Thunderbolts Of The Gods


Recommended Posts

A theory of the cosmos based on plasma and electricity.

1 hour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zixnWeE8A

The Electric Universe:

http://www.electricuniverse.info

http://www.holoscience.com

Could you precis this theory into a paragraph of your own about what you derived from this video? I do not have an hour to watch it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you precis this theory into a paragraph of your own about what you derived from this video? I do not have an hour to watch it.

Plasma is the 4th form of matter. Matter can be solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. In plasma electrons and protons are not formed into atoms. Most of the matter in the cosmos is plasma. Plasma is an excellent conductor of electricity.

Traditional astronomers and cosmologists assume that gravity (the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces) is the only important force at the cosmic scale. In this video a bunch of scientists claim that evidence is accumulating that electricity is an important force at the cosmic scale and can explain things that traditional theories can't explain. One example is why the sun's corona is so much hotter than the surface of the sun.

I don't consider myself qualified to evaluate this theory and I don't intend to get into any techy discussion of it. For more information listen to and watch the 1 hour video. Also find additional sources by searching "thunderbolts of the gods" or "electric universe".

Link to post
Share on other sites

you tube presentations of radical scientific hypotheses are suspect. Better: refereed papers from a respectable physics journal.

Example: Pons and Fleischman introduced their "cold fusion" results in the popular press. When other physicists tried to reproduce their results, they got bupkis.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you precis this theory into a paragraph of your own about what you derived from this video? I do not have an hour to watch it.

Plasma is the 4th form of matter. Matter can be solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. In plasma electrons and protons are not formed into atoms. Most of the matter in the cosmos is plasma. Plasma is an excellent conductor of electricity.

Traditional astronomers and cosmologists assume that gravity (the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces) is the only important force at the cosmic scale. In this video a bunch of scientists claim that evidence is accumulating that electricity is an important force at the cosmic scale and can explain things that traditional theories can't explain. One example is why the sun's corona is so much hotter than the surface of the sun.

I don't consider myself qualified to evaluate this theory and I don't intend to get into any techy discussion of it. For more information listen to and watch the 1 hour video. Also find additional sources by searching "thunderbolts of the gods" or "electric universe".

This theory was first put forth by Hans Aalven, a genuine physicist. His theories were not corroborated by other physicists and astro physicists. The cosmos is not electrical. Why? Because postive and negative charges are mostly balanced off. Plasmas to not have the reach of gravitation which is a force not negated by another force. That is why gravity reaches and electrically charge bodies do not.

The electric universe hypothesis has not been verified or corroborated by experiment or observation and cannot account for all the observed phenomena at long distance.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cosmos is not electrical. Why? Because postive and negative charges are mostly balanced off. Plasmas to not have the reach of gravitation which is a force not negated by another force. That is why gravity reaches and electrically charge bodies do not.

The electric universe hypothesis has not been verified or corroborated by experiment or observation and cannot account for all the observed phenomena at long distance.

There have been several clear instances of over-reach by plasma cosmologist in attempting to expalin everything.

On the other hand The General Theory of Relativity is dead as a fundamental theory of cosmology. It died when

it required Dark Matter to prop it up - then the statistical mechanics of Dark Matter entirely failed in 2011.

Once you lost the General Theory of Relativity you lost the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. Once the Big

Bang Theory died - the Big Bang age of the universe died with it.

Plasma cosmologists have said since the early 1990's that time scales much greater than the Big Bang are required

for plasma cosmology to scale in order to match observation. If I remember correctly the largest features seen

in the early 90's would have required 20 trillion years minimum to form - implying forces involved outside of the

seen area of 100 trillion light years diameter to shape those features.

The short time frame of the Big Bang requires a whole host of fictional devices created out of whole cloth to match

observation - with no evidence of any kind to back any of them. One of the primaries - Dark Matter - is now dead so

the entire whole cloth has unraveled.

I don't believe plasma cosmology is the answer to all questions after the death of the Big Bang but it should not

be dismissed as unimportant. Once the dead wood of the Big Bang theory is peeled away and realistic time

frames are involved plasma cosmology and scaling of plasma physics to galactic superclusters and beyond will

still have a place.

The issues and theories need to be addressed one at a time in light of the death of the Big Bang.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cosmos is not electrical. Why? Because postive and negative charges are mostly balanced off. Plasmas to not have the reach of gravitation which is a force not negated by another force. That is why gravity reaches and electrically charge bodies do not.

The electric universe hypothesis has not been verified or corroborated by experiment or observation and cannot account for all the observed phenomena at long distance.

There have been several clear instances of over-reach by plasma cosmologist in attempting to expalin everything.

On the other hand The General Theory of Relativity is dead as a fundamental theory of cosmology. It died when

it required Dark Matter to prop it up - then the statistical mechanics of Dark Matter entirely failed in 2011.

Once you lost the General Theory of Relativity you lost the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. Once the Big

Bang Theory died - the Big Bang age of the universe died with it.

Plasma cosmologists have said since the early 1990's that time scales much greater than the Big Bang are required

for plasma cosmology to scale in order to match observation. If I remember correctly the largest features seen

in the early 90's would have required 20 trillion years minimum to form - implying forces involved outside of the

seen area of 100 trillion light years diameter to shape those features.

The short time frame of the Big Bang requires a whole host of fictional devices created out of whole cloth to match

observation - with no evidence of any kind to back any of them. One of the primaries - Dark Matter - is now dead so

the entire whole cloth has unraveled.

I don't believe plasma cosmology is the answer to all questions after the death of the Big Bang but it should not

be dismissed as unimportant. Once the dead wood of the Big Bang theory is peeled away and realistic time

frames are involved plasma cosmology and scaling of plasma physics to galactic superclusters and beyond will

still have a place.

The issues and theories need to be addressed one at a time in light of the death of the Big Bang.

Dennis

As long as we have GPS we will keep GTR as a heuristic. It provides the time correction that can locate you to within ten feet of where you are.

Ba'al Chatzafr

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we have GPS we will keep GTR as a heuristic. It provides the time correction that can locate you to within ten feet of where you are.

Since GTR no longer works outside the scale of our solar system it has achieved the position Newtonian gravity had 100 years ago.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we have GPS we will keep GTR as a heuristic. It provides the time correction that can locate you to within ten feet of where you are.

Since GTR no longer works outside the scale of our solar system it has achieved the position Newtonian gravity had 100 years ago.

Dennis

I am fairly sure that a budget of a few billion dollars could show GTR doesn't even work for some trajectories and in some circumstances within

the solar system.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we have GPS we will keep GTR as a heuristic. It provides the time correction that can locate you to within ten feet of where you are.

Since GTR no longer works outside the scale of our solar system it has achieved the position Newtonian gravity had 100 years ago.

Dennis

I am fairly sure that a budget of a few billion dollars could show GTR doesn't even work for some trajectories and in some circumstances within

the solar system.

Dennis

It worked well enough for GPS and for Mercury. Newton's gravitation would have failed both.

By the way, if you think there is a real honest to god experiment falsifying GTR give us the journal reference. Only refereed journal articles have standing.

Don't say what you are "sure" of., That is not evidence. That is simple assertion which has no standing in public.

If if GTR fails, it fails (as all physical must eventually fail with new stuff), but it is still more explanitory than Newton's gravitation. Newton cannot account for the gravitational red shift which is the core of GPS.

Classical physics is DEAD. It failed to explain what was observed and it made false prediction. Relativity explains correctly everything that classical physics explained plus thing that classical physics did NOT explain.

A true theory will not produce false predictions -- ever. This is based on a logical principle. From true premise using valid inference a false statement can never be inferred. If a false statement is inferred that means on of the premises must be false. As Ayn Rand said --- check your premises.

Theories sing, but FACTS bellow at the top of their lungs. When ever theory/philosophy collide with FACT dump the theory or philosophy. FACTS are the true gold of science, not theories.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we have GPS we will keep GTR as a heuristic. It provides the time correction that can locate you to within ten feet of where you are.

Since GTR no longer works outside the scale of our solar system it has achieved the position Newtonian gravity had 100 years ago.

Dennis

Not so. It accounts for the bending of light around the sun, the gravitational red shift. It accounts for the orbit of Mercury. Newtonian gravitation failed on failed on all of these. And there is GPS. GPS absolutely will not work using Newtonian gravitation.

Ba'/al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if you think there is a real honest to god experiment falsifying GTR give us the journal reference. Only refereed journal articles have standing.

Observation has already falsified GTR on scales larger than we can replicate through experiment.

On the scale of galaxy clusters it has failed:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.2957.pdf

On the scale of spiral galaxies it has failed:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913.pdf

On the scale larger than our solar systems but smaller than our galaxy it has failed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120809090423.htm

The statistical mechanics of Dark Matter to fix GTR are impossible - period - it fails.

On the scale of our solar system there are open questions:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112103425.htm

The Pioneer results may be explained by reverse engineering a light pressure solution

but those are only a couple observations among many - an orthodox solution in couple

cases does not mean an orthodox solution in all cases. In any case the problem seems

more pronounced in certain kinds of slingshot trajectories.

The 2 component theory of gravity I support would have more pronounced differences

with high speed slingshots as luminal component lagging would be more pronounced.

Classical physics is DEAD. It failed to explain what was observed and it made false prediction. Relativity explains correctly everything that classical physics explained plus thing that classical physics did NOT explain.

It is important that you distinguish specific classical physics models from classical physics generally. In particular the role of deterministic physics versus indeterministic physics.

As Gregory S. Duane proved in 2001 - there exist deterministic solutions to all QM problems. Relativity is a deterministic theory and there are mathematically identical forms not

embracing the baggage.

FACTS are the true gold of science, not theories.

Which is why the GTR should not be treated as a mystical megalith while it produces wrong results nearly everywhere - except locally

for a few types of obervations.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if you think there is a real honest to god experiment falsifying GTR give us the journal reference. Only refereed journal articles have standing.

Observation has already falsified GTR on scales larger than we can replicate through experiment.

On the scale of galaxy clusters it has failed:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.2957.pdf

On the scale of spiral galaxies it has failed:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913.pdf

On the scale larger than our solar systems but smaller than our galaxy it has failed:

http://www.scienceda...20809090423.htm

The statistical mechanics of Dark Matter to fix GTR are impossible - period - it fails.

On the scale of our solar system there are open questions:

http://www.scienceda...91112103425.htm

The Pioneer results may be explained by reverse engineering a light pressure solution

but those are only a couple observations among many - an orthodox solution in couple

cases does not mean an orthodox solution in all cases. In any case the problem seems

more pronounced in certain kinds of slingshot trajectories.

The 2 component theory of gravity I support would have more pronounced differences

with high speed slingshots as luminal component lagging would be more pronounced.

Classical physics is DEAD. It failed to explain what was observed and it made false prediction. Relativity explains correctly everything that classical physics explained plus thing that classical physics did NOT explain.

It is important that you distinguish specific classical physics models from classical physics generally. In particular the role of deterministic physics versus indeterministic physics.

As Gregory S. Duane proved in 2001 - there exist deterministic solutions to all QM problems. Relativity is a deterministic theory and there are mathematically identical forms not

embracing the baggage.

FACTS are the true gold of science, not theories.

Which is why the GTR should not be treated as a mystical megalith while it produces wrong results nearly everywhere - except locally

for a few types of obervations.

Dennis

Quite so. And much better than Newtonian gravitation. We will keep GTR around to measure precession of orbits, gravitational red shift (for our GPS) and such like tasks. Any follow on theory will have to unify space and time as least as well as relativity theory. Newtonian gravitation simply does not cut it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will keep GTR around to measure precession of orbits, gravitational red shift (for our GPS) and such like tasks. Any follow on theory will have to unify space and time as least as well as relativity theory.

GTR will remain useful in some applications for some time.

I'm not sure I would agree with the notion of unifying space and time. LET already produces the same mathematics as Special Relativity while viewing time as a varible separate from the variables of space. GTR has failed so there is no successful theory requiring the unification of time and space. I view it a conceptual mistake to attempt to force such a unification. A mistake from long ago which has wasted untold resources in human and physical capital. Like indeterministic QM it is a bad unnecessary approach which has stagnated physics for generations - culminating the in disaster of string theory which has wasted the fruits of an entire generation.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will keep GTR around to measure precession of orbits, gravitational red shift (for our GPS) and such like tasks. Any follow on theory will have to unify space and time as least as well as relativity theory.

GTR will remain useful in some applications for some time.

I'm not sure I would agree with the notion of unifying space and time. LET already produces the same mathematics as Special Relativity while viewing time as a varible separate from the variables of space. GTR has failed so there is no successful theory requiring the unification of time and space. I view it a conceptual mistake to attempt to force such a unification. A mistake from long ago which has wasted untold resources in human and physical capital. Like indeterministic QM it is a bad unnecessary approach which has stagnated physics for generations - culminating the in disaster of string theory which has wasted the fruits of an entire generation.

Dennis

Holy transistors Dennis. With old fashioned electronics of the Maxwell era we never would have gotten to transistors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now