Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary)

I know there was a thread from 2011 on the first episode of this documentary but here is the full documentary release from 2014. Was anyone able to debunk this? I (personally) have found no quantifiable opposing evidence that can disprove the evidence presented within this documentary. This is one of the more interesting documentaries I have studied in sometime.

What is disappointing is the main stream science community has not investigated this at the next level. Are every one of our ideological systems corrupt with disinformation?

a reply to: Outlier13

An hour and a half of electric universe nonsense? No thanks.

How come Philae didn't get zapped when it landed on that highly charged comet?

originally posted by: Phage

How come Philae didn't get zapped when it landed on that highly charged comet?

Same way birds don't get zapped by landing on electrical wires?

a reply to: Action

That would make sense, if the claim was that comets are electrical wires carrying AC current.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Action

That would make sense, if the claim was that comets are electrical wires carrying AC current.

Although that makes just about as much sense as the other electric universe nonsense....

a reply to: Outlier13

Beware! Beware! The Electric Universe Zombie theory walks again!

a reply to: Outlier13

It is no one's responsibility to debunk the claims of the EU supporters. That's not how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof lies with the people making the claim: the EU supporters. This burden is not satisfied by a non-peer-reviewed Youtube video showing how tricks with a torch resemble something someone saw in a photograph.

For ANY alternative idea in science to gain traction, the claimants must do two things:

1.) The claimant must show why his idea matches the observed data at least as well, if not better than existing theory. For example, meteoric impact is a well-understood phenomenon, and the source of meteoric impactors (rubble orbiting around our solar system) has been detected, studied and documented. If you propose that a specific crater was caused by some sort of cosmic lightening bolt, then you must first prove that cosmic lightening bolts exist at all (and what their characteristic signatures (that you would not see from a meteor) are), and secondly that detailed forensic data indicates that the signatures of this specific crater more closely match those of a cosmic lightening bolt than they do of a meteorite. In other words, what does the preponderance of data indicate?

2.) The claimant must be able to make testable predictions that, when experiments are performed and/or specific observations are made, will show definitively that their idea has merit. This is call "falsifying your hypothesis". It doesn't mean faking it, but rather if you come up with an idea, you must also come up with a way to prove whether it is false or not.

Electric Universe proponents have failed utterly on both of these points. As near as I can tell, the only effort put forth so far has been videos like this that fool people who aren't familiar with the size, scope and detail of observational data that support the standard models.

Here is an example of these two principles of science working together: As telescopes looked further into the cosmos, astronomers noticed that the elemental absorption lines in the spectra of distant galaxies were shifted towards the red. The most prosaic explanation for this was that this was caused by a Doppler-shift as the galaxies moved away from us. Interesting - Why would they be doing that? Then Edwin Hubble noticed that the further away a galaxy is from us, the greater its redshift. This lead to the idea that the entire universe in which all galaxies exist is actually expanding. If so, then all of the mass of the universe must have started from a single point, which quantum mechanics tells us would have been unstable and erupted in a titanic explosion. Physicist Fred Hoyle derisively called this the "Big Bang" theory, and (to his chagrin) the name stuck. To test this idea (falsifying the hypothesis), BBT proponents predicted that astronomers should be able to observe a residual cosmic background radiation from this creation event. Observations were made, and the cosmic background radiation (CBR) was indeed detected. If it had not been detected, then the Big Bang theory would have died 50 years ago. Instead, it gained traction and is now considered the "standard cosmological model".

But that's not the end of the story. Other predictions were made (such as relative abundance of elements in the universe) that were found true, and added support to the BBT, but other observations raised serious questions about some of the details. Modifications have been made to the model, but have yet to be backed-up by experimental observation. For example, more precise measurements of the CBR showed that it is very uniform - too smooth for the original BBT model. Physicists came up with idea of early "inflation" of spacetime in the first moments of the Big Bang. Yes, it would explain the smoothness (called isotropy), but is it correct?. There is no other observational evidence for this inflation - yet (you can't say that the isotropy is evidence for inflation, because that is circular reasoning - you need to find something else to support the idea).

Mind you, I know an astrophysicist (whom I think Rather highly of) who argues compellingly against the entire Big Bang Theory. He does not dispute the data gathered thus far, but instead claims that such observed phenomenon as the cosmic redshift and background radiation have been deeply misinterpreted, and actually may point to a different universal geometry. He holds that the concept of early-inflation is no more than a mathematical trick to preserve the theory, much like epicycles in geocentric pre-Coperican astronomy explained (incorrectly) the retrograde motion of planets. However, before he can publish, he knows that he will have to have impeccable math & reasoning to explain why his idea fits observed data better than the Big Bang theory, and he will have to make predictions for new observations that will either definitively support his idea or definitively shoot it down.

Here's something that I see many ATSers get consistently wrong: They think that scientists fight to defend standard theory out of dogmatic closed-mindedness. Absolutely wrong! They defend theories because that's what the data supports. If new data comes in that contradicts, they must (after verifying that the experiments & observations are valid, i.e. repeatable - that's where "cold fusion" fell on its face) either find a way modify the theory or come out with a replacement. Note that the replacement does not chuck-out any data, it simply fits more of the data than the previous theory.

The classic example of this is the overthrow of Newtonian gravity by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Newton & Kepler's equations could correctly predict the orbits of all known objects in the solar system - almost. As observations got more accurate, astronomers detected an anomaly in Mercury's orbit. The falsifiable hypothesis they came up with was that the might be a planet closer to the Sun, perturbing Mercury's orbit. Unfortunately, observational experiments failed to find this unknown world. Then along came Einstein's theory of gravity. it correctly predicted the orbits of all known planets including Mercury This satisfied the first principle, above. Furthermore, Einstein predicted that if his concept of gravity was correct, then the path that light takes should be bent by large masses. Under Newton, mass should not affect light, so this was a way of falsifying Einstein's hypothesis. During an eclipse of the Sun in 1919 (and many times since), observers found that indeed the Sun's mass does bend the light from distant stars very, very slightly - but exactly in accordance with Einstein's predictions. The key point of this example is not that Newton was wrong, it's just that Einstein was more accurate. General Relativity fits the data better than Newton's Law of Gravity.

(I should point out that Einstein's equations are MUCH harder to use than Newton's. For almost all applications, Newton is "good enough" All of the navigation for the Cassini probe (including hundreds of encounters with Saturn's moons) are calculated using Newton, rather than Einstein. It's close enough and it works. On the other hand, GPS satellites must be excruciatingly accurate, so they use Einstein)

EU does not fit observation as well as standard theories, and it makes no testable predictions.

Electric Universe proof: "It kinda looks like what you get with arc discharges in a lab, on a small scale, therefore the whole Solar System (and the rest of the universe) was formed by gigantic thunderbolts."

Another bit of proof: "Symbols in ancient cave paintings and clay tablets look like what you get with arc discharges in a lab, on a small scale, therefore the ancient people witnessed gigantic plasma discharges in the sky, which is how the whole Solar System (and the rest of the universe) was formed."

Yep.

And there's been plenty debunking this "theory", you just have to look.

rationalwiki.org...
neutrinodreaming.blogspot.co.uk...

Admittedly, there's not much debunking or any kind of reaction to EU from real scientists, simply because this "theory" is so ridiculous to begin with.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Action

That would make sense, if the claim was that comets are electrical wires carrying AC current.

Wouldn't the water vapour and dust coming from the comet help to carry away any charge buildup. Wouldn't the solar wind help to prevent charge buildup? If ionizing radiation like UV and X-rays can create large amounts of static electricity on the moons surface, why not Mars?

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Action

That would make sense, if the claim was that comets are electrical wires carrying AC current.

Wouldn't the water vapour and dust coming from the comet help to carry away any charge buildup. Wouldn't the solar wind help to prevent charge buildup? If ionizing radiation like UV and X-rays can create large amounts of static electricity on the moons surface, why not Mars?

Static electricity is definitely there (especially considering that the martian dust is iron oxide and is magnetic), but the mainstream physics acknowledges this and accounts for this. This is still a far cry from "electricity did it" blanket explanation for everything that exists in the universe.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Outlier13

Beware! Beware! The Electric Universe Zombie theory walks again!

Look, it's all the walking dead heliocentric gravity ruled universe supporters who can't explain gravity and can't explain the errors in their precious theory of relativity.

originally posted by: Action

originally posted by: Phage

How come Philae didn't get zapped when it landed on that highly charged comet?

Same way birds don't get zapped by landing on electrical wires?

When a bird is perched on a single wire, its two feet are at the same electrical potential, so the electrons in the wires have no motivation to travel through the bird’s body.

It's easier for the electrons to continue along the wire than through the bird.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Outlier13

Beware! Beware! The Electric Universe Zombie theory walks again!

Look, it's all the walking dead heliocentric gravity ruled universe supporters who can't explain gravity and can't explain the errors in their precious theory of relativity.

Get back to your flat Earth

a reply to: wmd_2008

I never left Earth.

It really surprises me when people say there is no evidence for the electric universe. A lot of the predictions made by electric universe theorists have proven to be true, while a lot of predictions by the standard model have been completely wrong. Here's a shorter video about sand dunes on comets that would not be possible in the standard model of the universe.

a reply to: booyakasha

Once you start questioning these people about the currently accepted model using just a little logic they are unable to explain their fairytales and will simply stop posting in the thread, only to go on to the next one and act like they are some sort of authority in there, gatekeeping for the theories they know they can't explain.

also for what its worth. When i astral project or smoke D M TEE it is a very electric feeling and sounding. It feels like your soul is being electrocuted (non painful though) and sounds like you are part of the electromagnetic field surrounding your body.

People don't want to watch an hours worth of video and then say the burden of proof is on you. hahahahaha, Meanwhile there are hundreds of hours of videos showing the evidence that support the electric universe and debunking evidence of the standard model yet they refuse to watch them because they "know" they are right.

It's like someone saying prove to me the sky is blue, and refusing to look up.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

So Big Bang theory suggests that all matter in the universe is expanding from one single point? Who made that point? Who put it there and decided to force to to explode into fractals and sacred geometry that we see today? Who wrote the equations that the universe follows? Big Bang Theory makes no sense.

Also according to Kay Griggs, who I think was telling the truth, Einstein was a cherry marine. He was a stooge put in place by TPTB to keep humanity away from the truth.

Here's another interesting series if you are interested in the electric universe theories.

a reply to: booyakasha

People on drugs claiming they know better than people who went to the trouble of getting an education. Goodness gracious, I must be on ATS.

a reply to: booyakasha

Big Bang Theory makes no sense.

Certainly not to someone with fried brains. But them's the breaks.