Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 91

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    265

    Electric Universe Revisited - Birkeland Gets The Last Laugh

    Hi Richard - I figured you might appreciate a little distraction from the running dialogue going on in the other threads. I check in at the Thunderbolts.info site every few days to see if they have released anything new and came across these three videos yesterday. It appears the mainstream is starting to make "discoveries" that the Electric Universe proponents have been talking about for years. Maybe they are seen as 'discoveries' because they are finding things they weren't looking for? https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...th-space-news/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU74kAmONQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT3DWZBKoRk

  2. #2
    Unregistered Guest

    Another Baby Step

    Silence here posting from the employee computer before work - Another acknowledgement of electric forces playing a role in planetary geology features that were previously unexplained- https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/25/22528/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Silence here posting from the employee computer before work - Another acknowledgement of electric forces playing a role in planetary geology features that were previously unexplained- https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/25/22528/
    Hey there Silence,

    I don't understand why you would waste time with fringe science if you haven't mastered real science yet? If you don't know real science, how can you hope to evaluate the validity of the fringe science?

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #4
    Unregistered Guest
    Hi Richard, From the constant litany of press releases that talk of scientists being ""shocked", surprised", and "needing to go back to the drawing board", it seems they haven't mastered science either. Did you watch the three videos in the first post? The first shows their surprise at the size of the electric fields associated with the jets of super-heated plasma high in our atmosphere. They are describing something Kristian Birkeland predicted over 100 years ago, and got laughed at for. The second video details their surprise at finding new stars in supposedly old clusters. And the third details a solar flare that dragged a sun spot around a little. According to standard theory that is equivalent in their own words to the tail wagging the dog. If you don't want to "waste" too much time run the vids at 2x speed with the subtitles on. I found them interesting.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Hi Richard, From the constant litany of press releases that talk of scientists being ""shocked", surprised", and "needing to go back to the drawing board", it seems they haven't mastered science either.
    Hey there Silence,

    I think you missed my point. The fact that the experts don't have everything figured out does not mean they are the same as amateurs who know nothing.

    The fact that they don't know everything does not mean they have mastered nothing, and it certainly does not give any credence of any kind to cranks on the fringe, which is what the electric universe folks seem like.

    So let me repeat my question: Why do you waste time pursuing fringe science when you haven't mastered established science sufficiently to judge between the two?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Did you watch the three videos in the first post? The first shows their surprise at the size of the electric fields associated with the jets of super-heated plasma high in our atmosphere. They are describing something Kristian Birkeland predicted over 100 years ago, and got laughed at for. The second video details their surprise at finding new stars in supposedly old clusters. And the third details a solar flare that dragged a sun spot around a little. According to standard theory that is equivalent in their own words to the tail wagging the dog. If you don't want to "waste" too much time run the vids at 2x speed with the subtitles on. I found them interesting.
    No, I haven't watched those particular videos yet. I've watched others that they made, and have reviewed some of their writings. The thing is, they present themselves like cranks who reject all science without any understanding. That's not how science progresses. When Einstein's Relatively replaced Newton's Mechanics, it didn't mean that everything about Newton's theory was wrong. On the contrary, it showed that Newton's theory was low-velocity approximation of Einstein's theory. This is as it must be, because Newton's theory has been shown to work over a vast range of phenomena.

    Is this what the electric universe people are doing? Is there theory consistent with established observations? Can it account for all the observations that have already been made and verified?

    I'll take a look at the videos and let you know what I think.

    Great chatting,

    Richard

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Silence here posting from the employee computer before work - Another acknowledgement of electric forces playing a role in planetary geology features that were previously unexplained- https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/04/25/22528/
    I watched that video. It made no sense at all. After giving a bunch of examples of phenomena that established scientists say may be caused by electricity, it ended by saying that "all the space sciences need to recognize the undeniable significance of electricity in nature." That's just nuts. All scientists recognize electromagnetism as one of the four fundamental forces in nature. And the examples given in the video prove that point.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I watched that video. It made no sense at all. After giving a bunch of examples of phenomena that established scientists say may be caused by electricity, it ended by saying that "all the space sciences need to recognize the undeniable significance of electricity in nature." That's just nuts. All scientists recognize electromagnetism as one of the four fundamental forces in nature. And the examples given in the video prove that point.
    The main point that the T-Bolts folks are making in this video is that it is only very recently that the mainstream scientific community has acknowledged electricity as playing a major role in forming geological features that previously had been given very speculative kinetic explanations. Electric Universe proponents have been talking about this stuff for years. If, as you claim, scientists were and are so cognizant of the role of electromagnetism in nature, why is a proposal involving electro-static formation of dunes on Titan made by some of these scientists described as "shocking"? (found at the :50 mark) It is shocking because the idea of electrical forces playing a major role in space was put on the sidelines a long time ago and made the towel boy for the gravity boys on the football team, thanks in large part to Mr. Chapman.

    In the segment 1:59 - 2:32, they are pointing out that the article seemed to suggest that winds moved the particles to start with and that static electricity caused them to stick together and make unexpected formations. So kinetics is again playing the major role with electricity as the sidekick. The video points out the fact that the article did not mention the possibility that the winds themselves may be electrically driven i.e. "ionic winds" (demonstrated at 2:27). The T-Bolts group have made a lot of predictions in the past that electricity will one day be found to play a much larger role than the "accompanying side-effect" to kinetic forces that it is now given when describing many weather phenomena like thunderstorm clouds, hurricanes, and dust devils. They make similar predictions about the "ice geysers" on Enceladus and the volcanoes on Io that moved several kilometers in a few months.

    I don't think that the EU folks are paranoid or over-reacting at all. In the first video link on my opening post Donald Scott is pointing out that the scientists who discovered the Birkeland currents causing super-heated, supersonic jets of plasma in our atmosphere are either ignorant of Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt and especially Stig Lindquist (who developed a model back in 1950 that predicts most of the "discoveries" that the SWARM scientists have recently claimed), or they purposely refused to acknowledge that the work these folks did has any relevance in predicting their discoveries. Mr. Scott does not follow their example and gives credit where it is due (2:50 - 3:10). He also points out that he had a paper published in 2015 that elaborates on Lindquist's model of Birkeland current structure and predicted the counter-rotation that the SWARM mission's discovery implies, but that they fail to mention, either because they weren't looking for it or because they don't know how to explain it. It is also possible that they don't like the implication that Mr Scott proposes for counter-rotating field-aligned currents, that being their ability to carry large amounts of current, remain coherent and resist diffusion for huge distances. Mr. Scott claims that a lot of what the mainstream calls "jets" (implying kinetics) shooting out of objects in space are really field aligned Birkeland currents. On the previous thread I did on the EU theory, I posted a picture of a series of filaments with stars forming at regular intervals on them, and that were many, many light years long and uniform in width for their whole length. The scientists who made this discovery said the uniform width over that kind of distance demands an explanation, and the one offered was "shock waves from exploding super-novas", which according to my cave-man scientific brain would seem to produce curves and rounded features where these filaments changed direction. Instead the picture showed these filaments looking more like lightning bolts, with sharp turns in direction, sometimes at very acute angles. Not much like one would expect from an explosion. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that the terminology like "jets" and "shock-waves" used in scientific press releases naturally brings to mind kinetic forces, not electrical. Electricity is a wierd thing, people are fascinated by it and at the same time afraid of it too. I wonder if anyone has ever studied what effect this may have had on the history of electricity in science?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by Silence View Post
    The main point that the T-Bolts folks are making in this video is that it is only very recently that the mainstream scientific community has acknowledged electricity as playing a major role in forming geological features that previously had been given very speculative kinetic explanations. Electric Universe proponents have been talking about this stuff for years.

    If, as you claim, scientists were and are so cognizant of the role of electromagnetism in nature, why is a proposal involving electro-static formation of dunes on Titan made by some of these scientists described as "shocking"? (found at the :50 mark) It is shocking because the idea of electrical forces playing a major role in space was put on the sidelines a long time ago and made the towel boy for the gravity boys on the football team, thanks in large part to Mr. Chapman.


    This is patently FALSE! You have been grossly misled. You should have skipped the Electric Universe woo-woo and went straight to the source. The video you posted did nothing other than quote mine the Scientific American article.

    Your video claims this at .53. Now, some scientists are suggesting a shocking solution to these backward-facing drifts: They may be sculpted not only by wind, but also by electrostatic forces.

    Here is the article in question. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-weird-shapes/



    These claims have been KNOWN for over a decade by the scientific community. From the same article.


    The idea that Titan possesses electrified sand is not exactly new, having appeared for more than a decade in scientific literature and elsewhere. Consider this whimsical snippet from a 2007 Titan-themed poem by study co-author Mike Malaska, a scientist in the Planetary Ices Group at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: ?Methane sky;
ethane drizzle.
Surface made of organic shizzle.
Dunes of plastic;
it?s fantastic.
Let?s get sticky
and electrostatic.? But no one had robustly tested the idea.

    But other experts say there could be other explanations. From the same article.

    Other experts caution, however, that it is too soon to conclude Titan?s sands are electrified based solely on remote images of dunes and Earthbound laboratory experiments. According to Jani Radebaugh, a planetary scientist at Brigham Young University who was not involved in the study, these results are notable because they represent a big step forward in studying the Saturnian moon?s surface. ?Appealing to electrostatic charging on grains complicates things,? Radebaugh says. ?I suspect this might not be any more complicated than our just not having the models right?that surface winds just blow in the opposite direction than we think. But getting in the lab and working with these exotic materials could well be a stepping-stone to better understanding processes on Titan.?

    Ralph Lorenz, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory who was also not part of the research, agrees that more work is needed before we understand Titan?s mysteries. ?Electrostatic charging could be quite important in ultimately controlling how sand moves on Titan, particularly with regard to relations between dune orientation and [winds],? he says. Even so, he says, there are other explanations for the backward-facing dunes, largely contingent on what exactly they are made of and the speed and directionality of Titan?s winds. ?To know what wind you need to make sand move on Titan, you really need to go there,? Lorenz says.







    Quote Originally Posted by Silence View Post
    In the segment 1:59 - 2:32, they are pointing out that the article seemed to suggest that winds moved the particles to start with and that static electricity caused them to stick together and make unexpected formations. So kinetics is again playing the major role with electricity as the sidekick. The video points out the fact that the article did not mention the possibility that the winds themselves may be electrically driven i.e. "ionic winds" (demonstrated at 2:27). The T-Bolts group have made a lot of predictions in the past that electricity will one day be found to play a much larger role than the "accompanying side-effect" to kinetic forces that it is now given when describing many weather phenomena like thunderstorm clouds, hurricanes, and dust devils. They make similar predictions about the "ice geysers" on Enceladus and the volcanoes on Io that moved several kilometers in a few months.

    Their predictions have no explanatory power. It's fine to say that our current models are flawed. Shouldn't their predicted models be able to explain everything our current models do based on the data we have? And shouldn't their models be adaptable as new data is discovered? I think so. This is one of the major reasons the Electric Universe theory is not taken seriously. There are no predictive models that account for ALL the data we do have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silence View Post
    I don't think that the EU folks are paranoid or over-reacting at all. In the first video link on my opening post Donald Scott is pointing out that the scientists who discovered the Birkeland currents causing super-heated, supersonic jets of plasma in our atmosphere are either ignorant of Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt and especially Stig Lindquist (who developed a model back in 1950 that predicts most of the "discoveries" that the SWARM scientists have recently claimed), or they purposely refused to acknowledge that the work these folks did has any relevance in predicting their discoveries.
    That is not true at all. Credible people like Hannes Alfven did NOT subscribe to the EU quackery. Crackpots have taken bits of his work to propose their own narrative backed by scanty evidence.

    Here is thorough 48 page pulverizing of Donald Scott's work. http://web.archive.org/web/201504160...on-against.pdf

    Here was Don Scott's weak rebuttal. http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

    Where are all of Scott's peer reviewed papers proving his claims?
    Last edited by L67; 04-28-2017 at 05:58 PM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  9. #9
    Unregistered Guest
    There is a lot of old material floating about that is obviously based on ignorance. Recent findings and explanations to do with magnetism in the last few words would support the electric universe.

    In order to explain the electric universe, let the boffins on this forum first answer the two following questions:-

    1. What is a Field?

    2. What is magnetism?


    Unless the first question is answered, there is no point trying to answer the second question.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    This is patently FALSE! You have been grossly misled. You should have skipped the Electric Universe woo-woo and went straight to the source. The video you posted did nothing other than quote mine the Scientific American article.

    Your video claims this at .53. Now, some scientists are suggesting a shocking solution to these backward-facing drifts: They may be sculpted not only by wind, but also by electrostatic forces.

    Here is the article in question. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-weird-shapes/



    These claims have been KNOWN for over a decade by the scientific community. From the same article.


    The idea that Titan possesses electrified sand is not exactly new, having appeared for more than a decade in scientific literature and elsewhere. Consider this whimsical snippet from a 2007 Titan-themed poem by study co-author Mike Malaska, a scientist in the Planetary Ices Group at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory: ?Methane sky;
ethane drizzle.
Surface made of organic shizzle.
Dunes of plastic;
it?s fantastic.
Let?s get sticky
and electrostatic.? But no one had robustly tested the idea.

    But other experts say there could be other explanations. From the same article.

    Other experts caution, however, that it is too soon to conclude Titan?s sands are electrified based solely on remote images of dunes and Earthbound laboratory experiments. According to Jani Radebaugh, a planetary scientist at Brigham Young University who was not involved in the study, these results are notable because they represent a big step forward in studying the Saturnian moon?s surface. ?Appealing to electrostatic charging on grains complicates things,? Radebaugh says. ?I suspect this might not be any more complicated than our just not having the models right?that surface winds just blow in the opposite direction than we think. But getting in the lab and working with these exotic materials could well be a stepping-stone to better understanding processes on Titan.?

    Ralph Lorenz, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory who was also not part of the research, agrees that more work is needed before we understand Titan?s mysteries. ?Electrostatic charging could be quite important in ultimately controlling how sand moves on Titan, particularly with regard to relations between dune orientation and [winds],? he says. Even so, he says, there are other explanations for the backward-facing dunes, largely contingent on what exactly they are made of and the speed and directionality of Titan?s winds. ?To know what wind you need to make sand move on Titan, you really need to go there,? Lorenz says.










    Their predictions have no explanatory power. It's fine to say that our current models are flawed. Shouldn't their predicted models be able to explain everything our current models do based on the data we have? And shouldn't their models be adaptable as new data is discovered? I think so. This is one of the major reasons the Electric Universe theory is not taken seriously. There are no predictive models that account for ALL the data we do have.



    That is not true at all. Credible people like Hannes Alfven did NOT subscribe to the EU quackery. Crackpots have taken bits of his work to propose their own narrative backed by scanty evidence.

    Here is thorough 48 page pulverizing of Donald Scott's work. http://web.archive.org/web/201504160...on-against.pdf

    Here was Don Scott's weak rebuttal. http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

    Where are all of Scott's peer reviewed papers proving his claims?

    It wasn't the "woo-woo" of Electric Universe proponents that made me think the idea of static electricity could play a role in Titan's sand dunes was recent, it was the April 3rd Scientific American article that called it "shocking" when some scientists actually put forth the idea in a paper for Nature Geoscience last March. If they have known about the possibility for 10 years, why call it "shocking" when someone wants to seriously consider it? In a roundabout way, the fact that it took ten years for someone to do this reinforces my point that it is only recently that electricity has begun to be seriously considered for things that previously were the domain of kinetics. I wonder if they would further consider the possibility that electricity is also driving the winds that blow the sand around?


    Until the mainstream model either has a major meltdown from a single failure or dies a slow death from a thousand "puzzling" anomalies, I doubt that Professor Scott will get any peer reviews from recognized mainstream sources. I read the "pulverizing" article critiquing Mr. Scott's book, along with Mr. Scott's "weak" rebuttal. In my opinion, Mr. Bridgman is evaluating and discounting things that Mr. Scott has proposed from within a mainstream paradigm that is held by him (Bridgman) and most of its defenders as unassailable, since it has had so much success throughout the years. This success has given the mainstream the right to judge the validity of competing viewpoints from within their successful paradigm, and to be given time ( and often research money) to come up with explanations for any failures or shortcomings in it. And if Mr. Scott is to be believed, it also seems to result in Mr. Bridgman mis-representing a lot of what Mr. Scott is saying in his book. I have no way to say what is what in any of this, but I can say that one reason I am attracted to the Electric Universe theory is because of the snobby "speaking from authority" attitude coming from a lot of the mainstream physics people like "Mr. Neil De-Big Ass Tyson", who characterizes anyone who disagrees with the consensus view of climate change as ignorant and dangerous. Forgive me for speaking from ignorance, but were "flux transfer events" considered in coming up with the "climate change" model that all the scientists agree on? Maybe getting zapped every 8 minutes from the sun has a negligible effect on our climate? I know they didn't take the super-heated plasma jets they are now calling "Steve" into account since they were just recently discovered, and that as a result of "citizen scientists" on social media who noticed a steak of light in a photograph of the northern lights. The following quote is from an article found here - https://phys.org/news/2017-04-swarm-...-northern.html


    "The temperature 300 km above Earth's surface jumped by 3000?C and the data revealed a 25 km-wide ribbon of gas flowing westwards at about 6 km/s compared to a speed of about 10 m/s either side of the ribbon.

    "It turns out that Steve is actually remarkably common, but we hadn't noticed it before. It's thanks to ground-based observations, satellites, today's explosion of access to data and an army of citizen scientists joining forces to document it.


    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-swarm-...thern.html#jCp





    One of the quotes Mr. Scott shares in his rebuttal to Mr. Bridgman's critique kind of demonstrates my point about the established paradigm feeling privileged is found when he mentions a Mr. John Anderson and an article about the Pioneer flyby anomaly.

    "Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist John Anderson and his colleagues have been searching for an explanation since 1980. But as of yet, they have found nothing conclusive; no spacecraft behavior or previously unknown property of the outer solar system can explain the deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. Scientists are being forced to consider the unthinkable: something may be wrong with our understanding of the laws of physics." .

    Oh the horrors! Not really. I did a little reading on various theories put forth to explain this anomaly and others like it, and for Pioneer, they seem to have settled on unequal thermal radiation from the satellite body. But some of the other possibilities put forward (like Unruh radiation) sounded no more far-fetched than Mr. Scott's claim that electrical and magnetic effects could be involved. What I am suspicious about in the apparent acceptance of thermal radiation being the cause is the fact that they had to put together so much old data from so many sources, re-format it and even go so far as to "adjust" for earthquakes moving critical sensors out of position. I would hate to have to read the amount of data needed to verify how they can be sure just exactly how far those sensors moved using 30 year old data. What reference points were they using to measure a sensor's location back then? Were these reference points all on earth? And if so, how can you be sure of how much the continents drifted in the interval given all the changes in how we measure things using satellites these days?

    You can call me what you want, but another reason I have a hard time with the mainstream paradigm is because of the universal agreement of ancient "myths" about the configuration and behavior of our solar system. It is easier for me to believe that electro-magnetism plays a much bigger role in planetary physics than it is given by the mainstream, than it is to believe that "primitive and superstitious" culture groups from all over the planet, separated by thousands of miles with no way to communicate, managed to all have identical drug induced hallucinations that caused them to come up with identical myths, and to use such similar symbols in their expressions associated with those myths. Symbols that have had look-alike counterparts produced in plasma experiments in the lab.
    Last edited by Silence; 04-29-2017 at 06:52 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •