Why ELECTRIC UNIVERSE theory isn’t the same as Plasma Cosmology and why it matters

ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® compared to Plasma Universe®

Why the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® isn’t the same as the Plasma Universe and why it matters is a comparative critique of Anthony Peratt’s Plasma Cosmology and Thunderbolts EU Theory.

Why ELECTRIC UNIVERSE theory isn’t the same as Plasma Cosmology and why it matters

Robert Johnson is the author and bona fide critic. Bob explains what on Earth is an ELECTRIC UNIVERSE®? And how he thinks EUT and Peratt’s cosmologies work in theory and business practice.

This paper will examine the relationship between the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® and the Plasma Universe. It will be shown that even though the EU agrees with the PU in recognising the need for incorporating plasma physics into astrophysics, the EU and the PU have very different fundamental principles, objectives and modus operandi.

In particular, the EU promotes one model to the exclusion of all others but this may not be the right one. The future of Plasma Cosmology based on the principles of the PU may lie in a completely different direction.

The boundaries between the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® and the Plasma Universe often seem to have been blurred to the point where it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference. Critics of the EU certainly seem to think the EU and the PU are the same thing; they then dismiss them both in the same breath. But is the EU the same as the PU? And why does it matter whether it is or it isn’t?
Why the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE isn’t the same as the Plasma Universe and why it matters

Johnson fires the plasma canon, set to critical, at them, both barrels.

The free paper (PDF) was first published in the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies awesome Chronology and Catastrophism journals. In this paper Robert explores, investigates and concludes on:

  • The Relationship between the EU and the PU
  • Examining the EU’s claims that examples of plasma behaviour support the EU model
  • Misrepresentations, False Dichotomies and Denigration of Mainstream Science
  • Induction and the Role of the Magnetic Field
  • Alternative Developments of the PU
  • Why it matters that the EU isn’t the same as the PU

Why the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® isn’t the same as the Plasma Universe and why it matters

Even Anthony Peratt gets hit with bits of shrapnel from the plasma filaments fired in his general direction. When it could be viewed that Tony Peratt got blinded and blind sided by the synchrotron radiation.

Plasma based Cosmologies and Universes

If Anthony Peratt has worked with founder members of the Thunderbolts Project why in plasma heaven is the TEU/PU relationship so unstable?

we can define the PU strand as ‘plasma physics in astrophysics’. The PU includes the whole of plasma cosmology, including Birkeland Currents, plasma filaments in space, double layers, parallel electric fields and many other aspects of plasma behaviour that anyone who follows the EU will be familiar with.

Also in the PU is recognition of the value of Birkeland’s terrella experiments in helping to demonstrate that phenomena such as the auroras can be explained by considering charged particles in space, together with Peratt’s more recent hypothesis that petroglyphs could have been records of plasma events seen in the heavens within the last few thousand years

In a nutshell, the PU is based on plasma physics theory backed up with laboratory research and detailed mathematical modelling, including both fluid analysis and kinetic Particle-in-Cell models requiring massive amounts of computer time on the largest machines available.

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.

Unfortunately, in his later petroglyph papers, Peratt moved away from his initial exploration of Gold’s work and developed an EU-specific alternative explanation in the form of a massive plasma column of BC located above the Earth’s south-pole; the inductive aspects of the SWMC mechanism were lost in the process.

However, Van der Sluijs and I showed conclusively in 2013 that Peratt’s polar column cannot explain the worldwide evidence of petroglyphs as he had claimed, even with Peratt’s postulated ‘bend’ in it; apparently, the value of Peratt’s early insights had been compromised by his later attempt to force-fit the observations into the EU’s model of BCs and the Saturn configuration.

Who in ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® hell is Robert Johnson?

Blimey, I didn’t expect the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® Spanish Inquisition!

Bob is a contributor to the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies journals and makes presentations at their meetings. He has relevant knowledge, research of these cosmologies and has the opportunities to discuss with those involved their ideas and implications.

Marinus Anthony van der Sluijs has produced research papers with Robert J Johnson. That’s enough for me and those who respect his academic work. Gold standard.

Johnson has co authored work with comparative mythology chap Rens (Marinus van der Sluijs) investigating observable problems with the geometrical aspects of Peratt’s singular Instability Column.

This is not a Micheal Shermer attack or EU debunking article as such, this is a a worthy sparring opponent, a plasma and plasmoid cosmology champion who has strode forward. An industry insider.