Cosmology of the Electric Universe

[Native]

Thanks for the video. I had kind of forgotten about EU theory, it interests me sometimes

You´re welcome

To me the EU is very logical as all atoms have EM properties and the EM can explain logically how everything in micro - and macrocosmos works - but of course, most orthodox scientists will have nothing of it because it draws the blanket away from their old and outdated standing points.

 

[Polymath257]

And:

I also reject "gravitons" and the last silly invention of " inflation particles" in the strange Big Bang idea.

You both can go to CERN and see what happens to all your "particles" when smashed to a fog of EM energy waves.

Photons are well established by actual observations. Gravitons are not, I agree.

Yes, you can go to CERN and learn how the different *known* particles (including photons) interact.

Electrons are particles. They also have a wave aspect. Protons are particles. They also have a wave aspect. Neutrons are particles. They also have a wave aspect. And photons are particles. They also have a wave aspect.

That is the nature of quantum particles: they have BOTH a particle aspect and a wave aspect.

And, while the graviton and inflaton have not yet been detected, a great number of particles *have* been. And the Higg's particle has many of the characteristics expected of the inflaton.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re welcome

To me the EU is very logical as all atoms have EM properties and the EM can explain logically how everything in micro - and macrocosmos works - but of course, most orthodox scientists will have nothing of it because it draws the blanket away from their old and outdated standing points.

What you seem to ignore is that all the actual data and the observations in your video agrees with 'orthodox' science. E&M is NOT ignored: it is an understood force and does arise in many situations. But so does gravity. On the cosmic scale, gravity is *usually* more important.

 

[Native]

Yes, you can go to CERN and learn how the different *known* particles (including photons) interact.

Electrons are particles. They also have a wave aspect. Protons are particles. They also have a wave aspect. Neutrons are particles. They also have a wave aspect. And photons are particles. They also have a wave aspect.

That is the nature of quantum particles: they have BOTH a particle aspect and a wave aspect.

Split it all up enough - and all you have left is energy waves.

And the Higg's particle has many of the characteristics expected of the inflaton.

Oh? I otherwise thought the "Higgs Boson" was the little strong devil, which provides weight to all other atoms and as such, it only should have attractive properties and not repulsive as in the strange Big Bang "inflation".

Yet again: If having no consistent and logical definitions, modern science can take all subjects to count for all objects everywhere at pleasure.

 

[Polymath257]

Split it all up enough - and all you have left is energy waves.

Wrong. Electrons are different than quarks, which are different than neutrinos, which are different than photons. Energy is *one* aspect of all of them, but not the only aspect.

Oh? I otherwise thought the "Higgs Boson" was the little strong devil, which provides weight to all other atoms and as such, it only should have attractive properties and not repulsive as in the strange Big Bang "inflation".

Wrong. Interaction with the Higg's particle gives *some* particles mass, but there are other mechanisms of mass production as well. The vast majority of ordinary matter doens't get its mass from the Higg's.

Yet again: If having no consistent and logical definitions, modern science can take all subjects to count for all objects everywhere at pleasure.

Once again, you show you don't understand what is going on. One main characteristic of the inflaton is that it has to be a massive spin zero particle. Such particles produce the inflation effect.

The Higg's boson is a massive spin zero particle. We just don't know if it is the inflaton because there are *other* properties the inflaton has to satisfy as well. That is one reason (among many) that we are studying the Higg's particle.

And I find it ironic that you seem to reject the Higg's particle given that it is fundamental to the unification of E&M and the weak force.

 

[Native]

What you seem to ignore is that all the actual data and the observations in your video agrees with 'orthodox' science. E&M is NOT ignored: it is an understood force and does arise in many situations. But so does gravity. On the cosmic scale, gravity is *usually* more important.

Polymath, we have been there 117 times before. E&M IS ignored as a force of formation in cosmos and you know this!

I´m stunned that you can believe in the weakest force to play the main role in the Universe. Everytime you have "one gravity particle" you have to add many order magnitudes of E&M forces. Your gravity assemtion is NOT logical at all.

And since the EU forces govern and drive everything in the Universe, the gravitaitonal particle scientists needs 27 % more matter (really 39 %) to count for the lack of using the logical and stronger EU forces and it´s explainable dynamics everywhere.

 

[Native]

Once again, you show you don't understand what is going on.

And then:

We just don't know if it is the inflaton because there are *other* properties the inflaton has to satisfy as well.

You state me to be wrong - but you don´t anything yourself.

Please free me for more of such inconsistent nonsense just to be opposite.

 

[Native]

And I find it ironic that you seem to reject the Higg's particle given that it is fundamental to the unification of E&M and the weak force.

Not at all so.
What unites all EM forces is only a question of different charges, frequensies and ranges in the same EM force working in all 4 elementary stages.

It´s as simple as that.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath, we have been there 117 times before. E&M IS ignored as a force of formation in cosmos and you know this!

Not true. It *is* an aspect of the universe. NOBODY denies that. It is crucial in *certain* interactions. Again, NOBODY denies that.

I´m stunned that you can believe in the weakest force to play the main role in the Universe. Everytime you have "one gravity particle" you have to add many order magnitudes of E&M forces. Your gravity assemtion is NOT logical at all.

Once again, gravity comes in only *one* 'polarity'. E&M comes in two, which cancel each other.

Let E&M be represented by 1,000,000. Let gravity be represented by 1.

Consider the following

1,000,000-1,000,000+1,000,000-1,000,000+1,000,000-1,000,000+....

and

1+1+1+1.....

Take 1,000,000,000 terms of each. Which will be larger?

The first varies between 1,000,000 and 0. It never gets to be larger than 1,000,000. The second, while it starts small, keeps getting larger. After1,000,000,000 terms, it *far* outweighs the first. And the difference in size grows the more terms are added together.

And since the EU forces govern and drive everything in the Universe, the gravitaitonal particle scientists needs 27 % more matter (really 39 %) to count for the lack of using the logical and stronger EU forces and it´s explainable dynamics everywhere.

Except that you never give any actual details. We have the equations for E&M. We know how E&M works. Use them to explain the motion of the planets in the solar system *without* using gravity.

IF you can do that, you have passed the *first* hurdle to being taken seriously. There are others, of course, but that gets you on the path. if you cannot do that, then there is no science being done there at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Not at all so.
What unites all EM forces is only a question of different charges, frequensies and ranges in the same EM force working in all 4 elementary stages.

It´s as simple as that.

No, it really isn't. Charge is only *one* variable. Frequencies happen in *any* wave phenomenon. So, for example, electrons have a wavelength and a frequency that differs in different situations. And, the characteristic of E&M (and gravity) is that they are long range. The weak and strong nuclear forces are very short range.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think the OP actually gave some insight. They don't like the impersonal aspect of modern science and want things to be 'more connected' than the evidence shows them to be.

Owkay. Still think it's very strange though.

Indeed, with creationism, at least there is a rationale there. Not a good one, off course, lol... but there's a motive to protect "other" beliefs to which they are emotionally attached.

This electric universe thing here indeed appears to be no more then "I like the universe better this way".

What I have noticed though, is that I have never seen an atheist push for this idea. So there seems to be a correlation there. But I don't see a straight line from theistic beliefs to "electric universe" in the way that there is a straight line from theistic beliefs to "creationism".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe you´re more correct in your last sentense than you think You don´t understand, hence you´re calling something you don´t know for "booha" and "quacks" instead of trying to understand.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suite it seems.

What I was referring to with the "I don't understand" was the underlying motivation to continue to push an idea that is so incredibly easy to debunk. I wasn't talking about the idea itself.

I can understand why someone would push creationism and argue against evolution. And that is their a priori incompatible theistic beliefs which require them to believe in creationism. And creationism is arguably even easier to debunk then the electric universe booha.

 

[Polymath257]

Owkay. Still think it's very strange though.

Indeed, with creationism, at least there is a rationale there. Not a good one, off course, lol... but there's a motive to protect "other" beliefs to which they are emotionally attached.

This electric universe thing here indeed appears to be no more then "I like the universe better this way".

What I have noticed though, is that I have never seen an atheist push for this idea. So there seems to be a correlation there. But I don't see a straight line from theistic beliefs to "electric universe" in the way that there is a straight line from theistic beliefs to "creationism".

The connection seems to be a need for 'meaning' from the science. People want to feel *connected* to the universe around them. And, if you watch the first bit in the OP, it is clear *that* is the reason for rejecting traditional science: there is a need for connection. What EU does is produce a feeling of connection between the different parts of the universe with people at the center.

Creationists get their meaning from a particular religious tradition. They reject evolutionary science to protect that source of meaning. But there is a similar protective attitude in other places. 'Crystal power' is another, very different, source of meaning and connection. It isn't as popular as creationism, but shows many of the same sorts of denials of science and attachment to silly ideas. Homeopathy is yet another science denial. I see EU as closer to 'crystal power' and homeopathy than to creationism in this sense.

 

[Native]

Once again, gravity comes in only *one* 'polarity'. E&M comes in two, which cancel each other.

So there is no currents and and magnetic fields at all? Please turn your inner EM light on before replying.

Let E&M be represented by 1,000,000. Let gravity be represented by 1.

Consider the following

1,000,000-1,000,000+1,000,000-1,000,000+1,000,000-1,000,000+....

and

1+1+1+1.....

Take 1,000,000,000 terms of each. Which will be larger?

The first varies between 1,000,000 and 0. It never gets to be larger than 1,000,000. The second, while it starts small, keeps getting larger. After1,000,000,000 terms, it *far* outweighs the first. And the difference in size grows the more terms are added together.

We´re not talking about mathematical numbers but FORCES. No matter how many gravity numbers you add, you have several orders magnitude stronger E&M forces.

Except that you never give any actual details. We have the equations for E&M. We know how E&M works. Use them to explain the motion of the planets in the solar system *without* using gravity.

We´ve also been there 117. times before and I´ve NEWER claimed the EM force to drive the planets directly but it seem beyond your philosophical skills to grasp this.

IF you can do that, you have passed the *first* hurdle to being taken seriously. There are others, of course, but that gets you on the path. if you cannot do that, then there is no science being done there at all.

Explain your Theory of Everything and then I´ll consider to believe you.

 

[Polymath257]

So there is no currents and and magnetic fields at all? Please turn your inner EM light on before replying.

Did I say that? No. Currents are moving charged particles. And, if the charges include both polarities, the current will be small. Magnetic fields are produced by moving charges. Once again, if both positive and negative charges are moving, the effects cancel.

We´re not talking about mathematical numbers but FORCES. No matte hov many gravity numbers you add, you have several orders magnitude stronger E&M forces.

Wrong. E&M both adds and subtracts. The forces cancel. With gravity, the forces always add.

We´ve also been there 117. times before and I´ve NEWER claimed the EM force to drive the planets directly but it seem beyond your philosophical skills to grasp this.

Which means you can't actually explain anything using E&M. No details, no real theory.

Explain your Theory of Everything and then I´ll consider to believe you.

You don't need to have everything in order to have something.

 

[Native]

No, it really isn't. Charge is only *one* variable. Frequencies happen in *any* wave phenomenon. So, for example, electrons have a wavelength and a frequency that differs in different situations. And, the characteristic of E&M (and gravity) is that they are long range. The weak and strong nuclear forces are very short range.

Of course the EM force is ONE PRINCIPLE all over the places. It´s just the disconnected and specified scientific branches which differs everything.

 

[Native]

I said:
Explain your Theory of Everything and then I´ll consider to believe you.

You don't need to have everything in order to have something

And when you just have someting, you don´t have to argue patronizing as having everything.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course the EM force is ONE PRINCIPLE all over the places. It´s just the disconnected and specified scientific branches which differs everything.

E&M is, specifically, electrical and magnetic forces. Electric fields are produced by charges and changing magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are produced by *moving* charges and changing electric fields. Given the electric and magnetic fields, the charge on a particle can be computed and is proportional to its charge.

Atoms are made from protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons are positively charged. The electrons are negatively charged. The neutrons are neutral. In most atoms, there are an equal number of protons and electrons, so the atom itself is electrically neutral. If, however, an atom gains or loses an electron, it becomes charged.

Plasmas are mixtures of equal numbers of positively and negatively charged particles.

Light is a wave of electric and magnetic fields.

ALL of this is well known and tested. NOBODY denies it.

 

[Polymath257]

I said:
Explain your Theory of Everything and then I´ll consider to believe you.

And when you just have someting, you don´t have to argue patronizing as having everything.

I never claimed to have everything. But denial of what is known isn't going to produce progress.

 

[Native]

The connection seems to be a need for 'meaning' from the science. People want to feel *connected* to the universe around them. And, if you watch the first bit in the OP, it is clear *that* is the reason for rejecting traditional science: there is a need for connection. What EU does is produce a feeling of connection between the different parts of the universe with people at the center.

Creationists get their meaning from a particular religious tradition. They reject evolutionary science to protect that source of meaning. But there is a similar protective attitude in other places. 'Crystal power' is another, very different, source of meaning and connection. It isn't as popular as creationism, but shows many of the same sorts of denials of science and attachment to silly ideas. Homeopathy is yet another science denial. I see EU as closer to 'crystal power' and homeopathy than to creationism in this sense.

Try to read "modern science" into all your narrow minded sentenses here - and fill 96 % dark cosmological things on top of it

Superstitions seems to trive everwhere