Celestia Forums

Not widely known, but if even, then commonly rejected without any serious disscusion. Despite it, after years of engagement, I states it has much more accurate predictions, much simpler explanations and much more scientific foundations than any currently promoted "conventional" astrophysics. And it concerns even such a bizzare subjects like world mythology interpretation.

In short:
1. formation and stabilization of large cosmic structures, from mega-threafs and super-clasters down to star systems, is do primarily by electromagnetizm. Gravity is a merely secondary force.
2. History of our iniverse is totally different. Its age is unknown. There was no big bang.
3. Stars dont evolve from cold gas to dwarfs or supernovas. They can live forever, because are powered externally.
4. Black holes doesnt exists.
5. Dark matter doesnt exists.
6. Comets are not icy bodies, they are rocky parts of other bodies. There is no differemce between comet and asteroid, except of orbit excentricity.
7. Our current solar system shape formed merely few thousand years ago and humanity remembered it well.
8. Nearly any bizzate surface feature can be explained by an electric discharge activity.
9. Best of: It's not a pseudoscience, but current cosmology is.

Who don't believe, let him/her check.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ (and they use Celesn their documentaries )

plasmauniverse.info

www.plasma-universe.com

www.safireproject.com

I intentionally don't link to Wikipedia due to its lack of neutrality in any really "controversial" subject.

4. Black holes doesnt exists.

Then what's this?

cubicApoc wrote:Then what's this?

I'll allow myself to cite the graphics linked by You:

And my answer is: most probably more energetic Saturn


As You can see, these objects are very familiar to us and their nature was discovered over hundred years ago...

So that setup happens to look like a black hole and its accretion disk. There's no lensing (which has been observed). It doesn't look like it's generating an attractive, inward force that would keep stars in orbit, as it's not visibly stressing the rig which clearly isn't designed to withstand such a force. It's not generating jets from its poles. It needs an external power source. That model doesn't fully explain the observed effects of a black hole. Where exactly does gravity fall short?

You asked about one particular photo, not an entire black hole concept. It's a mainstream cosmology claiming all objects acting like a lens or emanating jets are black holes. Especially for the jets it was a surprise when they was discovered (while they were already predicted by electric model), and was tied to black holes only due to lack of energy source big enough in gravitocentric cosmology. And their grevitocentric mechanism is still disputed...

Edit: if you are really interested in astrophysics and/or prefer video documentary, you may be interested in this series: Top 10 reasons that universe is electric.

Would you just so happen to support an Infinite Universe as well? I can agree with you on the age, however I do think it had a beginning, just that it's just so very difficult to explain

Taken here from GitHub, although I don't really want to argue this.

pirogronian wrote:Stars dont evolve from cold gas to dwarfs or supernovas. They can live forever, because are powered externally.

Star formation and supernovas have been observed.

pirogronian wrote:There is no differemce between comet and asteroid, except of orbit excentricity.

Here I mostly agree with you. There are many objects that are borderline between an asteroid and a comet (like the ones with dual classification in Celestia Origin; also 'Oumuamua). The only real difference is what the MPC decides to call it.

pirogronian wrote:Our current solar system shape formed merely few thousand years ago and humanity remembered it well.

There is a great deal of evidence contradicting this.

pirogronian wrote:the very existence of such a compact objects...is highly questionable.

Compact objects have been observed, and there are some in Celestia. (Search "Sirius B", "PSR B1257+12")

SevenSpheres wrote:Star formation and supernovas have been observed.

True, but it's not that clear yet. Assuming that the formation processes is true, that means we have to wait hundreds of thousands to millions of years for them to form. And though we have seen many such protostars like T Tauri, we have yet to see the exact moment when core temperatures inside the gas/dust cloud reaches the critical temperature to start fusing hydrogen. As such, there's still lots of open possibilities and potentialities that must be clarified through research.

SevenSpheres wrote:Here I mostly agree with you. There are many objects that are borderline between an asteroid and a comet (like the ones with dual classification in Celestia Origin; also 'Oumuamua). The only real difference is what the MPC decides to call it.

I thought the main difference is that comets have sufficient levels of ice that as it approaches the sun, it creates its comentary tail through the evaporation of said ices.

Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:I thought the main difference is that comets have sufficient levels of ice that as it approaches the sun, it creates its comentary tail through the evaporation of said ices.

Yes, but there is a big overlap as demonstrated by asteroids with cometary activity, asteroids with comet-like orbits, comets with asteroid-like orbits, and 'Oumuamua which is just plain weird.

SevenSpheres wrote:Yes, but there is a big overlap as demonstrated by asteroids with cometary activity, asteroids with comet-like orbits, comets with asteroid-like orbits, and 'Oumuamua which is just plain weird.

Now that just blurs the lines further. For all we know, we could have an object that is an asteroid but has a parabolic orbit and emits ice tails when it comes close to the Sun.

Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:Would you just so happen to support an Infinite Universe as well? I can agree with you on the age, however I do think it had a beginning, just that it's just so very difficult to explain

"Unknown age" could means Universe has a beginning, but we know nothing about it

SevenSpheres wrote:Star formation and supernovas have been observed.

But overall evolution not. Aspecially repeatable pattern of star evolution wasn't observed. Although we live and observe sky for a very short time period, but even within it we observed many "impossible", for example star, that survive explosion or star with giant spot. Both are explanable within Electric Universe model.

SevenSpheres wrote:Compact objects have been observed, and there are some in Celestia. (Search "Sirius B", "PSR B1257+12")

But their "compactness", that is, enormous density, not, AFAIK. It's only assumed. Especially bending space around them wasn't observed. But mentioned objects have separate problems to standard astrophysics. For example, why Sirius B is so faint in visible spectrum and so bright in X-rays? It's inconsistent with standard body thermal radiation. About problems with pulsars (and their solutions) there is quite good and "compact"

Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:I thought the main difference is that comets have sufficient levels of ice that as it approaches the sun, it creates its comentary tail through the evaporation of said ices.

documentary: Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric #5: Pulsars | Space News.

Lafuente_Astronomy wrote:I thought the main difference is that comets have sufficient levels of ice that as it approaches the sun, it creates its comentary tail through the evaporation of said ices.

It's still mainstream view, however disproven many times. Virtually all the evidence points comets have no water, expect some amounts created electro-chemically in outer coma. There is an excelent documentary about it: Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)

In summary, this is small part of evidence, why I don't believe in so called "scientific consensus". In most cases this is not "scientific" nor "consensus".

Added after 29 minutes 29 seconds:
A whole separate subject are "gravitational lensing" of galaxies or quasars, known as "Einstein rings and crosses". I'm willing to dispute its nature, but with dose of scepticism, as "scientific consensus" about standard astrophysical theories appears to be pure crap. I'd post some questions:
1. How refraction on lensing object's gas envelope was ruled out?
2. What is a distance of apparently undistorted objects, placed in the middle of lensed and lensing object? How was it measured?
3. Do microwave backgroud radiation follows bending? There are notes it doesn't.

My own notices: Why lensing object is primarily yellow and lensed object is primarily blue?

pirogronian wrote:A whole separate subject are "gravitational lensing" of galaxies or quasars, known as "Einstein rings and crosses". I'm willing to dispute its nature, but with dose of scepticism, as "scientific consensus" about standard astrophysical theories appears to be pure crap. I'd post some questions:
1. How refraction on lensing object's gas envelope was ruled out?
2. What is a distance of apparently undistorted objects, placed in the middle of lensed and lensing object? How was it measured?
3. Do microwave backgroud radiation follows bending? There are notes it doesn't.

My own notices: Why lensing object is primarily yellow and lensed object is primarily blue?

Of course such things are complete mysteries, even I am baffled by the way certain objects can "bend" the space around them so to speak. Even with how the general scientific consensus had made statements on such things claiming that they have the answers, I can dare say that we haven't scratched the surface of those things in the Universe yet. In fact, I could dare say that WE DON'T KNOW THE UNIVERSE AT ALL. In the sense that what we know about the Universe is just nothing compared to the Truth about it, which we would never truly know unless we are All-Knowing, and if ever we do know such things, can our finite minds be capable of comprehending it all?

Regarding "yellow" objects bending "blue" objects, it may be that the yellow objects are galaxies that are so dense they can (Again, baffling) bend space around them, and perhaps the galaxy behind it is blue because it's far. But come to think of it, shouldn't farther objects be redder objects regardless of contents and qualities?

What is interesting, there is some examples of similar rings, but for some reason they arent tied to gravity lensing (at least not all):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ring_galaxies

Please note its yellowish centers and blueish rings...

There are rumors even Milky Way have such a ring of stars:
http://members.fcac.org/~sol/solcom/x-objects/gal-ring.htm

So, I think possibility that so called "Einstein rings" are rather galaxies itself being distorted, than light being bent by gravity or something else, is reasonable.

pirogronian wrote:So, I think possibility that so called "Einstein rings" are rather galaxies itself being distorted, than light being bent by gravity or something else, is reasonable.

Possible. We need more advanced instruments to find out though

pirogronian, I don't really want to argue all the details of your theory. Instead I'll just ask this:

What predictions does the Electric Universe Theory make? What could be done to test it?

If one prediction is that the Solar System is only a few thousand years old, the theory is wrong because this contradicts a great deal of evidence.

SevenSpheres wrote:don't really want to argue all the details of your theory.

Just to be precise: it's not my theory.

SevenSpheres wrote:If one prediction is that the Solar System is only a few thousand years old, the theory is wrong because this contradicts a great deal of evidence.

It's not a prediction but implicarion of "great deal of evidence". And not solar system as a such, but its current shape.

SevenSpheres wrote:What predictions does the Electric Universe Theory make? What could be done to test it?

I quess you didnt even take a look at any documentaries, linked by me. Well, I should ask the same for standard astrophysics and planetary theories. Please remember, that scientists involved in Electric Universe have much less funds and tools. But whenever they make predictions, they are mostly right, even if other scientists are surprised or shocked.

Idea of EU is mostly this: Universe is constituted mostly by plasma undergoing voltage. So, most events in the Universe will be kind of elwctric discharge ans plasma instability. There is many ways to confirm that, many was already done, but mainstream routinely miss to notice these evidence. It's a matter of looking at every new discovery.

So, here are some prefictions I remember, already confirmed:

1. Solar electric origin of aurora, predicted by Kristian Birkeland in 1900-ties, later dissmissed by "scientific consensus", until confirmed in 1960-ties by sattelites. Please note, that despite it scientists still refuse to call aurora what it truely is: an electric discharge.

2. 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.

3. Highly energetic behaviour of comets, without water involved nor observed. Especially several direct predictions just before culmination of mission Deep Impact, which are up to now unexplicable for NASA: pre-impact very bright flash, huge dusty explosion and tiny impact crater. There was similar, but more spectacular event, when comet hit Jupiter.

4. My own prediction just before landing of Philae of Rosetta mission: lander will hit a rock, not ice and so it probably will ejected by own harpoons back. Well, we all know what happened

5. Alignment between nerby polarized objects, no matter in how large scale: galaxies and quasars.

6. High temperature of Venus.

7. Electric activity on other bodies, for example lightnings on all planets with atmospheres.

There is many aspects I cant judge if they are predictions or just good explanations. But I noted it here, because they hasnt plausible explanation in "consensus" theory:
1. Solar spectrum (continuous spectrum of hot gas is known only in case of electric arc).
2. Existence of solar corona, including temperature maximum over solar surface.
3. Corelation between solar surface activity, neutrino flux and comet activity (the last one confirmed yet by Birkeland).
4. Peculiarity of surface features of all discovered solid bodies in our SS, especially Mars.
5. Spiral shapes of galaxies, including famous flat rotation curves (origin of dark matter hipothesis).

But I dont know what You exactly want to know. This all is top of iceberg and I have to do other things. I linked documentaries. There are original works of Birkeland, Alfveb and others in the Internet. In the first pist I linked some webpages aggregating varuous evidence. Please post, if you want something different or more concret.

pirogronian wrote:So, here are some prefictions I remember, already confirmed:

I meant things that according to this theory should be observed, not explanations of things that already have been observed (which mostly are also explained by mainstream science). Can you tell me one thing that could be done to test the Electric Universe theory?

pirogronian wrote:But I dont know what You exactly want to know.

I assumed the point of this thread was to start discussion and debate about this theory. If you just wanted to present it, that's fine, say so.

SevenSpheres wrote:I meant things that according to this theory should be observed, not explanations of things that already have been observed

In fact most of these things wad predicted before their discovery.

As I'm not an expert, I just personally predicts that with every discovery comfusion among mainstream science will continue, while these discoveries will support EU. There will be more aligned quasars and galaxies found. There will be more plasma and magnetic connections between astrophysical objects found, from stars to galaxy clustets. If someone will send spacecraft over Sun's poles, it shoul find considerably stronger magnetic fields than equatorial ones. There will be more "impossible" stars (which survived supermova explosion or changed its state rapidly). Passing an active comet near other body should trigget consiserable charge exchange (like profound dust rising in case of Mars).

SevenSpheres wrote:which mostly are also explained by mainstream science

I found your point biased. You suggest most things I listed is explained by mainstream, which is not true. Moreover, mainstream cannot explain most of its own core claims. But they try to hide these facts by expressions like "mechanism of it is not fully undertood, but probably..." and here is explanation they want to believe is correct. But this is not sciencr, it's just storytelling.

So, here is a short list of things mainstream dont know, but try to tell us they know. I just list it without comment, because I dont want to waste effort in case that nobody would be interested in disscussion:

1. Cosmic magnetic field origin.
2. Gravitational accretion mechanism able to form planets and stars.
3. Gravitational mechanism of stars evolution.
4. Gravitational mechanism of galaxy evolution.
5. Nature of black holes.
6. Mechanidm of radiation beams from neutron stars.
7. Mechanism accelerating jets from galaxy centers.
8. Origin of rings around planets.
9. Origin of Sun's spectrum.
10. Cause of lightnings on Earth and other planets.
11. Cause of comet phenomena.
...and many others.

pirogronian wrote:Cosmic magnetic field origin.

No "cosmic magnetic field" has been detected, and mainstream science doesn't claim one exists. But here you answered my question - this apparently is something predicted by EU, that has not yet been observed! So:

What could be done to test this prediction, i.e. to determine if a "cosmic magnetic field" exists?

pirogronian wrote:Nature of black holes.

pirogronian wrote:Black holes doesnt exists.

SevenSpheres wrote:No "cosmic magnetic field" has been detected, and mainstream science doesn't claim one exists.

I really dont know, how to commnt it. Just google this phrase. It really doesnt hurt I put here some links I like:
http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields#Results_from_Radio_Observations
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-cosmic-magnetic-fields.html
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-cosmic-magnetic-fields-astonishing.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-giant-magnetic-fields-universe.html
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-peering-cosmic-magnetic-fields.html
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Battaner/node42.html

Although You are correct with one: this was indeed predicted by UE! If it was prior of its very first discovery, I dont know, but AFAIK only EU people are not surprised by every new discovery of another example of it. Moreover, they expect it.

SevenSpheres wrote:pirogronian wrote:
Nature of black holes.
pirogronian wrote:
Black holes doesnt exists.

Second one is my statement about reality, forst one is my statement about mainstream statement. Nothing contradictory.