Electric Universe theory debunked

Electric Universe Theory debunked ... EU pseudoscience poppycock? 10 or more main articles. Includes EU gamekeepers turned poachers.

Have those plasma electricians been grounded yet? 10 or more other EUT is wrong pages (mainly forum discussions) also externally linked to.

For a taster we start with one of the oldest anti EUT internet arguments... 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.
On the Electric Sun Hypothesis | Tim Thompson

comet 67p jets puzzle missing origin cracks holes

Main Electric Universe debunked articles

The Difference between Science and Pseudoscience | Michael Shermer
Testing the Electric Universe | Brian Koberlein
Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists' | Tom Bridgman
Why the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® isn’t the same as the Plasma Universe and why it matters | Robert Johnson
On the Electric Sun Hypothesis | Tim Thompson
The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe | Motherboard
Wallace Thornhill's anti-science holoscience site | Anthony Peratt
Electric Universe theories review | RationalWiki
How bad is EUT to be banned from Wiki? | Wikipedia
A 2001 Velikovsky Update | Leroy Ellenberger
Velikovskian Minds in Ablation | Sean Mewhinney
Critical Issues for Electric Universe Proponents | Hossein Turner
10 problems from An Analysis of Worlds in Collision | Carl Sagan
The Electric Universe can't tell you what electric means | Bill Gaede
SAFIRE laboratory project investigates Electric Sun hypothesis

Taster paragraphs of evidence and arguments against EU theories

These are short examples of the above writers logic against the accused - the mainly Thunderbolts EU theory. Links go down the page to more of their reasoning and to their own sites.

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.

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.

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.

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.

List of EU theory debunking authors

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.

(Back to top 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.

(Back to top list)

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.

(Back to top list)

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

(Back to top list)

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

(Back to top list)

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.

(Back to top list)

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

(Back to top list)

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

(Back to top list)

Wikipedia banned page and any References to an Electric Universe

wikipedia electric universe
Wikipedia, even after mediation and arbitration, states that the concept of an Electric Universe (physics) is a pseudoscience theory and does not confirm to scientific consensus. What do you have to do or not be for wikipedia to ban you from discussions, external linking or even References? EU physics is not even allowed a page, it has the shame of being redirected to Plasma Cosmology.

Wiki also rules that Plasma Cosmology is a non-standard cosmology theory. PC is part of the framework that EU is built on but PC is not EU. How non acceptable does that then make the redirected EUT?

(Back to top list)

VELIKOVSKY STILL COLLIDING

C Leroy Ellenberger, the ultimate Velikovsky GameKeeper or GateKeeper turned Poacher. Personally worked with Immanuel and all things printed in the 1970's about Worlds and solar system In Collision in mythology, chronology and against accepted science.

Charles Ellenberger gives his 2001 Velikovsky Update on the whole affair and controversy of new data, evidence and ideas. So what has this got to do with EU Theory?

ONE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE Velikovsky movement would have ended with the "crucial test" of the Greenland ice cores (Kronos 10:1, 1984), first proposed by R.G.A. Dolby in 1977.1 A visible layer of debris in the ice caused by Velikovsky's planet-juggling catastrophes, especially from the 40 years of darkness at the Exodus, was never found. In 1986-7, Lynn Rose, a Velikovsky devotee (and then philosophy professor at SUNY-Buffalo) writing in Kronos, suggested Velikovsky's signal is the ice in the so-called "brittle" zones of deep cores, deposited between Venus and Mars episodes, when supposedly Earth's axis had no tilt. Assuming Velikovsky correct, Rose discounted the fact that the dates of the brittle zones did not match Velikovsky's dates and ignored the concordance of tree rings and ocean sediments with ice cores. This, of course, makes a mockery of the "interdisciplinary synthesis" heralded by Velikovskians.
VELIKOVSKY STILL COLLIDING | Leroy Ellenberger

EUT is partly based on Plasma Cosmology mythology (Worlds In Collision, David Talbott's Saturn Myth and Configuration) but EUT is not PC.

(Back to top list)

Mythology and Minds in Collision

Another old (2000) research paper on the mythology of Velikovsky, that inspired the mythological solar system of Thunderbolts. Minds in Ablation, this time by Sean Mewhinney.

