The Cosmic Thunderbolt part II, open minds welcome all others need not apply.

Please do not comment if you don't have the time to view the entire thing. It's not fair and it's actually dishonest to yourself and others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-46CJ5Pt7U&feature=related

The DVD "Symbols of an Alien Sky" will change not only your view of Earth history and human mythology, but also your view of cosmology. Seeing ancient rock paintings and carvings from around the world that match electric plasma discharge formations photographed in the laboratory are very convincing.
rjhuntington 10 months ago 8

Plasma cosmology has changed so much of my views its ridiculous. I almost feel stupid for excepting the big bang theory as truth, even though the whole time I felt like it was absurd, especially considering the conservation of energy. Thanks Talbott, Thornhill et al, you guys rock!
heffenuts 4 months ago 3

This is the most meaningful body of work I have ever encountered alongside HPB's The Secret Doctrine, ALice Bailey's work and the writings of Jung. The Thunderbolts Project work revolutionises understanding of human evolution and stands up as mastery indeed. The work of Perratt, Thornhill and Talbot et al is indeed staggering.
ubergeraldine 9 months ago

Reality is stranger then fiction. What we Perceive, when we Always look from Within to Outside with full "360" senses spectrum, what we sense is only a glimpse, fractal of "Self-Reflection & Self-Realization" of Consciousness Source of the "True Nature of Reality" of All that Is.
ase010 9 months ago

This stuff is great! I haven't had as much fun since I read Velikovsky decades ago.

I am especially fascinated by the comments of "ubergeraldine." With a name like that, you know it must be true, for sure. I am, as she puts it, "staggered" and it's far from 2 A.M.

:rofl:

Note: I did watch the whole thing, along with other output from the source. The more I watch, the more amused I become.

and so it goes. Funny how you don't have any trouble with all the perplexing enigmas your mathematicians have created for themselves.

I bailed out of mathematics after the second semester of differential equations. How far did you get? I have great admiration for those who master higher mathematics.

So, I except her, too. In fact, I pretty much except the Electric Universe in its entirety, just like I do Velikovsky. Ancient symbols, indeed.

There is no science to be found in any of it...just legend and fantasy. Pure woo for the woory.

Thanks!

Just wanted to know before I click the link if it's a waste of time.

It's entertaining, but not factual. Just wild speculation, a la Velikovsky. Woo.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5

Instead of the expected gradation of properties of the planets with distance from the Sun, we find a ‘fruit salad’ of characteristics, which don’t make any sense in the simple nebular model. For example, the Earth has an abundance of water, yet the region where early Earth formed was too hot for water to be incorporated into a solid body. So, in ad hoc fashion, meteorites had to deliver it later. As one expert on the subject remarked, “you need to make a special case for each planet.” Gravitational accretion of planets from a dusty disk doesn’t work anyway—once a disk, always a disk—look at Saturn’s rings. Theory shows it is hard for a planetesimal to get to 1 km in size. But then to avoid fragmentation by collision, a body needs to be 1000 km to provide enough gravity to retain collision debris!

Special requirements abound in the accretion disk model. Even if we assume, despite the objections above, that planets the size of Jupiter can form, we then need a violent phase of activity from the new Sun at just the right time to dissipate most of the matter of the disk while leaving the gas giants with thick atmospheres. But then, how do we explain Jupiter’s three times the solar abundance of noble gases?

Perhaps the most significant problem with the gravity-only model is how to explain the circularity and long term stability of planetary orbits. After all, more than two bodies moving under the influence of gravity produce a chaotic system. There is no restoring force when a planet is perturbed in its orbit. Under Newtonian law, the solar system today cannot be the same as it was even in the recent past.

When we look at the nearest 100 bright stars in the solar neighborhood (within ~ 25 parsec radius) there are 40 binary stars, 15 triple stars and 5 quadruple stars. How can an accretion model explain so many multiple star systems? And where do the numerous brown dwarf stars fit? They have a much lower binary star fraction of ~ 15%. And why do stars seem to have a maximum mass of ~ 100 solar masses? As another expert put it, “the theory of star formation fails—mysteries abound!”

This is another case of the "I don't understand any of this, but this guy seems pretty smart, so he must be right" school of the promulgation of nonsense to make money.

You have fallen prey to someone who can write reasonably well and is able to buffalo his way past people who don't really understand any of the science involved. You're welcome to your gullibility. I do understand it, and will have none of it.

I will not be commenting on any more of this Electric Universe nonsense on DU. In the immortal words of David Byrne, "I don't have time for that now."

WooHoo!

panties in a wad.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2




Myth No. 1. Mercury’s motion is convincing evidence for Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Einstein’s geometric theory of general relativity makes no real sense whatsoever. It leaves more unanswerable questions than it appears to solve. How, precisely, does matter have an effect on empty space? Nobel Prize nominee, the late Professor C. L. Kervran, stated the problem: “..the word “matter” has no exact meaning; we just do not know what matter is; we do not know what a proton or electron is made of; the word only serves to cloak our ignorance. Matter has not been proved to come from energy.”

In addition, the concept of curved or ‘warped’ empty space has no physical reality. It is a purely mathematical concept where the word ‘dimension’ has a broader meaning than mensuration. It seems that the esoteric theoretical geometry of general relativity may have defeated Einstein too. A fellow Australian has issued a quite simple and specific, yet unanswered, mathematical challenge to hundreds of experts. His conclusion? “The relativists have all fatally erred in their analysis of black holes and relativistic cosmology.* General Relativity does not predict black holes or expansion of the Universe with or without a big bang.” The stark nakedness of our ‘emperors of science’ underlines the power of myth to blind us to reality. Mercury’s perihelion advance is telling us something different. But no one can see that—yet.

* One mistake is a school kid howler. The mathematical infinity generated by treating an extended object as a point mass and letting the radius of gravitational attraction tend to zero is invalid. The center of mass is a geometric convenience that has its uses for such things as calculating moments of inertia and deriving planetary orbits, but to reify it into a gravitating "thing" is an exercise in human imagination, not reality. The expression for gravitational field strength at a point inside an extended object isn't the same as for a point outside it. But invoking a point mass makes every part of the object "outside." Within a gravitating mass, the force diminishes as you move inward from the surface and more of the downward pull is offset by mass that now lies above, until at the center of a sphere it becomes zero.

The surrounding region is therefore not under intense compression, which precludes any formation of a black hole. The debate over general relativity is ephemeral and of no real consequence. Massive public funding of research in relativistic cosmology should stop and those responsible for the unconscionable waste of time and resources held to account. It should be obvious that gravity is a property of matter and not of empty space.

any way.

been reading are not idiots. They are electrical engineers, plasma physicists and cosmologists who have gone off the beaten path. I think that if I were a stupid person, that after I had read the volume of material I have on this angle that I would have detected intellectual dishonesty or outright fraud. They back up their points of view with good arguments as outlandish as they may seem at first blush.

If you took the time to become immersed in their explanations for things that make the traditionalists scratch their heads you might start to see a new paradigm. Their point of view has been predictive of many of the seemingly alien discoveries made in the last 20 years or so, while the gravity only paradigm leaves many of the observers scratching their heads in disbelief. I'm not saying with extreme prejudice that they are absolutely correct but I am saying that to ridicule them is wrong because the last thing they are is stupid and or deluded.

I don't have time for that. I did all that in my 20s, but I learned more, and stopped reading balderdash as soon as I recognize it as such. You may do as you please.

This stuff you are presenting is pure woo, and is unsupported by any data or reasonable scientific thinking. It's undergraduate-level speculation...all of it, with a bit of bookselling strategy beneath it all.

I ridicule it because it is ridiculous. Clearly you do not understand what you are reading well enough to see that. Good luck to you.

...you seem fairly close minded.

:rofl:

koo koo

koo koo

yup

post woo in the woo forum but no... the woo must be spread!

and DU allows for it in it's proper forum and that is where this should be.