1)
Discussion of Electro-Magnetic Universe · 2)
Continuing discussion (on EU) with me cut off from group
I don't think it impossible electromagnetic plasma permeates the universe.
But neither do I think this solves the basic problem with Newton's view.
Here is a discussion where I oppose one who does think so.
- Cameron James
- Ever wondered why NASA and its sycophants are always puzzled at every new discovery in space, and why its vaunted "experts" are consistently incapable of explaining any phenomenon without recourse to mathematical gymnastics and imaginary constructions pulled from the nearest hat? Why do they later come out and say that this is normal even though it goes against all their assumptions?
It's quite simple really: because standard theories are as wrong as it's possible to be, ignoring the presence of electromagnetic forces in favour of gravity, a force 10 to the power of 39 (that's 10 with 39 trailing zeroes) weaker than EM. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that the universe and everything in it is motivated by electricity, and that gravity is simply the observed result of charge differential. Strangely we know (or THINK we know) that subatomic particles such as neutrons, protons and electrons are controlled by electrical forces, yet for some reason this is ignored when we think on bigger scales. Not for much longer, I hope.
- Jonathan D'Souza
- Virtually everything is run according to Public Relations Ideology - which means spinning things and lying in your favor, no matter how daft - It's one of the things they ingrain into you in College Business Writing Courses. - Never make your company seem weak or mistaken - word things such that they are always seen as a benefit to your audience, even when you are depriving them of something.
Basically 'lying' and 'subterfuge' is an institutionalized practice and a job benefit. Politics, Science, Education, finance, consumer goods, even the Catholic Church now sadly adopts this practice.
Hell isn't only filled with lawyers. It's also filled with Public Relations Agents. Down there they're still employed into perpetuity.
- Cameron James
- Ha! So true!
- A.j. Kukoleck
- earlier today i was thinking about what if evolution or the standard model was a traded company. noboday would buy it. like the bad news with climate gate emails. al gores carbon credit company took a nose dive. if these scientists were as zealous for the truth as they lead us to believe evoluiton and the standard model wouldnt get talked about.
- Matt SIngleton
- The only thing that I can see missing from the New Years cosmology model is the mathematics. We have seen the math work with geo under Mach's principle.
And an electric universe increases the universal forces exponentially and the process running more smoothly. But I still need the math. If that is done we can look into peer review.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- // ignoring the presence of electromagnetic forces in favour of gravity, a force 10 to the power of 39 (that's 10 with 39 trailing zeroes) weaker than EM. //
Why would weaker or stronger change anything about the problem how centripetal (or attractive) force manages to balance out centrifugal (or inertial as per previous movement) one?
- Cameron James
- We are looking for the truth
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sure.
But truth implies using some logic.
If gravitation and electromagnetic force were competing as roles for a GLUE, perhaps you would have a point.
But in orbits, the question is how attractive force and the momentum for going on forward are BALANCED into an orbit - OR, if the explanation is ENTIRELY different.
I think orbits are there because angels in obedience to God are providing them.
- Cameron James
- If your hypothesis requires that you imagine that the universe is filled 96% with invisible dark matter and dark energy you have a problem
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Oh, that is another question!
I am not main stream. Just not much into electromagnetic universe.
So, back to my previous question : WHY would an electromagnetic universe explain, not glueing but ORBITTING better than gravitation?
- Cameron James
- Because it is 10-39 power stronger and doesn't need imaginary dark matter. It assumes a universe filled with electrical plasma. This has been verified but secular science can't explain how it got there so they deny it.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Because it is 10-39 power stronger and doesn't need imaginary dark matter."
Well, the "stronger" part misses, even once again, the fact we are, with orbits, not talking of a glue but of a balance.
If attraction is TOO strong, it means orbitting body will be sucked in.
- Cameron James
- With gravity we should fly away. With a universe filled with light we are connected and stay there he same distance
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- More like "with gravity we would fly away, with electricity we would get sucked in".
Either way, the problem is the balance for an orbit resulting, as purported, from two forces.
Unlike a glueing together, which could result from just one attractive one.
- Cameron James
- With the EU it is like being on a string. Gravity by masses attraction is imaginary and way to weak to hold anything in. But we've been told it is a fact over and over. I question everything except the Bible and I hope to influence others to do this too.
[EU = electromagnetic universe, I presume?]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "With the EU it is like being on a string"
No.
A string is not a dynamic inward force. It is statically holding a stone in, not pulling it closer to centre.
That is where a string differs from both electromagnetism and gravitation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- As to Bible, it strongly suggests EITHER that stars are alive OR that angels are directing them.
Job 38: [7] When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
Judges 5: [20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.
- Cameron James
- Put two huge balls on a rope and put them a fraction of an inch apart and test how masses attract. Now run electricity through one and see how the EU works.
- A.j. Kukoleck
- I can see magnetic forces being more attractive than gravity in close proximity
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Very nice - if the problem at hand were getting two bodies to stay close.
However, if you want to bodies to orbit ... that is a fundamentally different issue.
The experiment of Don Pettit only indirectly adressed gravity, but directly adressed electromagnetism.
The charged knitting needle is obviously attracting through electric force, watch how many times water droplets orbit around it:
[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4
Need I say that, this video being produced by NASA, without their suspecting it could help debunking purely mechanistic (both electromagnetic and gravitational) models for orbits, I am somewhat less into considering their every word and gesture as automatically plotting.
I presume I have not disproven too much? Like orbits of satellites, could be kept in place by adding some propulsion the way wanted whenever satellite starts moving in (down) or out (up) too much.
Has any artificial satellite ever done totally without this help?
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of St Matthew
20.IX.2016
