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

[Clete]

I've had time to watch about two thirds of the video so far, and out seems to contain no more that misguided assertion. No model, no specific experiment that had a result different from prediction, nothing quantitative at all, just self righteous hand waving.

Case in point: he asserts that orbits can only work in Newtonian physics and that relativity can't so orbits. He seems unaware that one of the first successes of Relativity was explaining the orbital precession of Mercury, which Newton's classical theory failed to handle.

And there's lots more. It is a joke, Clete. A crank science joke - don't get taken in by it, as it can't end well for you.

It's interesting that every time you bring up something they seem not to know about, it's always something that they openly acknowledge.

Further, you criticize Youtube videos as though they are publications of the journal Science. They aren't! It is not the purpose of these videos to present a rigorously detailed presentation of a scientific theory. In fact, it seems to me that the purpose of this video in particular is to show that so called settled science isn't nearly as settled as the main stream science establishment would have you believe.

As for the Electric Universes ideas about gravity, I don't really buy any of it. But not because the videos fail to present some testable prediction that I'd expect to read about in a science journal but because I've spent the time and effort it took to find answers to the questions they pose concerning their idea that gravity acts on a body instantaneously.

That does not, however, mean that I ignore the fact that they point out valid rational contradictions inherent in black hole theory, including but not limited to the notion that matter can have infinite mass with no volume which simultaneously is what they claim happens in back holes and is also the reason why nothing can ever go the speed of light. They want to have it both ways and most people are neither informed nor intelligent enough to notice the contradiction.

Lastly, I'd wager it took you longer to write this five or six sentence post than it would have taken you to watch the rest of the video. In other words I don't believe you watched half of what you claim to have watched. Why not just watch the video and refute it point by point. Not that you'd have to refute the whole video but just take a point here and there and actually refute it. Who is it that you expect to convince with name calling and refuting points that aren't made my presuming that they deny things that they openly acknowledge? The fact is, you do not know what these people believe or say so stop guessing! You guess wrong every time! Just refute what the video says.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The Electric Universe theory is very interesting as it has been scientifically proven that the image of Jesus on the Turin Shroud was produced by Plasma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4c4812XA9A

This is precisely the sort of silliness that makes people discard alternative cosmologies out of hand without even bothering to give them the time of day. There's hardly anything you could have said that would more seriously undermine the whole idea of the Electric Universe in the minds of anyone who considers himself at all scientific. The fact that this guy obtained an image using several hundred volts of electricity over 24 hours of exposure time does not prove "that the image of Jesus on the Turin Shroud was produced by Plasma". It doesn't prove that at all. It's not even evidence that this is the way the image was produced never mind proof. The idea that its proof would be the equivalent of saying that since images are produced digitally in the camera on my desk, therefore images are produced digitally in the camera on the shelf on my wall. That is not even a rational thought process never mind a scientific one. The way one image was produced says nothing at all about how another image was produced.

Similarly, the EU community itself embraces a number of people that put forward completely crackpot nonsense. This has the effect of discrediting the entire community and every idea they put forward in the minds of those who think critically.

In any case, this thread is about the electric universe cosmology, not the shroud of Turin. If you want to continue your debate on the authenticity of the shroud, then please start a thread on that topic.

Clete

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

This is precisely the sort of silliness that makes people discard alternative cosmologies out of hand without even bothering to give them the time of day. There's hardly anything you could have said that would more seriously undermine the whole idea of the Electric Universe in the minds of anyone who considers himself at all scientific. The fact that this guy obtained an image using several hundred volts of electricity over 24 hours of exposure time does not prove "that the image of Jesus on the Turin Shroud was produced by Plasma". It doesn't prove that at all. It's not even evidence that this is the way the image was produced never mind proof. The idea that its proof would be the equivalent of saying that since images are produced digitally in the camera on my desk, therefore images are produced digitally in the camera on the shelf on my wall. That is not even a rational thought process never mind a scientific one. The way one image was produced says nothing at all about how another image was produced.

Similarly, the EU community itself embraces a number of people that put forward completely crackpot nonsense. This has the effect of discrediting the entire community and every idea they put forward in the minds of those who think critically.

In any case, this thread is about the electric universe cosmology, not the shroud of Turin. If you want to continue your debate on the authenticity of the shroud, then please start a thread on that topic.

Clete

You have missed the point and can not grasp the fact that Dr Fanti's plasma experiment is the first time any evidence has been found as to how the image was made. This clearly shows that the plasma, which is an ionized gas with sufficient energy that free electrons from atoms or molecules can actually coexist, and because as far as we know plasma's are the most common state of matter in the universe, means that this supernatural event perhaps gives us a glimpse into the inner workings of the 'hidden' dimensions of quantum physics and helps explain the split in our reality that took place at the fall of mankind; Which will be mended or reunited when God makes a new Heaven and New Earth, which will be perfect once again.

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], it is a problem that the videos are not rigorous, because there ARE NO rigorous papers detailing a usable theory of EU. The videos just assert things that are demonstrably untrue, like the comments I showed above about Newtonian physics and orbits that you ignored.

They have nothing to offer until there is something quantitative in the videos or papers.

 

[Tambora]

For a brief entertainment moment ....

Electrical energy Telsa coils and Beethoven's Virus.

 

[Tambora]

More Telsa coils.
Pachelbel's Canon in D

<em><strong>

 

[Clete]

You have missed the point and can not grasp the fact that Dr Fanti's plasma experiment is the first time any evidence has been found as to how the image was made. This clearly shows that the plasma, which is an ionized gas with sufficient energy that free electrons from atoms or molecules can actually coexist, and because as far as we know plasma's are the most common state of matter in the universe, means that this supernatural event perhaps gives us a glimpse into the inner workings of the 'hidden' dimensions of quantum physics and helps explain the split in our reality that took place at the fall of mankind; Which will be mended or reunited when God makes a new Heaven and New Earth, which will be perfect once again.

It isn't the first time evidence has been found as to how the image was made. There's been one silly theory after another about that stupid piece of fabricated fabric since before I was born. It doesn't give a glimpse into anything except into the minds of the hyper-religious who will ignore sound reason in favor of their unprovable religious relics and unfalsifiable doctrine.

The shroud and any image on it, regardless of how it was made or who made it, has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[Clete]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], it is a problem that the videos are not rigorous, because there ARE NO rigorous papers detailing a usable theory of EU. The videos just assert things that are demonstrably untrue, like the comments I showed above about Newtonian physics and orbits that you ignored.

They have nothing to offer until there is something quantitative in the videos or papers.

I didn't ignore them but every time I stop ignoring you, it proves fruitless.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

It isn't the first time evidence has been found as to how the image was made. There's been one silly theory after another about that stupid piece of fabricated fabric since before I was born. It doesn't give a glimpse into anything except into the minds of the hyper-religious who will ignore sound reason in favor of their unprovable religious relics and unfalsifiable doctrine.

The shroud and any image on it, regardless of how it was made or who made it, has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

The 11th Reason the Universe is Electric is the Turin Shroud - There!

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]:

In the video the man asserts that orbits can only work in Newtonian physics and that relativity can't do orbits.

He seems unaware that one of the first successes of Relativity was explaining the orbital precession of Mercury, which Newton's classical theory failed to handle.

THIS is why no-one takes EU seriously - the proponents are thoroughly ignorant of actual Physics.

 

[Clete]

The 11th Reason the Universe is Electric is the Turin Shroud - There!

LOL! That actually made me laugh. I appreciate your good humor.

 

[Clete]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]:

In the video the man asserts that orbits can only work in Newtonian physics and that relativity can't do orbits.

He seems unaware that one of the first successes of Relativity was explaining the orbital precession of Mercury, which Newton's classical theory failed to handle.

THIS is why no-one takes EU seriously - the proponents are thoroughly ignorant of actual Physics.

I have already addressed this!

Where does he make this claim? Quote it and give a time reference, please.

The fact is that the video does not make this claim. He makes the claim that gravity is instantaneous but he does not claim that "relativity can't do orbits. And, as I pointed out before, the fact that you suggest they seem to be unaware of is something that they openly acknowledge in several other places. You are not arguing against what is said in the video, you are arguing against what you THINK they believe. But you don't have any idea what they believe because all you see is "cranks" because they dare to question the standard model. They have to be cranks or you've wasted your career.

I, on the other hand, have no such philosophical or psychological entrenchment in my cosmology. I don't care one way or the other whether gravity acts instantaneously or not. I have rejected the EU's notions about instantaneous gravity but not because I think their "cranks" or because they simply must be wrong but because I read things like THIS and THIS and several others as well.

Now, I ask you - just how boring do you suppose it is to be the guy who is supposed to be arguing the protagonist side of a debate but turns out to be the only one capable of posting anything substantive on the antagonist side? I mean what are you even here for if you aren't interested in engaging the debate? If it's wrong, then apply yourself and make the argument!

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

I have already addressed this!

Where does he make this claim? Quote it and give a time reference, please.

The fact is that the video does not make this claim. He makes the claim that gravity is instantaneous but he does not claim that "relativity can't do orbits.

You are mistaken. The video does make the claim that relativity can't do the solar system orbits due to the lack of instantaneous action.

Quote from your video in post #154
5:40
But Newton's theory, which is used successfully to navigate the Solar System, has gravity operating instantly, … Newton's gravity acts like a rigid rod between celestial bodies where a tug at one end is felt immediately at the other end. This is actually essential for the clockwork regularity of the planetary system. But it is never considered because the effect exceeds Einstein's speed limit of light waves.

So he says that instantaneous action is essential for the orbits to be stable, and compares that to Einstein's requirements from Relativity of a finite speed.

Please engage this time — all you do is plead for contributions, then summarily reject critiques that you asked for without analysis.

 

[Clete]

You are mistaken. The video does make the claim that relativity can't do the solar system orbits due to the lack of instantaneous action.

Quote from your video in post #154
5:40
But Newton's theory, which is used successfully to navigate the Solar System, has gravity operating instantly, … Newton's gravity acts like a rigid rod between celestial bodies where a tug at one end is felt immediately at the other end. This is actually essential for the clockwork regularity of the planetary system. But it is never considered because the effect exceeds Einstein's speed limit of light waves.

So he says that instantaneous action is essential for the orbits to be stable, and compares that to Einstein's requirements from Relativity of a finite speed.

Please engage this time — all you do is plead for contributions, then summarily reject critiques that you asked for without analysis.

Look, I've responded to this exact point twice already. This will be the last.

HE DOES NOT MAKE THE CLAIM YOU ARE SUGGESTING!!!!!

The video is right there for everyone to watch! Your reading into what he states is not the equivalent of him making this claim! He very simply does not make the claim you are suggesting. I know this for a fact because I have both heard and read other material where they openly acknowledge and even specifically mention Mercury's orbit in relation to this issue.

Further, I have already stated that I personally reject their notion of instantaneous gravity and have given reference as to why. So why are you so stuck on forcing a non-existent claim out of this video to refute something that can be easily refuted without putting words in their mouths? I'll tell you why, it's because you aren't interested in debating the topic, you're interested in demeaning them personally. You're addicted to ad hominem arguments that you'd reject instantly if they were leveled at Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking.

The idea if this thread is simply to provide a topic of debate that hasn't been hashed and rehashed a million times on this website before. It's something new to discuss that is presented in a manner that is at least interesting and somewhat compelling - at least enough to make it worth debating. It's not as if I brought up Ancient Aliens or the Illuminati or pyramid power or something completely assinine like that. This will not be a waste of your time unless you decide to waste it with name calling and ridicule rather than just simply making the arguments. If they're wrong, which there is no question that they are to one degree or another, then prove it. I don't really care if you like these people or not. I don't really care about any personal opinion you might have about anything at all unless that opinion can be supported with facts and sound reason.

So, let's start again. I'll pose to you the same questions that I posed to barbarian and we can move on from there....

From a previous post...

What mechanism do main stream scientists suggest is responsible for the pervasive magnetic fields that stretch across whole galaxies and even connect galaxies? Do they have a theory or even a wild guess? Is there any part of the gravity-centric standard model that even allows for the arms of galaxies to be conducting an electric current, which is the only way for such magnetic fields to be produced?

How long before we start hearing about "dark-magnetism"? Maybe dark matter is magnetic!

That last question was clearly sarcasm but isn't that really the pattern over the last century? Whenever something comes up that falsifies the standard model, some ad hoc idea is simply plugged in to fill whatever hole was just blasted through the current theory.

Also, is there any work being done under the standard model to explain the distribution of gasses is nebulae? What gravitational force could account for the filamentary helical patterns that we can clearly see? Why is there resistance to the idea that they are in fact Birkeland currents (i.e. electrical currents flowing through plasma)?

And finally, what process, according to the standard model, accounts for the tightly focused beams of charged particles that emanate across light years of space from things like pulsars, black holes and whole galaxies like M87?​

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], the thread is 'reasons the universe is electric', not 'somebody defend modern physics': thee onus is on EU proponents to show evidence that some observation is quantitatively better explained using EU theory than modern physics.

The problem is that no one has presented a theory of the EU that would allow quantitative work top be done work EU, so there of no evidence provided at all that EU can do anything it claims. Where is the quantitative theory, Clete? The videos don't reveal it, and I can't find any papers online that describe the theory with any rigour. If you want to know about physics explanations then Google for it - I even presented you with one. The theory is all over the web, so why don't you do your own homework and find a weak area and match that to a firm quantitative prediction from EU that is better. THEN you would have something to discuss.

Really, the situation on this thread is that hardly anyone wants to engage with this pseudoscience. I am the only physicist here that is willing to comment on the theory, but you haven't presented a theory yet - I've asked you to, but you are unwilling to offer it up for comment. Present the theory, and I'll discuss it, but all we have are YouTube videos that you demand we watch. Why don't you pick out the most convincing part of the videos, give me the time stamp and link, and I'll watch it and comment. Do that, and we'll start from there.

 

[Clete]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], the thread is 'reasons the universe is electric', not 'somebody defend modern physics': thee onus is on EU proponents to show evidence that some observation is quantitatively better explained using EU theory than modern physics.

I started the thread, I think I know what the topic is. The point of the thread is to watch and then debate the videos presented as their top ten reasons. The questions I asked are all directly related to the specific arguments made in the first three videos.

The problem is that no one has presented a theory of the EU that would allow quantitative work top be done work EU, so there of no evidence provided at all that EU can do anything it claims. Where is the quantitative theory, Clete? The videos don't reveal it, and I can't find any papers online that describe the theory with any rigour. If you want to know about physics explanations then Google for it - I even presented you with one. The theory is all over the web, so why don't you do your own homework and find a weak area and match that to a firm quantitative prediction from EU that is better. THEN you would have something to discuss.

Really, the situation on this thread is that hardly anyone wants to engage with this pseudoscience. I am the only physicist here that is willing to comment on the theory, but you haven't presented a theory yet - I've asked you to, but you are unwilling to offer it up for comment. Present the theory, and I'll discuss it, but all we have are YouTube videos that you demand we watch. Why don't you pick out the most convincing part of the videos, give me the time stamp and link, and I'll watch it and comment. Do that, and we'll start from there.

You're a liar. If you could answer my questions with something that sounded like it even half way refuted the points made on any one of the videos, a herd of elephants trampling your computer couldn't keep you from typing it up and posting it here.

If you've got nothing then just say so. The fact that you don't is obvious anyway. All you've got is name calling. How super duper for you. :dunce:

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

You're a liar.
:dunce:

Clete

You are very keen on name calling. Yet my point remains: not a single equation has been presented so it is completely impossible to compare EU predictions to observations. They are avoiding that key part of the scientific method - quantitative predictions and the potential for falsification.

Where are the equations and numerical models? The formal predictions and supporting quantitative observations? The research papers? The peer review?

There is nothing to see here, move along.

(And you call yourself a Christian - be less liberal with the false witness liar accusations. You should hold yourself to higher standards that that.)

 

[Clete]

You are very keen on name calling. Yet my point remains: not a single equation has been presented so it is completely impossible to compare EU predictions to observations. They are avoiding that key part of the scientific method - quantitative predictions and the potential for falsification.

Where are the equations and numerical models? The formal predictions and supporting quantitative observations? The research papers? The peer review?

There is nothing to see here, move along.

(And you call yourself a Christian - be less liberal with the false witness liar accusations. You should hold yourself to higher standards that that.)

You are a liar. There is no doubt about it. If you could answer a single one of the questions I've asked or refute the premises upon which they are based, God Himself would have to get involved to keep you from doing it. Scientists had good ideas and asked good questions long before they came up with any mathematics to describe those ideas. You claim to refuse to touch the ideas because these video don't give you the math but that's just so much fermented fish fat in a flask (i.e. it's a lie). If you could refute any of it, you would.

And, just so you know, "false witness" in the Ten Commandments is referring specifically to perjury, not simple lying. In other words, the two are not synonyms.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

You are a liar. There is no doubt about it. If you could answer a single one of the questions I've asked or refute the premises upon which they are based, God Himself would have to get involved to keep you from doing it. Scientists had good ideas and asked good questions long before they came up with any mathematics to describe those ideas. You claim to refuse to touch the ideas because these video don't give you the math but that's just so much fermented fish fat in a flask (i.e. it's a lie). If you could refute any of it, you would.

And, just so you know, "false witness" in the Ten Commandments is referring specifically to perjury, not simple lying. In other words, the two are not synonyms.

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.

 

[patrick jane]