Jump to content

740427863_Terminatorchallenge.jpg.2f4cb93182b2ce715fac5aa75b0503c8.jpg

Electric Universe


Recommended Posts

Excuse me but im coming to you today to ask a Simple Question about a Outlandish theory and i need opinions, Its called the Electric Universe Theory. Basically Instead of Gravity is as you guessed, Electricity.

The Website is Thunderbolts.info

Thank you for your time, and dont feed the Trolls there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electricity and gravity are very similar - but the problem with electricity is it both attracts and repels. As far as we can tell the universe is electrically neutral, so there aren't really any long range electrical forces.

Gravity on the other hand only attracts, so although incredibly weak can form structures over large distances.

Its always good to question things, but calling both chemistry of life and astrophysics failed theorys would seem a tad audacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if gravity didn't only attract? What if gravity attracted matter, but repelled dark or anti matter?

It doesn't - both have been tested, and it attracts both. In fact dark matters sole reason for being is that it adds to the gravitational field.

If it did repel I don't think we'd be here - you wouldn't get galaxy and star formation.

What about the magnetric universe (as in magnetricity)? :(

Electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin, so its all the same really.

We might consider a universe held together with string and duct tape though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Electric universe theory is demonstrably wrong.

If you have any specific points to raise from that website, I'd be happy to address them in more detail, but I'm not going to tackle the whole behemouth in one post!

Recently a series of peer reviewed papers with respect to plasma-cosmology/electric universe were released:

BSP ::

Would you care to address the specific work on crater formation?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toaaj/articles/V004/SI0162TOAAJ/185TOAAJ.pdf

As an interested layman I find the hypothesis compelling, especially in light of recent hi-res images from Mars, the Moon and Mercury appearing to support the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An open journal that has only been around for 3 years and published less than 30 papers doesn't really count as an established, reputable source - it's not clear how thorough their peer review process is, or if they have a broad enough base of specialists.

In response to crater formation

1. Why are meteor fragments often associated with meteor craters on Earth?

2. Can plasmas account for minerals found in impact craters caused only by high velocity shocks?

3. Where are these lightning bolts even supposed to be coming from? Jupiter? discharges over those ranges, of that power, with no clear source require a more thorough explanation and probably entirely new physics.

4. why, when there are clearly high velocity rocks shooting around the solar system that could quite easily account for the craters with no exotic physics do we need to propose exotic solutions? the 'problems' with conventional theory really aren't apparent.

5. Making pictures that look a little bit like impact craters doesn't constitute strong evidence

The real reason, from what i can gather from all this, is that the EUers cannot abide the thought that the solar system exhibits geological weathering on impact craters that points to extreme age - so have to invent alternate explanations at any cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Electricity and gravity are very similar - but the problem with electricity is it both attracts and repels. As far as we can tell the universe is electrically neutral, so there aren't really any long range electrical forces.

Gravity on the other hand only attracts, so although incredibly weak can form structures over large distances.

Its always good to question things, but calling both chemistry of life and astrophysics failed theorys would seem a tad audacious.

The assumption that because electric fields repel and attract always neutralises over a large area is a misconception by those who do not familiar with electromagnetism. For example the Suns Heliosphere extends over many AU. So long as fields are pointing in same direction then magnetic and electric fields can have an effect over an extremely large range. The Earth is a big magnet too. Electric fields are always at right angles to magnetic fields. The main problem in Cosmology today is the ignorance of this force. The experts prefer to come up with a NEW force called dark energy that has no foundation in observed science at all.

Dark energy is so obviously magnetism it is laughable.

Juliano, I respect your professional views and apologies for my manner before.My Dad died recently and I am not myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption that because electric fields repel and attract always neutralises over a large area is a misconception by those who do not familiar with electromagnetism. For example the Suns Heliosphere extends over many AU.

The Suns Heliosphere is an effect caused by the solar wind, not by magnetism. It might have its roots in the magnetism of the sun ejecting particles but is a stream of particles.

The Suns magnetic field is a few nano-tesla in interplanetary space - about 5 nT (5 billionths of a Tesla) as measured by spacecraft. It reduces by the cube of the distance too, so quickly becomes tiny. This compares with about 30,000 nT (30 micro Tesla) of the Earth's magnetic field at the surface.

So long as fields are pointing in same direction then magnetic and electric fields can have an effect over an extremely large range. The Earth is a big magnet too. Electric fields are always at right angles to magnetic fields. The main problem in Cosmology today is the ignorance of this force. The experts prefer to come up with a NEW force called dark energy that has no foundation in observed science at all.

There are some objects that generate huge magnetic fields, such as magnetars (a type of pulsar) which can have magnetic fields of 10 Giga Tesla (10 GT). (That's 10 billion Tesla - the biggest common fields on earth are in NMR scanners at about 7T). At this sort of strength they can rip apart body tissues at 1000km because of the magnetic properties of water. However they have a N & S pole, and the field diminishes quickly over distance.

Dark energy is so obviously magnetism it is laughable.

I've met some very clever people working on this problem, and as far as I know they aren't looking at magnetism as a candidate. I can't believe they've overlooked this by accident.

The three favourites for DE currently are the cosmological constant (from Einstein's equations), quantum vacuum energy (from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - although this has its own issues being out by a huge number from the theoretical calculations!), and quintessence - some exotic new form of

matter.

For Dark Energy to be magnetism, I think you have to show how it pervades the universe in a single form. E.g., all north poles so making a repulsive force rather than a mixture of N & S that attract each other and would cancel out over large distances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody got any views that Gravity Interacts with Dark Matter via Repulsion.

Dark matter only interacts gravitationally and in an attractive way. That's the main reason they came up with it. All lines of evidence for it, and there are several, agree it has mass and has gravitational attraction.

Could Gravity and Dark Energy be two sides of the same coin?

Unlikely, the only commonality between them so far is the name "dark" - and that's mainly because people who named it weren't very imaginative!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juliano,

Keeping with established Scientific fact. It occurs to me that Sir James clerk Maxwell formulated equations relating to electric charge and magnetism from which light was found to consist of magnetic and electric fields.

You say that the electric force only known to operate locally, but if light uses the magnetic field;

How do we see the stars?

The next point is that to light, the universe is has effectively no size.

Off the record Kazula Klein theory and Evans field theory although incomplete indicate light propagates in a 5D space-time. If we can accept light propagates in a higher dimension then distance in 3D space-time is not so relevant after all as the fields only need enough room to weave through in and out of the void of 3D space time.

Juliano,

I have just read ur last post and will look into the other ideas of DE candidates.

Edited by DarkStar7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anybody got any views that Gravity Interacts with Dark Matter via Repulsion.

Could Gravity and Dark Energy be two sides of the same coin?

Rem me the looney saying dark energy to me seems to be electromagnetism. Then going back to my earlier post about Ying and Yang... To me the answer to your question of are they two sides of same coin would be yes.However I don't understand the first part of the post. I think a black hole converts matter through gravitation into electromagnetism ie a gamma ray burst. Does that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeping with established Scientific fact. It occurs to me that Sir James clerk Maxwell formulated equations relating to electric charge and magnetism from which light was found to consist of magnetic and electric fields.

He did indeed!

You say that the electric force only known to operate locally, but if light uses the magnetic field;

Well I wasn't saying that exactly. I'm saying they come in positive and negative types, and broadly speaking one tends to cancel out the other. Gravity diminishes with distance too - but gravity is additive - so large things like the sun make a big attractive force, because they aren't made up of roughly equal mixtures of positive and negative gravity things. Magnetic and electric fields can propagate over distances, but only if you have an imbalance in them, and it decays with 1/r^2.

How do we see the stars?

I must admit I'm rather hazy on this area. I did try asking a theoretical particle physicist about this, and she said that photons don't interact with themselves, therefore photons are not affected by electric or magnetic fields in general. A beam of light is not bent by a magnet, or an electric wire - you can try this out yourself. A beam of charged electrons is though - try a magnet on an old TV CRT tube - but be warned you can ruin it!

In any case, the light beams are not the same thing as electrical fields - they are not repulsive or attractive.

I wish I understood this area better. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

The next point is that to light, the universe is has effectively no size.

It has a size, it takes light a finite time to cross it, 8 minutes to get from the sun for instance.

Thirdly the theory of relativity is derived from Maxwell and his formulation of electric and magnetic fields.

Indeed - down to a certain Albert Einstein although others looked at it too.

Off the record Kazula Klein theory and Evans field theory although incomplete indicate light propagates in a 5D space-time. If we can accept light propagates in a higher dimension then distance in 3D space-time is not so relevant after all as the fields only need enough room to weave through in and out of the void of 3D space time.

I have no idea about this - I've only ever seen it expressed in terms of time and space - in fact spacetime - 4D.

A clever isolated pair of scientist discover a beach and observe the sea for the first time. They have no understanding of it at all.

One scientist turns to the other and says "Do you think anything could live in there?" The other one says " don't be ridiculous, any living thing placed in there would drown!"

Later on they actually see swimming things, and think - oh we must have been wrong. One of them jumps in a swims with them until he drowns, the other one refines his hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should read ur earlier post before sending more sorry. Yes I will look into other DE candidates.

Suggesting light sees the universe as zero size is from frame of reference of the photon, not a stationary observer looking at a photon. I was under the impression that at the speed of light the entire universe would be Lorenz contracted to zero size.

Edited by DarkStar7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juliano,

To me cosmology seems to be dominated by particles theories only, yet light behaves as fields and particles. It does behaves more particle like at the higher end of the EM spectrum. It just seems that poor old classic field theory seems to get the elbow these days. Surely both are equally important in our understanding of nature.

So do you feel there is a place for Gauge Theories in modern physics anymore ;) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I'm rather hazy on this area. I did try asking a theoretical particle physicist about this, and she said that photons don't interact with themselves, therefore photons are not affected by electric or magnetic fields in general. A beam of light is not bent by a magnet, or an electric wire - you can try this out yourself. A beam of charged electrons is though - try a magnet on an old TV CRT tube - but be warned you can ruin it!

Although not accepted by mainstream physics. I think the Gauge theories imply that the photon is a composite particle boson and not fundamental. The reason why the photon is not considered a composite particle is follows the Bose Einsteins statistics and not the Fermi ones but my opinion is different. I don't think the photon is an entirely a true 100% boson. There is an incomplete theory of it being a neutrino and antineutrino meson. I would prefer a electron positron meson, in a semi superposition state. Anyhow,I for one see value in incomplete theories.

The two scientists at the beach... It was incorrect for the one to suggest that life could not survive as 100% fact. He should have said it is yet to be proved either way ;)

Edited by DarkStar7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
It doesn't - both have been tested, and it attracts both. In fact dark matters sole reason for being is that it adds to the gravitational field.

If it did repel I don't think we'd be here - you wouldn't get galaxy and star formation.

Old thread, i know. But i just saw this article and it reminded me of it:

Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another great thread, i was thinking that a metal sphere only attracted and didn't repel and if so would the earth and other spherical masses not do the same. if that was true then something with a magnetic field stronger than our sun is attracting us. this takes me back to space and the big bang but also black holes. could they not all involve a true or total vacuum. totally empty space wants to be filled and with that in mind the bigger that empty space the greater it would attract everything and anything. imaging before the so called big bang that we had a total vacuum universe and one super large mass/planet right in the center with a stupid race testing its new and improved weapon who broke that mass, would the vacuum not want to and be able to then finish the breaking and attract everything out from that point. would that not get faster as everything went out from that center point, as everything banged of each other and bash each other would they not the change into a spherical like shape and then change their own magnetic fields to attracting more then repelling and so on. any one got any ideas on this theory. am i talking rubbish or is it possible?????.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.