The Electric Universe Theory

[Tyger]

LINK: ThunderboltsProject - YouTube
Main source of material presented here on this thread. Considerable amount of time needs to be invested to watch these documentaries - but they are fascinating imo.

I am enthralled with the the Electric Universe theory of late. How new theories work their way through opposition is particularly interesting to me - and the Electric Universe is definitely a new paradigm that is hitting head winds from the entrenched 'standard' scientific views.

It's fascinating to me that David Talbot began his journey inspired by the unique views of Immanuel Velikovsky from 60 years ago. He has taken what intrigues him and brought it forward to new depths/heights. He does not subscribe to Velikovsky in total - just used his ideas as a jumping off point. Very interesting.

In particular, what intrigues me is how elegant the Electric Universe theory explains the surface of Mars, as well as what we have been learning about Comets.

This is a section (from a larger video) that gives the essence of the Electric Universe analysis of the Martian landscape -

Symbols of an Alien Sky Episode 2: The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars | Clip #2

Here is the full documentary. It helps to know that the background to this line of thinking is a belief that the sky was very different for ancient mankind, who saw a massive drama unfold in the skies between Mars/Venus/Saturn - mainly Mars and Venus. This drama is preserved in the ancient myths of humanity world-wide. At any rate, this line of thinking launched a serious exploration/development of the Electric Universe Theory.

Episode 2 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary)

 

[Tyger]

This video gives a sense of the background thinking that went into developing the Electric Universe theory -

Symbols of an Alien Sky (Full Documentary)
ThunderboltsProject - YouTube

Dave Talbot's response to a comment: "Son-of-Will writes "the material seems cherry picked..." But no integral reconstruction at the level of specificity presented here could be achieved by selective use of evidence. Cherry picking is precluded by the first ground rule of the reconstruction: only globally recorded themes are allowed into the foundations. The story presented in this documentary simply reflects the extraordinary and unique detail of the ancient evidence itself, all rooted in the global substructure of human memory."

 

[Tyger]

Perhaps the most intriguing is the changing view of comets and how the Electric Universe theory can - not only explain what is being found with comets - but can accurately predict what the science will find: two hallmarks of solid theory worthy of consideration.

Episode 3 Symbols of an Alien Sky: The Electric Comet (Full Documentary)

TEXT: "Published on Jun 18, 2013: URGENT: PLEASE READ THIS. The video presented here is still in development. For the present listing of credits (being developed simultaneously with extensive scientific review) see our credits page:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/... "

 

[Tyger]

Here I present all Rosetta Updates to date from the Thunderbolts Project -

Comets May Not Be What We Thought

TEXT: "Published on Dec 14, 2014: The Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Perhaps the strangest solar system object ever observed up close in the course of the space age. It was the target of the Rosetta probe, whose 10-year journey began in March 2004, under the sponsorship of the European Space Agency. The probe is now orbiting the nucleus of 67P, and investigators hope to confirm the comet’s link to the very origins of our solar system. In this brief overview of the Rosetta Mission, David Talbott begins a series of reports on the continuing surprises facing comet theorists."

Oops! No Water on Comet 67P?

TEXT: "Published on Dec 14, 2014: The Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Perhaps the strangest solar system object ever observed up close in the course of the space age. It was the target of the Rosetta probe, whose 10-year journey began in March 2004, under the sponsorship of the European Space Agency. The probe is now orbiting the nucleus of 67P, and investigators hope to confirm the comet’s link to the very origins of our solar system. In this brief overview of the Rosetta Mission, David Talbott begins a series of reports on the continuing surprises facing comet theorists."

Rubble on 67P Defies Current Comet Theory

TEXT: "Published on Dec 20, 2014: On the surface of today’s most well-studied comet, we see fields of rubble everywhere. From great boulders down to gravel, sand and dust, a surface littered with debris. Why would an evaporating clump of ice and dust look more like the debris-strewn surface of Mars than any comet that scientist ever dared to dream of?"

Rosetta Mission Update | Jets of Comet 67P -- Failed "Explanations" Continue

TEXT: "Published on Dec 24, 2014: It seems that the puzzle of cometary jets continues to haunt comet science. The mystery has been stated and re-stated for decades. But it’s possible that a resolution is now within reach, through the Rosetta Mission to comet 67P?Churyumov Gerasimenko?"

 

[Constance]

I'm glad you've started this thread on the Electric Universe theory, Tyger. It's another subject I've been interested in and have not had time yet to research.

 

[Tyger]

Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology - the sciences of the 21st century, he says.

@Constance There is some hefty watching (of videos) entailed. This is my vacation so I carved out several hours to do the viewing. Utterly fascinating. It's also an example of the 'dangers' inherent in the 'walls' between disciplines.

Some bio on Dave Talbott -
LINK: David Talbott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some bio on Wal Thornhill -
LINK: Wallace Thornhill and the Electric Universe Theory


The book Talbott and Thornhill wrote is now out-of-print and costs an arm-and-a-leg used.
LINK: The Electric Universe Perfect Paperback – May 24, 2007 by Wallace Thornhill & David Talbott

Amazon Blurb: "6-3/4"x9" paperback, full color graphics and 140+ illustrations The Electric Universe Monograph by Dave Talbott and Wallace Thornhill, members of the Thunderbolts.info group, is powerful material about the Electric Universe and plasma cosmology. This book not only complements The Electric Sky book, but actually overlaps very little, while covering cosmic quandaries and plasma and electricity in space. The chapter on the electrical properties of comets is such great material, thoroughly convincing."


While I am not advocating revolution in the below review, mention is made of physics and astronomy having lost their way - and while I can speak somewhat - but not wholly - to physics [I categorize myself as a (somewhat) informed layman in that area - I can usually follow the dots] I most certainly can regarding astronomy with which I have stayed abreast (more-or-less) over the years. With all those caveats, I throw myself head-long into the excitement of cutting-edge theory, and do my betting on who will 'win' - like good horses - Electric Universe and Plasma Physics - like betting on the horses at Santa Anita Racetrack. Or maybe it's a confluence of the two. The good thing is Einstein is actually in the game - he never thought his theories explained it all, and were even contradictory.


Amazon Review by Michael Gmirkin: "I've recently read several other books of interest, including Arp's Seeing Red, Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, Thornhill & Talbott's other work Thunderbolts of the Gods and Scott's The Electric Sky.

"These are all rather excellent works of science by folks who know what they're talking about, and don't need to resort to "dark matter," "dark energy," "black holes," "neutron stars" or other fictitious entities to explain the workings of the universe.

"Rather they go about it from an electrical / plasma (ionized matter with electrical properties) point of view. In this way, "surprising" features from the "standard model" point of view are demystified as simple electrical / plasma phenomena known from lab experiments and electrical theory dating as far back as Birkeland, Alfven, CER Bruce, Juergens and a host of others.

"It's time that good science make its way back into physics and astronomy. It's also time that abstract maths be put in their place as a tool and NOT as a prime mover and shaker. Science should be based first on observation {!}. That's exactly what Thornhill and Talbott do in The Electric Universe. They *observe* the universe *as it is* and then apply known electrical and plasma processes to explain it.

"The material is accessible to the layman. However, it may behoove readers to do additional reading to fill in any conceptual gaps. Keep an open mind, and your world view may be changed forever. Mine has been changed permanently since introduction to the material a year ago. The universe is finally beginning to make some physical sense that has been lacking in the sad world of "Big Bang" untested (often *untestable* {!}), unproven hypotheticals (dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, black holes, WIMPs, MACHOs). It's time to end dogmatic adherence to a paradigm that has consistently failed in its predictions and embrace an electrical / plasma interpretation that can make specific testable /verifiable predictions.

"If you enjoy this book, you'll probably enjoy the books listed above, as well."

 

[Tyger]

Another excellent Amazon Review of the above book, speaking to the situation in astronomy. Gravity has always struck me as 'incomplete'. Too many hoops to jump through to explain 'everything'. And the sheer brilliance this line of thought provides into the workings of the sun is worth the price of admission.

In answer to the reviewer's question - as to why this elegant theory is being ignored - my guess is the fact that it's proponents' association with Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas throws cold water on it for many. Even with Dave Talbott making the disclaimer that he - and others - do not advocate Velikovsky's entire thesis - still the muck of 'heresy' still clings to any theory within mention of Velikovsky.

Amazon Review: "Having studied astronomy and having followed the A to Z of it for decades, I must say that I have never encountered anything as original, sweeping, and compelling as the ideas presented in Thornhill and Talbott's "Electric Universe".

"Mainstream astronomy offers a wealth of extravagant theories but with a paucity of observable evidence to back them up. "Electric Universe" points up these glaring absences and contradictions and presents a set of far more plausible plasma-oriented interpretations.

"Thornhill and Talbott point to mainstream astronomy's naive assumption that space is electrically neutral everywhere. Plasma physics, as has been demonstrated in numerous laboratory experiments, offers a more viable explanatory model than the gravitation-based theories that have dominated 20th Century astronomy. The fact that the electric force is 39 orders of magnitudes stronger than the gravitational force is reason enough for it to be included, at least considered, as a significant influence in shaping the course of the universe. I am astonished that the electric force-based ideas as presented in this book are being systematically overlooked by mainstream astronomers, and even by popular trade magazines. You may well join me in asking, What has happened to science as an open dialogue and a selection of theories that best fits the evidence?

"For decades astronomy has based most of its ideas on a single interpretation of the evidence: for example, the red shift being seen only as a distance marker; an abiding belief that the 3-degree background radiation represents an echo of the big bang; redoubtable propositions about dark matter and dark energy to support gravity-based explanations of galactic motion; and likewise that solar energy is produced at the center of the sun and transported to the surface by slow convection processes; and so forth. Is there room in this vast universe for alternative views? Thornhill and Talbott point to the disturbing evidence that cast doubt on these time-worn theories. For example, the statistical occurrence of quasars in the vicinity of nearby galactic clusters makes problematic the yardstick view of the red shift; the infamous solar neutrino deficiency should have long ago led to new modes of thought about solar energy production. The authors not only describe the many observed contradictions, they offer their own stunningly original theories based on an electrically active universe.

"Rather than shunning their plasma-based theories, astronomers should welcome the appearance of a new set of plausible alternatives to their held-fast ideas. Science should be a dialogue of competing ideas. It should not be a religion with a single explanation of phenomena that is to be taken as orthodox fact. But that is what the science of astronomy has become, unfortunately. That's why I am so grateful for and so enthusiastic about this book, which I feel gives us an important glimpse into a new astronomy for the 21st Century. For its provocative challenges to standard astronomical thought and for offering a most engaging and plausible set of alternatives, "The Electric Universe" is simply indispensable."

 

[Tyger]

Hadn't heard this before: "It was Telsa who said Enstein's relativity theory was '...a beggar cloaked in Purple robes......'. "

Last Amazon Review I will quote. It's a humdinger - lllloooonnngggg. But well worth the read - even though an ad hominem shows up in the first paragraph and within the text (confirms my guess as to why there is a bias against these ideas - Velikovsky!) - still worth the read.

I offer this review here because it gives a good summation of the contents of the book. I have deleted a portion- that can be read on Amazon (it's an anti-Velikovskian rant) - and left in the final piece that is actually some scientific riffing on the ideas presented - which to me is evidence of how creative and pertinent and exciting these ideas are.

There is present, in the below review, a great deal of personality that one might wish wasn't present. The colorful tone makes the piece both entertaining but also annoying. The personality can get in the way. However, interesting observations/summation being made, so here it is -

Amazon Review: "Better than “Thunderbolts of the Gods”. Although Wal Thornhill is a “Velikovskian Zombie Drone” and that’s how he and David Talbott are co-authoring this series of monographs, here very little of the Zombie Drone appears and it’s down to mostly faith free science (three cheers!)

The science here is nearly all very solid and well explained and well illustrated. (The problems with mis-described illustrations in “Thunderbolts of the God’s”, which potentially ruin the argument, is not a problem here.)

Chapter 1’s history of Plasma Study is well presented and deserves to be much better known! It seems to have been the Cinderella of Science but definitely deserves a unique position in science, given that Plasma is the origin of everything. However as well as this Thornhill gives a very fair resume of the history of the opposition [standard science], the “Scientific Silly Consensus” and how come they [standard science] have got themselves stuck in such a corner, where they have progressively alienated themselves from all observation and genuine science!

"In some ways the whole of the book is rather “Confrontational” and a lot is explained in terms of what is radically wrong with the “Consensus”. This is understandable for any underdog fighting against a well entrenched consensus. It is not the worst case I have seen of this phenomenon and Thornhill generally keeps the balance and uses the confrontational tension to good effect in his explanations.

"The presentation of Electricity in the Space in chapter 2 is equally good, well explained, well illustrated, no Holy Cows left untouched! It’s not difficult stuff, if you know just a bit already about science, especially Physics and Cosmology, but it is always challenging and certainly makes one think carefully about certain theories that one may have held dear. This section is full of pictures which make it visually obvious that almost everything that Thornhill is saying is spot on. Beautiful too!

"In this section I felt that there should have been a short presentation of the Electric Theory of Magnetism. After all it is one of the major criticisms of the currently accepted “Scientific Credo” that Magnetic Fields exist independently of Electricity. Yes - “No Magnetic Field without and Electric Current”, but then how do Magnets work? It’s the question that many readers will ask. It should have been covered. Yes - with my “A Level” Physics from years back in school it took me only minutes to work out how that applied to Magnets, but some other readers may not be so privileged?

"It’s not Plasma but it is still a part of the “Electric Universe”, because the electrons are bound, rotating in the (mostly) metal molecules and only certain molecules allow the “Laser Like” permanent re-ordering and “aiming” of those Electrical “Flywheels”. So even without a current at the macroscopic level there is LOTS of movement of Electrons in that there magnet! So “No Magnetism without Electricity” holds the day! To have explained this would have further underlined the point, it would have only taken a single Information Panel.

"The other thing I was itching for Thornhill to explain was his theory of Electrical Gravity. Yes he says it will be covered in a later monograph, but he’s mentioned it now and that’s cruel! Einstein spent so many years trying to “Unify” Gravity with the other forces (including Electricity) – and failed miserably. Others also have tried - and failed miserably. The “Copenhagen Congregation” believe they know all the answers – and fail to explain anything! I just want to know – OK? And here lies the key to the “Dark Side” – the Velikovskian Zombie Warriors.

"Chapter 3 about the Sun and Stars was VERY interesting and mostly plain sailing, until the section on Red Giants and White Darwfs, which wasn’t quite up to Thornhills normal high level of clarity. I will return to this section and see if I can make better sense of it later. While the reader should expect to put work into something as important as this, a little more concentration on this topic would have helped. Thornhill normally explains things so well!

"Chapter 4 about the Electric Comet was fairly familiar to me as I’ve been keeping up with the recent discoveries due to various missions to comets. Everything Thornhill says about comets is spot on and a HUGE embarrassment to the “Consensus” Snow Trolls.

"Comets are really another key ingredient because they don’t seem to obey the theories of the Astrophysicists! As an Amateur Archeo-Astronomer I’m aware that my copy of “Starry Night Pro”, even though it goes back tens of thousands of years and is mostly quite reliable in the order of 12,000 years ago, for planets and the Sun and the closer Milky Way Stars, is actually rather un-reliable about (galaxies and) Comets. If you go backwards and forwards trying to work out what people thousands of years ago were seeing, you’ll often see comets whiz past, but if you try to view that section again, the comet often has changed position and date! This is not surprising given what the Electric Universe says about comets. Comets are Electrically Eroded and never the same from orbit to orbit. They are also relatively small and much more influenced by the huge Electric Forces upon them. To be fair Starry Night Pro do somewhere give a disclaimer about the accuracy of some aspects of the program, Comets being one of them. I think I may be right in guessing that Thornhill wouldn’t bother using a Star Program because he doesn’t believe they are even accurate enough to have ANY use?

"Now that comes right back to the Electric Theory of Gravity. If “G” – the gravitational constant is not constant then that buggers up “Starry Night” big time! And yet many Archaeo-Astronomers have found such software invaluable and have come up with some pretty amazing work, including datings for ancient monuments, more information about what the ancients believed, a better understanding of the structures found and their symbolism and meaning. I, for one, count this as valid evidence that the balance between Electricity and Gravity, although massively favouring Electricity whenever electrons or ions are dominant, clearly does allow some extended periods and zones where gravity alone (with a constant “G”) is a pretty good approximation.

"From chapter 2, this is clearly NOT the case for Galaxies and above in size where Electricity has been, is and always will be King and Queen. From chapter 4, this is clearly NOT the case with Comets, where Gravity cannot come close to explaining even the orbits alone. However this “Balance” between Electricity and Gravity is the key issue to do with the “Dark Side” of Velikovskian Zombie Drones. So we need to SEE that theory and those equations which will tell us, allow us to predict, what order of Electric Phenomenon would be required for the Planets to start moving around like the Easter Island Moai under Telekinetic Transportation! (Sorry Electro-Magnetic “Suspension” of the force of Gravity?) Without WORKING “Electrical Gravity” equations then all this talk about Mars, Venus, Saturn or Earth flying about like mad things is just a pipe dream and an article of FAITH not science!

"It is not promising that the belief about “Cavorting Planets” seems to precede the rigorous scientific explanation (and in the publication dates too) and seems to have “Evidential Base” only in the misinterpretations of Myths by David Talbott (and Velikovsky himself). It looks like this is a “Holy Cow” just as they are criticising the “Scientific Consensus” of having.

[...]

"I have a strong feeling that Thornhill would want to place the Balance point much more close to Absolute Electrical “Tyranny” than I would. To me it seems that my opinion is based on Observation (that the Newtonian Gravitational Model has “Worked”, at least in the Holocene!) In contrast Thornhill’s theory of “Looney Moons and Planets” seems to place the Balance point much too far away from this clear evidence, based solely on the deeply prejudiced and knee jerk mis-interpretations of his Velikovskian colleague David Talbott. An article of Faith, not a part of Science. Shame on you for your little bit of hypocrisy!
------
"To show “good faith” and that we are “on the same side” in the struggle against the Scientific Consensus I’d like to offer a personal interpretation of a little issue, which really deserves it. Now I’ve not read Alfven, Birkland, Peratt or Langmuir and although I currently have Scott’s “Electric Sky” I’ve not yet read it. However the answer to this little conundrum is not evident in THIS work, so I have to assume that my ideas here may be fresh?

"It’s to do with the Plasma Sheaths and Double Layers, the boundaries between Plasma regions of “different properties”. Thornhill’s use of these concepts is perfectly good basic science, founded on observation of how Plasma works, but in this work at least no explanation is given of why they do this, it’s just the way it IS. It is pretty damn important to understanding Plasma that these things ARE there, and so we want to know the details, why and how? Well I do at least!

"All the necessary information is already there in Thornhill’s presentation, but he’s not going to “Go There” because the answer is, in this one case, an “Electric” re-interpretation of the theory of the Opposing Camp! Here it is necessary to refer to the Information Panel on pg. 64 about “Magnetic Reconnection”. Now this is “anathema” to Thornhill and he explains why he thinks this is wrong (without his usual high level of clarity). He wants to believe that this is another case where the “Consensus” are (my analogy) wanting to have their right and left hand rules without the fingers that represent the Electric Force. The right and left hand rules are quick indicators that help to see where the magnetic “lines” of force will be for any given electric current and in reverse, where the current will be induced in a wire by a magnetic field through which it moves. But if you take away the Electric “Finger” in either case you don’t have a rule left!! This is my analogy, re-stating Thornhill’s rule that there is “no Magnetism without Electricity”.

"However I feel that, from what I see here, that the scientist concerned has made an observation about the behaviour that he sees, but has just got the details slightly wrong. (So lets correct it!)

"My interpretation goes as follows. The Solar Ion Output (not a “Wind”!) jousts with the Earth’s own Electric Output and at a certain distance from the Planet reaches a balance. The Plasma Sheath, the Double Layer doesn’t just “happen” but must obey the left and right hand rules. The twin outputs of Sun and Earth both create magnetic fields which in their interaction at this balance point bend each other more or less at right angles, causing an overall 360 degree bend in the magnetic field lines at this point. It is not “Reconnection”! Magnetic fields cannot be interrupted so they cannot be re-connected! (The “Consensus” in contrast don’t mind a little Physical or Mathematical Impossibility!) Furthermore and sticking with Electric universe observation here, rather than Giovannelli’s supposition, the strong effect of this 360 degree kinking of the Field is to generate not a “Jet” but a “Sheet”.

"It is known that “Jets” DO happen around charged bodies, but in the case of comets, they come from the surface, and in the case of stars (and planets?) they come from the Poles or they “Punch Through” the Double layer from below or from above (as is the case with Sun Spots). We DON’T observe Jets in the location suggested by Giovannelli, but we DO see Sheets!!! We do Observe a Double Layer! That “turbulence” experienced by at least one probe in travelling through from the outer Plasma environment to the Inner Plasma environment. A layer seen in so many laboratory Plasma experiments through it’s own significant power to accelerate ions and give off radiation!

"So the intense magnetic “Bending” which IS observed to happen at this location IS the generating mechanism of the Double Layer itself. And as Thornhill rightly observes, this isn’t a “Bow Shock” or caused by “Impact”, but by the normal rules of Electricity and Plasma. No magnetic Field without an Electric movement.

"I take this as being OBVIOUS really from the evidence presented by Thornhill. However as I said, I think the only reason that he didn’t “say this first”, is that he is so single-mindedly opposed to “Magnetic Reconnection”, that he didn’t see how an “Electrified Version” of it could offer this “Missing Link” in the Plasma/Electric Universe Theory!

"With regard to the details of applying those right and left hand rules at that “Kink”. I am confident that they are obeyed there, however as mine is only slightly rusty “A level” Physics from school while this is Thornhill’s speciality, I leave the application of those rules in detail to him!

"And to cap this interpretation off with some humour, it’s quite obvious really that “Little Boys” playing with their Magnets and Iron Filings shouldn’t create a whole Cosmology on a mis-interpretation of that! Cos that’s exactly what has happened here in the case of “Magnetic Reconnection”! The “Little Boy” (Astrophysicist!) has seen the Magnet’s “Power” and can’t see the Electrons moving and the “Little Boy” (Astrophysicist) has applied the same to his theory of the universe. Needless to say (if this interpretation is fresh) I do hereby affirm that I am the author of it and affirm my copyright on it and the duty to be credited if Thornhill chooses to use it!" "

 

[Tyger]

The other book that seems to be seminal to these ideas is Don Scott's 'The Electric Sky' - The Electric Sky [Kindle Edition] Donald E. Scott (Author) I can only find a Kindle Edition on Amazon. $9.99.

Amazon Blurb (Quoted from the book's author): "Publication Date: June 1, 2006: Can you make sense out of press releases and TV programs that attempt to explain the newest astronomical ‘discoveries’ – things like invisible dark energy, warped 11-dimensional spaces, and black holes that spit out matter? If not, you have lots of company.
The time to search for some realistic, intelligent, scientific answers has arrived. And those sensible answers are out there for those who are ready to listen - explanations of those answers are in this book.

"Astronomers have been ignoring electrical activity in space for years. Their inability to generate sensible explanations for many observations made by state-of-the-art astronomical instruments demonstrates they need to study the properties of electrical plasma in the cosmos.

"If, as we will claim, the causes of most of the observed phenomena of modern astronomy are electrical in nature, do you need a degree in electrical engineering before you can understand them? Indeed not. The average informed person can understand and make rational judgments about these ideas. All it requires is the time and patience to read and to think logically and critically about the issues. Some basic facts and a few new concepts will suffice. The main goal of this book is to convince you, the reader, that you really do have both the capability and responsibility to make informed, critical judgments about the pronouncements of establishment science. A careful reading of these pages will enable you to make an informed assessment of this new, simpler, plasma-based alternative cosmology."


The following review is quoted for it's 'additional reading' list -

Amazon Review by Michael Gmirkin: "Don Scott puts forth some very interesting observations and explanations on the topic of electrical interactions in space. While this topic is currently taboo in "standard" cosmology, it is quite a necessary step in the right direction if we are to understand many of the most puzzling discoveries in space during the current technological revolution in the sciences.

"We see "magnetic fields" everywhere in space (around stars, black holes, nebulae, etc.), yet standard astronomers tend to ignore or sideline or outright DENY the existence of the electric fields that MUST give rise to or co-exist with the magnetic fields. Have they forgotten that James Clerk Maxwell integrated our understanding of magnetism with our understanding of electricity? Where one exists, so too by nature exists the other. Turn a magnet in a coil of conductive wires to produce an electric current. Run an electric current through a coil of wires to produce a magnetic field. This understanding MUST make its way into space sciences, or all is for naught. Even if the truth ends up being painful or embarrassing to the "standard model."

"This book is a must-read for astronomers, cosmologists, skeptics, and the open-minded public at large. If you like this book, you may also be interested in the following titles: Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, Thunderbolts of the Gods and The Electric Universe.

 

[Tyger]

If there is any doubt that standard science is having to revise it's views - consider the following - also keeping in mind that the Big Bang hypothesis is called into question by proponents of the Electric Universe (EU) - as well as others.

Ancient Galactic Magnetic Fields Stronger than Expected by NANCY ATKINSON on JULY 23, 2008
LINK: Ancient Galactic Magnetic Fields Stronger than Expected

TEXT: "The origin of magnetic fields in our universe is a mystery. But magnetic fields are a key part of the interstellar medium and scientists are finding they may play a major role in galactic formation, such as helping to form the spiral arms of galaxies. Until recently, however scientists believed the strength of galactic magnetic fields increased over time as galaxies matured, and in the early universe, these magnetic fields were initially very weak. But, recently a team of scientists looking back to probe the ancient universe as it existed 8 to 9 billion years ago has found that the magnetic fields of ancient galaxies were just as strong as they are today, prompting a rethinking of how our galaxy and others may have formed.

"Using the European Southern Observatory’s 8-meter telescope located in Chile, a team of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology studied 70 galaxies similar to the Milky Way at optical wavelengths. They combined their data with 25 years of radio wave observations of magnetic fields that measured how far the radio waves were pulled toward the red end of the spectrum, known as “redshift” using Faraday rotation measures.

"Serving as a looking glass into the past, the powerful telescope at the European Southern Observatory, adding to the radio rotation measures, allowed the scientists to observe surprisingly high magnetic fields between 8 billion and 9 billion years ago in the 70 galaxies studied. That means that several billion years before the existence of our own sun, and within only a few billion years of the Big Bang, ancient galaxies were exerting the tug of these strong magnetic fields. “It was thought that, looking back in the past, earlier galaxies would not have generated much magnetic field,” said Philipp Kronberg of LANL. “The results of this study show that the magnetic fields within Milky Way-like galaxies have been every bit as strong over the last two-thirds of the Universe’s age as they are now-and possibly even stronger then.”

"Astronomers had thought a mechanism called a dynamo, which transfers mechanical energy into magnetic energy was responsible for galactic magnetic fields. In that case, with the right configuration gas flow could generate a higher magnetic field from a weaker seed field. (Again, we have yet to understand how galactic magnetic fields originally form.) But this new research suggests that the magnetic fields in galaxies did not arise due to a slow, large-scale dynamo effect, which would have taken 5 billion to 10 billion years to reach their current measured levels. “There must be some other explanation for a much quicker and earlier amplification of galactic magnetic fields,” Kronberg said. “From the time when the first stars and galaxies formed, their magnetic fields have probably have been amplified by very fast dynamos. One good possibility is that it happened in the explosive outflows that were driven by supernovae, and possibly even black holes in the very earliest generations of galaxies.”

"This realization brings a new focus on the broader question of how galaxies form. Instead of the commonly held view that magnetic fields have little relevance to the genesis of new galaxies, it now appears that they are indeed important players. If so, strong magnetic fields a long time ago are one of the essential ingredients that explain the very existence of our galaxy and others like it.

"Original News Source: Los Alamos National Lab"

 

[Tyger]

The mention below of the plasma cosmologist, Anthony Peratt, from the Los Alamos Laboratories, author of 'Physics of the Plasma Universe' and his providing experimental evidence confirming that the powerful electric force is paramount in the universe is no minor matter. This theory of the Electric Universe is gaining a hearing, and is being taken seriously by scientists working in a government laboratory.

I have long felt that space exploration is at a standstill because of the prohibitive expense of current rocket technology. I have a hunch that this is the breakthrough we've been looking for. Current rocket science is far too primitive for space travel (imo). The answer lies in electro-magnetism (anti-gravity) - but it goes further : the underlying assumptions of our science have to 'catch up' to our visions of space travel and exploration. (P.S. I even think this is a factor in our current climate situation - an aspect that needs to be considered, and is not - yet.)

Velikovsky the unsung genius - Peter Mungo Jupp with Wal Thornhill

TEXT: "Uploaded on Jun 7, 2010: Velikovsky was amongst the first to recognize the importance of electro magnetism as a more poweful force than gravity in the Universe, In addition he saw mythology as a source of catastrophic events in the history of mankind that demonstrated the chaotic past of the solar system,These ancient destructions are explained."


LINK: Wallace Thornhill and the Electric Universe Theory
Text: "Wal was initially heavily influenced by the then revolutionary ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky of Princeton. Velikovsky proposed that mankind had been devastated in the past by cosmological events . Wal took these ideas and with his deep knowledge of astronomy and, plasma physics began his own questioning of scientific dogma. Paramount was the place of electro magnetism, as distinct from gravity, in the formation of the universe . This slowly but surely led to his and other colleagues (such as David Talbot ,Donald Scott and Anthony Peratt ) questioning such ingrained theories as the big bang, black holes and Einstein’s theory of relativity. This group in particular contend that many scientific “proofs “are theory laden or mathematically concocted . An insistence on empirical data from observations and experiments gives their work true integrity.

"For instance by observing images and measurements generated by NASA on planets, galaxies and stars we can see what is happening on Earth and our own solar system . In addition practical work on Plasma physics in the laboratory can replicate electrical machining seen on a geological scale both on Earth and on other planets . The electromagnetic effects from volcanoes, earthquakes, and comets to mass coronal ejections appear better empirical explanations than reliance on theories perpetuated by say Hutton and Lyle with their reliance on uniformitarianism.

"Due to the increasingly dogmatic censorship imposed by scientific journals over the last century, Wal, like many other independent researchers, has had to turn to minor journals for publication. He has written many papers for the U.S. journal, Aeon, and the Review of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS), in England. He served as a council member of SIS for several years while working in London for the Australian government. He also attended a postgraduate course in Astrophysics at the University of London and meetings of the Royal Astronomical Society and the British Astronomical Association.

"In recent years, Wal has achieved a broad synthesis of ideas that he calls “The Electric Universe.” He believes that popular astronomy gives a distorted view of the universe. The modern vision evokes a sense of lonely bodies in space—isolated galaxies, self-immolating stars drifting like dust moats in the blackness, and the clockwork solitude of planets. In challenging this idea, he emphasizes connectivity. The electric force, he contends, influences matter at all levels, from subatomic particles to galactic clusters, leaving little room for the disconnected fragments of modern theory. It was first presented as such at a World Conference in Portland, Oregon, in January 1997, and provoked great interest from some professional astronomers, engineers and scholars in the humanities. A booklet and CD with that title were produced. Workshops and conferences were subsequently held in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington.

"In 2000, Wal was one of the keynote speakers at a conference in Portland, along with the noted astronomer, Halton Arp, from the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Germany, and the plasma cosmologist, Anthony Peratt, from the Los Alamos Laboratories, author of 'Physics of the Plasma Universe'. [Anthony Peratt has provided experimental evidence confirming that the powerful electric force is paramount in the universe.] Later that same year he shared the podium with Halton Arp at University College, London. [Arp has been dubbed the modern Galileo. He has done the definitive observational study to demonstrate that the Big Bang is fictional and has published many ideas that coincide with the Electric Universe model.]

"In 2001, Wal was a keynote speaker at the “Intersect 2001” conference in Laughlin, Nevada. The broad scope of the Electric Universe may be gauged by the connections established at that conference with the well-known Oxford biologist, Rupert Sheldrake, author of many books including 'Seven Experiments That Could Change the World'; the cellular biologist, Bruce Lipton, and the psychologist, Garry Schwartz, of the University of Arizona. Anthony Peratt provided experimental evidence at that meeting, confirming that the powerful electric force is paramount in the universe.

"Wal has published several books with David Talbot (author of The Saturn Myth)—the first titled Thunderbolts of the Gods and the second, The Electric Universe, on the combined subjects of the recent history of the solar system and the Electric Universe. More volumes are planned. Thunderbolts of the Gods was published this year in Japanese.

"Meanwhile e-books are being made available on the Internet, The Big Bang?, The Electric Sun and The Comet being the first. Wal’s first peer-reviewed paper on the electrical nature of stars and supernovae was published in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol 35 No. 4, Special Issue on Space & Cosmic Plasmas – August 2007. A co-authored paper on the Martian “blueberry” phenomenon has been published and a co-authored paper in Japan on the plasma phenomenon at the centres of galaxies has been submitted for publication. Wal has been awarded a gold medal for 2010 by the European Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science.

"Wal has a website Holoscience.com. It summarises the Electric Universe Model and provides up to date alternative views on scientific news."

 

[Tyger]

I came across this analysis of Intersteallar's science - not necessarily from the EU perspective, though it is presented from the EU site. Mathematician Stephen J Crothers gives an historical perspective on the origins of the Wormhole Theory. He is 'a mathematician who has gained international attention for his critical analysis of Black Holes and the Theory of General Relativity', according to the EU site.

It's pretty steep going - and I certainly don't claim to grasp it fully - but it should be watched in total to stay with his reasoning. At about 15:00/15:30 he begins to take on Einstein. It's fascinating to watch and consider but I am not anyone to take a side in this particular area.

EU Theory is challenging some heavy hitters in science from the 20th century. There are scads of assumptions that are the 'bible' in modern, standard science. This is a heavy duty encroachment into that world-view. It's a battle being fought right in front of us, 'right here in River City'. (Nod to 'The Music Man' musical for those who may not know the allusion. ) I love this kind of tension between paradigms. Great stuff.


"Interstellar" – Science Fiction or Pure Fantasy? | Space News

TEXT: "Published on Oct 13, 2014: In November of this year, movie theaters around the world will begin showing perhaps the year's most anticipated film, the science-fiction blockbuster, "Interstellar." The plot of the film features scientists on Earth devising a plan to send human beings through a wormhole, in a desperate effort to find a new, habitable system. But what is a "wormhole." Mathematician Stephen J. Crothers tells us all the reasons why the wormhole concept is physically meaningless."

Crothers states that Wormholes are the product of, not science fiction, but of pure fantasy. As quoted above: 'the wormhole concept is physically meaningless'. This is important because innumerable constructs are created with the language of this - potentially misunderstood - science. We are literally living in a fantasy by this reasoning, as much as are those who believe in religion by the reasoning of some. This is not an insignificant debate.

However, the history of Crothers is murky - not helped by Wikipedia's bio deletion, and Crothers own (potential) 'arrogance'/confidence (take your pick), getting in the way. It's all there on the internet. I began quoting it all in posts but this all then becomes about Crothers. It is about EU - and the EU guys like what Crothers has to say. But has Crothers been dealt a dirty deal? It's very possible given the way academia can work. Is Crothers a misunderstood genius - light years beyond his professors? I don't know. The EU guys like him, though. So.....

The following video is of a lecture given at an EU Conference in Albuquerque NM in 2013. It gives a good sense of the difficulties in astronomy at this time. Excellent insight into mathematics, too (imo) - but he's the mathematician at a level that even if he's 'wrong' I wouldn't be able to detect, without considerable sweat (and then some) and even then it would be a crap-shoot. (I would do better at Santa Anita Racetrack.)

Stephen Crothers Destroys the Quackademic "Black Hole" & Relativity

TEXT: "Published on Apr 15, 2013: Stephen's site: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources...

To find a reasonable discussion of Crother's ideas is not easy, but here is one site that does do a good job imo, because Crothers is part of the conversation. It is a conversation between Crothers and others, about Einstein: What Einstein got Wrong/Talk - Philosophical Investigations

In the above the dialog about Einstein begins with: " The idea is that General Relativity is supposed to provide the theoretical support for Black Holes, but that the mathematical argument it makes is flawed. I will go back and rephrase it now. (Actually, doing this, I remember belatedly that the page points out that "Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, claiming in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in the field nullify the theory of General Relativity". So there's a real contradiction too between some of the claims made for relativity... I think its all a bit (as the saying goes) above my pay grade! Let's see what Muneeb offers (below)."

Crothers then engages in the debate. It's well worth the read imo - though extensive (and steep).

 

[Tyger]

The Electric Universe—The Essential Role of Plasma

TEXT: "Published on Oct 16, 2013"

 

[Tyger]

The following conversation is from the site: What Einstein got Wrong/Talk - Philosophical Investigations

@Constance Can't wait for you to get your teeth into all this! When one follows the threads it gets very complicated. Why does human nature have to be so complicated? Science is not as simple, clear, clean and pristine as the layman would have it! It's human nature!

The following has it's twists and turns.

2013-01-07 16:39:03 All that comes from cow is not milk. I am confused about the nature of the article. Is the writeup in light "What Einstein got Wrong" an account of criticism about Einstein (a scientist/physicist) or a documentation of castigation against Einstein (a person).

• 
  Yes, this bit I can answer. I think if we look at someone's methods across many spheres of life and work- ie borrowing and then taking credit for other people's work, cutting corners, lying, manipulating... we can legitimately, indeed we should, reassess their professional achievements. [DM]

I can see that the article talks about his relations with his wife (wives rather) and children (what has that to do with the scientific accuracy of his ideas). It also portrays him as the one who broke the promise with his wife (if I have read correctly). If it is a critical biographical sketch, then my analysis of the article will be different from if it is to be understood as scientific criticism for a scientist's work. I will ignore the first option and will consider the second one (i.e. criticism to a scientist's work).

• 
  Yes, this is the central theme and the important part.

Anyone who is interested in how Einstein's wrong ideas came to be known as the best intellectual truimph of mankind, I would suggest you to read the book "Manufacture and sale of Saint Einstein".

• 
  Could you summarise on a new page here this book? It would be invaluable!

Now, with regards to Einstein's scientific contributions, I admire him at certain places. However, he has not been able to convince me on many of his points.

• 
  That's true for me too, and I should think also for Stephen Crothers and everyone else here.

As we can see that his equations predicted that the Universe is expanding (which he himself did not believe in) and had to add a cosmological constant to his equations. It was later only in 1926 when Hubble came to the conclusion that the Universe was, in fact, expanding. It is mentionworth that Hubble's observarions can also be questioned and his interpretations too; but as a general conclusion- everyone agreed and still agrees that the Universe is expanding.

• 
  Actually, I gather this is now very much contested, Muneeb.

This tells us about two facts. One that Einstein had come to a conclusion that was not widely held as truth and yet he got his work published (I smell something fishy). I have myself communicated many original papers to many journals where they were rejected (as they did not suit their interested) but the case with Einstein seems to be different altogether. He writes what is percieved wrong and yet gets published. This means there was something more than science going on at that time within the scientific community. Same is, I believe, the case today as there are many scientists whose words are treated like heavenly revelations (particularly those having connection with Oxford and Cambridge).

• 
  Absolutely. This is very much what motivated Perig and me in starting this site!

I have observed this. Stephen Hawking's book "Theory of everything is an example". The second thing is that Einstein always tried to mould his ideas so as to fit the arguments to achieve desired results.

• 
  Again, I agree, and you put it very well.
  
  If he was so sure that his ideas are correct, then he should not have added the cosmological constant. His religion of special status of light seems to be an idea of racism rather than science. As he proves his "Light speed phenomenon" with thought experiments, I have myself devised a few thought experiments arguing that there can be things in the Universe that travel faster than speed light.
  
  And again, if you get a chance, do start a page with some of this new thinking!

Anyway, that is apart from the main arguments. I am surprised to see Einstein's best paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" where he does not quote any reference to rely upon.

• 
  Have you checked the full original text? (I will try to find it too...) It sounds incredible... very significant if true though!

That is the only research paper in my whole life that I have seen which claims so high but does not have any reference to quote. If anybody communicates a paper from any other than these standard places which does not have any reference, that paper is bound to find itself in the dustbin. Regarding mathematics; let me be very frank this time. Mathematcs itself doesnt know whether it is right or wrong. I have seen many papers coming with false and erroneous mathematical reasoning. Let me quote an interesting paper affirming my arguments titled "False mathematical Reasoning in Biology" published in "Theoretical Biology" Journal. Newtonian Mechanics, Einsteinian physics and Quantum Mechanics are all irreconcillable and yet all involve mathematics. This in itself refutes mathematics as a tool to reach reality. Latest string theory has come up with a fantasy of eleven dimensions and a three dimensional membrane - and that too is an outcome of rigorous mathematics. A complete book can be written on deciphering this mental and intellectual conspiracy called mathematics. But I must give a caveat here that almost half of mathematics is useful also. I believe Muneeb is back. —MuneebFaiq

• 
  Again, I do agree. That is why I am urging us to try to 'translate' Einstein here in to premises and arguments expressed in everyday language.
  
  Great to have you back! —Docmartin

 

[Tyger]

All good, but if you know Sheldrake's ideas you can easily start the video at 8:00. Speaking at the EU Conference in 2013.

RUPERT SHELDRAKE: Science Set Free, Part 1 | EU2013

TEXT: "Published on Jan 22, 2013: Part 1 of a talk by Rupert Sheldrake at the conference ELECTRIC UNIVERSE 2013: The Tipping Point, in Albuquerque, New Mexico."


Here he begins by tackling the 'doctrine' that matter is unconscious -
RUPERT SHELDRAKE: Science Set Free, Part 2 | EU2013

Text: "Published on Jan 22, 2013: Part 2 of a talk by Rupert Sheldrake at the conference ELECTRIC UNIVERSE 2013: The Tipping Point, in Albuquerque, New Mexico."

 

[Constance]

@Constance Can't wait for you to get your teeth into all this! When one follows the threads it gets very complicated. Why does human nature have to be so complicated? Science is not as simple, clear, clean and pristine as the layman would have it! It's human nature!

Wow, Tyger, it's megacomplicated, and it will be a long time before I can 'get my teeth into it'. I don't know much about 'human nature' either, but I take it you might be referring to the hostility expressed on both sides of the issues raised by the EU theory. I followed links within the holonomic universe website to this discussion of what Voyager 1 was experiencing in 2005:

Voyager 1 at the Edge – of what? | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe

and I hope to find updates concerning the interpretation of the permeable boundaries of the heliosphere and what lies beyond it. If you come across more recent references to Voyager 1's outward journey as supportive of EU theory, please post them.

I'm enjoying all that you're bringing together in this thread.

 

[Tyger]

The following video is of a lecture given at an EU Conference in Albuquerque NM in 2013. It gives a good sense of the difficulties in astronomy at this time. Excellent insight into mathematics, too (imo) - but he's the mathematician at a level that even if he's 'wrong' I wouldn't be able to detect, without considerable sweat (and then some) and even then it would be a crap-shoot. (I would do better at Santa Anita Racetrack.)

Stephen Crothers Destroys the Quackademic "Black Hole" & Relativity

TEXT: "Published on Apr 15, 2013: Stephen's site: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources...

To find a reasonable discussion of Crother's ideas is not easy, but here is one site that does do a good job imo, because Crothers is part of the conversation. It is a conversation between Crothers and others, about Einstein: What Einstein got Wrong/Talk - Philosophical Investigations

In the above the dialog about Einstein begins with: " The idea is that General Relativity is supposed to provide the theoretical support for Black Holes, but that the mathematical argument it makes is flawed. I will go back and rephrase it now. (Actually, doing this, I remember belatedly that the page points out that "Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, claiming in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in the field nullify the theory of General Relativity". So there's a real contradiction too between some of the claims made for relativity... I think its all a bit (as the saying goes) above my pay grade! Let's see what Muneeb offers (below)."

Crothers then engages in the debate. It's well worth the read imo - though extensive (and steep).

Here presented below is Crothers writing out his views presented in the above video, from the Philosophical Investigations site. What is consistent with Crothers and the EU theorists is that they are going up against Einstein - or the adherents of Einstein - or the Einstein-Mythos - take your pick. I dunno. Getting into this aspect is very murky.

The Philosophical Investigations site [PI] - while impressive in several ways - is not beyond giving room for bunk, pure and simple - if you do an overview look at the site you will see what I mean. The PI site does function a bit like Wikipedia - as contributors are random - hence the occasional bunk. But all that is off-topic.

If we thought Religion/New Age, Climate Change/AGW, UFO-ology/Abduction - were contentious arenas - try putting a toe into the stormy seas of mathematicians at odds with one another! Crikey! As one writer states, to dare contradict Einstein is to pretty much immolate one's academic career: the golden door swings shut - as happened to Crothers. Were they right to do so? I think not, given what I've read regarding his situation.

• 
  Steve Crothers replies to Mark's and other queries/ critiques
  
  The points I make in the Podcast are as follows:
  
  (1) Assuming the validity of General Relativity, it is alleged by Einstein's followers that his General Theory of Relativity predicts 'black holes'. However, this claim is demonstrably false, as I proved in the Podcast. General Relativity does not in fact predict the black hole.
  
  (2) It is alleged by Einstein's followers that Newton's theory also predicts the black hole. This is demonstrably false because the Michell-Laplace Dark Body does NOT possess the signatures of the alleged black hole and so it is NOT a black hole.
  
  (3) The black hole, the Big Bang, and Einstein's gravitational waves are all fallacious on even stronger grounds because General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and is therefore in conflict with experiment on a deep level, as I proved in the Podcast.
  
  (4) ALL alleged 'black hole' solutions to Einstein's field equations pertain to an infinite Universe that contains only ONE mass. A one mass Universe does not model reality. And since the Principle of Superposition does NOT apply in General Relativity one cannot simply plug in additional matter in some 'black hole solution' to get multiple black holes, or a black hole with other matter, so all talk of multiple black holes, black holes colliding, black holes merging, black holes being components of binary systems, black holes devouring matter, black holes evaporating, black hole jets, etc. is nonsense. Furthermore, mass is introduced into all these 'black hole' solutions by means of a false analogy with Newton's theory by which a mass is inserted post hoc into the solutions one way or another by means of Newton's expression for escape velocity, because Ric = 0, the simplest case, actually contains NO MATTER by mathematical construction, but is falsely alleged to contain a material source by a play on the words "outside a body". But Newton's expression for escape velocity, although containing only one mass term, is an implicit TWO-BODY relation: one body escapes from another body: and so it cannot rightly appear in an expression that allegedly describes a ONE-body Universe. And since the alleged black hole is alone in an infinite Universe it is in conflict with Big Bang which claims a finite and expanding Universe with multiple masses, including multiple black holes (primordial and otherwise) and radiation and gasses and plasma, etc.
  
  (5) The quantity 'r' in Hilbert's solution is neither a radius nor a distance in the related spacetime and so it can never be treated as such, but it is always effectively treated as the 'radius' in his solution. Indeed, a particular value of it is ALWAYS called the 'Schwarzschild radius' or 'gravitational radius'. I proved in the Podcast, by calculation, that this 'r' in the context of Hilbert's solution is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of Hilbert's solution, and so it is neither a radius nor a distance in his expression. But it is mistakenly interpreted by proponents of the black hole as a radius because they erroneously relate it to Newton's expression for escape velocity in which case it is an actual radius (in Newton's theory).
  
