"THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck.
Now, either you know what the implications of this are -- or you do not. Please forgive me if you do, but I will explain it.
What happens in the laboratory with *electrical* plasmas is that the plasma will tend to form filaments of charged particles. It is a natural state of the plasma. Furthermore, multiple filaments will tend to possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion. In other words, they will twist around one another without fully combining. This roped structure will essentially constitute a flow of charged particles as those charged particles move across the rope in response to charge differences, and this flow of charged particles will in turn create helical magnetic fields around each filament.
The observation of a roped magnetic structure connecting the Sun and Earth is extremely important because we know from our laboratory experiences with plasmas that ropelike structures occur when the plasma is electrical. If your argument now is that the similarity is coincidental, then the burden is upon yourself to explain how it is that gravity can create a roped structure within the solar wind.
I'm very curious what the response will be from the astrophysical community, but from what I've observed so far, it appears that the professional astrophysicists are going to attempt to ignore the unmistakable shape of this thing -- and the implications that it has for all of science.
So, do electrical currents exist in space? Let's look at what NASA has to say on the topic. You can check the link yourself if you don't believe it...
THEMIS also has observed a number of small explosions in Earth's magnetic bow shock. "The bow shock is like the bow wave in front of a boat," explained Sibeck. "It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth's magnetic field. Sometimes a burst of electrical current within the solar wind will hit the bow shock and--Bang! We get an explosion."
Emphasis is clearly mine.
I urge you to continue your ridicule of me with more caution, for you may come to regret saying these things in the future. You can certainly be excused for not believing that we are seeing paradigm change, but it may turn out that we in fact just live in interesting times, and that I'm actually one of the good guys just trying to raise awareness of the issue.
I won't go much into what I believe happened, as it's a bit stranger than what you mention here. But, I will say this: I would be very wary of blindly accepting this notion that craters can only be the result of either volcanoes or physical impacts. And the reason I say this is because of the Deep Impact Mission. Around 1995, we shot an impactor at around 23,000 mph (6.3 miles per second) at comet Tempel 1. What was expected to happen based upon the physical impact model was a single flash. But, what in fact happened were two consecutive flashes. Considering that this is one of the best experiments we have to date for what happens in collisions like this, we'd be very wise to carefully consider the root cause of these two distinct flashes.
A man named Wallace Thornhill actually predicted that there would be two separate flashes based upon the notion that the comet was a charged body in space that possessed a different charge from the probe's impactor. As the two objects approached one another, they essentially charge-neutralized prior to imapact (like your finger charge-neutralizing with the doorknob before contact).
Thornhill got many other aspects of the mission right too, but this is the one that interests us here. The entire astrophysical world considers Thornhill a heretic of sorts, and they *dismissed* his accurate prediction based upon disagreement with what his theory says. And I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you want to look into that further. Instead, they claimed that the layer of dust on the comet induced a "post-impact" flash, but anybody can do the math. At 6.3 miles per second, the dust layer would have to be impossibly thick in order to distinguish the two separate flashes.
But, the point is that that experiment demonstrated to us that we should carefully consider the idea that bodies in space are not electrically neutral. When you dig into the issue further, you come to realize that quasi-neutrality -- the idea that a given volume of space will contain equal numbers of positive and negative charge -- is in fact an assumption within astrophysics.
Just a couple of days ago, the THEMIS mission (which is studying the aurora) observed a "magnetic rope" as wide as the Earth connecting the Sun and the Earth. The significance of this will completely escape most people because few people actually understand much of what happens within a plasma physics laboratory. But, plasmas can behave as either a fluid or an electrodynamic phenomenon, depending on their charge density. In the laboratory, *electrical* plasmas will tend to form filaments of charged particles. These filaments possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with other filaments. The end result is that they will become braided just like rope, and like any current we've ever observed, they will be surrounded by magnetic fields. Space is completely filled with matter in the plasma state, so it's a very serious question.
What you may not realize is that there is a very long historical context for discussing the electrical nature of space plasmas. It's essentially a taboo subject within astrophysics, and the conversations become *extremely* heated. I take ridicule for discussing it here on these forums on a daily basis. But if you are observing striking morphological similarities between electrical plasmas within a plasma laboratory and space plasmas, then does it make sense to assume that it is a coincidence? To be honest, that's not very scientific. What's really happening is that observations like this magnetic rope are very potentially paradigm-shattering observations that cast doubt upon the assumption of quasi-neutrality. And this is a *very* big deal because quasi-neutrality is required to model space plasmas as fluids. If space plasmas as in fact electrodynamic phenomenon (like they behave in the lab), then you are basically changing the dominant force in the universe from gravity to electricity. It's just too shocking for astrophysicists and many people to accept
The most damning contradiction occurs as a result of calculations of consumable biomass that exists within a tundra environment. In fact, if I understand things properly, this is why the concept of the "mammoth steppe" evolved -- to synthesize these two ideas of cold environment and lots of biomass. But, the problem of the tundra is essentially that the ground is frozen. That limits the penetration of deep root systems and hence the plants' ability to recover from animals eating their vegetation. Therefore, they have to expend a significant percentage of their energies to filling their leaves with substances that are toxic to mammals. And in fact, we generally do not observe large mammals living in the tundra environment to this day due to these reasons. Some will visit for the warm months, but some of the areas where we've recovered mammoth remains (like in Alaska) possessed no easy way to migrate away for the winter. The Alaskan escape route was blocked by an immense ice cap. Also, it's important to realize that in order for a creature to propagate itself over many generations, it must exist in a sufficiently sized herd. This compounds the problem of environmental stress.
The only way to stick mammoths into a cold environment is to basically invent an ecology that does not exist today, as this ground freezing problem is generally ubiquitous in cold environments.
Charles Ginenthal talks a lot about this subject of Clovis people and mammoths. The mammoth's had incredibly thick whool, skin and fat beneath that skin. All combined, the three layers amounted to 15 inches of material! It's been demonstrated that even with iron spear-heads and elephants, it is very rare that a spear-head will penetrate an organ.
In order to kill mammoths with spear heads, you could not hope to strike an organ. You'd have to hope that it would bleed to death. Based upon an observation of elephants, this means that the animal would run from you for 10, 20 -- who knows how many -- miles before it would bleed to death. Without horses, that's pretty difficult to pull off. It makes sense that it could happen occasionally, but it doesn't make much sense that the creature was obliterated *because* of that technique.
When you consider that the extinction was selective, and that some of the creatures left behind (like the musk oxen) were very easy to drive to extinction (because their defensive circle will fall apart if one is killed, and they'll *allow* themselves to become slaughtered), then you realize that the idea that the Clovis decided to specifically slaughter the mammoths -- the most difficult ones to kill off -- is speculative.
Therein lies the problem of ever ascribing certainty to any one event causing mass extinctions or any other climatological or biological shift. Earth is built with so many complex systems that it will almost always be a large combination of factors that result in change.
I'm kind of an unwanted celebrity around these parts because I have my own particular beliefs about what happened. To be honest, few people actually take the time to even dig into the issues in great depth. But it's a great subject though because the evidence is very specific; it's plentiful; and it's in fact *highly* enigmatic. There's something really wrong with the way that we teach science these days because had I learned about the evidence when I was younger, it would have inspired me to focus more heavily on getting a science degree (as opposed to engineering). People don't realize it, but the story of the extinction of the mammoths (and everything else) is one of the most fascinating mysteries out there, and the implications are pretty large. It's related to some of the biggest questions about the universe that people can even ask. The problem though is that the majority of scientists tend to treat the issue as if is settled, and they appear to be settling on some rather unlikely scenarios (like diseases).
Ginenthal in The Extinction of the Mammoths argues convincingly that the "mammoth steppe" did not exist. Mammoths did *not* live in a tundra environment. The extinction could not have occurred too long ago. 10,000 years is probably too long. 3,500 years ago might be a better estimate, because their tusks would not have been as preserved as well as they were if the tundra in which they are encased had melted, exposing the tusks to water. Many of the tusks were so pristine that they could be sold as ivory on the ivory market, and tusks will turn yellow and brown just like bone if exposed to water. But also, the mammoths could not have survived in a cold environment. Their shaggy manes would actually prevent them from walking through snow. There's really very little about their bodies that points to them being able to live in a cold environment. And the ecology of the tundra simply cannot support large mammals like that. The vegetation on the tundra would actually probably be toxic to them (as it is for other mammals) and we can tell from the contents of their stomachs and mouths that they were feeding on warm-weathered vegetation -- like from grasslands and forest-type areas. These details, combined, indicate pretty clearly that they existed in a warm climate, which most likely suddenly froze over.
How you attribute this catastrophic event, however, is the real question -- and this is where disagreement is completely legitimate and should in fact be encouraged. In fact, I think the best thing for the whole field of people who are studying this situation would be for them to abandon all of these highly speculative scenarios involving Clovis people and diseases and all of that, and completely switch over to creating some consensus that some sort of catastrophe occurred, and that it occurred relatively recently (around 3,500 years ago). The evidence for it seems to me quite strong, and has absolutely nothing to do with Creationism. If this new evidence points them into this overall direction, then it will be a *very* good thing because we need to start talking about what *kind* of catastrophes could have caused all of this mess.
I'm hoping that this is going to shift the discussion of the last extinction event *away* from the Clovis people finally. This can only be a good thing really as the theory is kind of a relic by now. From what I understand, there weren't even a large number of sites that included evidence of mammoth remains with evidence of human activity together, and a good number of those were certainly opportunistic situations. Mammoths are not exactly easy creatures to take out and the extinction event was unusual in its selectivity.
I'm not saying that comparative mythology isn't a valid field or that it can't give any useful knowledge. I'm saying that it gives knowledge about humanity and not about how stars work.
Many of the translations in ancient texts deal specifically with astronomical phenomena, and this is far easier to demonstrate than you are suggesting. You can't make blanket statements about the evidence like that. You have to look at what the translations say, along with justifications for the translations with notes on how others have performed those translations, and the logic follows from all of these facts. If you want to see the technique perfected, you should purchase a copy of "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona.
It sounds like you're implying the basis of the scientific method's power, which disallows the use of circumstantial evidence like that of mythological origin as evidence at all, is just some "urban legend" that I've been too unwitting to fathom.
But you've used no scientific method to evaluate mythology. You've instead ruled it out based upon this other evidence that you're more familiar with. If we see writings, for instance, that indicate that ancient man witnessed something specific about Venus, and the observation spans separate communities separated by oceans, then shouldn't we consider that evidence as equal to the *assumption* that all of the planets formed together at once out of a circumstellar disc? What is really so similar about Earth and Venus, other than their close proximity, that would indicate that the two planets are "sisters"?
You're the one who finds myths more convincing than telescopic observations
In EU Theory, btw, the mythological evidence and astrophysical evidences can be pursued independently, and yet point to the same thing.
and who disregards the possibility that commonalities in human psychology and culture may be the unifying thread among human tales, and not planets and orbits reshuffling themselves contrary to mechanics.
Dwardu Cardona explores in great depth the notion that mankind developed his fears of catastrophe from intense weather phenomena. He does a great job of thoroughly discrediting it. It is in fact an urban myth that you fell for.
That's such an elementary mistake that I'll assume it's a typo. Planets radiate energy at wavelengths different from those at which they absorb energy. It depends on their surface composition, atmospheric composition, geometric albedo, the power spectrum of the local star, and so on. The Bond albedo describes how this works, and it doesn't sound like you understand that. Even worse for your argument, the same thing is true of Earth! Earth is still slowly cooling too, which means it's radiating more energy than it's absorbing. The approach you should have taken is to claim that Venus emits more total power than its Bond albedo allows. It doesn't, but at least you'd have the science right.
I'll send you some materials tomorrow, and you can tell me why they are wrong.
Again, human psychology. Some small number of plasma physicists will probably see similarities to their daily experience in cave paintings. Probably in modern graffiti and abstract art too. A small number of microbiologists would probably identify flagella and cilia, and possibly the double-helix of DNA when looking at the same pictures. Should they infer knowledge of the microscope by prehistoric humans all around the world and speculate on the source of that knowledge just because they're pretty sure those must be the structures in question? Of course not, and your argument is no better.
Just so that you know what you're arguing against, you should at least look at the images...
The team also needs to explain how the bison and mammoth remains can show similar damage when they were widely separated geographically.
[...]
Do not trust the dates for one second. And I'd be willing to bet that that material they have embedded in that tusk matches the chemical composition of rocks we've observed on Mars.
It's been a particularly active week for EU Theory. There was confirmation of lightning on Venus, observation of x-rays at the Sun's north pole and now Birkeland Currents that connect the Earth to the Sun and confirmation that the mammoths were likely taken out during a global catastrophe.
"THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck.
The existence of frequent "magnetic ropes" that connect the Earth to the Sun is a potentially paradigm-shifting observation. At this point, I'd have to express dismay if you do not understand the implications of what is happening right before our eyes, because it's surreal even to myself. The conventional paradigm is collapsing. Magnetic ropes connecting Earth with the Sun would constitute a direct and local observation of Birkeland Currents in space. In other words, quasi-neutrality is *TOAST*.
And the explosions within the bowshock? Have you ever heard of exploding double layers?
"THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck.
Ask *ANY* laboratory plasma physicist what a "magnetic rope" is and he'll surely, without any doubt whatsoever, respond that it's a Birkeland Current. It's the natural formation of electrical plasmas within the laboratory.
You can surely be excused for not realizing what is happening right now because the amount of evidence for Birkeland Currents in space has remained somewhat elusive for many years now. But the inordinate amount of instrumentation we have up in space right now is finally filling in the blanks. If you educate yourself on what is normal within a plasma laboratory and theories about how that relates to space, you will begin to realize that these structures are in fact Birkeland Currents. I highly recommend that you read "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott so that you can observe this surreal process of paradigm shift as it occurs. We will not experience something as profound as this in science for the rest of our lives.
"The planet Venus plays a critical role in EU Theory, as ancient cultures record its arrival as a comet-like body." Yes, and EU theorists' insistence that mythology is incontrovertible evidence is the most damning statement on their credibility. Even if the theory itself weren't riddled with basic physical problems, that would work against its popularity among scientists simply because it's superstitious and unscientific.
Comparative mythology is in fact a discipline of study, regardless of how much you may dislike that. It has its own system of methodology whose purpose is to extract the points of agreement between ancient stories and writings. For many decades now, the field has been in a total funk. The reason is that the ancient writings have not made sense within the context of conventional astrophysics. Numerous comparative mythologists have run into the same problem: their translations were not making sense because of the assumptions inherent within conventional astrophysics. Once those assumptions are dropped and translations that would previously be normalized from "Saturn" to the "Sun" were finally just left as "Saturn", the story of what happened became clearer. You act as if there is no possibility that breakthroughs can happen within the field, and you declare it must be so without even much apparent awareness of the discipline.
Nobody's arguing that the evidence is "incontrovertible". But the similarities between unusual stories of the past from continents separated by oceans demand explanation. We've been led to believe that concepts like the "Garden of Eden", global flood or doomsday are religious concepts. In fact, the "Garden of Eden" (as the others) is a global cultural phenomenon that spans numerous ethnic regions, and therefore cannot be said to originate from any individual particular religion. People like yourself will *prefer* to believe that these are religious stories or that they are superstitious, but you only arrive at that conclusion by not looking at the work that has been generated by the discipline of comparative mythology. It turns out that your confidence is entirely based upon urban mythology. What's particularly ironic is that when you trash the field of comparative mythology based upon the funk that it's been in for the past few decades, you are unknowingly discussing the poor progress that has been made within the field by pursuing translations based upon your own astrophysical assumptions. It was only recently that some of the comparative mythologists started abandoning the conventional astrophysical wisdom, and since that fortunate decision, actual progress has finally been made within the field. It will likely take at least another 50 years for awareness of this evolving situation to trickle down into society.
"It has been a contention for decades now that Venus is still cooling off from a catastrophic event." So say you scrappy few who say that physical tests of nature known as observation and experimentation will just have to be damned if mythology and language analysis can possibly be construed to contradict them. Everyone else chooses to scientifically examine the physical universe and write it down rather than rely on subjective interpretations of what other people wrote down about their/unscientific observation/ of the physical universe.
Actually, the observation that Venus is emitting more infrared light than it is absorbing is sufficient to argue in a non-mythological sense that the ancients were right. There is plenty of scientific evidence that Venus is in fact cooling down, and that it is not in thermal equilibrium. If you go back to the original Taylor Venus paper that discusses the topic, in fact, you will find that the *assumption* of thermal equilibrium was basically adopted as the conclusion in spite of plenty of data that argued otherwise. You just haven't been reading these sources.
Actually, believe it or not, if somebody was to actually demonstrate to me why EU Theory is wrong, I would run it by the theorists. And if they did not have a good explanation for it, you'd find that I would become disinterested in the theory and completely drop it. I'm not interested in believing anything that is not true. The true problem is that people do not realize the extent or nature of the evidence. I'm told on a daily basis that the theory is bunk, but only one of ten such suggestions actually includes any information that I can act upon. My specialty is in the arguments associated with this debate. I focus on evidence that either contradicts or supports both sides. I don't take anybody's word on anything.
The EU position really doesn't hold up to scrutiny, even very basic. It looks like a fine first guess, and maybe even an elegant one if it works out.
I'm not sure you're even aware of what you're arguing for. You're basically saying that the similarities we observe between space plasmas and laboratory plasmas are completely coincidental and unimportant to an extent that they should not even be investigated, and that instead, we should look to invisible particles to explain the motions of large-scale structures of the universe.
The fact that a spiral galaxy is in fact the same thing as a cross-section of two rotating Birkeland Currents? Coincidence.
The fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets? Unimportant.
The fact that Kristin Birkeland was able to reproduce many of the major features we're observing in our local solar system 100 years ago with his electrical plasma terrella experiments? Coincidence.
The fact that electrical plasmas continue to conduct current, and thus exert force, during their "dark mode"? Unimportant.
The fact that dark matter is frequently mapped out to be filamentary? Unimportant.
The fact that the Colorado River goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp, even though rivers typically do not penetrate mile-high plateaus? Unimportant.
The fact that I can show you several pictures of planetary canyons whose sinuous rilles turn into chains of craters? Unimportant.
The fact that we've observed rilles on planets that appear to defy gravity and follow the terrain of the land, both up and down? Unimportant.
The fact that the Deep Impact impactor elicited two separate flashes at the time of impact even though the impactor was traveling at something like 23,000 mph? Unimportant.
The fact that astrophysicists have to use a different value of G for the Sun in their calculations than is used for other objects (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2814)? Unimportant.
The fact that we can see jets of charged particles in space with helical magnetic fields around them that extend thousands of light years in length? Do you understand what James Maxwell would say? Unimportant.
The fact that we can observe "moving geysers" on Enceladus, and that Wallace Thornhill predicted as much before it was observed? Unimportant.
The fact that Io possesses moving plumes, that these vents are much hotter than lava, and that the supposed "lava lakes" are not hot as would be expected from a recent lava flow? The fact that all of this was predicted by Wallace Thornhill? Lucky guesses.
One wonders: Why is Thornhill so lucky with these guesses?
Maybe that's a testable hypothesis or just the product of a lively imagination, but he didn't even offer verbal motivation for it, let alone any equations proposing a unified model of electromagnetism with gravity. If he's certain of this, he should have a good working model involving Maxwell's equations with gravitational extensions at the very least.
Thornhill could be right and still not know the exact math involved. Ultimately, the math depends on the specific model for subatomic particles that one chooses. My understanding is that there
Because equations that you believe to be good models of the universe tell you that more matter ought to be around somewhere.
As this quote relates specifically to dark matter, I would go one step further...
Because equations that you believe to be good models of the universe tell you that more matter ought to be around somewhere, based upon an observation that large-scale structures do not behave as we expected them to, and under the assumption that charged particles in space (plasmas) tend to behave as fluids unlike other plasmas we observe -- like lightning, neon lights and current-carrying copper wires.
They are important details that can add context to the problem.
There's further confirmation this week for EU Theory based upon the termination shock that Voyager 2 is observing. Although it might not have been explicitly predicted by any theorist, observations of the termination "shock" are not looking at all that "shock-full". Within conventional theories, the termination of the heliosphere is a bowshock, where our own solar wind supposedly violently slaps up against cosmic rays from the sheath.
"But the shock did not look the way it was expected to. Instead of seeing a very abrupt drop, the spacecraft saw a gradual slowing of the solar wind ahead of each crossing, followed by a relatively small drop at the termination shock itself."
The fact will surely slip into nothingness in a day or two due to the popularity of the belief that the heliosphere can be modeled with fluids-style equations, but it's critical that people like yourself observe the lack of understanding associated with the largest object in our solar system, the heliospheric sheet. If we can't even explain either this or the mechanism that continues to accelerate the solar wind even as it passes the planets, then we're failing to understand the driving force behind the largest structure in our own neighborhood. That we would still express great confidence in our understanding of foreign star systems when we cannot even understand our own home system is not very scientific.
The prior link is by no means comprehensive. There are quite a few more predictions related to EU Theory that have come and gone in EU's favor. The prediction of lightning on Venus came to pass just this past week. The problem with lightning on Venus is simple:
"It's hard for people to imagine how the atmosphere of Venus would create lightning," says planetary scientist Larry W. Esposito of the University of Colorado. Venus, he points out, seems to lack the lightning-generation system so familiar in terrestrial thunderheads: strong updrafts of condensing vapor, which provide the particles that can carry opposite electrical charges and the vertical motions needed to separate them. (The sudden combination of the separated charges is a stroke of lightning. ) On Venus, the clouds tend to resemble fog banks, says Esposito. "You don't see much lightning in fog," he notes.
The planet Venus plays a critical role in EU Theory, as ancient cultures record its arrival as a comet-like body. It has been a contention for decades now that Venus is still cooling off from a catastrophic event.
Tim Thompson has spent much time trying to debunk EU Theory. His websites are frequently referenced by people as apparent proof that EU Theory is not true, but Tim Thompson has had a bad week. It's funny how all of these online conversations just fall into a black hole when enough time goes by. As a recap, Wal Thornhill clearly won this debate against Tim Thompson...
[EDITOR'S NOTE: IN PREVIOUS POSTS WALLACE THORNHILL HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PLANET VENUS SHOWS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ELECTRICAL INTERACTION WITH ITS ENVIRONMENT, A CONDITION SUGGESTING BOTH AN ELECTRICAL IMBALANCE AND AN UNUSUAL, "COMET"-LIKE HISTORY.]
[Wal Thornhill, continuing his dialogue with Tim Thompson]: >> The Venera spacecraft found continuous lightning activity from 32km down >> to about 2km altitude, with discharges as frequent as an amazing 25 per >> second. The highest recorded rate on Earth is 1.4/sec during a severe >> blizzard. The Pioneer lander recorded 1000 radio impulses. Thirty-two >> minutes after landing, Venera 11 detected a very loud (82 decibel) noise >> which was believed to be thunder. Garry Hunt suggested at the time that: >> '... the Venusians may well be glowing from the nearly continuous >> discharges of those frequent lightning strokes'. A 'mysterious glow' was >> detected coming from the surface at a height of 16km by 2 Pioneer probes >> as they descended on the night hemisphere. The glow increased on descent >> and may have been caused by a form of St. Elmo's fire and/or chemical >> reactions in the atmosphere, close to the surface.
[Tim Thompson:] >I cannot trace or verify Thornhill's remarks with regards >the Venera >spacecraft. (PIB -- I assume Mr. Thornhill's original paper for the SIS >included such references. Perhaps Mr. Thornhill or someone from the >SIS can get a copy to Mr. Thompson for his perusal.) While the initial >reports of lightning from Pioneer are easily available [1,2,3], those >from Venera appear not to be [4,5], as they were published in obscure, >or difficult to obtain sources. The Pioneer lightning detections were >based on the observation of whistler mode waves (about 100 Hertz) when >the orbiter neared periapse. The interpretation of those waves as >lightning, supported by Scarf et al. [3], continues to be a matter of >considerable controversy. There are a number of ionospheric processes
Perhaps you'd have a different first guess after studying waves (and "clouds") and fractal geometry in the absence of a governing electric or magnetic field. You've got to avoid getting tunnel-vision when you try to figure out new things, and having a wide understanding is a good way to do it.
Everything you've said is certainly true. But the debate over electrical space plasmas has a rich history by now. The arguments that space plasmas can become highly electrical are solid arguments that have not been tested, and which repeatedly do not make the list of interpretations for space observations even though the arguments have persisted for 10 - 20 years now. One would expect that if the thermonuclear core model for the Sun were true that we'd see the evidence trending in that direction, but an objective observer would notice in fact that the arguments for Don Scott's Electric Sun Hypothesis have, if anything, gained in strength with modern observations. There still, for instance, remains no good explanation for how the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets without concluding that the solar wind is being accelerated by a weak electric field centered at the Sun. This is a major problem that rarely gets the attention that it deserves. Furthermore, Kristian Birkeland's terella experiments from the turn of the century have over time demonstrated an eerie ability to predict our observations of space. The Hinode spacecraft has demonstrated that X-Ray "jets" originating from the Sun are much more common than previously thought. Few astrophysicists are even aware that Birkeland's solar model predicted it. At least one of Birkeland's laboratory images is so identical to Io during eclipse that the two images, side by side, cannot possibly be discriminated by the most experienced astrophysicists out there. If it was just the noctilucent clouds, I would agree with you. But the number of correspondences is becoming quite high by now.
When astrophysicists noticed that galactic rotation curves were not as they should be relative to what we know of how gravity works for smaller structures nearer to us, it was inferred that the proper solution to this problem was to add more matter that we just weren't able to see. Since then, astrophysicists have learned that their assumptions that space is a vacuum were wrong, and that space is instead filled with charged particles (plasma). Furthermore, computer simulations have appeared (by Anthony Peratt) that explain galactic rotation curves using no invisible particles. Peratt determined that he could generate the proper curves merely by adjusting the fluids-based plasma equations to reflect the more electrodynamic properties of plasmas that we observe within plasma physics laboratories. In other words, spiral galaxies are a natural byproduct of electrical plasma simulations.
Consider also that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted the results of the Deep Impact mission, which an objective, independent observer could fairly interpret as a violation of quasi-neutrality. Thornhill was able to accurately predict the results of that mission by assuming that the Tempel 1 comet was a charged body possessing a different electrical charge than Deep Impact's impactor. NASA unfortunately dismissed his prediction, despite the fact that he was the only one that accurately predicted two separate flashes at the time of impact. Arguments that the second flash represented a post-impact flash (rather than Thornhill's pre-impact flash) are easily discounted based upon the fast speed of the projectile (23,000 mph) relative to the thinness of the dust layer (10 feet) that is alleged to have existed. Simple algebra demands that the delay associated with these two flashes do not correspond with this dust layer explanation.
My point is that there are historical reasons for suggesting that filaments may represent electrical plasmas -- especially when the polar regions are concerned. Clearly, the magnetosphere dire
What does your theory propose as an explanation for what we know? What does it predict that is different from the standard model?
50 words or less will be fine.
EU Theory states that space plasmas are being mathematically modeled improperly, and that we should look to laboratory plasma physics to understand how plasmas in space behave.
Despite their 'proximity' to space, they are still deep within the atmosphere and at a pressure considerably above that typical of plasmas. Looks can be decieving.
Not that anybody really knows at this point, but for the record, it was only about ten years ago that we were told that lightning does not lead into space too.
Are what you get in the laboratory with *electrical* plasmas. It's the same structure that you get in a novelty plasma globe. These look exactly like Birkeland Currents to me. I'm not even sure that "clouds" is the proper term for these things, given their proximity to space. Even the overhead view from the article in question demonstrates filamentation.
The standard model predicted not a single number, but rather predicted the entire CMBR spectral curve. COBE measured this curve at dozens of frequencies, to extreme precisions (as it was designed to). Every one of the observations matched the standard model predictions to well within those precisions. It is not possible for other predictions to match better, as the standard models predictions matched exactly. It is possibly the most dramatic experimental confirmation in Science; along with stellar deflection and relativity I suppose. Both of which EU will have to explain if it hopes to replace the standard model.
The issue of COBE's accuracy is completely dependent upon the efficacy of the Winston Cone design used to collect the data. The world was sold on the 50 ppm of accuracy of measurement obtained from the computers in Greenbelt, MD, but this does not guarantee that the technology is completely free of distortion. The fact that the curve was so perfect should invite more scrutiny than it received. My understanding is that the Winston Cone is not a conventional electromagnetic horn antenna which is characterized in great detail.
It is the job of scientists to ensure that the antenna is not just accidentally returning the result that they desired. The accuracy claimed in the experiment requires that the energy be collected over the 10:1 frequency band over exactly the same solid angle. Some earlier-reported data on the Winston Cone is cited to support this crucial assumption of unchanging beam width with frequency. Further, some earlier ground-based radiation pattern measurements by the discoverers on their own Winston Cone are cited. My understanding is that these guys should have presented over the entire frequency band the 360 degree radiation patterns of the instrument in at least two orthogonal plans (the E- and H-planes). More simply, in a flat spectrum radiation field, the instrument must collect *exactly the same power at all frequencies*. In other words, the authors' inherent assumption that the patterns do not change with frequency can easily introduce an artifactual frequency dependence to an actual flat-spectrum data. We do not know if this is happening because they have not given us enough information to determine it.
There is a paper here, which brings up a second issue:
Corrugating the inside surface of an electromagnetic horn antenna has the effect of suppressing conduction currents on this surface. Such conduction currents have the undesirable effect that they cause the radiation -- especially at the shorter wavelengths -- to creep along the surface rather the fill the entire cross-section of the horn. Corrugation prevents this effect, and causes the radiation to travel over the entire cross-section, and thus produce desirable pattern and bandwidth characteristics. In other words, this can induce an artifact within the data where less power is reported towards shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies). Electrical engineering students take classes on how to create simplistic curves like that generated by COBE, and it is sufficient to create the curve that everybody wanted to see so badly with just these two artifacts.
Clearly, this gets into some rather heavy stuff. The key point here though is that your confidence in the COBE results should only derive from a confidence in the Winston Cone's ability to take accurate measurements. If you do not possess a detailed understanding of these intricate details, then you should really hold off in just blindly accepting that the Winston Cone works as it is claimed. Furthermore, if it does not appear that the researchers fully qualified the cone's specifications for the paper, then there is not
You missed the point. You should assume that/laws/ are the same everywhere, but not that the universe is so homogeneous that every type of phenomenon is/local/ to every place in the universe. You have that last part but not the first. When I said "where conditions are different" I meant "where there is a larger local collection of mass and therefore more gravity." Instead you go off on this related mental tangent hoping to distract me. Gravity doesn't just switch off when you come up with an "Electric" explanation for what things do. If you put enough hydrogen in one place at one time, the stuff on the inside gets hot enough to fuse. If there's no fusion in the cores of stars as your Electric Universe proposes, then there must not be enough mass in the star to bring the core temperature high enough for fusion. The sun would have to be so much less massive that even Newtonian descriptions of planetary orbits wouldn't work. Since they do, the Electric Universe approach is immediately broken.
All of your challenge to this point can be answered by a previous conversation I had here on Slashdot just a few days ago, and for which Thornhill had to become involved...
I guess you could be stubborn about it and say that fusion doesn't work the way everyone thinks it does, but then you'd be denying experimental evidence the same way you accuse everyone else of denying other experimental evidence.
First of all, it is a group of laboratory plasma physicists that are agreeing with EU Theory. Anthony Peratt, for instance, works at the z-machine in Sandia Labs. He's certainly eminently qualified to speak on the subject of fusion. Eric Lerner is another advocate of plasma-based cosmologies. I believe that he's been creating his own fusion reactor for some time now.
You may not be aware of it, but there have been numerous papers published over the past 10 years on the topic of an anti-correlation between solar neutrino generation and sunspot activity. This is a big problem for the thermonuclear core group because the standard solar model requires that there is a 100,000+ year delay between these two events. To see a possible instantaneous link suggests that the model should be revisited at a minimum.
But, one thing that hast yet to be fully accounted for with the Sun is the observation that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets. This is a really big problem for the mainstream because it suggests to laboratory plasma physicists that there exists an electric field centered at the Sun, and electric fields tend not to occur in the absence of electric currents. In other words, and to be completely clear, the heliosphere may be pervaded by a weak electric field. We would not necessarily be able to measure it without specifically attempting to do so, but it would be sufficient to continue to accelerate the charged particles coming off of the Sun. The implications would be that the largest structure for our solar system is not acting like a fluid under the influence of gravity.
Astrophysicists have proposed this concept of magnetic reconnection to explain the inverse temperature problem for the corona. Many laboratory plasma physicists disagree that magnetic reconnection is anything more than just a restatement of the concept of double layers within plasma physics. This remains an ongoing debate, but it demonstrates that the mainstream is still having issues explaining why the temperature of the corona is 100x hotter than the Sun's surface. If we are to be objective about it though, it does in fact suggest that the heat is the result of processes occurring on the surface of the Sun.
Those astrophysicists are confident about what we can see happening, and the parts of it that we can expla
Yes of course. If everybody laughs at you, it must be because you are brilliant. You'll show them! One day they'll see! If it quacks like a delusion of grandeur...
This is not at all about me. It's largely about human psychology and the belief amongst people like yourself that everything has been figured out based upon some theories that are under-performing, and that were invented before the discovery that space was filled with charged particles. It is about the resistance amongst people to look at things that they don't believe will be a productive use of their time. It's about the expectation that people can judge the issue without looking at the evidence or the arguments being made by the mainstream critics. It's about the human tendency to avoid adopting astrophysical explanations that leave us living in a state of fear. It's far deeper than you are aware.
Actually, I love to read, and I love new ideas. It's not that I think EU is wrong, it's that I don't think it's parseable. EU stuff out there onyhe web pulls together all sorts of completely unrelated stuff just because it mentions electricity and space in the same paragraph, and makes no attempt to tie them together. There does not appear to be any sort of short summary of what EU claims. By sifting through a bunch of stuff, I gather the central tenet is that the effect of Electricity is significant (compared to gravity) at interstellar scales.
You've correctly identified that there is a problem with the message. What you don't realize yet is that there is no inherent problem with the theory. David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill are very intelligent people. Hell, Dave Talbott used to even be a marketing director. But his skills are clearly (in my own humble opinion) in other things because he has not been properly marketing this theory to its proper audience. It may just be that those guys erect a barrier between themselves and their skeptical audiences so that they can avoid becoming consumed by people telling them that they're crazy. They want more awareness, but they honestly don't know how to get people to listen to what they're saying at this point. The real point though is that they need a middle-man to help them to communicate with you guys, to bring all of this material together into a fashion that *you* people prefer. Their web materials are designed to cater to people who have already read the books. That's a big problem because it's not all meant to convince people. If it were, it would only focus on the most compelling materials. The actual summary of the theory -- the stuff that's meant to convince people -- is available from "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott. But people here don't like to buy or read books like that, so I'm going to be building a website that solves all of these problems. I know all of the complaints by now, and I've figured out how to address them so that we can finally move on to the next step -- which I'm not so naive to believe will be a friendly debate.
As evidence of my love to read, I read the article you linked, and a bunch more stuff from Verschuur. Verchuur thinks there are certain details of the COBE data being misinterpretted. Basically nobody else thinks he's right. But he hasn't been dismissed out of hand; people have done extensive statistical analyses to demonstrate there is in fact no evidence for his hypothesis.
More specifically, Verschuur used the word "dozens" of correlations between the hydrogen filaments and CMB artifacts. That's an important detail that suggests that he's found something that the others just refuse to accept. Dozens is much more than just one or two. You could draw a picture with dozens of filaments. Let's say that you looked through your telescope and you saw a line drawing of an elephant through your lens. As absurd as that would be, does it make any *more* sense to argue that the elephant is the result of a statistical error?
So it's impossible that any physics that we can't replicate in a building on earth might occur elsewhere, where conditions are different?
No, I don't assume that the universe is the same everywhere. Plasmas are a perfect example of that actually. They tend to be rarer here on Earth than in space -- which certainly has an influence upon peoples' perception of their relevance. But we know quite a bit about plasmas. Dark matter and dark energy, on the other hand, constitute such a large percentage of the universe that it's a wonder that astrophysicists claim to really understand the universe at all. They're basically saying that we don't know what this stuff is, but we're still quite certain that it is doing all of these things. Where does the confidence come from?
And why must it be a *plasma* physics framework? Are there no other branches of physics that apply to stars? Clearly there are. The only way you know anything *scientific* is if you can do the math that describes it, and that applies to plasma, subatomic particles, stars and falling apples.
You should inform some of the textbook publishers of that because they've been publishing conceptual physics books lately that teach people physics without any math whatsoever.
When you perform an experiment in a laboratory, you can either check a theoretical prediction or try to observe something you don't know how to predict. When you do theoretical physics, you just use what you've observed in experiments to make predictions about experiments you have not done or couldn't do because it takes a solar mass to perform. Astrophysicists do the same stuff on paper that your precious Electric Universe proponents do.
I'm not sure you're aware of what's happening right now. Astronomers have been capturing images lately of space that completely resemble electrical plasma phenomenon that we see within laboratory experiments. What the conventional astrophysicists are arguing is that the resemblance is a total coincidence, and that rather than believe that the lab should inform us of how to interpret these images, we should consider instead the existence of some invisible particles. Do you really agree with that?
If the evidence is so overwhelming, where did it come from? Did a handful of plasma physicists perform experiments in some star that disprove mainstream astrophysics and then not tell anybody? If not, then their theory is no more validated by experiment and no less theoretical than any other theory, especially in the sense you just used. Either *every other physicist* out there is just too stupid or angry to be convinced by solid evidence, or the evidence isn't as convincing as you think it is.
Here's a list of some of the more compelling evidence for me, at least. Everybody responds to different evidence though...
The enigmatic extinction of the mammoths, the fact that the Colorado River goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp, the fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets, the fact that the Sun's atmosphere is 100x hotter than its surface, the features of the Moon (Aristarchus and Tycho craters in particular), the Deep Impact Mission results, canyons throughout the solar system that move both up and down with the terrain (in apparent defiance of gravity), the specific features of craters throughout the solar system and on comets, the EU Theory explanation of comets and asteroids (which makes complete sense of all of our observations of them), the fact that astrophysicists use a different gravitational constant G in their calculations for the Sun, the enigmatically rapid rate of pulsars (which in fact represent electrical arcing -- not rotation), the observation of jets in the universe that span ginormous distances (electromagnetism keeps the vortex from falling apart), the fact that two twisting Birkeland Currents naturally create spiral gala
That is the body knowledge that allows scientists to find flaws so quickly with the Electric Universe story.
The arguments being put forward challenge the education that astrophysicists receive within the discipline of magnetohydrodynamics. They are arguing that the assumption of quasi-neutrality is not always applicable. It's a pretty simple concept for people already trained in electricity and magnetism, and it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion on the issue by just observing images of space. Quasi-neutrality just means that the plasma is electrically neutral over a given volume. The next step for somebody like yourself is to read about Birkeland Currents -- basically the morphology that electrical plasmas tend to take on within the laboratory. Then, you learn about z-pinches. A person can understand what these basic shapes are and immediately identify them within most space imagery that appears in press releases. It is in fact that easy.
See, this is the thing. What you're actually asking me to do is to believe that it's a total coincidence that laboratory plasma physicists would be generating the same shapes in the laboratory as plasmas in space. That's very hard for me to swallow. I mean, that's a simple matter of trusting your eyes' ability to identify patterns. To argue that somebody is delusional or inept because they believe there is a reason for why our laboratory results look like our space pictures is not really convincing. But, that's not all you're insisting. You're also arguing that the universe is filled with invisible particles that cause the shapes that accidentally look like the laboratory results. Um... no.
The fact that conventional astrophysicists refuse to interpret jets of charged particles as "electrical currents in space" is in fact somewhat semantic because they certainly already accept that the filaments are in a plasma state (which means that they are charged particles).
I'm sorry, but you're dramatically overestimating the education required to understand the issues related to EU Theory.
I'm very interested to hear about this body of knowledge that supposedly demonstrates that EU Theory is flawed. Can you point me to it? If you have something good, then we should go through it. I'm always eager to hear *why* people believe that EU Theory has been proven to be wrong...
I haven't got any motivation here except compassion for a fellow human being, and with that in mind I'm going suggest you seek help.
There's nothing wrong with me, buddy. I'm completely sane. And I'm quite sure you will be remembering this conversation again later. You'll probably get a laugh out of it, but you are merely one of thousands for me. And before me, there were many people who came and eventually left because of people like yourself. I deal with your clone several times every day. It's a real issue getting through to people because people hate to read about things that they already don't believe.
I'll leave it at this: the problem of EU Theory has nothing to do with the theory. It's that people don't like to read. People like to assume that conventional astrophysicists would fare better than laypeople in this regard, but it's a popular misconception. There are only a few hundred people on the planet who have actually read "The Electric Sky". I've realized this for a long time now and have come to accept it as fact. We will get through to more people using video.
Have a good one!
ps -- The quote below is from Dr. Gerrit Verschuur, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Memphis. It's in response to the realization that filaments of certain sets of hydrogen within the local galaxy were correlating with artifacts within the CMB. You can read the article here...
Slashdot Mirror
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm?list136664:
Now, either you know what the implications of this are -- or you do not. Please forgive me if you do, but I will explain it.
What happens in the laboratory with *electrical* plasmas is that the plasma will tend to form filaments of charged particles. It is a natural state of the plasma. Furthermore, multiple filaments will tend to possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion. In other words, they will twist around one another without fully combining. This roped structure will essentially constitute a flow of charged particles as those charged particles move across the rope in response to charge differences, and this flow of charged particles will in turn create helical magnetic fields around each filament.
The observation of a roped magnetic structure connecting the Sun and Earth is extremely important because we know from our laboratory experiences with plasmas that ropelike structures occur when the plasma is electrical. If your argument now is that the similarity is coincidental, then the burden is upon yourself to explain how it is that gravity can create a roped structure within the solar wind.
I'm very curious what the response will be from the astrophysical community, but from what I've observed so far, it appears that the professional astrophysicists are going to attempt to ignore the unmistakable shape of this thing -- and the implications that it has for all of science.
So, do electrical currents exist in space? Let's look at what NASA has to say on the topic. You can check the link yourself if you don't believe it
From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html:
Emphasis is clearly mine.
I urge you to continue your ridicule of me with more caution, for you may come to regret saying these things in the future. You can certainly be excused for not believing that we are seeing paradigm change, but it may turn out that we in fact just live in interesting times, and that I'm actually one of the good guys just trying to raise awareness of the issue.
I won't go much into what I believe happened, as it's a bit stranger than what you mention here. But, I will say this: I would be very wary of blindly accepting this notion that craters can only be the result of either volcanoes or physical impacts. And the reason I say this is because of the Deep Impact Mission. Around 1995, we shot an impactor at around 23,000 mph (6.3 miles per second) at comet Tempel 1. What was expected to happen based upon the physical impact model was a single flash. But, what in fact happened were two consecutive flashes. Considering that this is one of the best experiments we have to date for what happens in collisions like this, we'd be very wise to carefully consider the root cause of these two distinct flashes.
A man named Wallace Thornhill actually predicted that there would be two separate flashes based upon the notion that the comet was a charged body in space that possessed a different charge from the probe's impactor. As the two objects approached one another, they essentially charge-neutralized prior to imapact (like your finger charge-neutralizing with the doorknob before contact).
Thornhill got many other aspects of the mission right too, but this is the one that interests us here. The entire astrophysical world considers Thornhill a heretic of sorts, and they *dismissed* his accurate prediction based upon disagreement with what his theory says. And I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you want to look into that further. Instead, they claimed that the layer of dust on the comet induced a "post-impact" flash, but anybody can do the math. At 6.3 miles per second, the dust layer would have to be impossibly thick in order to distinguish the two separate flashes.
But, the point is that that experiment demonstrated to us that we should carefully consider the idea that bodies in space are not electrically neutral. When you dig into the issue further, you come to realize that quasi-neutrality -- the idea that a given volume of space will contain equal numbers of positive and negative charge -- is in fact an assumption within astrophysics.
Just a couple of days ago, the THEMIS mission (which is studying the aurora) observed a "magnetic rope" as wide as the Earth connecting the Sun and the Earth. The significance of this will completely escape most people because few people actually understand much of what happens within a plasma physics laboratory. But, plasmas can behave as either a fluid or an electrodynamic phenomenon, depending on their charge density. In the laboratory, *electrical* plasmas will tend to form filaments of charged particles. These filaments possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with other filaments. The end result is that they will become braided just like rope, and like any current we've ever observed, they will be surrounded by magnetic fields. Space is completely filled with matter in the plasma state, so it's a very serious question.
What you may not realize is that there is a very long historical context for discussing the electrical nature of space plasmas. It's essentially a taboo subject within astrophysics, and the conversations become *extremely* heated. I take ridicule for discussing it here on these forums on a daily basis. But if you are observing striking morphological similarities between electrical plasmas within a plasma laboratory and space plasmas, then does it make sense to assume that it is a coincidence? To be honest, that's not very scientific. What's really happening is that observations like this magnetic rope are very potentially paradigm-shattering observations that cast doubt upon the assumption of quasi-neutrality. And this is a *very* big deal because quasi-neutrality is required to model space plasmas as fluids. If space plasmas as in fact electrodynamic phenomenon (like they behave in the lab), then you are basically changing the dominant force in the universe from gravity to electricity. It's just too shocking for astrophysicists and many people to accept
The most damning contradiction occurs as a result of calculations of consumable biomass that exists within a tundra environment. In fact, if I understand things properly, this is why the concept of the "mammoth steppe" evolved -- to synthesize these two ideas of cold environment and lots of biomass. But, the problem of the tundra is essentially that the ground is frozen. That limits the penetration of deep root systems and hence the plants' ability to recover from animals eating their vegetation. Therefore, they have to expend a significant percentage of their energies to filling their leaves with substances that are toxic to mammals. And in fact, we generally do not observe large mammals living in the tundra environment to this day due to these reasons. Some will visit for the warm months, but some of the areas where we've recovered mammoth remains (like in Alaska) possessed no easy way to migrate away for the winter. The Alaskan escape route was blocked by an immense ice cap. Also, it's important to realize that in order for a creature to propagate itself over many generations, it must exist in a sufficiently sized herd. This compounds the problem of environmental stress.
The only way to stick mammoths into a cold environment is to basically invent an ecology that does not exist today, as this ground freezing problem is generally ubiquitous in cold environments.
Charles Ginenthal talks a lot about this subject of Clovis people and mammoths. The mammoth's had incredibly thick whool, skin and fat beneath that skin. All combined, the three layers amounted to 15 inches of material! It's been demonstrated that even with iron spear-heads and elephants, it is very rare that a spear-head will penetrate an organ.
In order to kill mammoths with spear heads, you could not hope to strike an organ. You'd have to hope that it would bleed to death. Based upon an observation of elephants, this means that the animal would run from you for 10, 20 -- who knows how many -- miles before it would bleed to death. Without horses, that's pretty difficult to pull off. It makes sense that it could happen occasionally, but it doesn't make much sense that the creature was obliterated *because* of that technique.
When you consider that the extinction was selective, and that some of the creatures left behind (like the musk oxen) were very easy to drive to extinction (because their defensive circle will fall apart if one is killed, and they'll *allow* themselves to become slaughtered), then you realize that the idea that the Clovis decided to specifically slaughter the mammoths -- the most difficult ones to kill off -- is speculative.
I'm kind of an unwanted celebrity around these parts because I have my own particular beliefs about what happened. To be honest, few people actually take the time to even dig into the issues in great depth. But it's a great subject though because the evidence is very specific; it's plentiful; and it's in fact *highly* enigmatic. There's something really wrong with the way that we teach science these days because had I learned about the evidence when I was younger, it would have inspired me to focus more heavily on getting a science degree (as opposed to engineering). People don't realize it, but the story of the extinction of the mammoths (and everything else) is one of the most fascinating mysteries out there, and the implications are pretty large. It's related to some of the biggest questions about the universe that people can even ask. The problem though is that the majority of scientists tend to treat the issue as if is settled, and they appear to be settling on some rather unlikely scenarios (like diseases).
Ginenthal in The Extinction of the Mammoths argues convincingly that the "mammoth steppe" did not exist. Mammoths did *not* live in a tundra environment. The extinction could not have occurred too long ago. 10,000 years is probably too long. 3,500 years ago might be a better estimate, because their tusks would not have been as preserved as well as they were if the tundra in which they are encased had melted, exposing the tusks to water. Many of the tusks were so pristine that they could be sold as ivory on the ivory market, and tusks will turn yellow and brown just like bone if exposed to water. But also, the mammoths could not have survived in a cold environment. Their shaggy manes would actually prevent them from walking through snow. There's really very little about their bodies that points to them being able to live in a cold environment. And the ecology of the tundra simply cannot support large mammals like that. The vegetation on the tundra would actually probably be toxic to them (as it is for other mammals) and we can tell from the contents of their stomachs and mouths that they were feeding on warm-weathered vegetation -- like from grasslands and forest-type areas. These details, combined, indicate pretty clearly that they existed in a warm climate, which most likely suddenly froze over.
How you attribute this catastrophic event, however, is the real question -- and this is where disagreement is completely legitimate and should in fact be encouraged. In fact, I think the best thing for the whole field of people who are studying this situation would be for them to abandon all of these highly speculative scenarios involving Clovis people and diseases and all of that, and completely switch over to creating some consensus that some sort of catastrophe occurred, and that it occurred relatively recently (around 3,500 years ago). The evidence for it seems to me quite strong, and has absolutely nothing to do with Creationism. If this new evidence points them into this overall direction, then it will be a *very* good thing because we need to start talking about what *kind* of catastrophes could have caused all of this mess.
I'm hoping that this is going to shift the discussion of the last extinction event *away* from the Clovis people finally. This can only be a good thing really as the theory is kind of a relic by now. From what I understand, there weren't even a large number of sites that included evidence of mammoth remains with evidence of human activity together, and a good number of those were certainly opportunistic situations. Mammoths are not exactly easy creatures to take out and the extinction event was unusual in its selectivity.
Many of the translations in ancient texts deal specifically with astronomical phenomena, and this is far easier to demonstrate than you are suggesting. You can't make blanket statements about the evidence like that. You have to look at what the translations say, along with justifications for the translations with notes on how others have performed those translations, and the logic follows from all of these facts. If you want to see the technique perfected, you should purchase a copy of "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona.
But you've used no scientific method to evaluate mythology. You've instead ruled it out based upon this other evidence that you're more familiar with. If we see writings, for instance, that indicate that ancient man witnessed something specific about Venus, and the observation spans separate communities separated by oceans, then shouldn't we consider that evidence as equal to the *assumption* that all of the planets formed together at once out of a circumstellar disc? What is really so similar about Earth and Venus, other than their close proximity, that would indicate that the two planets are "sisters"?
In EU Theory, btw, the mythological evidence and astrophysical evidences can be pursued independently, and yet point to the same thing.
Dwardu Cardona explores in great depth the notion that mankind developed his fears of catastrophe from intense weather phenomena. He does a great job of thoroughly discrediting it. It is in fact an urban myth that you fell for.
I'll send you some materials tomorrow, and you can tell me why they are wrong.
Just so that you know what you're arguing against, you should at least look at the images ...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070709squatter
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7130014.stm:
Do not trust the dates for one second. And I'd be willing to bet that that material they have embedded in that tusk matches the chemical composition of rocks we've observed on Mars.
It's been a particularly active week for EU Theory. There was confirmation of lightning on Venus, observation of x-rays at the Sun's north pole and now Birkeland Currents that connect the Earth to the Sun and confirmation that the mammoths were likely taken out during a global catastrophe.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm?list136664:
The existence of frequent "magnetic ropes" that connect the Earth to the Sun is a potentially paradigm-shifting observation. At this point, I'd have to express dismay if you do not understand the implications of what is happening right before our eyes, because it's surreal even to myself. The conventional paradigm is collapsing. Magnetic ropes connecting Earth with the Sun would constitute a direct and local observation of Birkeland Currents in space. In other words, quasi-neutrality is *TOAST*.
And the explosions within the bowshock? Have you ever heard of exploding double layers?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm?list136664:
Ask *ANY* laboratory plasma physicist what a "magnetic rope" is and he'll surely, without any doubt whatsoever, respond that it's a Birkeland Current. It's the natural formation of electrical plasmas within the laboratory.
You can surely be excused for not realizing what is happening right now because the amount of evidence for Birkeland Currents in space has remained somewhat elusive for many years now. But the inordinate amount of instrumentation we have up in space right now is finally filling in the blanks. If you educate yourself on what is normal within a plasma laboratory and theories about how that relates to space, you will begin to realize that these structures are in fact Birkeland Currents. I highly recommend that you read "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott so that you can observe this surreal process of paradigm shift as it occurs. We will not experience something as profound as this in science for the rest of our lives.
Comparative mythology is in fact a discipline of study, regardless of how much you may dislike that. It has its own system of methodology whose purpose is to extract the points of agreement between ancient stories and writings. For many decades now, the field has been in a total funk. The reason is that the ancient writings have not made sense within the context of conventional astrophysics. Numerous comparative mythologists have run into the same problem: their translations were not making sense because of the assumptions inherent within conventional astrophysics. Once those assumptions are dropped and translations that would previously be normalized from "Saturn" to the "Sun" were finally just left as "Saturn", the story of what happened became clearer. You act as if there is no possibility that breakthroughs can happen within the field, and you declare it must be so without even much apparent awareness of the discipline.
Nobody's arguing that the evidence is "incontrovertible". But the similarities between unusual stories of the past from continents separated by oceans demand explanation. We've been led to believe that concepts like the "Garden of Eden", global flood or doomsday are religious concepts. In fact, the "Garden of Eden" (as the others) is a global cultural phenomenon that spans numerous ethnic regions, and therefore cannot be said to originate from any individual particular religion. People like yourself will *prefer* to believe that these are religious stories or that they are superstitious, but you only arrive at that conclusion by not looking at the work that has been generated by the discipline of comparative mythology. It turns out that your confidence is entirely based upon urban mythology. What's particularly ironic is that when you trash the field of comparative mythology based upon the funk that it's been in for the past few decades, you are unknowingly discussing the poor progress that has been made within the field by pursuing translations based upon your own astrophysical assumptions. It was only recently that some of the comparative mythologists started abandoning the conventional astrophysical wisdom, and since that fortunate decision, actual progress has finally been made within the field. It will likely take at least another 50 years for awareness of this evolving situation to trickle down into society.
Actually, the observation that Venus is emitting more infrared light than it is absorbing is sufficient to argue in a non-mythological sense that the ancients were right. There is plenty of scientific evidence that Venus is in fact cooling down, and that it is not in thermal equilibrium. If you go back to the original Taylor Venus paper that discusses the topic, in fact, you will find that the *assumption* of thermal equilibrium was basically adopted as the conclusion in spite of plenty of data that argued otherwise. You just haven't been reading these sources.
I'm not sure you're even aware of what you're arguing for. You're basically saying that the similarities we observe between space plasmas and laboratory plasmas are completely coincidental and unimportant to an extent that they should not even be investigated, and that instead, we should look to invisible particles to explain the motions of large-scale structures of the universe.
The fact that a spiral galaxy is in fact the same thing as a cross-section of two rotating Birkeland Currents? Coincidence.
The fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets? Unimportant.
The fact that Kristin Birkeland was able to reproduce many of the major features we're observing in our local solar system 100 years ago with his electrical plasma terrella experiments? Coincidence.
The fact that electrical plasmas continue to conduct current, and thus exert force, during their "dark mode"? Unimportant.
The fact that dark matter is frequently mapped out to be filamentary? Unimportant.
The fact that the Colorado River goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp, even though rivers typically do not penetrate mile-high plateaus? Unimportant.
The fact that I can show you several pictures of planetary canyons whose sinuous rilles turn into chains of craters? Unimportant.
The fact that we've observed rilles on planets that appear to defy gravity and follow the terrain of the land, both up and down? Unimportant.
The fact that the Deep Impact impactor elicited two separate flashes at the time of impact even though the impactor was traveling at something like 23,000 mph? Unimportant.
The fact that astrophysicists have to use a different value of G for the Sun in their calculations than is used for other objects (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2814)? Unimportant.
The fact that we can see jets of charged particles in space with helical magnetic fields around them that extend thousands of light years in length? Do you understand what James Maxwell would say? Unimportant.
The fact that we can observe "moving geysers" on Enceladus, and that Wallace Thornhill predicted as much before it was observed? Unimportant.
The fact that Io possesses moving plumes, that these vents are much hotter than lava, and that the supposed "lava lakes" are not hot as would be expected from a recent lava flow? The fact that all of this was predicted by Wallace Thornhill? Lucky guesses.
One wonders: Why is Thornhill so lucky with these guesses?
Thornhill could be right and still not know the exact math involved. Ultimately, the math depends on the specific model for subatomic particles that one chooses. My understanding is that there
As this quote relates specifically to dark matter, I would go one step further
Because equations that you believe to be good models of the universe tell you that more matter ought to be around somewhere, based upon an observation that large-scale structures do not behave as we expected them to, and under the assumption that charged particles in space (plasmas) tend to behave as fluids unlike other plasmas we observe -- like lightning, neon lights and current-carrying copper wires.
They are important details that can add context to the problem.
There's further confirmation this week for EU Theory based upon the termination shock that Voyager 2 is observing. Although it might not have been explicitly predicted by any theorist, observations of the termination "shock" are not looking at all that "shock-full". Within conventional theories, the termination of the heliosphere is a bowshock, where our own solar wind supposedly violently slaps up against cosmic rays from the sheath.
What scientists found instead is the following, from http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13029#comForm:
"But the shock did not look the way it was expected to. Instead of seeing a very abrupt drop, the spacecraft saw a gradual slowing of the solar wind ahead of each crossing, followed by a relatively small drop at the termination shock itself."
The fact will surely slip into nothingness in a day or two due to the popularity of the belief that the heliosphere can be modeled with fluids-style equations, but it's critical that people like yourself observe the lack of understanding associated with the largest object in our solar system, the heliospheric sheet. If we can't even explain either this or the mechanism that continues to accelerate the solar wind even as it passes the planets, then we're failing to understand the driving force behind the largest structure in our own neighborhood. That we would still express great confidence in our understanding of foreign star systems when we cannot even understand our own home system is not very scientific.
News of the announcement ...
...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071130blazingmane.htm
The planet Venus plays a critical role in EU Theory, as ancient cultures record its arrival as a comet-like body. It has been a contention for decades now that Venus is still cooling off from a catastrophic event.
Tim Thompson has spent much time trying to debunk EU Theory. His websites are frequently referenced by people as apparent proof that EU Theory is not true, but Tim Thompson has had a bad week. It's funny how all of these online conversations just fall into a black hole when enough time goes by. As a recap, Wal Thornhill clearly won this debate against Tim Thompson
From http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth14.txt:
Everything you've said is certainly true. But the debate over electrical space plasmas has a rich history by now. The arguments that space plasmas can become highly electrical are solid arguments that have not been tested, and which repeatedly do not make the list of interpretations for space observations even though the arguments have persisted for 10 - 20 years now. One would expect that if the thermonuclear core model for the Sun were true that we'd see the evidence trending in that direction, but an objective observer would notice in fact that the arguments for Don Scott's Electric Sun Hypothesis have, if anything, gained in strength with modern observations. There still, for instance, remains no good explanation for how the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets without concluding that the solar wind is being accelerated by a weak electric field centered at the Sun. This is a major problem that rarely gets the attention that it deserves. Furthermore, Kristian Birkeland's terella experiments from the turn of the century have over time demonstrated an eerie ability to predict our observations of space. The Hinode spacecraft has demonstrated that X-Ray "jets" originating from the Sun are much more common than previously thought. Few astrophysicists are even aware that Birkeland's solar model predicted it. At least one of Birkeland's laboratory images is so identical to Io during eclipse that the two images, side by side, cannot possibly be discriminated by the most experienced astrophysicists out there. If it was just the noctilucent clouds, I would agree with you. But the number of correspondences is becoming quite high by now.
When astrophysicists noticed that galactic rotation curves were not as they should be relative to what we know of how gravity works for smaller structures nearer to us, it was inferred that the proper solution to this problem was to add more matter that we just weren't able to see. Since then, astrophysicists have learned that their assumptions that space is a vacuum were wrong, and that space is instead filled with charged particles (plasma). Furthermore, computer simulations have appeared (by Anthony Peratt) that explain galactic rotation curves using no invisible particles. Peratt determined that he could generate the proper curves merely by adjusting the fluids-based plasma equations to reflect the more electrodynamic properties of plasmas that we observe within plasma physics laboratories. In other words, spiral galaxies are a natural byproduct of electrical plasma simulations.
Consider also that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted the results of the Deep Impact mission, which an objective, independent observer could fairly interpret as a violation of quasi-neutrality. Thornhill was able to accurately predict the results of that mission by assuming that the Tempel 1 comet was a charged body possessing a different electrical charge than Deep Impact's impactor. NASA unfortunately dismissed his prediction, despite the fact that he was the only one that accurately predicted two separate flashes at the time of impact. Arguments that the second flash represented a post-impact flash (rather than Thornhill's pre-impact flash) are easily discounted based upon the fast speed of the projectile (23,000 mph) relative to the thinness of the dust layer (10 feet) that is alleged to have existed. Simple algebra demands that the delay associated with these two flashes do not correspond with this dust layer explanation.
My point is that there are historical reasons for suggesting that filaments may represent electrical plasmas -- especially when the polar regions are concerned. Clearly, the magnetosphere dire
EU Theory states that space plasmas are being mathematically modeled improperly, and that we should look to laboratory plasma physics to understand how plasmas in space behave.
27 words.
The predictions of EU Theory are listed here:
http://www.mikamar.biz/predictions.htm
Not that anybody really knows at this point, but for the record, it was only about ten years ago that we were told that lightning does not lead into space too.
If you go through these pictures ...
...
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/gallery2007_page9.htm
Nearly every single cloud structure is filamentary. People will surely say it's blasphemous to use the E-word, but structures like these
http://www.spaceweather.com/nlcs/images2007/16jun07/Heden1.jpg
Are what you get in the laboratory with *electrical* plasmas. It's the same structure that you get in a novelty plasma globe. These look exactly like Birkeland Currents to me. I'm not even sure that "clouds" is the proper term for these things, given their proximity to space. Even the overhead view from the article in question demonstrates filamentation.
The issue of COBE's accuracy is completely dependent upon the efficacy of the Winston Cone design used to collect the data. The world was sold on the 50 ppm of accuracy of measurement obtained from the computers in Greenbelt, MD, but this does not guarantee that the technology is completely free of distortion. The fact that the curve was so perfect should invite more scrutiny than it received. My understanding is that the Winston Cone is not a conventional electromagnetic horn antenna which is characterized in great detail.
It is the job of scientists to ensure that the antenna is not just accidentally returning the result that they desired. The accuracy claimed in the experiment requires that the energy be collected over the 10:1 frequency band over exactly the same solid angle. Some earlier-reported data on the Winston Cone is cited to support this crucial assumption of unchanging beam width with frequency. Further, some earlier ground-based radiation pattern measurements by the discoverers on their own Winston Cone are cited. My understanding is that these guys should have presented over the entire frequency band the 360 degree radiation patterns of the instrument in at least two orthogonal plans (the E- and H-planes). More simply, in a flat spectrum radiation field, the instrument must collect *exactly the same power at all frequencies*. In other words, the authors' inherent assumption that the patterns do not change with frequency can easily introduce an artifactual frequency dependence to an actual flat-spectrum data. We do not know if this is happening because they have not given us enough information to determine it.
There is a paper here, which brings up a second issue:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000616000001000295000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Corrugating the inside surface of an electromagnetic horn antenna has the effect of suppressing conduction currents on this surface. Such conduction currents have the undesirable effect that they cause the radiation -- especially at the shorter wavelengths -- to creep along the surface rather the fill the entire cross-section of the horn. Corrugation prevents this effect, and causes the radiation to travel over the entire cross-section, and thus produce desirable pattern and bandwidth characteristics. In other words, this can induce an artifact within the data where less power is reported towards shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies). Electrical engineering students take classes on how to create simplistic curves like that generated by COBE, and it is sufficient to create the curve that everybody wanted to see so badly with just these two artifacts.
Clearly, this gets into some rather heavy stuff. The key point here though is that your confidence in the COBE results should only derive from a confidence in the Winston Cone's ability to take accurate measurements. If you do not possess a detailed understanding of these intricate details, then you should really hold off in just blindly accepting that the Winston Cone works as it is claimed. Furthermore, if it does not appear that the researchers fully qualified the cone's specifications for the paper, then there is not
All of your challenge to this point can be answered by a previous conversation I had here on Slashdot just a few days ago, and for which Thornhill had to become involved ...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=358211&cid=21423145
First of all, it is a group of laboratory plasma physicists that are agreeing with EU Theory. Anthony Peratt, for instance, works at the z-machine in Sandia Labs. He's certainly eminently qualified to speak on the subject of fusion. Eric Lerner is another advocate of plasma-based cosmologies. I believe that he's been creating his own fusion reactor for some time now.
You may not be aware of it, but there have been numerous papers published over the past 10 years on the topic of an anti-correlation between solar neutrino generation and sunspot activity. This is a big problem for the thermonuclear core group because the standard solar model requires that there is a 100,000+ year delay between these two events. To see a possible instantaneous link suggests that the model should be revisited at a minimum.
But, one thing that hast yet to be fully accounted for with the Sun is the observation that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets. This is a really big problem for the mainstream because it suggests to laboratory plasma physicists that there exists an electric field centered at the Sun, and electric fields tend not to occur in the absence of electric currents. In other words, and to be completely clear, the heliosphere may be pervaded by a weak electric field. We would not necessarily be able to measure it without specifically attempting to do so, but it would be sufficient to continue to accelerate the charged particles coming off of the Sun. The implications would be that the largest structure for our solar system is not acting like a fluid under the influence of gravity.
Astrophysicists have proposed this concept of magnetic reconnection to explain the inverse temperature problem for the corona. Many laboratory plasma physicists disagree that magnetic reconnection is anything more than just a restatement of the concept of double layers within plasma physics. This remains an ongoing debate, but it demonstrates that the mainstream is still having issues explaining why the temperature of the corona is 100x hotter than the Sun's surface. If we are to be objective about it though, it does in fact suggest that the heat is the result of processes occurring on the surface of the Sun.
This is not at all about me. It's largely about human psychology and the belief amongst people like yourself that everything has been figured out based upon some theories that are under-performing, and that were invented before the discovery that space was filled with charged particles. It is about the resistance amongst people to look at things that they don't believe will be a productive use of their time. It's about the expectation that people can judge the issue without looking at the evidence or the arguments being made by the mainstream critics. It's about the human tendency to avoid adopting astrophysical explanations that leave us living in a state of fear. It's far deeper than you are aware.
You've correctly identified that there is a problem with the message. What you don't realize yet is that there is no inherent problem with the theory. David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill are very intelligent people. Hell, Dave Talbott used to even be a marketing director. But his skills are clearly (in my own humble opinion) in other things because he has not been properly marketing this theory to its proper audience. It may just be that those guys erect a barrier between themselves and their skeptical audiences so that they can avoid becoming consumed by people telling them that they're crazy. They want more awareness, but they honestly don't know how to get people to listen to what they're saying at this point. The real point though is that they need a middle-man to help them to communicate with you guys, to bring all of this material together into a fashion that *you* people prefer. Their web materials are designed to cater to people who have already read the books. That's a big problem because it's not all meant to convince people. If it were, it would only focus on the most compelling materials. The actual summary of the theory -- the stuff that's meant to convince people -- is available from "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott. But people here don't like to buy or read books like that, so I'm going to be building a website that solves all of these problems. I know all of the complaints by now, and I've figured out how to address them so that we can finally move on to the next step -- which I'm not so naive to believe will be a friendly debate.
More specifically, Verschuur used the word "dozens" of correlations between the hydrogen filaments and CMB artifacts. That's an important detail that suggests that he's found something that the others just refuse to accept. Dozens is much more than just one or two. You could draw a picture with dozens of filaments. Let's say that you looked through your telescope and you saw a line drawing of an elephant through your lens. As absurd as that would be, does it make any *more* sense to argue that the elephant is the result of a statistical error?
The response wa
No, I don't assume that the universe is the same everywhere. Plasmas are a perfect example of that actually. They tend to be rarer here on Earth than in space -- which certainly has an influence upon peoples' perception of their relevance. But we know quite a bit about plasmas. Dark matter and dark energy, on the other hand, constitute such a large percentage of the universe that it's a wonder that astrophysicists claim to really understand the universe at all. They're basically saying that we don't know what this stuff is, but we're still quite certain that it is doing all of these things. Where does the confidence come from?
You should inform some of the textbook publishers of that because they've been publishing conceptual physics books lately that teach people physics without any math whatsoever.
I'm not sure you're aware of what's happening right now. Astronomers have been capturing images lately of space that completely resemble electrical plasma phenomenon that we see within laboratory experiments. What the conventional astrophysicists are arguing is that the resemblance is a total coincidence, and that rather than believe that the lab should inform us of how to interpret these images, we should consider instead the existence of some invisible particles. Do you really agree with that?
Here's a list of some of the more compelling evidence for me, at least. Everybody responds to different evidence though ...
The enigmatic extinction of the mammoths, the fact that the Colorado River goes straight through the Kaibab Upwarp, the fact that the solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets, the fact that the Sun's atmosphere is 100x hotter than its surface, the features of the Moon (Aristarchus and Tycho craters in particular), the Deep Impact Mission results, canyons throughout the solar system that move both up and down with the terrain (in apparent defiance of gravity), the specific features of craters throughout the solar system and on comets, the EU Theory explanation of comets and asteroids (which makes complete sense of all of our observations of them), the fact that astrophysicists use a different gravitational constant G in their calculations for the Sun, the enigmatically rapid rate of pulsars (which in fact represent electrical arcing -- not rotation), the observation of jets in the universe that span ginormous distances (electromagnetism keeps the vortex from falling apart), the fact that two twisting Birkeland Currents naturally create spiral gala
The arguments being put forward challenge the education that astrophysicists receive within the discipline of magnetohydrodynamics. They are arguing that the assumption of quasi-neutrality is not always applicable. It's a pretty simple concept for people already trained in electricity and magnetism, and it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion on the issue by just observing images of space. Quasi-neutrality just means that the plasma is electrically neutral over a given volume. The next step for somebody like yourself is to read about Birkeland Currents -- basically the morphology that electrical plasmas tend to take on within the laboratory. Then, you learn about z-pinches. A person can understand what these basic shapes are and immediately identify them within most space imagery that appears in press releases. It is in fact that easy.
See, this is the thing. What you're actually asking me to do is to believe that it's a total coincidence that laboratory plasma physicists would be generating the same shapes in the laboratory as plasmas in space. That's very hard for me to swallow. I mean, that's a simple matter of trusting your eyes' ability to identify patterns. To argue that somebody is delusional or inept because they believe there is a reason for why our laboratory results look like our space pictures is not really convincing. But, that's not all you're insisting. You're also arguing that the universe is filled with invisible particles that cause the shapes that accidentally look like the laboratory results. Um
The fact that conventional astrophysicists refuse to interpret jets of charged particles as "electrical currents in space" is in fact somewhat semantic because they certainly already accept that the filaments are in a plasma state (which means that they are charged particles).
I'm sorry, but you're dramatically overestimating the education required to understand the issues related to EU Theory.
I'm very interested to hear about this body of knowledge that supposedly demonstrates that EU Theory is flawed. Can you point me to it? If you have something good, then we should go through it. I'm always eager to hear *why* people believe that EU Theory has been proven to be wrong
There's nothing wrong with me, buddy. I'm completely sane. And I'm quite sure you will be remembering this conversation again later. You'll probably get a laugh out of it, but you are merely one of thousands for me. And before me, there were many people who came and eventually left because of people like yourself. I deal with your clone several times every day. It's a real issue getting through to people because people hate to read about things that they already don't believe.
I'll leave it at this: the problem of EU Theory has nothing to do with the theory. It's that people don't like to read. People like to assume that conventional astrophysicists would fare better than laypeople in this regard, but it's a popular misconception. There are only a few hundred people on the planet who have actually read "The Electric Sky". I've realized this for a long time now and have come to accept it as fact. We will get through to more people using video.
Have a good one!
ps -- The quote below is from Dr. Gerrit Verschuur, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Memphis. It's in response to the realization that filaments of certain sets of hydrogen within the local galaxy were correlating with artifacts within the CMB. You can read the article here
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang