Thunderbolts Forum For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology Skip to content * Board index < Electric Universe - Net Talk * Change font size * FAQ * Register * Login What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered. Moderators: MGmirkin, arc-us Forum rules Post a reply First unread post o 27 posts o Page 2 of 2 o 1, 2 Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by upriver » Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:02 pm StevenO wrote: junglelord wrote:4.What is the electric potential between the earth and sun? (Tesla stated he measured 216 GV) That I do not know but I am sure it is resonate and harmonically coupled. Hi Dean, Here is the quote from Tesla: "<...> When radio-active phenomena were discovered I was prepared to view them merely as secondary effects of an external radiation, and as no trace of such a disturbance could be detected on earth I concluded that the primary activating rays were of cosmic origin and most likely to eminate from suns closely resembling our luminary. As the first step toward clearing up the mystery I undertook to ascertain whether the sun was charged to a potential sufficiently high to produce the tremendous electro-static repulsion which I had found to be the only force in nature capable of accounting for the phenomena. The subject required extended investigation, but I finally ascertained with a reasonable degree of certitude, and to my amazement, that the sun was at a constant positive potential of about 216,000,000,000 volts"<...>" In much older articles he was talking about only 2 GV. Wonder how he measured it... Steven Yes, i wonder how he measured that???? Are there are more references??? What was that quote from.....??? upriver Posts: 64 Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm + E-mail upriver Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by Tina » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:44 pm longcircuit wrote: "What CAN'T we explain?" What observed facts of the cosmos resist an electrical explanation? longcircuit Hi again longcircuit - I have an extrodinary tale to tell you :shock: When I was four years old (in 1960 god damitt) I had a strange dream of looking out my bedroom into the night sky. Stars were falling and all sorts of other strange things were happening. It took many years for all the components of the dream to make sense but there was one aspect of the dream which baffled me - it was the appearance of neon writing in the sky - pretty amazing hey! A phrase would appear then fade then another phrase or word would appear then fade again all in pale coloured neon lights - and I'm thinking "But I can't read"..... It was not until December 2007 that I heard of Electric Universe and immedialely connected it with my dream - I was an instant convert! EU had explained ( in my perplexed mind anyway) the significance of the plasma writing in my rather prophetic dream.....far out hey. Tina Posts: 108 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm Location: Taree NSW Australia + E-mail Tina + YIM Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by longcircuit » Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:30 pm I think it's time someone lobbed a stink-bomb into this thread to re-invigorate it. The following paragraph is taken verbatim from Leroy Ellenberger's "An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions," available here: http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html I should state before going further that I have no horse in the Velikovskian vs. skeptic race. Velikovsky could be mostly or completely wrong and the Electric Universe hypothesis could still be correct; my interest is in the latter. The title of the thread is: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain?," hence the excerpt from Ellenberger. What I'd like the more knowledgable members of the forum to investigate and comment on is the passage I have highlighted in bold italics. Ellenberger published the "Antidote" in Skeptic in 1995. What has science learned since then to corroborate or refute his claims? [The "electric star" model proposed by Ralph Juergens in 1970s (in Pensee II, IX & X, SIS Review, & Kronos) and revived by Wallace Thornhill in The Electric Universe (1998), part of his "holoscience" project, (in which the Sun is a non-convecting, isothermal ball of plasma powered by infalling galactic electrons and many craters in the Solar System are the result of gigantic electric discharges, etc.) [as deus ex machina] cannot rescue the "polar configuration" from its fatal flaws because the model is a non-starter. It is disproved by practically everything known about the actual behavior of the Sun and heliosphere. This was first explained by this writer in Kronos X:3, 1985, pp. 15-23, and recently in more depth on e-mail list-serves by Robert Grumbine, Karl Hahn, Burch Seymour, Tim Thompson, and Wayne Throop. Thornhill either ignores or dismisses all the negative evidence such as (i) the absence of x-rays in coronal holes (which should be produced by infalling electrons for which no evidence exists beyond the wishful thinking of Thornhill and star-struck acolytes such as Amy & Mel Acheson writing for Thoth and Atlantis Rising, and Don Scott, an electrical engineer, who in parroting Ralph Juergens in Kronos IV:4, 1979, also fails to understand the importance of the Reynolds Number in defining turbulence in photospheric granulation.), (ii) the proof that granulation in the Sun's photosphere is an expression of convection, (iii) the mere existence of the solar wind in which no inflowing electrons have been detected, (iv) the absence of characteristic particles from the nuclear fusion claimed to occur in the photosphere, etc., etc. The model lacks rigorous mathematical support. No one has ever shown that the electric charge required to produce the cited craters, e.g., Aristarchus on the Moon, is feasible, while rigorous mathematical modelling to explain the high temperature in the Sun's corona, a favorite anomaly cited against standard theory, in conventional terms is progressing steadily. The simplistic analogies to plasma and electrical discharge phenomena that are invoked to support the model [as in Talbott & Thornhill's Thunderbolts of the Gods (2002)] cannot nullify the verdict of the overwhelming negative evidence and serve only as an example of invincible ignorance, showing the proponents do not know, for example, the difference between a plasmoid and a pair of opposed lotus blossoms used by the Greeks to represent the thunderbolt held by Zeus. Other examples of so-called electric discharge effects on planets, asteroids, and satellites (such as Europa) can be explained by conventional means without invoking cosmic electricity.] So "[t]he model lacks rigorous mathematical support" and "rigorous mathematical modelling to explain the high temperature in the Sun's corona...in conventional terms is progressing steadily." Are we there yet? Must all science have "rigorous mathematical support" in order to be true, correct and valid? longcircuit Posts: 32 Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:59 am + E-mail longcircuit Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by squiz » Thu Nov 27, 2008 7:59 am That article is out of date. Thornhill either ignores or dismisses all the negative evidence such as (i) the absence of x-rays in coronal holes (which should be produced by infalling electrons for which no evidence exists beyond the wishful thinking of Thornhill and star-struck acolytes such as Amy & Mel Acheson http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/06dec_xrayjets.htm Hinode has changed all that. The spacecraft's advanced X-Ray Telescope can take pictures rapidly enough to catch these fast-moving eruptions. "We now see that jets happen all the time, as often as 240 times a day. They appear at all latitudes, within coronal holes, inside sunspot groups, out in the middle of nowhere--in short, And with that his credibility is ruined, perhaps an apology is in order from this tool. :lol: and Don Scott, an electrical engineer, who in parroting Ralph Juergens in Kronos IV:4, 1979, also fails to understand the importance of the Reynolds Number in defining turbulence in photospheric granulation.), (ii) the proof that granulation in the Sun's photosphere is an expression of convection, More problems there it seems. This is from James Hogan's "Flexible thinking and Cosmic Electricity". A part of the Sun's visible surface or photosphere. The conventional model applies the physics of fluid dynamics as we know it here on Earth, and explains the granulated appearance as being the tops of convection columns. The trouble with that is that at the temperatures and densities involved, the motion should be violently chaotic, not ordered and structured. The quantity that defines a critical limit beyond which orderly motion gives way to complex turbulence is known as the Reynolds Number. Under the conditions prevailing in the photosphere, it's exceeded by a factor of 100 billion. That's not a trivial discrepancy. Similarly, the Rayleigh Number, specifically devised as a criterion for the formation of convection cells, is exceeded by a factor of 100,000. http://www.jamesphogan.com/demostuff/Eglin/FTCE.pdf the mere existence of the solar wind in which no inflowing electrons have been detected, This has been covered pretty well by Don Scott, It's known that electrons do flow sunward standard theory says from the "cough" bowshock of planetary magnetosphere and the heliosphere, however it is assumed that it is the ambient slow drift electrons that power the Sun, which probably will remain undetected for some time. the absence of characteristic particles from the nuclear fusion claimed to occur in the photosphere, etc., etc. Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle Gamma rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops. I think the only thing left is the slow drift electron issue, with more and more discoveries about the Sun,they are running out of ammunition I think. squiz Posts: 23 Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:05 am + E-mail squiz Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by simple simon » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:24 pm "Longcircuit wrote: (back in April) Well, this thread is off to a good start. Now is as good a time as any to ask: "What's electric resonance?" I keep reading in the forum about resonance this and resonant that, but have no idea what they mean. I'd like to read definitions from fellow forum members before I try my luck on the larger Web. While I'm at it, I may as well ask also for a definition of "harmonic coupling." (Please, no music jokes.) Thanks for your help. longcircuit Hi longcircuit, Your question finally prompted me to join the forum after many years of visiting Everybody talks about resonance and harmony, and as phenomena they seem to be as fundamental to physical existence as the "forces" of nature (whatever "force" means). But Nobody seems to be able to say what they are or to provide a decent definition. This is the most satisfying I've found - "Resonance is the physical transfer of energy between two (or more) vibratory systems whose frequencies of vibration maintain an arithmetic or geometric - that is Harmonic - relationship with each other" of course it still leaves the question of why they should transfer energy between themselves when in such a relationship, and how. In music at least there is a physical medium for the energy to use, but without an ether there isn't for electro-magnetic phenomena. Given the links thunderbolts has with myth I feel reasonably safe in mentioning this - Resonance and Harmony are magic. Real magic. That is, they are the magic(s) as meant and used by the "ancients" (for want of a better word). magic wands, spells, broomsticks and abracadabra are the disney-like fantasy and overlay of others. And the magic of similarity as told by Freud, and Frazer et al, is an accretion to the term. If you don't believe me, get yourself a guitar, tune it, then find the harmonics on each string and watch and listen for the resonances between strings - It Is Magic. As for "harmonic coupling" you're on your own. Otherwise you'd already know what it means. :) simple simon Posts: 9 Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:56 pm + E-mail simple simon Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by seasmith » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:31 pm ~ Longcircuit wrote: "While I'm at it, I may as well ask also for a definition of "harmonic coupling." Resonance and `Harmonic Coupling' are ideas which, imho, go to the very heart of EU theory; and probably deserve a conceptual thread of their own. Within the Common Knowledge toe, it is readily apparent that an harmonic relationship exists whenever there is observed :geek: the phenomenon of resonance. A note from R. Schwaller de Lubicz's "Temple of Man" would seem a prescient preamble: " The principle of harmonization can be defined as follows: Disharmony is always destructive. It dissociates the constituent elements of a state ~ and these then freely reassociate to form a new, harmonious system by virtue of the natural affinity of the (elements) among themselves. Selective affinity is the source of harmony. (emphasis added) ~s~ seasmith Posts: 543 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm + E-mail seasmith Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by simple simon » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:25 pm seasmith wrote:~ Resonance and `Harmonic Coupling' are ideas which, imho, go to the very heart of EU theory; and probably deserve a conceptual thread of their own. Within the Common Knowledge toe, it is readily apparent that an harmonic relationship exists whenever there is observed :geek: the phenomenon of resonance. A note from R. Schwaller de Lubicz's "Temple of Man" would seem a prescient preamble: " The principle of harmonization can be defined as follows: Disharmony is always destructive. It dissociates the constituent elements of a state ~ and these then freely reassociate to form a new, harmonious system by virtue of the natural affinity of the (elements) among themselves. Selective affinity is the source of harmony. (emphasis added) ~s~ I could not agree with you more - although harmonic coupling is term I'm not familiar with. You probably recognized that the definition of resonance that I gave comes straight from Lubicz (Sacred Science, I think - I've not got my hands on a copy of the "big book" yet). Since first coming across Lubicz over ten years ago I think he must be the most important author I've ever read. I'm amazed that there is not more talk and discussion about him and his work on the net and your reference is one of the very few I've ever come across, despite my still occasionally typing his name into google. If you know of any discussion of, or material of his on the net I'd very much like to know where it was. apologies for going off topic simple simon Posts: 9 Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:56 pm + E-mail simple simon Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by longcircuit » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:01 pm Welcome, simple simon, and thank you to all who responded to my last post. To return this thread to its topic, I'd like to know the answer to a question that has puzzled me ever since first reading of the Electric Universe: how can/could the electric force disrupt a stable planetary arrangement, then re-stabilize the planets in new orbits? (In this regard, the sole disappointment of Don Scott's The Electric Sky was his all-too-brief mention, on pp. 137-8, of the interaction of planetary plasma sheaths. The mention comes in a short paragraph that ends with: "This mechanism could stabilize planetary orbits." And that's all Scott has to say.) I accept that the electrical force is many times more powerful than gravity. But I have yet to read a detailed theoretical exposition of the "mechanism." This is what I think EU hypotheses state for this case: the electrical force, acting between or among charged bodies in space, can pull planets from their inertial orbits, set them on new paths well before gravity can pull them into each other (or otherwise destroy them), and then, some time later, regularize the planets in new orbits, at which time gravity and inertia resume their dominance over the planets' behavior. Is my understanding correct? To judge from posts to other threads in the Forum, electrical interactions between planets can cause transfer of atmospheres and other materials from one body to another. Doesn't this assume that the interplanetary distances are great enough that gravity plays little or no part in the interaction, yet not so great that the transfer of materials can occur without loss to empty space? longcircuit longcircuit Posts: 32 Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:59 am + E-mail longcircuit Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by seasmith » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:43 pm Longcircuit wrote: " ... how can/could the electric force disrupt a stable planetary arrangement, then re-stabilize the planets in new orbits? " Back to your second post regarding "electric resonance"~ The popular theory of electricodynamicly influenced orbits, planetary or atomic, is based on observed arithmetic/geometric `resonances'; ie: integral ratios or harmonic progressions, ( the Fibonacci series being the most famous). Geodesic proportionality would probably yield the best analog examples, but are difficult to visualize without 4D graphics. For a 2D arithmetic model, the Titius/Bode "law" of planetary orbits is illustrated below: Image Image As per Schwaller, orbits are disrupted when an imposed force enters a stable (EM-harmonic) system. How a cohesive system, of "planetary (or atomic) arrangement", re-stabilizes after the intruding force is re-distributed and dissipated~ would go to the question of the "natural affinities" at work in and on the system. s http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jbstoneking/jbspage4.htm seasmith Posts: 543 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm + E-mail seasmith Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by Grey Cloud » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:45 am Hi Longcircuit and Seasmith, Here's a site I came across recently which utilises phi to explain the planetary positions: http://www.spirasolaris.ca/ The maths and science are over my head but the guy's knowledge of ancient philosophy and alchemy are both excellent so I'm assuming his maths is too. Damned fine site. He's also a fan of Schwaller. If I have the least bit of knowledge I will follow the great Way alone and fear nothing but being sidetracked. The great Way is simple but people delight in complexity. Tao Te Ching, 53. Grey Cloud Posts: 1603 Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am Location: NW UK + E-mail Grey Cloud Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by seasmith » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:18 pm ~http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4d2b.html GC, That Is a large site, but full of good stuff, and they often call up two of my long-time most favorite visionaries: D'Arcy Thompson and Buckminster Fuller. Good catch s seasmith Posts: 543 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm + E-mail seasmith Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: What CAN'T EU hypotheses explain? New post by seasmith » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:42 pm ~ Orthogonally triplicate the center panel; inside-out, outside in, inside-out, ad infinitum to a frequency.... Image seasmith Posts: 543 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm + E-mail seasmith Top _________________________________________________________________ Previous Display posts from previous: [All posts] Sort by [Post time] [Ascending.] Go _________________________________________________________________ Post a reply 27 posts o Page 2 of 2 o 1, 2 Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk Jump to: [Electric Universe - Net Talk....................] Go Who is online Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest * Board index * The team o Delete all board cookies o All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group