When was the last time you saw shiny, reflective sand or dust? (Ok, sand can be a little shiny, but I don't think it would have as much contrast against the plain old martian ground)
Of course, there are some pics that I wouldn't mind a little more investigation on. I happen to be interested in something I call Gulliver's Golf Ball, something that looks like a perfect sphere, roughly 200 meters across.
Like many other "mysteries" of Mars, domed craters are only mysteries because we assume that electricity is having a limited effect upon the terraforming of Mars. And yet, we can create domed craters with electricity in the laboratory...
If you don't mind, I'm going to redirect you to my other recent post on the electrical terraforming of Mars. There is much evidence to support the notion that NASA is ignoring the role that electricity plays on Mars...
Now look at the scalloped curled trenches that would result from a pair of Birkeland Currents twisting around one another (as happens in plasma globes). The scalloping and flat bottoms are exactly the same thing you notice on asteroid and cometary craters too...
And next, the "collapsed lava tubes"... "Lava tubes on Earth are only a few meters wide. The width of channels on Ascraeus Mons are measured in thousands of meters. Even with Mars' lesser gravity, solidified lava is not strong enough to span such distances: None of the channels should be covered.":
Rilles exist on the Moon, Earth, Mars and Venus (among other planets), and yet we ascribe different geological mechanisms for nearly all of these. Shouldn't we also consider that one single phenomenon is possibly causing many of them? We know, for instance, that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by the Colorado River because it would have had to plough straight through a gigantic plateau called the Kaibab Upwarp. Interestingly, scientists to this day cannot agree on what caused the Grand Canyon and the fact that entire geological records are missing for that canyon doesn't help either...
The fact that somebody can look at these images (pictured below) and conclude that they are geysers rather than the remnants of electrical strikes... well, let's just say that I rest my case with this article...
Actually, that's probably the exact phrase that your grandchild will use one day to describe you when you tell him that you used to believe in black holes.
I'm going to ignore all of your comments that are nothing more than *assertions* that you are right. These are merely expressions of how strongly you feel about this stuff -- not arguments.
The static universe was falsified by many other observations, one of which is the CMBR spectrum. Its predictions for the CMBR temperature are irrelevant.
I'd like to hear *why* a prediction for the temperature was irrelevant. Is it irrelevant because it was wrong? Or is there a good reason for why this temperature was considered a free variable?
The point is that there are other explanations for the microwave signals being noticed. In fact, here's a pretty good one (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=knb8h x39):
The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation--as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot "see" them through the local microwave fog.
The only reason that the Big Bang version is preferred over the others is because we teach the Big Bang to physics students. It acts to create consensus in fields where a little bit of disagreement could only be a healthy thing. Why are Big Bang advocates so allergic to debate? Debate causes us to question our assumptions. In the process of debating things, you are forced to ask yourself what you truly know. Debate is a *good* thing. What's actually bad is when a particular theory becomes so accepted that there are few dissenting voices -- because there is always still the possibility that the theory could be wrong.
Just because the Big Bang theorists were able to integrate this observation into their model does not mean that the data supports the Big Bang Theory.
Actually, it does mean that.
A theory can have no predictive capabilities and yet fully describe all of the observations that have been made. In such a scenario, it would forever seem as if we are just barely on the edge of understanding the theory of everything, and yet new mysterious observations would happen all the time and little to no technology would ever derive from this theory. This is pretty coincidentally the situation we have with the Big Bang Theory.
Arp's statistical methodology is biased in a way that guaranteed to indicate excess QSOs in the directions of bright galaxies.
In a recent paper by astronomers Lopéz-Corredoira and Gutiérrez (astro-ph/0609514), a statistical investigation was performed to test if there are overdensities of QSOs along the minor axis (rotation axis) of nearby galaxies, as predicted by Arp's model. To this end, the authors selected 71 nearby edge-on spiral galaxies that were sufficiently well-studied and compared the positions of QSOs from a large database. The edge-on constraint was necessary to ensure a clear direction of the rotation axis. Indeed, the authors found an overdensity towards the minor axis. Depending on the magnitude of the quasars, the overdensity was found to be between 13% and 38%, with a statistical significance of 3.9 sigma (chance of this finding being a fluke is roughly 1 in 10,000). While the authors are cautiously describing this result as "te
Can we really say for *sure* that this was an *impact*? Or were the craters formed by electrical discharge between the planet and an object as it fell towards the planet? This would explain the multiple impact craters and this is after all exactly what happened when a large copper ball was shot towards the Tempel 1 comet. I wonder if the "impacts" correspond to high points on the land? Nobody seems to be asking these sorts of questions because electricity is assumed to not be an important part of terraforming for the planets.
We have plenty of evidence already for electrical dust devils on Mars. Why is the electrical explanation consistently ignored when the morphologies appear almost identical?
There are all sorts of mysterious phenomenon on Mars that lose their mystery once you consider that electricity may be active on that planet.
Maybe because the other theory, namely the Static Universe that had been popular in the first part of the 20th century couldn't explain the Hubble's observations (redshift)? The Big Bang theory simply explains the facts better. That's how science works.
Actually, observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that were supposed to "prove" the Big Bang Theory were more in line with static universe predictions. The Big Bang predictions ranged from 5 to 7 and then to 50 Kelvin, whereas the static universe predictions centered closer to 3 Kelvin -- which is pretty much where the observed value ended up. Just because the Big Bang theorists were able to integrate this observation into their model does not mean that the data supports the Big Bang Theory.
Around 30 years ago, a researcher named Halton Arp attempted to publish a paper that showed that not all redshifts are cosmological. His paper was refused by The Astrophysical Journal without any criticism of his methodology and no attempt to refute his observations. There are actually numerous undeniable observations that indicate that high redshift quasars are between us and lower redshift galaxies. It's not a very popular topic amongst Big Bang advocates however because it disproves much of what they've been saying for so long. If you can demonstrate that quasars are being ejected from the centers of spiral galaxies, as is being proposed by Arp, and that these quasars are in fact proto-galaxies (baby galaxies) that expand in mass as they decrease in velocity away from the spiral galaxies, then it becomes hard to determine which redshifts are cosmological and which are due to this other effect.
It may appear to you that the Big Bang Theory "explains the facts better", but then why are scientists constantly making observations that violate theory? A week doesn't go by without another surprise in the news media. Astrophysicists will then speculate about what's causing these strange observations, but the media oftentimes passes this speculation off as if it is fact.
There are many very important unsolved mysteries in the universe that the Big Bang has so far failed to explain:
Why is the surface of the Sun only 6,000 Kelvin while the corona gets up to 2,000,000 Kelvin? If the Sun is nothing more than a nuclear reaction, which gets hotter as you move towards the core, then how is it possible that the energy does not heat up the surface in the process of heating up the corona? Astrophysicists have proposed something called magnetic reconnections, but this phenomenon has no scientific basis. It is not supported by either plasma physics or electricity and magnetism.
Why are sunspots dark? They are supposed to be the deepest regions which we can observe into the Sun, and yet they are also the darkest.
Why does the Sun appear to be getting hotter?
Why does the solar wind accelerate as it leaves the Sun past the planets? What is accelerating these particles?
How is it possible that neutron stars can stay together? There is a law of physics called "The Island of Stability" that requires that neutrons packed this tightly together should fly apart from one another. Neutron stars therefore violate the laws of known physics.
What is dark matter and dark energy? We're supposed to believe that these two things account for about 95% of the universe's matter. Many experiments have tried to directly observe dark matter, but not a single attempt has been successful so far. Until they are observed, they are nothing more than mathematical abstractions.
This is just a small sampling. There are many other problems with traditional astrophysics -- especially with the Sun. Astrophysicists treat all of these problems as if they are minor, unimportant problems and that we'll eventually get to them at some later time. But all of these problems are treated with the presumption that the Big Bang Theory is actually correct. It's possible that there are other cosmologies that could explain all
I can point you to Halton Arp, who attempted to publish a paper explaining that quasars are being ejected from the centers of spiral galaxies. It is clear that a good number of these quasars do not appear to be at their cosmological redshift distances because they appear in *front* of spiral galaxies with lower redshifts. Since his paper was rejected and his telescope time was yanked, he has written about his findings in his book "Seeing Red". The point though is that his research was denied for publication with a note scrawled onto the paper by the editor of the Astrophysical Journal, "This exceeds my imagination". Because his research was contradicting the Big Bang Theory, his telescope time was yanked. This was 30 years ago. Misleading NASA press releases aside, nobody has ever successfully refuted that research. In fact, just recently, a paper came out in *support* of his findings. Here's the info, excerpted from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0612 04arpejection.htm:
As seen in the above illustration, quasars are ejected from their parent galaxy and will evolve into mature galaxies over time. Arp's model is based on observations of active (Seyfert) galaxies that show pairing of identically redshifted quasars predominantly along the minor (rotation) axis of these galaxies.
In a recent paper by astronomers Lopéz-Corredoira and Gutiérrez (astro-ph/0609514), a statistical investigation was performed to test if there are overdensities of QSOs along the minor axis (rotation axis) of nearby galaxies, as predicted by Arp's model. To this end, the authors selected 71 nearby edge-on spiral galaxies that were sufficiently well-studied and compared the positions of QSOs from a large database. The edge-on constraint was necessary to ensure a clear direction of the rotation axis. Indeed, the authors found an overdensity towards the minor axis. Depending on the magnitude of the quasars, the overdensity was found to be between 13% and 38%, with a statistical significance of 3.9 sigma (chance of this finding being a fluke is roughly 1 in 10,000). While the authors are cautiously describing this result as "tentative", it is the first time that a statistical relation was found in support of Arp's ejection model.
A lot has actually happened since then -- especially recently with the Deep Impact mission. It would appear that the results of that mission don't match traditional cometary theory *at all*. The curious thing though is that the unusual Deep Impact results did not cause a lot of chatter. And this is the problem with astrophysics today that links these two cases together: there is no interest in understanding anomalies anymore. If Whipple's theory about comets being pushed around by jets appears to be wrong, then comets continue to have unexplained non-gravitational acceleration. This is exactly what EU Theory states -- that there is a link between gravity and electrical charge of a body in space.
I've spent time learning about the traditional model of astronomy. I didn't start out with EU Theory. But I found EU Theory to be more compelling. The EU guys make some good points and I've thought a lot about them on my own. My own opinion is that astrophysics has made the mistake of attempting a divide-and-conquer strategy. Rather than trying to identify unifying principles of the universe, they have subdivided the universe's components into small parts. Planets and comets are great examples. We know that both planets and comets have plasma tails. But rather than trying to understand the plasma tail in terms that affect them both, they've created completely different terminology for the two things -- even
Actually, I'm going to add one more thing that you should be able to understand as a non-physicist.
Astrophysicists have convinced the world that that the Sun is benign -- that it will follow an orderly scheduled routine of steps that won't even start happening for billions of years. First of all, think about how you go about disproving something like that: it is not a falsifiable claim. Every time that we see a star break these rules, they propose an additional mechanism for the anomaly -- while retaining the stellar evolution model. This is not rocket science. That's bad science.
If that was the end of it, then so be it. But it doesn't stop there. Now that they've convinced us that the Sun is benign, they exclude all research that contradicts this claim. Halton Arp tried to publish a paper 30 years ago that definitively disproved the Big Bang model. His reward was that he lost his telescope time. And to this day, his line of research, which continues to gain observational support as time moves forward, is not considered a valid line of research.
This is the most asinine thing that any culture could do to itself. It's completely self-destructive, and it has caused our society to take our existences for granted. We feel that we are in command of our own existences: so long as we avoid killing ourselves, we will continue to exist. If an asteroid comes our way, we can do things about this. But the Sun could never possibly do anything to harm us. It's such a juvenile thought actually. I mean, what's the limit to a coronal mass ejection? Once again, according to uniformitarianism, we *assume* that there is in fact a limit because the past and future must be *just* like the present. Once again, that's bad science.
The Sun could turn off tomorrow according to The Electric Universe Theory -- a theory which has not been disproven and which appears to have lots of observational support. As a person who respects life, loves science and is happy to think that I'll be here tomorrow, the thought that humans could take such a gamble seems surreal. We should be investigating it even if we think it's not true so long as it has not been disproven. There are enough telescopes to be investigating multiple cosmologies. Having multiple cosmologies would even be better because it would create a debate and inspire people to actually *think* about the things that they're being told. If astrophysics was the Republican Party, then NASA would be the equivalent of Foxnews. The head of the party sets the tone for the entire party and everybody just nods their heads to the tune of the talking points like a giant echo chamber.
"IANAP". I'll definitely remember that one. That's so emblematic of the whole problem. I'm not a physicist. I couldn't possibly understand these things because *they* told me so. So it's not my problem. I expect to be here tomorrow. I deserve it.
Like I said before, think for yourself. If more people were doing that, then we'd all be better off.
It's a common misconception that people have to be physicists in order to hold a belief in physics. The fact that you've decided that these issues are beyond your own comprehension is typical, even of intelligent people. It's exactly what the physicists (particularly the astrophysicists) have taught us to believe. We can evaluate their statements though as a whole on the basis of their methodology and a few specific examples. Absolute dating of any object older than the dendrochronological record is questionable and people should treat it that way. But that's not how it's portrayed in the media. People tend to believe that our science works as well as our technology. But the fields of geology, archaeology and astronomy are all based upon uniformitarianism -- this thought that we can understand the past by just looking around us right now. It's a flawed theory. Some phenomenon are transient or difficult to observe in real-time. Also, one should expect that we live in a relatively "safe" region of the universe that is not indicative of the normal violence we see through our scopes.
I'm going to continue to post on Slashdot about this subject. I feel that I am doing a service by injecting a fresh perspective in spite of the fact that I repeatedly receive verbal abuse for believing something that's out of the mainstream. It's possible that some of the things I'm saying are wrong, but there are very good reasons to believe that my bigger "pet theory" (The Electric Universe Theory) is true. The science of weather control is being born right now and it is based upon Electric Universe Theory. Countries are using this technology right now to edge out their neighbors in crop yields. Scientists will discount the theory because there is no article in a refereed journal to support it. But that's the point: they refuse to consider the theory in the first place. This is what I'm fighting. I just want people to learn about the theory.
This theory has implications for understanding and controlling earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes as well. An amateur picture shows the plasma trail of the Space Shuttle Columbia being hit by upper-atmosphere lightning at the exact moment of its malfunction. The picture was discounted primarily because the Earth is not believed to exchange charge with outer space. But it does, no differently than comets have been observed to do. It's so surreal that saying that receives so much condemnation, and yet people accept that 95% of the universe is invisible to all of our telescopes like mindless drones.
The flashing of neutron stars bears a striking resemblance to sparking and many neutron stars have observable companion stars right next to them. But we choose to instead believe that neutron stars are stars spinning at up to 300 revolutions per second. The only reason we make this choice is because we believe in the Big Bang. But the Big Bang is still just a theory, right? Can't there be alternative cosmologies still?
The most disturbing part of the theory is that the Sun is not the benign star that we always thought it was. Sudden coronal mass ejections have been observed on nearby star systems that would have destroyed all life on our planet had they occurred for our Sun. Traditional astrophysics tells us that stars evolve, but we've seen lots of stars in the universe violate their stellar evolutions on multiple occasions. Of course, Big Bang advocates have developed explanations for those observations. But we are seeing our own Sun brighten right now on top of the solar cycles. Neptune is also brightening and even changing color. Conventional astrophysics has no explanation for these things. This makes perfect sense in Electric Universe Theory though. The planets and stars are all electrically connected. The 11-year solar cycle in fact is caused by the movement of the gas giant planets. Those gas giants can become stars in their own right under the right situation.
Nebulae have been observed to contain electrical fields acting over condu
Can you please comment on the article I linked to in my posting? Threads would also be more interesting if people actually read the links being discussed.
I'm not alleging that the carbon dating decay rate is being affected by EM radiation. I'm alleging that the mere fact that EM radiation affects the amount of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere is reason to believe that EM radiation does interact with these particles in a general sense, and that we should not be surprised if there is more interaction than has been presumed so far.
Now, this explanation doesn't apply to most kinds of radioactive dating. Uranium dating, for instance, looks at U-238 that has been there since the beginning of the solar system, and cosmic rays just don't matter.
This is actually the heart of the issue, and after supplying a more detailed explanation of the process for carbon dating, you appear to dismiss the possibility that this might also be happening for the decay rates of isotopes used in other dating techniques without actually reading the article that I pointed to and without providing any actual evidence for why decay rates would be resistant to EM radiation.
I'd really like to hear what you have to say about the article I linked to. Can you please read and comment on it?
Thank you so much for the opportunity to actually talk to you. I'll try my hardest be concise.
There is indeed evidence for censorship in science today. Confusion may arise though because this censorship is happening in astronomy, which serves to provide us with the scientific basis for which we draw our conclusions about the Sun. I refer you to Halton Arp's book, "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science". Halton Arp lost his telescope time because he wrote a paper detailing observational evidence that contradicted the Big Bang. For a far faster treatment of the material, you should purchase and watch the two-part video, "Universe -- The Cosmology Quest" and then "Thunderbolts of the Gods -- The Tutorial". If you want further information after or before viewing those videos, then I refer you to the database of "Picture of the Days" on the www.thunderbolts.info site. Their paper on The Electric Comet is very good too.
Now I will try to summarize the issue. This is a very complex issue, but I will do my best to explain it to you as quickly as possible. The "Queen of the Sciences", cosmology, is defining limits on the research that we can do in all of the sciences. Also, the concept of uniformitarianism -- this idea that we can deduce what happened in the past based upon our observations of our surroundings right now -- is flawed and is causing scientists to disregard both theories and observational evidence in the sciences of geology, archaeology and astronomy that don't conform to the queen of the sciences.
There is now an alternative theory for cosmology which deserves attention, but which is not getting it due to scientific bias. And this theory dramatically affects our understanding of the Sun, which in turn affects our understanding of global warming. The Electric Universe Theory proposes that the electric force exists on large scales in deep space. Most people are actually surprised to learn that traditional astrophysicists assume that all large bodies in space are
electrically neutral. We now have observational evidence that would suggest this to not be true. In June of 2005, the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 created overwhelming observational evidence that the tail and coma of comets are in fact electrical phenomenon (See http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf ). In fact, Electric Universe theorist Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted the results of that mission -- results which have to this day baffled NASA scientists. There is not enough water on Tempel 1 to explain the coma and tail in terms of sublimating ice and the impact of that comet generated two undeniable sparks, as well as a fine dust that enveloped the probe cameras (dust just like one gets from electrical sputtering of telescope dishes). Video of the encounter show unmistakable white spots, which are pretty clear evidence of electrical arcing. Images of comets confirm that comets that are not currently flaring up appear just as asteroids.
Wallace Thornhill and his Thunderbolts crew have proposed that comets are in fact merely asteroids on elliptical orbits around the Sun. When far away from the Sun, they pick up the voltage of deep space. Then, as they approach the Sun's electric field, this charge is pushed away from the Sun until it is stripped off of the comet's body, at which point we see the tail and coma. It is worth noting that asteroids have been observed to turn into comets (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060 407cometasteroid.htm) and even do so far away from the Sun near the gas giant planets. At this distance from the Sun, sublimation would not make any sense. The notion that cometary tails and comas are likely electrical phenomenon have also been confirmed by x-ray imaging of a comet.
I wouldn't believe the dating results for these types of things. There is a big problem with trying to date asteroids, meteorites and such.
Absolute dating assumes that isotopes degrade in a purely statistical manner. There is reason to believe, however, that changes in electromagnetic bombardment of an isotope can affect the decay of those isotopes. Using a simple experimental apparatus, decay rates can be correlated with the phases of the moon, the motions of the Sun and the stars. Go to http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/tim e.html for the details. This is not some crazy idea. Labs already perform corrections on raw carbon dating data due to electromagnetic bombardment into the atmosphere (which affects the amount of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, which are then inhaled by living things).
There is also good reason to believe since the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 that comets are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits that have picked up the voltage of deep space and then come into range of the Sun's weak electric field. Rather than being the trail of sublimating ice, the comet's coma and tail are evidence of electric machining. This makes sense because asteroids have occasionally been observed to turn into comets near the gas giant planets. If this is true, then this would mean that asteroids are regularly exposed to potentially large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. For more information, go here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf.
This process of electric machining would almost surely affect the dating ages of these objects *if* the experiment linked to above is true. It might also explain why some craters don't quite date to the years that we think they should.
This of course causes all sorts of problems for archaeology, geology and astronomy, and this fact alone might induce a lot of scientists to want to look the other way. So, I wouldn't expect a lot of curiosity on these things so long as they pose such a threat to research that has already been done.
But be careful talking about electric arcing in the Sun around these parts. You might start a ruckus!
I suspect that there are few observations at this point in time that will dramatically alter the debate about the Sun. The problem is not really a function of observations. The problem has more to do with the stuff happening on the other end of the telescopes.
So if something is hard to understand, it must be wrong? I wish that excused worked in my math classes in high school.
Obviously not. But if your cosmology is consistently forcing you to choose theories that appear to defy physical law over those that don't, then you might want to reconsider your cosmology. Black holes, neutron stars, dark matter and dark energy can all be explained using science that we already have -- plasma physics and electricity and magnetism. The only reason we believe in them today is because to not believe them would mean that we'd have to adopt an alternative cosmology to explain things like the rotation of spiral galaxies.
But we can simulate the exact rotational properties of spiral galaxies using fundamental plasma equations. There's no need for dark matter whatsoever. All you need to accept is that electricity can flow over diffuse plasma in the voids between stars. Since we know that charged particles fill these voids, it's more a problem of imagination than of physics. That appears to be too much for people to accept, and yet, it's a far shorter leap than supposing that some matter exists that only has gravitational characteristics.
All that Electric Universe Theorists really want is to have telescope time and journal publication space. Astrophysicists have created a real bad situation for themselves. They never recognized the need to have two competing theories for the universe, and now that they have just one, they're betting the entire farm on this one idea. It's a huge gamble and since the observations coming in are not being adequately predicted by their models, they're becoming increasingly desperate in their attempts to explain the strange things they're seeing in space. The explanations are becoming increasingly complex. This is what I mean when I say that the simplest theory should be considered. It makes more sense that there would be *unifying* principles of the universe than the idea that the universe would be filled with a bunch of disjoint, unrelated, exotic phenomenon. And yet, if you look at astrophysics today, you wouldn't learn anything about the coma and tail of a comet by learning about the magnetosphere of the Earth. But please, tell me, what the hell is the real difference? Both planets and asteroids can develop plasma tails. Why break the subject into two? It's the same thing. Different properties (one is luminous and one is not), but the same thing. If you consistently and unnecessarily categorize things, how do you ever expect to make predictions about other similar phenomenon that you have not yet observed? All you can really do is talk about the things you've already seen -- and without an in-depth understanding of those things, you still can't even predict *their* behavior.
Galactic collisions are a pretty convenient mechanism for explaining x-ray emissions where the Big Bang didn't predict them. The problem that is very rarely mentioned is that there are typically multiple components to these x-ray emissions, and the biggest component tends to be the "synchrotron" radiation, which results from electron movement within plasma.
You should expect that over time, as we continue to make new observations in x-rays that astrophysicists will continue to use this useful theory of galactic collisions to make sense of unusual x-ray emissions, and this will continue without regard for consideration of how frequently we should expect to see such collisions.
It reminds me of those guys that got the Nobel Physics prize for measuring the cosmic microwave background and attributing it to the Big Bang remnants. If they turn out to be wrong, do *they* have to relinquish their prizes?
I suppose that Hawking though is a little bit safer. Tricky bastard proposed a phenomenon that cannot possibly be observed...
I'm trying hard to not just reprint the entire link I initially posted about impossibly large birds (http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropo ds/biganims.html). You can choose to disbelieve the contents of that article, but it does discuss all of these things that you guys have been talking about -- even the hollow bones:
A book of interest here is Adrian Desmond's "The Hot Blooded Dinosaurs. Desmond has a good deal to say about the pteranodon, the 40 - 50 lb. pterosaur which scientists used to believe to be the largest creature which ever flew:
"Pteranodon had lost its teeth, tail and some flight musculature, and its rear legs had become spindly. It was, however, in the actual bones that the greatest reduction of weight was achieved. The wing bones, backbone and hind limbs were tubular, like the supporting struts of an aircraft, which allows for strength yet cuts down on weight. In Pteranodon these bones, although up to an inch in diameter, were no more than cylindrical air spaces bounded by an outer bony casing no thicker than a piece of card. Barnum Brown of the American Museum reported an armbone fragment of an unknown species of pterosaur from the Upper Cretaceous of Texas in which 'the culmination of the pterosaur... the acme of light construction' was achieved. Here, the trend had continued so far that the bone wall of the cylinder was an unbelievable one-fiftieth of an inch thick Inside the tubes bony crosswise struts no thicker than pins helped to strengthen the structure, another innovation in aircraft design anticipated by the Mesozoic pterosaurs.
The combination of great size and negligible weight must necessarily have resulted in some fragility. It is easy to imagine that the paper-thin tubular bones supporting the gigantic wings would have made landing dangerous. How could the creature have alighted without shattering all of its bones How could it have taken off in the first place It was obviously unable to flap twelve-foot wings strung between straw-thin tubes. Many larger birds have to achieve a certain speed by running and flapping before they can take off and others have to produce a wing beat speed approaching hovering in order to rise. To achieve hovering with a twenty-three foot wingspread, Pteranodon would have required 220 lb. of flight muscles as efficient as those in humming birds. But it had reduced its musculature to about 8 lb., so it is inconceivable that Pteranodon could have taken off actively.
Pteranodon, then, was not a flapping creature, it had neither the muscles nor the resistance to the resulting stress. Its long, thin albatross-like wings betray it as a glider, the most advanced glider the animal kingdom has produced. With a weight of only 40 lb. the wing loading was only I lb. per square foot. This gave it a slower sinking speed than even a man-made glider, where the wings have to sustain a weight of at least 4 lb. per square foot. The ratio of wing area to total weight in Pteranodon is only surpassed in some of the insects. Pteranodon was constructed as a glider, with the breastbone, shoulder girdle and backbone welded into a box-like rigid fuselage, able to absorb the strain from the giant wings. The low weight combined with an enormous wing span meant that Pteranodon could glide at ultra-low speeds without fear of stalling. Cherrie Bramwell of Reading University has calculated that it could remain aloft at only 15 m.p.h. So takeoff would have been relatively easy. All Pteranodon needed was a breeze of 15 m.p.h. when it would face the wind, stretch its wings and be lifted into the air like a piece of paper. No effort at all would have been required. Again, if it was forced to land on the sea, it had only to extend its wings to catch the wind in order to raise itself gently out of the water. It seems strange that an animal that had gone to such great lengths to reduce its weight to a minimum should have evolved an elongated bony crest on its skull."
Very different from "The Grand Canyon was blasted into the Earth's surface by giant space-lightning."
The real problem with supposing Earth-bound geological reasons for *all* large-scale rilles on Earth like the Grand Canyon is that these structures also appear on the Moon, Mars and Venus. And for each observation, based upon the theory of uniformitarianism, we presuppose that electrical discharge cannot possibly be the cause. But uniformitarianism -- this idea that we can understand things of the past by looking around us right now in the present -- isn't a logical reason -- it's an *assumption*. It assumes that the past was just like the present for many billions of years. This alternative electrical explanation would violate that assumption and so by maintaining uniformitarianism as the dominant principle in our investigation of the universe, we de facto rule out electrical causes for these things even though we see the evidence spanning multiple geological contexts. The Electric Universe Theory never had a chance once uniformitarianism was adopted. It's by definition assumed to be impossible. So, even if observations appear that may support it, it will *not* be investigated. That doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Not to insult your beliefs
I'm actually not insulted at all. I've gone toe-to-toe with every single one of you guys. I feel that I've done a pretty good job defending myself. I wonder what sort of people you guys must have had talking to you about this stuff before because they apparently left a bad impression that I'm having to mop up now. This is not junk science.
but I have investigated the whole Electric Universe thing and it makes no sense whatsoever.
You may have given up too early in trying or maybe you looked into it before the discoveries of the electrical nature of comets.
It's predictions have been shown to be incorrect time and time again.
I think you're confusing catastrophism with Electric Universe.
Like most crackpot theories, it simply dismisses all contrary evidence as being the work of some vast conspiracy designed to keep down the truth.
No, it actually has dual explanations for every single phenomenon that the Big Bang discusses. Many of these explanations are simpler. And none involve exotic physics. You choose to believe in things like dark matter and dark energy in spite of the observational evidence for massive magnetic fields in space, which can *only* result from currents. From my perspective, you have made the simple mistake of accepting everything that's being told to you without critically thinking about it. The problem is that we teach astrophysics as if the Big Bang is true. So, it's only natural that any competing cosmology would receive widespread scorn. Don't mistake the comfortable feeling of being in the majority for actually being right. People have made this mistake throughout history time and time again only to regret it.
It is not science and it is not interesting.
It's actually completely fascinating. I'm going to go off on a tangent, but check this out. There was a guy named Robert Becker some time ago who did experiments on salamanders. It was like playing Frankenstein. He'd chop off a limb and try to reattach it on the tail and so on. He found that the salamander body contains semiconducing lattice structures. Bone, for instance, believe it or not, is an LED that will glow if you pump it with current. Furthermore, he discovered that the salamander body has voltage centers from which currents are sent out to the body to direct healing. When these currents were interrupted, he found that healing would not occur. The limb would not regenerate or reattach or whatever. He also precisely characterized those currents, and when the system's currents were intentionally interrupted, he could introduce his own similar currents in order to artificially direct the healing process. Furthermore, he found back in the 60's and 70's
The blue whale is believed to be larger than any whale before it, does that mean our water has different proporties than it did back then?
Gravity's effects are not so dominant in water.
Evolution is a weird thing, it doesn't operate with the goal to produce the largest animals the environment it can, just to produce animals that can survive.
And yet, being bigger would surely be a useful trait for killing competitors.
It could also be that Dinosauria were better suited for large sizes in basic design than mammals. They died out, now mammals dominate which perhaps can't get as big. Also a better theory than higher gravity.
There is certainly more than one explanation for what happened. What's striking is that not all of them are being investigated. We assume that some are impossible because they seem too "weird" to us. The thing is, although we may break the world down into categories by sciences, the physical world operates on all levels all the time. So, any theory regarding dinosaurs should look at *all* sciences at once, including questions regarding the biology of which creatures survived. And any time that we are acting on a feeling of "weirdness", we are using emotions to make decisions. Emotions have no place in science.
If it were electric charge and not gravity, you would expect things orbiting the sun (extreme electromagnetic activity) and objects orbiting planets (nearly electromagnetically inert) to behave with different rules. They don't, the same formula works perfectly. So perfectly that we can plot orbits of spacecraft that do gravitational slingshots and execute them perfectly. The math involved there doesn't even acknowledge electrical charge of the objects involved, only their mass, since charge in insignificant on these scales.
This actually isn't true. The most electrical items within our solar system -- the Sun and comets -- exhibit gravitational anomalies. I'll include the quote once again (from http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2814):
"To make mathematical models of the star's interior tally with experimental data, physicists have to use a lower value of G than is traditionally agreed. Mbelek says his calculations predict that electromagnetism would not boost gravity as much at higher temperatures, so you would expect G to be lower inside the Sun.
Exotic physics
But other researchers are not convinced. Clifford Will, a gravity theorist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, believes improvements in terrestrial experiments will eventually do away with the need for explanations that rely on such exotic physics.
"In many ways it's a scandal that we don't have an agreed value for G, but if you look at the experiments, the values have been converging," he says. "In five years or so, we'll have an agreed value."
But Mbelek does not think so. Although the precision of individual measurements is improving, he says, the values are not converging."
Also, if you do a search on "non-gravitational acceleration", you'll notice that comets too exhibit gravitational anomalies. Astrophysicists tell us that these anomalies are caused by jets of gas outpouring from the center of the comets, causing it to spin around and do strange things. But we've observed comets up close now on multiple occasions and these supposed "jets" are actually electrical machining -- the result of charge being stripped off of the comet as it enters an electric field. The Deep Impact mission confirmed this probably as much as it can possibly be confirmed. Without jets, there are still gravitational anomalies on comets -- just like the Sun. I recommend that you look at the Deep Impact results: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
I just had to respond to one of the many errors in this post. The Kaibab upwarp did not exist when the Colorado river first started flowing over the area. The upwarp happened gradually and as the land rose, the river stayed at about the same height, gradually cutting a channel into the rising land.
"The modern Colorado appears to be a young river that flows out of the Rockies and hits a huge plateau, called the Kaibab Upwarp, which is 50 million to 70 million years old. Instead of being shunted away from this barrier, the river runs right through it. Moreover, when sediments from the river are examined closely, it is clear that the western end of the canyon -- where it flattens out and begins its final run to the Gulf of California -- is many millions of years younger than the eastern part of the river."
Ironically:
"For critical periods of canyon formation, the geologic record is entirely missing. The rocks and fossils that researchers need in order to tell a coherent story have either washed away or been buried, presumably in places not yet discovered."
The key is, "presumably in places not yet discovered".
And unfortunately:
"Then, during various periods of uplift apparently caused by collisions between gigantic slabs of the earth's crust, the Kaibab Upwarp began to rise at a rate that exactly matched the river's capacity to erode the landscape. According to this view, the canyon cutting took place gradually, with the river staying in place and the land around it rising upward.
This theory held sway for more than 50 years, Dr. Young said, but today it has few adherents because too many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. For example, as mentioned, a major part of the riverbed shows strong evidence of being younger than the Kaibab Upwarp."
[...]
I'd like to respond to any other errors you've noticed in my post now.
I'm gonna switch to your italics. That's definitely better...:).
The point is that, using the Hubble, we've been able to actually see such a collision - a real rarity - and the observed images behavior directly support the contention that there is a large component of 'dark' mass effecting things, gravitationally, while still not behaving like a normal component of the vast dust/gas clouds are part of every galaxy.
Actually, The New York Times article that featured the bullet cluster that you speak of quoted two scientists that stated that this doctored NASA image *proved* the existence of dark matter (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s 0ye). To any intelligent beings not expecting to find electricity, the existence of electricity in space would indicate a general lack of mass and an existence of force. We know that electricity can flow over matter in the plasma state because this matter consists of free-flowing ions, electrons and protons. And we know that plasma exists in space. In fact, it composes about 99.99% of the observable universe. By consistently excluding the strong action of this electrical force over this abundant plasma, you end up with mysterious matter that consumes 95% of the universe.
Neither neutrons, nor much of anything else, behave "normally" when the normal forces that govern their behavior outside of such an intense gravitational gradient are overcome by such density. Add a little more, and you've got a singularity.
Neutron stars were only postulated when it was observed that the repetition rate was too high for a normal star to keep its shit together while spinning. This is what is called an "ad hoc epicycle" -- something you add in to a theory to make it work, but which you wouldn't add in so long as you had never observed it. The Big Bang never predicted the existence of neutron stars.
Shouldn't we first consider the possibility that we can explain these observations using known physical laws before resorting to exotic, law-defying explanations? Neutron stars show all the characteristics of a spark happening between a binary star pair. We actually have images that show the sparks themselves. If you're willing to still believe your eyes over Big Bang Theory's math, go to http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920 pulsar.htm. By the way, close observations of the Vela Pulsar by astronomers in these images indicated a "glitch" in the pulsing.
You say "nebulae" as if they all behaved the same way, were formed of the same material, by the same processes, and were exposed to the same sources of nearby radiation. They're not. Some are being continually cooked by unspeakably intense radiation, and were formed while being accelerated within a hair of lightspeed during a violent explosion. Some of the molecules in those nebulae are quite juiced up indeed.
Actually, all nebulae would be related. Any gas that's hot enough to glow of its own accord is going to be in the plasma state by definition (astrophysicists will admit this much). We would expect to see some differences. But we can understand them *all* by applying plasma physics and electricity and magnetism. The only reason you are seeing scientists break the problem down into distinct unrelated parts is because they refuse to accept the fact that electricity could be causing all of the various phenomenon in these images. Each time a new observation comes up that they don't understand by gravity alone, they must concoct a new exotic physical theory to explain it (anything but electricity). Then, without ever attempting to validate these theories in any way, the problem is passed off as having been "solved". But as sure as tomorrow, there will be more unusual images next week and the week after that, ad infinitum. Space will continue to be a big mystery if you consistently ignore the greatest
Slashdot Mirror
There's been also strong evidence of seasonal darkening as if the ground was damp during summer months.
...
4 27luminousrims.htm
...
9 16dustdevil.htm
There are electrical explanations for this too
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060
In fact, we've seen it in action more or less
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050
What am I missing here?
...
1 39302
What's missing is an admonition by NASA that Mars is highly electrical. We could just be seeing the result of electrical activity
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210316&cid=17
When was the last time you saw shiny, reflective sand or dust? (Ok, sand can be a little shiny, but I don't think it would have as much contrast against the plain old martian ground)
...
1 39302
Melted sand might be shiny too
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210316&cid=17
Of course, there are some pics that I wouldn't mind a little more investigation on. I happen to be interested in something I call Gulliver's Golf Ball, something that looks like a perfect sphere, roughly 200 meters across.
...
3 29domedcraters.htm
...
1 39302
Like many other "mysteries" of Mars, domed craters are only mysteries because we assume that electricity is having a limited effect upon the terraforming of Mars. And yet, we can create domed craters with electricity in the laboratory
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050
If you don't mind, I'm going to redirect you to my other recent post on the electrical terraforming of Mars. There is much evidence to support the notion that NASA is ignoring the role that electricity plays on Mars
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210316&cid=17
I'm going to throw a bunch of links at you here, but this should answer your question.
...
...
...
... "Lava tubes on Earth are only a few meters wide. The width of channels on Ascraeus Mons are measured in thousands of meters. Even with Mars' lesser gravity, solidified lava is not strong enough to span such distances: None of the channels should be covered.":
...
... well, let's just say that I rest my case with this article ...
First, look at the electric dust devils of Mars etching the ground black as it moves across:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0509 16dustdevil.htm
Now look at the scalloped curled trenches that would result from a pair of Birkeland Currents twisting around one another (as happens in plasma globes). The scalloping and flat bottoms are exactly the same thing you notice on asteroid and cometary craters too
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0508 29curly.htm
More Martian electric rilles. You've seen the electric dust devils now, so this should not be any great mystery
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 18europamars.htm
Domed craters on Mars look precisely like things that have been generated in the lab with electricity
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 16domes.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0503 25blueberries.htm
And next, the "collapsed lava tubes"
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0511 11ascraeus.htm
Rilles exist on the Moon, Earth, Mars and Venus (among other planets), and yet we ascribe different geological mechanisms for nearly all of these. Shouldn't we also consider that one single phenomenon is possibly causing many of them? We know, for instance, that the Grand Canyon was not carved out by the Colorado River because it would have had to plough straight through a gigantic plateau called the Kaibab Upwarp. Interestingly, scientists to this day cannot agree on what caused the Grand Canyon and the fact that entire geological records are missing for that canyon doesn't help either
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0504 08marineris.htm
Remember this? When the rover was mysteriously cleaned? What's so mysterious about electrostatic cleaning?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0505 31roverclean.htm
But my favorite of all time is the mysterious Martian geysers popularized in the news media like here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/21/mars_geyse rs/
The fact that somebody can look at these images (pictured below) and conclude that they are geysers rather than the remnants of electrical strikes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0607 24spiders.htm
Water on Mars? I'll believe it when astronauts are drinking it.
Actually, that's probably the exact phrase that your grandchild will use one day to describe you when you tell him that you used to believe in black holes.
The static universe was falsified by many other observations, one of which is the CMBR spectrum. Its predictions for the CMBR temperature are irrelevant.
I'd like to hear *why* a prediction for the temperature was irrelevant. Is it irrelevant because it was wrong? Or is there a good reason for why this temperature was considered a free variable?
The point is that there are other explanations for the microwave signals being noticed. In fact, here's a pretty good one (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=knb8h x39):
The only reason that the Big Bang version is preferred over the others is because we teach the Big Bang to physics students. It acts to create consensus in fields where a little bit of disagreement could only be a healthy thing. Why are Big Bang advocates so allergic to debate? Debate causes us to question our assumptions. In the process of debating things, you are forced to ask yourself what you truly know. Debate is a *good* thing. What's actually bad is when a particular theory becomes so accepted that there are few dissenting voices -- because there is always still the possibility that the theory could be wrong.
Actually, it does mean that.
A theory can have no predictive capabilities and yet fully describe all of the observations that have been made. In such a scenario, it would forever seem as if we are just barely on the edge of understanding the theory of everything, and yet new mysterious observations would happen all the time and little to no technology would ever derive from this theory. This is pretty coincidentally the situation we have with the Big Bang Theory.
Arp's statistical methodology is biased in a way that guaranteed to indicate excess QSOs in the directions of bright galaxies.
Actually, a recent publication supports his statistics (from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/0612 04arpejection.htm):
I suppose you have to at least give them points for consistency.
0 9020.html. Now, in a separate, parallel window, open up the following image: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041126 craters-lab.htm
There is plenty of reason to be skeptical of this *interpretation* of the images. For instance, pull up Figure B at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/images/pia
Can we really say for *sure* that this was an *impact*? Or were the craters formed by electrical discharge between the planet and an object as it fell towards the planet? This would explain the multiple impact craters and this is after all exactly what happened when a large copper ball was shot towards the Tempel 1 comet. I wonder if the "impacts" correspond to high points on the land? Nobody seems to be asking these sorts of questions because electricity is assumed to not be an important part of terraforming for the planets.
We have plenty of evidence already for electrical dust devils on Mars. Why is the electrical explanation consistently ignored when the morphologies appear almost identical?
There are all sorts of mysterious phenomenon on Mars that lose their mystery once you consider that electricity may be active on that planet.
Maybe because the other theory, namely the Static Universe that had been popular in the first part of the 20th century couldn't explain the Hubble's observations (redshift)? The Big Bang theory simply explains the facts better. That's how science works.
Actually, observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that were supposed to "prove" the Big Bang Theory were more in line with static universe predictions. The Big Bang predictions ranged from 5 to 7 and then to 50 Kelvin, whereas the static universe predictions centered closer to 3 Kelvin -- which is pretty much where the observed value ended up. Just because the Big Bang theorists were able to integrate this observation into their model does not mean that the data supports the Big Bang Theory.
Around 30 years ago, a researcher named Halton Arp attempted to publish a paper that showed that not all redshifts are cosmological. His paper was refused by The Astrophysical Journal without any criticism of his methodology and no attempt to refute his observations. There are actually numerous undeniable observations that indicate that high redshift quasars are between us and lower redshift galaxies. It's not a very popular topic amongst Big Bang advocates however because it disproves much of what they've been saying for so long. If you can demonstrate that quasars are being ejected from the centers of spiral galaxies, as is being proposed by Arp, and that these quasars are in fact proto-galaxies (baby galaxies) that expand in mass as they decrease in velocity away from the spiral galaxies, then it becomes hard to determine which redshifts are cosmological and which are due to this other effect.
It may appear to you that the Big Bang Theory "explains the facts better", but then why are scientists constantly making observations that violate theory? A week doesn't go by without another surprise in the news media. Astrophysicists will then speculate about what's causing these strange observations, but the media oftentimes passes this speculation off as if it is fact.
There are many very important unsolved mysteries in the universe that the Big Bang has so far failed to explain:
Why is the surface of the Sun only 6,000 Kelvin while the corona gets up to 2,000,000 Kelvin? If the Sun is nothing more than a nuclear reaction, which gets hotter as you move towards the core, then how is it possible that the energy does not heat up the surface in the process of heating up the corona? Astrophysicists have proposed something called magnetic reconnections, but this phenomenon has no scientific basis. It is not supported by either plasma physics or electricity and magnetism.
Why are sunspots dark? They are supposed to be the deepest regions which we can observe into the Sun, and yet they are also the darkest.
Why does the Sun appear to be getting hotter?
Why does the solar wind accelerate as it leaves the Sun past the planets? What is accelerating these particles?
How is it possible that neutron stars can stay together? There is a law of physics called "The Island of Stability" that requires that neutrons packed this tightly together should fly apart from one another. Neutron stars therefore violate the laws of known physics.
What is dark matter and dark energy? We're supposed to believe that these two things account for about 95% of the universe's matter. Many experiments have tried to directly observe dark matter, but not a single attempt has been successful so far. Until they are observed, they are nothing more than mathematical abstractions.
This is just a small sampling. There are many other problems with traditional astrophysics -- especially with the Sun. Astrophysicists treat all of these problems as if they are minor, unimportant problems and that we'll eventually get to them at some later time. But all of these problems are treated with the presumption that the Big Bang Theory is actually correct. It's possible that there are other cosmologies that could explain all
A lot has actually happened since then -- especially recently with the Deep Impact mission. It would appear that the results of that mission don't match traditional cometary theory *at all*. The curious thing though is that the unusual Deep Impact results did not cause a lot of chatter. And this is the problem with astrophysics today that links these two cases together: there is no interest in understanding anomalies anymore. If Whipple's theory about comets being pushed around by jets appears to be wrong, then comets continue to have unexplained non-gravitational acceleration. This is exactly what EU Theory states -- that there is a link between gravity and electrical charge of a body in space.
I've spent time learning about the traditional model of astronomy. I didn't start out with EU Theory. But I found EU Theory to be more compelling. The EU guys make some good points and I've thought a lot about them on my own. My own opinion is that astrophysics has made the mistake of attempting a divide-and-conquer strategy. Rather than trying to identify unifying principles of the universe, they have subdivided the universe's components into small parts. Planets and comets are great examples. We know that both planets and comets have plasma tails. But rather than trying to understand the plasma tail in terms that affect them both, they've created completely different terminology for the two things -- even
Actually, I'm going to add one more thing that you should be able to understand as a non-physicist.
Astrophysicists have convinced the world that that the Sun is benign -- that it will follow an orderly scheduled routine of steps that won't even start happening for billions of years. First of all, think about how you go about disproving something like that: it is not a falsifiable claim. Every time that we see a star break these rules, they propose an additional mechanism for the anomaly -- while retaining the stellar evolution model. This is not rocket science. That's bad science.
If that was the end of it, then so be it. But it doesn't stop there. Now that they've convinced us that the Sun is benign, they exclude all research that contradicts this claim. Halton Arp tried to publish a paper 30 years ago that definitively disproved the Big Bang model. His reward was that he lost his telescope time. And to this day, his line of research, which continues to gain observational support as time moves forward, is not considered a valid line of research.
This is the most asinine thing that any culture could do to itself. It's completely self-destructive, and it has caused our society to take our existences for granted. We feel that we are in command of our own existences: so long as we avoid killing ourselves, we will continue to exist. If an asteroid comes our way, we can do things about this. But the Sun could never possibly do anything to harm us. It's such a juvenile thought actually. I mean, what's the limit to a coronal mass ejection? Once again, according to uniformitarianism, we *assume* that there is in fact a limit because the past and future must be *just* like the present. Once again, that's bad science.
The Sun could turn off tomorrow according to The Electric Universe Theory -- a theory which has not been disproven and which appears to have lots of observational support. As a person who respects life, loves science and is happy to think that I'll be here tomorrow, the thought that humans could take such a gamble seems surreal. We should be investigating it even if we think it's not true so long as it has not been disproven. There are enough telescopes to be investigating multiple cosmologies. Having multiple cosmologies would even be better because it would create a debate and inspire people to actually *think* about the things that they're being told. If astrophysics was the Republican Party, then NASA would be the equivalent of Foxnews. The head of the party sets the tone for the entire party and everybody just nods their heads to the tune of the talking points like a giant echo chamber.
"IANAP". I'll definitely remember that one. That's so emblematic of the whole problem. I'm not a physicist. I couldn't possibly understand these things because *they* told me so. So it's not my problem. I expect to be here tomorrow. I deserve it.
Like I said before, think for yourself. If more people were doing that, then we'd all be better off.
It's a common misconception that people have to be physicists in order to hold a belief in physics. The fact that you've decided that these issues are beyond your own comprehension is typical, even of intelligent people. It's exactly what the physicists (particularly the astrophysicists) have taught us to believe. We can evaluate their statements though as a whole on the basis of their methodology and a few specific examples. Absolute dating of any object older than the dendrochronological record is questionable and people should treat it that way. But that's not how it's portrayed in the media. People tend to believe that our science works as well as our technology. But the fields of geology, archaeology and astronomy are all based upon uniformitarianism -- this thought that we can understand the past by just looking around us right now. It's a flawed theory. Some phenomenon are transient or difficult to observe in real-time. Also, one should expect that we live in a relatively "safe" region of the universe that is not indicative of the normal violence we see through our scopes.
I'm going to continue to post on Slashdot about this subject. I feel that I am doing a service by injecting a fresh perspective in spite of the fact that I repeatedly receive verbal abuse for believing something that's out of the mainstream. It's possible that some of the things I'm saying are wrong, but there are very good reasons to believe that my bigger "pet theory" (The Electric Universe Theory) is true. The science of weather control is being born right now and it is based upon Electric Universe Theory. Countries are using this technology right now to edge out their neighbors in crop yields. Scientists will discount the theory because there is no article in a refereed journal to support it. But that's the point: they refuse to consider the theory in the first place. This is what I'm fighting. I just want people to learn about the theory.
This theory has implications for understanding and controlling earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes as well. An amateur picture shows the plasma trail of the Space Shuttle Columbia being hit by upper-atmosphere lightning at the exact moment of its malfunction. The picture was discounted primarily because the Earth is not believed to exchange charge with outer space. But it does, no differently than comets have been observed to do. It's so surreal that saying that receives so much condemnation, and yet people accept that 95% of the universe is invisible to all of our telescopes like mindless drones.
The flashing of neutron stars bears a striking resemblance to sparking and many neutron stars have observable companion stars right next to them. But we choose to instead believe that neutron stars are stars spinning at up to 300 revolutions per second. The only reason we make this choice is because we believe in the Big Bang. But the Big Bang is still just a theory, right? Can't there be alternative cosmologies still?
The most disturbing part of the theory is that the Sun is not the benign star that we always thought it was. Sudden coronal mass ejections have been observed on nearby star systems that would have destroyed all life on our planet had they occurred for our Sun. Traditional astrophysics tells us that stars evolve, but we've seen lots of stars in the universe violate their stellar evolutions on multiple occasions. Of course, Big Bang advocates have developed explanations for those observations. But we are seeing our own Sun brighten right now on top of the solar cycles. Neptune is also brightening and even changing color. Conventional astrophysics has no explanation for these things. This makes perfect sense in Electric Universe Theory though. The planets and stars are all electrically connected. The 11-year solar cycle in fact is caused by the movement of the gas giant planets. Those gas giants can become stars in their own right under the right situation.
Nebulae have been observed to contain electrical fields acting over condu
Can you please comment on the article I linked to in my posting? Threads would also be more interesting if people actually read the links being discussed.
I'm not alleging that the carbon dating decay rate is being affected by EM radiation. I'm alleging that the mere fact that EM radiation affects the amount of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere is reason to believe that EM radiation does interact with these particles in a general sense, and that we should not be surprised if there is more interaction than has been presumed so far.
Now, this explanation doesn't apply to most kinds of radioactive dating. Uranium dating, for instance, looks at U-238 that has been there since the beginning of the solar system, and cosmic rays just don't matter.
This is actually the heart of the issue, and after supplying a more detailed explanation of the process for carbon dating, you appear to dismiss the possibility that this might also be happening for the decay rates of isotopes used in other dating techniques without actually reading the article that I pointed to and without providing any actual evidence for why decay rates would be resistant to EM radiation.
I'd really like to hear what you have to say about the article I linked to. Can you please read and comment on it?
Thank you so much for the opportunity to actually talk to you. I'll try my
hardest be concise.
There is indeed evidence for censorship in science today. Confusion may arise
though because this censorship is happening in astronomy, which serves to
provide us with the scientific basis for which we draw our conclusions about the
Sun. I refer you to Halton Arp's book, "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and
Academic Science". Halton Arp lost his telescope time because he wrote a paper
detailing observational evidence that contradicted the Big Bang. For a far
faster treatment of the material, you should purchase and watch the two-part
video, "Universe -- The Cosmology Quest" and then "Thunderbolts of the Gods --
The Tutorial". If you want further information after or before viewing those
videos, then I refer you to the database of "Picture of the Days" on the
www.thunderbolts.info site. Their paper on The Electric Comet is very good too.
Now I will try to summarize the issue. This is a very complex issue, but I will
do my best to explain it to you as quickly as possible. The "Queen of the
Sciences", cosmology, is defining limits on the research that we can do in all
of the sciences. Also, the concept of uniformitarianism -- this idea that we
can deduce what happened in the past based upon our observations of our
surroundings right now -- is flawed and is causing scientists to disregard both
theories and observational evidence in the sciences of geology, archaeology and
astronomy that don't conform to the queen of the sciences.
There is now an alternative theory for cosmology which deserves attention, but
which is not getting it due to scientific bias. And this theory dramatically
affects our understanding of the Sun, which in turn affects our understanding of
global warming. The Electric Universe Theory proposes that the electric force
exists on large scales in deep space. Most people are actually surprised to
learn that traditional astrophysicists assume that all large bodies in space are
electrically neutral. We now have observational evidence that would suggest
this to not be true. In June of 2005, the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1
created overwhelming observational evidence that the tail and coma of comets are
in fact electrical phenomenon (See
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf ). In fact, Electric Universe
theorist Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted the results of that mission --
results which have to this day baffled NASA scientists. There is not enough
water on Tempel 1 to explain the coma and tail in terms of sublimating ice and
the impact of that comet generated two undeniable sparks, as well as a fine dust
that enveloped the probe cameras (dust just like one gets from electrical
sputtering of telescope dishes). Video of the encounter show unmistakable white
spots, which are pretty clear evidence of electrical arcing. Images of comets
confirm that comets that are not currently flaring up appear just as asteroids.
Wallace Thornhill and his Thunderbolts crew have proposed that comets are in
fact merely asteroids on elliptical orbits around the Sun. When far away from
the Sun, they pick up the voltage of deep space. Then, as they approach the
Sun's electric field, this charge is pushed away from the Sun until it is
stripped off of the comet's body, at which point we see the tail and coma. It
is worth noting that asteroids have been observed to turn into comets
(http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060 407cometasteroid.htm) and even
do so far away from the Sun near the gas giant planets. At this distance from
the Sun, sublimation would not make any sense. The notion that cometary tails
and comas are likely electrical phenomenon have also been confirmed by x-ray
imaging of a comet.
I wouldn't believe the dating results for these types of things. There is a big problem with trying to date asteroids, meteorites and such.
m e.html for the details. This is not some crazy idea. Labs already perform corrections on raw carbon dating data due to electromagnetic bombardment into the atmosphere (which affects the amount of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, which are then inhaled by living things).
f .
Absolute dating assumes that isotopes degrade in a purely statistical manner. There is reason to believe, however, that changes in electromagnetic bombardment of an isotope can affect the decay of those isotopes. Using a simple experimental apparatus, decay rates can be correlated with the phases of the moon, the motions of the Sun and the stars. Go to http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ti
There is also good reason to believe since the Deep Impact mission to Comet Tempel 1 that comets are merely asteroids on elliptical orbits that have picked up the voltage of deep space and then come into range of the Sun's weak electric field. Rather than being the trail of sublimating ice, the comet's coma and tail are evidence of electric machining. This makes sense because asteroids have occasionally been observed to turn into comets near the gas giant planets. If this is true, then this would mean that asteroids are regularly exposed to potentially large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. For more information, go here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pd
This process of electric machining would almost surely affect the dating ages of these objects *if* the experiment linked to above is true. It might also explain why some craters don't quite date to the years that we think they should.
This of course causes all sorts of problems for archaeology, geology and astronomy, and this fact alone might induce a lot of scientists to want to look the other way. So, I wouldn't expect a lot of curiosity on these things so long as they pose such a threat to research that has already been done.
This may be what you're looking for. Click on the "Iron Sun Debate" links on this page ...
S olar
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#
But be careful talking about electric arcing in the Sun around these parts. You might start a ruckus!
I suspect that there are few observations at this point in time that will dramatically alter the debate about the Sun. The problem is not really a function of observations. The problem has more to do with the stuff happening on the other end of the telescopes.
So if something is hard to understand, it must be wrong? I wish that excused worked in my math classes in high school.
Obviously not. But if your cosmology is consistently forcing you to choose theories that appear to defy physical law over those that don't, then you might want to reconsider your cosmology. Black holes, neutron stars, dark matter and dark energy can all be explained using science that we already have -- plasma physics and electricity and magnetism. The only reason we believe in them today is because to not believe them would mean that we'd have to adopt an alternative cosmology to explain things like the rotation of spiral galaxies.
But we can simulate the exact rotational properties of spiral galaxies using fundamental plasma equations. There's no need for dark matter whatsoever. All you need to accept is that electricity can flow over diffuse plasma in the voids between stars. Since we know that charged particles fill these voids, it's more a problem of imagination than of physics. That appears to be too much for people to accept, and yet, it's a far shorter leap than supposing that some matter exists that only has gravitational characteristics.
All that Electric Universe Theorists really want is to have telescope time and journal publication space. Astrophysicists have created a real bad situation for themselves. They never recognized the need to have two competing theories for the universe, and now that they have just one, they're betting the entire farm on this one idea. It's a huge gamble and since the observations coming in are not being adequately predicted by their models, they're becoming increasingly desperate in their attempts to explain the strange things they're seeing in space. The explanations are becoming increasingly complex. This is what I mean when I say that the simplest theory should be considered. It makes more sense that there would be *unifying* principles of the universe than the idea that the universe would be filled with a bunch of disjoint, unrelated, exotic phenomenon. And yet, if you look at astrophysics today, you wouldn't learn anything about the coma and tail of a comet by learning about the magnetosphere of the Earth. But please, tell me, what the hell is the real difference? Both planets and asteroids can develop plasma tails. Why break the subject into two? It's the same thing. Different properties (one is luminous and one is not), but the same thing. If you consistently and unnecessarily categorize things, how do you ever expect to make predictions about other similar phenomenon that you have not yet observed? All you can really do is talk about the things you've already seen -- and without an in-depth understanding of those things, you still can't even predict *their* behavior.
Galactic collisions are a pretty convenient mechanism for explaining x-ray emissions where the Big Bang didn't predict them. The problem that is very rarely mentioned is that there are typically multiple components to these x-ray emissions, and the biggest component tends to be the "synchrotron" radiation, which results from electron movement within plasma.
You should expect that over time, as we continue to make new observations in x-rays that astrophysicists will continue to use this useful theory of galactic collisions to make sense of unusual x-ray emissions, and this will continue without regard for consideration of how frequently we should expect to see such collisions.
It reminds me of those guys that got the Nobel Physics prize for measuring the cosmic microwave background and attributing it to the Big Bang remnants. If they turn out to be wrong, do *they* have to relinquish their prizes?
...
I suppose that Hawking though is a little bit safer. Tricky bastard proposed a phenomenon that cannot possibly be observed
Very different from "The Grand Canyon was blasted into the Earth's surface by giant space-lightning."
The real problem with supposing Earth-bound geological reasons for *all* large-scale rilles on Earth like the Grand Canyon is that these structures also appear on the Moon, Mars and Venus. And for each observation, based upon the theory of uniformitarianism, we presuppose that electrical discharge cannot possibly be the cause. But uniformitarianism -- this idea that we can understand things of the past by looking around us right now in the present -- isn't a logical reason -- it's an *assumption*. It assumes that the past was just like the present for many billions of years. This alternative electrical explanation would violate that assumption and so by maintaining uniformitarianism as the dominant principle in our investigation of the universe, we de facto rule out electrical causes for these things even though we see the evidence spanning multiple geological contexts. The Electric Universe Theory never had a chance once uniformitarianism was adopted. It's by definition assumed to be impossible. So, even if observations appear that may support it, it will *not* be investigated. That doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Not to insult your beliefs
I'm actually not insulted at all. I've gone toe-to-toe with every single one of you guys. I feel that I've done a pretty good job defending myself. I wonder what sort of people you guys must have had talking to you about this stuff before because they apparently left a bad impression that I'm having to mop up now. This is not junk science.
but I have investigated the whole Electric Universe thing and it makes no sense whatsoever.
You may have given up too early in trying or maybe you looked into it before the discoveries of the electrical nature of comets.
It's predictions have been shown to be incorrect time and time again.
I think you're confusing catastrophism with Electric Universe.
Like most crackpot theories, it simply dismisses all contrary evidence as being the work of some vast conspiracy designed to keep down the truth.
No, it actually has dual explanations for every single phenomenon that the Big Bang discusses. Many of these explanations are simpler. And none involve exotic physics. You choose to believe in things like dark matter and dark energy in spite of the observational evidence for massive magnetic fields in space, which can *only* result from currents. From my perspective, you have made the simple mistake of accepting everything that's being told to you without critically thinking about it. The problem is that we teach astrophysics as if the Big Bang is true. So, it's only natural that any competing cosmology would receive widespread scorn. Don't mistake the comfortable feeling of being in the majority for actually being right. People have made this mistake throughout history time and time again only to regret it.
It is not science and it is not interesting.
It's actually completely fascinating. I'm going to go off on a tangent, but check this out. There was a guy named Robert Becker some time ago who did experiments on salamanders. It was like playing Frankenstein. He'd chop off a limb and try to reattach it on the tail and so on. He found that the salamander body contains semiconducing lattice structures. Bone, for instance, believe it or not, is an LED that will glow if you pump it with current. Furthermore, he discovered that the salamander body has voltage centers from which currents are sent out to the body to direct healing. When these currents were interrupted, he found that healing would not occur. The limb would not regenerate or reattach or whatever. He also precisely characterized those currents, and when the system's currents were intentionally interrupted, he could introduce his own similar currents in order to artificially direct the healing process. Furthermore, he found back in the 60's and 70's
Gravity's effects are not so dominant in water.
Evolution is a weird thing, it doesn't operate with the goal to produce the largest animals the environment it can, just to produce animals that can survive.
And yet, being bigger would surely be a useful trait for killing competitors.
It could also be that Dinosauria were better suited for large sizes in basic design than mammals. They died out, now mammals dominate which perhaps can't get as big. Also a better theory than higher gravity.
There is certainly more than one explanation for what happened. What's striking is that not all of them are being investigated. We assume that some are impossible because they seem too "weird" to us. The thing is, although we may break the world down into categories by sciences, the physical world operates on all levels all the time. So, any theory regarding dinosaurs should look at *all* sciences at once, including questions regarding the biology of which creatures survived. And any time that we are acting on a feeling of "weirdness", we are using emotions to make decisions. Emotions have no place in science.
If it were electric charge and not gravity, you would expect things orbiting the sun (extreme electromagnetic activity) and objects orbiting planets (nearly electromagnetically inert) to behave with different rules. They don't, the same formula works perfectly. So perfectly that we can plot orbits of spacecraft that do gravitational slingshots and execute them perfectly. The math involved there doesn't even acknowledge electrical charge of the objects involved, only their mass, since charge in insignificant on these scales.
This actually isn't true. The most electrical items within our solar system -- the Sun and comets -- exhibit gravitational anomalies. I'll include the quote once again (from http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2814):
Also, if you do a search on "non-gravitational acceleration", you'll notice that comets too exhibit gravitational anomalies. Astrophysicists tell us that these anomalies are caused by jets of gas outpouring from the center of the comets, causing it to spin around and do strange things. But we've observed comets up close now on multiple occasions and these supposed "jets" are actually electrical machining -- the result of charge being stripped off of the comet as it enters an electric field. The Deep Impact mission confirmed this probably as much as it can possibly be confirmed. Without jets, there are still gravitational anomalies on comets -- just like the Sun. I recommend that you look at the Deep Impact results:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
It's Gravity. Gravity gravity gravity.
I just had to respond to one of the many errors in this post. The Kaibab upwarp did not exist when the Colorado river first started flowing over the area. The upwarp happened gradually and as the land rose, the river stayed at about the same height, gradually cutting a channel into the rising land.
n ce/060600sci-environ-canyon.html:
You are passing off theory as fact. http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/scie
"The modern Colorado appears to be a young river that flows out of the Rockies and hits a huge plateau, called the Kaibab Upwarp, which is 50 million to 70 million years old. Instead of being shunted away from this barrier, the river runs right through it. Moreover, when sediments from the river are examined closely, it is clear that the western end of the canyon -- where it flattens out and begins its final run to the Gulf of California -- is many millions of years younger than the eastern part of the river."
Ironically:
"For critical periods of canyon formation, the geologic record is entirely missing. The rocks and fossils that researchers need in order to tell a coherent story have either washed away or been buried, presumably in places not yet discovered."
The key is, "presumably in places not yet discovered".
And unfortunately:
"Then, during various periods of uplift apparently caused by collisions between gigantic slabs of the earth's crust, the Kaibab Upwarp began to rise at a rate that exactly matched the river's capacity to erode the landscape. According to this view, the canyon cutting took place gradually, with the river staying in place and the land around it rising upward.
This theory held sway for more than 50 years, Dr. Young said, but today it has few adherents because too many pieces of the puzzle do not fit. For example, as mentioned, a major part of the riverbed shows strong evidence of being younger than the Kaibab Upwarp."
[...]
I'd like to respond to any other errors you've noticed in my post now.
I'm gonna switch to your italics. That's definitely better ... :).
The point is that, using the Hubble, we've been able to actually see such a collision - a real rarity - and the observed images behavior directly support the contention that there is a large component of 'dark' mass effecting things, gravitationally, while still not behaving like a normal component of the vast dust/gas clouds are part of every galaxy.
Actually, The New York Times article that featured the bullet cluster that you speak of quoted two scientists that stated that this doctored NASA image *proved* the existence of dark matter (http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s 0ye). To any intelligent beings not expecting to find electricity, the existence of electricity in space would indicate a general lack of mass and an existence of force. We know that electricity can flow over matter in the plasma state because this matter consists of free-flowing ions, electrons and protons. And we know that plasma exists in space. In fact, it composes about 99.99% of the observable universe. By consistently excluding the strong action of this electrical force over this abundant plasma, you end up with mysterious matter that consumes 95% of the universe.
Neither neutrons, nor much of anything else, behave "normally" when the normal forces that govern their behavior outside of such an intense gravitational gradient are overcome by such density. Add a little more, and you've got a singularity.
Neutron stars were only postulated when it was observed that the repetition rate was too high for a normal star to keep its shit together while spinning. This is what is called an "ad hoc epicycle" -- something you add in to a theory to make it work, but which you wouldn't add in so long as you had never observed it. The Big Bang never predicted the existence of neutron stars.
Shouldn't we first consider the possibility that we can explain these observations using known physical laws before resorting to exotic, law-defying explanations? Neutron stars show all the characteristics of a spark happening between a binary star pair. We actually have images that show the sparks themselves. If you're willing to still believe your eyes over Big Bang Theory's math, go to http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920 pulsar.htm. By the way, close observations of the Vela Pulsar by astronomers in these images indicated a "glitch" in the pulsing.
You say "nebulae" as if they all behaved the same way, were formed of the same material, by the same processes, and were exposed to the same sources of nearby radiation. They're not. Some are being continually cooked by unspeakably intense radiation, and were formed while being accelerated within a hair of lightspeed during a violent explosion. Some of the molecules in those nebulae are quite juiced up indeed.
Actually, all nebulae would be related. Any gas that's hot enough to glow of its own accord is going to be in the plasma state by definition (astrophysicists will admit this much). We would expect to see some differences. But we can understand them *all* by applying plasma physics and electricity and magnetism. The only reason you are seeing scientists break the problem down into distinct unrelated parts is because they refuse to accept the fact that electricity could be causing all of the various phenomenon in these images. Each time a new observation comes up that they don't understand by gravity alone, they must concoct a new exotic physical theory to explain it (anything but electricity). Then, without ever attempting to validate these theories in any way, the problem is passed off as having been "solved". But as sure as tomorrow, there will be more unusual images next week and the week after that, ad infinitum. Space will continue to be a big mystery if you consistently ignore the greatest