Electric Universe theory debunked ... EU theory wrong ... list of arguments and websites debunking parts or all of the EU ideas. Some of these articles link into plasma cosmology areas.
Electric Universe debunked articles list
- Missing solar neutrinos (Tim Thompson)
- Michael Shermer (science writer) general review after attending EU conference
- Testing the Electric Universe (Brian Koberlein)
- SAFIRE Project scientifically testing Electric Sun hypothesis
- Motherboard general review
- Numerous series of investigations into EU theory (Tom Bridgman)
- Anthony Peratt!
- Bill Gaede tremendous video fun as he tries to destroy the EU theory and perhaps all peer reviewed science?
- List of links to other debunking articles
- Comments and discussion at bottom of page
This is a starter list. If you know or find any other articles or evidence that show or argue that the EU theory is incorrect please comment or send a message.
Tim Thompson: missing neutrinos debunked
This seems to be the original Electric Sun model debunked article on the internet, as it comes from around 2001. It is the semi famous Missing Neutrinos argument which involved Don Scott and included Wal Thornhill.
On the Electric Sun Hypothesis by Tim Thompson which has arguments or EU theory debunking about the Missing Neutrinos and lots of other scientific evidence including 'Temperature Minimum Below the Corona', 'Acceleration of the Solar Wind Ions', 'Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size' and much more science evidence and arguments proving the Electric Universe theory wrong.
Tim Thompson also has this - Responds to Thornhill on the matter of the Electric Star Hypothesis
Brian Koberlein also mentions the 'missing neutrinos' argument to prove that the EU theory is wrong.
In 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
These 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)
SAFIRE Project - EU theory about to debunk itself?
One main EU hypothesis is that the sun is powered externally by natural electricity through space plasma and not internal nuclear fusion. The SAFIRE Project is investigating the Electric Sun model through laboratory experiments.
As the sun is not electromagnetically powered then the results can only prove that the Thunderbolts Electric Universe theories are wrong?
Brian Koberlein's Testing the Electric Universe
How 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.
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
The comments section for this article is long and lively with lots of arguments, evidence, examples proving that the Electric Universe theory is wrong. And right. Worth a read to find more debunking stuff.
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
They 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
Electric Universe theory debunked articles by Tom Bridgman
Tom Bridgman's site has a long list of articles with evidence against the EU theory, or, science stuff that creates a problem for the Electric Universe theory. If you really want scientific evidence against it then this is your best website.
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?
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.
The list of the challenges to the EU theory on Tom Bridgman's site include General Plasma Physics, Electric Sun/Electric Stars, Peratt Galaxy Model and many more topics of science proof that the Electric Universe is wrong and pure pseudo-science.
Parts of the Electric Comet theory have been tested with missions to comets and especially to Comet 67P. As it is an important Electric Universe theory evidence argument here are a list of Tom Bridgman's articles debunking the Electric Comet model.
Electric Comets: Failures of the Electric Comet Model
Electric Comets II. Of Water & Ice
Electric Comets III: Mass vs. Charge
Electric Comets: More Failures of the Electric Comet Model
Anthony L Peratt against holoscience / Wal Thornhill?
Wallace Thornhill is one of the leaders of the Thunderbolts site and the unofficial 'official' version of the Electric Universe theory (EU theory). Others obviously contribute but Wal is considered the main man. Holoscience is Wallace 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.
Anthony L 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 Wal 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 Wal 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
EU theory debunked by others
- Critical Issues for Electric Universe Proponents by Hossein Turner
- The Electric Universe Theory Debunked on the neutrino dreaming blog
- The Electric Comet theory forum discussion on internationalskeptics.com
- How to debunk 'The Electric Universe'? on stackexchange
- Electric Universe articles or podcasts from Exposing PseudoAstronomy
- Electric Universe on rationalwiki
- How did crackpot Electric Universe papers get published in a peer-reviewed journal? forum discussion on internationalskeptics.com
- Electric Universe Theory, RIP: New Discovery of Why Sun's Corona is Hot thread on the abovetopsecret forum
- What are the problems that might dog the Electric Universe model? SIS Group
- Worlds still colliding (Velikovsky still colliding) by Leroy Ellenberger
- Debunking the Electric Sky: Chapter 3 article on Gravitys Wings
- A conversation regarding the “electric universe” discussion on Dumb Scientist
- Electric Universe Conspiracy Theory Debunked - sorry guys forum thread and links on godlikeproductions which starts by linking to the original Tim Thompson article
Bill Gaede - one person on the fringe with a superb fringe calling another fringe science. Awesome fun from a Donald Trump alternative facts looking and sounding person.
The 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.
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