> Why? Because the recent observations of reactionless mass actually on display > in front of you, in the form of colliding galaxies, are just too uncomfortably > close to confirming what you don't like?
Do you believe that it's common that galaxies collide because you've thought about the dimensions involved or because somebody told you that that's what's happening? I've been taught that galaxies are really far apart from one another and the next logical step would be that collisions are rare. If you're seeing this as an explanation for anything commonplace, then your skeptic alarm should be going off.
> Or because the Doppler effect is something you can demonstrate at any wavelength > (try it with your car horn, sometime - and if you get good enough gear try it with > some light), and that just annoys the hell out of you?
I believe in the Doppler Effect. There are, btw, multiple possible causes for redshift. If you actually study quasars with an open mind, not assuming any Big Bang Model, you will notice that they tend to form along the axes of (Seyfert) spiral galaxies. Despite what you've been told and are being told, their redshifts do not correspond to their cosmological distances. If you can somehow for a second believe that something you've been told is perhaps wrong, then you will see that quasars appear to be proto-galaxies whose redshift has a component that decreases in quantized steps as the quasar moves away from the spiral galaxy. This sounds weird to you, but it's because you've been taught that it's not possible. People (Halton Arp) have written entire books on this subject ("Seeing Red"), so please forgive me if I can't be more concise.
> Or because black holes and neutron stars are just too dense for your brain - > which evolved without any context for grappling with things on that scale -
It's not about me. They're not the simplest explanation for the observation. If you didn't believe in the Big Bang and all the baggage that comes with it, you'd agree.
Neutron stars actually violate physical laws. You can't pack neutrons into a space like that without having them rush away from one another. It's called "The Island of Stability".
Black holes are just mathematical abstractions. They exist primarily because we can't observe them -- which means that we can't disprove them. I think people don't realize that Albert Einstein did not theorize black holes. That's Stephen Hawking's invention. When it was observed that black holes could have jets, in fact, Stephen Hawking proposed another kind of black hole... with jets. Einstein would not have approved of all of the things that Hawking has done. A black hole is what you get when you assume that gravity is doing the work of electricity over plasma: you have to compensate for the weak force of gravity compared to electricity by supposing an infinite mass. We can suppose these same forces with normally massed things by making the simple leap that electricity is flowing over plasma at the centers of galaxies. We don't need to speculate infinite mass or anything like that. The only reason we do so is because we presume that the Big Bang Theory is correct. If your cosmology is consistently getting in the way of selecting the simplest theory for your observations, then maybe you should re-evaluate your cosmology. That is still an option, right? Isn't that what scientists do?
> just hates the fact that if you put enough matter in one spot with nothing > fluffing it up... gravity kicks in, and that's just too annoying for you?
The problem that EU proponents have with the idea that things form from gravity is that it presumes that there are no magnetic fields occurring. In order for nebulae to be gravitationally collapsing gas clouds, there cannot be magnetic fields or currents moving through them because this would alter the nature of the nebulae far faster than the millions of years it takes for gravitational collap
> I'm not going to write a complete rebuttal, but to start with, a 747 has a > wingspan of ~55 meters. Not that a 12 meter wingspan isn't big, but it is not > the size of a 747.
The point is that any bird that has a 30+ foot wingspan is going to weigh much much more than 50 lbs. We're splitting hairs here. A 30-foot wingspan for a bird would require either (a) different gravity or (b) some sort of biological trait that never evolved on this planet post-extinction.
When Electric Universe proponents suggest these things, all we really hope for is that somebody with the capabilities to do so will become curious and investigate it. To presuppose that it's not a useful line of investigation and not look into it can only confirm any preconceived notions that may exist on the issue. To be honest, and I doubt you believe me, but I would LOVE to see concrete evidence that this is all bullshit. But what amazes me is the degree to which conformity remains such a value within the scientific establishment. It's such a battle just to get people to *consider* alternatives. It appears unlikely to me that all progress in science would be so scheduled and coordinated as Big Bang Cosmology has been. When you actually get down to it, there really is no philosophical rationale for people to be so hostile to alternative cosmologies. Dominating all of the telescope time with just one cosmology is actually a very dangerous idea.
> Third, look at the build of the larger birds, like vultures or eagles or > albatrosses. The larger the birds get, the smaller thier bodies get in proportion > to their wings. Now look at Pterosaur skeletons. The pattern holds.
These seem to me like arguments of degrees. These arguments aren't so convincing that they qualify as ruling out the notion that something strange is happening here that deserves investigation.
> Now think, for a moment, about what would happen if gravity were lower. Air would be > much thinner. The earth would orbit further from the sun. I assume we're talking about > a major change in gravity here that would allow "birds the size of 747s". If gravity > were that low earth probably wouldn't even have liquid water.
Once again, none of these speculations are significant enough to warrant a refusal to be curious.
> Now here's the part I hope you won't take as me giving anything up, I'm not, but > EVERYONE agrees the sun has electromagnetic phenomenon. It simply does. Science > believes it's caused by the conductive plasma the sun is made of working as a dynamo > caused by plasma convection from the sun's core, where energy is produced by fusion. > What your electric universe theory suggests is that the sun is nothing but a big gas > discharge light bulb, and there's a multiple exowatt current being run through it.
EU theory proposes that fusion occurs where temperatures are hot enough, and so far, we only have real evidence that temperatures are hot enough in the corona. It's never been demonstrated that temperatures reach millions of degrees inside of the Sun. But you know what? If an experiment was done and that was determined without a doubt to be true, then I'm pretty sure I'd abandon ideas of an electric sun.
The biggest problem with EU theory currently that I can find is that the proposed currents flowing into the Sun are difficult to see, and would apparently have to be moving upwind of the solar wind. But for me, the most convincing part to EU theory are the stars and nebulae that are farther away. The evidence appears to support that nebulae are hot conductive plasma (up to 100 million Kelvin hot) and include massive magnetic fields. By default, strong magnetic fields in nebulae appears to discount the idea of gravitationally collapsing clouds of gas and dust because the electric force would easily dominate the gravitational force.
I also have big problems with neutron stars. To think that a huge star can rotate at 300 t
Dark Matter Dark Energy Black Holes Neutron Stars Quasars at their Redshift Distances at the Edge of the Universe
Might as well add unicorns in there. There are plenty of things in traditional astrophysics that are actually far more ridiculous than the thought that electricity could be flowing over plasma, which we know represents 99.99% of the observable universe.
But, Oh! I forgot. We can only see 5% of the universe. Sure, man.
You can argue about the details, but then you'd be ignoring my actual point:
"The largest pterosaur (Quetzalcoatlus, wonderfully named for the Aztec winged serpent god) had a wing span from eleven to twelve meters long (about forty feet)." (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/pterosauria.html)
I think the fact that you so easily dismissed the point without actually becoming curious implies that you believe that we already understand the universe completely. And that is perhaps just as absurd to most people as electric universe theories. If you actually read the link I posted, then you'd see that the only reason that the existence of even larger birds were denied was because aeronautical engineers refused to believe it could be so.
> Uh.. electrical universe is so bunked it's hard to respond to it.
That's funny because there are quite a few books being published about it these days.
> It's like trying to prove bananas aren't 57 mph, or that the color yellow > isn't the driving force behind cell phones. No real math, no good astronomy, > no real science..
The science is called electricity and magnetism and plasma physics. Those are typically considered to be real sciences.
There are in fact many findings in astronomy that suggest that electricity is happening in the universe. The real problem is that whenever somebody tries to research it, like Halton Arp, they typically lose their telescope time.
As for the math, the Big Bang's forte, this is fudgable. Having math that works doesn't necessarily mean that your theory is true. When Big Bangers get a prediction wrong, they just add in a constant and everybody's happy (I refer you to predictions of 50 K for the cosmic microwave background by big bangers, which was quickly adjusted to around 3 K when the observations came in for that value). But what have we really accomplished if the Big Bang Theory rarely predicts much of anything that we see in the universe? Are theories these days no more than logbooks of our findings?
> there's really nothing to it that works at all or explains anything.
Actually, it explains quite a few things that Big Bang Theory fails to explain -- like why does the solar wind accelerate and continue accelerating past the planets? Why is the Sun's corona 2 million Kelvin while the surface is only 6,000 K? Why are we seeing temperatures of up to 100 million Kelvin in some nebulae? Why are large scale structures of the universe filamentary?
These are very good questions. Astrophysicists will concoct exotic, disjointed physical theories involving colliding galaxies and imaginary magnetic reconnection phenomenon, for instance, to account for these things, and portray the existence of these theories as proof that the problem has been solved. They treat a "theory of everything" as if it is something that we will one day figure out. I think this is absurd. The theory of everything is what we're actually looking for. You don't find it by analyzing the components and then trying to piece together all of your disjointed theories. You find a theory of everything by finding similarities between things in the universe. You look at the universe holistically. This is what Electric Universe theorists try to do.
> Electric force is very easy to see and measure in this day and age, and is very well > understood, and we just haven't seen anything at all like you describe.
And we are seeing it. You don't hear about it because you're listening to traditional astrophysicists, who have all been taught to believe in the Big Bang, which states that large-scale electrical forces cannot occur.
Every time a comet goes by in the sky, we're seeing it. I suppose you still believe that comets are dirty snowballs though and that that the coma of a comet (which can span millions of miles) is actually sublimating ice...
> An object on earth or the moon or mars' weight is determined by their
If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.
People should be asking how it is possible that dinosaur birds of the past could have been as large as 747's. We don't have birds today on the entire planet that are larger than about 50 lbs. And this clearly pushes the limits of what's possible with bird mass because these 50-lb birds practically kill themselves when they land. The Mongolians have tried to breed bigger falcons for thousands of years with no luck. So, how is it possible that birds were once as big as 747's?
People should be asking exactly *which* animals survived, and why?
Ask those questions *WITH* the questions about the impact, and suddenly the bigger picture changes. Is the Big Bang Theory still just a theory, or are there alternative cosmologies that people will consider? What about the electrical force? In a theory of everything based upon electricity, gravity would be a function of electrical charge accumulation and the Theory of Relativity could be very easily explained using aether concepts that contrary to popular belief, have never actually been disproven. The aether explanation for Relativity is actually much simpler to understand than Relativity.
Do planets accumulate and transfer charge? According to astrophysicists and NASA, the answer is a vehement "NO!". But have you ever actually looked at the Aristarchus crater on the Moon? That "debris field" has *negative depth*. They are trenches! That looks a hell of a lot more like a lightning strike to me than a debris field: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309hubble.jpg. Should we just assume that it is pure coincidence that the Aristarchus and Tycho craters occur on naturally high spots on the Moon's surface?
We know that metals can accumulate charge and we know that the Earth has a hell of a lot of metals. So, why can't the Earth accumulate and transfer charge with nearby planets or bodies? Because we've never seen it happen? But we can see large-scale electrical activity all over the universe with our telescopes. We've gathered enough data by now on comets to suspect that the tail and coma of a comet are in fact lightning bolts. Check it out: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . If we're seeing large magnetic fields and temperatures of 100 million Kelvin inside of nebulae, then that means that nebulae are almost certainly *not* forming by gravitational collapse and that electricity is the dominant force in creating stars. If we're seeing large-scale electrical forces elsewhere in the universe, why should our solar system be so special as to not have these?
Why are all craters round? Sure, astrophysicists will tell you that it's because an object going fast enough will create an explosion upon impact, but then why is the sedimentary layer at the bottom of Meteor Crater undisturbed? Would a comparable nuclear explosion leave no trace of itself in the ground beneath it?
How To Kill A Planet of Dinosaurs:
What motivated Einstein to say that space is modified by gravity? Imagine that a planet is orbiting around the sun. Then imagine that suddenly the Sun disappears, and the source of gravitational attraction is gone. What happens to the planet? Does it instantly go off the orbit? Or does the disappearance of gravity require some time to reach the orbiting planet's position? Einstein's answer is that it stays in the orbit for a time R/c before going off. It is as though gravitation continues to operate on the planet at its location even though the Sun is gone. Something wa
Robert Becker discovered back in the 60's and 70's (and published his results in 1985 in his book "The Body Electric") that the salamander body uses electrical signaling to direct regeneration. He rightly wondered if this would be true of humans and found plenty of evidence for it through some really interesting experiments. In the process, he found reason to suspect that a link exists between undifferentiated stem cells and cancer. Furthermore, and importantly, he found that the same electromagnetic currents and fields that are used to direct stem cells can also promote the growth of cancer. So, contrary to assertions that EMF's *cause* cancer, they actually promote its growth once it exists. What this means is that if you find that you have cancer, you need to get the hell out of the city and get to a rural treatment facility ASAP.
It's a sad fact that Becker was completely ignored by his peers when he was publishing his papers. He was way ahead of his time. There's good reason to believe that all of the Iraq War vets would be regenerating their limbs right now had people paid him the attention he deserved.
The funny part about claims that the moon is hollow is that these claims probably arise because we tend to assume that the gravitational constant is a constant. However, scientists already use a different G for doing calculations on the Sun. And asteroids have been observed to exhibit "non-gravitational acceleration". It used to be that we as a culture would investigate such anomalies with the intent to prove or disprove our fundamental assumptions. But ever since this country accepted the Big Bang as the rule of the land many decades ago, we no longer wonder about these things and the more important goal has become to integrate everything into the Big Bang theory in an effort to find a "theory of everything".
In plasma cosmology theory, there is no reason to believe that gravity absolutely must be a constant. It can potentially be a function of electrical charge. In fact, reality is stranger than fiction because there isn't a bird on this planet right now that's larger than 50 lbs. You just can't get them any bigger than that and it's not for not trying (the Mongolians have been trying to breed big falcons for a very long time now). Any bird that approaches 50 lbs practically kills itself when it lands. But we have partial bone fossils that demonstrate birds with 60-foot wingspans. These birds would have clearly weighed thousands of pounds.
Dinosaurs don't make much more sense. They shouldn't have existed. Muscle power increases by only 50% as you double muscle mass, and muscle cells for all of the vertebrates and invertebrates alive today are all more-or-less the same. It's quite difficult to distinguish elephant muscle cells from mouse muscle cells. So, there should be a theoretical limit to how big land-walking animals can be. This limit ends up being around 15,000 - 20,000 lbs -- far, far lower than the dinosaur masses. There are numerous other problems with dinosaurs too. Some of their necks were far too long. They should have just snapped right off if extended horizontally. And if these monsters raised their heads up, we know of no possible mechanism for pumping the blood to their heads. Giraffes have very special necks for achieving this blood pressure and containing the blood in the neck that we don't see evidence of in those dinosaurs.
So, either dinosaurs and 747-sized birds never existed, or gravity was different back then.
There really is no good reason to believe that planets can't acquire and trade charges. Astronomers have never adequately explained why plasma physics is wrong on this point. And it makes little sense that just about all of the "impact craters" are perfectly round. Many of the marks that we see on the planets look exactly as lightning bolts would when they travel across land. The Grand Canyon, for instance, could not have possibly been etched out by the Colorado River because the river would have had to flow uphill in order to do it. Scientists are baffled by the Canyon to this day, but it's no mystery at all to plasma cosmologists. It's somewhat ironic that we're looking for evidence of water on Mars when we can't even prove that water formed the features here on Earth.
The moon may appear to us hollow because its stored charge is altering its gravity "constant". This could explain the gravitational anomalies associated with the Sun and asteroids too. It's going to take many decades to make it happen, but people will eventually very gradually wake up to the theory of plasma cosmology and all of its implications. The current problem is that the public now has a romantic relationship with fictitious ideas like neutron stars, black holes and the mysterious dark matter and dark energy. We've been led to believe that the universe is basically like a children's book or fairy tale. Electricity was mysterious enough to people several thousand years ago to seem the same way, but people these days should know better.
Once again, NASA ignores the possibility (perhaps probability is a better word?) that the magnetism is the result of electrical exchange between bodies in space.
In 2005, the mission to comet Tempel 1 called Deep Impact shot a copper ball into that comet. To my knowledge, NASA scientists still have not adequately explained the results of that experiment even though plasma cosmologist accurately predicted the results *before* the impact occurred. For a thorough summary of those results, visit http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . There, you will learn that there is substantial evidence that cometary tails and comas are the result of electrical processes rather than any sort of sublimation of any icy snowball. When the copper ball got close, before impact, a small flash of lightning occurred. And in the video of the ball's approach, you can see white patches on the comet (charge equalization with the ball). Any critical eye in possession of a detailed photograph of a cometary tail can notice something peculiar about the dirty snowball theory. The zig-zaggy tail is lightning -- not a vapor trail. Vapor trails would not move in zig-zags. But more technically, we have yet to observe enough water on any comet that could create the tail and comas that we're seeing.
Why does this matter?
Well, it matters a lot! Because -- and this should be alarming to people -- the comets have craters just like asteroids and planets. If it is true as Thornhill and numerous other plasma cosmologists allege that these craters are the result of electrical machining, then it is possible that craters on the planets could also be the result of electrical charge transfers (aka lightning). And it shouldn't surprise anybody that lightning could leave magnetic traces of its activity. In fact, if it weren't for the big bang theory, then that might be our first guess.
Have you ever for a second stopped and wondered why all of these frickin impact craters are round!? Doesn't that seem like a bit too coincidental? Exactly how many impacts can you expect to occur at right-angles? If we're talking about lightning, however, it would be exactly the case that all of the craters would be round because the charge would travel the path of least resistance (a 90 degree angle connecting the two bodies).
Also, if we accept the plasma cosmologists' conclusions for the Deep Impact mission that comets glow because charge is being stripped from the comet, then first of all, this means that the Sun is emitting an electric field that is causing this charge separation (and that's a whole different story!). But just as importantly, it also implies that such similar charge movements and transfers can occur for planets. All of these things are fundamental concepts of plasma physics, and considering that 99.99% of the observable universe consists of matter in the plasma state, it might be wise to listen to those guys.
When the Space Shuttle Columbia went down some years ago, a rogue amateur astronomer captured an image of the Shuttle's plasma exhaust being struck by a bolt of lightning, which could very clearly be seen to travel from the upper atmosphere onto the exhaust plasma trail and in the direction of the Shuttle. This image coincided precisely with the Shuttle's malfunctioning and Shuttle parts have been observed to have electrical machining that one would expect from a lightning strike. However, NASA discounted this explanation on the basis that the lightning was too high in the atmosphere to exist (planets cannot transfer charge with outer space, in other words), and that instruments were unable to hear any lightning strike (even though it's known by plasma cosmologists that lightning in the upper atmosphere wouldn't make the same sounds it does in the lower atmosphere). It's also important to note that meteorologists still do not fully understand the origins of lightning, so it's rather curious that NASA could b
Slashdot Mirror
> Why? Because the recent observations of reactionless mass actually on display
... with jets. Einstein would not have approved of all of the things that Hawking has done. A black hole is what you get when you assume that gravity is doing the work of electricity over plasma: you have to compensate for the weak force of gravity compared to electricity by supposing an infinite mass. We can suppose these same forces with normally massed things by making the simple leap that electricity is flowing over plasma at the centers of galaxies. We don't need to speculate infinite mass or anything like that. The only reason we do so is because we presume that the Big Bang Theory is correct. If your cosmology is consistently getting in the way of selecting the simplest theory for your observations, then maybe you should re-evaluate your cosmology. That is still an option, right? Isn't that what scientists do?
> in front of you, in the form of colliding galaxies, are just too uncomfortably
> close to confirming what you don't like?
Do you believe that it's common that galaxies collide because you've thought about the dimensions involved or because somebody told you that that's what's happening? I've been taught that galaxies are really far apart from one another and the next logical step would be that collisions are rare. If you're seeing this as an explanation for anything commonplace, then your skeptic alarm should be going off.
> Or because the Doppler effect is something you can demonstrate at any wavelength
> (try it with your car horn, sometime - and if you get good enough gear try it with
> some light), and that just annoys the hell out of you?
I believe in the Doppler Effect. There are, btw, multiple possible causes for redshift. If you actually study quasars with an open mind, not assuming any Big Bang Model, you will notice that they tend to form along the axes of (Seyfert) spiral galaxies. Despite what you've been told and are being told, their redshifts do not correspond to their cosmological distances. If you can somehow for a second believe that something you've been told is perhaps wrong, then you will see that quasars appear to be proto-galaxies whose redshift has a component that decreases in quantized steps as the quasar moves away from the spiral galaxy. This sounds weird to you, but it's because you've been taught that it's not possible. People (Halton Arp) have written entire books on this subject ("Seeing Red"), so please forgive me if I can't be more concise.
> Or because black holes and neutron stars are just too dense for your brain -
> which evolved without any context for grappling with things on that scale -
It's not about me. They're not the simplest explanation for the observation. If you didn't believe in the Big Bang and all the baggage that comes with it, you'd agree.
Neutron stars actually violate physical laws. You can't pack neutrons into a space like that without having them rush away from one another. It's called "The Island of Stability".
Black holes are just mathematical abstractions. They exist primarily because we can't observe them -- which means that we can't disprove them. I think people don't realize that Albert Einstein did not theorize black holes. That's Stephen Hawking's invention. When it was observed that black holes could have jets, in fact, Stephen Hawking proposed another kind of black hole
> just hates the fact that if you put enough matter in one spot with nothing
> fluffing it up... gravity kicks in, and that's just too annoying for you?
The problem that EU proponents have with the idea that things form from gravity is that it presumes that there are no magnetic fields occurring. In order for nebulae to be gravitationally collapsing gas clouds, there cannot be magnetic fields or currents moving through them because this would alter the nature of the nebulae far faster than the millions of years it takes for gravitational collap
> I'm not going to write a complete rebuttal, but to start with, a 747 has a
> wingspan of ~55 meters. Not that a 12 meter wingspan isn't big, but it is not
> the size of a 747.
The point is that any bird that has a 30+ foot wingspan is going to weigh much much more than 50 lbs. We're splitting hairs here. A 30-foot wingspan for a bird would require either (a) different gravity or (b) some sort of biological trait that never evolved on this planet post-extinction.
When Electric Universe proponents suggest these things, all we really hope for is that somebody with the capabilities to do so will become curious and investigate it. To presuppose that it's not a useful line of investigation and not look into it can only confirm any preconceived notions that may exist on the issue. To be honest, and I doubt you believe me, but I would LOVE to see concrete evidence that this is all bullshit. But what amazes me is the degree to which conformity remains such a value within the scientific establishment. It's such a battle just to get people to *consider* alternatives. It appears unlikely to me that all progress in science would be so scheduled and coordinated as Big Bang Cosmology has been. When you actually get down to it, there really is no philosophical rationale for people to be so hostile to alternative cosmologies. Dominating all of the telescope time with just one cosmology is actually a very dangerous idea.
> Third, look at the build of the larger birds, like vultures or eagles or
> albatrosses. The larger the birds get, the smaller thier bodies get in proportion
> to their wings. Now look at Pterosaur skeletons. The pattern holds.
These seem to me like arguments of degrees. These arguments aren't so convincing that they qualify as ruling out the notion that something strange is happening here that deserves investigation.
> Now think, for a moment, about what would happen if gravity were lower. Air would be
> much thinner. The earth would orbit further from the sun. I assume we're talking about
> a major change in gravity here that would allow "birds the size of 747s". If gravity
> were that low earth probably wouldn't even have liquid water.
Once again, none of these speculations are significant enough to warrant a refusal to be curious.
> Now here's the part I hope you won't take as me giving anything up, I'm not, but
> EVERYONE agrees the sun has electromagnetic phenomenon. It simply does. Science
> believes it's caused by the conductive plasma the sun is made of working as a dynamo
> caused by plasma convection from the sun's core, where energy is produced by fusion.
> What your electric universe theory suggests is that the sun is nothing but a big gas
> discharge light bulb, and there's a multiple exowatt current being run through it.
EU theory proposes that fusion occurs where temperatures are hot enough, and so far, we only have real evidence that temperatures are hot enough in the corona. It's never been demonstrated that temperatures reach millions of degrees inside of the Sun. But you know what? If an experiment was done and that was determined without a doubt to be true, then I'm pretty sure I'd abandon ideas of an electric sun.
The biggest problem with EU theory currently that I can find is that the proposed currents flowing into the Sun are difficult to see, and would apparently have to be moving upwind of the solar wind. But for me, the most convincing part to EU theory are the stars and nebulae that are farther away. The evidence appears to support that nebulae are hot conductive plasma (up to 100 million Kelvin hot) and include massive magnetic fields. By default, strong magnetic fields in nebulae appears to discount the idea of gravitationally collapsing clouds of gas and dust because the electric force would easily dominate the gravitational force.
I also have big problems with neutron stars. To think that a huge star can rotate at 300 t
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
Black Holes
Neutron Stars
Quasars at their Redshift Distances at the Edge of the Universe
Might as well add unicorns in there. There are plenty of things in traditional astrophysics that are actually far more ridiculous than the thought that electricity could be flowing over plasma, which we know represents 99.99% of the observable universe.
But, Oh! I forgot. We can only see 5% of the universe. Sure, man.
You can argue about the details, but then you'd be ignoring my actual point:
.html)
...
"The largest pterosaur (Quetzalcoatlus, wonderfully named for the Aztec winged serpent god) had a wing span from eleven to twelve meters long (about forty feet)." (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/pterosauria
I think the fact that you so easily dismissed the point without actually becoming curious implies that you believe that we already understand the universe completely. And that is perhaps just as absurd to most people as electric universe theories. If you actually read the link I posted, then you'd see that the only reason that the existence of even larger birds were denied was because aeronautical engineers refused to believe it could be so.
> Uh.. electrical universe is so bunked it's hard to respond to it.
That's funny because there are quite a few books being published about it these days.
> It's like trying to prove bananas aren't 57 mph, or that the color yellow
> isn't the driving force behind cell phones. No real math, no good astronomy,
> no real science..
The science is called electricity and magnetism and plasma physics. Those are typically considered to be real sciences.
There are in fact many findings in astronomy that suggest that electricity is happening in the universe. The real problem is that whenever somebody tries to research it, like Halton Arp, they typically lose their telescope time.
As for the math, the Big Bang's forte, this is fudgable. Having math that works doesn't necessarily mean that your theory is true. When Big Bangers get a prediction wrong, they just add in a constant and everybody's happy (I refer you to predictions of 50 K for the cosmic microwave background by big bangers, which was quickly adjusted to around 3 K when the observations came in for that value). But what have we really accomplished if the Big Bang Theory rarely predicts much of anything that we see in the universe? Are theories these days no more than logbooks of our findings?
> there's really nothing to it that works at all or explains anything.
Actually, it explains quite a few things that Big Bang Theory fails to explain -- like why does the solar wind accelerate and continue accelerating past the planets? Why is the Sun's corona 2 million Kelvin while the surface is only 6,000 K? Why are we seeing temperatures of up to 100 million Kelvin in some nebulae? Why are large scale structures of the universe filamentary?
These are very good questions. Astrophysicists will concoct exotic, disjointed physical theories involving colliding galaxies and imaginary magnetic reconnection phenomenon, for instance, to account for these things, and portray the existence of these theories as proof that the problem has been solved. They treat a "theory of everything" as if it is something that we will one day figure out. I think this is absurd. The theory of everything is what we're actually looking for. You don't find it by analyzing the components and then trying to piece together all of your disjointed theories. You find a theory of everything by finding similarities between things in the universe. You look at the universe holistically. This is what Electric Universe theorists try to do.
> Electric force is very easy to see and measure in this day and age, and is very well
> understood, and we just haven't seen anything at all like you describe.
And we are seeing it. You don't hear about it because you're listening to traditional astrophysicists, who have all been taught to believe in the Big Bang, which states that large-scale electrical forces cannot occur.
Every time a comet goes by in the sky, we're seeing it. I suppose you still believe that comets are dirty snowballs though and that that the coma of a comet (which can span millions of miles) is actually sublimating ice
> An object on earth or the moon or mars' weight is determined by their
If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.
People should be asking how it is possible that dinosaur birds of the past could have been as large as 747's. We don't have birds today on the entire planet that are larger than about 50 lbs. And this clearly pushes the limits of what's possible with bird mass because these 50-lb birds practically kill themselves when they land. The Mongolians have tried to breed bigger falcons for thousands of years with no luck. So, how is it possible that birds were once as big as 747's?
People should be asking exactly *which* animals survived, and why?
People should be asking if the land-walking dinosaurs were alive today, would they survive? Check out http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropod s/biganims.html.
Ask those questions *WITH* the questions about the impact, and suddenly the bigger picture changes. Is the Big Bang Theory still just a theory, or are there alternative cosmologies that people will consider? What about the electrical force? In a theory of everything based upon electricity, gravity would be a function of electrical charge accumulation and the Theory of Relativity could be very easily explained using aether concepts that contrary to popular belief, have never actually been disproven. The aether explanation for Relativity is actually much simpler to understand than Relativity.
Do planets accumulate and transfer charge? According to astrophysicists and NASA, the answer is a vehement "NO!". But have you ever actually looked at the Aristarchus crater on the Moon? That "debris field" has *negative depth*. They are trenches! That looks a hell of a lot more like a lightning strike to me than a debris field: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/060 309hubble.jpg. Should we just assume that it is pure coincidence that the Aristarchus and Tycho craters occur on naturally high spots on the Moon's surface?
We know that metals can accumulate charge and we know that the Earth has a hell of a lot of metals. So, why can't the Earth accumulate and transfer charge with nearby planets or bodies? Because we've never seen it happen? But we can see large-scale electrical activity all over the universe with our telescopes. We've gathered enough data by now on comets to suspect that the tail and coma of a comet are in fact lightning bolts. Check it out: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . If we're seeing large magnetic fields and temperatures of 100 million Kelvin inside of nebulae, then that means that nebulae are almost certainly *not* forming by gravitational collapse and that electricity is the dominant force in creating stars. If we're seeing large-scale electrical forces elsewhere in the universe, why should our solar system be so special as to not have these?
Why are all craters round? Sure, astrophysicists will tell you that it's because an object going fast enough will create an explosion upon impact, but then why is the sedimentary layer at the bottom of Meteor Crater undisturbed? Would a comparable nuclear explosion leave no trace of itself in the ground beneath it?
How To Kill A Planet of Dinosaurs:
What motivated Einstein to say that space is modified by gravity? Imagine that a planet is orbiting around the sun. Then imagine that suddenly the Sun disappears, and the source of gravitational attraction is gone. What happens to the planet? Does it instantly go off the orbit? Or does the disappearance of gravity require some time to reach the orbiting planet's position? Einstein's answer is that it stays in the orbit for a time R/c before going off. It is as though gravitation continues to operate on the planet at its location even though the Sun is gone. Something wa
Robert Becker discovered back in the 60's and 70's (and published his results in 1985 in his book "The Body Electric") that the salamander body uses electrical signaling to direct regeneration. He rightly wondered if this would be true of humans and found plenty of evidence for it through some really interesting experiments. In the process, he found reason to suspect that a link exists between undifferentiated stem cells and cancer. Furthermore, and importantly, he found that the same electromagnetic currents and fields that are used to direct stem cells can also promote the growth of cancer. So, contrary to assertions that EMF's *cause* cancer, they actually promote its growth once it exists. What this means is that if you find that you have cancer, you need to get the hell out of the city and get to a rural treatment facility ASAP.
It's a sad fact that Becker was completely ignored by his peers when he was publishing his papers. He was way ahead of his time. There's good reason to believe that all of the Iraq War vets would be regenerating their limbs right now had people paid him the attention he deserved.
The funny part about claims that the moon is hollow is that these claims probably arise because we tend to assume that the gravitational constant is a constant. However, scientists already use a different G for doing calculations on the Sun. And asteroids have been observed to exhibit "non-gravitational acceleration". It used to be that we as a culture would investigate such anomalies with the intent to prove or disprove our fundamental assumptions. But ever since this country accepted the Big Bang as the rule of the land many decades ago, we no longer wonder about these things and the more important goal has become to integrate everything into the Big Bang theory in an effort to find a "theory of everything".
In plasma cosmology theory, there is no reason to believe that gravity absolutely must be a constant. It can potentially be a function of electrical charge. In fact, reality is stranger than fiction because there isn't a bird on this planet right now that's larger than 50 lbs. You just can't get them any bigger than that and it's not for not trying (the Mongolians have been trying to breed big falcons for a very long time now). Any bird that approaches 50 lbs practically kills itself when it lands. But we have partial bone fossils that demonstrate birds with 60-foot wingspans. These birds would have clearly weighed thousands of pounds.
Dinosaurs don't make much more sense. They shouldn't have existed. Muscle power increases by only 50% as you double muscle mass, and muscle cells for all of the vertebrates and invertebrates alive today are all more-or-less the same. It's quite difficult to distinguish elephant muscle cells from mouse muscle cells. So, there should be a theoretical limit to how big land-walking animals can be. This limit ends up being around 15,000 - 20,000 lbs -- far, far lower than the dinosaur masses. There are numerous other problems with dinosaurs too. Some of their necks were far too long. They should have just snapped right off if extended horizontally. And if these monsters raised their heads up, we know of no possible mechanism for pumping the blood to their heads. Giraffes have very special necks for achieving this blood pressure and containing the blood in the neck that we don't see evidence of in those dinosaurs.
So, either dinosaurs and 747-sized birds never existed, or gravity was different back then.
There really is no good reason to believe that planets can't acquire and trade charges. Astronomers have never adequately explained why plasma physics is wrong on this point. And it makes little sense that just about all of the "impact craters" are perfectly round. Many of the marks that we see on the planets look exactly as lightning bolts would when they travel across land. The Grand Canyon, for instance, could not have possibly been etched out by the Colorado River because the river would have had to flow uphill in order to do it. Scientists are baffled by the Canyon to this day, but it's no mystery at all to plasma cosmologists. It's somewhat ironic that we're looking for evidence of water on Mars when we can't even prove that water formed the features here on Earth.
The moon may appear to us hollow because its stored charge is altering its gravity "constant". This could explain the gravitational anomalies associated with the Sun and asteroids too. It's going to take many decades to make it happen, but people will eventually very gradually wake up to the theory of plasma cosmology and all of its implications. The current problem is that the public now has a romantic relationship with fictitious ideas like neutron stars, black holes and the mysterious dark matter and dark energy. We've been led to believe that the universe is basically like a children's book or fairy tale. Electricity was mysterious enough to people several thousand years ago to seem the same way, but people these days should know better.
Once again, NASA ignores the possibility (perhaps probability is a better word?) that the magnetism is the result of electrical exchange between bodies in space.
In 2005, the mission to comet Tempel 1 called Deep Impact shot a copper ball into that comet. To my knowledge, NASA scientists still have not adequately explained the results of that experiment even though plasma cosmologist accurately predicted the results *before* the impact occurred. For a thorough summary of those results, visit http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . There, you will learn that there is substantial evidence that cometary tails and comas are the result of electrical processes rather than any sort of sublimation of any icy snowball. When the copper ball got close, before impact, a small flash of lightning occurred. And in the video of the ball's approach, you can see white patches on the comet (charge equalization with the ball). Any critical eye in possession of a detailed photograph of a cometary tail can notice something peculiar about the dirty snowball theory. The zig-zaggy tail is lightning -- not a vapor trail. Vapor trails would not move in zig-zags. But more technically, we have yet to observe enough water on any comet that could create the tail and comas that we're seeing.
Why does this matter?
Well, it matters a lot! Because -- and this should be alarming to people -- the comets have craters just like asteroids and planets. If it is true as Thornhill and numerous other plasma cosmologists allege that these craters are the result of electrical machining, then it is possible that craters on the planets could also be the result of electrical charge transfers (aka lightning). And it shouldn't surprise anybody that lightning could leave magnetic traces of its activity. In fact, if it weren't for the big bang theory, then that might be our first guess.
Have you ever for a second stopped and wondered why all of these frickin impact craters are round!? Doesn't that seem like a bit too coincidental? Exactly how many impacts can you expect to occur at right-angles? If we're talking about lightning, however, it would be exactly the case that all of the craters would be round because the charge would travel the path of least resistance (a 90 degree angle connecting the two bodies).
Also, if we accept the plasma cosmologists' conclusions for the Deep Impact mission that comets glow because charge is being stripped from the comet, then first of all, this means that the Sun is emitting an electric field that is causing this charge separation (and that's a whole different story!). But just as importantly, it also implies that such similar charge movements and transfers can occur for planets. All of these things are fundamental concepts of plasma physics, and considering that 99.99% of the observable universe consists of matter in the plasma state, it might be wise to listen to those guys.
When the Space Shuttle Columbia went down some years ago, a rogue amateur astronomer captured an image of the Shuttle's plasma exhaust being struck by a bolt of lightning, which could very clearly be seen to travel from the upper atmosphere onto the exhaust plasma trail and in the direction of the Shuttle. This image coincided precisely with the Shuttle's malfunctioning and Shuttle parts have been observed to have electrical machining that one would expect from a lightning strike. However, NASA discounted this explanation on the basis that the lightning was too high in the atmosphere to exist (planets cannot transfer charge with outer space, in other words), and that instruments were unable to hear any lightning strike (even though it's known by plasma cosmologists that lightning in the upper atmosphere wouldn't make the same sounds it does in the lower atmosphere). It's also important to note that meteorologists still do not fully understand the origins of lightning, so it's rather curious that NASA could b