This might seem like a silly question, but why don’t we all get electrocuted if space is full of electricity?
This is a common question, and the answer is straightforward. Imagine a bird sitting on a high-voltage power line. The line may carry thousands of volts, but the bird is safe provided it doesn’t touch another line, or any object at a different electrical potential. The air around it acts as an insulator.
Standing on Earth, we are much like that bird. Our magnetosphere acts as a protective cocoon, shielding us from many of the energized particles streaming through space.
The occasional crackle and hum of power lines reminds us what electricity looks like close-up. Thunderstorms do the same on a planetary scale: they are one way the Earth moves toward electrical equilibrium with its environment. See Electric Weather.
Why is space considered electrically neutral in mainstream science?
Largely because mainstream cosmology assumes that, given enough time since an initial “creation event,” charges should have neutralised. This is precisely why it matters whether we work from observation backward, or from idealised assumptions forward. Charge separation and electric currents are now observed in space; it’s time to account for them rather than minimise them.
Why don’t we see more aurora-like phenomena if space is so electrically active?
Auroras occur near the poles where charge is guided and concentrated by Earth’s magnetosphere. In most of space, plasmas are far more tenuous, and the currents flowing through them are typically invisible to the naked eye—much like many high-voltage lines on Earth. There is also strong evidence (including historical testimony) that the sky was far more electrically active in recent millennia. See Ancient Testimony.
If even half of what you say is true, how could mainstream science be so blind?
Much comes down to perception—and the inertia of prior belief. People often say, "I’ll believe it when I see it." But do we believe what we see, or do we tend to see what we already believe? Under pressure to conform, it’s easy to interpret evidence through the lens of the prevailing paradigm. Conventional wisdom, as has been said elsewhere on this site, often owes as much to convention as to wisdom.
A few words from Hannes Alfvén seem appropriate. In 1986 he said:
"We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect."
Alfvén argued that territorial dominance, competition for funding, and fear of the unknown can all contribute to this drift.
"Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing ever happened." Winston Churchill
"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfvén
There is so much we don’t understand about plasma and electricity. How can we hope to build cosmological models with it?
We certainly have much to learn. But we can measure and observe plasma behaviour and electromagnetic effects directly, which allows us to test ideas and make predictions. This is the empirical approach at the heart of science.
Isn’t this just fringe science?
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture."
Hannes Alfvén
Emphatically not. Many respected scientists and electrical engineers support key aspects of the approach outlined here. This website is simply a synthesis of core principles.
It’s also worth remembering that two foundational figures—Alfvén and Langmuir—were Nobel laureates, and Birkeland likely would have been had he lived long enough. See History.
While many questions remain, Plasma Cosmology continues to develop, whereas Big Bang cosmology leans on an expanding catalogue of ad-hoc assumptions. The Big Bang theory is increasingly challenged, even if it still dominates academic circles.
Can Plasma Cosmology live with the Big Bang?
"The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know."
David Bohm
Surprisingly, yes. The Big Bang does not necessarily preclude plasma or electrodynamics. Even within conventional cosmology, the early universe is understood to have been a plasma prior to recombination.
However, most plasma researchers prefer an actualistic approach—working backward from observation—rather than starting from idealised first principles. The Big Bang also struggles to explain the “clumpiness” and filamentary large-scale structure that plasma models naturally anticipate.
How old is the universe? Until you answer this, you can’t be taken seriously.
This is another common complaint. In truth, we do not know how old the universe is—or how large it is. A little humility is preferable to premature certainty that filters evidence to fit assumptions. Redshift controversies highlight the difficulty: see Redshift.
There also seems to be a psychological need (especially in the West) for a neat beginning and a neat end. Many children’s stories begin Once upon a time and end with they all lived happily ever after. Not all philosophies demand that narrative simplicity. Plasma cosmology is a paradigm shift, not a promise of quick answers.
Who needs Plasma Cosmology? Gravitational models work just fine!
"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical."
Jim Peebles, Princeton cosmologist
Gravitational models increasingly rely on mathematical speculation and the invention of exotic hypotheticals. Dark matter and dark energy, among others, remain highly uncertain despite decades of searching.
Where is the math?
Don’t worry—if mathematics excites you, there is plenty of it in the more technical resources we link to.
See also the philosophy/math page for a discussion of the role of mathematics in differing cosmologies.
"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little."
Bertrand Russell
You seem to insinuate there is a conspiracy against Plasma Cosmology!
Not necessarily. Academic circles are currently dominated by Big Bang proponents, and institutions tend to reinforce the prevailing framework. But science does move on—often more slowly than we’d like.
Isn’t Plasma Cosmology just a rehash of old Velikovskian ideas?
No. Plasma Cosmology does not rest on catastrophism, though it does not preclude it. Many plasma physicists acknowledge that the solar system may have been more electrically active in recent millennia. Electric Universe supporters are generally more sympathetic to catastrophism.
"In the end the Universe will have its say."
Sir Fred Hoyle
When can we expect to see Plasma Cosmology gaining wider acceptance?
Progress is being made—slowly but surely—and many plasma physicists are understandably impatient. See The Way Forward.
Could gravity have an electromagnetic origin?
Some Electric Universe supporters view gravity as an electrostatic (dipolar) force. It should be noted that we still do not know what gravity “is” in an ultimate sense—it remains a descriptive term for a force we can model mathematically.
Research into gravitational waves and hypothetical gravitons continues, but foundational questions remain open. See the Cutting Edge page.
"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses."
Isaac Newton
Why is there relatively little research into Plasma Cosmology?
Institutional inertia and funding priorities play a major role. See The Way Forward.
I thought the Electric Star model had been debunked?
Electric Star proposals have open questions, but so do mainstream stellar models, which also rely on multiple unverified assumptions. It’s worth remembering that plasma behaviour is complex, and laboratory plasma does not always “cooperate” with elegant theory. As always, the issue is what best matches observation.
If the Sun is electrically powered, why don’t we see electrons flying toward it?
This is a fair question, and it captures a common mainstream objection to electric-star ideas.
But models should be guided by what we observe, not by what we assume ought to be obvious. Plasmas exhibit behaviours that can be counter-intuitive. Double layers and Birkeland currents (see the technical section) suggest mechanisms by which charge separation, acceleration, and energy transfer can occur without producing the simplistic “visible electron stream” picture people often imagine.
Electrical engineers like Wal Thornhill and Don Scott have argued that low-energy electrons streaming toward the Sun could be difficult to detect directly. See Electric Stars and the SAFIRE Project under It’s Electric. A return to some form of æther-based physics has also been discussed by some critics of modern cosmology; the æther has not been conclusively falsified.
“...Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...” Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads.
"The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo."
Hannes Alfvén
Does your model support astrological ideas?
I’m not an authority on astrology. I will say, however, that plasma cosmology encourages a more connected view of the universe—one that doesn’t automatically rule out unconventional lines of inquiry, from the nature of consciousness to human history. That said, each claim still stands or falls on evidence.
What about UFOs?
Do plasma phenomena account for some UFO/UAP sightings? It’s possible that certain luminous plasma effects (including rare atmospheric phenomena) could mimic aspects of eyewitness reports. That doesn’t mean they explain every case, but the visual overlap is interesting.
See also ufoskeptic.org for another scientific perspective.
You are not the first to propose a “theory of everything” and get it totally wrong!
This is not a “theory of everything.” Plasma Cosmology is a different approach to many cosmological problems, and this site is a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Like any developing framework, it is incomplete—and that is precisely why it remains a scientific work in progress.
You seem to suggest that the mainstream ignores plasma physics?
Not exactly. Plasma physics exists in the mainstream. The issue is that mainstream cosmology has tended to assign plasma and electromagnetism a limited, largely passive role on cosmic scales. It’s one thing to accept that space is not a perfect vacuum; it’s another to take seriously that plasma and EM interactions may shape structures from planets and stars to galaxies and superclusters. The passive-plasma assumption is increasingly difficult to defend.
"...no knowledge is complete or perfect." Carl Sagan
