Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Everything you post is stupid. Essentially claiming a bunch of things as certain facts when they most certainly are not.

It seems the purpose of your posts is to knock the thread off topic.

No just correcting someone who knows nothing of science sorry you see it that way. If you made an accurate statement id be in agreement with you.

Mary Rose
From "Essential Guide to the EU – Chapter 3 Plasma":

A significant behavioral characteristic is plasma’s ability to form large-scale cells and filaments. In fact, that is why plasma is so named, due to its almost life-like behavior and similarities to cell-containing blood plasma.

www.thunderbolts.info...

How cool is that?

What an exciting field to study.

So what does blood plasma have to do with space exactly?

From "Essential Guide to the EU – Chapter 3 Plasma":

A significant behavioral characteristic is plasma’s ability to form large-scale cells and filaments. In fact, that is why plasma is so named, due to its almost life-like behavior and similarities to cell-containing blood plasma.

www.thunderbolts.info...

Mary Rose
How cool is that?

What an exciting field to study.

If I can borrow a word from Phage, it seems "odd" to refer to "cell-containing blood plasma". Blood plasma typically refers to blood from which the cells have been removed. If the cells haven't been removed, it's typically called: blood.

dictionary.reference.com...

plasma (n.) the pale yellow fluid portion of the blood; blood from which red and white blood cells and platelets have been removed

Of course this isn't the first odd statement from these EU folks and it won't be the last.

I too am confused in regard to poets reply to my post given that the author appears to make two contradictory statements within a few minutes.

Me saying a sarcastic statement to suggest scientists are some how evil is simply a reflection of how here on ATS' science and tech forums, scientists are presented in such a manner. It is sarcasm, given that i pulled a pdf from the particle data group, should have maybe rung a bell that i am a scientist... as the PDG isn't exactly known outside physics circles.

Then to make the statement that "Hey look they don't claim to know everything"

And then proceed it with a post saying exactly the opposite is too i hope a show of sarcasm.

And don't expect any answers out of Mary, it appears typically the answer you will get will be a quote that is somewhat related and yet not really an answer, iv done it before and Iv never been presented with anything as complex as an actual answer or even discussion.

reply to post by dragonridr


Cern hasn't proven anything, all that has been done is some experiments provide results that suggest theories are correct.

Electric universe is based on plasma physics.

reply to post by dragonridr


With the discovery of plasma, it was named after blood plasma.

So much for your knowledge.

reply to post by ErosA433


Where do I post the opposite, because I am not seeing it.

Pretty much everything you post is sarcasm.

What ever you do in science, you clearly have a problem with someone thinking outside of the box.

Too many who claim to know a great deal about science here, get hostile and sarcastic because some people dare to discuss ideas without clearance from some university.

And your link only discusses differences in mass.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Cern hasn't proven anything, all that has been done is some experiments provide results that suggest theories are correct.

Electric universe is based on plasma physics.

Well of course thats how science works and as long as a theory can make predictions and we can verify that it remains valid science. If cern were to find something that disproves particle physics than were back to the drawing board bud so far particle physics has been around for a long time and keeps showing over and over were on to something.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Cern hasn't proven anything, all that has been done is some experiments provide results that suggest theories are correct.

Electric universe is based on plasma physics.

No its not i suggest you really look into plasma physics i used to do some work in that area myself at one point. So i hate to tell you but electric universe likes to make that claim and they like to pull experiments out of context while ignoring others. But trust me its not plasma physics.

poet1b
reply to post by ErosA433

 

Where do I post the opposite, because I am not seeing it.

Pretty much everything you post is sarcasm.

What ever you do in science, you clearly have a problem with someone thinking outside of the box.

Too many who claim to know a great deal about science here, get hostile and sarcastic because some people dare to discuss ideas without clearance from some university.

And your link only discusses differences in mass.

No thinking outside the box is great your creating a fallacy ive asked over and over show me. Ive asked where the sun gets the electrons to power the sun and all of gotten is the sound of crickets. In order to show the electric universe works you have to be able to explain the basics. See i can explain where it gets its energy from through fusion however we need alot of energy to power the sun. The sun converts mass into energy at a rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second, 384.6 yotta watts (thats a 1 with 24 zeros), or 9.192×1010 megatons of TNT per second.

poet1b
Where do I post the opposite, because I am not seeing it.

Pretty much everything you post is sarcasm.

What ever you do in science, you clearly have a problem with someone thinking outside of the box.

Too many who claim to know a great deal about science here, get hostile and sarcastic because some people dare to discuss ideas without clearance from some university.

And your link only discusses differences in mass.

And this is why poet why in some posts i bring a level of sarcasm. I have posted previously on subjects and gotten a stamp of "You know nothing" "Your a mainstream scientist you obviously don't understand" So it works two ways, don't be so defensive and full of accusations. Making an accusation of intent of another person doesn't bolster your position. Yeah I may have been sarcastic, but the 'alternative' isn't very forthcoming with evidence, nor are the people what want to discuss it thinking outside the box. To truly think outside the box, you must actually understand what is inside the box in the first place. When you make it patently obvious that people have a box of knowledge so small that discussing fundamental physics is somewhat so far outside the box that they are walking through darkness.

There was a thread on ATS for example about galaxy rotation, and the op admitted to have spent 5 minutes researching, and yet was trying to suggest that after that 5minutes the whole field of dark matter and galactic dynamics is full of crap.

Also the link i posted contains much more information than the differences in mass. much much much much more.


so, we have asked politely for some answers to questions... are you guys wanting to discuss and talk about an alternative theory with some actual scientists or people who have a fairly good box of knowledge? or do you just want to have a thread of nodding yes men? Because it always feels like you want the yes men.

