Talk:Electric Universe

How to classify
Is this bullshit, pseudoscience or protoscience. It seems to me that this guy is an expert in electricity and magnetism and has decided that applies to everything, despite the fact that gravity adequately explains such things as blackholes. 05:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would consider this a viable line of investigation, but the guy is a engineer who runs a manufacturing business. The maths he puts forward is beyond me. The statement he makes "space is full of charged particles (plasma) should be easy to verify or disprove. Hamster (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An engineer handing out his theories on cosmology, sounds like an extension of the Salem Hypothesis. 06:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * first look says Nutjob, there is some plasma research being done at legitamate universities and NASA. I would class it as psuedoscience now and maybe put in a statement about mainstream research . Hamster (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although space is full of some kind of energy (just woke up, details blurry), it's not plasma, which is the fourth state of matter - too much mass there to not have been noticed a long time ago. This might not be a well-researched theory, but then again might not be total BS either. I'll give it a chew tonight, if I remember. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (one chew later) Oh God, what a mess. This bloke is a "candidate" of the Hungarian academy of Science (ie they didn't get in), has nothing on the academic websites, and according to his publisher, is in with this lot - that page has a streak of Galileo gambit six inches thick all the way through... anyway, tag as pseudoscience. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bit late to the party, but: In Eastern and Central Europe, the title "candidate" in an academic context is equivalent to a PhD. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's "wp:candidate of science". He styles himself a "candidate of the Hungarian academy of Science", which at least to me implies being a candidate for a member of the Academy. According to their website, there are "Full Members, Corresponding Members, or Doctors of MTA", and another page explains that "MTA's membership is comprised of full, corresponding, external, and honorary members". I couldn't find Körtvélyessy in the online member search engine (a search for "ssy" returns five people - he's not one of them).--ZooGuard (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems Jesuits are here at work. Just one name Halton Arp. And al present cosmology, black holes, big bang go bust. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 213.147.165.227 / talk

I find this page disgusting, using master suppression techniques to dismiss a hypothesis, proves the authors have no understanding of science and even what science is, whatsoever. Now I mostly agree with the criticism of this hypothesis, but the rebuke of it is even more unscientific than the pseudoscience it critizeses. Also ID and EU are two quite different hypotheses, using one to discredit the other is what real scientist call circular reasoning. I would advise the page be taken down till a valid and scientific disprove or at least valid scientific criticism of EU has been created. So hell yeah, citation is needed, sorely.
 * While I'm skeptical about this, the rational thing to do is test it, not dismiss it. While current theories fit, fairly well with our current model, they are still theories. What side of history will you be on the one that doubts Copernicus? or supports science? (i'm not saying it's right, I'm saying a dismissive scientist is a bad scientist[also it's the prick you hate in every movie, don't be a prick]).

a bit of investigation
"Space is full of charged particles" is true. Most matter in most space is plasma, all right, but the density of the plasma is way-silly low. I saw this statement here, ''The naked electric force is 39 orders of magnitude (a thousand billion billion billion billion times) stronger than gravity. The visible universe is constituted almost entirely of electrically active plasma.''

It's an example of how to mislead with the truth, or with incomplete statements of the truth. Unstated in the claim about the "naked electric force" is the distance involved. It's very obvious that the electric force, at short distances, is far more powerful than gravity. After all, you can pick things up with static electricity, and even heavier things with magnets, completely overcoming gravity, but only at short range. Increase the distance only a little, and the static or magnetic field force will disappear (inverse square law). So at interplanetary and stellar distances? "Currents" require charge carriers, and a current would be limited by the availability of charge carriers, so, out of the box, the Electric Universe concepts seem totally preposterous. If, somewhere, this objection is answered, let's say that they haven't made it obvious. The arguments presented seem designed to convince only those who don't know bleep about physics.

Note that the existence of very-high-voltage-static charge differences between objects in space is not impossible, at all. They would be a consequence of, in fact, the ultrahigh resistance of mostly-empty space, so that no means is available to equalize charge imbalance, so it can build up and persist. That same high resistance makes the high currents proposed to operate over vast distances impossible. In order to induce some arcing, in the absence of charge carriers, there would need to be high voltage gradients available at the target matter, to strip charge carriers and accelerate them, forming a "discharge" that creates its own carriers in the intervening space, but the voltage gradient from a remote charge is vanishingly low, not even measurable at substantial distances far, far less than interplanetary. I'm not seeing any explanations of the Electric Universe that explain the subject for anyone reasonably knowledgeable. What did Hannes Alfven propose? Nothing in his Wikipedia article looks like woo. There are currents in the plasma of space, but what is nutso about the Electric Universe theories is that they are proposed to be large enough to produce, say, at the surface of the earth, an arc that would "cut" the Grand Canyon. --Abd (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hannes Alfven
I missed something. Alfven proposed a cosmological model. Such a proposal is not pseudoscience in itself. Alternate models are part of the process of science. Alfven's model seems to have been rejected. If it was mistaken, that doesn't make it pseudoscience, and if the rejection was based on failed predictions of the model, it obviously was falsifiable. However, the Electric Universe people seem to be using Alfven far outside of his realm. --Abd (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Moderator Possesses Creationist Bias Against Electric Universe
Mikalos209 rejected the following update to the wiki regarding Electric Universe: You were blocked by Mikalos209. The reason given for your block is Boring repetitive reversions to established articles. We don't care apologize for any inconvenience caused. If you believe the block was too long or unjustified, then please try contacting Mikalos209 or another administrator. You will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors by e-mail. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is 66.214.96.162, and the block ID is #48229.

The "Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various modern cosmological ideas built around the discovery that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electric currents and magnetic fields than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from author to author. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be subject to experimentation in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim consistency to the "Plasma Cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén, as well as support for Dr. Anthony Peratt, and Dr. Eric Lerner.


 * EU advocates point to the work done by U.N. IAEA Director Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson as providing the legitimate Scientific explanation of the Red Shift phenomenon as opposed to that proposed by Big Bang Creationism, Catholic Monk Georges Lemaitre and rejected by Einstein & Hubble.


 * EU advocates believe any theory regarding the Red Shift phenomenon must be consistent with the Quasar discoveries of Astronomer Halton C. Arp.


 * EU advocates also promote awareness of the failures and inconsistencies in claims by Big Bang Creationists highlighted by the World Renowned Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille who uncovered a variety of flaws in the COBE & WMAP data. 1, 2

===Claims===
 * [Some] craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not only caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same may apply to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.
 * The Lightning Scarred Planet Mars


 * Electric Universe Predictions

===External links===
 * Universe: Cosmology Quest (video)
 * The Big Bang Never Happened by Dr. Eric Lerner Ph.D
 * Dr. Halton C. Arp Official Website
 * Plasma Redshift by Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson Ph.D
 * Plasma Cosmology - Dr. Anthony Peratt Ph.D Los Alamos National Laboratory
 * Featured on Coast to Coast AM Radio
 * The Surface of the Sun

===Supporters===
 * thunderbolts.info, the most popular EU advocate website
 * Electric Cosmos (by "Donald E. Scott, Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering)")
 * Thunderbolts of the Gods (video)
 * The Electric Universe, László Körtvélyessy's website
 * Plasma Cosmology

===Footnotes===
 * Electric Universe by Wal Thornhill
 * Electric Sky by Dr. Donald E. Scott Ph.D
 * NRL Plasma Formulary

Proposed changes
In a private message the moderator expressed his displeasure of the phrase "Big Bang Creationism" & "Big Bang Creationists"

This seems to ignore the fact that the Big Bang Theory is an off-spring of Old Earth Creationism first advocated by Creationists such as Georges Lemaitre and was classified by sites like talk.origins and infidels.org as an Old Earth Creationist Theory.
 * Mikalos is not a moderator. Like most other users of the wiki, he has sysop rights allowing him to block users, but this is not a special position. If you hang around and don't make trouble, you'll also get sysop rights.
 * There are no private messages. Messages left on your user talk page, like on every other talk page, are public for all to see.
 * Your proposed "improvements" contain a number of untruths and misinterpretations. At the very least, Brynjolfsson's "plasma redshift", Robitaille and Arp don't have much to do with the Electric Universe except proposing alternatives to the Big Bang. According to his own CV, Brynjolfsson was a director of the "International Facility for Food Irradiation Technology" (IFFIT), not the IAEA. Etc., etc. Some of the new external links are on-topic, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Objections from "Wally Hope"
All the while this 'discussion' is going on, on a secondary page to the subject, people are given a biased view of a legitimate theory that is based on better, more proveable science than gravity. E.U. theories when applied to NASA experiments provide better predictions of results than NASA's own predictions. It is not pseudoscience until proven wrong. This wiki is obviously run from a self refreshing database, which reverts to the original after 2 minutes, whilst giving the impression that it is editable. I have now 3 times attempted to remove all the belittling comments from the main E.U. page here and leave a balanced impartial opinion on the E.U. theory so that people can investigate further and make up their own mind. The only bullshit here is the moderation on the main page, it says to me that someone has an agenda. Oh sorry, do I need a citation for this?


 * All content moderation on RationalWiki is done by humans; there is no "self refreshing database" with the power to magically identify divergence from consensus. Your edits are being rolled back because you're trying to make major changes to the tone and meaning of the article without first discussing them with the community. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the portrayal of E.U. is belittling and all I did was remove the unfair bias.
 * If you want us to remove the "unfair bias" you will need to demonstrate why we should do so. Yes, a citation would help as a starting point. On the other hand, simple assertions are not sufficient. Just because you believe it doesn't mean it's so. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wally you might  want to check out  the Alternative cosmology article. Theres no point in claiming there is an agenda, the electric universe is pseudoscience, there is no debate about this in the scientific community, that is just the way it is. Plasma cosmology is not pseudoscience, but is  a minority view in  the scientific community, if  you want to expand the plasma cosmology section on the alternative cosmology then feel free. Forests (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Implications on Earth?
Would living in an 'Electric Universe' have implications for people while living on Earth? It seems like it would have serious consequences for Earthlings that could be easily verified.-- Token ConservativeFeminist Thought Police 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is my point too. Would the Electric Universe theory be true, the galactic discharges they propose would be more than visible and not just because we'd be talking about the billions or far more amps needed for a star to shine -space has a very poor electrical conductivity, so unless they decided to change its value (which would have been detected), imagine the sheer voltage needed for a current to move across it-. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Material from Stuart Robbins
- David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's more relevant to the James McCanney article, though he needs to be included in this one.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ralph E. Juergens
Articles written by Ralph E. Juergens outlining the sun as a tufted anode, with an explanation of current required and how a local star fits into the galactic scheme, noting where current densities are, and where the voltage drop off occurs. (As is required) Just thought I would add fuel to the remarkable incredulity in this wiki. His book is probably lost to posterity.

There is some curiosity that electrical engineers, who venture into the astronomy field might have an explanation that does not depend on anthropocetric and weaponized notions, but a notion of the very thing they have dealt with every day can be measured in the regions accessible only by space probes, long after thermonuclear bombs were first made. Relativity brought us a spectacularily dangerous toy, which mesmerizes us, while the real work goes on.

Charge density may be vanishingly small in low density plasma, but over vast distances the accumulated charges and differentials can be larger than anyone had first imagined.

http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm &mdash; Unsigned, by: FranSix / talk / contribs 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Electric Universe vs Plasma Cosmology
My understanding of things is that there's plasma cosmology, which holds that structures of galaxy size and up are due to more to electromagnetism than gravity, and then there's electric universe, which is plasma cosmology plus: stars (and perhaps novas/supernovas) are powered by electricity rather than nuclear fusion and such. Might want to make a distinction between them. -- Matthew Cline (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yay engagement
Welcome all - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, Chrimony comments at an EU forum? Is this the same one that spouted GG talking points over here at RW? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:09, 5 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I haven't spoken to Chrimony before this thread (that I recall), has he caused trouble on RW in the past? He seems to me like one of the more reasonable people on that thread, in some ways - by comparison to some of the others. Giffyguy (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * [EC]:Wouldn't be surprised. 00:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The sudden uptick in activity is attributed to this recent Thunderbolt's Forum thread started on Nov 3, 2015:


 * "Improving RationalWiki's Entry for the Electric Universe"
 * http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16030


 * Looks like the Electric Universe folks are eager to write their own RationalWiki review; a glowing and positive self-review. All derogatory comments are systematically being expunged. Hey, why not just get Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott to write the review themselves? No bias there!
 * Slings and Arrows (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article does need updating. There should be comments stating that EU is an aether-based theory. And also, the founder's are promoting homeopathy, Mythology, and most recently dipole gravity. These guys are bonkers! Slings and Arrows (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder - I'll add dipole gravity to the Pet-Theory section, along with the other BS pet-theories that come from the likes of Thornhill. Giffyguy (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

SAFIRE
I know it is near impossible to prove one way or the other, but I find it hard to believe that the SAFIRE project is funded to the tune of $2.2M The only evidence we have is their own say-so. I'd be very skeptical of the claim, especially given the source isn't super clear about whether that money has been fully given yet. By the way, this here is a perfect example of what a RW article actually is. Needs a hell of alot of improvement though, I'd be interested in the proponents response to the obvious utility of relativity. Tielec01 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the whole SAFIRE project sounds suspicious and should be thoroughly checked out -- possibly contact the International Science Foundation for comment. And yes, the overall article is skimpy and still needs a great deal of work. Slings and Arrows (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a front organization. They do not respond to contact requests. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 186.67.198.82 / talk

It's pretty easy to see that they are a front group for Thunderbolts. The contact person for the International Science Foundation, the organization that is claiming to fund the SAFIRE Project is Susan Kaye Schirott of Hayword, WI. You can see that she organizes the EU conferences: as reported on this page. Why they would try to hide their activities like this is an intriguing question (and why they would claim to be independent when they clearly are not is even more curious).

I have in my possession the first "paper" written by the SAFIRE team. It is pretty awful. I need to be autoconfirmed to upload it, I guess. Let me know if that's something I can bypass. Documentprovide (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the paper which has not received peer review (likely because it is garbage). [[File:Safire-project-1.pdf]]. Documentprovide (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SAFIRE claims to have Fussion in their YT Video Special Feature: SAFIRE PROJECT 2019 UPDATE with the creation of La, Ce, Ba, Sn, Zn, Ti, ca, K, Cl, S, P, Mg, Na, C. In the presentation they say that they have exceeded the thermal design of the system while using only 7% of the potential energy.


 * For details on how this project has been funded, can I refer readers to this discussion on International Skeptics;


 * http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338779&page=28


 * In essence, they are funded by the Mainwaring Archives Foundation. This is a charity distributing funds from Velikovskian sources to various people and organisations. Most of them involved with Electric Universe, Plasma Universe and similar. Other 'notables' who are/were funded by them include David Talbott and Anthony Peratt.The links to access MAF's financial disclosures are in the linked discussion. The money is inexplicably moved to the International Science Foundation, which is a front charity set up by Thunderbolts, before being given to SAFIRE. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Ianw16 / talk / contribs

Global Warming Denial
This is just a cheap shot; guilt by association. The Electric Universe is not involved in global warming denial. Some lone kook from Vault-Co (Cleve Blakemore) has nutty ideas about climate change. Fine, go ahead and attack him; but don't use it to impugn the Electric Universe -- they have never endorsed this clown.

It just looks like a desperate underhanded ploy to mudsling and smear the Electric Universe, when in this instance their hands are clean. These sort of unscrupulous tactics only make RationalWiki look bad. Slings and Arrows (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rubbish, the nuttier global warming deniers have hooked onto these idjits, e.g. Robitaille - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of Robitaille's articles posted at viXra:
 * http://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille


 * Which one of his articles supposedly deals with global warming denial? Slings and Arrows (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Go read the Robitaille article. They found him - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Though to be fair it's global warming deniers using EU ideas as chaff, rather than primarily EU proponents also advocating global warming denial - this needs to come across better - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A refutation
STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY 14:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What bits are specifically about the Electric Universe? - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We Lovers of Knowledge, Crackpots, Cranks, and Loonies, and Burning at the Stake
While researching a different topic I came across this EU theory and knowing little about it I came here to do a little digging just to satisfy my curiosity. After reading the page I realized I learned more about what type of people the author seems to loathe than the subject itself. I would like to ask this question: Why is it when we get to a certain level of learning does it become automatically acceptable to simple discount and discredit those with differing views? I understand that a lot of this "theory" doesn't hold up to our current standards but from the earths perspective it was only yesterday that if you had the audacity to say the planet we lived on was spherical not flat they burned you at the stake. What young student has not read about the way our early peers were treated at the hands of the Church and not thought about how barbaric and uninformed the common man was to do something like that just for saying the earth was round? Is not that basically the same thing we are doing to those who have differing opinions today only with less fire and more words like crackpot, crank, and loony?

In my field we deal frequently with television productions, crypto-science groups, and even just regular people who will look at an ancient bowl, that in reality was probably used for the ancient equivalent of a someone's breakfast Fruit Loops, and they will claim that a certain groove near the base is proof that it was actually the lower shield wall to the warp drive of a visitor from Alpha-Ceti. I will admit my first response was to call them a crackpot but curiosity got the better of me and I decided to do a little research. Now let me stop at this point and say that I am not a new convert to the Ancient Alien Theory and I do not believe the first Pharaohs were actually good will ambassadors from Vulcan but some of the questions that they bring up, if you approach them the way we claim men of science should (I imagine you have all heard of that little thing called the scientific method) and actually give them thought instead of just discounting them because the guy writing the article must be a loony, it does present a bit of a problem for the so called establishment. Taking some of their talking points and really looking into them I have myself begun to question some of the conclusions we learned men have drawn.

Why are we so quick to label someone with a differing view as someone who is mentally inferior to us? Even if they are, are we not lowering ourselves to their level by resorting to name calling instead of just presenting a logical augment. I may not agree with their conclusions but some of the initial questions do have merit. Just because I do not believe Specks grandfather built the pyramids does not mean some of the inconsistencies they point out do not have merit. There are several big stones in Giza that do appear to have saw marks on them. I questioned a friend in that field about them and he swears if he didn't know better he would have said it was cut with a modern wet-saw or a plasma cutter. On one he could not even guess because we would be unable to make that cut today without laser cutters. Unfortunately we just discredit the whole thing because we disagree with their "alien" conclusion and take it no further. I sincerely hope that students sitting in a classroom 300 years from now do not look back and say how could those guys in the early 2000's have been so stupid to think the Egyptians used copper chisels to make those precise cuts instead of __________. My greatest fear is in 40 years one of my students saying I remember one of my professors saying how absurd people were for believing these existed while standing with his grandchild in front of the San Diego Zoo's Bigfoot exhibit.

I guess what I am asking is when did we become so close minded? So many past men of science drew the wrong conclusions from the available data but that did not stop the next guy from looking at the same data and finally getting it right. Now we have a tendency to throw out the data because we do not like the first theory presented. We call that person a crackpot and go after anyone who is fool enough to look at the same data again. The author of this article spent so much time telling us how much he thought people who supported the Electric Universe (EU) were crazy and moronic but not enough about what it really is. I think if he would have just laid out what the theory was without the personal attacks most of us would have come to the same conclusion he did anyway we would just have had more information. Aren't we supposed to draw our conclusions after we work through the data, not first? If we make up our minds before reading the data, even in crackpot ones, we might just discount all of it when hidden inside the information is one little kernel of truth that might lead us to something significant. Our new levels of closed mindedness may cause us to miss out on the "next big find." We have become awfully quick at declaring a hypothesis a theory or fact and even quicker at declaring a hypothesis a crack pot idea without working all the steps in between and our scientific neutrality while working it out seems to have fallen by the wayside these days. One thing that has been proven fact time and time again is that history is not kind to close minded people. You do not often hear someone say that they miss the good old Inquisition.

Sorry for writing this short novel here, but this is an issue that has been weighing on me for awhile and I would like to hear if anyone agrees or if I am just a loony crackpot. Forgive me for any typos or grammatical and spelling errors. I spent to much time writing and now have no time to proof read. If I am late for class my students will all leave and go back to their dorms and get high. I do not want to be responsible for them killing any brain cells. This batch doesn't seem to have enough as it is. Andrew M.108.15.240.101 (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not a 'short novel' but an 'opinion piece' (and opinionated as well) - and could do with some editing and fact checking. Basically #if you can't be bothered to check your use of English# why should we listen to you - and why should your students pay for your course?
 * People were not being burnt at the stake for stating that the world was round; there never were ambassadors from the non-existent planet Vulcan; and the people of the ancient world were every bit as ingenious as we are now (#and# had to survive without modern technology and medicine etc).
 * As for cutting marble - seems reasonable (and there are other texts). Anna Livia (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * … And the term 'men of science' is outdated. Anna Livia (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

EU
I keep reading "EU" as "European Union" lmao. — Oxyaena Harass  09:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)