"Electric Universe Theory"

iwonder · Dec 27, 2005

I've noticed a lot of posts from "SiriusMrE" regarding this theory. I am not trying to take sides in this debate (it seems to get very heated sometimes), but I also like to think I am fairly open-minded. First let us assume that most of what SiriusMrE and his camp claims is untrue. Still, are there properties of electricity that we still don't understand fully? Is it possible that electrical discharges can occur between planetary or cosmological bodies? Simply from observation of our own atmostphere, it's clear that extremely powerful charges of electricity can be generated by simple forces of friction alone. I have heard that we really don't fully understand lightning, its causes and possible effects. Is this true? Whether or not the "Electric Universe Theory" is correct, does the mainstream scientific community think electrical forces can interact between cosmological bodies? Do they interact with, or are they possibly the cause of gravitational forces? Like an electromagnet?

Saiph · Dec 27, 2005

I don't think there is anything we don't understand on any level but the finest quantum level. However, I will say we likely have an incomplete picture of many phenomena associated with it. This is mostly due to how abundant these phenomena are, and how few people there are studying it. So we have an incomplete picture, not an mysterious unexplained one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Dec 27, 2005

I don't think there is anything we don't understand on any level but the finest quantum level. wow, what a myopic statement! science is not so definitive. there is indeed a mysterious and unexplained picture. yes, some things are known. and our applied technologies are a testmament to this. but there is far more unknown than is known. scientific stories are fraught with unexplained phenomena.

harmonicaman · Dec 27, 2005

The "Electric Universe" model is not very well supported by observation and/or testing. Other theories have a lot more evidence supporting their conclusions. The "Electric Universe" model is definitely not mainstream and some of its more outlandish claims are little more than pseudoscientific psycho-babble.

the_masked_squiggy · Dec 28, 2005

The Unknown As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know. —Donald Rumsfeld --Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing Sorry, couldn't resist!

bonzelite · Dec 28, 2005

that was funny. some unexpected levity. unknown unknowns, indeed!

Saiph · Dec 28, 2005

well, my statement is still valid, as our answers are correct until we get to that level, or until we get so complex it's just hard to do the computations. I.e. an incomplete picture, not an incorrect one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

silylene old · Dec 28, 2005

heh.....Donald Rumsfeld <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

nexium · Dec 28, 2005

Electricity arcs about one cm per 10,000 volts, in a vacuum, so that is one million volts per meter, one billion volts per kilometer = 150,000,000 billion volts per astronomical unit, assuming approximately linear. Such voltages are unimaginable, and so is Electric Universe. Neil

5stone10 · Dec 28, 2005

There are known unknowns. Ya gotta love that guy !

bonzelite · Dec 28, 2005

I.e. an incomplete picture, not an incorrect one. the earth being flat was incorrect, but believed true, until it was confirmed to be round. this applies today to science just as it did in centuries past. the situation is both incorrect and incomplete. is everything incorrect? of course not. is a good amount of it incorrect, including pivotal ideas of our origins? --highly likely-- does electric universe theory offer all the true answers? no way.

mikeemmert · Dec 28, 2005

Such voltages are unimaginable... The Allies planted a spy (or many) on Hitler in WWII. The conversation at a cocktail party turned to atomic bombs. Hitler said that sometimes, perfectly ordinary seeming main sequence stars sudenly brightened thousands of times for a few minutes, and he opined this was civilizations detonating A bombs and igniting their atmospheres "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", Richard Rhodes.. Unknown where he got that scenario, probably from Heisenburg. There are cataclysmic variable stars. Nukes don't ignite the atmosphere, but maybe Heisenburg believed that. (Or maybe some liberal professor was trying to stop Hitler.) One of the prime mission objectives of the Voyagers was to see if the moons of the outer planets had ever been subjected to melting, to see if this might happen to the Sun. Fortunately, it hadn't. Scientific American print article on the Voyager flybys. When roasters (Jupiter sized planets orbiting very near their stars) were discovered, somebody soon hypothesized that these planets generated a current through the same mechanism as a dynamo, and that the current built up for millions of years, and that the magnetic field lines broke suddenly, releasing an enormous amount of energy. Unfortunately, the source of that hypothesis was print magazine and might have been either Astronomy or Sky and Telescope, so I don't have a link. A lot of astronomy is imagining very large, "astronomical", numbers.

bonzelite · Dec 28, 2005

faith-based spontaneous combustion of an infinite point of density --out of nothingness-- to create a finiteness is unimaginable, and so is the big bang.

iwonder · Dec 28, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />faith-based spontaneous combustion of an infinite point of density --out of nothingness-- to create a finiteness is unimaginable, and so is the big bang. <hr /></blockquote> I would have to agree... much of astronomy, such as black holes, seems "unimaginable".

savster · Dec 29, 2005

I think the whole theory of black holes is nothing but a mathematical construct. There have been some observations that would seem to support such an entity, but even those observations can have other interpretations. The existence of black holes has never been definitively proven. It's not like we can construct one in a laboratory and "observe" its behavior, lol.

Saiph · Dec 29, 2005

well, considering the earth is flat to 1 in 100,000...then yes, I'd consider it incomplete. We still treat the earth as flat except in relatively extreme circumstances. As for black holes being a mathematical construct: enter the realm of philosophy...if the math is logically coherent, it's premises proven valid (or at least applicable by confirmed predictions)...then is the conclusion an illusion? or is it real? Is it just a description, or is it reality? Fun stuff (btw, I believe hawking goes for the second interpretation, so I'm not just "bs"ing). But, I know of many situations where there is no other possible interpretation for the evidence other than the existence of a black hole. Well, the phenomena could be something wildly beyond any physics we know today...but BH's fit the bill very well so no need to jump to that conclusion (take a look at it, sure, especially if the BH's aren't fitting the data well either). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Dec 29, 2005

i'm just asking you to consider that mathematics does not necessarily give us reality as it is actually happening. you can prop a ladder against a non-existent wall and create the idea, with convincing argument, that you can walk up this ladder, and the wall is factual. science is a philosophy. it is open to interpretation. it is just so that mathematics is a very powerful and compelling institution that cosmology has placed upon a pedastal. insofar as our origins, i have no faith in the 200% faith-based religion of big bang theory. i believe in pink elephants over that idea <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

bonzelite · Dec 29, 2005

Saiph, i tell you what, you agree with me that the universe is infinite and open, and i will discuss and ponder the real existence of black holes with you over an in-n-out burger <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

Saiph · Dec 30, 2005

that, is the other side of the coin. as for "faith based BB theory" it isn't that faith based. There is plenty of evidence for it, and very little agianst it. The primary type of evidence against it, is how it fails in extremes, which implies it isn't so much as wrong, as incomplete. So, once one accepts BB is an incomplete, but successful theory, all the other "faith based" griping tends to fade away. As for the "infinite and open" universe...small problem with that, see "olber's paradox" for some of the issues there. BTW, I'm not to fond of In-n-out...ugh. Now Arby's...that's good eatin'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Dec 30, 2005

like i said, i will entertain your black hole idea if you accept that the universe can be open and infinite. that paradox thing assumes a homogeneous and static universe. why does an infinite universe need to be homogeneous and static? who ever said that must be a prerequisite? moreover, BB is still faith based --you have to accept every broken rule, have a leap of faith literally, to have the BB go the way you want it to. in order for such an event to have happened, space and time had to have existed prior to it in order for matter to move anywhere. otherwise you just have to "buy it" --there was no time or space, but arose from an infinitely dense point suspended in a static nothingness. as well, an infinite state would have conserved itself to create another infinite state, having gone from one flavor of the infinite to another. and it would have expanded infinitely instantly, without propagation or finiteness. i'm only asking questions and playing devil's advocate. and it will be Arby's, then <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

Saiph · Dec 30, 2005

I'm more than willing to discuss the topics. If you'd like to chat about BB, and tell me about the broken rules and the literal leap of faith you are discussing, feel free to start up a thread, and I'll take a gander. But, small tidbit, the BB does not posit the existence, or non-existence, of anything before the event itself. It really only concerns what happens at that instance. And yes, i know that's a bit of a dodge, but as I said, BB is incomplete. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Dec 30, 2005

i understand. i am happy at your openness. incomplete, indeed. and unknown. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

jatslo · Dec 30, 2005

Iwonder and Bonzelite appear to be the same person.

iwonder · Jan 2, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Iwonder and Bonzelite appear to be the same person.<hr /></blockquote> Nope, sorry. We're not. =)

bonzelite · Jan 2, 2006

correct. we're different people. sorry to disappoint those who think otherwise.

"Electric Universe Theory"

iwonder

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

the_masked_squiggy

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

silylene old

Guest

nexium

Guest

5stone10

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

iwonder

Guest

savster

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

iwonder

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page