Electric Universe

[Gold Bearer]

No. No additional forces are needed. Your thought experiment has failed you. If you remove the sun and stop all motion, then yes, this model you have created is unstable. The solar system is stable because the rotational motion AND the large central body causes the gravitational interactions of the planets to have weak influence on the motion and makes the system "stable".

I don't see how. The orbits of the planets around the sun can in no way have an effect on the gravitation that each exerts on the others, that's purely down to mass and distance. If you take each pair of planets in isolation you can work out the gravitational pull each exerts on the other because it's a simple straight line and it's no different when you add more bodies except that you have more interactions as each one affects each of the others. Every time two planets are at their closest point (I forgot what this is called) the inner planet should be pulled away from the sun and the outer planet pulled towards it, changing their obits. Obviously they always feel a force pulling on them but this is when it's strongest. This is a lasting effect and will create instability in the system every time it happens.

Some of the interactions will be canceled out by pulls from other planets in the opposite direction but there's no way it could happen in a way that stabilises the system. There has to be another force to correct this imbalance and it has to be one that dynamically effects each planet in a way that provides an exact counter force in the opposite direction. The only explanation is that the planets are moving through an electric field of varying charge and interact with each other electrically when they reach a certain distance from each other. This is backed up by the fact that Venus' tail just skims the Earth when they pass at their closest point. If they were to pass any closer then an electrical discharge would provide the energy needed to separate them.

[whitebeard]

I don't see how.

Fair enough. It's not really about "seeing", it's about what the mathematical model predicts will happen. And it predicts that things appear "stable" for billions of years. period. But you can download the source code for one of these simulators and "see" for yourself that they include the forces you are asking for. So there is always that.

The orbits of the planets around the sun can in no way have an effect on the gravitation that each exerts on the others, that's purely down to mass and distance.

You are correct, the presence or absence of the sun in the model does not change the magnitude or direction of the forces which are applied between the planets. The relatively large size of the sun does however impact the stability of the system without changing anything about these forces. Your model is effectively "top heavy" without the sun and it falls apart. But if you put the sun at the base, it stays standing for a very long time (stable). The presence of the sun means that it takes a LOT of energy to change orbit. The weaker forces of the planets need to add up over millennia to cause any changes. But the sun is 4+ billion years old, so why then haven't the planets "met in the middle" as you conject?

*A thought experiment with static objects under the influence of gravity*

I do not like "thought experiments", the math bares out the (relative) stability conclusion completely… but let's try one anyway.

The 2 body problem is trivial and exact. We have no issues with one sun and one planet being stable. Right?

Now consider the 3 body problem. Give it 2 suns of equal mass which orbit each other at a distance "R" which is something very close to zero. A second body having VERY small mass is located at a very far distance "R2". We have no issues with this system being stable right? The far planet simply orbits the mass center of the two inner bodies and looks exactly like the 2 body problem, with a minor wiggle here and there.

Now begin changing the mass ratio of the inner bodies from 50/50 to 60/40 to 70/30 to … 99.99999999/0.00000000 At what point does your BS meter say that the near particle will get sucked out to the far planet? Or does it not? Note: Even if the distant planet were fixed, the inner planet would deform it's trajectory only slightly initially and it would effectively stay where it is (stable). To the outer planet (no longer fixed) the central mass of the sun looks like it has a high frequency wiggle and has no measureable impact on it's orbit. We good?

Okay now that you have a tiny spec orbiting the "sun" at near zero distance and you've convinced yourself the outer orbit is stable… Start increasing the distance "R". At what point does your BS meter say that this system is unstable? Actually there are exact mathematical answers for this. The answer is that there are discrete regions of ratios R:R2 where the fast frequency of the inner planet resonates at an even multiple of the slow frequency of the outer planet causing the inner planet to be pulled into another orbit at which point the resonance vanishes into noise.

Your straight line model is basically missing that both planets are both decelerated and accelerated at different points in their orbits. It really is no different than the "R" is near zero model in this respect. The outer planet is orbiting a wobbly Center of Mass, but it is still very much stable. The inner planet would elongate towards the outer planet if it were fixed, but it isn't fixed. Once the inner orbit elongates, the outer planet has moved to the opposite side of the sun and pulls it back the other way. Over billions of years, this big mess of random vibrations does not transfer enough energy to any single body to move it away from the rough neighborhood of where it is. Unless you find yourself in one of the well defined resonances zones, and these zones are all empty in our solar system (4 billion years old, so no surprise there).

These are just words posted to a forum… Do the math. You cannot argue with the math.

*conclusions about needing new forces*

For me this is a discussion about how gravity performs in a model of the solar system, let's keep it that way.

[Gold Bearer]

Thanks for the detailed and concise response. I don’t have time right now to give it the time it deserves so I’ll do it tomorrow.

For me this is a discussion about how gravity performs in a model of the solar system, let's keep it that way.

This is for me the most convincing piece of evidence in favour of an electrical/gravitaional model of the solar system so it’s important for me to understand in more detail. I just wanted to clarify how this relates to the bigger topic.

[el_flesh]

Prime up your bullshit grinder.

[whitebeard]

Thanks for the detailed and concise response. I don’t have time right now to give it the time it deserves so I’ll do it tomorrow.

Great. No lengthy response is required, but you will want to think on it a while. What I'm looking for is for you to go through my examples and say Agree, Agree, Agree, Disagree and WHY. Once you disagree, please do not bother addressing the rest of the statements, just explain in detail exactly what the obstacle is. We'll deal with only this one point of divergence. Depending on where we need to continue from, I'll give you another model test case and perhaps include some amount of math. This should be "fun".

[el_flesh]

In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine. If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation. In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light. If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts. Once again, the EU model fails. https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

I forgot about spectra lines. Since it's been years since I did Waves & Optics in Uni.
Explain this failure of EU with counter proof. Hint: "Conspiracy" doesn't cut it.

I have to admit, I didn't know the amount of *lemony guano* crazy the EU was until I read this page. Stars "giving birth"? When as a child, I knew that Solar Systems form gravitationally from nebulae - just because we can demonstrably see loads of them at different formation stages with a TELESCOPE?!?
Be honest. Is that not what you can expect when you drop out of highschool?

[Gold Bearer]

I don't see how.

Fair enough. It's not really about "seeing", it's about what the mathematical model predicts will happen. And it predicts that things appear "stable" for billions of years. period. But you can download the source code for one of these simulators and "see" for yourself that they include the forces you are asking for. So there is always that.

I'd like to actually see how a purely gravitational model that includes the influence of the planets on each other is capable of predicting a stable system, or I'm just taking it on faith that the simulation accurately recreates the pull of each planets on each of the others and in a way that calculates the varying distances as they happen rather than generalising the gravitational influence of each one on the others.

The orbits of the planets around the sun can in no way have an effect on the gravitation that each exerts on the others, that's purely down to mass and distance.

You are correct, the presence or absence of the sun in the model does not change the magnitude or direction of the forces which are applied between the planets. The relatively large size of the sun does however impact the stability of the system without changing anything about these forces. Your model is effectively "top heavy" without the sun and it falls apart. But if you put the sun at the base, it stays standing for a very long time (stable). The presence of the sun means that it takes a LOT of energy to change orbit. The weaker forces of the planets need to add up over millennia to cause any changes. But the sun is 4+ billion years old, so why then haven't the planets "met in the middle" as you conject?

Here's the problem. How can the presence of the sun have any effect on the amount of energy needed to change the distance between two planets? If the force stays the same then so does the effect on the motions of the planets. That's how the amount of force felt is defined.

As Venus overtakes the Earth on the inside there's a gravitational attraction between the two (stronger than normal) which alters the path of both planets. The force felt is exactly the same as it would be if the two were moving freely through space, in which case if you were to follow the paths of both of them after Venus has passed the Earth (or the Earth has passed Venus if you want to look at it that way) then assuming they started on a parallel path you could draw lines tracing out their paths and at some point the lines would cross over, because they both got a nudge towards the other line when they passed. I can see no reason why this wouldn't also happen if they are orbiting a star. It's exactly the same situation and the orbital paths should cross over. The only way of maintaining stability that I can see is for the planets to switch places at regular invertals, and even then it would have to be finely balanced with just the right mass/distances and that's not what happens in the solar system. There are actually two moons that do exactly this, I can't remember what planet they orbit.

The 2 body problem is trivial and exact. We have no issues with one sun and one planet being stable. Right?

Of course.

Now consider the 3 body problem. Give it 2 suns of equal mass which orbit each other at a distance "R" which is something very close to zero. A second body having VERY small mass is located at a very far distance "R2". We have no issues with this system being stable right? The far planet simply orbits the mass center of the two inner bodies and looks exactly like the 2 body problem, with a minor wiggle here and there.

Okay, assuming the R2 is large enough and the mass of the planet is small enough that we can effectively ignore the gravitational influence of the planet on the suns. It's going to pull them apart eventually though as it's continuously pulling on the closer one with a greater force than the further one.

Now begin changing the mass ratio of the inner bodies from 50/50 to 60/40 to 70/30 to … 99.99999999/0.00000000 At what point does your BS meter say that the near particle will get sucked out to the far planet? Or does it not? Note: Even if the distant planet were fixed, the inner planet would deform it's trajectory only slightly initially and it would effectively stay where it is (stable). To the outer planet (no longer fixed) the central mass of the sun looks like it has a high frequency wiggle and has no measureable impact on it's orbit. We good?

Yes.

Okay now that you have a tiny spec orbiting the "sun" at near zero distance and you've convinced yourself the outer orbit is stable… Start increasing the distance "R". At what point does your BS meter say that this system is unstable? Actually there are exact mathematical answers for this. The answer is that there are discrete regions of ratios R:R2 where the fast frequency of the inner planet resonates at an even multiple of the slow frequency of the outer planet causing the inner planet to be pulled into another orbit at which point the resonance vanishes into noise.

It becomes unstable when the two smaller bodies are orbiting close enough to each other for their gravitational attraction to be felt by each other. There's no dividing line, it's just the system become less stable as the distance between them decreases.

Your straight line model is basically missing that both planets are both decelerated and accelerated at different points in their orbits. It really is no different than the "R" is near zero model in this respect. The outer planet is orbiting a wobbly Center of Mass, but it is still very much stable. The inner planet would elongate towards the outer planet if it were fixed, but it isn't fixed. Once the inner orbit elongates, the outer planet has moved to the opposite side of the sun and pulls it back the other way. Over billions of years, this big mess of random vibrations does not transfer enough energy to any single body to move it away from the rough neighborhood of where it is. Unless you find yourself in one of the well defined resonances zones, and these zones are all empty in our solar system (4 billion years old, so no surprise there).

What do you mean by 'decelerated'? There's no such thing. Only the term acceleration has any physical meaning. Deceleration is acceleration in the opposite of some arbitrary direction. There's no such thing as gravitational deceleration.

I don't see how variations in orbital distances can be compensated for by the presence of the planets when they're on the other side of the system and much further away, given that gravitation force drops of at one over r squared.

The random variations should create a progressively unstablising system that gets more and more chaotic over time until it reaches a tipping point and all hell brakes loose. Gravitational interactions have effects that last forever and can't be corrected without some other influencing force. I don't see how continuous disruptions to orbital distances could have any other outcome than a complete loss of stability.

These are just words posted to a forum… Do the math. You cannot argue with the math.

Maths is meaningless, it can only give detailed descriptions of physical processes that aren't. To do that it has to use the right equations and that can only be determined conceptually and tested practically. Maths is just a tool, it needs to used in the right way by the builder to help them to make something that works.

Edit:

Thanks for the detailed and concise response. I don’t have time right now to give it the time it deserves so I’ll do it tomorrow.

Great. No lengthy response is required, but you will want to think on it a while. What I'm looking for is for you to go through my examples and say Agree, Agree, Agree, Disagree and WHY. Once you disagree, please do not bother addressing the rest of the statements, just explain in detail exactly what the obstacle is. We'll deal with only this one point of divergence. Depending on where we need to continue from, I'll give you another model test case and perhaps include some amount of math. This should be "fun".

I'd already written my reply when I read this.

[Gold Bearer]

In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine. If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation. In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light. If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts. Once again, the EU model fails. https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

I forgot about spectra lines. Since it's been years since I did Waves & Optics in Uni.
Explain this failure of EU with counter proof. Hint: "Conspiracy" doesn't cut it.

I didn't know that plasma arc discharges give off discontinuous spectrum of light so I don't know. The dark line are caused by the light being absorbed by the different elements in the sun's atmosphere so it should still happen.

I have to admit, I didn't know the amount of *lemony guano* crazy the EU was until I read this page. Stars "giving birth"? When as a child, I knew that Solar Systems form gravitationally from nebulae - just because we can demonstrably see loads of them at different formation stages with a TELESCOPE?!?

There's a lot of ideas that fall under the umbrella term of the EU, not all of which I agree with. I've never mentioned stars giving birth but it's not refuted by observations of it not happening. Do you really believe that nobody in the EU (some of them have even finished high school) knows about telescopes or what they show?

Be honest. Is that not what you can expect when you drop out of highschool?

You've ignored the three posts addressed to you from the previous page. Here they are.

BB: I have linked several proofs that say otherwise than what you claim.

Where?
You gave four links in total (of course not counting the trillions you posted in reference to the EU vs. Standard model discussion). If I have overlooked one, please correct me:

• http://www.landoverbaptist.org - A clearly satirical site with no claim on seriousnes whatsoever. I actually like it and find it absolutely hilarious. It's very obviousely targeted at fundamentailsts - expecially the small fundamentalist evangelical self-proclaimed "churches" that are so abundant in the US. The whole style of the website, the speech, and of course the topics, are clearly mimicing this kind of "christians".
  They are a great source of many things you can do wrong whith misconcepted religion, e.g. when reading the bible literally as a explantation of nature.
  In no way does it "proof" that the bible calls a dolphin a fish.
• Thomas Figart, who claims a "doctorate": While this is not really a link, you may call it "citing a source". I only have the statement you cite:
  "The Hebrew word used here is tachash, which has been defined in a number of ways, including the seal, dolphin, badger, porpoise or manatee". This only tells that a Tachash can possibly be a dolphin, which I never denied. It does not say that the bible calls it a "fish".
• http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/signs1.htm: not a thological, historian or otherwise professional site, but just a reference collection of chrstian symbols, from which you cite "Often the dolphin is used to depict the whale of Jonah". The animal in queston is just called a "big fish" (dag gadol) in the book of Jonah, the term "whale" is a false translation by Luther and others. In any case, the medieval artistic renderings of this animal as an oversized version of a dolphin have of course nothing to do with the question if the bible called dolphins fishes.
• http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/12/02/how-many-people-were-killed-as-witches-in-europe-from-1200-to-the-present/: refers to witches, not to dolphins. I already did review this article above.

While a tachash *might* not be a dolphin or a whale, the other cases are correct; focusing on one *possible* misconception doesn't disprove the premise that the entire book is rife with outright bovine waste, errors and hatred. I think Carl Sagan arrived at an even greater number of women killed due to religion in ISBN 0345409469.

It's not so much the point if the Tachash is a dolphin. Probably not, but the possibility remains. The point is that the bible doesn't call it a fish.
But you (and probably many others, since you didn't came up with it yourself, but took it from a source) make a stance that "the bible thinks dolphins are fishes". When someone points out this error and gives a more detailed explantation of the sources in question, you just can't sit back and learn, but give a list of other "scientific errors of the bible", which were totally out of question.
Yes, I'm focusing on one very real misconception (actually two, don't forget the bats), because this was what we were talking about.
You wrote something false. I wanted to correct it.
You gave the dolphins and bats that the bible allegedly calls fishes and birds respectively as an example that: things aren't always what they look like, not as an example for the supposed bovinewastenes of the bible. It could have been a minor issue.
You widened the scope of the discussion, first listing other (unrelated) "scientific errors" of the bible, then trying a broadside attack on religion in general, up to the witch hunts. While I tried to answer to all that - or most of it, as my time allowed, I will not let you distract from the original subject.

I have neither the money to buy nor the time to read the book you referenced, although I hope I will at some time, as I normally like Paul Sagan. According to Wiki, the book mainly deals with misuse of science and pseudoscience. As I didn't read it, I really can't know what exactly you mean. Does he refer to witch hunts? Does he blame them on religion alone? What numbers does he give actually? What are his sources? In any case, it has still nothing to do with the dolphin problem or other "scientific errors" of the bible, though you cite it in the same paragraph.

I have much more confidence in the estimates of Scientists than I do in historians.

Both scientists and historians have sources to work with and methods to interprete these sources. The result is a model that comes as close to reality as the sources allow, this means as close as we can get. I have confidence in the estimates of a biologist on biology, of a physicist on phisics, and of a historian on history. A scientist dilettating in history has no more credibility to him than a baker holding lectures in astrophysics.

If a government claims that killing people is due to their being witches, you don't get to reassign the reason as you see fit. Whether or not the leader believed it, his minions that carried out his orders did.

I did not do such a thing. I just presented some historic detail.
You linked an article as source whose author wanted to make a claim that standard history downplays the number of victims. Do back this up, he included the Stedingers into his account of the witch-hunts. Other people may read your post without actually following the link or proof-read the article, so I gave some information, so everyone can make his own judgement based on facts. I did not downplay the suffering of the Stedingers or justified the actions of the authorities. In fact, I remember calling it "genocide". I did say that religion here rather was used as an excuse for material interests, which you can hardly deny, and wich is part of the context of the events. The "minions believing it" is naturally a part of this excuse.
By the way, the Stedingers were not called "witches" by the government. This is of course nick-picking, and I hate how you make me nick-picking by making an irrelevant, but false claim in a subordinate close. The main accusation was "heresy", not "witchcraft". "Fortune telling" was only an addition, and was not, legally or theologically, equalled with witchcraft, as "modern" people may think.

Galileo WAS threatened with actual torture as a punishment for promoting the helicentric model. That is where the "threat" is derived from seeing actual instruments of torture that could be used on you. Seriously - are you going to drop down to BWB's level of intelligence on this one? You don't get to claim how much of a threat Galileo did or did not feel.

Neither do you. You just stated that he was threatened with torture, I put in context. I didn't say this not threatening at all. But knowing that it is just a part of the official procedure is still another thing than being personally and explecitely threatened with torture. How much the difference was in the mind of Galileo, we can't know. But to get an idea, it's better to know the details and circumstances.

The equations work out, and describe reality? Then it is a proof. You don't get to declare what is a description and what is a proof; Science and Mathematics will do that.

Kopernikus did give a mathematical description of a simplified version of the orbits of the then known planets around the sun. As it was based on observation, it was clear that it worked out and described reality. It did not predict anything back then and it did not explain how and why the planets would move according to these mathematical rules, i.e. he could not provide a set of underlying rules that were simpler than just a complete description of the observated events and that would lead to these events. Newton's gravity model did provide such rules. Only after this one could really say that the Heliocentric model explains the observations "simpler" or with "fewer assumptions" than the geocentric one. This is of course only referring to the movement of the planets in principle, not to details that were not known to Kopernikus, but discovered before Newton, like the Venus phases.
As I already said, there was vivid research and discussion in this matter, agents of the church taking part on both sides, and we all know it lead eventually to the general acceptance of the heliocentric system. On this path, the Venus phases and the Galilean moons were strong indices for the heliocentric model, but not proofs, as they still could be explained (and were explained, by scientists, not by the church) by a modified version of the geocentric model, the one presented by Tycho Brahe beeing the most popular. To call it a load of whatever-fecal-word-you-prefer is way over the top.

