The Big Misconception About Electricity

You know that "Thunderbolts of the Gods", i.e. the "Electric Universe" is quackery? No recognized scientist thinks this is a suitable theory to explain the universe. There is 0 rigorous work to turn this hypothesis into a theory. I would go on a limb and expect that the authors and proponents don't have the mathematical chops to do the due diligence needed. These guys are nut jobs. I will use their own words ...

The evidence suggests that only a few thousand years ago planets moved close to the earth, producing electrical phenomena of intense beauty and terror. 

 

We contend that humans once saw planets suspended as huge spheres in the heavens. Immersed in the charged particles of a dense plasma, celestial bodies "spoke" electrically and plasma discharge produced heaven-spanning formations above the terrestrial witnesses. 

Copernic was a "nut" job for most scientist at his times, compared to the very precise modelling of what man SEE in the sky with Ptolemaic epicycles...

It is not so much the accuracy of his model that made him victorious but the changing times...

It  was the new epoch where modelling apparences like Prolemaic mechanic were no more enough , man look for a new way to look at the sky....A theoretical view... This era was looking for an  idea victorious OVER THE PERCEPTION itself...

I dont know for the electrical universe at all.... But who is the nut job you or his proponent against all others scientist ?

@apogeum ,

Even hard core physicist will tell you that field theory for electrical conduction is rarely consequential to the outcome, though we both use and experience it day in and day out in the form of transformers, RF, and EMI.  Contrary to what our friend @teo_audio states, engineers often use fairly complex model for inductance, electrical fields, etc. even to the point of doing finite element analysis for things like  transformers, antennas, sensors, electromechanical semiconductor elements, semiconductors period, etc.

When dealing with things in isolation, ohms law works just fine and is more than accurate enough for audio, and we do use that knowledge of fields, mainly to shield ourselves from the instances where they become an issue with the exception of transformers. All the semiconductors we use benefit heavily from our knowledge of fields and how they apply to electrical conduction and hence once could say that knowledge has greatly led to improved audio.

Unfortunately, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so when some grab onto this knowledge without fully understanding said knowledge, they come to erroneous conclusions, mainly from not understanding the magnitude of effects. Lot's of "interesting" things said about cables that a little analysis would show can't be remotely audible.

It is not unlike things with Covid. People latch onto things that match what they believe already, so they see a study that says 60% of infected people are vaccinated and they jump to or are easily led to the conclusion that vaccines don't work or worse cause more infections. They don't dive deep into the data that shows that 80% of the people are vaccinated, hence relative infection rates are 60/80 for vaccinated versus 40/20 for non vaccinated (using representative but not real numbers). The further don't delve into age related stats that skew that data even more towards vaccine effectiveness.

Old style incadesent bulbs will start glowing almost immediately even as the voltage is building once the switch is closed but LED bulbs will not light up below a certain voltage. I notice that when I flip a switch in a room now it takes a brief moment for the LED bulbs to turn on.

@tonywinga, there are LED bulbs that turn on at low voltage, certainly as low as any incandescent bulb ever will and quicker. The brief moment for the LED to turn on is because there is a power supply in the bulb (most bulbs), and you need time to charge up the capacitors for controllers, output capacitors, etc. just like any power supply.

@cindyment So you post their assertions without presenting any of the evidence that they cite for the claim. Very interesting....

Let me ask you one question..... Is this claim more or less preposterous that a description of a Black Hole, or a Neutron Star, or Dark Matter, or String Theory?

Black Hole: A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing — no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light — can escape from it. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole. The boundary of no escape is called the event horizon.

Neutron Star: Neutron Stars. When the core of a massive star undergoes gravitational collapse at the end of its life, protons and electrons are literally scrunched together, leaving behind one of nature’s most wondrous creations: a neutron star. Neutron stars cram roughly 1.3 to 2.5 solar masses into a city-sized sphere perhaps 20 kilometers

Dark Matter: Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect