Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Electrical Universe Theory?

  1. #1 Electrical Universe Theory? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5
    Hi,

    I recently came across the Electrical Universe Theory while researching Dark Matter. See http://www.thunderbolts.info/ for a website with a lot on it. I've also seen a lot of comments on the theory that's it's been thoroughly debunked and is known pseudoscience and not real science. What I've been unable to find is any of this actual debunking. Does anyone have some leads (links or books) that do actual debunking instead of just referring to it as known pseudoscience and therefore not worth paying any attention to? It would be nice if there were some specific examples of predictions that failed to pan out or such.

    Thanks!
    Deej

    Edit: here's a link to the subpage that brought me to that site while looking into info on Dark Matter in case anyone's curious... http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...erstanding.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Port Saint Lucie, Florida
    Posts
    135
    I'm not sure exactly how one could 'debunk' the electric universe theory, at least not in its entirety. We know that a good deal of the processes that go on in the universe are attributable, if not entirely then at least in part, to electromagnetism. To debunk the electric universe would essentially be saying that electricity is pseudoscience. The extent to which electromagnetism has an active role versus other processes like nuclear fusion/fission et al could be the topic of debate.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5
    I've been doing some more poking around and now I'm even more confused! I guess that's the nature of learning :-D

    Here's an example of a site that counters the Electrical Universe idea in the manner I've oft seen repeated: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...solarwind.html

    When I visit his references (one of which is a broken link), I see that the solar wind is a plasma and electrically neutral. Curious as to what it meant to be a plasma, I checked out wikipedia and found:
    In physics and chemistry, a plasma is typically an ionized gas. Plasma is considered to be a distinct state of matter, apart from gases, because of its unique properties. Ionized refers to presence of one or more free electrons, which are not bound to an atom or molecule. The free electric charges make the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29)

    So then I looked at electromagnetic fields and see
    The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behaviour of charged objects in the vicinity of the field.
    also from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

    So now it looks to me like the argument against the Electrical Universe Theory is that the fact that neutral plasma doesn't have a charge means it doesn't have an effect.

    Then it turns out that plasma is moved by electromagnetic forces and carries high energy which has an effect.

    And for those forces to exist there must be electrically charged objects to create the force. What are those objects in classical physics?

    Am I just confused?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Electrical Universe Theory? 
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Deej
    Hi,

    I recently came across the Electrical Universe Theory while researching Dark Matter. See http://www.thunderbolts.info/ for a website with a lot on it. I've also seen a lot of comments on the theory that's it's been thoroughly debunked and is known pseudoscience and not real science.
    You need to ask yourself two questions. (1) What does the Electric Universe theory claim (2) What makes something pseudoscience (note there is no scientific definition!), and consequently, does one apply to the other.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Deej
    Here's an example of a site that counters the Electrical Universe idea in the manner I've oft seen repeated: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...solarwind.html
    I don't think this has any relevance to the Electric Universe theory, which I am sure are consistent with known facts about the Solar Wind:
    • The Solar Wind (or interplanetary medium), is a fully ionized plasma consisting of approximately equal numbers of oppositely charged particles, negatively charged electrons and positively charged protons, and helium ions
    • Plasmas, including the Solar Wind, are described as "quasi-neutral", which means that they tend towards electrical neutrality overall. It also means that regions of charge separation may occur on a small local scale.
    • An example of such charge separation is the so-called heliospheric current sheet, the largest coherence structure in the Solar System, which carries an estimated 3×10<sup>9</sup> amperes.