  [Additional remarks]: Despite claims for discovering black holes in their millions the claims are patently false because nobody has ever found a black hole because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense 'singularity' and nobody has ever found an event horizon, the two alleged principal signatures of the black hole. Since the black hole is entirely an alleged 'theoretical entity', not an object observed that required theory to account for it, and since it has no valid basis in any theory, it is a figment of the imagination and has no more reality than a unicorn, which is also equally a figment of the imagination. Recall that the alleged 'black hole' is the only mass present in an infinite Universe; and that there are no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for two or more masses: but all this is of no real consequence anyway owing to the fact that General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and hence is in conflict with experiment, rendering it invalid, as I proved in the latter part of my talk.
  
  [Stephen J. Crothers, 6 March 2013]

Here is PI's response -

• 
  Docmartin 6 March 2013
  • 
    Thanks Steve! This is indeed your argument in a nutshell. I think you've actually improved on the lecture here! Or perhaps we should say this is a good way to introduce the arguments you present in more detail there. My feeling is that the arguments are still not 'quite' Relativity for Dummies which is where we need to get them, not to patronise readers/ critics, but to get to a point where the logic is as clear as it is overwhelming. I know from the editing process of writing an actual 'Dummies book', that what is apparent to one person can still not be clear to another, and I benefitted from having people really insist I stripped things down again and again. What I liked in your talk was the way you interwove 'arguments for' (statements and claims from Einstein, Hawking and so on) with your arguments against.
  It will be a good project for us here to try to develop a 'Dummiefied version' I think.

 

[Tyger]

Others may be conversant with the bubbling controversies around Einstein as a mathematician - I am not wholly. I do recall the anecdote that when Einstein's theories were translated into mathematical equations by his university professor, Einstein was said to have commented: 'Now even I can't understand my theory!'

LINK: http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/What_Einstein_got_Wrong

TEXT: "What Einstein got Wrong on Relativity
"Key elements of General Relativity are demonstrably false. quite apart from certain errors in the mathematics that had to be corrected over the years.. Einstein’s field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum and are therefore in conflict with experiment on a deep level, rendering them invalid.

"It was early pointed out to Einstein by a number of his contemporaries that his General Theory violated conservation of energy and momentum. So Einstein, to save his General Theory, invented his 'pseudo-tensor'. (A tensor is a mathematical expression used to manipulate geometrical entities like vectors. It has both magnitude and direction and is representable by a drawing of an arrow). Einstein claimed of his new tensor that it “expresses the law of conservation of momentum and of energy for the gravitational field.”

"In a mathematical paper, Stephen Crothers argues that, first, it is not a tensor, and therefore not in keeping with the assumption in relativity theory that all equations be tensor in nature. Second, they say Einstein concocted his pseudo-tensor in such a way that it behaves like a tensor in only one particular situation, that in which he could contrive gravitational waves with speed c (ie. at the 'speed of light'). But (they argue) there is a worse, mathematical, flaw that Einstein (and his followers) did not realise. This is that the pseudo-tensor implies the existence of what is called by the pure mathematicians, a '1st-order intrinsic differential invariant' which depends only upon the components of the metric tensor and their 1st-derivatives. The trouble is, that the pure mathematicians G. Ricci-Curbastro (after whom the Ric = Rµν relationship that Einstein claims his field equations reduce to is named) and T. Levi-Civita proved in 1900 that such invariants do not exist! So there appears to be an irresolvable contradiction at the heart of Einstein's mathematical case.

"What Einstein got Wrong on Black Holes
"Although the theory is often called upon in support, in fact Einstein’s field equations do not predict black holes, and neither does Newton’s theory. The black hole does not exist, nor do Einstein’s gravitational waves. The most that General Relativity can be said to offer is certain strange consequences, following from certain assumptions and ad hoc auxilary premises!

"The idea that matter is spread more or less evenly throughout the universe is embodied in Einstein's Cosmological Principle. Einstein formulated it after publishing his general theory of relativity, which describes how the distribution of mass bends space-time and creates gravity. It allows cosmologists to use the equations of general relativity to describe the geometry of the whole universe. As a result it has led to a picture of a universe expanding uniformly in a center-less manner from the Big Bang, and in which cosmological measurements have defined meanings.”

" “Recall that Einstein's fiendishly complex equations of gravity can be solved exactly only if we assume that the Universe on the large-scale is homogeneous - that is, it looks the same from every place. This assumption, enshrined in the Cosmological Principle, leads to the Friedman- Robertson-Walker solutions: the Big Bang models. Abandon that assumption and everything we thought we knew about the Universe gets jettisoned, as New Scientist has pointed out. (21 August 1999, p 22).” "

"Today's experts are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black hole as a crackpot. Unfortunately for the experts that does not alter the facts. The mathematicians whose calculations may be cited to demonstrate the existence of Black Holes, such as Karl Schwarzschild, Marcel Brillouin and Johannes Droste on the contrary invalidate the black hole argument outright, as Stephen Crothers and Roger Rydin have argued. In fact, today's cosmologists must also consider Einstein a crackpot, because Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, claiming in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in the field nullify the theory of General Relativity."

 

[Tyger]

Wow, Tyger, it's megacomplicated, and it will be a long time before I can 'get my teeth into it'.

Oh. Fooey.

I don't know much about 'human nature' either, but I take it you might be referring to the hostility expressed on both sides of the issues raised by the EU theory.

Actually, that remark was stemming from my looking into the mathematics, stepping into the rabbit-hole of challenging Einstein. There is some significantly yucky stuff out there being peddled about Einstein - so it gets to the point that a Zen or Trappist Monastery where they engage in enforced silence starts to look appealing.

I followed links within the holonomic universe website to this discussion of what Voyager 1 was experiencing in 2005:

Voyager 1 at the Edge – of what? | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe

Thanks for this - I will look at it.

and I hope to find updates concerning the interpretation of the permeable boundaries of the heliosphere and what lies beyond it.

Came across - I will likely be scrabbling the numbers - but something like surface temperature of the sun at 6,000K, but atmospheric temperature in the 10's of thousands range (60,000) which is a mystery why the surface is so cool and the 'air' so very hot. (Not to mention how hot the interior is - why is the surface so cool?) The EU theory accounts for this. I'll try to find the mention again.

If you come across more recent references to Voyager 1's outward journey as supportive of EU theory, please post them.

Will do.

I'm enjoying all that you're bringing together in this thread.

Good to know, Constance. I am enjoying my exploration. It's fun to share.

 

[Tyger]

@Constance Regarding the sun, in Don Scott's 'The Electric Sky' - on Amazon one can go into the Table of Contents -

Chapter 10: 'The Electric Sun'
Chapter 11: 'The Sun's Electrical Atmosphere'
Chapter 12: 'Open Magnetic Fields and Other Fictions'
Appendix C: 'Solar Electron Flux'