The Electric Universe And Religious Dogma

Continuing on with my series of Electric Universe posts, I will be covering the religious aspects of cosmology.

When posting on EU theory, often the first comments to be made come from devout atheists decrying EU theory as nothing more than "intelligent design" in sheep's clothing. I am here to dispel those claims as a bunch of nonsense and point out the hypocrisy of such claims by so-called atheists.

Let me begin by saying I have no beef with religion. Of course, everyone is free to believe in whatever God or gods they so choose. Lord knows we all need a little psychological support in these troubling times. I am personally an agnostic on the whole matter, I stick to the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Theology is best left to priests.

Speaking of priests, lets start with a little background on the big bang theory. As you may or may not know, the big bang as a theory was first proposed by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, in 1927.[1] Lemaître's intent was to come up with a theory that could tie theology and science together. Lemaître came along with his ideas of a big bang (otherwise known as fiat lux, let there be light) right around the time Edwin Hubble made his famous discovery that galaxy redshifts appeared to be correlated to their magnitude (observed brightness), lending credence to the claims of an expanding universe.

When the pope heard about this, he thought it was marvelous - science proving religion. Pope Pius XII announced that ‘everything seems to indicate that the universe has in finite times a mighty beginning’. He went on to claim that unprejudiced scientific thinking indicated that the universe is a ‘work of creative omnipotence, whose power set in motion by the mighty fiat pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe.’ To be fair, he did also admit that ‘the facts established up to the present time are not an absolute proof of creation in time.’ [2]

We now know that while galactic red shifts in light may be indicative of their distance from us, the claims of expanding space, velocity induced redshift, and all other manner of "big bangery" is highly questionable. A primary falsifier of the "red shift = distance" claim is that quasar red shift does NOT correlate to their observed magnitude. Indeed there is a plethora of data calling the claims of a big bang into question.[3]

Let us define the word "faith" as taken from the Bible Dictionary[4]:
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding.

Ladies and gentleman, I submit to you that the standard theory of cosmology requires more "faith" than belief in a God.

Black holes are invisible. They can not be seen, detected, tested for, or verified by any means known to man. They are, by their very definition, an object of faith. There is no more evidence to suggest black holes exist than there is to suggest a multi-dimensional God reaches into our universe and stirs the galaxy with an invisible hand. Both claims are equally indefensible as both claims rest on nothing more than the hypothetical. A closer look at black holes shows us the foundational physics behind them is a corruption of science, one that Einstein himself completely disagreed with.[5]

Dark energy, dark flows, dark matter, god particles, etc.. etc.. are of the same vein. Religious faith is required to accept these as being real. Nothing but a mathematicians notebook using hypothetical physics that are untestable in the real world props up these theories. The new high priests wear white coats and carry calculators. They, like the mid evil catholic priests before them, claim "You are simply too dumb to understand. Trust me, I have the knowledge." as they preach in Latin to the unwashed masses that can't understand a word of it. While at the same time absconding with untold fortunes of the publics money building high tech temples and cathedrals costing billions to supposedly search for "the truth".

The CDMS project has never detected dark matter. The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. No particle accelerator has detected the "god particle", which always seems to be just out of reach requiring ever bigger and more expensive accelerators to detect. The modern cathedrals of science put the Vatican to shame, while the physics behind all of their theology is obtuse, abstract, hypothetical, and completely divested from reality.

Ask any engineer if they use Einstein's field equations in calculating airfoils, structural integrity, electrical properties, x-ray physics, or any other real world design or engineering problem and they will laugh at you. Even the nuclear scientists that brought us the atom bomb and nuclear power plants didn't use any of Einstein's theories in the process. Nuclear chemistry gave us the atom bomb, not hypothetical physics. Einstein didn't even believe fissioning of matter was possible at a time before the Manhattan Project was undertaken.[6] The space program entirely revolves around Newtonian physics in its rocketry and satellite positioning, not Einstein's relativities.[7] There's a good reason for this. Hypothetical theory is not the real world.

Faith is believing in black holes. Faith is believing in dark matter. Faith is believing in multiple dimensions. Faith is believing in stars that are made out of matter so dense it violates known laws of nuclear chemistry as they supposedly spin on their axis thousands of times per second. Faith is believing that the Sun is a giant nuclear furnace while its surface is only 6000K yet its corona is 2 million K.

So lets look at what Electric Universe cosmology preaches by comparison. - continued.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

This is a letter written to David Talbot, author and producer of The Alien Sky:[8]

As a student of the Bible this DVD was experienced like an earthquake of 10.0 on the Richter scale...

Every person who is a student of the Bible needs to see this film! All of us deserve to know what it was that inspired worldwide myths that give us themes like Paradise, Dragon/Serpent/Devil, Jacobs ladder, David, Saturday/Sabbath, the Saturnalia/Christmas and so on.

For those of us who have accepted seemingly impossible tales in the Bible, in order to believe that every word in there was God's word, this film will cause a visceral reaction. You will either arrive at peace having fought tooth and nail to resist the implications, or you will have to bury this data in the deep recesses of your mind so as to protect your long held beliefs. Either way this affects you; you deserve to see the facts and allow yourself to react one way or the other...

- Colleen Thomas
BSN, RN DPCS, Executive Administrator

I doubt such letters are typically received by the fiat lux priests of science that currently pervade our universities and colleges.

EU theory declares that modern religion is derived from physical events that really did take place in Earth's past, all fully explainable without the need of any hypothetical physics or religious faith. Plasma manifestations in the skies over Earth readily explain ancient mythology, as well as the recent "events" we've witnessed.

EU theory declares all physics used in descriptions of the universe must be verifiable by laboratory experimentation. Plasma scaling is well known [9], and thus theories proposed on the galactic scale are easily able to be tested and verified in a lab. No hypothetical physics is allowed. It deals first and foremost with reality, leaving the question of the universe's origins to theologists. What we observe must be tied to real demonstrable physics.

EU theory was founded by engineers, not theoretical physicists, that lived and worked in the real world. Such engineers continue carrying on the legacy of those before them today. It is telling that most EU papers are published in electrical engineering and plasma physics journals rather than journals dedicated to hypothetical physics.

Prior to the days of Einstein, most scientists felt the universe was steady in state and infinite in nature. Had Hubble's results not been grossly misinterpreted [3], it is highly likely most scientists would still believe that today. Nothing in Einstein's theories declare space must be "expanding", they simply allow for it (and everything else that theoretical physicists seem to dream up.) Einstein and Hubble did not come up with the big bang, a priest did. EU theory rejects the big bang as religious dogma and does not attempt to derive an origin point of the universe, it attempts to describe the creation of matter out of charged particles that are already known to exist. [10] It relies on Newtonian physics and Maxwell's equations to describe our universe. Things all engineers recognize as fundamental and real. As Newton said of gravity "I propose no hypothesis", meaning he accepted that he didn't understand the origins of gravity, he simply wanted to describe its real observable effects.

We are rapidly approaching a century since Einstein first postulated his relativities, they are still not unified and we are no closer to having a real understanding of our cosmos than we were back then. It is now nearly a weekly occurrence that a new observation is made which conflicts with the standing dogma. Standard cosmologists predict nothing and provide nothing of value. They look through a telescope and then turn knobs on mathematical models until they cram their observations into a preconceived model of how the universe should be. Simply Google "scientists surprised" [11] to see what I mean. Scientists should not be surprised at observations, they should predict them. When scientists are surprised that means their models are wrong. A correct model of the universe lends itself to accurate predictions. [12]

It does not require faith to believe in laboratory proven physics, simply an open mind.

Learn more about Electric Universe theory by watching this video tutorial.

Additional reading can be found here.





[1] Georges_Lemaître
[2] www.counterbalance.org...
[3] www.abovetopsecret.com...
[4] dictionary.reference.com...
[5] www.abovetopsecret.com...
[6] www.pandab.org... and Genius in the Shadows. A Biography of Leo Szilard
[7] tycho.usno.navy.mil...
[8] www.thunderbolts.info...
[9] en.wikipedia.org...
[10] bigbangneverhappened.org...
[11] sites.google.com...
[12] www.thunderbolts.info...


[edit on 18-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Hey Mnemeth a pair of nice threads recently. . . thanks for the interesting leads. . .

My problem with both Relatavistic and Plasma Cosmology is that both are measured from the earth. How can we say we're approaching a theory of everything from either perspective if our own perspective is locked up here on earth.

To accurately describe a system you have to move beyond the system. You have to be able to view the entirety of the system or you are forever barred from making an accurate description.

Its like anthropomorphizing a cog in a clock. From the cogs point of view it can pretty accurately describe the cog on either side of it aswell as itself and its movements. Ask it to describe the whole clock and its clueless.

When it comes to dogmaticness the general scientific community is need of a flogging. Then again the ties between the big bang and creation theory is all most enough to scare off alot BB followers. The issue I'm taking here is that the plasmologists are just as dogmatic.

As I pointed out earlier in this post neither can accurately describe the universe based on simple principles of analysis and problem solving. Nothing personal mnemeth but you to are incredibly dogmatic about the Electric Universe Model.

The thing is that relatavistic and newtonian physics work for what we need them to. When conditions become to severe or our needs go beyond what the theory can offer science will look for the next big theory but will always be just short of the TOE.

I find both sets of physics to be incredibly fascinating, and both have theories that seem to work.

The dogma in religion and all science could be brushed away if we were to just critique and build from all theories not ignoring any particular one because of preconseptions.

Keep up the good fight Mnemeth

Originally posted by constantwonder
How can we say we're approaching a theory of everything from either perspective if our own perspective is locked up here on earth.

Because physics works the same all over the universe.

It's not like living in a confederacy of states, where once you cross the border, the "laws" suddenly change. They are universally the same, everywhere.

Originally posted by constantwonder
Hey Mnemeth a pair of nice threads recently. . . thanks for the interesting leads. . .

My problem with both Relatavistic and Plasma Cosmology is that both are measured from the earth. How can we say we're approaching a theory of everything from either perspective if our own perspective is locked up here on earth.

To accurately describe a system you have to move beyond the system. You have to be able to view the entirety of the system or you are forever barred from making an accurate description.

I would argue that's not the case with plasma cosmology since plasma scaling allows one to verify cosmological theory in a lab.

As the string of accurate predictions made by plasma cosmologists continues to grow, the theory becomes ever more convincing.

This is how theory is turned into law.

Maxwell's equations are considered laws of physics as they have been proven true over and over and over again, something that can not be said of current cosmological theory.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Faith is believing in black holes. Faith is believing in dark matter. Faith is believing in multiple dimensions. Faith is believing in stars that are made out of matter so dense it violates known laws of nuclear chemistry as they supposedly spin on their axis thousands of times per second. Faith is believing that the Sun is a giant nuclear furnace while its surface is only 6000K yet its corona is 2 million K.

So....rather than staying in your original thread, where it was repeatedly shown that a lot of what you think (based on others' flawed 'work') is incorrect, or insufficient at best, you start Another Thread???

Under the guise of slanting it to a religious aspect? I don't think this fools anyone.

Oh....and on again with that Catholic Priest angle? That all ya got? because, unless you only listen to one side (the side you quoted) then you won't have the entire story on that bit.

But, this?

Faith is believing in black holes. Faith is believing in dark matter. Faith is believing in multiple dimensions. Faith is believing in stars that are made out of matter so dense it violates known laws of nuclear chemistry as they supposedly spin on their axis thousands of times per second. Faith is believing that the Sun is a giant nuclear furnace while its surface is only 6000K yet its corona is 2 million K.

That buggers all.

SCIENCE is seeking the understanding of those concepts, and whether they are valid or not. This EU thing has no credibility, at least to reasonable people.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You can be mad that plasma cosmologists have resolved the answers to those questions using lab tested physics. That is your right.

Like I said, I'm not here to bash your religious beliefs.

If you want to believe in black holes and fairies, you have that right.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Don't take this the wrong way, but are you sure you should be talking about the verifiability of a fringe hypothesis which you don't fully understand, in a universe where we have well understood scientific theories which you also don't fully understand?

Not that I want to discourage you from learning new things, or anything, but it's a bit like a fish trying to explain to a cheetah how to run fast.

reply to post by Kaytagg


Its pretty simple to grasp the difference between a theory based on proven physical laws and a theory based on wild hypothesis.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the difference of how either is derived.

mnemeth, thanks!

I don't login here any more, I logged on just to say thanks to you.

I love practical science, and I find the EU theory much, much more reasonable than the official science.

I hope that you are aware that you will probably end up on a number of "black lists" for publishing and spreading this type of information, and I do not share your optimism that once enough people accept it, the EU theory will be accepted officially. I hope I am wrong, but usually I am not.

Best wishes to you and other EU scientists - great work, cannot thank you enough!

I'm no physicist

velicovski supported the EU theory
he was right about the flood

the way he was right about the flood
buggers a lot of preconceived notions right up
but
Velicovski was right about the flood.

he was also the only person to surmise ahead of time
what the first probe would actually find when it landed on Venus.
this buggered up a lot of preconceived notions

why DID the earth stop spinning for three days in 10,500BC?

Once again a great thread and well presented

EU is (to me atleast) by far the most true sounding theory of all the experimental physics out there. Your comparison of faith in modern science and faith in religion is spot on.

reply to post by constantwonder


I'm with you on this one. We assume the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe but how can we really know?

Also the proponents of E.U. and P.C. seem to hold on to it like a religion, it must be correct in it's entirety and relativity must be completely wrong. They are sometimes just as bad as Standard Model cosmologists. There are still plenty of unanswered questions in both models, why can't they both be "right"? Surely a new model incorporating both the Standard Model an Electric Universe theories could be formed?

As for those clinging to the Standard Model, why fear and ridicule E.U. theory? If it's all a load of rubbish then it's nothing to fear right? I noticed on the O.P.'s website there is a very abusive post on the forum. Somebody a little threatened by E.U.? At least THEY can produce results in the lab to back up their theory.

reply to post by OZtracized


They can't both be right.

One is wrong.

Since the LIGO, CDMS, GEO100, Gravity Probe B, and numerous other experiments have all resulted in "null" observations, I think we can conclude it is Einstein's version that is wrong.

reply to post by mnemeth1


S&F for another, as always, well written and well researched thread with a plethora of links provided for everyone to take the time and initiative to review before they respond so that they can intelligently argue and debate.

Yet it's a crying shame that not a single person can be bothered to review those links first.

To all 'naysayers' ... There is nothing inaccurate or "fringe" about plasma physics. We deal with plasmas physics in a few different aspects of human society and they are well known and understood physics. Yes, they can be scaled up or down and still be valid, they don't violate reality in any way whatsoever.

Again, everyone repeat after me, plasma physics is not "fringe" and we use plasma physics on a daily basis. Phew, we all feel better now that we're learning about reality and not mathematical fantasies?

reply to post by OZtracized

I'm with you on this one. We assume the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe but how can we really know?

By using your head, that's how. If physics were different in certain patches of the universe compared to other patches, then the whole damn thing would tear itself apart at, or at least be very noticeable at the boundaries of every patch.