    (See the links for more details and peer-reviewed references)
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I also found THIS discussion about debunking Electric universe Theory.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7
    If when predictions of a theory "failed to pan out or such", made it pseudoscience or just bad. Then nuclear solar theory is in deep trouble. When did predictability ever bother modern astrophysicists?
    All electrons which move creates a electric current. The stronger it become, the more stable the current it self becomes, due to how its magnetic field becomes stronger. The more stable the current it self is, the longer distances it can travel. There is no magic ability which are able to destroy the electric current when it becomes large enough, with out the use of any aditional energy + force. Neither does magnetic field for any scientific reason just cancel out at thoes sizes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    If when predictions of a theory "failed to pan out or such", made it pseudoscience or just bad. Then nuclear solar theory is in deep trouble. When did predictability ever bother modern astrophysicists?
    All electrons which move creates a electric current. The stronger it become, the more stable the current it self becomes, due to how its magnetic field becomes stronger. The more stable the current it self is, the longer distances it can travel. There is no magic ability which are able to destroy the electric current when it becomes large enough, with out the use of any aditional energy + force. Neither does magnetic field for any scientific reason just cancel out at thoes sizes.
    Feel free to provide some objective and quantitative evidence for these ideas.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Here is a useful blog which patiently debunks this idiocy: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Here is a useful blog which patiently debunks this idiocy: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'
    Nice link. Thanks, Strange.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Feel free to provide some objective and quantitative evidence for these ideas.
    That all the electrons form a magnetic field when they move, which results in a confined electrict current, is a very well accepted fact. All of modern electronics are buit with this basic principle in mind. Allso that the magnetic field becomes stronger and more stable with a higher current, is a well accepted fact as well.
    That there is nothing which stops electric currents from becomming the sizes of galaxies and larger, is nothing i will have to prove. In science you do not dissprove the existence of concepts which have never been observed to be a fact. That would bee like dissproving the existence of Dark Matter or God.
    There is a calculation which says that if you have a perfect conductor, the magnetic field will never fall apart after they have formed (un less you add some recistance to the equation). This would form magnetic fields frozen in to the electrons, but there is no such thing as a perfect conductor. Even if a plasma is a greate conductor, its magnetic field will fall apart. This is ignored and asumed that you just need a realy low recistance for magnetic fields to freeze in to the plasma. The reason to why this idea have been so accepted, is because it gives the mainstream scientists a explenation to the magnetic field of the sun, with out abandoning any former theory or risk using electricity.
    To use electricity for allmost anything is a taboo nowdays. Twisted filnamentary birkeland current have been found to strech between our earth and the sun. How do they explain it? They say that something like "Electrons spiral around magnetic field lines on their way to the Earth". Magnetic field lines do not even exist as physical objects, and this is supose to be realy basic electromagnetism. The field lines only shows the directions of a magnetic field, like how water current lines shows the direction of a water current. They are guidelines, not real things.
    When they started to observe how the composition of meteorites where built, they desperatly tried to find a explenation for the crystaline structures they found. But they hade to show that they only picked electricity as the ultimatly last option for the crystaline structure. The structure showed to have formed under a suddan and brief period of realy high temperatures. This could only be explained electrically. Now they have their stupid theories about how electricity should have formed statically during the planetary formation.

    The view on people who tries to explain things with electricity, is as if they where trying to explain things with magic or new age phenomenoms. There is this dogma when it comes to no using electricity for allmost anything. I think it came as a greate suprice to many, when they found out how lightning bolts are superb at eroding mountains and cliffs. Then to believe in sucha idea, you do not have to believe in any electric universe theory, just use common sence combined with settled science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Feel free to provide some objective and quantitative evidence for these ideas.
    ...
    It is as if you didn't actually read what Strange wrote.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    There is a calculation ...
    Ironic, as the electric universe crowd don't understand enough plasma physics (or even simple high school physics) to calculate anything.

    There is this dogma when it comes to no using electricity for allmost anything.
    This appears to be the usual electric universe strawman: claiming that astrophysics denies the existence of electricity. Whereas, of course the role of electric and magnetic fields and plasma is very well understood - quantitatively, based on measurements and calculation. It is no good a bunch of crackpots saying "everything is electric" when it plainly isn't.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    There is this dogma when it comes to no using electricity for allmost anything
    Ok then, how about a simple proof of concept by the ideas you support - let's say we have some central body with total and very large mass M. We shine a ray of light at it from some given angle with some given offset; for simplicity we assume that everything relevant happens in the equatorial plane, so that the entire thing is characterised simply by an impact parameter b.

