No More Big Bang

Rossim22

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
488
Location
Fort Myers, FL
I apologize if this is a repost but its worth being shown again. If you have a thing for astronomy you will love the following video. It's concerning the electric model of the universe and in turn actually simplifies everything. For instance:

-Everything wasn't created out of nothing... no big bang.
-Space isn't somehow expanding throughout the universe in between galaxies.. though they also collide with one another.
-No dark matter or dark energy or black holes.
-No nuclear furnace driving stars.
-No "dirty snowball" comets circling the sun without melting.

Please take the time to watch the video. It's very easy to understand and you'll be amazed how obvious the answers are. If everything in life and chemistry is governed by electrical charges, why wouldn't it govern the universe?


Couldn't figure out how to embed :nonono: :
Thunderbolts Of The Gods - YouTube
 

wurd2

Bingo.
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,932
Location
Garage
I am going to watch the video (or at least try) but this smacks of pseudoscience.

.
 

thomas91169

# of bans = 5203
Established Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
25,662
Location
San Diego, CA
Ill watch it tomorrow but it reaks of gratuitous amounts of retardation, just going off the video title alone.
 

7.62x51

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
1,666
Location
San Diego
Ya, check out "Electric Universe" on YouTube by Chuck Missler, very interesting stuff.

Things are much, much more simple than we realize. Leave it to mankind to overanalyze and confuse
 

7.62x51

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
1,666
Location
San Diego
well, Ill just go ahead and post it. Electric Universe Series, Chuck Missler. Here are some of his credentials for those calling it pseudoscience:

"Chuck demonstrated an aptitude for technical interests as a youth. He became a ham radio operator at age nine and started piloting airplanes as a teenager. While still in high school, Chuck built a digital computer in the family garage.

His plans to pursue a doctorate in electrical engineering at Stanford University were interrupted when he received a Congressional appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. Graduating with honors, Chuck took his commission in the Air Force. After completing flight training, he met and married Nancy. Chuck joined the Missile Program and eventually became Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles.

Chuck made the transition from the military to the private sector when he became a systems engineer with TRW, a large aerospace firm. He then went on to serve as a senior analyst with a non-profit think tank where he conducted projects for the intelligence community and the Department of Defense. During that time, Chuck earned a master's degree in engineering at UCLA, supplementing previous graduate work in applied mathematics, advanced statistics and information sciences.

Recruited into senior management at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan, Chuck established the first international computer network in 1966. He left Ford to start his own company, a computer network firm that was subsequently acquired by Automatic Data Processing (listed on the New York Stock Exchange) to become its Network Services Division.

Returning to California, Chuck found himself consulting, organizing corporate development deals, serving on the board of directors at several firms, and specializing in the rescuing of financially troubled technology companies. He brought several companies out of Chapter 11 and into profitable operation. Chuck thrived on this type of work. "


[youtube_browser]KGEhiUPwJio[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]NSMX7wTxPtg[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]AWi7tUGXATc[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]eKpajUmLqIM[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]JSghfutTojY[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]z8W-0rPmFrw[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]DBUXPircVG0[/youtube_browser]

[youtube_browser]ussoksuNEkU[/youtube_browser]
 

Rossim22

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
488
Location
Fort Myers, FL
No it honestly makes a lot of sense. They use thunderbolts of the gods because they relate how we just take the ancient cultures as stories and art but they're saying that electrical activity in between the earth and moon or other planets with cometary tails were the basis of many of their myths and why they obsessed with the sky.

That is a little more ludacris than the electric universe model in general. Big bang just simply doesn't agree in the back of my mind and I think a lot of people would agree. Without red shift theory or "hubble constant" big bang has scarce support.
 

moddestmike

2 Degrees/Still Confused
Established Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
3,142
Location
Houston
Talbot even admits his theories don't align with the Laws of Physics. The guy was a PoliSci/Education major. He's widely known for dictating neo-Velikovskian ideology (which should instantly discredit any "Scientific" theory he may have).

Crack-pot science playing on some peoples love for mysticism and mythology.

Talbott's unorthodox, radical interpretation of the world's myths and religious traditions is considered by his peers in the post-Velikovsky era to be extreme and unsupported by an objective evaluation of all the data, physical and symbolic-literary.

Unorthodox is an understatement. While I admire his enthusiasm there are several issues with his "theories". One being that he has no indication of formal education that would even begin to substantiate his claims. I'm far removed from the field of Astronomy BUT I can assure you this guy is simply attempting to pass off unsupported thoughts as theory.

FYI Big Bang has not been coined the end all be all. It's a theory with substantiated evidence support from academia, just as the String theory (much smaller support).

Perhaps someone with more knowledge in this area could chime in.

Also, this video makes light of just how ridiculous this theory is. Read his book if really want to delve into Velikovskian thought. It's entertaining and very imaginative, but its nothing more than pseudoscience as someone else stated.
 
Last edited:

wurd2

Bingo.
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,932
Location
Garage
7.62x51 said:
...Chuck Missler...Here are some of his credentials for those calling it pseudoscience...

If he does not have a doctorate in any of the scientific areas he is attempting to cast doubt upon, don't bother mentioning his background because none of it matters.

.
 

1hot281

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,942
Location
The States
This again... Is it 2001? It doesn't strike anyone as odd that neither of the authors have advanced degrees in Theoretical Physics... or a Masters or PhD in any sort of high end mathmatics?

David Talbott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude has a Bachelors in Education and Political science... and some grad work in Urban Studies...

Wal Thornhill - The Velikovsky Encyclopedia

Dude got a degree/degrees in physics and electronics in Australia, and never finished post grad studies because of "the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward his challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia."

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'

^^^"The standard for physical models is that they produce numerical values in agreement with observations from well-understood, more fundamental principles. Yet the Electric Universe (EU) model produces no such values of solar wind or interplanetary magnetic field, values which we can compare to measurements from the many satellites flown from the orbit of Mercury to the heliopause. Why should the Electric Universe model be regarded as superior to the more standard model(s) when the standard models disagree at the few percent level, or at worst factor of a few, while EU produces no values for comparison at all?"
 

wurd2

Bingo.
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,932
Location
Garage
Like all religious agendas aimed at obscuring science, the electric universe is a pseudoscientific worldview that thrives within the ever shrinking gaps of our scientific knowledge. This is another way of saying the electric universe thrives in ignorance. When you have a REAL scientific theory, you can make RISKY and SPECIFIC predictions about the natural world that can be verified or falsified by the scientific method. And when you can do this, you can produce scientific research for PUBLICATION and SCRUTINY by other disinterested scientists passionately seeking to debunk your work. This is the PEER REVIEW process that eliminates bullshit.

Until Chuck Missler and his scientific cohorts can produce a shred of evidence for the electric universe in the form of scientific publication for the peer review process, they literally have nothing beyond hype published on the web. This video is pseudoscientific nonsense set to music and pretentious camaraderie.

.
 

1hot281

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,942
Location
The States
^^^^From the link above

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html said:
Mainstream astronomy and astrophysics has guided science into pioneering discoveries in gravity, with the application of space flight, and atomic and nuclear physics, with the applications of semiconductors and materials science (see The Cosmos In Your Pocket). Humans have moved into space without one single model that yields testable measurements from the Electric Universe supporters. What does EU provide that is not already provided by mainstream astronomy and geophysics?

Every book on how to write applications & interpret the signals from GPS satellites emphasizes the importance of relativity in converting these signals into a high-precision receiver position. Yet EU supporters deny the importance of relativity in this application. Has any EU supporter designed and built a working high-precision (< 1 meter accuracy) GPS receiver that can be certified as free of relativistic corrections?

If EU claims that we should only rely on laboratory observations of plasmas and that our mathematical models are worthless, then where does that leave magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)? Is MHD valid in its domain of applicability? If MHD is invalid and it is not possible to use it for building mathematical models of plasmas, aren't EU supporters saying that Alfven didn't deserve a Nobel prize for MHD?

Astronomers have studied the effects of free charges and electric fields in space as far back as 1922 and 1924. Note that this work predates Langmuir coining the term 'plasma' for an ionized gas. Rosseland and Pannekoek's work is still cited today since gravitational stratification is one of the easiest ways to generate and sustain an electric field in space. George Ellery Hale was looking for electric fields on the Sun back in 1915. Electric fields are long acknowledged as important in the solar atmosphere. Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore electric fields and free charges in space in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?

Hannes Alfven received his Nobel prize for the accomplishment of making certain types of plasmas mathematically tractable. Langmuir and others developed other mathematical models of discharge plasmas, predating Alfven. REAL plasma physicists continue to revise the mathematical models and these models have improved significantly. Even the classic discharge graphic in Cobine's “Gaseous Conductors” has been modeled with Particle-In-Cell (PIC) plasma modeling software. Plasma models, some sold as commercial software, are also used to understand the plasma environment in a number of research, space, and industrial environments. Why do Electric Universe supporters consistently dismiss the use of mathematical modeling of plasmas?

Mainstream solar physics uses Doppler imaging of the solar surface to construct images of the farside of the Sun. Now the STEREO spacecraft are at positions where we will finally see the entire sphere of the Sun and will be able to conduct more direct tests of this capability. This capability critically depends on our understanding of the solar interior, yet EU claims that all our models of the solar interior are wrong.

a) If mainstream models of the solar interior are so wrong, why does this technique work at all?
b) All of the solar data for this capability are PUBLIC (see MDI Data Services & Information) and the software runs on desktop-class computers you can buy at almost any computer store.

So when will EU demonstrate that their Electric Sun model can generate equivalent or better results?

EU 'theorists' or even observers have provided no skymaps (such as those provided by a variety of missions and projects) showing tracks of electric currents powering the stars. These maps are needed so we can direct more sensitive instruments at the appropriate regions to determine if these currents actually exist.

The standard for physical models is that they produce numerical values in agreement with observations (in situ measurements or fluxes) from well-understood, more fundamental principles. Yet the Electric Sun (ES) model produces no such values of solar wind or interplanetary magnetic field, values which we can compare to measurements from the many satellites flown from the orbit of Mercury to the heliopause. Why should the Electric Sun model be regarded as superior to the more standard model(s) when the standard models disagree at the few percent level, or at worst factor of a few, while ES produces no values for comparison at all?

One of the popular EU models for stars is a z-pinch configuration. The primary advocate of this configuration seems to be Wal Thornhill. Using Alfven circuit analogies, the major feature of this model is a current stream where the star derives its energy as a resistive load. For this reason, I call it the solar resistor model. With simple constraints of particle and energy conservation (nuclear reactions which could significantly change particle number) combined with Maxwell's equations the major shortfalls of this model are:
-predicts magnetic fields for the surface of the Sun and at the orbit of the Earth, 1000 to 1,000,000 times larger than measured.
-ignores that free current streams of ions and electrons are subject to numerous instabilities which make them break up in short timescales.

Popular excuses from EU 'theorists' are that this model ignores some 'nonlinearties' which they do not define but which must violate conservation of energy and Maxwell's equations to solve their problem.

An alternative solar model, radically different from the Thornhill model above, is a spherical capacitor model with the heliopause as the cathode (source of electrons) and the solar photosphere as the source of ions & protons (anode). I call this the solar capacitor model. This spherical current configuration has been studied heavily in theory and experiment since the 1920s.

Applying basic conservation principles to this configuration, just some of the deficiencies found are;
-predicts a solar proton wind speed 200 times faster than observed.
-predicts energetic particle fluxes far in excess of what we observe. (proton fluxes a billion times larger). These fluxes are also far higher than the most deadly regions of the Earth radiation belts, meaning that interplanetary travel would be sure death for astronauts.
-in situ measurements do not show a high-energy stream of electrons heading towards the Sun.

Without an external EMF maintaining the potential between the photosphere and heliopause, the Electric Sun will shut down due to charge neutralization in a very tiny fraction of a second.

Space weather forecasting is vital to protecting the lives of astronauts as well as billions of dollars in satellite assets. The different professional computational models used by NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, etc. agree very well on large-scale behavior of coronal mass ejections and other space weather events.
a) Where is the Electric Sun model that can compute the particle fluxes, energies and fields from first principles which are consistent with the measured solar luminosity and in situ spacecraft particle and field measurements?
b) If EU does not publish its models so they can be tested against other models as well as measurements, how can they claim their model is better, much less that they are doing science?

The Pioneer Anomaly has been the subject of controversy since its discovery. A model with a precision computation of the net thrust from the spacecraft's own reflected thermal heat has been provided in “Modelling the reflective thermal contribution to the acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft”. EU claims that the anomaly is due to electric forces. This is one of the few models they propose that should be readily testable. So where is the EU computation of the size of the Pioneer Anomaly based on the EU model? Such a computation would be valuable for precision navigation of future interplanetary missions yet they have provided nothing.

If, as EU likes to claim, their 'work' is based on strong laboratory science, why does EU believe any results based on the HI 21 cm radio emission? I have yet to find any evidence that that photon emission has been detected in the laboratory. Its existence is based on a theoretical calculation, not that different from the calculation that two protons can fuse to form deuterium. The theoretical calculation demonstrates that *both* interactions have a probability too low to be detected with current laboratory capability. So why do EU supporters believe the HI 21 cm emission but not the proton-proton chain?

What is the origin of the electromotive force (EMF) that drives all the current streams required? These EMFs should be operating today yet EU has not proposed any sources of these nor ways to measure them.
 

Junior00

Hurter Of Delicate Vaginas
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,574
Location
Ga
Dude, having a PhD is not the end all. Einstein didn't "earn" a doctorate, but was honorarily given them. Some of the smartest people on the face of the planet were self taught.
 

wurd2

Bingo.
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,932
Location
Garage
Rossim22 said:
No it honestly makes a lot of sense. They use thunderbolts of the gods because they relate how we just take the ancient cultures as stories and art but they're saying that electrical activity in between the earth and moon or other planets with cometary tails were the basis of many of their myths and why they obsessed with the sky.

I watched the video and noted no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for this ominous electrical source.

Rossim22 said:
Big bang just simply doesn't agree in the back of my mind and I think a lot of people would agree. Without red shift theory or "hubble constant" big bang has scarce support.

Darwinian evolution doesn't work in the heads of at least half the United States population. And yet it occurs. The keyword here is EDUCATION.

.
 
Last edited:

wurd2

Bingo.
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,932
Location
Garage
Junior00 said:
Dude, having a PhD is not the end all. Einstein didn't "earn" a doctorate, but was honorarily given them. Some of the smartest people on the face of the planet were self taught.

Once you eliminate those scientists without doctorates, you can then further narrow them down to those that have ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED to their respective fields of expertise (rare cases like Einstein get included here). Because there is so much nonsense out there, I have found that this is a great way to save time and avoid misinformation. I only watched this video because I was curious and bored.

Einstein based his work on observation, much more so than is commonly thought (the whole "thought experiment" story is a myth). Science is us asking the questions and letting nature provide the answers. It is nature and careful observation that taught Einstein. He didn't just whip the stuff out of his ass like religious people do.

.
 
Last edited:

347zz5.0

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
288
Location
CT
-Everything wasn't created out of nothing... no big bang.

The BB theory has never said, suggested, or implied, that the universe came from nothing. That belief is nothing more than a popular layman misconception of current Cosmology.

And I think with that I'll just stop right there.

And that does not conflict with the Krauss video posted above me titled, "A universe from nothing." As anyone familiar with his talk, or his book, knows that when he says nothing he does not actually mean....nothing.
 

Rossim22

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
488
Location
Fort Myers, FL
The BB theory has never said, suggested, or implied, that the universe came from nothing. That belief is nothing more than a popular layman misconception of current Cosmology.

And I think with that I'll just stop right there.

And that does not conflict with the Krauss video posted above me titled, "A universe from nothing." As anyone familiar with his talk, or his book, knows that when he says nothing he does not actually mean....nothing.

Are you serious? One of the many shows featuring neil degrasse tyson begins with "In the beginning there was nothing... then BANG" Also look at the problem we're having with quasars that are turning up connected with galaxies with red shifts FAR less than that of their own. In fact, the big bang was believed to be postulated to help support the creation theory.

NGC7603 which mainstream says that none of the objects are influencing the others at all:
ngc7603-show.jpg
 
Last edited:

SicShelby09

Banned
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,099
Location
USA
I apologize if this is a repost but its worth being shown again. If you have a thing for astronomy you will love the following video. It's concerning the electric model of the universe and in turn actually simplifies everything. For instance:

-Everything wasn't created out of nothing... no big bang.
-Space isn't somehow expanding throughout the universe in between galaxies.. though they also collide with one another.
-No dark matter or dark energy or black holes.
-No nuclear furnace driving stars.
-No "dirty snowball" comets circling the sun without melting.

Please take the time to watch the video. It's very easy to understand and you'll be amazed how obvious the answers are. If everything in life and chemistry is governed by electrical charges, why wouldn't it govern the universe?


Couldn't figure out how to embed :nonono: :
Thunderbolts Of The Gods - YouTube

How could anyone ever know this?? Did you lift the skirt of every star to check for nuclear balls??
 

gamatt

Whine Connoisseur
Established Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
1,169
Location
Charlottesville, VA

Rossim22

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
488
Location
Fort Myers, FL
How could anyone ever know this?? Did you lift the skirt of every star to check for nuclear balls??

Exactly. You can't know it, therefore it leaves the possibility that a much simpler reason lies in truth. Why is the corona of the sun millions of degrees but the surface is only 6000 degrees if its being energized from the inside? Why does solar wind accelerate as it gets farther from the sun? Because it's being put in a magnetic field. What causes magnetic fields? Electric currents!

I'm saying our knowledge of black holes, dark energy, dark matter, gravity etc are all true, they're just being misinterpreted as mathematical possibilities without a force being strong enough to dictate it. Why can one magnet render the gravitational force of the entire planet useless? Why wouldnt the same thing be playing a role in the creation of galaxies and solar systems?
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top