The Electric Universe Theory – An Alternative Model of Cosmology

How the universe work? Chances are, you’re probably familiar with standard model of cosmology. Over the past 200 years, we have made significant progress towards gaining insight into the the universe we live in… and yet, the more we learn, the less we appear to understand. Dark matter and dark energy are said to account for over 90% of the universe, and yet we know next to nothing about its nature.

With so many unanswered questions of cosmology? doesn’t that cast doubt over cosmology itself? Perhaps the truth lies within a wildly different approach.

One such approach is the Electric Universe Theory. What was once considered to be the “Flat Earth Theory” of cosmology is gradually starting to become move more into the mainstream, and be it fact or fiction, the theory’s propositions make for very intriguing reading...

This has been a topic many people have been requesting for a long time, so I hope it was worth the wait!

Join the NEW, OFFICIAL PARTNER #SeaSquad 100K Discord Server!

USEFUL LINKS FOR THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE THEORY:

ALL MUSIC PROVIDED BY CO.AG:

FOOTAGE:

- Popular Playlists! -

- Out of this World -

- Conspiracy Cases -

[Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes]

According to Wikipedia:
_Electric Universe is the thirteenth studio album by Earth, Wind & Fire, released in November 1983 on Columbia Records._

[xdeser]

'We've never seen a black hole" confused me for obvious reasons, then I googled it and it was *literally two days* after this was uploaded that the first photo of a black hole was published lol. (also I didn't see the pinned comment lol)

[ravenlord]

I appreciate the balanced presentation, and the acknowledgement of its pros and cons. It is good to know about such ideas without having to commit to them.

[accidentalscientist]

"Dark Matter and Dark Energy are said to account for over 90% of the universe's energy. And yet we know very little about it's nature. And are no closer to finding it now, than we were when it was first hypothesized. With over 90% of matter in the universe being completely inexplicable by our accepted models of Cosmology, doesn't that cast doubt over Cosmology itself? Why do we know so much, and yet can explain so little with it?"

[YoshionoKimochi]

You did an excellent job of summarizing EU without getting to sell it or debunk it. I really appreciate your video, thank you. Of course there's a ton of information to sift through but you touched on a ton of the big key points.

[SmartStrt]

I really like the Electric Universe theory for two reasons: firstly and most importantly it feels like with the gaps in the standard model (dark matter, dark energy, discrepancies in the measured age of the universe), cosmology is overdue a paradigm shift. It sort of feels the more tortuous the fixes to these gaps become, the more we're missing something obvious, and the idea that the universe is essentially electric seems like the simple shift in thinking we need.

Secondly, regardless of whether or not it is true, it is satisfying to me to have enough flexibility in our understanding of cosmology that people are able to offer radical new theories. New understandings nearly always come from the fringes.

I've watched a lot of Thunderbolts Project Youtube videos, and I think your video offers the clearest overall explanation of the electric universe model including its shortcomings, so thank you for that.

[shonsimpkins]

As a viewer, I appreciate this video's unbiased approach.

[ddfwoxc]

Scientists that "debunk" new ideas, are what is holding us back, they assume the Standard Model of Physics is proven, i am afraid it is not, it is just a working model, and will be adjusted as and when new experimental projects come in...

[RamblinJer]

In regard to age and size of the universe, perhaps it's always been and never ends. Far to often we allow conventional wisdom to dominate our thoughts, and must remind ourselves to think outside the old proverbial box where the answers await. Well done, I enjoyed your presentation and respect your open-mindedness.

[michellebeckham]

Science should always be challenged.
This is one of the best YouTube videos ever made of any kind, bravo!

[JackassBauer]

The big bang theory have no more answer about the universe origin, a singularity having no volume and containing all the mass is as good as "let there be light"...

[EugenethePhilostopher]

Indeed, EU is not a "theory" but rather a "paradigm" - there are many different theories under this umbrella, some of which contradict each other. There's a dynamic community, and active research is being done in many areas.
Overall you've done a nice summation, though in details I'd make a lot of corrections to what you've said (but don't think it's necessary).
However, since you directly stated (07:06) that EU cannot answer these 3 cosmological questions, let me explicitly answer at least 2 of them:
1) the Universe did not begin;
2) the Universe is eternal;
3) yes, here you are correct - we cannot tell. But that doesn't directly harm EU in any way.
(The answers given to 1 and 2 are required by fundamental laws of physics and causality).
Same story at 07:40 - why there should be a source? It would contradict the laws of physics and causality.

[jfjsas]

Very interesting and unbiased video. Throughout most of my life, I believed that the Big Bang theory was a unique contender, with solid premises and just some key points to clarify, but that the direction was almost unanimously correct. Recently, I discovered several scientific articles and videos showing that the very assumptions of the theory, as well as its predictions, have been proven flimsy and shaky countless times and all those times, scientists just kept updating newer and newer assumptions to fit the observations.

The BB model relies heavily on the redshift of the galaxies being caused by the Doppler effect. However, redshift can be caused by several other phenomena, it can be a property of the light itself. Even E. Hubble himself believed that this would have to be caused by some unknown at the time process, not enough to immediately assume that the whole universe is expanding. He himself never believed that the universe is expanding.

Numerous quasars have been identified with very different redshift regions within them, which was explained by other phenomena rather than recessive movement. Mainstream science never seriously explained this key contradiction. Moreover, CMB is supposed to be smooth in the BB theory, not containing so many voids. Light elements proportions are also completely different from the predictions. Furthermore, there are large structures observed that, given the known cosmic velocities, would have needed about 10 times more years to form than 13.8 billion.

Almost all the key predictions of BB failed and their defensors kept updating the model to fit them, but doing that is called a fallacy. The model predicts also exotic hypothetical entities, e.g. inflation, dark energy and dark matter, many of which, for example the dark matter, also failed its key predictions.

It's also very worrying that the cosmological community is small, not very open to new concepts and is funded mainly by just a handful of governmental organisations. Numerous, very promising approaches against the BB, have been simply refused funding, support and even telescope time, e.g. Halton Arp's famous quasar study. Theories should stand up or fail by observations and calculations, not by the lack of funding and group ostracism.

What I personally find the most suspicious, is that despite all the problems, some of which I just summed up, that keep being brought up without a convincing answer, the mainstream science keeps saying that the Big Bang definitely happened and there is absolutely no question about it. Even on YT, on PBS channel, they keep saying it all the time. The words "definitely" and "absolutely" shouldn't even exist in scientists' vocabulary in my opinion, especially in such ambicious and extremely complicated subjects like the origin of the universe.

[clergh]

I never hear any science advocates displaying the shortcomings of their own theories. Much respect to you for this. We should remain neutral, detached, and seek the truth!

[ooloncolluphid]

So the bulk of the critsisms are the same critsisms of the gravitational model, yet they can be dismissed as fields of future study in the gravitational model but fatal flaws to the electric universe?

[macsyles]

You asked a few questions when you were critiquing the Electric Universes position on our electrical universe. One of the biggest questions you asked is, where does all this Electricity, plasma and power that charges our universe, nebula, stars, planets and lives. Where does it all come from? I believe I have an answer. Our universe is packed with ⚛ atoms these atoms carry positive and negative charges, theses polarizing charges causes the atoms to attract and repel each other constantly, this continuous motion and fighting for atomic positioning causes friction, which builds up static charges, which are stored as Berkland currents. When these Berkland currents reach overload status they discharge into surrounding matter; Nebula, Hydrogen, Helium, Heavy Metals, rocky debris, dust and other surrounding gasses and elements. When these super massive Berkland currents discharge into those materials they fuse into, Galaxies, Stars and Planets. The Hydrogen, Helium and Heavy Metals are fused into STARS! The rocky debris, heavy metals, dust and other gasses and elements are fused into PLANETS! Thus the eligant simplicity of our Electric Universe is born. This is why Galaxies are electrically charged, this is why stars are electrically charged, this is why planets are electrically charged, this is why Earth's plants, animals and HUMANS are electrically charged, and this is why we use electricity to charge our technologies, that allows us to better understand our Electric Universe. Being able to Observe the Obvious is one of scientists greatest tools, mother nature doesn't do things the hard way, understanding the ELIGANT SIMPLICITY of MOTHER NATURE you can see the BIG PICTURE, and not the BIG BANG, we can now pull our heads out of that BLACK HOLE, no need for dark matter, and Dark energy is just plasma in negative low glow mode this is why it is hard to be detected. So I hope I have answered a few of your questions about your Electric Universe. Have a truly Electrical Day.

[CFX_Trades]

Nikola Tesla — 'If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.'

[partylifedude]

after spending a lot of time arguing with flat earthers, this theory seems entirely reasonable to me. it at least seems to be backed up by SOMETHING. They may really be on to something and could have at least some answers. maybe the truth is somewhere between this and the standard model. By all means, they should continue to look in to this.

[moonasha]

EU has some very good points. I don't think it's THE right model, but I would bet a lot that it has the right idea. Their ideas about intergalactic plasma filaments/currents just make sense. Galaxies are almost certainly more electrically active than we know right now.

[Xeno_Bardock]

Plasma should be considered 1st state of matter instead of 4th state because when matter is first electrically generated and ejected like a beam from the poles of galactic center, it is in ionized.