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of geometry and astronomy to claim that [the obove mentioned observations are proofs of the geocentric model].

Where did I make such a claim?

The Geocentric model was insisted on by the church because it appears in the bible.

Other than referring to the visible path of the sun in phrases as "the sun goes up/down" or "the sun moves through the sky", as we still use today, the bible does not make any statement about the relative movement of sun or earth. Some people, agents of the church and others, interpreted this as a support of the geocentric model, others didn't. The church did not insist on the geocentric model. In fact, it accepted the heliocentric one as a means of calender calculations long before academical researchers did. Some books supporting it were found inappropriate and put on the index, but not all of them and not for this reason alone.

Bruno read Copernicus. In Copernicus' book there are the data and proofs. How would you know if he understood them or ignored them? Whether he saw them as proof of what he already thought, or whether he advanced his ideas based upon Copernicus's proofs, he was burned alive for his ideas. You don't get to declare what Bruno believed or didn't believe; the things he wrote about it might declare that, might not. I sure as hell won't take what the lying, weaseling church claimed he said at face value!

I don't have to, I can read his own works. And while I can't look into his head, I can make a fair guess on his reasoning about the heliocentric model when I put it in context of his worldview, for wich I only have -oops, his own word. Of course, you can't look into his head, either. But still, you mentioned him in the first place, trying to make him a matyr of science. Well, we can't really know for sure. We have to work with the source we have. And those sources, by his own hand, point heavily in the direction of him not being really interested in astronomy, but accepting the heliocentric system just because it fits his theology.

Well, I've wasted too much time on this again.
I officiall will restrict myself on only looking into this thread twice a week from now on.

BB, your 'infallible" bible should have no problem specifying, with its vast and great knowledge of its ultimate creator of everything, what is a fish and what isn't.

I keep seeing you refer to the bible as 'infallible' and yet you are the only one that keeps referring to it this way. KK even said he is an atheist, meaning he doesn't believe the writing in the bible. Nobody else has said it's infallible, only you. Personally, I don't believe in what's in that book either, but here's where your argument holds no water - the bible, the original one, was supposed to be written by God, just as you have said yourself. The ones we have today were translated by man and originally done in a period when very few people could read to begin with. You base your arguments off of MAN's words. Flawed man. Unless you can go back and translate the original book yourself, you are basing your infallible comments off of very flawed mankind.

If you have been trained in Science yet you defend religion as being 'within reason', as you have done for burning at the stake, that makes you an apologetic: someone who downplays the role religion had in atrocities and crimes against humanity.

Point us to where BB said religion was 'within reason.' I've looked. Never happened. All he did was challenge your representation of facts. Truth be told, he even states that this is about facts and yet you keep going back to a perception you have about what he believes.

Since you want to downplay the effect of witchhunts, I challenge you to specify what constitutes the 'occasional' immolation of a live human being. You make it sound acceptable. I say even ONE wrong murder is unacceptable. Then I gave a reference to another specialist who says you are full of bull toodles in your estimation. And once again, I will take the statements of specialists in the field over yours - unless you can prove otherwise, as cornixt did.

Nobody has downplayed anything here. You are twisting what was actually said. In fact, the statement that started the whole "downplay" argument was this from Big Bene: "What you call "documented past" is partly correct, partly blatantly false (agents of the Catholic Church occasionally did burn people at the stake, but never for "disagreeing with what was written")." A statement where he was focusing on making sure facts were straight. Now, the article you linked to starts off with the comment "Please pay attention to the comments at the end of this post. Historians of the era tend to deeply disagree with what I say here." Historians (plural. Also, the definition of historian: an expert in or student of history, esp. that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon) disagree with the anthropologist (singular. Also, the definition of anthropology: the study of humankind) One man who studies humankind vs a group of people that study the era he's referring to... I'd go with the historians myself. Also, your comment to KK was "I will take the statements of specialists in the field over yours." Except that you didn't take the statement of the specialists, you took the statement of one guy that disagreed with them. Also, you said specialists. That's plural, not one guy. Again, fact twisting. In fact, the author of that article goes on to say that his estimate is probably very high. Another issue: the article is about how many people were killed in witch hunts from the 1200's to today. You failed to take into account the total population of the people from the 1200's to today when you are factoring in the "occasional" comment you keep repeating. Now, since the total population of Europe is a little over 700 million as of 2013, and we are looking at a period of over 800 years, so let's say a very conservative 2 billion people in that time. Do the math on the ratio and yes, that number will constitute the "occasionally" comment you keep throwing out there for emphasis as it is well below 1%.

Of course there have been witch hunts, and of course there are proofs for this fact, but I can't see what they have to do with the subject at hand. Witches were accused of cooking babies, using magic to make people sick or destroy the harvest, of laying with the devil and many other bizarre "crimes", but definitely not of something like "explaining nature in a form not in line with the bible".

Very true. The topic of this thread is not "Bible errors" or "Witch hunts" or anything else of that nature. And yet it was KK that got the nickname of "The Derailer"...

Copernicus never said "thou shalt BELIEVE", but instead gave observational data as PROOF of his model. So, once again, you DON'T get to label a victim of burning by the church as being reasonable for the time it happened in.

Never was it said that it was reasonable. Go back and quote where this was said, otherwise drop it and stop twisting words.

I typically give people the benefit of the doubt when I read these things and try to see things from their point of view. The only thing I see from your viewpoint is spite. You keep pointing out that Gold Bearer dropped out of high school as if that means he is stupid. You know another group that drops out? Kids that are above the intellectual level of their grade because they become incredibly bored with the material that doesn't challenge them. One can take online courses free of charge (as I believe you said yourself) and they do not require that you have a high school education. One can buy books full of knowledge. Again, no high school education required. In fact, one can go buy the text books used in the universities for their higher level classes, and you don't even have to be a student of the university to do so! So stop bringing up the high school dropout thing like it actually means something. And stop twisting people's words. You think you're getting the upper hand but all you're doing is damaging your case.

BovineWaste Bearer: I have linked several proofs.

El_twat: No you haven't.

You are the believer who has faith despite counter evidence AND the Science community backing it as the best way to chart reality.

And that right there proves my point. You're basing your assumptions that the universe is not electrical in nature (despite all the observations showing that it obviously is) on nothing more than your belief that the mainstream scientific communities stance is the correct one and not on any level of understanding what you try to argue. Do you even understand that magnetism is completely impossible in the absence of electricity? In fact the two are interchangeable depending on the observer's frame of reference. You have failed to provide any counter evidence.

YOU are the one who gets charted on the crackpot index, because it was made for people like YOU. Crackpots.

You accused me of being a crackpot and posted an index to measure it in which your scored much higher than I did so it was clearly made for people like you. You don't get to accuse somebody of something that clearly applies more to you than it does to them and then claim that it doesn't apply to you. Do you process any capacity for logical thinking at all?

Who can't prove the standard model wrong, and who have a basic misunderstanding of the standard model, and a demonstrated ignorance of physics.

You're just outright lying again. The standard model includes GR which is very easy to prove wrong as I've shown. What basic misunderstanding of the standard model and ignorance of physics do you believe I have demonstrated, specifically?

I also don't give a *lemony goodness* what you BELIEVE and DECLARE about my personal life and what I've achieved.

It's clear that you've achieved nothing that you've claimed to and feel the need to go online pretending that you have. That's a very pathetic thing for you to do. If you care enough about these things to pretend you are accomplished in them then I suggest you actually try to achieve the things you've lied about so you don't continue to get shown up in public as the dishonest piece of clueless *lemony goodness* that you really are.

You're not worth my time.

You mean you don't have a leg to stand on. This is a thread I started about the electric universe. If you've given up trying to come up with a coherent argument to support your position and would rather just engage in a pointless bible argument then you can fraggle off to another thread to do it!

Good luck vs the world, eediot!

If I'm the idiot then why are the one who has such trouble grasping very simple concepts despite them being explained to you clearly and repeatedly? It's hardly me against the world. It's got a huge amount of support now and it's reedit growing. It's not my model and I have no vested interest. All I have to do as somebody who has a deep interest in the universe and wants this part of it to be known because of where it leads is sit back and watch it become established science. It's already happening. Most physicists know the universe is electrical and they know they can't ignore electrical effects for much longer, they're now in damage control mode. There are now peer reviewed papers containing electrical effects in space showing up in journals. It's only in very limited cases but it's a start and as the evidence keeps coming in there'll be more and more showing up until it reaches a tipping point when it becomes acceptable to interpret otherwise inexplicable results as electrical and then the floodgates will open and the so called dark matter and dark energy that make up over 95% of the standard model (yes, it really can only explain less than 5%) will disappear and be replaced by an actual physical process rather than the huge gaping hole of nothing that exists in the standard model now.

The equations work out, and describe reality? Then it is a proof.

No it isn't. It still hasn't sunk in has it. It's impossible to prove a model correct. The Newtonian model can be proved by measuring the planets and it's still wrong and it's replacement, general relativity can measure even more without giving bad results and predictions but it's still wrong.

If Bruno supported Copernicus, how could he be described as NOT Scientific?

I didn't notice this before. He agrees with a scientist on one issue so he must have been scientifically minded? Have you ever even had a rational thought or is this all you can do?

El_twat, please go away. Can't you see what a complete prick you're making of yourself with your attitude?

[Gold Bearer]

Edit:

Let’s take Mercury as the simplest case. It has nothing orbiting inside it so all it gets is an outward pull. The inward pull caused by planets on the opposite side of the solar system would be negligible compared to the outwards pull so how is gravity alone able to provide a force that pushes Mercury towards the sun to keep it from drifting out?

The idea that stars eject matter comes from the observations of so many ‘hot Jupiters’ so close to their parent stars where they couldn’t have formed and if they migrated there then they would have fallen into the star. These planets don’t make sense in the standard model of planetary formation so the idea that stars could eject matter seems reasonable. I’ve never come across an alternative explanation.

[el_flesh]

I'm not going anywhere, BovineWasteBearer.
You're trying to actively destroy Scientific knowledge and I will not let you do that.

You have no concept of the amount of gravity Sun exerts over the planets. It's far greater than the amount planets exert over planets. In fact, Jupiter's gravity needs to be taken into account for spaceflight, or you miss your mark. EU FAILS.
As has been mentioned already (and you ignored) RELATIVITY needs to be taken into account or your GPS is way off. EU FAILS.

Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts. Once again, the EU model fails.

Yes. You don't know. We do. EU FAILS, over and over again.

I KNOW that nobody in the EU (some of whom have even finished high school) knows about telescopes or what they show - or else they are deliberately IGNORING it like you: Protoplanetary disks. Stars "giving birth" is INDEED REFUTED by planets SEEN FORMING according to the standard model. Liar. EU FAILS.

edit: Mercury is travelling in a straight line through curved space. That's how it doesn't get pulled in. You can demonstrate it with a marble spun on a lycra surface. There's no friction in space to slow down the planet, unlike the marble, so its orbit is stable over GA Years. EU FAILS. AGAIN.

I didn't ignore three posts addressed to me from the previous page; I was unaware they were here. I'll get to them later, as they appear to be bible related. It's far more important to crush pseudoscience bovine waste first; religion is super easy to crush. You have a whole load of FAIL to weasel around and cry "conspiracy" about. Keep a tab open on the crackpot index.