The Electric Universe Vs. the Danish Niels Bohr Institute

Recently, the danish "Niels Bohr institute", opened up for questions from the public, and I send them a mail about the electric universe theory.

I was quite laughing at their answer, but also felt kinda ridiculed...
But also I felt confirmed in what i have been told by others, regarding the absurd blindness the establish science has. And how they lock themself in theories, instead of keeping an open mind.

I have translated my question and their answer, and the original page can be found here: Niels Bohr Institute

Here is what i wrote to them:

----------------------------------------------------------
dear ask about physics

As we keep recieving more information and observations from among others NASA,
regarding the phenomenons in the universe, the "wieigt is tipping", so to speak in the direction of "the electric universe".

Theese theories arent hardly new, but it has been choosen by the established science community, to stick with and buildt apon already established theories.
Of former scientists who "tipped" towards "the electric universe" could be mentioned:
Nikola Tesla, Kristian Birkeland among many others

I just watched the movie called "thunderbolts of the gods" link: (i gave them the link to googlevideo)
I have also read quite a part into this area, and I have to say that the model of "the electric universe" seems to be able to explain virtually every phenomenon in the universe, compared to already established theories.

exambles: The sun, Sunspots, solarwinds, comet tails, etc.

My questions are as follows:

How does the Danish astrophysic community relate to "the electric universe"?

In Denmark, do we already have astrophysicists studying this theory?

Are the Danish astrophysics community ready to look away from allready established theories, to relate to "the electric universe" theory?.

Regards
P R H
-------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the Answer i got from them:

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am not quite sure what you are asking about, but here i will try to answer:

Within astrophysics - like in all other branches of naturescience -
we are building apon earlier acknowledgements (messurement, theories).
Our present Big Bang model for the universe is atm. the most complete description of the facts vi know about the universe.
But that isnt the last word ofcourse, we are constantly working on incorporating new messurements, witch gives new insight and challange our model for the universe.

I do not know the theory of "the electric universe", but for theese theories to have any interest, as a minimum they should be able to explain our present messurements of the universe. And that, I doubt they do.

regards
****** *********
Dark Cosmology Centre
----------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned I was in a bit of a fiddlefuddle what??? state after reading this, due to several things...

1. in the answer he says: "I do not know the theory of "the electric universe"" and yet he finishes hes answer by saying:
"as a minimum they should be able to explain our present messurements of the universe. and that, I doubt they do."

Why would he say "he doubt they do" if he doesn't even know the theory? Because he simply cannot imagine an alternative, in his world
any new discoveries most be incorporated into the established big bang theory.

2. In the answer he says: "I am not quite sure what you are asking about, but here i will try to answer:"

I think i stated my questions pretty clear in the end of my letter, so how come he doesn't understand them? He does understand them,
but he simply refuses to look into the subject and doesnt answer a single on of them directly.

3. In the answer he says: "Within astrophysics - like in all other branches of naturescience - we are building apon earlier acknowledgements (messurement, theories)."

So what he is really saying is that there are no alternative to the already established theories, unless it fits into theese or can be build into theese.

4. In the answer he says: "But that isnt the last word ofcourse, we are constantly working on incorporating new messurements, witch gives new insight and challange our model for the universe."

They are working on " incorporating new messurements", so a new alternative is once again dismissed because it doesnt incorporate.

So to answer my own questions:

Question 1: How does the Danish astrophysic community relate to "the electric universe"?

Answer 1: They simply don't. They dismiss it, without even looking into it.

Question 2: In Denmark, do we already have astrophysicists studying this theory?

Answer 2: Well we most certainly do not, in the established science community!!!, how nutty of me to even think that..shame on me...

Question 3: Are the Danish astrophysics community ready to look away
from allready established theories, to relate to "the electric universe"
theory?

Answer 3: They most certainly are not, and most likely never will be. It
seems that instead of true scientific thinking they have locked
themselfs into their way of thinking, and therefore any new discovery
most fit into the already established theory like Big Bang.

Personal Conclusion:

This is for me a typical sign of just how closed the scientific community really is, and shame on thoose who actually challenge their way
of thinking, try to give insight to other possibilities, or even try to think for themselfs....

Big Bangers will apperently always be Big bangers, refusing to look into anything that would shake their postulating, assuming, ideologically and
oh so mighty Big bang theory.

I would respect it, if they came up with disproof of the electric universe theory, but they simply refuse its existence.

Blessed be the open minds that seeks challenges and alternatives.

Well, a typical problem for the "Electric Universe" model is that it has not penetrated much into public or private consciousness. IE, people just turn up their noses, refuse to look at it, much as Sydney Chapman declined to even look at Alfven's presentation of Birkeland's terella experimental setup, because he "knew" it was all hocus pocus (which it was NOT, but his preciceived notion told him that it was).

Another problem is that many "proponents" are laymen. That's not to say that the researchers who back the theory with experimental results and scientific papers are laymen. But, the people who talk about it on bulletin boards often are not sufficiently schooled in it to talk in specifics or in technical terms. Thus, they may get specific facts wrong, or offer supposition rather than referring back to source texts with scientific experiments, simulations, math and models equivalent to or better than the mainstream models. Thus, there is an undeserved "reputation" out there that the only people interested in or backing the theory are laymen with no technical expertise. That's simply false, but is often leveled as an ad hominem accusation against the group as a whole. It's also used to dismiss the theory wholesale without a further look.

However, the thunderbolts.info site now has a forum that is quite open for discussion, within reasonable bounds, of the theory, implications, and new data coming in. Granted ,there are a number of laymen there as well, and "hobbyists" / "enthusiasts." but among them are a few with a bit more technical experience able to guide folk in the right direction, and dispel common misconceptions. Also, since the forum is quite open, there is no "authority figure" to arbitrarily lock open discussions on the topic and disallow them from proceeding, as recently happened to me over on BAUT, in a bit of a Tempest in a teapot. Just for mentioning on one of the posts that the EU folks got it right on Birkeland currents powering the polar auroras, and apparently for the lame reason of "posting in the wrong section of the forum" I was banned. Within 72 hrs of joining the site! Talk about draconian tactics. What an unruly bunch of moderators!

Anywho. Good times. Seems like every day now, more confirmatory evidence comes in (in EU favor)... From Flux Ropes powering the arctic auroras, to lightning at Venus, to the "electric donut" around Saturn, a "hole in the universe" a billion miles wide, GRB's from nowhere, etc. Everything's coming up roses, and generally putting the mainstream on its collective heels to explain to it all.

~Michael Gmirkin

reply to post by mgmirkin


Thanks for your reply, I can see the difficulty in promoting an alternative theory indeed. I have send you an U2U, and you can find it in your memcenter under orivate messaging.

There are rules at this forum too about promoting other forums aswell, so please be carefull about it.

I look forward to hear your reply.

It is quite obvious that the term "Electric Universe" is misleading. One can have a keen understanding of dynamics of rarified plasma in a magnetic field and still be befuddled with the reference to "Universe".

It's not "Universe". It's a complex configuration of the magnetic field that was only recently mapped with any degree of reliability.

I have had the honour of working with a few scientists from the Niels Bohr institute. Great guys.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It is quite obvious that the term "Electric Universe" is misleading. One can have a keen understanding of dynamics of rarified plasma in a magnetic field and still be befuddled with the reference to "Universe".

It's not "Universe". It's a complex configuration of the magnetic field that was only recently mapped with any degree of reliability.

I have had the honour of working with a few scientists from the Niels Bohr institute. Great guys.

Are you saying that the name of the theory, as i called it "the electric universe" theory, is so misleading, that the guys at the Niels Bohr Institute didnt understand my questions? I think you give them miscredit if so, but...

If that is what you are saying, should I will write them a question about "the Plasma cosmology theory" or what do you suggest I call the theory to make them understand what I am talking about?

reply to post by Bluess


The Electric Star theory is a subset of Plasma Cosmology, when breaking it down to proper definitions. Regardless, nothing you can write to them will have an effect, as is evident by the tone of their reply.

I have dealt and worked with Big Bangers and the establishment astrophysics crowd for many years. The vast majority are stuck in the BB paradigm, unable and unwilling to break beyond it. There are some true scientists among them however, unfortunately many of them are forced to follow the status quo for financial reasons. Here is a comment I once wrote on the Talk pages at the Wikipedia Plasma Cosmology article:

Opponents will, without modification and perhaps drastic revolution of their paradigmatic framework, continue to be unable to see any sort of validity in the Plasma Cosmology framework. Rather than focus on improving their own Cosmology however, for some unknown reason, certain individuals attempt to dismantle, discredit, and generally dis anything and anyone who sees in a different manner.

