Defending the Electric Universe

 

Mainstream Cosmology rejects the Electric Universe premise that electric currents exist in space.  They reject that they can play a major role in the morphology and dynamics of all that matter we see up there.  A role that the Electric Universe (EU) proponents claim only increases with scale. The Establishment surrounding the space sciences is already arranged around principles that would be toppled like a line of dominoes if these currents were validated since the consequences of a fundamental principle being replaced is that it takes with it an avalanche of established dogma.  More importantly it takes down the bureaucracy involving any related research and academic institutions based on them.  They have skin in the game and can be characterized as being almost ideologically opposed to the idea of electric current in space. They don't see it as possible in a grand and ordered fashion as causative agent, they occasionally acknowledge the current of galactic jets and occasionally even give a reading, but those articles are quickly swept under the rug and for a long time they will be mum on the topic other than the occasional comment which doesn't go beyond a few isolated discharges, usually regarding the gas giants and their relationships with their moons.

From where I am standing, the real myth is one of a charge neutral universe or the perception that an overall charge is required, rather than dynamic and evolving charge separation creating all opportunity for life, form and function. With that in mind, Please be on the look-out for understated sarcasm in the words to follow.  I have opted for that tone in my writing because it is the only way I can imagine communicating how absolutely commonsense and well evidenced the Electric Universe positions are and why those who lazily conflate these positions with actual nonsense thinking such as the "flat earth" movement  are all guilty of the groupie mindset in the argument from authority. Anyone who has taken the time to  without being drawn into having to justify each in detail in this article which would make it one thousand pages, that is what my site if for and you will have no problem finding material on each fundamental principle. 

Now, the term "Electromagnetism" exists for a reason.  That reason is quite simply that electricity and magnetism are 2 sides of the same coin, and no means is apparent to me that is available allowing cosmologists to make calculations of these fields without calculating current, not since Hannes Alfven realised that the biggest mistake of his life had been the idea that "frozen in" fields could be used in the Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) calculations that he invented and won the Nobel Prize for.  He ended up suggesting cosmologists AVOID using his mathematics due to space plasma's indifference to the beauty of the calculations and refusal to co-operate.

More fundamentally I struggle to see how to introduce magnetic fields (now discovered EVERYWHERE in space) into the most important cosmological calculations, the Friedman Equations, without electric moving charge and messing up their figures. Regarding the current aspect, it must be noted that even in remnant magnetism in iron or load-stone, it needs an electrical circuit with + and - charge separation and equalization for orientation to establish its polarity when first becoming magnetized, that is why we can work out pole shifts by the polarity of magnetized rocks or load-stone.  

THERE IS NO SUCH THING A MAGNETIC CHARGE, ONLY ELECTRIC CHARGE.  

This is overlooked by certain repeat-offender cosmologists who will always insist the magnetic fields, somehow "frozen in "without the benefit of magnetizable iron or moving charge, are what induce the currents, and everything works "like a dynamo", always pure theory, always lurking unseen in the middle of some or other celestial body like a big genie of the lamp granting electromagnetic wishes.

It often seems they go out of their way to avoid any topic that reveals just how obvious the evidence is supporting EU principles and rather than debate they ignore or worse.  Sometimes they debunk based on awful straw-man arguments and a horrible, misunderstood theory they put forward as EU.  That's how the nonsense rumors get out, and once people discover that you think the Electric Universe is at a minimum on the right track, there is always someone who will say something along the lines of "So you don't believe in gravity?" They will of course say this even though they are standing next to me....and we are both standing firmly on the ground rather than floating off into space.... somehow.  

Sometimes there is a look of bemused anticipation on their faces, perhaps they are expecting me to wow them with some obscure case to be made for why the downward force we all experience is simply an illusion? You know, like a party-trick gag or a flat earth argument. 

Instead, I'll say something that must be a bit of a letdown in that regard, such as "Gravity exists whether I believe in it or not". If I want to make it known that such a question is actually irritating and I don't enjoy having accusations thrown at me even if posed as questions, I'll answer a question with a question. Ideally it should be with a similarly loaded question that is designed to lead them to the discovery that their assumption/question stems from their misunderstanding rather than my own, such as "Who the hell wouldn't believe in gravity?

Fig 1

If it is someone I know who values the scientific method but perhaps just forgot for a moment that I am not a complete idiot, I may say something like "Not only DO I believe in it but I can get a direct measurement in two minutes using my bathroom scale, and report instead that it is consensus science that is the party that does not believe in the force of gravity).  Nothing like a twist in any plot to keep it interesting. 

 

So, my weight, that's direct evidence, not in degrees of curvature but in KG.  Ignoring this evidence of gravity being a mutually attractive force between massive bodies would involve saying it doesn't exist. This is so even when qualified in a proud voice stating that it is because actually an imaginary fabric of spacetime (which uses gravity to explain gravity) tells matter how to behave.  

 

It is the mainstream, not the EU, that rejects gravity in favour of pseudoscience. 

How exactly "spacetime" tells matter anything at all, is beyond me, since no means to do so is put forward.   Presumably it does so by using its only property, not a material property, but a concept (geometry).  Yes, geometry instead of any force or method to exchange energy.  I can state this since no means is put forward to explain how such a fabric exerts material influence over matter directly.  As far as I know the concept of mathematics does not have a driving force influencing the material world with material properties through mass as gravity does operating as a force, or how it mitigates these material properties once a moving body has motion, i.e. energy and this concept is now tasked with dealing with momentum and inertia.  

Also, there is no evidence for any "fabric" or "manifold", and the other aspect of it (the four coordinate system of 3 spatial dimension plus time) has been around forever.  It's called a "rendezvous" and was never dependent on the genius of Einstein since it is self-evident. 

 

That's the problem with "thought experiments", they are oxymoronic (or is it just moronic? I get confused sometimes).  Put another way, it is EITHER a thought OR an experiment, it can't really be both, let's face it. That's kind of the whole point of experiments.  

Another thing about the fabric of Spacetime is that it is not falsifiable.  These are not minor details.  If you don't believe me then look up the definition of "Pseudoscience". 

 

I'll save you the effort:

 

 

AI Overview

Pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs, theories, or practices that claim to be scientific but do not use proper scientific methods or testing. [1, 2]

Key Characteristics

Unfalsifiable claims: Ideas cannot be tested or proven wrong through observation.
No self-correction: Theories do not change or update when new evidence proves them wrong.
Reliance on anecdotes: Uses personal stories instead of controlled experiments.
Fake scientific language: Uses technical words to sound real without having real data. [1, 2, 3, 4]

  

Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

 

So, let's be serious here for a minute. Are we really supposed to drop the notion that gravity is a force and replace it with pseudoscience? Because that's what imagined ideas in theoretical physics, such as the "fabric of spacetime" become after a cultural shift snatches them from where they belong (as a theory) the moment we insist it's our best science, trumping direct evidence and direct measurements.  That's right, gravity itself may also be a theory but it does not presuppose 2 steps and 2 theoretical models/mechanics/dynamics/ sets of structure. It only deals in the tangible reality of mutual attraction because that is what it ultimately manifests as and that is what is measured.  There is a word for that: Force.

Fig 2

Are you beginning to get a sense of just how much projection is going on here?  The reputation of the EU model is the projected guilt by thousands of space science establishment groupies throwing shade on effective and efficient solutions.  It is treated as fringe simply to reduce the threat factor and avoid having to engage simply because the Electric Universe angle does address (and very often solves) the most perplexing Lambda CDM mysteries.  The straw-man debunking clips that pop up on the internet are very weak and serve only to dish up lies that can be seen to be debunked.  There is never any debate because there is always and only one outcome, and it is not pretty for the standard model.

This scenario describes the public understanding of science community and perhaps academics and administrators.  Publicly and culturally, this is damaging but it's not unusual from any group protecting access to public funding, tenure, reputation or perhaps those looking to conceal nepotism or advance their careers. As a result, silly misunderstandings in the broader public are baked into every aspect of EU. It's not all malice, part of it is surely stemming from assumptions resulting from theoretical science having crossed over firmly into La-la Land.

I would need to write an entire book to address all of these, and that is something I am seriously considering doing, because in doing so the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings is only half the benefit.  The other benefit of these clarifications is exposing the baseless sorcery posing as astrophysics when Lambda CDM Cosmology has framed the way the physics is understood and therefore expressed mathematically. Ever since Maxwell's equations and later Tesla, society has built power grids and a whole computerized world of technology though the mastery of the extremely well tested science of electromagnetism, That goes for the  disciplines of electrical engineering, electronics, electrostatics and electrodynamics.

I put it to you that this trumps evidence-free theoretical science.  Theoretical science which has no industry or engineering based on it and which cannot be reproduced in labs.  We need to leave our emotional attachment at the door when it comes to black holes, a big bang, dark matter, strange matter, dark energy and all the other borderline supernatural phenomena the standard model has cultivated over the years.  No new physics is required, known physics has simple explanations for all of these and more.  What does the guiding principle of science, Occam's Razor, tell us?

Fig 3:  Not every earth day is the same precise 24-hour period, and our year is also influenced in the tiniest way by certain external factors.   What's amazing is that there is a consistent correction towards mean on all these anomalous disturbances, meaning that whatever is mitigating celestial motion in accordance with the stability our simulations cannot achieve, it's also a major part of why the universe is as it is today.  We get to understand that without puzzling over how a single unbalanced force  (gravity) achieves this.

I've touched on the gravity issue and how the EU obviously accepts it.  They simply commit the unforgivable sin of proposing that a single unbalanced force cannot manifest a stable, well-ordered universe of filamentary structure and the cosmic web, it would quickly descend into chaos.  And that is exactly what simulations show, even at densities where matter is dense enough for gravity to dominate, like right near the surface a trillion-ton rock such as a planet or moon. 

 

Consider the 3 body problem in this regard. 

 

Noun

English Wikipedia has an article on:

three-body problem

three body problem (plural three body problems)

1. (astronomy) The problem of calculating the motion of three celestial bodies that interact with each other gravitationally

 

What leaps out at us in a gravity only universe is not only that there is only 4% of the required matter to generate enough of it, but because even at 100% the morphology would still be completely wrong.  Gravity forms spheres, it does not form filaments, a torus or discs.  A complex spiral arm rotating structure bears no resemblance to an orbital system. Even orbits themselves need a mitigating force for long term stability and to explain how the earth jumps back into its revolution and rotation time-frame since each day is not exactly the same length of 24 hours (see image above). It can be disturbed, i.e. after CME's and solar flares it is affected by tiny amounts.(See Fig 3 above)

Gravity is much more influential at planetary scales where matter is dense, compared to galactic scales where gravity play no role at all.  However a single unbalanced force relying on the precise orbital mechanics our rocket scientist calculate for space missions is so unlikely as to basically be impossible, a mitigating force is required and the resonance or potential gradient relating to charge keeps a stable and consistent influence on the orbit and rotation of planets and moons.

That is barely touching the gravity issue.  Its also without introducing the basics of why magnetic fields and self-contained plasma magnetic entities can do, They don't simply explain the anomalies, they actually REQUIRE the morphology of the universe to be as it is.  

 

Another main tenant of the Electric Universe is that in order for these other forces to contribute there must be a facilitation for charge movement and charge separation in space, in other words, electric current.  This is either partially accepted by some in the mainstream, usually with no appreciation of the extent or consequence of it, or it is rejected outright for reasons that I can only explain as a source of what almost seems like self-satire. 

You should make up your own mind. Perhaps you can detect the comedy value in the mainstream rejection of the Electric Universe claim essential to their principles, i.e. that there is electricity in space. Do so with your own assessment of their objections summed up in the below 4 points.  It reads like satire but ultimately this is the absurd reality right now.

 

Mind the sarcasm: 

1.  Despite the Universe being filled with radiation which ionizes all the gas out there to the state of plasma (even if only 1% ionized plasma conducts), Plasma has the charged particles to some degree liberated from the usual stable atomic state so to some degree made up of charged particles, in ions and electrons.  Groups of flowing charged particles always result in an electric current with a magnetic field around it. Only electric current produces magnetic fields, hence the term "electromagnetism".  Remember that there are no electric currents in space – but there are however magnetic fields oddly enough, These magnetic fields which are somehow not as a result of moving charge apparently, well, they are EVERYWHERE and their origin is an enduring mystery which nobody has ever been able to solve. 
2. The Solar Wind is charged particles. They move against the suns gravity and keep accelerating beyond the orbit of Neptune in the suns vast field, the same way we accelerate charged particles on earth in our colliders, using magnetic fields. Coincidentally. the Definition of Electric Current is moving charged particles; therefore, apart from near the planets, no electric current is present in the solar system, just moving charge and magnetic fields!!?
3. We use electricity to produce radio waves, microwaves, visible light, X-rays and Gamma Rays on Earth. All of these are found in space, each created by different and borderline supernatural sources since no electric current can exist in space.
4. Charged particles from the sun interact with our ionosphere to form very specific Birkeland Currents called Aurora. MOVING charged particles arrive from the sun in the solar wind which we measure, and thus far still somehow cannot find any evidence of electric current in space.

So far, we have only dipped our toe into these waters, new data is coming in literally every day supporting EU principles and getting standard model proponents to contemplate starting from scratch because every other new observation "breaks science" (Actually science is fine, it's their model being falsified on a weekly basis that breaks their hearts and channels denial based scorn into the competition through projection) a book covering this topic would practically write itself!

Click HERE for this site's homepage.

A full list of sources and citations for Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Particle Physics and Theoretical Physics can be found HERE. If you are curious and want an extensive database of scientifically rigorous alternatives to the tired collapsing current dogma, then you are in luck.