Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric (Electric Universe Theory)

[Stripe]

No, that excuse won't work for you, Stipe.

Excuse? It's called grammar.

Context usually makes your meaning clear, like when you say "on labs." However, your use of "any" instead of "most" was fatal to proper understanding.

I pointed out in this thread that they can also be made in very tiny quantities on labs.

News flash: I try not to read much of what you say.

And, we know, it means it's not stars alone.

Move on.

I did.

Catch up. :up:

Would you like to learn how these things happen inside the Earth? You could read for yourself. Hint: It would require more than one sentence.



Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
Ah. Your wording made it look like you believed it was stars only.

No, that excuse won't work for you, Stipe. I pointed out in this thread that they can also be made in very tiny quantities on labs,using energies that aren't found anywhere but in supernovae.

You know this. Everyone reading the thread knows this. Learn from it and move on.

Stipe admits:

News flash: I try not to read much of what you say.

That's why you got caught again. Get back to us when you've read past the first sentence. :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Barbarian observes:
I showed you that heavy elements are made in stars. Never told you that was the only way. They can also be made in labs where huge energies focused on tiny amounts of matter can do it too. And I told you that. Would you like me to show you, again?



Kinetic energy. They shoot heavy atoms into other atoms at relativistic speeds. Occasionally, they fuse into something heavier.

In an experiment that required prodigious patience, researchers at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany, spent almost five months last year firing titanium-50 ions — each with 22 protons and 28 neutrons — into a berkelium-249 target at the rate of about 5 trillion particles per second. The hope was that, just once or twice, two atoms would fuse to make an element with 119 protons, more than any created before.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-heavy-and-hollow-physicists-create-extreme-atoms/

But this takes huge energies applied to very tiny amounts of matter. You see, those new elements are only a few atoms. It's been so far impossible, even with that kind of energy, to make a visible amount of it. That might change...

That is what scientists will attempt next year at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia. They plan to make neutron-rich isotopes of element 118 by firing beams of calcium-48 into radioactive californium-251.

The Russian team and others also want go back to the elements already made and create hundreds or thousands of atoms, rather than the handful necessary to claim a discovery. “We should set ourselves the goal of making not one or two atoms, but macroscopic quantities that we can use to study chemistry and nuclear structure in much greater detail,” says Rolf-Dietmar Herzberg, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, UK. That might allow theorists to make more accurate predictions about where the island of stability lies.

Okay, so....

They take ion's of titanium (i.e. plasma) and accelerate it with electromagnetic fields in order to smash it into ions of berkelium (i.e. plasma) in order to make heavier elements.

Got it!

:think: Sounds familiar! :think:


Clete

 

[gcthomas]

Okay, so....

They take ion's of titanium (i.e. plasma) and accelerate it with electromagnetic fields in order to smash it into ions of berkelium (i.e. plasma) in order to make heavier elements.

Got it!

:think: Sounds familiar! :think:


Clete

No, you don't get it. First, EU hypothesises magnetic fields, and the experiment describes uses electric fields. So not the same. Second, have you considered thee relative strengths of the fields in these two situations? Without numbers to put to these things you well get nowhere, which is exactly what the EU his have found. No amount of hand waving their "theory" around will get them published work property poet review until they can make numerical models that are at least comparable with modern physics.

They, and you, are whistling in the wind here.

 

[Stripe]

No, that excuse won't work for you, Stipe. I pointed out in this thread that they can also be made in very tiny quantities on labs,using energies that aren't found anywhere but in supernovae.You know this. Everyone reading the thread knows this. Learn from it and move on.Stipe admits:That's why you got caught again. Get back to us when you've read past the first sentence. :chuckle:

:darwinsm:

:mock: Blablabarian

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Clete]

So far the Thunderbolts Project has put out three videos in this ten part series...

Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric: #1 Cosmic Magnetic Fields

Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric: #2 Filaments in Space

Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric: #3 Cosmic Jets

These three alone, even if just taken at face value without any endorsement of the Electric Universe theory, present what in my view amounts to proof that there are large scale electrical currents flowing through vast quantities of plasma on scales that the standard model doesn't predict, didn't expect and has no way of explaining.

I think from this point on, this is the tack I'm going to be on with this thread because I truly am not a proponent of the EU. Perhaps the rest of the videos in this series will bring me closer to being one but I doubt it. I suspect that they will instead simply present more evidence that large scale electrical forces are at work throughout the universe and that a lot of the things the Stand Model thinks its figured out have to be wrong but that is a far distance away from proving that the Electric Universe theory is correct or that the whole of the standard model is fundamentally flawed. Right now it seems to me that some of the EU is correct and some of the standard model is wrong. Of course, any movement mainstream science makes in the direction of acknowledging the existence of large scale electical currents in space will be hailed as a huge victory by the EU folks and perhaps rightly so but the EU is way more than just electricity in space. They see electricity behind all sorts of different things, most of which I don't see the evidence for. But magnetic fields stretching across whole galaxies and even connecting separate galaxies across hundreds or even thousands of light-years, now that's evidence as is the existence of plasma filaments and focused jets that have no way of forming outside the flow of electrical currents.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

There is plenty of research to prove that EU's belief that real science doesn't accept the involvement of magnetic fields is false.

Try a Google Scholar search on the matter:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...es&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on

One hit is this:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991ApJ...379...80K

Title: Detection of excess rotation measure due to intracluster magnetic fields in clusters of galaxies Authors: Kim, K.-T., Tribble, P. C., & Kronberg, P. P. Journal: Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 379, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 80-88. Research supported by NSERC and University of Toronto. Bibliographic Code: 1991ApJ...379...80K

The idea that science doesn't allow for large magnetic fields in and around galaxies is complete and utter tosh. [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], didn't you do any searching for any science that would prove your/their claim false?

 

[The Barbarian]

Excuse?
News flash: I try not to read much of what you say.

“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
Fyodor Dostoyvestki

Listen to him, Stipe.

 

[Clete]

There is plenty of research to prove that EU's belief that real science doesn't accept the involvement of magnetic fields is false.

Try a Google Scholar search on the matter:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...es&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on

One hit is this:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991ApJ...379...80K

Title: Detection of excess rotation measure due to intracluster magnetic fields in clusters of galaxies Authors: Kim, K.-T., Tribble, P. C., & Kronberg, P. P. Journal: Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 379, Sept. 20, 1991, p. 80-88. Research supported by NSERC and University of Toronto. Bibliographic Code: 1991ApJ...379...80K

The idea that science doesn't allow for large magnetic fields in and around galaxies is complete and utter tosh. [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], didn't you do any searching for any science that would prove your/their claim false?

This is the first of your posts I've read in a while. I see I haven't missed much.

They make no such claim. Not at least in the sense you've "disproved". If you'd bother to familiarize yourself with what they actually say, you'd find out that much of what they present is directly related to what mainstream scientists have discovered. The orientation of the magnetic fields in galaxies is only one of dozens of such things. They don't claim to have discovered these magnetic fields, they simply acknowledge what their existence means while mainstream science tries to find any explanation they can other than to acknowledge large scale plasma physics and electromagnetic processes that have real effects on, and could be used to explain much of, what we see without the need for ad hoc conjuring of things like dark matter and dark energy and neutron stars and whatever else they can think of besides the electric force that we know for a fact exists and can do actual experiments with in a laboratory with.

 

[Stripe]

“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
Fyodor Dostoyvestki

Listen to him, Stipe.

:darwinsm:

You're so stupid.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe prepares another finely-crafted argument:

:darwinsm:

You're so stupid.

Well done, Stipe.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe prepares another finely-crafted argument:Well done, Stipe.

No problem. :thumb:

It's good to point out how insane your cut-and-paste ramblings are. :up:

You're on a par with those flat-Earth freaks. :kook:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Clete]

I've added a transcript of each video. Just go to the post containing the video and the transcript will be underneath the video. This should make it much easier to quote the videos in subsequent posts.

It MAY have the additional benefit of preventing people from "disproving" claims that are never made - but I doubt it.

 

[Clete]

This video is not part of the "Top Ten Reasons" series but I thought it was quite good and really gives a good taste of just how the Electric Universe people think and make arguments and since I don't know how long it will be before a new "Top Ten" video will come out, I thought I'd share it here. Enjoy...

 

[gcthomas]

This video is not part of the "Top Ten Reasons" series but I thought it was quite good and really gives a good taste of just how the Electric Universe people think and make arguments and since I don't know how long it will be before a new "Top Ten" video will come out, I thought I'd share it here. Enjoy...

I've had time to watch about two thirds of the video so far, and out seems to contain no more that misguided assertion. No model, no specific experiment that had a result different from prediction, nothing quantitative at all, just self righteous hand waving.

Case in point: he asserts that orbits can only work in Newtonian physics and that relativity can't so orbits. He seems unaware that one of the first successes of Relativity was explaining the orbital precession of Mercury, which Newton's classical theory failed to handle.

And there's lots more. It is a joke, Clete. A crank science joke - don't get taken in by it, as it can't end well for you.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

The Electric Universe theory is very interesting as it has been scientifically proven that the image of Jesus on the Turin Shroud was produced by Plasma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4c4812XA9A

 

[gcthomas]

The Electric Universe theory is very interesting as it has been scientifically proven that the image of Jesus on the Turin Shroud was produced by Plasma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4c4812XA9A

The scientist featured in that Youtube video said this in an interview:

"It’s a hypothesis, not a theory because it is not yet validated by science. In fact,at this moment, the body image can not be completely explained nor reproduced by science.
I am, however, convinced that the Coronal Discharge played an important role in the body image formation.
…
From a religious point of view, I am sure that the Holy Shroud is authentic and it is the most important Relic of Christianity. This because, following a precise question of mine, I had a personal “answer” in 1998 in front of the Relic."

So your 'scientifically proven' assertion is not even supported by the man who did the work. You should retract this claim of yours.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

The scientist featured in that Youtube video said this in an interview:

"It’s a hypothesis, not a theory because it is not yet validated by science. In fact,at this moment, the body image can not be completely explained nor reproduced by science.
I am, however, convinced that the Coronal Discharge played an important role in the body image formation.
…
From a religious point of view, I am sure that the Holy Shroud is authentic and it is the most important Relic of Christianity. This because, following a precise question of mine, I had a personal “answer” in 1998 in front of the Relic."

So your 'scientifically proven' assertion is not even supported by the man who did the work. You should retract this claim of yours.

Where in the documentary does it say that?

What Doctor Giulio Fanti does say (at 41:35 minutes) is; “It is necessary to calibrate very well the energy. Only the range 97 to 98 [%] it is possible to obtain an image. The corona discharge gives us the most number of compatibility between the experimental results, and what we see on the Shroud.”

 

[gcthomas]

Where in the documentary does it say that?

What Doctor Giulio Fanti does say (at 41:35 minutes) is; “It is necessary to calibrate very well the energy. Only the range 97 to 98 [%] it is possible to obtain an image. The corona discharge gives us the most number of compatibility between the experimental results, and what we see on the Shroud.”

YouTube videos aren't very his source material, so I found this instead:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Fanti-refl.pdf

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

YouTube videos aren't very his source material, so I found this instead:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Fanti-refl.pdf

I see so you took selective parts of his answers without showing the questions, rather than showing what was actually said and you have assumed that this is a genuine document. That's hardly scientific now is it. So lets ASSUME this is a genuine statement he gave, this is what was said by Dr Fanti in full:

Q3. Do you believe the Shroud is likely the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, a fake
relic, or are you uncertain what to believe?

I must separate scientific aspects from religious ones.
From a scientific point of view both my researches and the studies performed by
the students (of Mechanical Engineering) in thesis with me ALL lead to a
confirmation of the authenticity of the Shroud even if, up to now, no sure proof
has been evidenced.

From a religious point of view, I am sure that the Holy Shroud is authentic and it
is the most important Relic of Christianity. This because, following a precise
question of mine, I had a personal “answer” in 1998 in front of the Relic.


Q9. Do you favor or believe any of the current theories on how the image got
onto the cloth? If so please name the theory.

It’s a hypothesis, not a theory because it is not yet validated by science. In fact,
at this moment, the body image cannot be completely explained nor reproduced
by science.

I am, however, convinced that the Coronal Discharge played an important role in
the body image formation.

So he does believe it is the genuine burial shroud of Christ which he confirms in the documentary and that a plasma coronal discharge was involved in forming the image on the shroud which he also confirms in the documentary. It seems you commented on the documentary without even watching it first, not very scientific of you at all. You should retract your groundless assertion and in future do the research before voicing twisted half truths.