Also, clearance from a university? What? I went to university where i studied for a total of 8 years, and i have worked at another university for a further 4 years... not once have i ever required clearance to discuss anything, note should anyone else feel that way. To actually have that opinion is a fallacy and a pretty negative view of the world of science. You appear far more judgemental of scientists than this scientist is of anyone else.

I welcome discussion with open arms, but discussion is not just about nodding and saying yes yes yes. it is about asking questions and figuring out answers... so far we have asked a whole host of questions and not one of them has been discussed, they have been broken down into semantics and nit picks at grammar and 'who said what' it is a typical tactic when the people under fire have no answers but don't want to admit it

reply to post by ErosA433


But on this thread all I have seen from you is sarcasm, and no demonstration of a solid knowledge of science.

Stop being emotional, and post information in a reasonable manner, and you will be taken serious.

I work in the technical world, we don't do research, we solve problems, conduct investigations, that sort of thing. I make things happen in the real world, and when someone tries to tell me I don't know what I am doing, I can only laugh.

Loos at who has been proven wrong and who has been proven right on the facts.

poet1b
reply to post by ErosA433

 

But on this thread all I have seen from you is sarcasm, and no demonstration of a solid knowledge of science.

Stop being emotional, and post information in a reasonable manner, and you will be taken serious.

I work in the technical world, we don't do research, we solve problems, conduct investigations, that sort of thing. I make things happen in the real world, and when someone tries to tell me I don't know what I am doing, I can only laugh.

Loos at who has been proven wrong and who has been proven right on the facts.

Well maybe you can make things happen by answering some questions like where does the electric sun theory get the energy from to power the sun? Ive asked this simple question several times now and you continue to tell us how much smarter you are than scientists but post nothing showing them to be wrong. If you choose to believe electric universe just because thats fine but realize the rest of the world needs something that proves the theory to take it seriously. I could say the pacific ocean is actually grape soda that doesnt make it true unless i can prove it.

It would appear you have a more inflated ego than that often accused of scientists.

Researchers such as myself solve problems also, typically problems that are fundamental to a technological development.

Parhaps you should read more of this thread, and others, because you obviously are great at solving problems but not soooooo wonderful at making correct statements. I have given a good amount of information and explanations of how many of said alternative theories may or may not work, and why.

So please, step down from that pedestal, stop nervously laughing at people because you think you know best on all things when really the sphere of experience you can gain from those around you is probably greater than your own. What you accused me of can be mirrored directly back, and I have seen you contribute even less other than a very stereotyped troll like posts where you point out "Well they don't know 100% so they can't tell you, and any theory you have is obviously correct because of some none logical use of english i am about to pull."




On the electric universe debate and discussion there has been many many many questions and absolutely zero answers by the people pushing for the debate. absolutely zero attempts to discuss anything meaningful other than semantics or trying to 'out english' each other.

So what shall we do? Shall we get some of those questions discussed? or should we just kill this thread because its funny that it is 15 pages of mostly nonsense. Yet when someone posts threads regarding actual things people can ask questions about and get answers, they don't get more than a page It is rather a funny fact

dragonridr
Well maybe you can make things happen by answering some questions like where does the electric sun theory get the energy from to power the sun?

The Electric Universe theory is in contrast to the standard Gravity Model and Big Bang theory.

EU proponents make no proposals for how the universe got here.

In my opinion it is evident that there is an aether that is energy itself, from which all force and all matter in the universe arise. It has always been here and will always be here.

This is probably something that cannot be proven.

But I think it is probably more rational than the Big Bang theory and the Gravity model and all of the money spent and mental gymnastics carried out trying to justify those models.

Mary Rose
But I think it is probably more rational than the Big Bang theory and the Gravity model and all of the money spent and mental gymnastics carried out trying to justify those models.

These models predict many things that we have been able to test an observe, so why is it not rational? What is proposed here is that we invent something that cannot be modelled, cannot be tested, cannot be explained... but it is more rational?

Might as well say it is all magic.

Yet we know that the model of gravity we use now works very well, and we can predict things, we can figure out orbitals of planets and stars, we can see the wobbles of stars far away and figure out that there are planets out there...

But thats not rational right? We should just look at the night sky and say "WOW so amazing, no point in studying it because we won't understand it."

ErosA433
Might as well say it is all magic.

The Big Bang model is a proposal of an act of magic.

The Gravity Model is being falsified by observations, causing scientists to invent things to look for to make it work.

reply to post by dragonridr


Where did the giant amoeba that was all matter in the universe come from in the big bang theory?

What is the nature of force, what repeal and attracts?

How does gravity work?

Why don't you answer these questions and prove you know something about science?

The electric/plasma universe theory doesn't claim to explain everything.

reply to post by ErosA433


I didn't see anything of scientific value in this post, just made up accusations and excuses.

You talk about psuedo science, well, guess what, Newton was heavily into the occult, and alchemy, so you would have thrown the same garbage at him, and that goes for your buddy.

When I look through the thread as to who has been right and who has been wrong, I see myself as way ahead on the count. Anyone can claim this nonsense.

Why don't you try and explain just how electric universe theory is wrong, and not by making stuff up that mainstream electric/plasma science does support.

reply to post by ErosA433

These models predict many things that we have been able to test an observe

Name some of these things, that do not also support the electric/plasma universe model.

Most of what I see hasn't evolved much past Newton,s concepts going on 500 years ago.

We have better instrumentation, but we don't seem to be gaining any more understanding.