Debunking the Electric Universe

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

I am actively debunking him with time stamps. The fact he is using the old Stawman insisting eu denies gravity. What a crock of shit!

Please back me up in my comments!

👍︎︎ 7 👤︎︎ u/leandroman 📅︎︎ May 11 2020 đź—«︎ replies

This is the guy Ben set straight?. Last I heard he was putting out a ton of videos to hide his plasma universe debunking video.

👍︎︎ 5 👤︎︎ u/sobakablack 📅︎︎ May 11 2020 đź—«︎ replies
👍︎︎ 4 👤︎︎ u/zyxzevn 📅︎︎ May 12 2020 đź—«︎ replies

Don't click on the video unless you intend to comment pointing out his false claims, it is monetized and he is making huge money from entirely misrepresenting the Electric Universe without any research whatsoever into the facts (and any claims of the theory, history, or reasoning behind it).

He also refuses to debate anybody on his claims (even the ThunderboltsProject), even his replies to comments have no logical argument or substance and don't address any points people are making. He just insults people in a dismissive straw-man fashion.

👍︎︎ 5 👤︎︎ u/RelativisticGarbage 📅︎︎ May 11 2020 đź—«︎ replies

My favorite part is when is he said that the EU claim that everything in the universe is connected and that it wasn't, lol. The guy obviously have no idea what he's talking about, even the mainstream now know this is true, just a simpLe google search about "galaxy filaments" will show you that. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament

👍︎︎ 4 👤︎︎ u/MaxHubert 📅︎︎ May 11 2020 đź—«︎ replies

Is it the same person?

Thunderfoot had some good videos on the Hyperloop and other weird projects. But he did not use many logical fallacies.

And I used one of his videos on chemistry to show evidence for electrochemistry on the sun.

👍︎︎ 2 👤︎︎ u/zyxzevn 📅︎︎ May 11 2020 đź—«︎ replies

Dave says plasma cosmology does not obey Hubble's Law.

Hubble's law: velocity= H0*distance.

The constant isn't constant.https://www.space.com/41163-universe-expansion-rate-changes-near-far.html

https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-discrepancy-explained.html

The only explanation Space.com provides is that some "exotic" properties of dark matter or dark energy are the culprits. They're just lumping every anomaly in the Standard Model into the "exotic Dark matter properties" group.

👍︎︎ 2 👤︎︎ u/ConfusedEnoch 📅︎︎ May 14 2020 đź—«︎ replies

Debunking Professor Dave | Electric/Plasma Cosmology by Suspicious0bservers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxM_uB74Zcs

👍︎︎ 1 👤︎︎ u/thatcat7_ 📅︎︎ May 14 2020 đź—«︎ replies
Captions
Hey everyone, so many of you are aware of my numerous videos debunking the absurdity that is the flat earth delusion, which is undoubtedly the single dumbest hoax on the entire internet. But there are lots of other hoaxes, and it’s time to start looking at some of these as well. Today let’s tackle one that is referred to as the electric universe. Interestingly enough there is a little bit of overlap with flat earth in terms of ethos, and some flat earthers do cite the electric universe, but adherents of the electric universe certainly do not believe the earth is flat or that space is fake. So the main difference is that flat earth is trivial to debunk even without any science background whatsoever, while electric universe is a little more subtle, and is much better at disguising itself as real science. Also, unlike flat earth, which is led by science-illiterate unemployable simpletons with personality disorders, electric universe is pushed by a small handful of well-spoken people, some of whom have a degree in physics. So I do have some sympathy for those who fall for it, because on the surface it could arguably seem legitimate, and it does take some knowledge of physics to debunk it. But in the end, electric universe is just another flavor of paranoia and mysticism, as I will demonstrate for you here. Let’s start by going over what this fad proposes, since many of you may be unfamiliar with it. The most cited resource by electric universe followers is a YouTube channel called Thunderbolts Project. What it presents, in overdramatized action movie soundtrack fashion, is that it is not gravity that dictates all the large-scale phenomena in the universe, but rather electricity and the electromagnetic force. So to be clear, modern astrophysics offers an exceptionally firm understanding of how gravity causes gas to collect to form stars, which then perform nuclear fusion to generate all the elements and incredible amounts of energy in the process, and when the fuel runs out these stars meet their demise, spewing their contents back into the cosmos, which collect again to form other stars and planetary systems. But according to the electric universe, all of this is incorrect. It is not gravity, the force of attraction between all matter that is responsible for the formation of these entities. Gravity does not play a part in powering a star either, which therefore does not operate by fusion, but rather by some inexplicable electromagnetic phenomenon. Every ramification of our understanding of gravity, currently best described by Einstein’s theory of general relativity, is referred to as baseless conjecture. This means that black holes aren’t real, neutron stars aren’t real, dark matter isn’t real, gravitational waves aren’t real, and so forth. The main issue for the viewer is that the electric universe makes wild claims about the universe that are difficult for a layperson to challenge. Astrophysicists know that the claims are ridiculous, but if the viewer is conspiracy-minded, and they hear that so-called “mainstream science” is incomplete or a lie, that’s all it takes for them to reject the consensus of astrophysics. So while we will make our way up to space in a moment, let’s start out by discussing earthly phenomena, which should be a little more accessible and comprehensible to everyone. First, gravity is the thing that causes objects to fall down to earth. Gravity is the attraction between all matter, and we can calculate the magnitude of the gravitational force using Newton’s law of universal gravitation. These two M’s represent the masses of the two objects, R represents the distance between their centers, and G is a constant. So the more massive the objects, the greater the force, and earth is extremely massive, so things tend to stay on the ground, and if they are above the ground, they fall. We also know from Newton’s second law of motion, F = ma, that forces induce an acceleration, so the gravitational force causes objects near the earth’s surface to accelerate towards the ground at 9.8 meters per second squared, which means the downward velocity increases by 9.8 meters per second, every second that it is falling, until it reaches terminal velocity, due to the resistance the atmosphere produces. This value, the acceleration due to gravity, can change. If you go farther away from earth, it decreases slightly, because R increases. If you go to another planet or moon that is less massive, again it decreases, because one of these M’s decreases. That’s why we are so much lighter on the moon, the force pulling us down is weaker. We know for a fact that this equation describes our reality. We use it to calculate the trajectories of objects both on earth and in space, and they are always corroborated to high degrees of precision. This understanding of gravity is applied to astronomical phenomena just as concretely as it can be applied here on earth. But the electric universe would insist that our understanding of gravity is wrong. If it’s truly wrong, then the whole thing is wrong, up there and down here too, but how can that be so? In short, if gravity isn’t what we say it is, how do we have satellites? How do we send probes to the outer planets? Why do things work the way we say they will work under our “incorrect” model of gravity? Furthermore, we understand electromagnetism at least as well as we understand gravity. We have electricity, we have an understanding of materials science, semiconductors, batteries, and other assorted phenomena. So how is it that we understand gravity so well, and electromagnetism so well, but not well enough to realize that one is the other? We must therefore acknowledge that electric universe does two ridiculous things. First, it attempts to invalidate a model that has been corroborated far beyond reasonable doubt. The most outlandish pushers of the electric universe literally say that gravity does not exist. If gravity isn’t real, then why does a Newtonian model of gravity work so well? Why can we use it to do so many things? Second, electric universe does not offer anything whatsoever in the way of a working model to replace the model it claims is invalid. Where is the electric universe’s model regarding the motion of terrestrial objects? Where is the derivation of the indisputable value of 9.8 meters per second squared as the downward acceleration of all objects, which Newton achieved? To be fair, not all followers are this far out to lunch, most adherents of the electric universe acknowledge the existence of gravity. But still, if they insist our model of gravity is flawed, and has to be combined with electricity and magnetism, shouldn’t this be evident in every application of gravity? If things fall down not exclusively due to to the attraction between all massive objects, but also by some activity relating to electromagnetism, shouldn’t we be able to demonstrate that, at least qualitatively? Why don’t objects of different electrical charge or magnetic properties fall at different rates? Why is it that paramagnetic, diamagnetic, and ferromagnetic objects all fall at the same rate? Shouldn’t we be able to ground ourselves electrically and float? Shouldn’t it be easy to build flying cars? Shouldn’t we be able to step inside a Faraday cage, and levitate to some degree? What is the supposed source of electromagnetic attraction to begin with, and how would we interact with it if bulk matter is electrically neutral? If the source is somehow the center of the earth, then current must be flowing from the center of the earth to us, so why doesn’t our weight change depending on what type of substance we are standing on, and its conducting ability? It should change when moving from sand, to mud, to concrete, and so forth. And what about water? Water conducts electricity and spans the globe, miles deep. Why don’t we see any significant observations there? If magnetism attracts us to the ground, why don’t magnets stick to us? Why don’t compasses point to us? Why aren’t we torn to shreds in an MRI machine? As we quickly see, applying even just the slightest bit of scrutiny makes it abundantly clear that it is not electromagnetism, but rather exclusively the gravitational force as currently understood by physicists that influences motion here on earth. Since these phenomena are fundamentally the same in space as they are on earth, and are described by the same equations, we ought to be dubious of the claim that our current model of gravity is so flimsy and incomplete, no matter how the claim is applied. Ok, now that we’ve grounded ourselves a bit, let’s take a look at some of the more outlandish claims that electric universe makes about the cosmos. First for context, we should note that outlets like Thunderbolts have video after video that focus very heavily on ancient myths and symbols, propagating ridiculous claims involving a radically different night sky being visible thousands of years ago, with some alleged basis in the archetypes of early civilizations. No actual evidence is offered whatsoever, just sophomoric anthropological musings. Honestly, this is all you need to know to reject this hoax. If a theory in physics claims not only to be based on empirical evidence, but also claims to explain observations better than existing models, and it attempts to demonstrate this primarily by presenting what could be the plot of an Indiana Jones movie, it’s bullshit. If the theory were valid, it could be explained scientifically and rest on the merits of its predictions. This is the first indicator that the whole thing is a hoax that relies on an appealing narrative to ensnare the viewer. The second indicator is the baseless manner in which assertions are presented. Thunderbolts will point to structures of gas that are visible around the galaxy, and make some claim about them. Some feature will be described as plasma, which it may or may not be, and it will be labeled as an electric current, without offering any reasoning for this label. Some kind of spurious comparison to electricity-based phenomena is made, to suggest that the mild visual resemblance indicates that they are correlated, and nothing more is said. It doesn’t stop there. Electromagnetism is proposed as the basis for star and planet formation. How is this possible? With the electromagnetic force, opposite charges attract, and like charges repel. How can a planet form by this force alone? Bulk matter is electrically neutral. The attraction and repulsion would cancel one another out, and opposite charges are not separated, they are distributed evenly. Gravity is exclusively an attractive force between anything with mass, regardless of electrical charge. It doesn’t take much knowledge of physics to see that this force is the winner. Stars and planets form by the accumulation of matter by gravity, and there is nothing especially complex or remotely controversial about this. When electric universe denies this fact, apart from simply saying the word “electricity”, it offers no concrete mechanism of its own for the formation of these bodies. Then, because they propose that gravity is not the force that causes gas to accumulate to form stars, this also eliminates gravity from the picture in terms of how they propose stars are powered, so there can be no inward gravitational compression to trigger fusion. This means stellar nucleosynthesis is not possible to them, and the star must be powered by some other means. But this is absurd. We know that stars are powered by fusion. We understand plasma. We know how it works. Magnetohydrodynamics is a vibrant field that demonstrates this understanding. We can make plasma here on earth. We can perform fusion in reactors. We see the signatures of fusion in stars. We know that this is how all the elements form. We can identify the presence of all these elements in stars by looking at their emission spectra. We know what elements are in there, and their relative abundance makes perfect sense in the context of fusion. We understand the stellar life cycle. We can depict this in great detail on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. This diagram aligns immaculately with what we know about stars, and all the stars we see fit on this diagram, with a predictable surface temperature, luminosity, color, and size. New stars that are discovered conform to this diagram. It is a perfectly descriptive model with an enormous amount of weight behind it, and something like the electric universe would suggest that it be largely discarded, with nothing substantial to replace it. That may suffice for someone with zero knowledge of astronomy in the first place, but not to those who know for a fact that stars are powered by fusion, with the same certainty that we know the earth goes around the sun. With electric universe content, it is simply put forth that plasma makes up over 99% of the universe, which it does, in the form of stars, but furthermore that we don’t understand plasma, which is true for almost everyone watching the video. This is why they are able to pretend that all kinds of cold, gaseous structures in the universe are plasma when they are not, and ascribe that alleged plasma with properties that it doesn’t have. Physicists do understand plasma. And if any electric universe talking points were true, they would be physics. Electric universe is presented as an innovative idea that pushes the boundaries of physics, but it isn’t. It’s pseudoscience that contradicts existing well-established physics. In attempting to persuade, the progenitors of electric universe will offer outright lies, stating that the big bang cosmological model is not supported by evidence, or that neutron stars violate principles of chemistry, or referencing even more esoteric principles in physics that they know uneducated viewers won’t check up on, so long as they have already bought into the narrative. They will list alleged gaps in astrophysics that do not exist, like basic features of stars that are common knowledge, or the existence of heavy elements, which we know are fused in high-energy events like supernovae and neutron star collisions. They will claim that we are clueless about the interior of the sun, but we regularly utilize Doppler imaging techniques that depend on our understanding of its interior. They will make statements like “plasma cosmologists have been able to demonstrate experimentally and also in a supercomputer that galaxies are an electrical phenomenon”. Really? How? Where is the citation? The idea that the sun is somehow connected to the rest of the galaxy by electricity is absurd. Where are the electric currents? Is there a map? How do we detect them? Where is the attempt to rationalize such a ridiculous statement? Electric universe does not publish any models, and does not make quantitative predictions, so there is no basis with which it can even be compared to existing models. At absolute best, pushers of the electric universe will cite legitimately anomalous data in astrophysics that has yet to be explained, but demonstrating that astrophysics is incomplete does not in any way support pseudoscientific claims. The electric universe must be justified by its own empirical evidence, which is never offered, not even in a vague, qualitative way. They are so bold as to even criticize legitimate physics for being so mathematically oriented, as though it is some kind of a weakness to make quantifiable predictions, but of course this is just to cover their own tracks for having no capacity to do this themselves. They will propose that craters on the moon were formed by lightning bolts. How? When? From where? There is no justification, while specifically contradicting known science. It is also totally elusive. Where is this phenomenon in the solar system today, and why can’t we see it? It is proposed that Venus was once a comet. Where did it come from, and how did it settle into its current orbit? It is proposed that Valles Marineris, the huge canyon on Mars, was caused by an interplanetary lightning bolt, and that no other explanation exists, although there is in fact solid consensus that it is the result of tectonic phenomena. It is claimed that astrophysics can’t explain planetary formation, when in fact, proplanetary disks are well understood and visible in telescopes. It’s just an endless list of provocative statements with not so much as an ounce of weight behind them, all of which can be replaced with scientific explanations with five minutes of googling. The trouble with debunking the electric universe is that unlike even weaker hoaxes, it uses legitimate science as a basis. Obviously the electromagnetic force is real, electricity is real, and magnetism is real. Stars do generate magnetic fields, like our sun does. This field is responsible for the appearance of sunspots, which we can study. Planets generate magnetic fields too, like Jupiter’s which is very large, as well as Earth’s, which is responsible for the Aurora Borealis. Black holes generate magnetic fields too, and these may be involved in the production of streams of plasma that are not swallowed up, but are instead accelerated to near light speed in the direction perpendicular to their axis of rotation. So some small percentage of what they say is true. This exemplifies the way that it is easier to structure a lie around a kernel of truth, so as to provide an air of plausibility, and then pile the nonsense on top. There is truly no evidence whatsoever for the primary claims made by the electric universe, and already existing models in astrophysics that explain these relevant phenomena are supported by an enormous amount of evidence. One can pretend that existing models are outdated, and that new data supports this new model, but it just isn’t true. Astrophysicists use the newest data to publish new findings every single day, and continue to refine the models that we already know have tremendous explanatory power. No astrophysicist that is worth their salt would endorse the electric universe, and in fact, none of them do. So if this is all so objectively false, what is the allure? Why do people become interested in this? Well, just as with all other such cults, it boils down to basic psychology. Electric universe adherents love to mock Einstein, as though he wasn’t the most influential scientist of the 20th century. This is the first point of delusion for people who come across electric universe content and immediately buy into it. Insecure individuals are triggered by the notion of brilliance that is beyond their comprehension, and prefer to dismiss it. Rather than going through the effort of studying to comprehend relativity, or mass-energy equivalence, or anything else from Einstein’s body of work, it is much simpler, and more self-aggrandizing, to reject it all outright, and assert oneself as being more knowledgeable than him. This type of narcissistic delusion is so transparent that it doesn’t take a psychologist to diagnose it. The narrative that all of science is wrong is attractive to many people, because it is a defense mechanism that allows them to avoid potential failure. It is a projection of one’s own ignorance onto the world. It is the tendency to take a flawed and oversimplified thought experiment and place it above much more complicated, but strongly verified physics, simply because it is relatable. On top of this, electric universe is arrogant enough to offer spiritual connection. It claims that modern cosmology describes a universe that is vast, empty, and disconnected, while the electric universe describes how enormous electric currents connect our sun with the rest of the galaxy, and our galaxy with other galaxies. Beyond the fact that gravity connects us just as well, the whole thread is juvenile bait, as the spiritual satisfaction of a theory has absolutely nothing to do with its validity. Moving on to other aspects of gravity, relativity has been corroborated far beyond reasonable doubt. We use time dilation equations from special relativity to program the clocks on GPS satellites. If we didn’t, their clocks wouldn’t align with the ones down here, and GPS wouldn’t work. If relativity wasn’t true, why would we need to use it in order for technology to function properly? Furthermore, general relativity has made countless predictions that have been verified. It predicts the perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit and matches observation immaculately. It predicts gravitational lensing, black holes, gravitational waves, all of which have been observed, and can’t be explained with any other model. Relativity is routinely confirmed beyond a shred of reasonable doubt, and anyone who says otherwise is just making a fool of themselves. Now, contradicting known science is one thing, but electric universe goes beyond this. The second point of delusion for the suggestible viewer actually transcends delusion and enters the realm of paranoia. Electric universe takes on an almost religious tone when treating Einstein as something like a false prophet, and someone like Nikola Tesla as the true prophet. It has an almost scriptural feel to it. Einstein is regarded as being representative of “mainstream science”, a dogmatic institution, while Tesla, who is horribly misquoted, is made to resemble a brave rebel, who challenged the superiority of the elite, and had his work hidden because it was too advanced to allow to exist. This is completely idiotic. There is no such thing as mainstream science, there is just science and pseudoscience. If something works, it’s science. We can study it, and build technology with it. If it doesn’t work, it’s not science, there’s nothing to study, and it can’t be used to do anything useful. Relativity works, and is useful. Electric universe does not work, and is not useful. That’s the end of the story. The idea that the entire physics community would be ignoring data regarding the fundamental nature of the universe is preposterous, and simply reflects a complete ignorance of the scientific process. The scientific community is not one entity, a singular committee that decides together what will and won’t be acknowledged as science. Science is a vibrant field comprised of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world, all acting autonomously, all trying to do something incredible that will advance their careers. If electric universe was real, thousands of astrophysicists would be working on it. They would be publishing papers, there would be engineers using this information to build incredible technology. In short, why would people ignore something so potentially profitable, for no apparent reason? Why would we unanimously reject something that allegedly works so well? Pride? Political pressure? If it was real, someone, somewhere would use it to do something useful, because that’s the point of science. So as you can see, although it appears more scientific than something like the flat earth at first glance, and although some of its adherents do have a physics degree, once you cut through the veneer of legitimacy, electric universe is just another idiotic YouTube hoax. It appeals exclusively to the uneducated by way of its narrative. At best, it’s just bad science dressed up in whimsical attire, catering to people who think crystals are magic and who watch Ancient Aliens non-ironically, unable to grasp the notion that ancient myths have nothing to do with science. At worst, it spits directly in the face of science. It tells you that physics is wrong, so you don’t have to learn it. It tells you that some of the most brilliant people of the 20th century are idiots, and that you can be smarter than them. And a handful of followers go all the way with the delusion, just like flat earthers who literally think they are Neo stuck in the matrix, and say as much in earnest. Electric universe strikes some kind of chord with our psyche, the one that wants to be part of an an epic adventure, which compels us to help some rebels fight against the system. It’s slightly trickier to spot than other pseudoscience, and in truth I don’t know the motives that educated people find to cause them to abandon reason in this manner. It would seem to me that the primary figureheads are just flat out lying. As to other physicists that have jumped on board, I can only assume it has to do with ego and status, the desire to be relevant and create an arbitrary community around oneself so as to be a leader, which is a compulsion we all feel to some degree or another, and has the potential to drive us towards self-delusion. Perhaps this can be forgiven to an extent, as while some are certainly thinking about conferences and books and merchandise, others may not be pushing this model with the deliberate intent to deceive, other than their own subconscious self-deception. But it doesn’t make the science any more valid. So to avoid falling for things like the electric universe, there are two ways you can go. The first way is to actually learn science. That’s right, the science found in textbooks is real, and reading them is not as fun as watching science-fiction and pretending that pyramids are spaceships. But it definitely is a lot more useful, both to humanity, and also to your worldview. The second way is to simply learn to spot these telltale signs of hoaxes and frauds, as they all say pretty similar things. The mainstream, or the establishment, is wrong, dogmatic, perhaps even an evil force, while their little upstart ragtag bunch of Luke Skywalkers is right, and good, and brave to speak the truth in opposition. It’s always the same. People who fall for these hoaxes are the ones that desperately want this narrative to be true, and they want it so badly, that they ignore the fact that something like electric universe has zero explanatory power or technological application. They will look the other way on logic to appease their psychological desire to feel special, and to be part of the next big thing. If we can be adequately self-reflective, we can identify that script playing in our minds, observe it, and reject it. We can reject this, and we can reject every other pseudoscientific claim we encounter, simply by analyzing the way the narrative is presented. So that’s it for the electric universe, as well as some things to look out for when identifying hoaxes. We may have only uncovered one such hoax today, but don’t worry, I’ll be tackling many more one by one, so until next time.
Info
Channel: Professor Dave Explains
Views: 321,781
Rating: 4.0389047 out of 5
Keywords: electric universe, thunderbolts project, safire project, wal thornhill, wallace thornhill, plasma, magnetism, electricity, gravity, einstein, tesla, electromagnetic force
Id: T9q-v4lBGuw
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 26min 7sec (1567 seconds)
Published: Fri May 01 2020
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.