The Quantum sect called the Electric Universe

    The Electric Universe is a ragtag group of dissidents of Quantum Mechanics who find common ground in their
    repudiation of the religion of General Relativity. They are usually misguided individuals who, having grown
    frustrated  with the Mathematical Establishment, have gone to the other extreme and become easy prey for
    recruitment.  EUers usually follow one or more of the following delusional mavericks:

    If ever you come across anyone in a forum who regards any of these deranged individuals as heroes, you
    might as well move on. You will be talking to a madman.

    Most EUers are technology buffs. Their failure as scientists comes down to their inability to distinguish
    between  Science and Technology. Many of them are fanatics of 'free energy'. They confuse 'usefulness'
    with explanation. An EUer is concerned with whether something 'works' and not whether an explanation is
    rational. Therefore, many an electrician rants about inventing gadgets and how he can make a buck selling
    something he hopes to patent. An EUer firmly believes that experiments are a part of Science and that
    experiments confirm theories. 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.

    The grassroots EU crowd is comprised of members who reject black holes, Big Bang, dark matter and
    other ad hoc creations that mainstream mathemagicians have introduced over the years to hide problems
    in Astronomy. Otherwise, their foundations are no different than those of Quantum Mechanics. These lost
    souls continue to do 'physics' with particles, waves, plasma, aether, energy, vortices, electricity, and other
    nonsense. Their atom is Bohr's planetary model. They simulate ionization as the loss of an electron bead.
    And electricity continues to be the flow of these beads from one planetary atom to another.

    The most ridiculous claim of the members of the Electric Universe is that space is filled with a substance they
    call 'plasma'. Their vision is that 'filaments' interconnect all stars and galaxies 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. In essence, the model the EU proposes for the Universe is a plasma ball.

    Plasma and electricity

    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. Therefore, it is here where we will concentrate our attack.

    Unfortunately for the EUers, there are insurmountable obstacles to these two terms and until the electricians
    resolve them they should not be allowed to give their presentations. We don't want to hear their theory until
    they take care of these nagging issues. Indeed, we recommend that these pitiful folks leave the conference,
    go back to their padded rooms at the asylum, and work some more on their drawing boards. It certainly
    would help them with their mental rehabilitation. Plasma and electricity have no chance in Science as objects.
    That'll be our underlying argument.

    The definition of plasma

    The Electric Universe proclaims that plasma pervades the entire Universe. The theory is that plasma is the
    source of electricity which in turn underlies all cosmic phenomena.

    What are the problems with plasma?

    The first obvious contradiction arises in that the electricians borrowed the word plasma from the religion
    they criticize: Quantum Mechanics (i.e., Mathematical Physics). The word plasma has been around since
    before any of the electricians was born.

    The second problem is that, as happens throughout Mathemagical 'science', no one has rigorously defined
    the words that make or break Electric Universe theories. The electrician thinks that he is communicating his
    theory rationally, but does not realize that this cannot possibly happen until he defines the strategic words
    with which he makes his case. Not only does the crowd fail to understand, but the EUer has no idea what
    he is talking about.

    So? What is plasma? What are the EUers referring to when they invoke this word?

    The electricians define the word plasma as:

    "A plasma... is a gaseous substance consisting of free charged particle [sic] such
    as electrons, protons and other ions, that respond very strongly to electromagnetic
    fields... Plasmas are the most common phase of matter. Some estimates suggest
    that up to 99% of the entire visible universe is plasma."

    To the untrained eye, this seems like a straight forward definition. The overwhelming majority of people in
    the  world would nod and say that they understood.

    However, ours is a new site and we have a new paradigm. This will not be business as usual. Whatever you
    learned at your university dies here. It has no validity irrespective of how many mathemagicians vote for it.
    Neither authority nor democracy has any leverage here. And what we do specifically is analyze definitions to
    the last drop of ink! If you're not into 'semantics', you might as well move on. Actually, it is a conceptual
    issue. The entire EU is misconstrued from beginning to end.

    Plasma: object or concept?

    If the lunatics at the Electric Universe are going to invoke plasma to explain a physical phenomenon, we
    must first determine whether we are referring to an OBJECT or to a CONCEPT. If plasma is an object
    (i.e., a thing), we can conceive of moving it around and use it to simulate physical phenomena. If instead
    plasma is a concept such as love or intelligence or information it is irrational to claim that plasma moves or
    bangs against the walls.

    The EUer visiting this site should take another hour to reread what I just said because it certainly hasn't sunk
    in. The EUer has not yet understood squat! Therefore, I repeat: If plasma is a THING, we can move it around
    in Physics. If plasma is a CONCEPT, then we cannot move 'or do anything with 'it'. Got it?

    It turns out that plasma is a concept. There is no physical object called plasma. Indeed, if the electrician is
    attempting to DEFINE the word plasma, he is unwittingly telling the world that plasma is a concept. In
    Science, it is irrational to attempt to DEFINE an object. In Science, we point to objects. In Science, we
    don't define the word chair. In Science, we point to a chair and say "chair' so that the ET who is visiting us
    from Mars can visualize WHAT we are referring to. It is thus that he learns the nouns of our language.

    Of course, since without their beloved plasma the religion of the Electric Universe dies a sudden death, a
    deluded EUer will argue eternally and emotionally with you. It's like telling a Christian that God doesn't exist.
    The EUer will accuse you of raising 'trivial' 'semantic' arguments. He wants to talk theory, not grammar.

    It turns out that the guy doing semantics is him! He is the one that doesn't wish to concede or doesn't
    understand that plasma is a concept. And if plasma is a concept he will not be allowed to move 'it'. What's
    he going to draw, anyway? A bunch of little balls that have lost their electron beads? Is this WHAT plasma
    IS... a static image, a picture of balls? Or do we need to watch a movie to 'understand' WHAT plasma IS?
The amusing planetary
atom that the electricians
use to simulate ionization,
plasma and electricity.
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  
plasma/electric universe
The Electric Universe

can't tell you what
electric means

    Where do they come up short?

    The 'electricians' come up short when they end up proposing irrational alternative theories. This occurs

    ..........a. Like the mechanics and relativists they attack, the electricians attempt to replace
    ..............Physics with Math. They believe that Math has something to do with Physics.

    ..........b. The electricians present experiments and evidence. Like the mechanics and

    ..........c. The electricians use the same irrational language as their relativistic and quantum
    ..............colleagues. In fact, it is from GR and QM where they got their entire vocabulary.

    ..........d. The electricians propose concepts (plasma, electricity, waves) as physical mediators.

    ..........e. The electricians have not defined the crucial terms that underlie their theories.

    Bowing to the Establishment's way of doing 'science', the electricians believe that unless they put some
    kind of equation in their papers and presentations, they are not doing Physics. They talk about measuring
    distances and about calculating the strength of forces and about providing evidence for their theories. In
    fact, it's the other way around. The electricians would do well to  discover that it is when they introduce an
    equation in their presentation that they leave the realm of Physics.

    The electricians also use the same irrational terms of the Mathematical Establishment -- energy, plasma,
    vortex, wave, force, field, charge, electricity, magnetosphere -- to explain their theories. These words are
    irrational when the proponent introduces and uses them as physical objects (e.g., transfer energy, move
    the plasma, accelerate a charge, send information). Most perplexing of all, the electricians use the amusing
    planetary model of the atom proposed by Neils Bohr a hundred years ago.
The EU
Plasma Ball Universe


Nila and Bill      


Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist

    What is amusing is that so far the electrician has not understood a word. He is such a fanatic crusader that
    he hasn't yet awakened from his hypnotic state. He's still thinking of how he is going to prove his theory and
    has not read or listened to a word I said. Predictably, his reaction is emotional. He insists that plasma is an
    object, a thing, something you can touch and manipulate.

    So let's rub it in to see if it helps him understand. If the EUer is going to IONIZE a bunch of atoms to produce
    his blessed plasma, the first thing he needs to understand is that any 'thing in motion' is a CONCEPT.

    object: that which has shape (synonyms: thing, anything, something, body, structure,
    entity, stuff, substance, gadget, device, item)

    concept: a word that invokes or embodies two objects (synonyms: relation, reference)

    Plasma doesn't meet the 'shape' criterion of the definition of object. Does plasma have shape?

    The EUer might be tempted to answer 'yes'.

    So let's insist until he finally sees how stupid he is. Can you take a picture of plasma? Can you draw a still
    image of plasma? Or is plasma something in motion? Don't you have to IONIZE (verb) an atom in order to
    produce 'plasma'?

    Well, if he hasn't understood the argument by then you might as well give up. You are talking to a madman,
    to a wall. The EUer will not give up because he hasn't listened to a word you said. If he did, his religion
    suffers sudden death.

    Motion inevitably invokes another object as reference. Therefore, any movie -- any object imbued with
    motion -- is summarily a dynamic concept. A moving object is necessarily a relation between two objects. In
    contrast, shape is a static concept. In Science, we point to objects and define concepts.

    In fact, the electricians routinely illustrate plasma as ionized gas in MOTION (as illustrated above right)! So
    does everyone else! They define plasma as...

    .........."Plasma is a collection of charged particles..."

    Clearly, if plasma is a COLLECTION of things it does not qualify as an object. An object is that which has
    shape and not that which is made of something or forms a group or set with others. A tree is an object. A
    forest is not if by forest we are referring to a collection of trees. A child is an object; 'children' is not! A
    collection of anything is summarily a concept: a relation. The electricians simply need to come up to speed
    on the differences between objects and concepts before they attempt to debate this issue.

    And if in addition the particles need to be 'charged', it clearly shows that some motion is involved in
    generating plasma. A thing in motion is NOT a THING! There is no object as a 'running' boy' or 'jumping
    kangaroo'. There is an object called 'boy' and there is an object called 'kangaroo'.

    Plasma is also defined as the 4th state of matter, but not one EUer understands what that means or how it
    is in violation of the definition of object. If plasma is a 'state' of something, a condition in which we find matter
    -- in this case, a gas --, then plasma is an adjective or an adverb, a qualifier of how matter is or acts. The
    EUer is referring to a condition, behavior or property of an object. He's not referring to a stand alone object.
    It's like saying that red in the term 'red ball' is a stand alone object. If plasma is a 'state', it is irrevocably a
    qualifier of matter. It is not an object in itself. The objects in front of us are atoms. We can picture them as
    bowling balls surrounded by marbles -- it doesn't ultimately matter. Plasma is what they DO! Plasma means
    that the atom has lost or gained an electron. Plasma does not refer to any of the objects themselves, but
    rather to the fact that a gas has changed its 'state'. The gas has acquired new properties. Otherwise,
    plasma would just be gas and that's what we would all call it.

    If the electrician didn't understand any of these arguments, he simply needs to take a two-year course on
    the differences between an object and a concept. Until he does, he will be spinning his wheels and you are
    wasting your time educating him.


    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 touch love when he operates on your heart? We can't and don't touch concepts such as
    electricity or love in Science. It is in religion where they touch souls and spirits and tell the flocks that they
    proved it by touching the abstraction.

    Nevertheless, in Physics we don't PROVE objects, much less by carrying out an experiment. In Science,
    we DEFINE concepts and point to objects. We then list under this category all the words that meet spec.
    The EUer does it in reverse. He carries out an experiment to determine what the definition of object is.

    This is why in Science we have to be extremely careful with language. The presenter THINKS that he has
    communicated his theory rationally, but then it falls apart with simple arguments, all of them traceable to
    'petty semantics'.

    More astounding yet is that the electrician begins his presentation by confessing that he has no clue WHAT  
    electricity IS. He nevertheless attempts a definition of the word electricity. This only confirms that he
    hasn't yet taken the two-year course on the strategic word object. If the electrician is attempting to define
    electricity, he has already lost the bet. He has summarily placed electricity in the concept bin. If, instead, he
    alleges that electricity is an object, the burden is on him is to DRAW electricity! Can he illustrate a STATIC
    image of electricity? Can we take a photograph of electricity if we were Atom Man? What would it show?
    Little beads frozen over their bowling balls?

Is plasma a (static)

Or is plasma a (dynamic)
Static plasma
Dynamic plasma

The amusing Electric Universe 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.

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

    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
    their theories?

    This is not devil's advocacy. This goes to the root of what's irrational about the Electric Universe. This
    is establishing whether it is rational to:

    1. move concepts

    2. move things that are already moving (plasma and electricity).

    These objections which the electricians brush aside as 'petty semantics' become even more relevant
    when we look at how the Electric Universe explains ionization (necessary for plasma) and electricity.
    The electricians fall back on Bohr's planetary model of the atom! According to Electric Universe theory,
    ionization occurs when the proton bowling ball loses an electron bead. And, as we have just seen, EU
    electricity is the flow of these beads from one atom to another. In this context, what is 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 with discrete beads and
    bowling balls...

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?
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
      Bill's books