Saturday, June 11, 2011

What The Electric Universe 'Theorists' Won't Tell You...

This is a response to the anonymous commenter in the thread:
Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists Use Mathematical Models!
I've also posted a similar, shorter response to the article at dad2059.

In indicated quotes from the commentor in red: Anonymous Poster:
Mathematics aside, most relevant scientific discoveries are initially serendipitous and/or conceptual postulates. This appeal to show current (PC/EU) research which corroborates studies and articles over 20 years old is fallacious.
Fallacious?  Not at all.  Real science is subjected to constant revisions and updates as new data become available.  It is rare enough for a scientific reference to be iconic  and ACTIVE references after 20 years, but with NO newer work?  If you are using material this old as your PRIMARY references, it limits EU to:

1) It is a historical or religious reference, perhaps where the 'original intent' of the author is under examination.  This option supports my view the EU is more of an ideological or religious movement (see The Electric Universe & Creationism);

2) It is a DEAD science.  The commenter is basically saying there has been no new discoveries in plasma physics since the work of Alfven or Peratt and that plasma physics has been a stagnant science. 

Loads of new missions and data impact PC/EU models, yet all the verbal claims of EU proponents have yet to generate one viable computation model where the theoretical model gives numbers even close to the new data.  The Peratt galaxy model has yet to be shown consistent with modern cosmological microwave background measurements (see Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background, Still no electric currents powering the galaxies...)   Has anyone in PC/EU even mapped locations of current streams across the sky they need to power stars and galaxies in their model?  Not that I've been able to find!

Meanwhile, REAL plasma physicists have been revising and improving their mathematical models, to the point of commercial viability.  The commenter conveniently evaded the other posts in this topic. 
    •    Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models
    •    Electric Universe: Plasma Physics for Fun AND Profit!
    •    Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma'

REAL plasma physicists have had significant success with numerical plasma models, in spite of EU's (theological?) position that it can't be done. 
The Steady State Theory (sic) and Relativistic Physics have been accepted models for over two decades themselves. Most of the salient data was collected many years ago. Just because you can quantitatively show relevance on paper or electronically, without any way to reproduce those findings in the lab, does not make the ideas of the Standard Model or “Einsteinian Mechanics“ more concrete.
The commenter obviously does not know how quickly science can be integrated into technology.  This is possible because we can define how many physical processes operate through mathematical means.

In addition, processes important in astrophysics get testing all the time, and not just in laboratories.  I've documented a number of examples in these articles:

    •    Astronomy as an 'Unprovable' Science
    •    The Cosmos In Your Pocket - Updated
    •    Testing Science at the Leading Edge
    •    'Out There' Astrophysics Impacts Technology (again)
    •    Testing Science at the Leading Edge... II
    •    “Real” Science vs. “Cosmological” and “Origins” Science

In the 1930s, Hans Bethe (wikipedia) and Edward Teller (wikipedia) developed the physical and mathematical techniques for understanding the energy generation in stars by nuclear processes. They subsequently used these same techniques to develop the atomic & hydrogen bombs in the 1940s & 50s.  How did they do this?  They used the microphysics, the same reaction rate and energy generation equations from small-scale laboratory experiments and computed them for the different environments of energy release in the center of a star (under very high pressure) and in a lower pressure environment (the Earth's atmosphere).  Even today, there is much data and theory exchanged between nuclear astrophysicists and nuclear weapon designers.

We have yet to see such a demonstration from those who claim the Sun and stars are powered by external electric currents.

Many of the unusual instruments that were used to collect leading edge data decades ago are part of standard instrumentation today - atomic clocks, Michelson interferometers, lasers, etc. so these theories are subjected to continual testing everywhere the technology is used.  Principles such as relativity are tested every time someone uses a GPS receiver, regardless of EU & creationist denials.  Relativity becomes even more important when we use GPS to do high-precision positions of other satellites.  We are already in the planning stages of a GPS system that could operate throughout the Solar System.  Thanks to relativity, we knew what relativistic correction was needed for the GPS clocks before they were launched!
All those electrical engineers supporting EU and denying relativity (and insinuating other scientists are incompetent or worse) have yet to build a guaranteed relativity-free GPS receiver.
There is a lot of merit to Alfven's Plasma Cosmology as well as some EU ideas which make more intuitive sense than any ideas of “Dark This/That.“
'Intuitive' does not make the science correct.  Quantum mechanics is incredibly un-intuitive, yet those aspects of it, which could be readily predicted through mathematics, enabled us to replace large vacuum tubes with microscopic transistors which make modern electronics possible.  What matters in science is that one can make numerical predictions that can be compared to data and observations.
The physics community is one big circle jerk for the most part. The same can be said for biology and chemistry too. Unless someone is willing to stray from the status quo, a profession will become prone to self aggrandizing and auto-kudos.  
'Circle jerk'?  This sounds more like a description of EU 'theorists'.  They build cosmic-scale circuits with no EMF to drive them - the electrical equivalent of perpetual motion machines, yet conveniently ignore where the energy comes from that drives that EMF.  They invoke electrons which can't emit synchrotron radiation in a magnetic field for some mysterious reason, a process well-established experimentally.  EU 'theorists' hide behind the archaic term “Dark Current” which is no longer used in modern plasma studies since it is now well understood  (Dark current has a radically different interpretation in modern physics - wikipedia).
The neutrino took 25 years from postulate to direct detection, but in between that time there were numerous experiments which were consistent with the neutrino's existence.  For 'Dark Matter', a subatomic particle, below the detection threshold of our current technology, is the simplest solution. 

    •    On Dark Matter. I: What & Why?
    •    On Dark Matter. II: An Exotic Hack?
If M-Theory is all that modern theoretical physics has to offer, and it in itself is built upon the accepted physics modalities, then don't expect that mankind will be able to jump to that epic next step which will allow us to truly understand the intricacies of It All, and allow us to be successful universal wayfarers.
M-theory, whether valid or not, has nothing to do with why PC/EU is a failure.  PC/EU fails from very basic considerations from electromagnetism and mechanics.

As for the 'universal wayfarers', considering the EU/PC has yet to produce a usable, reproducible model of the heliospheric and interstellar environment, those 'universal wayfarers' will have some serious problems dealing with the field and radiation environment.  I have repeatedly made light of these problems and received nothing but excuses from the EU 'theorists' instead of actual, testable models.
The commentor closes with:
You never stifle a brainstorming session with negativity or filtering. If you folks had an IQ above 125 you'd know this, but sadly even the so-called intellectually adept are just barely above average. Your numbers mean jack if they propose abstract absurdities.
Einstein felt quantum mechanics made absurd predictions, yet QM and its absurd predictions made possible the computer on which you are reading this.  Nature is under no obligation to adhere to what anyone believes is 'not absurd'.  What matters is what we can test with experiments and observations.

If you were an astronaut traveling to Mars, would you accept a QUALITATIVE value for the level of radiation your ship can take from a CME before the astronaut's health is seriously impacted?  The CCMC does that today using the standard solar model.

If you operated the northern electrical grid, would you accept a QUALITATIVE value for the level of voltage induced in your long distance power lines by a CME striking the Earth's magnetic field?  The CCMC does that TODAY, using the standard solar model.

After the STEREO spacecraft can no longer view the far side of the Sun, as an astronaut, would you accept a QUALITATIVE value for whether an active region has formed out of view and is about come around the limb, with the potential of blasting you with radiation from a solar flare?  Helioseismology gives us this capability, but it works using a very different solar structure than ES supporters claim.

Current standard models for the solar environment (very different from the ES model) can generate QUANTITATIVE values for these parameters!

The people you want to call 'sub-125 IQ circle jerks' have real accomplishments.  What can EU demonstrate?

Update 6/22: Fixed some grammatical errors.


Rob Knop said...

You never stifle a brainstorming session with negativity or filtering. If you folks had an IQ above 125 you'd know this, but sadly even the so-called intellectually adept are just barely above average.

I've seen this argument made in the defence of all sorts of junk science. In another mailing list I'm on, somebody brought up "energy healing". That's well known quack science/medicine. However, when the person brought it up, and I and some others dismissed it as well-known quackery, she (and some others) accused us of not being "real" scientists because we refuse to be open minded to "new" or "different" ideas.

The thing is -- there's nothing "open minded" about accepting either energy healing or about accepting the electric universe. Nor is there anything "open minded" about even considering them. They're both standard, well-known and well-documented quackery that's been considered and dismissed in the past. Trying to put them forward as serious science, and worse trying to say that scientists are somehow doing science wrong by ignoring them, ignores everything that has gone before. Considering either one makes no more sense than considering creationism or the geocentric model of the Solar System.

Anonymous said...

Personal insults or the accusation of institutionalized and conspiratorial resistance to non-mainstream idea is a hallmark of such "debates". It stems from ignorance and the need to believe and defend those believe in which people have made so much emotional investment. It's annoying as all heck.

Torque said...

Hi Tom;

Thanks for returning to the EU topic. No amount of commentary against the propagation of pseudoscience is ever adequate, so I am full support of exposing EU for what it is.

Some further points and examples along similar lines:

1) Dead Science

Alven’s Theory prohibiting magnetic reconnection was recently reported to have been violated in the limit of vanishing resistivity via analysis of MagnetoHydrodynamic equations for an ideal plasma. (Eyink & Aluie).

Violations of magnetic flux conservation have been shown to be possible under specific conditions.

Reconnection has also been demonstrated by the MRX experiment at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

No mentions/acknowledgements of this by ‘EU Theorists’ have appeared at their site and their denial of reconnection remains virulent.

Alven’s theories were sound at the time he devised them. Sound theories are continually tested against new data. Even masters’ theories may not stand up in the face of modern datasets (eg: Arp’s quantisation of redshift hypothesis .. as Tom has recently demonstrated !)

2) ‘Denial’ of Spectrographic Evidence vs Electric Star Theory

Further to Tom’s example of EU denials of the missing synchrotron and bremsstrahlung emission spectra, take star formation. If stars are formed from inflowing ionised plasma, then why is widespread observation of Zeeman Effect splitting and Faraday rotation, also not observed locally, thus supporting of the idea of giant inflowing, intergalactic Birkeland Currents and accompanying significant magnetic fields ? Why is star formation spectra observed in microwave and infrared bands, thus indicating cold molecular hydrogen near to absolute zero (as opposed to hot plasma) ? The magnetic fields in plasma actually inhibit star formation .. how is this overcome in the physical universe ?

Molecular physics/spectroscopy has no equivalent in ‘EU Theory’. If observational evidence is viewed using the empirical technique of spectroscopy, EU qualitative ‘Theory’ rapidly becomes exposed. EU Theorists never make references to spectroscopic evidence .. it is another area of denial.

3) Denial of Educators

Educators are also denied. Recently, the well known poster, ‘Nereid’ ventured into the EU realm and spent several months attempting to share her expertise, in what appeared to be a genuine attempt to improve understanding of how science works.

She is to be commended for this and whilst her advice seems to have fallen on deaf ears at ThunderBolts, I can assure her that her contributions on mainstream science have been much appreciated by those wanting to advance their knowledge of real science.
Thank you Nereid !

Unfortunately, her treatment at ThunderBolts has been very poor. Her efforts have certainly demonstrated to me, the unwillingness of aspiring EU Theorists to learn from others .. an extremely limiting behavioral characteristic.

Treatment of ‘Physicist’ and ‘JSharples’ was even more extreme and yet both of these folk had much value to offer.


Siggy_G said...

Just because some patents can be attributed to Einsteinian physics, is that going to exceed the importance and immense amount of technology that is based on electrical engineering principles? Which confirm most processes in nature? A lot of science has technology synergy effects as a focus to justify or rise funding. The technology conversion itself has little to do with confirming how processes in nature works - untill parallels are obvious and testable. In fact, most of the driving forces and inner workings of nuclear reactors, particle accelerators and new energy utilizing techniques are based on electromagnetic and/or plasma processes. Otherwize, the following or parallel technology usage can be attributed to electrical/digital/industry/economic principles. I don't think we'll be seeing dark matter, dark energy or worm hole driven technology ever. The absurdity doesn't lie within what seems to be going on in nature, but lies within the non-physical proposals made by theoretical matematicians. Also, Electric Universe proponents have never denied the importance of testing and confirmation through lab experiments, to the empirical extent that is possible.

Siggy_G said...

I would say that the values Tom refers to are about secondary effects related to the Sun's measured output/radiation. These calculated values have little to do with explaining or confirming how the Sun is powered. There are hords of funded researchers working on such secondary effects and some of them give usefull output. What puzzles me, and many others, is why hasn't the standard model of the Sun been fundamentally questioned among scientific journals in the last decades? (or have I missed something?).

The electric model of the Sun would need more work and various approaches before it can be made quantitive. However, it's a part of a consistent hypothesis that conforms more with observed reality than the thermonuclear model.

Independant observations of the Sun parallels more than anything to surface discharge effects, arc mode anode tufting and energy transfer from an external source - with radiation (and some nuclear fusion and fission) as an effect. Based on observations, we don't know what the temperature of the Sun's core is, but this is not what the solar physiscist tells you. The corona occurs to be an intense interaction region with thermal energy transfer to the Sun's surface of way lower temperature (but way higher density). Untill more is known, the Sun's 11 (22) year cycle could make sense when seen in light of external influences and fluctations. In numerous (new) papers the magnetic field structure of the Milkyway (and galaxies in general) is admitted to be complex and not well understood, with references to e.g. field reversals between spiral arms and a request for higher resolution measurements in the future. On top of that, a recent paper [] points to an unambiguous signature of a galactic scale current system, where the jet's energy flow is electromagnetic - which is interesting to say the least. (This is based on radio emission, polarization, and Faraday rotation maps). The Sun's and stars' varying output phases could be explained by external variations of flux and energy transfer, from the intergalactic plasma and associated electric currents.

In which ways does the thermonuclear model pass the tests of observed reality? Kudos to all the excellent work/missions related to collecting data, but in terms of interpretation, how come researchers have settled with just one model that doesn't correspond with what is observed? Isn't the establishement of this model due to a belief among solar researchers that this model "works"? For all we know, they are just digging deeper into the wrong cave.

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

To Siggy_G,

The standard solar model gives numerical predictions, many of which I have computed myself from first principles (stellar structure, etc.) - temperatures & pressures, nuclear reaction rates, energy production and neutrino counts. I can compare those numbers to remote-sensed or in situ measured values. Some of those measurements agree well with the theoretical prediction. Others do not.

The electric sun model has provided NO NUMERICALLY VERIFIABLE THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS WHATSOEVER. To claim this impotence makes it a 'better' theory is bull.

Anonymous said...

Siggy_G wrote: "Also, Electric Universe proponents have never denied the importance of testing and confirmation through lab experiments, to the empirical extent that is possible."

That's not actually true, is it?

For example, the cause of the 'intrinsic redshift' of quasars is, per Thornhill, easily testable ("through lab experiments, to the empirical extent that is possible"), yet no EU proponent seems the interested in doing such tests.

But perhaps the best example is Thornhill's 'gravity is electromagnetism' idea. What better way to test this than with various weighing devices inside a Faraday cage (or a set of nested cages)?


Anonymous said...

Siggy_G: "The electric model of the Sun would need more work and various approaches before it can be made quantitive."

Such has been the refrain for many years now.

Strange, then, that not even the outlines of any such quantitative model have been published, nor even the briefest of summaries of what the various approaches might be.

What's the hold-up, Siggy_G? Why is it that tens of thousands of hours of work on this idea have, as yet, yielded precisely nothing?


Siggy_G said...


When I refer to secondary effects, I mean that a lot of the work and research done in relation to the Sun, are about the Sun's energy output, solar wind dynamics, coronal flares and so on. As an analogy, from distant and surrounding measurements, one could elaborate on an iron furnace' surface heat, the convection dynamics through the air and so on. Still, little about that, regardless of how numerical, will confirm whether the furnace is heated within by nuclear reaction or electricity. Only detailed measurements that correspond exactly with predicted radiation or current sheats may confirm its source. In other words, one can't crown all kinds of (numerical) solar research as confirming the standard solar model.

Siggy_G said...


You're wondering why the Electric Star model hasn't been turned into quantitative output yet. The way I see it, getting the qualitative scenarios ruled out, by a handful few researchers mind you, is a part of the process. The work contributed by Thornhill and Scott the last few years have shed more light on how electric stars may be forming and sustaining, in a way that is more developed and further in-line with plasma experiments than Juergen's early model or C E R Bruce's ideas. The aspects of this model now conforms with observations in such ways that it can not be ignored.

I see the point you're making, and I would also like to see more progress towards quantitative output, but working on the qualitative and observational aspects must surely be as important. I know some work related to this is going to be presented at the NPA convention at Maryland this week, that may answer some of your query regarding overall progress.

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

To Siggy_G,

Without a QUANTITATIVE model by which objective comparisons can be made, any claims by EU that their 'theory' (actually without quantitative capabilities, can't even rank as a testable hypothesis) is 'better' are at best FALSE.

A theory that produces values off from experiment by even a factor of two are of more value than a theory that produces no values at all.

Anonymous said...


Do you see something slightly ironic is this? "and I would also like to see more progress towards quantitative output, but working on the qualitative and observational aspects must surely be as important."

I mean, the "observational aspects" are fundamentally quantitative, and most have meaning only within the framework of highly detailed, exquisitely quantitative models - think of what's involved in producing a 304 nm image of the Sun's disk, for example.

To turn up the contrast, think how silly it would be if some 'purple theory' proponents proudly proclaimed that the purple (and violet, and ...) regions in false-colour astronomical images were iron-clad, qualitative evidence in support of their ideas.

If there is nothing quantitative from Thornhill et al., how does EU theory differ from 'purple theory'?

I find it curious that you have not (yet?) responded to my comment about the apparent lack of interest shown by 'electrical theorists' in at least sketching (lab) experiments to test their ideas, if not actually performing such. In fact, I'm beginning to think that the total dearth of any published quantitative material and the curious lack of interest in experimental tests are linked, two sides of the same, pseudo-science, coin perhaps.


Siggy_G said...


Are you sure you mean to claim that a model that produces values that sometimes hits confirmation, is a better model than a qualitative model in progress that parallels to experimental observation? One may end up assuming that (to emphasize my point) the "random number generator" supposedly confirms the true nature behind a phenomena, while it may not at all. Such a model should, at best, be sidelined with "work-in-progress" with no confirming labeling untill it hits the nail most (if not all) of the time. Solar physcisists should admit, and some do, that "we just don't know yet", continue to collect data and try out new approaches till one lands at something that from measurements confirms the theorized processes. Better resolution measurements (image resolution, time span and amount of in situ grid points) are needed, e.g for defining the fine structure of the solar wind and its causes, electric field gradient throughout the solar system, the heliopause etc. Right now it's bit like doing face recognition from blocky pixelated images.

Solar research largely relates to data collection/observation of radiation and effects, and is thus model independant. The fundament of the standard solar model is still based on assumptions; and the numerical aspects don't yet confirm anything about its energy processing. Taking all aspects of solar research (technology/data collection/probe launch/imaging) and bundle it up as a confirmation of the thermonuclear model is scientifically wrong.

Siggy_G said...


"Observational aspects" meant to be pointing to the parallels between observations (of the Sun/stars) and experiments within low-pressure gas discharges, anode tufting and any kind of radiation from electricity as we know they can be generated. The parallels are more than just a single visual appearance. What experimental evidence can be paralleled to gravitational collapse and ignition of nuclear processes; hereby not caused by electromagnetic or plasma pinch processes, but merely of dry gravitational collapse inside a spherical body? Can this even partially be tested and falsified?

True, Thornhill et al could and should be producing further experiments as an attempt to pin point the Electric Sun processes. Still, there are numerous experiments and established technology that tangents these fields. Can the same thing be said about the thermonuclear model? Which experimental attempts are executed in order to pin point the proposed processes allegedly going on in all stars? If so, do they conform with observations? If not, why is there just one model/approach?

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

to Siggy G,

Let's see, stellar structure is based on the gas laws, numerically understood from experiment; gravitation, numerically understood from experiment; energy transport, numerically understood from experiment; and nuclear reaction rates, understood from experiment.

With all that ability to get numbers for comparison, it is far more reliable than claiming a theory matches because of its 'glow'.

Bethe & Teller knew to explore reactions of various isotopes of hydrogen for the H-bomb based on Bethe's work in stellar nucleosynthesis.

The reaction rates, some determined experimentally, some theoretically (which have been surprisingly good when we can do experimental tests), gave us estimates of neutrino flux. So they looked for neutrinos.

When neutrino observations revealed a discrepancy, they hunted for causes and experiments eventually suggested there was some neutrino property not detected with current experiments. So they improved the experiments and found neutrino oscillations which brought the theory and observations into agreement within the error bars.

Where's EU's track record on solar physics? Haven't seen a single EU 'prediction' graphed against real data.

Anonymous said...


Perhaps we should try to find some common ground, on which to have a meaningful discussion?

Today - and, arguably for the past several centuries - the criteria for judging/assessing/etc the merits/value/etc of ideas/models/theories in physics/astronomy/astrophysics include things like internal consistency and consistency with all relevant experimental and observational results. Being quantitative, the judging/assessing/etc is relatively straight-forward.

In the case of the EU, there is nothing quantitative, so what criteria can one use to judge the published ideas?

From your last comment (addressed to me), I gather that the criteria include "parallels between observations and experiments", and that these "parallels are more than just a single visual appearance."

Are there any other criteria (that you are aware of, or that you yourself use)?


Anonymous said...


I missed this, at the end of your other recent post: "The fundament of the standard solar model is still based on assumptions; and the numerical aspects don't yet confirm anything about its energy processing."

Is this, truly, how you understand contemporary astrophysics? You do appreciate, don't you, for every model in physics (whether astro- geo- or just plain physics) "the fundament is still based on assumptions" (this includes, of course, all of classical electromagnetism)?

Followed by: " Taking all aspects of solar research (technology/data collection/probe launch/imaging) and bundle it up as a confirmation of the thermonuclear model is scientifically wrong."

If this is truly an accurate reflection of how you view contemporary (astro)physics, then we really must engage in a different discussion! (and your answers to my 'criteria' questions will be most helpful).

Using the two criteria in my last post, to assess the standard (thermonuclear) solar model (there are actually several, but never mind):

* is it internally consistent? Yes

* is it consistent - quantitatively - with all relevant observational and experimental results? Yes

How, then, can it be "scientifically wrong"? The only way I can think of is if you (Siggy_G) have a different set of criteria by which to judge a model.


Siggy_G said...

Most of the mentioned processes numerically understood from experiment are not refuted within the Electric Universe. What is refuted is: the unaffected constants of nuclear decay rates, the alleged understanding of what gravity is, the alleged energy transport within the corona and the application of mechanical terms to stellar and cosmic phenomena (i.e. the notion that electricity doesn't do anything in cosmic scenarios).

I wonder how far the gas or gravitational laws will take you in numerically explaining what goes on in a plasma discharge tube or a plasma light ball; hinting at practically all matter in the universe (herby stars) being in the plasma state. From experiments we know that a single mechanism, the flow of electricity through plasma, can cause glows, arcs, jets, filaments, beads, bubbles, toruses, tornadoes and explosions... It's a fair repertoire of phenomena to investigate at larger scales. That is, if one realizes that electricity can flow through astrophysical plasmas.

Siggy_G said...


Yes, we may be entering a broader interesting discussion here (difficult to stay too brief as well). Where may we take the discussion further?

I'll try to wrap up my points as this though: are the extrapolations and assumptions of the thermonuclear model (gravitational ignition, nuclear physics, stellar sizes, gravitational collapse) much different from the extrapolations of the electric model? The phenomenas paralleled to and understood from [plasma] experiments are numerous (see previous comment directed at Tom).

The "bundling" I referred to, as often seen around here: taking all achievements related to technology, the mechanical launch itself, GPS-systems and what not, mentioning that in relation to the standard sun model or big bang cosmology, and labelling it as a confirmation of the model or theory itself. It would be as if Electric Universe proponents should mention all the electric/digital engineering behind practically ALL technology today, including everything used in astrophysics, and bundle it up as a confirmation of the Electric Universe notions... Would that be acceptable?

The main criterion as I see it: only the measurements and experiments truly tangenting the phenomena one is researching, may strengthen or falsify the applied model. (Falsification usually seem to mean 'modification' though). The answer to your two criterions in relation to the Electric Universe is, in my opinion: 'yes' and 'yes'. For both the standard and electric models there needs to further future methods for cross checking and verifying the current interpretations.

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

What Siggy_G has a problem with is the idea that the physical laws we use in technology are the same physical laws we use to understand the operation of the rest of universe.

We've tested conservation of energy, momentum, etc. in the laboratory and technology. But by Siggy_G's criteria, we cannot assume these laws apply anywhere outside the laboratory.

The problem this creates is when these regimes interact.

If we just accepted experimentally-tested galilean gravity (g=constant) on the Earth and assumed that planets moved on (observationally tested?) crystal spheres, or perhaps invisible dark currents, instead of recognizing that Newtonian gravity would produce both results, then we would have never been able to launch a vehicle into orbit or beyond. We would not have known to expect such a behavior.

The first experiments in nuclear physics used beams of particles moving in one direction to generate a reaction. Thermal distributions of interacting nuclei could not be done in the laboratory. But there were reasons to expect them in stars and computations using these 'assumptions' matched the results we had for stars in the 1920s-1930s by Bethe, Teller and others. When it came time to built the atomic and hydrogen bombs, Bethe and Teller had a head start.

There are plenty more examples as I have documented in the main post.

Could EU have discovered neutrino oscillations? How? Without nuclear reactions powering the stars, how would they ever suspect they should even look for neutrinos from such objects in the first place?

Basically, if we accept Siggy_Gs limitations on science, our discoveries and inventions will be lagging behind those who are guided by techniques not yet possible in the laboratory.

This is the reason why EU 'discoveries' are always lagging…

Anonymous said...

Many thanks, Siggy_G.

You asked, "Where may we take the discussion further?"

Well, we could have taken it further on the Thunderbolts Forum, but I'm now permabanned there. We could continue on JREF's Science board. We could continue here (obviously, that'd be Tom's call). We could continue at a site that focusses on the History and Philosophy of Science (e.g. ). Do you have any other suggestions?

You also asked, "are the extrapolations and assumptions of the thermonuclear model [...] much different from the extrapolations of the electric model?" Yes, they are, and radically so too; the former are quantitative, the latter not.

You stated: "The main criterion as I see it: only the measurements and experiments truly tangenting the phenomena one is researching, may strengthen or falsify the applied model."

How, then, does one determine - objectively, and in an independently verifiable way - if measurements and experiments put forward by EU proponents are "truly tangenting the phenomena" those proponents are researching?

How does one determine - objectively, and in an independently verifiable way - if measurements and experiments put forward by EU proponents "strengthen or falsify the applied model"?

If, in your opinion, the Electric Universe is a) internally consistent, and b) consistent - quantitatively - with all relevant observational and experimental results, how can your opinion (judgement, assessment, etc) be objectively (and independently) checked?

Take the case of The Electric Sun Hypothesis ( ). As far as I know, no one has shown that "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts" is consistent - quantitatively - with all relevant observational and experimental results; nor has anyone shown that the "Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by that amperage" is consistent - quantitatively - with all relevant observational and experimental results ("that amperage" refers to "the total current (Amperage)" of "electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy").

If no one has shown either of these, then why is it your opinion that The Electric Sun Hypothesis meets the second criterion?