Author Topic: How to prove or proof that it is NOT an Electric Universe and Gravity does rule  (Read 14059 times)

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
Electric Universe Fact or Theory?

If it is an Electrical Universe then there must be electrical connections or interactions between everything. There has to be a circuit. No circuit or connections equals no Electric Universe Theory. It's that simple.

Considering how the EU Theory opposes the whole concept of mainstream science there must be easy arguments and proof against it.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 10:21:07 by electrobleme »

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
Anti Electric Universe Theory - Arguments/sites/links against the EU Theory
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2009, 02:00:31 »


The Peratt Galaxy Model
Quote
When the Electric Universe crowd wants to haul out real scientific work to lend credence to their claims, they often like to talk about the galaxy formation model proposed by Anthony Peratt at the Los Alamos National Laboratory

In Peratt's model, galaxies form at the intersection of large-scale (many megaparsecs long) Birkeland currents. This model had the interesting feature that it formed objects that resembled spiral galaxies and they exhibited rotation profiles similar to those observed for spiral galaxies, without the need for dark matter needed in the standard Big Bang cosmology. These characteristics were observed in both plasma experiments and in particle simulations.

So why isn't the Peratt model the accepted model for galaxy formation? Because galaxies are not defined by rotation curves alone. Peratt's model made a number of other predictions that failed significantly...
Blog on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background


The work of Stephen J. Crothers
Quote
The work of Stephen J. Crothers has been promoted heavily by the Electric Universe advocates, as one of their 'experts' on issues of Special & General Relativity. There is even a section of his papers on the plasmaresources site. Mr. Crothers' main page on this site, The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics', provides some strange reading.

This is a preliminary examination of some of Mr. Crothers' papers. It is by no way complete, but there are enough interesting errors in the works I've examined so far to make a few comments. I've concentrated on the paper “On Certain Conceptual Anomalies in Einstein's Theory of Relativity”, with some supplemental reading of references.

Crothers seems to take particular issue with the concept of black holes in general relativity. However, it appears most of his complaints are non-issues if it is impossible for an infalling observer or particle to actually cross the event horizon. I know of no astrophysical processes involving black holes that actually require infalling material to cross the event horizon, though I have seen this description used in press releases...
Blog on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Some Preliminary Comments on Crothers' Relativity Claims

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis - Tim Thompson

« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 03:51:19 by electrobleme »

electrobleme

  • Administrator
  • Plasma Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 1501
  • EUreka?: +1/-0
  • It's time to step out of the Gravity, Well?
    • Electric Universe theory blog
It's not "The Electric Sun", its the Nuclear Sun
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2009, 03:51:27 »
"The Electric Sky, Short-circuited" is a critical review (pdf) from W.T. Bridgman (Ph.D) of Donald E Scott's book "The Electric Sky"  
Quote
Introduction
I was originally directed to Donald E. Scott’s book, The Electric Sky (Mikamar Publishing, 2006), after finding a reference to the work by young-Earth creationist, Barry Setterfield, on his website. The reference was an attempt by Setterfield to deflect my criticisms that pulsar timing observations were evidence against his claims of a rapidly decaying speed of light by invoking a radically different model of pulsars proposed by Dr. Scott.

The Electric Sky is not the first book I’ve read on plasma cosmology. I had originally read Eric Lerner’s The Big Bang Never Happened while in graduate school studying for my Ph.D. in astrophysics. More recently, I’ve read Anthony Peratt’s Physics of the Plasma Universe (Springer-Verlag, 1992). I expected something similar to a reasonable, popular-level update to the latest claims of the plasma cosmology crowd. I was unpleasantly surprised as I found I could hardly go 2-3 pages in Scott's book without finding major ridiculous claims...
(pdf of)The Electric Sky, Short-circuited by W.T. Bridgman (Ph.D)


Quote
On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

A response to Don Scott's " The Electric Sun" webpage, this webpage of mine is as yet incomplete, and therefore a "work in progress". It is not my intention, at least for now, to address the issues raised, and alleged to be in favor of the electric-sun hypothesis. Rather, it is my intent to show that the arguments of Scott et al. against the standard interpretations of stellar physics are devoid of merit. This is an important point, because it shifts to the champions of the electric-sun hypothesis, the responsibility for showing that their hypothesis is better than the standard. I contend that the detailed & powerful predictability associated with standard theory far outclasses the prose-based sentimental approach of the electric-sun hypothesis. That, combined with the habitually poor approach to physics adopted for the electric-sun hypothesis, makes it a thoroughly unacceptable substitute for the standard physical theory of the structure and evolution of the sun. The same argument applies to the more general electric-star hypothesis, of which the electric-sun is only one part. Also see my other web-page, "Thompson Responds to Thornhill", which dates from 1998 and addresses a number of weaknesses in the electric star hypothesis. Those arguments are as good now as they were then. I also have a relevant page on Solar Fusion and Neutrinos which addresses the solar neutrino problem in more detail, and also the basic physics of the fusion reactions inside the sun.
On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis - tim-thompson .com


Quote
Tim Thompson Responds to Thornhill on the matter of the Electric Star Hypothesis

What follows is a copy of a message I sent to a mailing list, in response to the peculiar theory that the sun, and other stars, are really electric discharge phenomena. In the as-yet poorly presented theory of the electric universe (see Wallace Thornhill's online presentation Lightning of the Gods), stars are not the giant gass balls we all think we know they are. No, they are the focal points of enormous galactic currents. As the currents fall onto the surface of the star, they release their energy and the star shines. Orthodox physicists, we are told, have for years overlooked the obvious evidence. I have retained as much of Thornhill's message as necessary to retain context for my own remarks, but you can read the full text of his original message, if you want to. (then stuff about html) This is really too long, but I put some effort into it, so I will send it out anyway. That's life.

We have now seen several messages from Thornhill, forwarded by Dave Talbott. They are so bizarre that it it difficult to understand how to respond. Without ever offering a particularly good reason (nor for that matter, even a particularly bad one), Thornhill simply and expediently denies the validity of all physics. Every time a counter point is made to one of his assertions, the canned answer takes the form of "if I am right, everything about physics is wrong". And so I will pick one message that just happens to mention me by name, but I really want to address the question of "grey areas" in standard theory.
]Tim Thompson Responds to Thornhill on the matter of the Electric Star Hypothesis - tim-thompson .com

« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 20:31:27 by electrobleme »

Fledgling

  • rocky planet
  • **
  • Posts: 7
  • EUreka?: +0/-0
 :) You've missed half the electric universe theory. An electric field does not require a circuit or any movement of anything at all. Any time you have a separation of charges or an accumulation of like charges, it creates an electric field and its power is 10 to the 36th times gravity.

A star need not have a source of current to be a glow discharge globe if it has a balance of positively charged plasma in excess of the negative. That would produce an electric field that would draw negatively charged material from interstellar space and accelerate them to enormous speeds. This is, in effect, a linear accelerator aimed at the sun and is what causes the million degree photosphere around the sun.

The effect of this bombardment creates nuclear reactions, both fission and fusion, and accounts for the neutrinos that are produced by the sun. The incoming negatively charged material never neutralizes the positive electric field of the sun because the energy released in the corona accelerates both positive alpha particles and the light weight negative particles away at escape velocity.