You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A: Could dark matter be present in most massive objects, such as the Sun?
Hello Le Mouth,
Pleased to meet you! Excellent post - I notice you are a particle physicist so I am very interested in your opinion... Are you familiar with Ben Davidson and the Suspicious Observers? Or the thunderbolts project, another strong proponent of the Electric Universe Theory? Their works undermines a lot of accepted science and centres on the previously unacknowledged electro magnetic nature of the universe. This work changes our understanding of gravity and has demonstrated magnetism travelling faster than light - also these theories better explain star and galaxy formation and much else besides!
Keep well :D
Hi!
I have not followed that from very close, in particular as I work on something else and on different ideas. The reason is very simple. Currently accepted paradigms agree with observations to a very large extent. That is a fact. And this is why they are called standards.
Now, coming with a new idea also agreeing with data does not demonstrate at all that the 'old' theory is wrong. We may have several potential explanations for given phenomena, and new data is often needed to understand which one is less likely or potentially wrong. For all the ideas you mentioned, most their defenders claim current science is wrong and that their idea is 'THE' theory without proving other options are wrong. Usually, such a claim rings bells in my head and I don't pay too much attention.
Moreover, to my knowledge, all these works you mentioned either have been proved incorrect and/or the authors have not answered the main criticisms that have been raised. I have quickly checked on the Internet, and the status does not seem to have changed.
For these reasons, these theories are not recognized in the scientific community. Note that most scientists are more than fine by replacing the current paradigms. The new proposals must however do at least as good as the current accepted theories. This is by far not the case with all the ideas you mentioned.
Thank you lemouth,
I greatly appreciate your respect for new ideas and alternate paradigms. Qualities highly necessary but lacking in many scientists and their institutions so kudos to you! I do understand the work Suspicious Observers and the thunderbolts project certainly has not reached adoption ... but I really hope you will look into this work closer as the electrical nature of many geologic and galactic formations is perfectly replicated by Billy Yelverton for instance. You can find some of his work here: http://www.everythingselectric.com/product/billy-yelverton/ - and more info on the thunderbolts project here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ I do believe some phenomenal advances have been made in parallel to standard scientific understanding and I think it would greatly enrich you and your community if you research this further to help speedy integration of any new concepts - for the good of all mankind!
A great pleasure to speak with you - keep well :D
Hey,
From what I have quickly found, the electric universe does not describe the star dynamics appropriately, from several aspects. Which is the first of many flaws. This was already the case decades ago, and this has still not been fixed.
Honestly, why would I spread a theory that does not work? If someone can show me that the electric universe theory works at least as good as the standard model of particle physics and cosmology, then I would do it. But we are far from being there.