The Electric Universe is simple to understand—simple enough to begin teaching it in primary school, according to Wal Thornhill. In his Keynote presentation at EU2016, Wal applied “the test of simplicity” to popular ideas in astronomy. How well do these ideas fare by comparison to the Electric Universe paradigm? Progress in science and human understanding can be investigated through the brain’s response to new perspectives. The brain is hard wired in favor of prior ideas. It will not readily accept contrary evidence and will tend to sideline it. Growing specialization can only reinforce the preexisting disadvantage of new ideas. As the data to be assimilated continue to grow, the effect shows up as the brain’s diminished ability to see things globally. “I’ll see it when I believe it.” But Nature itself does not produce isolated fragments or contradictions. It simply invites us to consider a bigger picture. The elegant simplicity of the Electric Universe is an open invitation to step into this larger field of view.
It's electric. Now it's also likely a simulation. It's also a flat plane, which makes sense in a simulation. Space doesn't, and thankfully, it's not real so there's that.
while it could be a simulation I doubt that it is, but if it were would it not add to the whole spiritual thing of being spiritual beings having a human experience in the simulated universe.
Flat space yes, flat earth no.
Peace
@daemon-nice
I am a big proponent of the electric/plasma model and have been following the Thunderbolt project for years. I shall be blogging on this subject in the future. Right now still learning my way round Steemit.
Following.
Peace
@daemon-nice