Very interesting physics theory I am trying to wrap my head around….

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

it is just where they want to end up and they don't want to leave.

Does this not imply intelligent choice ?

Let me see if I have this figured out .  

" A rose by any other name would be a chrysanthemum. "  🥴

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Does this not imply intelligent choice ?

Let me see if I have this figured out .  

" A rose by any other name would be a chrysanthemum. "  🥴

more like a ball rolling down a hill wants to stay at the bottom and not climb back up.

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Are there contradictions here? How could gravitation NOT be a force? If it "separated from the other forces" thus implying it IS a force among others?

Why would not gravitation be a force if it can cause two objects (masses) to be "drawn" to each other? Thus converting potential energy into kinetic energy with the acceleration of the masses? If the trajectory is right, there will be a violent collision which translates kinetic energy into intense heat.

Within that interval of 10E-43 seconds, we have space and time. Would not gravitation already exist at some time between the moment of the Big Bang and 10E-43 seconds? If there was space-time, then gravity should already be present as "a function of space-time" BEFORE the time came for the separation of OTHER forces?

I believe there are still more layers and dimensions to delve into before we can have a complete cosmological model. It might turn out that there will NOT be complete entropy (heat death of the universe). That we will discover that the observations and conjectures are incorrect and conclude the Big Bang did NOT occur. I believe the universe to be infinite.

Gravity works like this in these theories -

Think of the universe as the surface of a very large balloon. When an object with mass or an object with energy is introduced to the surface of the balloon, the rubber surface dimples making a depression - or, in terms of quantum mechanics, it curves space-time. When two of these objects are close enough that the dimples overlap, the objects move towards each other, following the curve in the space-time. if you stretch out the balloon rubber, and drop a couple of marbles on it, the marbles will roll towards each other until they are adjacent (and will leave a larger dimple in the rubber).

Gravity is the term that we use to describe the objects moving towards each other through the curved space-time - the curved space-time itself isn't particularly visible to us, but its effects are. But what should be reasonably clear is that gravity itself isn't a force, but a condition of two curves in space-time interacting with each other in such a way that it causes mass and energy to move.

The thing about the interval 10E-43 seconds is this - prior to that interval, the universe (all of it, everywhere, at the same time) was incredibly hot - so hot that subatomic particles could not form - and hot enough that the subatomic field that causes mass to exist (the Higgs field) could not exist. Within that interval, the universe is expanding at super fast speeds - but as it does so, it cools - and when it is cool enough, the Higgs field comes into existence everywhere. It is the Higgs field that gives most particles their mass. Think of this as a magnetic field with a polarized ion moving into it. There is resistance, and this resistance translates into what we call mass. Two particles that we know of are completely unaffected by the Higgs field. Those two particles (photons and gluons) have no mass at all. We consider them to be energy - and they are subject to the quantum rules describing interactions with curves in space-time and so we observe that gravity affects them (even though they have no mass).

So, there is no gravity before that interval of time when the Higgs field comes into existence - because the Higgs field cannot exist with the other factors we believe were there.

At any rate, this is the rough version of the quantum explanation for gravity.

Entropy occurs with gravity for two reasons - entropy is required for gravity to come into existence (the Higgs field becoming operational is part of this), and entropy exists because even though the gathering of mass reverses some aspects of entropy, it results in heat and momentum - both of which represent an increase in entropy, and both of which occur at rates that exceed the reversal of entropy represented by the gathering of mass and energy caused by the curvature of space-time caused by matter and energy.

My favorite explanation to date is that our universe is the event horizon of the supernova of a fourth dimensional star.

Edited April 29, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[JVW]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

LOL, outer space doesn't smell. Period. Vacuum has no smell. The smell that is referenced is the smell of materials that have been baked in sunlight and the odor is their outgassing. 

Quote

Have you ever wondered what space smells like? Many of us expect space to be a vast, odorless void, but it turns out that may not be the case. If you guessed cosmic barbecue, you're not far off. For example, here's what someone with 13 spacewalks and 370 days in space thinks—NASA Astronaut Donald R. Pettit... "The best description I can come up with is metallic; a rather pleasant sweet metallic sensation. It reminded me of my college summers where I labored for many hours with an arc welding torch repairing heavy equipment for a small logging outfit. It reminded me of pleasant sweet smelling welding fumes. That is the smell of space." Author and EU advocate Matt Finn investigates the how and why the smell of space may be likened to ozone, welding fumes, or burnt materials due to the chemical reactions involving the ionization of gases and dust particles.

 

[longview]

17 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Think of the universe as the surface of a very large balloon. When an object with mass or an object with energy is introduced to the surface of the balloon, the rubber surface dimples making a depression - or, in terms of quantum mechanics, it curves space-time. When two of these objects are close enough that the dimples overlap, the objects move towards each other, following the curve in the space-time. if you stretch out the balloon rubber, and drop a couple of marbles on it, the marbles will roll towards each other until they are adjacent (and will leave a larger dimple in the rubber).

Not quite. The "reach" of gravity is infinite (or the full "extent" of the universe). In other words, everything has some degree of "pull" on everything else regardless of distance or mass. Gravity does NOT "take effect" when "the two dimples overlap". It is omnipresent everywhere on everything.

17 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My favorite explanation to date is that our universe is the event horizon of the supernova of a fourth dimensional star.

If some can speculate on parallel universes, this can also be explored. Who knows if the event horizon universe could exist in its own space-time for a LOT longer time than for the event horizon's brief existence?

It is said that God can see all of time simultaneously. To me, that would necessitate a God being a many dimensional being.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Not quite. The "reach" of gravity is infinite (or the full "extent" of the universe). In other words, everything has some degree of "pull" on everything else regardless of distance or mass. Gravity does NOT "take effect" when "the two dimples overlap". It is omnipresent everywhere on everything.

It is true that my simplistic explanation isn't as complex as reality but - when you start talking about "pull" you are making a categorical mistake. There is no "pull". This was the whole point of the idea of entropy. Objects don't pull things - an object curves space-time, and other objects tend to want to follow the curve.

Gravity isn't something that takes an effect in any situation - because gravity isn't a force - it is simply the label we give to the process of objects (mass or energy) following the curve of space-time in an entropic fashion.

On top of this, the curving of space-time is a local thing. A single object doesn't curve all of space-time in the universe - only locally (relativity makes this reasonably certain).

So, while the Higgs field is present everywhere, the Higgs field isn't gravity - and the curvature of space-time is a local phenomenon (which doesn't mean that really large dense objects like super-massive black holes don't create correspondingly large curvatures). The observable universe is mostly flat. And the reality is that we are not experiencing the effects of the curvature caused by all of the other objects in the universe. The "reach" of gravity seems quite finite.

[Stargazer]

On 4/30/2025 at 3:29 PM, JVW said:

 

That's all very nice, but what he's smelling are the materials that we out in space, exposed to vacuum and unfiltered sun, but then brought into a place with breathable atmosphere, where the outgassing from the material can be detected olfactorially. He's not smelling space. 

I just sniffed at my mobile phone. No discernable smell. But if I applied vacuum and heat to it, it would begin outgassing from the heat, and when I brought it out into the air I would definitely be able to smell it. It would smell like overheated plastic. 

Space has no smell. There's nothing there to smell. 

[JVW]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That's all very nice, but what he's smelling are the materials that we out in space, exposed to vacuum and unfiltered sun, but then brought into a place with breathable atmosphere, where the outgassing from the material can be detected olfactorially. He's not smelling space. 

I just sniffed at my mobile phone. No discernable smell. But if I applied vacuum and heat to it, it would begin outgassing from the heat, and when I brought it out into the air I would definitely be able to smell it. It would smell like overheated plastic. 

Space has no smell. There's nothing there to smell. 

I know this is tangential but I had one more question regarding this. So if I understand what you're saying then there is really condensed gas created from the guy's spacesuit, or the spaceship, or whatever, and when the astronaut breaths through his suit the condensed gas has a spot to expand into and the scent from that compressed gas is what he's smelling? Is that correct? Or are you saying like stars and planets are emitting gases since they're in a vacuum, and they are what's causing the scents?

I understand a vacuum can't have a scent because there is no air for scent molecules. I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of how someone could smell a unique smell in a vacuum. 

If I understand you right, there are things to smell in space, it's just that they can't be smelled(?) unless they enter a non-vacuum environment?

[The Nehor]

On 4/30/2025 at 9:29 AM, JVW said:

 

This is nonsensical. The stuff astronauts smell is the stuff they brought with them.

[The Nehor]

On 4/29/2025 at 9:46 AM, JVW said:

My favorite "universal" theory is the Electric Universe theory. No idea if it addresses gravity, I only watch a video or read an article every couple of months because I'm not smart enough for physics. My favorite thing I've learned from the channel is that outer space smells like burnt steak. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/18/10609/

The Electric Universe theory is pseudoscience. There is nothing backing it up at all.

[JVW]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is nonsensical. The stuff astronauts smell is the stuff they brought with them.

Wherever the scent comes from, I believe them that there is a smell to outer space. It's not just one astronaut who has said this.

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Electric Universe theory is pseudoscience. There is nothing backing it up at all.

Ok.

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, JVW said:

Wherever the scent comes from, I believe them that there is a smell to outer space. It's not just one astronaut who has said this.

You can’t inhale outer space and you don’t even try unless something has gone horribly wrong and you are probably about to die. How do you imagine they are smelling ‘space’ and not the atmosphere that they brought with them?

[Chum]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How do you imagine they are smelling ‘space’ 

Synesthesia

[JVW]

On 5/1/2025 at 11:06 AM, Stargazer said:

LOL, outer space doesn't smell. Period. Vacuum has no smell.

He's not smelling space.

Space has no smell. There's nothing there to smell. 

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is nonsensical.

The Electric Universe theory is pseudoscience. There is nothing backing it up at all.

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You can’t inhale outer space and you don’t even try unless something has gone horribly wrong and you are probably about to die. How do you imagine they are smelling ‘space’ and not the atmosphere that they brought with them?

Ok, y'all have successfully motivated me to craft a proper response to all of this unscientific nonsense (quoted above). Allow me to remind you of a few things before I begin. I am not a scientist. I do scientific research as a hobby, but mostly in the field of human biology. Based off of the conversation in this thread, I am inferring that some people posting are actual physicists, or are at least interested and well versed enough in the topic to be able to make rough declarative statements to authoritatively shut down alternative scientific viewpoints. The last thing I'll mention by way of introduction is that I'm not making an argument, I'm presenting an argument that someone else made (an expert with years, probably decades, of experience in the field). Since I did bring the argument to the table, I suppose that the onus falls on me to defend it, however, if you won't even consider the material I'm presenting then I think the amount of load I carry in the conversation is unfair. I presented the material because it's interesting. But if it's just going to get shut down without argument than nobody will take a look and then I just wasted my time. So that is why I'm going to spend an hour crafting a proper response.

Here is the (edited) transcript of the video I linked to. I am bolding parts that I like. I had assumed you would have already considered the argument I presented before responding to me, but is now obvious that you haven't even clicked the link to the video.

Quote

Have you ever wondered what space smells like? You might expect a vast, odorless void but it turns out that may not be the case. If you guessed cosmic barbecue you're not far off. Space does have a smell and that smell may be a little more confirmation for the Electric Universe model of cosmology. Let's investigate. 

