The Electric Comet theory

[JeanTate]

Thank you, Dancing David.

TADA, and welcome to the Electric Universe theories.

Actually, as I've said repeatedly, in this thread I'd like to focus on electric comet ideas. I appreciate that certain, key, parts of the electric Sun ideas are so deeply intertwined that you can't discuss the former without also discussing the latter.

And, as I posted a short while ago, I now realize that - in public - supporters of electric comet ideas seem deeply confused ... they mistake the likes of NASA PRs with the actual scientific research into comets. So instead of writing papers (and getting them published in relevant peer-reviewed journals), they cherry-pick from mass media material, write rambling blog posts, and produce science content-free videos for YouTube. That at least two of the key guys have university degrees in STEM seems to point to something other than a scientific debate.

 

[JeanTate]

Welcome, David Talbott, from someone who was, until quite recently, also just a new member with four posts.

Three good questions from Tusenfem:

1. How does the electric comet generate the observed water (or OH for all I care) through the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary nucleus? A qualitative and quantitative answer is needed here
2. How does the electric comet generate the observed CO2 emission from the comet? Are these generated by the same interaction as the H2O/OH?
3. Why do we not observe any "sparking" events at the comet in the instruments which should be sensitive to these kind of processes?

Of course obtaining quantitative answers will be essential, but if these answers are to come from specialists themselves, I believe this will require deeper shifts in thinking about comets than the shifts noted so far in this thread.

(my emphases)

I'm quite confused about this; aren't you* - and Scott and Thornhill - the specialists? I mean, there are no other living electrical theorists, are there?

The necessary data gathering could be dramatically advanced by the Rosetta Mission. But what theoretical assumptions will be guiding the Rosetta assessments and analyses?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, could you explain please?

For example, at some point all the Rosetta data will be made available to one and all, won't it? And the papers which will be published - in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - will spell out the theoretical assumptions used, won't they? I mean, if they don't, they will likely not get published, will they?

As you say, Tusenfem, changes in scientific imagination do not always come quickly.

Viewing the public statements placed on various NASA and ESA discussions of comets can be dismaying. Despite a few equivocations on the “dirty snowball” or "icy dirtball idea," I’ve never seen an official page acknowledge the more radical possibility—that we might visit a comet and find a rock plain and simple.

May I ask - a genuine question, I'm really puzzled - why you haven't been reading the relevant papers published in peer-reviewed journals?

As you know, several comets have now been 'visited', and a great many papers written about what was found. Can you point to any such paper which reported 'the composition of {comet X} is rock, plain and simple'? And, may I ask, what data from these previous missions have you downloaded and analyzed, independently? What results and conclusions did you reach? Where did you publish your findings (as in, in which peer-reviewed journals)?

But now, here we are, looking at 67P and wondering if it will reveal ANY water, either on the surface or beneath the surface at the presumed sources of jets. My own expectation is that no water ice whatsoever will be found apart from, at best, a minor drift of icy frost from the coma to the surface during a more active phase. Though the electric comet hypothesis does not DEPEND on this prediction, we’ve seen enough to bet on it.

I asked member Haig about this, several times, and have gotten Sol88 interested in doing a BOTE calculation on it; however, Haig could not answer my questions. Perhaps you can: what is the electric potential (relative to the Sun) that a comet traverses, along its orbit? Specifically, what is 67P's?

If 67P turns out to be a rock—and JUST a rock—it’s only reasonable to expect a major shift toward thinking electrochemically about water production by comets. I’ve been in discussions with qualified scientists on this issue, and at least one specialist will be speaking on the electrochemistry of comets at our June conference. That talk will no doubt go well beyond mere H2O and CO2 production.

That's very interesting!

Can you share with us a BOTE calculation of H₂O and CO₂ production?

My own job is simply to show why new facts do not allow us to ignore electrical implications. That’s just an interdisciplinary observation, based on a ground floor of critical findings. Well designed experiments will provide the parameters for qualified mathematical analysis. The experimental work must, of course, include the plasma domain of the Sun, and that work is already underway and appropriately funded.

(my emphasis)

Are you referring to SAFIRE? If not, what?

Much has occurred in the past couple of years to inspire the Electric Universe community and to drive its outreach to the specialized space sciences in 2015. We now have considerable data to show that scientists globally are paying attention, and changes in fundamental thinking about comets will surely help to lead the way.

(my emphases)

This - to me - is an odd way of putting it. Are you indirectly admitting that electrical theorists are not scientists? That what electrical theorists have done, to date, is not science?

Can you clarify please?

*assuming that you are, in fact, that David Talbott

 

[Reality Check]

This short video explains the errors...

Wrong Haig - an ignorant and deluded video does not explain anything expect that the authors are ignorant and deluded !

You remain incapable of understanding that the authors of one ignorant and deluded video are able to produce another listing their ignorance an delusions:
Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?

 

[Haig]

So now answer me these questions three

1. How does the electric comet generate the observed water (or OH for all I care) through the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary nucleus? A qualitative and quantitative answer is needed here
2. How does the electric comet generate the observed CO2 emission from the comet? Are these generated by the same interaction as the H2O/OH?
3. Why do we not observe any "sparking" events at the comet in the instruments which should be sensitive to these kind of processes?

I know, this is much to ask, but since (the?) David Talbott is now on the floor, I hope we can get some better answers.

So tusenfem you've had your questions answered by David Talbott.

Knowing you I doubt you will be satisfied. Let me guess "qualitative and quantitative answer" ? Right!

To do that you need data, where is it?

Please, understand that trying to dig holes into a hypothesis that you do not like does not mean that you thereby validate your own hypothesis. So dirty snowballs or snowy dirtballs or pink elephants for all I care, whatever comets are called (I call them comets, strangely enough) there is a mainstream model about how the interaction of the nucleus with the solar radiation, the solar wind plasma and magnetic field takes place and from which we can make numerical models with can, lo-and-behold also show the singing comet! Guess mainstream is doing something right, now I am waiting for an actual EC paper.

The Dirty Snowball OR Snowy Dirtball models are so flawed that it's beyond a joke.

How about you answering some questions about comets?

How Comets Work

The nucleus is the main, solid part of the comet. The nucleus is usually 1 to 10 kilometers in diameter, but can be as big as 100 kilometers. It can be composed of rock.

The coma is a halo of evaporated gas (water vapor, ammonia, carbon dioxide) and dust that surrounds the nucleus. The coma is made as the comet warms up and is often 1,000 times larger than the nucleus. It can even become as big as Jupiter or Saturn (100,000 kilometers).

How can a small rock produce a coma the size of Jupiter or Saturn? and Why does it stay attached to this rock? Why is it round for small weak comets and comets which are producing significant quantities of dust have fan-shaped or parabolic comas?

How can a small rock comet have a tail reaching 100 million miles (160 million km) long? Why does it stay attached and not disperse?

Surrounding the coma is an invisible layer of hydrogen called the hydrogen envelope; the hydrogen may come from water molecules. It usually has an irregular shape because it is distorted by the solar wind. The hydrogen envelope gets bigger as the comet approaches the sun.

How does this hydrogen envelope develop and stay attached to the coma?

Aren't ALL these comet features electromagnetic?

 

[tusenfem]

Three good questions from Tusenfem:

1. How does the electric comet generate the observed water (or OH for all I care) through the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary nucleus? A qualitative and quantitative answer is needed here
2. How does the electric comet generate the observed CO2 emission from the comet? Are these generated by the same interaction as the H2O/OH?
3. Why do we not observe any "sparking" events at the comet in the instruments which should be sensitive to these kind of processes?

Of course obtaining quantitative answers will be essential, but if these answers are to come from specialists themselves, I believe this will require deeper shifts in thinking about comets than the shifts noted so far in this thread. The necessary duata gathering could be dramatically advanced by the Rosetta Mission. But what theoretical assumptions will be guiding the Rosetta assessments and analyses? As you say, Tusenfem, changes in scientific imagination do not always come quickly.

Viewing the public statements placed on various NASA and ESA discussions of comets can be dismaying. Despite a few equivocations on the “dirty snowball” or "icy dirtball idea," I’ve never seen an official page acknowledge the more radical possibility—that we might visit a comet and find a rock plain and simple.

