I just became aware of this theory:
a few weeks ago and I am getting one of the people to speak at a our Sydney Futurists meeting in October:
Are there any cosmologists here that would like to comment? - it seems fairly consistent to me, although some of the connections are branching off into weird stuff . . It claims to have better explanations than black holes, big bangs and expanding universes etc.
I am compiling some questions for the meeting so I would appreciate some more expert views on this stuff (I was a biologist).
I'm not a cosmologist, the closest I get is being an physicist with a master in astrophysics, who prefered to collect data rather than do the heavy theoretical work.
The electrical Universe seems to be something along the line of a book I bought on the theory of the Plasma Universe some 20 years ago. I never got around to reading the book as I had to consentrate on finishing my master and then started teaching, first undergraduates then as a high scool teacher, and never got around to picking it up again to read. So, just some random thoughts on cosmology in general rather than arguments in the dicussion between competing theories.
The theory of the origin of our Universe is an evolving theory where we might not have done the crucial observation yet or might not do the right conclusions based on the observations. As late as 60 years ago head sciencetists were still discussing whether the Universe was static or not. The expansion of the Universe must be regarded as confirmed and the cosmologists are working on the details of the theories, adjusting as new observational observations comes along. The "invention" of dark energy to explain new and more refined observations reminds me a bit of the epicycles used to explain the behaviour of the planets before the heliocentric system was accepted less than 400 years ago. But it could also be compared to the search for a new planet (that turned out to be Neptun) after observing variations in the orbit of Uranus, an example of observations confirming a theory.
We might have some idea of how the very young Universe behaved and what influenced it while it evolved, but we don't know and might not ever know. The plasma/electric Universe is based on plasma being 99.9% of the observed matter in the Universe. On the other hand, based on the observations of the movement of and within galaxies, the observable matter in the Universe might be only 4.6% of the Universe, un-observable (dark) matter 23% and 72% dark energy (relating to matter by the famous E=mc2).
In some sence; whether you believe in one or another theory of how the Universe works on the grand scale resembles religions. You defend the one you think is right and am less inclined to listen to the arguments of the other views, and the one you believe in depends on where you were born and grew up (the Universe you studied at, research group you belong to...). I guess in this comparison I'm a cosmological agnostic who thinks we don't have enough observations yet to get to a conclution.
(preparing for some cosmologist comming to hit me with some thing hard dark energy :-)
Thanks for the comments! One thing I will be chasing up - they claim that the universe is NOT expanding and this is proved because some galaxies, with greatly differing red-shifts are actually close to each other and, in some cases, actually interacting! - ie one galaxy is stripping stars away from the other galaxy. If this is true, it puts a fairly large hole in the standard model doesn't it?
This is not valid, the theory was well debunked back along with Thunderbolt of the Gods.