Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

David Talbott of the Thunderbolts Project/the Electric Universe theory gave a talk at the 2013 annual conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance entitled "Exposing the Myths of Settled Science." The talk is on YouTube: "David Talbott/Exposing the Myths of 'Settled Science.'"

I was impressed with the list that he posted that has to do with the one concept that gravity is king in the universe:



and the contrasting list regarding the alternative, Electric Universe concept:



I think the concept that gravity is king in the universe must be challenged and defended before an objective discussion about the Electric Universe theory can take place.

What do you think? Is gravity king in the universe?

Sorry, I tried to listen to the video, but he simply doesn't come to a point - yes, there are electromagnetic effects in the universe, shooting protons and electrons out from pulsars and such. No, that single effect isn`t an explanation which is sufficient enough to introduce an "electric universe".

reply to post by ManFromEurope


So, you believe that gravity is king in the universe, do you?

A few years ago, I decided to read about the Electric Sun idea, and the classical nuclear one.

In the nuclear sun idea literature I found, scientists said at one point that even though the data collected in the last 150 years or so, about the sun, made it look like the sun was electric in nature, it was all about "interpretation" of said data.
Only scientists could interpret the collected data correctly, in the correct sense...

Strangely enough, that sold me into the electric sun idea. lol

I'll go watch the videos now.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, you believe that gravity is king in the universe, do you?

This is science dumbed down to the point it's beyond meaningless.

Gravity is more than a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, so it sounds ridiculous to talk about gravity being "king" in this context.

It's even more ridiculous to talk about electric powered stars with no evidence of sufficient electric current to power the star. Yes, stars have many electromagnetic properties, but nobody has ever measured the electric currents that electric universe pseudoscientists say is powering them. One scientist calculated the charged particles would have to be flowing in such massive quantities to electrically power a star that they would be denser than lead, and should be easy to find and measure...yet we don't find nor measure such massive currents into or out of stars.

If all the science was settled then logically we wouldn't need any more scientists. we wouldn't continue to do research and we wouldn't constantly be revising out of data theorems and hypothesis. Yet all of that continues making me think that at least scientists don't think they have all the answers or that it is all settled.

reply to post by NowanKenubi


And.. What is the electric sun idea? What does it suggest?

For now we explain the sun's inner working by means of fusion. Protons decays to emit all the components we see. I must say proton decay looks really good... And I say that as someone who sometimes critics "settled science".

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Gravity is more than a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, so it sounds ridiculous to talk about gravity being "king" in this context.

Yet mainstream science insists on making things up to avoid letting go of the idea that gravity is the driving force of the universe.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Gravity is more than a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, so it sounds ridiculous to talk about gravity being "king" in this context.

Yet mainstream science insists on making things up to avoid letting go of the idea that gravity is the driving force of the universe.

can you cite examples of this occurring? I'm curious what science has made up so they can force everyone to live under anachronistic theories for their own perverse pleasures.

reply to post by peter vlar


Dark matter was conceived in order to make gravity work as advertised.

See the list in the OP. Dark matter is the most obvious one, I think. Not enough matter to account for gravity so have to make it invisible but there.

Here's another screen shot from the presentation:



He said he was only going to concentrate on the first one.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Dark matter was conceived in order to make gravity work as advertised.

that's a slightly dramatic over representation of the facts. Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust. additionally out of all the examples "cited" in the videos this was the only example you could come up with? Could you then please explain, if not gravity, what the fundamental forces of the universe are in your opinion? because if gravity doesn't work as advertised why the heck did the army always make me use a parachute when walking out the back of a C130

reply to post by peter vlar


We're talking about the cosmos here not what happens when you fall to the ground.

You're using fancy language to say the same thing I already said about dark matter.

In my opinion, the fundamental force is the ether, which pervades every speck of the cosmos, and from which all the forces originate. I think gravity is a push not a pull and it's the pressure of the ether causing the push. Electricity and magnetism originate from the ether as well.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by peter vlar

 

We're talking about the cosmos here not what happens when you fall to the ground.

You're using fancy language to say the same thing I already said about dark matter.

In my opinion, the fundamental force is the ether, which pervades every speck of the cosmos, and from which all the forces originate. I think gravity is a push not a pull and it's the pressure of the ether causing the push. Electricity and magnetism originate from the ether as well.

I'm not using fancy language, I'm citing a specific impetus whereas you gave a broad generalization. not the same thing. can you support the ether theory? Not being rude, I'm actually curious. and whether you're referencing the cosmos or a planetary phenomena, it doesn't change the nature of gravity or how objects interact with each other. It's about scale and context.

reply to post by peter vlar


The fact remains scientists came up with dark matter because gravity as construed by the mainstream has issues. Instead of re-evaluating accepted science the mainstream keeps putting band aids on what's accepted so that dogma can remain intact. It's not scientific. Often apologists for mainstream science use ridicule to shut up those who challenge them.

According to my research the ether was never disproved in the first place, and it is clear that space is not empty but teeming with energy. I think what is in space is far more important than the composition of matter. The atom is mostly space. Intuitively I think that space is the ether, which unites the entire cosmos.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by peter vlar

 

The fact remains scientists came up with dark matter because gravity as construed by the mainstream has issues. Instead of re-evaluating accepted science the mainstream keeps putting band aids on what's accepted so that dogma can remain intact. It's not scientific. Often apologists for mainstream science use ridicule to shut up those who challenge them.

According to my research the ether was never disproved in the first place, and it is clear that space is not empty but teeming with energy. I think what is in space is far more important than the composition of matter. The atom is mostly space. Intuitively I think that space is the ether, which unites the entire cosmos.

edit on 09/08/13 by Mary Rose because: Spelling

So that would be a "no, I don't have anything to support the existence of ether aside from it hasn't been disproven and that's what I think is correct." Am I correctly paraphrasing that? The Ether was originally postulated as an explanation for a delivery system for light, I dare say it's fair to say that at least that aspect has been disproven. And as a side note, by your logic dark matter is equally valid as it has not only yet to be been disproven but it actually has reams of data to back up the hypothesis. It really is scientific and wasn't made up over scotch and cigars by a committee of mad scientists trying to figure out how to dominate your mind.

www.nbcnews.com...

www.astro.cornell.edu...

phys.org...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Gravity is more than a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, so it sounds ridiculous to talk about gravity being "king" in this context.

Yet mainstream science insists on making things up to avoid letting go of the idea that gravity is the driving force of the universe.

actually, gravity, in "mainstream science" is the weakest force.

Why is gravity so weak?

Gravity : how the weakest force in the universe shaped our lives

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Sorry, I tried to listen to the video, but he simply doesn't come to a point - yes, there are electromagnetic effects in the universe, shooting protons and electrons out from pulsars and such. No, that single effect isn`t an explanation which is sufficient enough to introduce an "electric universe".

But are most material interactions governed by electric charge/electrons? And all electromagnetic phenomenon is...electric in some sense. And there is a supposed EM field which encompasses the entire universe, so that electromagnetic ripples can be created in 'vacuum' with most matter, because of its electric nature.

just playing devils advocate

reply to post by boncho


that may be true, but all of what the OP said is correct. It is considered that major component of all those phenomenon. And it is only considered weak in ratio and scale. Like the energetic density of the strong force, if that density of energy was carried out to the size of a gravity field of a planet, it would be a lot stronger. So it is considered weak force because you can do tricks with math and make claims like that.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by boncho

 

that may be true, but all of what the OP said is correct. It is considered that major component of all those phenomenon. And it is only considered weak in ratio and scale. Like the energetic density of the strong force, if that density of energy was carried out to the size of a gravity field of a planet, it would be a lot stronger. So it is considered weak force because you can do tricks with math and make claims like that.

Blah blah blah blah.

Getting back to physics. Electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitational. However, there exist mobile positive and negative mobile electric charges, unlike in gravitation where we see (as far as we have observed) only positively gravitationally charged particles.

As a consequence, because E&M is so much stronger there is little to no large scale charge separation on astrophysical scales---electrons move very quickly to counter balance charge. There are no magnetic monopoles so magnetic fields tend to persist on larger scales, and galactic magnetic fields are a well known phenomenon in astrophysics.