    Now tell me if :

    1. The light hits the body, or
    2. The light grazes past the body and is deflected by some angle, or
    3. The light is not affected at all, or
    4. The light enters a stable orbit around the body

    I am looking for a mathematical relation, given the impact parameter and the mass of the central body. I am genuinely curious as to how "electric universe" supporters approach this calculation, and what results they get. I shall do the same using the usual laws of gravity, and then we compare results, and have a look at some empirical data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Ok then, how about a simple proof of concept by the ideas you support - let's say we have some central body with total and very large mass M. We shine a ray of light at it from some given angle with some given offset; for simplicity we assume that everything relevant happens in the equatorial plane, so that the entire thing is characterised simply by an impact parameter b.

    Now tell me if :

    1. The light hits the body, or
    2. The light grazes past the body and is deflected by some angle, or
    3. The light is not affected at all, or
    4. The light enters a stable orbit around the body

    I am looking for a mathematical relation, given the impact parameter and the mass of the central body. I am genuinely curious as to how "electric universe" supporters approach this calculation, and what results they get. I shall do the same using the usual laws of gravity, and then we compare results, and have a look at some empirical data.
    I believe that the light will react to the body depending on its composition, wavelength, and depenting on its properties. I believe if it is a star, it will more likely lence light passing by it, due to higher concentrations of plasma surounding it than gasses and plasma around a planet. I am not so good at light passing trough a plasma. But I do know that if the plasma is heated, it will not only have a lensing efect, but it will allso redshift any light which passes trough it. But I am not sure how it would react to light shining straight in to it, more than how it would be redshifted and bent.
    If the body is solid, depending on the temperature and material compostion, the ligh will either be absorbed, be reflected or just pass trough. If it is allso surounded by a sphere of plasma, depending on the temperature of the sphere, the light will be redshifted or only lensed. If the body allso has an atmosphere, the atmosphere can absorb, reflect, let trough ligh, lens or divide the light in to differen wavelengths.

    I do not believe that light is afected by gravity, then I believe gravity lensing wouldn't be sucha rare phenomenom. It is even used to explain what apears to be lensing around galaxies, which have scientifically been proven to not be caused by gravity. If galaxies are not gravitational, we have to find a new explenation for the lensing efect, which allso was incretible ungravitational. These celestial boddies which are supose to be due to a lensing efect, have sometimes allmost even round shapes, when they should be realy streched, due to the roundness of the gravitational field.

    Neither do I believe in gravitational redshift. If i understand that it right, it is used to determine mass of stars, dwarf stars and giant stars. But the fact that heated plasma causes redshift, demands that we requestion that notion.

    I do not realy know if I got what you where asking for, but I hope so.
    I am sry that I can't bring you any math on this. I am still a layman, but hopefully one day I might give you my answers in mathematics, if it is even possible with so much uncertainty in what you actualy are questioning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7
    [QUOTE=Strange;567787]Ironic, as the electric universe crowd don't understand enough plasma physics (or even simple high school physics) to calculate anything. [QUOTE]
    The good old "you can't do math, so you have to be wrong". It doesn't hold un less you can at least try to explain why I am wrong, instead of attacking my mathematical abilities like if it was implicit to know math, just to understand anything in this universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    This appears to be the usual electric universe strawman: claiming that astrophysics denies the existence of electricity. Whereas, of course the role of electric and magnetic fields and plasma is very well understood - quantitatively, based on measurements and calculation. It is no good a bunch of crackpots saying "everything is electric" when it plainly isn't.
    It is not a strawman, if you proposed that electricity would have the ability, to day, to erode mountains and larger rock formation down to rubble. Allso that I proposed it to someone who was ignorant to such findings, it would often been reacted to as BS. Like how the scientific community reacted to Birkeland, when he proposed that the aurora borealis is a electromagnetic phenomenom.
    You are strawmaning me when you asume that my point is that scientists do not understand or denies the existence of electricity. The scientific community do understand electricity, there is only a controverse between if a plasma in a vacume can hold a electric current or not. First it was belived that the current would just fall apart, for not scientific reason, which shows signs of the taboo electricity brings with it. Then they found out about the flux freeze mechanism, now they can use that against the notion of a electric sun.

    There is no predictability of the magneto hydrodynamic view of plasma in the universe. There is no way to explain the complex magnetic fields found all over the universe, they are just asumed to be caused by flux freezing and then used to explain plasma formation and behaviour, when gravity isn't enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Feel free to provide some objective and quantitative evidence for these ideas.
    ...
    It is as if you didn't actually read what Strange wrote.
    First: How do I objectivly and quantitativly show that there is no evidence for a phenomenom, when it is not I who claims the existence of that phenomenom and the evidence for that phenomenom? I am not the one to test someone elses claims, i mean I could if I wanted to, but it is not my responsibility.
    Second: Why should I mathematically prove something which is well accepted all over the world, as classical electrodynamics?
    Third: How much math I ever use, I would never be able to dissprove the existence of a fact which doesn't exist. All I can do is to asume that all the BS which anyone can imagine, but still not find in the nature, is bs un till they can show that they have evidence for it. You can give me some objective and quantitative proof for the ability of electric currents to cancel out at larger scale. I am still not responsible to dissprove or prove other peoples claim.

    All you guys have in your heads is math, you can't even form a sound argumen, just ask for math, even how inapropriate it is to ask for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    I believe that the light will react to the body depending on its composition, wavelength, and depenting on its properties.
    You believe wrongly. In actual fact, the orbit depends only on the impact parameter and the mass of the central body, nothing else.

    I do not believe that light is afected by gravity
    Gravitational light deflection is an empirical fact.

    which have scientifically been proven to not be caused by gravity.
    Gravitational lensing is a indeed a gravitational phenomenon - if you believe otherwise, then please provide peer reviewed sources for your claim.

    Neither do I believe in gravitational redshift.
    Gravitational redshift is empirical fact, just as light deflection is. It can even be done in a laboratory.
    Physics is not about "belief", it is about empirical data, and about having models that best fit that data.

    I am sry that I can't bring you any math on this.
    Without mathematics, all your assertions are merely personal opinions, because you cannot tell whether or not your ideas yield the correct numbers.

    so much uncertainty in what you actualy are questioning.
    My question is very specific - to calculate using only the "electric universe" idea what happens to a ray of light in the vicinity of a large mass. It's an exact question with an exact answer, there is no uncertainty in this. This is in fact at the heart of what physics does - we come up with mathematical models, input specific boundary conditions, extract predictions from that model, and compare these predictions to empirical ( i.e. experimental and observational ) data. If you are unable to do any of this, then you don't have a model, only a personal opinion. That is not physics.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    First: How do I objectivly and quantitativly show that there is no evidence for a phenomenom, when it is not I who claims the existence of that phenomenom and the evidence for that phenomenom?
    It is you who claims that "electric universe" is a valid model, so the onus is on yourself to provide the objective and mathematical evidence. Mere statements of the form "I believe that..." just don't cut it, I'm afraid. That is why I posed the original question with regards to the ray of light to you, to see if you can support your claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Gravitational light deflection :

    van Biesbroeck : The Relativity Shift of the 1952 Eclipse of the Sun, Astronomical Journal Vol 58, page 87

    Gravitational Red Shift :

    Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 439 (1959) - Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance

    Gravitational Lensing :

    Deep Space Flight and Communications: Exploiting the Sun as a Gravitational Lens - Claudio Maccone - Google Books

    And some modern tests of the underlying theory in general :

