Just the Facts Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Here is the future of cosmology. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction Learning is free. Gravity theories VS Electric plasma model. Both theories can not be correct. The electric plasma model does not require unexplainable nonsense like black holes and all the other absurd claims made about gravity. It is obvious that Einstein was wrong... Wallace Thornhill (and many colleagues) is correct. There is nothing strange about electric currents... magnetic fields in a plasma environment, doing what comes naturally. Just simple physics at work. Just like here on Earth. Last year "Astronomy" Mag had an article about the gravity theories that made the claim that the theories are wrong. It is a combination of electric currents causing magnetic fields that form the galaxies. The matter is drawn together and the positive and negative sides line up and cause the shape of the galaxies and the push-pull effect makes them start to rotate. The electric activity makes the galaxies light up bright as we can clearly see. We don't see any black holes. I have spent enough time on this issue and am convinced the electric model is the right idea. It leaves all the unexplainable gravity based stuff on the chopping block. There is no reason to think the physics in all the universe are any different than they are as we know them on Earth. I agree with that. This is up to date, state of the art cosmology. Not science fiction like black holes and gravity theories. This site can lead you to the truth about how the universe functions. You can go learn something relevant to reality...or...well… stay behind in your knowledge. Your choice. http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm I strongly recomend this site. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs Commonsense is not found in "field equations". Math is not the answer to all the questions, not even close. Math can not explain why the Sun shines. Math can not explain why electricity magnetizes some matter. Math can not explain why plasma is a conductor of electricity. Math can not explain why the answer to those three questions is the key to the universe. I have recently learned the new conclusions that gravity is not at all what holds the galaxies together, (until they collide or self destruct with a large electrical discharge) it is electromagnetic fields created by electric currents flowing through the matter collected by the magnetic forces. The motion of all the magnetic matter then creates more electric currents and the entire process is how the entire universe really works. Gravity has nothing to do with it at all. Gravity has been reduced to just a word, an old theory. Just like the flat earth. You will never see a picture of a real black hole, because there are no black holes. It is all a bad theory to say the least. Impossible in reality. What we can see with the new telescopes is showing a whole new Cosmos we hadn’t imagined but we can now see. The answers to how the Universe works are very simple, if we realize the basic natural conditions that are everywhere throughout the entire universe. Learning is a never ending endeavor. It’s true that man is continually learning. But, when some things are learned, they remain the truth. Nobody will ever claim the world is flat again. It is a “Known Fact” that Earth is round. Soon it will be Known Facts that the universe is an Electric Plasma phenomenon. Someday… just like the flat Earth, Black Holes will be long forgotten. If the Mainstream Scientific community admit they are wrong… They become… Unemployed. And embarrassed. I call them all “Ostrich People“. They all have their heads buried in the same Black Hole. Too afraid to look up and see the light. Afraid to get their feathers ruffled. Afraid their “Big Bang” is a Big Farce. These are the two most realistic comments Einstein ever said….. “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” - [Albert Einstein]<br> "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --[Albert Einstein The Big Bang theory is based on Edwin Hubble’s theory of “Red shift” Hubble knew he was wrong. “It seems likely that red shift may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require reexamination” - [Edwin Hubble 1947] “Today’s scientist have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wanderoff through equation after equation and eventually built a structure which has no relation to reality” - [Nikola Tesla] “This planet with all it’s appalling immensity, is to electric currents, virtually no more than a small metal ball” - [ Nikola Tesla] “So astounding are the facts in this connection, that it would seem as though the creator himself had electrically designed this planet” - [Nikola Tesla] Plasma + Matter + Electricity + Electromagnetic Fields = The Universe, doing what comes Naturally "Today, nothing is more important to the future and credibility of science than liberation from the gravity-driven universe of prior theory. A mistaken supposition has not only prevented intelligent and sincere investigators from seeing what would otherwise be obvious, it has bred indifference to possibilities that could have inspired the sciences for decades." David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill The past is gravity. The Future is here... it is Plasma.
swansont Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 I can't get past your subtitle. "It is likely that Einstein was wrong about gravity" How so? Is it all of those experimental tests that relativity has passed with great precision?
rigney Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) Here is the future of cosmology. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction Learning is free. Gravity theories VS Electric plasma model. Both theories can not be correct. The electric plasma model does not require unexplainable nonsense like black holes and all the other absurd claims made about gravity. It is obvious that Einstein was wrong... Wallace Thornhill (and many colleagues) is correct. There is nothing strange about electric currents... magnetic fields in a plasma environment, doing what comes naturally. Just simple physics at work. Just like here on Earth. Last year "Astronomy" Mag had an article about the gravity theories that made the claim that the theories are wrong. It is a combination of electric currents causing magnetic fields that form the galaxies. The matter is drawn together and the positive and negative sides line up and cause the shape of the galaxies and the push-pull effect makes them start to rotate. The electric activity makes the galaxies light up bright as we can clearly see. We don't see any black holes. I have spent enough time on this issue and am convinced the electric model is the right idea. It leaves all the unexplainable gravity based stuff on the chopping block. There is no reason to think the physics in all the universe are any different than they are as we know them on Earth. I agree with that. This is up to date, state of the art cosmology. Not science fiction like black holes and gravity theories. This site can lead you to the truth about how the universe functions. You can go learn something relevant to reality...or...well… stay behind in your knowledge. Your choice. http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm I strongly recomend this site. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs Commonsense is not found in "field equations". Math is not the answer to all the questions, not even close. Math can not explain why the Sun shines. Math can not explain why electricity magnetizes some matter. Math can not explain why plasma is a conductor of electricity. Math can not explain why the answer to those three questions is the key to the universe. I have recently learned the new conclusions that gravity is not at all what holds the galaxies together, (until they collide or self destruct with a large electrical discharge) it is electromagnetic fields created by electric currents flowing through the matter collected by the magnetic forces. The motion of all the magnetic matter then creates more electric currents and the entire process is how the entire universe really works. Gravity has nothing to do with it at all. Gravity has been reduced to just a word, an old theory. Just like the flat earth. You will never see a picture of a real black hole, because there are no black holes. It is all a bad theory to say the least. Impossible in reality. What we can see with the new telescopes is showing a whole new Cosmos we hadn’t imagined but we can now see. The answers to how the Universe works are very simple, if we realize the basic natural conditions that are everywhere throughout the entire universe. Learning is a never ending endeavor. It’s true that man is continually learning. But, when some things are learned, they remain the truth. Nobody will ever claim the world is flat again. It is a “Known Fact” that Earth is round. Soon it will be Known Facts that the universe is an Electric Plasma phenomenon. Someday… just like the flat Earth, Black Holes will be long forgotten. If the Mainstream Scientific community admit they are wrong… They become… Unemployed. And embarrassed. I call them all “Ostrich People“. They all have their heads buried in the same Black Hole. Too afraid to look up and see the light. Afraid to get their feathers ruffled. Afraid their “Big Bang” is a Big Farce. These are the two most realistic comments Einstein ever said….. “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” - [Albert Einstein]<br> "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --[Albert Einstein The Big Bang theory is based on Edwin Hubble’s theory of “Red shift” Hubble knew he was wrong. “It seems likely that red shift may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require reexamination” - [Edwin Hubble 1947] “Today’s scientist have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wanderoff through equation after equation and eventually built a structure which has no relation to reality” - [Nikola Tesla] “This planet with all it’s appalling immensity, is to electric currents, virtually no more than a small metal ball” - [ Nikola Tesla] “So astounding are the facts in this connection, that it would seem as though the creator himself had electrically designed this planet” - [Nikola Tesla] Plasma + Matter + Electricity + Electromagnetic Fields = The Universe, doing what comes Naturally "Today, nothing is more important to the future and credibility of science than liberation from the gravity-driven universe of prior theory. A mistaken supposition has not only prevented intelligent and sincere investigators from seeing what would otherwise be obvious, it has bred indifference to possibilities that could have inspired the sciences for decades." David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill The past is gravity. The Future is here... it is Plasma. As much as I disagree with some of todays philosophy, your concept like mine "Sucks". As much as we both would like to be right about existing conditions, neither of us can substantiate one bit of our jargon. I have disagreed with the word 'gravity" for years. Yet, I can't make the distnction of how to present it other than as it is done. And Black Holes? Yes, they are out there! Maybe not in the form that Hawkings and some of his contempories evaluate, but that remains to be seen. Physically though, yes; they are there. We will eventually find out what it is all about through research, but certainly not through bullying tactics. Edited January 4, 2011 by rigney
Just the Facts Posted January 4, 2011 Author Posted January 4, 2011 As much as I disagree with some of todays philosophy, your concept like mine "Sucks". As much as we both would like to be right about existing conditions, neither of us can substantiate one bit of our jargon. I have disagreed with the word 'gravity" for years. Yet, I can't make the distnction of how to present it other than as it is done. And Black Holes? Yes, they are out there! Maybe not in the form that Hawkings and some of his contempories evaluate, but that remains to be seen. Physically though, yes; they are there. We will eventually find out what it is all about through research, but certainly not through bullying tactics. As we learn more we consider to be “Facts” such as the earth is not flat, we get closer to the truth. Once a fact becomes known , it is very difficult to keep it from gaining more supporters. This is the case with the Electric Plasma Magnetic Fields Model. We are seeing more undeniable evidence each year. It all makes perfectly good sense/science. It is only prudent that any self respecting thinker should do the research, study the conclusions of others in the field, get as many different thoughts as possible, then make their own careful analysis of the evidence and make a commonsense conclusion. I conclude the Electric Plasma Model makes much better sense and makes a huge leap forward of our understanding of the cosmic physics. It is enviable that the old gravity theories will be proven wrong. Knowledge is the most valuable commodity to obtain. The truth rises to the top… eventually. I am certain I have already found it. Now I prefer to share this knowledge with others. Open for debate... YES. But... I am certain no argument can Prove the plasma electric conclusions wrong.
D H Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Sorry, but there is *no* validity to the electric universe concept. Zero, zip, nada, nil. On the other hand, general relativity stands as one of the most precisely verified concepts in all of physics, right up there with quantum mechanics. Will something supplant general relativity? Almost certainly. While special relativity has been reconciled with quantum mechanics, general relativity has not. That reconciliation will entail some modifications to both theories. However, those modifications will have to agree with observed fact. That means that in the domains where general relativity has already been tested, the new theory will be indistinguishable from general relativity in terms of predicted outcomes. Note that the same thing happened with relativity and quantum mechanics with regard to Newtonian mechanics. In the domain of the not too small, not too fast, and not too massive, relativity and quantum mechanics both become indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics in terms of predicted outcomes of some experiment. 1
swansont Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Commonsense is not found in "field equations". Math is not the answer to all the questions, not even close. Math can not explain why the Sun shines. Math can not explain why electricity magnetizes some matter. Math can not explain why plasma is a conductor of electricity. Math can not explain why the answer to those three questions is the key to the universe. Common sense is somewhat subjective. The universe has no obligation to be comprehensible to anyone. Appeal to personal incredulity disproves nothing. Math, alone, does not explain these things, but the physics that does uses math. Math is not a stigma for physical theory, it is a requirement. 2
Just the Facts Posted January 4, 2011 Author Posted January 4, 2011 Common sense is somewhat subjective. The universe has no obligation to be comprehensible to anyone. Appeal to personal incredulity disproves nothing. Math, alone, does not explain these things, but the physics that does uses math. Math is not a stigma for physical theory, it is a requirement. I think we all would agree that Tesla and Einstein are considered to be Genius Personified. I will agree with both of them, when they consider math as the answer to everything. Electricity does not care about math equations. “Today’s scientist have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wanderoff through equation after equation and eventually built a structure which has no relation to reality” - [Nikola Tesla] “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” - [Albert Einstein] Math can not explain why the Sun shines. Nikola Tesla did that years ago. "This planet with all it’s appalling immensity, is to electric currents, virtually no more than a small metal ball” - [ Nikola Tesla] “So astounding are the facts in this connection, that it would seem as though the creator himself had electrically designed this planet” - [Nikola Tesla] At one time, planet Earth was burning hot like the Sun is now. Anything that gets hit by a large electric charge will light up. Saturn and Mars were once brighter than the Sun from the view from Earth. We are very fortunate that electric currents come and go randomly.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 Feel free to check out speculations rule #1.