There aren't a lot of predictions about the smell of space to be found, I couldn't find a thing that predates 1960. That's probably for good reason - no air in a vacuum means nothing to carry a scent. In fact, about the only place you could find it mentioned would be in science fiction. For example, Arthur C. Clarke in his 1953 novel Childhood's End, that story says that there's no smell or taste to space, and that it was all outside the range of human senses. Clarke's description is hard to argue with and not many others have had much to say on the subject, but then some astronauts did some space walking and it turns out space may have a scent after all. What kind? You ask. Ozone, burnt steak, and arc welding fumes. 

Here are a few quotes from the lucky few who have gone there and back again. Donald R. Pettit, a chemical engineer and NASA astronomer with 13 space walks in 370 days in space said quote, ”Each time when I repressed the airlock, opened the hatch and welcomed two tired workers inside, a peculiar odor tickled my olfactory senses. At first, I couldn't quite place it. It must have come from the air ducts that repressed the compartment. Then I noticed this smell was on their suit, helmet, gloves, and tools. It was more pronounced on fabrics than on metal or plastic surfaces. The best description I can come up with it is metallic; a rather pleasant sweet metallic sensation. It reminded me of my college summers where I labored for many hours with an arc welding torch repairing heavy equipment for a small logging outfit. It reminded me of pleasant, sweet smelling welding fumes. That is the smell of space.” Take note: of pleasant, sweet smelling welding fumes. It's important. 

Three-time space walker and NASA astronaut Thomas Jones has put it quote, “Space carries a distinct odor of ozone, a faint acrid smell. Smells a little like gunpowder. It is sulfurous.” 

Steve Pearce, the chemist behind NASA's “Eau de Space” fragrance project whose job was to recreate the smell of space for training purposes said, quote, ”Overall, astronauts often compare the smell of space to hot metal, burnt meat, burnt cakes, spent gunpowder and welding of metal.” 

To those who work around welders, high voltage, or something like Ben Hyde's Spark Science lab, this is a familiar bouquet. The experts theorize these smells have more to do with chemical reactions that occur when rocket ships and spacemen, all covered in atmospheric chemicals, come under the lethal barrage of naked space. And it is certainly a plausible argument, but there are a few clues that suggest these smells may have less to do with the stuff astronauts brought, and more to do with what landed on them while they were space walking. So, what else is out there that could be making the airlock smell like a welding shop? Well, lest we forget, space is not empty. According to the NASA article ‘The Solar Wind’, Earth orbit particle density is around 3 to 10 particles/cm^3, more than enough space stuff to collect all over your pumpkin suit. 

So, we've got two potential sources for these smells and to explore what it means for our space models, first let's talk about why arc welding smells like arc welding. When the electric arc interacts with the air, it can split oxygen molecules into individual atoms which then can combine with other oxygen molecules to form ozone. Ozone is formed by electrical discharges and that fresh invigorating air is what we all experience during a lightning storm. It's one of the primary contributors to the smell of arc welding, and when it touches metal, it'll vaporize the particles which will then interact with the oxygen to form metal oxide. This same process is occurring with various metals, the flux, and even the gases used in welding and makes a valid argument for the smells in the air lock. Turns out that you can arc weld without oxygen at all. Either by inert gas shielding, i.e. gases that don't react like volatile oxygen, or by actually just welding in a vacuum. When you do, the primary smell could come from the vaporization of the metal itself. You might notice a metallic, sometimes sweet or acrid smell from the metal vapors. These odors are from the direct thermal decomposition of the metal rather than reactions with oxygen, a sweet smell such as Dr. Pettit experienced. 

So, what's different about the Electric Sun as opposed to the clunky old non-predictive version we used to believe in, back in the dark ages of so-call called modern cosmology? The great EU (Electric Universe) Pioneer, Ralph Juergens, who introduced the concept of the electrically powered Sun in August 1972, said quote, “The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggests that not only the sun and planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge - the probable source of all of its radiant energy.” And that radiant energy is from fusion, not happening at the core, but right there, on the surface, in front of our eyes where the chemical reaction meets the fuel source. That's right - fuel source. In the EU model, stars are externally powered, and that power is supplied by the huge Interstellar power lines of plasma running through their solar systems. A Birkeland Current just like the ones powering the aurora, but bigger. Where's all that power coming from? We just don't know, but it's there and at the moment we can only speculate on the hows and whys. 

Our solar system, like most of the ones we see, is located at a pinch point in our local Birkeland Current. Cut a cross-section and it looks like concentric rings of counter-rotating plasma. The magnetic fields begin to compress and concentrate that plasma, leading to increased charge density and rising temperatures. Increased ionization means more free electrons and ions available to conduct juice and get it flowing. These Z-pinches happen at all different scales, like most things electric. But when it happens at the scale of our solar system, you get ignition, an arc-mode star. In this model, the fusion is happening right on the Sun's surface due to the intense electric fields and currents. Professor Donald Scott suggests that these electric conditions can lead to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). So, instead of the high energy nuclear fusion of conventional solar physics, he posits it is low energy nuclear reactions occurring in the high current densities and the presence of plasma double layers. That's where the electric potential differences can accelerate ions to energies sufficient for nuclear reactions. Also, according to Professor Scott, the Sun's photosphere has structures akin to the junctions and transistors, like PNP or NPN configurations. These regions, where electric current is focused, could be sites of enhanced nuclear activity due to the concentrated energy and particle interactions. Further, the energy released from these transmutations would contribute to the heat and light of the Sun, explaining solar radiation without needing to invoke core fusion. This model suggests that solar energy is not only generated, but also regulated through these surface electrical processes. 

All that matter, being synthesized right there on the surface of the Sun, is then sent out across the Sun's electric field picking up charge as it accelerates out past the inner planets. A steady stream of stardust to fill our neighborhood with particulates that could actually make your airlock smell like ozone, burnt steak and welding fumes. Rubbish! Crack-Pottery! Woo of the highest order! you may find yourself exclaiming. But we know that when these particulates interact with the air inside spacecraft - during repressurization for example - the smell could be likened to ozone, welding fumes, or burnt materials due to the chemical reactions involving the ionization of gases and dust particles. The resultant dust or particles from the action happening on the solar surface might include compounds similar to those produced in welding or high temperature combustion environments on Earth, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - PAH's, which are known to have burnt or metallic smells. 

Now, it's hard to argue that we send our space probes and satellites out with a rather myopic view, looking for all things gravity, but not much in the way of electricity. Magnetic fields may be obvious, but electric fields are notoriously hard to detect, especially when you're not bothering to look for them. If we only design instruments under the delusion that there is no significant electrical activity in space, it shouldn't be surprising that there's a lack of data to support the EU model. It's a case of scientific blinders more than absence of electrical phenomena. 

So, how do we prove whether or not space has a smell? One possibility is to send up a device called an olfactometer - essentially an electronic nose that can capture samples of particulate outside the spacecraft, and then analyze them with chemical sensors to measure intensity, concentration, and sometimes even identify the specific odor-causing compounds present. Why bother? You ask. Well, because if these are the smells of space then the EU model just hit another successful prediction. Well, kind of. Maybe no one put it in writing beforehand, but these are the exact smells you'd expect to find clinging to your suit, given the scale of electrical activity happening in the solar system. With all those free electrons and ions up there, this may be the expected smell in the Standard Model as well. So, just a little more confirmation that the Electric Universe model is valid and continues to align with observations. And that's important when you're dealing in applied cosmology instead of theoretical cosmology. 

When dealing with real forces that we can directly observe and test, predictive success matters. Big space likes to remind us that in theoretical modeling you have to update the theory as you go. However, it violates two critical tenets of the seven-step scientific method - hypothesis and prediction. In other words, nice try but when you continue to move the goalpost in science, the price is credibility. So, what if every probe going up included instruments that can detect measure and maybe even sniff for electrical charge activity? Maybe something as simple and inexpensive as a modified Langmuir probe with an olfactometer. Here's an idea. What about an app for anyone who wants to access the data so we can run experiments down here on the ground? With something as simple as a few tests, we just might be able to say in complete confidence, yeah space does smell like a cosmic barbecue. And now we know why.

I hope that you will take the time to read the entire quote, a lot of the bolded text is contextual and there was a lot of that text that I don't even understand because I'm not into Physics. The reason that I hope you take the time to read it is because I feel like there's some really interesting, scientific ideas presented in the text, and I would love to hear a proper response to these ideas from someone who knows a lot about Cosmology and Physics. So please, if you would be so kind, @Stargazer @The Nehor , consider the full text and provide a response that will actually cause me to think critically about the topic, and persuade me to view the expert who wrote this as a hack, fraud, and pseudoscientist. Also, I will be disappointed if I am able to respond to your counter-arguments by using quotes from the text I just quoted.

If you don't want to read it all, here are the important bolded points, and they mirror points you have made earlier in the thread.

- no air in a vacuum means nothing to carry a scent
- The experts theorize these smells have more to do with chemical reactions that occur when rocket ships and spacemen, all covered in atmospheric chemicals, come under the lethal barrage of naked space. And it is certainly a plausible argument
- space is not empty. According to the NASA article ‘The Solar Wind’, Earth orbit particle density is around 3 to 10 particles/cm^3
- you can arc weld without oxygen at all
- we send our space probes and satellites out with a rather myopic view, looking for all things gravity, but not much in the way of electricity
- It's a case of scientific blinders more than absence of electrical phenomena

ETA: Your arguments are going to need to be persuasive enough to cause me to believe in your reasoning more than the combined testimony of:
- a chemical engineer and NASA astronomer with 13 space walks in 370 days in space
- Three-time space walker and NASA astronaut
- the chemist behind NASA's “Eau de Space” fragrance project whose job was to recreate the smell of space for training purposes
- and the fact that freaking NASA has a space fragrance project

Edited May 2, 2025 by JVW

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, JVW said:

Ok, y'all have successfully motivated me to craft a proper response to all of this unscientific nonsense (quoted above). Allow me to remind you of a few things before I begin. I am not a scientist. I do scientific research as a hobby, but mostly in the field of human biology. Based off of the conversation in this thread, I am inferring that some people posting are actual physicists, or are at least interested and well versed enough in the topic to be able to make rough declarative statements to authoritatively shut down alternative scientific viewpoints. The last thing I'll mention by way of introduction is that I'm not making an argument, I'm presenting an argument that someone else made (an expert with years, probably decades, of experience in the field). Since I did bring the argument to the table, I suppose that the onus falls on me to defend it, however, if you won't even consider the material I'm presenting then I think the amount of load I carry in the conversation is unfair. I presented the material because it's interesting. But if it's just going to get shut down without argument than nobody will take a look and then I just wasted my time. So that is why I'm going to spend an hour crafting a proper response.

Here is the (edited) transcript of the video I linked to. I am bolding parts that I like. I had assumed you would have already considered the argument I presented before responding to me, but is now obvious that you haven't even clicked the link to the video.

I hope that you will take the time to read the entire quote, a lot of the bolded text is contextual and there was a lot of that text that I don't even understand because I'm not into Physics. The reason that I hope you take the time to read it is because I feel like there's some really interesting, scientific ideas presented in the text, and I would love to hear a proper response to these ideas from someone who knows a lot about Cosmology and Physics. So please, if you would be so kind, @Stargazer @The Nehor , consider the full text and provide a response that will actually cause me to think critically about the topic, and persuade me to view the expert who wrote this as a hack, fraud, and pseudoscientist. Also, I will be disappointed if I am able to respond to your counter-arguments by using quotes from the text I just quoted.

If you don't want to read it all, here are the important bolded points, and they mirror points you have made earlier in the thread.

- no air in a vacuum means nothing to carry a scent
- The experts theorize these smells have more to do with chemical reactions that occur when rocket ships and spacemen, all covered in atmospheric chemicals, come under the lethal barrage of naked space. And it is certainly a plausible argument
- space is not empty. According to the NASA article ‘The Solar Wind’, Earth orbit particle density is around 3 to 10 particles/cm^3
- you can arc weld without oxygen at all
- we send our space probes and satellites out with a rather myopic view, looking for all things gravity, but not much in the way of electricity
- It's a case of scientific blinders more than absence of electrical phenomena

ETA: Your arguments are going to need to be persuasive enough to cause me to believe in your reasoning more than the combined testimony of:
- a chemical engineer and NASA astronomer with 13 space walks in 370 days in space
- Three-time space walker and NASA astronaut
- the chemist behind NASA's “Eau de Space” fragrance project whose job was to recreate the smell of space for training purposes
- and the fact that freaking NASA has a space fragrance project

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 minutes ago, JVW said:

and persuade me to view the expert who wrote this as a hack, fraud, and pseudoscientist.

Matt Finn - if you go to the Youtube page, and follow the links, you will discover that he is the author of a book: Breath of Life - a self published science fiction novel. In the introduction to that Book, he describes himself like this:

Quote

I am a manual laborer. I make my living hanging off of a ladder.

The author is not an expert. This doesn't necessarily make him a hack, a fraud, or a pseudo-science. But, his association with The Thunderbolts Project (which is the primary proponent of the Electric Universe Model) is what makes him (arguably) a hack, a fraud, and a pseudo-scientist.

The problem with the Electric Universe Model is that to date, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that supports it. And when we get to the events that could provide support - it simply isn't there. A good example would be the samples taken in the 2005 Deep Impact mission. Even more important was the data collected about Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P) in 2016. The data collected here generally supports our traditional understanding of the formation of the solar system - it does not provide anything close to the radical break from that understanding that would be required in the Electric Universe Model. When we look at the predictions that have been made - in particular those made in the lead up to the 2005 Deep Impact Mission, we find that they were all wrong. We did find significant ice in the comet. There was no electrical discharge towards the exploration craft. There was no unexpected radiation emission, and so on.

When the model produces testable predictions that actually work - then we can start talking about evidence here. But as it stands, I think there is no real reason to accept it.

I realize that the model might have some appeal for certain small groups of LDS members - I remember back in the 1980s when Anthony Larson stirred up interest in Velikovsky and his cosmic catstrophism. But ... none of this can be called science.

[JVW]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

I just started the video and am enjoying it so far. I don't know what Electric Universe theory believes, I haven't really dived into it, but I stand by saying that it's my favorite theory. Regardless of that theory I do not believe in dark matter at all, I think that's a bad joke and will never be proven. I don't know what kind of implications that has on science, but I think Dark Matter is made up. I also believe that at the heart of science are hypothesis and argument. Regardless of how credible, or not, the EU theory is, there is value in the scientific minded to consider it.

Let me give you an example from the biology side, since that's a space where I actually do a lot of study and research in my spare time, to illustrate my point. There are over 40k published papers related to the Measles virus. All of them assume that the measles is caused by a virus that actually exists. If someone came along and hypothesized that measles isn't caused by a virus they would be immediately shut down and their opinion discarded. Yet, because of the assumption that measles is caused by a virus all of these papers have had "scientific blinders" on as far as this illness is concerned. No other potential causes, connections, etc. to the severity of different aspects of the illness has been explored because everyone is operating under the same assumption that the virus is 100% responsible for all symptoms and the severity of all symptoms. Perhaps that is the case, but what if it isn't? If the current consensus is true it should be able to quickly disprove the alternative hypothesis with an experiment or two. But if it isn't 100% true then there is potentially a wealth of untapped treasure just waiting to be dug up via the scientific method that could improve our collective knowledge about, and capacity to address, the measles illness. What if just 1% of those 40k papers were considering alternate cause or symptom hypotheses? What kind of information might have been gained? Maybe nothing, but that's improbable because any scientific experiment done right yields a result, even if it's a negative one that reinforces currently existing views.

So back to outer space. How much insight could be gained by physicists if they explore the idea of electricity doing stuff in the universe? What if they threw electrical sensors onto probes and stuff? Either they would quickly disprove a lot of things and further cement their current knowledge, or maybe they'd discover some new mechanisms that could enhance current physics theory and improve our collective knowledge?

Dismissing alternative scientific theories out of hand without spending time considering them is just about the most unscientific thing that I've ever heard of. "The science is settled". What a joke of a statement.

I don't know yet if this video addresses the smell of outer space, but that's what my last post was about, do you have any remarks there?

[JVW]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Matt Finn - if you go to the Youtube page, and follow the links, you will discover that he is the author of a book: Breath of Life - a self published science fiction novel. In the introduction to that Book, he describes himself like this:

The author is not an expert. This doesn't necessarily make him a hack, a fraud, or a pseudo-science. But, his association with The Thunderbolts Project (which is the primary proponent of the Electric Universe Model) is what makes him (arguably) a hack, a fraud, and a pseudo-scientist.

