Electric Universe theory debunked

Electric Universe theory debunked ... EU theory wrong ... list of arguments and websites debunking parts or the whole Electric Universe theory. Some of these articles link into plasma cosmology areas.

Electric Universe debunked articles list

electric universe theory debunked EU arguments evidence againstQuick links to short reviews or highlights of the articles along the EU theory is not correct idea.

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

electric universe debunked is it wrong anti science eu electric sunThis 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.

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

Michael Shermer

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, the unofficial official EU theory website have replied to with this Michael Shermer Meets the Electric Universe youtube video.

SAFIRE Project - EU theory about to debunk itself?

safire project sun about to debunk electric universe theory euOne of the main ideas coming from the EU theory is that the sun is powered externally by natural electricity through space plasma and not internal nuclear fusion. This is known as the Electric Sun model.

The new SAFIRE Project is investigating this through actual physical and pure science experiments.

As the sun is not externally electromagnetically powered then the SAFIRE Project results can only prove that the Thunderbolts Electric Universe theory ideas are wrong?

Brian Koberlein's Testing the Electric Universe

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

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

Motherboard

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

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.

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 Creationismin Astronomy

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.

electric universe theory debunked eu comets 67p evidence wrong hypothesisParts 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?

electric universe theory debunked wrong eu Anthony L PerattWallace 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 own 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

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 facts looking and sounding person.

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

  • Garyinsooke

    Another debunking page to add to your list.

    Testing the Electric Universe
    https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

    • Ivar Nielsen

      The proponent in this link is not a plausible one. One cannot judge the EU by referring to standard cosmology. This of course demands another way of thinking.

  • Ivar Nielsen

    The EU Theory and “the Ancient joggling around with planetary orbits”.

    This theory derives from Ancient Myths of Creation where the deities belongs to the pre-creation and actual creation of the Milky Way. The two main Milky Way deities on the northern and southern Sky are seemingly revolving around the celestial poles.

    When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, they had to abandone their Pantheon Deities of both genders, but gave their male and female gendered names to the planets instead.

    With the Immanuel Velokovsky idea of “Worlds in Collisions” , several scholarly followers have uncritically just accepted this idea, not pondering the least over how single dotted planets can be mentioned in gendered terms.

    The result of this is: Milky Way deities are interpreted in the ThunderboltsProject as planetary deities and both the ancient myths as well as the normal astronomy are distorted out of all orders.

    The “ancient alien Sky” and “a different polar configuration” have never taken place. The only alienation here derives from the misconception of ancient myths and their cosmological meanings.

    This entire mythical hypothesis here is seriously skewed to fit into the EU “of charge and discharge of planets” and the joggling of planets and their moons forth and back in the Solar System.

    This idea is a strange mix of misinterpreted deified planetary myths (Just as in modern Astrology) and an impossible idea of planets which frequently changes orbits in and out in the Solar System.

    PS: Otherwise I can see several logical ideas in the strict Electric Universe Theory as well in the strict scientific Plasma Cosmology.

    But the mythical and rock Art department in the ThunderboltsProject are flawed and should be discarded as soon as possible.

  • Ivar Nielsen

    The Talbott-Peratt Rock Art stickman theory is flawed.

    Cherry picking a small handful Rock Art figures and compare these to
    figures in a plasma laboratory experiment is out of all scientific orders.

    There are hundreds of thousands other Rock Art figures which NEVER can be
    produced in a plasma laboratory. Just google “rock art images” and see for
    yourself.

  • Roy Batham

    You lot are the modern inquisition. Wasn’t Galileo wrong ?. Well, Hutton was wrong, Kant was wrong, Lyell was wrong, Darwin was wrong and Einstein was wrong. Take off you blinkers and lookl outside the box .

  • Helio Spheric

    @Ivar Nielsen Your argument is flawed regarding “Talbott-Peratt Rock Art stickman theory”. It is irreverent how much “noise”, or non-plasma petroglyphs there may or may not be. What is important is whether the number of petroglyphs that resemble high-current, high-density, plasma discharges, can be shown to be significant.

    It is no different to trying to show that some graffiti is written in Latin, and trying to argue that there is much more that isn’t, is irrelevant. We can demonstrate that some graffiti is Latin because of certain characteristics, the number of which is significant.

    • Ivar Nielsen

      @Helio Spheric,
      Just for the record:
      I of course don´t reject the strict scientific part of Plasma Cosmology, but I reject the idea that ancient Petroglyps represents “different plasma figures observed in the Sky by our ancestors” as suggested by the few rock art figures Talbott and Peratt have cherry picked out of hundreds of thousands.

      Of course it is important to investigate “the noises” as it it from these we can or cannot confirm the entire idea by its amount of consistensies. When investigating the multiple shapes of global petroglyphs/rock arts, the entire petroglyph-plasma figure idea is impossible and based on few cherry picked “stick figures”.

      See some image here – https://www.google.dk/search?q=petroglyphs&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib5M2G97rUAhWjDpoKHdIECf0Q_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=591

      Besides this, there are lots of evidences that Rock Arts resembles star constellations and especially the contours of the Milky Way as seen here – http://www.native-science.net/Stars.Constellations.htm – and here – http://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.MotherGoddess.htmhttp://www.native-science.net/MilkyWay.GreatestGod.htm

      Last: The very TBP-idea of an “ancient alien Sky and a planetary polar configuration” is based on mythical misconceptions which is delt with here – http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16207 – from where David Talbott resently banned me and another old time member for asking difficult questions into the logics of David Talbott´s ideas and arguments.

      • Wrong,
        Peratt surveyed something like a million petroglyphs from six continents and noted exact positions and similarities. He did not cherry pick. Squatter man and several other archaic images are portrayed together the same way around the world which is conclusive evidence people around the world saw the same things in the sky. It’s the only common denominator anyone has ever presented evidence for. You certainly don’t present evidence for anything, just your “humble opinion”, which is worth squatter man’s squat.

  • paul

    NASA 99.99% of space = plasma