pai mei

Some scientists say that the main forces that are responsible for what happens in the Universe are electric in nature.
The electric universe theory can explain the shape of the galaxies, and the fact that they hold together , the gravitational theory cannot do that, it has to presume the existence of "dark matter", that makes 90% of the entire mass of the Universe, without it the galaxies would just fly apart, the gravitational force is too weak to keep them in once piece. Stars and galaxies are united because of these forces

A documentary :
- the part about our Sun

The established theory that says the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor that transforms hydrogen into helium cannot explain why the sunspots reveal dark areas underneath them, and why the corona of the Sun has a temperature of millions of degrees, when the surface of the Sun is only a few thousands of degrees hot

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...dec_themis.htm
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV01.txt - about ancient symbols and myths that also appear in the documentary.

More about this subject here (where I first read about it) :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread321444/pg1

albania

I saw about 30 minutes of that video, followed all the links did a search on google, searched arxiv for any papers that might be available (there weren’t any that I could see) and came up with nothing. I still have no idea what this theory of an electric universe is. If you know of any place that actually explains it in any way that isn’t almost 100% conceptual then I’d appreciate it if you could point it out.

On the face of it this looks like a borderline crackpot theory, and I don’t particularly mean any offense; it just looks like that. A slight pedantic beef with the video, they kept on repeating that magnetic fields are only produced by electric currents. However, they fail to mention that this is strictly an experimental fact and there is no theoretical “reason” as to why there shouldn’t be any magnetic monopoles. In fact physicists have spent some time looking for them (there has been at least one detection of a monopole though this is suspect since no one has been able to repeat it B. Cabrera Phys Rev. Lett. 48, 1378 (1982)). Another point I didn't understand was how in the world the ancient pictures fit into it. The fact that so many different cultures drew similar looking things is certainly interesting. However, it doesn't have much to do with physics in my opinion. To use some ubiquities drawing that was made by people living millennia ago that sort of looks like some electrical phenomena as support for a modern physical theory seems like bad science at best.

Jetée

In short, yes, this is true.


The Earth is proven to be a phenomenal-scale electro-magnetic force, which serves many purposes from stability, to direction and protection. This topic has me enamored.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

roachboy

this sort of idea---not inflected in the way the doc does, tho---is at the base of complex dynamical systems theory accounts of human cognition. whether the general idea seems crackpot or not is mostly a function of the scale you choose to apply it to. living systems are obviously electrical, taken at a certain scale. that is not all they are in a way, but in another, that's all they are.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

robot_parade

Yeah, these guys are nutters, plain and simple.

See: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...rse-model.html

For a start - sorry I don't have more time to discuss it.

That said, electromagnatism *is* one of the 4 fundamental forces that exist in the universe, and is pretty damn cool all on it's own. Also, e-m obviously does play a huge part in our universe. Just not the kind these nutters put forward.

pai mei

Why do you call those that say the main forces in the Universe are electric in nature crazy ? What do you have to say about those that invent invisible stuff so their theories can work ?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm

Cynthetiq

I dunno I got to the sun part and thought of maleficient when the three of us saw They Might Be Giants in Chicago and they sung this song.


Why Does the Sun shine?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

ring

I am so enamored (to borrow a phrase)
as well.

All the umbillical cords that connect, seem evident to me.

We know for fairly certain yes that the spinning magma core of our planet
creates the magnetic shield to deflect the solar rays. If this were not present
our atmosphere would be stripped, as scientists have speculated what happened by stance to other planets even within our solar system.

The slightly ellipitcal form to our planet, and the common nature of magnetism
affords us the glory of the northern lights as well, yes?

Jetee said "stability, direction, protection" , beautifully succinct.

As an artist and co-creator I see the universe for the viscerally, romantic,
chaotic soup that only in my understanding it can be.

Jetée

What we must realize is that minute electric occurrences dominate the entire spectrum of what is the known universe and its principle characteristics.

For a brief instance, ponder this fact: Matter's solidity is an illusion caused by the electric field created by subatomic particles.

Thunderstruck.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

ObieX

well.. nebulae are mostly plasma. those glowing clouds aren't always just illuminated dust but plasma gases that are thousands and millions of degrees in temperature. So if you have all that energetic gas it has to have some effect on the area of space in and around it.

I think they went a little too far when they started off on comets tho.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

ring

Think for one moment about MRI 's (Magnetic resonant imaging)

The particles are only visible within this construct,

There are others as well, but how could one deny the foundation that seems to be an inherent base?

robot_parade

What does dark matter have to do with their theory that the stars are power by electricity? Nothing. Please stay on topic.

The electric universe 'theory' is poorly defined, has no support within the scientific community, and has no evidence to support it. The 'standard' physics models have all of those things.

With regards to 'dark matter' - Dark matter is not universally accepted as an explanation for The Way The Universe is. However, there *is* evidence supporting dark matter:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...rk_Matter.html

TMBG freakin' rock. That is all.

The sun is a ball of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace!

albania

That seems plausible, and unfortunately it was not how this thread was framed. Likewise what others have put forth seems more to do with metaphysics than with the true spirit of this thread which seemed slanted towards physics. One is not like the other, and even though they both carry the same goal and a similar name to me they are mutually exclusive. Maybe it's just a result of schooling that trains me to throw away anything that is not tractable to well poised mathematical constructs or it could just be preference. In any case, I thought that the OP was specifically not referencing to any metaphysics. It could be that I came to the baseball game with a soccer ball.

In my opinion, there is really only one way to do new science. To put forth a new theory you construct a logical argument; this must be either quantifiable in at least some ways or predicated on a priori information. This electric universe theory does not seem to fit the former, and therefore it must attempt the latter. I won't attempt to discredit this theory because I wouldn't really know what to discredit(though from robot_parade's link this guy seems to have found something and on a cursory review seems to do a good job at what I'm not willing to do http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html ) and as a lover of thinking I'd rather spend my time elsewhere. However, what I'm willing to say is that from what I’ve read about it i am at least 98% sure that it has little bearing in a beautiful, conformed and rigid construct that I call physics and it's proponents attempts at introducing this new theory seem abysmal.

biznatch

I clicked the first link, and blew soda out my nose when he said "a force a thousand billion billion...billion billion times stronger" at around 2 mins into the video. It sounded pretty hilarious. That's all I've seen so far, and I don't have time for a 1 hour video.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Ustwo

Interestingly dark matter has been 'seen' due to the bending of light which happens due to gravitational lenses.

We know "something" is there.

Mmmm from what I recall reading a LONG time ago the lumpy universe would be due to the original 'bang' not being uniform itself.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

albania:

cosmology and subatomic physics are strange twins, which seem to operate in tandem to the extent that each is a playground for those who seek metaphysical underpinnings for physical phenomena. dark matter--before that string theory--before that o i dunno--the entire project of unified field theory, really, to the extent that it is geared on the basis of einstein's famous claim that god wouldn't make a universe that was not unified. presumably, albert called god and asked her--or the claim is about einstein's personal combination of beliefs and nothing more, really....and everybody has a combination of beliefs and these are often inconsistent with each other (and often internally, but that's another matter). the problem comes with projection of one register of belief onto another, particularly if the first is a theological (metaphysical) committment and the other is working within a formal language, using strict procedures in most areas, etc..

this kind of thing happens all the time (why for example is there ONE universe, apart from the fact that we name it "the universe" and so are looking for a single system--which could easily be a consequence of the name itself rather than of the phenomena which is named.)

there are very complicated, interesting questions related tangentially to this general area--like if thinking is in itself temporal (the generation of pattern in the context of electrical fields generated by the firing and coupling of neural networks) and language stabilizes experience, what kind of relations obtain between thinking as a temporal process and language? it wouldn't conform to the protocols for thinking that were themselves shaped by language--not to syntax rules that we know about....does that mean that we can say nothing? or does it simply mean that we think in limited ways, within a particular frame of reference?

this has little to do with speculations about dark matter and other such cosmological forces--it has to do with how we operate. and thinking in this direction pushes you away from conventional metaphysics, which are built around the assumption that being is being-determinate, as if Creation happened once and for all and this god character is responsible for it. because this is a fundamentally different area of research, i only mention it (and mentioned it earlier) here to say that not all types of research work, and not all types of conceptual problems that try to work out the implications of such research, run in the loopy direction of the thread.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

albania

I think that's a very interesting post. There is great subtlety in how one must interpret physical results to get any semblance of a correct logic. The philosophy that deals with this area has I believe a most interesting praxis; it's the study of sometimes impossibly simple questions(simple in so far as they are the base questions, the ones we want to answer) which by their nature yield only to frustratingly simple answers(frustratingly with respect to their rarity and brilliance in insight).

I must say I first read roachboy's post then got up and paced for about a half an hour( which is my preferred method of thinking), and I came to the conclusion that if I were to start writing in as many directions as I wished I would only be finished sometime after new years. So the little snippet above is all I thought appropriate to share for brevity and my sanity's sake. Really big thumbs up rb. I love to think, so thanks for providing fodder.