Creationist Critics

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Michael Anteski
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by Michael Anteski » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:14 am

I was reviewing the discussion on Page 1 of this Thread and decided to give my take on the question debated there as to the likelihood of, and rationale for, the theory of stellar collisions. - My take is based on mostly indirect evidence, and is also based in my own aether/resonance model. -If in fact stellar collisions occur, a likely mechanism could involve the well-accepted concept that as a star ages, it "tires," that is, its internal energy decreases and eventually "wears out." Of course, the entrenched standard model is that at that point, the star collapses internally due to graviational forces. -My own aether/resonance model would view the stellar-exhaustion sequela- scenario differently. Rather than the star collapsing internally, its overall resonqance pattern changes critically. Its depletion of internal aetheric resonational energy means instead that its outside resonances with energically-compatible sources of energy (other stars in its galactic neighborhood) will now begin to exceed the tired star's internal resonance. The result is that the star is attracted to a "stronger" star and collides with it. -Another cosmic obervation seems to bolster this model of star exhaustion. After a star destructs there should ensue an unprecedented chaotic flux in which it's conceivable that all the atomic signatures in the star system are erased. (Probably electrical resonance could not occur in such a chaotic flux, and like-to-like resonance of aetheric protonics that could produce a Nova, and like to like resonance of neutrons that could produce a neutron star, would more likely take place via energy-unit-size factors.) -Here is where the "energic resonance space collision" model receives an additional buttressing. -The neutron star would now resonate with neutronic attractors in space and leave the vicinity of the late-star's destruction. In fact, neutron stars ARE found independently in space.

User avatar
jone dae
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Creationist Critics

Unread post by jone dae » Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:44 pm

Hello there,
About "creationist" critics: too many people are polarized. They forgot that, whenever you see two things, you know there's a third on somewhere as well. Obvious example: protons and electrons, and then neutrons. And there is a variation on this: there are three sides to every question: what 'a' said, what 'b' said, and then what really happened.
And I think that Prof. DeGrazia, found the third point between the poles of this discussion as well. For me, the account of human creation in Homo Schizo I, is the best one at reconciling the "creationist" and "evolutionist" views. or, in other words, it is the best scientific account of man's creation, that fits all the known facts, and is plausible.
So, you can read that in one day, if you haven't already; it isn't long, and reads easily. However, today I found the magazine for Quantavolutionists, for the first time. Jae Kamel laughed at the news: we've known about DeGrazia and quantavolution for about 8 years, but just found the e-zine online today! It is at http://www.q-mag.org/topic/index.html , and Recommended by JKU (Jae Kamel's URLs).
http://www.q-mag.org/topic/index.html

Any comments on the Q-mag?
Jone Dae

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests