Electric Universe Strikes again! Comets destroy the standard model!

This question might sound silly but...

Why does an electric comet origin = proof of EU model theory?

Can't the current model of gravity driven astrophysics remain true even if the origin of comets is electric rather then a dirty snowball?

It gets confusing when one observation leading to the change in comet origin theories (admitting scientists were wrong about the theoretical origins of comets) leads to either full acceptance of EU or denile of the evidence presented?

Why throw out the baby (gravity model) with the bathwater (dirty snowball false conclusion of comet origin)?

When I saw the video, I saw observations leading to the conclusion that our previous understanding of comet origins was in error, the solar wind used in this theory is real and measuarable and can exist within the theoretical gravity model or the theoretical EU model.

So, in my opinion, comet origin as "dirty snowballs" has been disproven by science, but that does not mean the same thing as the whole EU theory being proven factual and the need to recreate the gravity model for astrophysics. A change in comet origin does not mean the whole current model is disproven, just that solar wind affects molucules in a manner not understood in the past, resulting in a coma. This change can be explained fully using either origin (source) thought responsible for supplying that wind (EU or Gravity).

God Bless,

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by AnarchoCapitalist
So what are the supposed differences between EU theory and plasma cosmology? Which parts of EU theory are crack-pottery, and which parts of PC theory are recognized as scientifically valid?

EU says the sun is powered by electricity, right? I think it was Ralph Juergens who came up with that idea?

Alfvén's plasma cosmology didn't claim an electric powered sun, did it? He said the sun has electromagnetism and plasma which obviously it does. But if Alfvén objected to the nuclear fusion model for the sun's power, I missed that.

edit on 26-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Alfven's view was that a galaxy was essentially an electrically driven homopolar motor. His view of stars was slightly more conventional as you mention, but that's because Alfven didn't get a chance to see all the new satellite data before he died, his understudy Anthony Peratt did.

Peratt expounded on the foundation Alfven had laid out, and formalized it into what is presently called plasma cosmology. I sourced the papers for that already. The EU term and the PC term are used inter-changeably by adherents of the theory.

Strictly speaking, plasma cosmology is the study of electrified space plasma, electric universe theory is the term used to describe all theories that flow out of that.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist



There is a reason plasma cosmology died in the 80a and 90s we learned alot since then. Let me start by saying this we have whats known as the standard model consists of the big bang causing inflation and relativity explaining gravity. In the 90s there were still unknowns for example the standard model told us there had to be super massive black holes at the center of galaxies but we couldn't verify that. However in 2008 we did verify the standard model to be correct. And we can actually give you the point it exists in the center of the galaxy and see the effects just as predicted. We have proved dark matter exists buy using Einstein's trick of gravitational lensing, We know its there we just dont know what it is.So positive proof was confirmed in 2006 some argue 2004 since another team had similar results but were not as conclusive.And now we move on to WMAP this showed the universe is isotropic exactly in line with predictions from the big bang model. Plasma cosmology cant explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies in CMB.

This is why this whole branch of science is dead not to be confused with plasma physics which is dealing with the reactions of ionized particles. Now as the final boot so to speak there is nothing that plasma cosmology predicts that has been verified in fact quite the opposite. So why are we going to throw out a working model that makes predictions and has been verified for a theory which is incomplete at best and only hangs on by trying to convince the gullible that there in on something those nasty scientists just refuse to look at even though they did.

Originally posted by cheesy
never hear such thing sir..electrick comet..wow..tq for introduce me to new information sir..keep go on..

I posted some very well received threads on the electric universe and plasma cosmology a while ago. Unfortunately while there certainly is some merit to the electric universe theories a lot of it is based on a foundation that does have the hallmarks of pseudoscience. that is not to say all of their models and ideas are without merit, some are certainly worth looking into (the electric sun model is the most prominent.

Here are the threads:

Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

The Hidden History of Plasma Cosmology

The electric universe

One common misconception is that Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe are completely separate theories, they are actually complementary to each other. Electricity in space is a consequence of the abundance of plasma that is now known to fill space.

While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.

While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, from ancient mythology right up to how electricity effects our own bodies.

Both PC and EU proponents acknowledge the fact that space is NOT electrically neutral, a fact largely denied in conventional astronomy.

Although many plasma cosmologists have received many science awards, written many accepted scientific papers and contributed vast amounts of knowledge to Astronomy, their findings are now often dismissed by mainstream opinion as incorrect. However, scientific reasons as to why they are incorrect are hardly ever put forward.

There is a reason plasma cosmology died in the 80a and 90s we learned alot since then. Let me start by saying this we have whats known as the standard model consists of the big bang causing inflation and relativity explaining gravity. In the 90s there were still unknowns for example the standard model told us there had to be super massive black holes at the center of galaxies but we couldn't verify that. However in 2008 we did verify the standard model to be correct. And we can actually give you the point it exists in the center of the galaxy and see the effects just as predicted. We have proved dark matter exists buy using Einstein's trick of gravitational lensing, We know its there we just dont know what it is.So positive proof was confirmed in 2006 some argue 2004 since another team had similar results but were not as conclusive.And now we move on to WMAP this showed the universe is isotropic exactly in line with predictions from the big bang model. Plasma cosmology cant explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies in CMB.

This is why this whole branch of science is dead not to be confused with plasma physics which is dealing with the reactions of ionized particles. Now as the final boot so to speak there is nothing that plasma cosmology predicts that has been verified in fact quite the opposite. So why are we going to throw out a working model that makes predictions and has been verified for a theory which is incomplete at best and only hangs on by trying to convince the gullible that there in on something those nasty scientists just refuse to look at even though they did.

You need to familiarize yourself with the work of Peratt, Verchuur and Lerner.

Plasma cosmology is in fact just a different epistemological way of approaching cosmology, assuming that the unigverse is simply how we see it now and assuming that an origin to the universe is a stealth form of creation based on Ex nihilo ideologies.

These theories are not mutually exclusive, they can exist side by side perfectly congruently. Sure there is a lot less depth and detail in plasma cosmology based theories as it has been given far less academic attention, but over the years a lot of the predictions PC has made about large scale structure, the anisotropy of the CMB and other things fits the current data far better than LCDM cosmology.

For a good summary this paper is worth a read.

Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on (Volume:31 , Issue: 6 )

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10^-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

This is a November,20, 2006 version of the Wikipedia article on Plasma Cosmology, which was subsequently heavily censored before Lerner was banned from wikipedia. They banned the worlds leading authority on plasma cosmology, because he was too clever, effectively. All of this literature is published in mainstream cosmology journals. It is not a fringe science.

The electric universe however is far more speculative.

I do not understand the constant insistence that EU claims gravity does not exist......this is not the case, I would say they simply advocate a basis that the electromagnetic force is much more capable at distance then we currently accept and the direct effects of gravity are more subtle than we currently advocate for. The EU is not "on the way out" they have recently been funded for a real test of the EU model of the sun. The primary funding source is undisclosed at this time.

MONTY CHILDS, SAFIRE EXPERIMENT TO BE HIGHLIGHTED AT EU2013 A carefully constructed experiment to produce anomalous features of the Sun in the laboratory will be the subject of a presentation by Monty Childs at the upcoming conference, "ELECTRIC UNIVERSE 2013—The Tipping Point," in Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 3-6. The anomalous solar features include acceleration of charged particles away from the Sun, heating of the upper atmosphere or corona, polar jets, simultaneous arcing in different hemispheres, super rotation of the equatorial atmosphere, and more. Can a "Solellus," or electrically-driven, miniature Sun in the laboratory, answer the longstanding mysteries of the solar atmosphere? Monty and his research group are confident that the technology is now available to rigorously test the electric Sun hypothesis. The conference presentation will cover the project plan from engineering and design through construction, commissioning, and testing, and will include a review of prior experiments (some known, some publicized), on which much of the team's confidence is based. Monty is the author of three college engineering text books and holds eight international technical patents. He was lead design engineer of the Canadian National Research Council for Rocket Design to measure for oxygen in the upper atmosphere.

These theories are not mutually exclusive, they can exist side by side perfectly congruently. Sure there is a lot less depth and detail in plasma cosmology based theories as it has been given far less academic attention, but over the years a lot of the predictions PC has made about large scale structure, the anisotropy of the CMB and other things fits the current data far better than LCDM cosmology.

