Electric Universe Theory

NASA’s Webb Delivers Deepest Infrared Image of Universe Yet...

Could the Aether be refracting the light?

Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, and STScI

• The Electric Universe (EU) concept proposes that electricity, not gravity, is the dominant force shaping cosmic structures and phenomena throughout the universe.
• Plasma, the fourth state of matter making up over 99% of the visible universe, plays a central role in Electric Universe theory as a conductor of cosmic electrical currents.
• While mainstream astronomy relies on gravity-based models involving dark matter and black holes, the Electric Universe theory offers alternative explanations based on electromagnetic forces.
• Constellation Research, a leading authority in alternative cosmology studies, has been analyzing plasma formations in deep space that challenge conventional astrophysical models.
• Understanding both mainstream and alternative cosmological theories provides a more complete picture of ongoing scientific debates about the fundamental nature of our universe.

If you feel that the official explanations for cosmic phenomena leave too many questions unanswered, you are not alone.

The stars you see twinkling in the night sky might not be what you think they are. According to proponents of the Electric Universe concept, those distant suns aren’t primarily nuclear fusion reactors held together by gravity, but rather electric nodes in a vast cosmic circuit. This controversial perspective challenges nearly everything we think we know about astronomy and physics, proposing that electromagnetic forces—not gravity—are the primary shapers of our universe. In the past, Constellation Research has been at the forefront of analyzing these alternative cosmological frameworks, providing valuable insights into how electricity might influence cosmic structures.

Whether you’re an astronomy enthusiast or simply curious about alternative scientific theories, understanding the Electric Universe concept offers a fascinating glimpse into how differently we might interpret the cosmos. While mainstream science has largely dismissed these ideas, the questions they raise about conventional wisdom continue to provoke thought and inspire debate among scientists and laypeople alike.

Cosmic Insights At-A-Glance

The Electric Universe theory represents a fundamental reimagining of cosmic forces. Instead of gravity being the dominant player in universal mechanics, it positions electricity and plasma interactions as the primary forces that shape galaxies, stars, and planetary systems. This perspective doesn’t just tweak existing models—it proposes an entirely different framework for understanding cosmic phenomena, from solar flares to galactic formation.

What Is The Electric Universe Theory?

At its core, the Electric Universe theory suggests that electricity, not gravity, is the dominant force shaping cosmic structures and celestial events. Unlike the standard model of cosmology, which treats space as essentially electrically neutral, this alternative view sees the universe as an interconnected network of electrical currents flowing through plasma—the most abundant state of matter in the visible universe. These electrical forces are proposed to be billions of times stronger than gravity and, therefore, capable of explaining cosmic phenomena without requiring concepts like dark matter or dark energy.

The theory emerged as a comprehensive alternative to gravity-centered models that have dominated astronomy since Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Its proponents argue that many celestial observations can be better explained through electromagnetic principles than through conventional gravitational models. They point to various patterns in space that resemble plasma behaviors observed in laboratories, suggesting that what we observe in distant galaxies may be scaled-up versions of processes we can recreate here on Earth.

Electric Universe theorists propose that cosmic bodies are not electrically neutral but carry significant charge differentials. This creates electric fields and currents that flow through the conductive medium of space plasma, forming vast circuits throughout the universe. According to this model, stars are not powered by internal nuclear fusion but are more like cosmic lightbulbs—points where cosmic electrical currents concentrate and discharge visibly. Planets, moons, and other bodies are seen as components in these circuits, with their behaviors and characteristics determined by their electrical relationships rather than just their masses.

This electrical perspective extends to explaining phenomena like comet tails (described as electrical discharge rather than sublimating ice), planetary surface features (attributed to electric scarring rather than impacts or geological processes), and even galaxy formation (viewed as plasma filaments organizing matter rather than gravitational collapse). The model suggests that what astronomers observe as cosmic filaments connecting galaxy clusters are actually enormous Birkeland currents—rivers of charged particles flowing through space, creating magnetic fields that then organize matter into the structures we observe.

Origin Story: From Tesla to Modern Proponents

The intellectual roots of the Electric Universe theory can be traced back to pioneering electrical engineers and physicists like Nikola Tesla, who speculated about the electrical nature of cosmic phenomena, and Kristian Birkeland, who discovered electrical currents flowing in Earth’s atmosphere. However, the modern theory took shape primarily in the works of Immanuel Velikovsky in the mid-20th century, who proposed catastrophic electrical interactions between planets in his controversial book “Worlds in Collision.” While Velikovsky’s specific historical claims have been rejected by mainstream science, his emphasis on cosmic electricity influenced later thinkers.

Contemporary development of the Electric Universe theory has been led by researchers like Wallace Thornhill, David Talbott, and Anthony Peratt, who have worked since the 1970s to develop a comprehensive electrical model of cosmology. Thornhill, with a background in physics and electronics, has been particularly influential in formulating technical aspects of the theory. These modern proponents have established organizations like The Thunderbolts Project to promote their ideas through books, documentaries, and annual conferences that bring together supporters from around the world.

Unlike many alternative scientific theories, the Electric Universe concept has attracted followers with legitimate scientific credentials, particularly from the fields of electrical engineering and plasma physics. This has allowed the movement to produce technical papers and experimental work, though most of this research remains outside mainstream scientific journals. Their approach often involves reinterpreting astronomical observations through an electrical lens, looking for patterns that match laboratory plasma behaviors.

How Mainstream Cosmology Differs From Electric Universe

Conventional cosmology builds upon Einstein’s general relativity, viewing gravity as the dominant force organizing cosmic structure. In this framework, stars form through the gravitational collapse of gas clouds, their cores becoming hot and dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Galaxies take shape as gravity pulls matter together, while their spiral structures and rotational characteristics are explained through combinations of gravity, angular momentum, and density wave theories. The expansion of the universe itself is attributed to the aftermath of the Big Bang, with dark energy proposed to explain its acceleration.

The Electric Universe model rejects or significantly reinterprets these foundations. It challenges the Big Bang theory, questions the nuclear fusion model of stars, and disputes the very existence of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy—viewing these as mathematical constructs invented to make gravity-based models work despite observational discrepancies. Instead, it proposes that electromagnetic forces organize cosmic structures, with gravity playing a secondary role. This fundamental difference in identifying the primary cosmic force creates two entirely different universes in theoretical terms.

Gravity vs. Electricity: The Fundamental Force Debate

The clash between mainstream cosmology and Electric Universe theory fundamentally revolves around which force dominates cosmic interactions. Standard models recognize four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. While mainstream science acknowledges that electromagnetism is vastly stronger than gravity (by a factor of approximately 10³⁹), it maintains that at cosmic scales, gravity becomes dominant because positive and negative charges tend to balance out, neutralizing electromagnetic effects over large distances.

Electric Universe proponents challenge this assumption directly. They argue that perfect charge neutrality across cosmic distances is an unproven assumption, and even small charge imbalances could produce electromagnetic effects that dwarf gravitational ones. They point to plasma’s ability to separate charges and maintain electric fields across vast regions of space. This debate isn’t merely academic—it shapes how scientists interpret virtually every observation made by our telescopes and space probes.

When confronted with the mathematical models supporting gravitational cosmology, Electric Universe advocates often counter that these models rely on too many unobservable entities (dark matter, dark energy, singularities) and arbitrary constants that can be adjusted to fit observations. They prefer explanations based on electromagnetic phenomena that can be directly observed and reproduced in laboratories. This epistemological difference—valuing observable, reproducible phenomena over mathematical consistency—represents perhaps the deepest philosophical divide between the two approaches.

Black Holes, Dark Matter, and Other Points of Contention

Some of the sharpest disagreements between conventional and Electric Universe cosmologies center on entities that mainstream astronomy considers fundamental but that EU theorists reject entirely. Black holes, which mainstream science views as confirmed by multiple lines of evidence, including the 2019 Event Horizon Telescope image, are interpreted by EU proponents as plasma phenomena—specifically, high-energy plasmoids where cosmic Birkeland currents intersect. What conventional astronomers see as the gravitational effects of supermassive black holes at galactic centers, EU theorists interpret as electromagnetic focal points.

First image of a Black Hole?

Credit: EHT Collaboration

Dark matter, proposed to explain galaxy rotation curves that don’t match predictions based on visible matter, is similarly rejected by Electric Universe advocates. They suggest that these rotation anomalies can be explained by galactic-scale electrical currents creating additional electromagnetic forces that affect rotation speeds. Similarly, dark energy—hypothesized to explain cosmic acceleration—is considered unnecessary in an electrically dynamic universe where plasma interactions could produce the observed expansion patterns.

These alternative interpretations highlight how completely the Electric Universe reimagines cosmic structures. While mainstream science sees a universe primarily shaped by gravity acting on neutral matter, with electromagnetic effects important mainly at smaller scales, EU theory envisions electricity as the organizing force at all scales, with gravity as a secondary effect whose importance has been overstated to compensate for missing electrical components in standard models.

The Electric Universe theory rests upon several foundational concepts that provide its explanatory framework. Understanding these key principles helps illuminate how EU proponents interpret cosmic observations so differently from mainstream astronomers. These concepts draw heavily from plasma physics, electrical engineering, and laboratory experiments rather than relativistic physics and computer modeling preferred by conventional cosmology.

Plasma: The Fourth State of Matter

Central to Electric Universe theory is plasma, often called the fourth state of matter. Unlike solid, liquid, or gas, plasma consists of charged particles—ions and electrons—that have separated, creating a substance that responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. While mainstream science acknowledges that over 99% of visible matter in the universe exists as plasma, EU theory places even greater emphasis on its importance, viewing plasma not just as a state of matter but as the primary conductor for cosmic electrical currents.

Plasma behaves in complex, often non-linear ways. It can self-organize into filaments, sheaths, and cells; conduct electric currents across vast distances; and form double layers (regions with separated charges) that can accelerate particles and store enormous amounts of energy. Electric Universe proponents note that these behaviors—readily observable in laboratory plasma experiments—appear strikingly similar to structures seen in deep space, from the filamentary networks connecting galaxy clusters to the jets emerging from active galactic nuclei.

Perhaps most importantly, plasma’s ability to conduct electricity means that regions of space aren’t electrically isolated from each other in the EU model. Energy and information can travel electromagnetically across cosmic distances, creating connections between seemingly separate systems. This interconnectedness forms the basis for interpreting many cosmic phenomena as parts of vast electrical circuits rather than as isolated gravitational systems.

Birkeland Currents: Cosmic Power Lines

Named after Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland, who discovered electrical currents flowing in Earth’s atmosphere in the early 20th century, Birkeland currents are filamentary structures that carry electric currents along magnetic field lines. In the Electric Universe theory, these currents serve as cosmic power lines, transporting energy across vast distances and organizing matter into the filamentary structures observed throughout space. When these currents interact with plasma, they create magnetic fields that can further confine and direct the plasma, resulting in self-organizing systems.

While conventional astronomy acknowledges the existence of Birkeland currents in certain contexts (particularly in planetary magnetospheres), EU theory extends their significance to galactic and intergalactic scales. What mainstream astronomers might identify as gravitationally-formed filaments of galaxies, EU proponents interpret as massive Birkeland current systems spanning millions of light-years. These currents, they suggest, not only transport energy but also help shape the distribution of matter, explaining cosmic structures without requiring dark matter.

The behavior of Birkeland currents has been studied extensively in laboratory plasma physics, where they demonstrate complex, self-organizing properties. They tend to form pairs or multiples that rotate around each other, creating helical structures similar to those observed in some cosmic jets. They can also pinch and compress plasma, potentially explaining the formation of stars and galaxies through mechanisms entirely different from gravitational collapse.

Z-Pinch Effect: Star Formation Alternative

The Z-pinch effect represents one of the Electric Universe theory’s most direct challenges to conventional star formation models. In standard astronomy, stars form when gas clouds collapse under their gravity until temperatures and pressures in their cores become sufficient to ignite nuclear fusion. The EU model proposes instead that stars form through a plasma phenomenon known as the Z-pinch or Bennett pinch—a well-documented effect where parallel electric currents create magnetic fields that compress or “pinch” the plasma carrying the current.

In laboratory settings, Z-pinches are used in fusion research and can create extremely high energy densities. Electric Universe proponents suggest that cosmic-scale Z-pinches in Birkeland currents could compress plasma sufficiently to create stars, with their brightness determined by the strength of the electrical current flowing through them rather than by internal nuclear reactions. This model proposes that stars are essentially electromagnetic phenomena—more like spherical plasma discharges than gravitationally-contained fusion reactors.

This alternative star formation mechanism eliminates many of the problems conventional models face, such as explaining how angular momentum is shed during gravitational collapse or how the first stars formed without heavy elements to facilitate cooling. It also suggests that stars may form much more quickly than the millions of years required in gravitational models, potentially explaining the observation of apparently young stars in regions where conventional models suggest star formation should have ceased long ago.

The Electric Universe theory proposes a radically different model for how our sun functions. Rather than a self-contained nuclear fusion reactor powered by gravity crushing hydrogen atoms together in its core, EU theorists suggest the sun is an anode in a vast cosmic electrical circuit. According to this model, the sun’s energy comes primarily from external electrical power flowing into it from the galaxy, not from internal fusion reactions. This external power causes the sun’s visible surface (photosphere) to act like a discharge phenomenon rather than the surface of a gaseous sphere.

This electrical model attempts to explain several solar mysteries that challenge conventional models. The coronal heating problem—why the sun’s outer atmosphere is millions of degrees hotter than its surface—becomes explainable as an electrical effect similar to the heating that occurs in electrical discharge regions. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections are interpreted as enormous electric discharges rather than magnetic reconnection events. Even sunspots are reinterpreted as areas where external cosmic electrical currents are flowing into the sun, appearing dark because they’re cooler than the surrounding electrically heated photosphere.

Critics point out that the Electric Sun model fails to explain the Sun’s observed neutrino emissions, which match predictions from nuclear fusion models. EU proponents counter that some nuclear reactions may still occur in the sun as a secondary effect of electrical processes, or that our understanding of neutrinos remains incomplete. This debate highlights how the Electric Universe theory often requires reinterpreting not just astronomical observations but also nuclear physics and particle physics.

Scientific Observations That Support Electric Universe Claims

While mainstream astronomy dismisses many Electric Universe concepts, EU proponents point to several observational phenomena they believe support their model. These observations are typically reinterpretations of data that conventional science explains through gravitational or nuclear processes. The EU community considers these observations compelling evidence for the electrical nature of cosmic phenomena, while mainstream scientists generally find the conventional explanations more comprehensive and consistent with established physics.

Filamentary Structures Throughout Space

Perhaps the most visually striking evidence cited by Electric Universe supporters is the prevalence of filamentary structures observed at all cosmic scales. From the auroras in Earth’s atmosphere to the jets emerging from active galaxies, from solar prominences to the vast filaments connecting galaxy clusters, the universe displays thread-like structures that resemble the filaments seen in laboratory plasma experiments. EU proponents argue these similarities aren’t coincidental but reflect a common underlying cause: electric currents flowing through plasma.

Conventional astronomers acknowledge these filamentary structures but attribute them to different mechanisms depending on scale—magnetic field lines in solar prominences, relativistic jets powered by black hole accretion disks in galaxies, and dark matter’s gravitational effects in cosmic filaments. EU theory proposes a unified explanation: these are all manifestations of Birkeland currents at different scales. The similarity between laboratory plasma discharges and cosmic structures forms one of the theory’s most visually compelling arguments.

While mainstream science emphasizes that scaling physical processes across many orders of magnitude introduces complications that prevent direct comparisons, EU proponents counter that plasma physics is remarkably scalable, with laboratory phenomena displaying the same patterns as cosmic observations despite the vast difference in size. This debate about scalability represents one of the key scientific disagreements between conventional and EU cosmologies.

Laboratory Plasma Experiments

Electric Universe proponents frequently cite laboratory plasma experiments that produce structures resembling cosmic phenomena. Perhaps the most famous are experiments conducted by physicist Anthony Peratt at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where electric discharges in plasma created double-armed spiral structures resembling galaxies. These experiments demonstrated that electrical forces alone, without gravity, could organize plasma into galaxy-like formations. Peratt’s work, published in peer-reviewed journals, has become a cornerstone of EU theory’s experimental foundation.

Other laboratory experiments have produced plasma phenomena that resemble solar features, planetary nebulae, and even the cellular structure of the universe at large scales. EU advocates argue these experiments provide a more direct scientific approach than computer simulations of gravitational models, as they demonstrate observable, reproducible phenomena rather than mathematical constructs. They suggest that if laboratory electrical discharges can create miniature versions of cosmic structures, similar electrical processes might be creating the actual structures we observe in space.

Mainstream scientists counter that while these experiments are valid physics, extrapolating from laboratory scales to cosmic scales requires accounting for many additional factors. They note that in space, the density of matter is vastly lower than in laboratory settings, changing how plasma behaves. Additionally, they argue that over large distances, electromagnetic effects would be diminished by the tendency of positive and negative charges to neutralize each other, allowing gravity’s weaker but cumulative effect to dominate at cosmic scales.

Solar Phenomena Through The Electric Lens

The Sun provides some of the most detailed observations available to astronomers, and EU theorists see strong evidence for their model in solar phenomena. They point to the granular structure of the photosphere, which they interpret as akin to anode tufting seen in certain electrical discharges. Solar flares and prominences are viewed not as magnetic reconnection events but as direct electrical discharges between regions of different potential, similar to lightning but on a solar scale.

The mysterious acceleration of the solar wind—which speeds up as it leaves the sun rather than slowing down as gravity would dictate—is cited as evidence of electrical acceleration. EU proponents suggest this acceleration occurs because the sun sits at a different electrical potential than surrounding space, creating an electric field that accelerates charged particles outward. Similarly, they interpret the sharply defined edge of the Sun’s photosphere as evidence of an electrical double layer rather than the gradual transition one would expect in a purely gaseous body.

“The Sun is electrically powered by its galactic environment. Positive charge flows inward along the spiral arms of the galaxy, where the sun is located, and is concentrated in the galactic center. The Sun, along with other stars, acts as a focus for galactic currents that power it externally rather than internally.” - Wallace Thornhill, Electric Universe theorist.

The Electric Universe theory, for all its provocative claims and devoted advocates, has yet to break through the walls of mainstream astrophysics. This isn’t entirely surprising. Science, for all its noble ideals, is still practiced by humans—humans with careers, mortgages, and reputations to protect. To embrace the EU model would mean questioning the bedrock of modern cosmology: general relativity, quantum mechanics, and a version of plasma physics that politely pretends large-scale electric currents don’t exist. That’s a tall order for any profession built on the momentum of consensus.

And then there’s the machinery of science itself. Research funding often flows to projects that reinforce established models, not ones that threaten to upend them. Academic publishing runs on a peer-review system that can act as both a quality filter and gatekeeper. Stepping too far outside accepted theory can risk rejection—both of the paper and the scientist. It’s not that astrophysicists can’t imagine the Universe differently. It’s that doing so comes with a price, and not everyone is willing to pay it. The Electric Constellations series of books touches on these finer points in particular volumes.

Mathematical Models and Predictive Power

A primary criticism of the Electric Universe theory is its relative lack of rigorous mathematical models that can make precise, testable predictions. While conventional cosmology is built on detailed mathematical frameworks derived from general relativity and quantum physics, EU theory tends to be more qualitative and descriptive. These mathematical limitations reduce the theory’s ability to make specific predictions about cosmic observations that could be tested to verify or falsify the model.

