Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] won't like that video, PJ. It says plainly that orbits require near instantaneous propagation of gravity for them to be stable, which Relativity therefore can't produce. Clete called me a liar for saying so, so look out for the same from him now you have posted proof I was honestly reporting the theory.

 

[Clete]

Well, libel then. Have it your way - I'm sure real Christians frown on libelling someone.

You have yourself already decided that a key principle of EU, instantaneous action at a distance, is silly. You keep claiming that physics relies on gravity, despite me finding your proof that they do not. There are a who load of unsubstantiated assertions that are not specific enough to even need refuting, since to displace physics EU would need to be solving, quantitatively, a failure of physics, AS WELL AS REPRODUCING PRECISELY everything else that physics gets spot on. And that of an awfully high hurdle.

So, no quantitative model, no specific operating principles, no papers, no supporting quantitative observations. Just hand wavy YouTube clips.

It is rotten, Clete. And no true Christian would call me a liar for saying so.

I'm calling you a liar because you're pretending that all this is beneath you somehow when the truth is that you've got nothing in answer to the relatively simple idea put forward in these videos. You pretend that they need to present rigorous math in these videos when you know that they do not. You'd laugh out loud at anyone who leveled such a criticism at a similar video about relativity. You're also a liar because you keep repeating that you've "refuted" a claim that you know they do not make, that "physics relies on gravity". That is to say that you're either lying about that or you're stupid.

In regards to mathematics, the fact is that they don't need to present the math at all in these videos. The math already exists. Science knows, in some spectacular detail, just how electricity works. The same equations that apply to your desk lamp apply to the electric fields that stretch across whole galaxies and beyond. The difference is only a matter of scale. Of course, you knew this already but you don't care because the math isn't really the point. You're only harping about math because you think it gives you a face saving way out of having to deal with the fact that electricity is found everywhere you look and modern cosmology not only has no way of explaining it but, in fact, their models insist that it should not be there at all. The fact that magnetic fields not only stretch across entire galaxies but also connect separate galaxies across thousands of lightyears all but falsifies much of modern cosmology because the universe is supposed to be electrically neutral and indeed it would be if much of their theoretical mathematical modelling were correct. But they can't live with gravity not being the dominant force because that would dethrone Einstein and mean the dissolution of too many careers and so its dark matter that no one can observe or even interact with instead of electricity, it's black holes and neutron stars and "strange matter" and other ultra high gravity fantasies, that no one has every observed instead of electricity. Gravity is responsible for everything from the creation of elements in supernovas that somehow turn stars inside out in violation of every known law of physics, to the formation of solar systems that no one has ever observed nor any theoretical construct has ever been able to reproduce mathematically. Falsifying evidence is never allowed to falsify anything. Instead just another ad hoc miracle substance or collision is introduced to fill in whatever gaping hole that such evidence blew into the side of the scientific establishment's mathematical ship that they call "King Gravity".


Clete

 

[Clete]

This is part of their theory that I don't buy into at all. Gravity cannot be a manifestation of the electrical force. Or, if it is, they need to explain why electricity can be shielded while gravity cannot. And, if it is a dipole force, which is what Thornhill claims, why doesn't gravity have polarity. Additionally, I read a really excellent refutation of the idea that the orbits of planets would be unstable unless gravity works instantaneously. I'm having trouble finding it again but I'll find it eventually and I'll post it here when I do.


See that gcthomas! I just made an argument more substantive that anything you've said in the last 6 months, without one single mention of mathematics! And I'm supposed to be the guy arguing in favor of the EU!

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

Magnetic fields have been observed stretching between galaxies since the mid 1980s, and there has been a mass of research into that area. Magnetic fields are a key part of galaxy theory, and they provide the mechanism for directing matter to the centre and shaping the spiral arms. Magnetic fields are also essential at the solar system level, as they are needed to transfer the angular momentum of collapsing gas clouds which enables stars to form. Gravity is dominant on the largest scales but there is certainly an important role for magnetic fields.

Your claim, [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], that the presence of intergalactic fields falsifies modern cosmology is fanciful, since these fields are an important part of modern astrophysics, and have been for decades. Incidentally, your suggestion that these fields are real, while rejecting the immediate action at a distance tenet of EU, means that the universe is a lot older than a few thousand years if these fields connect galaxies hundreds of thousands to millions of light years apart.

On your other points, dark matter has been observed widely, through its gravitational effects on light, neutron stars are observed through their gravitational effects on binary star systems, they are theoretically predicted, they emit light strongly through the magnetic poles as expected, they slow down their rotation at the rate predicted by Relativity's gravitational radiation predictions, and now the observation of their gravitational waves match pretty exactly the predictions made over the last twenty years.

(If black holes turn out different to current models, then so be it. There is no quantum gravity theory that can reliably describe the finer details right now, and since strives to improve, then improvements to the theory of black holes can be expected.)

Finally, you mention electric fields that spread between galaxies — I am not aware of any such observations. Could you point me to where I can find details of these observations, please?

 

[gcthomas]

This is part of their theory that I don't buy into at all. Gravity cannot be a manifestation of the electrical force. Or, if it is, they need to explain why electricity can be shielded while gravity cannot. And, if it is a dipole force, which is what Thornhill claims, why doesn't gravity have polarity. Additionally, I read a really excellent refutation of the idea that the orbits of planets would be unstable unless gravity works instantaneously. I'm having trouble finding it again but I'll find it eventually and I'll post it here when I do.


See that gcthomas! I just made an argument more substantive that anything you've said in the last 6 months, without one single mention of mathematics! And I'm supposed to be the guy arguing in favor of the EU!

Clete

Yet you called me a liar for pointing out this requirement of their model. You are a disingenuous fool, Clete.

And your post is just unsubstantiated opinion. And how does your rejection of a tenet of EU sit with your claims about its power elsewhere? Surely the theory stands or falls as a whole, Clete? You are cherry picking.

 

[Clete]

Yet you called me a liar for pointing out this requirement of their model. You are a disingenuous fool, Clete.

I've explained twice why I called you a liar and I'm calling you a liar again. You knew that this statement was untrue when you said it.

And your post is just unsubstantiated opinion. And how does your rejection of a tenet of EU sit with your claims about its power elsewhere? Surely the theory stands or falls as a whole, Clete? You are cherry picking.

No theory necessarily stands or falls as a whole. And they aren't unsubstantiated. A bipolar force will have polarity, by definition. And are you suggesting that gravity can be shielded or that electricity cannot? Which point did I make that you consider to be a mere opinion? They're both really really simple points that any home-schooled high school student could have come up with. But you didn't even try. You chose instead to pretend (i.e. lie) as though the lack of mathematics presented in these videos makes the ideas presented impossible to substantively debate or even respond too.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Magnetic fields have been observed stretching between galaxies since the mid 1980s, and there has been a mass of research into that area. Magnetic fields are a key part of galaxy theory, and they provide the mechanism for directing matter to the centre and shaping the spiral arms. Magnetic fields are also essential at the solar system level, as they are needed to transfer the angular momentum of collapsing gas clouds which enables stars to form. Gravity is dominant on the largest scales but there is certainly an important role for magnetic fields.

Your claim, [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], that the presence of intergalactic fields falsifies modern cosmology is fanciful, since these fields are an important part of modern astrophysics, and have been for decades. Incidentally, your suggestion that these fields are real, while rejecting the immediate action at a distance tenet of EU, means that the universe is a lot older than a few thousand years if these fields connect galaxies hundreds of thousands to millions of light years apart.

If you aren't going to watch the videos, you'll continue arguing against points and claims that are not made. You are clearly assuming you know what these people say but don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. For example, the magnetic fields the the EU discusses are exactly the fields that have been known to science since the 80's. The difference is the modern cosmology looks for gravitationally based mechanisms to explain them while the EU simply uses what we already know definitely produces magnetic fields - electricity.

And you're wrong. You can pretend all you like but there is nothing in modern cosmology that permits galactic scale electrical currents to exist at all, never mind be responsible for the existence of magnetic fields that physically connect galaxies that each have radically different redshift values. You'd have been familiar with these ideas had you bothered to watch the videos that you so passionately reject.

Further, your claim/objection concerning the age of the universe assumes that redshift is due to a Doppler effect. The same thing that proves electricity is a driving force in the development of galaxies is the same thing that FALSIFIES redshift theory.

On your other points, dark matter has been observed widely, through its gravitational effects on light, neutron stars are observed through their gravitational effects on binary star systems, they are theoretically predicted, they emit light strongly through the magnetic poles as expected, they slow down their rotation at the rate predicted by Relativity's gravitational radiation predictions, and now the observation of their gravitational waves match pretty exactly the predictions made over the last twenty years.

No, they were postulated in an ad hoc manner to explain observations that were NOT predicted. This is particularly true of dark matter. No one ever thought of dark matter before an astronomers graphed out orbital speeds of stars in relation to their distance from the galactic center. And no one ever thought of, never mind predicted, anything like dark energy until someone made an observation that seemed to indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Finally, you mention electric fields that spread between galaxies — I am not aware of any such observations. Could you point me to where I can find details of these observations, please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM

Clete`

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION],

You are living in lala land. You seem so convinced that science is about coming up with a plausible-sounding word picture that you can't see that science doesn't, and never will, work in such a sloppy and error ridden way.

Without a quantitative theory there are no measurements that could support it, no predictions to treat and hence no way that anyone can determine that it hands any particle of truth to it. And that includes the cranks who advocate for it so strongly.

If you want a 'theory' that can make you feel better about wanting a young earth, then you have backed the wrong hose. A real lame old nag, in this case.

Enjoy your delusions, Clete.

PS. You ought to study the latest gravitational wave observations of colliding neutron stars, which gave enough warning that telescopes could observe the resulting explosion in all wavelengths from radio to gamma ray. Would got like to guess how close to the complex prediction of material being thrown or of the stars, decompressing explosively from neutronium to normal, Berry highly radioactive matter? Real science is sooooo much more exciting and awesome!

 

[Clete]

Gravity is certainly not instantanious. The link below does an excellent job of explaining how we know this. It isn't the same article I read before but it makes essentially the same points...

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/what-is-the-speed-of-gravity-8ada2eb08430

 

[gcthomas]

Further, your claim/objection concerning the age of the universe assumes that redshift is due to a Doppler effect. The same thing that proves electricity is a driving force in the development of galaxies is the same thing that FALSIFIES redshift theory.

If you think that scientists believe that the cosmological redshift is due to the Doppler Effect, then you are very misinformed. :nono:

No, they were postulated in an ad hoc manner to explain observations that were NOT predicted. This is particularly true of dark matter. No one ever thought of dark matter before an astronomers graphed out orbital speeds of stars in relation to their distance from the galactic center.

That is how science progresses. Even EU theory seems to have progressed in the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM

Clete`

That's an hour long video about Arp's deductions of intrinsic redshifts based on a tiny sample of quasars, an idea that has been shown to be wrong if you use the very large scale surveys over the last two decades, and direct observations of some of the quasar's own host galaxies that confirm their cosmologically distant nature. And the video is an hour long - too long for a forum discussion. If there is evidence in there about electric fields, please give me the time at which it is demonstrated.

 

[Clete]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION],

You are living in lala land. You seem so convinced that science is about coming up with a plausible-sounding word picture that you can't see that science doesn't, and never will, work in such a sloppy and error ridden way.

I've made no such suggestion. You suck at reading minds. Why not simply respond to what has actually been said?

Without a quantitative theory there are no measurements that could support it, no predictions to treat and hence no way that anyone can determine that it hands any particle of truth to it. And that includes the cranks who advocate for it so strongly.

This is stupidity. Science does not require math to make predictions.

If I have a hypothesis about the origin of comets that leads me to predict that they are loosely held together, dirty balls of mostly water ice then when I send my space probe to explore one and it turns out that its a dry lump of rock with sand dunes and geological layering that is indistinguishable from what you might see in the American northwest, then my original theory is falsified without having every written a single plus sign.

It's the concepts that count. Math is obviously critical to any rigorous analysis but this is not the faculty room at USC. This is an internet forum where the explicitly stated objective is to discuss, critique, debate or dubunk the videos that the Electric Universe people are positing as their ten best arguments. I've handed you the EU on a silver platter and asked you to lop it's head off but you refuse to do it. Instead, you run and hide behind a lack of mathematics being presented.

If you want a 'theory' that can make you feel better about wanting a young earth, then you have backed the wrong hose. A real lame old nag, in this case.

Enjoy your delusions, Clete.

This has nothing at all to do with how old the Universe is. I am not "backing this horse", MORON! How many times do I have to say that?!! I'm the only one here who has even bothered to present anything substantive in opposition to the EU! Are you so juvenile as to not be able to understand that there is merit in debating things even if you don't buy into them? The fact is that there are a lot of people who do buy into it and you, of all people, ought to want to have an argument beyond name calling and ridicule to refute them. You claim to be a physicist and if I remember correctly, you're some sort of a teacher. Do you think that I'm the only person on the internet to have found these videos? Are you really so confident in the quality of our educational system as to think that these videos won't have what it takes to convince any of your students?

Just debate it for crying out loud, or else go away!

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

This has nothing at all to do with how old the Universe is.

He can only fixate on his anti-God evolutionary world view. It's all that he knows how to do.

 

[gcthomas]

He can only fixate on his anti-God evolutionary world view. It's all that he knows how to do.

I've never claimed to be against God, and as far as I can tell have never written anything to imply that. Evolution isn't 'against God', only 'against antiscientific nonsense', and plenty of religious people will agree with this statement (according to US Pew survey data, most Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Mainline Protestants are in this group. Even a quarter of evangelicals agree with me here.)

And why have you brought up evolution - this is about astrophysics? Clete has worked hard to claim his views on science are not influenced by religious opinions, but there you go dropping in the religious-right's big bugbear, supporting my contentions.

 

[Stripe]

I've never claimed to be against God, and as far as I can tell have never written anything to imply that. Evolution isn't 'against God', only 'against antiscientific nonsense', and plenty of religious people will agree with this statement (according to US Pew survey data, most Hindus, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Mainline Protestants are in this group. Even a quarter of evangelicals agree with me here.)

And why have you brought up evolution - this is about astrophysics? Clete has worked hard to claim his views on science are not influenced by religious opinions, but there you go dropping in the religious-right's big bugbear, supporting my contentions.

Every post a Darwinists makes is replete with their go-to fallacies.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Clete]

If you think that scientists believe that the cosmological redshift is due to the Doppler Effect, then you are very misinformed. :nono:

No, I'm not! This has to have been the latest of your lies!

What is it with you? Can you just not help saying things even when you know what you're saying is obviously false and easily verified as such?

The very first thing you see when you google "What is redshift"...

red·shift
ˈredˈSHift/
nounAstronomy
noun: red shift; plural noun: red shifts; noun: redshift; plural noun: redshifts; noun: red-shift; plural noun: red-shifts

the displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession and thus to distance.​

from Space.com...

Redshift and blueshift describe how light changes as objects in space (such as stars or galaxies) move closer or farther away from us. The concept is key to charting the universe's expansion.

Visible light is a spectrum of colors, which is clear to anyone who has looked at a rainbow. When an object moves away from us, the light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum, as its wavelengths get longer. If an object moves closer, the light moves to the blue end of the spectrum, as its wavelengths get shorter.

To think of this more clearly, the European Space Agency suggests, imagine yourself listening to a police siren as the car rushes by you on the road.

"Everyone has heard the increased pitch of an approaching police siren and the sharp decrease in pitch as the siren passes by and recedes. The effect arises because the sound waves arrive at the listener's ear closer together as the source approaches, and further apart as it recedes," ESA wrote.
Sound and light

This sound effect was first described by Christian Andreas Doppler and is called the Doppler effect.​

From EarthSky.com

What is a redshift? It’s often compared to the way a police officer catches you when you’re speeding. But, in the case of astronomy, these answers all come from our ability to detect miniscule changes in the color of light.

Police and astronomers both rely on a principle called the Doppler shift.​

From Wikipedia...

In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.

Some redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change of apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. A special instance of this is the cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational redshift is a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blueshift and is generally seen when a light-emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field. However, redshift is a more common term and sometimes blueshift is referred to as negative redshift.

Knowledge of redshifts and blueshifts has been applied to develop several terrestrial technologies such as Doppler radar and radar guns. Redshifts are also seen in the spectroscopic observations of astronomical objects. Its value is represented by the letter z.​

That is how science progresses. Even EU theory seems to have progressed in the same way.

That is how establishment scientists have progressed for the last hundred years but that is NOT how the scientific method describes how science should progress. Observation is supposed to be the beginning of the process not the middle or end of it. Today, science begins with mathematical models and then goes looking for evidence to support (i.e. "confirm") those models. If observation contradicts the models then they tweak the model in an ad hoc fashion. That is no science! That isn't even sound reason! When any creationist makes this sort of error, you so quick to pounce that you barely have time to understand the argument before you've half way down their throat!

That's an hour long video about Arp's deductions of intrinsic redshifts based on a tiny sample of quasars, an idea that has been shown to be wrong if you use the very large scale surveys over the last two decades, and direct observations of some of the quasar's own host galaxies that confirm their cosmologically distant nature. And the video is an hour long - too long for a forum discussion. If their is evidence inn there about electric fields, please give me the time at which it is demonstrated.

Tell that to Carl Sagan...

There is, nevertheless, a nagging suspicion, among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where galaxies and a quasar or a pair of galaxies that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts." - Carl Sagan​

Besides, you asked me a question and I answered it. If you don't want to watch the video then take what information the title of the video gives you and look up something else. And it isn't merely about Halton Arp, the video is Halton Arp himself discussing the issue of red-shift.

Also, if anyone, Arp or whomever, found even one single example of two galaxies with significantly different red-shifts that were physically connected, it would falsify red-shift theory. It WOULD falsify it! He found a lot more than one and mainstream cosmology hasn't a clue how to explain what is clearly observed and verified to exist in the real universe.

I have a question that you almost certainly will not answer. If there is something other than relative motion causing red-shift, what portion of big-bang cosmology survives? Asked another way, what, if not "red-shift of galaxies via the Doppler effect", as Carl Sagan put it, is the foundational premise of the big-bang theory?

Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete has worked hard to claim his views on science are not influenced by religious opinions, but...

I have never made any such claim.

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]:

Wikipedia? Spece.com? EarthSky.com: not exactly rigorous sources?

Try this, from Cornell University's 'Ask an Astronomer' page:
What is the difference between the "Doppler" redshift and the "gravitational" or "cosmological" redshift? (Advanced)

In both cases, the light emitted by one body and received by the other will be "redshifted" - i.e. its wavelength will be stretched, so the color of the light is more towards the red end of the spectrum. But there's a subtle difference, which you sort of allude to.

In fact, only in the first case (a nearby body moving away from the earth) is the redshift caused by the Doppler effect. You've experienced the Doppler effect if you've ever had a train go past you and heard the whistle go to a lower pitch (corresponding to a longer wavelength for the sound wave) as the train moves away. The Doppler effect can happen for light waves too (though it can't be properly understood without knowing special relativity). It turns out that just like for sound waves, the wavelength of light emitted by an object that is moving away from you is longer when you measure it than it is when measured in the rest frame of the emitting object.

In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted.

Author: Dave Rothstein
Dave is a former graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at Cornell who used infrared and X-ray observations and theoretical computer models to study accreting black holes in our Galaxy​

The difference is real, and the Wiki page has it wrong. Most people who edit Wikipedia are not professional physicists, and the other websites you mention are journalism and click-seeking articles. Accuracy is not their forté. You should stick to asking actual Physicists what the real Physics is, instead of your focus on popular web sources. You can't trust them. The upshot is: the doppler redshift is due to relative velocities and is limited by the speed of light to z=1, while cosmologocal redshift is due to the metric expansion of the universe, and redshifts are routinely over z=6.

 

[patrick jane]

Interesting observations on the Holmes comet and the affects of Hale Bopp on Jupiter. The science community largely ignores these findings.

 

[Clete]

He can only fixate on his anti-God evolutionary world view. It's all that he knows how to do.

Well, this is a theology forum, so I can forgive his assumptions in that regard. What I don't understand is why he can't get past it. I've told him multiple times that this has nothing to do with a quest to discover a world view that allows for a young Earth world view, which the EU doesn't do anyway. Even if it did, I've also stated multiple times that, while I think they make some good arguments that should not be ignored and while I can buy into the idea that the electric force could account for a lot of things in a more elegant way than simply adding a bunch of unseen and unobservable Dark Matter/Energy to their mathematical equations, I am not a proponent of the Electric Universe theory.

So gcthomas isn't engaging and there doesn't seem to be anyone else who is willing to argue that side of the debate so it's starting to look like I'm gonna have to be the one who picks these videos apart after all. That'll be interesting. I don't recall having ever argued both sides of the same debate before.

Clete

 

[Clete]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]:

Wikipedia? Spece.com? EarthSky.com: not exactly rigorous sources?

CARL SAGAN is not a credible source?!

You've gone from annoying to entirely intolerable.

I didn't read the rest. I don't need you for this. Good bye.