Electric Universe Theory

foofighter

Jedi Council Member
I tried to find a beginner book on the Electric Universe theory, and found this:
http://newtoeu.com/

They have a book specifically targeted at beginners and non-physicists, and it is easy to read and with lots of illustrations. The author is a bit emotionally upset about the state of things, but I guess that's to be expected. I found it very useful as an intro to the concepts, and it set off a whole series of questions and amazing aha-moments! It's available as paper, ebook or free PDF download (I went for free PDF download, worked great).

After that me and my family watched this intro video from the Thunderbolts project which also gives an overview of what it is all about. If you just want the really fast version, this would be a good investment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA
 

Minas Tirith

Jedi Council Member
foofighter said:
After that me and my family watched this intro video from the Thunderbolts project which also gives an overview of what it is all about. If you just want the really fast version, this would be a good investment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA

Thanks, fascinating and very suitable for the absolute beginner. I am not yet "there" to be able to follow this thread, but have a dumb question :-[

Why, if the gravitational force is so unimportant, do the Cs talk so much about it?

Gravity is the great binder etc, the gravity wave etc?

M.T.
 

foofighter

Jedi Council Member
Minas Tirith said:
Thanks, fascinating and very suitable for the absolute beginner. I am not yet "there" to be able to follow this thread, but have a dumb question :-[

Why, if the gravitational force is so unimportant, do the Cs talk so much about it?

Gravity is the great binder etc, the gravity wave etc?

M.T.
Good question. If there is any merit to the EU model, then I guess gravity is important but the gravitational force isn't (because it doesn't exist). Gravity is explained as EM waves through neutrino aether in EU (or so it seems), so "great binder" and "gravity waves" would then totally make sense.
 

John G

The Living Force
foofighter said:
Minas Tirith said:
Thanks, fascinating and very suitable for the absolute beginner. I am not yet "there" to be able to follow this thread, but have a dumb question :-[

Why, if the gravitational force is so unimportant, do the Cs talk so much about it?

Gravity is the great binder etc, the gravity wave etc?

M.T.
Good question. If there is any merit to the EU model, then I guess gravity is important but the gravitational force isn't (because it doesn't exist). Gravity is explained as EM waves through neutrino aether in EU (or so it seems), so "great binder" and "gravity waves" would then totally make sense.

One key is that EU is including Longitudinal photons which for me is exactly the same thing as the Conformal Gravity work that Ark works on. Via a link from Ark's latest SOTT article:

http://www.sott.net/article/273088-Quantum-Future-Can-be-scary

http://arkadiusz-jadczyk.org/quantum_future_project.html

Wigner, Karolazhyi, Diosi and others have analyzed incompatibilities between uncertainty relations ensuing from quantum theory and geometry of relativistic space-times. They all came to the conclusion that a contradiction is there. Einstein himself was well aware of this serious problem but was unable to find out an acceptable solution in his lifetime. One of the few ideas that he had thought of, but had no courage to study was that of a complex space-time. Today this concept is not that strange as a few decades ago. One of the lessons that we have learned from the work done on geometric quantization is that it works best on Kaehler manifolds. Thus "complex space-time" should really mean "relativistic phase-space", with a kind of the Born reciprocity principle (instead of locality and causality) as a basic guidance. Of particular interest are Kaehlerian symmetric domains of the type U(n,n)/(U(n) x U(n)), because of their relation to the conformal group and twistors.

The longitudinal photons of EU are faster than light aka a loss of conventional locality and causality. Conventional gravity would be in the subgroup of Ark's conformal group and Ark has looked at conventional EM via a Kaluza-Klein extra dimension from the conformal group.
 

anka

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I thought this belongs to here. Today's Suspicious Observers' daily video contains fascinating experiment performed by William Thornhill at the Electric Universe Conference, related to possible landscape formation via plasma discharge. Highly recommended. The part in question is between 0:17-1:14sec:

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMBlJqxLP_g&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ


While I was looking for more papers on electrical discharge in land formations, I have re-read the article of Dennis Cox, which has been published also on SOTT - well worth going over again.

_http://www.sott.net/article/224394-A-Thermal-Airburst-Impact-Structure


And I also found this paper which is too scientific to my knowledge, so I must dive into it for a longer time to grasp at least some basics from it, yet it seems interestingly related to the replies of bngenoh (thanks very much for those) about electrical biology.
This one talks about occurrence of similar patterns in experimental lab environments as well as in Nature, [font=freesans, sans-serif]in various systems ranging from biology, chemistry, granular matter, fluid flow to plasma physics [/font](all accompanied by graphs and equations, illustrated by nice pictures).
Thermodynamics/electricity comes to play here and you may find some similarity with experiments of Anthony Perrat (occurrence of a HighCurrent Z-Pinch auroras). Or that's how I found it with a brief overlook of the document.

The full paper can be found here:

_http://www.nat.vu.nl/CondMat/rw/pf/studiewijzer.pdf
 

ianvr

Jedi
Maybe the electric universe theory can explain this anomaly?

"By contrast, V838 Monocerotis did not expel its outer layers. Instead, it grew enormously in size. Its surface temperature dropped to temperatures that were not much hotter than a light bulb. This behavior of ballooning to an immense size, but not losing its outer layers, is very unusual and completely unlike an ordinary nova explosion."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/star-explosion-video-v838-hubble_n_5486886.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
 

The Mechanic

Jedi Council Member
I like to search around youtube now and again to see if something interesting pops up concerning various topics we also discuss here. Mostly there's a lot of noise on there, but once in a while I stumble on some good stuff.

Yesterday evening I did a search for "electric universe" and watched the first episode of this documentary. It's called "Universe - The Cosmology Quest", produced in Norway and I think it was released somewhere in 2004. Their website is not online anymore but archive.org revealed that it was active from 2004 until 2012.

The documentary itself was a treasure trove of information for me, containing a lot of interviews with interesting scientists who tried to row into the stream of the prevailing dogmas in cosmology, mainly Hubble's law about red-shifts and distances of stars and galaxies, the underlying idea for the big bang theory. Scientists interviewed in the first episode are: Geoffrey Burbidge, Halton Arp (according to the film often called "the modern Galileo"), Margaret Burbidge, Martin Lopez-Corredoira, Jack Sulentic, Kary B. Mullis, and I probably missed one or two. The proposed theory about galaxies, quasars and the birth of new galaxies is astounding (at least, to me :) ) and ties in very nice with a lot of information about cosmological phenomena that I learned about in "Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection" (btw, thanks for writing that book Laura and Pierre!). The scientists own struggles to be heard and not ostracized from the science community was also covered at length, and the details about how that works complements what we know about the corruption of science today.

There's two episodes, one: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmotCQCxQEI
and episode two: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-2uvQ_MJz8

Summary from imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851217/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt
A group of renowned cosmologists and astrophysicist are in search of a realistic picture of the universe. Their research and observational discoveries point in a direction diametrically opposed to the predominant Bog Bang theory - this leads to a series of sociological situations that verge on the extreme dogma controls wielded against Copernicus and Galileo in the past; only now against our protagonists of the 21st century. This is a controversial science documentary touching on the nerve of everything astronomers and cosmologist claim they know about the universe today.

Highly recommended.
 

ianvr

Jedi
Something I think NASA need to consider as well, maybe a fast spinning star means higher electric charges:

This red dwarf emitted an X 100,000 flare!!!

"How can a star just a third the size of the sun produce such a giant eruption? The key factor is its rapid spin, a crucial ingredient for amplifying magnetic fields. The flaring star in DG CVn rotates in under a day, about 30 or more times faster than our sun. The sun also rotated much faster in its youth and may well have produced superflares of its own, but, fortunately for us, it no longer appears capable of doing so."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930171548.htm
 

ianvr

Jedi
I thought there was no sign of water/ice on the comet, but now the comet's spout is being generated by ice inside the comet:

"What we’re seeing is the product of ices sublimating and gases escaping from inside the comet, carrying streams of dust out into space,"

http://www.space.com/27337-rosetta-spacecraft-comet-jets-photo.html?cmpid=514648_20141003_32801546
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Ian said:
I thought there was no sign of water/ice on the comet, but now the comet's spout is being generated by ice inside the comet:

"What we’re seeing is the product of ices sublimating and gases escaping from inside the comet, carrying streams of dust out into space,"

http://www.space.com/27337-rosetta-spacecraft-comet-jets-photo.html?cmpid=514648_20141003_32801546

Yeah. If you don't see the expected dirty snowball, the ice HAS to be somewhere! :lol2:
 

Mikey

The Living Force
Ian said:
I thought there was no sign of water/ice on the comet, but now the comet's spout is being generated by ice inside the comet:

"What we’re seeing is the product of ices sublimating and gases escaping from inside the comet, carrying streams of dust out into space,"

http://www.space.com/27337-rosetta-spacecraft-comet-jets-photo.html?cmpid=514648_20141003_32801546

Water and hydroxyls (incomplete water) around comets seems to be electrochemically generated by Oxygen atoms sputtered by the solar wind (protons/ionized Hydrogen) from the rocks, which then combines with protons/ionized Hydrogen from the solar wind, in an UV and electrically active area. 'Virgin water', free of refractive dust particles, has been found.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1f99ReNJVw

A lot of water seems to be generated this way, like several tons every day, although I can't find the video from the Electical Universe which mentions this detail.
 

The Mechanic

Jedi Council Member
Data said:
Water and hydroxyls (incomplete water) around comets seems to be electrochemically generated by Oxygen atoms sputtered by the solar wind (protons/ionized Hydrogen) from the rocks, which then combines with protons/ionized Hydrogen from the solar wind, in an UV and electrically active area. 'Virgin water', free of refractive dust particles, has been found.

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1f99ReNJVw

A lot of water seems to be generated this way, like several tons every day, although I can't find the video from the Electical Universe which mentions this detail.

Thanks for the video Data. The phenomenon is mentioned in the last installment of Space News on the ThunderboltsProject youtube channel, the specific video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8PC5T42CmM it's mentioned around 1:10.

They don't go into details but promise to do so in the future.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The Mechanic said:
I like to search around youtube now and again to see if something interesting pops up concerning various topics we also discuss here. Mostly there's a lot of noise on there, but once in a while I stumble on some good stuff.

Yesterday evening I did a search for "electric universe" and watched the first episode of this documentary. It's called "Universe - The Cosmology Quest", produced in Norway and I think it was released somewhere in 2004. Their website is not online anymore but archive.org revealed that it was active from 2004 until 2012.

The documentary itself was a treasure trove of information for me, containing a lot of interviews with interesting scientists who tried to row into the stream of the prevailing dogmas in cosmology, mainly Hubble's law about red-shifts and distances of stars and galaxies, the underlying idea for the big bang theory. Scientists interviewed in the first episode are: Geoffrey Burbidge, Halton Arp (according to the film often called "the modern Galileo"), Margaret Burbidge, Martin Lopez-Corredoira, Jack Sulentic, Kary B. Mullis, and I probably missed one or two. The proposed theory about galaxies, quasars and the birth of new galaxies is astounding (at least, to me :) ) and ties in very nice with a lot of information about cosmological phenomena that I learned about in "Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection" (btw, thanks for writing that book Laura and Pierre!). The scientists own struggles to be heard and not ostracized from the science community was also covered at length, and the details about how that works complements what we know about the corruption of science today.

There's two episodes, one: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmotCQCxQEI
and episode two: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-2uvQ_MJz8

Summary from imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851217/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt
A group of renowned cosmologists and astrophysicist are in search of a realistic picture of the universe. Their research and observational discoveries point in a direction diametrically opposed to the predominant Bog Bang theory - this leads to a series of sociological situations that verge on the extreme dogma controls wielded against Copernicus and Galileo in the past; only now against our protagonists of the 21st century. This is a controversial science documentary touching on the nerve of everything astronomers and cosmologist claim they know about the universe today.

Highly recommended.

Had a chance to watch episodes I & II, so thank you, they were both very interesting.
 

MysterMan10

A Disturbance in the Force
The Mechanic said:
The proposed theory about galaxies, quasars and the birth of new galaxies is astounding (at least, to me :) )

It also doesn't work. It's a nice hypothesis but it fails under modern examination.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

Fig. 7 shows the conflict with Arp's model and observation.

The problem with EU is it isn't nailed down. It is far from a scientific model because it is currently a collection of ideas rather than models or theories which can be objectively tested. Some however can. One important line of evidence in cosmology is the cosmic microwave background, EU claims (as Alfven did) that it is produced locally in the galaxy. This cannot be true. Observations of the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect show is galaxy clusters interacting with the CMB and cause it to be more or less intense at different frequencies. A local model cannot explain why it would ever get less intense. This is one EU idea that is wrong. Cosmologically there isn't much to EU, it makes no firm, testable predictions in a field which has lots of available data. Many things like the Hubble law and BAO have no EU explanation. The standard model isn't perfect but EU doesn't approach it's explanatory power for the moment.
 

John G

The Living Force
MysterMan10 said:
The Mechanic said:
The proposed theory about galaxies, quasars and the birth of new galaxies is astounding (at least, to me :) )

It also doesn't work. It's a nice hypothesis but it fails under modern examination.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

Fig. 7 shows the conflict with Arp's model and observation.

The problem with EU is it isn't nailed down. It is far from a scientific model because it is currently a collection of ideas rather than models or theories which can be objectively tested. Some however can. One important line of evidence in cosmology is the cosmic microwave background, EU claims (as Alfven did) that it is produced locally in the galaxy. This cannot be true. Observations of the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect show is galaxy clusters interacting with the CMB and cause it to be more or less intense at different frequencies. A local model cannot explain why it would ever get less intense. This is one EU idea that is wrong. Cosmologically there isn't much to EU, it makes no firm, testable predictions in a field which has lots of available data. Many things like the Hubble law and BAO have no EU explanation. The standard model isn't perfect but EU doesn't approach it's explanatory power for the moment.

and earlier in this thread there was this about Arp:

ark said:
ExactChange said:
As proponents of these theories are also interested in tossing out BBT, it may be that they are just using his work to springboard their own work.
But his work is in no way a springboard for their theories. In fact, quoting Halton Arp they put themselves in a funny position, becoming less reliable (as anyone who is quoting works that are not dealing with the given subject).

Ark uses the conformal group for gravity and I think the longitudinal aspects of EU relate to the conformal group. Ark has cited Irving Segal's use of the conformal group and I think Segal's ideas are interesting:

http://www.tony5m17h.net/SegalConf3.html

Segal spent much time and effort on a quadratic cosmological redshift that he claimed was implicit in the physics of the Conformal Group. Segal's redshift was described by Bertram Kostant, who had Segal as advisor for his 1954 Chicago Ph.D., in another of the obituaries in the Notices of the AMS 46 (June/July 1999) 659-668.:

"... One particular nilpotent element, in the representation of SU(2,2) associated with solutions of Maxwell's equations, defines the standard operator to determine the frequencies of light waves.

[John Baez, who had Segal as advisor for his 1986 MIT Ph.D., says: "... That's the generator of Minkowski time translations. ... If you use the Minkowski Hamiltonian everywhere (there's one for each observer) you don't get the redshift. ... ".]

But Irving focused on another element with a nonnegative spectrum, an element that was elliptic and not nilpotent, but closely related ... This elliptic element has beautiful mathematical properties, like generating an invariant cone. ... This elliptic element is at the heart of Segal's cosmological theory.

[John Baez says: "... That's the generator of Einstein time translations. ... if you use the Einstein Hamiltonian everywhere you don't get the redshift. ... ".]

What he is saying is that it is the elliptic element that should be used to determine the energy of an electromangnetic wave, and not the nilpotent element.

[John Baez says: "... But if we do that *everywhere*, we simply get physics on the Einstein universe R x S^3 - no redshift. ... ".]

The redshift ... is accounted for by the difference between the elliptic and nilpotent element - negligible locally, but significant at great distances. ...".

[John Baez says: "... Aha: this is the tricky part. How is it "accounted for by the difference" between these elements, exactly? ... ".]

I. E. Segal, H. P. Jakobsen, B. Oersted, S. M. Paneitz, and B. Speh, in their article Covariant chronogeometry and extreme distances: Elementary particles (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 78 (1981) 5261-5265, at page 5261), say: "... the energy of a photon in ...[ Conformal Unispace ]... splits Lorentz-covariantly into a local and delocalized part. The local part is represented by the conventional energy operator in ...[ Minkowski space-time ]... , which can be regarded as a submanifold of ...[ Conformal Unispace ]... ; the delocalized part drives, essentially as an interaction hamiltonian, a redshift in very good agreement with objective observations on galaxies and quasars. ...".

John Baez says: "... Segal used to say the dynamics of distant stars was governed by the Einstein Hamiltonian but we saw them from the Minkowski viewpoint. However, he never clarified how this should actually work. ...".

In my opinion, it might work like this:
•Our base-line experimental data for spectral lines comes from local (Earth-based or Solar-Earth) experiments all of which lie that a region representable by Minkowski space-time;
•Our long-distance astronomical spectral line observations come from experiments that extend beyond our local region representable by Minkowski space-time, so that the relevant regions of our long-distance astronomical spectral line observations must be represented by Conformal Unispace. Such Conformal Unispace measurements of spectral lines will, as Segal, Jakobsen, Oersted, Paneitz, and Speh say, give "... a redshift in very good agreement with objective observations on galaxies and quasars ...".

Bertram Kostant said, in his Segal obituary article:

"... I have it from a highly reliable but unnamed source that there is a growing group of cosmologists who have come to believe that the correct understanding of the redshift is some sort of fusion of the Doppler effect and Irving's theory. So it is not impossible that Irving could turn out to be correct after all. ...".
 
Top Bottom