It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cosmology in Crisis—Again! Electric theory gains more support

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 


I read the exact same questions today on the Thunderbolts forum. Coincidence?
Anyway perhaps pop over and check some replies, MGmirkin gives an excellent reply, as usual. He's a member here as well BTW.
Not sure if the rules permit linking another forum.




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I've often said that cosmology is like a religion. This is not to say that science is like religion. Science shows it's worth through the technology, this is real no doubt.

But Cosmology and some other theoretical sciences are not so readily falsifiable. So naturally, theories have run amok. Not much if any testing can be done. Even then, the tests that can be done give results to some degree but there will always be things invisible to us. And the conclusion of the data are drawn from many assumptions that are not so solid and in some cases undeniable erroneous.
Beginning with an assumption is normal, however normally the assumption stems from observation. And this is not the case with many, many aspects of cosmology.

I'm equally interested in the history of the standard theories/assumptions and looking at the history of the big bang with all the details mind you, because just like religion the high priests of cosmology have hidden a few details from the text books. You really have to admit the big bang model is on extremely thin ice. In fact in my opinion, the psychology of the paradigm, the indoctrination, is the only reason it stands.

Not all astronomers buy into the dogma, listen to what they have to say, and learn a few of the little nuggets of info the big bangers tend to leave out.
Cosmology Quest p1

Google Video Link


Cosmology Quest p2

Google Video Link



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Desolate Cancer
 


I read the exact same questions today on the Thunderbolts forum. Coincidence?
Anyway perhaps pop over and check some replies, MGmirkin gives an excellent reply, as usual. He's a member here as well BTW.
Not sure if the rules permit linking another forum.



No coincidence that was posted by me. And yes MGmirkin did give some fantastic answers, since just learning about this theory this past weekend I have become infatuated with it. Makes so much sense to me, thought there are some things that I havent seen answered yet. I will do some more research before posting questions on them.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
The sun is like any other large solid body object in space. Gravity forms it into a sphere.

That's why its round.

The electric sun theory describes the sun as a focal point for galactic energy. So what we are seeing is electric currents in space plasma pinching down on to the sun causing the discharge.

Here's a paper on the subject that was published in the IEEE Pulsed Power and Plasma Science Journal:

members.cox.net...



[edit on 13-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The sun is like any other large solid body object in space. Gravity forms it into a sphere.

That's why its round.

The electric sun theory describes the sun as a focal point for galactic energy. So what we are seeing is electric currents in space plasma pinching down on to the sun causing the discharge.

Here's a paper on the subject that was published in the IEEE Pulsed Power and Plasma Science Journal:

members.cox.net...



[edit on 13-6-2009 by mnemeth1]


So the same 2 dimensional fabric of space theory of gravity is held with EU theory? I mean from the sound of it, the sun is a focul point for the electricity because it has a significant gravitational pull on the electricity.

Is this pull theorized to be caused by its mass and causing a "pinch" in the fabric of space? or is this gravitational pull theorized to be caused by a concentration of matter having an almost magnetic pull on the electricity emanating through out space?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The sun is like any other large solid body object in space. Gravity forms it into a sphere.

That's why its round.

The electric sun theory describes the sun as a focal point for galactic energy. So what we are seeing is electric currents in space plasma pinching down on to the sun causing the discharge.

Here's a paper on the subject that was published in the IEEE Pulsed Power and Plasma Science Journal:

members.cox.net...



[edit on 13-6-2009 by mnemeth1]


So the same 2 dimensional fabric of space theory of gravity is held with EU theory? I mean from the sound of it, the sun is a focul point for the electricity because it has a significant gravitational pull on the electricity.

Is this pull theorized to be caused by its mass and causing a "pinch" in the fabric of space? or is this gravitational pull theorized to be caused by a concentration of matter having an almost magnetic pull on the electricity emanating through out space?


No, EU theory states gravity is some kind of an electrically based phenomena. Modern cosmology states gravity is a function of warping space, EU theory states gravity is possibly a function of dipole attraction. The theory of gravity is still in its infancy. Charged particles in a plasma are, for the most part, unaffected by gravitational forces.

Gravity is a secondary effect, not the primary effect, in an EU universe.

The sun is not a graviationally collapsing nebula, it is a planetary body, like Jupiter or Saturn, that is acting as a focal point for galactic energy. Some EU theorists postulate the sun is actually a large body of iron. The nuclear reactions we see taking place on the sun occur in the photosphere and on the surface from energy that is arriving from outside the solar system, not at the core of the sun.

Here's a link to a full blown model of an electrically powered star:

Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
Ralph E. Juergens Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1 (Fall 1982)
www.kronos-press.com...

Part 2
www.kronos-press.com...





[edit on 13-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Interesting to note that electric arcs can also form spherical objects, this has been demonstrated in the lab replicating hollow spherical hematite concretions.
This was proposed as an explanation for "the martian blueberries" without the need for water. Quite successfully too IMO.

If stars are formed by the pinch effect, I think the sphere would be the natural result. The electromagnetic force squeezes the matter down perpendicular to the current and may also produce a bulge at the equator.

Just a thought.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Just so you guys know, I'll be interviewing Stephen Smith, the Managing Editor and Picture of the day contributor at Thunderbolts.info, on Plasma Cosmology. We will be posting the interview/article on ATSnews. So keep an eye out for that!


If you guys have any specific questions that you want answered and brought to light on a larger scale on ATSnews, I'll be happy to take a few for the interview. After all, ATS is about the members. What do the members want?

-Dev

[edit on 14-6-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Also, just to add:

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories

That thread is why I joined ATS after being a lurker for years. Just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of it. Squiz has been holding the fort for quite a while now on the subject.

Have a look, there's some great information in that thread.

-Dev



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Tell Steve, Michael Suede says he's awesome for me and ask him when "part 2" to thunderbolts is coming out.

I want to know if they are planning a sequel, when it will be coming out, and what topics they hope to cover in it.



[edit on 14-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Great news! Stephen writes some great stuff and a lot of it too. I always enjoy his articles.

I'd have to second that question about a sequel.
Also, when do we get to see all of Alien Sky?
Any hints on future plans for the website or online in general?
Don Scott recently gave a presentation at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
any future plans/strategies for the scientific community?

And thanks for the plug DE.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Found this image and article while using stumbleupon about a new picture of a sunspot thought it would be appreciated here.

Its great because they talk about how it is a plasma effect.

www.universetoday.com...





[edit on 20-6-2009 by Desolate Cancer]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I don't see an thing electric in that statement.
They still go newton.

Even though you need currents for forces you check in with
the EU people and they have gigantic currents circulating.

So right there you have greater that newton dynamics.

As for rocks like Earth that are a source of electrons and
conduct electricity, they are easily forced by induced forces
to speeds greater than gravity can supply and without a
visible source.

ED: Tesla: ether is a insulative fluid containing electrical carriers
due to reaction to high voltage and frequency.
From researches, even though Tesla gave indications of compression
is a mode of radio and oscillation transmissions.

[edit on 6/20/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
Found this image and article while using stumbleupon about a new picture of a sunspot thought it would be appreciated here.

Its great because they talk about how it is a plasma effect.

www.universetoday.com...





[edit on 20-6-2009 by Desolate Cancer]



Yeah, and they leave out the most fascinating information we know about sunspots.

Namely a sunspot is a hole in the sun. A sunspot is the furthest place we can see into the sun.

Sunspots are also the coldest measurable place on the sun. Given that its the deepest place, this fact contradicts standing theory. How can the sun be a nuclear furnace generating heat from its core if the sunspot is the deepest place we can see into the sun, yet its the coldest?

Sunspots show filimentation and braiding. Neutral gases acting in a vacuum do not braid and filament themselves. Only charged plasma that is conducting a current is known to behave this way.

This "colder the farther we look in" is also reflected in the suns corona and photosphere. The surface of the sun measures around 6000K degrees hot, while the corona far above the surface measures up into the millions of degrees. If the sun was radiating from its core, we should expect the opposite to be true.

Modern theories of the sun are complete failures IMHO.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
IMHO the only reason for the widespread propagation of "Junk Science" like Dark matter, or even "Particle Theory" is to keep the world in the dark on advanced scientific understanding and new technologies.

-Edrick



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
IMHO the only reason for the widespread propagation of "Junk Science" like Dark matter, or even "Particle Theory" is to keep the world in the dark on advanced scientific understanding and new technologies.

-Edrick



Two years ago I would have called you a nut job.

Today, I have to agree.



[edit on 20-6-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I'm not a physicist, so don't stomp on me too hard if this sounds ridiculous, but I have always wondered if dark matter and errors in our understanding of galaxy formation are the result of a slight error in our understanding of gravity.

From what I understand the current model states that the gravity of an object is directly determined by its size and mass. What if gravity doesn't increase like on a straight line, where earth would have 1 earth mass would have 1 g of gravity, a 1000 earth mass would have 1000 g's, what if there was a curve and it had say, 1000.1 g's?

Black holes are supposed to have accretion disks, matter gets trapped in its gravity well and starts spiraling in, doomed to die. The formation of spiral galaxies requires a supermassive black hole be at the center, however for whatever reason, scientists state that the stars on the outer rim of these galaxies are unaffected by that black holes gravity, its impossible. Gravity isn't that strong. What if it was? What if right now, our own star and planet are on a billion-year death spiral into the black hole in the center of the Milky Way?

All the "dark matter" that is needed to hold our galaxy together is no longer needed. Every star is being directly influenced by the black hole. It seems simple enough to me, but I don't handle uber-complex physics formulaes all day.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by peskyhumans
I'm not a physicist, so don't stomp on me too hard if this sounds ridiculous, but I have always wondered if dark matter and errors in our understanding of galaxy formation are the result of a slight error in our understanding of gravity.

From what I understand the current model states that the gravity of an object is directly determined by its size and mass. What if gravity doesn't increase like on a straight line, where earth would have 1 earth mass would have 1 g of gravity, a 1000 earth mass would have 1000 g's, what if there was a curve and it had say, 1000.1 g's?

Black holes are supposed to have accretion disks, matter gets trapped in its gravity well and starts spiraling in, doomed to die. The formation of spiral galaxies requires a supermassive black hole be at the center, however for whatever reason, scientists state that the stars on the outer rim of these galaxies are unaffected by that black holes gravity, its impossible. Gravity isn't that strong. What if it was? What if right now, our own star and planet are on a billion-year death spiral into the black hole in the center of the Milky Way?

All the "dark matter" that is needed to hold our galaxy together is no longer needed. Every star is being directly influenced by the black hole. It seems simple enough to me, but I don't handle uber-complex physics formulaes all day.


Well a few things on dark matter, gravity and black holes:

Scientists currently reject the notion that plasma in space is conducting electrical currents. They assume all of the magnetic fields that we see in space are simply frozen in the plasma and there is no electrical current producing them. (never mind that electro-dynamic laws say that's impossible)

Dark matter is really just a fudge factor to make their gravity centric equations balance out. By rejecting the notion that electromagnetic forces play a role in space plasmas, they leave themselves with only one force to work with - gravity.

However gravity alone can't explain the observations. Galaxies shooting out huge jets of matter from their core, pulsars "rotating" at over a thousand times per second, "accretion" disks that defy gravity, etc...

Dark matter is really a function of galactic rotation rates. Scientists can't make gravity alone form galaxies and rotate them at observed velocities in their computer simulations without adding 'dark matter' to the equations. So its something they "assume" must be there because they reject that electromagnetic forces play any role at all in galactic formation.

Dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc... don't exist in real life. They are simply mathematical constructs physicists have dreamed up to explain the unexplainable in their broken cosmological models.

Numerous electrical engineers and plasma physicists have shown that there is no need for dark matter or black holes at all if the assumption is made that electrical currents play a role in space plasma formations.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Yeah I'm sorry, my last post may have seemed confusing. What I was trying to say is that perhaps there is an increasing curve in mass to gravity calculations that doesn't fit with our current model. From what I understand, our current model basically equates mass to gravity on a 1 to 1 ratio. What I'm trying to say is that as you get into extreme mass objects, such as black holes and what not, their force of gravity is actually much stronger than what the current model of gravity accounts for (a rising mass to gravity curve). Maybe as objects get heavier and heavier, their force of gravity increases faster than what we currently account for in our present model.

This would allow for all of newtons calculations to still be correct, as at our smaller-scale planetary level (low mass objects) the current model does actually work correctly, however with extreme mass objects, such as supermassive black holes (which are required for the formation of spiral galaxies) their gravity would be stronger, farther reaching, than what our current model accounts for. This would mean we wouldn't need dark matter to fill in any gaps to hold our galaxy together, its all held together by the black hole.

Anyway its just an idea, I just wanted to explain myself better, not trying to argue with you or anything. You know more about this stuff than I do, so you could very well be right. Do you think this idea is possible at all?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by peskyhumans
 


I really think that our current model of WHAT causes gravity to be incomplete, and completely erroneous.

I have a theory that I am working on.... I'll let you know when it is done.

-Edrick



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join