Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    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.
    Definitions are indeed important. Case in point: I had never heard the term "boffin" before, so I looked it up and found that it is a British term basically equivalent to the American "geek". Webster's defines it as "a scientific expert, especially one involved in technical research."

    As for the other two terms, field and magnetism, I am quite familiar with their technical definitions since I am indeed a "boffin" with degrees in physics and mathematics.

    Of course, there are different kinds of answers to "what is" type of questions. It is true that the magnetic field is the field that exerts a magnetic force, but that doesn't tell us what "magnetism" IS in an ontological sense. Most of those kinds of questions can never be answered. Like "What is electricity?" or "What is energy?". Energy can be defined as something that can be measured, but who can say what it "is" in an ontological sense?
    • 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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    203
    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.

  4. #14
    Unregistered Guest

    Another Unexpected Surprise

    Found this on the T-Bolts site today. A round heliosheath is impossible to explain with the standard model. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    203

    Electrical Explanation of Jupiter's Anomalies

    I found this interesting video at T-Bolts this morning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8E0tVpI7mE

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    203

    A Selfless Pioneer

    Until a few years ago I had never even heard about Kristian Birkeland. His relative obscurity, despite a long list of both visionary and practical lines of scientific endeavor, has been noted by many over the years. But he was way too far ahead of his time, and there was no way to prove a lot of his theories until space flight became possible. His critics took full advantage of this and were none too kind, Sydney Chapman being the most aggressive and vociferous. Nominated eight times for the Noble Prize, four times in the field of chemistry, and four times for physics, Mr. Birkeland never received one. His best chance was when he was nominated for inventing a process for making potassium nitrate fertilizer, but that opportunity was shot down by his unfortunate association with Sam Eyde. The two could not be more different in character. Kristian Birkeland raised and spent more of his own money to conduct research than any of his peers. He and his fellow researchers endured grueling conditions and risked life and limb when they conducted their research on the northern lights. One of their group perished in an avalanche. Sam Eyde, on the other hand was an ambitious industrialist and businessman who felt that if he couldn't share in the Nobel prize with Birkeland, then Birkeland should not get it either. He capitalized on the success of the fertilizer making process and was treated like royalty. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Kristian Birkeland's death, and time has been much kinder to his legacy than his contemporaries ever imagined.


    http://sciencenordic.com/king-northern-lights
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...ian-birkeland/

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    203

    Another Area Of Study Where Electricity Is Being Acknowledged

    Saw this on the T-Bolts site the other day - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9QfpbyjCaE A trail of ionized material streaming behind a meteor seems like it would make a good conductor.
    Last edited by Silence; 06-26-2017 at 05:05 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    203

    Practical Benefits Might Get Scientists To Take Another Look The Electric Universe?

    Saw this today - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...ab-space-news/ It contains some new developments in practical research to solve problems, like reducing pollution and increasing efficiency in combustion engines. Some of their experiments tie in with self-organizing movement of matter when exposed to high voltage and magnetic fields. I read a long time ago about how huge flocks of starlings could swirl and change direction in unison without colliding. For a long time it was claimed that the birds were giving one another very subtle clues as to which direction they were going to move, thus allowing other birds to avoid colliding with them. But when they put high speed cameras to use, they found that the birds were moving so fast and so close together that there was not enough distance for their reaction times to prevent collisions. It was postulated that there was a type of "group mind" at work. Electrical signals might better explain the phenomena?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    203

    Now Idn't Dat Sumpin'

    The folks at Thunderbolts.info have so many videos, I doubt if I will be able to keep up with them. I watched this one on gravitational lensing this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g Was the existence of neutrinos, and plasma in space, known about when the theory of gravitational lensing was developed? I did a search on refutations and criticism of Mr. Gupta's paper on refraction in space and found none. Found his email address and plan to ask him if there have been any responses on the topic.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    203

    Smoking Guns On Jupiter's Moon Io

    This "Picture of the Day" article - https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ - describes the astonishment mainstream scientists experienced when they started looking at observations of Jupiter & its moon Io from the Juno, Galileo, and New Horizons space missions. A magnetosphere twice as strong as expected, over 2 trillions watts of electric current flowing between Jupiter and Io. Filamentary plumes of material rising off of Io's surface that were thought to be volcanoes driven off heat from "gravitational kneading", were found to be giving off ultraviolet light (nobody can figure out how that can happen as a result of volcanic activity). And finally, "hot spots" in the magma under the Loki Patera caldera that vary in intensity not with the gravitational variance resulting from Io's elliptical orbit of 42.5 days, (which should be the case if the heating was done by gravitational "kneading"), but instead the heating/cooling cycle follows an approximately 10 hour cycle that is close to Jupiter's 9.5 hour rotation rate. That would tend to point towards electromagnetic induction driving the heat process, not gravitational kneading.

    This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEHuvM4Tc3U has additional information, including the prediction by astrophysicist Thomas Gold that Io's plumes would be found to be electrically driven. Also pointed out is the fact that the locations of these so-called volcanoes is incompatible with a gravitational kneading model, along with some predictions made by Wal Thornhill about the movement patterns and extreme temperature of Io's "wandering plumes". Lots of interesting stuff.

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
  •