Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 98
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271
    I watched this video yesterday - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFjcrvc9C70 and found it very interesting. Never knew that lightning strikes can lift material up in piles and melt it. A lot of geological features show evidence of this on a much larger scale. Many anomalous geological formations find much simpler explanations when electrical effects are used to explain them. It is pretty scary to think about what kind of t-bolt could create something like Shiprock Mountain in Arizona. I drove through parts of Utah quite a while back and can remember thinking, "how in the world can water erosion create miles of triangular shaped buttress formations that are so symmetrical". Resonance in "shock waves" produced by huge electric discharges makes a lot more sense.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271

    Slipping Out Of Neutral

    Watched this video this morning - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aemwD0SW0Y0 and was surprised to hear (the 2:13 - 4:00 marks) that there is evidence that the nucleus of atoms may not have neutrons holding the protons together, but rather that the electrons may be spaced so that the attraction of separate protons to them also pulls them closer to each other. Another interesting development is the recent paper on gamma ray bursts from the Crab nebula (4:10 - 5:14 marks), where a tiny portion of the matter there put out huge gamma ray flares within hours of each other. The mainstream is scratching their heads over how they can be so intense, how can the power to put out these powerful, repetitive bursts can be accumulated within hours, when the distance across the nebula takes light-months to traverse, and how can such a small area of the nebula put out energy that is only one order of magnitude less than that contained in the entire nebula? Maybe they could ask the power company workers (8:10 - 8:45 marks)The steadily increasing array of "perplexities" for the standard model finds simple explanations that Occam would give a thumbs up to in "an electric universe" paradigm.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271

    There's None So Blind, As Them's What Will Not See....

    Evidence, evidence everywhere, but not a bit do I see, (a black hole ate it) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe0jgBqWjKI

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Silence View Post
    Evidence, evidence everywhere, but not a bit do I see, (a black hole ate it) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe0jgBqWjKI
    Hey there Silence,

    I started watching the video and was surprised to see that they were quoting peer reviewed mainstream scientific articles that supposedly support their theory. So what is the "evidence" that is being ignored?

    You seem quite convinced by their ideas. I would enjoy discussing the scientific evidence with you. Is it true that they reject General Relativity? If so, how do they explain it's effectiveness? And do they have a replacement theory that works as well? Michael Shermer brought up this point in his article The Electric Universe Acid Test. Here's an exerpt:

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Shermer
    I was invited to speak on the difference between science and pseudoscience. The most common theme I gleaned from the conference is that one should be skeptical of all things mainstream: cosmology, physics, history, psychology and even government (I was told that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11 and that ?chemtrails??the contrails in the sky trailing jets?are evidence of a government climate-engineering experiment).


    The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein?s relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No. Then what does EU theory add? A deeper understanding of nature, I was told. Oh.
    If their "theory" doesn't actually have any practical applications and can't make any real predictions, then is it even a "scientific theory"?
    • 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

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271
    Hello Richard,
    Sorry I haven't replied sooner. I have been working six days a week for the last several months and the last week has been a doozy so I hadn't been checked the site in a while.

    One of the things I was referring to as being ignored is what seems to me to be a chicken/egg scenario surrounding discussion of magnetic fields in space (2:15 -5:55). The standard model uses "leftover" magnetic fields from the "big bang" combined with kinetic movement of material/gravity to explain the generation of electric currents in space and their resulting magnetic structures which are observed. The electric universe postulates that the only way to have magnetic fields in space is if there is electricity flowing in the first place, and that material is being moved around by electric charge flowing, which also produces the magnetic fields. discussed in the 5:55 to 8:14 mark of the video. The paper by Denise Gabuzda & co. on active galactic nuclei as co-axial cables mentions "radio loud" AGN's, and mentions the possibility that the source of power for the radio noise is a "cosmic battery", but Mr. Scott points out that it is well known that electricity flowing in double layers in plasma generates radio noise, but no mention of this in the paper. Maybe the gravity from a black hole has sucked her field of view into a narrow tunnel, or maybe Hannes Alfen's work is anathema. I don't know. Then at the 7:12 - 7:36 portion, Mr. Scott points out the similarity between the diagram of the electrical currents that the paper's author included in her work and his own diagram of a Birkeland current structure that was published back in 2015. (the north pole of Jupiter has a structure of at least a dozen counter-rotating bands of gas that looks surprisingly similar to Mr. Scott's model, and which the standard model is hard pressed to explain) Since Mr. Scott is just a retired electrical engineer, Ms. Gabuzda has probably never heard of him or his paper. She may or may not know about any of the people noted in the 7:51 - 8:14 section, but it seems to me that the alternative possibilities which their work could imply gets sucked into a black hole and disappears.

    This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zELjb6iDjL8 puts forth what seems to me a good explanation of how & why Einstein's theory of relativity got its foothold. A good bit of the "cultural" aspect behind this phenomenon can be explained by scientific advance far outpacing the ability of social/political power structures to keep up. Also, at the time of Eddington's experiments on "gravitational lensing" little was known about the atmosphere around bodies in space, and in space itself. There is a lot more material out there than they thought. According to Eddington himself, he didn't go into his experiments with a critical mindset, he was already convinced that Einstien was right. (4:25 -5:20) In this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fePQdJNVF9g , doubt is cast on "gravitational lensing", unexplained observations are noted, and a paper by a Dr. Gupta is mentioned that postulates that refraction is responsible for what is now called "gravitational lensing". I mentioned this paper in a previous post, and just got around to sending him an e-mail this morning, asking him if anyone has published a paper refuting or falsifying his claims. I did a quick search and couldn't find any, but I'm hoping he will respond, since he is in a position to know. I have already spent too much time at the computer this morning, so I gotta run. If you don't want to "waste" too much of your time watching these videos all the way through, you can run them at 2x speed and use the closed captions, which are pretty accurate.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271
    I am waiting to go to work and have a few minutes to post a link to a page that contains information on a prediction concerning Saturn. Scientists were surprised when they found a "hot spot" on Saturn's south pole. Wal Thornhill said this was consistent with electric universe theory and that he expected them to eventually find that the north pole had one too, which would present even more of a conundrum for them to explain, since that pole had not been facing the sun for a long time. Guess what they found? http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm you can find links about 2/3 of the way down the page dealing with discovery of the south pole hot spot in February of 2005 and one from January of 2008, when they found the one on the north pole. One of them mentions that Venus also has a hot spot on one of its poles, but I don't know if they found one at the other.

    I imagine that one reason Mr. Thronhill answered no to the question about using electric universe principles to design flight paths for spacecraft is because gravity plays a more dominant role at the size scale being dealt with. Further, the theory is still in its infancy and practical applications may take a while to become evident. Some have been undertaken already by factoring "space weather" in climate models, and the guys at Suspicious observers have been working on a model that factors solar impacts on the planet into earthquake activity and induced currents in the ground affecting volcanic activity.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271

    Lots to Chew on Here

    Saw this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX_kn7Yisq8 a few minutes ago and don't have time right now to read about the stuff mentioned from other sources, but I wanted to post it so people can check it out. The 1:05 - 2:25 part is interesting in that they have found a large number of magnetic fields in a star forming area where gravity is being overpowered by magnetic fields moving material around. The next section describes proton variations on earth that follow a 450 day cycle. The papers authors state that the most likely cause is earth's passing through the area of a magnetic connection between the Sun and Jupiter, which fits this time cycle.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    271
    This video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCuNrtHxTU has a little more information to add to the video I linked to in my post from yesterday on the merging of "magnetic connections" between the sun, earth, and jupiter. Turns out that each of the planets in the solar system experience something similar when they pass one another in orbit, causing their individual "magnetic ropes" to merge and then separate again. There are also links to other interesting videos listed below the screen. This one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_gOb6PWZI - titled "Our Mysterious USGS Friend Strikes Again", is on the subject of refinements to the Suspicious Observers' earthquake prediction work. Mr. Davidson got so wrapped up in trying to include more types of data correlations into a "personalized version" of their official model that he failed to notice several factors that actually help to bolster the success rate of the official model. Someone who works at the USGS, and supports their efforts anonymously due to concern for his/her career, pointed out the pattern. Apparently this is not the first time this "friend" has come in handy. I wish I had more time to look into this stuff, it's fascinating.
    Last edited by Silence; 01-27-2018 at 05:43 AM.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Silence,

    Please help me out here. What is it that you find so compelling about the Electric Universe Theory? I've tried to listen to the videos you post. I can't make it more than a few minutes before I have to quit. I don't see any evidence that would make any reasonably competent person that understands science dismiss all the knowledge we have accumulated. That's what belief in the Electric Universe Theory requires you to do in order to believe it. I see a lot of quote mining in your videos to support the conclusion they want.


    Could you provide one credible person with peer reviewed papers that support this theory?
    Last edited by L67; 01-27-2018 at 11:42 AM.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Silence View Post
    Scientists were surprised when they found a "hot spot" on Saturn's south pole. Wal Thornhill said this was consistent with electric universe theory and that he expected them to eventually find that the north pole had one too, which would present even more of a conundrum for them to explain, since that pole had not been facing the sun for a long time. Guess what they found? http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm you can find links about 2/3 of the way down the page dealing with discovery of the south pole hot spot in February of 2005 and one from January of 2008, when they found the one on the north pole. One of them mentions that Venus also has a hot spot on one of its poles, but I don't know if they found one at the other.
    What Wal Thornhill claims is wrong. Here is his claim: Thornhill: The Electric Universe also predicts, experimentum crucis, that BOTH poles should be hot, not one hot and the other cold.

    I followed the link that they gave here that supposedly support their claims.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...34576920080103

    Saturn's chilly north pole boasts a hot spot of compressed air, a surprising discovery that could shed light on other planets within our own solar system and beyond, researchers said on Thursday. Scientists already knew about a hot spot at Saturn's sunny south pole but data from the Cassini spacecraft now shows that the winter pole drenched in darkness also has a hot spot, said Nick Teanby, a planetary scientist, who worked on the study. With this Cassini mission we can also see the winter pole, which we are not able to see from Earth because of the tilt of the planet, said Teanby of the University of Oxford. "We didn't expect it to have a hot spot at the north." The hot spot is essentially a small, narrow region hotter than the gas surrounding it, the international team reported in the journal Science.

    It says they found a hot spot on Saturn's chilly north pole, not that both poles are hot.


    There is no conundrum. They know what caused the hot spot. From the Reuters article. ?We think it is due to air descending from higher in the atmosphere to lower in the atmosphere,? Teanby said in a telephone interview. ?The mass of air heats up as it?s compressed -- like air in a bicycle pump.?

    And here is Nasa themselves confirming these findings. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/c...-20080103.html

    "The hot spots are the result of air moving polewards, being compressed and heated up as it descends over the poles into the depths of Saturn," said Leigh Fletcher, a planetary scientist from the University of Oxford, England

    Thornhill's predictions are flat out wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silence View Post
    I imagine that one reason Mr. Thronhill answered no to the question about using electric universe principles to design flight paths for spacecraft is because gravity plays a more dominant role at the size scale being dealt with. Further, the theory is still in its infancy and practical applications may take a while to become evident. Some have been undertaken already by factoring "space weather" in climate models, and the guys at Suspicious observers have been working on a model that factors solar impacts on the planet into earthquake activity and induced currents in the ground affecting volcanic activity.
    The main reason is because the theory is total crap. The Rosetta missions prove that. You can read about it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)

    You need to consider the math calculations involved in order to send the Rosetta spacecraft to safely land on a comet. We are talking about calculations that account for years of travel time along with the gravity of several planets repeatedly to reach a destination that is astonishing. This was all successfully calculated and predicted by astronomers. And why were the predictions correct? Because are current model of gravity is unbelievably accurate. You don't carry out a mission like this if our model of gravity is as the EU crowd states.

    Here is what Rosetta accomplished before reaching the probe.

    March 4, 2005: Earth flyby
    Feb. 25, 2007: Mars flyby
    Nov. 13 2007: Earth flyby
    Sept. 5, 2008: asteroid 2867 ?teins flyby
    Nov. 13 2009: Earth flyby
    July 10, 2010: asteroid 21 Lutetia flyby

    How could Rosetta flyby these planets and asteroids without the effects of the electric universe felt? How could Rosetta survive traveling through the Suns electric field? How could our incredibly accurate model of gravity allow us to successfully carry out this mission if the EU theory had any merit? I could go on and on.

    The theory is total unworkable garbage. That is why there are no models with any explanatory power. There simply is no way to account for all the concrete knowledge we already know. End of story.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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