The problem with the Electric Universe Model is that to date, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that supports it. And when we get to the events that could provide support - it simply isn't there. A good example would be the samples taken in the 2005 Deep Impact mission. Even more important was the data collected about Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P) in 2016. The data collected here generally supports our traditional understanding of the formation of the solar system - it does not provide anything close to the radical break from that understanding that would be required in the Electric Universe Model. When we look at the predictions that have been made - in particular those made in the lead up to the 2005 Deep Impact Mission, we find that they were all wrong. We did find significant ice in the comet. There was no electrical discharge towards the exploration craft. There was no unexpected radiation emission, and so on.

When the model produces testable predictions that actually work - then we can start talking about evidence here. But as it stands, I think there is no real reason to accept it.

I realize that the model might have some appeal for certain small groups of LDS members - I remember back in the 1980s when Anthony Larson stirred up interest in Velikovsky and his cosmic catstrophism. But ... none of this can be called science.

I accept what you've said about the EU model and appreciate you taking time to comment about it. I will not defend the EU model because I don't know much about it. But I appreciate it existing and have enjoyed some of the ideas presented in a few of the videos I've seen on the topic.

What are your thoughts about actual content of the video and the smell of space? Did the Matt Finn guy state anything that was incorrect in that video? Was he being unreasonable or deceptive in a way that I missed?

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 minutes ago, JVW said:

Let me give you an example from the biology side, since that's a space where I actually do a lot of study and research in my spare time, to illustrate my point. There are over 40k published papers related to the Measles virus. All of them assume that the measles is caused by a virus that actually exists. If someone came along and hypothesized that measles isn't caused by a virus they would be immediately shut down and their opinion discarded. Yet, because of the assumption that measles is caused by a virus all of these papers have had "scientific blinders" on as far as this illness is concerned. No other potential causes, connections, etc. to the severity of different aspects of the illness has been explored because everyone is operating under the same assumption that the virus is 100% responsible for all symptoms and the severity of all symptoms. Perhaps that is the case, but what if it isn't? If the current consensus is true it should be able to quickly disprove the alternative hypothesis with an experiment or two. But if it isn't 100% true then there is potentially a wealth of untapped treasure just waiting to be dug up via the scientific method that could improve our collective knowledge about, and capacity to address, the measles illness. What if just 1% of those 40k papers were considering alternate cause or symptom hypotheses? What kind of information might have been gained? Maybe nothing, but that's improbable because any scientific experiment done right yields a result, even if it's a negative one that reinforces currently existing views.

Let me respond to this -

What you are describing is the heart of what we identify as pseudo-science. Science is not about hypothesis and argument. Using those terms in a sort of ambiguous way is part of the problem here. Science is about testable (and so falsifiable) hypothesis and argument. It isn't enough to simply theorize that measles isn't caused by a virus - you have to have a theory that comes with some recognized way to test that theory. Until the presentation is made where someone would not only theorize that measles is not a virus, and can provide tests that show that measles isn't a virus - as well as showing that the tests were performed and that the outcomes of those tests verified the hypothesis - then, and only then, is it something that should be taken seriously in contrast to the established science (which has also done the same thing).

We have some good examples of the scientific blinders in action (at least as you describe them). They created problems - not because of alternative theories - but because the original theory seemed to work so well given the test data that confirmed the theory. One of the most fascinating was the Beta-Amyloid theories and their role in dementia and Alzheimer's. In 2006, a study came out that showed the first really strong connection between the protein and the disease. And that research marked a strong shift in the trajectory of the research. That paper was retracted last year after the data was proven to be falsified. It probably caused some waste in terms of research efforts.

But we aren't really talking about that here in terms of the Electrical Universe Model. You should really do the reading on the model if you are going to argue about it. The lack of dark matter is only a tiny part of the model - and if that's your major interest in it, then there are lots of better places to look. The real reason why this model was abandoned in the 1990s is very simple - the Hubble Telescope came on-line. Being able to see into deep space allows us to look far back into the cosmic history (light coming from great distances away shows us things that happened billions of years in the past). And we started observing, for the first time, young stars, and around those stars, proplyds - the disks of matter that form into planets - as hypothesized by more traditional cosmology using the gravity models. What we don't see in any of this look into deep space (and the distant past) is anything at all of the sort that we would expect using the Electric Universe Model. It simply isn't there. The ability (and technology) to explore comets reflects another side of this. The comets, cosmologists theorized, were created in the early formation of the solar system. And if this were true, then we would expect certain types of features and makeup of these objects moving through space. The Electric Universe Model claims that these objects were freed from existing stars by massive bolts of lightning like electricity. But when we start observing the actual makeup of these objects - especially up close - we discover that their makeup is consistent with formation during the earliest periods of the solar system - and not at all with some sort of explosion freeing these bodies from the sun (in the electric universe model, all of these objects in space in the solar system were violently ejected from the sun). That formation is built into the structure of these objects. And we see this even better now that have started sending probes to comets and other objects that are very distant from our planet.

At any rate - whether or not there is dark matter is not a question that the electric universe model can answer - because there aren't any real questions that the electric universe model can answer. There is no hypothesis dependent on that model that can be answered by some sort of falsifiable test. There is no data that can be used to support this.

So we get a video like this that says that the universe has a "smell" - and this becomes support for the model - that should tell us something - both about the model and the sort of desperation that exists to find some sort of evidence that supports it.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, JVW said:

I just started the video and am enjoying it so far. I don't know what Electric Universe theory believes, I haven't really dived into it, but I stand by saying that it's my favorite theory. Regardless of that theory I do not believe in dark matter at all, I think that's a bad joke and will never be proven. I don't know what kind of implications that has on science, but I think Dark Matter is made up. I also believe that at the heart of science are hypothesis and argument. Regardless of how credible, or not, the EU theory is, there is value in the scientific minded to consider it.

They did consider it. Since it has no explanatory power and its predictions fail it is useless. There is no value in considering it. Hard science like physics doesn’t operate on vibes or whether the model is appealing or a favorite. It matters whether it works.

30 minutes ago, JVW said:

Let me give you an example from the biology side, since that's a space where I actually do a lot of study and research in my spare time, to illustrate my point. There are over 40k published papers related to the Measles virus. All of them assume that the measles is caused by a virus that actually exists. If someone came along and hypothesized that measles isn't caused by a virus they would be immediately shut down and their opinion discarded. Yet, because of the assumption that measles is caused by a virus all of these papers have had "scientific blinders" on as far as this illness is concerned. No other potential causes, connections, etc. to the severity of different aspects of the illness has been explored because everyone is operating under the same assumption that the virus is 100% responsible for all symptoms and the severity of all symptoms. Perhaps that is the case, but what if it isn't? If the current consensus is true it should be able to quickly disprove the alternative hypothesis with an experiment or two. But if it isn't 100% true then there is potentially a wealth of untapped treasure just waiting to be dug up via the scientific method that could improve our collective knowledge about, and capacity to address, the measles illness. What if just 1% of those 40k papers were considering alternate cause or symptom hypotheses? What kind of information might have been gained? Maybe nothing, but that's improbable because any scientific experiment done right yields a result, even if it's a negative one that reinforces currently existing views.

They would be shut down unless they could show that there is a better explanation of how measles works. Postulating that something else is involved is useless. You have to show it.

30 minutes ago, JVW said:

So back to outer space. How much insight could be gained by physicists if they explore the idea of electricity doing stuff in the universe? What if they threw electrical sensors onto probes and stuff? Either they would quickly disprove a lot of things and further cement their current knowledge, or maybe they'd discover some new mechanisms that could enhance current physics theory and improve our collective knowledge?

Electricity does do things in the Universe. That is another myth of the whole electric universe theory. That scientists are somehow ignoring electricity. This theory is pushed by people making videos and using the internet which is all powered by electricity. Stars have electromagnetic fields (though more magnetic than electro). They cause solar storms and sunspots. Planets have magnetic fields. The idea that electricity is being ignored is silly.

30 minutes ago, JVW said:

Dismissing alternative scientific theories out of hand without spending time considering them is just about the most unscientific thing that I've ever heard of. "The science is settled". What a joke of a statement.

The science is settled on the Electric Universe theory. It is false. It is conspiracy theory nonsense that “mainstream science” is somehow heavily invested in teaching a false theory while suppressing the truth since it is all, you know, testable.

30 minutes ago, JVW said:

I don't know yet if this video addresses the smell of outer space, but that's what my last post was about, do you have any remarks there?

Yeah, I would need to see evidence instead of vague anecdotal accounts that are usually coopted by the Electric Universe theory people as if it is evidence for their theory that explains nothing and doesn’t work. Science doesn’t operate on “it smelled weird”. That might provoke some inquiry but an anecdote alone is evidence for nothing.

[Benjamin McGuire]

29 minutes ago, JVW said:

What are your thoughts about actual content of the video and the smell of space? Did the Matt Finn guy state anything that was incorrect in that video? Was he being unreasonable or deceptive in a way that I missed?

Yeah. It's deceptive.

Do you know which part of Earth's atmosphere is the hottest? The thermosphere - it is between 86 and 372 miles above the earth. The temperature in that band ranges from 930 degrees F to 3600 degrees F. It is also true that if you were sitting in that space for more than a brief few moments, you would freeze to death. When you talk about the smell of the universe and you start by using some of the most dense areas of space (that's the bit there about particles per cubic centimeter), where you can best make the argument, and you ignore the fact that this represents only a tiny fraction of space (like a completely minuscule amount), we can start talking about the fact that at the very best sort of understanding, this can only represent a very local sort of observation. It cannot help us understand the universe as we know it.

The smelling is, as we all recognize, more of a metaphor - but replacing real science with metaphor is another key tactic of pseudo-science.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is no value in considering it

I think you mean there is no value in considering it anymore than they have already since it has been found to be useless in predicting anything. (Just being nitpicky here as it was a wee bit confusing and I don’t know if JVW got the intended meaning or not, the theory hasn’t been ignored, it’s been dealt with).

JVW:

Quote

What if they threw electrical sensors onto probes and stuff?

What makes you think they don’t have sensors for electricity on probes?

I googled this in a few seconds, there is probably better info out there on this, but one example:  https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/polar/PolarEFI/publications/publication1.html#:~:text=Abstract,the detector system are described.

“The Electric Field Instrument (EFI) on the Polar spacecraft measures the three components of the ambient vector electric field and the thermal electron density. The results are used to study:

 

• Parallel and perpendicular electric fields and density variations in double layers, electrostatic shocks, and other spatially confined structures found in the auroral acceleration region and at other locations along the Polar orbit.
• The high-latitude convection electric field.
• The electric field and plasma density structure on field lines connected to the high-latitude magnetopause, polar cusp, and plasma mantle.
• Correlations of electric fields with those measured by other ISTP spacecraft at different points along the same magnetic field line or along a common boundary, or in different regions of the magnetosphere.
• Modes, phase velocities, and wavelengths of propagating waves and spatial structures.”

Edited May 3, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

JVW, the theory this thread is about does not require dark matter.  There are credible theories that don’t assume dark matter exists. You don’t have to appeal to the EU to deal with that if you see dark matter as unlikely.

From the link in the OP:

”According to Kastner Schlatter and, there is no need to invoke unknown forms of matter or energy to explain these effects — they arise naturally from the thermodynamic behavior of ordinary matter and its electromagnetic interactions.”

If you read this in context, you will see it is including dark matter and energy as they are talking about those in the previous paragraph.

Edited May 3, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

JVW, the theory this thread is about does not require dark matter.  There are credible theories that don’t assume dark matter exists. You don’t have to appeal to the EU to deal with that if you see dark matter as unlikely.

From the link in the OP:

”According to Kastner Schlatter and, there is no need to invoke unknown forms of matter or energy to explain these effects — they arise naturally from the thermodynamic behavior of ordinary matter and its electromagnetic interactions.”

If you read this in context, you will see it is including dark matter and energy as they are talking about those in the previous paragraph.

The following video isn't really connected with the topic, but since it dealt with a paper explaining electric force as part of gravity, and to my mind, at least, would seem to lead to artificial gravity if true, it seemed vaguely relevant. But especially since the video is from my favorite living physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, I thought I would post it here. TL;DW -> Sabine debunks them gently. She says they saved her from the labor of debunking them by doing it themselves. Link to paper -> Electromagnetism as a purely geometric theory

 

[JVW]

On 5/2/2025 at 2:28 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

What you are describing is the heart of what we identify as pseudo-science. Science is not about hypothesis and argument. Using those terms in a sort of ambiguous way is part of the problem here. Science is about testable (and so falsifiable) hypothesis and argument. It isn't enough to simply theorize that measles isn't caused by a virus - you have to have a theory that comes with some recognized way to test that theory. Until the presentation is made where someone would not only theorize that measles is not a virus, and can provide tests that show that measles isn't a virus - as well as showing that the tests were performed and that the outcomes of those tests verified the hypothesis - then, and only then, is it something that should be taken seriously in contrast to the established science (which has also done the same thing).

I agree with you. Testability, repeatability of the tests, and the design of the tests all play an important roll.

On 5/2/2025 at 2:28 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But we aren't really talking about that here in terms of the Electrical Universe Model. You should really do the reading on the model if you are going to argue about it.

I've been arguing about the smell in space thing, not the EU model. The only thing I'll argue for the EU model is that I don't think it's stupid for people to test hypotheses against it if they want to. I think it would be dumb not to.

On 5/2/2025 at 2:28 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The real reason why this model was abandoned in the 1990s is very simple - the Hubble Telescope came on-line.

The model wasn't abandoned in the 90s. I decided to watch a random video from the Thunderbolts project, one about misconceptions about gravity, and in the video the narrator was very happy about the existence of the James Webb telescope. I would think they'd be butthurt by it, since it's even better than Hubble.

On 5/2/2025 at 2:28 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Being able to see into deep space allows us to look far back into the cosmic history (light coming from great distances away shows us things that happened billions of years in the past). And we started observing, for the first time, young stars, and around those stars, proplyds - the disks of matter that form into planets - as hypothesized by more traditional cosmology using the gravity models. What we don't see in any of this look into deep space (and the distant past) is anything at all of the sort that we would expect using the Electric Universe Model. It simply isn't there. The ability (and technology) to explore comets reflects another side of this. The comets, cosmologists theorized, were created in the early formation of the solar system. And if this were true, then we would expect certain types of features and makeup of these objects moving through space. The Electric Universe Model claims that these objects were freed from existing stars by massive bolts of lightning like electricity. But when we start observing the actual makeup of these objects - especially up close - we discover that their makeup is consistent with formation during the earliest periods of the solar system - and not at all with some sort of explosion freeing these bodies from the sun (in the electric universe model, all of these objects in space in the solar system were violently ejected from the sun). That formation is built into the structure of these objects. And we see this even better now that have started sending probes to comets and other objects that are very distant from our planet.

I'll take you at your word here, but a lot of what you've said here is beyond me since I'm not well acquainted with Physics.

On 5/2/2025 at 2:28 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

At any rate - whether or not there is dark matter is not a question that the electric universe model can answer - because there aren't any real questions that the electric universe model can answer. There is no hypothesis dependent on that model that can be answered by some sort of falsifiable test. There is no data that can be used to support this.

So we get a video like this that says that the universe has a "smell" - and this becomes support for the model - that should tell us something - both about the model and the sort of desperation that exists to find some sort of evidence that supports it.

 Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Dark Matter hypothesized because a lot of the math in General Relativity Theory falls apart without it? Same thing with the Higgs Boson particle? I'm probably way off base here.

On 5/2/2025 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yeah. It's deceptive.

Do you know which part of Earth's atmosphere is the hottest? The thermosphere - it is between 86 and 372 miles above the earth. The temperature in that band ranges from 930 degrees F to 3600 degrees F. It is also true that if you were sitting in that space for more than a brief few moments, you would freeze to death. When you talk about the smell of the universe and you start by using some of the most dense areas of space (that's the bit there about particles per cubic centimeter), where you can best make the argument, and you ignore the fact that this represents only a tiny fraction of space (like a completely minuscule amount), we can start talking about the fact that at the very best sort of understanding, this can only represent a very local sort of observation. It cannot help us understand the universe as we know it.

This is a very good point. So it isn't necessarily that space smells like welding fumes. It's that the space that the astronauts spend time in does. That is a good distinction to make. I imagine it would be possible to put some kind of scent detector on probes that we send way into the vast reaches of space in order to get data on if there is scent in other parts of space. I think that would be interesting, but ultimately maybe not useful? (I don't know if there is any such thing as useless data in scientific research.)

On 5/2/2025 at 2:34 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The smelling is, as we all recognize, more of a metaphor - but replacing real science with metaphor is another key tactic of pseudo-science.

I have not been referring to it as a metaphor. Some dudes said that space smelled (not the stuff we put into space, but actual space). I thought that was really interesting. Some people in this thread said that was dumb, and I started debating with them about it. I don't have any metaphorical allusion things going on on my end.

The end result of your comments is that instead of liking the EU theory like 80%, I now like it like 50%.