Electric Universe theory

[Impakt]

I'll start by saying that I am anti big bang. With that said, I now keep an open mind to alternatives.

The big bang theory is seriously flawed - it's all but proven to be totaly wrong. So they dreamed up string theory and it's offshoots to plug up the holes in big bang theory. String theory looks great from a maths perspective but can not be proven or tested via scientific method.

The electric universe theory has made a number of predictions that have been pretty damn impressive while mainstream astronomers are constantly surprised by new data from various probes (like deep impact). Anyway, I think the electric universe theory needs some serious investigation by mainstream astronomers. Read about it here:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

food for thought.

[Radar]

Interesting link Paul, I'll look over this in more detail later tonight.

The reason the Big Bang has grown in popularity was the detection of cosmic background radiation which scientists can only explain by such a big bang, but also Hubble's observations have held a bit of weight to. Looking back billions of years, Hubble managed to tell us the age of the universe (and size), from this, it could be shown that galaxies are moving away from eachother, combine that with the age of the universe and we can show that at one time everything was much closer together.

I'm not saying there was a big bang either, I'm just going with current observations, I'm always ready to change my view if the evidence is there to support it.

Ray

[Impakt]

The guys who discvovered the CMBR never said it was left over noise from the BB - others hijacked their discovery and put two and two and came up with 22. There is no evidence that says the CMBR has anything to do with a BB. Scientists can only explain many things when viewed from a big bang perspective - thats the problem. And the big bang has been disproved by observational evidence - in light of observational evidence, scientific method demands that big bang should die. But it wont. Thats my beef with it. The hubble constant has been changed that many times from what theory says it should be, because the observations dont fit the theory. It's unscientific.

Fact is we dont realy know anything about the age or size of the universe, nor can we without a unified physics model. The age/size of the universe is based on flawed science (redshift - high redshift quasars have been observed in FRONT of lower redshift galaxies, so how can redshift possibly = distance/age?). I know this might cause some heat in here, but facts are facts and observational data is pretty damn hard to refute.

When people like NASA keep throwing theories around as IF they were facts...well, thats not doing astronomy or cosmology a great deal of good.

I think I'll wait for unification before I pay too much attention to any theory. In the mean time I'll just take pretty photos of our wonderful universe. I just wanted to share an alternative view with people (one that is now getting seriously looked at btw).

[Radar]

When people like NASA keep throwing theories around as IF they were facts...well, thats not doing astronomy or cosmology a great deal of good.

I think I'll wait for unification before I pay too much attention to any theory. In the mean time I'll just take pretty photos of our wonderful universe. I just wanted to share an alternative view with people (one that is now getting seriously looked at btw).

Hmm, interesting stuff Paul. I know John Dobson would agree with everything you say.

I didn't know about the flaws in red shift either.

Ray

[Robert TG]

WoW!, What a well thought out theory.

I have only read thru 3/4th of the article and what I fine the most surprising is that I haven't heard of this theory before.

Thanks Impakt, for providing the link.

I will make my comments after I finish reading the complete article.

[Impakt]

As I said, it's food for though and it comes from mainstream science, just not from astromomers.

[Radar]

I still haven't had a chance to read up on this properly yet. It's 3a.m here and I've just got back from work, and I'm not even on night shift!

Sleep time, then more work, then forums again. :thumbsupmate:

Ray

[Robert TG]

Plenty of food for thought. Thanks again for the link.

While I found the theory interesting, the further I read, the more unbelievable the theory became.

In the opening paragraph of the link states...
“This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state.”

So, straight away, the ‘facts’ didn’t seem to be highly important in this Electric Universe theory, as I don’t find anyone saying the Universe is 99% invisible matter.

From my reading and research I have found that the general consensus is…
"...we have very little idea what dark energy and dark matter are, respectively they make up 73 percent and 23 percent of all the matter and energy in the Universe and with such great unknowns lurking in our theories, plus the mystery of what caused inflation and the expansion of the Universe in the first place..."

Furthermore, reading thru the full article, I see no proof presented for the conclusion that 99% of all matter is in the Plasma state.

The author of the article says….
”… New information always sends theoretical astrophysicists "back to the drawing board". In light of this, it is curious that they have such "cock-sure" attitudes about the infallibility of their present models.”

Most scientists agree there are great unknowns in our theory of our Universe and are surprised by new discoveries. I never get the impression that serious scientists have this “cock-sure” attitude. But after reading the full article, I do get the impression the author of THIS article does have ‘that attitude’ toward the theory of the Electric Universe.

The Author states about Astrophysicists and astronomers…
”It is no wonder they cannot understand that 99% of all cosmic phenomena are due to plasma dynamics and not to gravity alone.”

Again we have “99% “of all cosmic phenomena due to Plasma dynamics.
At first I thought this to be another exaggeration but after reading the full article I can fully understand why the “99%” figure is used. This theory is presented as the theory of just about everything.

While a good explanation is given on plasma the author states: “In fact 99% of the entire universe is plasma!” I may have missed it but I could not find the proof for this assertion.

The author brushes aside such things as Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Missing Matter, and the Big Bang as “pseudo-science”. With the Electric Universe theory there is no need for these to things to exist, so they don’t! No replacement theory for the Big Bang was presented.

It seems Astrophysicists and astronomers have got it wrong about how stars are powered also. Forget Nuclear fusion, stellar evolution and the HR diagram, it’s not important. Stars are powered by the flow of Plasma in the Electric Universe hypothesis.

Plasma flows also gives our galaxy its shape, while there is no explanation of why we see various other galaxy shapes.

Plasma causes stars to split into two, and examples are given of the many mysteries in space that all solved with this one simple theory.

But the author did point out that 99% of all cosmic phenomena are due to plasma dynamics. So…

You know those round ‘crater’ scars on the face of the Moon and Planets???, they are from Plasma scaring! Not meteors.

“The monstrous scar across the face of Mars (the canyon called Valles Marineris) was produced by electric arc machining”

Io doesn’t have volcanoes it’s an “electric arc discharge”.

And here on Earth we have the ‘evidence’ on our planet of “electric arc discharge” in the form of the Grand Canyon and the Arizona Meteor crater! WOW! Here's the proof...(---)

The author says Scientists have got it all wrong and the Electric Universe is the simple answer. The author is upset that this theory isn’t getting the funding it deserves and implies that scientists don’t allow the publication of this work because it would effect their funding and for fear of being shown to be wrong. Anyway, you can buy the various books.

All up, the presentation is very hard sell. I’m sure the Electric Universe will be looked on favourably by those who wish to believe in ‘intelligent design’ as it gets rid of the age of the universe by discarding the Red-shift along the way.

Anyone willing to ignore the lack of evidence will find this theory engaging. I’d just like to see some proof that the Grand Canyon was caused by ‘Electrical arc discharge’ and not by another alternative theory like Noah’s Flood. LOL, Both are interesting ideas but where is the proof?

[Impakt]

From my reading and research I have found that the general consensus is…
"...we have very little idea what dark energy and dark matter are, respectively they make up 73 percent and 23 percent of all the matter and energy in the Universe and with such great unknowns lurking in our theories, plus the mystery of what caused inflation and the expansion of the Universe in the first place..."
This is ONLY relevant to big bang theory. If big bang theory is wrong, then there is no such thing as dark matter, dark energy and all the other wonderful exotic things required to account for the problems with the big bang.


So, straight away, the ‘facts’ didn’t seem to be highly important in this Electric Universe theory, as I don’t find anyone saying the Universe is 99% invisible matter.
The article is not a scientific paper ;-) And yes, he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder regarding the attitude of astronomers, and I tend to agree with him on that. In my experience, you cant tell most astromers anything since they already think they know it all. And thats the problem. The theory has now been accepted by mainstream science as worthy of investigation.


The author brushes aside such things as Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Missing Matter, and the Big Bang as “pseudo-science”.
these are constructs of the big bang theory and have never been proven to exist. -=something=- has been shown to exist, but what exactly these 'somethings' are is not KNOWN. With the case of neutron stars, that is something I intend to investigate further. The same applies to quarksars. Missing matter is irrelevant if the BB is wrong, blackholes are realy an unknown. What I sugest to anyone who is interested, is dig deep into the reality of these objects and you will soon start to see in small print, that we dont realy know anything and what they realy are is pure speculation or something that is required by the BB theory. Meanwhile NASA and the bulk of astronmers (but not all) talk about these things as if they were facts.


LOL, Both are interesting ideas but where is the proof?
Theres about as much proof as there is for the big bang. Forget the various theories if you will and investigate the facts. The -=facts=- as in data collected by scientific method, prove the BB is false.

Like I said, I'm open to new ideas and investgate everything I read.


the Electric Universe will be looked on favourably by those who wish to believe in ‘intelligent design’ as it gets rid of the age of the universe by discarding the Red-shift
Red shift HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. Photographic evidence from NASA PROVES it. NASA stated about one image that 'the quasar is 90% behind the galaxy' - ie: the high redshift quasar is 10% in FRONT of the host galaxy (which has a redshift far lower than the quasar). Also consider that there is a limit to our current technology and making observations by light has a hard limit. It does not prove the age or size of the universe, it proves the limit of our means to test it. Also consider that while many galaxies are moving away from us at massive speed, just as many are heading towards us. Galaxies are heading in every direction - the universe becomming dark implies that all matter started out from a single place and is expanding like a balloon being blown up yet this is clearly not the case. Gravitational interactions are throwing matter in every direction. The big bang/inflation says the universe is like a soap bubble with the galaxies on the surface of the bubble - thats great if we lived in a 2D universe, except we dont.

It seems you are trying to drop me in the 'intelligent design' fruit cake and thats very unfair. You can varify the validity of the BB yourself - it's not hard to do. Once you start to dig, you will find some honest astronomers and cosmologists who will tell you the same - the big bang is dead. So theres no point in kicking it.

Anyway, I know this subject can easily get heated and I dont want to upset anyone, so if you think the BB is alive and well - do the right thing and investigate the problems with the theory and then do the same with any alternatives. Keep an open mind to new ideas - it's the only way we'll get answers.

[Radar]

Interesting debate. I still haven't had a proper look at this theory. Last night was work, tonight was a family du (spelling I know). It'll be interesting going into this subject armed only with the knowledge of this thread. I must admit, I love these kinds of subjects because it shakes our thoughts up and gets us to recheck the things we thought were real.

Ray

[Astro Dave]

Robert

Like you, I was initially intrigued with this 'Electric Universe' subject and went out of my way to find out what I could. After doing that, to say I'm jaded would be an understatement. I find it difficult to accept any, if not all, of the assumptions made by followers of the 'Electric Universe'.

I even attended a special conference in Sydney a few months ago to hear one of the 'Electric Universe's' most ardent proponents speak, Wallace Thornhill. This was the most painful hour I've ever spent anywhere - the claims he made and the wildly erratic 'facts' presented sent not only me out of the room on more than one occasion, but a dozen others as well.

I was with a group of people, some of them academics, a few amateur astronomers and a couple just ordinary interested people you'd see anywhere. Every few minutes it seems we were staring at each other in disbelief as this guy systematically explained away as nonsense almost EVERY known and accepted scientific fact about the Universe, replacing it with stuff you'd find hard to find in The National Enquirer!

Facts, I might add, that were produced through the hard work and combined efforts of some of the most respected and distinguished scientists in history - people like Carl Sagan, Hawking, Martin Rees, Roger Penrose and Kip Thorne.

I'm not one to bag anyone just for the heck of it, if you knew me you'd know that's NOT what I'm about. But this was terrible to digest.

You know, the last 'fact' that I heard before walking out on this chap was when he made the statement that in prehistoric times gravity was 'different' .. it was, he claimed, "weaker" .. yes, you heard right, weaker! He claimed if the Dinosaurs were alive today they would not be able to stand up against today's gravity. Now you know why I headed out and went looking for a pub!

Impakt - I'm in awe at your statement: "And the big bang has been disproved by observational evidence'

??How and where did you come by this information? What is the "observational evidence" of which you speak?

[Radar]

Hey Dave, what were this guys reasons for gravity being weaker during prehistoric times? I'd be interested in hearing theories about things like that. I have a small fascination for that era.

Keep in mind, that when Gallileo said the Earth orbited the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the Earth, society reacted with just as much "pain" as you have here.

The more we accept a theory, the more proposterous an alternative theory becomes.

It's hard to go against the scientific grain sometimes, because of the emotional reaction people give. Whether the electric universe theory is right or wrong, it's good in the sense that it gets people to question the existing theories etc. If nothing more, but brain food or fun debate.

I'm going to read the electric universe theory now and see what it says.

Cheers

Ray

[Radar]

Just read the introduction. Very interesting.

This in particular -


We are also asked to believe that two objects (like galaxy NGC 4319 and its companion Markarian 205) are not connected together even though we have photographs of the connection. So, we are told not to believe in the things that we can see, but that we should believe in the existence of the magic entities that their theories require - even though we cannot see or measure them.

Interesting paragraph. Can anyone shed any light on the connection between NGC 4319 and M 205 and why some modern day scientists say there is no connection?

I'll keep reading.

Ray

[Impakt]

Impakt - I'm in awe at your statement: "And the big bang has been disproved by observational evidence'

??How and where did you come by this information? What is the "observational evidence" of which you speak?
I already mentioned some of it. High redshift quasars/objects in front of lower redshift galaxies (about 20 or 25 cases have been observed) We call this 'observational evidence that redshift does not always = distance/age'. And there is also the objects that are supposed to exist but have never been observed or created in a lab (monopoles). And objects that NEED to exist but dont. The list goes on.

I'm not going to spoon feed you guys, however tempting it may be. If you want to bury your heads in the sand thats up to you. You have google. You have access to scientific papers. You have access to the facts. I sugested a way to find them. Dont bash me because you find an alteranative to BB offensive or are too lazy to look yourself. I never said electric universe was correct - I said it was interesting and has made a number of predictions that have been pretty damn impressive.


the claims he made and the wildly erratic 'facts' presented
Hahaha, yes..just like the big bang and string theory. Someone please show me a monopole or a quarksar. Someone please make the low redshift background galaxies go away. They offend my religion.

I'm out of here.

[Duncan]

HaHaHa! Nothing like an early morning argument to get the blood pumping.
Never mind.
It is "my own personal belief" that somewhere down the track (and probably not in my lifetime) that we will find the whole thing to be a mix of both BBang and creationism.
Remember "Genesis in Star Treck". Well who's to say someone or something didn't create what we call a universe. There are plenty of proponents out there talking of a whole heap of Universes.
Like i said you wont get an argument out of me but neither will you convince me 100% on anything at the moment,LOL.
Cheers,
Duncan:welldone:

[Radar]

From reading the intro, it does seem like an interesting theory. I haven't read the rest yet but I'm looking forward to it.

This thread should not stir emotion either, it should remain light hearted and be healthy discussion for all. Impakt seems to be wearing the brunt of this thread at the moment, which he certainly should not be. Sorry Paul.

I'll be back in an hour or two to read the rest of this theory.

Dave, can you explain the dinosaur thing please?

Ray

[Robert TG]

Impakt, this forum is very friendly. Everyone here is able to present any theory they wish without criticism of themselves. So let me assure you there was no personal attack in any way of yourself. The theory, on the other hand, may get criticised. I thank you again for bringing it to my attention. I have noticed on a few Forums that people do get ‘heated’. I have not found that to be the case on this site. Everyone here enjoys the variety of thoughts that can be presented.

Ray, I found the theory excellent brain food also. It's just that as more and more claims were being made the more doubts I had in swallowing the whole thing. It seems Dave felt the same way. The theory is very attractive as it does away with a lot of the big problems that science is struggling with today. But the link just didn’t give me enough proof to believe what it says to be true.

The article doesn't mention a ‘weaker gravity’, that was from a lecture that Dave attended.
"...in prehistoric times gravity was 'different' .. it was, he claimed, "weaker" .. yes, you heard right, weaker! He claimed if the Dinosaurs were alive today they would not be able to stand up against today's gravity."

Anyone can make up a theory... and then ask others to search out the facts to disprove it. But if the theory isn't convincing enough why bother searching?
To illustrate this point I'll make up this new theory...
If Dinosaurs were alive today they could stand up against today's gravity the same way they did in the past, which was by storing helium in their bodies. The Dinosaurs needed big bodies to hold huge amounts of helium so they could float about and reach the best foods at the top of trees. End of theory.

Convinced this theory is worth any time to investigate it? Should I be given funding to search out my theory? Should a scientific paper publish my theory?
If your answers are No, No and No, then it is up to ME to find some more proof to convince you that the theory has credibility. It would be very easy for me to say I’m not going to spoon feed you the FACTS and that your lazy because you didn’t spend time to investigate, but it really is up to me to present a better case for the Helium Dinosaur theory.

The Electric Universe theory (so far) is unconvincing. What proof is there that the Grand Canyon was formed by “electric arc discharge”? Just by poking a hole in the theory that the Colorado River didn’t form the Grand Canyon does not prove that an electric arc discharge did. In the same way poking a hole in the Big Bang theory doesn’t prove the Electric Universe theory is true. Doubts raised about the Redshift of Quasars does not prove they are electrical in nature.

The Big Bang is not a perfect theory but the Electric Universe Theory doesn’t even attempt to explain how the universe came to be.

So, are there other links on this theory that would provide more proof on what is being claimed? I still have an open mind and would read more on this subject.

[Astro Dave]

To Impakt

Look, I'm not here to belittle you or say that you should not investigate alternative ideas/theories/hypotheses - that's up to you. If they appeal to you then even better, you've found something that intrigues you, and it may spur you on to bigger and better things.

Hell, you may even go on to combine General Rel and Quantum Mechanics and provide us with 'Quantum Gravity - the 'theory of everything'... who knows!

BUT, and this is the pointy end of this discussion, be critical and analytical in all you read, see or hear when it comes to this 'Electric Universe' type of thing. Go back and read Robert's analyses (both) of your post, he's brought up some very good points.

Simply put friend, and again this is the other pointy end, you just cannot arbitrarily dismiss the existence of known, tested, observed, and factual astronomical objects - things astronomers have been looking at and photographing for decades.

OK, that's it for me, I've been around too long and seen too many of these movements come and go. The sad part is the intellectual damage it does by it's misguided statements that, on the surface, are appealing.

Ray, the dinosaur thing OK - now this is dead set true, it was the last straw for me and a dozen or so paying customers who all walked out shaking our collective heads. Wallace Thornhill (look him up) is a powerful proponent of the Electric Universe theory - I had dinner with him prior to his lecture and had an idea of what was in store.

There were too many wild and impossible claims made, in fact most if not all of what we know about the universe was dismissed as incorrect and replaced with stuff that, at best, you'd find in a C-grade Japanese sci-fi film of the 50's.

He said, quoting The Electric Universe ideology, that in the distant past, during the time of dinosaurs, gravity was less than it is now. Let me say this again: in the distant past, during the time of dinosaurs, gravity was less than it is now.

He said if the dinosaurs came back today they could hardly stand up against our heavier gravity today.

What would you have done? Sat there and agreed with this??

Come on friend, how the hell can gravity change. It's a factor of the size/mass of the planet we're on, not bloody time!!! To be greater now than then means the Earth has swollen up more than twice/thrice its size!

I may be cabbage lookin' ... but I aint green!

The man proclaims to be an expert on the Electric Universe and professes to have persuasive answers diametrically opposed to known and accepted scientific laws of the Universe - answers he claims, satisfy certain gaps in our knowledge.

If he believes that gravity was less in the past then Whoa .. you've got to be suspicious of all his other claims as well.

Look, I firmly believe that forums like this should be the place to air ideas and discuss/tackle cutting edge issues in astronomy and space science and I'll defend ANYONE'S right to do that. Where I draw the line though is with a lot of these counter theories that, to me, are dangerous - dangerous because they erode thought and stagnate progress and could seriously mislead new people reading these forums and getting into astronomy for the first time.

As a forum member this is my point of view which I'm entitled to put forward. Again, no disrespect to Impakt, I hope he sees the above purely as the counter-argument it was meant to be.

[Radar]

Hi Dave,

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

How do we know that gravity hasn't become stronger? How do we know that mass with it's gravity have been a stable steady force for millions or billions of years, completely unchanged?

This is why I asked the question. You said you walked out of his talk because of this, so the flip side is, where is the proof that gravity has been at the exact strength it is now for billions of years? Simple. :Chessy_Smile:

I cannot dismiss one, without the other. If neither can really be proved, then my position is "I don't have a position until more information becomes available".

Ray

[Duncan]

Hi all,
I wonder just how much the Earths rotation (faster or slower) would have on this subject. Just a thought.
Cheers.

[Robert TG]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

How do we know that gravity hasn't become stronger? How do we know that mass with it's gravity have been a stable steady force for millions or billions of years, completely unchanged?

Where is the proof that gravity has been at the exact strength it is now for billions of years?

Ray

My first thought is the solar system and the Galaxy. If a few hundred million years ago gravity was somehow weaker than what would happen to the shape of the solar system and our galaxy? Things would be flying apart! But that is back then...What would cause gravity to increase? More importantly... what would be the result? Well the galaxy would be reshaping itself and our poor planet earth would be getting sucked in closer to the sun.

Wait a minute, wasn't it warm when the dinosaurs lived? But with weaker gravity Earth must have been further out from it's present cosy orbit.

The moon would also be getting sucked closer to earth with the increase in Gravity. Which would mean that it would be rotating around the Earth at a faster speed to maintain orbit. We should some evidence of a slower moving moon along the shores that would have had less High and Low tides with the distant moon.

But wait... I digress...what was the proof (in the first place) that the laws of Physics had changed and what was the force/mechinism that made gravity increase, and what proof of this change do we see? What stopped this increase of gravity? Or is it still happening today (increasing)?

[Radar]

My first thought is the solar system and the Galaxy. If a few hundred million years ago gravity was somehow weaker than what would happen to the shape of the solar system and our galaxy?


Nice work. Just wanted to hear another side to make sure everyone was awake.

Ray

[Robert TG]

Nice work. Just wanted to hear another side to make sure everyone was awake.
Ray

It was an interesting idea... as was my Helium Dinosaurs...I really like that idea alot. LOL. It does wake up a sleepy mind and we should always question everything we are told.

[AstroBob]

this debate needs more discussion. I think the theory is just as creditable as the B.B which B.B's are very accepting of. To say we came from a big bang of nothing is pretty wierd when you think about it.