...Where does the juice come from?

[johnm33]

Plasmakid
you could try this go to page 94, comes up as 107 of 235 in the pdf just a tad above halfway down
http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_ ... nature.pdf
seems like the 'juice' is the 'wind' blowing through our dimension into the next
The books a good read but go here http://www.smphillips.8m.com/ for wider context the news is a good start and page 7 in occult chemistry plenty of words but the images are better

[sjw40364]

Since we can't really even image an electron or photon, I wouldn't put my money on it and bet that there isn't some even smaller elementary particles, there is no choice but that conclusion or the conclusion of action at a distance. There is either a charged particle field connecting bodies in space, connecting electrons to nucleus's, connecting galaxy to galaxy, or they influence one another without contact of any sort. So how anyone can conclude the electron is the smallest particle when we can't even image it, and it is held in orbit around the nucleus by what, a string nailed to the electron and nucleus?

[jtb]

If E=MC2 is true, neither energy, mass, or light exist independently. Place a zero anywhere in the formula and you get zero (nothing). Pure energy with zero mass equals zero gravity. Mass with zero energy (Bose-Einstien Condensate: matter losses its form at zero kelvin) equals zero gravity. Zero light eliminates both mass and energy which means zero gravity. It appears that the formula is only useful as a description of already existing energy, mass, and light.
jtb

[hertz]

my, my, my...

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/

Sunday, July 15, 2012
Electric Universe: Whither the Electric Currents?
There was a recent thread on the Thunderbolts forum that raised the question which I have repeatedly asked of EU theorists or their supporters and generally received no real response. That question is
Thunderbolts Forum: …Where does the juice come from?
That is, what drives the electric currents for powering the Electric Universe cosmology?

he gives a few examples from Sparky, Michael V and Great Dog, shows how they are all wrong, then addresses the bottom line question:

What drives the particle motion that makes the charge separation possible? Particles do not move without having energy, and that energy must come from somewhere.

maybe he should go over to Michael Mozina's Magnetic Reconnection 101 thread and read the Peratt quote about electrical discharge...tell you what's really weird is that in another post this author perfectly describes an "atomosphere" of electrons in cylindrical rotation around slower moving ions, thus creating an electromagnetic field, but sees no significance in that...hmmm...who was it again who wrote about magnetically self-focussing streams that compress and pinch down, creating enormous electrical discharges...

it's like this guy observes but doesn't see...show him what he's missing and he might help change the world...apostates are always the most militant

[Sparky]

Sparky,

Irrelevant - there is no way to know

Bridgman,

Yet the question of where the power comes from is definitely relevant to a physical theory. This poster proposes a physical effect that is beyond analysis by science. This is indistinguishable from creationists' claims of supernatural origin.

What ignorant, ideological nonsense! Yes, it would be relevant IF we had a way to find out! But, if electrical currents/effects flow in from deep deep space, how do we get to the source. Proposing a source is nothing but superstitious speculation.

And if Bridgman can not see the difference between admitting the limitations of our ability to get to the source and concluding that it is of a supernatural origin, then he has really perverted logic.

He speaks of cranks! Believes in the religious view of the Big Bang! Supports the pseudoscience of the standard model! Thinks that peer review publications have some merit!

What an ill informed, superstitious ideologue, hypocritical retard !

Bridgman,

Attempts by crank science supporters to get their material mentioned in peer-review science literature should really be thought of as a con, an attempt to fool legitimate researchers into giving undeserved credit to cranks.

As he began with an attack upon EU, using a TB forum, I will assume that "crank science" refers to EU. So, this argument is fallacious by it's
presumptuousness. A product of his perverted, ideological imagination.

Bridgman,

This is similar to the issue that debating creationists give more status to the creationist than they would otherwise be able to earn on their own

I actually feel the same way about attempting to correct Bridgman's twisted logic. I think his blogs earn him what paltry value they are worth, if read by any other than his pseudoscience cult following.

Next.

[nick c]

It is mind boggling that Bridgman keeps attempting to make a connection between the Electric Universe and creationism, when the truth is that the paradigm change that is the Electric Universe makes no claim to possess the explanation for the origin of the universe. It actually takes the exact OPPOSITE position!

We know nothing of the origin of the universe. There was no Big Bang. The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought. We have no idea of the age or extent of the universe.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/ ... 2-so-what/

What part of the above statement would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the Electric Universe is related to creationism?

[StevenJay]

What part of the above statement would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the Electric Universe is related to creationism?

Perhaps the operative word there is "reasonable."

[gamma ray]

"Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking punk. You're thinking did he fire six attacks on my status quo gravity-based universe or only five? And to tell you the truth I've forgotten myself in all this excitement. But being this is electro-magnetic force - the most powerful force in the universe and which clearly blows your mind, you've got to ask yourself a question --Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk? "

[Lloyd]

Re Creationism vs. EU
* EU proponents and creationists have at least 2 things in common. Both contend that conventional dating methods are extremely unreliable. Both contend that there have been global cataclysms in ancient times.

[nick c]

Re Creationism vs. EU
* EU proponents and creationists have at least 2 things in common. Both contend that conventional dating methods are extremely unreliable. Both contend that there have been global cataclysms in ancient times.

While that is true. It is somewhat misleading, I am sure that Creationists and many other people agree on a lot of things! [The EU's version of global catastrophe is secular with the agents of disaster being celestial bodies interacting electromagnetically with the Earth and dating methods are recognized as being wrong because they are based on incorrect assumptions.]
The bottom line is that the basis of Creationism is "creation" of the universe (usually by a deity and usually recent). That has nothing in common with the Electric Universe.

[StevenJay]

I have long felt that the creationists' view point is more in alignment with mainstream beliefs than the EU model. By that I mean, both of their conclusions are a result of the misinterpretation of available data. The creationists are confusing re-configuration with original creation, and the BB cosmologists are confusing age with velocity/distance (red shift), which results in the belief of an expanding universe, which "logically" demands an explosive "point" of origin.

And that's as far off topic as I'm gonna go with this.

[kevin]

"The Juice"
Is omni present.
It permeates universe and enables memory.

I would advise of keeping it simple.
What is electricity?, and how is it created by generators?

Kevin

[StevenJay]

"The Juice"
Is omni present.
It permeates universe and enables memory.

That may very well be, Kevin. But at this point, it's a non-falsifiable statement and, therefore, lies beyond the scope of empirical scientific exploration.

When ya think about it, though, a considerable part of what we experience (if we're fortunate enough) lies beyond that scope. . .

[jtb]

I read Tom Bridgman's website and links concerning Creationism, Big Bang, and EU. The BB theory created the universe out of nothing in several milliseconds--it took God 6 days to supernaturally create the universe out of nothing. It appears to me that the BB is a superdupper supernatural creation. I think God could take a few lessons from the Big Bangers.

The tiniest particles, atoms, molecules, the earth, planets, the sun and stars, comets, black holes, and everything else in the universe that we see, don't see, or imagine that we see are spherical. One of Tom's links contends that the universe is flat. We have graduated from the flat earth to the flat universe despite what we see.

The EU attempts to explain what is seen in the cosmos. It does not attempt to explain the origin of the cosmos with superdupper supernatural theories.
jtb

[sjw40364]

The question where does the juice come from has no answer in any theory, except the movement of charged particles.

E=mc2 no more answers this than does any equation. It just tells me that all matter has mass and charge separate and distinct from any imparted by kinetic motion. It is believed the neutron possesses a magnetic moment despite being neutral (which in standard cosmology erroneously believes this means it has no charge). This is disproved by the very science they base everything on E=mc2. It possesses BOTH positive and negative charges in balance, and these positive and negative charges interact with all the other positive and negative charges in the vicinity. In essence charge boils down to the interaction of all other charges nearby, and how their spin aligns the electric field. Now, as to what energy is that makes up these positive and negative charges is anyone's guess.

And guess it will be no matter who's theory you use. If I was in charge of formulating theory for EU I would no more answer this than standard cosmologists would speculate. The best answer you will get is it is a force. Because at this point in our technology that's the best we can come up with. The EU is based upon laboratory experiments, and although they may broadly speculate as to basic causes deduced from those experiments, we merely need to read any latest astronomy news to see where wild speculation gets you. "We were surprised, totally unexpected, astonishing" the adjectives are as never ending as are their patches to keep a failing theory propped upright.

If you believe in standard cosmology don't ask the EU to do anything you yourself are unable to do with 100 years behind you. What is the E in E=mc^2???

If you believe in EU cosmology, would you have them throw out wild imaginings like standard cosmology to be completely surprised at each new discovery to then have to go back and patch it with fairy dust? If so you might as well go back to standard cosmology as they are quite good at having to patch failed theories, it happens with almost every new discovery since the space age.