M
mugenbao
Any biography of Einstein will give you the specifics, and believe it or not it's a fascinating read. Maybe not as entertaining as Feynman, but still very interesting!
.
Last edited:
Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity may be wrong
- Thread starter Tripsick
- Start date
.
electromagnetism is why the sun hasnt run out of fuel,,, because it is electrically powered not by fusion,,,
at least that is what plasma science is on its way to proving conclusively,,
are you a scientist ShroomDr ?
the so called physics being applied to things today is mostly propped up with theoretical mathamatics and computer modeling and hardly any scientific measurement,,
im not here to argue this case, just point people towards the field of plasma science in particular and names like kristian birkeland that you should know for example and the notion that the mainstream consensus might have led people on purpose down a sad path of pathetic lies for many decades.
im happy with all the various phenomena that are easily predictable and explainable with an understanding of the electric universe,, so i really couldnt care less what anyone says,, i know (i knew) probably everything you could possibly tell me about what the mainstream has tought you so please dont think im being ignorant by stating what i have, merely that i used to think the consensus explanations being spouted and tought were valid and now i dont at all,,, its also obvious why the mainstream scientists cant disprove anything about plasma science and the explanations it presents and that is why the work done in the field has gotten 0 coverage from day one through any mainstream outlet.
check this site below in particular and see if you can find any fault in what these guys are saying (the thunderbolts link),, they really know what they are talking about on plasma and electromagnetism,, you would really need to read the books to fully understand though,,, here is an excerpt from just the intro page to this site which sums some aspects up nicely:
"Plasma cosmology has achieved surprising success in predicting major discoveries of the space age. This new perspective does not require purely theoretical inventions like the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, or Black Holes.
STARS
The “Electric Universe” extends the findings of plasma cosmology to the formation and evolution of stars and their planetary satellites.
Proponents of the Electric Universe suggest that there are no isolated islands in the universe. All objects in space, from subatomic particles to galactic clusters, are connected by manifestations of the electric force acting in realtime.
Stars are formed at the intersections of galactic current filaments in dusty space plasma.
It is electricity that continues to energize the stars in a form of glow discharge, our Sun included. This external power source explains why the temperature of the Sun increases above the photosphere, to coronal temperatures of 2 million degrees.
Powerful plasma feedback effects maintain a steady output of visible solar radiation while variations in power input show up in the familiar sunspot cycle. It is in the nature of a glow discharge that all stars possess a weak electric field beyond the corona.
As charged particles of the solar wind move away from the Sun, they continue to be accelerated due to the Sun’s electric field.
The size of a star and its color are determined electrically and may change suddenly. Novae and supernovae are the explosive response of stars to a power surge in their galactic circuit."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/resources/syn/
http://www.varchive.org/
http://saturniancosmology.org/can.php
you wont learn shit on wikipedia,,
at least that is what plasma science is on its way to proving conclusively,,
are you a scientist ShroomDr ?
the so called physics being applied to things today is mostly propped up with theoretical mathamatics and computer modeling and hardly any scientific measurement,,
im not here to argue this case, just point people towards the field of plasma science in particular and names like kristian birkeland that you should know for example and the notion that the mainstream consensus might have led people on purpose down a sad path of pathetic lies for many decades.
im happy with all the various phenomena that are easily predictable and explainable with an understanding of the electric universe,, so i really couldnt care less what anyone says,, i know (i knew) probably everything you could possibly tell me about what the mainstream has tought you so please dont think im being ignorant by stating what i have, merely that i used to think the consensus explanations being spouted and tought were valid and now i dont at all,,, its also obvious why the mainstream scientists cant disprove anything about plasma science and the explanations it presents and that is why the work done in the field has gotten 0 coverage from day one through any mainstream outlet.
check this site below in particular and see if you can find any fault in what these guys are saying (the thunderbolts link),, they really know what they are talking about on plasma and electromagnetism,, you would really need to read the books to fully understand though,,, here is an excerpt from just the intro page to this site which sums some aspects up nicely:
"Plasma cosmology has achieved surprising success in predicting major discoveries of the space age. This new perspective does not require purely theoretical inventions like the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, or Black Holes.
STARS
The “Electric Universe” extends the findings of plasma cosmology to the formation and evolution of stars and their planetary satellites.
Proponents of the Electric Universe suggest that there are no isolated islands in the universe. All objects in space, from subatomic particles to galactic clusters, are connected by manifestations of the electric force acting in realtime.
Stars are formed at the intersections of galactic current filaments in dusty space plasma.
It is electricity that continues to energize the stars in a form of glow discharge, our Sun included. This external power source explains why the temperature of the Sun increases above the photosphere, to coronal temperatures of 2 million degrees.
Powerful plasma feedback effects maintain a steady output of visible solar radiation while variations in power input show up in the familiar sunspot cycle. It is in the nature of a glow discharge that all stars possess a weak electric field beyond the corona.
As charged particles of the solar wind move away from the Sun, they continue to be accelerated due to the Sun’s electric field.
The size of a star and its color are determined electrically and may change suddenly. Novae and supernovae are the explosive response of stars to a power surge in their galactic circuit."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/resources/syn/
http://www.varchive.org/
http://saturniancosmology.org/can.php
you wont learn shit on wikipedia,,
Last edited:
L
longearedfriend
Well you deleted it anyways 
don't make a fuss about it
don't make a fuss about it
M
mugenbao
^^^ I really do think that the Einstein biography I read was fascinating. It didn't focus solely on just his scientific achievements, but on Einstein as a person, his relationships, and his feelings about God. I would recommend it to anyone, I just wish I could find it to give the exact title.
.
.
Last edited:
please list one source that says the sun is not the largest nuclear fusion reactor in the solar system...
Or one source that says electromagnetism has anything to do with 'fuel'.
Your not worth debating if your not talking reality. Perhaps starting a thread about how fast a fairies wings can beat, or if humans thought T-rex meat tastes good...
(FWIW the earths electromagnetic field protects earths atmosphere from the sun. Its interaction with the solar winds creates the aurora boralis, and the field itself is generated by our spinning Fe core.)
Is this like proponents of 'creationism'? An alternative answer to a question already answered (which does nothing to explain away why things fit well within evolution; it is only a 'alternative' idea).
=
Wikipedia is far from ideal, but it is a site that most would not feel sketchy about following a hyperlink, and those pages are pretty well patrolled. If someone changes a page, it is reviewed rather quickly (Steven Colbert basically forced their hands...).
They dont have creationist writing the evolution page, they dont have car mechanics writing and reviewing their "History of Russia", and they dont have Russian historians writing their "69' Mustang" pages. If someone edits in something absurd, it is removed pronto.
Last edited:
Does Electric Universe account for the fusion of elements?
Im no nuclear scientist, but i know when humans first fused two elements into one, it caused the BIGGEST EXPLOSION ON EARTH, so big that there were fears it would set all the oxygen in the atmosphere on fire (H-Bomb).
Does the 'electric universe' say this is 'magic', created by some lonely creatures in the vast and empty universe?
OR
Does the fact that we can build a 'bomb', releasing energy that simulates a tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of what is going on inside the sun, explain why this star has been burning for a few billion years?
This was the best post in this thread, hope no one missed it.
Last edited:
If you had a disc that was 1000 miles in diameter and spun the center of the disc at the speed of light wouldn't that edges of the disc be faster than the speed of light?
How can it be wrong if it's a theory?
well, in this known universe, it is impossible for the inside of a 'disc' to spin faster than the 'outer edge'.
You have never seen it.
So how many laws are you trying to break?
If the 'outer edge' cant spin faster than light, the 'inside' has to spin slower than the 'outer edge'.
well, in this known universe, it is impossible for the inside of a 'disc' to spin faster than the 'outer edge'.
You have never seen it.
So how many laws are you trying to break?
If the 'outer edge' cant spin faster than light, the 'inside' has to spin slower than the 'outer edge'.
Not trying to break any scientific laws. Its only a theory. Therefore it still has to be proven. If you can spin the inside of a disc at light speed then wouldn't the outside of the disc be faster than light speed? Since the outer edge of a disc "must" spin faster than the inner?
If the center of the disc never reaches light speed. Then Einsten's theory would be proven. If however you could get the inner edge to light speed...
Disclaimer: The above post is for discussion.
if you are flexible with the definition of disc
then circular particle accelerators match the essential characteristics
the particles in the accelerator become the outer edge of the 'disc'
and they don't exceed light speed, no matter how much energy you pump in
routine operation in particle physics, done daily
Very true, but dont forget, gravity is a 'theory' in science too.
Gravity is not a 'fact', although im not going to start doubting that if i drop something, its going to head downward.
Nothing can go faster than light, and the inside of an disc cannot spin faster than the outside. Youre either breaking the rules, or its not possible (because youre breaking the rules).
Its kinda like the 'chicken or the egg'.
If you agree that the inside of a disc cannot travel faster than the outside (and i dont think your stipulating against this).
Then the question can only be 'Can the outside travel faster than light', because IF the inside is traveling faster, you already know the outside has to be traveling faster.
Once you know the outside could spin faster than light, there is no reason the inside couldnt; but the outside spinning faster is breaking the rules.
Last edited:
all im saying is if people are interested in the current arguments on this whole subject then maybe look into plasma science,,, seems to me alot of people have known about it for a long long time and russia in particular has been researching the subject for 20-30 years whilst we have been starry eyed with the same classic royal society rhetoric and dogma spun out as far as it can go on paper,,
this field of understanding of all of nature doesnt belong anywhere near creationalism or any crap dont be silly,,, the whole point of plasma science and understanding the universe in an electrical model is that it is actually provable in laboratories under measurable observable conditions for one thing and explains so many things i couldnt begin to explain even if i wrote a book,,, i happen to think the ramifications obviously go all the way through time and i see evidence on every level,,
but that is what science is supposed to be,, actually observed first then measured and then hypothesised about ,, not made up by pie in the sky mathamaticians with no concern for the reality of what is going on in the universe and computer software modeling bullshit used to excuse and keep propping up a poor mess,,,
since you are so serious about the subject ShroomDr i suggest you buy a book called "the electric universe" by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott,,, otherwise i cant present all the many things i would have to for you to understand,, this in particular isnt even a thick book and you just try and find a lie in it,,, lol im sure you will try if you arent too arrogent to dismiss it,,,
it presents everything i would hopelessly try to,, and imo obviously i shouldnt be forced to prove the subject here and now just for you either,,, its your job to see the light or not as i see it, i couldnt care less either way,, ive read both these explanations before making my decision,,
and its not my fault that the media and some priests of science for hundreds of years have chosen to only present what they are paid to by the devil (the rothchildes and the other 12 families),, that is because knowledge is power and keeping everyone else stupid is worth even more..
this field of understanding of all of nature doesnt belong anywhere near creationalism or any crap dont be silly,,, the whole point of plasma science and understanding the universe in an electrical model is that it is actually provable in laboratories under measurable observable conditions for one thing and explains so many things i couldnt begin to explain even if i wrote a book,,, i happen to think the ramifications obviously go all the way through time and i see evidence on every level,,
but that is what science is supposed to be,, actually observed first then measured and then hypothesised about ,, not made up by pie in the sky mathamaticians with no concern for the reality of what is going on in the universe and computer software modeling bullshit used to excuse and keep propping up a poor mess,,,
since you are so serious about the subject ShroomDr i suggest you buy a book called "the electric universe" by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott,,, otherwise i cant present all the many things i would have to for you to understand,, this in particular isnt even a thick book and you just try and find a lie in it,,, lol im sure you will try if you arent too arrogent to dismiss it,,,
it presents everything i would hopelessly try to,, and imo obviously i shouldnt be forced to prove the subject here and now just for you either,,, its your job to see the light or not as i see it, i couldnt care less either way,, ive read both these explanations before making my decision,,
and its not my fault that the media and some priests of science for hundreds of years have chosen to only present what they are paid to by the devil (the rothchildes and the other 12 families),, that is because knowledge is power and keeping everyone else stupid is worth even more..
Last edited:
I would love to get high and talk philosophy with Einstein (or S Hawking).
Im pretty sure the possible 'crisis of conscious' at the end of his life was already echoed from his earlier debates with Bohr. The way i interpret it (and i could be completely off) is that Einstein said there had to be a 'rule maker' (GOD). (p orbitals spin a certain way for a certain reason, all the 'rules' couldnt be completely random.)
Its as much science as it is philosophy. No one currently is going to figure out that answer.
Im pretty sure the possible 'crisis of conscious' at the end of his life was already echoed from his earlier debates with Bohr. The way i interpret it (and i could be completely off) is that Einstein said there had to be a 'rule maker' (GOD). (p orbitals spin a certain way for a certain reason, all the 'rules' couldnt be completely random.)
Its as much science as it is philosophy. No one currently is going to figure out that answer.
An old instructor analogized nanoseconds in a computer class, showing the difference in memory vs hard drive speed. Hard drive technology is milliseconds. Memory technology is nanoseconds.
If a nanosecond was represented as 3 feet of string, one millisecond would stretch to the sun and half way back.
Amazing they can measure something that acute.
there is a school of thought on how the rules for our universe came about
and that is there is/was more than 1 universe created, possibly infinite numbers
the rules for each universe are random(possibly)
so only in the universes that have conditions suitable for life to arise, there are questioners that marvel about the unlikeliness of such a place happening naturally
SirTOKESalot
Member
Look back to this post in 10 years and everyone will laugh.
We "humans" are not even close to reaching our max potential. It is silly to think anything is absolute this day and age.
Heard this on the radio the other day. Good post.
We "humans" are not even close to reaching our max potential. It is silly to think anything is absolute this day and age.
Heard this on the radio the other day. Good post.
ok, but the theories discussed in this thread have been around since the 1910-30's.
They have lead to the development of the transistor, electronics, microchips, atomic energy, inter planetary exploration (without 'gravitational theory', we couldnt calculate how much rocket fuel is necessary to lift off the moon).
If something is going to replace this, hold on to your hat. (A true black swan event.)
They have lead to the development of the transistor, electronics, microchips, atomic energy, inter planetary exploration (without 'gravitational theory', we couldnt calculate how much rocket fuel is necessary to lift off the moon).
If something is going to replace this, hold on to your hat. (A true black swan event.)
