The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Well, well well, what do you know. It appears as if main stream cosmologists has forgotten the meaning of science, and is persuing .... a believe system.Basically, the first law in the religion of astronomy, is that the dominant force at work in the universe is gravity. Unfortunatly, this believe fails to explain many things in the universe. The models which the "scientists" dreamed up, is falling apart due to new data. Every time we send a probe into space, cosmologists are "suprised" by the data, and is send back to the drawing board. But instead of reviewing their model, they keep inventing new stuff to make their model work:"curved space", "neutron stars", "WIMPs" (and now "WIMPZILLAS"), "MACHOs", several different sizes of "black holes", "superluminal jets", "dark energy", and magnetic field "lines" that "pile-up" and "reconnect"All of these are fictional things that "must be there" to make the model work. And then, after they "discovered" these things, they create new theories. Theories which are then presented to the public as unshakeble facts. The poor public buying "scientific" books, are actually reading science fiction.I make these claims, not based on the Bible, but based on the findings of a small band of "rebel" scientists, of whose religious orientation is not known to me. You see, they study a field of science which cosmologists do not: Electrisism and plasmas. They have a much more simplistic model of the universe, one based on the scientific method. But don't take my word for this, I'm just the layman. Read for yourself : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htmIn this model, PLASMA AND ELECTRICITY, NOT GRAVITY, IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FORCES IN THE UNIVERSE. There is no need for an expanding universe, a big bang, even an old universe. "Impact" craters are actually the result of electrical discharge. So is the Mariner Valley on Mars. Comets are actually young planets, and Venus was a comet only a view thousand years ago. READ THIS STUFF, IT IS REALLY FACINATING, CONVINCING AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND!!! When these scientists presented their discoveries to the "scientific" establishment, they were cast out, because it destroy their model which they've attached religious devotion to. Science is no longer a search for the truth, but an effort to keep obsolute theories afloat, in order to save face.Now the question. If the majority cosmologists can be so pig headed, so stubborn to see the obvious, so arrogantly sure of themselves, one can only wonder how much of this is happening in evolutionism as well. Like cosmology, evolusionist theories can not always be tested, but that doesn't stop "scientists" from passing these untested hipothesis as "SCIENTIFIC FACTS". For instance the idea that evolution happens incremental steps, not gradually. Ofcause, they've given this idea a important sounding name, and back it up with pseudo science. It is like the so called "Dark matter" which supposedly make up 95% of the universe. And if you disagree with this, the onus is on you to PROVE that something that isn't there, doesn't exist! How much "dark matter" exists in evolusionary theory? Why should we abandon our faith for unproven (even unprovable and disprovable) hipothesis?Far too often scientists pass POSSIBLE explainations as FACTS, and then continue to invent more "FACTS" based on unproven "FACTS". In the end, I wonder if even they can still distinguish between science and science fiction.It's a pity we can't send probes into the past. With cosmology, we continually get new data, and it is only a matter of time before the cosmologists will have to give in. But evolusion is diverent.Unfortunatly, we will never be able to go back in time and actually TEST the theories.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-25-2005 12:32 AM

I can not possibly awnser everything at the rate of the replies given here, but I will note two things in reply to Quetzal:Anything proposed as an explanation - a hypothesis - that can't be tested either by the predictions or retrodictions it makes, is generally excluded from mainstream theory. Please provide at least one concrete example where an untested hypothesis has been passed off as a fact. Thanks. BTW: why do you put "scientists" in quotation marks?Ok, here is one for size. Evolution is based on the ASSUMPTION that a creator can not exist. It is based on the ASSUMPTION that if you have a certain condition for an x amount of time, simple chemical molucules can actually evolve into a complex single cell organism. So far, I know of no experiment that has proven that this is possible. It is very easy to make a lay man believe this, but any biologist that KNOWS the complexity of a single celled organism would dare to try and explain HOW EXACTLY THIS IS POSSIBLE. The starting point of all live, acording evolusionism, is therefore a hypothesis, not a theory. Untill it has actually been reproduced, this hypothesis carries no more legitimacy than creationism. I don't care HOW you prove it, that is your job. But that does not take away from the fact that proof is still lacking. And while this is true, you dish out this hypothesis as fact, untested as it is. And that is what I mean with my metaphor of "Dark matter". If we accept that dark matter make up 95% of the universe, and we assume that the earth is actually part of this universe, then surely we must have dark matter right here on earth, or at least in orbit as well. Why could no one find it? Maybe it simply isn't there. But ofcause, wise scientists, using facts selectively , will put the onus on me to proof that something that isbn't there, doesn't exist. But ofcause, it "must be there", otherwise the collective mass of a galaxy is way too little to keep it together.What I'd like to know is, how much of you who've awnsered, has the credensials of the writer of this website? Can you say you know as much about plasmas and electricity as he does? non, I presume. How many was willing to actually read this guy's theory on galaxy and stellar formation, and with an open mind at that? Non I presume.Let me tell you what it looks like from where I'm standing: You have a mainstream gravity theory, which requires a vast amount of "misterious, undetectable dark matter" to actually work, and you have a simple theory that actually uses known forces of nature, without the need of hocus pocus dark matter and other invensions. But I am supposed to believe in this stuff that doesn't exist?

"Evolution discusses living things and only living things. It has nothing to do with where they came from originally."You should've become a politician. I can't recall how many documentaries I've seen that make this bold statement, and now that you are put on the spot, all of a sudden evolution is no longer about the origin of live? Fair enough. Anyway, if live was not created and there is no creator, then surely the only alternative is for live to evolve from dead molecules. So, if you believe in God, good for you. If not, you need to proof that live can evolve from dead things before you can claim as a scientific fact: there is no God.As for your beloved gravity model: You KNOW that the collective mass of the galaxy is not enough to keep it together. You NEED dark matter for gravity to work. But that's ok. You'll believe in your dark matter, which does not exist, while I'll go for something that can explain phenomina using existing knowledge.

As I recall this forum has an entire section on the origin of live. If this is not covered in evolution theory, then that topic doesn't even belong here. If I've got some time, I might go and see what people wrote there. But the point is ... and I'm sure you'll agree ... that live has only two possible origins: either it was created by a Creator that exists outside and independantly from the universe, or it must've come about by all by itself. Since there is no proof that the latter is possible, you can not exactly blame a guy for believing the former, right? RIGHT???Secondly, how can there be a "physics of dark matter", when this dark matter has not yet been found? Maybe it sould've been called Ether: the substance that suposedly filled the universe when scientists could not explain light. Today, the universe is once more filled with a misterious substance in order to make models work. No if there were no alternative available, scientists could've been forgivin for this, but the fact is, the alternative is being rejected without it even being given a proper chance!By the way. Let me just tell you something about that website you guys should've realised yourself. When two scientists talk about something complicated, they talk in complicated terms and difficult formulas. However, when they want to explain it to the lay person, they ditch the formulas, and only explain the concept in understandeble language. In case you haven't noticed, this website is the latter. But, I wonder if any of you noticed the "Links" hyperlink. You see, this is not just "one guy", there is 'n growing number of scientists who are knowledgable in the field of electrisism and plasmas that support this view. The fact that cosmologists, who do not study this field of science, so easily dismiss their ideas, raises a serious question mark.I'd like to direct your attension to another website : holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE – A sound cosmology for the 21st century This website also has comments on new discoveries with puzzles cosmologists. Ofcause, the scientists who accept the electric universe model is not supprised by these phenomena. In fact, they EXPECT it.If you were real scientists, you would've investigate this issue further before dismissing it after reading just one web page (no doubt with a LOT of prejadice as well) But you're not interested in finding out if there is a better model to explain the universe, you're only interested in holding on to your old models.Let's take Saturn's moon Mimas. It has a crater almost the size of its diameter. Yet you are perfectly comfortable with calling it an "impact crater" though you KNOW an impact of that size would've destroyd the moon. This crater is much better explained as an elictric discharch that an impact crater.Actually, I'm dissapointed in you guys. I was actually hoping ...BELIEVING... that I'm wrong about you, and that you would actually investigate the matter further before shooting it down. I thought you scientists are curious people. But, like I said, you'd rather BELIEVE you are right, than to concider alternatives. How many of you are actually knowledgable when it comes to the characteristics of plasma? When an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER comes up with a theory about an ELECTIRCAL universe, and gets this kind of response from COSMOLIGISTS and BIOLOGISTS, whose expertize is NOT electricity, then truely, modern science is in a sorry state.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-26-2005 07:10 AM

I do not necesarily agree with EVERYTHING that website states. For instance, I do agree that the ancients witnessed an unpresedented cosmic event, but I do not believe their interpretation of the ancient texts are necesarily correct (their pre-catastrophy solar system model) I didn't read the part on Dinosaur formation either, as that is not my interest right now.I do think that they need to be taken seriously when it comes to planetary formation (As the current model is flawed), and galactic formation. Since the outer stars all orbit the galaxy at the same speed, gravity can not be responsible for this. Also, when you concider the "two specs of dust four miles away" metaphor, it becomes very difficult to believe that gravity, and gravity alone, holds the entire thing together. I believe in the electrical theory of galaxies. I also believe the theory of electrical scaring. I believe that electric forces play a great role in stabilizing orbits, because the changes of gravity creatings such perfect orbits on its own is quite remote. Aspecially when you concider how common planets are. I do believe that the Z-pinch effect may very well play a great role in condensing matter in the universe.Gas giants. Gas disperce in a vacuum, gravity is not a likely force to have create gas giants. The z-pinch effect opens a new possibility.As for black holes. Sure mathematically, they're possible. So is the Ideal Gas we learned about in school. Ofcause, while mathematically correct, we know that the Ideal gas do not exist. So, that brings me to the next question: do we really know how matter will react to such forces? Can matter really be compressed to the point of becomming a black hole? I think the empasis in cosmology is moving too close to mathematics, and too far away from observation. Unless a mathematical model has actually been observed, it remains a hypothesis.There are some very interesting claims these people are making. My problem is with the reaction of the cosmologist establishment. The logical reation would be : "Hey, these guys may be on to something. Lets include electricity and plasma sciences to cosmology and see how it can improve our modals."Instead, I read :
"When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicistss have conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S. "What are they affraid of? Being wrong? Instead of investigating the new data that might revolusionize our idea of the universe, the theory is shut down, like the church's reaction to Gallileo.

This message is off-topic. Please ignore. --AdminThen comes the disturbing question: How do we know that the same kind of "scientific bullying" isn't happening among Evolusionists as well?I take my very first example: The so called incremental evolusion theory. The idea that a species stays the same for millions of years, and then, all of a sudden, something evolves that is completely new. Look, the theory of gradual evolution is convincing (If it was not for the fossel records) but even the most gullible person will find this difficult to swallow. How did vertibrates develop from non vertibrates? How did fish suddenly become amphibians? Where are the transitional forms? And that goes for every form. What about all the "ape men"? What evidince is there to prove that these sceletons are nothing more than extinct monkeys that has nothing to do with man, or normal "modern" people with deformaties? Did we ever witness a species (macro, since bacteria can interbreed with different species) develop something totally new? Do we actually have THEORIES explaining these processes, or are they all hypothesis? I mean, now that we've established the possibillity of a Creator, if this Creator created single celled organisms, what is stopping Him from forming macro life as well? --just a thought.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-26-2005 11:47 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 01-26-2005 12:00 AM

"As a matter of fact, we have - a population of a unicellular blue-green algae evolved multicellularity:"On this website (evcforum), one scientist explained to me that only macro life can only reproduce with its own species.So, concerning tihs UNICELLULAR algae, can it repreduce across the species barrier? If that is the case, this doesn't really prove anything, since the unicellular algae could've changed by breeding with another species.Anyway. I asked for macro examples. Say, a snake developing a completely new sence. Or a creature developing new lims. The only transitional forms I've ever seen is of species loosing body parts: like the snake. Never gaining something that was never there. And suppose a animal does develop something new. Wouldn't that new thing just dissapear as it reproduce with the old form.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-26-2005 12:41 AM

"So how did you decide which parts were correct and which parts were incorrect?"If you've read the section I've mentioned, you would understand. No explaination is given of how such a drastic change in the planetary alignment could've happend, without whiping off all live from the earth."Why can't gravity be responsible for this?Has anyone mentioned that most galaxies contain a massive black hole at their center?"It is a well known fact that the further an object is from the gravitational centre, the slower the orbit will be. We do not see this happening in the galaxy.Secondly, as mentioned in the beginning, there "is" no black hole in the centre. There is no proof that black holes can actually exist ... as I've mentioned before. Blackholes were placed at the centre of the galaxy in order to make the gravity model work. To date, this HYPOTHESIS is not yet proven by observation. Thus, it remains a POSSIBLE explaination, not the ACTUAL explaination. And ultimatly, that is what this discussion is about : possible explainations that become "facts" without having the necesary evidence."Why couldn't it be done through the process of elimination. Let's say that 99% of orbits are unstable. The 1% that are stable become the planets and moons we see today. As planets form, the matter that is still unstable comes crashing down on the planets. Given the obvious signs of meteor scarring on every planet and moon this would seem to be the normal state of things."First of all, computer simulations to prove this model has failed. The hypothesis is not proven. Anyway, who's to say that when an object with a stable orbit collide with an object with an unstable orbit, the orbit will remain stable? If planets where formed by constant collisions, then it wouldn't matter if 10% of the matter has stable orbits. The majority of objects with unstable orbits will knock them of course.Thirdly, as I pointed out, craters are formed by electrical scaring, not impacts. Mimas, a moon of Saturn, and many asteroids, have craters that would've destroyed the body if it was caused by impacts. According to the Electric model, the "volcano erruptions" witnessed on Io, is ,in fact, electrical discharge between Io and Jupiter. Craters are just to neat to be impact craters. If craters were caused by impacts, shouldn't at least some of them have eliptical shapes?It is really suprising that cosmologists pay so little attension to electricity. We know there is magnitism in the universe, and it is common knowledge that magnetism and electrisism goes together.

Good grief. There is no way I will be able to keep up with the rate of replies. I'll do my best.

quote:

---

If the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 had impacted a solid body rather than Jupiter do you think it would have left an impact crater ?

---

Yes, it would've created a hole in the ground, but I'm not certain that it would resemble a crater.

quote:

---

How do you explain the iridium layer at the K-T boundary if it wasn't due to an impact ?

---

I'm no chemical expert, but if you have an electrical discharge big enough to burn a hole that size, is there any chance that that would create iridium?

quote:

---

Have the supporters of the idea that craters are caused by electrical scaring done any experiments to back this up ?

---

Lignting between bodies is possible: The solar wind is plasma, which conducts electricity. In fact, according to the electric universe model, the lights observed on Io is electrical discharge, not volcanos. Ofcause, untill we get a closer look both theories are valid hypothesis.
I remember reading that craters resemble craters formed by lightning somewhere. I tried to find the website, but I need to do some more searching. I'll try to get to this one tomorrow

quote:

---

I couldn't find the section you're referring to. Could you describe the drastic change to the planetary alignment you're talking about?

---

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm

quote:

---

Astronomers believe black holes exist in the center of many galaxies based upon observations. Stars near the centers of such galaxies are observed orbitting the galactic centers at such a high rate that there must be a very large mass involved, and a black hole accounts for this much mass. A star or group of stars of such mass would be visible through the electromagnetic radiation such bodies emit.

​

In addition, though nearby galaxies (in other words, old galaxies) do not give much indication of black holes in the center, this is believed to be because the black holes in these old galaxies have had sufficient time to sweep up most matter in the galactic core. But as they view galaxies further and further away (in other words, younger galaxies) the galactic cores are found to give off radiation consistent with matter falling into black holes. And at the furthest reaches of our vision we see quasars, which are thought to be very young galaxies still in the throes of birth with massive amounts of matter falling into a black hole at the center.

---

I just like to repeat my point that we do not know that black holes can actually exist. We do not know if matter can actually be compressed to the point of forming a black hole.
Secondly, gravity do not explain the various galactic froms we see. If the outer stars indeed move slower than the inner stars, the spiral effect would not be sustainable, and
yet it is very common. And why are some galaxies ball shaped, while others are spirals? Please pardon my ignorance, but according the images http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm,
it seems like Peratt has found a working modal that explain all these shapes. These galactic shapes are based on the electric universe, and do not require a black hole or dark matter.

quote:

---

You're correct if you mean that black holes have not been directly observed. But their existence is not in question. As soon as the mass of an object reaches the point where its escape velocity exceeds that of light, light can no longer escape from the object and it becomes a black hole.

---

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. We do not know how matter will respond under these high presures. We do not know if an object can actually reach the point where its escape velocity exceeds that of light. There might be a limit to how much matter can be compressed. It might deviate from the mathematical model, just as the compressed gas deviate from the "ideal gas" model beyond a certain point.

quote:

---

Though I wouldn't express it this way, I think this is true of all scientific theories. Theories are tentative. As we learn more about galactic centers our theories will be modified, and if what we learn contradicts current theories then they'll have to be discarded.

---

quote:

---

What we can do here is examine the evidence for those views whose evidence you think inadequate.

---

With one major difference. a theory is testable, a hypothesis is not. There is the hypothesis of a warp drive. It states that space itself is not limited by the speed limit of light. So, if you can actually "move" the space in which a spaceship is, the space ship can move faster than the speed of light, without the time delay and other side effects, because, relative to space itself, the spaceship is standing still. The hypothesis do not violate any law, yet it is unproofable, therefore it is not a theory. Dark matter falls into this category. Since there is no physical proof of its existance, it is a hypothesis, not a theory. Yes, it is a conveniant way to make our current model work, but it is not the job of scientists to force theoritical modals to work. It is their job to find the truth. Make shift fixes like dark matter only confuses the matter, and doesn't serve any constructive purpose. A better approach would be to question if the model is correct, and search for alternatives, and rather just admit that we don't know, untill we find something more substansial. If we admit that we don't know, then maybe, we will be more motivated to find the real awnsers. You can propose dark matter, but the moment you treat it as a fact (without the necesary evidence) it will only cloud your judgement, and send you into the wrong direction. Science would never have developed if we didn't first admit to ourselves "we don't know", because with this admission, comes the following : "I want to know". If scientists accept the existance of dark matter, just to make their model work, is this not the same as ancient priests creating a mythology to explain what they don't understand?

quote:

---

I'm not sure how well the idea you're responding to corresponds to contemporary ideas about the origin of the solar system. I haven't explored this topic in quite a while, but I think we have more questions than answers at this time. I think a form of the nebular hypothesis still holds sway, and I'm sure a fair amount has been worked out, but I'm also sure that there are a huge number of unanswered questions. It's likes reconstructing the history of an immense pool table that began with billions of tiny billiard balls that aggregated to form a much lesser number of smaller billiard balls over billions of years. If the electric/plasma people have some solid proposals then I'm sure the astronomical community would love to hear them.

---

Obviously, plasma is much denser in nebulae. Surely electric activity can explain why nebulae shine. (Stars can not explain this, as nebulae is thousands of light years across. the stars are not bright enough to illuminate a cloud here on earth, so there is no reason to believe they can illuminate en entire nebulae.) Then you can also use the z-pinch effect to explain the formation of stars and planets. Also, with the increased dencity of a nebulae, electrisism would arguebly play a much bigger role than they do here. If cosmologists studied this field of science, maybe it might've awnsered some of their questions, don't you think? Maybe the electric universe modal is wrong, but unless you have the same knowledge than those who proposed it, it makes it very difficult to convincingly disproof it.

quote:

---

If the monster asteroid that hit Mimas had been any bigger or moving any faster, the whole moon may have shattered! As it is, there are enormous cracks on the opposite side of Mimas from the crater where the pressure waves from the impact converged and were amplified, wreaking havoc on the surface."

---

Let's take this arguement. First, the author believe ONLY in impact craters, and secondly, Mimas DID NOT explode into bits. Is any other conclusion possible? But what if you concider that maybe Mimas COULD NOT'VE survived such an impact? The idea is not far fetched. If it was ideed an impact, it is a miracle that the moon still exists.

quote:

---

Craters would be elliptical were they formed from the momentum of the impact object, but they're not. When a meteorite strikes an object like a planet at high velocity, say 10 miles/sec, the object and the part of the planet it strikes instantly vaporizes. Any momentum effects from non-dead-on strikes are comletely overwhelmed by the massive vaporization explosion.

---

Non the less. If an asteroid comes in from the east, wouldn't the bulk of the explosion follow the momentum to the west? What evidence is there that an impact actually do form an explosion? Who's to say that it doesn't just move a lot of dirt? If you shoot a bullet into sand, there is no explosion.

quote:

---

While gravity is invariably described as a very weak force, it isn't as weak as some descriptions make it seem. The typical comparison to a common magnet that can overcome the attraction of the entire earth invariably fails to note that the center of earth's mass is 4000 miles away, while the magnet is immediately adjacent to the object. If you had a magnet strong enough to equal earth's gravity from a distance of 4000 miles that would be so powerful a magnet that I don't think I'd want to get anywhere near it.

​

A magnet capable of supporting a 1 pound weight from a distance of 4000 miles away would exert a pull on the same object of 16 million pounds at a distance of 1 mile. Have we ever observed magnetic fields strengths of this magnitude anywhere in the universe? I don't know myself.

---

Electricity froms magnetic fields, and magnetic fields form electrical currents. Plasma has a self organising porpery when an electrical current passes through it. So, a magnetic field in a plasma should cause an electric current, which in turn would "organise" the plasma. The plasma can carry the current to a distant planet. If there is a strong voltage, an electric discharge would result.

quote:

---

That sounds like a fairly major force. So if there was a magnet what could exert force on the iron core of the earth across a distance of 93,000,000 miles do you think we would be able to detect it?

---

Read above.Unfortunatly, this is all I've got time for now. I will try to get more information on the crater theory.Just a final thought:Olumpus monts is concidered to be a volcano. If it was, then each erruption must have been identical to form cliffs arround the mounain of up to 6 km. Here on earh, volcanos tend to have a slope. cliffs are not a common feature of volcano's Also, it is very unusual that the lava flow is so evenly distributed in all directions. Maybe, just maybe, Monts Olumpus is NOT a volcano.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 01-27-2005 13:01 AM

Guy's I'm going to be very busy next week, might have to work over time, then there is no time for this. Hopefully, I will be back here no later than Wednesday.Here is an interesting article:
Water on Mars? – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSEYes, I know there is a lot you will find silly (Like the ancient solar system model), but try to focus on the valid points the writer is making. Anyone who've build a dam in the sand as a child, will notice the very valid point the writer is making: There is no way in hell that a flash flood will carve out such a neat linear canyon. Once the water bridged the crater wall, it will spread out, not unlike the Okavango Delta of Botswana. An alternative is given using a plasma discharge model. Now this do not necesarily had to be venus. Any large, highly charged body that passed Mars, could've caused this effect. Also, I do not think it far fetched that an Electrical discharge on this scale can cause nuclear reactions. This is not your average lighning storm. Note that they've actually did the experiment in the lab.However, I do believe the plasma model is much more usefull in explaining galactic motion. (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm) The outer stars of the galaxy all move at the same velocity. Appearently, this caused some scientists to doubt Newtons gravitational laws (M.O.N.D.) It is not necesary to have dark matter, or to question Newtons laws, when we have a working model to explain this motion: (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm) Maybe this plasma theory also leaves some questions, but at least this model do not require (F.A.I.R.Y.D.U.S.T.) or special exceptions to Newtons laws. (Remember, Newton himself used to be an outcast by the mainstream scientists for a long time. Due to this, we almost passed out on some major discoveries)Do not through out the baby with the bath water.

Percy. I was typing a responce on your post, and then I tried to open that crater link of yours. Unfortunatly, it had some undesired effects: The links is killing my machine, and the browser with my responce is not responding. And I so HATE to do something over. Mustn't try that one again. I'll write my responce next week. Sorry.

GOOD GRIEF CONTRACYCLE!!! I might as well have spoken to a rock.

quote:

---

Yes, I know there is a lot you will find silly (Like the ancient solar system model), but try to focus on the valid points the writer is making. Anyone who've build a dam in the sand as a child, will notice the very valid point the writer is making: There is no way in hell that a flash flood will carve out such a neat linear canyon. Once the water bridged the crater wall, it will spread out, not unlike the Okavango Delta of Botswana. An alternative is given using a plasma discharge model.
Now this do not necesarily had to be venus. Any large, highly charged body that passed Mars, could've caused this effect.

​

Also, I do not think it far fetched that an Electrical discharge on this scale can cause nuclear reactions. This is not your average lighning storm. Note that they've actually did the experiment in the lab.

​

However, I do believe the plasma model is much more usefull in explaining galactic motion. (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm) The outer stars of the galaxy all move at the same velocity. Appearently, this caused some scientists to doubt Newtons gravitational laws (M.O.N.D.) It is not necesary to have dark matter, or to question Newtons laws, when we have a working model to explain this motion: (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm) Maybe this plasma theory also leaves some questions, but at least this model do not require (F.A.I.R.Y.D.U.S.T.) or special exceptions to Newtons laws. (Remember, Newton himself used to be an outcast by the mainstream scientists for a long time. Due to this, we almost passed out on some major discoveries)

​

Do not through out the baby with the bath water.

---

FIRST OF ALL, the "Olde Skool Catastrophist argument" usually involve the Great Flood, NOT A FIRE STORM. You're comparing apples with peaches! The people who advocate this catastrophist have a totally different starting point as the creasionists, and, in case you haven't noticed, creasionism is not the topic of discussion.Second of all, if you bothered to READ, you would've noticed that that the there are two theories at work in the authors mind: One of the electric universe, and the other of the "ancient mythology telss us ...." If you cared to follow the arguement, you would've noticed that I am advocating the FORMER, not the LATTER!!!You just went out to find the first thing you disagreed with. You have not followed the arguement at all! Is there a single place in this topic that I actually AGREE with their interpretation of ancient mythology?

quote:

---

You didn't actually answer the question you were addressing. Some kind of evidential support for crater formation through electrical discharge, either through experiment or through examination and analysis of existing craters, is important if you want the idea seriously considered. More than just a red flag, the absence of evidence is an indicator of bad science, of putting the theory cart before the evidence horse.

---

You guys are not easy to please, and I sure you will find fault with the experiment displayed in the holoscience link I've provided, but at least it is more substancial than my previous post.

quote:

---

It's probably beyond the scope of this discussion to consider ideas not too dissimilar from those of Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. Interpretation of ancient texts and drawings vary widely. If we limit ourselves to the scientifically available evidence, what leads you to believe there have been any dramatic changes in planetary alignments?

---

Though I must agree with you that the detail of the interpretation these people give of ancient mythology is very liberal/shaky or whatever, past experience have shown us that mythology is hardly ever the result of fantacy. Most mythologies is based on real live events. From what I can tell, the anciets did see SOMETHING out there, but I agree that one must be very careful to apply absolute meaning to the myths.

quote:

---

Addressing the second point first, black holes do not require the extreme compression of matter, though it helps. The less matter involved, the more densely it must be compressed to form a black hole. The more matter involved, the less compression is required, which means that blacks holes can be formed from a large mass that isn't particularly dense. The possibility of black holes does not require highly compressed matter. Furthermore, there is no indication that the physical laws we know break down simply because matter is highly compressed.

---

Begging your pardon, but as I understand the theory, Compression ALWAYS play a part in black hole formasion. The theory goes that when a super masive star explodes in a super nova, it sheds most of its matter, and leave a super dense core behind: A neutron star, pulsar or black hole. (PS, isn't these object BY DEFINITION extremely dense?) In other words, the star was MORE MASSIVE BEFORE THE SUPER NOVE, BECAUSE MOST OF THE MATTER WAS EJECTED. This means that the black hole HAS TO BE FORMED during the Super Nova. If it existed BEFORE the super nova, the gravitational pull should've sucked in the entire star, and prevent it from exploding. The star should've died a silent death.Anyway, on micro level, interpartical forces are much stronger than gravity. The assumption is made that gravity has no upper limit, and that it can overcome even the strongest subatomic forces. For instance, it is said that gravity "melted" (out of lack for a better word) electrons and Protons into Neutrons in a Neutron star. Is this really possible? Has this ever been done? It is also said that all physical laws break down in a black hole, so it is not too far fetched to question whether they can actually exist. We simply don't know how matter will react. The mathematical models we have discribe matter under known conditions. It is possible that other factors come into play at such extreme curcumstances. If such factors exist, the mathematical model would fail. That is why, unless a mathematical model was physically proven, (like the atomic bomb), the possiblity of error exist. By not blindly trusting the maths, but by testing it with actual observation, Neptune was discovered. The further math takes us from observed truths, the greated the chance of error. I'm not ignoring the value of math to make important discoveries, I'm saying that it is important to distinguish between the mathematical model and reality. The model is built on our current understanding of the universe (which is not 100%) and therefore only that which has be confirmed by observation, can be regarded as fact. Mathematical models are build on the assumption that we know all the variables. There is nothing wrong with this, but as it takes us deeper into the exotic (like String theory), this must always be kept in mind.This might be second nature to you scientists, I don't know. But you must appreciate that this is not the case for the average person. So when you come forward with things like string theory, the public accept it as fact, unless you explicity tell them about your underlying assumptions. (Like knowing all the variables)

quote:

---

This is false. I can see you're trying to draw a dichotomy between the testable and the untestable, but a hypothesis is not untestable. Theories begin as untested hypotheses, so your conjecture cannot possibly be true.

---

Let me rephrase. The moment a hypotheses is sucessfully tested, it cease to be a hypotheses, and becomes a theory. Right?

quote:

---

suggest using the word evidence in place of proof.

---

Point taken.

quote:

---

In science nothing is ever proved

---

Hopefully, it requires prove beyond reasonable doubt, right?

quote:

---

Dark matter has its strong advocates, but I doubt many believe it's an established fact. Until there's sufficient evidence the popularity of various theories will ebb and flow. That dark matter is all the rave now should not be mistaken as meaning that cosmologists believe the issue settled.

---

It would help if scientists where more willing to use the phrase "we simply don't know, but one possiblity is..." when expressing their hypothesis to the public. We really won't think any less of you.

quote:

---

Nebular emissions themselves provide the clues to the origin of the emissions. What can you tell us about the analysis of these emissions as far as an electric plasma origin?

---

There are three distinctly different steady state modes in which a plasma can operate:Dark Current Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) within the plasma is very low. The plasma does not glow. It is essentially invisible. We would not know a plasma was there at all unless we measured its electrical activity with sensitive instruments. The present day magnetospheres of the planets are examples of plasmas operating in the dark current mode.Normal Glow Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) is significant. The entire plasma glows. The brightness of the glow depends on the intensity of the current in the plasma. Examples: Any neon sign. Emission nebulae. The Sun's corona.Arc Mode - The strength of the electrical current in the plasma is very high. The plasma radiates brilliantly over a wide spectrum. Current tends to form twisting filaments. Examples of this mode of operation are: An electric arc welding machine. Lightning. The Sun's photosphere.Credit : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htmI suggest (This is my conclusion, I didn't read it from their websites) that the same magnetic fields in the nebulea plasma (which is a conductor) cause electrical fields, which in turn cause its own magnetic fields. Where the electric field is strong enough, it light up the nebulae.

quote:

---

The stars thought to illuminate nebula are the stars in or near the nebula. When looking down from an airplane upon a foggy city at night you can see how the city lights illuminate the fog. That's because the lights are located within the fog. But those same city lights are incapable of producing the same bright glow on a distant fog, say one out to sea some distance.

---

Remember, we're dealing with lightyears. If the stars were specs of dust, they would've been miles apart. The "city lights illuminate the fog" effect can not explain the ellumination that spread for light years, just as a fire fly can not eluminate a cloud.---Aha, thank goodness. My reply is saved. Like I said. I tried to open the link, with some nasty results. I'll try at a later date--

Percy, if you recalled, I did mention that there are some things I do not agree with. You asked me how I decided which to believe in and which not. Then I mentioned the "ancient Saturnian system", which I said I DID NOT BELIEVE IN, due to lack of evidence. I believe I added by saying I do not see how the solar system could have undergone such a masive change without whipping off all life from the earth.It is also this "theory" I refered to when I said not to through out the baby with the bath water.I only believe (more firmly everyday) in the electric universe, not to mythological interpretations.

It's called the z-pinch effect. It is the ability of plasma, when an electrical current runs through it, to compress matter between the double layer. Even non charged matter.