The strong and weak forces aren't aspects of the same force (or, at least, no theory where they are has been demonstrated to be correct). However, the weak and electromagnetic forces are aspects of the same force (called the electroweak force). The fact that electroweak theory works is pretty good evidence that any unification of E&M with gravity but not with the weak force must fail.

(To clarify, it is expected that the strong and electroweak forces will turn out to be aspects of the same force; but, this has not been demonstrated experimentally.)

That is the same as what I said..you simply used a technically moreaccurate way of doing it..

I have read a fair bit of their "theory", and I agree the vast bulk is bunkum, however there are a few ideas buried in their rhetoric that may be on the right track..not necessarilly accurate, but at least warming up...

---

Soloman, to class their ideas as pseudoscience because they have misunderstood or simply got a couple of points wrong is narrow minded.

I am not saying they are right, on the right track or even in the ballpark, but it is wrong to simply dismiss everything they say out of hand.

If their entire justification for posing the "theory" is based on flawed understanding of accepted physics or of what is actually observered, then there is every reason to dismiss what they say out of hand.

If I were to come to you and tell you we need a new theory of bananas because current theories can't explain why they are purple and sing Wagner arias, you would dismiss me out of hand and you would be right to do so. Science cannot proceed by accepting every idea that anyone poses. We discard any idea that fails to jibe with what is seen of how the universe works.

There is much about the workings of the Universe we simply do not understand and it would be wrong to dismiss any idea without looking into it carefully. We know that electromagnetic fields and it's related forces etc are fundermental to the structure of the Universe..infact there is a core of researchers who beleive that gravity and electromagnetism are different aspects of the same force, in a similar way to the strong and weak nuclear forces..whether this is true only time will tell.

The strong and weak forces aren't aspects of the same force (or, at least, no theory where they are has been demonstrated to be correct). However, the weak and electromagnetic forces are aspects of the same force (called the electroweak force). The fact that electroweak theory works is pretty good evidence that any unification of E&M with gravity but not with the weak force must fail.

(To clarify, it is expected that the strong and electroweak forces will turn out to be aspects of the same force; but, this has not been demonstrated experimentally.)

Quantum physics was dismissed by many because it did not fit with classical thinking..yet perseverance and research proved the reality of the theory, although it was modified by observation as time went by.

There's a difference between not liking a theory because it's consequences are downright weird and because it actually disagrees with what is observed to be true. I don't think it was unreasonable for people to be skeptical of quantum physics; but, to dismiss it out of hand was clearly not warranted. However, it didn't directly contradict any known results.

Science is about being open minded to new ideas, not simply dismissing them because you don't like it or some of it is obviously wrong..

I agree that science can't dismiss ideas just because people don't like them; however, we can and should dismiss ideas clearly do not agree with the observed properties of the universe, since the entire point of science is to find ways to accurately describe the universe.

---

Soloman, to class their ideas as pseudoscience because they have misunderstood or simply got a couple of points wrong is narrow minded.

I am not saying they are right, on the right track or even in the ballpark, but it is wrong to simply dismiss everything they say out of hand.

There is much about the workings of the Universe we simply do not understand and it would be wrong to dismiss any idea without looking into it carefully. We know that electromagnetic fields and it's related forces etc are fundermental to the structure of the Universe..infact there is a core of researchers who beleive that gravity and electromagnetism are different aspects of the same force, in a similar way to the strong and weak nuclear forces..whether this is true only time will tell.

Quantum physics was dismissed by many because it did not fit with classical thinking..yet perseverance and research proved the reality of the theory, although it was modified by observation as time went by.

Science is about being open minded to new ideas, not simply dismissing them because you don't like it or some of it is obviously wrong..

---

the problem is that everything that doesent fit into the picture or cant be explained by major theorys is classified as pseudosience. we still know very little so we should keep an open mind.

Not at all.

There are quite a few cases of well documented phenomena that can't be explained by accepted physical theories (look up neutrino oscillations, for example).

As the article I linked makes quite clear, pseudoscience actually tends to ignore things that are well explained by currently accepted theories; and, instead, uses as its premises either results or intuitions which are questionable or just plain wrong. In the case of the "Electric Universe" I cited two examples where the author's understanding of currently accepted physics is simply wrong. These certainly aren't the only such examples on that site.

---

the problem is that everything that doesent fit into the picture or cant be explained by major theorys is classified as pseudosience. we still know very little so we should keep an open mind.

---

It's pure pseudoscience.

For reference, a very nice little article on telling science from pseudoscience:

Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

Just a few points to show how silly some of their claims are:

-They claim that all matter interacts with electromagnetic fields. This is simply false. Take, for example, neutrinos. They have no electrical charge, and can only interact through the weak force.

-They claim that gravitationally interacting systems of three or more bodies are unstable. This is misleading at best and blatantly wrong at worst. The truth in the statement is that when extra bodies are included, there are no closed orbits. That is, the objects don't return exactly to where they started. However, it is perfectly possible to have a whole set of objects (such as planets) all in bound orbits, which suffer from small perturbations due to interactions with each other. These small perturbations will simply cause the orbits to oscillate about the stable ones that would exist without the perturbation. Conservation of energy and angular momentum assures that this will be the case as long as the perturbing forces are much smaller than that due to the sun.

---

I remember visiting this website a long time ago and I was just reading a article that reminded me about it.

http://www.holoscience.com
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php

The Electric Universe model is a coherent "Big Picture" of our situation in the universe, spanning many disciplines. It highlights repeated electrical patterns at all scales that enable laboratory experiments to explain the strange, energetic events seen, for example, in deep space, on the Sun, and on Jupiter's moon, Io. The Electric Universe works backward in time using observations rather than forward from some idealised theoretical beginning. It provides simple answers to problems that are now clothed in fashionable metaphysics and mysticism. It is more interdisciplinary and inclusive of information than any prior cosmology. It points to practical possibilities far beyond the limits set by current science.

The Electric Universe model grew out of a broad interdisciplinary approach to science. It is not a technique taught in universities. The Electric Universe is based more on observations and experiment than abstract theory. It recognizes connections between diverse disciplines. It concludes that the crucial requirement for understanding the universe is to take fully into account the basic electrical nature of atoms and their interactions. Strangely, this is not the case in conventional cosmology where weaker magnetism and the infinitely weaker force of gravity rule the cosmos. Such a simplification may suit a theoretical physics based on electrical neutrality of matter in Earthly laboratories but it does not apply in space where plasma dominates.

---