[paimei01]

A documentary :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 316220374&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk - the part about our Sun

It appears that the main forces that are responsible for what happens in the Universe are electric in nature.

The electric universe theory can explain the shape of the galaxies, and the fact that they hold together , the gravitational theory cannot do that, it has to presume the existence of "dark matter", that makes 90% of the entire mass of the Universe, without it the galaxies would just fly apart, the gravitational force is too weak to keep them in once piece. Stars and galaxies are united because of these forces

Also the new theory explains the quasars, before it was thought that they are stars that rotate around their own axis 300 times/second, but no star could resist at such speeds , so scientists decided they must be super dense and have a very powerful gravitational force

The established theory that says the Sun is a giant nuclear reactor that transforms hydrogen into helium cannot explain why the sunspots reveal dark areas underneath them, and why the corona of the Sun has a temperature of millions of degrees, when the surface of the Sun is only a few thousands of degrees hot

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007 ... themis.htm
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras

[virgincrude]

palmei, nice to see you catching on! I think you'll find Golem is well up to speed. He posts under his old nic Raphael at the thunderbolts.info forum

here:

Thunderbolts

There's a wealth of stuff and links there to keep the mind buzzing and get a perspective on all the hype in the media regarding everything from global warming to PO (or not) related catastrophe. You might check out jmccanneyscience.com for another source of info, especially weather, although the guys at thunderbolts have some issues with him

[AWPrime]

Mmmm fresh meat....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('paimei01', 'T')he electric universe theory can explain the shape of the galaxies, and the fact that they hold together , the gravitational theory cannot do that

[mercurygirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'H')e posts under his old nic Raphael at the thunderbolts.info forum

[blukatzen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mercurygirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'H')e posts under his old nic Raphael at the thunderbolts.info forum

[oldstyle]

This is certainly an interesting line of thought and one I have considered for some time without conviction. In some cases, it provides some clear tangible explanations for life. The two most basic principles in science and math are that atom (positive nucleus with negative charged electrons that "orbit" it) and from math the fibonacci series. The fib series platted on a graph show the elliptical curve that seems present in nature everywhere. (From conical seashells to pine cones to flowers to the shape of our galaxy.) It makes sense to me that the forces and principles of electricity are the building blocks of our universe.

I also can generally recognize a free flowing energy that encircles all of us on earth. Have you ever thought of your wife or kids only to have the phone ring a few seconds later and it be them thinking about you at the same time? While telepathy is a bit much I do think that in some fashion we are connected with those we share experiences with. I have had that experience many times, when in my garage and even when in Europe and my wife in Texas.

Anyway, I'm rambling .. there is one point I wanted to make in the thread though..

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')paimei01 wrote:
The electric universe theory can explain the shape of the galaxies, and the fact that they hold together , the gravitational theory cannot do that

Actually it can.

[virgincrude]

"That's where a LOT of us have been! LOL! C'mon and join the forum over there, it's very interesting."

Agreed blu, those such as AWPrime and his supposed skepticism should be the first ones to visit.

To so-called skeptics such as he (women tend to be less dogmatic) who announces we are 'New Meat' in order to continue upholding the current scientific DOGMA which hampers true debate, here are a few quotes from real scientists, rather than mere personal opinion. Oh, and should AW decide to come back and flame me, he's on my 'ignore' list, so blow it out yer arse...

"The history of science shows that the progress of science has constantly been hampered by the tyrannical influence of certain conceptions that finally come to be considered as dogma. For this reason, it is proper to submit periodically to a very searching examination, principles that we have come to assume without discussion."
—Louis de Broglie, Revolution in Physics, 1953.

Decades ago, the father of "plasma cosmology," Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven, had already admonished cosmologists that the problem of inhomogeneity would lead them to a dead end, so long as they refused to deal with electricity in space. More recently, physicist Eric J. Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened, wrote that the scale of observed voids in galaxy distribution, "combined with observed low streaming of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang...." According to Lerner, while this unevenness refutes the BB hypothesis, "...the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a 'radio fog' of dense plasma filaments."


“Today, nothing is more important to the future and credibility of science than liberation from the gravity-driven universe of prior theory. A mistaken supposition has not only prevented intelligent and sincere investigators from seeing what would otherwise be obvious, it has bred indifference to possibilities that could have inspired the sciences for decades." 
David Talbott and Wallace Thornhil

The greatest difficulties in communication will occur when one is questioning something already "known" to be true. On matters of underlying principle, the confidence behind established ideas can be so high that discussion itself may seem quite senseless. This difficulty is aggravated by fragmentation of the process by which information is gathered and evaluated. The specialization of intellectual inquiry carries with it certain risks when assumptions within one discipline rest upon prior assumptions in other disciplines. No one can be an expert on everything, and when considering possibilities outside one's personal expertise, it is only natural to defer to what specialists in other studies claim to know. But what are the consequences of this when theoretical suppositions, though perceived as fact, cannot account for compelling new fields of data?

[greenworm]

We already covered this a bit in the below thread, but it got a little nasty, so it ended up in the flame forum. I introduced the plasma concept to Golem a while back, I think he likes it, I sure do.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic34240.html

[AWPrime]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oldstyle', 'I') also can generally recognize a free flowing energy that encircles all of us on earth. Have you ever thought of your wife or kids only to have the phone ring a few seconds later and it be them thinking about you at the same time?

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am not going to waste my time cleaning up in sewage central. With the lack of working models, the creation of fake problems, ect. I can only see the EU group as the creationists of astronomy.

[AWPrime]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', 'L')ack of working models? The whole theory is based on plasma model developed in a lab, what more do you want?

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')laying with electricity in a lab doesn't constitute a model.

[AWPrime]

I take it that you don't have any reference source that you are willing to defend.

If you find your idea to have any worth, then pick an EU site with a nice detailed explanation to have a discussion about.


Or I will simply start the discussion about one of the the key pillars of the theory, this being 'the sun is powered externally'.

[gg3]

Re. AWPrime "Mmmm! Fresh meat!"

I just finished posting in the feral cats topic about a household cat that pounced three mice out of five in a few seconds, and the juxtaposition of that with your remark has me rolling in the aisles.

What to do about all the wild & crazy "theories" out there:

Someone needs to do for this sort of stuff, an exercise similar to a comparative religion writeup. Just compile all of them as belief systems and what they imply about the nature of the universe and our existence in it. That would make for fascinating reading.

I've run across a few doozies in my day. Usually by well-meaning people whose reasoning hangs together on the surface but doesn't when examined in much detail. Even so, interesting as an anthropology exercise.

And one never knows, some of them might have the seeds of viable ideas that could be pursued further by someone with relevant expertise, much as Western pharmacologists have been on the trail of native shamanic medicines, some of which have turned out to be highly useful.

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') take it that you don't have any reference source that you are willing to defend.

[AWPrime]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') take it that you don't have any reference source that you are willing to defend.

[greenworm]

That was nice of you to phrase it in that manner. Here you go.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')re stars powered from within, or does the power come from elsewhere? This was the question asked by Sir Arthur Eddington in the 1920s. He settled for the former, and this laid the foundation for current mainstream models. Ralph Juergens asked the question again in the 1970s, and opted for the latter. According to Juergens, stars shine because they are connected to electric circuitry within galaxies. An electric star's brightness thus depends on the power of the electric current feeding it, not on the amount of nuclear fuel available to burn.

Stars thus behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge. The many surface phenomena that can be seen on the Sun -- hot corona, sunspots, prominences, flares, et al -- can all be explained by an electric Sun, but are more difficult to understand from a nuclear point of view. Nuclear reactions take place on the surface, not in the core, perhaps explaining why neutrino numbers vary with sunspot cycles, and these reactions are almost certainly produced in the same way that we produce them in the lab -- by accelerating particles in an electric field.

[AWPrime]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', 'T')hat was nice of you to phrase it in that manner. Here you go.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')snip]According to Juergens, stars shine because they are connected to electric circuitry within galaxies. An electric star's brightness thus depends on the power of the electric current feeding it, not on the amount of nuclear fuel available to burn.

[AWPrime]

double

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ets start here, where is this galactic current?