Mainstream scientists point out that conventional cosmological models successfully predict a wide range of observations, from the cosmic microwave background radiation’s detailed patterns to the abundances of light elements created in the early universe. These predictions often achieve remarkable precision, with observational results matching theoretical calculations to many decimal places. EU theory has not demonstrated comparable predictive success, which scientists consider a fundamental requirement for any theory seeking to replace established models.

Additionally, while EU proponents criticize conventional theories for introducing concepts like dark matter and dark energy, critics counter that these components were proposed precisely because they make testable predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observation. The EU alternatives, they argue, often explain observations in retrospect rather than predicting them in advance—a much weaker form of scientific evidence.

However, mathematics—a human construct—is not a science. It is a descriptive tool, capable of representing certain physical phenomena in numerical form. While useful, it remains a model, not reality itself. In modern science, far too much weight has been placed on mathematical descriptions to build predictive models. Such models may forecast events, but they can also mislead, drawing attention away from the need for direct observation, experimentation, and physical reasoning.

To mistake mathematical elegance for scientific truth is to risk abandoning the foundations of true science. Even Albert Einstein expressed doubt that his theories of relativity would withstand the test of time. By dismissing the concept of the aether, he overlooked a fundamental requirement: electromagnetic radiation, as a wave phenomenon, cannot propagate through empty space without a medium to support it.

Since Albert A. Michelson’s and Edward W. Morley’s famous interferometer experiment of 1887—designed to detect the Earth’s motion through the luminiferous aether—produced what was interpreted as a null result, mainstream physics gradually abandoned the classical concept of an aether and adopted Einstein’s relativity, in which light requires no medium to propagate.

However, some researchers outside the mainstream have argued that later, more sensitive experiments suggest the presence of a pervasive medium in space. Within the Electric Universe framework, this medium—sometimes still called “aether”—is theorized to consist of vast numbers of neutrinos permeating the cosmos, providing a substrate through which electromagnetic radiation can travel. While this interpretation is not accepted in conventional physics, it aligns with the EU view of an electrically active, structured Universe and offers a far more physical explanation for the apparent refraction seen in the latest Webb deep field image.

That is not warped space-time—a mathematical construct with no basis in physical reality. Since scientists still lack a definitive understanding of mass or energy, why cling to a model built on undefined terms? Is it really credible to believe that “nothing” can be bent? Or that gravity— the weakest of nature’s forces—sculpts the cosmos while ignoring the vastly stronger electromagnetic forces detected everywhere we look? Besides, gravity is a purely electrical phenomenon, like magnetism. These are not idle questions; they go to the heart of whether we’re studying the Universe or worshipping our equations.

If you are content to let mathematics dictate reality, you will keep seeing bent nothingness and believing in an origin story written by committees. But if you still have the curiosity of a true scientist, you will question the consensus, follow the evidence, and dare to look beyond the mathematical mirage. The Electric Universe theory is not an alternative for the sake of it—it is a return to physics grounded in observation, experiment, and common sense. Like Galileo, those who speak up now may face ridicule, but in time, the sky itself will prove them right.

Observable Evidence Contradictions

Mainstream scientists note that several key Electric Universe claims appear to contradict well-established observations. For instance, the EU model of stars as electrically powered objects rather than fusion reactors struggles to explain the specific neutrino emissions observed from our Sun, which align almost perfectly with nuclear fusion predictions. Likewise, it challenges the conventional interpretation of the cosmic microwave background radiation, often cited as irrefutable proof of the Big Bang—a concept the EU model dismisses outright. Yet the work of Halton Arp, rightly described by many as a modern-day Galileo, revealed that numerous high-redshift quasars lie in front of their low-redshift parent galaxies. 

If correct, this finding fatally undermines the very foundation of the Big Bang, reducing it to little more than a convenient modern myth propped up by entrenched dogma.

Observations of cosmic magnetic fields also present challenges for the theory. While EU proponents argue that these magnetic fields provide evidence of large-scale electric currents, mainstream scientists point out that the observed field configurations often don’t match what would be expected from the kinds of currents proposed in EU models. Furthermore, detailed mapping of cosmic ray distributions, matter densities, and radiation at different wavelengths has repeatedly confirmed predictions of conventional models in ways that EU theory struggles to explain coherently.

Perhaps most significantly, measurements of charge distributions in space suggest that at large scales, the universe is remarkably electrically neutral—a finding that undermines the EU claim that electrical forces dominate gravity at cosmic scales. While small-scale charge separations certainly occur in space plasmas, observations haven’t revealed the large-scale charge imbalances that would be necessary for electrical forces to organize galaxies and larger structures as EU theory proposes.

Scale Problems: Laboratory vs. Cosmic Environments

Another major criticism involves the vast difference between laboratory plasma experiments and cosmic environments. While EU proponents point to similarities between laboratory plasma formations and cosmic structures, critics emphasize that space plasmas typically have densities billions of times lower than laboratory plasmas, significantly changing their behavior. At these extremely low densities, collisions between particles become exceptionally rare, creating conditions where conventional plasma scaling laws may not apply.

Mainstream scientists also note that cosmic scales introduce factors that laboratory experiments can’t replicate. Over millions or billions of light-years, even extremely small gravitational effects accumulate significantly, while electromagnetic effects tend to be neutralized by the mobility of charged particles that can quickly move to cancel charge imbalances. This fundamental difference in how forces scale with distance is cited as a reason why gravity, though much weaker than electromagnetism, can dominate at cosmic scales despite being negligible in laboratory settings.

However, EU theory challenges this view by asserting that the electric force—measured to be approximately 10³⁹ times stronger than gravity—is the fundamental driver behind all natural forces. In this framework, the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, magnetism, and even gravity itself are regarded as different manifestations of a primary, universal electric force. A moving electric current, by its very nature, produces a perpendicular magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field induces an electric current—a principle taught in basic physics. Yet, many astrophysicists appear to overlook this when claiming that magnetic fields observed in space exist without any connection to underlying electric currents.

Time scales present another challenge. Laboratory experiments occur over seconds or minutes, while cosmic processes unfold over millions or billions of years. This temporal scaling issue means that slow processes, negligible in labs, might become dominant in space, while rapid electrical processes that appear significant in laboratories might be transient phenomena in cosmic contexts. Critics argue that EU theory often fails to adequately account for these profound differences in scale when extrapolating from laboratory to cosmos.

While mainstream astronomy rejects many Electric Universe claims, it does recognize the significant role electromagnetic forces play in many cosmic phenomena. Understanding where conventional science acknowledges electrical and magnetic processes helps clarify the actual scientific consensus about cosmic electricity versus the more extensive claims of EU theory. This distinction is important because EU proponents sometimes present mainstream acknowledgment of specific electromagnetic phenomena as validation of their broader theoretical framework.

Verified Electric Phenomena in Space

Conventional astronomy recognizes numerous electrical and plasma phenomena throughout the cosmos. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and the solar wind are understood as electromagnetic phenomena, though explained through magnetic reconnection and magnetohydrodynamics rather than the direct electrical discharge model proposed by EU theory. Planetary magnetospheres—the regions around planets where their magnetic fields dominate—contain complex electrical currents, including actual Birkeland currents that connect planets to their stars.

Plasma physics plays a crucial role in understanding many cosmic objects. Accretion disks around black holes and neutron stars involve magnetorotational instabilities and complex plasma dynamics. Pulsars—rapidly rotating neutron stars—generate enormous electromagnetic fields that accelerate particles to near-light speeds. Cosmic rays, high-energy particles that travel through space, are accelerated by electromagnetic processes in supernova remnants and active galactic nuclei. All these phenomena demonstrate that mainstream astronomy fully incorporates electromagnetic forces, where observations indicate they dominate.

Even at larger scales, conventional cosmology acknowledges the importance of magnetic fields in galaxy formation and evolution. Radio astronomy has revealed vast magnetized structures spanning thousands of light-years, and the role of magnetic fields in star formation is an active area of research. These scientific investigations of cosmic electromagnetic phenomena proceed based on standard physics principles without requiring the more radical reinterpretations of fundamental forces proposed by Electric Universe theory.

Where Mainstream Science Acknowledges Electromagnetic Forces

Mainstream astrophysics recognizes that electromagnetic forces dominate many specific cosmic contexts. In stellar atmospheres, magnetic fields control the movement of plasma, creating spectacular phenomena like prominences, flares, and coronal holes. In interstellar space, magnetic fields influence the formation of stars by providing pressure support against gravitational collapse and helping to remove angular momentum during star formation. Supernova remnants evolve through complex interactions between expanding plasma and interstellar magnetic fields, creating the filamentary structures observed in objects like the Veil and Nebulas.

At galactic scales, conventional astronomy acknowledges that magnetic fields play important roles in spiral arm formation, gas dynamics, and cosmic ray confinement. Radio observations have revealed magnetized filaments near galactic centers and vast “radio lobes” extending from active galaxies, both explained through standard electromagnetic theory. Even some aspects of galaxy evolution involve magnetic processes, with galactic magnetic fields influencing star formation rates and the movement of gas between stars.

The key difference between mainstream acknowledgment of these electromagnetic phenomena and Electric Universe claims lies in relative importance and fundamental causation. Conventional science sees these as specific processes occurring within a universe where gravity determines the largest structures, while EU theory proposes electricity as the primary organizing force at all scales. This distinction helps explain why scientists can study cosmic electrical phenomena extensively without accepting the broader EU theoretical framework.

NASA missions have made numerous discoveries that involve cosmic electrical phenomena, though these findings are interpreted within conventional physical frameworks rather than supporting the comprehensive alternative cosmology proposed by EU theory. The Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS) has studied magnetic reconnection—a process where magnetic field lines break and reconnect, releasing energy—in Earth’s magnetosphere, providing insights into similar processes that power solar flares and other cosmic energy releases. In EU theory, magnetic reconnection is a myth. Electromagnetism does not obey human-made virtual magnetic field lines.

The Parker Solar Probe is making the closest-ever observations of the Sun, revealing new details about the solar wind’s acceleration and the electromagnetic processes in the Sun’s outer atmosphere. These observations are helping scientists refine models of solar electromagnetic activity, though within the framework of a fusion-powered sun rather than the electrically powered model proposed by the EU theory. Similarly, the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) has mapped the boundary where the Sun’s magnetic influence meets the interstellar medium, revealing a complex electromagnetic frontier. Think of double layers (DLs).

Even studies of distant objects have revealed electromagnetic phenomena within conventional frameworks. NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory has observed powerful jets of charged particles streaming from the regions around black holes, explained as particles accelerated by intense magnetic fields generated by accretion disks rather than as evidence against black holes’ existence, as EU theory suggests. These discoveries highlight how mainstream science fully incorporates electromagnetic processes while maintaining fundamentally different interpretations of their cosmic significance compared to Electric Universe theory.

Despite limited acceptance in mainstream scientific circles, research related to Electric Universe concepts continues through both independent researchers and some academic channels. The future of this research likely involves both continued development of alternative interpretations and the potential for certain EU insights to influence mainstream thinking in specific areas. Like many alternative scientific frameworks, EU theory may evolve in ways that bring some aspects closer to conventional understanding while maintaining its distinct perspective on cosmic phenomena. The Safire Project is greatly assisting in this.

Independent UK publisher VGS Publishing is releasing Electric Constellations—a 22-volume series available on Amazon that examines all 88 constellations of the night sky through the lens of the Electric Universe perspective. See electricconstellations.com.

Each volume explores four constellations in alphabetical order, offering detailed coverage of every Bayer-designated star and notable deep-sky object within their boundaries. Observational guidance is provided for astronomers equipped with suitable backyard instruments, while the narrative unapologetically challenges the prevailing gravity-centric paradigm. With its EU-focused approach, the series seeks to provoke informed debate among astronomers rather than encourage passive acceptance of mainstream dogma.

Book One covers the constellations of Andromeda – the Chained Maiden, Antlia – the Air Pump, Apus – the Bird of Paradise, and Aquarius – the Water Carrier.

Book Two covers the constellations of Aquila – the Eagle, Ara – the Altar, Aries – the Ram, and Auriga – the Charioteer.

Potential Areas for Scientific Investigation

Some aspects of Electric Universe theory suggest potentially fruitful areas for scientific investigation, even if the comprehensive theoretical framework remains outside mainstream acceptance. Laboratory plasma physics experiments investigating the scaling properties of plasma formations could help clarify which plasma phenomena might plausibly operate at cosmic scales despite the vastly different conditions. These experiments might focus on extremely low-density plasmas that more closely approximate space conditions, potentially revealing new insights about cosmic plasma behavior.

Another promising research direction involves better characterization of cosmic magnetic fields and their sources. While EU theory and mainstream models differ on the interpretation of these fields, both recognize their importance. Advanced radio telescopes and future space missions designed to map cosmic magnetism will obviously provide data valuable to both conventional and especially EU researchers. Similarly, more detailed observations of filamentary structures at different cosmic scales will help distinguish between gravitational (a superweak electric dipolar phenomenon) and electromagnetic formation mechanisms, such as cosmic Birkeland currents.

Computational modeling represents another potential growth area. As computing power increases, more sophisticated simulations of plasma behavior across multiple scales become possible. These simulations could test specific EU claims about how plasma processes might manifest at cosmic scales under space-like conditions. Such models would need to incorporate the full complexity of both plasma physics and electrical interactions to provide meaningful tests of competing theories. Remember, in mathematical modelling, junk in equals junk out.

The Value of Alternative Theories in Science

Even if the Electric Universe theory never gains mainstream acceptance, it serves valuable functions within the broader scientific ecosystem. Alternative theories challenge established paradigms, sometimes identifying genuine weaknesses or overlooked phenomena that can lead to refinements in conventional models. The history of science includes numerous examples of initially rejected ideas that eventually contributed important insights, even if their original formulations were incorrect or incomplete.

The EU community’s emphasis on laboratory experimentation and direct observation provides a useful counterbalance to the increasing reliance on mathematical models and computer simulations in theoretical physics and cosmology. This methodological tension can be productive, pushing mainstream researchers to more rigorously connect abstract theories to observable phenomena. Similarly, EU theory’s focus on electromagnetic processes has helped maintain interest in cosmic plasma phenomena that might otherwise receive less attention.

Perhaps most importantly, alternative theories like the EU demonstrate that science remains an open, evolving conversation rather than a fixed body of knowledge. While the scientific method provides our best approach to understanding reality, all scientific models remain provisional—subject to revision or replacement as new evidence emerges, especially now that we have the James Webb Space Telescope, with its infrared-sensitive eyes. This ongoing conversation between competing models, evaluated through observation and experiment, embodies the self-correcting nature of science that has driven progress in our understanding of the universe. EU theory continues to explore the boundaries between established and alternative cosmological models, contributing valuable perspectives to our collective understanding of the cosmos.

The Electric Universe theory generates numerous questions from both curious newcomers and skeptical conventional scientists. These frequently asked questions address some of the most common inquiries about the theory’s claims, evidence, and relationship to mainstream science. Understanding these points helps clarify both the appeal of EU theory to its proponents and the reasons for its limited acceptance in the broader scientific community.

Who are the main scientists behind the Electric Universe theory?

The modern Electric Universe theory has been developed primarily by Wallace Thornhill, an Australian physicist and author who has been its most prominent advocate since the 1970s. David Talbott, an author and comparative mythologist, has collaborated extensively with Thornhill, particularly on connecting ancient myths to astronomical phenomena through an electrical interpretation. Anthony Peratt, a plasma physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, conducted laboratory plasma experiments that EU proponents cite as evidence for electrical galaxy formation, though Peratt himself has maintained connections to conventional plasma physics as well as EU theory.

Does the Electric Universe theory completely reject gravity?

The Electric Universe theory does not reject gravity’s existence but radically reinterprets its importance and nature. EU proponents acknowledge that gravity exists as an uber-weak electrical dipolar force, but argue that it has been incorrectly identified as the dominant force organizing cosmic structures. They suggest that in most cosmic contexts, electromagnetic forces overwhelm gravitational effects by tens of orders of magnitude because gravity is a tiny, tiny, tiny dipolar effect of the electric force, where positive and negative charges practically balance out, like in the Solar System, and elsewhere in the Universe.

What experiments have been done to test Electric Universe claims?

Laboratory plasma experiments form the primary experimental basis for Electric Universe claims. Most notably, Anthony Peratt’s experiments at Los Alamos demonstrated that electrical discharges in plasma could create spiral structures resembling galaxies. Various other laboratory demonstrations have shown how electrical discharges can create filaments, cells, and other structures that resemble cosmic formations. These experiments demonstrate that electrical processes can create certain patterns, though mainstream scientists question whether these laboratory conditions can be meaningfully extrapolated to cosmic scales.

Beyond laboratory work, EU proponents often cite space probe measurements as experimental evidence, particularly data showing electric currents in planetary magnetospheres and the detection of galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields. However, these observations are generally interpreted differently by mainstream scientists, who acknowledge the electromagnetic phenomena but explain them within conventional theoretical frameworks rather than as evidence for a fundamentally electrical universe. That is typical, harmful, covering up, and thoroughly unscientific. Scientists must NOT twist observational interpretations to fit their pet hypotheses. That is NOT science. Always be broad-minded, not mind-controlled by the narratives spewing out of taxpayer-funded space agencies.

A significant limitation in testing EU theory has been the difficulty in formulating its claims in ways that make specific, quantitative predictions that differ from conventional models. Without such distinctive predictions, observations that match both models cannot decisively support one over the other. This remains an area where EU theory would need to develop further to meet conventional scientific standards for experimental testing.

How does the Electric Universe theory explain galaxy formation?

Electricity at work: Spiral, elliptical, lenticular, and irregular galaxies

According to the Electric Universe theory, galaxies form primarily through electromagnetic processes rather than gravitational collapse. The model suggests that vast cosmic Birkeland currents flowing through space create magnetic fields that compress and organize plasma into the structures we observe as galaxies. This process is proposed to be similar to the Z-pinch effect observed in laboratory plasmas, where parallel electric currents create magnetic fields that compress the plasma carrying the current.

Can the Electric Universe theory be reconciled with mainstream physics?

Complete reconciliation between Electric Universe theory and mainstream physics would require fundamental revisions to either or both frameworks, as they differ on basic questions about which forces dominate cosmic phenomena. However, partial reconciliation might occur in specific areas where EU insights could complement conventional understanding. For instance, mainstream recognition of electromagnetic processes in certain cosmic contexts might incorporate some EU observations without accepting its comprehensive alternative cosmology.

The greatest potential for reconciliation likely lies in areas where EU theory focuses on plasma phenomena that are also acknowledged in conventional astrophysics, but perhaps given different emphasis or interpretation. As plasma physics continues to develop and space observations provide more detailed data about cosmic electromagnetic phenomena, some convergence of understanding might emerge, even if the broader theoretical frameworks remain distinct.

Because EU theory is absent from mainstream academia, access to it is largely limited to independent sources—such as the thunderbolts.info website, its YouTube channel and forum, the late Wallace Thornhill’s Holoscience site, and works by Professor Donald Scott, Wallace Thornhill, and David Talbott, available through Stickman-on-Stone. The Electric Constellations series aims to broaden awareness of this paradigm, bringing it to the attention of more astronomers and encouraging open debate. Whether this will spark a shift remains to be seen—but as long as gravity-centric dogma dominates funding and curricula, change will be slow. After all, it is notoriously difficult to teach entrenched minds a new perspective.