Electric Universe Theory

[SevenSpheres]

I really dont know, how to commnt it. Just google this phrase. It really doesnt hurt I put here some links I like:

Well, I didn't know about this...but these are galactic magnetic fields, not a "cosmic" magnetic field.

So some predictions of EU agree with evidence. Many do not (such as black holes not existing or the Solar System being very young having had major changes in the recent past). Let me ask another way:

What observations would support EU with high confidence? Conversely, what observations would convince you that EU is wrong?

[pirogronian]

but these are galactic magnetic fields, not a "cosmic" magnetic field.

No. Again, You didn't read linked stuff carefully. There are also inter galactix magnetic fields, spaning over several milions of lightyears. Even n articles about galactic stale fields they are refered as "cosmic". And my predictions is there will be discoveries of even larger magnetic fields, on all scales and places, especially where dynamic processess takes place...

Many do not (such as black holes not existing or the Solar System being very young having had major changes in the recent past).

I'd stay here. What evidence support existence of black holes and long standing shape of our solar system? I mean real, scientific data, not just "consensus" opinion.

Black holes are not excluded by EU directly. They are just not scientific. Their very definition brakes law of General Relativity, from which they was originally derived. Their supposed observations (jets and rings of matter) are merely loose interpretation of images better explained by e-m phenomena.

Solar system history is also unexplained by mainstream. They need separate theory for every single body, due to their diversity. They don't know what created most of craters, despite their claims they know. They admit most of existing craters were formed during relatively short and recent period, called "late heavy bombardement". They admit cratering rate on our Moon is much faster than they expected (https://phys.org/news/2016-10-facelift-moon-years.html). Implications about Moon's surface recent history are obvious.

They dont know, how rings are formed and why sometimes even asteroids have their own rings (https://www.space.com/25225-asteroid-rings-discovery-video-images.html). They admit, that rings of Saturn appears to be much younger than they expected (https://earthsky.org/space/saturn-rings-eject-material-young-or-old).

Finally, they dont know why our Solar System is such different from discovered recently many exo-systems and speculate it had to be smashed by Jupiter some time ago (https://www.zmescience.com/space/jupiter-wrecking-ball-24032015/). Interestingly, when Velikovsky suggested planetary migration of Venus in 1950, he was immediately called "mad man" and is rejected by "scientific consensus" to this day. But now nooone is calling these scientists "mad", depsite they don't have any stabilising force, preventing Solar system from being chaotic after such and event.

Also, is worth to note that mainstream expected confirmation of their SS formation theory in comets, so the names of cometary missions: Stardust, Deep Impact and Rosetta. However, all their expectations failed. Meanwhile all expectations of Electric Universe was confirmed.

So I ask you for evidence that mainstream knows and can confirm history of our Solar System. If You dont have any, then what observations would convince you that mainstream is wrong?

[Lafuente_Astronomy]

Question though: Is it possible for the forces of Gravitation and Electrical Magnetism to be complementary to each other in the Electric Model of the Universe, or is Gravity phased out?

[pirogronian]

Is it possible for the forces of Gravitation and Electrical Magnetism to be complementary to each other in the Electric Model of the Universe, or is Gravity phased out?

Existence of gravity is obvious. There are some ideas, though, that gravity may be an expression of electromagnetism or so. But core idea of EU is just not ignoring electricity, especially when gravitational explanation clearly dont work. As it appeared to be the most cases - that's why it's called Electric Universe, I think.

[SevenSpheres]

So I ask you for evidence that mainstream knows and can confirm history of our Solar System.

You can look here, here and the linked references.

I really didn't want to spend a lot of time arguing this. I was just trying to ask what, in your opinion, would confirm or disconfirm EU.

(If you really want a debate you can try CosmoQuest...)

Added after 28 minutes 44 seconds:
And what about math? Relativity and (mainstream) Solar System dynamics have a lot of math supporting them. EU and Velikovsky have none.

[pirogronian]

I really didn't want to spend a lot of time arguing this. I was just trying to ask what, in your opinion, would confirm or disconfirm EU.

You wrote two contradicting statement, IMHO. To me, convincing are evidence. Evidence are various and numerous, though. There is no single and simple observation that could definitely prove or disprove borh theories, at least unless You have some basic knowledge about subject, but apparently You havent. If You arent ready to read about the subject a bit, this disscussion is pointless for You.

(If you really want a debate you can try CosmoQuest...)

I've read various debates about EU vs mainstream and I'm still, maybe even more, convinced EU is far more correct than mainstream. I see no point with debating it again, not from my point of view. For me, situation is clear. I started this thread and disscussion due to my engagement with Celestia developement and community, to share my knowledge, but I supposed to disscuss with people really interested in (astro)physics.

And what about math? Relativity and (mainstream) Solar System dynamics have a lot of math supporting them. EU and Velikovsky have none.

Well, again. What you suspect by asking such a questions? Just naming a very broad subject, with no single example or so? Additionally, You claim things about evidence for the subject You are asking about. So, have you deeper knowledge about mainstream, EU and Velikovsky or not? If You have, then why not to post particular examples to disscuss? If you havent, then why you claim various things in advance about these subjects?

But I will try to disscuss anyway. Math alone cannot support any physical model. Ultimate evidence for physical theory is observation. Math is a intermediate tool only. Moreover, every math model is limited, as we still officially dont have theory of everything. So, proving some aspects of theory in our neighbourhood is not an proof this theory would work for rest of the Universe. Relativity is not an exception.
But even inside experimental community there are discussions about correctness of Relativity. For example, retired GPS director, Ronald Hatch, clamed explicitely, that GPS disproved Special Relativity. Sound shocking? But it's a fact. Why then everywhere we can read GPS sattelites are flying proofs for SR corectness? Try answer yourself.

And just for clarification: EU have some math too. Not so advanced, what is obvious in context of their very limited resources. Does it support EU? As math alone cannot support physical theory, so it's not the proper question

Example: Recently, retired Dr Donald Scott develiped mathematical model oh Birkeland current thread and he started searching for estimated patterns (https://electric-cosmos.org - see links on the bottom).

[SevenSpheres]

I didn't want to waste time on this thread so I was trying to ask general questions instead of focusing on specific points. It's not working. Here is a 79 page debate about this, no need to duplicate it. I'm done with this thread.

I see no point with debating it again,

Good.

[pirogronian]

I was trying to ask general questions instead of focusing on specific points. It's not working.

So, You admitted it at last It's also good to know mainstream first before discussing alternatives

Added after 9 hours 23 minutes:

The days of astrophysicists posting in this forum are long gone,

Thete's no need to be an astrophysics. Being ready to learn a bit should be enough.

[pirogronian]

I found another summary of EUT:
https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/10-questions-which-point-to-an-electrodynamic-universe/29157?fbclid=IwAR3BCmEzjmDWfXGIR-xaUOKYdLytwIYHVppRytLzA_7MxOhq3O48CCo2nAM

[Joey P.]

cubicApoc wrote:
Then what's this?

phpBB [media]

The Electric Universe theory is wrong in many concepts - for example, many of the ones listed above. I personally do not believe in it.

However, it is interesting to note that many quantum physicists believe that black holes - as we know them - do not exist, and they are actually other things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcoNZNJl-vY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_star

pirogronian wrote:

Double radio sources, predicted by Hannes Alfven, caused by jets of particles from galactic centers. Up to date these activity is pevuliar for standard model and attributed to giant black holes.

On a similar note, Hannes Alfven also proposed the Band structure model on the formation of the Solar System, whose planets, he says, collapsed due to electromagnetic interactions between the interiors of four molecular clouds near the Sun. I personally find this theory a little interesting -

1. The A cloud consists of mostly helium with a few heavy, dense elements (meteor rain). The "meteor rain" collapses to form Mars and the Moon.
2. The B cloud consists of mostly hydrogen. This, of course, collapses to form the outer planets.
3. The C cloud consists of mostly carbon. The impurities form Mercury, Venus, and Earth (and of course, even though his theory never mentions the asteroid belt, just as mainstream theories say it never accreted into a large planet, the asteroid belt may very well represent the remains of the C cloud).
4. The D cloud consists of mostly silicon and iron with volatile impurities. Of course, this forms Pluto and Triton (and the Kuiper Belt and Oort cloud).

[pirogronian]

The Electric Universe theory is wrong in many concepts - for example, many of the ones listed above. I personally do not believe in it.

I dont see any list there. Only error about "Unsupported url".

[Joey P.]

"listed above" actually refers to the other forum posts; that's to clarify.

The "Unsupported url" is actually the black hole pic.

[pirogronian]

"listed above" actually refers to the other forum posts; that's to clarify.

So, all my writing is irrelevant. Good to know

[Joey P.]

Can we just please get back to topic now?

[pirogronian]

Hannes Alfven also proposed the Band structure model on the formation of the Solar System, whose planets, he says, collapsed due to electromagnetic interactions between the interiors of four molecular clouds near the Sun. I personally find this theory a little interesting -

1. The A cloud consists of mostly helium with a few heavy, dense elements (meteor rain). The "meteor rain" collapses to form Mars and the Moon.
2. The B cloud consists of mostly hydrogen. This, of course, collapses to form the outer planets.
3. The C cloud consists of mostly carbon. The impurities form Mercury, Venus, and Earth (and of course, even though his theory never mentions the asteroid belt, just as mainstream theories say it never accreted into a large planet, the asteroid belt may very well represent the remains of the C cloud).
4. The D cloud consists of mostly silicon and iron with volatile impurities. Of course, this forms Pluto and Triton (and the Kuiper Belt and Oort cloud).

Could You provide more info or url? I dont recognize this model and I'm sure it's not a part of current EUT. I know process of Marklund convection, which may be responsible for creation particular bodies and stars, but creation of entire planetary system (especially ours one) seems to be more complicated, even standard astronomy admits that recently.

[Joey P.]

Unfortunately I could only find this in the corresponding Wikipedia section. The only source is a book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_Sy ... ypotheses#Band-structure_model

[pirogronian]

Another summary, focused on tremendous wrongness of a Lambda CDM model:
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-lambda-cdm-model-worst-model-in-all.html

[Sirius_Alpha]

This will probably be my only post on this thread since I kinda gave up dealing with this sort of thing years ago.

Rather than posting an argument from a website that looks like it has just slightly more credibility than Time-Cube, why not get something published? Or go through the actual literature and point out specifically where their math is wrong and why the observations do not support ΛCDM. There's a nobel prize just waiting for you. There's a reason why the scientific community has reached a consensus -- given the choice between "I know something everyone else doesn't" and "Maybe there's something I'm not getting," I can tell you from experience that the latter is almost always the correct answer.

Everyone here thinks you're a crank and will continue to do so until you treat the science you're trying to work in with some level of seriousness.

[pirogronian]

Everyone here thinks you're a crank and will continue to do so until you treat the science you're trying to work in with some level of seriousness.

I wrote about many concrete things here, but you didnt even mentioned it, instead you posted some generic slogans. If this is more serious for you, then I really dont care how you or everyone here call me. I seek someone to discuss, not to defend myself. And you dont want to discuss, so why I should strain?