https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEYdsZFNOrE
Printable View
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.
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.
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/Orbita...a_central_body)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamboni
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by mamboni
This assumes that those things, about traditional solar explanations, are true which wouldn't be the case if the universe were actually electric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
The forces of Gravity and speed of light are claimed to be inversely proportional. According to Einsteins theories.Quote:
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.
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...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.
BOLD: speed of electricity
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamboni
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 beQuote:
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.
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.
In Swedish Saturn=Saturnus=133 distance to sun 149 million kilometers. 149-133=16=2^4. Michaels birthday 2nd of April = Hyperdimensional Tigeristic Insanity= 666Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by singular_me
Still you haven't explained how the elites keeps us in their grip from this so called "knowledge"...
Can you expound a bit on this? Which of his theories?Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
AgreedQuote:
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/Orbita...a_central_body)
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.Quote:
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.
You ever seen a blown fuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
Welding spatter?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
Yep, but I never formed a star when I blew a fuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
i know u like to think u are the universe, but its just not so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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.
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.
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/sciencete...#ixzz4UiWd82Nj
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
As you so eloquently explained, logic often escapes most.
"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...... lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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
Mathematics is the universal language of the universe. Let's see the math to back up this statement.Quote:
Electric Universe theory for star power, is relative to the plasma field universe it exists in.
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.
Then it shouldn't be difficult to display the mathematics behind it to explain the behavior so lets see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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.co...-debunked.html
How exactly does this line up with EU again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
I want MATH to explain the EU theory. Hell even Tesla had math to explain his inventions.Quote:
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).
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Not buying it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
Yet this is the theory that is to replace "mainstream science".. :rolleyes:
Good luck with that, idiot
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
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.