Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'...

...which they repeatedly evade...

Here I am collecting a list the problems with Electric Universe (EU) claims that EU supporters persistently ignore.  Currently, it will expand as I use it to index much of my existing material. I hope to maintain this as a 'master list' of EU problems and it should be regarded as the first place to check for a EU topics on this site.

This summarizes a number of Electric Universe claims impacting:

General Science
  • Mainstream astronomy and astrophysics has guided science into pioneering discoveries in gravity, with the application of space flight, and atomic and nuclear physics, with the applications of semiconductors and materials science (see The Cosmos In Your Pocket).  Humans have moved into space without one single model that yields testable measurements from the Electric Universe supporters.  What does EU provide that is not already provided by mainstream astronomy and geophysics?

General Physics
  • Every book on how to write applications & interpret the signals from GPS satellites emphasizes the importance of relativity in converting these signals into a high-precision receiver position (see Scott Rebuttal. I.  GPS & Relativity).   Yet EU supporters deny the importance of relativity in this application.  Has any EU supporter designed and built a working high-precision (< 1 meter accuracy) GPS receiver that can be certified as free of relativistic corrections?

General Plasma Physics

Electric Sun/Electric Stars (General)
  • Mainstream solar physics uses Doppler imaging of the solar surface to construct images of the farside of the Sun (see Acoustic Imaging of the Entire Farside of the Sun).  Now the STEREO spacecraft are at positions where we will finally see the entire sphere of the Sun and will be able to conduct more direct tests of this capability (see STEREO: Comparison with GONG and MDI farside maps).  This capability critically depends on our understanding of the solar interior, yet EU claims that all our models of the solar interior are wrong.  a) If mainstream models of the solar interior are so wrong, why does this technique work at all?  b) All of the solar data for this capability are PUBLIC (see MDI Data Services & Information) and the software runs on desktop-class computers you can buy at almost any computer store.  So when will EU demonstrate that their Electric Sun model can generate equivalent or better results?
  • EU 'theorists' or even observers have provided no skymaps (such as those provided by a variety of missions and projects) showing tracks of electric currents powering the stars.  These maps are needed so we can direct more sensitive instruments at the appropriate regions to determine if these currents actually exist. 
  • The standard for physical models is that they produce numerical values in agreement with observations (in situ measurements or fluxes) from well-understood, more fundamental principles. Yet the Electric Sun (ES) model produces no such values of solar wind or interplanetary magnetic field, values which we can compare to measurements from the many satellites flown from the orbit of Mercury to the heliopause. Why should the Electric Sun model be regarded as superior to the more standard model(s) when the standard models disagree at the few percent level, or at worst factor of a few, while ES produces no values for comparison at all?  (see Mathematics: The Language of Science)

Solar Resistor model (Thornhill Z-Pinch)
One of the popular EU models for stars is a z-pinch configuration.  The primary advocate of this configuration seems to be Wal Thornhill.  Using Alfven circuit analogies, the major feature of this model is a current stream where the star derives its energy as a resistive load.  For this reason, I call it the solar resistor model (see Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model).  With simple constraints of particle and energy conservation (nuclear reactions which could significantly change particle number) combined with Maxwell's equations (wikipedia) the major shortfalls of this model are:
  • predicts magnetic fields for the surface of the Sun and at the orbit of the Earth, 1000 to 1,000,000 times larger than measured.
  • ignores that free current streams of ions and electrons are subject to numerous instabilities which make them break up in short timescales.
Popular excuses from EU 'theorists' are that this model ignores some 'nonlinearties' which they do not define but which must violate conservation of energy and Maxwell's equations to solve their problem.

Solar Capacitor model  (Don Scott, The Electric Sky)
An alternative solar model, radically different from the Thornhill model above, is a spherical capacitor model with the heliopause as the cathode (source of electrons) and the solar photosphere as the source of ions & protons (anode).  I call this the solar capacitor model.  This spherical current configuration has been studied heavily in theory and experiment since the 1920s.
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I. II. III.

Applying basic conservation principles to this configuration, just some of the deficiencies found are
  • predicts a solar proton wind speed 200 times faster than observed.
  • predicts energetic particle fluxes far in excess of what we observe. (proton fluxes a billion times larger). These fluxes are also far higher than the most deadly regions of the Earth radiation belts, meaning that interplanetary travel would be sure death for astronauts.
  • in situ measurements do not show a high-energy stream of electrons heading towards the Sun.
  • Without an external EMF maintaining the potential between the photosphere and heliopause, the Electric Sun will shut down due to charge neutralization in a very tiny fraction of a second.
Dr. Scott tries to use results from Voyager 1 to salvage his model, but the measured electron flux falls short of the value he needs by a factor of 100 million.
Is there an external source of particles sufficient to power the Sun?  Cosmic rays can't do it, as I explore in Electric Sun: Energy Budget from KNOWN Sources.

The Electric Sky (Don Scott) Rebuttals

Collection of my rebuttals to specific claims in Don Scott's The Electric Sky
Dr. Scott also invokes other pseudo-sciences to back his claims. See Adoption of Other Pseudo-Sciences by Electric Universe Supporters.

Electric Comets

Because of all the comet activity making the news of late, I'll probably have more on this topic.  But for now, there's:

Space Weather & Heliophysics

Peratt Galaxy Model
I've written a number of posts exposing the problems of the Peratt galaxy model.
  1. Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background
  2. Still no electric currents powering the galaxies...
  3. Electric Universe: More data refuting the EU galaxy model
A number of problems with the model remain unanswered, though Tony Peratt seems to have stopped all development on it.
  • The microwave emission of the currents predicted by Peratt does not appear in COBE, WMAP or Planck skymaps.
  • There is still no identification of the source or mechanism for generating the tremendous electromotive force (EMF) needed to power the galaxies in the Peratt model. 
  • The intersection of the two Birkeland currents in the Peratt model form a long, cylindrical structure, yet the galaxies are cross-sectional slices from the current.  Why?

Intergalactic Space
  • If, as EU likes to claim, their 'work' is based on strong laboratory science, why does EU believe any results based on the HI 21 cm radio emission (wikipedia)?  I have yet to find any evidence that that photon emission has been detected in the laboratory.  Its existence is based on a theoretical calculation, not that different from the calculation that two protons can fuse to form deuterium.  The theoretical calculation demonstrates that *both* interactions have a probability too low to be detected with current laboratory capability.  So why do EU supporters believe the HI 21 cm emission but not the proton-proton chain?

  • What is the origin of the electromotive force (EMF) that drives all the current streams required?  These EMFs should be operating today yet EU has not proposed any sources of these nor ways to measure them. 
  • Arguing that Big Bang cosmology is intrinsically religious because it was originally developed by a priest.  Is Big Bang Cosmology a 'Creationist' Model?

General Electric Universe Failures
APOD Nereid and I explored a host of failures of Electric Universe 'Theorists' that were published in the Bentham Open Astronomy Journal (BOAJ) in 2011.  While BOAJ claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, the quality of that peer-review is very questionable.

Adoption of Other Pseudo-Sciences by Electric Universe Supporters

January 2, 2015:  Added some links and created an index listing.
May 12, 2014: Miscellaneous Electric Universe and other pseudo-sciences resources added.
March 30, 2014: Added Electric Comet link
October 21, 2012: Add Death by Electric Universe series
September 20, 2012: Add EU peer-review exercise.
July 16, 2011: Minor fixes thanks to Nereid.
This page is an index and will accept no comments.