I can not stress the importance of this quote enough. These are the reasons I myself first started looking into the ideas of an electric based system. It is in this context that I agree with the potential of current electric theory models, and it is because of this their ideas are starting to be tested, how can you look down on a group that has provided a theory and a way to test it, as a bunch of pseudo science book sellers?

However, as hard as it may be, I would ask that the debate on the validity of the EU end. It is not the goal of this thread to attempt to convert anyone.We have many threads on that topic already and nothing is going to change here. I do thank those posters who have presented newer information relating the actual science and capable researches presenting information that may support EU ideas.

If you have an genuine rebuttals to the content in the video, that would be great. This is your direct chance to participate in an ongoing conversation on this topic with its authors.

However, as hard as it may be, I would ask that the debate on the validity of the EU end. We have many threads on that topic already and nothing is going to change here.

The video in the OP is not working, if I knew what the topic was I would reply and critique it. Lets just say that previous electric comet models have not been very impressive.

As I understand it from previous ideas a few years old: asteroids that maintain a radial orbit will be staying at the same potential relative to the sun, such as ones in the asteroid belt. Comets have highly elliptical orbits so are traversing small solar E-field, and maybe will build up differential charge as they do so, creating the tail as an electrical discharge and the break wave also.

When I say maybe I mean "probably wont", and when I say small E-field I mean "the hypothetical one needed to make the model work". And when I say model I mean "the model that has not yet been actually presented". The surface conductivity of comets is likely highly different from meteors. Unless im mistaken meteorites are high in metals, which will conduct very easily and thus adjust to the ambient charge easier thus not developing net charge. Comets may be different.

reply to post by ZeuZZ


There is a link to the video in the OP above the non working embed. It has also been properly embed a few posts below the OP.

And when I say model I mean "the model that has not yet been actually presented".

Im interested in what you would consider to be a "presented model" seriously, not trying to be a dick. I think it's been pretty well presented. There is no direct published theory to go against the standard model because the information is not ready. I don't think that if every EU claim was suddenly verified and proven to be correct it would even completely displace the current model, it would simply change some numbers and attribute some effects of gravity to electromagnetism. You really can't even call EU a theory as they haven't tested anything yet, that is soon to change.

Unfortunately for some reason I was locked from editing my original thread, which is why it bears the title it does, It was intended to read: "the standard comet model" ...although I must admit the current title is probably getting alot more looks

reply to post by vind21


We all ready showed the information on the comet was false and it by no means proved anything about a comet having electrical qualities. And doesn't disprove rthe standard model what so ever that's why the conversation moved on.

reply to post by dragonridr


I see no where in your previous threads; you posting anything at all other than your opinions. The only direct contribution I see after re-reading some of your threads is you saying that the electric model does away with gravity, which is false.


Please post the peer reviewed paper supporting your claims or I shall have to consider them psudeo science

Seriously tho, if you have a direct paper that shows conflicting evidence...that's what this thread is about.

reply to post by vind21


First off wasn't me that showed that the results were well within the standard model and was being miss quoted. As to your second point there is no scientific research done to disprove a theory that's not the way science works. So your asking for something that doesn't exist what science does is gather raw data to prove a hypothesis the more data you collect the stronger the argument.I all ready pointed out the data does not agree with any form of electric universe.

Now if you want to get specific we can point out any prediction that EU makes and we can see if it holds up but I warn you there seems to be a severe lack of predictions and a lot of trying to say why the standard model is wrong. Unfortunately a lot more evidence has come to light since the 90s when this theory was promoted that's why now its fringe science (yes I'm being nice here).

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by vind21

 

This thread and this blog give a good overview of what the EU supporters were claiming about Elenin. There was as almost as much doomsaying coming from them as there was from the Nibiru crowd.

Really?? You call this a GOOD SOURCE??? Were you making a joke, out of yourself? The blog is some dude that simply states some EU crap in the first paragraph and goes on to draw squiggly lines on money and talk about jews. I haven't noticed many videos on Hitler and Jews making it into the space news section of thunderbolts. Who wrote that blog by the way, I didn't see their name on the official associates section either.

To be clear I DO expect you to watch the video. I made this thread specifically to draw in people who disagree with the model presented, so that they could espouse why they deem it false. A blanket comment of the EU is full of niburi doomtards is not constructive nor accurate. There are plenty of people watching "through the wormhole" and other like series on the discovery channel that are elinin doomtards as well, I don't attribute them as cohorts of Einstein.


I haven't read through the ats post yet but I suppose I will, have a little respect for the topic at hand please.

reply to post by dragonridr


I completely understand what you are saying about my point 2. That is however, not entirely accurate. Many people through history have devised experiments specifically to disprove others hypothesis.

Scientist vs Sceintist (Yes that' right 1781.... heh) There are numerous other examples, all equally irrelevant as this one.


That really isn't the point thought. We can take other experimental data and apply it, where applicable, to generate reasonable doubt about a hypothesis, we can then identify variables and create a procedure to verify that information. That is how science is done. Im looking for other papers and research that has arrived at conclusions based on evidence that would disprove the basic theory.

So far I have been unable to find anything directly contradictory, most of the temple 1 information does not outright disprove their ideas and alot of it tends to agree, this is, my opinion, based on evidence I have read from credible sources.

Im not here to try to tell you to believe this stuff, Im asking you to hold to your own ideals and present evidence that is sourced for what you claim is inaccurate, if you are capable. Weighing in on the topic with your opinion is by all means welcome, directly attacking the topic as being proposed by crack pots that do no real research and derailing the thread is not.

As far as predictions go, there is an entire predictions section at thunderbolts, that displays the date the prediction was made, and what information they used to declare it "confirmed" you can travel there for the links. I have posted the general information below here to show you that, they do indeed make predictions of events.

Comets: Deep Impact Missing water Thornhill: An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the "dirty snowball" hypothesis) is unlikely. see [ 2005 July 03] Result The explosion removed many thousands of tons of material. But prior to impact, the calculated "water" output was 550 pounds per second; and not long after the impact, the calculated output was, once again, 550 pounds per second (See picture above regarding the return to previous level). So despite the impressive explosion, the envisioned sub-surface water refused to reveal itself. By NASA's own calculations, therefore, Deep Impact has only made matters worse for standard theory. see [ 2005 July 16] Comet breakup Thornhill: So there is some small chance that astronomers will be surprised to see the comet split apart, if the projectile reaches the surface of the comet and results in an intense arc. see [ 2001 Oct 18] Result Thornhill: These predictions remain but the intensity of the electrical effects depend upon the degree to which the comet is charged with respect to the solar plasma at the impact point. So it is disappointing that NASA chose a short period comet that only ranges between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. Long period comets spend more time travelling slowly in the lower voltage regions of the outer solar system. So when they rush toward the Sun their electrical display is more energetic than the short period comets. Also, the same electrical circuit that drives the Sun energizes comets. The Sun’s activity is near minimum, so we may expect reduced cometary activity. Of course, none of these electrical considerations figured in NASA’s thinking. see [ 2005 July 03]

Source Link

reply to post by vind21




If science is on the wrong track there is a shift for example Quantum physics came on the scene showed us how wrong about things we really where. It did this by making predictions which were verified to be correct this immediately told us we have something wrong. With EU we have yet to find the necessary components to make it work. I have all ready shown how observation contradicts EU. As far as gravity this is the primary force shaping the universe. This doesn't mean its the only one that is why physics does indeed acknowledge magnetic fields.

So if your looking for some compromise science all ready acknowledges ionised particles as being in the framework of the universe. Plasma is oone of the forms of matter no way around it.

reply to post by dragonridr


What I am looking for would be more along the lines of debating about whether the white spots shown on the video that were washed out where due to ccd malfunction or if indeed it is likely there were excessively bright objects at those locations that could potentially be arcing light. With something along the lines of the camera specs posted as to why this might be the case.

I am looking for relation to mercury and the ice they have apparently found that could be the result of an ionizing gas as similar amount have been found on comets in relation to its size.

I am looking for debate and information on the effects and possible causes of the excessive light flashes we see between spacial objects and the similar effect we saw in the recent Russian meteor that flares far brighter than would be assumed using the formulas of current models.

All of these things were presented in the video...with a very basic description of why the EU states they occur.

These are the kinds of questions I would like debate on. Not nibiru....lol

Example: We know gravity exsists. We have equations describing it:

Einstein's field equations are given by,

Gμν = Rμν - ½ gμνR = -κTμν.

