• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
A deluded "Meanwhile the thermonuclear Sun model remains theoretical and unpredictive" lie from Wal Thornhill.

The thermonuclear Sun model is based on centuries of empirical solar data and applying extensively tested theoretical physics to the Sun. One of the well known predictions is that the Sun will have a neutrino flux that matches the fusion needed for its energy output. That has been measured to be true :eye-poppi!
A less known prediction is that the Sun is powered by specific fusion reactions - the proton–proton chain. The neutrinos from that were detected n 2018.
Comprehensive measurement of pp-chain solar neutrinos
There are other confirmed predictions, e.g. a temperature and density increasing with depth, the photosphere 'boiling' with convection cells (granules).
Click to expand...

Not to mention that if our knowledge of the Sun were so far from the mark, we wouldn't be able to predict the appearance of sunspots prior to their emergence using helioseismology;

Detection of Emerging Sunspot Regions in the Solar Interior
Ilonidis, S. et al. (2011)
http://www.bobweigel.info/spaceweather/images/Science-2011-Ilonidis-993-6.pdf

Again, that is one hell of a trick to pull off, given that the idiot Thornhill thinks our whole model of the Sun is wrong!

It occurs to me that claims that Thornhill has a physics degree should be taken with a pinch of salt. Certainly, even in the 1960s, he cannot possibly have obtained such a degree with his level of ignorance of the subject. Undoubtedly, it cannot have been anything associated with astrophysics, plasma physics, nuclear physics and quite a few others.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Hahahahahahaha! Sorry, but I just came across this;

https://thesecularheretic.com/the-electric-universe-heresy/

Hahahahahahahaha! The idiot has gone full retard! Wal's theory of everything! You couldn't make it up! Well, he did, actually. Yet another science-free bunch of gibberish from the Idiot-in Chief of the electric idiots! Deary me, I think I need a lie down.
Click to expand...

I submitted a comment to that article which, for some reason, has not been published :( I cannot imagine why, as I merely suggested that Thornhill must have escaped from bed to use the interweb to write that article, whilst his nurses weren't looking. And that one would hope that appropriate restraints would prevent any such further occurrences.
 
jonesdave116 said:
I submitted a comment to that article which, for some reason, has not been published :( I cannot imagine why, as I merely suggested that Thornhill must have escaped from bed to use the interweb to write that article, whilst his nurses weren't looking. And that one would hope that appropriate restraints would prevent any such further occurrences.
Click to expand...
Which pinpoints yet another bit of insanity from Wal Thornhill. That is an small web site for art works - "Heresies Poetry Prose Art" - run by poet and a writer!
 
Reality Check said:
Neutrons "are a transient coupling of an electron and proton" insanity from Wal Thornhill.
Click to expand...
Just before this in Thornhill's insane rant is "Neutrons do not exist as stable particles in atoms (see later).".

This is a promise of later insanity because neutrons do exist as (mostly) stable particles in atoms. The exception is neutrons can beta decay in radioactive elements. This is behavior predicted by QM. If an atomic nucleus has a energy state allowing neutron decay then neutron decay can occur.
 
"The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle", etc. insanity

"The electron is not a fundamental, point-like particle", etc. insanity from Thornhill's insane rant.

The mere fact that electron is charged and has angular momentum tells us that it cannot be an expended particle otherwise its surface (his orbiting charges) would be travelling faster than the speed of light at its classic radius. The measured upper limit to an electron's radius is several orders of magnitude less.

"It must have structure" insanity.
The quantization of the spin tells us that it is impossible to be a classic spin of an extended body or a collection of orbiting bodies. The angular momentum (spin) of an electron must be intrinsic, not a physical rotation. That was shown in 1922 by the Stern–Gerlach experiment (a beam of silver atoms which must classically have a mixture of angular momentum sizes and orientations forms 2 bands when passed thru an inhomogeneous magnetic field).

"orbital motion of charges within the electron" insanity.
Classical physics states that any orbiting charges radiate energy and fall into the center. That is why atoms do not exist in classical physics :eye-poppi.

"transfer of electrical energy" gibberish.

Applies this insanity and gibberish to the proton.

An insane "Weber’s law, being instantaneous, removes the ‘spookiness’" of quantum entanglement lie.
There is no Weber law. There is Weber electrodynamics which is an alternative to Maxwell electrodynamics. It is not instantaneous. What it does is make the Coulomb force and potential energy velocity dependent.
The Coulomb force and thus Weber electrodynamics is irrelevant to quantum entanglement. Particles with entangled spin do not use any classical physics.
 
A "We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter ..." delusion

A "We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent" delusion from Thornhill's insane rant.

We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the enormous body of evidence about the structure of matter :eye-poppi! That is basically the definition of science. That is the scientific fields called atomic and nuclear physics.
 
Some "spinning bucket of water experiment" lies

Some "spinning bucket of water experiment" lies from Thornhill's insane rant.

Isaac Newton did not actually spin a bucket of water around. Newton had an opinion abut absolute space and absolute motion, applied that to a spinning bucket of water thought experiment and thus to the solar system.
Newton's Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion
XII. The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces of receding from the axis of circular motion. For there are no such forces in a circular motion purely relative, but in a true and absolute circular motion, they are greater or less, according to the quantity of the motion. If a vessel...
Click to expand...
Newton was wrong about absolute space and absolute motion as the theory and experimental verification of relativity shows.
Newton is not talking about Einstein’s relativity. If Newton had read Einstein’s relativity, it is extremely probable that he would have agreed with it, especially the easily understood 1905 paper on special relativity.
 
Last edited:
A pathological "Gas and Gravity!" lie about a flaws of theEU video

A pathological "Gas and Gravity!" lie about a flaws of the Electric Universe video.
As expected - see The thousands of insane lies, delusions, insults, etc. since 6 July 2009 from Sol88 about his cult's electric comet and electric Sun dogma. and 101 items of pathological lies, etc. from Sol88 since ~10 March 2020

Debunking the Electric Universe is amazingly about the idiocy in the EU :eye-poppi!
EU is yet another YouTube hoax similar to the Flat Earthers. EU is just another flavor of paranoia and mysticism and he goes on to demonstrate this using the Thunderbolts Project. etc.
 
Last edited:
"His principle of the equivalence of his ‘inertial frames of reference’" insanity

"His principle of the equivalence of his ‘inertial frames of reference’" insanity from Thornhill's insane rant.

Inertial frames of reference were not invented by Einstein. Newton's definitions of absolute space and time were basically them.

There is no such principle in relativity. Special relativity has the postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is constant for inertial observers. The equivalence principle is GR.

Followed by demented "has the effect of making arbitrary moving observers the centres of their own individual universes" gibberish. Observers move in Newtonian physics and do not have their own universes. Relativity preserves that fact. Relativity states that moving observers will measure different time intervals and distances in this universe. When we do the measurements in this universe we see time dilation and (indirectly) length contraction.
 
"Einstein went on in his general relativity to discard ... gravity" lie

"Einstein went on in his general relativity to discard the indispensable force of gravity!" lie from Thornhill's insane rant.

What general relativity does is have an extra step that makes the force of gravity closer to what it is in the real universe. Mass and energy cause curvature of spacetime. Objects in curved spacetime act as if they are under a force which is close to (but not the same as) the classical force of gravity.
 
"Einstein falls directly into this fallacy ..." insanity

"Einstein falls directly into this fallacy when he mistakes the measures of relative time for actual time", etc. insanity from Thornhill's insane rant.

Einstein's 1905 paper does not "confuse any clock with real time or any measure with real space" as anyone who has read it or learns about it knows. "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (PDF) is an easily understood derivation from 2 postulates using physics and mathematics.

A "makes simultaneous action impossible" lie. Relativity of simultaneity is that different observers cannot agree whether 2 events are simultaneous. This is how the real universe acts. A finite speed of light will have this effect even in classical physics (see the thought experiments in that article).

A "Simultaneity is essential for universal coherence." delusion.
 
Cherry picking an irrelevant 1992 André Assis paper

Cherry picking an irrelevant 1992 André Assis paper in Thornhill's insane rant.
This paper is not his demented idea.

Deriving gravitation from electromagnetism by André Assis; Can. J. Phys. 70, 1992. pp. 330-40.
This has some of the signatures of a dubious paper. Singe author. Supposedly breakthrough physics not published in a high impact journal. A Brazilian author publishing in a Canadian journal. Cited 10 times in 28 years, 3 times by Assis!

Assis generalizes Weber's electrodynamics by adding more velocity dependent terms. He calculates the force between neutral dipoles: "Each dipole is supposed to consist of a positive charge at the center and a negative charge oscillating harmonically around the positive charge, as usual." and notes it looks like Newton's gravity and higher terms give a "precession of the perihelion". But
  • These dipoles are theoretical and do not exist in Nature.
  • Planets are definitely not his neutral dipoles.
There is some idiocy about inertia in protons and electrons. Protons and electron have mass and thus obviously inertia! No one thinks that inertia is only a property of neutral bodies.
There is some abysmal ignorance about protons and electrons being composite bodies because they have spin. Protons are composite bodies because they have a measurable size and quarks inside them. The spin of protons and electrons is intrinsic.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant lying about "The noted physicist, Fritz London"

Irrelevant lying about "The noted physicist, Fritz London...contemplated an electric dipole model of gravity" in Thornhill's insane rant.
Fritz London died before Thornhill's demented idea even existed.

Fritz London and other sources do not mention any "electric dipole model of gravity". London may have thought about it but no sign of any publication says he discarded he idea.
 
Last edited:
Insane "the distortion of the orbits of sub-subatomic charges..." gibberish

Insane "the distortion of the orbits of sub-subatomic charges within the electrons and protons ..." gibberish as the cause of gravity in Thornhill's insane rant.

His insanity of orbiting charges is impossible in classical physics (they radiate and no longer orbit).

Insanity that his physically impossible dipoles magically sum up to a giant dipole of celestial bodies to give gravity between them.

"And as a subatomic phenomenon, gravity cannot be shielded electrically." insanity. All electromagnetic phenomenon can be shielded "electrically" - just add the appropriate charge! Atoms are in general electrically neutral because they have equal numbers of electrons and protons.
 
Insane "... G, is neither universal nor constant" delusion

Insane "Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, or G, is neither universal nor constant" delusion in Thornhill's insane rant.

By definition, G is a proportionality constant between gravitational force and the masses causing it. It has dimensions of mass, length, and time. His insanity is that a dimension of mass make G a dependent variable!

In the same paragraph is Another insane delusion and lie from Wal Thornhill in his nonsensical rant is "comet nuclei are observed to be rocky with sharply featured geology and no surface ice—dismissing the dirty snowball model"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom