Jump to content

Carlos

Members
  • Posts

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carlos

  1. np. I don't think anything is done and dusted concerning reality. Though much of it is proven to a significant degree, there still remains the possibility of a far better theory that better explains everything. Electric theory has issues that prove it cannot be correct.
  2. Really? It's directly above the axis of rotation. See string in below link. https://media.gettyimages.com/videos/baseball-hanging-and-spinning-thousand-oaks-california-usa-video-id118141916
  3. This is a very strong solution to a problem. It works, is feasible and via computer replication it works. You cannot say categorically DOES generate until the hypothesis has been tested. That's why they chuck things in space with scientific instruments(such as Parker). Could you direct me to the electric universe explanation and help compare the language used to express it? I'll help you out with my search: https://www.everythingselectric.com/sun/ "Is the temperature a way of observing or inferring the potential differences of electrons and other stuff? Especially the incredible Transition Region that is only 60 miles wide but the temperature goes up or down from 500,000 Centigrade to only 8000 Centigrade. Does this show 'Electric' Potential Difference?" https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory/ "In 1972, Ralph Juergens wrote: “The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge — the probable source of all its radiant energy.” Earl R. Milton recalled Juergens’ concept of an “electric” sun: “In August 1972 Ralph Juergens introduced the concept of the electrically powered Sun. He was inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky’s contention that electromagnetic forces played a crucial role in sculpting the surfaces and shaping the orbits of the bodies of the solar system; by Melvin Cook’s attempts to unify the electromagnetic and gravitational fields; and by the voluminous literature of Charles Bruce intimating that the phenomena observed in stellar atmospheres could be described adequately by an electrical discharge model''. “Juergens, however, went farther than all of his preceptors in electrifying both the cosmic bodies and their interactions. He perceived the astronomical bodies as inherently charged objects immersed in a universe which could be described as an electrified fabric. The charges appearing locally on cosmic bodies, he posited, arose from the separation of positive ions and electrons on a galactic scale. Later, he discussed both the problems arising if the solar interior is truly the source of stellar energy and the nature of the phenomena observed as the solar photosphere." Would you agree it is a little vague in its detail? Now of course you cannot dismiss any hypothesis simply for that reason but it stays just that until somebody offers something a whole lot more verifiable. Do they have computer models for instance?
  4. That is not an unsolved problem btw. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150617091757.htm More on the micro eruptions that that study references: https://www.inverse.com/article/60947-plasma-jets-heat-up-sun-atmosphere
  5. I don't understand your point of view. Icke says question everything and that includes conspiracies. If you only discuss one side of the argument then you will never see the big picture - and of course that works both ways. I am not debunking anything I am offering evidence that suggests an alternative explanation. Anyway, regarding gravity and dark matter, I think this baby will open up to better understanding: https://sci.esa.int/web/jwst/-/james-webb-space-telescope-to-launch-in-october-2021 https://sci.esa.int/web/jwst/-/45759-fact-sheet https://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/groundup/lesson/basics/g49/ I think it colossally significant that this telescope will sit in a gravitational point perfectly predicted by the current model and that has no feasible explanation by the electric/plasma model.
  6. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/bird-seen-frozen-mid-air-22359476 That it?
  7. Can I politely ask why you are asking? I don't see this question posed to other members? What about the ones who I am chiefly arguing against concerning the Earth? They seriously bring into disrepute the calibre of conspiracy theorists in general. Short answer because I felt like it. Long answer none of your business really. Stoically? How is it stoic or defending concerning the Earth being a sphere!? If I wanted to "defend" established theories I would have done so. I didn't realise that all alternatives no matter how absurd are considered worthy debate material, yet those that use more in depth referencing of current established items are singled out. Yes most are aware of the establishment scientific beliefs, but very few who hold opposing views understand them to a degree that would possibly negate their tendency to dismiss them. I agree that there are large holes in cosmology, but the bits filled in are quite astonishingly accurately backed up with solid mathematics. I cannot even find any mathematics that show a coherent alternative for an electric or even plasma universe. It has way way more holes in it than current cosmology, serious problems with basics such as protons from the Sun and the parts it does "fit" are very vague. My thoughts are exactly the thing that led you to politely ask me why I joined. I have no wish to get into a debate about this. Carry on discussing it amongst fellow believers and those who think it carries weight.
  8. And your first statement is completely wrong anyway - we can SEE 100% of the visible spectrum of light - hence its name! But even so, we can certainly detect/perceive everything else on the rest of the spectrum - the part you are probably referring to. This discussion concerns things within the visible spectrum. As for your argument you could apply that to every single exchange on this forum and it would still be wrong. Don't worry about starving children, just develop your consciousness save the causation for mystical beings in other realities.
  9. @zArk I told you quite specifically that your video had numerous errors in it. But the one you keep harping on about concerns the duration being 5hrs. Now why did you not double check this? I just did and your source is completely wrong! The shadow arrived on the surface at 16.48 UT and left at 20.02 UT - duration 3hrs 14 minutes. To clarify, your video maker has made the colossal blunder of taking the first viewing time of the partial eclipse at the most Northern latitude and the last viewing time of the partial eclipse on the most Southern latitude! Quite clearly next to each point it shows the start and end of the shadow duration! See "Start of total eclipse" at point 1 and "End of total eclipse" at point 2. To put that into perspective - it is like taking the sunrise in England and the Sunset in Thailand and concluding that the daylight figures don't add up! Clearly the duration of the shadow cast on the Earth is well within limits of the motions involved. Now what? Are you going to ignore this or acknowledge you were wrong?
  10. You blind? It is clearly spinning in both. Here's another: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004500/a004579/eclipse_flyaround_360p30.mp4 It is together. The problem is you and the flatties not reality. The "model" you show is riddled with errors. I have pointed some out to you and you have ignored them. Serious question, please answer: What is the total time the Moon shadow was on the Earth from West to East, hours and minutes? Your source for this please.
  11. No. Tesla didn't have it right, the aether does not exist and has been disproven almost every day all around the world in science experiments doing Michelson-Morley mock-ups. I somehow doubt that you were taught any of those subjects, your current knowledge is a little sketchy. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/special-relativity/michelson-and-morleys-luminiferous-ether-experiment/v/michelson-morley-experiment-introduction It must be great for the fringe believers to think of this electric-universe and part of me wishes that it could have some validity, but it doesn't. There is simply no solid mathematical backup to this theory. Spacecraft routinely analyse the space they fly in and the solar wind exhibits none of the characteristics associated with what is claimed. Anyway, how the hell can you be a believer of the electric universe when you deny space exists!??
  12. No he didn't Gravity is real, the aether is not. What do you mean "them"? We are talking specifically about gravity. So they say. I'm sure there were some marvellous things that haven't surfaced, he was a very smart man, but sadly not right about everything. You are a moderator, kindly act like one and desist with the insults and goading.
  13. Gibberish. You believe an old scientist who was proven wrong repeatedly, but don't believe him when he refers to space. That's ridiculous. https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/
  14. Doubtful, they're much bigger and easy to observe - you can land on them analyse them and watch their variances. No need for Mr rolly eyes.
  15. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23806
  16. This doing the rounds : https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-uk-troops-given-insect-repellent-citriodiol-as-part-of-enhanced-protection-11978318 Can't wait for large scale manufacture of citriodiol to be mass sprayed everywhere.
  17. No, really it isn't. Just because Tesla (ooooooo not Tezzy - the main man) hypothesised about it, doesn't mean that countless scientists haven't disproven its existence! Students all over the planet have repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment disproving beyond doubt, the existence of the aether. Why can't people jump higher in less dense air!? I find your posts a little bit absurd. On the one hand you argue patently that there is no space then quote a theory ABOUT SPACE by Tesla! https://www.aetherforce.energy/teslas-dynamic-theory-of-gravity/ https://drnikolatesla.tumblr.com/post/120282936718/nikola-tesla-on-albert-einsteins-theory-of “It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”
  18. Who told you that? Enoch? Do you think he might have been pulling your leg.
  19. Sure, but not when it is new. The best I could find was even less than this but needed numerous techniques: http://www.astrophoto.fr/new_moon_2010april14.html#:~:text=Thierry Legault - World record %3A the,New Moon - April 14 2010&text=This is the first image,this instant being exactly zero "From the shooting site (Montfaucon, France, 44°41'52"N, 1°34'30"E, altitude 300m), the angular separation between the Moon and the Sun was only 4.55° (nine solar diameters). At this very small separation, the crescent is extremely thin (a few arc seconds at maximum) and, above all, it is drowned in the solar glare, the blue sky being about 400 times brighter than the crescent itself in infrared (and probably more than 1000 times in visible light). This explains that it has never been observed visually or even photographed until now. In order to reduce the glare, the images have been taken in close infrared and a pierced screen, placed just in front of the telescope, prevents the sunlight from entering directly in the telescope."
  20. We were already on topic - the OP references the Greenland ice sheet and historical variances are very relevant.
  21. @zArk Here is a good animation showing the way it produces the shadow - done to scale so watch in full screen. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004300/a004324/eclipse_oblique_360p30.mp4 and another showing the angle of totality getting more and more elongated: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004500/a004579/eclipse_flyaround_360p30.mp4 The moon, moving as it should, the Earth rotating as it should, the shadow as reported and as it should. You were wrong and your youtuber failed to incorporate the items I mentioned about the speed on a rotating circle being relative to the observer.
  22. NOT true on both accounts. A little derision perhaps, but caused by you and the other 2 ignoring long carefully written posts and responding with diversionary gobbleydegook. Mean words? Hells bells what are you a teddy bear? There was nothing more than gentle piss taking banter. This minor subject hasn't been "exhausted" - you just don't understand the dynamics involved and are listening to youtubers. For starters you are definitely playing some weird game by suggesting it isn't the Moon causing the eclipse! What causes a lunar eclipse? In your own time.
  23. Run along then. Thanks for ignoring the majority of virtually every post I made.
  24. Irrelevant. My diagram is just a basic illustration anyway but shows the same principle involved as per the speed variances.
  25. Gibberish and not even accurate how do 15 and 1/2 produce 14? All that anyone with intelligence needs is to know: 1. The speed of the Moon. 2. How this relates to various points on a globe as described on my roundabout diagram. 3. How far the Moon moves ACROSS the path of the disc in a given time. 4. How fast the Earth rotates at the given latitude and how this relates again to my roundabout analogy. All that and you have the model for computing speeds at latitude. Or you could pluck some youtube gibberish out of your bottom and put that up instead.
×
×
  • Create New...