But now, here we are, looking at 67P and wondering if it will reveal ANY water, either on the surface or beneath the surface at the presumed sources of jets. My own expectation is that no water ice whatsoever will be found apart from, at best, a minor drift of icy frost from the coma to the surface during a more active phase. Though the electric comet hypothesis does not DEPEND on this prediction, we’ve seen enough to bet on it.

If 67P turns out to be a rock—and JUST a rock—it’s only reasonable to expect a major shift toward thinking electrochemically about water production by comets. I’ve been in discussions with qualified scientists on this issue, and at least one specialist will be speaking on the electrochemistry of comets at our June conference. That talk will no doubt go well beyond mere H2O and CO2 production.

My own job is simply to show why new facts do not allow us to ignore electrical implications. That’s just an interdisciplinary observation, based on a ground floor of critical findings. Well designed experiments will provide the parameters for qualified mathematical analysis. The experimental work must, of course, include the plasma domain of the Sun, and that work is already underway and appropriately funded.

Much has occurred in the past couple of years to inspire the Electric Universe community and to drive its outreach to the specialized space sciences in 2015. We now have considerable data to show that scientists globally are paying attention, and changes in fundamental thinking about comets will surely help to lead the way.

so you got no answers to my simple questions, like any other ec proponent.
what a disappointment, but at leasr an expected one.

 

[JeanTate]

As yer mate Sol88 would say, g'day Haig!

So tusenfem you've had your questions answered by David Talbott.

Knowing you I doubt you will be satisfied. Let me guess "qualitative and quantitative answer" ? Right!

To do that you need data, where is it?



The Dirty Snowball OR Snowy Dirtball models are so flawed that it's beyond a joke.

How about you answering some questions about comets?

How Comets Work


How can a small rock produce a coma the size of Jupiter or Saturn? and Why does it stay attached to this rock? Why is it round for small weak comets and comets which are producing significant quantities of dust have fan-shaped or parabolic comas?

How can a small rock comet have a tail reaching 100 million miles (160 million km) long? Why does it stay attached and not disperse?



How does this hydrogen envelope develop and stay attached to the coma?

Aren't ALL these comet features electromagnetic?

What, may I ask, has this got to do with the topic of this thread; namely, "The Electric Comet theory"?

Even if current models of comets - as found in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - have to be thrown into the trash, how is that relevant to the "electric comet hypothesis" (as I see David Talbott calls it)?

If I recall, you've been asked about this kind of thing before, in this thread; I don't recall you having given an answer (but maybe I just didn't find one).

It's doubly odd that you ask all this here, because there's at least one other thread, in this section of the forum, that would seem far better suited to your questions ...

 

[tusenfem]

So tusenfem you've had your questions answered by David Talbott.

Knowing you I doubt you will be satisfied. Let me guess "qualitative and quantitative answer" ? Right!

To do that you need data, where is it?



The Dirty Snowball OR Snowy Dirtball models are so flawed that it's beyond a joke.

How about you answering some questions about comets?

How Comets Work


How can a small rock produce a coma the size of Jupiter or Saturn? and Why does it stay attached to this rock? Why is it round for small weak comets and comets which are producing significant quantities of dust have fan-shaped or parabolic comas?

How can a small rock comet have a tail reaching 100 million miles (160 million km) long? Why does it stay attached and not disperse?



How does this hydrogen envelope develop and stay attached to the coma?

Aren't ALL these comet features electromagnetic?

if you could read , dear haig, youvwould have seen that good ole talbott did not answer chicken poo, apparently he is just as much in the dark as you and sol about what the electric theorists on thunderdolts are working at.
(let me tell you a secret, they are not working at anything at all)

there is loads of data freely available from pds and psa to work on at anyone's pleasure.
as an example, i just used that data in this paper http://www.ann-geophys.net/32/1441/2014/angeo-32-1441-2014html

the fact that the tail is, amongst others, an electromagnetic/plasma effect goes not an electric comet make, dear haig.l

 

[Belz...]

The Dirty Snowball OR Snowy Dirtball models are so flawed that it's beyond a joke.

As opposed to totally fanciful electric comet models ?

 

[dasmiller]

My own expectation is that no water ice whatsoever will be found apart from, at best, a minor drift of icy frost from the coma to the surface during a more active phase. Though the electric comet hypothesis does not DEPEND on this prediction, we’ve seen enough to bet on it.

If I may ask, what does the electric comet hypothesis depend on? Is it in any way falsifiable?

If not, how can it be called "science?"

It seems to rely on as-yet-undiscovered aspects of plasma physics, particularly involving very diffuse plasmas. But if it's relying on as-yet-undiscovered properties, why plasma instead of as-yet-undiscovered properties of gravity, or relativity, or quantum froth, or K-pop marketing?

 

[David Talbott]

Hi Jean Tate,
To avoid excessive length of this exchange, let me just state in my own words the distinction between an interdisciplinary investigation and more specialized inquiry—specifically in relationship to our own work. Much of the Electric Universe community's interest in the space sciences originates in research reaching far beyond any discrete specialty (solar physics, heliospheric physics, geology, or planetary science, to name just a few). The conviction driving the movement is, as we've said so many times, "There are no islands in space." A galaxy's dynamic behavior cannot be understood strictly in terms of forces internal to that galaxy. Charge held in the unfathomable volume of intergalactic space is an indispensable contributor. (This was one of Alfvén's observations; so too Alfvén's students Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt).

Today there are also reasons to explore our Sun in relationship to ITS electrical environment. To what extent is the Sun responding to an electrical contribution from the heliospheric domain and beyond? That question may be creeping into solar physics today, but I've followed enough peer reviewed papers on the primary enigmas of the Sun to say with confidence that openings on this question have only begun.

From what I've seen of the independent SAFIRE project, I believe it could well open new doors and windows to reliable quantification of an electric model of the Sun and star formation as a whole. At least that's the opinion of some very good people now involved with the project.

The larger perspective of the EU might be reduced down to a core prediction. When we examine energetic events in space, and in particular when we examine plasma boundary regions, we will find electromagnetic intensities beyond the ability of prior theory to explain them. From what I've seen, this is the most fundamental reason why the picture of space is changing so rapidly and the sciences are slowly coming into the Electric Universe through so many back doors. It's also why I'm so vitally interested in Comet 67P.

 

[Haig]

As yer mate Sol88 would say, g'day Haig!

What, may I ask, has this got to do with the topic of this thread; namely, "The Electric Comet theory"?

The bottom line is the key

if you could read , dear haig, youvwould have seen that good ole talbott did not answer chicken poo, apparently he is just as much in the dark as you and sol about what the electric theorists on thunderdolts are working at.
(let me tell you a secret, they are not working at anything at all)

there is loads of data freely available from pds and psa to work on at anyone's pleasure.
as an example, i just used that data in this paper http://www.ann-geophys.net/32/1441/2014/angeo-32-1441-2014html

the fact that the tail is, amongst others, an electromagnetic/plasma effect goes not an electric comet make, dear haig.l

 

[Haig]

As yer mate Sol88 would say, g'day Haig!

What, may I ask, has this got to do with the topic of this thread; namely, "The Electric Comet theory"?

The bottom line is the key

the fact that the tail is, amongst others, an electromagnetic/plasma effect goes not an electric comet make, dear haig.l

Oh yes it does

 

[Reality Check]

Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P

When you compare the video above with this one, you can see the vast difference in understanding what comets are.

Yes, Sol88, any rational, knowledgeable person can see the difference..
In one video we have a description of the Rosetta mission, etc.
In the Thunderbolts video we have the crank Wal Thornhill who is deluded enough to think that the Grand Canyon was created by lightning !

We have in that 5:30 minute video:

