Replies

Gravity cosmology cannot explain the jets...

I'm surethat there's plenty of things that gravity cosmology can't explain at the moment.

But that doesn't mean that the "Electric Universe" cosmology is correct.

There are just too many things that the "Electric Universe" cosmology has serious problems explaining away.

Stars as fusion furnaces, for example. The gravitational model, despite whatever inadequacies it may have, seems to be supported more by the preponderance of scientific evidence.

I'm sure some of the electrical phenomena are perfectly real in some cases, but it doesn't mean that the "Electric Universe" is the more correct cosmology.

The fact is, the scientific paradigm is overwhelmingly in favor of gravitational cosmology, in a way that is much more compelling and convincing than, say, Climate Change science is.

Could the huge majority of scientists be absolutely wrong about that? Yes. But is it likely at this point, given what we understand about the universe? Not likely.

I've read enough scientific comparisons between the two models to convince me that the "Electric Universe" is not sufficient to explain the bulk of phenomena we observe in the universe.

Hey, maybe MOND is correct, and there's really no such thing as Dark Matter. But it looks like Dark Matter is being more and more experimentally validated.

There's a web site which I found useful in learning about all sorts of issues relating to physics. Ah, here it is:

Brian K Oberlein's Web Site

I've found it very informative.

Hey, maybe MOND is correct, and there's really no such thing as Dark Matter. But it looks like Dark Matter is being more and more experimentally validated.

I really disagree. We have NEVER found any dark matter. None. Everything about dark matter can be explained with the EU cosmology. Same with the Stars. The fusion model for the stars is really just a theory and there are huge problems as I outlined in a the questions above about how does a star with an 8000K lower atmosphere heat an upper atmosphere to 1.5million K by convection. NOT one fusion physicist has come up with any kind of rational explanation. . . especially when it is a fact that looking through sun spots we see that the surface below the lower atmosphere is even COOLER than the lower atmosphere. They keep coming up with more and more ad hoc reasoning to prop up the Fusion model including the ad hoc claim that Neutrinos somehow mutate into different neutrinos on their way to Earth to explain why there are not enough of them to support their model. . . with out actually measuring the neutrinos at start or in the processor of mutation. It's a convenient explanation to make an inconvenient problem just go away. They don't tell anyone it's all theoretical.

Again, I return to the adage that the test of any theory is how well it predicts future findings and discoveries. So far the EU cosmology is doing dang well.

i just skimmed through Oberlein's "Testing the Electric Universe" and he gets so much wrong that it's pathetic. He really does not even understand what he is rebutting. Statements such as "Quasars are pinches from which Galaxies are formed" is completely erroneous. . . and that "Stars" create planets also are erroneous, or at least such a simplification of a complex issue to be erroneous. There is a lot more that he just gets wrong. . . and looks at from data points that start from the Gravity paradigm which of course will not support the premise.

The whole presentation is a straw man. He decides what he wants to shoot down, and then distorts what he wants to shoot down so it is easy to do.