Electric Universe theory debunked

Electric Universe Theory debunked ... EU pseudoscience poppycock? Have those electricians been grounded yet?

9 main articles quoted with more than 10 others listed.

We start with the oldest famous anti EUT internet argument ... a time when the World Wide Web's electronic star was rising but was the Electric Sun setting?

Tim Thompson looks for those old pesky missing solar neutrinos.

Scott's statement of the solar neutrino problem is incorrect. It is not true that "less than half" of the expected neutrinos are observed. It was true, in 1968. However, this is not 1968, it is December 2000, and Scott's seriously out-dated assertion is now simply an anachronism.

For a few more paragraphs of the writers evidence against the accused - the mainly Thunderbolts EU theories - link above these quote samples go directly down this page.

Michael Shermer does some acid testing at EU theory conference.

so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.

Testing the Electric Universe. Peer reviewed grade F-. Oh dear.

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind. The Electric Universe model is wrong. Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

SAFIRE laboratory project investigates Electric Sun hypothesis. A must fail?

There is no independent analysis of their work and no publications about SAFIRE found on Google Scholar.

The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe.

Like slipping on rose-colored glasses, the conversion changes their perception of the entire universe. The objects and events remain the same. But they’re tinged with truth. And in EU theory, the truth is that electricity rules.

Does Tom Bridgman claim the top debunk?

Without an external EMF maintaining the potential between the photosphere and heliopause, the Electric Sun will shut down due to charge neutralization in a very tiny fraction of a second.

A Peratt goes instability! Anthony Peratt?

The Plasma Universe and PlasmaCosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.

RationalWiki gives its debunking headbutts to the enemy

Most EU proponents claim some kind of relation to the plasma cosmology of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.

Tremendous video fun - Bill Gaede destroyer of those electricians and avoider of EUers poppycock

EUers usually follow one or more of the following delusional mavericks: Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell, Ayn Rand, Edward Leedskalnin, Hannes Alfvén. If ever you come across anyone in a forum who regards any of these deranged individuals as heroes, you might as well move on. You will be talking to a madman.

Discussion at bottom of this page.

Electric Universe debunked list

Lots more EU debunked proposals, evidence, forum fights and comment arguments.

If you know of other proposals or evidence that EU theory is wrong mention them below or send a message, thanks.

electric universe theory debunked

Guest comments welcome. Chat with external links and all 'guest' posts automatically go into anti spamming pending list.

Tim Thompson's looking good at the Sun's missing neutrinos

This seems to be the original Electric Sun model debunked thing on the old internet of messageboards? A world wide web of Electronic-male fisticuffs. It is the semi famous Sun and the Missing Neutrinos discussion with Donald Scott and Wallace Thornhill.

Standard astrophysics holds that the sun, and all other stars, are powered by energy released in nuclear fusion reactions deep inside the star. Of this, Don Scott says: "There are at least five major things wrong with this scenario. The first and most important is the 'Missing Neutrino Problem'." So, lets start with the most important.

(1) Despite Scott's red-font claim to the contrary, after 30 years of looking for them, scientists have found that they can observe the fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion. That is, the flux of neutrinos observed at the expected energy, for neutrinos from that fusion reaction, is as predicted by standard models.

(5) Scott's statement of the solar neutrino problem is incorrect. It is not true that "less than half" of the expected neutrinos are observed. It was true, in 1968. However, this is not 1968, it is December 2000, and Scott's seriously out-dated assertion is now simply an anachronism. We now know that the expected flux of p-p neutrinos is observed, consistent with solar models.

However, the flux of neutrinos from Boron & Beryllium reactions remains low compared to theoretical expectations. Furthermore, the detection rates of Boron & Beryllium neutrinos is inconsistent between detectors of different type, indicating that more than just "missing", the neutrinos also have a skewed energy spectrum. That's a clue that indicates an energy dependent process is at work, which leaves the p-p neutrinos essentially alone, and affects differently the Boron & Beryllium neutrinos. The Boron & Beryllium reactions occur deeper in the solar core, where the temperature is higher, and where they are more sensitive to energy dependent processes, so it's a natural thing to look for.
On the Electric Sun Hypothesis | Tim Thompson

Thompson includes other scientific based evidence such as Temperature Minimum Below the Corona, Acceleration of the Solar Wind Ions, Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size and much more.

electric universe wrong electric sun

Thompson also Responds to Thornhill on the matter of the Electric Star Hypothesis.

Brian Koberlein also takes particles in this subject.

eu theory wrong sun missing neutrinos solarIn the standard model, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core. There the fusion of hydrogen into helium produces not only light and heat, but neutrinos. In the electric universe model, the Sun is lit by electrically excited plasma. This gives us two very clear predictions. The first is regarding neutrinos. The standard model predicts that the Sun will produce copious amounts of neutrinos due to nuclear interactions in its core. The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.
Testing the Electric Universe | Brian Koberlein

A word of caution for those who might wade in to the emotional discussions on forums and use this as the be all and end EU all proof. There is still a possible EU'er parry and reposte to this line of theoretical attack. In theory you may still be able to have parts of EUT even if it is not an electrical sun. It is a cornerstone not the foundations of the Thunderbolts EUT.

Michael Shermer's acid test

electric universe theory eu wrong debunked Michael ShermerThese are just a few of the things I learned at the Electric Universe conference (EU2015) in June in Phoenix ... I was invited to speak on the difference between science and pseudoscience. The most common theme I gleaned from the conference is that one should be skeptical of all things mainstream: cosmology, physics, history, psychology and even government (I was told that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11 and that “chemtrails”—the contrails in the sky trailing jets—are evidence of a government climate-engineering experiment).

The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.
Michael Shermer - The Difference between Science and Pseudoscience | Scientific American (2015)

Thunderbolts.info, the unofficial official EU theory website have replied about when Michael Shermer Meets the Electric Universe with a youtube video.

SAFIRE failed stars?

One main EU hypothesis is an powered externally sun by natural electricity through space plasma and not internal nuclear fusion. The SAFIRE Project is investigating the Electric Sun models through laboratory experiments.

safire project about to debunk electric universe sun theory eu

As the sun is not electromagnetically powered then the results can only prove that one important part of TEUT (Thunderbolts Electric Universe Theories) are wrong?

SAFIRE Project review in the style of ... RationalWiki

The International Science Foundation (a front group of EU supporters who falsely claim to neither support nor oppose the Electric Universe hypothesis) says that they provided $2,200,000 USD to fund a laboratory experiment to test the EU claims regarding the nature of the Sun. There is no independent analysis of their work and no publications about SAFIRE found on Google Scholar. The SAFIRE Project is housed in Mississauga, Ontario, and is documented in videos from the EU2016 conference. They say that their intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission, and thereby demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality.
SAFIRE Project | RationalWiki

Testing the Electric Universe. Failed. Final Grade: F-

Electric Universe theory wrong debunked debunkingHow about the idea that stars “give birth” to other stars and planets? If that were the case, we should see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems. Instead, what we see is protostars form with protoplanetary disks of gas and dust out of which planets form. We’ve observed these at various stages of development around different stars, and even have dozens of examples in the Orion nebula, which is a nearby stellar nursery.

In the standard model galaxies form gravitationally, and are well developed relatively early in the universe. Quasars are powered by black holes in the center of galaxies, and are one example of what we call active galactic nuclei. In the EU model, quasars are formed by pinches in cosmic magnetic fields, and from them galaxies form. Rather than being an indication of distance, redshift is a result of the age of a galaxy or quasar. So as galaxy matures, its redshift decreases. If the EU model is right, then we should only see quasars with high redshifts (therefore large inferred distances). Also, the more distant (redshifted) a galaxy, the less developed it should appear.
eu theory wrong evidence proof debunked
So here’s a collection of barred spirals at different distances (or redshifts). Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed? No? Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts, and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen. By the way, the nearest quasar observed (3C 273) is only about 2.4 billion light years away, which means it has a smaller observed redshift than three of these fully developed galaxies. Again in complete contradiction to the EU model.

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind. The Electric Universe model is wrong. Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test. Final Grade: F-
Testing the Electric Universe | Brian Koberlein

Lively though long comments section with lots of proving that this theory has been falsified. And verified.

Brian Koberlein supporters says F- and your electromagnetic universe!

Fans of the electric universe, for example, flood my inbox with links and demands based upon YouTube videos. The biggest proponent of the electric universe is the Thunderbolts Project, which has over 200 videos, with millions of views. The videos are clear, and argue in simple terms that they are right, and thousands of trained scientists are wrong. And they’re winning hearts and minds.
Tilting at Windmills | Brian Koberlein

The motherboard of People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe

electric universeThey call themselves The Thunderbolts Project. They subscribe to an idea called “electric universe,” and sometimes describe themselves as “getting EU eyes.” Like slipping on rose-colored glasses, the conversion changes their perception of the entire universe. The objects and events remain the same. But they’re tinged with truth. And in EU theory, the truth is that electricity rules.

... The electric universe concept does not meet the National Academy of Sciences’ definition of a “theory,” which is “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” and “can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.” In physics, theories need math. That’s how you predict, gather evidence, verify, disprove, and support. But EU theory isn’t big on math. In fact, “Mathematics is not physics,” Thornhill said. While that equation aversion makes the theory pretty much a nonstarter for “mainstream” astronomers, it is the exact thing that appeals to many adherents.

... It’s hard to point out the holes in EU hole by hole because, well, there are a lot. (Here are some others’ attempts to poke holes.) Proponents also cherry-pick individual phenomena to explain: individual entries on how stars shine, how craters form, why galaxies have their shapes, and what causes planets and craters. They don’t give a whole-universe overview detailed enough to unify those phenomena and also apply to phenomena they haven’t yet described. The gaps in electric universe theory do drive followers from the fold. David, a former enthusiast who now calls EU an “anti-science cult” and wished to use only his first name, was undone when someone asked about Thornhill’s latest electric explanation of gravity. “When I looked into it, I was literally flabbergasted at how stupid it was,” he said. “I really was ashamed that I had ever listened to a word Thornhill said.”
The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe | Motherboard

Does Tom Bridgman Earth the Thunderbolt info?

Tom Bridgman's site has a long list of articles with peer reviewed science evidence against it being a Thunderbolts style electric cosmology. If you really want anti EU scientific evidence then Bridgman is your man.

arguments against electric universe theory eu mainstream subjects comets 67pGeneral Science
Mainstream astronomy and astrophysics has guided science into pioneering discoveries in gravity, with the application of space flight, and atomic and nuclear physics, with the applications of semiconductors and materials science. Humans have moved into space without one single model that yields testable measurements from the Electric Universe supporters.

What does EU provide that is not already provided by mainstream astronomy and geophysics?

General Physics
Every book on how to write applications & interpret the signals from GPS satellites emphasizes the importance of relativity in converting these signals into a high-precision receiver position. Yet EU supporters deny the importance of relativity in this application.

Has any EU supporter designed and built a working high-precision (< 1 meter accuracy) GPS receiver that can be certified as free of relativistic corrections?

Solar Resistor model (Thornhill Z-Pinch)
One of the popular EU models for stars is a z-pinch configuration. The primary advocate of this configuration seems to be Wal Thornhill. Using Alfven circuit analogies, the major feature of this model is a current stream where the star derives its energy as a resistive load. For this reason, I call it the solar resistor model. With simple constraints of particle and energy conservation (nuclear reactions which could significantly change particle number) combined with Maxwell's equations the major shortfalls of this model are:

  • predicts magnetic fields for the surface of the Sun and at the orbit of the Earth, 1000 to 1,000,000 times larger than measured.
  • ignores that free current streams of ions and electrons are subject to numerous instabilities which make them break up in short timescales.

Popular excuses from EU 'theorists' are that this model ignores some 'nonlinearties' which they do not define but which must violate conservation of energy and Maxwell's equations to solve their problem.

Solar Capacitor model (Don Scott, The Electric Sky)
An alternative solar model, radically different from the Thornhill model above, is a spherical capacitor model with the heliopause as the cathode (source of electrons) and the solar photosphere as the source of ions & protons (anode). I call this the solar capacitor model. This spherical current configuration has been studied heavily in theory and experiment since the 1920s.

Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model.
Applying basic conservation principles to this configuration, just some of the deficiencies found are

  • predicts a solar proton wind speed 200 times faster than observed.
  • predicts energetic particle fluxes far in excess of what we observe. (proton fluxes a billion times larger). These fluxes are also far higher than the most deadly regions of the Earth radiation belts, meaning that interplanetary travel would be sure death for astronauts.
  • in situ measurements do not show a high-energy stream of electrons heading towards the Sun.
  • Without an external EMF maintaining the potential between the photosphere and heliopause, the Electric Sun will shut down due to charge neutralization in a very tiny fraction of a second.

Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists' | Dealing With Creationism in Astronomy

electric universe theory debunked wrong hypothesis
The list of the EU challenges on Tom Bridgman's site include General Plasma Physics, Electric Sun/Electric Stars, Peratt Galaxy Model, The Electric Sky Rebuttals, General Electric Universe Failures and many more physics and astronomy subjects.

Parts of the Electric Comet theory have been tested with missions to comets and especially to Comet 67P. Important test for Electric Comets so here are a few of Bridgman's articles - Failures of the Electric Comet Model, Of Water & Ice, Mass vs Charge, More Failures of the Electric Comet Model.

There is an old response by the Thunderbolts Group dealing mainly with Tom Bridgman's pseudoskepticism.

Anthony L Peratt goes instability?

electric universe theory debunked wrong eu Anthony L PerattA Peratt instability? Wallace Thornhill is one of the leaders of the Thunderbolts site and the unofficial 'official' version of the EUT. Others obviously contribute but Wal is considered the main science ideas man. Holoscience is Wal Thornhill's own site where he goes a bit further into his own personal ideas and some of the more exotic implications of the EU theory on our universe, life, physics and humans themselves.

Anthony Peratt's work with plasma instabilities, and especially his old work with the squatting man petroglyphs has caused, it seems, nearly everyone linked to the EU and a lot who are not to use his work as evidence and proof for the EU theory or their own pet theory.

Tony Peratt's work is purely science based. Has he understandably got upset with some of the claims about his work, has he personally fallen out with Thornhill, has he had to take this stance due to his important work and position at Los Alamos National Laboratory, or does he believe what is quoted below about Thornhill's personal site?

The Plasma Universe and PlasmaCosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.
Anthony L Peratt | plasmauniverse.info

RationalWiki reviews Electric Universe

RationalWiki Electric Universe theory reviewed and David Talbott biography.

Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.

EU advocates
EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups. The second group is composed of various other woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). For these people, the EU hypothesis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The more common subsets of this group include some Young Earth creationists, who wish to discredit the mainstream cosmology and geology suggesting that Earth is billions of years old, and some of the loonier fringes of global warming denialism, who are trying to find some process outside human control that they can attribute climate change to.

EU Evidence
Most EU proponents claim some kind of relation to the plasma cosmology of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology. A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory.
Electric Universe theory review | RationalWiki

EU theory debunked by others

eu theory electric universe debunk wrong against evidence crack pot

Bill Gaede

Bill Gaede - one person on the fringe with a superb fringe calling another fringe science. Awesome fun from a Donald Trump alternative science facts lookalike.

electric universe theory debunked EU wrongThe Electric Universe is a ragtag group of dissidents of Quantum Mechanics who find common ground in their repudiation of the religion of General Relativity. They are usually misguided individuals who, having grown frustrated with the Mathematical Establishment, have gone to the other extreme and become easy prey for recruitment. EUers usually follow one or more of the following delusional mavericks: Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell, Ayn Rand, Edward Leedskalnin, Hannes Alfvén.

If ever you come across anyone in a forum who regards any of these deranged individuals as heroes, you might as well move on. You will be talking to a madman.
electric universe debunked
The most ridiculous claim of the members of the Electric Universe is that space is filled with a substance they call 'plasma'. Their vision is that 'filaments' interconnect all stars and galaxies like bulbs strung on a Christmas Tree. These filaments are made of a substance the EUers call 'electricity' which in turn is made of the aforementioned plasma. In essence, the EU model of the Universe is a plasma ball.
The Electric Universe can't tell you what electric means