While not directly related to the conference, there was one interesting recent thread, started by user Metryq, that died a quick death.
Thunderbolts Forum: Space Sim with EU?
There are many space sim/planetarium apps to choose from. Some are "Earth-bound" while others allow one to tour the Solar system, or farther. Many of these apps are like interactive textbooks, delivering only the mainstream view of astronomy.The short answer for Metryq is that there are many simulations involving electric fields in space.
Some apps, like Celestia (which seems to have fallen out of development), permit mods and add-ons and interactive lessons. Is anyone aware of an app that includes EU material, or perhaps a multi-platform app that would accept an EU mod/lessons? Thunderbolts is promoting EU extremely well, but a space sim might be one more avenue to explore.
But those simulations just don't demonstrate what Electric Universe supporters claim they would show. Because if they did, this could have been done a LONG time ago. Computing power is more than up to the task of doing this.
Many of the papers on REAL electric effects in space I've documented elsewhere on this blog.
- NASA: LUNAR POLAR CRATERS MAY BE ELECTRIFIED
- NASA: New NASA Model Gives Glimpse into the Invisible World of Electric Asteroids
NONE of these NASA simulations use the gigantic electric arcs and currents claimed to exist by Electric Universe supporters, yet these models work perfectly well in planning the level of protection needed for un-crewed and crewed space missions. Funny that none of the Electric Universe fans seem capable of comprehending why that might be...
Now many of these simulations are not that difficult to write. I wrote my first gravitational n-body simulation back in 1979 on an Apple II computer (Wikipedia) using AppleSoft Basic. All it requires is a good understanding of the necessary mathematics and physics, and access to a sufficiently powerful programming language. In terms of programming languages, C and C++ are good if you want the better speed of compiled languages. Python now has extensive scientific libraries and graphical support and is my language of choice when speed is not critical.
I've written numerous other simulations since then. More recently, I've written some 2-D plasma simulations and even an n-body particle code that combines gravity and electromagnetic forces.
- Doin' Real Science: Simulating Particles. Near the bottom of this post is an example what can be generated by interfacing the output to a more polished rendering system like POVray.
- Geocentrism & the Barycenter. II.
- The Geocentrists' 3-Body "Problem"
- An Exploration of the Lagrange Points
 | |
| Sample from from one of my 2-D plasma simulations of a ring Birkeland current in a magnetic field flowing perpendicular to the plane of the image. |
Modeling of plasmas is routine today, and many can be done without access to supercomputers. Consider the aspects of plasma modeling I've documented, many of which are now part of standard applications:
- Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists Use Mathematical Models!
- Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models
- Electric Universe: Plasma Physics for Fun AND Profit!
- Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma'
If the Electric Universe 'theorists' were as smart as they want their fans to believe, they would have been able to demonstrate this YEARS ago, yet the only models that looked even encouraging, failed many other tests (see Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background).
The bottom line is these simulation programs don't exist because Electric Universe claims of gigantic currents powering stars and galaxies and etching canyons and craters on planets just doesn't work.
General list of failures of Electric Universe models.