Most people do not go back to the foundations, and pick apart the basic assumptions of a discipline. Rather, they build on what is status quo, for various reasons including the feeling of comfort that they get from knowing something to be true in their minds. The person who wrote you that response knows that within his paradigmatic framework, the theory he supports is the one and only theory. He may be unaware that progress in science is driven by paradigmatic shifts. He may even be unaware of the term paradigm.

edit: fixed link

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Ionized]

Nice work Bluess, I know exactly how you feel it's an odd combination of humour and frustration. We have to remember these guys may have spent the majority of the careers studying and chasing after facts that have no basis in reality so it's understandable they may get a little upset when the very foundations of their theories come into question. As he mentions the theories are built on other theories. So if the foundations are weak everything else also comes into question. Measurements? now that is funny.

It really does resemble religious dogma. The Big Bang is dangling by a thread. The so called three pillars that it's based on are easily countered.

Electric/plasma universe theories may well be the first scientific theory that is accepted by the general public before it's generally accepted in the scientific community. At the end of the day these guys are going to have to eat a whole lot of humble pie, but of course many will say they knew it all along.

Haha. Well, that guy would probably freak out if he knew how well the EU theory is able to explain our present measurements of the universe.

In fact, it's so accurate that it can be downright frightening (and frustrating when they won't accept it).

Not only does it do an admirable job of explaining our current understanding of the universe, Plasma Cosmology is showing to be a model that is able to predict behaviors as well.

They still get some things incorrect...but what theory doesn't? The recent X-Ray information from NASA is another notch in the belt, and the slightly less recent discoveries surrounding our aurora's, and the electrical weather over Africa are additional new supporting information.

The national institutes' research archives are full of experiments on intrasystem electrical fields, and there is evidence of some more clandestine research regarding tethers, and their well known abilities of electricity "gathering" and "slingshots" (using inertia to propel another body, or deliver it to the surface of a planet).

Plasma Cosmology will catch on. Give it time. The evidence is mounting.

Thanks for all the above posts.

I myself am in the learning process of plasma cosmology and what I really wanted from the Niels Bohr Institute was information about their view of the theory.

I might have been to fast in writing my letter, and I might not have explained excatly, what theory I was asking about.

So I will research more on the subject, and take good time in putting together a new letter one day.

I will post it here, to see what you guys think of it, before sending it to the Niels Bohr Institute.

I know some says that it will not help, and that I will recieve a simular answer from them, but unlike them, I am willing to give them the benifit of the doubt, and their answer to a second more well written letter, should determind their intentions, or rather view, of the plasma cosmology.

Until then, maybe more information will be found to back up the plasma cosmology.

Originally posted by Bluess
Are you saying that the name of the theory, as i called it "the electric universe" theory, is so misleading, that the guys at the Niels Bohr Institute didnt understand my questions?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Propagation of particles emanating from Sun, in a complex magnetic field, is a challenging topic for a plasma physisist, but hardly is as general an issue as to involve "the Universe". Moreover, it's clearly not "electric" but "electromagnetic". And "space plasma" or someting like that would be a lot more descriptive and helpful than the pompous "electric universe" moniker.

Hey Bluess, first I want to say that I understand your frustration with the answers you got. Don't let that keep you from reading and studying further these science topics, no matter how non-standard they may be.

For another hand, I am an astrophysicist myself (though not cosmologist), so I can also understand the answers given by the person at Niels Bohr institute. First, I had never heard the term "electric universe" prior to this thread and, to be honest, it sounds a bad name for a theory, hehe. So, yes, plasma cosmology would be a better term for your questions. Also, keep in mind that some scientists are so immersed in their own community that, sometimes, they don't know the "layman name" of a theory, which seems to be this case.

Why would he say "he doubt they do" if he doesn't even know the theory? Because he simply cannot imagine an alternative, in his world
any new discoveries most be incorporated into the established big bang theory.

I don't think that's what he meant. To give you a specific example, no other proposed theory can explain the cosmic microwave background (CMB) map as accurately as the standard cosmological theory (big bang + lambda-CDM) does. That's why he said "he doubt they do", because if another theory explains the Universe we measure as best as the standard theory, he would know about it (meaning, someone would have already published it as a scientific article).

So, does that mean that the model of the Universe we have now is, and always will be, the correct one? No, far from it; but it's the best we have, until now, to describe what we see, regardless of philosophical views we personally might have for the Universe. If someone comes up with another theory that explains the Universe better than the big bang, I'm sure it would become the new accepted one – after some several years of study and debate, of course.

The underlying theory of the accepted cosmological model is the general relativity. So any new model should either also incorporate general relativity from the beginning or propose a new basic theory that successfully explains everything general relativity does (and, trust me, that's a lot). Again, so far, no other theory was able to do that – people believe that the string theory will explain all the interactions we have (which would include Einstein theory), but only time will tell.

I think a good deal of understanding in science is confused because of language, It's just semantics. Electricity is a general term that can describe various phenomena. It's not just the flow of electrons.

As for the various terms used to describe the theory to my understanding Plasma Cosmology is the term for plasma physics as it relates to the universe, where as Electric Universe theory is a broader inclusion of other areas some more theoretical than others including mythology, geological formation, biology etc..

CMB can be explained as the result of radiation from galactic plasmoids (black holes are a fairy tale), I've read this even from mainstream astronomers.
In fact, before the temperature was known, many steady state and plasma advocates predicted the CMB far more accurately than the big bangers who were expecting a much higher range, as much as 50 degrees in some cases!!

Plasma Cosmology has been able to make several verifiable predictions, Big bang/gravitational theories require the mythical forces of dark matter, dark energy and black holes for them to work and has failed to make any conclusive predictions.

Thanks again all for your posts, I will continue on my journey for knowledge, study and learn more....

I believe much of the knowledge i need can be found on the internet and in books, so I will resort to them for a while before sending anymore letters to any established institute of science, so I can make myself clear on exactly what it is, I am asking about, to clear away confusion.

I really have this "bad" tendensy to over study to many areas at one time and sometimes get terms mixed up in writing...I am way better at explaining what I mean Live, than in written words.

Again I thank you all, for the good advise and explanations.

What I see here is someone who simply had no idea what plasma cosmology was, but still felt obligated to answer your question. Its up to the plasma cosmologists to prove their theory, so why should scientists feel obligated to look through every single alternative when they already have a theory that works. Still, there are scientists who have looked through plasma cosmology, and there are people willing to discuss it and show why they don’t take it seriously.

CMB can be explained as the result of radiation from galactic plasmoids (black holes are a fairy tale), I've read this even from mainstream astronomers.

I’m going to have to call you out on this. There was ONE prediction of 50K, and it assumed a three billion year old universe. Other predictions were far closer. And as far as I can tell, plasma cosmology didn’t exist until after the temperature was known, or at least was created at around the same time that the temperature was discovered. If you do have evidence that other steady state theories predicted the CMB temperature accurately before that time, show it to me.

Plasma Cosmology has been able to make several verifiable predictions, Big bang/gravitational theories require the mythical forces of dark matter, dark energy and black holes for them to work and has failed to make any conclusive predictions.

Again, you seem to be giving far to much credit to plasma cosmology. Care to name these predictions. The evidence for dark matter is only increasing, and black holes are hardly mythical.

reply to post by Lethys


Already answered some of those in this thread.
Happy to answer any others there if you like.
But for now here are some links to plasma cosmology predictions.
www.bigbangneverhappened.org...
www.thunderbolts.info...
Several in that last link. Also I'd add the recent detection of birkeland currents connecting the earth and the sun as well as the new x-ray discoveries from Hinode, electric plasmoid at Saturn, streams of charged particles between Jupiter and Io etc...

Any conclusive predictions for the big bang theory you'd care to add? As well as any proof for black holes would also be appreciated.

Also in answer to your comments regarding the CMB, you should watch this.


Every cosmological model made predictions for cmb, (Just happens to be more accurately than the big bangers) so it's proof of nothing.


[edit on 22-12-2007 by squiz]

reply to post by Lethys


Gamow's predictions actually diverged from the correct value as his theories progressed. By the time of Penzias and Wilson, he was an order of magnitude off, whereas the steady-staters were much, much closer.

Here is one paper discussing part of this: arxiv.org...

Oh, and here is a must read, in which it is shown that Gamow's predictions diverged:

Assis, A.K.T. and Neves, M.C.D., "The redshift revisited"
Astrophys. Space Sci., 227, 1-2, pp13-24, 1995

Abstract:
We analyze the history of modern cosmology based on the redshift
phenomenon and on the cosmic background radiation. We show the models of different authors for the interpretation of the redshift and how the tired light models predicted the correct temperature of 2.7 K before Gamow and collaborators.