The Electric Universe.

[Man of Shred]

Welcome to a theory of the Universe that could change the way we think about newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Here fringe scientists Add electricity into the equation to explain Stellar phenomena In a way that's easy to Understand. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...the+gods&hl=en

[drewmandan]

Fortunately, ease of understanding is not the criterion by which physical theories are judged. Learn a little astrophysics.

[Jeff777]

Nice video. Here fringe scientits Add electricity into the equation to explain Stellar phenomena In a way that's easy to Understand.

[Neruo]

I am not buying it. There is no reason why main-stream science would ignore this if there was a core of truth in it. Also, I lost interest when the narrator was telling about a force a "Billion BILLION billion BILLION biiiillion times greater than gravity". Boo-hoo, strong-force that hold atoms together is strong. So what? Read up on some real cosmology/astrophysics.

[Man of Shred]

meh. astro physics just makes shit up trying to explain certain stellar phenomenon. This theory explains those theories a lot better and simpler. Mainstream science always violently opposes new theories. and last time i checked the earth was round.

[drewmandan]

meh. astro physics just makes shit up trying to explain certain stellar phenomenon. This theory explains those theories a lot better and simpler. Mainstream science always violently opposes new theories. and last time i checked the earth was round. Spoken like a true layman. It doesn't sound like you have even a high school level of science education. Why don't you go take your pet theories and paranoia about the establishment and sulk in the corner while the real scientists learn about the universe.

[MrBeelzy]

meh. astro physics just makes shit up trying to explain certain stellar phenomenon. This theory explains those theories a lot better and simpler. Mainstream science always violently opposes new theories. and last time i checked the earth was round. What about the things that the theory doesn't account for like the cosmic microwave background, and big bang nucleosynthesis? I also don't see how it being "simple" means anything. You can't apply something like Occam's razor in a situation like this, where one theory clearly isn't equal to the other in what it manages to explain and predict. Attacking mainstream science isn't really a valid argument either, unless you're talking to fringe scientists, conspiracy theorists, creationists, and other men of their ilk.

[juroara]

Spoken like a true layman. It doesn't sound like you have even a high school level of science education. Why don't you go take your pet theories and paranoia about the establishment and sulk in the corner while the real scientists learn about the universe. paranoia and pet theories? what on earth are you babbling about this video did not present ideas only being talked about by fringe scientists. the idea that gravity is a weak force *which it is* and electricity and magnetism is much stronger and more fundamental in this universe was discussed at my university good job watching the video, there is no conspiracy theory involved real scientists aren't afraid to think outside the box

[drewmandan]

paranoia and pet theories? what on earth are you babbling about this video did not present ideas only being talked about by fringe scientists. the idea that gravity is a weak force *which it is* and electricity and magnetism is much stronger and more fundamental in this universe was discussed at my university good job watching the video, there is no conspiracy theory involved real scientists aren't afraid to think outside the box Yes, I am aware of how weak gravity is. However, the strong and weak forces scale such that they don't act on distance scales larger than the radius of a proton. As for the electromagnetic force, I have two comments. First, you do see it at play every time you see a star. Over long distances, the electromagnetic force is carried primarily by light, and if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't see distant galaxies. Second, the electric and magnetic forces are very strong. So strong, in fact, that if objects in the universe did carry net charges, they would very quickly seek out opposite charges and cancel each other. Also, all evidence thus collected points to large bodies being electrically neutral. So you must be suggesting that we live in a very special place in the universe that doesn't follow the same rules as everywhere else. Oh, and real scientists, real real scientists, actually study science in university, which you clearly have not.

[Jeff777]

drewmandan just bla bla blah's all day long. Wasting all the good air for the rest of us. Look at my avatar drew...that's me reading your posts in this thread.

[juroara]

Oh, and real scientists, real real scientists, actually study science in university, which you clearly have not. I didn't say the scientists were right are wrong. I am not a scientist. I am an artist. So I don't make that judgment call, I'll leave the hard work to the pros. If the pros are questioning, then I have a right to know that question because science is knowledge for humanity. It's that simple. I don't understand your need or the need of others to insult anyone, whether on this board or a scientist who QUESTIONS. If said scientist has a flippin degree and questions, why can't I know his question? Why does he suddenly lose all credentials because someone on a board thinks that questioning must mean OH-SO-SCARY-CONSPIRACY-THEORY. If you watched the video, some of the more important topics had nothing to do with science, but culture. That some scientists are afraid to even propose certain questions out of fear of being attacked by religion. I don't remember stating anywhere where I believe science is right or wrong. You don't know my stance on science. So I don't even know how you can come off and judge me. I however, as philosophical minded person - think questioning is important. I enjoy it when scientists question their own science. Regardless of the question. I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING IN THE VIDEO. But I still enjoyed it. And I can't understand your elitist attitude. The need to insult someone if they are interested in the questions that scientists themselves are proposing. Get over yourself!

[Jeff777]

Get over yourself! He's looking at himself in the mirror right now, he'll reply back to you in a few minutes hours.

[Neruo]

Spoken like a true layman. It doesn't sound like you have even a high school level of science education. Why don't you go take your pet theories and paranoia about the establishment and sulk in the corner while the real scientists learn about the universe. BUT TEHY are HiDinG The WAtturR-ruInNIng CAR frum uZ!@!! and teh scienktentists are COVering UP TEHJ uFOZ!1!11111 But really, funny how all the people that say 'main-stream-science is dogmatic and refuses to embrace this truth' are, with truly no exception, unintelligent. Basically, why waste time watching this video, unless if someone here is a scientist in the astrophysics that should keep up-to-date and on the look out for different ideas, no matter how ridiculous, we are better of ignoring this bullshit until it gets published in scientific publications. Isn't going to happen, btw.

[StonedApe]

Your right we should be ignorant until proven intelligent. Theres no harm in looking at something like this. I don't see what the big deal over this video is. Personally I thought it was interesting, but I didn't find it all that informative. By the way main steam science has lost some of its integrity lately. They claim global warming is caused by CO2. Bullshit. This makes me question anything coming out in modern science.

[Neruo]

Your right we should be ignorant until proven intelligent. Theres no harm in looking at something like this. I don't see what the big deal over this video is. Personally I thought it was interesting, but I didn't find it all that informative. By the way main steam science has lost some of its integrity lately. They claim global warming is caused by CO2. Bullshit. This makes me question anything coming out in modern science. I think the whole global warming fiasco is partially caused by politics mixing in with science too much. Not that this is the first time politics can be bad for science, I believe that in the time smoking was still 'healthy', a lot of bad studies were done about the effects of smoking. It is kind of hard to keep politics, or companies out of science to ensure proper research. However, I there is no 'qui bono?' (who benefits) question when it comes to astrophysics, as far as I can tell. There is certainly no reason for any company or government or individual to be biased about astrophysics as much as scientists were biased in their research when it came to global warming. I once saw a video that 'proved' the earth was actually growing miles in diameter each decade. I can't really say that wasn't a 10-minute waste of my time. We should keep all options open, but being sceptical to both current and new theories that might replace the current ones doesn't mean every theory is equally worthy of time and attention.

[StonedApe]

I agree. I just don't see what the big deal is about with this video. I thought that parts of it were good, but as a whole it probubly wasn't worth watching, thats why I stopped at about 40 mins. Can you explain whats so terrible about it to me? I don't know shit about astrophysics.

[drewmandan]

I don't know shit about astrophysics. QFT

[Schmaven]

I thought it had some very interesting explanations. It inspired me to read my fundamentals of electrical engineering book. I agree with parts of the video, and can't disagree with electrical energy being a major part of the universe. I doubt electricity is just some fluke here on earth. I mean lightning and static electricity are very prevalent, and on top of that, we use electricity for almost everything now a days. I think both the electrical model, and the gravitational model both accurately describe parts of astronomy. The two should be working together, not disputing over which one is correct or not. I think the problem with science is that too many people are trying to make themselves look better through their research and don't have the ability to consider new theories. But that has always been the case, so I don't see that changing any time soon. So much goes into proving something to be right, that it's only natural to get defensive when someone comes along with another theory that fits better, and at the same time disproves your theory. This has happened with a lot of theories, and yet they still don't learn. Imagine where we would be if people legitimately considered different views before disregarding them. The earth would've been round a lot sooner.

[drewmandan]

The earth would've been round a lot sooner. The scientific method wasn't adopted until well after the Earth was proven round. You fail.

[Schmaven]

The scientific method wasn't adopted until well after the Earth was proven round. You fail. There seems to be some confusion here. My point was that there are people that are unable to change their beliefs, so when a new theory comes around that challenges a previous one that they believe in, they too easily dismiss it because they're afraid of change. When enough people dismiss it, it becomes harder for it to be accepted and put into practice; thus delaying progress if the new theory is better. I'm sorry if somehow I gave the impression that my argument hinged around the scientific method being adopted after the Earth was proven round. Regardless of baseless claims of failure, we would be a lot further down the technological road if more people were more open to new ideas.

[drewmandan]

There seems to be some confusion here. My point was that there are people that are unable to change their beliefs, so when a new theory comes around that challenges a previous one that they believe in, they too easily dismiss it because they're afraid of change. When enough people dismiss it, it becomes harder for it to be accepted and put into practice; thus delaying progress if the new theory is better. I'm sorry if somehow I gave the impression that my argument hinged around the scientific method being adopted after the Earth was proven round. Regardless of baseless claims of failure, we would be a lot further down the technological road if more people were more open to new ideas. No confusion. You used closed-minded clergymen as an example of the human tendency to refuse change, and I cited the scientific method as an example of a human institution specifically created to avoid the problem. Hence, any examples of human closed-mindedness prior to c.1600 AD are irrelevant when discussing matters of current science. You fail again.

[Schmaven]

No confusion. You used closed-minded clergymen as an example of the human tendency to refuse change, and I cited the scientific method as an example of a human institution specifically created to avoid the problem. Hence, any examples of human closed-mindedness prior to c.1600 AD are irrelevant when discussing matters of current science. You fail again. Apparently there still is some confusion. Other examples are anything you can think of where two people disagree and one of them refuses to consider both sides of the argument. I am not just talking about the earth being round. Although that is a very good example of closed mindedness in action. Again, my point was that there are people who are unable to change their beliefs, so when a new theory comes around that challenges a previous one that they believe in, they too easily dismiss it because they're afraid of change. When enough people dismiss it, it becomes harder for it to be accepted and put into practice; thus delaying progress if the new theory is better. There are many reasons for someone to cling to a belief or to a theory, these reasons are unimportant. The fact that people are not considering both sides of things is the problem. You cannot make progress if you are unable to admit your mistakes. On a related note. Closed-mindedness did not end around 1600 AD. I can assure you that many people are still stricken with it today.

[drewmandan]

On a related note. Closed-mindedness did not end around 1600 AD. I can assure you that many people are still stricken with it today. Of that I am painfully aware. However, science has the advantage of only dealing with testable hypotheses and nothing is declared final (technically, nothing is final, but new theories always include old theories within them) until mountains of evidence specifically supporting that hypothesis and no other are uncovered. You can't point to closed-mindedness of general idiots off the street and somehow claim that proves science is biased. Science, by its very nature, cannot be corrupted in such a way. And cosmology is a science.

[Schmaven]

Of that I am painfully aware. However, science has the advantage of only dealing with testable hypotheses and nothing is declared final (technically, nothing is final, but new theories always include old theories within them) until mountains of evidence specifically supporting that hypothesis and no other are uncovered. You can't point to closed-mindedness of general idiots off the street and somehow claim that proves science is biased. Science, by its very nature, cannot be corrupted in such a way. And cosmology is a science. Scientists aren't excluded from being closed minded. I'd like to think that most aren't, but even so, given enough money, a lot of scientists will come to any conclusion you want. While the scientific method may be ideal, the scientists themselves have biases and needs. I can't say who will give more importance to fudging results to get more grant money or who won't. I'm just saying that it is an issue, and it impedes progress to a certain degree. Just because something is a science does not magically wall off the subject to idiots. They will always find a way into a system and cause problems. Cosmology is no exception. I think people should always be considering new models and new theories for everything. Our knowledge base is constantly growing, along with the power of computers. This combination allows for increasingly accurate models of reality. The way I see things, all scientific "laws" or "theories" that have been proven, are still not exactly the way things are. They are in most cases, approximations that mimic reality for certain conditions. There are always exceptions to laws, or conditions where the theories don't apply. It's all about knowing which laws or theories apply, and under what conditions you can apply them. Because they are only approximations, there will be room for improvements on the models to more accurately simulate reality. I'm not sure, but I think some of the current theories regarding the universe have been around for at least decades. I believe that as time goes on, our understanding of everything increases. Because of this, I think new theories should be more carefully considered and not dismissed just because Cosmology is a science and [insert name here] dismissed the theory (for any number of possible reasons).

[drewmandan]

Scientists aren't excluded from being closed minded. I'd like to think that most aren't, but even so, given enough money, a lot of scientists will come to any conclusion you want. While the scientific method may be ideal, the scientists themselves have biases and needs. I can't say who will give more importance to fudging results to get more grant money or who won't. I'm just saying that it is an issue, and it impedes progress to a certain degree. Individuals can be biased, but that's why we have peer review. I guess you've haven't heard of that. Also, if some scientific theory was wrong, it would be immediately obvious as all the experiments based on the assumption that it is correct fail catastrophically. Just because something is a science does not magically wall off the subject to idiots. They will always find a way into a system and cause problems. Cosmology is no exception. Right. And those idiots are the ones pushing the electric universe crap. I think people should always be considering new models and new theories for everything. Our knowledge base is constantly growing, along with the power of computers. This combination allows for increasingly accurate models of reality. The way I see things, all scientific "laws" or "theories" that have been proven, are still not exactly the way things are. They are in most cases, approximations that mimic reality for certain conditions. There are always exceptions to laws, or conditions where the theories don't apply. It's all about knowing which laws or theories apply, and under what conditions you can apply them. Because they are only approximations, there will be room for improvements on the models to more accurately simulate reality. There's a subtlety here that I think you're missing. Old theories are NOT disproved. A theory is a theory because evidence supports it. Theories ARE expanded upon or explained in a different way, but the validity of the old theories is not suddenly rejected. Newton's law of gravity isn't wrong; it's just not complete. Hell, NASA still uses Newton's version of gravity for rocket calculations. The point here is that new theories must always include explanations for the old theories. For example, Einstein's GR explains the inverse square law of gravity using spacetime curvature. New theories build upon, not destroy, old theories. The electric universe does not explain the observations cosmologists have made, and crucially, it does not explain how the illusion of a gravitationally-dominated universe could have arisen.