How does the UM compare to the Electric Universe (EU) theory, associated with the Thunderbolts Project?
Initial, tentative impressions of the UM:
* UM and EU seem to have many commonalities
* UM seems more developed than EU, at least in earth science and life science
* UM seems to feature water more prominently than EU
Otherwise, of the many unsung/dismissed/maligned scientists cited among EU theorists, are there any that the UM does not cite?
The UM’s history is completely separate from any other science based philosophy. The UM started from an interest in finding answers to simple Fundamental Questions that had not been satisfactorily answered by Modern Science. The founders set out to find answers to these Fundamental questions through independent research, discovery, experimentation and observation. The process has been ongoing for well over 25 years and has included the discovery of many new natural laws. The UM has not made a study of the Electric Universe and is not in a position to make specific comparisons with the Universal Model. If you have an interest in the Electric Universe we encourage you to become acquainted with the Universal Model as well by taking the time to read the book and then make your own comparisons. We would be interested to hear about your findings.
As to scientists cited in the UM, we’ve never actually made a count of all of the science people that are quoted in the pages of the UM. But you will see as you read it that there are hundreds. Whether any of them are also prominent in the Electric Universe material or not, we couldn’t say. Many of the scientists quoted in the UM are presenting information that the UM contradicts. However, there are also many that present details from their research that fit well with the UM discoveries and perspective, although they are likely unaware of the significance of what they have found because they come from a different paradigm. Generally, those details don’t fit within their puzzle, but they do fit within the UM’s puzzle, and that is why they are quoted.
Having studied the EU theory a bit, I think they have a better understanding of what goes on between planets, star systems, galaxies and so forth. With the entire universe being filled with electric energy, and plasma and manifestations in Birkeland currents, plasma discharges, etc. I think their understanding of craters being formed by electric or plasma discharges better fits the evidence as well. Such as at Meteor Crater in Arizona, etc.
I think there can be a merging or combination of the two theories quite easily. Perhaps the authors of UM could look into the EU theory.
As mentioned earlier, the Universal Model is not in a position to make comparisons with the Electrical Universe. Through independent research, discovery, experimentation and observation has come many answers to Fundamental Questions, including the establishment of many new natural laws. Specifically, our research in the area of crater creation methodology is more extensive, well documented and explained than any other treatise on the subject (including EU) that we have found anywhere in almost 30 years of research. One of many key pieces of evidence for the formation of the Arizona “Meteor” Crater is the discovery of the diatreme that sits beneath it and is presented and discussed in Sub-chapter 7.11, The Arizona Hydrocrater. Along with the other hydrothermal and geophysical evidences and mechanisms of crater formation that are finely detailed in Volume I, but most specifically in Chapter 7 titled, The Hydroplanet Model, any reader will likely conclude that the vast majority of craters on earth and throughout our solar system were and are made in accordance with the new natural laws pertaining to Crater Formation discovered and presented within the Universal Model.
It is expected that there may be some areas of common ground between the Electric Universe and the Universal Model, just as there are between Modern Science and the UM. We encourage all adherents to the tenants of both the Electric Universe and Modern Science to read and become acquainted with the knowledge and wisdom that the UM presents. Add what you learn to what you already know or believe and discover if you are not then further along the path to a greater knowledge of the beauty and structure of our earth and universe.
I am certainly not an expert on either theory. But have studied both the UM and EU. At least the UM from what is available on this website (I haven’t bought any books due to poverty).
You might be right regarding Meteor Crater and its diatreme. And maybe this is the way that other craters on earth were created. But maybe there is a mix between both the way craters are created with the UM and EU.
I know that the EU has duplicated every type of crater, as far as I know, that exists. It seems plausible to me that the craters on the moon, mars, the moons of Saturn and Jupiter and elsewhere were made by electric discharge events. All I’m asking of the UM model folks is to give the EU a fair hearing.
In the Doctrine and Covenants, it states that the Sun gets it light from other Stars all the way to the great governing one. This is very close to what the EU folks state is occurring with regards to the Solar System, galaxies, filamentary streams (Birkeland Currents) between systems, etc.
Give EU a fair shake. I think there is much truth present there.
I haven’t read the UM books because I am on disability and just can’t afford them. But if there are snippets or something you could let me read that would be great. God bless you in your efforts, hold fast to that which is good.
Of course I should have noted that it (where the sun gets its light, etc.) Is found in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the book of Abraham. Just wanted to make that clarification.
Also, you state “Specifically, our research in the area of crater creation methodology is more extensive, well documented and explained than any other treatise on the subject (including EU) that we have found anywhere in almost 30 years of research.” Is there a way to point me to this research? I know that plasma physicists (not necessarily main stream science) electrical engineers and electric arc physicists and others have explanations and methodologies for every type of crater event. Any way I would like to compare your methodology with EU. Maybe l there’s some common ground or overlap. Maybe there pieces either UM or EU are missing. At the very least it should be thoroughly looked at and evaluated. On both sides. Just saying.
As one might expect, we believe the best place to find the Universal Model research on craters is in the Universal Model. As with many other subjects found written within its pages, the information available in the UM on craters is the result of years of research pulled from numerous written, experimental and physical sources by UM scientists and others. In many cases, it truly is the only place where all of the research necessary to complete the puzzle can be found. There is a significant process involved in crater creation that requires an understanding of many different areas of geoscience and cosmology. We encourage all interested parties to read and study this and other subjects in the UM. We believe time spent in this study will be greatly rewarded.
Because of health reasons and just dealing with life in general, I’m only about a third of the way through Chapter Five of Volume One. But my first impressions are that the UM is an excellent science book for homeschoolers, advanced kids in middle school, and for high school or Junior College.
For one thing it challenges the prevailing (but crumbling) theories and the standard cosmological model. In other words it serves as an excellent check on the standard model.
More to come. As I have time to study it. 🙂