@Bige13 Continental drift was not a pseudo science. It was a prediction based on observations such as the matching coastlines of South American / Africa and the similar geologic formations found on each. It had data behind it. And it could make predictions that could be verified. As more data was uncovered, it was accepted because of the data.

EU must do the same thing. It must have data behind it. EU apparently says that Einstein's postulates are incorrect. Yet Einstein's postulates not only explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury but also predicted gravitational lensing which was later observed.

How does EU explain these two effects if general relativity is in error?

Help me understand why I should look at EU in more depth? What flaws in our understanding of the world are better predicted by EU?

@RPardoe
Actually research the the real story. He was shunned by Geologist until 50 years after his death. His daughter received his award for him. While your at it research Burkland currents and how they are present in all plasmas throughout the visiable universe.

@Bige13 You didn't answer my question. What does EU explain better than General Relativity? What data supports it? What predictions does it make better than the current models of the universe?

Edit: You posted a general question without indicating what appealed to you about EU other than you have been reading about it. You asked for thoughts, and thoughts were given. I wouldn't say you were shot down - rather extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I have been asking for some evidence to go with EU. You suggest I look at Birkeland currents. I have. They are involved in the aurora of Earth. But help me make the leap - what does that have to do with a cosmological model?

One of the claims of EU is that stars don't undergo nuclear fusion. Do you believe that? The nuclear fusion models do very well predicting the chemicals found in stars, do very well explaining nuclear fusion weapons. What gap in the model is EU filling by replacing nuclear fusion with galactic discharge currents? Is that what powered our nuclear weapons?

You keep pointing to examples, but aren't explaining WHY we should look at those examples. The aurora are pretty. Birkeland currents play a role. What does that have to do with the precession of the perihelion of Mercury? Gravitational lensing? Both predicted by Einstein's postulates (which EU says are false) and the current cosmological model.

The idea that they laughed at continental drift has NO bearing on EU. For sure, Wegener's prediction of continental drift was dismissed. But he wasn't a geologist, he didn't have a mechanism for the drift, and he predicted a drift of 2.5 meters/year. It wasn't until Holmes' statements in the 1950s (only 20 years after Wegener's death, not 50) that a model and measurements of the drift that the model gained acceptance. Data gave way to acceptance.

Perhaps EU will get accepted, but you haven't shared any data, predictions from the model that encourage acceptance. Without such, like any good scientist, I remain very skeptical.

Ever heard of Burkland current? Look at the Aurora , the on Jupiter,Saturn, Earth. The Sun's magnetic Field. I could give you examples till the cows come home. Plate tectonic plates were a psueso science 50 yrs ago.

Until it is science is is psuedo science. There is no "well one day we will learn xxx and then xxx will be science", there is no "almost science." In this case though, there is actually existing scientific thoery that says Electric Universe theory is bullshit. So it is worse, in that it rejects actual scientific evidence.

Hey! Ball lightning may be a good place for EU to show itself. This a phenomena that has been well documented, but not well understood. No one has been able to recreate it in the lab yet. If EU theory can generate ball lightning, physicists will notice. EU can’t seem to produce anything yet to make us take it serious. If EU is to develop it needs to do some thing that standard, relativistic and quantum models cannot.

Do yourself a favour, make this thread the last you hear of it lol

Wal Thournhill is a physicist. Not one of you have given any critical thought to support your opinion.

The following has been sourced from RationalWiki.
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895–1979) was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas, seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his hypothesis of a violent rearranging of the Solar System as recently as a few thousand years ago, and that Earth had previously been a satellite of Saturn.
Velikovsky’s influence still looms large and has become an integral part of the current EU dogma. EU figureheads Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are staunch supporters of Velikovsky’s mythological-based fairy tales and often pay tribute to the enormous influence he has had on shaping their own far-fetched theories.[8]

Yah a physicist just made it up! How about electromagnetic theory and what has been really been researched in the last 60 years. Do you know where electricity comes from?

Notice that tectonic plates wasn't a sound theory for 50 yrs after the Capt death. So look at it longer, before you write it off

It doesn't even qualify as a theory.

Notice that we don't have a good idea about gravity. The electromagnetic force is a billion billion billion times greater than the gravitational force. Its hakon razor (spelling sucks).

@Bige13 It is nuclear force that is the strongest force in nature. Just one of those annoying facts that stand in the way of this silly theory.

@Bige13 Occam's razor. And it applies here, but not in the way you think since electro magnetism is not a simple explanation for the universe, just an easy one to say.

No really.

Look here: [rationalwiki.org]

Some of the claims (from the link):

• Einstein's postulates are wrong.
• General relativity (GR) is wrong.
• The Universe is not expanding.
• The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.
• Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.
• A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.
• Planets give birth to comets.
• Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
• Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.
• The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.
• The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged — the two systems forming a giant capacitor.

@RPardoe Thanks

@RPardoe what happens when the giant capacitor discharges, does Jesus come back?

@Rufus_Maximus It seems like a pretty flakey theory. I will stick with Einstein for now.

@Rufus_Maximus Beats me - yet to see any convincing evidence of either.

There is a lot that I’d like to challenge on that list of EU assertions. Is anyone on this thread educated enough on EU to defend these statements? No point in asking questions if there is no one around who can answer them. So far as I know... there is only one actual physicist participating in this conversation, and he’s not supporting EU. Now you don’t need a degree or anything, but you do need a background of study, personal or otherwise... if you are a proponent of EU, how well do you understand Standard, Quantum and Relativistic models? If you aren’t educated in why we use those models in the first place, it’s hard to take defense of EU seriously.