The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

quote:

---

Do we see that? Or do we only build satellites from non-magnetic materials?

---

Yeah, I thought of that later as well. They are most likely made of aluminum, so not much of a magnetic pull. Of course this would have the opposite effect, the satellites would not feel the sun's pull (or the moon's for that matter) as they should.Another example is the probe we sent to the large asteroid. The probe was able to orbit this body with no problem. After they figured out that Ceres was actually a rubble pile instead of solid rock, they were able to orbit around the asteroid using Newton's laws of gravity. Magnetism is not a viable mechanism for establishing orbits.

quote:

---

How about the earth's magentic field? Would it align with this hypothetical magnet?

---

You would think so. Geology and cosmology aren't my strong suits, but I can't see how it wouldn't.

So if that is the case we should find that all of the magnetic fields for all the planets align with this hypothetical super magnet, wouldn't they?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, I know, but I'm not sure Hanno is accurately capturing what the website he's in love with is saying. It seems to be advocating electrical plasma as the alternative explanation for many cosmological phenomena, see http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm. In what I've read there so far I haven't noticed any advocacy of magnetism, and the introductory page (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/index.htm) hints that magnetism is part of the mainstream view it is rejecting: Moving on: The contributions of all magnetic fields are summed at each point in space. Hence, when we measure magnetic field direction here on earth with a compass we are measuring the sum of all magnetic fields in the universe. Because of our proximity to the earth, its magnetic field by far outweighs the sum of all other magnetic fields in the universe, and so the compass points toward the earth's magnetic north.The earth contains a great deal of magnetically sensitive metals, and so of course will respond to outside magnetic fields, such as the Sun's. I don't know whether the net force is negligible or not. Permanent magnets can be remagnetized in different directions by a sufficiently strong magnetic field, but the earth's magnetic field is not thought to be due to permanent magnets. It's thought to be due to convection currents in the earth's liquid outer core, composed of nickel/iron, combined with the earth's rotation. A strong enough magnetic field would not only overwhelm the earth's relatively weak magnetic field, but also cause its own current flows producing a sympathetic magnetic field.--Percy

Good grief. There is no way I will be able to keep up with the rate of replies. I'll do my best.

quote:

---

If the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 had impacted a solid body rather than Jupiter do you think it would have left an impact crater ?

---

Yes, it would've created a hole in the ground, but I'm not certain that it would resemble a crater.

quote:

---

How do you explain the iridium layer at the K-T boundary if it wasn't due to an impact ?

---

I'm no chemical expert, but if you have an electrical discharge big enough to burn a hole that size, is there any chance that that would create iridium?

quote:

---

Have the supporters of the idea that craters are caused by electrical scaring done any experiments to back this up ?

---

Lignting between bodies is possible: The solar wind is plasma, which conducts electricity. In fact, according to the electric universe model, the lights observed on Io is electrical discharge, not volcanos. Ofcause, untill we get a closer look both theories are valid hypothesis.
I remember reading that craters resemble craters formed by lightning somewhere. I tried to find the website, but I need to do some more searching. I'll try to get to this one tomorrow

quote:

---

I couldn't find the section you're referring to. Could you describe the drastic change to the planetary alignment you're talking about?

---

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm

quote:

---

Astronomers believe black holes exist in the center of many galaxies based upon observations. Stars near the centers of such galaxies are observed orbitting the galactic centers at such a high rate that there must be a very large mass involved, and a black hole accounts for this much mass. A star or group of stars of such mass would be visible through the electromagnetic radiation such bodies emit.

​

In addition, though nearby galaxies (in other words, old galaxies) do not give much indication of black holes in the center, this is believed to be because the black holes in these old galaxies have had sufficient time to sweep up most matter in the galactic core. But as they view galaxies further and further away (in other words, younger galaxies) the galactic cores are found to give off radiation consistent with matter falling into black holes. And at the furthest reaches of our vision we see quasars, which are thought to be very young galaxies still in the throes of birth with massive amounts of matter falling into a black hole at the center.

---

I just like to repeat my point that we do not know that black holes can actually exist. We do not know if matter can actually be compressed to the point of forming a black hole.
Secondly, gravity do not explain the various galactic froms we see. If the outer stars indeed move slower than the inner stars, the spiral effect would not be sustainable, and
yet it is very common. And why are some galaxies ball shaped, while others are spirals? Please pardon my ignorance, but according the images http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm,
it seems like Peratt has found a working modal that explain all these shapes. These galactic shapes are based on the electric universe, and do not require a black hole or dark matter.

quote:

---

You're correct if you mean that black holes have not been directly observed. But their existence is not in question. As soon as the mass of an object reaches the point where its escape velocity exceeds that of light, light can no longer escape from the object and it becomes a black hole.

---

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. We do not know how matter will respond under these high presures. We do not know if an object can actually reach the point where its escape velocity exceeds that of light. There might be a limit to how much matter can be compressed. It might deviate from the mathematical model, just as the compressed gas deviate from the "ideal gas" model beyond a certain point.

quote:

---

Though I wouldn't express it this way, I think this is true of all scientific theories. Theories are tentative. As we learn more about galactic centers our theories will be modified, and if what we learn contradicts current theories then they'll have to be discarded.

---

quote:

---

What we can do here is examine the evidence for those views whose evidence you think inadequate.

---

With one major difference. a theory is testable, a hypothesis is not. There is the hypothesis of a warp drive. It states that space itself is not limited by the speed limit of light. So, if you can actually "move" the space in which a spaceship is, the space ship can move faster than the speed of light, without the time delay and other side effects, because, relative to space itself, the spaceship is standing still. The hypothesis do not violate any law, yet it is unproofable, therefore it is not a theory. Dark matter falls into this category. Since there is no physical proof of its existance, it is a hypothesis, not a theory. Yes, it is a conveniant way to make our current model work, but it is not the job of scientists to force theoritical modals to work. It is their job to find the truth. Make shift fixes like dark matter only confuses the matter, and doesn't serve any constructive purpose. A better approach would be to question if the model is correct, and search for alternatives, and rather just admit that we don't know, untill we find something more substansial. If we admit that we don't know, then maybe, we will be more motivated to find the real awnsers. You can propose dark matter, but the moment you treat it as a fact (without the necesary evidence) it will only cloud your judgement, and send you into the wrong direction. Science would never have developed if we didn't first admit to ourselves "we don't know", because with this admission, comes the following : "I want to know". If scientists accept the existance of dark matter, just to make their model work, is this not the same as ancient priests creating a mythology to explain what they don't understand?

quote:

---

I'm not sure how well the idea you're responding to corresponds to contemporary ideas about the origin of the solar system. I haven't explored this topic in quite a while, but I think we have more questions than answers at this time. I think a form of the nebular hypothesis still holds sway, and I'm sure a fair amount has been worked out, but I'm also sure that there are a huge number of unanswered questions. It's likes reconstructing the history of an immense pool table that began with billions of tiny billiard balls that aggregated to form a much lesser number of smaller billiard balls over billions of years. If the electric/plasma people have some solid proposals then I'm sure the astronomical community would love to hear them.

---

Obviously, plasma is much denser in nebulae. Surely electric activity can explain why nebulae shine. (Stars can not explain this, as nebulae is thousands of light years across. the stars are not bright enough to illuminate a cloud here on earth, so there is no reason to believe they can illuminate en entire nebulae.) Then you can also use the z-pinch effect to explain the formation of stars and planets. Also, with the increased dencity of a nebulae, electrisism would arguebly play a much bigger role than they do here. If cosmologists studied this field of science, maybe it might've awnsered some of their questions, don't you think? Maybe the electric universe modal is wrong, but unless you have the same knowledge than those who proposed it, it makes it very difficult to convincingly disproof it.

quote:

---

If the monster asteroid that hit Mimas had been any bigger or moving any faster, the whole moon may have shattered! As it is, there are enormous cracks on the opposite side of Mimas from the crater where the pressure waves from the impact converged and were amplified, wreaking havoc on the surface."

---

Let's take this arguement. First, the author believe ONLY in impact craters, and secondly, Mimas DID NOT explode into bits. Is any other conclusion possible? But what if you concider that maybe Mimas COULD NOT'VE survived such an impact? The idea is not far fetched. If it was ideed an impact, it is a miracle that the moon still exists.

quote:

---

Craters would be elliptical were they formed from the momentum of the impact object, but they're not. When a meteorite strikes an object like a planet at high velocity, say 10 miles/sec, the object and the part of the planet it strikes instantly vaporizes. Any momentum effects from non-dead-on strikes are comletely overwhelmed by the massive vaporization explosion.

---

Non the less. If an asteroid comes in from the east, wouldn't the bulk of the explosion follow the momentum to the west? What evidence is there that an impact actually do form an explosion? Who's to say that it doesn't just move a lot of dirt? If you shoot a bullet into sand, there is no explosion.

quote:

---

While gravity is invariably described as a very weak force, it isn't as weak as some descriptions make it seem. The typical comparison to a common magnet that can overcome the attraction of the entire earth invariably fails to note that the center of earth's mass is 4000 miles away, while the magnet is immediately adjacent to the object. If you had a magnet strong enough to equal earth's gravity from a distance of 4000 miles that would be so powerful a magnet that I don't think I'd want to get anywhere near it.

​

A magnet capable of supporting a 1 pound weight from a distance of 4000 miles away would exert a pull on the same object of 16 million pounds at a distance of 1 mile. Have we ever observed magnetic fields strengths of this magnitude anywhere in the universe? I don't know myself.

---

Electricity froms magnetic fields, and magnetic fields form electrical currents. Plasma has a self organising porpery when an electrical current passes through it. So, a magnetic field in a plasma should cause an electric current, which in turn would "organise" the plasma. The plasma can carry the current to a distant planet. If there is a strong voltage, an electric discharge would result.

quote:

---

That sounds like a fairly major force. So if there was a magnet what could exert force on the iron core of the earth across a distance of 93,000,000 miles do you think we would be able to detect it?

---

Read above.Unfortunatly, this is all I've got time for now. I will try to get more information on the crater theory.Just a final thought:Olumpus monts is concidered to be a volcano. If it was, then each erruption must have been identical to form cliffs arround the mounain of up to 6 km. Here on earh, volcanos tend to have a slope. cliffs are not a common feature of volcano's Also, it is very unusual that the lava flow is so evenly distributed in all directions. Maybe, just maybe, Monts Olumpus is NOT a volcano.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-27-2005 13:01 AM

No.

quote:

---

Yes, [comet Shoemaker-Levy 9] would've created a hole in the ground, but I'm not certain that it would resemble a crater.

---

Why not? Why should I go with "I'm not certain"? Craters are consitent with meteor impacts, including shocked quartz and tektites, not to mention the layer of irridium found world wide in the case of the meteor impact from 65 MYA.Also, some craters are up to 300 km in diameter. How can an electrical discharge create such a large crater? Why hypothesize eletricity when rocks large enough to do the job intersect earth's orbit even now?

quote:

---

I'm no chemical expert, but if you have an electrical discharge big enough to burn a hole that size, is there any chance that that would create iridium?

---

As JonF said, the answer is no. The formation of any element from other elements requires extremely high pressures like that found in stars. Iridium can be produced in supernovae, but not due to eletrical discharges.

quote:

---

In fact, according to the electric universe model, the lights observed on Io is electrical discharge, not volcanos.

---

And have we observed these eletrical forces causing craters?The site you linked to is full of bunk. For instance: The formation of the Grand Canyon was due to water erosion, and no geologist doubts this (except for a few creationist extremists). There is no controversy. How can this site be taken seriously when it spreads untruths like this?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-27-2005 14:17 AM

Even the looniest of creationists beleives the Grand Canyon was formed by water erosion. Some think it was formed in a few days by water erosion.

I was hoping you'd come over to What's not Macro about Chlorella v? and join in a discussion of your response.

As long as you keep tossing out creampuffs there will always be a long line to hit them out of the ballpark! That there are a large number of comets, asteroids and meteors in the solar system makes collisions with planets and moons a common event, as evidenced by the large number of craters on the surface of planets and moons. That such collisions happen is further confirmed by the aforementioned collision of the Shoemaker-Levy comet with Jupiter. The earth experiences meteor showers several times a year, like the Perseid and Leonid meteor showers (fortunately mostly the size of a grain of sand), further confirming that collisions are a common occurrence. Meteors, asteroids and comets are observed all the time, but judging by the number of sightings lightning in space must be pretty rare.More evidence that impact craters are caused by impacts comes from detailed examination and analysis of suspected impact craters here on earth, on the moon and, to a lesser degree, on Mars. These studies have revealed the evidence of the type of shock waves and resulting vaporization caused by high velocity impacts and in many cases of the original impacting body itself. A detailed discussion of how impact craters form can be found at Formation of Impact Craters.If you believe some impact craters are actually created by electrical discharge then you need evidence to support this view. For example, when examining supposed impact craters, what should we be looking for if they were caused by electrical discharge instead of impacts? How would a crater caused by electrical discharge differ from one caused by an impact? You're no nuclear expert, either. Chemical reactions cannot transmute one element into another. As someone else has already indicated, if your electrical discharge were great enough to cause temperatures and pressures sufficient for fusion then the creation of higher elements such as iridium is possible, but in that case the evidence of a fusion reaction would be abundantly clear in the presence of fusion byproducts. The validity of your last statement seems tenuous at best. There is much evidence that impact craters are caused by impacts, and no evidence at this point in time that they're caused by electrical discharge.You didn't actually answer the question you were addressing. Some kind of evidential support for crater formation through electrical discharge, either through experiment or through examination and analysis of existing craters, is important if you want the idea seriously considered. More than just a red flag, the absence of evidence is an indicator of bad science, of putting the theory cart before the evidence horse. It's probably beyond the scope of this discussion to consider ideas not too dissimilar from those of Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. Interpretation of ancient texts and drawings vary widely. If we limit ourselves to the scientifically available evidence, what leads you to believe there have been any dramatic changes in planetary alignments? Addressing the second point first, black holes do not require the extreme compression of matter, though it helps. The less matter involved, the more densely it must be compressed to form a black hole. The more matter involved, the less compression is required, which means that blacks holes can be formed from a large mass that isn't particularly dense. The possibility of black holes does not require highly compressed matter. Furthermore, there is no indication that the physical laws we know break down simply because matter is highly compressed.Concerning your first point, what you're really saying is that the evidence for black holes is indirect. That's hardly a criticism. The easily visible and detectable stuff was found by science long ago. Much of modern science concerns phenomena only indirectly detectable. In order to rebut the existence of black holes you must directly address the evidence supporting their existence and propose better explanations for the evidence. This is false. I can see you're trying to draw a dichotomy between the testable and the untestable, but a hypothesis is not untestable. Theories begin as untested hypotheses, so your conjecture cannot possibly be true.What you probably meant to say is that a hypothesis is theory that hasn't been successfully tested yet. And if the hypothesis never passes any tests then it will remain a hypothesis. I suggest using the word evidence in place of proof. In science nothing is ever proved, only supported by evidence. We have evidence which is explained by dark matter, but dark matter is not the only possibility. While dark matter is probably accepted as a viable possibility by more cosmologists than not, probably few believe the evidence so compelling as to think the issue is settled. Dark matter has its strong advocates, but I doubt many believe it's an established fact. Until there's sufficient evidence the popularity of various theories will ebb and flow. That dark matter is all the rave now should not be mistaken as meaning that cosmologists believe the issue settled. Nebular emissions themselves provide the clues to the origin of the emissions. What can you tell us about the analysis of these emissions as far as an electric plasma origin? The stars thought to illuminate nebula are the stars in or near the nebula. When looking down from an airplane upon a foggy city at night you can see how the city lights illuminate the fog. That's because the lights are located within the fog. But those same city lights are incapable of producing the same bright glow on a distant fog, say one out to sea some distance. The problem is that you're using knowledge of everyday events to think about things with which there is no day-to-day experience. A bullet weighs little and travels at perhaps a half mile/sec, while an impacting cosmic object capable of creating a crater would weigh much, much more and travels at around 10 miles/sec and above. The kinetic energy is correspondingly much greater.Gradually scale your example up and you'll get a feel for the consequences of a large meteor strike. Imagine the bullet striking rock instead of sand. You wouldn't want to be too close to that, the fragments would be dangerous. Now imagine the bullet traveling 20 times faster at 10 miles/sec and imagine it striking the rock. It would probably be enough to cause a small explosion. Now imagine the bullet is actually a boulder the size of a house and imagine it striking the ground. Everything for miles around would be devastated. Take a look at that link I mentioned above (Formation of Impact Craters). It explains it all pretty well.--Percy

Guy's I'm going to be very busy next week, might have to work over time, then there is no time for this. Hopefully, I will be back here no later than Wednesday.Here is an interesting article:
Water on Mars? – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSEYes, I know there is a lot you will find silly (Like the ancient solar system model), but try to focus on the valid points the writer is making. Anyone who've build a dam in the sand as a child, will notice the very valid point the writer is making: There is no way in hell that a flash flood will carve out such a neat linear canyon. Once the water bridged the crater wall, it will spread out, not unlike the Okavango Delta of Botswana. An alternative is given using a plasma discharge model. Now this do not necesarily had to be venus. Any large, highly charged body that passed Mars, could've caused this effect. Also, I do not think it far fetched that an Electrical discharge on this scale can cause nuclear reactions. This is not your average lighning storm. Note that they've actually did the experiment in the lab.However, I do believe the plasma model is much more usefull in explaining galactic motion. (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm) The outer stars of the galaxy all move at the same velocity. Appearently, this caused some scientists to doubt Newtons gravitational laws (M.O.N.D.) It is not necesary to have dark matter, or to question Newtons laws, when we have a working model to explain this motion: (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm) Maybe this plasma theory also leaves some questions, but at least this model do not require (F.A.I.R.Y.D.U.S.T.) or special exceptions to Newtons laws. (Remember, Newton himself used to be an outcast by the mainstream scientists for a long time. Due to this, we almost passed out on some major discoveries)Do not through out the baby with the bath water.

quote:

---

The results of this forensic research by a very few adventurous scholars are unequivocal, unexpected and disturbing. If we could see it, our prehistoric sky would stupefy us with its unfamiliarity. Mars and Venus moved close to the Earth and met in apparent combat wielding thunderbolts. The spectacular patterns of interplanetary lightning were commemorated globally in petroglyphs, monumental works and cultural traditions.

---

Aha. So this is an Olde Skool Catastrophist argument.Furthermore they assert "forensic research" by a group call Aeon:
"AEON is a journal of myth, science, and ancient history specializing in archaeoastronomy and.comparative mythology."In other words.... THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.

Percy. I was typing a responce on your post, and then I tried to open that crater link of yours. Unfortunatly, it had some undesired effects: The links is killing my machine, and the browser with my responce is not responding. And I so HATE to do something over. Mustn't try that one again. I'll write my responce next week. Sorry.

GOOD GRIEF CONTRACYCLE!!! I might as well have spoken to a rock.

quote:

---

Yes, I know there is a lot you will find silly (Like the ancient solar system model), but try to focus on the valid points the writer is making. Anyone who've build a dam in the sand as a child, will notice the very valid point the writer is making: There is no way in hell that a flash flood will carve out such a neat linear canyon. Once the water bridged the crater wall, it will spread out, not unlike the Okavango Delta of Botswana. An alternative is given using a plasma discharge model.
Now this do not necesarily had to be venus. Any large, highly charged body that passed Mars, could've caused this effect.

​

Also, I do not think it far fetched that an Electrical discharge on this scale can cause nuclear reactions. This is not your average lighning storm. Note that they've actually did the experiment in the lab.

​

However, I do believe the plasma model is much more usefull in explaining galactic motion. (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm) The outer stars of the galaxy all move at the same velocity. Appearently, this caused some scientists to doubt Newtons gravitational laws (M.O.N.D.) It is not necesary to have dark matter, or to question Newtons laws, when we have a working model to explain this motion: (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm) Maybe this plasma theory also leaves some questions, but at least this model do not require (F.A.I.R.Y.D.U.S.T.) or special exceptions to Newtons laws. (Remember, Newton himself used to be an outcast by the mainstream scientists for a long time. Due to this, we almost passed out on some major discoveries)

​

Do not through out the baby with the bath water.

---

FIRST OF ALL, the "Olde Skool Catastrophist argument" usually involve the Great Flood, NOT A FIRE STORM. You're comparing apples with peaches! The people who advocate this catastrophist have a totally different starting point as the creasionists, and, in case you haven't noticed, creasionism is not the topic of discussion.Second of all, if you bothered to READ, you would've noticed that that the there are two theories at work in the authors mind: One of the electric universe, and the other of the "ancient mythology telss us ...." If you cared to follow the arguement, you would've noticed that I am advocating the FORMER, not the LATTER!!!You just went out to find the first thing you disagreed with. You have not followed the arguement at all! Is there a single place in this topic that I actually AGREE with their interpretation of ancient mythology?

The link is to a PDF file, which browsers display using Acrobat Reader. If you don't have Acrobat Reader on your machine, it's a free download off the Internet. If you prefer not to use Acrobat Reader, here's a link to an HTML equivalent at Google.--Percy