1. Describes Deep Impact and makes up a fairy story about what the astronomers expected.
2. Lies (again ) about having successful predictions about Deep Impact, e.g. the flashes.
3. The idiocy of thinking that surprises in science are bad - that is how science progresses!
4. 67P must be a rock because astronomers commented about it looking rocky.
5. Ignorance - comets did not "form the planets", they are thought to have contributed water to planets.
6. The delusion of comets made of ice and dust being blasted off the surface of planets by imaginary electrical discharges.
7. Delusion about the Stardust mission finding "rocks and clay" that "require planetary processes" to form. Stardust found dust particles that astronomers have no problem with forming in the solar system along with the planets.
8. Delusion that the low density of 67P means that we do not understand gravity or the structure of comets or both.
9. The dumb EM is stronger than gravity myth.
10. Does not know that Mars is not a comet , followed by the insanity of comparing particles from electrical discharge machining to 67P.
11. The fantasy that comets such as 67P may be hollow "to some degree".
12. A lie about physicists not acknowledging that they do not understand why matter has mass. That has been the case for centuries - until the discovery of the Higgs boson. Of course the origin of mass has nothing to do with the laws of gravity.
13. Ignorance abut what E=mc² means - it is the equivalence of rest mass to energy, not that mass is "energetic".
14. Delusion that energy has a "physical nature". Energy is a property of objects like mass, charge, spin, etc.
15. The mass of the comet does tell us how much matter it contains - it contains matter with that mass !
16. The idiocy of "if it looks like rock then it is safe to assume that it is rock". Wrong - if comets have a density that is not rock then they are not rock, no matter what images look like!
17. Wow - now the delusion that we cannot say what stars and planets are made of!
18. Insults scientists ("they do not know what they are talking about with mass and matter").
19. Ignorance - the Higgs boson is not hypothetical - it has been found !

 

[tusenfem]

The bottom line is the key ��



Oh yes it does ��

how come that neither you nor sol nor even david t can answer my three questions?
i would be happy with just a back of the envelope calculation of question 1, but apparently that is outside the realm of possibilities.

david come here with lots of words saying nothing apart from "interdisciplinary" and "no long discussions" and he is supposed to be thunderdolt big shot. i hesitate to say, but it is pathetic.

 

[Haig]

how come that neither you nor sol nor even david t can answer my three questions?
i would be happy with just a back of the envelope calculation of question 1, but apparently that is outside the realm of possibilities.

david come here with lots of words saying nothing apart from "interdisciplinary" and "no long discussions" and he is supposed to be thunderdolt big shot. i hesitate to say, but it is pathetic.

As I said you need data to do calculations. So show us your data!

 

[Reality Check]

Three good questions from Tusenfem:

1. How does the electric comet generate the observed water (or OH for all I care) through the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary nucleus? A qualitative and quantitative answer is needed here
2. How does the electric comet generate the observed CO2 emission from the comet? Are these generated by the same interaction as the H2O/OH?
3. Why do we not observe any "sparking" events at the comet in the instruments which should be sensitive to these kind of processes?

Of course obtaining quantitative answers will be essential,...

It looks like you misunderstood the questions, David Talbott.
The point about a scientific theory is that it generates predictions. Perhaps just as important is that it is stated clearly and coherently so that any scientist can use it to generate predications.
This means that it might not have quantitative answers but that it must have qualitative answers. For the electric comet idea to be more than a delusion, there must be a clear and coherent mechanism to create water (or OH), CO2, etc. That is the first 2 questions.
The third question is the additional requirement that this mechanism is undetectable by any of the spacecraft that have visited comets.

You misunderstand the scientific process - it is up to the proponents of a scientific theory to defend that theory by producing evidence to support it.
I doubt whether any comet specialists have even heard of your electric comet idea since it is not in the published literature.

You misunderstand the public relations process. Public statements by NASA and ESA are not science! Scientists tend to stick to the terminology that they know so "dirty snowballs" will be appearing for a couple of more generations.

We have visited a comet and it is plain and simple not a rock:

• We have seen that the surface that we have sampled is dust covered ice.
• We have measured that the density of the comet is ~0.4 g/cc.
• We have measured water on 67P.
• We have measured ice on 67P.

 

[Reality Check]

I mean, I think I read there that you will be banned if you call the electric comet ideas pseudoscience, yet there seems to be zero actual science posted on it!

From personal experience, you will be banned from the Thunderbolts forum if you simply ask if the electric comet idea has quantitative predictions !

 

[Reality Check]

How about you answering some questions about comets?

How Comets Work...

Sorry, Haig, but your ignorance about comets implied by these questions does not make the electric comet idea any better !

The delusion that comets are rocks has been addressed again and again in this thread.

 

[JeanTate]

Hello again, David Talbott,

Hi Jean Tate,
To avoid excessive length of this exchange, let me just state in my own words the distinction between an interdisciplinary investigation and more specialized inquiry—specifically in relationship to our own work. Much of the Electric Universe community's interest in the space sciences originates in research reaching far beyond any discrete specialty (solar physics, heliospheric physics, geology, or planetary science, to name just a few). The conviction driving the movement is, as we've said so many times, "There are no islands in space." A galaxy's dynamic behavior cannot be understood strictly in terms of forces internal to that galaxy. Charge held in the unfathomable volume of intergalactic space is an indispensable contributor. (This was one of Alfvén's observations; so too Alfvén's students Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt).

Which is - pretty much - what Haig has been saying for quite a while now, and Sol88 too (to a lesser extent).

I - now - get that all three of you are coming at this from some perspective other than science; it took me quite a while to fully appreciate this. However, it's still quite irrelevant to this thread, the title of which is "The Electric Comet theory".

As I said to Haig (more than once, I think), if you're interested in discussing this more general topic, there are already several - quite long - threads here. If you'd like to post to any of those, I'd be happy to join in the discussion. Otherwise, not.

Today there are also reasons to explore our Sun in relationship to ITS electrical environment. To what extent is the Sun responding to an electrical contribution from the heliospheric domain and beyond? That question may be creeping into solar physics today, but I've followed enough peer reviewed papers on the primary enigmas of the Sun to say with confidence that openings on this question have only begun.

Yes indeed. That's why - one reason why - I specifically asked you the concrete question concerning electric potential with respect to the Sun. Because it is key to the electric comet ideas, posted in this thread, by Haig (I believe one of his links is to a document which has "David Talbott" as an author).

I'm rather disappointed that you didn't answer that question of mine.

From what I've seen of the independent SAFIRE project, I believe it could well open new doors and windows to reliable quantification of an electric model of the Sun and star formation as a whole. At least that's the opinion of some very good people now involved with the project.

So, as Haig is apparently unwilling or unable to answer what would seem to be a key question about SAFIRE, may I ask you?

David Talbott, can you point to where - explicitly - in the published SAFIRE material the project team says it has adopted Alfven's "second approach"? And if you can't, why do you believe SAFIRE is a valid experiment (per published material by electrical theorists)?

The larger perspective of the EU might be reduced down to a core prediction. When we examine energetic events in space, and in particular when we examine plasma boundary regions, we will find electromagnetic intensities beyond the ability of prior theory to explain them.

(my bold)

What are these things, "electromagnetic intensities"?

In the case of electric comet ideas - the explicit topic of this thread - what are the specific EU theory-based predictions? Where are such predictions published? Can they be independently validated?

From what I've seen, this is the most fundamental reason why the picture of space is changing so rapidly and the sciences are slowly coming into the Electric Universe through so many back doors. It's also why I'm so vitally interested in Comet 67P.

(my emphases)

Sticking with the explicit topic of this thread - namely, electric comet ideas - the most fundamental aspect is the electric potential (relative to the Sun) through which a comet travels, in its orbit. An electric potential which must be consistent with an externally, electrically powered Sun.

That fundamental aspect has never - as far as I know - been described, quantitatively; at least, not in a way that's consistent with the fundamental observations of the Sun's total electromagnetic radiation output and its oh so modest variability. That idea is not coming in via any back door; it's so wildly inconsistent with the relevant - long-established - observations as to be laughable.

Given that truly astonishing failure of the electric Sun idea, why should anyone continue to be interested in electric comet ideas?

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Jean Tate,
To avoid excessive length of this exchange, ....

Hi David Talbott, To really avoid excessive length of this exchange try to keep to the topic of the thread, "The Electric Comet theory".

For example if you want to address Peratt's obviously wrong model of galaxy formation, there is a thread for you to produce the scientific evidence that it is valid: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation
FYI: The fundamental flaw is Peratt's ignorance about how mass is distributed in spiral galaxies and double lobed radio galaxies (the latter could be excusable in 1986).

ETA: Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
Start by showing how the physics that show that gravitationally bound balls of plasma will have high enough pressures and temperatures at their core that fusion has to happen are wrong.
This is a big flaw for the electric sun idea - other than the lack of any observational evidence for it!

ETA2: Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not is a possible place fro you to present the scientific and coherent electric universe theory. The conclusion there was that plasma cosmology did not exist except as personal sets of often mutually contradictory theories collected by various people. I suspect that the same is true for the electric universe theory.