Part One: Ice Cores and Ideology
Part Two: Stability of the Arctic Ice Pack
Part Three: Botanical Fantasies
Part Four: Minds in Ablation:
Part Five: Charting Imaginary Worlds
Part Five addendum: Living in Imaginary Worlds
Part Six: The Kerplop! Theory
Part Seven: Dust
Minds in Ablation | Sean Mewhinney

(Back to top list)

Critical Issues for Electric Universe Proponents

Former EU follower gives his views on problems with EU.

The notion that electrical dynamics have been ignored by mainstream astrophysicists is also an erroneous one, and there are several explanations of a variety of mechanisms in the literature. For example, plasma can be layered and separated via the force of gravity so that electrons acquire a larger scale height than the heavier charged atoms and protons. This results in an electric field and localised double layers. The phenomena is known as the Pannekoek-Rosseland Field and also occurs in the solar atmosphere as well as elsewhere.

Photons can also interact with free electrons and cause them to accelerate, generating more charge-separation and other electrodynamics. The presence of electric currents in space plasma is usually the result of intermittant and highly dynamic inter-related processes. Take for example, the intermittant magnetic flux tubes that connect the Earth's magnetosphere with the solar chromosphere. These tubes of rotating charges cannot exist permanently in-time because the amount of energy required to sustain the charge-separation of the double-layer is far greater than what is available. So, their formation is often intermittant in time and highly dynamic. Indeed, it is the plasma-frequency which determines how long the DL charge-separation exists without any form of anchor to support it.
Critical Issues for Electric Universe Proponents | Hossein Turner

(Back to top list)

Plasma Cosmology versus Electric Universe

Bob Johnson fires the critical plasma canon at Anthony Peratt's Plasma Universe and Thunderbolts Electric Universe theories.

In contrast, as will become apparent below, the EU is largely based on speculative proposals and visual analogies; these are backed up by claims that genuine examples of plasma behaviour in space are evidence for their own model of an electrically-driven Sun and recent close encounters between charged planets. This ‘sales technique’ of mixing of PU fact and EU theory is easy to miss if you’re not looking carefully.
Why the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® isn’t the same as the Plasma Universe and why it matters

(Back to top list)

Carl Sagan denies Worlds in Collision

This and other summaries are found on the pro velikovsky.info site.

Much of the indignation directed toward Worlds in Collision seems to have arisen from Velikovsky’s interpretation of the story of Joshua and related legends as implying that the Earth’s rotation was once braked to a halt. .. we see in Appendix 2 that the energy required to brake the Earth is not enough to melt it, although it would result in a noticeable increase in temperature: the oceans would have been raised to the boiling point of water, an event which seems to have been overlooked by Velikovsky’s ancient sources.

Perhaps the most serious objection is rather at the other end. How does the Earth get started up again, rotating at approximately the same rate of spin? The Earth cannot do it by itself, because of the law of the conservation of angular momentum. .. Velikovsky is vague about the mechanism which is supposed to have braked the Earth’s rotation
Problem III: The Earth’s Rotation

(Back to top list)

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

(Back to top list)

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

The SAFIRE Project is testing the Anode Electric Sun hypothesis and has stated:

The SAFIRE technology was designed and built to replicate the atmosphere of the sun in a laboratory on Earth, and to test the Electric Sun model.

In our tests and experiments we have found no disparities with the Electric Sun model
SAFIRE Project 2019 Update | Thunderbolts Project

(Back to top list)

EU theory debunked by others

eu theory electric universe debunk wrong against evidence crack pot

(Back to top list)

(Back to top list)

EU and Velikovsky gamekeepers turned poachers

A loose definition but while Peer reviewed scientists have to conclude that EU is not correct, those who have investigated plasma comparative mythology and the space plasma side of Thunderbolts and been converted back to the dark side are of more interest to proving things like the Saturn Polar Configuration is false.

A 2001 Velikovsky Update | Leroy Ellenberger
Velikovskian Minds in Ablation | Sean Mewhinney
Critical Issues for Electric Universe Proponents | Hossein Turner
Wallace Thornhill's anti-science holoscience site | Anthony Peratt
Why the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® isn’t the same as the Plasma Universe and why it matters | Robert Johnson
Worlds not in Collision | Everything Is Electric

(Back to top list)