According to the claims of the proponents of the Standard Model, if the energy-momentum tensor Tμν is zero, then the equations Rμν = 0 result (since the Ricci curvature R becomes zero also). However, since Rμν = 0 is inadmissible, because it violates Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence', the energy-momentum tensor can never be zero for Einstein's gravitational field. Therefore, Einstein's field equations must take the form

Gμν / κ + Tμν = 0

wherein the Gμν/κ are the components of a gravitational energy tensor. Thus, when Tμν = 0, Gμν = 0, i.e. they vanish identically - there is no gravitational field.

This is an inescapable consequence of the inadmissibility of Rμν = 0.

This line of reasoning is what Im assuming is leading you to say that the EU does not acknowledge gravity. The equations themselves do not work properly, does this mean we discount them? No, we use them as they are the best mathematical description of observation.

We can take the information of observation, and the best model we can concieve, and see clearly it does not work, something is missing, something is not right, it does not mean we throw the whole kit n koboobdle out.

This is all that I am asking, take information you know, and apply it to the topic. I don't even care if you have any direct evidence if your post is genuine and on topic. Blanket statements of "this part is untrue therefore the whole is untrue, are not sufficient.


[

I notice you are not really proposing a model that has any sort of scientific weight behind it. Thornhills rhetoric is not scientific evidence, unfortunately, as much as I admire his enthusiasm.

By the way "This video does not exist.
Sorry about that."

reply to post by ZeuZZ


Are you referring to my ridiculously jumbled off site post or the original topic?

I understand I did not post some paper write up with equations that determine electrical arcing potnetial in a charged field that would closely model the solar system.

I am not capable of doing so, the goal here is to poke holes in this "theory" using information and work that you have previously encountered.

Are you still having issues with the video? Here is a direct link: Electric Comet


In the spirit of full disclosure, I have many threads such as this going on several boards, I am collecting the better information and rebuttal to this topic and presenting them to the authors. I posted one here on ats as I do respect alot of the people who post here. I have done my best to stay civil and will continue to do so (with the exception of any nibiru related posts ) I appreciate all of you that have continued to post here doing the same.

Originally posted by ElohimJD
This question might sound silly but...

Why does an electric comet origin = proof of EU model theory?

Can't the current model of gravity driven astrophysics remain true even if the origin of comets is electric rather then a dirty snowball?

It gets confusing when one observation leading to the change in comet origin theories (admitting scientists were wrong about the theoretical origins of comets) leads to either full acceptance of EU or denile of the evidence presented?

Why throw out the baby (gravity model) with the bathwater (dirty snowball false conclusion of comet origin)?

When I saw the video, I saw observations leading to the conclusion that our previous understanding of comet origins was in error, the solar wind used in this theory is real and measuarable and can exist within the theoretical gravity model or the theoretical EU model.

So, in my opinion, comet origin as "dirty snowballs" has been disproven by science, but that does not mean the same thing as the whole EU theory being proven factual and the need to recreate the gravity model for astrophysics. A change in comet origin does not mean the whole current model is disproven, just that solar wind affects molucules in a manner not understood in the past, resulting in a coma. This change can be explained fully using either origin (source) thought responsible for supplying that wind (EU or Gravity).

God Bless,

Sorry, my mistake in the title is probably causing you to come to this conclusion. As I said a bit before, the ordering of words in the title certainly made a significant difference in the proportion of the claims herein.

You remind me of me about 2 years ago vind21 mate That's not meant as derogatory but you seem to be on the same learning curve. Enjoy it, it can be a roller-coaster at times.

Originally posted by vind21
Are you still having issues with the video? Here is a direct link: Electric Comet

There were enough good links to it, I'm surprised he didn't find those, including the direct link in the OP.

For future reference, if you want your embedded videos to work, only copy the part of the link after the "=", when pasting into the ATS link. I think you pasted the whole url and that's probably why your embedded version in the OP doesn't work.

Originally posted by dragonridr
We all ready showed the information on the comet was false and it by no means proved anything about a comet having electrical qualities. And doesn't disprove rthe standard model what so ever that's why the conversation moved on.

As I said I think the comet does have electrical interaction with the solar wind which is what produces the X-rays, but the solar wind is well known and documented.

The electrical properties suggested in the video go far above interaction with solar wind, and you're right that those claims have no evidence that I've seen to support them.