Cosmic Summary

[darkbeaver]

SUMMARY



There are no ‘black holes’, there is no ‘dark matter’, comets are not ‘dirty snowballs’, the sun is not a ‘nuclear furnace’, and the origins of world mythology are not primitive invention but can be directly linked to deep space exploration and leading-edge experiments in plasma physics.



Recent discoveries in space have amazed and perplexed scientists. Current popular theories in the sciences can neither predict nor explain the phenomena we are now observing. In THE THUNDERBOLTS PROJECT, American mythologist David Talbott and Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill and their associates propose a new theory which can both predict and explain these phenomena.



5,000 year old rock art, the origins of world mythology, planetary history, spectacular nebular forms in deep space, and high energy electric discharges in the plasma laboratory – all are inextricably linked by the Electric Model. In an extraordinary synthesis of the scientific disciplines THE THUNDERBOLTS PROJECT presents us with an astonishing new perspective on ancient history and leading-edge astrono
summary

 

[Scott Free]

Do you have any information on what the theory actually is or entails DB?

 

[darkbeaver]

http://www.holoscience.com/

Do you have any information on what the theory actually is or entails DB?

There's a link there scott. Essentially the theory is this, the universe is electric, conducting plasma permeates space not gravity which is comparatively non existant.

http://www.holoscience.com/ here, go to her bye, ripping good stuff

 

[Scott Free]

http://www.holoscience.com/

There's a link there scott. Essentially the theory is this, the universe is electric, conducting plasma permeates space not gravity which is comparatively non existant.

http://www.holoscience.com/ here, go to her bye, ripping good stuff

Thank you but I don't seem to be able to get the page to load.

Also I'm a little suspicious because at every turn it seems someone is flogging DVDs about this subject.

 

[hermanntrude]

in the science forums we have a sub-forum called "pseudoscience and speculation". I'd like to dump this thread in there along with the one I got this morning about "gravity-holes".

why is it that no matter what happens you just can't believe the most likely explanation? why does it always have to involve aliens, the US government, the FBI, CIA or a complete overthrow of all civilisation?

 

[darkbeaver]

Thank you but I don't seem to be able to get the page to load.

Also I'm a little suspicious because at every turn it seems someone is flogging DVDs about this subject.

You can also purchase DVDs from academic institutions, government offices, the military, CBC, and Fats Domino. What does the sale of DVDs do to lessen the subject maters value? DVDs are here to stay (for awile) get used to them.

 

[darkbeaver]

in the science forums we have a sub-forum called "pseudoscience and speculation". I'd like to dump this thread in there along with the one I got this morning about "gravity-holes".

why is it that no matter what happens you just can't believe the most likely explanation? why does it always have to involve aliens, the US government, the FBI, CIA or a complete overthrow of all civilisation?

I see, well it's unfortunate that you're not interested in the subject matter. You could have supplied quality refutation, if it we're available. I guess I'll have to explore it myself then.

 

[hermanntrude]

I see, well it's unfortunate that you're not interested in the subject matter. You could have supplied quality refutation, if it we're available. I guess I'll have to explore it myself then.

Actually i am very interested in the subject matter. You may not have noticed but the subject matter is the discovery of large quantities of water on mars at mid-latitudes.

Strangely, though, in your mind it's become a solid proof of a crazy theory you found on the internet and believed immediately, mainly because you realise it contradicts most theory on the matter.

 

[darkbeaver]

Actually i am very interested in the subject matter. You may not have noticed but the subject matter is the discovery of large quantities of water on mars at mid-latitudes.

Strangely, though, in your mind it's become a solid proof of a crazy theory you found on the internet and believed immediately, mainly because you realise it contradicts most theory on the matter.

Herm are you sure you haven't made some unsupportable observations here? So you're accusing me of entertaining unsupportable observation with unsupportable observations. In any case this thread is to discuss the electrical basis of the universe as opposed to the gravitational theory. I'm not really sure why you have a bee in your bonnet, I thought this type of opportunity would be your thing. If it's as easily dicounted as you seem to think then by all means get on with it.

 

[hermanntrude]

whoops

got my threads mixed up.

need food

sorry

 

[AmberEyes]

I don't have time to go through this entire video of absolute s h i t, but I'll give you a break down of the first "segment" I saw:

Video claims are in red, my answers (and I can back them up with various astronomy and physics textbooks if you so desire to read them), are in blue:

Eventually everybody agreed that gravity alone formed galaxies and stars and planets, and that gravity alone holds the universe together
That is wrong. Gravity does not, in fact, hold the universe together. If that were the case, the expansion of the Universe would be slowing, and eventually everything that is far apart would become close once more. ie: the universe will end in a big crunch. We now know that is not the case - that it is in fact flying apart at an accelerating speed.

Then we discovered a force a billion......billion times more powerful than the force of gravity.
Gravity isn't a force, at least not since Einstein came along. Sure, it acts like one in mathmatics, but as General Relativity has shown, the effect known as gravity is simply that of a "well" of spacetime created by mass. Mass bends the space (and time) around it.

We see glowing electric filaments spanning millions of light years.
If by electric you mean their ionized particles of gas, then yes. But why is the video showing beautiful pictures of Supernova Remnants and planetary nebulae while claiming something completely different? SNR are full of charged particles, as they are the outer envelopes of stars "thrown off" and now surround their former cores. The "empty" space the video claims doesn't exist has nothing to do with star systems. If you take into account how much empty space there is between each star system, on average, you get a huge number. Nobody claimed it was actually "empty" to begin with. It's a way of saying that hey, in comparison to the density of particles on Earth, space is really really really really not dense.

We see stellar and galactic formations shaped by magnetic fields. Only electric currents create magnetic fields.
Galaxy and stellar formation occurs because of masses falling into each other. They follow their spacetime trajectories, hit something else, can't overcome the force needed to go their seperate ways, and end up sticking together.

It is possible that the predominant force in the universe is not gravity, but something else.
Gravity isn't a force (once again). And even if it were, it would be the weakest of the four, otherwise a magnet wouldn't be able to overcome it and pull the paperclip off of your desktop.

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't have time to go through this entire video of absolute s h i t, but I'll give you a break down of the first "segment" I saw:

Video claims are in red, my answers (and I can back them up with various astronomy and physics textbooks if you so desire to read them), are in blue:

Eventually everybody agreed that gravity alone formed galaxies and stars and planets, and that gravity alone holds the universe together
That is wrong. Gravity does not, in fact, hold the universe together. If that were the case, the expansion of the Universe would be slowing, and eventually everything that is far apart would become close once more. ie: the universe will end in a big crunch. We now know that is not the case - that it is in fact flying apart at an accelerating speed.

What video are you talking about? Incidently I haven't seen any of them dealing with the electric nature of the universe.
We don't know that the universe is flying apart at an accellarateing rate at all, that is theory, still at this time.

 

[AmberEyes]

The video clips are found on the website you gave, above, under the video section.
videos

 

[darkbeaver]

The video clips are found on the website you gave, above, under the video section.
videos

Yes thankyou I know where they are I just don't have a fast enough machine to enjoy them. You mentioned "text books" text is what I like.
I'm interested in the basics of electricity/magnetism, I use both in building little alternators (axial flux) for little wind turbines, so I naturally expanded that interest a bit to include the universe. What I'm reading lately is that the electrical nature of the universe is a very tight workable theory of space whereas the conventional BB theory is very hard to penetrate because of the supposed DARK Hidden nature of most matter and energy. Useing electrical theory to explain the universe, there is no missing anything.

 

[darkbeaver]

How do matter from the theorized BB common center converge later in intersecting collisions to form galaxies? Does gravity pull them together? How does gravity overcome initial imparted direction when initial value of that gravity must be higher closer to the centre or earlier in the BB? What did the lead elements of the BB expand into? Where is the big empty space in the middle? Are we expanding leaving a hollow spherical universe?

 

[#juan]

How do matter from the theorized BB common center converge later in intersecting collisions to form galaxies? Does gravity pull them together? How does gravity overcome initial imparted direction when initial value of that gravity must be higher closer to the centre or earlier in the BB? What did the lead elements of the BB expand into? Where is the big empty space in the middle? Are we expanding leaving a hollow spherical universe?

Apparently we are: The rate of expansion was incredibly fast in the very early universe. To put this in perspective, by the time the universe was 3 minutes old, it had expanded to a size of ~30 light years. Gravity, weakling that it is, could barely slow the thing down, much less stop it. The battle was about as evenly matched as a tug-of-war between an ant and a locomotive. While the inexorable tug of gravity has been slowly gaining ground [actually, it may have started losing ground again awhile back], expansion is still winning the battle to this day. Current observational data suggests this trend will continue indefinitely.[/quote]

I found this by googling "big bang theory losing ground". It just happens to be something I've wondered about for a while now. I can't figure out how the expansion can be accelerating.

 

[hermanntrude]

you guys should try discussing this with the physicists on my other forum. They know a lot more about this than I do.

 

[#juan]

My son has a degree in physics and he took quite a few courses in astrophysics. I have a degree in mechanical engineering from forty years ago. We have both been amateur astronomers for a good number of years but whenever people start talking about the birth of the universe, I tend to nod and grin a lot. My astronomy consists of finding as many Messier objects as I can.

 

[#juan]

While the inexorable tug of gravity has been slowly gaining ground [actually, it may have started losing ground again awhile back], expansion is still winning the battle to this day. Current observational data suggests this trend will continue indefinitely.

Does this suggest that the "big bang........big crunch" theory is being thrown out?

 

[darkbeaver]

If we go back to the place of singularity origin is that region now in nonspace having ejected all matter from it's center, if not what would occupy that vacated space now?

How is that original space thought of? When the universe expanded, what did it expand into?