The Electric Universe? IS it BS?

thesyntaxera

Muse
thesyntaxera
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
882
http://www.holoscience.com/index.php


The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift.
Click to expand...



For more than 10 years plasma physicists have had an electrical model of galaxies. It works with real-world physics. The model is able to successfully account for the observed shapes and dynamics of galaxies without recourse to invisible dark matter and central black holes. It explains simply the powerful electric jets seen issuing along the spin axis from the cores of active galaxies. Recent results from mapping the magnetic field of a spiral galaxy confirm the electric model.
Click to expand...



stars are not thermonuclear engines!
Click to expand...



Planetary geologists are not trained to recognize electric arc scarring otherwise they would have seen at a glance the characteristic cathodic surface erosion and cathode jets on Io.
Click to expand...


I could go on but my wrist is tired.

Sooo...why don't we need dark matter again..?

and...how junk is this science?
 
Because I am lazy and you already checked out the website...can you explain succinctly what they say the stars are if they are not thermonuclear engines?
 
Been to original and Halton Arp sites. Arp appears to be legit, technically (assuming background, positions, etc. are correct). But he is not a giant in the field - and my immediate suspicion is, like Einstein, he lost it when the big boys moved on to new things he couldn't accept (for Einstein, quantum mech in the 30's, for Alp, Big Bang, etc.). I am interested amateur, not specialist.
 
Well, among other things this site disputes the thermonuclear nature of stars and stellar nucleogenesis of elements. Those are pretty big disputes with conventional astrophysics that have nothing to do with the big bang, and for which there's a great deal of evidence.
 
This site is complete nonsense.
Most people are unaware that we have no understanding of how lightning is created in clouds. The simplest answer is that lightning is not generated there at all. Clouds merely form a convenient path to Earth for electricity originating in space. Without clouds it is possible to have a "bolt from the blue". That is happening on Venus (although the sky certainly isn't blue). Weather systems are driven primarily by external electrical influences.
Click to expand...
He is claiming that clouds are merely a conduit for lightning from outer space, dispite the fact that planes can fly over top of storms and the pilots/passengers do not see the bolt continuing into space. Also, why then do we not see lightning on the moon, since it is also traveling through the same electrified outer space? Why don't the tops of mountains that extend through the clouds get struck by lightning? I think that the current model sufficently explains lightning.
 
Oh, wow. This quote pretty much tells you everything you need to know:

"The Electric Universe model grew from the realization that a new plasma cosmology and an understanding of electrical phenomena in space could illuminate the new work being done in comparative mythology."

If you're looking to comparative mythology to understand the universe, well, you're going to end up with a myth to explain it. No surprises here.
 
Heh, didn't see that. Apparently I gave the site far too much credit by picking on mere stellar models.
 
The Bad Astronomy board has a number of Electric Universe threads, depending on the proponent these electric theories range from 'fringe' to outright woo. I'm not sure if Arp was a promoter of electric universe, he was more focused on plasma cosmology and he has a few supporters at Bad Astronomy. I think Arp falls into the 'alternative theory from a credible scientist' category but most astronomers don't think his theories are well supported.
 
HappyCat said:
This site is complete nonsense. He is claiming that clouds are merely a conduit for lightning from outer space, dispite the fact that planes can fly over top of storms and the pilots/passengers do not see the bolt continuing into space. Also, why then do we not see lightning on the moon, since it is also traveling through the same electrified outer space? Why don't the tops of mountains that extend through the clouds get struck by lightning? I think that the current model sufficently explains lightning.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't a bolt of lightning be invisible in vacuum, though?
 
There aren't any bolts of lightning in vacuums.

You can have an electric current as a flow of electrons in a vacuum (like in tubes or CRTs).

An arc, be it a small spark or a huge lightning bolt, though, is a conductive path formed when air molecules get ionized.
 
Zombified said:
There aren't any bolts of lightning in vacuums.

You can have an electric current as a flow of electrons in a vacuum (like in tubes or CRTs).

An arc, be it a small spark or a huge lightning bolt, though, is a conductive path formed when air molecules get ionized.
Click to expand...

But there would be more lighting above the clouds if the theory was correct and it seems to entirely ignore cloud to cloud lightning.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But there would be more lighting above the clouds if the theory was correct and it seems to entirely ignore cloud to cloud lightning.
Click to expand...
Agreed; I was responding to the lightning-on-the-moon comment and the question about it being visible.

Of course, we'd also expect to measure those electric fields, currents, etc with instruments on space probes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom