RE: ELECTRIC UNIVERSE THEORY Well the universe does not limit itself to one aven

RE: ELECTRIC UNIVERSE THEORY
Well the universe does not limit itself to one avenue of expression of the influence of state. Instead it uses all of those it can construct by permutation and combination.

The fact that one of those expressions consists of electromagnetism, and that this force must cause a hydrodynamic result in the quantum background, is merely obvious and well understood.

The standing criticisms of the Electric Universe theory are:

1. Lacking a mathematical framework that can make testable predictions.
2. Insufficient explanation of numerous astronomical observations that are well-described by current mainstream models.
3. Claims are inconsistent with established laws of physics and contradict well-tested theories, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics.
4. So it lacks the scientific evidence and rigor to be considered a viable replacement for current mainstream models.

This does not mean that the electromagnetic forces, which we know certainly function in the production of the quantum background and it’s major Casimir and Van der Waals forces.

So you could claim the “Electro Matter” force is the only force and that exists, and that it’s all that’s necessary to explain all resulting forces.

At present this solution is highly likely to be very close to the answer – if the math plays out as well as it has already.

So, the problem with the electric universe theory is that it’s an overreach using a grain of causal truth but failing to produce the science to satisfy it’s claims, even if while not true, it contains enough partial truth to provide explanatory power.

The einstein bohr strategy was in fact as harmful as it was beneficial. And yes it created an impediment to future generations of physicists. But EU is likewise not a construction that survives criticism because it doesn’t provide evidence of causality. So like many theories it has in it a half truth (as did einstein’s). And yes it’s a more classical explanation closer to the truth than einstein’s. But it is not the answer.

I hope this helps you on your journey.

Affections
-CD

Reply addressees: @controscience