nsykes@candw.ky
It is the sun that causes warming
For your interest - this is an article from a highly respected "Electric Universe" investigator, Wal Thornhill.
Reducing carbon emissions will be good. But it does not get at the main cause.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=aapprbh6&pf=YES
NS
nsykes@candw.ky
“The fact of global warming is manifest for anyone with eyes to see in the snowcaps of the Alps and Himalayas melting, the NorthWest Passage opening up, divers glaciers shrinking and some disappearing, polar ice-caps crumbling ("calving " is I think the term), oceans becoming more acidic, corals dying; droughts, monster storms, flooding, and weather events generally becoming more extreme, violent, and volatile year-round. How anyone could seriously suggest that the earth is COOLING is beyond me.” - Charles W. Moore
However, the way that these observations are interpreted is all important. Could it be that the changes being observed are not in fact due to a generalised WARMING of the earth, but due to the electrical drivers of an "electric universe" we do in fact inhabit (as I will maintain), rather than an electrically neutral universe? See previous posting from me. Certainly, if we live in an electrically neutral, and indeed electrically sterile universe, then the only driver one can come up with for these effects is a generalised warming. But if the necessity for this, as a theory, is not abundantly and unquestionably supported by all-round temperature data, then it remains a hypothesis which may or may not fail.
Nicholas+
nsykes@candw.ky
Fr Roy has produced some interesting theological thoughts recently, and indeed consistently for a long time. Kudos to him for that.
>From my perspective, Fr Roy's scientific views as they relate to peer review processes seem to me less satisfactory. In my view, these processes have led to the very antithesis of all that science was supposed to stand for.
Take Halton Arp's statement, for instance - Arp is a fine investigative astronomist, some of whose results fell seriously foul of the scientific "establishment".
Arp wrote, “In view of all the other evidence known to show that quasars, and 3C273 in particular, belonged to the Virgo Cluster, I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” [Emphasis in original. - (though lost in emailing, NS)] The image of the fearless scientist dispassionately following the objective truths of careful observation into new regions of discovery turns out to be a pretense for timorous formalists whose observations and thoughts are fashioned to conform to peer opinion.
As for the Electric Universe Theory - which I have come to think of now as the obvious solutions for baffling problems of physical "orthodoxy", I came across this from a reporter on this topic, Stephen Smith.
"The Electric Universe hypothesis provides a more complete picture when the images and data from probes and telescopes are inserted into it. The primary reason it is not considered a viable model is the time element involved. It is a foregone conclusion among its opponents that the Solar System is much as it was since its initial formation billions of years ago. To consider a 10,000 year time frame is tantamount to blasphemy.
As has been publicized in these pages many times, though, a change in thought often occurs when it is least expected. When the time for change comes to pass, change is inevitable. The growing number of adherents to the Electric Universe conception of how the cosmos operates means that further changes to human thought are coming soon."
Nicholas+
Hi Nicholas+,
I have tried to give some thought to the Electric Universe idea, but I must admit that I have found it tough going. Nevertheless I will try to persevere with it. It is so counter-intuitive. That does not of course mean that it is in error. I suppose Einstein's relativity theories were counter-intuitve in the early years of the last century. They are not so now.
Somewhat relevant to this I was speaking recently to my grandson and 2 of his friends -- all +/- 20 -- who were all at the local university studying physics or engineering. For some reason a course in quantum mechanics was obligatory for all of them. They are all very bright, but they all agreed that quantum mechanics was counter-intuitive. They used that word. Nevertheless they agreed that by the end of the course quantum ideas were beginning to make some sort of vague sense. They thought that if they were to take the subject any further it might begin to clarify, but in fact their studies would lie elsewhere.
I think that, for people like them and me, the Electric Universe and the Quantum Theory are likely to remain beyond our comprehension. I repeat, that does not mean that we think they are necessarily wrong. But neither can we think that they are necessarily right.
A side issue of all this is, of course, whether the Christian Faith, as customarily received and presented, is as exotic (incomprehensible?) to our contemporaries as the Electric Universe and Quantum Theory are to many of us.
On another issue, I can accept Arp's contention that ".... if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality". I think that may sometimes happen, although I haven't the vaguest idea how often it does. I suspect, though, it happens more frequently in some scientific disciplines that others. Biology, which is my own sphere of particular interest, is still largely a descriptive area, and theories are probably more in a state of flux than in more theoretical `paper' disciplines. I think that biologists who are becoming impervious to reality may find that reality soon gives them a hefty thump in the backside. Comrade Lysenko is an outstanding example.
Roy+
Hi Fr Roy,
I have been mulling over your interesting comments about the Electric Universe theory (EU theory - not the *other* EU). As you say, I suppose every new way of looking at things, e.g, Dalton's Theory (what no phlogiston?), no aether, and of course, a solar-centric planetary system, is counter-intuitive. One of the most interesting things about the EU Theory is that it suggests to us that in some cases we gave up our intuitive sense too easily.
For instance, Einstein's Relativity theory rests upon the supposition that there cannot conceivably be a faster "messenger" than electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light) in a vacuum. However, intuitively, one can of course conceive of a faster messenger than light - only as yet, the theory assumes, it has not yet been found and hence so far as the validity of the theory is concerned, does not exist.
And yet ... the observed pattern of the solar system is that the sun is drawing towards it "centripetally" all of its planets. Now, so far as the planet earth is concerned, if the messenger from the sun that draws the earth towards it only travelled at the speed of light, the earth would in fact be drawn towards a point the sun was at 8 minutes or so ago, and not where the sun is now - because light takes that long to reach the earth from the sun.
So in fact if it is what we call the gravity of the sun that is pulling the earth into orbit, the pull of gravity must reach the earth nearly instantaneously, or at least a very great deal faster than light can travel. The earth would be yanked out of its orbit in very short order if the pull of gravity only travelled at the same speed that light does.
So this means that we can only hold to the validity of Relativity Theory if we give up the idea that the sun causes the earth and the other planets to remain in their orbits, because the special Theory of Relativity entirely rests upon the supposition that light is the fastest conceivable messenger.
Actually, EU theory requires us to discard Einsteinian Relativity altogether, among a considerable number of other 20th century certainties.
In its place it enables us to make sense and structure of such ideas as mass and gravity - which at the moment the best physicists admit are generally in an utter mess. And actually it puts back "aether" as well - now understood to be the thin plasma permeating space, and the real medium required by wave theory.
In my view the one really counter-intuitive new thing it requires us to take on is the existence of huge electrical energy transfers taking place through space. These are what power the stars, including our sun. But once these are admitted, hosts of other things fall into place.
I also consider that this seemingly counter-intuitive idea of inter-galactic energy transfer is wonderfully consistent with the deeply Christian theological concept of God continuously upholding the universe.
Nicholas+
roybowler@gmail.com
Hi Fr Nicholas,
Thank you for your masterly comments arising from the Electric Universe theory. Understanding the theory is one thing: conveying it in language which is understandable to others is another thing altogether. You have managed to do both.
The phrase in your posting which particularly attracted my interest is this: "One of the most interesting things about the EU Theory is that it suggests to us that in some cases we gave up our intuitive sense too easily".
Yes. Mulling it over more carefully, I think you could be right. In some cases we have almost certainly given up our intuitive sense too easily. In other cases, though, our intuitive sense has almost certainly led us astray. (I won't give examples.) The trick is to find out when each applies. One way is to use maths, but -- as far as this non-specialist can tell -- even this sometimes leads to anomalous results. Unfortunately our intuitive sense is not an invariably reliable guide to either truth or error.
There was a time when Einstein's relativity theories were counter-intuitive to most ordinary people -- inasfar as non-specialists understood them which of course they didn't. That time has passed. We still may not be able to get our minds round them, but we accept them. Perhaps largely because the experts -- or some of them -- seem to accept them. But the experts have had many decades in which to develop or reject or modify Einstein's original ideas. And the experts differ. We non-specialists have to sit on the side-lines and watch. Some of us lose interest. Some of us do not.
You mention gravity particularly. Our non-specialist minds can now accept that light is a radiation which moves very fast. We can understand the math (e.g. miles per second) which expresses that velocity. We can appreciate that light can go on and off, because we make it do that in everyday life. But gravitation is altogether different and our non-specialist minds cannot grasp it. Gravitation cannot be switched on and off. We can understand that, as you say, unless the sun's gravitational field spread near-instantaneously the whole of the solar system would collapse into chaos. This, for non-specialists, is completely counter-intuitive. Even the specialists seem to be having trouble with it. As before, we have to sit on the side-lines and watch.
My memory goes back to pre-TV days when, at least in England, Fred Hoyle was the well-known cosmologist -- rather like Stephen Hawking today. I am not quite sure where he stood in relation to Einstein, but I remember he held a theory of `continuous creation' which of course was counter-intuitive to most of us. Nevertheless Fred Hoyle had a very strong mathematical backing which was way beyond the comprehension of most of us. Hoyle vehemently opposed any suggestion that the universe had any beginning, which he disparagingly called the `big bang' idea. (The name stuck!). Strangely, most of us now accept the `big bang theory' without question, although in fact it is even more counter-intuitive than the `continuous creation theory'. It seems that our intuitions and counter-intuitions change with time -- often surprisingly short periods of time. As aforesaid, they are not very reliable.
You wrote: "Actually, EU theory requires us to discard Einsteinian Relativity altogether, among a considerable number of other 20th century certainties."
Personally, I am willing to discard `20th century certainties' (i.e. present-day intuitions) if there is a fair reason to do so. The question, at least for me, is whether EU theory provides a fair reason. At the moment it does not, but I am willing to admit that I do not understand it. At the moment I have to be one of those who sit on the side-lines and watch.
You wrote: "In my view the one really counter-intuitive new thing it requires us to take on is the existence of huge electrical energy transfers taking place through space .... " Exactly. These `huge electrical transfers' are counter-intuitive. They will remain so for many of us unless their existence can in some way be supported. The only support that I can think of would be mathematical.
I have mentioned the quantum theory before. This, like EU theory, is counter-intuitive, but at least for me and many others it is less counter-intuitive. I heard recently a story told by I. I. Rabi, the Nobel laureate in physics. One of his graduate students came to him and said, "Dr. Rabi, I have a terrible admission. I am about to receive my Ph.D in physics and I really do not understand quantum mechanics." To which Dr. Rabi replied, "That’s quite all right, young man, no one understands quantum mechanics, but if you work with it long enough you just sort of get used to it.". In other words the maths `works'. I think that if people like me could be assured that the maths supporting the EU theory `works', in the same way that the maths supporting the quantum theory does, then we would take it more seriously. We would not be able to understand the maths, of course, and the assurance would have to be from an acceptable source.
You conclude by saying: "I also consider that this seemingly counter-intuitive idea of inter-galactic energy transfer is wonderfully consistent with the deeply Christian theological concept of God continuously upholding the universe".
We Christians have to handle theological concepts that go way beyond intuitive concepts and counter-intuitive concepts. One of them is how God created our universe `ex nihilo'. Another is how God maintains his universe so that if he ceased to maintain it it would cease to exist. It is all very mind-blowing. If inter-galactic energy transfer made it a little less mind-blowing I would welcome it. Interestingly, I once played about with the idea that Fred Hoyle's `continuous creation' might make God's creation and maintenance a little more understandable, although Fred Hoyle himself strongly denied that it would. It is a long time since I have given `continuous creation' any thought.
Roy+
Note to Rev's Roy & Nicholas:
The other day I mentioned my love of stereotyping..........each of your gentlemen appear determined to break 'my mold' or pre conceived outlook on 'men of the cloth'
In my primitive outlook each of you should just be contenting yourselves with mumbled prayers; and pious platitudes......lots of those. Begin ever statement with something like........"in accordance with prophecy"
Even more, you should ( each of you ) be casting a wary eye on science in general and scientists in particular that fall outside 'approved' fields of study...........offering threats of damnation upon all those who dare question 'official doctrines'. How these misguided psuedo scientists are placing themselves at great risk........each of you prepared to accept each and every misguided soul back into the flock once suitable pennance has been offered
What's going on here? Please return to my comfort zone immediately........if you don't stop this kind of discourse immediately, I may be forced to consider each of you men of the enlightenment.........something that would upset my world view considerably
I want to see some threats of excommunication here.........and soon
As for my (very) superficial self.........I can't offer any worthy comment on this electric universe discussion. But I do remember ( as a mere youth ) listening to a popular tune entitled........"electric Indian".........
Am I in the zone?
Bob
Thanks Bob :-)
As a septuagenarian in a few months, I want to say that that (younger) guy who denied his science, even and no less, by advertising that to enjoy life people in general needed to discard the theistic idea is the real "old fogey" ...
Nicholas+
Hi Fr Roy,
I'm getting back on my hobby-horse of the Electric Universe Theory (EU Theory).
I would like to suggest that EU theory does provide what you would require for discarding Relativity Theory, but in my last posting I tried to prepare the way for such a suggestion. The method then was to show that the assumption made by the Theory of Relativity that there is no observed messenger of perception faster than electromagnetic radiation in vacuo (i.e. light) has long been contradicted by the knowledge that the sun draws the earth and the other planets towards it centripetally, and the knowledge that if a messenger with only the speed of e-m radiation were the means by which the sun's gravitational mass was made known to the earth and the other planets, the solar system as we observe it would be impossible, because the planets would be drawn to a point behind the sun (8 minutes behind it in the earth's case), and would be scattered.
In Relativity Theory the “fastest messenger” assumption is essential for the case for the relativity of simultaneity, which is saying that the idea of simultaneity between events in two frames of reference that are in relative motion with one another is unobservable and therefore impossible to sustain. However, if gravity were, effectively, an instantaneous messenger, as appears to be the case from our observation of the solar system, the objection to the idea of simultaneity in such circumstances would disappear- and the need for Relativity Theory would effectively be abolished. I say “effectively” because whether gravity operates instantaneously or near-instantaneously with a speed vastly greater than light seems to me to be a question the EU Theory has not fully solved, though as I hope to show, very successfully nevertheless. (For the Earth “effectively”senses the sun to be in the same place that Saturn senses it to be “at the same time”.)
All this is confirming that Relativity Theory as it is is in clear conflict with the received perception of the solar system – and this is to be said quite apart from whether or not EU theory is accepted. I do not know whether this reality was behind some of the concepts of the more abstruse General Theory, by which gravity was mathematically identified with the effects of a notional curvature of space, and therefore (ironically for Einstein) could have removed the idea of the sun's “causing” the curved orbits of the planets.
Anecdotally, one hears that Einstein himself was quite prepared to doubt the reality of his own Relativity Theory from a year or two after publication.
Now, one great EU Theory “coup” is that it appears to be able to provide a physical explanation for the transmission of (what we know as) gravity through the thin plasma permeating all space – the plasma which should really be known as the first state of matter and not the fourth. But I think that is enough for this posting.
Nicholas+
roybowler@gmail.com
Hi Fr Nicholas,
Your last posting gave me cause for thought.
You wrote: "Now, one great EU Theory "coup" is that it appears to be able to provide a physical explanation for the transmission of (what we know as) gravity through the thin plasma permeating all space - the plasma which should really be known as the first state of matter and not the fourth."
You say that "plasma which should really be known as the first state of matter and not the fourth.". The idea of a fourth state of matter is a new one for many of us -- myself included. We are accustomed to the idea of 3 states of matter -- solid, liquid and gas. For all everyday purposes, and for most scientific purposes outside specialist physics, that was and is sufficient. I admit that I am out of date in almost all scientific areas except, perhaps, in my own area of interest and that is not specialist physics. So it would be fatuous for me to try to make any judgement about this `fourth state of matter'. The experts -- or perhaps only some of them -- seem to think that it exists. I have to take their word for it.
Apparently this fourth state of matter is called `plasma'. I spent several hours on the web trying to find out about this `plasma'. It appears that it is `a high energy electrically charged mixture of ions and electrons'. That is a quotation from one of the web pages. I think I can envisage what ions are and what electrons are, but after that my imagination begins to falter. How this can be `high energy electrically charged' -- above the electrical charges that ions and electrons normally have -- baffles me. BTW, I readily admit that there are realities, such as gluons, which are way beyond anything that my imagination can encompass.
However, there are happenings around us which are impossible -- as far as I can see -- to understand on the usual 3-states-of-matter hypothesis. I have never seen an aurora borealis myself, but I have a relative living within the Arctic circle who sees them fairly often and he claims that they can be staggeringly `unearthly' and impossible to `explain' without something like a plasma hypothesis. I must admit, too, that I have never been very happy with the usual explanations of how lightning or fluorescent lights `work'. I have always put this down to my ignorance of physics, but I am prepared to admit that the existence of a plasma state of matter may be more satisfactory.
However again, it seems to me that there is a big difference between all this and and your own contention that the Electrical Universe theory demands `huge electrical energy transfers', and also the statement in one of the web pages that `Plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume' .
Roy+
nsykes@candw.ky
Thanks Fr Roy.
Just a quick word on the "first state of matter" - plasma. Certainly the space of the universe is occupied with plasma vastly more than with anything else. We terrestrials, of course, live in the relatively rare circumstances in which plasma seems so insignificant that for most purposes it can be ignored. For most of us it comes back into view with fluorescent or neon lighting, if we know their physics. The physics of electrical discharging is in fact the way into EU Theory for most of us. I hope to continue in other postings in more detail, but perhaps it's worth mentioning, at the risk of appearing to be silly, that galactic energy transfers have to be sufficient to power the stars, including our sun (the nuclear furnace model being wholly unsupportable).
I don't know your source for "high energy electrically charged", but to me even if it is not an EU Theory source, he's onto something! Because the "high energy" would have to indicate the motion or energy of the charged ions/electrons. If their energy were too low they might coalesce and come out of the plasma state.
Nicholas+