Donald Scott, author of The Electric Sky, answers challenges to the Electric Universe Paradigm:
These challenges, questions, and issues have been gleaned from various forums and discussion groups, and are not in any particular order. In contrast to sincere, thoughtful questions raised by those with a genuine interest, one common property of the naysaying challengers leaps out from all the various challenges that have been thrown up. They seem to be masters at making totally unsupported assertions made from positions of self-proclaimed authority, while obviously in a state of ignorance of well-established electrical engineering principles. They exhibit unbounded self-confidence, and exude an aura of “talking down to the masses.” And they have no shame when they broadcast their latest explanations, many of which are absurd.
I never had a college student with enough impudence to walk into one of my classes and tell me that Ohm’s Law was wrong. But now some such “students” have grown up into positions of influence and are making statements of that sort. Maybe they represent the inmates who have taken over the asylum.
Challenge-01 "Sure, the electric force is much stronger than gravity at the sub-atomic level, but at the macrocosmic level gravity is incomparably more powerful than electricity.”
Answer-01 This assertion is like saying gravity affects elephants more than microbes. It is simply invalid. “For two protons, the electrostatic force of repulsion between them is 1.2x1036 times the force of their gravitational attraction. The electrostatic repulsion between two electrons is 4.2x1042 times their gravitational attraction. For one proton and one electron, the electrostatic force of attraction between them is 2.2x1039 times the force of their gravitational attraction.” – The Electric Sky p. 44.
Martin Rees compares the electrostatic forces between two submicroscopic charged particles with the force of gravitational attraction between two Jupiter-sized masses and makes the statement you quote (above). Talk about comparing apples and oranges! By this method we could say – “Compare the power of the water coming over Niagara Falls with the power emitted by the average incandescent flashlight bulb – see – falling water is much more powerful than electricity.” Such incompatible comparisons defy clarification.
Challenge-02 "Magnetic fields alone can explain what the Electric Universe claims to explain. Plasma is a superconductor, and magnetic fields are frozen into space plasma."
Answer-02 Plasma is NOT a superconductor. That is a simple, experimentally verified fact. A finite NON-ZERO valued electric field (E-field) exists at every point in every plasma through which a current exists – no matter which mode the plasma is operating in. (See figure 13, p.102 of The Electric Sky.) Therefore magnetic fields are not frozen into plasmas or vice-versa. (Ask all the discouraged folks working on Tokamaks for the last half-century.) Anyone making this statement is ignorant of Hannes Alfvén’s work and of basic plasma laboratory work over the last number of decades. See “Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics,” H. Alfvén, IEEE Trans. On Plasma Sci., Vol. PS-14, No. 6. Dec 1986. We must always remember that astronomers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging the presence of magnetic fields in space. Now radio-telescopes demonstrate that quite clearly. But astronomers refuse to go the rest of the way and accept the fact that magnetic fields require electric currents.
Challenge-03 “The cosmic microwave background (CMB) has confirmed the Big Bang.”
Answer-03 This is logically equivalent to – “Birds sing in the woods, therefore the Big Bang is verified.” Every non-BB theorist who predicted the temperature of the cosmos (prior to the measurement of the CMB) was closer to being correct than BB predictions. Big Banger George Gamow whose prediction was ~50K, was farthest of all from the correct answer (2.3K). There is now convincing evidence that the “Cosmic” Microwave Background isn’t “Cosmic” at all. If it were, shadows of the largest, dense galaxy clusters ought to be visible (in front of it). Such shadows are not observed when looked for. There is evidence (Gerrit Verschuur) that the “CMB” arises from no farther distance than from within the Milky Way galaxy.
Challenge-04 "Astronomers have observed the black hole at the center of the Milky Way and other galaxies."
Answer-04 Another completely unsupported assertion. Astronomers have observed tremendous energy releases and (because gravity can only attract things) are at a loss to explain these observations without inventing “new science”. My Grandma claimed to have “observed” the ‘Little Green Folk’ who stole into the garden at night and upset the chairs. She announced what she considered to be irrefutable evidence (her observations of the overturned chairs) of their existence. Inference is not proof. Nobody has ever seen a black-hole directly. And nobody can disprove the existence of something that doesn’t exist – like black-holes.
Challenge-05 “Scientists have, quite precisely, measured the mass of dark matter acting on galaxies.”
Answer-05 They have measured galaxies acting and interacting in ways their gravity-only theories fail to explain, therefore some paranormal force had to be invented. If the overturned chairs were more than 10 feet from their original position, Gram claimed she had been visited by ‘super-massive’ Green People. Normal Green People didn’t usually move the chairs by more than 1.379 feet. (She had QUITE PRECISE, accurate measurements that enabled her to distinguish between the masses of the unseen entities.)
Challenge-06 “The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram substantiates the standard model of stellar evolution.”
Answer-06 Please read chapter 14 in The Electric Sky pp 151 – 169. This concludes with the statement, “The details in the shape of the HR diagram are exactly what the electric plasma star model predicts they should be. The observed actions of nova-like variable stars, the anomalies in the line spectra of B-type stars, and the high frequency of occurrence of binary pairs of stars are all in concordance with the Plasma/Electric Universe theory, the stellar fissioning concept, and the Electric Star model itself.
The behavior of FG Sagittae, V 605 Aquilae, V 4334 Sagittarii, and V838 Monocerotis [and several others] is mysterious and unexplained by the thermonuclear model. Yet these phenomena are perfectly understandable using the ES model. We eagerly await the next “mysterious star” discovery to further strengthen the case for the Electric Star hypothesis.” No star has ever been observed that demonstrates ANY part of what is known as nuclear ‘stellar evolution’. But there are several falsifying examples (of stars that do not).
Challenge-07 “A simple electrostatic analysis disproves the electric Sun, because
the required "relativistic electrons" have not been found, and the
solar wind is not positively charged.
Challenge-08 "'Magnetic reconnection' not only explains the high-energy surface
events on the Sun but the heating of the corona as well."
Challenge-09 “Our probes of comets have repeatedly found water on comet nuclei.”
Answer-09 Some ice may be found on the surface of some comets, but we doubt it. Suffice it to say H2O has been found near comets. We think this water exists primarily via the recombination of oxygen liberated from silicates on the comet surface and hydrogen ions in the solar plasma.