Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-18-2007, 10:39 AM   #1 (permalink)
Insane
 
pai mei's Avatar
 
The electric nature of the Universe

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
Quote:
"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and
auroras
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
Quote:
Of course we must recognize that the hole they found is in fact "perfectly normal" for our universe, it simply defies our computer modeling entirely. While EU theory predicts a threaded and non uniform universe, Big Bang theory has consistently predicted a smooth, nearly homogenous universe that is practically devoid of these sorts of "gaping holes" in the universe. In fact, a nearly homogenous universe is one of the "key predictions" of inflation theory that the mainstream has touted as an important example of importance and usefulness of Big Bang theory. It now turns out that this "key prediction" of Big Bang theory is critically flawed. The real life observations of our "perfectly normal" universe refutes the homogenous predictions of the inflation period of Big Bang theory.
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
pai mei is offline  
Old 12-18-2007, 11:53 AM   #2 (permalink)
Psycho
 
albania's Avatar
 
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.
albania is offline  
Old 12-18-2007, 11:57 AM   #3 (permalink)
The Reforms
 
Jetée's Avatar
 
Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition
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
Jetée is offline  
Old 12-18-2007, 12:34 PM   #4 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-18-2007, 09:09 PM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
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.
robot_parade is offline  
Old 12-19-2007, 02:35 PM   #6 (permalink)
Insane
 
pai mei's Avatar
 
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 ?

Quote:
Dutch astronomer Jan Oort first discovered the 'missing matter' problem in the 1930's. By observing the Doppler red-shift values of stars moving near the plane of our galaxy, Oort assumed he could calculate how fast the stars were moving. Since the galaxy was not flying apart, he reasoned that there must be enough matter inside the galaxy such that the central gravitational force was strong enough to keep the stars from escaping, much as the Sun's gravitational pull keeps a planet in its orbit. But when the calculation was made, it turned out that there was not enough mass in the galaxy. And the discrepancy was not small; the galaxy had to be at least twice as massive as the sum of the mass of all its visible components combined. Where was all this missing matter?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm
Quote:
"And all the while astronomers and physicists have refined their dark matter theories without ever getting their hands on a single piece of it. But where is all of this dark matter? The truth is that after more than 30 years of looking for it, there's still no definitive proof that WIMPs exist or that MACHOs will ever make up more than five percent of the total reserve of missing dark stuff."

Of course, the second possibility mentioned above (that the outer stars rotating around galaxy cores do not obey Newton's Law of Gravity) was thought to be impossible. But the first alternative - the fanciful notion that 99% of the matter in the universe was invisible - began to be worrisome too. It was stated that WIMPs and MACHOs were in the category of particle known as "Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories" (FAIRIE DUST). Even such an august authority as Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles has been quoted as saying,

"It's an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe are hypothetical..
."
pai mei is offline  
Old 12-19-2007, 02:41 PM   #7 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
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.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 03:14 PM   #8 (permalink)
 
ring's Avatar
 
Location: ❤
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.
ring is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 03:39 PM   #9 (permalink)
The Reforms
 
Jetée's Avatar
 
Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition
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
Jetée is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:19 PM   #10 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
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.

Last edited by ObieX; 12-20-2007 at 04:22 PM..
ObieX is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 04:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
 
ring's Avatar
 
Location: ❤
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?
ring is offline  
Old 12-20-2007, 08:13 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
TMBG freakin' rock. That is all.

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

Last edited by robot_parade; 12-20-2007 at 08:16 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
robot_parade is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 09:47 PM   #13 (permalink)
Psycho
 
albania's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
albania is offline  
Old 12-23-2007, 04:46 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
biznatch's Avatar
 
Location: France
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
biznatch is offline  
Old 12-23-2007, 05:48 PM   #15 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Interestingly dark matter has been 'seen' due to the bending of light which happens due to gravitational lenses.

We know "something" is there.

Quote:
Big Bang theory has consistently predicted a smooth, nearly homogenous universe that is practically devoid of these sorts of "gaping holes" in the universe. In fact, a nearly homogenous universe is one of the "key predictions" of inflation theory that the mainstream has touted as an important example of importance and usefulness of Big Bang theory. It now turns out that this "key prediction" of Big Bang theory is critically flawed. The real life observations of our "perfectly normal" universe refutes the homogenous predictions of the inflation period of Big Bang theory.
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.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-23-2007, 06:46 PM   #16 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
albania:

Quote:
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.
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
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-27-2007, 05:49 PM   #17 (permalink)
Psycho
 
albania's Avatar
 
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.
albania is offline  
 

Tags
electric, nature, universe

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360