The Quantum sect called the Electric Universe
The Electric Universe (EU) is a ragtag splinter group within Mathematical 'physics' that adheres to Quantum
Mechanics but repudiates General Relativity. These individuals typically find common ground with one or more
of the following mavericks:
The grassroots EU crowd is comprised of members who reject black holes, Big Bang, dark matter and
other ad hoc creations that mainstream mathematicians have introduced over the years to hide problems
in Astronomy. Otherwise, their foundations are no different than those of Quantum Mechanics.
Many EUers are technology buffs and, thus, many of them believe that experiments are a part of Science.
They share the mainstream notion that experiments confirm theories. In other words, they fail to distinguish
between Science and Technology.
Like the establishment he criticizes, an EUer also believes that predictions are an integral part of the Scientific
Method. As a result of his focus on what works, he is dazzled by and loves to twiddle with devices such as
magnets and plasma balls and electric circuits. Yet he can't explain how any of them works.
Problems with the EU in a nutshell
The EU is a non-starter for rational people. It suffers two fatal problems both of which confirm that this group
is nothing but a disillusioned branch of the mathematical establishment:
These fatal features show that the EU is just another sect of Quantum Mechanics.
Let's start at the beginning to make sure we understand what's at stake and what the arguments are. The bread
and butter of the Electric Universe are plasma and electricity. In Electric Universe theory, plasma and electricity
are interrelated in such a way that one cannot do without the other...
.........."It is the Plasma Universe that makes our Electric Universe possible."
These are two words that the Electric Universe simply cannot do without. Should either of them fail, the
Electric Universe suffers sudden death. And this is exactly where we concentrate our attack. We already
discussed the word plasma. Let's now deal with electricity.
The Electric Universe also casually treats electricity as a physical object. When confronted, the electrician
.........."Go touch a live wire and then come back here and tell me that electricity is not.physical."
The joke is on the fool who laughs at his own ignorance. Unbeknownst to him, the electrician is laughing at
the guy in the mirror. Per his very own instructions what I touched was a WIRE and NOT electricity! Does
your surgeon perchance touch 'love' when he operates on your heart?
And again, we can't emphasize enough the importance of definitions in Science. Without them, we are not
communicating what we thought we did. We absolutely need to use them consistently if we are to do Science.
No. We can't and don't touch concepts such as electricity or love in Science. We do not run experiments to
prove definitions. An object is 'that which has shape'. Unless the electrician comes up with w better mouse
trap, he has to abide by that specification.
So... what is the shape of electricity? Please draw 'it'.
After a two-hour struggle, a handful of EUers finally concede: electricity is a concept. In the best case, the
object that is doing electricity or current is the electron bead. The bead is the object. What it does is
electricity. Electricity is another of those dynamic concepts. Indeed, anyone who has been around finally
realizes that Quantum Mechanics and the Electric Universe revolve entirely around dynamic concepts. The
EUers have never proposed a single physical object as an actor in any of their theories.
Now the question becomes, "What is electricity according to the Electric Universe?" How does the Electric
Universe define their bread and butter?
You will be surprised. They never have.
If you look up the word electricity in the Electric Universe or Thunderbolts sites, you will find disclaimers.
The poor soul will nonetheless scrape the last bit of gray matter in his brain and attempt a definition. And the
fact that he is trying to define the word electricity automatically disqualifies it as an object. Objects, we point
to. Concepts, we define.
Okay, so how does the religion of the Electric Universe define the vital word electricity that makes or breaks
all of its theories?
The electricians define electricity as...
.........."electricity... the flow of electric charge"
Not only are the pitiful electricians unaware that synonyms are circular definitions -- electric to define
electricity -- but then they commit an even greater blunder...
........."Electricity, which we define as the flow of electric charge, travels through a circuit..."
So let's see... The electricians define electricity as the flow of X and then state that this 'flow' travels...
We have the flowing of 'a' flow.
Great! They must have spent years devising this definition at the EU Asylum. And to think that electricity is
the word that underlies all of their theories! You would think that the EUers would at least address such
concerns at their yearly pow wows...
Again, the only recourse that the electricians have is to dismiss these objections as petty semantic
arguments. They want to talk about how the Universe works, not about grammar.
It turns out that the ones doing 'semantics' are the electricians. They introduce words which THEY can't
define or which THEY confuse for objects. Of course, their only defense is to get upset at rational people
for not allowing them to give their presentations until these issues are resolved. How do they pretend to
convey their ideas and arguments if they don't define their key terminology: the words that make or break
And of course, the icing on the cake is the fine print where the EUer brushes all definitions aside because
he never learned how to define words scientifically and doesn't care about definitions anyway...
"Electricity is a fundamental quality of matter, so it is used to characterize other things,
thus consensus opinion is lacking precision. Like all bedrock presumptions such as
“gravity” or “time”, reducing electric terminology into smaller units is impossible because
it lies at the bottom of the lexical well."
Therefore, we will never discover WHAT electricity IS from the members of the ELECTRIC Universe
a. they can't define the word
b. they don't know WHAT 'it' IS
c. it is petty semantics anyway
d. it is at the bottom of the lexical well and there is no bucket to go after it
But what makes all of this the most revealing and amusing is the electricians' closing argument:
"From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry
connects and unifies all of nature… There are no isolated islands in an electric universe."
You wonder how these loonies pretend to build their interconnected world of filaments with discrete beads and
bowling balls and ionized concepts...
|The Electric Universe protects its
business through censorship...
just like the Mathematical
Establishment it rails against.
|Electric Universe, the motion of
concepts: aether, plasma, and vortex
|CRT: The ridiculous workings of the
|The Electric Universe
can't tell you what electric means
The amusing Electric Filament Universe
1. An atom consists of beads that orbit the
protons (Bohr's debunked planetary atom).
2. Ionization is the loss or gain of an electron
bead by an atom. What is left is a proton.
3. Plasma is a static physical object
comprised of countless bowling balls and
4. Electricity is the FLOW of FLOWING
beads from one bowling ball to the other.
5. Stars and galaxies are interconnected by
continuous filaments made of these discrete
Static Electricity (photo)
Dynamic Electricity (movie)
A member of the Electric Universe is someone who doesn't
understand the difference between a still image and a movie...
Is electricity a standalone object that we can draw in a still image?
|The Electric Universe relies
on Bohr's planetary model
of the atom.
Is plasma a physical object?
The big word of the EU is plasma; the members absolutely worship this term and can't do without it. The
model of the EU universe is the plasma ball.
Plasma Ball Universe
So what is 'wrong' with plasma and the plasma ball universe?
Again, we are forced to clarify over and over that in Science there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect,
or true or false. 'Wrong' is an opinion and Science doesn't deal with or care about opinions! Science is about
explaining. Only rational explanations form the body of Science. Plasma and the plasma ball universe are
As always we are also forced to underscore that there is a new paradigm. This is not business as usual, so
please pay attention. First and foremost, Physics MUST have an object as the main actor. You cannot do
Physics without a thing. To a rational scientist this needs no further clarification. It is a self-evident principle.
A rational human is born with this. We call him a 'materialist'. A spiritualist, on the other hand, does not have
it in his DNA. He insists that the theorist justify this principle. We don't. At this point we simply separate
rational humans from irrational ones and continue speaking only to those who are rational.
So... what is an object for the purposes of Physics? We need to define what a thing is if we are going to
use this word rationally, consistently, scientifically. It's too important a word to leave out there dangling
To our surprise, we discover that no one in the last 10,000 years defined this crucial word rigorously.
Everyone from Plato to Newton and from Einstein to Hawking did 'physics' without ever defining what an
The mathematicians of BOTH Quantum Mechanics and of the Electric Universe subscribe to this particle model
"Charged particles must be close enough together that each particle influences many nearby
Like their predecessors the mechanics, the electricians cannot justify what keeps the electron bead faithful to
the proton bowling ball to begin with. Spirits? Magic? God? Or is it the abstract CONCEPT 'field'? What an
EUer will never be able to explain is attraction or continuity with discrete particles. It is the Discrete Particle
Hypothesis which once and for all needs to be dumped in the ash heap of history!
And, of course, no mathematician will ever be able to make sense of the terms 'positive charge' and
'negative charge'. What do these terms mean from a physical perspective? Please ILLUSTRATE a 'positive'
charge and show how it is PHYSICALLY different than a 'negative' charge!
Clearly, positive and negative are mathematical terms. They DESCRIBE, but cannot EXPLAIN causes or
mechanisms. And as we all now 'know', Math has nothing to do with Physics. The language of Physics is
ILLUSTRATION! He who cannot make a motion picture of his theory is not doing Physics! That's what a
theory is. An explanation! In order to explain, you absolutely must illustrate! Especially in Physics!
So yes. There is a new paradigm in town. It is no longer business as usual.
But if plasma is a defined as a PHASE of matter, it is clearly a CONCEPT. The proponent is not alluding to a
standalone object, but to a characteristic or feature of matter. It is like saying that teenage is a phase of
adolescence. Are we talking about an object when we say 'phase of adolescence'?
Not only is the electrician unaware that the word matter is a concept, but he is totally unaware of the more
fundamental argument against Mereology. An object is NOT 'what something is made of'. The electrician has
to go to kindergarten and learn the basics.
Nevertheless, if plasma is 'ionized gas' and 'ionization' means that something HAPPENED to a gas molecule,
clearly plasma is a DYNAMIC CONCEPT. There is no object that is inherently dynamic. All standalone objects
must be identified in a still image before they are set in motion. These are basic concepts of Physics that to a
rational individual need not be explained. It is spiritualists, people who were not born with smarts, who need to
have it justified to them that:
a. a bird is not the same as a flying bird
b. a kangaroo is not the same as a jumping kangaroo
c. a boy is not the same as a running boy...
One is a movie. The other is a photograph. If you can't tell the difference, you waste your time reading further.
If plasma means 'gas in motion' (i.e., ionized, electron bead removed or added) then it is irrational to say that
plasma moved. Plasma is not a standalone physical object. Plasma is 'something in motion'. Plasma is
comprised of gas that has something DONE to it. We cannot illustrate plasma in a single image because all
we would see is balls. That's what is objectively in the picture. In order to understand plasma, we must IONIZE
(i.e., remove/add the electron bead to many of) the gas molecules which constitute the soup.
|Bohr's planetary atom
according to BOTH
the Electric Universe
|Electric Universe Theory
Ionization consists in the
loss (anion) or gain (cation)
of an electron
Because the electrician simply parrots what the mechanics feed him, he ends up misconceiving his other
bread and butter foundation: electricity. And because he dismisses all arguments against his religion as
petty 'semantics', the EUer goes a step further and theorizes that the all stars and galaxies are strung
together like bulbs strung on a Christmas Tree. These 'filaments' are made of a substance the EUers call
'electricity' which in turn is made of the aforementioned plasma substance which in turn fills all of space. In
essence, the model the EU proposes for the Universe is the lighted plasma ball depicted earlier.
Is plasma a (static)
Or is plasma a (dynamic)
|Typical image of 'filaments' that the
Electric Universe is so proud of.
The theory is that:
1. An ionized gas the EU calls 'plasma'
fills the balloon of space.
2. Electricity, then, is the physical
object that lights up and interconnects
stars and galaxies like bulbs on a
The worst insult that an electrician can hurl at this point is that this is a 'semantic' argument. This means that on
top of all of his other deficiencies, the IDIOT did not understand a thing about what we just said.
No. This is not a trivial semantic argument, you IDIOT! This is not a question of words or of grammar. We can
just as well use the letter A to refer to an atom, the letter G to gas, the letter I to ionization , and the letter P
for plasma. P means that there was an I (action performed) on an A of a G. This is entirely a epistemological,
ontological, and conceptual issue. P is not a standalone object. Therefore, it is irrational to say that P moved.
P was already in motion. Plasma means nothing other than MOVING gas: ionizED atoms! And he who cannot
understand such a straight forward argument is a member of the Electric Universe.
Therefore, this is the step where we eliminate 90 % of the crowd. Most people have been led to believe
that an object is that which can touch or see or has volume or mass or is the subject of a sentence. Most
confuse the word object with the word exist and unwittingly drift into talking about whether an object exists.
They equate object with existence. Others believe an object is anything that we can talk about. These
are the vague notions of 'thing' that most people have grown up with.
Again, we now have a revolutionary paradigm shift...
object: that which has shape (synonyms: thing, something, anything, medium, body, entity, structure)
This seemingly inoffensive definition destroys all religions and separates the men from the mice. It is the
definition of the word object which destroys the religions of Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and
the Electric Universe. Unfortunately, it takes many years for a mathematician to understand what this
definition entails and how it affects all arguments ever put forth in Science and Physics. We cannot
emphasize its importance enough. You will likely not capture its full meaning and implications in one
So what is plasma? Does it qualify or can we treat it as an object, as a thing, as a body or entity? If as
rationality dictates, the ability and capacity to move is circumscribed to objects, does plasma have this
ability? Can it be said that plasma moves from A to B? Is this rational? Because if it does not, then such
proposals are beyond the purview of Science!
Plasma is a concept
All words in the dictionary can be placed in one of two categories. They are either objects or concepts.
There is no third category for the purposes of Physics. Essentially, a word either specifies that which has
shape or that which doesn't. The words in the latter category are known as concepts. Objects, we illustrate.
Concepts, we define. We don't define the word table. We point and utter a sound. The ET visualizes the
object and relates the word to the object. We can't do this with concepts. We can't point to a concept and
name 'it'. We absolutely must define concepts.
There are static concepts and dynamic concepts. For instance, location is a static concept. The word
location requires and embodies no motion. Likewise, direction and orientation are static concepts. So are
above, below, perpendicular, straight, angle, left, right, and... exist. Unfortunately, ti takes the average
human a couple of years to understand the enigmatic word exist and why it involves no motion. It's too big a
word, and there is not enough space on this page to analyze it. For those who are rational, it may just take
watching a vid in order to understand the arguments.
Plasma, on the other hand, is a dynamic concept. Like energy, mass, force, time, and other inventions of
Mathematical 'physics', plasma embodies motion. There is no such 'thing' as plasma in ONE frame of the
Universal Movie. Indeed, we need only look at the definition of plasma offered by the EU. The EU defines
"A plasma... a gaseous substance consisting of free charged particles, such as electrons,
protons and other ions... Plasmas are the most common PHASE of matter."
Unfortunately and surprisingly, nowhere does the EU specifically define what an ion is. You would think that
the theorists at the EU would cover this foundation if they believe so strongly in their theories. Therefore, we
have no choice but to put words in their mouths and use the common definition of 'ion' and 'ionization'. We start
with the definition that we just transcribed from the EU site...
ion: free charged particles
"Hydrogen atom... contains a single proton and a single electron. Removal of the electron
gives a cation... whereas addition of an electron gives an anion..."
Let's make sure that we understand so that even a retard can get this and there are no arguments about
it. The theorist is proposing Bohr's planetary model of the atom!!! This is non-negotiable! The theorist is
saying that the hydrogen atom consists of a proton bowling ball in its center and an electron bead flying
around it. If we remove this electron bead, the hydrogen atom consists of only a positively charged proton,
(whatever 'positively charged' means from a physical perspective...). The mathematicians call that lone,
positively charged proton an anion. Conversely, if we add a 'negatively charged' electron to the planetary
atom we end up with one positively charged proton accompanied by two negatively charged electron beads.
Since the 2 negative charges outgun the lone positive charge, the resulting atom has a net negative charge
and is designated as a cation.