Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?

[Horn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEYdsZFNOrE

[mamboni]

IMHO, if the earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun, yet maintains stable orbit around the latter, so that gravity must act virtually instantaneously for this to be possible. However, modern physics tells us that all natural phenomena are bound by the speed of light, fixed and constant in all directions, places and ...speeds! Ponder that.

[Ares]

I haven't read much into Electric Universe theory. But from what I do understand about it, the electric universe claims that the sun is powered by the universe and accounts for the corona being hotter than the sun itself.

However it doesn't explain how a star will go super nova, or turn into a red giant when it's fuel supply of hydrogen is used up, or how a star will get brighter as it ages. It also doesn't touch upon the stars birth.

I watched the video, and always felt that the theory of relativity had some holes in it regarding gravity. The video makes a good point about the suns pull on Earth and the time it takes for light to get to the Earth. That speaks to the obvious that something is acting upon the Earth that is faster than light.

[JohnQPublic]

https://youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg

[vacuum]

Regarding the time delay, unless the orbiting planet was also acting on the sun (they were comparable size), I don't see how it would be flung out of orbit. If the sun is assumed to be immovable because it is so big, does it really matter whether a planet is orbiting the past, present, or future sun? The sun doesn't care, it won't move any differently because of the planets.

Also, here is something to consider. The speed at which a body orbits is directly determined by he distance it is orbiting. Hence, as you get farther away (more time delay) you will be orbiting slower. Therefore, the issue doesn't get worse as you orbit farther away. (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period#Small_body_orbiting_a_central_body)


I haven't read much into Electric Universe theory. But from what I do understand about it, the electric universe claims that the sun is powered by the universe and accounts for the corona being hotter than the sun itself.

However it doesn't explain how a star will go super nova, or turn into a red giant when it's fuel supply of hydrogen is used up, or how a star will get brighter as it ages. It also doesn't touch upon the stars birth.

I agree, there is more than just the corona to explain. If the fusion explanation explains everything, then its pretty compelling. I haven't studied this field so I don't know how solid it really is, but those things have to be kept in mind.

[Twisted Titan]

IMHO, if the earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun, yet maintains stable orbit around the latter, so that gravity must act virtually instantaneously for this to be possible. However, modern physics tells us that all natural phenomena are bound by the speed of light, fixed and constant in all directions, places and ...speeds! Ponder that.


and despite all the complexity,the myriad of "unknown knows" that must come together for life as we know it to exist.


The atheist will make the assine statement in all seriousness : Prove To Me God Exists

[Neuro]

IMHO, if the earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun, yet maintains stable orbit around the latter, so that gravity must act virtually instantaneously for this to be possible. However, modern physics tells us that all natural phenomena are bound by the speed of light, fixed and constant in all directions, places and ...speeds! Ponder that.
It doesn't really matter if earth is kept in orbit by suns gravity 8 minutes later if suns gravity is constant, but I wouldn't be surprised if gravity fields are instantaneous. I do think a lot of the theoretical physics that has evolved during the last 100 years are ridiculous, but perhaps all physics since renaissance isn't suspect because some is?

[Glass]

However it doesn't explain how a star will go super nova, or turn into a red giant when it's fuel supply of hydrogen is used up, or how a star will get brighter as it ages. It also doesn't touch upon the stars birth.

This assumes that those things, about traditional solar explanations, are true which wouldn't be the case if the universe were actually electric.


I watched the video, and always felt that the theory of relativity had some holes in it regarding gravity. The video makes a good point about the suns pull on Earth and the time it takes for light to get to the Earth. That speaks to the obvious that something is acting upon the Earth that is faster than light.

The forces of Gravity and speed of light are claimed to be inversely proportional. According to Einsteins theories.

Don't forget that "science" introduced the theory of Dark Matter to deal with the anomaly of forces that cannot be accounted for based on the "visible" assessment of observable mass in the universe. Scientists look for the mass that makes this strange gravitational anomaly occur and could not see it. So they created a variable called "Dark Matter" to take up the slack in their models.

Interestingly the Electron has an unusual orbit about the nucleus which has puzzled scientists for a long time. It would seem that when tracking an electron or "trying to see one" They always seem to appear in a place that is unexpected. They seem to rotate further (or less far depending on your frame of reference) than expected when observed. I don't recall the exact numbers but it is something like 270 degrees i.e. less than 360 degrees in the time expected or 630 degrees or more than the 360 degrees i.e. 1.75 rotations when 1 rotation was expected.

To take up the slack of these unexpected observations science introduced the concept that the act of observation changes the outcome.

Another possible explanation is, that the path of the electron is not always within the same physical space or realm. That the electron passes through some different space during it's rotation. Where that is another plane/realm or state such as "dark matter" would need to be investigated.

Interestingly, CERN scientist have been able to observe Anti Protons from Hydrogen. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/12/base-antiprotons-celebrate-their-first-birthday

Have they found and captured an opposite entity or material or have they trapped something as it moves through a different time or space? I'm not sure what longer term questions they are trying to answer. But those would be my questions.

Throwing out some numberology. Saturn = 93. Sun is 93 million miles away. Coincidence? Saturn is considered keeper of time by some. Strong December 22 - 25 influences. Sol/Sun is considered keeper of time by others. Time = 144. 12 day hours 12 night hours, 12x14 = 144. 1440 minutes per day. 144,000 saved in Revelations. 144,000 sheep in the book of Jacob. Sum of the 1st 144 decimals of pi = 666. stop. enough.

[singular_me]

BOLD: speed of electricity


IMHO, if the earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun, yet maintains stable orbit around the latter, so that gravity must act virtually instantaneously for this to be possible. However, modern physics tells us that all natural phenomena are bound by the speed of light, fixed and constant in all directions, places and ...speeds! Ponder that.

[singular_me]

However it doesn't explain how a star will go super nova, or turn into a red giant when it's fuel supply of hydrogen is used up, or how a star will get brighter as it ages. It also doesn't touch upon the stars birth.

If one agrees that electricity is the cause/drive behind every molecular and sub-particle interaction and very existence, then such a question does need to be

electricity determines compatibility. Each atom being electrically charged. Electricity also explains the duality of Light.

Electricity/light is the blood of the universe and released by the Aether/hidden. Walter Russell asserts that matter is light compressed at different levels, and this makes sense since life is caused by electricity.

Let there be Light, says the bible.

So when new agers say that we are "beings of light", it does makes sense too.

[Neuro]

Throwing out some numberology. Saturn = 93. Sun is 93 million miles away. Coincidence? Saturn is considered keeper of time by some. Strong December 22 - 25 influences. Sol/Sun is considered keeper of time by others. Time = 144. 12 day hours 12 night hours, 12x14 = 144. 1440 minutes per day. 144,000 saved in Revelations. 144,000 sheep in the book of Jacob. Sum of the 1st 144 decimals of pi = 666. stop. enough.
In Swedish Saturn=Saturnus=133 distance to sun 149 million kilometers. 149-133=16=2^4. Michaels birthday 2nd of April = Hyperdimensional Tigeristic Insanity= 666

[singular_me]

but try to find out WHY the mile has reigned for centuries long in the west first... there lies the secret. the Mile makes patterns completely obvious.

if you want to convert to the masonic teachings in the bible, you'd better know where the 144,000 is coming from ;D Because this explains why there are 12 canonized apostles by the same token.



In Swedish Saturn=Saturnus=133 distance to sun 149 million kilometers. 149-133=16=2^4. Michaels birthday 2nd of April = Hyperdimensional Tigeristic Insanity= 666

[Neuro]

but try to find out while the mile has reigned for centuries long in the west first... there lies the secret. the Mile makes patterns completely obvious.

if you want to convert to the masonic teachings in the bible, you'd better know where the 144,000 is coming from ;D Because this explains why there are 12 canonized apostles by the same token.

It is even easier to find patterns if one can use different measurements and choose the language freely. Not to ignore the fact that spellings and the definition of a mile has changed a lot during these centuries. English was barely considered a serious world language a hundred years ago.

Still you haven't explained how the elites keeps us in their grip from this so called "knowledge"...

[JohnQPublic]

...The forces of Gravity and speed of light are claimed to be inversely proportional. According to Einsteins theories...

Can you expound a bit on this? Which of his theories?

[Ares]

Regarding the time delay, unless the orbiting planet was also acting on the sun (they were comparable size), I don't see how it would be flung out of orbit. If the sun is assumed to be immovable because it is so big, does it really matter whether a planet is orbiting the past, present, or future sun? The sun doesn't care, it won't move any differently because of the planets.

The Sun isn't immovable, during the late 90s its how humanity discovered the first planets outside of our own solar system. Watching the wobble of the star as its planet tugs on the star as its being flung around the stars orbit. Like hammer throwing as the thrower spins around building momentum the hammer starts to exert it's own pull on the thrower the faster it goes. So it does matter, and the sun does move differently when a heavy planet tugs on it around it's orbit.


Also, here is something to consider. The speed at which a body orbits is directly determined by he distance it is orbiting. Hence, as you get farther away (more time delay) you will be orbiting slower. Therefore, the issue doesn't get worse as you orbit farther away. (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period#Small_body_orbiting_a_central_body)

Agreed



I agree, there is more than just the corona to explain. If the fusion explanation explains everything, then its pretty compelling. I haven't studied this field so I don't know how solid it really is, but those things have to be kept in mind.

Fusion explains the birth and death of a sun, in between there are still some mysteries that we do not yet understand. Such as the Corona being hotter than the surface of the sun. The other issue that fusion has a hard time explaining is the "faint young sun" younger suns are typically less bright than older suns. The current theory of our own sun doesn't hold up against Earth's geological record as the theory goes that the sun should of been only about 75% as bright as it is now about 2.5 to 3 billion years ago. However at that brightness level the sun would not of been able to produce enough energy to keep liquid water on the Earth and geological records show that Earth's water has been liquid for the majority of it's life so far.

[Horn]

I haven't read much into Electric Universe theory. But from what I do understand about it, the electric universe claims that the sun is powered by the universe and accounts for the corona being hotter than the sun itself.

However it doesn't explain how a star will go super nova, or turn into a red giant when it's fuel supply of hydrogen is used up, or how a star will get brighter as it ages. It also doesn't touch upon the stars birth.


You ever seen a blown fuse?

Welding spatter?

[Ares]

This assumes that those things, about traditional solar explanations, are true which wouldn't be the case if the universe were actually electric.

Then the Electric Universe theory has to match observations as we have witnessed super novas, and stars as Red Giants. Neither of which is explained by the Electric Universe theory.

[Ares]

You ever seen a blown fuse?

Welding spatter?

Yep, but I never formed a star when I blew a fuse.

[Horn]

Yep, but I never formed a star when I blew a fuse.

i know u like to think u are the universe, but its just not so.

Have you ever welded on a scale of the horsehead nebula?

[Ares]

i know u like to think u are the universe, but its just not so.

Have you ever welded on a scale of the horsehead nebula?

I know you like to inject your own thoughts and feelings into discussions, but logic often fails you.

It's called critical thinking, if you or the theory you support cannot explain how a star is formed more so than the current theory then it's bullshit.

[Horn]

A star is formed in the same manner any matter is formed/reformed. The only difference in electric universe is how it is powered, by the field.

Simple logic often escapes most. Matter is of little consequence.

[singular_me]

Judgement Day will be caused by the ignorance of sacred knowledge. The refusal and denial to admit the higher mathematical order

thanks to scientism for that.

Newton could only study hermetic knowledge in secret or face being burned at the stake. He knew that his mainstream theories were a bunch of half-truths as a result.

Revealed: The occult obsessions of Britain's greatest scientist Sir Isaac Newton

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2101960/Revealed-esoteric-interests-Britains-greatest-scientist-Sir-Isaac-Newtons-occult-theological-writings-posted-online.html#ixzz4UiWd82Nj







Throwing out some numberology. Saturn = 93. Sun is 93 million miles away. Coincidence? Saturn is considered keeper of time by some. Strong December 22 - 25 influences. Sol/Sun is considered keeper of time by others. Time = 144. 12 day hours 12 night hours, 12x14 = 144. 1440 minutes per day. 144,000 saved in Revelations. 144,000 sheep in the book of Jacob. Sum of the 1st 144 decimals of pi = 666. stop. enough.

[Ares]

A star is formed in the same manner any matter is formed/reformed. The only difference in electric universe is how it is powered, by the field.

Simple logic often escapes most.

Yes it does, including the proponents of the Electric University theory. We have observed star formations, which lines up with fusion. We have not observed a spark being randomly generated and being powered by the universe.

As you so eloquently explained, logic often escapes most.

[Horn]

"which lines up with fusion"... lol

sure and soon u will be able to fuse gold into existence... fusion is not a viable alternative due to the energy required for it to occur.

Plasma sparks are the fabric of the universe.

[Ares]

"which lines up with fusion"... lol

sure and soon u will be able to fuse gold into existence... fusion is not a viable alternative due to the energy required for it to occur.

Plasma sparks are the fabric of the universe.

:rolleyes: Sure they are...... lol

Where do you think Gold comes from? It's called Nuclear Transmutation and has been observed and happens as the main sequence star goes Super Nova. Which also EU theory does not explain. I've fully admitted there are flaws with the fusion theory and not everything is explained. EU theory barely even scratches the surface of explaining observations yet this theory is supposed to replace the current one??? Yeah bullshit.

Electric Universe Theory does not explain star formation, and you're doing a piss poor job of even explaining it now.

Way to win converts there Horn.... Good job. :rolleyes:

[Horn]

Electric Universe theory for star power, is relative to the plasma field universe it exists in.

There really is not much more to expound on that. If you can't grasp that piece of logic there is no more I or anyone else can do for you.

[Ares]

Electric Universe theory for star power, is relative to the plasma field universe it exists in.

There really is not much more to expound on that. If you can't grasp that piece of logic there is no more I or anyone else can do for you.

You haven't expanded on anything.

EU theory does not discuss star formation. You can't just gloss over the formation of the star and try to say that it's powered by the universe without taking into account the stars mass and power generation.

EU theory = BULLSHIT


Electric Universe theory for star power, is relative to the plasma field universe it exists in.

Mathematics is the universal language of the universe. Let's see the math to back up this statement.

[Horn]

u ever see that experiment where they position a lit flourecent bulb underneath high voltage electicity lines?

Tesla was pioneer of the field with his experiments, is the same basis and numbers.

The universal electric field exists as hard fact.

[Ares]

The universal electric field exists as hard fact.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to display the mathematics behind it to explain the behavior so lets see it.

[Ares]

The Electric Universe Theory Debunked

I kept hearing about this theory called the “electric universe theory”, and wondered what it was all about. An ex-work colleague was quite worked up about it and even lent me some books. What was this theory and where on earth did it come from?

According to the website www.electricuniverse.info the “Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields.” It goes on to state “Electricity is common throughout the universe, generated by all cosmic plasma as it moves through magnetic fields. Peer reviewed papers describe electricity in the Sun, and associated with the interplanetary medium (solar wind), planets and their satellites, comets, in interstellar space, other stars, and intergalactic space.” Well that sounds pretty convincing, doesn’t it?

We astronomers often stumble across new theories, and after a while a certain degree of ‘learned scepticism’ enters the fray. So I decided to take a closer look at this theory. The theory seemed to be all encompassing and rather difficult to pin down, so in order to do this, I focused on what the theory has to say about our sun in particular. Astrophysicists say that stars, including the sun, are powered by nuclear fusion. However electric universe theorists say this is not so. The reasons given are that:

we haven’t yet found the neutrinos that must be emitted from such a reaction;
that the granular structure we see on the sun would not be possible, because convection is impossible due to the conditions there;
the energy emitted from the sun does not display the inverse square law;
periodic fluctuations in the sun’s output resemble electric discharge patterns; and
the solar wind is and effect of charged particles being accelerated in an electric field.

Well that all sounds very plausible and ‘scientificy’. But let’s take a closer look at the arguments one by one.

Neutrinos have not been found?

A neutrino is a particle smaller than an atom with an incredibly small mass to it. They are similar to electrons, but don’t have a charge. They usually travel close to the speed of light, and not having a charge means they are unaffected by electromagnetic forces like other matter, and are able to pass through ordinary matter almost unaffected.

Neutrino observatories are actually underground because the neutrinos pass right through the earth. Neutrinos are created as a by-product result of nuclear fusion (in a nuclear plant or the sun) or when cosmic rays hit atoms. Every second about 65 billion solar neutrinos pass through every square centimetre of earth facing the Sun. Because they have a mass, neutrinos can interact with other particles via gravity.

Scientists have been detecting the effects of neutrinos for years, and they match the predictions exactly. If an alternative theory is to be considered, scientists would need to reject the theory of nuclear fusion at the centre of a star. This would also necessarily lead to rejection of the theories of thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics. In other words, most of physics would need to be rejected to address the problem of the ‘missing’ neutrinos.

Electric universe theorists argue that these neutrinos have never been detected, and those inferred by their effects are about half of what would be produced by a fusion reaction in the sun.

Some of you will be familiar with quantum mechanics, where all particles can have both wave and particle properties. Well, neutrinos are confusing too, as they have mass and therefore qualify as a particle. When they are detected they have a probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. We have electron neutrino detectors, and once we build a tau neutrino detector the ‘flux’ will add up to the exact amount to solve the solar problem. So maybe it is a bit premature to throw physics out just yet.

Convection in the sun is impossible?

Electric universe theory argues that the granulation we observe on the surface of the sun cannot be caused by convection bubbling up the layers of the sun. This is based on an assumption by a man called Juergen, that one of the values used in fluid dynamics, the Reynolds number, causes the convection, and at certain values convection cannot occur.
If you imagine a parcel of matter inside the sun towards the surface as the sun’s heat causes it to rise and falling back towards the centre as it cools (like boiling water), the Reynolds number describes a function of the parcel size, length and stickiness.

Juergen assumes that the Reynolds number controls convection but it doesn’t; convection is controlled by the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh number is a function of the temperature, gravity, the degree of temperature change, stickiness and how diffuse the temperature is. So Juergen made a mistake, oops. The convection that we see on the sun can be explained without throwing away physics.

The sun’s energy breaks the inverse square law?

In physics, the inverse square law states that a specified physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. So in other words if you move from two metres to four metres away from a heater you increase the distance by two, but decrease the energy by four times (four is the square
of two). Electric universe theory says that because the sun is coolest at its surface, then the temperature jumps up again out at its halo, it does not obey the inverse square law, and physics is wrong.

At this point it is important to note that the inverse square law only applies to radiant energy (as opposed to convection or conduction) and only in a vacuum. When energy moves through an atmosphere (such as the corona of the Sun) then the law does not hold. In addition, the inverse square law applies to all energy, not just heat. The colder ‘surface’ (photosphere) actually has more energy. The energy drops dramatically at the corona as we would expect. There are a myriad of explanations for the temperature differences, none of which involve throwing out physics as we know it.

The sun’s variations prove it is a bag of plasma?

Electric universe theory says that the variations in the sun every 2 hours and 40 minutes or
so can only be explained if the sun was a big bag of gas undergoing periodic electrical discharge. Juergen cites some research that shows this period is what we would expect from a homogenous sphere, rather than the accepted layered model of the sun found in
textbooks. Well that is a problem ... isn’t it?
OK, time for some context here. The research cited was in 1976 and the authors stated that it applies only if they are p-mode oscillations. But back then we didn’t have the technology to distinguish between p-mode and g-mode oscillations. Later research, available to the electric universe theorists, showed they were gmode, so basically all the assumptions based on this research went out the window. It doesn’t matter too much what the modes are, the point is that the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976. Very poor research indeed!

The solar wind is caused by an electric field?

In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate. The
Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

And then the wheels fell off…

Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why “Electric Universe Theory” had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the “electric universe” and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the “electric universe theory”. Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the “electric universe” but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The “electric universe” has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Well, it seems this is not a theory that anyone should be hanging their hat on. However, I will say that my little exploration did lead me to learn an awful lot about neutrinos, and our Sun. I hope that next time you read an outlandish theory you might take this journey too. You never know what you might learn.

https://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html

[Horn]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

[Ares]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

How exactly does this line up with EU again?


A Birkeland current is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth’s magnetosphere to the Earth's high latitude ionosphere. In the Earth’s magnetosphere, the currents are driven by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field and by bulk motions of plasma through the magnetosphere (convection indirectly driven by the interplanetary environment).

I want MATH to explain the EU theory. Hell even Tesla had math to explain his inventions.

Here is the math behind a Tesla coil.

E
z = ---
I

Z = Impedence
E = volts
I = current in Amps

No implied, or assumptions. I want OBSERVABLE repeatable functions. You know PEER REVIEW type material.

If you cannot produce even that, then this theory that's supposed to replace general relativity (even it has it's own flaws) is a non-starter and isn't going to happen.

[Horn]

Standard theory on neutrinos dictate most must eminate from the center of the Sun (in its fusatory furnace), whether or not they are a byproduct of the corona is summarized by standard scientists that they can somehow see the center of the Sun.

When they can not even see the center of what they are standing on.

[Ares]

Standard theory on neutrinos dictate most must eminate from the center of the Sun (in its fusatory furnace), whether or not they are a byproduct of the corona is summarized by standard scientists that they can somehow see the center of the Sun.

When they can not even see the center of what they are standing on.

That's why it's called a theory and they are creating models and experiments to prove or disprove that theory. In particular with neutrinos.

[Horn]

their numbers and theory, do not add up, as explained in the video.

Neutrinos may hold some other information, but the standard theory as presented has failed.

No longer viable, disproven. Where Electric Universe has some supporting evidence. still viable

[Ares]

their numbers and theory, do not add up, as explained in the video.

Neutrinos may hold some other information, but the standard theory as presented has failed.

Failed according to who? To those who are proponents of EU theory? Based on what evidence or mathematical calculations? EU has presented nothing but theory, conjecture and relies too much on assumptions.

Not buying it.

[Horn]

The video clearly shows the speed of light is not the all stop in the universe.

If you cant see that you are blinded by it. Is plain as day.

Standard science IS currently contesting its own theory, at many points.

They like you are just retarded.

[Ares]

The video clearly shows the speed of light is not the all stop in the universe.

If you cant see that you are blinded by it. Is plain as day.

Standard science IS currently contesting its own theory, at many points.

They like you are just retarded.

Moron, I never contested the speed of light, and I already said that the theory of relativity has flaws. Yet EU can't even answer basic questions and doesn't even survive scrutiny.

Yet this is the theory that is to replace "mainstream science".. :rolleyes:

Good luck with that, idiot

[Horn]

what question is that Ares?

Star formation has already been addressed. It is the body of the object/star in relation to the electric field that it exists in.

The associated equation to that answer is your question.

Cosmos Relativity IS wholly dependant upon Big G, it falls and so does Big G in the domino effect.

"Big G" not gravity has already been discredited by mainstream science in parts.

[Ares]

what question is that Ares?

Star formation has already been addressed. It is the body of the object/star in relation to the electric field that it exists in.

The associated equation to that answer is your question.

And I asked for mathematical evidence of that assertion. Where is the equation showing the mass of the star requires x energy from the universe to power it?

You've provided nothing but conjecture, and instead called me a "retard" who didn't understand.

Yeah sorry I don't understand conjecture or assumptions. I don't consider anything without evidence and I see a huge lack of evidence the further I research into the Electric Universe theory.

Every piece of EU I look at falls apart when asking basic questions such as how? The Electric Universe is supposed to answer those questions not raise more. EU lacks even basic math to explain its mechanics.

Nothing of this is based on reality. It's a solution looking for a problem to fit the solution.

[Horn]

Electric Universe is most wholly based in observational data. All manner of observable formations in the cosmos have been reproduced in the lab.

This is not so for current Big G. Its theory is contradicted on a daily basis through observation. I could place any number of article links to assert that.

Mainstream science loads them daily. Gravity alone does not guide the Universe.

[singular_me]

that's the way it is, there it goes... flaws and inconsistencies are recognized by many, yet the same will stick to the mainstream interpretations.

scientism has ravaged many minds

[Horn]

Your hard data is the light switch on your wall.

[Ares]

Electric Universe is most wholly based in observational data. All manner of observable formations in the cosmos have been reproduced in the lab.

This is not so for current Big G. Its theory is contradicted on a daily basis through observation. I could place any number of article links to assert that.

Mainstream science loads them daily. Gravity alone does not guide the Universe.

And??? Where is the mathematical data to back up the claim that the universe is powering the electric sun?

[Ares]

that's the way it is, there it goes... flaws and inconsistencies are recognized by many, yet the same will stick to the mainstream interpretations.

scientism has ravaged many minds

It's already been proven that you believe in bullshit fantasies. Yon cannot provide even the simplest explanation of how or why anyone would work for free. When I want to listen to bullshit I'll ask you.

[Ares]

Your hard data is the light switch on your wall.

Which can be measured, 120 volts here in the U.S. How much electricity to power the sun again?

I'll wait for the mathematical equations which will never arrive. I never knew you to believe in fantasies. I know Goldie has her issues of believing in absolute bullshit.


You disappoint me Horn, these are basic fundamental questions and yet not you or the Electronic Universe can even answer them.

[Horn]

For the record I did not call Ares a retard. I said he and mainstream science were retarded.

There is a difference here, no matter how slight. If noticed it could make a difference between Electric Universe theory and their lights coming on.

[Horn]

Which can be measured, 120 volts here in the U.S. How much electricity to power the sun again?

I'll wait for the mathematical equations which will never arrive. I never knew you to believe in fantasies. I know Goldie has her issues of believing in absolute bullshit.


You disappoint me Horn, these are basic fundamental questions and yet not you or the Electronic Universe can even answer them.

the equtions are all easily observable and already exist. E.U. theory has the known flash points of plasma charted. Their exact scalular relation to mass has not yet been pinpointed in the field.

Generally speaking they are as standard related to as 110v AC charts wiring diagrams any filamentary type bulb.

[Ares]

For the record I did not call Ares a retard. I said he and mainstream science were retarded.

There is a difference here, no matter how slight. If noticed it could make a difference between Electric Universe theory and their lights coming on.

And if the theory cannot survive the scientific method then it's junk. The theory has to be able to answer fundamental questions, be measured and have collaborative evidence so that others can see the data for themselves. Not rely on conjecture and assumptions.

Electric Universe = Solution looking for a problem to fit the solution.

Until I see hard data (lights turning on can be measured) this theory is total junk science and does not survive even basic scrutiny.

[Ares]

the equtions are all easily observable and already exist. E.U. theory has the known flash points of plasma charted. Their exact scalular relation to mass has not yet been pinpointed in the field.

Generally speaking they are as standard related to as 110v AC charts wiring diagrams any filamentary type bulb.

They are not standard as I haven't seen a single equation backing up E.U. theory.

Not one, and I've been looking for most of the day.

[Ares]

Testing the Electric Universe

There’s a cosmological model that has gained popularity on the internet known as the Electric Universe. The basic claim of the Electric Universe model is that much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones. Proponents of the model claim that the Electric Universe is a much simpler solution that solves many of the cosmic mysteries mainstream astro-scientists are unable to solve. The model is so simple that it doesn’t require any of that mathematical obfuscation found in the standard model. But astro-scientists are too set in their ways to look at the model with an open mind. We certainly can’t ignore such a revolutionary idea, so let’s put it to the test.

There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below. It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post. If you want to get an overview of the model, Findlay’s ebook (available for free) is as good a reference as any. The basic idea of this particular model is that cosmic magnetic fields interact with interstellar plasma to drive astrophysical processes. Gravitational interactions play a negligible role in the universe. From this idea several claims and predictions are made. In particular:

Neither dark matter nor dark energy exist. Black holes don’t exist. The big bang didn’t happen.

Galaxies are formed by kinks in cosmic magnetic fields. They begin as electric quasars which then expand into modern galaxies.

Stars are electrically charged masses formed within galactic plasmas. They are not heated by nuclear fusion within their core, but rather by a flow of plasma, similar to a florescent light.

Stars “give birth” electrically to companion stars and gas giant planets.

Redshift is not a measure of galactic distance. It is instead a measure of galactic age.

Special Relativity is wrong. General Relativity is wrong.

So, where to begin? Let’s start with the Sun. In the standard model, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core. There the fusion of hydrogen into helium produces not only light and heat, but neutrinos. In the electric universe model, the Sun is lit by electrically excited plasma. This gives us two very clear predictions. The first is regarding neutrinos. The standard model predicts that the Sun will produce copious amounts of neutrinos due to nuclear interactions in its core. The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.

The second prediction regarding the Sun can be seen in its spectrum. In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine. If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation. In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light. If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts. Once again, the EU model fails.

https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Fraunhofer_Lines_Jan3-07.jpg
Top: The nearly continuous spectrum of the Sun. Bottom: The bright line spectrum of a compact florescent light. Credit: John P. Beale

Unlike the neutrino observations, the solar spectrum has been well observed since the 1800s. Long before the EU model was ever proposed. It is a test you can do at home with a diffraction grating. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Sun gives off a thermal spectrum, not a plasma one.

But lest we be accused of not giving the Electric Universe model a fair shake, let’s look at the other claims. Are special and general relativity wrong? Nope. They’ve been confirmed in the lab. In fact whenever you use your mobile phone’s GPS to find a local coffee shop, you’re communicating with satellites that correct for the effects general and special relativity. Relativity is not merely abstract theory, it is now applied technology.

How about the idea that stars “give birth” to other stars and planets? If that were the case, we should see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems. Instead, what we see is protostars form with protoplanetary disks of gas and dust out of which planets form. We’ve observed these at various stages of development around different stars, and even have dozens of examples in the Orion nebula, which is a nearby stellar nursery.

https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/borninbeauty.jpg

It doesn’t look good for the Electric Universe model. But let’s give it one last chance. In the standard model galaxies form gravitationally, and are well developed relatively early in the universe. Quasars are powered by black holes in the center of galaxies, and are one example of what we call active galactic nuclei. In the EU model, quasars are formed by pinches in cosmic magnetic fields, and from them galaxies form. Rather than being an indication of distance, redshift is a result of the age of a galaxy or quasar. So as galaxy matures, its redshift decreases. If the EU model is right, then we should only see quasars with high redshifts (therefore large inferred distances). Also, the more distant (redshifted) a galaxy, the less developed it should appear.

https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/p0829-a-w.jpg

So here’s a collection of barred spirals at different distances (or redshifts). Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed? No? Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts, and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen. By the way, the nearest quasar observed (3C 273) is only about 2.4 billion light years away, which means it has a smaller observed redshift than three of these fully developed galaxies. Again in complete contradiction to the EU model.

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind. The Electric Universe model is wrong. Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test. Final Grade: F-

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

[Horn]

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

Objection - conjecture!

Nowhere is there a "prediction" that "No Neutrinos should be byproduct from the Sun in Electric Universe".

The standard model requires them, and finds a crutch at their existing.

Coronal anomaly is all that E.U. theory claims,

and should also be the claim in the standard model, as its obvious they're just guessing and their model is full of holes.

[Ares]

Objection - conjecture!

Nowhere is there a "prediction" that "No Neutrinos should be byproduct from the Sun in Electric Universe".

The standard model requires them, and finds a crutch at their existing.

Coronal anomaly is all that E.U. theory claims,

and should also be the claim in the standard model, as its obvious they're just guessing and their model is full of holes.

Ummmm neutrinos are a byproduct of nuclear reactions. If the sun is not nuclear and is electric there should be no neutrinos.

Common sense and logic are really difficult for the Electric Universe proponents eh?

Thats just one of the many flaws I've seen with E.U.

[Neuro]

So the closest Qasar is supposedly 2.4 Billion Lightyears away? How come there aren't any closer than that? Redshift measurements for distance is a problem in itself, as redshift may also be caused by the mass of the object, iow the larger the mass, the more pull the object will have on the light it emits and thus the more redshifted. There are several objects observed in space that are obviously physically connected (satellite galaxies), that have vastly different redshifts, which would suggest they are billions of lightyears away from each other. This strongly suggest that redshift isn't a reliable method to determine distance, further it is a nail in the coffin of an expanding Big Bang universe.

I do think electric universe theory does provide an attractive alternative, to the undetectable and untraceable dark matter and dark energy necessitating a Big Bang gravity only universe, with galaxy centers consisting of black holes, where instead of galaxies being eaten up by a black hole they are created in a whirlwind of plasma, pulled together by a genormous magnet. However sometimes humanity seems to want to throw out the baby with the bath water, EU doesn't mean that everything gravity fusion related is bunk, why does everything has to be so damn simple? It is probably way more complex than we can imagine, stupid!

I think we should drop unified theory, it hasn't brought us any closer to any solution.

[Ares]

So the closest Qasar is supposedly 2.4 Billion Lightyears away? How come there aren't any closer than that? Redshift measurements for distance is a problem in itself, as redshift may also be caused by the mass of the object, iow the larger the mass, the more pull the object will have on the light it emits and thus the more redshifted. There are several objects observed in space that are obviously physically connected (satellite galaxies), that have vastly different redshifts, which would suggest they are billions of lightyears away from each other. This strongly suggest that redshift isn't a reliable method to determine distance, further it is a nail in the coffin of an expanding Big Bang universe.

I do think electric universe theory does provide an attractive alternative, to the undetectable and untraceable dark matter and dark energy necessitating a Big Bang gravity only universe, with galaxy centers consisting of black holes, where instead of galaxies being eaten up by a black hole they are created in a whirlwind of plasma, pulled together by a genormous magnet. However sometimes humanity seems to want to throw out the baby with the bath water, EU doesn't mean that everything gravity fusion related is bunk, why does everything has to be so damn simple? It is probably way more complex than we can imagine, stupid!

I think we should drop unified theory, it hasn't brought us any closer to any solution.

I'm open to alternative theories, but they have to line up with observable data as well have equations that back up the observed behavior. Without that, it's just guessing.....

[Neuro]

Here is a qasar that is only some 300 million light years away (if that is correct?), but according to redshift appears to be 10 billion light years away.

http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138

[Neuro]

I'm open to alternative theories, but they have to line up with observable data as well have equations that back up the observed behavior. Without that, it's just guessing.....

I agree. It is perhaps just a matter of convincing a brilliant mathematician to give up his life career with salaries in astrophysics to come up with a viable equation for a partial proof of electrical university. I can barely multiply...

[Horn]

If the sun is not nuclear and is electric there should be no neutrinos.

This is leading conjecture, neutrinos can very well also be a byproduct of whatever "action" is occurring at the Corona of the Sun. Nuclear or otherwise.

Just because a neutrino is evident in a nuclear reaction created on Earth, does not mean it is impossible to create them otherwise elsewhere. Its the same mind trap that Big G was created around, Or That All Gravity in the universe must be a constant no matter where you are in the Universe. This theory has been flatly disproved time and time again in recent years and is still swept aside and utilized as truth.

All your math surrounding Big G is proven furikake.

Every observable date point available from the Universe points directly to an Electric Universe, not a Big G Universe.

Ares would have the power that lifts him off the Earth at his knees the same that drives the cosmos.

Pure monkey furikake

[Horn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyPl2f5dgm8

[Ares]

This is leading conjecture, neutrinos can very well also be a byproduct of whatever "action" is occurring at the Corona of the Sun. Nuclear or otherwise.

Just because a neutrino is evident in a nuclear reaction created on Earth, does not mean it is impossible to create them otherwise elsewhere. Its the same mind trap that Big G was created around, Or That All Gravity in the universe must be a constant no matter where you are in the Universe. This theory has been flatly disproved time and time again in recent years and is still swept aside and utilized as truth.

If that's the case then Electric Universe needs to account for that. Because throughout human history the only time Neutrino's have been detected has been during a nuclear reaction. Nothing currently known to mankind emits neutrinos outside of a nuclear reaction.

I'm not saying that a Neutrino source outside of a nuclear reaction is impossible, but if E.U. wants to be taken seriously it needs to account for it. You can't just provide a blanket statment that it's "not impossible to create them otherwise" and expect to be taken seriously.


All your math surrounding Big G is proven furikake.



Every observable date point available from the Universe points directly to an Electric Universe, not a Big G Universe.


Wrong, on so many levels. Electric Universe doesn't account for Neutrino's, the suns light spectrum, or even planet formation. Which does not match up with observed data.

What do you have vested into this? What is it to you? Observable data is proving you and this theory is complete and utter hogwash.


Ares would have the power that lifts him off the Earth at his knees the same that drives the cosmos.

Pure monkey furikake

We already do, just aren't harnessing it efficiently enough yet.

[singular_me]

NEURO: I think we should drop unified theory, it hasn't brought us any closer to any solution. (the old is abandoned)

ARES: if E.U. wants to be taken seriously it needs to account for it, this theory is complete and utter hogwash. (the new is mocked)


CONFIRMATION:
Two examples showing that (astro)physics as we know them are about to crash down

[Ares]

CONFIRMATION:
Two examples showing that (astro)physics as we know them are about to crash down

:rolleyes:

We already know you'll believe whatever anyone spoon feeds you. You're a contrarian and for whatever reason, whatever the prevailing thought or rational is you have to contradict it. Even if the contradiction is bat shit crazy lunacy, you'll dive in head first.

Want to be taken seriously with Electric Universe? Explain what the source of Neutrino's are if the Sun is not nuclear.

Until then, kindly sit down and shut up and let the adults talk while you live in your fantasy.

[Horn]

Wrong, on so many levels. Electric Universe doesn't account for Neutrino's, the suns light spectrum, or even planet formation. Which does not match up with observed data.

What do you have vested into this? What is it to you? Observable data is proving you and this theory is complete and utter hogwash..

I really have no idea what you are talking about, mainstream science cannot explain 99% of the Cosmos with Big G and Relativity theories. Nothing adds up to equate the observed data.

Daily observable data, experimental and otherwise proves it incorrect, everything is pointing towards an electrical universe observable and otherwise. I'm not sure you have looked into any of this?

Man's current explanation of the cosmos/universe is patently wrong, not only somewhat unexplained.

Neutrino detection proves 0, and vests 0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyPl2f5dgm8

[Neuro]

Which can be measured, 120 volts here in the U.S. How much electricity to power the sun again?


Earth is hit with about 1200W/m2 in radiation from the sun. What's the surface area of a sphere with a 150 Billion meter radius?

Got it; 2.83x10^23 m2, so suns power should be in the ballpark of 3.5x10^26 Watts. Assuming some 100 Billion stars of standard sun size in our standard galaxy and a 100 Billion standard galaxies, you should be able to handle the entire Christmas light show of the universe with a mere 10^48 Watt give or take.

http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/07/PLANCK_FSM_03_Black.jpg?itok=iGwulEsM
Not too bright as 7th trump constantly reminds me...

[singular_me]

Until then, kindly sit down and shut up and let the adults talk while you live in your fantasy.

Newton versed into hermetic knowledge and I am living in a fantasy for pointing this out again.... everything is falling apart... everything, are you going to deny that perhaps?

because, I say that the understanding of the universe (mirco and macro) rests on the understanding of the torus, pi and phi, and electricity??? Because I assert that science without its metaphysical component is NOT science ???.


even Telsa contended that sciences will make a huge leap ahead the day it will include the paranormal. And I am the one living in a fantasy?

This forum is under the influence scientism, also part of the problem of the mess we are in on this planet. It was a cake walk for the inquisition to go after holistic thinking. People prefer so much more what they can perceive within their bubble of materialistic experience.

So I am sitting down and watching circular and linear thinking going down.

I never read blavatsky but even she, admitted that electricity and its by product, electro-magnetism, was the Force of God. Time to get serious about defeating the NWO.


to watch while drinking a coffee/tea, sure and I am in a fantasy for posting this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwdCryMAwAI

[Ares]

I really have no idea what you are talking about, mainstream science cannot explain 99% of the Cosmos with Big G and Relativity theories. Nothing adds up to equate the observed data.

Daily observable data, experimental and otherwise proves it incorrect, everything is pointing towards an electrical universe observable and otherwise. I'm not sure you have looked into any of this?

I have, and it doesn't point to an Electric Universe. Outside of a nuclear reaction what is the source of the Neutrino's? We have an observatory in Antarctica buried in the ice there observing Neutrino emissions from the sun. If the sun was electric there would be no Neutrino's.

Nothing points to Electric Universe until an alternative Neutrino source can be identified. Not you or anyone can say "well an alternative source is possible" without identifying it. You'll never satisfy the hard data guys without evidence.


Man's current explanation of the cosmos/universe is patently wrong, not only somewhat unexplained.

And I have said repeatedly that General Relativity does not explain our universe well. Speed of light as we know is not a constant and can be slowed. That doesn't mean Electric Universe explains our universe when it cannot even back up any of it's theories with data. Mainstream science may be wrong, and data is proving it wrong. If the speed of light is not constant and can be slowed then E=mc2 is also wrong. So what is the Electric Universes answer WITH DATA to back it up?


Neutrino detection proves 0, and vests 0

WRONG, Neutrino detection indicates that there is a nuclear reaction taking place. Until you can identify an alternative source and backed up by hard data then E.U. doesn't hold any water.

[Ares]

Earth is hit with about 1200W/m2 in radiation from the sun. What's the surface area of a sphere with a 150 Billion meter radius?

Got it; 2.83x10^23 m2, so suns power should be in the ballpark of 3.5x10^26 Watts. Assuming some 100 Billion stars of standard sun size in our standard galaxy and a 100 Billion standard galaxies, you should be able to handle the entire Christmas light show of the universe with a mere 10^48 Watt give or take.

http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2010/07/PLANCK_FSM_03_Black.jpg?itok=iGwulEsM
Not too bright as 7th trump constantly reminds me...

Nice, but I want the input, not the output.

Input, conversion and Output. The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy will prove the input / output correct. But we do not know the input.

[Ares]

Newton versed into hermetic knowledge and I am living in a fantasy for pointing this out again.... everything is falling apart... everything, are you going to deny that perhaps?

because, I say that the understanding of the universe (mirco and macro) rests on the understanding of the torus, pi and phi, and electricity??? Because I assert that science without its metaphysical component is NOT science ???.


even Telsa contended that sciences will make a huge leap ahead the day it will included the paranormal. And I am the one living in a fantasy?

This forum is under the influence scientism, also part of the problem of the mess we are in on this planet. It was a cake walk for the inquisition to go after holistic thinking. People prefer so much more what they can perceive within their bubble of materialistic experience.

So I am sitting down and watching circular and linear thinking going down.

I never read blavatsky but even she, admitted that electricity and its by product, electro-magnetism, was the Force of God. Time to get serious about defeating the NWO.


to watch while drinking a coffee/tea, sure and I am in a fantasy for posting this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwdCryMAwAI

And the source of the Neutrinos are??


I scanned through looking for the word Neutrino's didn't see it and replied asking for the data that I asked of you previously.

Keep living in your fantasy lady.

Keep quoting Tesla, at least he backed up his findings with data. You've backed up absolutely NOTHING.

[Neuro]

Nice, but I want the input, not the output.

Input, conversion and Output. The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy will prove the input / output correct. But we do not know the input.

On the 120 V grid it would be in the ballpark of 10^46 Amps. I don't want to consider the size of the fuse...


Sorry j/k ;D

[Ares]

On the 120 V grid it would be in the ballpark of 10^46 Amps. I don't want to consider the size of the fuse...


Sorry j/k ;D

Smartass!!!! LOL

[Neuro]

I have, and it doesn't point to an Electric Universe. Outside of a nuclear reaction what is the source of the Neutrino's? We have an observatory in Antarctica buried in the ice there observing Neutrino emissions from the sun. If the sun was electric there would be no Neutrino's.

Nothing points to Electric Universe until an alternative Neutrino source can be identified. Not you or anyone can say "well an alternative source is possible" without identifying it. You'll never satisfy the hard data guys without evidence.



And I have said repeatedly that General Relativity does not explain our universe well. Speed of light as we know is not a constant and can be slowed. That doesn't mean Electric Universe explains our universe when it cannot even back up any of it's theories with data. Mainstream science may be wrong, and data is proving it wrong. If the speed of light is not constant and can be slowed then E=mc2 is also wrong. So what is the Electric Universes answer WITH DATA to back it up?



WRONG, Neutrino detection indicates that there is a nuclear reaction taking place. Until you can identify an alternative source and backed up by hard data then E.U. doesn't hold any water.

Back to the drawing board. Magnetic fields is the essence that draws cosmic plasma to the center of the galaxy where stars are formed each of them in essence a magnetic field, then fusion creates the electricity, and the neutrino's, and the magnetic fields. We all agree that gravity on its own can't keep the universe or even the Milky Way together, and instead of introducing occult matter into the equation let's keep it real. Black holes is a theoretical impossibility someone smarter than me calculated, besides why would they sit in the center of the galaxy and eat the freshest baby stars of the galaxy, doesn't make sense. Indeed if true I doubt we would exist out in one of the relaxing lowradiation suburbian arms of the milky way as a 4th generation recycled star, with plentyful heavy metal!

[Ares]

Back to the drawing board. Magnetic fields is the essence that draws cosmic plasma to the center of the galaxy where stars are formed each of them in essence a magnetic field, then fusion creates the electricity, and the neutrino's, and the magnetic fields. We all agree that gravity on its own can't keep the universe or even the Milky Way together, and instead of introducing occult matter into the equation let's keep it real. Black holes is a theoretical impossibility someone smarter than me calculated, besides why would they sit in the center of the galaxy and eat the freshest baby stars of the galaxy, doesn't make sense. Indeed if true I doubt we would exist out in one of the relaxing lowradiation suburbian arms of the milky way as a 4th generation recycled star, with plentyful heavy metal!

Laura Mersini-Houghton is the author of the paper that proves Blackholes do not exist. She also backed up her findings with data. :)

In case anyone is interested, here is her Research paper with the data: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1837v2.pdf

Researching further William Unruh is disputing her findings:

According to Unruh, black holes don’t emit enough Hawking radiation to shrink the mass of the black hole down to where Mersini-Houghton claims in a timely manner. Instead, “it would take 10^53 (1 followed by 53 zeros) times the age of the universe to evaporate,” he explains.

“The standard behaviour by such people [who don’t understand Hawking radiation] is to project that outgoing energy back closer and closer to the horizon of the black hole, where its energy density gets larger and larger,” he continued. “Unfortunately explicit calculations of the energy density near the horizon show it is really, really small instead of being large-- Those calculations were already done in the 1970s. To call bad speculation "has been proven mathematically" is, shall we say, and overstatement.”

[Neuro]

It ain't gravity and fusion or electromagnetism and electric charge it is both. And you can exclude occult matter and force from your equations...

http://aias.us/documents/miscellaneous/ECE-popular-en.pdf
Page 25-26

[Neuro]

Laura Mersini-Houghton is the author of the paper that proves Blackholes do not exist. She also backed up her findings with data. :)

In case anyone is interested, here is her Research paper with the data: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1837v2.pdf


Anti-singular-me!

[Ares]

It ain't gravity and fusion or electromagnetism and electric charge it is both. And you can exclude occult matter and force from your equations...

http://aias.us/documents/miscellaneous/ECE-popular-en.pdf
Page 25-26

There goes another theory that doesn't add up when the math is calculated.

Several of Evans' central claims were later shown to be mathematically incorrect and, in 2008, the editor of Foundations of Physics published an editorial note effectively retracting the journal's support for the hypothesis.

Research paper disputing ECE Theory:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607186v4.pdf

[Neuro]

There goes another theory that doesn't add up when the math is calculated.

Several of Evans' central claims were later shown to be mathematically incorrect and, in 2008, the editor of Foundations of Physics published an editorial note effectively retracting the journal's support for the hypothesis.

Research paper disputing ECE Theory:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607186v4.pdf

I can't say I understand the math... Anyhow my intention wasn't to promote his particular theory, but to show the graph relating to spiral galaxy and star speed in relation to distance from center, which would reject a completely Newtonian explanation... You need to add dark matter and energy to tweak it to reality.

[Ares]

I can't say I understand the math...

Evans [2] ignored that
ω
and
κ
are
not
Lorentz-invariant. Under
longitudinal
Lorentz transforms, we have the well-known Doppler effect:
3

Therefore the invariance of the vector potentials
does not transfer
to the
transverse components
B
(1)
and
B
(2)
.

Basically Evans screwed up the calculations.

[Ares]

I can't say I understand the math... Anyhow my intention wasn't to promote his particular theory, but to show the graph relating to spiral galaxy and star speed in relation to distance from center, which would reject a completely Newtonian explanation... You need to add dark matter and energy to tweak it to reality.

Agreed, Newtonian physics and General Relatively have a hard time explaining gravity outside of our own planet. Once you ratchet up the scale you start having to compensate for variations which are not explained by either.

I'm a hard data guy, I look at data day in and day out. Data NEVER lies, however data can be misinterpreted. :) Which is why it is helpful to have as many eyes on the data as possible to see if the same conclusion is reached. If not then help run through the data to show a different outcome.

[Neuro]

Evans [2] ignored that
ω
and
κ
are
not
Lorentz-invariant. Under
longitudinal
Lorentz transforms, we have the well-known Doppler effect:
3

Therefore the invariance of the vector potentials
does not transfer
to the
transverse components
B
(1)
and
B
(2)
.

Basically Evans screwed up the calculations.
Thanks for clarifying to me that I don't understand the math! ;D

[Ares]

Thanks for clarifying to me that I don't understand the math! ;D

Yeah the formatting is horrible, sorry. :(

Copy and paste doesn't work well when you start adding equations into the mix. The explanation is on page 3, and his paper ends with Evans relenting and admitting that the outcome is not as expected once the data is calculated correctly.

[Neuro]

Agreed, Newtonian physics and General Relatively have a hard time explaining gravity outside of our own planet. Once you ratchet up the scale you start having to compensate for variations which are not explained by either.

I'm a hard data guy, I look at data day in and day out. Data NEVER lies, however data can be misinterpreted. :) Which is why it is helpful to have as many eyes on the data as possible to see if the same conclusion is reached. If not then help run through the data to show a different outcome.
I think gravity works hundred percent on a planetary scale. I have a problem seeing how it could keep a nuclear bomb star from instantaneously disintegrating. It is obvious it isn't sufficient in keeping galaxies together, behaving like they do. I think electrical universe theories fills a void here.

The gravity in the center of a galaxy is essentially zero (barred absence of a supermassive black hole, eating the galaxies newborn stars), thus an electrical vortex created by a magnetic field makes a perfect explanation for the rapidly rotating plasma staroids in the center. The magnetic field sucks in electrons and protons from surrounding space, and that is the building material of the first generation stars.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjo5LfL9RMHxuv7o-Jfd58017uSBGv_fctROCsRa6HZAPexYgZ
We are not sucked into it, we are spun out of it!

[Ares]

I think gravity works hundred percent on a planetary scale. I have a problem seeing how it could keep a nuclear bomb star from instantaneously disintegrating. It is obvious it isn't sufficient in keeping galaxies together, behaving like they do. I think electrical universe theories fills a void here.

The gravity in the center of a galaxy is essentially zero (barred absence of a supermassive black hole, eating the galaxies newborn stars), thus an electrical vortex created by a magnetic field makes a perfect explanation for the rapidly rotating plasma staroids in the center. The magnetic field sucks in electrons and protons from surrounding space, and that is the building material of the first generation stars.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjo5LfL9RMHxuv7o-Jfd58017uSBGv_fctROCsRa6HZAPexYgZ
We are not sucked into it, we are spun out of it!

I'm not so sure Electric Universe does answer those questions. I'm leaning more towards an unknown magnetic physics we are not aware of yet. We do not fully understand gravity or magnetics. Or even Molecular structures yet, just this past year there is a breakthrough in Hyrdogen where a company in New Jersey created a new form of Hydrogen called "Hydrino" that has immense power. They are in the process of creating an energy source called "SunCell" with it with plans to start leasing prototypes sometime this year.

[Neuro]

I'm not so sure Electric Universe does answer those questions. I'm leaning more towards an unknown magnetic physics we are not aware of yet. We do not fully understand gravity or magnetics. Or even Molecular structures yet, just this past year there is a breakthrough in Hyrdogen where a company in New Jersey created a new form of Hydrogen called "Hydrino" that has immense power. They are in the process of creating an energy source called "SunCell" with it with plans to start leasing prototypes sometime this year.

I would recommend you to have a look at these video's posted by vacuum in 7ths magnetic thread. If you haven't done so already...

This guy's videos has some striking similarities to The Primer Fields videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NogyJ0k8Kw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpI6ikj1G-s
I saw them here a few years ago, courtesy of Horn, and I must say it changed the way I viewed the universe a lot. I wonder what happened to the guy, he kind of stopped mid-sentence with these videos.

[Ares]

I would recommend you to have a look at these video's posted by vacuum in 7ths magnetic thread. If you haven't done so already...

I saw them here a few years ago, courtesy of Horn, and I must say it changed the way I viewed the universe a lot. I wonder what happened to the guy, he kind of stopped mid-sentence with these videos.

Good question, he also disabled comments on the videos. Never a good sign when wanting to spark debate on new science but yet block the discussions... I'll give them a view when I get some time.

[Horn]

In the videos I have posted Thornhill EU explains Neutrinos. Facts are many explainations of the Universe become apparent with EU theory. It (the universe) also returns to a classical view of the universe. Gravity remains though replaced with by electroplasma drivers.

Many unknowns fall into place in EU.

"Dark Matter" is bologna and tries to retain relativity Big G.

Big G fusion gas driven stars are not observable, our own Sun refutes it flatly. More power is needed than Big G to drive the universe. It only makes sense that it comes from electrically driven Birkeland currents.

[Ares]

In the videos I have posted Thornhill EU explains Neutrinos. Facts are many explainations of the Universe become apparent with EU theory. It (the universe) also returns to a classical view of the universe. Gravity remains though replaced with by electroplasma drivers.

Many unknowns fall into place in EU.

"Dark Matter" is bologna and tries to retain relativity Big G.

Big G fusion gas driven stars are not observable, our own Sun refutes it flatly. More power is needed than Big G to drive the universe. It only makes sense that it comes from electrically driven Birkeland currents.

Where is the DATA???

I don't care what someone says. I want to see the data. His claims need to be VERIFIED and that cannot happen without data.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj-qBUWOYfE

[Horn]

The data is provided by neutrino detection.

The only difference is how it is generated, standard theory claims it has all the answers but nothing adds up. EU theory does not claim to have all the answers though most all observed data Does line up. The data is the basis of the theory, All of it plainly observable.

[Ares]

The data is provided by neutrino detection.

The only difference is how it is generated, standard theory claims it has all the answers but nothing adds up. EU theory does not claim to have all the answers though most all observed data Does line up. The data is the basis of the theory, All of it plainly observable.

Except for Neutrino's which for the past 70 or so years indicates that Neutrinos are a by-product of a nuclear reaction. Unless you're saying that the sun is still nuclear but draws its sustained energy source from the Electric Universe?

[Horn]

Electric universe deals on the scale and interconnectivity of the universe. What reactions occur at the corona of the Sun are a result of universal scale reactions. Mankind certainly is not capable of reproducing those on Earth. Well maybe if any thought were directed towards it.

[BarnkleBob]

Ever heard of Sonoluminescence?

"Sonoluminescence is the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

The creation myth of the Biblical Genesis describes "sonoluminescence". First it begins with "And God said, let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) which is first sound (said) followed by "light", then the "waters" are divided. Genesis 1:2 says that the waters existed before God said.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." --Genesis 1:2

Where exactly does sound go to die? Or is sound transmuted into light? Science tells us that the universe and all of the planets emit continuous sound. Nature uses everything it produces. Why is it producing comstant sound & what is it utilizing that sound for?

Genesis 1 describes everything springing forth from the "waters" after the sound (frequency) began.

Sounds like sonoluminescense creates the electric universe???

[singular_me]

Hey BB, thanks for dropping by.

I have a genuine intesrest in sonoluminescence. And I saw that vid showing the light created by a shrimp making an implosion wave/frequency. As above so below, more than ever.

The problem with scientism is that it wants everything to be verifiable, but only the unknown/hidden drives research and reality. So there is no way to prove anything in the end. Just projections, confirmed or not as time goes. That is precisely why the nobel doctrine must be terminated

But any concept probing electricity and its impact on everything gets a big support from me, as electricity drives consciousness and even DNA, which also stores data extracted from Light.

Light and Water have supranatural properties. Never mention anything esoteric about them or one gets trashed, ridiculed, burned at the stake.

fantasy creates reality... depends on what you believe in. Right!!! LOL

be well



Ever heard of Sonoluminescence?

"Sonoluminescence is the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

The creation myth of the Biblical Genesis describes "sonoluminescence". First it begins with "And God said, let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) which is first sound (said) followed by "light", then the "waters" are divided. Genesis 1:2 says that the waters existed before God said.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." --Genesis 1:2

Where exactly does sound go to die? Or is sound transmuted into light? Science tells us that the universe and all of the planets emit continuous sound. Nature uses everything it produces. Why is it producing comstant sound & what is it utilizing that sound for?

Genesis 1 describes everything springing forth from the "waters" after the sound (frequency) began.

Sounds like sonoluminescense creates the electric universe???

[Horn]

sololuminesence has more than 3 sylablles.

Horn stays away from those and flat spots on the Earth.

[Horn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5MxX-rx_M0

[Neuro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5MxX-rx_M0

Halfassed, belieforiented and convoluted. You really have to squint hard to "see" it...

The thing with gravity is, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it works anyway.

He mentioned someone called Paris Boulter or something like that, that had disproved Newtons assertion that gravity is connected to the mass of the object. I googled it but couldn't find anything.

[singular_me]

Robert Otey is one of my biggest favs, and is a total Walter Russell advocate. Look for Mark Presti, same type of teacher.

Halfassed, belieforiented and convoluted, says neuro. Many people may dislike the EU theory because it deals with pure energy as a prime cause. Just like anything else, in science, the more one probes the more one finds that everything is the result of pure energy, aka metaphysics. That is where sacred geometry fits in... look at this thumbnail, it tells the whole story. Energy follows geometry, as everything spins and vibrates. But of course, neuro doesnt know that living geometry is knowledge or doesnt want to admit it, so he tags it as a convoluted belief.

scientism wants everything materially provable. That is atheism. The Thrive documentary gets it right. The torus is what all science needs to understand first. And electricity activates the torus.

I am so through with this darwinian ape-like civilization, we are just getting what we deserve... and we need to wake up before it is too late.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5MxX-rx_M0

[Neuro]

Halfassed, belieforiented and convoluted. You really have to squint hard to "see" it...

The thing with gravity is, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it works anyway.

He mentioned someone called Paris Boulter or something like that, that had disproved Newtons assertion that gravity is connected to the mass of the object. I googled it but couldn't find anything.

It should actually be easy to prove the theory of "gravity" being electrical vortices with polarities that spins around so quickly that we think it is a constant force. You just need to design a scale that measures weight continuously every milli-/micro-/nano-second whatever the speed of the change in force field is, and you would see huge weight differences measured, sometimes weightlessness, sometimes you'll weigh in at hundreds of tons when you are exactly right in the electric field vortex.

Did someone do this experiment?

[singular_me]

was a pleasure to watch it again: please notice how the fibonacci model is collapsing mainstream physics.

In fact, my book on emotions applies this theory to human cognitive functions, that the latter always seek Cosmic Rest, or Stillness. This would shatter standard psychology as finding emotional rest is what every human struggles to achieve in life. Being centered. In short, thoughts respond electric fields, and the result of mating electric fields emanating from the left and right brain.

well, singular is into fantasy model... makes me smile



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5MxX-rx_M0

[singular_me]

The thing with gravity is, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, it works anyway.

living geometry works in the entire universe, 101% of the time

[Neuro]

was a pleasure to watch it again: please notice how the fibonacci model is collapsing mainstream physics.

In fact, my book on emotions applies this theory to human cognitive functions, that the latter always seek Cosmic Rest, or Stillness. This would shatter standard psychology as finding emotional rest is what every human struggles to achieve in life. Being centered. In short, thoughts respond electric fields, and the result of mating electric fields emanating from the left and right brain.

well, singular is into fantasy model... makes me smile

You didn't write a book.

[Neuro]

living geometry works in the entire universe, 101% of the time

101% doesn't seem at all geometrical... ;D

[Neuro]

Robert Otey is one of my biggest favs, and is a total Walter Russell advocate. Look for Mark Presti, same type of teacher.

Halfassed, belieforiented and convoluted, says neuro. Many people may dislike the EU theory because it deals with pure energy as a prime cause. Just like anything else, in science, the more one probes the more one finds that everything is the result of pure energy, aka metaphysics. That is where sacred geometry fits in... look at this thumbnail, it tells the whole story. Energy follows geometry, as everything spins and vibrates. But of course, neuro doesnt know that living geometry is knowledge or doesnt want to admit it, so he tags it as a convoluted belief.

scientism wants everything materially provable. That is atheism. The Thrive documentary gets it right. The torus is what all science needs to understand first. And electricity activates the torus.

I am so through with this darwinian ape-like civilization, we are just getting what we deserve... and we need to wake up before it is too late.
Yes let's go back to pre-civilization, ignore scientific progress, and spend our time pursuing magic and superstition instead. You really are insane.

I spent most of my time defending and promoting Electric Universe theory in this thread. It makes sense from a scientific point of view in that it explains aspects that are not readily explained by the standard gravitational model. That should be a clue to Singular to abandon it...

[Ares]

Yes let's go back to pre-civilization, ignore scientific progress, and spend our time pursuing magic and superstition instead. You really are insane.

I spent most of my time defending and promoting Electric Universe theory in this thread. It makes sense from a scientific point of view in that it explains aspects that are not readily explained by the standard gravitational model. That should be a clue to Singular to abandon it...

Ha!
At least it makes sense to some. I just need some hard data to back it up.
Singular can piss and moan all day long about Scientism, but I find it ironic that the very object of her objection is used to post on this board. Without Scientism there would be no electricity, internet, or even a computer. Without Scientism there would be no Electric Universe theory because there would be no tool to make those observations to even form the theory.

Like I said she's a Contrarian. Whatever the prevailing thought, she just HAS to be different.

[Neuro]

Ha!
At least it makes sense to some. I just need some hard data to back it up.
Singular can piss and moan all day long about Scientism, but I find it ironic that the very object of her objection is used to post on this board. Without Scientism there would be no electricity, internet, or even a computer. Without Scientism there would be no Electric Universe theory because there would be no tool to make those observations to even form the theory.

Like I said she's a Contrarian. Whatever the prevailing thought, she just HAS to be different.
I do agree with you that EU-theory needs to be backed up by observation. The presence of neutrino's from sun would certainly disprove a 100% electrical sun. There are things in the theory that are not easily supported by observation, like supernovas and red giants. However I am not sure these events are supported well in standard gravitational fusion model either. Why does a star need to burn through a certain amount of hydrogen before it goes supernova? Why doesn't it do that immediatelly? The red giant Aldebaran has a fluctuating size of the orbit of Jupiter or Saturn, but its mass is a mere 10-20x our suns (from memory), it means it is pretty much empty space, a vacuum, but still it is supposed to maintain a fusion reaction in its interior?

And then you have the rapidly rotating stars in center of galaxies, absent a mysterious black hole of doubtful existence, there is nothing gravitational that would make them behave like this since gravity in center of the mass of a galaxy is zero.

Sure the essence of gravity fields are not very well understood, neither are the essence of magnetic fields. One seems to be mass generated and the other electrical generated. Sure mass=energy=electricity, but it doesn't mean they should behave through the same physical laws in the different shapes of energy they are in.

[singular_me]

If you say that I am insane, then all the religious textbooks are indeed insane, but when I show you the roots of this so-called insanity, you turn your head the other way and endorse denial.

That Newton was deep into hermetic knowledge, (so Mark Planks that came up with the term "quantum physics" because he knew that the word "esoteiricsim" would doom his work) and so where all greatest physicists, which ultimately sold their soul to atheism and it so called scientific method.

you do not get it... everything is harmful thus wrong... lies are harmful... what progress? we are destroying earth at a pace like never before. Progress? the use of oil or the invention of plastic or even building construction which now require to destroy full islands to get the sand for concrete because the desert sand isnt good enough. Progress, now robotics that is going to eliminate all jobs and which the average people are not prepared for and will ultimately riot because of the ensuing economic squeeze (right around the corner). What progress, the AI weapons that will destroy the planet if we dont stand against it. What progress? The right to plunder african subhumans and dump our etrash (worth 32BN yearly for america only) onto them?

Everything created by man since the industrialization is harming the planet to no end. And you call that "progress". ROFLOL.


YOU CALL PROGRESS WHAT IS THE RESULT OF A DARWIAN APE-LIKE LEFT BRAIN - BUT IN MUCH WORSE because man cannot even afford behaving like animal. A real civilization does NOT destroy itself. You can blame the usual suspects as much as you and continue to avoid taking responsibility. All this because the metaphysIcs of Life are not taught but primitive relIgious doctrines that 90% do NOT understand (but it was designed this way) j-- just like you.

You are talking of magic, yes if you have to explain the Torus, one has to resort to metaphysics, where is the electricity coming from (that you endorse EU or not). Once the torus is accepted to be the drive of all life, it appears everywhere.

The deeper we probe anything the more you will find space and electric fields. At a subatomic level as much as in the far space. As above so below. And this is impossible to explain this rationally, with the so-called scientific method. Trying to applying this scientific method is what corrupts scientific mindset, because everything must fit within that materialistic parameter. So all what is left is harmful.

Life itself is magic and this MAGIC HAS A LIVING GEOMETRY to prove its realness. Period. Now you can be upset as much as you want, throw a tantrum, I really dont care.

Please explain how electricity comes into existence then... and how its characteristics do affect matter.

Ohh, yeah it is how just Nature organizes itself = PURE atheistic thought.

But I am insane ??? ;D And enjoying it.



electric wave shaped by living geometry
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.feandft.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Fwavecycle.jpg&f=1





Yes let's go back to pre-civilization, ignore scientific progress, and spend our time pursuing magic and superstition instead. You really are insane.

[Neuro]

Yes you are insane. If you actually believe the bullshit you are spouting, and actually wanted to take responsibility, the only moral action would be to stop using modern technology, computers, plastic, internet, electricity. For fucks sake look yourself in the mirror before you start casting rocks. You are criticizing science (or now it became scientism), and you have no idea what science is. Not even the basics. I am aware of Newtons delving into the mystical, so what? You are now saying everything in universe is generated by electricity... Really? Love, emotions too? I don't think so...

You are a fanatic ignoramus!

[singular_me]

thank you...

[Neuro]

thank you...

For what?

[singular_me]

for sharing your atheistic 2 cents

I have nothing to add anymore, but this picture, showing the symbiosis between electric currents and living geometry

see the heart beat in it? I DO!


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f4m2jZyofXY/UlxZ48z60mI/AAAAAAAACwU/DyqwEdIt1So/s1600/Extra_Dimensions_found__Plasma_Physicist_finds_Hid den_Portals_in_Earths_Magnetic_Field_medium.gif

[Neuro]

for sharing your atheistic 2 cents


You are projecting! Satanist!

[Neuro]

I have nothing to add anymore, but this picture, showing the symbiosis between electric currents and living geometry

see the heart beat in it? I DO!


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f4m2jZyofXY/UlxZ48z60mI/AAAAAAAACwU/DyqwEdIt1So/s1600/Extra_Dimensions_found__Plasma_Physicist_finds_Hid den_Portals_in_Earths_Magnetic_Field_medium.gif
You do realize it is CGI, don't you? And yes it's excellent Earth has a magnetic field that protect us from cosmic radiation. It even allows your stupidity to reach extradimensional heights.

[singular_me]

I do agree with you that EU-theory needs to be backed up by observation.

how scientific is that statement, when it doesnt take into consideration that all observation ends up hitting a brick wall because the observation of an observation of an observation (and so on at infinitum) leads to the same result: empty space (illusion of matter) and pure energy.

so anybody who only wants to deal with the visible, what can be seen with the eye, regards science as an atheistic realm. Or sophisticate computers, but then one has to rely on faith in computers too.

So there you have it, all sciences will end up dealing with the Theory of Pure Energy, that is Light and its derived components (which too influence thoughts as I have said many times now)

DIRECT 3D OBSERVATION OF ELECTRICITY CURRENTS ON EARTH
Meteorologists estimate that, at any given moment, some 1,800 thunderstorms are in progress over Earth's surface, and about 18 million a year around the world....
Read more: http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Thunderstorms.html#ixzz4Uw6AsV8Q


https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photographyblogger.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2Flightning14.jpg&f=1


The heart is a vortex itself that pulsates along with electric fields invisible to human eyes... magic... ???

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. M2003120939831a84d295865f27a21e30H0%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

FIBONACCI MAKES THE HEART PULSATE.
http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic7/Images/IC7_page15b.gif

BLOOD CIRCULATION IN THE HEART.. two opposite motions, medical cadeucus with two snakes comes also from there
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photonicwater.com%2Fheart_vort ex2.jpg&f=1


yeah, life itself is magic, REAL magic... there you have it, mainstream education doesnt want you to regard life differently other than with a carrot and a stick.

enough scientism promoted by the death cult. We see today what it has achieved: planetary destruction


As Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."... and my emphasis: so is science
http://www.photonicwater.com/biophotons.html

[singular_me]

You do realize it is CGI, don't you? And yes it's excellent Earth has a magnetic field that protect us from cosmic radiation. It even allows your stupidity to reach extradimensional heights.

sure I realize that it is CGI, but do you dont even realize that the artist is aware of the physics of vortex and torus. For some reason you are not. A vortex/torus cannot motion if there is not a point of Stillness, positive and negative charges mating, as described by Otey.

mainstream science is killing earth and humanity, abandon the ship... that is my conclusion and advice.

[Neuro]

sure I realize that it is CGI, but do you dont even realize that the artist is aware of the physics of vortex and torus. For some reason you are not. A vortex/torus cannot motion if there is not a point of Stillness, positive and negative charges mating, as described by Otey.

mainstream science is killing earth and humanity, abandon the ship... that is my conclusion and advice.

The artist is aware of the shape of the magnetic field (yes torus w vortices) and how it reacts to a wave of incoming cosmic radiation. This is the standard magnetic field around a bipolar magnet, so what? Somehow you think gravity works in a similar way, but you have no fucking evidence at all to back that up, the only thing you post is YouTube videos of nutjobs who waste my time talking about things they have no clue about, while being intentionally vague with everything they say. This isn't a fucking alternative to mainstream science, it isn't science at all, its humbug. You are actually supporting the mainstream science/political agenda by posting this bullshit, because anyone with half a brain will sooner or later come to the conclusion that this can't be true, and since you don't give any real alternative to the viewpoint of the corporations and the government, that is what is remaining for those that think they have more pressing things to concern themselves with. The stupid ones you do get, sometimes, or they go to whose voice sounds sweetest or most threatening. The smart ones reject most of your bullshit and corporate science equally with the difference they may actually examine and evaluate and research what makes sense and weigh the evidence and take the viable part of a theory. No matter what Walter Russel said.

If you want me to believe that gravity is actually the same as electromagnetism, then you need to present a viable theory on how it works. To start you off Electromagnetism has two poles of attraction/repelling, gravity has only one point of attraction, the center of the mass of the opposing object. You need to present a theory that reconcile these differences logically.

[Horn]

Halfassed, belieforiented and convoluted. You really have to squint hard to "see" it...



I am pretty sure Neuro likes the fellow producing that video, while highly theoretical, there are many points aligning in it.

Mass has lead too many theoretical travisties, when generalized or given too much "weight" in silly equations.

It might have been useful in past trajectory of war machines and fuel inhaling s.u.v.s, we're getting past those needs. Can we please leave them to Chinese and Mexicans? ;)

[BarnkleBob]

The Matrix "Whats Real"?

http://youtu.be/OA3WGf9pX0A

[singular_me]

these 10 secs are really hard hitting BB, excellent.

people refuting the EU of course would deny that the micro and macro are exactly alike. Indeed, under such a circumstance, it is impossible to even start having a constructive discussion if this is not agreed upon.

Though it is the only way to see which people out there are the REAL scientists.

[Neuro]

these 10 secs are really hard hitting BB, excellent.

people refuting the EU of course would deny that the micro and macro are exactly alike. Indeed, under such a circumstance, it is impossible to even start having a constructive discussion if this is not agreed upon.

Though it is the only way to see which people out there are the REAL scientists.

A REAL Scientist!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ff/22/a5/ff22a544d19cbb5796af82ba24f74a77.jpg

[Neuro]

I am pretty sure Neuro likes the fellow producing that video, while highly theoretical, there are many points aligning in it.

Mass has lead too many theoretical travisties, when generalized or given too much "weight" in silly equations.

It might have been useful in past trajectory of war machines and fuel inhaling s.u.v.s, we're getting past those needs. Can we please leave them to Chinese and Mexicans? ;)

Center of mass= Center of gravity. Or do you believe there is another gravity magnetic unipol, situated some thousand miles below earths surface that the moon and the earth rotates around?
http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/earth-moon-rod-balancejpg.jpg

[singular_me]

if this is your response to the statement of Neo (utube link) and me acknowledging it, then you surely lost all rationality. you are desperate, I can see that.... derailing this thread like this is so child-like.

A REAL Scientist!

[Ares]

if this is your response to the statement of Neo (utube link) and me acknowledging it, then you surely lost all rationality. you are desperate, I can see that.... derailing this thread like this is so child-like

Says the person with a very thin grasp of reality.

[Neuro]

Center of mass= Center of gravity. Or do you believe there is another gravity magnetic unipol, situated some thousand miles below earths surface that the moon and the earth rotates around?
http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/earth-moon-rod-balancejpg.jpg

Did you notice how the ground seems to "lean" when the moon is rising?, it is the earth moon gravity magnetic unipol pulling you... ;D

[Neuro]

if this is your response to the statement of Neo (utube link) and me acknowledging it, then you surely lost all rationality. you are desperate, I can see that.... derailing this thread like this is so child-like.

You already derailed it. BarnkleBob came back from the kibbutz and gave you 10 secs of Hollywood "truth". No really Goldie the Matrix isn't a true depiction of reality. Nothing of what you post is even vaguely related to rationality. Your "real scientists" are more akin to voodoo practitioners, and that is what the picture was of.

[BarnkleBob]

these 10 secs are really hard hitting BB, excellent.

people refuting the EU of course would deny that the micro and macro are exactly alike. Indeed, under such a circumstance, it is impossible to even start having a constructive discussion if this is not agreed upon.

Though it is the only way to see which people out there are the REAL scientists.

"Gravities strong grasp can hold the sun, planets, stars, galaxies, seas, mountains & specks of sand in place yet its not strong enuff to prevent a wave from cresting, a tree from rising or a bird from flying!"

All the gravity nonsense concerning mass, how much mass is in a droplet of water or a mote of dust? Someones got a lot of splaining to do! How then does the Mymaridae fly w/o violating the laws of gravity?

[singular_me]

I dont care if anybody is pissed off because s/he wants science to remain rationally explainable forever... it just cannot be.

Talk of a grasp of reality if not grasping this

Neo statement in the matrix clip is undebunkable, I am afraid.


Says the person with a very thin grasp of reality.

[singular_me]

debunk that your brain is not an electric device (that electricity doesnt run between synapses), and you get a point.

Hollywood happens to tell the truth, in this case it surely does. You hate this, I dont give a damn.

Stupidity is raceless/cultureless... and comparing metaphysics of electricity to voodoo is too child-like.


You already derailed it. BarnkleBob came back from the kibbutz and gave you 10 secs of Hollywood "truth". No really Goldie the Matrix isn't a true depiction of reality. Nothing of what you post is even vaguely related to rationality. Your "real scientists" are more akin to voodoo practitioners, and that is what the picture was of.

[Ares]

I dont care if anybody is pissed off because s/he wants science to remain rationally explainable forever... it just cannot be.

Talk of a grasp of reality if not grasping this

Neo statement in the matrix clip is undebunkable, I am afraid.

:rolleyes:

You really don't get the irony of you posting an a forum that all aspects from electricity to communication to the hardware and software was developed with science do you? Everything you claim to support was because of the results of science and now science is "bad"?

Irony or Hypocrisy?

[Neuro]

debunk that you brain is not an electric device (that electricity doesnt run between synapses), and you get a point.

Hollywood happens to tell the truth, in this case it surely does. You hate this, I dont give a damn.

There used to be at least 2 dozens of thinkers on here who'd have agreed with this but they are all gone... it was at a time the forum was diversified. It is no longer so.

Electricity discharge doesn't run between synapses, neurotransmitters (chemical molecules) do. An electric potential is running down the axon to the synapse which release the neurotransmitter, but really the electric potential, and its transportation is chemical in origin too. The notion that the nervous system is electrical is a gross oversimplification, and actually wrong in 99 cases of a hundred. So shall we agree on a fail for you? ;D

I think your interpretation of what I hate is interesting, but really darling, you are way off.

Probably it was your lack of thinking combined with your absurd and hard pressed notion that no-one else apart from you are able to think that drove off the "two dozen thinkers" ;D

How is it going with denouncing satanism?

[singular_me]

just ran into an interesting piece

=============

Reluctance = the resistance within a magnetic circuit, usually an iron core. Nature will always take the path of least resistance.
The terms ‘magnetic’, ‘magnetism’, and ‘magnetic circuit’ are used from a conventional perspective and are not used in a way to support a SEPARATE force of magnetism.

MSS = main stream science, the conventional perspective of science
TBP = the Thunderbolts Project, promoters of the electric universe (EU)
LOF = loops of force which are, MIND PRESENT within the physical universe
Gravity = undivided Stillness. It is a direction not a force. Stillness centers (hub) all motion. Motion implies loop motion
Divided gravity = a polarised condition, a +ve/-ve. A Metaphysical Concept appears as two polar aspects within the physical
CRT = cathode ray tube. The properties discovered by man apply to all Physical Creation. The expanse of space acts as a CRT
NT = The genius that is Nikola Tesla


There is no forces of magnetism or gravity in Nature. Magnetism and gravity seem to exist !
They are effects, whose cause is electricity. There is only one type of electricity. Electric current does not flow in a wire, motion is expressed in loops around the wire – skin effect. Those loops surrounding a current carrying wire are Mind Thought-Loops !
Those spinning loops create the illusion of current running in the wire.

Polarity acts like a distillation column separating matter according to their individual electric condition. Centripetal/compressing motion migrates towards the anode, while centrifugal/expanding motion migrates towards the cathode.

Mind appears to be divided because there is an outside rim Mind pushing inwards with centripetal motion AND there is a central hub Mind which is resisting that inward push by centrifugally pushing back from the hub to the rim. It appears as though Mind is fighting with itself. But, in doing so a stable central hole/orifice is maintained at the center of the loop.
http://www.walter-russell.com/electricity/

[singular_me]

scientism really rules you... electricity arranges and manages all chemical reactions and mating between molecules. All life depends, on electricity, even water. Atoms only get together or reject one one another depending on their electric components/charges, whether they are compatible or not. Because it is a matter of wavelength, aka vibration, which is an electric component.

you have way to go. You are not ready to merge spirituality and science just yet, it is beyond your own understanding.

The heart and the brain are more than any other organs electric amplifiers so to speak. Inner peace and true sense of self reflect on the alignment of their frequencies.

Your brain is electric matter, just electric waves which all matter is. Matter does not think nor does it KNOW. You do not think with your Brain, you think through it by Projecting an Electric Current through it.” ~ Walter Russell

ps: I am a metathinker by the way ;D




Electricity discharge doesn't run between synapses, neurotransmitters (chemical molecules) do. An electric potential is running down the axon to the synapse which release the neurotransmitter, but really the electric potential, and its transportation is chemical in origin too.

[Neuro]

scientism really rules you... electricity arranges and manages all chemical reactions and mating between molecules. All life depends, on electricity, even water. Atoms only get together or reject one one another depending on their electric components/charges, whether they are compatible or not. Because it is a matter of wavelength, aka vibration, which is an electric component.

you have way to go. You cannot merge spirituality and science just yet, it is beyond your own understanding.

The heart and the brain are more than any other organs electric amplifiers so to speak. Inner peace and true sense of self reflect on the alignment of their frequencies.
Of course chemistry is essentially the electric bonding of ions, but that is not what you said. You claimed that electricity is running between the synapses. This is plain wrong a neurotransmitter molecule transversing the gap of the synapse isn't an electric charge, it isn't even an ion. You really are out of your league here, but you clearly are to stupid to realize it.

The heart and the brain are not electric amplifiers. The heart is there to pump oxygenated blood to your body. The brain... well in your case it probably mostly is an electric amplifier... ;D

[Horn]

Center of mass= Center of gravity. Or do you believe there is another gravity magnetic unipol, situated some thousand miles below earths surface that the moon and the earth rotates around?
http://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/earth-moon-rod-balancejpg.jpg

I think Neuro likes the producer of that video I posted. Its making him squint lol ;)

[singular_me]

this guy is definitely out of the box and onto something

Using the law of polarity for healing makes sense because sick cells have lost their original electric balance and cannot mate healthily anymore.

I only watched the 1st vid and will view the 2nd later today

true without a resistance nothing progresses, these long arguments always makes me seek for better answers.

=================
How Electricity Helps The Body To Heal Faster - Stem Cell Activator
Uploaded on Oct 11, 2011

With over 35 years using electrotherapy Bob explains how electricity has been used to heal bones, heal bedsores, stop pain, even create life with sperm and egg in humans and animals (http://www.medfaxxinc.com). He explains what his personal opinion is using electrical positive and negative charges to heal people, plants and why polarity seems to be the most important physical component. The human body can heal itself when fed electrical charges of varying polarities.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXvlAJ0rdfU



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPU5iEfFVY

[singular_me]

none of them...

I am arguing from the stand point of holistic thinking and contend that science without metaphysics and metathinking will forever remain destructive as a whole (thus bad). That is precisely why, for example, scientists working for big pharma do not see a thing and when they do, they rather choose following the money because they do not possess the knowledge or insight to look at their lab experiments differently. Electricity has 7 laws that cannot be bypass nor bent. And the world is going under because of this very reason.

I am much more interested in the topic of electricity on a metaphilosophical level, because if the mindset does change first (stay caught in a polarity catch 22), let alone trying to improve science and psychology.

Many on here would agree that the nobel cartel is a hoax but when presenting new and challenging theories, people will stick to the old ones regardless. Though the EU is pretty simple in its approach because so obvious , but that how truth often works... hidden in plain sight

the laws of light demonstrates that everything is interconnected, there is no separation between spirituality and materialism. Matter is the result of pure energy.




:rolleyes:

You really don't get the irony of you posting an a forum that all aspects from electricity to communication to the hardware and software was developed with science do you? Everything you claim to support was because of the results of science and now science is "bad"?

Irony or Hypocrisy?

[singular_me]

what was saying arthur c clarke again: that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic ???

sound/vibration, byproduct of electricity affecting matter. the person who sent me this was musing about the whole universe being levitated by sound... and why not???


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrknhRCQdC4

time to wake up guy and smell the coffee. Time to choose between continuing to chase money like apemen or seeing the world completely differently by the acknowledgement of cosmic mysteries that have been with us for about millennia already.

anyone would have shown somebody a cell phone 500 years ago, would have be burned at the stake. And many people still have this mindset today.

to get rid of our chains/NWO.... here is the only way
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inspirationinpictures.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2F130317-7-300x300.jpg&f=1

[Glass]

Scientism and Science are different things. Examples: Climate change is scientism. A political agenda attempting to justify itself by claiming a scientific basis where none exists. Internal combustion engine is engineering with a scientific explanation based on observation, repeatability and falsifiability.

Which one is cosmology?


The incredible sparking soil on the MOON: NASA reveals solar storms can cause 'miniature lightning strikes'


Study found sparks occur in frigid, permanently shadowed regions near poles
May possibly produce 'sparks' that could vaporize and melt the soil
Could have as much effect on the surface as a meteoroid impact

Powerful solar storms can produce sparks on the moon's surface, NASA has revealed.

A new study has found the sparks occur in the frigid, permanently shadowed regions near the lunar poles, and may possibly produce 'sparks' that could vaporize and melt the soil.

NASA said it could have as much effect on the surface as a meteoroid impact

About 10 percent of this gardened layer has been melted or vaporized by meteoroid impacts,' said Andrew Jordan of the University of New Hampshire, Durham.

'We found that in the moon's permanently shadowed regions, sparks from solar storms could melt or vaporize a similar percentage.'


Goes on to explain phenomena is from solar flare buildup of electrostatic potential. Limited admission?
Much more here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4096512/The-incredible-sparking-soil-MOON-Nasa-reveals-solar-storms-cause-miniature-lightning-strikes.html

[singular_me]

why everybody should be interested in the genius of Walter Russell and co

PS: explosion is RED, implosion is BLUE, these 2 colors are identified as masculine and feminine respectively in ancient knowledge. So what does it mean? It simply means BLUE oriented concepts are NURTURING, positive for the environment.

Cavitation - Sonoluminescence - Implosion Technology - Sacred Sciences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8HO5DGZcM0

[singular_me]

that is an interesting article. Is the mainstream preparing for the EU take over? I dont think so but they will allow bits, here and there, of its theory to infiltrate minds.

In my humble opinion scientism is characterized by a mindset willing to stubbornly apply outdated models to newer data. That is the challenge of the EU for example.

Outdated models are claimed to have passed the test of the scientific method but when you look at the long term, such "beliefs" are eroding and begin to dispel serious problems. Until any new data validated by the academic cartel sets in, scientists will not recognize anything and regard out of the box thinkers as heretics.

We may have sometimes the impression that science achieves wonders but when looking at the whole picture, our environment is on the brink of being completely destroyed and much of the real science is kept secret (occulted) to benefit the *art of killing*. The consequences of scientism... just ask DARPA. Nothing new under the sun, society has always functioned like this.






Scientism and Science are different things. Examples: Climate change is scientism. A political agenda attempting to justify itself by claiming a scientific basis where none exists. Internal combustion engine is engineering with a scientific explanation based on observation, repeatability and falsifiability.

Which one is cosmology?



Goes on to explain phenomena is from solar flare buildup of electrostatic potential. Limited admission?
Much more here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4096512/The-incredible-sparking-soil-MOON-Nasa-reveals-solar-storms-cause-miniature-lightning-strikes.html

[BarnkleBob]

Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity

http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/01/teslas-dynamic-theory-of-gravity/

[Neuro]

Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity

http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/01/teslas-dynamic-theory-of-gravity/

Good marketing ploy. Calling it Tesla's when it's not...

[Neuro]

why everybody should be interested in the genius of Walter Russell and co

PS: explosion is RED, implosion is BLUE, these 2 colors are identified as masculine and feminine respectively in ancient knowledge. So what does it mean? It simply means BLUE oriented concepts are NURTURING, positive for the environment.

Cavitation - Sonoluminescence - Implosion Technology - Sacred Sciences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8HO5DGZcM0
Interesting. My entire career is to cavitate joints.

[singular_me]

there are only two choices: blue vs red types of energies. And I am sure that DARPA is already very advanced in the blue type one. Oil is a "red energy" for cavemen, justifying war.

But I am not expecting from you to endorse the fibonacci model for engines. Too much magic here.


Interesting. My entire career is to cavitate joints.

[Neuro]

But I am not expecting from you to endorse the fibonacci model for engines. Too much magic here.

Interesting why you have this propensity to choose positions for your perceived enemies that are contrary to your own. Maybe it makes your discussion more interesting? ;D

You certainly carry around a huge chip on your shoulder, and you are probably one of the most unbalanced people I know of.

[Ares]

Interesting why you have this propensity to choose positions for your perceived enemies that are contrary to your own. Maybe it makes your discussion more interesting? ;D

You certainly carry around a huge chip on your shoulder, and you are probably one of the most unbalanced people I know of.


con•trar•i•an (kənˈtrɛər i ən)

n.
1. a person who takes an opposing view, esp. one who rejects the majority opinion, as in economic matters.
adj.
2. disagreeing with or proceeding against current opinion or established practice.

[Neuro]

con•trar•i•an (kənˈtrɛər i ən)

n.
1. a person who takes an opposing view, esp. one who rejects the majority opinion, as in economic matters.
adj.
2. disagreeing with or proceeding against current opinion or established practice.

I wonder what it is called when a person is contrarian to him-/her-self?

[Ares]

I wonder what it is called when a person is contrarian to him-/her-self?

Hypocrisy? :D

[singular_me]

that is your perception... I didnt see anything wise in the line you responded.

But there is progress because now you are starting to use the vocabulary I hold dear. I am influencing your thoughts in a good way it seems

the day you start positing out of the box materials, instead of always going mainstream, and I will give you undivided attention. waiting

Unbalanced... talk of yourself , anything that doesnt fit the rational 3D scientific method is associated with magic. LOL.

you are so mainstream, narrow



Interesting why you have this propensity to choose positions for your perceived enemies that are contrary to your own. Maybe it makes your discussion more interesting? ;D

You certainly carry around a huge chip on your shoulder, and you are probably one of the most unbalanced people I know of.

[singular_me]

instead, debate the EU, which you claim to be unworkable.

when are you going to acknowledge that newton and einstein theories are about to fall off a cliff.

so be my guess

the theories I am defending have been out there for millennia and I feel bad you never gave them any attention.


Hypocrisy? :D

[Ares]

instead, debate the EU, which you claim to be unworkable.

I never claimed it unworkable. I asked to explain the source of neutrinos if the sun is not nuclear. But like anything I've ever asked you, you skirt around and never provide an answer. Why would this be any different?

I also want DATA to explain the EU theory. No conjecture. EVIDENCE!! Even Metaphysics can be explained in math, it's how Quantum physics have shown there is a master vibration throughout the universe. I take absolutely nothing anyone says at face value, I want proof. Without proof or evidence all you have is a theory you cannot explain or replicate.

[singular_me]

ares, I dont think you are that interested in the EU, if you were your postings would demonstrate that you did watched much of the EU materials available online. Instead you want an evidence presented to you.

The EU may or may not be fully complete at this stage (but all what I heard made sense to me so far) and this is something that should allow you to leave the intellectual door open instead of bashing.

I dont have any particular material in mind right now to answer your question BUT know that anybody following the laws of electricity will always be proven right at some point down the road. Because electricity is the blood of the Universe.

Quantum physics has its detractors too, I think neuro is one of them. But quantum physics depends on computers, while living geometry does not. Something to chew on.






I never claimed it unworkable. I asked to explain the source of neutrinos if the sun is not nuclear. But like anything I've ever asked you, you skirt around and never provide an answer. Why would this be any different?

I also want DATA to explain the EU theory. No conjecture. EVIDENCE!! Even Metaphysics can be explained in math, it's how Quantum physics have shown there is a master vibration throughout the universe. I take absolutely nothing anyone says at face value, I want proof. Without proof or evidence all you have is a theory you cannot explain or replicate.

[Neuro]

that is your perception... I didnt see anything wise in the line you responded.

But there is progress because now you are starting to use the vocabulary I hold dear. I am influencing your thoughts in a good way it seems

the day you start positing out of the box materials, instead of always going mainstream, and I will give you undivided attention. waiting

Unbalanced... talk of yourself , anything that doesnt fit the rational 3D scientific method is associated with magic. LOL.

you are so mainstream, narrow
There you go again making contrary positions for me again, for you to discuss against. For along time I actually thought you were intentionally lying about me, when you made up these positions I actually don't hold. But I start to think you are not doing this with the knowledge that they are lies. You probably believe you know me, when you are conversing with the demon inside you.

Ares the correct term would be Schizophrenia.

[singular_me]

ahahaha... you ran out of arguments, that is all I am seeing here. Yes, you cannot deal with metaphysics, you are ALLERGIC to it. You associate it with nonsensical magic or voodoo. That was all I meant and you know it.

You just speak nonsense.


There you go again making contrary positions for me again, for you to discuss against. For along time I actually thought you were intentionally lying about me, when you made up these positions I actually don't hold. But I start to think you are not doing this with the knowledge that they are lies. You probably believe you know me, when you are conversing with the demon inside you.

Ares the correct term would be Schizophrenia.

[singular_me]

I asked to explain the source of neutrinos if the sun is not nuclear.

RE:
well it occurred to me that I may have the beginning of an answer. Walter Russell,(possibly the main father of the EU theory) contends that Light, replicates, photons do not motion. Light does not travel. He has a chapter explaining this.

SECRET OF LIGHT
Chapter XII. Light cannot be seen, it can only be known. Light is still.

Light Does Not Travel

The speed with which light presumably travels is 186,400 miles per second. The distance between stars is so great that the speed of light is computed as light years, for the distance computed by lesser units of time would yield figures so great that they would be meaningless.

Light only seems to travel. It is but one more of the countless illusions caused by wave motion. Waves of the ocean seem to traverse the ocean but they only appear to do so, for waves are pistons in the universal engines, and pistons operate up and down. Wave pistons of light, or of the ocean, operate radially and spirally inward and outward, toward and away from gravity.

Waves of light do not travel. They reproduce each other from wave field to wave field of space. The planes of zero curvature, which bound all wave fields, act as mirrors to reflect light from one field into another. This sets up an appearance of light as traveling, which is pure illusion...
https://lightspeedzero.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/light-does-not-travel-by-walter-russell/


And I believe he is correct. And that could explain why our atheistic academia would hate this to be known. Light has extremely mysterious properties that eventually end academia itself.

Where are the neutrinos? they replicate and vanish simultaneously...


light cannot be seen but be known.EnLightenment




ares, I dont think you are that interested in the EU, if you were your postings would demonstrate that you did watched much of the EU materials available online. Instead you want an evidence presented to you.

The EU may or may not be fully complete at this stage (but all what I heard made sense to me so far) and this is something that should allow you to leave the intellectual door open instead of bashing.

I dont have any particular material in mind right now to answer your question BUT know that anybody following the laws of electricity will always be proven right at some point down the road. Because electricity is the blood of the Universe.

Quantum physics has its detractors too, I think neuro is one of them. But quantum physics depends on computers, while living geometry does not. Something to chew on.

[monty]

I asked to explain the source of neutrinos if the sun is not nuclear.

RE:
well it occurred to me that I may have the beginning of an answer. Walter Russell,(possibly the main father of the EU theory) contends that Light, replicates, photons do not motion. Light does not travel. He has a chapter explaining this.

SECRET OF LIGHT
Chapter XII. Light cannot be seen, it can only be known. Light is still.

Light Does Not Travel

The speed with which light presumably travels is 186,400 miles per second. The distance between stars is so great that the speed of light is computed as light years, for the distance computed by lesser units of time would yield figures so great that they would be meaningless.

Light only seems to travel. It is but one more of the countless illusions caused by wave motion. Waves of the ocean seem to traverse the ocean but they only appear to do so, for waves are pistons in the universal engines, and pistons operate up and down. Wave pistons of light, or of the ocean, operate radially and spirally inward and outward, toward and away from gravity.

Waves of light do not travel. They reproduce each other from wave field to wave field of space. The planes of zero curvature, which bound all wave fields, act as mirrors to reflect light from one field into another. This sets up an appearance of light as traveling, which is pure illusion...
https://lightspeedzero.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/light-does-not-travel-by-walter-russell/


And I believe he is correct. And that could explain why our atheistic academia would hate this to be known. Light has extremely mysterious properties that eventually end academia itself.

Where are the neurinos? they replicate and vanish simultaneously...


light cannot be seen but be known.EnLightenment

here is a man who has some knowlege of neutrinos. I only have a high school education, no physics, 2 years of algebra, basic chemistry, introduction to organic chemistry some biology and botany, not qualified to argue in this debate

http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PhysicsWorld.pdf



https://s19.postimg.org/r4as9r7oj/IMG_1448.png


https://s19.postimg.org/up6nszc83/IMG_1449.png



https://s19.postimg.org/yzlbokhb7/IMG_1450.png

https://s19.postimg.org/70r5xpfoj/IMG_1451.png

[singular_me]

hey thanks for sharing, and please do not be discouraged from posting

but the higgs boson, God's particle, has an interesting % of detractors too, some say that higgs experiment was a hoax. I personally dont know (I do not have a Phd and was studying biology to become a veterinarian for 3 years, until philosophy, metaphysics and writing became my passions) but also know we cannot trust mainstream academia.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy5nMXK9s4k





here is a man who has some knowlege of neutrinos. I only have a high school education, no physics, 2 years of algebra, basic chemistry, introduction to organic chemistry some biology and botany, not qualified to argue in this debate

http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PhysicsWorld.pdf

[singular_me]

from naturalphilosophy.org.. without a resistance nothing progresses. well I just found a new site that I am going to promote in my doc. Thanks a lot to you all

==========================


http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FacebookMemesTeaching-768x525.jpg


http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FacebookMemesJoseLopez-768x524.jpg

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FacebookMemesDarkMatter-768x552.jpg

[Horn]

"If I only had a neutrino" is the tinman argument of standard physics.

It ignores all other obligatory requirements of theory, or having themselves a brain...;)

[Neuro]

"If I only had a neutrino" is the tinman argument of standard physics.

It ignores all other obligatory requirements of theory, or having themselves a brain...;)

Some physicists say there are no neutrinos. That what is detected in these neutrino detectors in mountains deep is actually ultra-high energy gamma rays...

http://www.autodynamics.org/neutrinos-home/

[singular_me]

from the walter russell link in my earlier post... and you wonder about his success? One doesnt find this type of knowledge in the mainstream. So let alone expecting the EU to be greenlighted by the mainstream

=================
Man likewise cannot see darkness. The nerves of his eyes, which sense motion, slow down to a rate of vibration that he can no longer “feel.” Man is so accustomed to the idea that he actually sees light in various intensities illuminating various substances to greater or lesser degree that it is difficult for him to realize that his own senses are but acting as mirrors to reflect various intensities of wave motion. But that is all that is happening.

Every electrically conditioned thing in Nature reflects the vibrations of every other thing, to fulfill its desire to synchronize its vibrations with every other thing. All matter is the motion of light. All motion is expressed in waves. All light waves are mirrors that reflect each other’s condition unto the farthermost star.

This is an electrically conditioned wave universe. All wave conditions are forever seeking oneness. For this reason all sensation responds to all other sensation.....

Light is all there is in the spiritual universe of knowing, and simulation of that light in opposite extensions is all there is in the electric wave universe of sensing. The simulation of light in matter is not light. There is no light in matter.

Perhaps the confusion which attends this idea would be lessened if we classify everything concerning the spiritual universe, such as life, intelligence, truth, power, knowledge and balance as being the One Light of Knowing, and everything concerning matter and motion as being the two simulated lights of thinking.

Thinking expresses knowing in matter but matter does not think, nor does it know.

Thinking also expresses life, truth, idea, power and balance by recording the ideas of those qualities in the two lights of matter in motion, but matter does not live, nor is it truth, balance or idea, even though it simulates those spiritual qualities.

Man’s confusion concerning this differentiation lies in his, long assumption of the reality of matter. His assumption that his body is his Self, that his knowledge is in his brain, and that he lives and dies because his body integrates and disintegrates, has been so fundamental a part of his thinking that it is difficult for him to reverse his thinking to the fact that matter is but motion and has no reality beyond simulating reality.

The light which we think we see is but motion. We do not see light. We feel the wave vibrations set up by the motion that simulates light, but the motion of electric waves that simulate light is not that which it simulates.

[Ares]

from the walter russell link in my earlier post... and you wonder about his success? One doesnt find this type of knowledge in the mainstream. So let alone expecting the EU to be greenlighted by the mainstream

=================
Man likewise cannot see darkness. The nerves of his eyes, which sense motion, slow down to a rate of vibration that he can no longer “feel.” Man is so accustomed to the idea that he actually sees light in various intensities illuminating various substances to greater or lesser degree that it is difficult for him to realize that his own senses are but acting as mirrors to reflect various intensities of wave motion. But that is all that is happening.

Every electrically conditioned thing in Nature reflects the vibrations of every other thing, to fulfill its desire to synchronize its vibrations with every other thing. All matter is the motion of light. All motion is expressed in waves. All light waves are mirrors that reflect each other’s condition unto the farthermost star.

This is an electrically conditioned wave universe. All wave conditions are forever seeking oneness. For this reason all sensation responds to all other sensation.....

Light is all there is in the spiritual universe of knowing, and simulation of that light in opposite extensions is all there is in the electric wave universe of sensing. The simulation of light in matter is not light. There is no light in matter.

Perhaps the confusion which attends this idea would be lessened if we classify everything concerning the spiritual universe, such as life, intelligence, truth, power, knowledge and balance as being the One Light of Knowing, and everything concerning matter and motion as being the two simulated lights of thinking.

Thinking expresses knowing in matter but matter does not think, nor does it know.

Thinking also expresses life, truth, idea, power and balance by recording the ideas of those qualities in the two lights of matter in motion, but matter does not live, nor is it truth, balance or idea, even though it simulates those spiritual qualities.

Man’s confusion concerning this differentiation lies in his, long assumption of the reality of matter. His assumption that his body is his Self, that his knowledge is in his brain, and that he lives and dies because his body integrates and disintegrates, has been so fundamental a part of his thinking that it is difficult for him to reverse his thinking to the fact that matter is but motion and has no reality beyond simulating reality.

The light which we think we see is but motion. We do not see light. We feel the wave vibrations set up by the motion that simulates light, but the motion of electric waves that simulate light is not that which it simulates.

:rolleyes:

Asking for EVIDENCE is not mainstream, it's basic human understanding, especially when it comes to something new. Like I have asked previously, SHOW ME THE MATH, as well as the source for the neutrino's. Gamma rays are different as they are ionized radiation while neutrino's are not.

Here is the differences between Gamma Rays and Neutrinos:

Neutrino's:

Types 3 – electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino
Mass ≤ 0.120 eV/c2 (95% confidence level, sum of 3 flavors)[1]
Electric charge 0 e
Spin 1/2
Weak isospin LH: +1/2, RH: 0
Weak hypercharge LH: -1, RH: 0
B − L −1
X −3

Gamma Rays:

Gamma rays, X-rays, visible light, and radio waves are all forms of electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is the frequency and hence the energy of those photons. Gamma rays are generally the most energetic of these, although a broad overlap with X-ray energies occurs. An example of gamma ray production follows:

First 60
Co
decays to excited 60
Ni
by beta decay emission of an electron of 0.31 MeV. Then the excited 60
Ni
decays to the ground state (see nuclear shell model) by emitting gamma rays in succession of 1.17 MeV followed by 1.33 MeV. This path is followed 99.88% of the time:

60
27Co
→ 60
28Ni*
+
e−
+
ν
e +
γ
+ 1.17 MeV
60
28Ni*
→ 60
28Ni
+
γ
+ 1.33 MeV

Another example is the alpha decay of 241
Am
to form 237
Np
; which is followed by gamma emission. In some cases, the gamma emission spectrum of the daughter nucleus is quite simple, (e.g. 60
Co
/60
Ni
) while in other cases, such as with (241
Am
/237
Np
and 192
Ir
/192
Pt
), the gamma emission spectrum is complex, revealing that a series of nuclear energy levels exist.

Or for visual representation of Gamma Ray source:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Cobalt-60_Decay_Scheme.svg/300px-Cobalt-60_Decay_Scheme.svg.png

I have asked for evidence to support the E.U. theory and get told to watch a video. I've watch about 15-20 minutes of it (my time for watching these types of videos is limited) but have not seen any evidence presented just theory.

[Neuro]

:rolleyes:

Asking for EVIDENCE is not mainstream, it's basic human understanding, especially when it comes to something new. Like I have asked previously, SHOW ME THE MATH, as well as the source for the neutrino's. Gamma rays are different as they are ionized radiation while neutrino's are not.

Here is the differences between Gamma Rays and Neutrinos:

Neutrino's:

Types 3 – electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino
Mass ≤ 0.120 eV/c2 (95% confidence level, sum of 3 flavors)[1]
Electric charge 0 e
Spin 1/2
Weak isospin LH: +1/2, RH: 0
Weak hypercharge LH: -1, RH: 0
B − L −1
X −3

Gamma Rays:

Gamma rays, X-rays, visible light, and radio waves are all forms of electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is the frequency and hence the energy of those photons. Gamma rays are generally the most energetic of these, although a broad overlap with X-ray energies occurs. An example of gamma ray production follows:

First 60
Co
decays to excited 60
Ni
by beta decay emission of an electron of 0.31 MeV. Then the excited 60
Ni
decays to the ground state (see nuclear shell model) by emitting gamma rays in succession of 1.17 MeV followed by 1.33 MeV. This path is followed 99.88% of the time:

60
27Co
→ 60
28Ni*
+
e−
+
ν
e +
γ
+ 1.17 MeV
60
28Ni*
→ 60
28Ni
+
γ
+ 1.33 MeV

Another example is the alpha decay of 241
Am
to form 237
Np
; which is followed by gamma emission. In some cases, the gamma emission spectrum of the daughter nucleus is quite simple, (e.g. 60
Co
/60
Ni
) while in other cases, such as with (241
Am
/237
Np
and 192
Ir
/192
Pt
), the gamma emission spectrum is complex, revealing that a series of nuclear energy levels exist.

Or for visual representation of Gamma Ray source:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Cobalt-60_Decay_Scheme.svg/300px-Cobalt-60_Decay_Scheme.svg.png

I have asked for evidence to support the E.U. theory and get told to watch a video. I've watch about 15-20 minutes of it (my time for watching these types of videos is limited) but have not seen any evidence presented just theory.

It is of course clear that there is an emission of these particles coming from the sun (as can be seen in the General path they are traveling). However the question is whether the emissions detected is from ultra high energy gamma rays or from low energy neutrino's. Both have very low likelihood of interaction with matter and penetrate deeply. I don't know whether they would have very different behaviors in a fog chamber when interacting. I would imagine so since we are talking multiples of magnitudes difference in energy levels...

[Ares]

It is of course clear that there is an emission of these particles coming from the sun (as can be seen in the General path they are traveling). However the question is whether the emissions detected is from ultra high energy gamma rays or from low energy neutrino's. Both have very low likelihood of interaction with matter and penetrate deeply. I don't know whether they would have very different behaviors in a fog chamber when interacting. I would imagine so since we are talking multiples of magnitudes difference in energy levels...

Which also has an issue with E.U. theory since GRB (GBR's) are typically witnessed during a supernova. I read an article on Thunderbolts (who proports the E.U. theory) and this is what they had to say about GBR's.


According to conventional theories, the redshift of this galaxy determines its distance at about two billion light years. To appear as bright as it did, the GRB must have given off more energy in that one-tenth of a second than the entire galaxy gives off in a year. The only mechanisms imaginable in a gravity-dominated universe that could be this “energy-dense” are extreme supernovas and neutron-star or black-hole mergers. Because no supernova was observed and because the GRB occurred at the edge of the galaxy (most black holes are thought to reside in galactic cores), this GRB is considered to be the result of a merger of neutron stars.

This explanation makes sense—if redshift is indeed a measure of distance and if the universe is composed of insignificant amounts of plasma. Unfortunately, redshift has been shown for decades NOT to be a measure of distance, and the composition of the universe is 99.99% plasma.

This GRB and its “host” galaxy are closer, probably much closer, than standard theory calculates. The energy of the GRB is therefore much less than standard theory calculates. The small, faint “host” galaxy doesn’t appear small and faint because it’s far away but because it really is small and faint.

Probably??? I'm supposed to take this theory with any grain of salt when I can't get any evidence and the explanation of a GBR is that the galaxy is "probably" closer? Really??

Here's a test, take a Telescope, point it the Andromeda Galaxy which is absolutely enormous, and then point the same Telescope at Galaxy that had a GBR to compare the sizes to eliminate the "small and faint" in galaxy size. I do know of issues with red shift, and have never really considered it an accurate measure of distance between galaxies. However E.U. doesn't have a theory or model for measuring distance either.

Gamma Rays are a very strong sign of nuclear energy, not electrical.

[Neuro]

Which also has an issue with E.U. theory since GRB (GBR's) are typically witnessed during a supernova. I read an article on Thunderbolts (who proports the E.U. theory) and this is what they had to say about GBR's.



Probably??? I'm supposed to take this theory with any grain of salt when I can't get any evidence and the explanation of a GBR is that the galaxy is "probably" closer? Really??

Here's a test, take a Telescope, point it the Andromeda Galaxy which is absolutely enormous, and then point the same Telescope at Galaxy that had a GBR to compare the sizes to eliminate the "small and faint" in galaxy size. I do know of issues with red shift, and have never really considered it an accurate measure of distance between galaxies. However E.U. doesn't have a theory or model for measuring distance either.

Gamma Rays are a very strong sign of nuclear energy, not electrical.

I would modify this statement to include both. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_gamma-ray_flash

Apparently, according to Wikipedia you get these terrestrial gamma ray flashes (up to 20 MeV) from lightning aprox 500 strikes every day on earth. Actually you can test the theory if what we detect at these deep underground sites for "neutrino" measurement indeed is neutrino's or if it is gamma rays by comparing the sun emission with a nearby lightning strike. If they are similar, they probably collect gamma rays from the sun...

[Ares]

I would modify this statement to include both. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_gamma-ray_flash

Apparently, according to Wikipedia you get these terrestrial gamma ray flashes (up to 20 MeV) from lightning aprox 500 strikes every day on earth. Actually you can test the theory if what we detect at these deep underground sites for "neutrino" measurement indeed is neutrino's or if it is gamma rays by comparing the sun emission with a nearby lightning strike. If they are similar, they probably collect gamma rays from the sun...

That would definitely be a worthwhile test.

[Neuro]

Seems like NASA is going full on Electric Universe in this article. LOL! Claiming that thunderstorms on earth create antimatter that create the gamma rays...
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

Personally I find that absurd. Lightning is millions of volts. I don't see why you need to go with anti-matter to explain photon emission in the MeV-range, it's like going across the river to collect water...

What on earth should Goldie believe in now then? NASA and her on the same side impossible! ;D

[singular_me]

((they)) have always done this, when a theory they didnt want especially to take off becomes a threat, they just promote it themselves and start changing/corrupt the parameters of the theory. So people will still be learning half-truths. That is how they control science. Einstein and Newton doesnt seem to escape such tactics after what I have read here and there. Einstein is a plagiarist anyway and Newton forced to draft a theory or be judged as an heretic for studying hemeticism, which explains the spiritual dimension of matter. I really wouldnt be surprised if the higgs boson was a total farce as many already claim it to be (CERN is all about money and possibly worse). Meanwhile students are mastering in more scams.

I stick to the original, Walter Russell, and all genuine researchers such as Robet Otey, Matt Presti, Randall, Eric Dollar, Dan Winter.... only that type of scientists and investigators should serve as a foundation and quest for truth. I will always side with the heretics and rebels .

ACADEMIA=DECEPTION



Seems like NASA is going full on Electric Universe in this article. LOL! Claiming that thunderstorms on earth create antimatter that create the gamma rays...
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

Personally I find that absurd. Lightning is millions of volts. I don't see why you need to go with anti-matter to explain photon emission in the MeV-range, it's like going across the river to collect water...

What on earth should Goldie believe in now then? NASA and her on the same side impossible! ;D

[Horn]

lol, Nasa is still working the assumption there are only 3 types of matter. They skip over plasma in favor for a 4th Bose- antistate/dark matter.

Now that Trump is in office ofcourse they will be neo-pirates.

They are obviously not siding with an electric universe there. But trying to explain in standard Big G convention. And very poorly I might add, confounding the two

[Neuro]

lol, Nasa is still working the assumption there are only 3 types of matter. They skip over plasma in favor for a 4th Bose- antistate.

Now that Trump is in office ofcourse they will be neo-pirates.
You couldn't have done a better job hiding your disappointment they agree with you on EU? ;D

[Horn]

the are not agreeing but trying to explain anomalous duplicated sensor readings into BigG "anti-matter" again and over and over.

Same thing they're doing with the neutrino.

[Horn]

"Hot Dark Matter"... standard physicists are racist :)

[Neuro]

((they)) have always done this, when a theory they didnt want especially to take off becomes a threat, they just promote it themselves and start changing/corrupt the parameters of the theory. So people will still be learning half-truths. That is how they control science. Einstein and Newton doesnt seem to escape such tactics after what I have read here and there. Einstein is a plagiarist anyway and Newton forced to draft a theory or be judged as an heretic for studying hemeticism, which explains the spiritual dimension of matter. I really wouldnt be surprised if the higgs boson was a total farce as many already claim it to be (CERN is all about money and possibly worse). Meanwhile students are mastering in more scams.

I stick to the original, Walter Russell, and all genuine researchers such as Robet Otey, Matt Presti, Randall, Eric Dollar, Dan Winter.... only that type of scientists and investigators should serve as a foundation and quest for truth. I will always side with the heretics and rebels .

ACADEMIA=DECEPTION
Yeah stick with your authorities. It really shouldn't matter who is supporting a particular theory. It is how a theory is supported that matters...

Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.
Socrates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

[Horn]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dark_matter

[Neuro]

the are not agreeing but trying to explain anomalous duplicated sensor readings into BigG "anti-matter" again and over and over.

Same thing they're doing with the neutrino.
Whether the neutrino exists or not, or whether it can be explained only in a fusion environment. You must still agree that NASA allows for the possibility of nuclear reactions/antimatter creation from a simple Thorian thunderstorm, is a great door opener for Electric Universe theory. I mean even taking a step back from their fantasy claim (with absolutely no proof) of antimatter creation in thunderstorms lightning would still leave the door wide open for EU theory and abandonment of the standard cosmology paradigm (with huge black holes punched through it). I mean if antimatter creation is a possibility in an earth storm, which other nuclear reactions should be considered impossible in an quadrillion times powered electric star? :)

[Horn]

True, you can compare Nasa to the Roberta Flak song. roit!

https://youtu.be/dpNdMIAnKko

[singular_me]

No authorities, only researchers understanding that the metaphysical shapes the theory.

But you are all against that, so stay with your like minded, your authorities ;D Man made authority

unless the premises are recognized as such by all the debating participants, the quote is meaningless


by the way I am reading this now, "changing flavor" could fit walter russell's theory. We spend so much time bashing one another that I now realize the concerns about the neutrinos. The problem is that the mainstream always wants conventionel models to be applicable to any model deemed heretic.


neutrinos puzzle solved pleases the dark matter proponents
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/

and

The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge. So, there is no 'missing neutrino' problem for the electric Sun model.

For decades the measured deficiency of electron-neutrinos has been a continuing embarrassment for those who want to believe that the accepted H-He fusion model of how the Sun produces its energy is correct. Because this failure to observe the predicted neutrino flux clearly constitutes falsification of this fusion model, there has been a great effort to explain away the observed deficit.

As a result of their interpretation of the data obtained from their experiment, SNO researchers claim that the deficit does not lie with the fusion model, but is due to the fact that neutrinos change from one flavor to another on their way from the center of the Sun to Earth.
http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm






Yeah stick with your authorities. It really shouldn't matter who is supporting a particular theory. It is how a theory is supported that matters...

Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.
Socrates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

[Horn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ08nS32KrI

[Neuro]

No authorities, only researchers understanding that the metaphysical shapes the theory.

But you are all against that, so stay with your like minded, your authorities ;D Man made authority

unless the premises are recognized as such by all the debating participants, the quote is meaningless


by the way I am reading this now, "changing flavor" could fit walter russell's theory. We spend so much time bashing one another that I now realize the concerns about the neutrinos. The problem is that the mainstream always wants conventionel models to be applicable to any model deemed heretic.


neutrinos puzzle solved pleases the dark matter proponents
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/

and

The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge. So, there is no 'missing neutrino' problem for the electric Sun model.

For decades the measured deficiency of electron-neutrinos has been a continuing embarrassment for those who want to believe that the accepted H-He fusion model of how the Sun produces its energy is correct. Because this failure to observe the predicted neutrino flux clearly constitutes falsification of this fusion model, there has been a great effort to explain away the observed deficit.

As a result of their interpretation of the data obtained from their experiment, SNO researchers claim that the deficit does not lie with the fusion model, but is due to the fact that neutrinos change from one flavor to another on their way from the center of the Sun to Earth.
http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm
Neutrino cross dressers and trans-neutrino's... ;D

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the neutrino is just a fiction created to explain a deficiency in a mathematical model like special relativity, and then you have to squint very hard to see them kilometers down in a dark mineshaft (there is gold in thar hills of abandoned mines), and the reason you can't see them in sufficient quantities at that is because they do a sexchange from sun to earth.

I mean come on, did these "scientists" moonlight as Jewish porn writers while at university studying theoretical physics? What's next? Nazi neutrinos congregating under the ice sheets of Antarctica? --)

[Jewboo]

Throwing out some numberology. Saturn = 93. Sun is 93 million miles away. Coincidence? Saturn is considered keeper of time by some. Strong December 22 - 25 influences. Sol/Sun is considered keeper of time by others. Time = 144. 12 day hours 12 night hours, 12x14 = 144. 1440 minutes per day. 144,000 saved in Revelations. 144,000 sheep in the book of Jacob. Sum of the 1st 144 decimals of pi = 666. stop. enough.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dtY0VOFMWMM/SKdmRc6KsHI/AAAAAAAABAY/YMptqLYve5A/s400/hypertiger.jpg http://www.mathgoespop.com/images/2010/09/bmwindow.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/97/f2/81/97f281da374c9f5137257b54d6091818.jpg

:rolleyes:

[singular_me]

a fiction makes sense since neutrinos are not relevant in the EU model. And this would give W.Russell theory even more legs.



Neutrino cross dressers and trans-neutrino's... ;D

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the neutrino is just a fiction created to explain a deficiency in a mathematical model like special relativity, and then you have to squint very hard to see them kilometers down in a dark mineshaft (there is gold in thar hills of abandoned mines), and the reason you can't see them in sufficient quantities at that is because they do a sexchange from sun to earth.

I mean come on, did these "scientists" moonlight as Jewish porn writers while at university studying theoretical physics? What's next? Nazi neutrinos congregating under the ice sheets of Antarctica? --)

[singular_me]

Electricity responsible for sinkholes' formation ??? Interesting hypothesis. Standard theories only validate a few of them says the video. True? Could very well be, this video makes it simple to understand.

Sinkholes The Groundbreaking Truth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLUgEXI9RYI


------------------------------
It is like assigning little to no importance at all to "electricity governing thought". It is only when understood that we truly can begin to master our own thinking, thinking straight/centered.



"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven
You seem to suggest that the mainstream ignores plasma physics?
the mainstream thus far assigns little importance to the role of plasma and electromagnetism on cosmic scales. .... The passive role of plasma assumed by the mainstream is wrong!
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/faqs.html

[singular_me]

explained in 30 mins... what all teens should learn in high school

==========================
The Electric Light Lenses of Creation
by Walter Russel, speaker Matt Presti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dwsyD4diI8


The Creator's Omnipotent Energy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLlcJuxFrYw&spfreload=5

[Horn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLlcJuxFrYw&spfreload=5

I start to agree only at about 6 minutes in, as you should also.

It is the "quantifiable" that has lead mainstream science to its still state currently.

[Glass]

Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe
January 30 2917
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2017/4-studyreveals.jpg
A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram.

Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

The researchers, from the University of Southampton (UK), University of Waterloo (Canada), Perimeter Institute (Canada), INFN, Lecce (Italy) and the University of Salento (Italy), have published findings in the journal Physical Review Letters.

A holographic universe, an idea first suggested in the 1990s, is one where all the information that makes up our 3-D 'reality' (plus time) is contained in a 2-D surface on its boundaries.

Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: "Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded."

Although not an example with holographic properties, it could be thought of as rather like watching a 3-D film in a cinema. We see the pictures as having height, width and crucially, depth—when in fact it all originates from a flat 2-D screen. The difference, in our 3-D universe, is that we can touch objects and the 'projection' is 'real' from our perspective.

In recent decades, advances in telescopes and sensing equipment have allowed scientists to detect a vast amount of data hidden in the 'white noise' or microwaves (partly responsible for the random black and white dots you see on an un-tuned TV) left over from the moment the universe was created. Using this information, the team were able to make complex comparisons between networks of features in the data and quantum field theory. They found that some of the simplest quantum field theories could explain nearly all cosmological observations of the early universe.

Professor Skenderis comments: "Holography is a huge leap forward in the way we think about the structure and creation of the universe. Einstein's theory of general relativity explains almost everything large scale in the universe very well, but starts to unravel when examining its origins and mechanisms at quantum level. Scientists have been working for decades to combine Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory. Some believe the concept of a holographic universe has the potential to reconcile the two. I hope our research takes us another step towards this."

The scientists now hope their study will open the door to further our understanding of the early universe and explain how space and time emerged.

Story from Phys.Org. (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html)

[Glass]

Impact Craters on the moon could be Hexagon shaped, rounded out by erosion, dust etc.
This is a very interesting realisation. The volcano hypothesis is fairly traditional as far as conclusions go. I'm torn between this and electrical discharges as the cause of craters. It is clear they are not caused by impacts. I can agree that much with the presenter.

The main thing is something which I had not noticed but now he points it out, I think he is right. I think the craters are hexagonal in shape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfirhUJzm0

Here is a post on a recent Luna Wave capture (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?85294-Lunar-Wave-(Hologram-)-Events&p=882710&viewfull=1#post882710). This channel has some quite good moon surface close ups if you want to look more closely at this craters are hexagons possibility.

I've posted about the 2D/3D representations of symbols that permeate the world around us. The main symbol being the polygon Hexahedron that appears in the form of a Hexagon - a 2D representation. Some of us have discussed the worship of the Black Cube by several religions. For instance the Islamists, the Jewishists and the Catholics all worship the black cube.

The black cube has also made several appearances in popular movie culture (voxPop) such as 2001 Space Odyssey, Truman Show, Star wars ESB. Granted they look more like plinths than cubes but their intent is Cube. Of course the director of 2001 Space Odyssey takes his name directly from this worship of the cube - Kubrick.

There is a new Cube structure being built on the site of the "One World Tower" in NYC.

In 2D the cube appears as a Hexagon and many dozens of companies utilize this 2D representation in their corporate logos.

Saturn, which is a major focus of worship by many groups including Jewish sects, Catholic, Satanist and Freemasons has a large and clearly visible hexagon on one of its poles. Most of the western world worships Saturn every year under the guise of "Christmas", which in reality is the festival of Saturnalia.

Saturns Hexagon
http://www.sciencealert.com/images/2016-10/blue-hexagon.jpg

Here is a video of Venus taken via Telephoto Friday 13th Jan 2017. I'd be very interested to know if his equipment could cause this or if the shape of Venus as it comes to us is actually a Hexagon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jAbhXi3OfI

Are these objects in space polygons and not actually spheres/circles at all? AFAIK I am seeing circles.....but then there are these objects plus the worship of the cube in 2D and 3D form.

[Neuro]

Excellent theory on craters Glass in the video. He's got a very good point if the craters on the moon indeed were impact craters from meteors and comets then they would not be all hit at a 90° angle like it appears they were.

I wonder if volcanoes could be caused by electric charge/cosmic lightning?

[Neuro]

Excellent theory on craters Glass in the video. He's got a very good point if the craters on the moon indeed were impact craters from meteors and comets then they would not be all hit at a 90° angle like it appears they were.

I wonder if volcanoes could be caused by electric charge/cosmic lightning?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/050131volcaniclightning.jpg

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050131volcaniclightning.htm

[Glass]

interesting idea Neuro and it would merge the 2 ideas together nicely. Worth looking into in more depth. Lightening strikes causing the volcanoes to either open up or ignite or both.

Of course the idea of hexagonal craters applies to earth as well and he gives a couple of examples. It is just easier to see with the moon surface and other objects/moons he looks at.

[singular_me]

interesting idea Neuro and it would merge the 2 ideas together nicely. Worth looking into in more depth. Lightening strikes causing the volcanoes to either open up or ignite or both.

Of course the idea of hexagonal craters applies to earth as well and he gives a couple of examples. It is just easier to see with the moon surface and other objects/moons he looks at.

in a previous posting mentioned that there are 16-18 million thunder storms yearly occurring on earth, there goes the origins of volcanic activity, yeah I do believe that.

I also stated in another thread that saturn is worshiped because of its rings whose tremendous **vibrations** reach out the human psyche more than another other planet. They know when implementing specific agenda depending on the strength or weakness of these vibrations, which is harmonics. .

As always your research is worth the insight Glass

[Glass]

Saturn mythology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronus)

While the Greeks considered Cronus a cruel and tempestuous force of chaos and disorder, believing the Olympian gods had brought an era of peace and order by seizing power from the crude and malicious Titans, the Romans took a more positive and innocuous view of the deity, by conflating their indigenous deity Saturn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28mythology%29) with Cronus. Consequently, while the Greeks considered Cronus merely an intermediary stage between Uranus and Zeus, he was a larger aspect of Roman religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome). The Saturnalia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia) was a festival dedicated in his honour, and at least one temple to Saturn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Saturn) already existed in the archaic Roman Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Kingdom).
His association with the "Saturnian" Golden Age eventually caused him to become the god of "time", i.e., calendars, seasons, and harvests—not now confused with Chronos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronos), the unrelated embodiment of time in general; nevertheless, among Hellenistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_civilization) scholars in Alexandria and during the Renaissance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance), Cronus was conflated with the name of Chronos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronos), the personification of "Father Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Time)",[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronus#cite_note-perseus.tufts-5) wielding the harvesting scythe.

As a result of Cronus's importance to the Romans, his Roman variant, Saturn, has had a large influence on Western culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture). The seventh day of the Judaeo-Christian week is called in Latin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) Dies Saturni ("Day of Saturn"), which in turn was adapted and became the source of the English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) word Saturday. In astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy), the planet Saturn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn) is named after the Roman deity. It is the outermost of the Classical planets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planets) (those that are visible with the naked eye).

[Jewboo]

https://i.imgur.com/6NbGXMf.gif

[singular_me]

the universe is fractal so it m-u-s-t be holographic.

living geometry demonstrates the fractal/pattern theory however

all religious doctrines are inspired by astrotheology and that is precisely why they dedicated a witch hunt to astrology, to make people doubt that knowledge or ridicule it. But astrology is merely the understanding of planet resonance, which materialism deeply perverts (in this sense the bible is correct about astrology, another half-truth. In the universe everything is complementary, there is NO competition. Using astrology to compete is evil). Such as earth sounds like birds singing and pulsating with the OM of the sun accordingly. That we like it or not, we are in tune (or not) with these energies, and the latter impact human psyches. The fabric of the universe has a memory embedded in the law of harmonics/frequencies.



Story from Phys.Org. (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html)

am listening to this one right now

Published on Mar 21, 2016

Ryan does a great synopsis of my book "Gravity is a Myth and Does not Exist; Electricity is the only Force in the Universe" here explaining deeper levels of the works of Dr. Russell and Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkvA9LjjGio


LET'S THROW IN SOME ENTERTAINMENT (WATCH GOD'S FORCE TRANSLATED INTO IMAGES, INSIDE THE TORUS AT THE CENTER OF ANY CELL)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0eOuxJX36g