papers that show why they are in error and why the EU is a better mathematical explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Can you provide sources that are not YouTube videos such as papers? I would like to read them if they exist.
There’s something you need to understand here.
If the “narrative” that your “new ideas” do not fit has real world applications, and if people depend on the “narrative” to be correct rather than ideologically convenient in order to Get Things Done, and your “new ideas” do not have the same real world applications, then your “new ideas” are crackpottery.
EU claims that gravity does not exist. It claims that Einstein’s laws of General Relativity are wrong. Yet Einstein’s laws of General Relativity are put to work every time you get into your car. If Einstein’s laws of General Relativity really were wrong, then your sat-nav would tell you that you were four hundred miles above Düsseldorf when you were actually in New York.
As for EU’s insistence that science is “too mathematical,” would you say such a thing in an interview for a job at Google, Microsoft, IBM, Lockheed Martin, TomTom, Exxon Mobil or Deutsche Bank? Have You Any Further Questions For Me?
Right, especially when there’s no evidence showing that the new narrative is more accurate.
Yep. That’s called “having high standards.”
That’s because it is “the science.” If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules.
You would first have to demonstrate that EU is a better understanding. I have yet to see that happen. You have to put in the hard work before you ask people to change their mind.
A good place to start would be tackle some classic experiments. For example, the Hafele-Keating experiment measured time dilation using atomic clocks. The results were completely in line with the predictions made by Einstein’s equations. What are the equations used in EU to predict the results of these experiments?
If EU can’t explain the results of this experiment then why should we replace relativity, which works, with a theory that can’t explain observations?
The scientific consensus is not simply “a narrative people have built up trust in.” Come on, now.
It took a lot of narration to initially believe in gravity and subsequently have blind faith in celestial mechanics. The relativistic aspects did take a little extra math, though.
What’s your point? “Narrative” has a meaning and it refers to the storylines people build around facts or events to understand their significance from their subjective perspective. You can certainly create narratives around scientific facts, but it is wrong to call a prevailing scientific model “a narrative.”
My point was irony and I was agreeing with you.
I guess I’m too literal. 
I have not read in the EU info where gravity an General Relativity are wrong, just that gravity is an extremely weak force compared to other forces in nature, and that we are still trying to find out what it really is, a pull or a push and is there a gravity particle? That’s all beyond my understanding. Was your info from EU scientists? Lots of critics out there claiming whatever they want to. If true though, I’d like to know.
There is some papers. Google to find. One site is Thunderbolts peer reviewed papers on the plasma current. Most people don’t go that far to make judgments on the EU, so thanks for even asking. And thanks to everyone for your input. I have more to think about and understand for sure. I’m out of state on a job, so sorry if I can’t respond for a week… and learn more.
Wow. It’s always conspiracy, isn’t it! The world is against us.
And not just the world, but reality too. Who was it here who recently joked about some conspiracy theorist who died and went to heaven and implored God to reveal to everyone that the earth was really flat. God gently tells him, “actually my son - the world really is round.” The stunned theorist looks over at his neighbor and declares - “Wow - this conspiracy really does go all the way to the top!”