Electric Universe Conspiracy Theory Debunked - sorry guys

I DO NOT AGREE.

Electromagnetism is the strongest force in the universe...



Give it up on your Relativity and Quantum bs.

You will not find a TOE there.

give up on trying to find a physical TOE then. the physical world ends where the spiritual world begins. the line is blurred, and so you cannot draw your own line without deceiving yourself and creating an incomplete theory. in order to have a TOE both scientific and philosophical, you need to take into account consciousness and other metaphysical matters.

:epicfacepalm:

The strongest force is the strong nuclear force.
I'll give you a zero.

[link to www.badastronomy.com]



Another link.

Funny the only people defending this shit are the ones that don't understand nothing about physics. That moran above said the electromagnetic force is the strongest one

What a jerk!

"

You cannot undo discoveries of science, that the universe has a static electrical field its' own, that helps stars fire up & stay lit up. [link to www.electric-universe.info] is scientists collectively debunking commonly held beliefs about the universe electrical aspects.

Try [link to www.jmaccanneyscience.com] also, an astrophysicist proving the electrical discharges when comets approach the sun; proving the theory of static electric universe, (which contradicts Big Bang theory BTW).

Explain these discoveries away or be debunked.

Walter Russell has all the answers in "The Universal One"

"Conspiracy theory", really?

My grandpa always told me never to trust a fella who dresses up like the fairy wizard. No good can come of it.

there is only the Tao

The article at OP's link is VERY interesting but it did not rebutted the EM explanation for sunspots, which are cooler regions in the solar surface exposing the supposedly "hotter" interior. The EM explanation is very plausible IMO.

The analysis of the EM's hypothesis of the incoming intergalactic electrons is a bit too simplistic too and it could probably be contradicted by a more elaborated model of the electric current if it's coming mainly through the polar regions of the Sun.

I may be wrong but I doubt that we have presently precise measurements of the interplanetary field in these regions.

But thanks OP for bringing this to our attention.

The strong force can only overcome the electrostatic force at distances no greater than the diameter of an atomic nucleus, so the "moran" you ridiculed is at least as correct as you are.

P.S. Try using a little tact.

Tesla said Einstein was wrong
[link to www.futuretg.com]

It turns out dark matter might not exist after all
[link to www.scientificamerican.com]

Graviton was never identified
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

you, my friend, are a nob.

The strong nuclear force is only a ipotetical force, a patch to justify a teorical model , is not a really mesurable force.

Hey, OP!

You're full of shit.

Most mainstream science today is pseudoscience.

True science would empower us and would bring real human progress as opposed to the kind that only enhances the power of the elite.

Einstein was recruited to send physics down a blind alley.

It's about time the crapola physics he promoted was debunked.

You know most people who knew Einstein used to say he "wasted" the last half of his life because he basically turned all his efforts to the field of astronomy, like many other great minds like his. Also, a very small amount of his work was actually published, just like Tesla. I believe that some of these brilliant people found something out there so totally profound that it would literally change every single aspect of the way humans live, and it would threaten TPTB's control, so it was held back or selectively released so a vast majority of the population wouldn't come to the correct conclusions.

Is NASA outsourcing their shill work to Portugal now?

LMAO.....no.

(1) Despite Scott's red-font claim to the contrary, after 30 years of looking for them, scientists have found that they can observe the fully expected flux of neutrinos from proton-proton (p-p) fusion. That is, the flux of neutrinos observed at the expected energy, for neutrinos from that fusion reaction, is as predicted by standard models.

Sure, now you just have to prove that the p-p chain actually works. Something that has NEVER happened.

(2) A "normally intelligent scientist", upon obtaining a result that appears inconsistent with theory would, first and foremost, make sure that the apparently unexpected results were complete, and correct. Next, he would make sure that the alleged theoretical expectations were the real theoretical expectations, and that there was no mistake there either. Only then would the scientist consider calling into question the validity of fundamental assumptions in the theory, such as fusion in the solar/stellar interior. Scott, on the other hand, would skip the bother of verifying his results, and jump to the instantaneous conclusion that all of known physics must be wrong and must be replaced. That would be both illogical and unreasonable.

Again, scientists have NEVER proven that the p-p chain works. Sounds like it's the Plasma Cosmologists who are the only ones doing the re-examining.

(3) Mainstream science does not "turn a blind eye" to the possibility of other energy generating mechanisms. Rather, they reject the notion for good, solid reasons. They are called, in a word, physics. In order to reject the fundamental theory of fusion in the stellar interior, it would be necessary, to all at once sweep away literally everything known about hydrodynamics & magnetohydrodynamics, thermodynamics, gravitation, nuclear physics, statistical physics, and electromagnetism. Such a grand restructuring of all knowledge certainly would be motivated only by a "problem" of the most profound significance, and the solar neutrino problem simply isn't one of those. So, the obvious alternative is to investigate the physics of solar models and neutrinos. in the course of that investigation it was discovered that the solar models were very good, but that the phsyics of the neutrinos was flawed. So, in the end, a fundamental presumption was overturned by the significant solar neutrino results, it just wasn't the fundamental assumption that the champions of the electric sun wish that it were.

Mainstream science turns a blind eye to most anything that could prove the "greats" wrong.

At one time it was learned that the galaxy couldn't possibly hold itself together under it's own gravity. Instead of re-examining gravity (at least at a cosmic scale) they just invented a super-gravity structure, that assisted the galaxy in holding itself together.

Most people know them as Black Holes.

The funny thing is this... the Electromagnetic force is trillions and trillions times more powerful than gravity. (no this is not an exaggeration, in fact I am understating it's power)

When matter, like in an imploding star get's to a certain point of compression something called "charge separation" causes them to fly apart despite gravity. (remember it's very weak vs electromagnetism)

There is no way that gravity beat the electromagnetic force, and collapsed a start to form a super-dense Black Hole core.

A Human jumping, even the smallest fraction of an inch is defeating the gravity of the ENTIRE EARTH, if only for a millisecond. That is how weak it really is.

(4) The "flavors" that Scott speaks of are not just a suggstion, and the classification of all particles in "flavors", neutrinos included, pre-dates the solar neutrino problem. Furthermore, the "alternate" flavors are not "unobservable", they are only unobservable with the current detectors. They are designed to detect electron neutrinos, which is what all stellar nuclear reactions create. However, if some of those neutrinos change on the way from (or through) the sun, into tau neutrinos, then they will pass through the detectors. Once tau neutrino detectors are built, then those neutrinos too will be observed (or not observed), and the matter will be settled.

Begin Quote
Some solar neutrinos have been observed - but less than half the number required if the fusion reaction really is there in the Sun's core. If any fusion is taking place at all, it is most certainly not at the sun's center. The negative results from the neutrino experiments have resulted not in any re-examination of solar models, but rather, an intense theoretical discussion of new magical properties that solar neutrinos "must have" because we cannot see them.
End Quote

This guy is so desperate to prove Neutrino's. Gotta prove the p-p chain from start to finish first.

(5) Scott's statement of the solar neutrino problem is incorrect. It is not true that "less than half" of the expected neutrinos are observed. It was true, in 1968. However, this is not 1968, it is December 2000, and Scott's seriously out-dated assertion is now simply an anachronism. We now know that the expected flux of p-p neutrinos is observed, consistent with solar models. However, the flux of neutrinos from Boron & Beryllium reactions remains low compared to theoretical expectations. Furthermore, the detection rates of Boron & Beryllium neutrinos is inconsistent between detectors of different type, indicating that more than just "missing", the neutrinos also have a skewed energy spectrum. That's a clue that indicates an energy dependent process is at work, which leaves the p-p neutrinos essentially alone, and affects differentlty the Boron & Beryllium neutrinos. The Boron & Beryllium reactions occur deeper in the solar core, where the temperature is higher, and where they are more sensitive to energy dependent processes, so it's a natural thing to look for.

Seeing the appropriate amount of Neutrino's doesn't prove that the p-p reaction is taking place. No more than the smell of Strawberries, proves Strawberries are around.

It could just be some Strawberry scented perfume. Still gotta prove the source. In this case the p-p reaction.

(6) Despite Scott's voiciferous claim to the contrary, the solar neutrino problem in fact sparked an intense examination of solar models. The result of that examination showed that, without a doubt the pressure & temperature in the solar interior had to be high enough to drive the expected fusion reactions at the expected rate. Those models were calibrated to the point of accuracy on the order of 1%, except in the deepest core, where the uncertainites approach 4%. Having determined with satisfaction that the solar models were valid, it is fairly obvious that the next step is to see if the neutrino models were valid. That was done, and they were found to be invalid.


Examining models that show how a Strawberries scent could be produced, doesn't prove Strawberries exist either.
Neither does improving those models.

Models of something that has not been proven.

(7) Anyone can see that the use of the word "magical" by Scott is nothing more than thinly veiled propaganda, a rehtorical device designed to appeal to the non intellectual side of the argument. In fact, the properties are far from "magical", unless you consider all of quantum mechanics to be "magical". The property in question is simply that what we measure as an electron neutrino is actually a particle which exists in a mixture of particle states, with a certain probability at any time, of being one or the other kind of neutrino. In the quantum mecahnics business, it's called a "superposition of states". Nothing out of the scientific ordinary, at least where "ordinary" and "quantum mechanics" meet. Scott's argument is prejudicial, but not reasonable.

Propaganda is claiming that someone is wrong with evidence that hasn't been proven true.

Anyways, that should be sufficient to prove that the author of that article is just a tool of mainstream science.

The rest is equally stupid, just use your heads and you too can see how.

Some good reading for the skeptics of electric universe theory:

1 on dark matter

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]


2 on black holes

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

3. on cosmology

[link to www.holoscience.com]

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

4. on gravity

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]


And Many more. Enjoy.

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

This info is almost a decade old!

no accounting for his errors or new discoveries since then

I'm pretty sure the strong nuclear force is stronger!

Those sites are full of pseudo-science stuff. The owner is not even a scientist.

The funny thing is it takes far more "imagination" to accept the big bang, classical newtonian models of the universe than it does to accept the electrical models of the universe.

The advantage of the big bang theories is that they require constant fiddling around and revising past theories as experimental data returns from space disproving original assumptions, this gives the priests of NASA plenty of job security.

Go back to sleep sheoples, NASA and the PTB have your best interests at heart.

Punisher is that you?

1I don't think many experiments in other fields of cosmology or respected science,can duplicate in a lab, an accurate demonstration of the universe,than the electric universe theory.
So much ground covered.