But not as you say and hope for, throughout the whole and every part of the universe/space/time...unlike gravity which is responsible for shaping the universe. Which as per like the vast majority of your answers, questions and claims, make little sense in the real world.
This bloke has a great handle on the descriptive side of the english language.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientificcosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology.[2][3] However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next. EU advocates[edit] EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups. The first are garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate, revolutionary scientific theory, and that the scientific establishment is either blindly ignoring them out of misplaced faith in their own theories, or deliberately suppressing them for some greater, nefarious purpose. The second group is composed of various other woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart). For these people, the EU hypothesis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The more common subsets of this group include some Young Earth creationists, who wish to discredit the mainstream cosmology and geology suggesting that Earth is billions of years old, and some of the loonier fringes of global warming denialism (such as Vault-Co), who are trying to find some process outside human control that they can attribute climate change to. The latter particularly like the hypotheses of Pierre-Marie Robitaille. EU conferences[edit] Each year the Electric Universe holds their annual EU conference, where a seemingly endless parade of misguided fools take to the stage and discuss mythology, homeopathy, dipole gravity, and other equally absurd nonsense. The only common thread is the notion that a conspiracy is afoot to suppress their oddball beliefs.[4] The conferences are open to the public, provided you cough up the $395 price of admission.[5][6] more at link........... extract: Most EU proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén (see also Nobel disease). Too bad his model was debunked by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[19] Claims: Gravity is electromagnetic in nature which implies that it can be repulsive too, yet it has failed to demonstrate antigravity.
OK river, I'm pretty tired of spoon feeding you, but I will help...you have two videos, a couple of other reference links, and actually more then a dozen reasons and evidence that deflates totally, and debunks thoroughly the EU and or Plasma nonsense. And of course there is a tutorial topic in the sciences. Go to it!! you may learn something.
Obviously for many reasons, river isn't going to check out anything, so here is a list of the nonsense that the EU claims, and why it never as much as got of the ground. It was never in competition or any sort of threat to current cosmology... here from... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe Einstein's postulates are wrong.[8] General relativity (GR) is wrong.[9] The Universe is not expanding.[10] The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.[8] Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.[11] A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.[8] Planets give birth to comets.[12] Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.[13] Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[14] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[15] The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged — the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)[16] EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.[17][18] The sun is a space lamp getting power from something somewhere, we've never observed this stream of electricity nor any of these power sources that are on the center of each galaxy powering every star in them. Comets are electric, we've never observed such a thing as an electric comet. Craters are scars left from space thunderstorms, we've never observed such a phenomenon. It also claims that things like meteors are not what causes them despite the fact that we literally have video footage of meteor impacts. Gravity is electromagnetic in nature which implies that it can be repulsive too, yet it has failed to demonstrate antigravity. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: There we are river, I have spoon fed you. Now work your way through that nonsensical claims and then wake up to the stupidity of what you are ignorantly proposing.
Magnets are usually dipolar, and their field magnitude drops off as the inverse cube of the distance from them. That means that, technically, the field magnitude is never exactly zero, no matter how far away you go. It does drop off very rapidly as you move away from magnet, though, to a value that might be hard or impossible to detect in practice.
I do wonder if it may not be expanding. The proposition relies on one approach and frankly on a matter of such importance it would be nice to have an alternative approach to support the conclusion. And so I have tried to think how could we confirm the expansion by another method.. I can't think of how. expanding . My point is..given the observation that the universe is expanding is so very important should we not be trying to find another way of establishing that our conclusion is correct... Imagine say it was found it is not expanding via another approach... Is it unreasonable to think about such matters? Alex[/QUOTE]
The thing is Alex, the expanding model is supported by all the evidence. The only alternative I have seen is "tired light" which has been debunked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm No, I don't believe it is.....I have plenty of moments where I try and make sense of certain things with speculation...particularly with regards to imaging "infinity" as well as "nothing" although I like Krauss' idea re the quantum foam being nothing. The thing is accepting that what we imagine and speculate is just that, and not get all grandeur like river and think you have solved the mysteries of everything.
Perhaps river needs to know that gravity falls of as the inverse square of the distance between them and technically is also never zero.
This may assist in divining the fundamental difference between magnetism and gravity. The Unified Theory – Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity and Mechanics Abstract https://arxiv.org/html/physics/9908024 I wondered what actually creates the difference until I saw this explanation; "The mixing of the point theory – e.g. mass points – and the field theory – e.g. electromagnetic waves – does not allow a UT." Gravity is a "point theory", magnetism is a "field theory". The fundamental difference is obvious and makes the conceptualization of both much easier, IMO.
Highlighted Because points are not mass . Mass has physical properties , in three dimensions . points don't . To your last statement ; Indeed . Gravity is two dimensional , does not actually exist . Since it lacks a fundamental dimension , of either breadth , length and depth . Whereas a magnetic field is three dimensional . To be a real field it must have 3D properties . Which the Magnetic field does .
https://astrobites.org/2020/08/17/the-alternative-to-dark-matter-may-be-general-relativity-itself/ Good the link works .
It is a non-physical value, a geometric pattern, the result of a physical interaction. "... According to Albert Einstein, gravity is not a force – it is a property of spacetime itself..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity#