Just the Facts Posted January 4, 2011 Author Posted January 4, 2011 Feel free to check out speculations rule #1. Hello fellow free thinkers. I could post several articles and other long winded explanations… BUT.. I feel it is far more efficient use of anyone’s time to check out the sites I linked. They have it all in one place to consider and make a conclusion from the evidence they present. I don't want to clutter up this tread with a massive amount of info. I'd rather point you to where you can find it. I’m not here to argue or criticize. I offer a different view and who I learned it from. http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction We are told that gravity rules the cosmos. The story of the big bang, the origin of galaxies and stars, and our ultimate fate are founded on this belief. But the March 2009 Astronomy magazine carries the surprising headline, “Is there something we don't know about gravity?” The question should be, “why do we think that physicists know anything about gravity beyond mathematical descriptions of its observed effects?”
ydoaPs Posted January 4, 2011 Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) “why do we think that physicists know anything about gravity beyond mathematical descriptions of its observed effects?” What else is there to know? These descriptions are VERY accurate and they reveal the relations between various properties. Using these descriptions, we can make very accurate predictions and use them to create technology. Edited January 4, 2011 by ydoaPs 2
D H Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 I'm not here to argue or criticize. I offer a different view and who I learned it from. So, if you aren't here to argue or criticize, then why is it that all you have done is to argue and criticize? We are told that gravity rules the cosmos. The story of the big bang, the origin of galaxies and stars, and our ultimate fate are founded on this belief. But the March 2009 Astronomy magazine carries the surprising headline, "Is there something we don't know about gravity?" The question should be, "why do we think that physicists know anything about gravity beyond mathematical descriptions of its observed effects?" Oh, please. That article was talking about incredibly small anomalies that the current models of gravitation may or may not be able to explain. Your electric universe model has much bigger problems. It can explain very little of we observe. Please explain how planets can have moons without invoking gravitation. Suppose general relativity is shown to be false in some domain. Would this mean it is completely wrong? No. It just means it is not universally true. General relativity has been tested and retested. The evidence in favor of it is huge. Would this mean that your pet theory is true? No. Your pet theory has to stand on its own. Just because the prevailing theory is shown to be wrong does not make yours true. In other words, evidence against general relativity does not qualify as satisfying speculations rule #1.
IM Egdall Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Make a specific and testable prediction based on this new theory. That is predicting the results of a measurement that has never been performed before. And your prediction is diffferent than those from establsihed theory. Then if scientists independently do an experiment which agrees with your prediction and not the other theories, scientists will stand up and take notice regarding your new theory. This approach has been used to test the predictions of quantum mechanics, special, and general relativity. These theories have passed to extraordinary accuracy again and again and again. Yes, there are still questions. Physicists are far from knowing everything. But until your new theory passes the "prediction" test. it will be regarded only as speculation.
A Tripolation Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 What all is wrong with the electric-universe idea? What does it say? Where's a place to go to read reliable information about it?
D H Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 There isn't much reliable information about it. You can read the wikipedia article on plasma cosmology. Plasma physics is a very real field, and is essential to understanding how stars work. (Then again, so is gravitation.) The problem with some plasma physicists and electrical engineers is that they think there field of study represents the one and only true force that dominates the universe. They forget that electric charge comes in two flavors, positive and negative, and that as a whole a star, a galaxy, and the universe are electrically neutral. That makes electromagnetism a local phenomena. While gravitation is locally weak, there is no such thing as negative mass. This makes gravitation a much greater force on cosmological scales than is electromagnetism.
michel123456 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 The universe is NOT expanding. It is plasma and electric currents and magnetic fields moving around all the matter… randomly. The entire universe is a constant variable of random spontaneity. Very simple to understand once you get on the right track. Gravity has nothing to do with any of what we see happening in the universe. Einstein was wrong. Hawking is wrong. There are NO Black holes... anywhere. The proper equation for how the universe functions is: Plasma + Electric currents + Magnetic fields + Matter = the universe doing what comes naturally. Very simple physics. Just like here on Earth. Here is the future of cosmology. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction from here (link from your link) "In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force." Is this statement part of your theory? ! Moderator Note Moved from another thread
michel123456 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) Duplicated post removed by Michel Edited January 5, 2011 by michel123456
Just the Facts Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 This is a post of mine from another thread where JTF posted the same theory: from here (link from your link) Is this statement part of your theory? Good Day to all you fellow free thinkers. For many years (over 20) I believed all the mainstream Einstein based theories about gravity. Although many of them sound so far fetched and impossible they seem ridiculous. (singularity) But… I had no other choice but to go with the flow. THEN.. It happened…. I discovered The Thunderbolts Team. I carefully analyzed their evidence and soon became certain that they are absolutely correct with their conclusions. It is very simple physics. The same physics that function the same as here on earth… as we should expect. I have viewed many video presentations on this issue. Such as…”Thunderbolts Of The Gods“…“Crisis In Cosmology”… “Electric Plasma Universe”… “Plasma Cosmology”… “Symbols Of An Alien Sky” and others. They can be found at Youtube or Google. They are very rational and well produced. Rather than me trying to explain the electric plasma conclusions, it is much easier for anyone interested in getting the truth about how the universe functions to go to the sites I have linked. I have been aware of this info for about four years. I am certain they are on the right track. NOBODY with any self respect as a researcher should ignore this information. Einstein ignored the effects of electricity in the cosmos and that’s where he screwed up big time. Nikola Tesla knew it around the year 1900. Many others have proposed these ideas but have been shunned by the mainstream crowd because it made a laughing stock out of their own Einstein based beliefs. Now there are way too many brilliant researchers on board with this idea that it can’t/won’t be held back any longer. It will undoubtedly become the accepted truth in a short time from now. I merely point you to the best sources of this knowledge. I consider Wallace Thornhill to be the leader in this field. David Talbot and Donald Scott are two others that consider this to be factual and have produced some excellent videos explaining these ideas. Again… here are three of the best sites to learn from. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs Learning is FREE… if you’re not afraid to learn something new and relevant to reality. Have a Splendid Godless Day Make a specific and testable prediction based on this new theory. That is predicting the results of a measurement that has never been performed before. And your prediction is diffferent than those from establsihed theory. Then if scientists independently do an experiment which agrees with your prediction and not the other theories, scientists will stand up and take notice regarding your new theory. This approach has been used to test the predictions of quantum mechanics, special, and general relativity. These theories have passed to extraordinary accuracy again and again and again. Yes, there are still questions. Physicists are far from knowing everything. But until your new theory passes the "prediction" test. it will be regarded only as speculation. Wallace Thornhill has made several Predictions that have all been accurate. They are listed at the home site for The Thunderbolts Team. (linked) He has been right on with his explanations. He is correct about comets NOT being frozen ice balls. The Sun NOT being a burning from the inside process. Pulsars NOT being rapidly spinning suns. And many other issues. The best thing you can do for your own knowledge is learn what Wallace knows. That will be the future of Cosmology. There isn't much reliable information about it. You can read the wikipedia article on plasma cosmology. Plasma physics is a very real field, and is essential to understanding how stars work. (Then again, so is gravitation.) The problem with some plasma physicists and electrical engineers is that they think there field of study represents the one and only true force that dominates the universe. They forget that electric charge comes in two flavors, positive and negative, and that as a whole a star, a galaxy, and the universe are electrically neutral. That makes electromagnetism a local phenomena. While gravitation is locally weak, there is no such thing as negative mass. This makes gravitation a much greater force on cosmological scales than is electromagnetism. There is a TON of info on the subject.... open your eyes. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction I would rather not post long comments BUT.... Here is a sample of the many articles I have on the issue of black holes. Oct 24, 2009 Black Holes Stretch the Truth Instead of being supermassive bends in space and time, black holes bend to the whims of astronomers. According to a recent press release, "...outbursts from the black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy generate material that is stretched as it orbits near the gravitational behemoth." Black holes continue to elude detection by the most powerful telescopes and radiation sensors, but the consensus community insists that they exist because they can be inferred by their effect on matter and energy. It is assumed that matter falling into the intense gravity well of a black hole is accelerated and subsequently compressed until it is ultimately destroyed inside the so-called "event horizon." Sagittarius A* is said to be a supermassive black hole (SMBH) residing in the center of the Milky Way, approximately 26,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius. It is the closest SMBH, so it is used for baseline hypotheses about them. More than 95% of all galaxies are thought to harbor one or more SMBHs because the spectra from gas and dust in their centers exhibit similar characteristics. Frederick K. Baganoff of MIT wrote: "Sagittarius A* is unique, because it is the nearest of these monster black holes, lying within our own galaxy. Only for this one object can our current telescopes detect these relatively faint flares from material orbiting just outside the event horizon." The radiation signature from Sagittarius A* comes from gas ejected by nearby stars, according to conventional thinking. The material orbits the black hole at a faster and faster rate as it gradually spins closer to a point with four million times the mass of our sun. The emissions in x-rays and ultraviolet light are interpreted by astronomers as gas heating up from molecular collisions in the rotating disc. Since electricity in space is ignored as an interpretive medium, the gravitational attraction close to the black hole would prevent anything from escaping unless it were moving at half the speed of light. That velocity is 100 times faster than the .05% that was observed, so scientists think that gas orbiting the black hole is being stretched out instead of being ejected. In a recent press release from the Chandra X-ray Observatory, astronomers announced that black holes exhibit similar behavior regardless of their mass. Whether they are ten times the mass of a typical star or many millions of times more massive, they rip normal matter apart and draw it into regions where the so-called laws of physics no longer apply. Black holes are theorized to twist space and time so that velocity calculations yield impossible solutions. Matter inside of a black hole occupies no volume at all, yet retains gravitational acceleration so great that not even light can escape its attraction—they are "black" because they cannot be detected with optical telescopes. In several previous Picture of the Day discussions about black holes and their influence on the universe, we determined that the descriptive terminology used by researchers is itself problematic, relying on highly speculative explanations derived from loose interpretations. Ambiguous lexical labels such as space/time, multiple universes, singularities, infinite density and other ideas that are not quantifiable have introduced irony into what should be a realistic investigation into the nature of the universe. Another fictional source for the energetic phenomena we see in space is gravitational tides. Some flares and x-ray jets spewing from galaxies are thought to be caused by stars traveling too close to their central supermassive black holes. Heat generated by molecular collisions causes the gas to glow in x-rays. As theories indicate, gamma rays also explosively burst out when matter eventually falls into the black hole. X-rays and gamma rays in space are not created in gravity fields. Laboratory experiments most easily produce them by accelerating charged particles through an electric field. No gigantic masses compressed into tiny volumes are necessary, and they are easily generated with the proper experimental models. There are other factors that should be considered when analyzing data from space before resorting to super-dense objects and antimatter explosions as their cause. There is no experimental evidence that matter can be compressed to “infinite density." Compression zones (z-pinches) in the plasma filaments form plasmoids that become the stars and galaxies. Electricity is responsible for the birth of stars, and when the current density gets too high the double layers in the circuit catastrophically release their excess energy and appear as gamma ray bursts or x-rays or flares of ultraviolet light. Infrared and x-ray telescopes have confirmed the existence of a plasma-focus plasmoid at the core of the Milky Way. This high-energy electrical formation is the heart of the galactic circuit. Since dust blocks visible light, viewing the core has not been possible until the advent of telescopes that can “see” infrared and x-ray light, which can penetrate dust. The x-ray radiation from the plasmoid is typical of that given off by highly excited stars, indicating extremely strong electrical stress. The strong electrical field in the plasmoid acts as a particle accelerator. Electrons accelerated to high speeds will spiral in a magnetic field and give off x-rays. In a galactic circuit, electrical power flows inward along the spiral arms, lighting the stars as it goes, and is concentrated and stored in the central plasmoid. When the plasmoid reaches a threshold density, it discharges, usually along the galaxy’s spin axis. This process can be replicated in a laboratory with the plasma focus device. The discharge forms a jet of neutrons, heavy ions, and electrons. The neutrons decay to form concentrations of matter that appear as quasars. Electromagnetic forces confine the jet to thin filaments that remain coherent for thousands of light-years. The jet usually ends in double layers that extend for many times the size of the galaxy and radiate copiously in radio frequencies. The diffuse currents then flow toward the galaxy’s equatorial plane and spiral back toward the core. In the electric star hypothesis, no concentrated gravity from hypothetical super-compacted objects and "singularities" is necessary. Classical "laws" of electromagnetism are more than able to create the phenomena we see, without recourse to the supernatural physics of SMBHs. Expulsion disks are common in such energetic systems rather than "accretion" disks. Plasma discharge events are commonly known to generate high-energy UV light. The more electrical current the higher the frequency of light will be emitted. Supply enough power to the arc and x-rays and gamma rays are generated. By Stephen Smith
lemur Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) What else is there to know? These descriptions are VERY accurate and they reveal the relations between various properties. Using these descriptions, we can make very accurate predictions and use them to create technology. This would not be a reason to argue against exploring alternative models. All you're saying is not to throw out models with some utility, even if they turn out to be fundamentally flawed. If electromagnetism instead of gravitation turned out to be a more influential force in the universe, scientists would not wish to deny that for the sake of maintaining popularity of existing modeling. The idiocy in debates between competing models is that people choose sides and favor one side while opposing the other instead of just trying to come up with testable deductions about both. Please explain how planets can have moons without invoking gravitation. This is a good example of constructing such a testable deduction. Edited January 5, 2011 by lemur
Just the Facts Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 This would not be a reason to argue against exploring alternative models. All you're saying is not to throw out models with some utility, even if they turn out to be fundamentally flawed. If electromagnetism instead of gravitation turned out to be a more influential force in the universe, scientists would not wish to deny that for the sake of maintaining popularity of existing modeling. The idiocy in debates between competing models is that people choose sides and favor one side while opposing the other instead of just trying to come up with testable deductions about both. This is a good example of constructing such a testable deduction. Hi. My purpose for coming here is only to share knowledge… as respectfully and friendly as I can. I don't want to take people away from this forum site. I really appreciate this place to debate science. I thank everyone involved here. Kudos to you all. My respect is yours. All your questions can be answered at a forum located at the home site of the Thunderbolts Team. They have several people there that can set you on the right track. Go to the site I linked and then go to their forums. Ask away any questions you have. They have the answers. PLEASE come back to this forum as soon as possible with your impressions of what you learned. http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm I already know most of what you know... now go learn what I know. Have a Great Day to All I will smile very big when in the near future (5 years or less) someone like John Stossel (Journalist) will be on the news making a comment something like this…. As it turns out, Einstein was entirely wrong with his theories on gravity, time, space and light. We now know that it’s Electric Currents and Magnetic Fields that are the cause and effect of what happens throughout the entire universe. BTW… Light does NOT bend in any way. That is simply Impossible. Light travels perfectly straight. It only Reflects, but never bends. IF light could bend… we would see only a blur of light when we looked out into the sky. We can see light from incredible distances only because light travels straight and never bends, even over light years of time. Claiming that light bends is absurd and ridiculous. Sorry Mr. Einstein. Sorry if that offends anyone else. On the same note… IF there was any so called “Dark Matter”, we could not see anything at all in space. All the light would be blocked by the matter. We can see for massive distance because PLASMA is Transparent and clear, like clean water or Oxygen and most other gases. There is NO so called “Dark Energy“ either. The energy is the plasma itself. When something occurs that draws the energy into a current… things start to happen. … like lightning. or all the electrical plasma displays we see everywhere in the cosmos.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 BTW… Light does NOT bend in any way. That is simply Impossible. Light travels perfectly straight. It only Reflects, but never bends. IF light could bend… we would see only a blur of light when we looked out into the sky. We can see light from incredible distances only because light travels straight and never bends, even over light years of time. Claiming that light bends is absurd and ridiculous. Sorry Mr. Einstein. Sorry if that offends anyone else. It has been measured by experiment. Reality does not conform to what you think makes sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun If you want to dispute relativity, you have to dispute the experiments that have confirmed its findings.
Klaynos Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 Math can not explain why the Sun shines. Maths can be used to explain why the sun shines. It's all to do with nuclear decays and then photon propagation... http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0009259 I suspect covers most of it.... I also suspect that that is quite an interesting read and gives insight into how science works. It's not just random made up crap, it's all about making accurate predictions about the universe and then testing those predictions.... the universe always wins. To further add to my post. Predictions must be measurable and accurate. I can say "if I drop something it falls" which is true and accurate, but pretty much useless. I can then use maths and Newtonian mechanics to say how fast the object will fall, which I can then measure and state whether my measurement supports or disproves Newtonian mechanics. Science (read physics) has moved to such a point now where just using textual descriptions and predictions is worthless unless those textual descriptions are interpretations of the predictive maths being described.
michel123456 Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) I don't understand why you are waving hands. The answer to my question is yes and the details are here. "The following hypothesis offers an explanation for the mechanism of gravity. The hypothesis presented herein claims that gravity is the result of composite electrostatic forces between electrical charges in particles and bodies. To understand the mechanism I am suggesting that (...) (see link)(...) the electrical charge interactions and charge posturing described above cause what we refer to as gravity." from the link above. I am not in a position to make any judgment. Edited January 5, 2011 by michel123456
Just the Facts Posted January 5, 2011 Author Posted January 5, 2011 It has been measured by experiment. Reality does not conform to what you think makes sense. http://en.wikipedia....ight_by_the_Sun If you want to dispute relativity, you have to dispute the experiments that have confirmed its findings. Hi Cap’n I hope you’re doing well today. I’m happy to see you have an interest in this subject. I’m guessing you’re quite knowledgeable and bright. That is a very good site you linked. I have put it in my favorites. I’ll spend a lot of time studying the info there. The Thunderbolts Team offers some brilliant E-Books on related subjects. They have one called: “The Sun”. It explains their conclusions on how the sun really works and how light does what it does, and other reasons why they dispute the claims made by the Einstein followers. They will upload the first chapter to your computer for you to examine. You won’t need any further evidence that they are correct. It all makes much better sense. So does electricity and magnetic fields. Go to their home site and click on the e-books on the right side. I invite you to post the same link in their forum. Let's see what the experts have to say about it. Have a Splendid Godless Day… come back again soon. Maths can be used to explain why the sun shines. It's all to do with nuclear decays and then photon propagation... http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0009259 I suspect covers most of it.... I also suspect that that is quite an interesting read and gives insight into how science works. It's not just random made up crap, it's all about making accurate predictions about the universe and then testing those predictions.... the universe always wins. To further add to my post. Predictions must be measurable and accurate. I can say "if I drop something it falls" which is true and accurate, but pretty much useless. I can then use maths and Newtonian mechanics to say how fast the object will fall, which I can then measure and state whether my measurement supports or disproves Newtonian mechanics. Science (read physics) has moved to such a point now where just using textual descriptions and predictions is worthless unless those textual descriptions are interpretations of the predictive maths being described. Hi my friend If you want predictions that all have been correct... go here http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm These guys... GOT IT RIGHT Have a Great Day -2
rigney Posted January 5, 2011 Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) Hi. My purpose for coming here is only to share knowledge… as respectfully and friendly as I can. I don't want to take people away from this forum site. I really appreciate this place to debate science. I thank everyone involved here. Kudos to you all. My respect is yours. All your questions can be answered at a forum located at the home site of the Thunderbolts Team. They have several people there that can set you on the right track. Go to the site I linked and then go to their forums. Ask away any questions you have. They have the answers. PLEASE come back to this forum as soon as possible with your impressions of what you learned. http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm I already know most of what you know... now go learn what I know. Have a Great Day to All I will smile very big when in the near future (5 years or less) someone like John Stossel (Journalist) will be on the news making a comment something like this…. As it turns out, Einstein was entirely wrong with his theories on gravity, time, space and light. We now know that its Electric Currents and Magnetic Fields that are the cause and effect of what happens throughout the entire universe. BTW… Light does NOT bend in any way. That is simply Impossible. Light travels perfectly straight. It only Reflects, but never bends. IF light could bend… we would see only a blur of light when we looked out into the sky. We can see light from incredible distances only because light travels straight and never bends, even over light years of time. Claiming that light bends is absurd and ridiculous. Sorry Mr. Einstein. Sorry if that offends anyone else. On the same note… IF there was any so called Dark Matter, we could not see anything at all in space. All the light would be blocked by the matter. We can see for massive distance because PLASMA is Transparent and clear, like clean water or Oxygen and most other gases. There is NO so called Dark Energy either. The energy is the plasma itself. When something occurs that draws the energy into a current… things start to happen. … like lightning. or all the electrical plasma displays we see everywhere in the cosmos. Is light matter? Does it matter that light is matter wrapped in a small body, such as photon? We may be as far away from the final answer to this question as Amen Hotep was to what rocket science is today. But "Gravitational lensing" gives Einstein and his gang, a one uppance on anything we may find differently over the next century. Edited January 5, 2011 by rigney 1
Recommended Posts