What do you think?
Rate this book
The Electric Sky
A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy. It is clear that electric plasma research affords simpler, more elegant, and more compelling insights and explanations of most cosmological phenomena than those that are now espoused in astrophysics. This book contains astronomical science for the expert written for the public.
256 pages, Perfect Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
88 people are currently reading
242 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
February 18, 2016
The Electric Sky is truly in the tradition of simplification in science, and modern cosmology is in desperate need of simplification. It is a field riddled with ad hoc entities and phenomena, all created to help mass and gravitation explain observations and, more importantly, calculations. Many of these ad hoc creations have become deeply embedded within modern scientific mythology, even standing as cultural icons and taking on layers of metaphorical meaning. These cosmological fictions include little things like black holes, curved space-time, dark energy and dark matter (there are 6 sub-categories of dark matter), string theory, inflation theory and many others. Oh, and the Big Bang. Here's just one example from the book:
The brilliant Princeton theoretical physicist John Wheeler came up with the idea of a black hole. He took a purely mathematical concept - a singularity - and he pointed to the sky and said "There!" It is akin to saying that there is a quadratic equation in the sky as well. Nevertheless, he was John Wheeler so rather than say "huh?," the response was to have others point and say they, too, see evidence of the singularity. These hypothetical objects are said to sit at the center of many galaxies. Why doesn't their massive gravitational field pull in the rest of the stars in their galaxy over billions of years? Well, they just don't, and it's complicated. Why do they not let out light, but eject jets of matter? Well, they just do, and it's complicated.
Black holes aren't needed. They fill a void - one of dozens - left by a gravitation-based model of cosmology. But why *not* gravity as the reigning force in the universe?
Suppose you walk into a room to find holes punched into the walls, furniture overturned and appliances smashed. Also seen in the room is an infant and a very big and angry-looking thug. Which would you be inclined to think did the damage? Now consider this: the electrostatic repulsive force between two protons is *36 orders of magnitude* stronger than the gravitational attractive force between them. The electrical force completely overwhelms the gravitational force, to the extent that gravitation need not even be considered when talking about the forces between protons.
Our universe is teeming with electrical charge and magnetic fields. The magnitude of forces in play between these charges dwarfs gravitational interactions. This charge is in constant motion, which generates yet more magnetic fields, which generate more charge. And the amount of force these charges produce make gravity a trivial side-note. Galaxies are shaped by electrostatic charges, clusters of galaxies by the same, and even our sun itself is lit up and powered by in-flowing charge and *not* by gravity-driven nuclear fusion in its core. Dr. Scott explains it all, eloquently. Scott shows how the charge-based model both predicts and experimentally confirms observations, while dozens of theoretical tweaks have been heaped upon the gravitational model to get theory and observation to approximate each other.
So why haven't cosmologists embraced charge as the more likely culprit behind the shape and shake of the observable universe? Charge, after all, can explain observations with an elegance lost to a gravitational model of cosmic motions and explosions. Here we return to the politics of science, to the inertia of ideas staying what they are because that's what they have been. The mathematics of gravitation, steeped in Einstein's relativity equations, is the domain of cosmologists. The mathematics of these cosmic rivers of moving charge - called plasma - is the domain of electrical engineers. And perhaps never the twain shall meet.
The field of cosmology keeps its ad hoc creations like dark matter and black holes in part because the alternative is to abandon a reigning explanatory model, one that has buoyed tens of thousands of careers and not a few Nobel prizes. Even cosmology now has is media stars, with mainstream books explaining that these completely counter-intuitive creatures like dark matter, black holes and cosmic inflation, are just how things are in those far away places. The gravitational model would have us believe that the distant realms of the cosmos possess strange characteristics only understood through the math of relativity. The plasma model does away with mystique almost entirely, and hands us an explanation of cosmic structure and dynamics that is common sense.
Donald Scott has done a brilliant job of making this complex topic accessible to an interested outsider. He shows where the reigning model has many explanatory weaknesses (or, often, outright failures), and then explains how the plasma model fits both predictions and observations, often with striking precision. If only the larger community of cosmologists were taking notes.
The brilliant Princeton theoretical physicist John Wheeler came up with the idea of a black hole. He took a purely mathematical concept - a singularity - and he pointed to the sky and said "There!" It is akin to saying that there is a quadratic equation in the sky as well. Nevertheless, he was John Wheeler so rather than say "huh?," the response was to have others point and say they, too, see evidence of the singularity. These hypothetical objects are said to sit at the center of many galaxies. Why doesn't their massive gravitational field pull in the rest of the stars in their galaxy over billions of years? Well, they just don't, and it's complicated. Why do they not let out light, but eject jets of matter? Well, they just do, and it's complicated.
Black holes aren't needed. They fill a void - one of dozens - left by a gravitation-based model of cosmology. But why *not* gravity as the reigning force in the universe?
Suppose you walk into a room to find holes punched into the walls, furniture overturned and appliances smashed. Also seen in the room is an infant and a very big and angry-looking thug. Which would you be inclined to think did the damage? Now consider this: the electrostatic repulsive force between two protons is *36 orders of magnitude* stronger than the gravitational attractive force between them. The electrical force completely overwhelms the gravitational force, to the extent that gravitation need not even be considered when talking about the forces between protons.
Our universe is teeming with electrical charge and magnetic fields. The magnitude of forces in play between these charges dwarfs gravitational interactions. This charge is in constant motion, which generates yet more magnetic fields, which generate more charge. And the amount of force these charges produce make gravity a trivial side-note. Galaxies are shaped by electrostatic charges, clusters of galaxies by the same, and even our sun itself is lit up and powered by in-flowing charge and *not* by gravity-driven nuclear fusion in its core. Dr. Scott explains it all, eloquently. Scott shows how the charge-based model both predicts and experimentally confirms observations, while dozens of theoretical tweaks have been heaped upon the gravitational model to get theory and observation to approximate each other.
So why haven't cosmologists embraced charge as the more likely culprit behind the shape and shake of the observable universe? Charge, after all, can explain observations with an elegance lost to a gravitational model of cosmic motions and explosions. Here we return to the politics of science, to the inertia of ideas staying what they are because that's what they have been. The mathematics of gravitation, steeped in Einstein's relativity equations, is the domain of cosmologists. The mathematics of these cosmic rivers of moving charge - called plasma - is the domain of electrical engineers. And perhaps never the twain shall meet.
The field of cosmology keeps its ad hoc creations like dark matter and black holes in part because the alternative is to abandon a reigning explanatory model, one that has buoyed tens of thousands of careers and not a few Nobel prizes. Even cosmology now has is media stars, with mainstream books explaining that these completely counter-intuitive creatures like dark matter, black holes and cosmic inflation, are just how things are in those far away places. The gravitational model would have us believe that the distant realms of the cosmos possess strange characteristics only understood through the math of relativity. The plasma model does away with mystique almost entirely, and hands us an explanation of cosmic structure and dynamics that is common sense.
Donald Scott has done a brilliant job of making this complex topic accessible to an interested outsider. He shows where the reigning model has many explanatory weaknesses (or, often, outright failures), and then explains how the plasma model fits both predictions and observations, often with striking precision. If only the larger community of cosmologists were taking notes.
June 8, 2010
I loved the audacity of this book, in that it challenges the most cherished beliefs of the modern astrophysics community including the concept of the expanding universe, the Big Bang "theory", and the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It postulates Electromagnetism in the most central role of cosmology right next to Gravity. It also threatens the established views of Black Holes and their role in galactic physics.
This is not exactly light reading, and stretches the average person's knowledge about physics and engineering. As an Electrical Engineer I could not easily see all of the arguments, although it is very convincing as a new piece of cosmology and much SIMPLER than the "standard model" of cosmology which has reached the breaking point in creating an increasing string of hypotheses which are not measurable and that we are asked to accept on "faith" because they seem to support the basic model.
There are other books addressing this topic, and I intend to read some more on the subject.
Jim Walborn
Cave Creek, Arizona
This is not exactly light reading, and stretches the average person's knowledge about physics and engineering. As an Electrical Engineer I could not easily see all of the arguments, although it is very convincing as a new piece of cosmology and much SIMPLER than the "standard model" of cosmology which has reached the breaking point in creating an increasing string of hypotheses which are not measurable and that we are asked to accept on "faith" because they seem to support the basic model.
There are other books addressing this topic, and I intend to read some more on the subject.
Jim Walborn
Cave Creek, Arizona
August 3, 2008
The sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion, as most schoolchildren suppose. It's actually ablaze as a result of electricity. This primer on plasma cosmology sets the record straight; and in the process reveals how, and why, most mainstream astronomers are swimming in the wrong direction.
February 3, 2020
This book will open your eyes to a Universe explained in a profoundly radical way. It is a monumentally important book. It ties in perfectly with Wal Thornhill's books. The Electric Universe and Electric Sun models are , in my view, real and true and self evident.
July 18, 2008
The experts have been telling us for the past 80 years that the sun shines because of a thermonuclear reaction taking place deep in the core. Scott shows why it makes more sense to explain light from the sun by using a model based on the physics of plasma. In other words, the sun and all the others stars are not thermonuclear. They're electric.
August 21, 2014
I did enjoy this book, but it seems to be written by a very angry man!
I'm not convinced by all of his arguments but there are some good ideas, but the way he puts across these ideas I found a bit odd.
I'm not convinced by all of his arguments but there are some good ideas, but the way he puts across these ideas I found a bit odd.
November 14, 2024
I was fascinated by the audacity of this book, which challenges some of the most esteemed theories in modern astrophysics, including the concept of an expanding universe, the Big Bang theory, and the ideas of dark matter and dark energy. Electric Sky postulates electromagnetism as a central force in cosmology, placing it on par with gravity. In doing so, the book disrupts established views on black holes and their role in galactic physics.
Donald E. Scott's Electric Sky presents a compelling thesis on the influence of electric fields in shaping atmospheric phenomena, particularly through their effects on the ionosphere and its interactions with solar activity. Scott argues that electric fields play a central role in directing the movement and behavior of charged particles in the upper atmosphere, leading to visually and scientifically significant events such as auroras and ionospheric disturbances. His work encourages a reevaluation of conventional explanations in atmospheric physics by focusing on electric field interactions as a primary driver of these observable effects. The ionosphere, a region rich in charged particles, is profoundly affected by electric fields generated through interactions between solar winds and Earth's magnetic field. These electric field variations can induce changes in the distribution and dynamics of ionospheric plasma, which in turn manifest as medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances.
Beyond the ionosphere, electric fields extend their influence to ecological and biological contexts. Polarized light, produced by the scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere, is utilized by many organisms, including insects, for navigation and spatial orientation.
Scott’s arguments align with recent studies on ion velocities and Joule heating in the F-region of the ionosphere, as documented by other scholars. Researchers of “The new paradigm” elucidates how ion velocity variations, driven by electric fields, can lead to localized heating effects within the ionosphere. This connection between electric fields and atmospheric heating supports the idea that electric phenomena are not merely passive atmospheric variables but actively shape the ionospheric structure and dynamics.
In summary, Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott offers a cohesive perspective on the foundational role of electric fields in atmospheric science, particularly regarding the ionosphere’s behavior. Through the integration of findings from diverse studies, Scott’s framework expands our understanding of electric fields, not only in terms of ionospheric dynamics but also in their ecological relevance and broader atmospheric impacts. His work invites continued investigation into electric phenomena as fundamental components of Earth’s atmospheric processes, bridging physical science with biological systems.
Donald E. Scott's Electric Sky presents a compelling thesis on the influence of electric fields in shaping atmospheric phenomena, particularly through their effects on the ionosphere and its interactions with solar activity. Scott argues that electric fields play a central role in directing the movement and behavior of charged particles in the upper atmosphere, leading to visually and scientifically significant events such as auroras and ionospheric disturbances. His work encourages a reevaluation of conventional explanations in atmospheric physics by focusing on electric field interactions as a primary driver of these observable effects. The ionosphere, a region rich in charged particles, is profoundly affected by electric fields generated through interactions between solar winds and Earth's magnetic field. These electric field variations can induce changes in the distribution and dynamics of ionospheric plasma, which in turn manifest as medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances.
Beyond the ionosphere, electric fields extend their influence to ecological and biological contexts. Polarized light, produced by the scattering of sunlight in the atmosphere, is utilized by many organisms, including insects, for navigation and spatial orientation.
Scott’s arguments align with recent studies on ion velocities and Joule heating in the F-region of the ionosphere, as documented by other scholars. Researchers of “The new paradigm” elucidates how ion velocity variations, driven by electric fields, can lead to localized heating effects within the ionosphere. This connection between electric fields and atmospheric heating supports the idea that electric phenomena are not merely passive atmospheric variables but actively shape the ionospheric structure and dynamics.
In summary, Electric Sky by Donald E. Scott offers a cohesive perspective on the foundational role of electric fields in atmospheric science, particularly regarding the ionosphere’s behavior. Through the integration of findings from diverse studies, Scott’s framework expands our understanding of electric fields, not only in terms of ionospheric dynamics but also in their ecological relevance and broader atmospheric impacts. His work invites continued investigation into electric phenomena as fundamental components of Earth’s atmospheric processes, bridging physical science with biological systems.
October 30, 2023
In one of the continuing themes in my reading lately: the corruption of science into "Scientism": this one is all about Astrophysics and Cosmology, the domain of the "Big Bang" and related fantasies.
I actually have a M.Sc. in Astronomy from some time ago, which I chose to do precisely because of a long term interest in Cosmology, so this hits pretty close to home for me.
The structure of this book is basically a very (VERY) long list of observations that the "Big Bang" explains poorly, or not at all. And juxtoposes against that "Electric Universe" explanations for the same observations which generally seem credible, testable (one of the HUGE failures of "The Big Bang"), and simpler.
One of the charms of the "Electric Universe" is you do not have to be a graduate-level mathematician -- or any kind of a mathematician, for that matter -- to understand most of this stuff. It is, in fact, a common sense way to look at the things we see happening out there. So the book is not a difficult read, and in many places a page turner as one starts to realize some of the consequences of this approach to Cosmology.
Mind-bending. And a slam dunk for five stars.
I actually have a M.Sc. in Astronomy from some time ago, which I chose to do precisely because of a long term interest in Cosmology, so this hits pretty close to home for me.
The structure of this book is basically a very (VERY) long list of observations that the "Big Bang" explains poorly, or not at all. And juxtoposes against that "Electric Universe" explanations for the same observations which generally seem credible, testable (one of the HUGE failures of "The Big Bang"), and simpler.
One of the charms of the "Electric Universe" is you do not have to be a graduate-level mathematician -- or any kind of a mathematician, for that matter -- to understand most of this stuff. It is, in fact, a common sense way to look at the things we see happening out there. So the book is not a difficult read, and in many places a page turner as one starts to realize some of the consequences of this approach to Cosmology.
Mind-bending. And a slam dunk for five stars.
February 9, 2018
Difficult to know what to think here - I don't really have the training to evaluate his arguments.
He makes a logical case - there are gaps in our explanations.
I'm still wondering: if the sun is powered by electromagnetism instead of fusion, then where is the energy coming from? We can look at the energy the sun gives off and do the math after all. The reason we looked to fusion in the first place is that they calculated compression would make the sun only a few million years old. Once they figured that it was older than that they had to look for a different energy source.
He doesn't really answer that question. Presumably the power source is at the other end of the arc, which is conveniently not observable (somewhere off in space).
He makes a logical case - there are gaps in our explanations.
I'm still wondering: if the sun is powered by electromagnetism instead of fusion, then where is the energy coming from? We can look at the energy the sun gives off and do the math after all. The reason we looked to fusion in the first place is that they calculated compression would make the sun only a few million years old. Once they figured that it was older than that they had to look for a different energy source.
He doesn't really answer that question. Presumably the power source is at the other end of the arc, which is conveniently not observable (somewhere off in space).
May 25, 2020
Loved it so much i had to buy it. I agree with Sheldrake that at least one percent of the funding should have a board representing a wide variety of interests, including non-organizational organizations, schools and voluntary associations to 'address the curiosity of lay people or toward the goal of supporting more scientifically based (but paradigm challenging) research to break the monopoly that established science now has over which hypotheses and phenomena can be looked into and which cannot'.
Apparently NASA's yearly budget is around 15 billion dollars of the people's tax money, stating openly that they will NOT fund any cosmological research that is adverse to the Big Bang, which for them has become a religious conviction. This is a disgrace and not what science is all about.
Apparently NASA's yearly budget is around 15 billion dollars of the people's tax money, stating openly that they will NOT fund any cosmological research that is adverse to the Big Bang, which for them has become a religious conviction. This is a disgrace and not what science is all about.
April 22, 2019
Should be read by all seekers of the truth
We are all familiar with the sad stories of scientific investigators of the past being ignored or punished for suggesting a view of the 'world' that did not confirm to the mainstream explanations of 'the way things are' that prevailed at the time. It is frustrating to find out that it continues to this day. It is becoming apparent that many areas of science have become locked into ways of thinking that ostracize newcomers for suggesting fresh ways to view nature.
We are all familiar with the sad stories of scientific investigators of the past being ignored or punished for suggesting a view of the 'world' that did not confirm to the mainstream explanations of 'the way things are' that prevailed at the time. It is frustrating to find out that it continues to this day. It is becoming apparent that many areas of science have become locked into ways of thinking that ostracize newcomers for suggesting fresh ways to view nature.
May 5, 2020
I found this book a fascinating read, and the theory within it worthy of consideration by the main stream. Electromagnetism, and Plasma deserve a bigger place in cosmology, but somehow I don't think it will happen for a long time. I recommend Hilton Ratcliffe's books which also challenge the current standard model, and highlight the difficulty facing scientists with ideas that are ignored by orthodox cosmology.
June 13, 2019
I'm really not qualified to argue forvor against the ideas offered in The Electric Sky but from a layman's pov, this book gets astrophysics back on the rails. In a hundred years civilization will wonder how humanity went so seemingly deliberately astray with intellectial masterbation gravitational unified field theory.
February 29, 2020
Trápil jsem se převelice a asi jsem se příliš neobohatil, ale stejně takové knížky čtu rád. Co když je to všechno ve vesmíru jinak? Co takhle kosmické plazma? Klidně bez černých děr? Ale pozor, pro mě je ten s černými dírami a gravitací opletený vesmír milejší, stabilnější, logičtější a napínavější než ten elektrický, učesany a salonně vyšlechtěný a založený jen na nějakých podobenstvích.
February 23, 2020
Makes more sense than "dark matter"
Well written explanation of electric vs. gravitional energy in how the cosmos actually works. Testable, verifiable claims trump theoretical assertions backed by nothing but equations.
Well written explanation of electric vs. gravitional energy in how the cosmos actually works. Testable, verifiable claims trump theoretical assertions backed by nothing but equations.
September 28, 2017
Excellent information. A lot of the electrical aspects were over my head but still well worth the read.
April 3, 2020
This was an excellent read and a must read for anyone wanting to know the future of science.
August 8, 2021
Stimulating.
Profound.
Profound.
Currently reading
September 9, 2010Subtitle is: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy. An interesting read on how electromagnetic laws apply and explain what is going on in the universe. I've only just started, but this book is sure to have some deep scientific explanations!
July 13, 2013
More open-minded people interested in science should read this book. It's an eye-opener.
February 10, 2016
An eye-opener. Definitely a book for anyone interested in learning about astronomy and astrophysics.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews