239Views59Replies

Author Options:

Crater Cutter kit Answered

My challenge is to produce a reliable 10kV spark generator which will cut me craters with a plasma arc. You can see the general idea on my blog: http://www.wikihow.com/Etch-Your-Own-Crater? The 10kV spark generator is my missing ingredient, so Instructables please step forward with a design!
Once running we can re-create any planetary feature by means of Cathodic or Anodic erosion. I believe this is a genuine alternative to the current 'impact crater' scenario, so favoured by astronomers.

Discussions

0
None
Kiteman

2 years ago

So, you're working on a device to demonstrate that the craters on moons, planets etc were caused by electrical effects?

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Yup! This has been an on-going discussion for nearly 30 years. My mentor Wallace Thornhill did the original experiments in Aus, and combined it with other research into prehistoric cosmic events. There is plenty more evidence that craters were caused by planetary interaction than this on-going 'impact' idea. It is not understood well in astronomical circles that all objects in space possess electrical status. The universe is mostly plasma, which allows vast electric charges to exist within the double-layer sheaths which surround areas of different potential. Planets were viewed by our ancestors in far more detail than we see them now. Blackfoot Indians could clearly see the scar (Valle Marinaris) on Mars. So electrical interaction was quite commonplace for a period - ginormous voltages and currents are involved in these 'lightning' exchanges. Watch the video and see plasma produces rotating pairs of arcs naturally, acting like electric cutters. Metal workers already use plasma for these purposes.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

OK, so even though we have seen these features being formed by falling celestial bodies, and we have found the debris of celestial bodies in these features, and the geology of these features shows a mechanical folding over, with a complete absence of fulguritic formations, and the small fact that there is no possible mechanism to generate and conduct currents between planets, and the absolute physical impossibility of seeing any feature on any celestial body [other than the Moon] with the unaided eye, you think that the various non-volcanic craters we see on celestial bodies were formed by big sparks?

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Continuing the conversation:

"Blackfoot Indians could clearly see the scar (Valle Marinaris) on Mars.."

"..the absolute physical impossibility of seeing any feature on any celestial body [other than the Moon] with the unaided eye,.."

Until you re-appraise the gravity dogma then the possibility is hidden from view. We have been masked from cosmic events for several centuries so the assumption has grown that the solar system is a stable, virtually unchangeable structure. Whereas the evidence passed down from ancient days is that things were far from stable.

That is why the Electric Universe theory involves such a holistic approach, and takes into account global archetypes, common 'myths' and written records. Thornhill has built up an understanding of gravity as a by-product of the electrical interaction between our current-sourcing star and its associated companion bodies. Gravity has to be an instantaneous action, not limited by light speed which will vary with the star energy level. The Sun is a variable star and responds to its environment in the galaxy. The 11/ 22yr cycle shows wide ranging values of x-ray output, which is inconsistent with a 'fusion furnace' model.

The suggestion is that ancient man witnessed periods when our star exhibited lower energy levels, resulting in lower values for G (the most variable constant ever). This ties in with the enormous creatures that roamed the Earth in the past, who could not survive our current G value (whatever the oxygen levels). As a result planets were in closer orbits and thus interacted to a greater extent than we have ever seen.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Are you familiar with the term not even wrong?

That.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Um... I'm not the one who thinks bright light travels faster than dim light, or that the brightness of a star changes the gravity on a planet...

And since when have modern physicists claimed that the solar system was stable?? That idea went out with... Kelvin?

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

If the brightness of a star indicates its supply of current then its is fairly obvious that the mass of all associated planets will be affected.

"The fact that powerful solar flares have been found seemingly to affect
the mass of the Earth, albeit temporarily, suggests that as an
electrical property of matter, the mass of an object may not be
altogether constant but may be subject to variations that old-paradigm
physics would not allow. This would be consistent with the anomalies
that have been widely reported in the experimental values of Newton’s
gravitational constant “G”. This implies also that our certainties
regarding planetary and other masses should be re-evaluated."

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-implications-of-the-electrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-3/

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

If the brightness of a star indicates its supply of current then its is fairly obvious that the mass of all associated planets will be affected.

1. The brightness of a star has nothing to do with a "supply of current".

2. There is nowhere to supply that current.

3. There is nothing "obvious" about the link between the brightness of a star and the mass of a planet, not even within the context of the "electric universe".

4. You've changed your story - first it was gravity, now it's mass.

That's four serious problems in the first sentence. The we turn to the "reference"...

The fact that powerful solar flares have been found seemingly to affect the mass of the Earth, albeit temporarily,

That's not a fact. No such effect has been found.

suggests that as an electrical property of matter, the mass of an object may not be altogether constant but may be subject to variations that old-paradigm physics would not allow.

It suggests no such thing. Solar flares do contain charged particles, but the overall charge is neutral, and planets have neutral charge, so there cannot be any electrical effects, and charges interacting do not affect each other's mass anyway...

This would be consistent with the anomalies that have been widely reported in the experimental values of Newton’s gravitational constant “G”.

What anomalies? The reason constants are called constants is because they are constant. Or do you perhaps mean the variations in the local acceleration due to gravity, small-g? Variations which are precisely and exactly explained by local variations in the geography (density of crust, presence of mountains etc)?

This implies also that our certainties regarding planetary and other masses should be re-evaluated."

No, it doesn't.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-implications-of-the-electrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-3/

Using blog-posts as if they were peer-reviewed journal entries is not a valid approach to science, and using the author's own website to prove the author's claims are "true" is borderline academic fraud.

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

If the brightness of a star indicates its supply of current then its is
fairly obvious that the mass of all associated planets will be affected.

  • 1.The brightness of a star has nothing to do with a
    "supply of current".
  • Both brightness and colour temperature would depend on current in a solar plasma discharge. The HH diagram is a perfect example, which should be re-labelled with current along the x-axis.

2. There is nowhere to supply that current.

>A positively charged sun attracts high speed electrons from the heliosphere. These have been detected by the Voyager craft and travel via the corona to the solar ‘transformer’ to be re-emitted as positive ions which form the current return path via the solar wind to the heliospheric cathode. That is why we witness multimillion degree outer atmosphere and cool surface photosphere. Sunspot umbra are the coolest place on the sun, where they should be the hottest (in a gravity/fusion star)!

  • 3.There is nothing "obvious" about the link
    between the brightness of a star and the mass of a planet, not even within the
    context of the "electric universe".
  • >Here is the theory of gravity/ mass in a nutshell.
  • 1) Planet behaves like a capacitor dielectric (where distortion of electron orbits produces the dipole effect, to enhance dielectric charge storage).
  • 2) Sub-atomic dipoles are induced in the planet by the solar ‘emf’ (gravity) which sets up an internal electric field. Star’s energy input decides the emf.
  • 3) In this ‘electret’ free electrons tend to drift towards surface
  • 4) The internal electrical stress/ polarization modifies the apparent mass of the planet
  • 5) Lightning can act as electron remover, reducing the ‘mass’ of the planet
  • 6)Newton’s law F = GMm/r^2 is commonly used, assuming G is same for all bodies in universe
  • 7) But what if mass is variable?
  • 8) Total orbital energy (E) of a planet (in solar orbit) = sum of KineticE and PotentialE
  • 9) KE = 1/2mv^2 & PE = -GMm/r
  • 10) For simple circle v^2 = GM/r, so that E = 1/2m(GM/r) – m(GM/r),r = m(-GM/2E) ie, r is proportional to m for constant orbital energy (OE)
  • 11) Orbit radius depends on mass, so if mass doubles the radius doubles, to conserve OE.
  • 12) In a lower energy system planets are much closer to their star,
  • 13) Charge exchange between planets maintains their relative orbits, to avoid collisions, doesn’t stop them getting really close though!
  • 14) Being an electrical self-stabilising system, it operates very quickly, appearing to satisfy Newton’s laws.
  • 15) Note that as the mass of a planet changes, so does its spin rate, to conserve angular momentum.

4. You've changed your story - first it was gravity, now it's mass.

>Completely interrelated, in an electric universe.

That's four serious problems in the first sentence. The we turn to the "reference"...

The fact that powerful solar flares have been found seemingly to affect
the mass of the Earth, albeit temporarily,

That's not a fact. No such effect has been found.

>Beg to differ. In 1960 Danjon reported a sudden deceleration of Earth’s rotation following a solar flare of record intensity. Length of day increased by 0.85 millisecs and then began to decrease at a rate of 3.7microsecs per day.

suggests that as an electrical property of matter, the mass of an object
may not be altogether constant but may be subject to variations that
old-paradigm physics would not allow.

It suggests no such thing. Solar flares do contain charged
particles, but the overall charge is neutral, and planets have neutral charge
,
>Depends how you define neutral. Within our double layer bubble we assume we are neutral. In a stable solar system each rocky object’s orbit is a function of its charge status. Fast moving objects develop noticeable double layer sheaths as they pass from more negative outer regions to the sun’s positive environment. Comets are a good example,
exhibiting bright DL glow, discharge jets and even disintegrating when the reach the OUTER negative zones.

so there cannot be any electrical effects, and charges interacting do not affect each other's mass anyway...

This would be consistent with the anomalies that have been widely
reported in the experimental values of Newton’s gravitational constant “G”.

Big G has never been more accurate than 3 decimal places. Everytime it
has a slightly different value. http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-massvariation.asp

This implies also that our certainties regarding planetary and other
masses should be re-evaluated."

No, it doesn't.

Admittedly in the current academic system there is little chance of anyone re-assessing their precious assumptions.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/articl...

Using blog-posts as if they were peer-reviewed journal entries is not a
valid approach to science, and using the author's own website to prove the author's claims are "true" is borderline academic fraud.

I think you will find that Thunderbolts consists of a growing number of disenchanted scientists and engineers. And what makes the peer-review system so good anyway? It is simply a mechanism for ensuring the
consensus view wins every time. Like those precious Royal Societies. All set up by the FreeMasons – I wonder why?

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Oh, my word, so much silliness.

1. Just saying that the brightness of a star depends on the current flowing through it does not make it so. You have still not identified the driver of this "current", nor how it flows around the universe, devoid as it is of any significant quantity of charge-carriers. Your model fails.

2. IF the Sun were positively charged, and IF the solar wind were negatively charged, then the solar wind would not blow. However, the Sun is NEUTRAL, and the solar wind consist of equal quantities of positive and negative charges, flowing in the same direction ie it is also NEUTRAL. This is not theory, it is an observed and measured fact that completely contradicts your "theory".

3. Gibberish. Planets do not behave like individual atoms. That is an easily-observed fact that completely contradicts your "theory".

4. A change in rotational velocity is not a change in mass. The earth did not begin to slow down at that point, it has been slowing since the day it formed (the dinosaurs lived on a planet that took an hour less to rotate each day than it does now).

5. No, it doesn't, because there is only one definition of "neutral", which is "no overall charge". How can you not know that, when clinging so desperately to the mad "electric universe". Oh, and our Solar System is far from stable...

6. Big G is constant at 6.67259 x 10^-11 N m2/kg2 It has been for some time. That's why they call it a constant. Blaze Labs has never been a reliable source of information since it first opened.

7. Peer review is a way of checking methodology, not facts. It is how paradigms get turned over in the real world. The only people who disparage the peer review process as a conspiracy are those who know their work will fail under unbiased scrutiny. (Oh, and the Royal Society, even though it has nothing to do with the peer review process, pre-dates the Freemasons by some 200 years...).

-------------------------

And, in all that, you still failed to even try and answer my question. I think we can safely assume that you have no idea how to answer the question, and are merely blustering in the forlorn hope that those who are still reading this thread have not managed to gain a middle-school level of literacy, and may be fooled into thinking your claims have any solid basis.

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Sorry but I think much of the Consensus is totally ridiculous. Such narrow, blinkered teaching in our academic institutions is going to bite us one day. A bit like the Emperor's new clothes, the threadbare foundations for the Standard Model will eventually be exposed.

1. Space is full of charged particles, very low density, but mostly in the plasma dark mode. Birkeland currents are naturally filamentary and indentifiable by their magnetic envelopes. All visible entities eg stars, galaxies are examples of where the invisible plasma becomes glow or arc mode, where a confluence or focus point (z-pinch) concentrates the current flow. The network of current filaments is on a massive scale. The star is just another focus of galactic energy.

2. As I said Voyager has identified the high speed electrons streaming on from the interstellar source. The balance of + ions to - electrons is pretty close in the solar 'wind' but we can measure the acceleration induced into the + particles. They also follow a gentle potential gradient towards the heliosphere, (which recently affected one of our outgoing space probes). The path of incoming electrons tends to focus on the polar regions of the sun, whereas the outgoing tend to be in the equatorial plane.

3. Who said planets behave like atoms? I am trying to explain the microscopic nature of gravitational mass. The overall effect of subatomic particles throughout the planet is to give the impression of a centrally located 'force'. A very weak force indeed.

4. Velocity change could be related to change in mass. The quoted example from 1960 " Length of day increased by 0.85 millisecs and then began to decrease at a rate of 3.7microsecs per day" means that the rotational velocity returned to normal within a few hundred days.

I don't know how you could possibly calculate the rotate rate from dinosaur times. You are making big assumptions about the stability of Earth. I would dare to suggest that we gained around 20minutes a day in 747BC when we gained our 51/4 days. All calendars had to be recalculated after a cosmic event slowed us down, (again).

5. You obviously know little about the way plasma works. A fault of our blinkered education system.

6. Again you believe what you want to.

7. I haven't seen much unbiased scrutiny here. I would say you carry a very heavy bias to the consensus view and have failed to seek alternative paradigms when it is so obvious that Einstein, Hawking, etc have it so wrong. Such treatment is natural for anyone trying to protect what has become a religious 'faith', rather than science. Einstein was never happy with his theory and was in close discussion with Velikovsky when he died - the rebel founder of alternative cosmology.

I was not actually referring to the 1660 venture, but rather the 1836 gentleman's club Geological Soc, later dubbed 'Royal'. A convenient political tool without any geologists originally.

Your detailed question will remain unanswered as our solar system has suffered many extraordinary transformations, even within the past 20,000 years. It is fruitless to make any sort of guesses which bodies were in close proximity at any one time.

Cosmic_powerlines.JPGBirkeland%20forces.jpg
0
None
OncerCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Your hero Velikovsky said planets and solar systems behave like atoms. Are you just cherry picking stuff 'cause it sounds cool? We're getting close to conspiracy theory here with comments like scientific consensus is "ridiculous". Do you really believe the scientific community is there just to repress your strange, non-evidence based mitherings? Oh, by the way, we went to the moon and global warming is real.

0
None
Cigarshaped Oncer

Reply 2 years ago

The scientific community needs funding and avoids anything off the narrow gravity line. They have made several duff assumptions, particularly the Uniformitarian view that nothing has changed much in the past million years. The evidence for massive change is all around us, even preserved in the remembered traditions of cultures who go back several thousand years. Most folks are just plain scared to consider that our solar system could change radically, in a very short period.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Uniformitarianism went the way of the Dodo nearly two centuries ago.

Your folk traditions "remember" things for which there is no physical evidence, because they are just stories made up to explain their immediate context.

If you actually paid attention, quite a large part of the scientific community's efforts go into studying the past and future changes in the solar system.

As I have explained to you many times already, none of your ideas hold up to even the most gentle scrutiny. Without offering a comment myself, I showed them to a couple of my astronomy class. Thirty 14 years olds laughed at their ridiculousness.

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

The commonality between many disconnected cultural traditions speaks of shared experiences. Mythologists have been forensically investigating this for many years.

If adding the six zeros to dates counts as 'studying' then forget it.

Shows how brain washed your students have become. Incapable of unassuming all your standard 'knowledge' and looking clearly at the evidence alone. I bet they a brilliant at the maths.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

The commonality between many disconnected cultural traditions speaks of
shared experiences.

Local floods, fires, disease, tribal warfare, but no dramatic changes in the nature of the universe.

Mythologists have been forensically investigating
this for many years.

Um, no, they haven't (unless you think von Daniken is a proper scientist??). You cannot forensically investigate a myth. Check a dictionary if you don't understand why.

If adding the six zeros to dates counts as 'studying' then forget it.

I have no idea what you are talking about there. Unless you are also dabbling in creationism?

Shows how brain washed your students have become. Incapable of
unassuming all your standard 'knowledge' and looking clearly at the
evidence alone.

You've never met my students - I encourage them from the youngest age to challenge everything, to never accept facts without corroborating evidence. They take great pride in trying to catch me out on bald assertions. Part of the reason they found your ideas (they don't even qualify as hypotheses!) to amusing is your reliance on a single source for your ideas, with no solid theory, no proper predictions or models, no experimental or observational data. Nothing beyond the musings of a single, discredited individual.

I bet they a brilliant at the maths.

Many of them are, but I can't claim credit for that. I just claim the credit for their critical, analytical scepticism.

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Actually the important information gets through and it indicates quite sophisticated astronomy skills. People's attention was on the sky because they could easily see the massive changes taking place before their very eyes. Planetary movements were easily followed as the local group of bodies was much closer in the Saturnian system.

Evidence chiselled on rock shows that all around the globe our ancestors witnessed cosmic events which were both terrible and beautiful. These same images are produced (in miniature) in xray micrographs by Anthony Peratt and co at Los Alamos laboratories. They point to a spectacular series of events in the not -so distant past when our solar system changed radically to its current wide-spread layout.

Have a look at the progress made by the SAFIRE group, near Toronto

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/05/03/michael-clarage-safire-and-the-electric-sun-model-eu2015/. A very impressive electric sun photosphere model was produced in early prototype runs.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Para 1:

No denying sophisticated astronomy skills in a small number of cultures. None of the records they left, though, describe any planets being closer. The major planets are all visible to the naked eye now.

Para 2

"Evidence chiselled on rock"? Photos from a reliable source, or they don't exist.

Para 3

SAFIRE?? Don't make me laugh! They saw that a toy plasma globe has temperature variations "just like the Sun", and thus claimed that the Sun runs on electricity. Absolutely no mention of the fact that a plasma globe only works when it's plugged in, but that there is absolutely no energy being input to the Sun.

Para 4

Again, clinging to the same dodgy source - it may be a different URL, but it's the same bloke running it.

0
None
Kiteman Oncer

Reply 2 years ago

Oh, please don't set him off again...!

0
None
OncerCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Your Hero Velikovsky did, amongst other non-sense, even suggesting that planets would change orbits depending on their "energy" levels.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Good grief, you're clinging to this idea so strongly, you still haven't even googled to find out what the Standard Model actually says - rail against it as you try, you're clearly too afraid to read some actual facts.

1. Space is not "full" of anything. Birkeland currents flow within a planet's magnetosphere, not between planets and stars. There is not enough matter between celestial bodies to carry any currents. That is a measured, observed fact that contradicts your model.

2. Both Voyager craft are still within the Sun's magnetic field, and still within the heliosheath. Measurements of the craft's speeds show that the local region of Solar wind is slowing as it begins to interact with incoming solar winds, but has yet to meet any incoming solar wind. Neither craft has any sensors running that measure the charge or path of any particles, so your entire "point 2" is a work of fiction.

3. You did. The attraction between celestial bodies is gravitational, not electric, and certainly not magnetic. Gravity fields tail off in proportion to the inverse square of the distance from the mass, but magnetic fields tail off in proportion to the inverse fourth power of the radius. This is a measured, observed fact that contradicts your model.

4. No, it isn't. The speed didn't "return to normal", it has been slowing at a measurable rate since the dawn of the universe. We have measured this slowing for many years now, and a simple extrapolation shows us what the past was like.

(747BC? Again, more fiction.)

5. You're wrong. Again.

6. This isn't a matter of "believe", it is simple, verifiable facts. You only need to "believe" if you have no evidence.

7. There's a consensus for a reason - we all have access to the facts and methodology. And you need to check your history - the Geological Society is a different organisation to the Royal Society (and, again, it has nothing to do with Freemasonry).

Your detailed question will remain unanswered as our solar system has
suffered many extraordinary transformations, even within the past 20,000
years. It is fruitless to make any sort of guesses which bodies were in
close proximity at any one time.

It will remain unanswered because your model has no links to the evidence. Any model which cannot answer the most basic questions you are trying to answer, and which does not explain any of the observed facts, is not a model worth retaining, and should be discarded in favour of a more accurate model.

That is how science works.

Use your model to answer my questions. I think we can safely assume that any failure to directly answer the questions is a tacit admission of the failure of your model.

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Voyager 1 is starting to sample the InterStellar Medium, or "solar wind" as you so quaintly put it.

Between stars, in the so-called “vacuum of space,” there is still one
atom per cubic centimeter. The ISM consists of gas and dust composed of
hydrogen and helium, with a mix of dust grains less than .01 microns in
size. Where the dust came from is not known, but astrophysicists think
that it was ejected from stars. Some stars are observed with clouds of
dust surrounding them. Deep space images reveal “lanes” of dust
thousands of light-years in circumference looping around many galaxies.

Electric currents generate magnetic fields. Voyager’s research team
found magnetic fields strong enough to hold the boundary of the
heliosphere together. Electric charge must be flowing through the ISM in
order to create those fields.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/02/17/solar-media/

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

It's not sampling anything - stop using sockpuppet websites as if they were proper references. Peer-reviewed, or nothing.

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Just keep your mind closed and you will be safe old boy!

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

[Sprays coffee over keyboard with laughter]

This from the chap that gets all his information from one, single source?

Play safe, and be careful near power outlets...

0
None
KitemanKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

(And that, I think, is where I will leave this - feel free to reply, but only if you're going to actually answer the questions. If you want to continue the "debate", PM me.)

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

A recent NASA release entitled NASA’s Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge[3] provides the following important updates to the information Juergens used in making his estimates:

  1. Voyager 1 is now approaching the heliopause (the outer surface of
    the Sun’s plasmasphere). It is approximately 11 billion miles (18
    billion kilometers) from the Sun. The probe has not yet crossed the
    boundary into interstellar space so this is a minimum estimate of the
    radius of the heliosphere.
  2. Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of
    high-energy electrons entering our solar system from elsewhere in the
    galaxy.
  3. The probe has been measuring the speed of the solar wind and for the first time in its journey, the wind now “blows back at us”.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/08/voyage...

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

1. That's what I said - it is still in the Sun's magnetic influence, and has not reached the interstellar medium. It may yet be tens of AU from the outer surface of the heliosheath.

2. That report you link to is over five years old. And "100 fold" from what to what?

3. That's what I said, but in less flowery terms.

0
None
KitemanKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Oh, wait, Thornhill is one of those...

"...astronomy is stuck in the gas-light era, unable to see that stars are
simply electric lights strung along invisible cosmic power lines that
are detectable by their magnetic fields and radio noise..."
"*Myopia – a disinclination to acknowledge the existence of something."
"The truth is always unified, and as such it can only be friendly to those who seek the truth first."
"It provides simple answers to problems that are now clothed in fashionable metaphysics and mysticism."
"Velikovsky was convinced that the clue lay in his discovery that
electrical forces dominate the incredibly weak force of gravity at times
of planetary close encounters."
The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded “Galileo of the
20th century”, Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding.
The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. ... In Arp’s new view
of the cosmos, active galaxies “give birth” to high redshift quasars
and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages
of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance.

Apparently black holes are a fiction invented to explain away the magnetic fields that "really" hold galaxies in their form.

Also, stars don't run on nuclear fusion, they are formed when cosmic magnetic fields "pinch" plasma into beads strung along those cosmic magnetic field lines, and a supernova is actually one star fissioning to give birth to another:

"Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning! The
matter inside stars becomes positively charged as electrons drift
toward the surface. The resulting internal electrostatic forces prevent
stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to
“give birth” by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas
giant planets."
"Earth-like planets and moons are similarly “born” by electrical
expulsion of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas
giants. That explains the dichotomy between the dense rocky planets and
moons and the gaseous giant planets. In the Electric Universe model,
gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force."

I could post more quotes of Thornhill's silliness, but I don't think it's really appropriate to copy and paste his entire website.

If you're interested, here's his website:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/

Go and have a giggle, but be prepared for frequent facepalm and headdesk moments.

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Seems like you have been utterly convinced by the Standard Model show. Modern astronomy has become a one-horse race, which is totally against scientific principles. It has no fall back to its elaborate gravitational scenario. Even when the assumptions it is based on have crumbled long ago. Engineers are normally less easily taken in by the mathematical wizadry of Einstein and co. Gravity is only really applicable in the local environment of the solar system. Plasma is the real universal driving force.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Oh, look, evidence that directly contradicts the "electric universe":

http://www.universetoday.com/127939/vla-shows-earl...

No planets being birthed by other planets, but planets forming from gas and dust, as described in modern cosmology (but never, ever mentioned by the Standard Model - have you found out why, yet?).

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Given that a 5km long lightning bolt will be running at about 100,000 volts and 30,000 Amps, yet leaves a crater in loose earth only as deep as a saucer, with fulgarite about half a metre long, please describe the mechanism by which a lightning strike could leave a crater 180km across and 20km deep, with absolutely no trace of fulgarites?

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

That's terrestrial lightning. We are not trying to create that. Instead you will see from the video that EDM, Electric Discharge Machining requires a persistent arc for extended period. The megavolts and giga-amps needed to cut a decent crater are unimaginable to our puny minds. The ground currents involved can spread vast distances and can be seen across Moon and Mars as Lichtenberg 'tentacles'.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

I can imagine some pretty big numbers.

Now, if the "electric universe" model has any validity at all, you should be able to describe, if only in general terms, the mechanism that generated an electrical discharge powerful enough to excavate the Chicxulub Crater.

If that's too hard, how about describing the mechanism that was responsible for the "Chelyabinsk meteor" that your model says was not actually a meteor?

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Yeh, I do tend to get suckered in by such nonsense as verified evidence or logically consistent models...

0
None
CigarshapedKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

Nothing verified about Black holes, dark matter or dark energy as far as I know. It's a big con! As for Neutron stars - what a joke! Thousand of revs per minute. Old fashioned rotating lighthouse technology went out with the Ark. All you need is a simple strobe ie relaxation oscillator. A couple of binary stars interlinked by plasma will do just that (in an electric universe).

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Nothing verified as far as you know??

How can you be connected to the internet and make that statement?

Your ideas might work in an "electric universe", but, since this is reality, they don't.

0
None
Kitemancaitlinsdad

Reply 2 years ago

+1

I used the XKCD original as my wallpaper for the longest time...

0
None
kelseymhKiteman

Reply 2 years ago

I see you've already uncovered Thornhill. This is just part of the "plasma universe" nonsense, which Hannes Alfven (1970 Nobel for MHD) got into. It's an example of a good physicist overgeneralizing and wandering off into woo.

0
None
Cigarshapedkelseymh

Reply 2 years ago

So you would dispute Anthony Peratt's research into plasma. He is the world authority and worked with Hannes Alfven. I met him 2005 and seems perfectly sane to me.

0
None
KitemanCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

You seem to have missed the scientific questions I asked:

Given that a 5km long lightning bolt will be running at about 100,000 volts and 30,000 Amps, yet leaves a crater in loose earth only as deep as a saucer, with fulgarite about half a metre long, please describe the mechanism by which a lightning strike could leave a crater 180km across and 20km deep, with absolutely no trace of fulgarites?

You tried to wave that one aside, so I asked:

Now, if the "electric universe" model has any validity at all, you should be able to describe, if only in general terms, the mechanism that generated an electrical discharge powerful enough to excavate the Chicxulub Crater.
If that's too hard, how about describing the mechanism that was responsible for the "Chelyabinsk meteor" that your model says was not actually a meteor?

Can you answer either of these questions? Or not?

0
None
caitlinsdadkelseymh

Reply 2 years ago

Gentlemen, please keep things civil, and no human wagering, please.

0
None
Cigarshaped

2 years ago

What a perfect example of a plasma discharge. Thanks.

Exactly as described in the EU to demonstrate the filamentary nature of z-pinch phenomena. Commonly known as Peratt instabilities after my mate Tony who measured these things (in miniature) at Los Alamos laboratories. You can read more here:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/26/essent...

The usual formation of planets is more likely to be when stars receive excessive current and discharge excess material in molten blobs of fused elements. Velikovsky was convinced that Venus was expelled from Jupiter, as described in ancient legends, etc. Certainly would account for its incredible temperature and fiery reputation as a cometary body by our ancestors.

The clumping theory is sadly lacking in any realistic possibilities. Has it been shown in the laboratory yet?

VLAzoomL.jpgZ-pinch.png
0
None
gmoon

2 years ago

Funny video, especially when "fusion has happened." ;-)

These guys were all over the ESA's Rosetta website for a time, trying to paint every observation and new discovery (of comet 67P) as a part of the "electric universe." After a time, it became pretty clear which posters to ignore.

As one of the opening quotes on Futurama put it: "You can't prove it won't happen!" ...except we can prove the electric universe theory is hokum...but we live in an age of non-scientist science deniers.

0
None
Cigarshapedgmoon

Reply 2 years ago

Well I suppose you deny that 67P looks anything like a lump of Mars then?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-12/1/comet-67p-full-colour-image. Doesn't look much like an ice cube now. Most of the comets and asteroid we see are probably left overs from the cosmic events that tore the guts out of Valle Marinaris and many other massive features. The only 'ice' involved is a misreading of spectroscopy results. These were witnessed by our ancestors in the not so distant past. An electrical system will stabilise in a fraction of the time that gravitational systems allow.

0
None
gmoonCigarshaped

Reply 2 years ago

Rosetta is discovering LOTS of stuff we didn't know about comets. However, it hasn't found anything inconsistent with traditional sciences. And science certainly doesn't say all comets are consistent -- there may be a whole spectrum of comet-makeups, and near-comet-makeups, and not-really-comets-with-comet-attributes-makeup, etc.

Obviously, all the new cosmological information that's suddenly available is wonderful. For instance, we're always focusing on liquid water, and just discovering how dynamic the cold matter of the universe can be (on Pluto, Enceladus, Ceres, etc).

Eh, dirty ice ball or icy dirt ball. You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. 67P sure sublimates like ice when it warms up. And slows it's activity as it cools. Just like a comet...

You realize just repeating oddball interpretations of pre-columbian artifacts or legends doesn't constitute scientific proof of this theory, yes? Funny how Erich von Daniken's books didn't cause all academics to burn their histories...

Many physicists primarily study plasma, but don't subscribe to these theories. And it's perfectly reasonable to suggest some electrical and plasma forces at work in the universe. Some will certainly be at play in 67P. It's not reasonable to chuck the rest of physics away, simply because electrical phenomenon is easier to understand for the layman.

0
None
Cigarshapedgmoon

Reply 2 years ago

The engineers have made the research possible, but it is through which lens the data is viewed that decides if progress is forward or backward.

There is little sign that scientists are even considering the effects of electricity in space, as all reports seem heavily biased to gravitational explanations. We only see objects in space because of their em signature. Whether it's light, UV, IR, X-ray or radio we rely on plasma to generate these waves. As Hannes Alfven put it, 99.99% of the visible universe is plasma. Magnetic fields are detected everywhere, but they cannot exist without continuous electric currents. Ionised plasma is the medium by which electricity moves around, whether its the solar 'wind' or super-galactic transmission lines.

So how do we prove it either way? Well at least there are plasma discharge experiments successfully reproducing the photosphere in an industrial unit in Canada. Craters still to follow. Whereas not one single dark entity has been shown experimentally by our Standard Modellers.

"67P sure sublimates like ice when it warms up. And slows it's activity as it cools. Just like a comet..." I assume 'warm up' means getting closer to the Sun. As the Sun is our local current distributor then you would expect negatively charged rocks to display electrical reactions as their double layer sheaths are pressurised during the close swing part of the orbit.