Possibly, but the Comet Biela event that seems to have caused the Great Chicago Fire adds to our knowledge of what can happen in such scenarios. I'm not sure your experience can explain all of the features of that event too...
In particular, it is especially interesting that people reported a filament connecting the two parts of Comet Biela. Filaments appear to be a dominant theme within astrophysics these days. They also tend to be a natural result of electrical plasmas. And in instances when we can identify helical magnetic fields around these filaments, it would be very dogmatic of us to *not* consider that the filament is a flow of charged particles.
It's also worth mentioning that there were many enigmas associated with the extinction of the mammoths as well. An entire 300-page book was written on the subject by Charles Ginenthal titled "The Extinction of the Mammoth". The mammoths were preserved in such a way as to suggest rapid freeze-drying. All three events could clearly have different specific causes (and I'm pretty sure they do based upon other evidence), but it's highly likely they all still represent the result of bodies interacting in space.
I realize that there is a great desire amongst people to explain things within the popular paradigms. But, in each of these cases, there is not much progress being made through the popular paradigms. If I may quote the great Sir Fred Hoyle:
Science is unique to human activities in that it possesses vast areas of certain knowledge. The collective opinion of scientists in these areas about any problem covered by them will almost always be correct. It is unlikely that much in these areas will be chaned in the future, even in a thousand years. And because technology rests almost exclusively on these areas the products of technology work as they are intended to.
But for areas of uncertain knowledge the story is very different. Indeed, the story is pretty well the exact opposite, with the collective opinion of scientists almost always incorrect. There is an easy proof of this statement. Because of the large number of scientists nowadays and because of the large financial support which they enjoy, certain problems would mostly have been cleared up already if it were otherwise. So you can be pretty certain that wherever problems resist solution for an appreciable time by an appreciable number of scientists the ideas used for attacking them must be wrong. It is therefore a mistake to have anything to do with popular ideas for solving uncertain issues, and the more respectable the ideas may be the more certain it is that they are wrong.
The issue is large scale charge differences, which no one has observed, leaving a literally universe-sized hole in the electric universe theory.
You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?
Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.
I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil
Maybe you should choose to read actual science instead of those fucking non-science based speculation? Dear lord, what do you read, Metaresearch.com? haha..sorry, that was mean to imply you were that stupid.
I'm sorry, but the link you sent me includes a bunch of garbage about "brane worlds". Do you actually believe in that stuff? If so, I'm a bit confused on why you are bugging *me* about my beliefs. I mean, is there really *any* physical evidence whatsoever at this point that supports string theory?
Quoting your authoritative article...
But how can you measure the speed of gravity? One way would be to detect gravitational waves, little ripples in space-time that propagate out from accelerating masses. But no one has yet managed to do this.
Kopeikin found another way. He reworked the equations of general relativity to express the gravitational field of a moving body in terms of its mass, velocity and the speed of gravity. If you could measure the gravitational field of Jupiter, while knowing its mass and velocity, you could work out the speed of gravity.
Bending waves
The opportunity to do this arose in September 2002, when Jupiter passed in front of a quasar that emits bright radio waves. Fomalont and Kopeikin combined observations from a series of radio telescopes across the Earth to measure the apparent change in the quasar's position as the gravitational field of Jupiter bent the passing radio waves.
From that they worked out that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 0.95 times light speed, but with a large error margin of plus or minus 0.25.
The emphasis is mine.
I won't even comment on the error margin.
But, your citation makes quite a few assumptions regarding gravity. In particular, I see no mention of any possibility that there may exist a unification of electromagnetism and gravity. If you rule out the possibility that gravity can be a function of electromagnetism, then you've basically redefined your set of possibilities to help demonstrate your convictions. It's hardly rigorous. When scientists attempt to confirm mainstream science, they should try to avoid making assumptions that basically rule out the things they're trying to disprove. Riiiiiight?
What do I read? I'm a big fan of Wallace Thornhill...
Methinks that SETI will not find anything using the communications channel they're using. They need to take a step back and rigorously investigate the possibility that gravity waves are not very, very fast -- as if it is so, *that's* where all the chatter will be.
Flame away, but it would be the intelligent and responsible thing to do. When something does not work, it is irrational to keep on doing it the same way without changing anything. None of the statistics about how likely it is for us to communicate with somebody changes that. People need to consider the possibility that the current paradigms possibly could be wrong in some respects. Rigor has not exactly been applied to many of the consenuses that exist in astrophysics today. There is ample evidence to point to multiple cosmologies and astrophysical theories by now. If you do not realize this, then it is because you have been refusing to read about it.
Tesla was quit enigmatic himself, but I've seen him brought up with the Electric Universe Theorists several times only to receive a blank stare in return. It appears that not all electromagnetic heretics actually learn about Tesla.;)
I'm just here trying to raise awareness that there are multiple explanations for the mechanics of the universe. What is enigmatic within one model -- like dark matter or whatever -- makes total sense in another. It's easy to allow oneself to become consumed by History Channel animations about space, but did we keep our brains turned on? Are we still trying to figure out the truth? Or, have we allowed one idea to unfairly dominate astrophysics and cosmology? Many things that are taught in astrophysics exist on very shaky grounds. Many things have no support outside of somebody's thought experiment. Many things exist just to make other parts of the theories work. We can develop proofs for multiple cosmologies and theories, and if we are not doing as much, then it is our own choice not to do so.
My standards are a bit higher than astrophysicists' standards for themselves. I expect people to be questioning their own thought experiments. I expect scientists to be rigorous in their inclusion of all interpretations of observations. I expect that the dogma that they were taught in school is identified as being nothing more than an *assumption*, and that assumptions should be doubted. I expect that astrophysicists can believe things that perhaps they don't even *like* or that might not be popular, and that they listen to what the heretics in science are saying so that they know if their models are actually better.
I don't really think this is too much to ask, really.
Of course, accredited scientists who have spent their lives studying stuff like this will all tell people we're crazy despite agreeing with us, because they know it's impossible to both make a really major dissenting finding and keep your job. Unfortunately, everyone will believe those sneaky scientists because of their fancy diplomas and the fact that no one has ever seen super lightning from space.
The problem with your pseudo-skeptical logic is that neither yourself nor any of your accredited scientists have been following the interesting developments in the discipline of comparative mythology. Your accredited scientists act as if there is no responsible manner in which documents can be analyzed and compared for their contents, as if the entire field of document analysis DOES NOT EVEN EXIST. Now, when you see people attempting to explain the mechanics of the universe, two important things you're going to want to look for are:
1. Are they being selective with their inclusion of evidence? 2. Are they being rigorous in their set of all interpretations of observations?
Your arguments *might* make sense if these two things were true. The problem -- and it's a big one -- is that your accredited scientists, like yourself, do not *believe* that space plasmas can be electrical. And this induces them to IGNORE the possibility that it is so and ignore what the competing theory says. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the entire bunch of you would have no clue that the ancient testimony points directly to a plasma-based cosmology.
But all ancient people were crazy, right? Uh-huh....:o. If you knew that you were arguing that they were all coincidentally crazy in the same way such that they all say that they saw similar, unmistakable things, then you might not take the stance you feel so confident in right now. I don't know if it's your sort of thing, but can I recommend that you read something that does not just confirm what you already believe? You might want to look into reading "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona, as the field of comparative mythology is rapidly evolving, and your belief that mythology is all nonsense is in the process of becoming an urban myth.
If you were being objective about it, then you would recognize that this is a major problem, and you might look into the issue a bit further. But, it appears that objectivity is not really all that important to you because you were rather quick there in dismissing the *possibility* that Tunguska could have an alternative cause. This is a yawn-inspiring tactic I see all the time on this board: people trying to stack individual pieces of evidence from less popular models up against the entire body of mainstream evidence, as if that is a fair comparison at all. Surely you recognize the silliness of that, right? I mean, if we're going to be fair about it, then you would have to actually *read* what the alternative theory says and then consider the Tunguska characteristics within both models. The real problem is that you've allowed yourself to become so convinced of the mainstream models that you lack the motivation to be rigorous anymore. This is your wake up call: lots of scientists can be wrong, buddy. Take it or leave it, but we are all responsible for our own decisions once we've been introduced to the errors of our ways. If you want to place your bets exclusively on ideas that are popular, in spite of the fact that many things that were not popular now are, then you should expect that your ignorance of the history of science and blind dismissal of heretical views will eventually lead you astray in some way.
Either you ride the wave, wherever it takes you, or you get some oars and start rowing that leaky boat on your neck! Your choice...
William Hartmann, senior scientist of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, said the new findings are compelling but do not address all of the lingering questions about the event.
This is certainly an understatement. That event is associated with numerous unusual characteristics...
The extraordinary power of the high-energy explosion above ground. Repeated testimony of strange sounds before the event. The glowing of the sky before the event. Reports of strange weather before the event. Reports of strange seismic activity before the event. Geomagnetic effects before the event. Global atmospheric pressure pulse. Instantaneous eruption of fire across hundreds of square kilometers. Lightning and thunder in the midst of the firestorm. Presence of microscopic glassy spherules over a large area.
Individually, each one is not unusual. But as a whole, the event is demonstrating that there is an interconnectedness between the various phenomena around us that we are not accustomed to observering normally, and that our knowledge of catastrophic events is limited to speculation at this point.
Here's an example of a single eyewitness testimony...
In the case of the Tunguska event, some of the most compelling evidence comes from those who experienced the terror first hand. In 1928, I. M. Suslov recorded the following testimony from a member of Shanyagir tribe (this taken from the Wikipedia site)--
"We had a hut by the river with my brother Chekaren. We were sleeping. Suddenly we both woke up at the same time. Somebody shoved us. We heard whistling and felt strong wind. Chekaren said, "can you hear all those birds flying overhead?" We were both in the hut, couldn't see what was going on outside. Suddenly, I got shoved again, this time so hard I fell into the fire. I got scared. Chekaren got scared too. We started crying for out father, mother, brother, but no one answered.
"There was noise beyond the hut, we could hear trees falling down. Me and Chekaren got out of our sleeping bags and wanted to run out, but then the thunder struck. This was the first thunder. The Earth began to move and rock, wind hit our hut and knocked it over. My body was pushed down by sticks, but my head was in the clear. Then I saw a wonder: trees were falling, the branches were on fire, it became mighty bright, how can I say this, as if there was a second sun, my eyes were hurting, I even closed them. It was like what the Russians call lightning. And immediately there was a loud thunderclap. This was the second thunder. The morning was sunny, there were no clouds, our Sun was shining brightly as usual, and suddenly there came a second one!
Me and Chekaren had some difficulty getting under from the remains of our hut. Then we saw that above, but in a different place, there was another flash, and loud thunder came. This was the third thunder strike. Wind came again, knocked us off our feet, struck against the fallen trees.
"We looked at the fallen trees, watched the tree tops get snapped off, watched the fires. Suddenly Chekaren yelled "Look up" and pointed with his hand. I looked there and saw another flash, and it made another thunder. But the noise was less than before. This was the fourth strike, like normal thunder.
"Now I remember well there was also one more thunder strike, but it was small, and somewhere far away, where the Sun goes to sleep".
I'm going to be starting up an EU Theory website soon that will be specifically targeted for Slashdot people. I spent a year in research mode, learning how to talk around here and what arguments work with people. I used to read Slashdot regularly when I worked at a company called Xilinx as a computer engineer. I read the book that you're about to read, and it caused me to stop everything else that I was doing in my free time, more or less. I realized that these guys are onto something because I wasn't so invested in the more popular theories. In a full year now of interacting with people on the issue, I now realize that the EU arguments are rock-solid. When somebody responded with something that was challenging to the theory, I would just run it by the theorists themselves (it's a small group and it's easy to get to know them), and they always had a response that was more educated with regards to plasmas than everybody that challenged them. So, I started to realize that even though nobody around Slashdot had ever picked up "The Electric Sky", and few would take up my suggestion to do so, everybody here is absolutely convinced that it is wrong. That sent up a huge red flag. I would later learn that this is an actual philosophy of science issue -- when you unknowingly restrict the number of possibilities for your interpretation of observations, you can easily convince yourself that you are being rigorous when you explain in your papers that, "this is the least unlikely interpretation".
Then, I dug a little bit deeper and ran into Dwardu Cardona's "God Star". It wasn't until I read "God Star" that I truly realized the significance of what's happening right now, and my conviction hardened. The field of mythology is unraveling before our eyes. Although few people clearly believe me, I believe that mainstream astrophysics will not survive the challenge. It all sounds really dramatic, but all of that strange stuff about the collective unconscious by Jung was basically garbage. The stories have common themes because they originate from the same sequence of events. This isn't even cherry-picking the evidence; it's the result of rigorous investigation. The field of comparative mythology is heavily evolving after an extended rut, and the mainstream astrophysicists are completely ignoring it all because the new findings are not relevant to their own cosmology. The idea that mythology is useless is gradually turning into an urban myth itself. The decision to ignore all of these changes -- an entire discipline -- will turn out to be an utterly disastrous move for them. We don't get to choose the evidence we use, and some evidence trumps other evidence. When the credibility is properly handled and the accounts are coordinated, the eyewitness testimony stands up rather well. If we have finally figured out ancient testimony, then it is completely admissible, even if your tendency is to believe that all ancient people were crazy. There's also the distinct possibility that the ancients were not all crazy, and the case that the evidence builds clearly argues as much. Arguments that it is not so logically fail once the arguments are known. In this sense, it is very exciting to see the process unfolding from the ground up before anybody else catches on. There are less than probably 500 people on the planet who know in any detail what the theory states! It's completely amazing really.
I think you will be pleasantly surprised by TES. It is written for a layman, but the point here is that it's a return to common sense physical models, education by experimentation and a reduction of inordinate speculation. These are the guys that are pointing to laboratory science, and saying, "See, here!" Few people even understood how to use Maxwell's Equations when Einstein burst onto the scene. By the time we were able to actually observe synchrotron radiation in space (which would be necessary to validate that space plasmas are electrical), gravity-only cosmology was firmly entrenched. The whole history of science
Once again, a filament. You know, there is more than one way to make a repeating flash of light, as happens for pulsars. Is it a rotating beacon with a bowshock? Or, is it two stars electrically connected? People need to think very carefully about what holds these filaments together. Also, how does the filament remain illuminated for 30,000 continuous light years all at once?
There are multiple explanations for these things that people are not taking into consideration...
man, you are good at baiting (no offense, please:-) but where does electric astrophysical theory create a better (aka: better predictability) GUT than the standard model and Einsteinian relativity coupled into string theory? This is what you are getting at, yes?
Me need links and math. I'm a sucker for new ideas.
There are some good resources available with papers here:
I would point out that although Don Scott (who wrote The Electric Sky) and perhaps some others are not big fans of Relativity, others don't believe that Relativity precludes the existence of an aether. I believe that all of the EU Theorists believe in an aether and there is detailed work underway to understand David Thomson's Aether Physics Model well enough to integrate it into EU Theory (if it is possible). The thing is, Thomson was able to create a physical model for his aether that successfully predicts the electron binding energies associated with *every* single element of the periodic table. It was thought that one of his values was off, actually, but they went back and apparently found support elsewhere for the value that his model predicted. David Thomson does not discount Relativity. Wallace Thornhill, who successfully predicted all of the results of the Deep Impact mission -- including the existence of a pre-impact flash -- has stated that he believes that gravity waves in fact travel exceptionally faster than we can currently measure -- on the order of here to the opposite end of Andromeda in one second. He argues that if he is right that the Relativity equations simplify to absolute time. I'm still filling in the blanks on all of the details. There's so much to learn that it's rather overwhelming sometimes, but when you find a situation like the current one where the mainstream theory may not in fact be correct and this ridiculed theory has lots of validity to it, that is a big motivating factor for learning about it.
The general point though that this group all agrees upon is that there has been an over-reliance upon mathematics and an under-appreciation of physical models and reality checks within the mainstream theories. That would include string theory. I would argue -- and I often do -- that there are philosophy of science, history of science and even human psychological issues playing prominent roles within our failed attempts to fully understand our surroundings right now. People basically believe that the conventional models are right, and this dissuades nearly everybody from considering against-the-mainstream theories. The problem is that this leads to a situation where very few people are comparing and contrasting the two models with each new observation, and that's a big big problem because as it turns out, the mainstream is slowly co-opting the EU Theory arguments (minus electrical currents over plasmas, of course). Their models are without a doubt trending towards the EU view, and there is an alarming realization that if we don't break through the media real soon that the EU Theorists are going to watch the mainstream astrophysicists publicly "discover" everything that the EU Theorists are arguing except the electric current portion. The thing is, without the electric currents, you still do not understand the system of the universe and how it moves energies and forces around. You fail to realize the interconnectedness of it all. For instance, I've seen mention that people have done very interesting work studying the periodicity for supernovae for particular galaxies. I heard one person on a mailing list mention off-hand that when he plotted supernovae for a particular galaxy, he noticed that they tended to move outwards from the center in waves. If you weren't looking for something like this, you could completely miss it.
If Thornhill is right about his ideas about gravity,
From what I understand, actually, the Son of God myth was around years before the Jesus myth started. But it doesn't end there. There were numerous other myths and traditions that were present apparently long before the supposed time of Jesus that mimick the Jesus story. I don't personally believe one second of all that resurrection garbage.
What I find interesting though is that Dwardu Cardona was able to trace the origins of Santa Claus (in "God Star"). The fact that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, believe it or not, is related to one of the most important mysteries of the universe. I'm not going to spoil the secret though.
You certainly think I'm crazy, and I'm fine with that. What will be weird for you is when you realize many years from now that I wasn't.
I would like to add to my previous statements that Anthony Peratt, who is one of the few people in the world who can comment on the notion of transmutation of elements from high charge density plasmas is a supporter of the Electric Universe Theory. He works at the z-machine. I do not know if he specifically supports the statements of Wallace Thornhill, who is a leading proponent of transmutation, but I'm absolutely sure that the two have discussed the issue and it did not lead Peratt to renounce his support. I can get more details if there is interest. I'm curious myself what the conversation was like.
I'm guessing that physicists running experiments at orders of magnitude above your proposed energy levels have not seen radioactive decay (the weak nuclear force equations) being affected.
So, I'm to believe that based upon a different physical model of astrophysical plasmas -- where plasmas in space operate as fluids rather than electromagnetics -- scientists were able to estimate the charge densities present in planet-to-planet charge neutralizations and then subsequently replicate those transfers within the laboratory?
I'm worried that those types of energy transfers can only be performed at special laboratories... Oh, wait a second. I have an idea! Why don't we ask Anthony Peratt? He's been working on the z-machine at Sandia Labs. He must have a clue of some sort...
IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS
BEAVERTON, OR.--A plasma scientist and a radio astronomer announced
the discovery of charged particle flows in interstellar space at the
1999 International Conference on Plasma Science in Monterey,
California. The discovery culminated decades of speculation and debate
whether or not electricity existed on the scale of hundreds of
thousands of light years in the interstellar space between the stars.
According to Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States
Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico, the discovery was made by computer analyzing
large amounts of data gathered by radio telescopes from regions in
space known to be occupied by 'neutral clouds of hydrogen.' The data
was processed and the results obtained by radio astronomer Gerrit
Verschuur, Physics Department, University of Memphis. Verschuur found
that the 'neutral hydrogen clouds' were not completely a neutral gas
of hydrogen and other elements, but rather consisted of charged
particles of electrons and ions, called 'plasma.'
The name plasma as applied to charged particles was borrowed from
blood-plasma by Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir in 1923 because the
particles interacted collectively in a lifelike manner in his
laboratory experiments. "Verschuur analyzed nearly two thousand
clouds, principally from the Aericibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico,
but also from other radio telescopes scattered around the globe," said
Peratt. Verschuur had previously found, under high resolution computer
processing, that the 'clouds' were not clouds at all but were instead
filaments of material which twisted and wound like helices over
enormous distances between the stars.
Peratt said that the filaments between the stars are not visible
themselves but are observable with radio telescopes that can observe
space at much longer wavelengths than are visible to the human eye.
Prof. Per Carlqvist, a researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology
in Stockholm, estimated that the interstellar filaments found by
Verschuur conducted electricity with currents as high as ten-thousand
billion amperes.
No one with an ounce of honesty would convolve the fusion of silica sand via electricity with "fossilization".
I don't believe that the possibility of transmutation is being taken seriously enough to be discounted. You can say no better than anybody else whether or not it is possible because nobody's done the experiment. Right?
What you guys aren't getting is the fundamental difference in the spread of the evidence. Mainstream science -- Big Science -- is largely taking orders from the astrophysicists right now (more so than you guys recognize). Many of these astrophysicists have never stepped into a laboratory. They contemplate and compute beautiful mathematical universes instead of being careful to examine all evidence that appears within the various disciplines. They have dismissed the apparent uniformity of temperature over the entire globe that appears to permeate numerous ages of the planet (as well as even other planets within our solar system!). They dismiss alligator fossils and coral reefs at all latitudes, including the poles, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that numerous cultures across the planet tell of a time when there were no seasons. They continue to believe that the Garden of Eden is a *religious* concept. It is not. They ALL mention it. This unfounded idea of uniformitarianism -- the idea that the planet must have been the same for all of those ages -- predominates even though this assumption is now contradicted by the testimony. If you listen to the accounts of the people, they tell quite clearly and convincingly from *ALL* continents the same thing: that things have drastically changed and that there was in fact a large flood. The level of detail, and its consistency from place to place, is far more than you are aware. Just as you suggest that the dating science has changed, so too has the discipline of ancient document translation.
The point is that the mainstream was a bit premature in developing consensus on a very large number of items. I mean, the list is extraordinary. There was complete lack of rigor with regards to the aether studies. The idea that the Sun has a thermonuclear core flies in the face of several important modern observations. Namely,
- That there appears to be an anti-correlation between sunspots and solar neutrino generation - That the solar wind CONTINUES TO ACCELERATE EVEN AS IT PASSES THE PLANETS - And that the temperature of the corona is 100x hotter than the surface of the Sun
My favorite is the whole story about Venus. Do you realize that we sent four probes to Venus to understand why the planet was so hot, and all four said the same thing? That Venus was not in thermal equilibrium. The instruments and math undeniably demonstrated that Venus was emitting 15-20% more heat than it was absorbing. The decision was made to declare that the two different types of instruments on all four probes were faulty. Then, it was decided to re-state the hypothesis of Venus' thermal equilibrium into the conclusion of the paper that was supposed to demonstrate as much. Check it out...
Taylor notes (page 758):
"A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 +-.02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative (J. V. Martinchik, personal communication). A fuller analysis of PV albedo data - still the best in terms of wave length, spatial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the forseeable future, is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion then, the best thermal measurements of Venus, with the assumption of global energy balance, yield a value of the albedo of 0.76 +-.01; this is the most probable value."
Do you understand that the ancient testimony recounts the arrival of Venus? It's not even just that,
Also, cosmic ray rates are well-known to have diurnal and annual cycles and I haven't seen any evidence that the Russian biologist knew enough about this to adequately shield his experiments from them.
I think this goes to the heart of the matter, actually. The uniformitarian assumption that the number and intensity of incoming particles (like cosmic rays) never changes flies directly in the face of the notion of a catastrophic event. What happens in a catastrophic event? We really don't know. But, what we can do is look at the Tunguska event and the Great Chicago Fire (which was likely also a cometary encounter event). Those events were highly enigmatic and even electrical in nature, and they didn't even approach the size of the Mexican crater.
It's also worth mentioning -- as people on Slashdot tend to pretend that it never happened -- that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted that the Deep Impact mission would entail two consecutive flashes at the time of impact. This is important because it indicates that even relatively small bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charges when their plasma spheres come into contact. The result contradicts the notion that space is quasi-neutral. The appropriate question is then what happens when large bodies trade charge? What happens to decay rates under this scenario?
The assumption that there was only one carbon pool has given way to the realization that there local variations due to (geomagnetic) latitude, nearby carbonate rocks or volcanoes, etc., giving rise to geographical corrections to carbon dates. The science of radiocarbon dating is a fertile and constantly advancing field.
And given the changes, arguably no longer falsifiable.
You know, if people who believed in this stuff like a religion didn't so exclusively consider the evidence before them, then I would have no problem with it all. The problem is that evidence that does not fit is just made to conform, or is completely dismissed altogether. Case in point are the dramatic changes happening within the field of ancient document translation. It's not being picked up because it does not support the uniformitarian and gravity-centric doctrines of mainstream astrophysics, but the field is developing in ways that are not kind to dating techniques or mainstream astrophysics one bit. You can ignore the field and perpetuate the myth that such documents are nonsense, but in doing so, you fail to respond to any of the arguments that are being put forth by those people. As a strong case in point, I highly recommend that you leave your discipline a little bit and read "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona. The fossil record appears to correspond with the eyewitness accounts written down in the historical documents, which both in turn correspond with the observations that space plasmas can become highly electrical (as they do regularly within the laboratory).
Just yesterday, a group of scientists pointed to the formation of stars within jets that had helical magnetic fields around them. They went to great lengths to argue for a mechanism that excluded the movement of electrical charges causing those helical magnetic fields, but it should be quite clear that their exclusion of such a possibility is merely based upon the education they received, which ridicules the idea that electricity can flow through space. Inarguably, if you actually read what the Electric Universe Theorists are saying, you will find that they have been specifically arguing for a long time now that stars are formed within "jets", to borrow the terminology of the mainstream, that are surrounded by helical magnetic fields (caused by electrical currents). People do not realize that the mainstream is trending towards these guys' theories because everybody is too busy ridiculing them. The history of electromagnetism is completely filled with stories of dogma taking precedence over observation and simple experimentation. It wasn't realized for 2
I can't speak for the other techniques, but I can add that dendrochronology is very tricky. Trees grow rings on the basis of stress, not seasons. A tree on a sloped surface can grow multiple rings per year. If there is a bug infestation, rings can change from that too. Some trees in the tropics grow rings as expected; some do not. Any attempt to use dendrochronology to validate dating techniques or events in the past should be allowed with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Ambiguity *is* part of the scientific process. Only a pseudoscientist is certain enough to say otherwise.
Yeah, but your methodology is ambiguous enough to allow for whatever results the peer review journals will permit. How can you possibly fault me for being skeptical of that? I would go so far as to say that anybody who did not exhibit a healthy dose of skepticism towards those results were faking their own skepticism of anybody who doubted them.
I realize that you probably invested a chunk of change and your life into understanding how to apply those techniques, but for a person who has no vested interest in the methodology, you cannot blame or especially ridicule him for being skeptical. I reserve judgment as to whether or not you guys are right. I only object when people act as if there is some amazing amount of certainty to the technique in spite of the details of the technique.
In fact, you are attacking the entire concept of radioactive decay. Better have some good data to back that one up, buddy.
There was never any doubt that you and others would attempt to compartmentalize the finding rather than wonder about the causes and implications, btw. It is your choice to not be curious and wonder what the implications are. The authors clearly state that they do not know the cause.
But yes, you are right. I am attacking the entire concept of radioactive decay's immunity to catastrophic events. I'm specifically posing the pragmatic question of how one goes about validating the dating technique when we're not even sure of what catastrophic events might have occurred? It's a completely fair question. Once you identify the set of events, then you still have the issue of trying to simulate them to identify how they mangle the decay rates. Presuming we're talking about an event that's significant enough to create a crater hundreds of miles across, how does *that* occur?
I'm guessing by thought experiment, right?
Have you ever heard of the story of Earl Milton and the fossilized tree? From "The Lately Tortured Earth", Ch.26: Fossil Deposits p 484...
What dies is thus quickly recycled biotically, unless some geological intervention occurs. And this intervention that fossilizes is almost always connected to the cause of death. The fossil record therefore is distorted as to populations of the species and to a lesser degree to the kinds and numbers of species.
Not all is known about fossilization, and less is realized. Ardrey mentions that the waters of Lake Victoria (Africa) were once fossilizing animals quickly and well because of some unknown quality probably not now present. E.R. Milton describes his examination of a petrified tree trunk in Alberta (Canada) [3]:
The piece... was pure clear silica inside, it was coated with a rougher opaque crust of partially fused sand. The tree whose stump was petrified was alive five years ago! After the tree was cut down to accommodate the right of way for a new power transmission line, an accidental break allowed the live high-voltage wire to contact several tree stumps still in the ground. The power was cut off within hours of the break. All of the tree roots which contacted the broken wire were fossilized... Obviously, electricity can metamorphose matter quickly.
I have no doubt that you will be quick to dismiss such testimony without objectively considering it. Everybody does. But, for the record, an objective person would reserve judgment until somebody has attempted to replicate it. And if the people who want to do this experiment are in fact successful at creating fossils within the laboratory, it would then be your obligation (if you are objective) to subsequently reconsider the process of fossilization as well as the assumptions that encompass catastrophic events and even possibly the dates associated with such fossils as that would imply that the underlying assumptions regarding catastrophic events was wrong and that rigor was not properly applied to the process of vetting dating techniques. That is at least what scientific rigor would require.
You may -- or probably not -- know that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted that the Deep Impact mission would result in *two* flashes. Nobody was predicting anything like that when he made the prediction. But the point was that he made his prediction on the basis that comets from deep space arrive with a dramatically different charge density than objects near the Sun. In other words, when the two objects approached one another, their plasma spheres contacted and charge-neutralized. There is significant evidence for this view. In other words, Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted this and many other aspects of that mission on the basis that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge, and that space plasmas are in
Yes the article talks about measurements that indicate a separation of U235 and U238 isotopes therefore skewing age determination using this mechanism. However, this is only in sandstone. It is believed to be due to either water action or microbes. This does not affect igneous rocks. Therefore if the researcher is careful about the environment of the sample and the rock type and backs it up with other methods they should be OK. In fact the oldest rocks are dated using not just any bit of dirt they find but via zircon crystals in the matrix, multiple rocks, different environments similar results.
Conclusion, nothing to see here. Move on.
Similarly, I'm very wary of your eagerness to dismiss evidence that does not agree with your belief system. Notice that you just did that piecemeal. You did not take the time to actually investigate alternative astrophysical theories that might include that piece of evidence as a single element in a large collection of theories. If your comparisons are always Big Science vs little evidence, is it really any surprise that Big Science always wins?
There is a term for this. It is called pseudo-skepticism. Pseudo-skeptics will question credentials. They will dismiss evidence as it suits them. They will minimize problems. If the issue is evidence vs belief, they will always opt for belief. But what they NEVER do is objectively investigate alternative THEORIES. They will never pick up a book written by a scientific heretic and objectively consider it.
Do you realize that we decide what to believe the second that we pick a book to read? We identify whether or not it is in accordance with our beliefs before we will allow ourselves to actually start reading it? Do you not see that you do this?
Scientists frequently oblige by doing the same sort of thing: they (possibly unintentionally) limit the set of possibilities for their explanations, and then explain that they have ruled everything ELSE out, so it must be THIS.
These are real philosophy of science problems -- not the rantings of some nutcase.
What's your take on the invariant isotopes? Do you dismiss that too?
Everybody's got beliefs, but if you cannot defend them, then it's improper to outright dismiss people who do not agree with you.
Many people on Slashdot like to appeal to the idea that popular science *must* be correct because it is inconceivable that so many scientists could be wrong. And yet, when you go back through the record, the history of science is filled with such stories where dogma stood in the way of testing and validating an idea. When I talk to people on Slashdot, I rarely meet people who are much familiar with the stories of science. It doesn't appear to be a very popular subject relative to mathematics and the science itself.
I also find that many people are pseudo-skeptical. In other words, they do not read about anything that is contradictory to the dominant paradigms in science today. And yet, there is no doubt that there exist fringe concepts of today that will be vindicated in the future. It is in fact the process of science.
None of it convinces me much that the people here are infallible in their estimations of what is true and not. If people don't accept the value of heretics in science, then there is no discussion and science becomes nothing more than memorization and an empire of belief. There is significant value in forcing people to *think* about and reason through their beliefs. The exchange of ideas invariably educates people on both sides of the issue. More than that, science does not always travel in straight lines. If you think that there are no discoveries that could happen tomorrow that might shake the foundations of science, then you are possibly in for some surprises in your life.
The study is a Russian study. I think the proper response to ask whether or not people have actually attempted to replicate the experiment? And if not, why is that?
My understanding is that some of the other quotes in there were from reputable scientists and from reputable peer review journals, btw. If you're going to appeal to credentials, then that should be a two-way street: if somebody *of* credentials says something, then it should be followed up on, right?
Wow. It's amazing that you accept the ambiguity of the dating technique as just a part of the scientific process. And you call Ginenthal a pseudoscientist?
The idea that absolute dating techniques can survive catastrophic events without the introduction of abnormalities is rather presumptive. Just last week, there was an announcement that uranium isotopes are not invariant...
One Russian researcher has performed a simple experiment that demonstrates a statistical enigma within decay rates that mysteriously correlates with movements of the stars, the Sun and the Moon...
Charles Ginenthal has written a scathing 17-page paper on the problems associated with absolute dating titled "Scientific Dating Methods In Ruins". Of relevance...
If it were shown that careful radiocarbon testing of an item of known age, uniformly contaminated by its surrounding environment, gave one age as a result of repeated testing or testing by several laboratories, then there would be no question regarding the concept of the technique. Let us remember that a jawbone, repeatedly tested, failed to give the same data again and again. What then of a blind test, conducted by several laboratories, of an artifact of known age? This is a crucial experiment!
In fact, the denouement came in 1989, with a blind test, conducted by the British Science and Engineering Research Council (BSERC), at 38 of the world's leading radiocarbon testing laboratories. According to Andy Coghlan, the council commissioned a blind trial that compared the accuracy with which 38 laboratories around the world dated artifacts of known age. An item of known age was divided into 38 parts. One part was sent to each testing laboratory for a full measurement of its age. After careful testing by the 38 laboratories, only seven produced results that the organizers of the trial considered to be satisfactory.(28) At the August, 1990, Symposium of the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Gunnar Heinsohn read from a newspaper account of the BSERC meeting, at which this evidence was disclosed. None of the testing laboratories achieved a correct date, even with plus or minus tolerances, and many were off by thousands of years.
Another interesting part...
Frank C. Hibben also discussed the process of radiocarbon dating. After outlining several problems associated with using this method, he stated that "[e]ven with these drawbacks and pitfalls...archaeologists and laboratory technicians began to hammer out the exact history of the earliest Americans. The dates badly out of line were disregarded."(13) (Emphasis added.) With what were dates badly out of line? They were out of line with the accepted and established chronology of the history of the American continent. As Robert E. Lee informed us above, this is, apparently, quite common. Regarding this same point, Ron Willis stated that "[t]here are anomalous dates in the series [of dates] which do not fit. This is common in the C-14 process. LIKE ANY GOOD ARCHAEOLOGIST, I WILL IGNORE THE DATES THAT DO NOT FIT."(14) (Emphasis added.) Once again, we are informed that dates that do not fit the accepted chronology are ignored. We are told that finding anomalous radiocarbon dates is a common occurrence and that good archaeologists will ignore anomalous dating evidence.
Not everybody agrees that there is validity to these dates...
"The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results," wrote R. E. Lee. "There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected." - R. E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF CANADA, 19 (1981), p. 27
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060206chicagofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060207biela.htm
In particular, it is especially interesting that people reported a filament connecting the two parts of Comet Biela. Filaments appear to be a dominant theme within astrophysics these days. They also tend to be a natural result of electrical plasmas. And in instances when we can identify helical magnetic fields around these filaments, it would be very dogmatic of us to *not* consider that the filament is a flow of charged particles.
It's also worth mentioning that there were many enigmas associated with the extinction of the mammoths as well. An entire 300-page book was written on the subject by Charles Ginenthal titled "The Extinction of the Mammoth". The mammoths were preserved in such a way as to suggest rapid freeze-drying. All three events could clearly have different specific causes (and I'm pretty sure they do based upon other evidence), but it's highly likely they all still represent the result of bodies interacting in space.
I realize that there is a great desire amongst people to explain things within the popular paradigms. But, in each of these cases, there is not much progress being made through the popular paradigms. If I may quote the great Sir Fred Hoyle:
You're not paying attention to what's happening. We have observed MANY things that could indicate large scale charge differences. Are you familiar with "Elephant Trunks"?
(Rotating elephant trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A...454..201G
(Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A%26A...332L...5C
(Formation of Twisted Elephant Trunks in the Rosette Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002Ap%26SS.280..405C
(Theory of twisted trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A%26A...403..399C
(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..154..385R
(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007IAUS..237..188R
(Protostars in the Elephant Trunk Nebula) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.3309R
(Near-Infrared Study of M16: Star Formation in the Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...565L..25S
(The young open cluster Stock 16 - an example of star formation in an elephant trunk?) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..148T
(The formation of elephant-trunk globules in the Rosette nebula - CO observations) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240...84S
(Systematic Motions in the Elephant-Trunk Globules of the Rosette) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979BAAS...11..714S
(On Elephant-Trunk Structures in the Region of O Associations.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1954ApJ...120...18F
(The distance and mass of the large elephant trunk, a CO cloud pointing towards NGC 6231) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A%26A....48..187S
(Comet-tail structures in emission nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957AJ.....62S..28O
(Comet-Tail Structures in Emission Nebulae.) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ApJ...125..622O
(Bright Rims Around Elephant Trunks) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982iue..prop.1281E
(Tales of an Elephant's Trunk) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ASPC..158..370B
Of particular note is the fact that protostars are being found within the "Elephant Trunks". If you have not read what the Electric Universe Theory states, then you will have no idea why this is important. It is the price that you pay for being pseudo-skeptical: you cannot actually judge observations by both paradigms on your own. All you can do is to repeat dogma taught in astrophysics classes and textbooks, completely indifferent to the history and philosophy of science issues associated with that strategy.
I recommend that you keep a very close eye on how these complex nebulae materialize before our eyes as our telescopes become more powerful. You're going to see that these supposed clouds are in fact composed of fine fil
I'm sorry, but the link you sent me includes a bunch of garbage about "brane worlds". Do you actually believe in that stuff? If so, I'm a bit confused on why you are bugging *me* about my beliefs. I mean, is there really *any* physical evidence whatsoever at this point that supports string theory?
Quoting your authoritative article
The emphasis is mine.
I won't even comment on the error margin.
But, your citation makes quite a few assumptions regarding gravity. In particular, I see no mention of any possibility that there may exist a unification of electromagnetism and gravity. If you rule out the possibility that gravity can be a function of electromagnetism, then you've basically redefined your set of possibilities to help demonstrate your convictions. It's hardly rigorous. When scientists attempt to confirm mainstream science, they should try to avoid making assumptions that basically rule out the things they're trying to disprove. Riiiiiight?
What do I read? I'm a big fan of Wallace Thornhill
http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df
There are plenty of others worth reading
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php
At least these guys base their theories on laboratory plasma physics. Most string theorists have never stepped into a laboratory.
Methinks that SETI will not find anything using the communications channel they're using. They need to take a step back and rigorously investigate the possibility that gravity waves are not very, very fast -- as if it is so, *that's* where all the chatter will be.
Flame away, but it would be the intelligent and responsible thing to do. When something does not work, it is irrational to keep on doing it the same way without changing anything. None of the statistics about how likely it is for us to communicate with somebody changes that. People need to consider the possibility that the current paradigms possibly could be wrong in some respects. Rigor has not exactly been applied to many of the consenuses that exist in astrophysics today. There is ample evidence to point to multiple cosmologies and astrophysical theories by now. If you do not realize this, then it is because you have been refusing to read about it.
Tesla was quit enigmatic himself, but I've seen him brought up with the Electric Universe Theorists several times only to receive a blank stare in return. It appears that not all electromagnetic heretics actually learn about Tesla. ;)
I'm just here trying to raise awareness that there are multiple explanations for the mechanics of the universe. What is enigmatic within one model -- like dark matter or whatever -- makes total sense in another. It's easy to allow oneself to become consumed by History Channel animations about space, but did we keep our brains turned on? Are we still trying to figure out the truth? Or, have we allowed one idea to unfairly dominate astrophysics and cosmology? Many things that are taught in astrophysics exist on very shaky grounds. Many things have no support outside of somebody's thought experiment. Many things exist just to make other parts of the theories work. We can develop proofs for multiple cosmologies and theories, and if we are not doing as much, then it is our own choice not to do so.
My standards are a bit higher than astrophysicists' standards for themselves. I expect people to be questioning their own thought experiments. I expect scientists to be rigorous in their inclusion of all interpretations of observations. I expect that the dogma that they were taught in school is identified as being nothing more than an *assumption*, and that assumptions should be doubted. I expect that astrophysicists can believe things that perhaps they don't even *like* or that might not be popular, and that they listen to what the heretics in science are saying so that they know if their models are actually better.
I don't really think this is too much to ask, really.
The problem with your pseudo-skeptical logic is that neither yourself nor any of your accredited scientists have been following the interesting developments in the discipline of comparative mythology. Your accredited scientists act as if there is no responsible manner in which documents can be analyzed and compared for their contents, as if the entire field of document analysis DOES NOT EVEN EXIST. Now, when you see people attempting to explain the mechanics of the universe, two important things you're going to want to look for are:
1. Are they being selective with their inclusion of evidence?
2. Are they being rigorous in their set of all interpretations of observations?
Your arguments *might* make sense if these two things were true. The problem -- and it's a big one -- is that your accredited scientists, like yourself, do not *believe* that space plasmas can be electrical. And this induces them to IGNORE the possibility that it is so and ignore what the competing theory says. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the entire bunch of you would have no clue that the ancient testimony points directly to a plasma-based cosmology.
But all ancient people were crazy, right? Uh-huh
If you were being objective about it, then you would recognize that this is a major problem, and you might look into the issue a bit further. But, it appears that objectivity is not really all that important to you because you were rather quick there in dismissing the *possibility* that Tunguska could have an alternative cause. This is a yawn-inspiring tactic I see all the time on this board: people trying to stack individual pieces of evidence from less popular models up against the entire body of mainstream evidence, as if that is a fair comparison at all. Surely you recognize the silliness of that, right? I mean, if we're going to be fair about it, then you would have to actually *read* what the alternative theory says and then consider the Tunguska characteristics within both models. The real problem is that you've allowed yourself to become so convinced of the mainstream models that you lack the motivation to be rigorous anymore. This is your wake up call: lots of scientists can be wrong, buddy. Take it or leave it, but we are all responsible for our own decisions once we've been introduced to the errors of our ways. If you want to place your bets exclusively on ideas that are popular, in spite of the fact that many things that were not popular now are, then you should expect that your ignorance of the history of science and blind dismissal of heretical views will eventually lead you astray in some way.
Either you ride the wave, wherever it takes you, or you get some oars and start rowing that leaky boat on your neck! Your choice
This is certainly an understatement. That event is associated with numerous unusual characteristics
The extraordinary power of the high-energy explosion above ground.
Repeated testimony of strange sounds before the event.
The glowing of the sky before the event.
Reports of strange weather before the event.
Reports of strange seismic activity before the event.
Geomagnetic effects before the event.
Global atmospheric pressure pulse.
Instantaneous eruption of fire across hundreds of square kilometers.
Lightning and thunder in the midst of the firestorm.
Presence of microscopic glassy spherules over a large area.
Individually, each one is not unusual. But as a whole, the event is demonstrating that there is an interconnectedness between the various phenomena around us that we are not accustomed to observering normally, and that our knowledge of catastrophic events is limited to speculation at this point.
Here's an example of a single eyewitness testimony
More info at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060202tunguska.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060203tunguska2.htm
I'm going to be starting up an EU Theory website soon that will be specifically targeted for Slashdot people. I spent a year in research mode, learning how to talk around here and what arguments work with people. I used to read Slashdot regularly when I worked at a company called Xilinx as a computer engineer. I read the book that you're about to read, and it caused me to stop everything else that I was doing in my free time, more or less. I realized that these guys are onto something because I wasn't so invested in the more popular theories. In a full year now of interacting with people on the issue, I now realize that the EU arguments are rock-solid. When somebody responded with something that was challenging to the theory, I would just run it by the theorists themselves (it's a small group and it's easy to get to know them), and they always had a response that was more educated with regards to plasmas than everybody that challenged them. So, I started to realize that even though nobody around Slashdot had ever picked up "The Electric Sky", and few would take up my suggestion to do so, everybody here is absolutely convinced that it is wrong. That sent up a huge red flag. I would later learn that this is an actual philosophy of science issue -- when you unknowingly restrict the number of possibilities for your interpretation of observations, you can easily convince yourself that you are being rigorous when you explain in your papers that, "this is the least unlikely interpretation".
Then, I dug a little bit deeper and ran into Dwardu Cardona's "God Star". It wasn't until I read "God Star" that I truly realized the significance of what's happening right now, and my conviction hardened. The field of mythology is unraveling before our eyes. Although few people clearly believe me, I believe that mainstream astrophysics will not survive the challenge. It all sounds really dramatic, but all of that strange stuff about the collective unconscious by Jung was basically garbage. The stories have common themes because they originate from the same sequence of events. This isn't even cherry-picking the evidence; it's the result of rigorous investigation. The field of comparative mythology is heavily evolving after an extended rut, and the mainstream astrophysicists are completely ignoring it all because the new findings are not relevant to their own cosmology. The idea that mythology is useless is gradually turning into an urban myth itself. The decision to ignore all of these changes -- an entire discipline -- will turn out to be an utterly disastrous move for them. We don't get to choose the evidence we use, and some evidence trumps other evidence. When the credibility is properly handled and the accounts are coordinated, the eyewitness testimony stands up rather well. If we have finally figured out ancient testimony, then it is completely admissible, even if your tendency is to believe that all ancient people were crazy. There's also the distinct possibility that the ancients were not all crazy, and the case that the evidence builds clearly argues as much. Arguments that it is not so logically fail once the arguments are known. In this sense, it is very exciting to see the process unfolding from the ground up before anybody else catches on. There are less than probably 500 people on the planet who know in any detail what the theory states! It's completely amazing really.
I think you will be pleasantly surprised by TES. It is written for a layman, but the point here is that it's a return to common sense physical models, education by experimentation and a reduction of inordinate speculation. These are the guys that are pointing to laboratory science, and saying, "See, here!" Few people even understood how to use Maxwell's Equations when Einstein burst onto the scene. By the time we were able to actually observe synchrotron radiation in space (which would be necessary to validate that space plasmas are electrical), gravity-only cosmology was firmly entrenched. The whole history of science
If I may suggest some more modern papers, then I would point to these ...
...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454..201G
These are Birkeland Currents in space -- where the mainstream says they should not be.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.pdf
The idea that DNA might have electrical roots is nothing new to EU Theory. In fact, it's to be expected within their theory.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2504&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
This is actually a validation of one of Hannes Alfven's predictions, from what I've been told.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12652-milky-way-keeps-a-light-grip-on-speedy-neighbours.html
These galaxies are quite filamentary.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_060106.html
Another filament where we didn't expect it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7155/abs/nature06003.html
Once again, a filament. You know, there is more than one way to make a repeating flash of light, as happens for pulsars. Is it a rotating beacon with a bowshock? Or, is it two stars electrically connected? People need to think very carefully about what holds these filaments together. Also, how does the filament remain illuminated for 30,000 continuous light years all at once?
There are multiple explanations for these things that people are not taking into consideration
There are some good resources available with papers here:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_Universe_resources
I would point out that although Don Scott (who wrote The Electric Sky) and perhaps some others are not big fans of Relativity, others don't believe that Relativity precludes the existence of an aether. I believe that all of the EU Theorists believe in an aether and there is detailed work underway to understand David Thomson's Aether Physics Model well enough to integrate it into EU Theory (if it is possible). The thing is, Thomson was able to create a physical model for his aether that successfully predicts the electron binding energies associated with *every* single element of the periodic table. It was thought that one of his values was off, actually, but they went back and apparently found support elsewhere for the value that his model predicted. David Thomson does not discount Relativity. Wallace Thornhill, who successfully predicted all of the results of the Deep Impact mission -- including the existence of a pre-impact flash -- has stated that he believes that gravity waves in fact travel exceptionally faster than we can currently measure -- on the order of here to the opposite end of Andromeda in one second. He argues that if he is right that the Relativity equations simplify to absolute time. I'm still filling in the blanks on all of the details. There's so much to learn that it's rather overwhelming sometimes, but when you find a situation like the current one where the mainstream theory may not in fact be correct and this ridiculed theory has lots of validity to it, that is a big motivating factor for learning about it.
The general point though that this group all agrees upon is that there has been an over-reliance upon mathematics and an under-appreciation of physical models and reality checks within the mainstream theories. That would include string theory. I would argue -- and I often do -- that there are philosophy of science, history of science and even human psychological issues playing prominent roles within our failed attempts to fully understand our surroundings right now. People basically believe that the conventional models are right, and this dissuades nearly everybody from considering against-the-mainstream theories. The problem is that this leads to a situation where very few people are comparing and contrasting the two models with each new observation, and that's a big big problem because as it turns out, the mainstream is slowly co-opting the EU Theory arguments (minus electrical currents over plasmas, of course). Their models are without a doubt trending towards the EU view, and there is an alarming realization that if we don't break through the media real soon that the EU Theorists are going to watch the mainstream astrophysicists publicly "discover" everything that the EU Theorists are arguing except the electric current portion. The thing is, without the electric currents, you still do not understand the system of the universe and how it moves energies and forces around. You fail to realize the interconnectedness of it all. For instance, I've seen mention that people have done very interesting work studying the periodicity for supernovae for particular galaxies. I heard one person on a mailing list mention off-hand that when he plotted supernovae for a particular galaxy, he noticed that they tended to move outwards from the center in waves. If you weren't looking for something like this, you could completely miss it.
If Thornhill is right about his ideas about gravity,
From what I understand, actually, the Son of God myth was around years before the Jesus myth started. But it doesn't end there. There were numerous other myths and traditions that were present apparently long before the supposed time of Jesus that mimick the Jesus story. I don't personally believe one second of all that resurrection garbage.
What I find interesting though is that Dwardu Cardona was able to trace the origins of Santa Claus (in "God Star"). The fact that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, believe it or not, is related to one of the most important mysteries of the universe. I'm not going to spoil the secret though.
You certainly think I'm crazy, and I'm fine with that. What will be weird for you is when you realize many years from now that I wasn't.
Plasma is "hot matter"?
hehehe
Um.
Do you know what a Birkeland Current is? Or a z-pinch?
Perhaps they seem irrelevant only because you have no idea what they are
chris
I would like to add to my previous statements that Anthony Peratt, who is one of the few people in the world who can comment on the notion of transmutation of elements from high charge density plasmas is a supporter of the Electric Universe Theory. He works at the z-machine. I do not know if he specifically supports the statements of Wallace Thornhill, who is a leading proponent of transmutation, but I'm absolutely sure that the two have discussed the issue and it did not lead Peratt to renounce his support. I can get more details if there is interest. I'm curious myself what the conversation was like.
So, I'm to believe that based upon a different physical model of astrophysical plasmas -- where plasmas in space operate as fluids rather than electromagnetics -- scientists were able to estimate the charge densities present in planet-to-planet charge neutralizations and then subsequently replicate those transfers within the laboratory?
... Oh, wait a second. I have an idea! Why don't we ask Anthony Peratt? He's been working on the z-machine at Sandia Labs. He must have a clue of some sort ...
I'm worried that those types of energy transfers can only be performed at special laboratories
From http://saturniancosmology.org/files/plasma/civ.txt:
I don't believe that the possibility of transmutation is being taken seriously enough to be discounted. You can say no better than anybody else whether or not it is possible because nobody's done the experiment. Right?
...
What you guys aren't getting is the fundamental difference in the spread of the evidence. Mainstream science -- Big Science -- is largely taking orders from the astrophysicists right now (more so than you guys recognize). Many of these astrophysicists have never stepped into a laboratory. They contemplate and compute beautiful mathematical universes instead of being careful to examine all evidence that appears within the various disciplines. They have dismissed the apparent uniformity of temperature over the entire globe that appears to permeate numerous ages of the planet (as well as even other planets within our solar system!). They dismiss alligator fossils and coral reefs at all latitudes, including the poles, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that numerous cultures across the planet tell of a time when there were no seasons. They continue to believe that the Garden of Eden is a *religious* concept. It is not. They ALL mention it. This unfounded idea of uniformitarianism -- the idea that the planet must have been the same for all of those ages -- predominates even though this assumption is now contradicted by the testimony. If you listen to the accounts of the people, they tell quite clearly and convincingly from *ALL* continents the same thing: that things have drastically changed and that there was in fact a large flood. The level of detail, and its consistency from place to place, is far more than you are aware. Just as you suggest that the dating science has changed, so too has the discipline of ancient document translation.
The point is that the mainstream was a bit premature in developing consensus on a very large number of items. I mean, the list is extraordinary. There was complete lack of rigor with regards to the aether studies. The idea that the Sun has a thermonuclear core flies in the face of several important modern observations. Namely,
- That there appears to be an anti-correlation between sunspots and solar neutrino generation
- That the solar wind CONTINUES TO ACCELERATE EVEN AS IT PASSES THE PLANETS
- And that the temperature of the corona is 100x hotter than the surface of the Sun
My favorite is the whole story about Venus. Do you realize that we sent four probes to Venus to understand why the planet was so hot, and all four said the same thing? That Venus was not in thermal equilibrium. The instruments and math undeniably demonstrated that Venus was emitting 15-20% more heat than it was absorbing. The decision was made to declare that the two different types of instruments on all four probes were faulty. Then, it was decided to re-state the hypothesis of Venus' thermal equilibrium into the conclusion of the paper that was supposed to demonstrate as much. Check it out
Taylor notes (page 758):
Do you understand that the ancient testimony recounts the arrival of Venus? It's not even just that,
I think this goes to the heart of the matter, actually. The uniformitarian assumption that the number and intensity of incoming particles (like cosmic rays) never changes flies directly in the face of the notion of a catastrophic event. What happens in a catastrophic event? We really don't know. But, what we can do is look at the Tunguska event and the Great Chicago Fire (which was likely also a cometary encounter event). Those events were highly enigmatic and even electrical in nature, and they didn't even approach the size of the Mexican crater.
It's also worth mentioning -- as people on Slashdot tend to pretend that it never happened -- that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted that the Deep Impact mission would entail two consecutive flashes at the time of impact. This is important because it indicates that even relatively small bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charges when their plasma spheres come into contact. The result contradicts the notion that space is quasi-neutral. The appropriate question is then what happens when large bodies trade charge? What happens to decay rates under this scenario?
And given the changes, arguably no longer falsifiable.
You know, if people who believed in this stuff like a religion didn't so exclusively consider the evidence before them, then I would have no problem with it all. The problem is that evidence that does not fit is just made to conform, or is completely dismissed altogether. Case in point are the dramatic changes happening within the field of ancient document translation. It's not being picked up because it does not support the uniformitarian and gravity-centric doctrines of mainstream astrophysics, but the field is developing in ways that are not kind to dating techniques or mainstream astrophysics one bit. You can ignore the field and perpetuate the myth that such documents are nonsense, but in doing so, you fail to respond to any of the arguments that are being put forth by those people. As a strong case in point, I highly recommend that you leave your discipline a little bit and read "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona. The fossil record appears to correspond with the eyewitness accounts written down in the historical documents, which both in turn correspond with the observations that space plasmas can become highly electrical (as they do regularly within the laboratory).
Just yesterday, a group of scientists pointed to the formation of stars within jets that had helical magnetic fields around them. They went to great lengths to argue for a mechanism that excluded the movement of electrical charges causing those helical magnetic fields, but it should be quite clear that their exclusion of such a possibility is merely based upon the education they received, which ridicules the idea that electricity can flow through space. Inarguably, if you actually read what the Electric Universe Theorists are saying, you will find that they have been specifically arguing for a long time now that stars are formed within "jets", to borrow the terminology of the mainstream, that are surrounded by helical magnetic fields (caused by electrical currents). People do not realize that the mainstream is trending towards these guys' theories because everybody is too busy ridiculing them. The history of electromagnetism is completely filled with stories of dogma taking precedence over observation and simple experimentation. It wasn't realized for 2
I can't speak for the other techniques, but I can add that dendrochronology is very tricky. Trees grow rings on the basis of stress, not seasons. A tree on a sloped surface can grow multiple rings per year. If there is a bug infestation, rings can change from that too. Some trees in the tropics grow rings as expected; some do not. Any attempt to use dendrochronology to validate dating techniques or events in the past should be allowed with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Yeah, but your methodology is ambiguous enough to allow for whatever results the peer review journals will permit. How can you possibly fault me for being skeptical of that? I would go so far as to say that anybody who did not exhibit a healthy dose of skepticism towards those results were faking their own skepticism of anybody who doubted them.
I realize that you probably invested a chunk of change and your life into understanding how to apply those techniques, but for a person who has no vested interest in the methodology, you cannot blame or especially ridicule him for being skeptical. I reserve judgment as to whether or not you guys are right. I only object when people act as if there is some amazing amount of certainty to the technique in spite of the details of the technique.
There was never any doubt that you and others would attempt to compartmentalize the finding rather than wonder about the causes and implications, btw. It is your choice to not be curious and wonder what the implications are. The authors clearly state that they do not know the cause.
...
But yes, you are right. I am attacking the entire concept of radioactive decay's immunity to catastrophic events. I'm specifically posing the pragmatic question of how one goes about validating the dating technique when we're not even sure of what catastrophic events might have occurred? It's a completely fair question. Once you identify the set of events, then you still have the issue of trying to simulate them to identify how they mangle the decay rates. Presuming we're talking about an event that's significant enough to create a crater hundreds of miles across, how does *that* occur?
I'm guessing by thought experiment, right?
Have you ever heard of the story of Earl Milton and the fossilized tree? From "The Lately Tortured Earth", Ch.26: Fossil Deposits p 484
I have no doubt that you will be quick to dismiss such testimony without objectively considering it. Everybody does. But, for the record, an objective person would reserve judgment until somebody has attempted to replicate it. And if the people who want to do this experiment are in fact successful at creating fossils within the laboratory, it would then be your obligation (if you are objective) to subsequently reconsider the process of fossilization as well as the assumptions that encompass catastrophic events and even possibly the dates associated with such fossils as that would imply that the underlying assumptions regarding catastrophic events was wrong and that rigor was not properly applied to the process of vetting dating techniques. That is at least what scientific rigor would require.
You may -- or probably not -- know that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted that the Deep Impact mission would result in *two* flashes. Nobody was predicting anything like that when he made the prediction. But the point was that he made his prediction on the basis that comets from deep space arrive with a dramatically different charge density than objects near the Sun. In other words, when the two objects approached one another, their plasma spheres contacted and charge-neutralized. There is significant evidence for this view. In other words, Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted this and many other aspects of that mission on the basis that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge, and that space plasmas are in
Similarly, I'm very wary of your eagerness to dismiss evidence that does not agree with your belief system. Notice that you just did that piecemeal. You did not take the time to actually investigate alternative astrophysical theories that might include that piece of evidence as a single element in a large collection of theories. If your comparisons are always Big Science vs little evidence, is it really any surprise that Big Science always wins?
There is a term for this. It is called pseudo-skepticism. Pseudo-skeptics will question credentials. They will dismiss evidence as it suits them. They will minimize problems. If the issue is evidence vs belief, they will always opt for belief. But what they NEVER do is objectively investigate alternative THEORIES. They will never pick up a book written by a scientific heretic and objectively consider it.
Do you realize that we decide what to believe the second that we pick a book to read? We identify whether or not it is in accordance with our beliefs before we will allow ourselves to actually start reading it? Do you not see that you do this?
Scientists frequently oblige by doing the same sort of thing: they (possibly unintentionally) limit the set of possibilities for their explanations, and then explain that they have ruled everything ELSE out, so it must be THIS.
These are real philosophy of science problems -- not the rantings of some nutcase.
What's your take on the invariant isotopes? Do you dismiss that too?
Everybody's got beliefs, but if you cannot defend them, then it's improper to outright dismiss people who do not agree with you.
Many people on Slashdot like to appeal to the idea that popular science *must* be correct because it is inconceivable that so many scientists could be wrong. And yet, when you go back through the record, the history of science is filled with such stories where dogma stood in the way of testing and validating an idea. When I talk to people on Slashdot, I rarely meet people who are much familiar with the stories of science. It doesn't appear to be a very popular subject relative to mathematics and the science itself.
I also find that many people are pseudo-skeptical. In other words, they do not read about anything that is contradictory to the dominant paradigms in science today. And yet, there is no doubt that there exist fringe concepts of today that will be vindicated in the future. It is in fact the process of science.
None of it convinces me much that the people here are infallible in their estimations of what is true and not. If people don't accept the value of heretics in science, then there is no discussion and science becomes nothing more than memorization and an empire of belief. There is significant value in forcing people to *think* about and reason through their beliefs. The exchange of ideas invariably educates people on both sides of the issue. More than that, science does not always travel in straight lines. If you think that there are no discoveries that could happen tomorrow that might shake the foundations of science, then you are possibly in for some surprises in your life.
The study is a Russian study. I think the proper response to ask whether or not people have actually attempted to replicate the experiment? And if not, why is that?
My understanding is that some of the other quotes in there were from reputable scientists and from reputable peer review journals, btw. If you're going to appeal to credentials, then that should be a two-way street: if somebody *of* credentials says something, then it should be followed up on, right?
So, all you got is ad hominem? And from an anon account ... Way to take a stand for science!
Wow. It's amazing that you accept the ambiguity of the dating technique as just a part of the scientific process. And you call Ginenthal a pseudoscientist?
http://http//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071023103947.htm
What is the cause of the extraneous decay?
One Russian researcher has performed a simple experiment that demonstrates a statistical enigma within decay rates that mysteriously correlates with movements of the stars, the Sun and the Moon
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html
Charles Ginenthal has written a scathing 17-page paper on the problems associated with absolute dating titled "Scientific Dating Methods In Ruins". Of relevance
Another interesting part ...
Not everybody agrees that there is validity to these dates ...