homie12

You guys are funny. You all think you can create rules and theories to shore up a busted down torn up model like gravitational; theory. Now remember gravity was supposed to be universal. Now I am getting on in age. So if its tough for me part with the old paradigm, you could just call me old and set in my ways. But I dont think you guys are. And its gonna take your generation to stand the current western civilations' phylosophies and straighten out the messes mine and my predicessers have created. How much electronic enegineering experience do you guys have? Maybe the answers lie there for y'all? But Im positive we exist in an electric field, as i built a simple free energy circuit for an indicator. And It definitely is putting out voltage. And more voltage with a longer higher elevated wire. QM never poured itself into my gas tank and took me to work. Before you say the electric universe is meaningless at least understand what it is saying. Gravitational theory is so disfunctional looking that it doesnt offer any solutions for the changes we are going thru.its only creating more theory and more controversy.

WOW great I'm glad you coined the term pure crap, lol. when you dont want to face something, putting your hands over your eyes is effective , yes? How is this for some reference? http://stagevu.com/video/sdjuiwajeoqf Astronomy is the science with the most up to date technology being driven with the most behind paradigm. Astronomers have no or limited electrical background. As far as experimentation by plasma or electrical sciences, you have never even bothered to look. Kristien Birkeland, Hannes Alfvenes, Don Scott, Anthony Peratt, Wallace Thornhil to name a few. Now all of you have had some quote or derivative quote to mention from einstein. Now if you can dig him up/ You can follow those names and actually see the real work being done today. What do you have to lose, your old paradigm? And thanks for your responses. Its not a waste of your time. Tesla invented the 20th century. Not einstein nor edison or feinman heh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=wOI-X215A8Y&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_273757&v=t8tqgntbjyE for give me for posting the wrong link in the previous posting. Gentlemen, may I say and should have said, I am not the discoverer of any new ideas in science. Nor do i want to be. What I would like is being a part of an activity with others that improves our lives and what we are as human beings. If you open your mind for a minute and gather some of the collected knowledge now being circulated on the net as well as other venues, you might come to the conclusion that we as a civilization are about to make a huge jump into the future. As I have a construction background, I need my pursuits to actually take on a physical existence. Therefore I intend to link my direction of thought to existing items products etc. And I am not selling anything. I am trying to acheive a cohesiveness with others. After all it takes us all. If your interested in papers, does this link help? http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html And since many of you seem to have heavy academic backgrounds, does this link interest you? http://plasmauniverse.info/ What would those applications or models be? I hope I'm not boring anyone,,http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ Then what is anthony peratts work refering to? Gosh this seems like its going to break a lot of hearts? http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented# This is a 10 minute gem. And easily understandable

Blackholes as well as neutron stars and the current definition of pulsars belong here. Pretty much the whole gravitational theory does.

I can see you all have a sense of humor. Ending a topic with a question then locking it. Darn thats like being in a round room and being told to sit in the corner And sense we are in the specualtion forum. We must move dark matter and dark energy over here. Because an opinion being popular is no proof of its reality. Also one doesnt have to want to be different to realize, being well adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no proof of health. thamks for all the insight. Are we here to learn something new or reinforce what we think we already know after reviewing back through related themes and paths I have been in, I have to know,,, How old are you kids?

Oh boy, now you are talkin. I love this thread. why is the suns heat signature in reverse? How is it still holding onto the planets if its consuming itself? Why does the solar wind accelorate? Id like to know/ thanks for your responses

Good questions, thanks. If you wouldnt mind saving me quite a bit of typing and review this documentary minus the mythology areas? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374# Wallace and Don Scott make undenial rebuttals to the status quo. And i havent thought of some new idea nor do i want to be different. But i would like a fair review of the electric universe theory/ What do you have to lose, the old paradigm? And thanks for your response Oops i forgot, over 4000 years ago someone figured out if you can herd sheep, you can herd people, It takes 3 things: control access to energy i e food control access to information control violence to discipline them to do what you want. So 7 billion people i dont know about every single 1 but I am trying to find some that arent asleep or hyptnotyzed.

wouldnt pulsars, being interpreted as a light house type of effect where the spotlight interpreted effect is a revolving beam of light be considered unprovable? Especially when the flash rate would cause the object to fly apart. But isnt that why they made of neutronian matter? A relaxation oscillator is provable. This example can be implemented with a capacitive or resistive-capacitive integrating circuit driven respectively by a constant current or voltage source, and a threshold device with hysteresis (neon lamp, thyratron, diac or unijunction transistor) connected in parallel to the capacitor. The capacitor is charged by the input source causing the voltage across the capacitor to rise. The threshold device does not conduct at all until the capacitor voltage reaches its threshold (trigger) voltage. It then increases heavily its conductance in an avalanche-like manner because of the inherent positive feedback, which quickly discharges the capacitor. When the voltage across the capacitor drops to some lower threshold voltage, the device stops conducting and the capacitor begins charging again, and the cycle repeats ad infinitum.

Oh im sorry. You havent heard of Wallace Thornhil nor Don Scott? Pleasant people really they are. I was wondering how , with 85% of gravitational theory theoretical, wouldnt it qualify as speculation? Blackholes are something you cant see so how did they get away with that? Then when instruments detected energy coming from galactic centers, they invented the acrecian disk. When will we get a picture of the famous ort cloud? What does it mean, "on about", that saying or phrase. I believe I answered ajbs question? Thanks for your responses Wouldnt gravitational theory, Like the sun being a fusion engine , and blackholes and such qualify gravitational theory as speculation? Actually whats the definition of mass? Because my college professor said dont ask. Id like to know really. thanks for your responses This is what I was refering to. Thanks for asking ajb. http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html thanks for your responses.

well with the new data since the time of newton, especially in the last decade or so. hence my reference to the 21st century. Are you guys going to make this topic like pulling teeth? Because gravitational theory has brought so much theory when just about every convienence invented came from tesla and not einstein nor edison. And the electric universe theory was what i was refering to. Wallace Thornhil made a few predictions nasa couldnt. Anyone try asking him? I have. He has reproducible answers. . So does Don Scott. What do you think about point of view? Thanks for your responses.

I thought neutral gases in a vacuum do not coelesce?

If the sun consumes itself, How is it still holding onto all those planets after 4.5 billion years?

I keep having this question of the legitimacy of gravitational theory. It has generated so much theoretical confusion. The electric universe theory seems so much more obvious. Am I that much of a dullard?

This being the 21st century, wouldn't it change the previously 300+year old paradigm of gravitational theory with electric universe theory? Can we examine Anthony Perats work in this field? Anyone with a source for that? Shouldnt hannes Alfvenes work as well as Kristien Birkelands, considered in a venue of this nature?

Oh I get it. This is a carnival of silliness?