    Modern Tests of Relativity
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7
    Now I see what you where asking for, i didn't find it to obvious in your first comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    You believe wrongly. In actual fact, the orbit depends only on the impact parameter and the mass of the central body, nothing else.
    I understand what the gravitational lensing theorem is all about, but I do not see why it should have anything to do with this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Gravitational light deflection is an empirical fact.
    Lensing have been observed, and no questioning if that lensing was caused by anything else than gravity have been asked. The gravitational efect have not been observe, only asumed. The lensing efect have in the other hand been observed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Gravitational lensing is a indeed a gravitational phenomenon - if you believe otherwise, then please provide peer reviewed sources for your claim.
    I can't point you to any specific peer reviewed article as source for my belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Gravitational redshift is empirical fact, just as light deflection is. It can even be done in a laboratory.
    Physics is not about "belief", it is about empirical data, and about having models that best fit that data.
    I can't realy argue against that experiment, at least not for now.
    What the former accepted theories of relativity does when it comes to data is: Even if it would be suport by evidence, it leads to a universe, where explaining relativly simple phenomenoms becomes realy hard. Even if a plasmoid is a realy complex phenomenom, you do not have to make up as much math to make it a usefull tool. Compar it to black holes, which are extremely abstract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Without mathematics, all your assertions are merely personal opinions, because you cannot tell whether or not your ideas yield the correct numbers.
    Not opinions, if you know the difference between beliefs and opinions, you should know why.
    A theory can allso be as simple as "there is a electrical conection between the earth and the sun, and therfore we should find a possitive relation between activity on the sun and lightning here on the earth. This is what we find, and maybe that doesn't prove my theory, but it at least suports it. Now I didn't have to anything more complex than to measure solar activity, the amount of lightning bolts and compare the curves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    My question is very specific - to calculate using only the "electric universe" idea what happens to a ray of light in the vicinity of a large mass. It's an exact question with an exact answer, there is no uncertainty in this. This is in fact at the heart of what physics does - we come up with mathematical models, input specific boundary conditions, extract predictions from that model, and compare these predictions to empirical ( i.e. experimental and observational ) data. If you are unable to do any of this, then you don't have a model, only a personal opinion. That is not physics.
    Electric universe is not so much a theory as a collection of models, which uses electricity to explain things which scientists earlier did not use electricity to explain. Some of these theories are quite extraordinary, while some are closer to the ground. Electric universe is realy not about postulating fundemental physical theories, as much as it is about explaining phenomenoms with observed phenomenoms. How light reacts to gravity is a question for a nother type of theory.
    The heart of physics is not to "come up with mathematical models". The heart of physics is observation. If the observation (which was made before the hypothesis that explains it was made) was made with tools using math, the theory should allso work with that math, and not to reach far outside of the bounderies of that math.
    Electric universe relies heavily on empirical data and less on abstract mathematical moddeling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    First: How do I objectivly and quantitativly show that there is no evidence for a phenomenom, when it is not I who claims the existence of that phenomenom and the evidence for that phenomenom?
    It is you who claims that "electric universe" is a valid model, so the onus is on yourself to provide the objective and mathematical evidence. Mere statements of the form "I believe that..." just don't cut it, I'm afraid. That is why I posed the original question with regards to the ray of light to you, to see if you can support your claims.
    If you did read his comment, it would be obvious to you that he didn't answer to any comment claiming that the universe was electric in any way.
    I wrote about other peoples claims and textbook electro physics, but I bet you could read it by your self.
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    If when predictions of a theory "failed to pan out or such", made it pseudoscience or just bad. Then nuclear solar theory is in deep trouble. When did predictability ever bother modern astrophysicists?
    All electrons which move creates a electric current. The stronger it become, the more stable the current it self becomes, due to how its magnetic field becomes stronger. The more stable the current it self is, the longer distances it can travel. There is no magic ability which are able to destroy the electric current when it becomes large enough, with out the use of any aditional energy + force. Neither does magnetic field for any scientific reason just cancel out at thoes sizes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    I understand what the gravitational lensing theorem is all about, but I do not see why it should have anything to do with this thread.
    The exercise isn't really about lensing - you can use a massive particle instead of light, the same principles apply.

    Lensing have been observed, and no questioning if that lensing was caused by anything else than gravity have been asked. The gravitational efect have not been observe, only asumed. The lensing efect have in the other hand been observed.
    There are only two ways to deflect light - refraction and gravitational light deflection. The difference is that refraction explicitly depends on the wave length, whereas gravitational deflection does not. They are hence easy to distinguish. If the light bending was due to refraction in a plasma, we would see a frequency dependency, which isn't the case.

    Even if it would be suport by evidence, it leads to a universe, where explaining relativly simple phenomenoms becomes realy hard.
    I disagree. Relativity is very straightforward conceptually. Granted, the mathematics are tedious, but the same is true for plasma electrodynamics. Besides, whether or not something is simple has no bearing on its validity.

    Compar it to black holes, which are extremely abstract.
    And I don't see them as abstract at all, they are just a natural consequence of gravity. Also, in the case of simple Schwarzschild black holes, the mathematics are pretty straightforward.

    A theory can allso be as simple as "there is a electrical conection between the earth and the sun, and therfore we should find a possitive relation between activity on the sun and lightning here on the earth. This is what we find, and maybe that doesn't prove my theory, but it at least suports it. Now I didn't have to anything more complex than to measure solar activity, the amount of lightning bolts and compare the curves.
    If there was a current flowing between Earth and the Sun, we would be able to measure a corresponding electromagnetic field. That is obviously not the case.

    The heart of physics is not to "come up with mathematical models". The heart of physics is observation.
    The heart of physics isn't just observation, it is about understanding what we observe. Of course empirical data is of crucial importance ( as I had pointed out already ), but just as important is to put a workable model around that data. We want to be able to make predictions, i.e. quantify problems and scenarios.

    Then nuclear solar theory is in deep trouble.
    The physics behind this are sound, and will soon be exploited commercially for power production :

    Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ITER - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is entirely beyond me how anyone can doubt that self-sustaining nuclear fusion is possible, as I have seen several EU supporters do over the years. It is just a straightforward application of basic quantum mechanics.

    Electric universe relies heavily on empirical data and less on abstract mathematical moddeling.
    There is no empirical data I am aware of that even remotely supports EU over conventional nuclear fusion as the key process in the interior of the Sun. I urge you to take a closer look at the link that Strange had provided earlier, where several key ideas of EU are examined in great detail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    The good old "you can't do math, so you have to be wrong".
    That isn't what I said. So that is a straw man fallacy.

    However, the fact remains that no one who believes in the electric universe is able to calculate anything which will confirm their (quasi-religious) belief. As you have demonstrated in the post above: all you have done is waffle about what you "believe" will happen. A physicist (even an amateur) could calculate exactly what would happen - this could then be tested against observation.

    un less you can at least try to explain why I am wrong
    Sorry, but this nonsense has been debunked so often, I am not going to waste any more time on it. Anyone capable of doing the math can see that the idea doesn't work.

    You are strawmaning me when you asume that my point is that scientists do not understand or denies the existence of electricity.
    I didn't assume anything. This is a claim often made by EU fans.

    There is no predictability of the magneto hydrodynamic view of plasma in the universe.
    And yet, real scientists are able to make useful models.

    If you and your fellow EU fans think it is completely unpredictable, then you cannot have any basis for believing in the effects that you claim for it.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Electro-Cute View Post
    First: How do I objectivly and quantitativly show that there is no evidence for a phenomenom, when it is not I who claims the existence of that phenomenom and the evidence for that phenomenom? I am not the one to test someone elses claims, i mean I could if I wanted to, but it is not my responsibility.
    I have no idea what you are talking about. You should be provide support for your claims: if you think everything can be explained by electricity and plasma, then simply show the calculations that support this. I assume you can do this? After all, why would you belive it otherwise?

    Second: Why should I mathematically prove something which is well accepted all over the world, as classical electrodynamics?
    But ou are not just claiming that electrodynamics exists and works (we all know that). You are claiming that it is responsible for ... well what, exactly? The large scale structure of the universe, the solar system, the geography of the Earth.

    Feel free to provide claculations and evidence to confirm this. Otherwise we will just have to assume it is the same empty bullshit.

    Third: How much math I ever use, I would never be able to dissprove the existence of a fact which doesn't exist.
    No one is asking you to do that, so stop evading. You need to provide support for your theory. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone to consider it.

    you can't even form a sound argumen
    As your only argument is "I believe" then we can just ignore you.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •