in india ,tamilnadu ,human souls are taken under earth ,under rocks ,even to several thousnds kilometers under rocks and given different shapes .in sevrages and made aliens .please save ..taking under earth and beating and burning .please save .to every one .every molecules .and request to bring all the souls ,creatures from under earth to on earth .please save from pains ,sufferings .please save
Yes, we do live in an Electric Universe, not a gravitational universe. Black holes, neutron stars, gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy and all this other conjured up stuff do not exist. We need to stop wasting money searching for new particles and forces invented by mathematicians. A good measure of a theory is its ability to predict the outcome of new observations or explain them without introducing additional tailor-made concepts.
I am brand new to this Plasma Cosmology thing. This video makes it seem like a fringe science or even a cult, and that's a bit disturbing.
Can anyone describe what unanswered questions in "mainstream cosmology" this competing theory has resolved, and how that's been verified with observation or experiment?
@terrymorse in an electrical universe, there is no need for black holes or dark matter. Scientists cannot find either of them. They only theorize where they might be,no proof. There is too much, way too much, way, way too much missing matter for the universe to be held together by gravity. Gravity is too weak, too, too weak. Now electricity...that's easily able to power the universe. Scientist's are captives of politics and religion...especially in this age of needing grants to survive.
There is a really good forum on thunderbolts.info where ideas can be bantied about without having to take pot shots from the nay sayers. I finally got tired of arguing with them. One even threatened to burn my house down! Let's face it; this sort of thing is so patently obvious that it is an embarassment to professional astronomers who didn't figure it out in the first place. Would we expect any different treatment?
Almost makes you wonder if the plasma within the universe is pulsing back and forth in an oscillatory fashion for perhaps trillions of trillions of years, perhaps forever, and we are now on the upward trend of a sine wave and hence accelerating. Sounds much more plausible than Star Trek concepts of dark energy and dark matter to account for discrepancies in the gravity model.
@genogeno1234 You don't understand DM. In the 80s, we had 1 reason for predicting DM: the motions of stars in galaxies. That prediction has now been confirmed by multiple types of observation and lines of reasoning. e.g. the matter distribution in the post-collision Bullet Cluster & grav lensing measurements of Abel 1689. The existence of the matter is fact. Only its identity is at issue. DE is a separate topic. See:
@72bergmans the problem is that I have been studying this since the 1970s. Too many new problems keep emerging. The CERN will likely confirm what most of us have believed all along, and that is that there is no "god particle", and therefore, there is no dark matter. Only time will tell
@genogeno1234 What problems are you referring to? Clearly, DM was a bold prediction made by the consensus model in the 80s which has now been experimentally confirmed by independent methods. DE & Inflation (which I mention together because they are likely related) are interesting. Though the question with DE is not its existence, but its low magnitude. Why look to a hypothesis like PC, which has nearly zero explanatory power over the data set, and zero predictive power? (cont'd)
@72bergmans sorry bergmans. It hasn't been confirmed. Dark matter, dark energy, and black holes are just theories. There are more rational explanations for the galaxy rotation problem and the current acceleration problem without having to resort to these concepts. I will give you the recent Crab Nebula flare up and dimming as case in point for an example of a classic relaxation oscillator as opposed to the hypothetical neutron star. The consensus model is slowly falling apart.
@genogeno1234 (cont'd) What PC boils down to is that the Universe at certain scales looks a little bit like a plasma party-lamp. Despite fancy marketing videos... that's about it. It has no explanation for the CMB or its overall structure, the abundance of light elements, the formation and motions of galaxies and clusters. It explains essentially nothing, while basing what it does claim on extrapolation of laboratory plasma observations over scales from a billion to a million billion trillion.
@genogeno1234 And BTW, what in the world do you think finding Higgs or not has to do with DM? (Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about?) Have you completely missed how the observations of galaxy rotations, galaxy and cluster formation, studies of cluster collisions, including the actual measurement and mapping of the DM with grav lensing, and WMAP data all dovetail, confirming the existence of the extra matter via multiple types of observation and lines of reasoning?
@72bergmans yes, bergmans, I know about the rotation problem. Check out the electric model and you will find out why that occurs without dark matter. Go to thunderbolts.info and check the forums. There are some interesting topics there. As far as the CERN experiments, they are definitely trying to prove the existence of dark matter. So far, it hasn't happened. 40 years from now, we will look back and laugh at our gullibility.
@genogeno1234 Galaxy rotation curves are not a "problem". The galaxies and clusters studied match up very well with the measurements of mass distribution taken by gravitational lensing. The mass is there. The question is exactly what it is. This is true regardless of an LHC results. You seem to live in 1991. Or, based on this lack of understanding, your Higgs gaffe, and other things you've let slip, I it doesn't seem that you've studied much cosmology or Astrophysics. Bus let's take a look at...
@genogeno1234 "I have reported you to youtube and..."
LOL! Reported me? For what? Presenting a coherent logical argument on YouTube? Good luck! Sounds like you don't actually have any answers to my subset list of criticisms of Plasma Cosmology, and got frustrated. Which is fine. I didn't think you would have answers. And I've allocated more time to this thread, already, than it deserves.
10. Has not made any testable predictions, inconsistent with the consensus model, which have survived experiment. (How could it, when it mostly makes only vague qualitative assertions, without backing much of anything up with detailed qualitative explanations, or quantitative models?)
I'm amazed that you can say (with a straight face) that the rigorous consensus model is "falling apart" and then champion a so-called "cosmology" which is positively stillborn.
@72bergmans ...which explains why the Plasma Universe model is officially recognized as an actual area of study by the American Institute of Physics, correct? I will admit the people here on Youtube are not the best people to argue with on plasma cosmology, as many here only follow it based on a distrust of the mainstream system. There is logic to the theory, however. Don't let a few uneducated individuals fool you. It is good to be skeptical, but be a skeptic, not a pseudo-skeptic.
@genogeno1234 BTW. I don't want to give the impression that the listed items are the only serious problems that I see in PC. I just figured I'd start you off with 10.
@72bergmans Dude, I'm glad you did this so I don't have to. My condolences for the bit of life you had to waste debunking this crap; those are minutes you'll never get back.
@mindgrapes Hey Duuuude, he didn't debunk anything. And dude, I love spending MY time correcting misinformed imbeciles about this so called crap. So, bring it on!
@genogeno1234 (Continued) BTW, we know a great deal about DM. We know it has mass, and (from WMAP) that it travels at relatively low speeds (is CDM). We know it acts only via gravity, and possibly the nuclear Weak Force. We know that is is distributed smoothly, as a "halo", but has multi-scale structure reflective of the CBR's own structure. We know (from the BC data) that it does not interact even with other DM. We know (from BC) that MOND is unlikely to fit the DM-relevant observations.
@ttheobald2007 Indeed. I've had my eye on this channel for a while, and have noticed that as long as posters keep their criticism of the (rather ridiculous) Plasma "Cosmology" general enough, they just get a flip response from soupdragon42. But if the criticisms are detailed and factual, he just deletes the comment. I've also gone to the trouble of confirming that he often blocks the poster from the channel.
The only "cosmology" which is in crisis, here, is the Plasma "Cosmology", which can't even accommodate basic observational data like the existence and character of the CBR and the relative abundances of light elements.
It seems to me that "The Cult of Lerner" is forever nitpicking WRT the consensus cosmology, while totally ignoring the gaping holes in PC. In fact, PC seems, to me, more "gaping hole" than actual actual explanation for anything at all. Why does *anyone* give it any credence?
@72bergmans Because, it's a competing theory that takes into account electromagnetism's role in the Universe. Besides, it's not like 'Big Bangers' are not guilty of some religious acts. If 'Big Bangers' were real scientists, they wouldn't have banished Halton Arp. Just as Carl Sagan said, the banning of unpopular ideas may be common in religion and in politics; but it has no place in Science. The Big Bang theory is as much a religious doctrine as you claim PC is.
If u want to find out more about the electric universe theory check out a docu. called ' Thunderbolts of the gods ' it sets out the electric theory with facts to back it up
Honnestly, dude, this video is pathetic. I wanted to learn more about the electric universe model, all This video showed me was "how bad" mainstream science is. Why don't you just present the evidence, and let me be the judge? Also, this is YOUTUBE! If I wanted to read, I could visit a website. Is it such a mission to just simply SAY what you want to, rather than write text with distracting music?
I appreciate your addressing these issues, but I have to say your video making techniques could be easily improved.
It is really REALLY distracting to have you present scientific ideas for deep thought and consideration in a written form ... while at the same time you have music with words expressing some meta-point you're making about plasma cosmologists being unjustly ridiculed.
Trying to read the words on the slide while listening to music with words is distracting in a bad way.
@fermista I see a lot of talk about magnestism. A form of magic magnetism, in fact, that occurs in the absence of electricity. I ask again. Just one specific example, please.
"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate.
Any theoretical astronomical model which incorporates Maxwell's equations hasn't treated electricity and magnetism in isolation, because Maxwell's equations couple the magnetic and electric fields.
How can gravity dominate over EM force?! That's symmetry stupid! The Universe is neutral. The number of negative charges is equal the number of positive ones.
@soupdragon42 In fact, they have been counted. The CBR measurements by COBE and WMAP set the charge ratio of matter in the Universe at 1:1, with practically no allowed variance beyond that of quantum uncertainty.
I know you guys don't like to talk about the CBR, since it confirms so much about reality, and trashes your ridiculous "Plasma Cosmology" pseudoscience. You have no good answers for it. But that's life. The theory with makes good predictions, and explains the data, carries the day.
current astronomy needs a blank start, i've read few comments, you're all reffering to the outdated understanding of how universe works. If you guys want to discuss this topic, forget all the outdated knowledge you've learned, act like you've never heard of gravity before, only like that you can come up with pretty interesting theories.
Look at how alchemy evolved into modern chemistry; van Hoenheim told his scholars to forget all what they've learned so far and start from blank. Cheers!!
current astronomy needs a blank start, i've read few comments, you're all reffering to the outdated understanding of how universe works. If you guys want to discuss this topic, forget all the outdated knowledge you've learned, act like you've never heard of gravity before, only like that you can come up with pretty interesting theories.
Look at how alchemy evolved into modern chemistry; van Hoenheim told his scholars to forget all what they've learned so far and start from blank. Cheers!
@HateRTP Sagan tried to turn cosmology into a religion and thats one of the reasons why these sacred cows of cosmological theory are rarely challenged or even questioned. Look what happened to those who dare even mentioned Q redshift as an alternative possibility. Yes, we need an overhaul just like what has happened in biology in recent years.
@chylerreckeaolgodhul The ENCODE project has changed a large percentage of what we thought we knew about biology and the genome. There is now a split on the standard neo Darwinian structural DNA gene centered paradigm and the new epigenetic models that are now challenging the modern synthesis with overwhelming data. In some fields people are having to relearn all over again.
Evolutionary development biology/ evo devo
The extended synthesis Key words "The revolution in biology"
@chylerreckeaolgodhul What has changed is that even evolutionary developement biologist are now challenging starting to challenge the neo modern evolutionary synthesis. If you want to learn more about revolutionary thinking in biology google "revolution in biology" and you can research many of the new revolutionary concepts in biology yourself.
@housefan95 Standard EM is almost certainly a by product of gravity and, yes, gravity is almost certainly the product of some form of near instantaneous dipolar alignment of the particles that make up atoms and molecules.
All I am saying is that new information does not put a whole sector of science in jeopardy, it merely causes cosmologists to rethink. The equations that we see working in life still work.
Gravity is almost certainly the product of some form of near instantaneous dipolar alignment of ...
So your theory of what keeps the Earth pulling my body down as my body is oriented in different ways is the particles in my body "that make up atoms and molecules" constantly re-orient themselves in alignment with the Earth as I ... play football, for example, and get spun following a tackle?
watched this and you make a valid point about electromagnitism (EM) being vastly more powerfull than Gravity (G). However the difference is that EM has a very small sphere of influence (SoI) while G has a very large SoI. Simple experiment: take a magnet to your fridge and hold it a few centemeters away and let go. EM will overpower G and the magnet will stick to the fridge. Now backup a foot and drop it the magnet will drop because over distance the SoI of the EM will be smaller than of G
@jyanixbach I am sick of hearing this nonsense. For one thing we do not know what gravity is. We can only describe it mathematcially. For another, how can you compare the power of a tiny magnet with the gravity of a huge planet? Imagine a magnet the size of a planet, and consider the planets for what they really are - huge electro-magnets, and with a complex varity of EM behaviours. relative perspective is all important.
The problem with that argument is that by the magnet actually sticking to the fridge it is ignoring the G from the earth. Thank god that the EM force of earth is not as far reaching as that of G or we would all be crushed under our own weight. Keep in mind the largest object in the Solar system is Jupiter's magnetic field and that does not even extend all the way to Saturn. Magnetic fields do react with the universe around it, just not very far. My point is valid distances matter.
Thank you for injecting some common sense BASED ON EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION back into this discussion.
Yes, EM is more powerful than G. Yes, it operates at much shorter distances. This sort of relationship is seen repeatedly in physics, like the strong nuclear force.
I am 100% willing to concede plasma physics needs to be considered more in cosmology and astrophysics. But I am not convinced of soupdragon42's grasp of the standard model which he criticizes.
Electric Universe point has some merit, but the music is useless just like trying to create a spaceship using gravitational propulsion ( jet engines) , electromagnetic powered spacecraft can far more efficiently control speed and direction of flight. What seems as antigravity would in fact be engine using EM properties for ambient environment.
I hate to say it, but as much as I love the idea of exploring the universe and while it's all incredibly interesting to me, takeyourpillz has a point. We're spending a shameful amount of money to send probes to mars and other planets here in our solar system. I'm not saying I don't agree with us exploring, but when there's so many people suffering and dying every day right here, maybe we should just keep studying that stuff from Earth for now and spend a billion dollars solving some real issues.
I will be extremely thankful and continue to vote and follow you for as long as I continue to remember it, if you provide me the name of that soundtrack you use in this clip, and possible, it's origins.
@florencelovme Because EM forces are very difficult to model mathematically and all existing models would have to be scrapped, no "tweaking".
To those debating about evidence it is important to understand the context of that evidence - most of the evidence for BB theory is mathematical whereas most or almost all of the evidence for EU/PC theory is observational.
So which has more of an evidential basis depends on whether you think math or reality are better systems to judge the theories by.
@Masta420 To clarify - evidence is a fickle thing in regards to BB theory as an equation can easily be created when you already believe you have the answer to start with, developing theories that make accurate predictions of future observations is what should be considered "evidence". To my knowledge BB theory hasn't made a single accurate prediction that didn't involve cherry picking the observations to back it or "tweaking" the equations in ad hoc fashion.
@Masta420 Thats right! what bothers me though, is that most hardcore supporters of science (evolutionists) that believe in "scientific evidence" to prove the non-existence of a Higher Being (creationists) are in fact contradicting themselves because all the answers that they are looking for are to do with quantum reality which is like you mentioned nothing but guess after guess after guess. Im not taking sides, just stating a fact. :)
@Masta420 Yeah thats correct - I dont know why I didnt think of it before. In QM terms, by performing the same experiment several times you always end up getting different results, right? THAT would be so complicated to establish a solid theory, I think.
@florencelovme One thing I've always wondered about BB theory is how it can be science. In science you start with evidence and then develop a theory based on that evidence, in BB theory you start with the theory and then develop abstract equations to fit observed phenomena within the context of that theory. If you start with a theory that isn't based in reality where do you end up?
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated."-Dr. Stephen Rorke
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
no offence but none of you are right, and none of you are wrong. neither side can prove a damn thing and more to the point it wouldnt matter if you could. who gives a shit about what the universe is doin or how it works, it does what it does and theres not a damn thing you can do to change any of it, so try spending the millions of dollars you burn on sendin shit to mars and everywhere else and try solvin some of the problems on earth. you know, 1s that actually have some relevance to us. peace
@takeyourpillz Sooner or later we will have to head for the stars. It is always important tto think ahead, and our lives have improved so much as a result of trying to understand how things work.
When it is all boiled down, good (diligently searching for a unified and consistent explanation which applies to all of Reality and not settling for what is convenient to your hypothesis) is versus evil (accepting the flawed, circumstantial, and partial explanations of humanity as absolute.) Kierkegaard put it right when he said "the beginning of knowledge is understanding that we cannot know," to which I attach this caveat: the knowing he spoke of regards human deduction.
"The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo," -Hannes Alfven (the guy that invented this theory)
Oh, a revolution in astrophysics like, I don't know, RELATIVITY?? Relativity was resisted, but ultimately the peer review system PROVED it despite the resistance, as is true for ALL revolutionary scientific theories.
Would you, soupdragon, be kind enough to tell us WTH the Electric/Plasma Universe Theory is? I'm not going to watch Part 2 if all you have to offer is 10 minutes of people attacking you. Why the heck didn't you talk about the basics of the EU Theory in this vid?
Would you, soupdragon, be kind enough to tell us WTH the Electric/Plasma Universe Theory is? I'm not going to watch Part 2 if all you have to offer is 10 minutes of people attacking you. Why the heck didn't you talk about the basics of the EU Theory in this vid?
@big1buddy Do your own research. Try plasmacosology-net and thunderbolts-info just for starters. 10 min vids are just an introduction to a huge and growing subject matter.
Well this video seems to make good points, but has equally less evidence for what it's preaching as the current cosmology theories. Why should we believe what this video is telling us when a cosmology expert couldpossibly answer some of the questions and riddles. It's easy to be persuaded, much harder to question the persuasion, yet if you want the truth, question everything.
Maybe someone here can help me. We use the speed of light as a tool to measure the distances of ojects in the universe from Earth assuming that all of space is a perfect vacuum and that the light that we see from these objects has been traveling at a steady speed of 186 thousand miles per second. My question is how do pervasive magnetic fields in deep space affect the speed of light and therefore the distances of said objects.
Einstein demonstrated that light is curved by a gravitational field, so its speed must be there accelerated, much as air passing over the top surface of a wing accelerates. I haven't studied since high school, but it seems obvious to me that light speed fluctuates.
light speed can move slower, but never faster than within a vacuum.
You can even slow it down using water or glass.
Diamond slows it down most though, and even then only by a fifth at most.
So even if the light had travelled through a perfect path of diamond, it would still only throw off our results by a few billion years.
Of course, we can actually see what we're looking at, and we use parallaxes to determine the distance of an object, meaning you'd need (by chance) a sphere of glass in space
You are giving Plait too much credit and too much power. He has at best a very cursory understanding of both gravity (general relativity) and electromagnetism - he's just a run-of-the-mill PhD without much real talent for anything but running his mouth. By attacking him, you make him look important. He's just a lot of web noise. Forget about him and your message will come across better.
It's very nice to see this video on You Tube, peoples eyes need to be opened. The EM force is 39 orders of magnitude greater than this mythical force we call gravity. We've never seen a graviton directly or indirectly. Personally I think NASA knows how much electricity is flowing over our heads every second and either chooses not to or cannot tell us for reasons I dont care to understand. Think about what would happen if electricity was so plentiful is was free....
wow. I'm almost speechless. Dude, denying gravity is like denying that the earth is round. It takes all kinds I guess. You say we haven't directly seen a graviton, when the EU hypothesis has yet to make a testable prediction that either
a) accurately reflects observed cosmology, or
b) is not better/more accurately explained by more standard/mainstream cosmological theories.
@entyrion We do not know what gravity is. We can only describe the force mathematically, but not what it is. Claiming that is results from spacetime curvature merely replaces a mathematcial description with an abstract mathematical description. In reality this get us no where. Deal with it.
a sense 6th sense has to record those 5 into perception; a 7 to understand perception. QUANTUM PHYSICS (MATH) IS A JOKE. holographic universe is a mistranslation of an occult idea; that all will return to the "unknown(able)"; the unknowable being the only unknowable to a constant state and not subject to dissolution.
holographic universe dogma an ignorant dogma. just google stephen crothers
Think about it. If all our senses are simply electrical signals (which they are) then these signals can be overrided. In other words if you were to connect our brain to a PC and feed it these elecrical signals then even the sense of touch can be replicated. Your brain would think it's reality. The plight humans are in is they are limited to just the 5 senses so we will never be able to undertand the meaning/reality of the universe if it turns out there are more senses.
Comments from Prometheus4096 removed. Claiming that Plasma Cosmology is creationism in disguise is nonsensical. No such claims can possibly be justified.
Matter is an illusion. All is energy and electricity. People see you as you project, and things as they have been schooled. You can change your Reality with your mind by adjusting your attitude. Thought is self-directed energy, and God is self-creating, self-directed energy. Atoms are varied forms of energy rotating gravitationally. There is nothing else in the physical, mental, or spiritual universes.
Right about what exactly? Is it your intention to promote a creationist viewpoint, or are you simply suggesting that there is evidence of Intelligent Design behind the Universe? The latter is a philosophical matter outside the realm of science and religion, anyway. Please try to be more specific. Best. Soup
An intelligent design implies a creator, and a creator implies an intelligent design (assuming that god isnt a retarded). Both things are the same. And philosophy is the base of science, but religion is the base of philosophy. So religion is the base of science.
Yes, Intelligent Design implies a creative force. However, religion is not the base of philosophy. Philosophy means the love of knowledge, and it has three main pillars - Epistemology (knowing), Ontology (doing), and Ethics.
Who created the creator, and if no-one then why can't the universe simply be created by no-one? The creator must be more complex than the created, don't forget.
The Creator was created by Himself. The Creator can create Himself because He has the power to create and is capable of understanding Himself. I would say that the Creator can´t be less complex than His creation.
No. You are using circular reasoning -- which is a fallacy. And I am merely demonstrating that the same fallacy can be equally applied to the universe itself. If the creator doesn't need to have been created then neither does the universe.
By your own incorrect [logical] standard your theory is inconsistent.
If its a fallacy then its not valid when applied to the universe either. And my theory should be inconsistent by a correct logical standard. If my logical standard is incorrect then what does it matter what is consistent or inconsistent by it?
Anyway, you misunderstand me. I believe that the Creator needs to have been created. And He created Himself. You can conceive that Self Creation as many times as you want. Check the rules of our classical logic. The first one and more important of them is A=A.
Causality implies that there must be a cause for everything. So the cause of anything cant be nothing. But if the cause of something is that same thing then it isnt nothing but something and there is a cause for it. I believe that the only Being that has the privilege of being His own Creator is God, because its there that the chain of causes and consequences in the universe has its beginning.
Something cannot be it's own cause. Causality is about the relationship of events through time. For some event to cause another event to occur, the first event necessarily must happen first.
Saying something is its own cause is the same as saying it has no cause.
But God created Himself before creating the universe. There was no time nor space there. So causality was a completely different thing that only followed the rules of logic.
Anyway, the consequence cannot be first, but i wouldnt be so sure that the cause must be first. Any piece of matter is composed of particles that keep themselves together through forces bla bla bla. You explain how it is in one inapprehensible instant. And why is it that that piece of matter keeps being the same through time? Isnt it being selfcreated each instant as small as you like it?
OK. I admit what you write about what has been created, that is, the universe. But if we talk about God as Creator, we assume He existed before the universe (cause and consequence in the common sense, right?). Time and space and the kind of causality you mention are real in the universe. But if God was real before the universe, why did it have to be space and time there?
Couldnt instant zero have lasted an eternity in no-any-where? If zero, there is no need for one. Logic was necessary because intelligence and design were needed, but logic, and language, dont need time nor space. Remember, "in the beginning was the Word". Its all in the bible.
The bible is a compilation of stylized historical records and fictional stories. It is not a scientific paper, it has no rational argument behind it. It is a religious document. Its contents are accepted on faith and faith alone.
You should realize there is no evidence to support the existence of god and that your church (and government) is nothing more than an authoritarian institution designed to control and farm you like livestock.
Instant zero is the "time" before time, thats why its "time" and not time (time didnt create itself).
The bible has more than historical records and fictional stories. It has many great intuitions about the cosmos. All scientific theories start like that, and the proves come always after. You cant blame those guys for not having experimented nor rationalized three thousand years ago. If you take those intuitions in the context of their time you can develop real science in the context of ours.
There is no evidence to support the existence of God. Is there any evidence against it? You see, science has gone through many views of the world. This same video is discussing the current one. So, it may be probable that tomorrow god is proved and what science believes discarded. Im sure we havent understood God completely yet. Im not saying the bible is wrong with this. Im saying we need to develop our interpretation.
It might happen that in the future religion and science fuse in only one knowledge. Remember that the early church rejected ancient science because it was linked to paganism. And that early modern science was fought because it meant a threat to the earthly power of the church. Scientists became atheists only because of what church had made of religion. All this has nothing to do with real knowledge.
Im sure my church (and government) is nothing more than an authoritarian institution designed to control and farm me like livestock (this happens to be true by chance, because you know nothing about where I live). But I´m a free man and God, if real as I believe, doesnt care about what humans institutions make of Him on earth.
Youre wrong with the last thing you say. If you give up all your possessions you are a perfect christian, you are like Jesus and Jesus was God Himself. We are humans. I mean, do you have to perfectly obey the law to be a "real" citizen? You wouldnt be human either. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with this discussion.
21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. There is still one thing you havent done, he told him. Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. 22 At this the mans face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!
In verse 26, shortly after, it says "to men thats impossible, but for God everything is possible" when disciples ask him who could be saved when its clear that nobody can have nothing. That means you can be good in the eyes of God even if you dont give up everything material, which the apostles did although they were human (but one of them was a traitor, another denied him and they were only twelve people and there cant be more).
Verse 26 is just the standard religious kick-in-the-balls. You are asked to adhere to an impossible standard, which you will never fulfill by its very definition. This is again what altruism is.
Jesus is saying "you must be an altruist"
and his followers protest that this is impossible by definition, and Jesus just blows them off by telling them "nothing is impossible with god."
Hey man it's your crazy religion, I didn't write it.
So all the geometry and arithmetics and mathematics in which science is based is crazy. Have you ever seen a real circle? I mean, a perfect one. All our language is to be thrown away then. It puts limits to reality and what falls inside those limits is certain thing. Why? Have you ever seen that limit? What are you talking about when you talk about "man"? This one, that one, some man that is everyone at the same time? Where is that man?
I show you a circle and tell you that is a group of points which maximum distance to some point is the same. Then you could say: "but that cant happen in the MATERIAL world". And I could blow you off by telling you "nothing is impossible to intelligence, to imagination, to the mind" which is equal to God in the sense that perfection is there. But does that imply that it isnt useful to consider many things as circles? Havent that worked in human history? Doesnt that work for you in everyday life?
Anyway, when he says "to men thats impossible, for God everything is possible" I believe he means "men cant save themselves, only God can save them", which is, after all, the result of the fact that we are human beings, mortal, imperfect, and only God is perfect.
But, suppose the Creator was created by no-one, there would still be Him and His creation and it doesnt make sense a creation without a creator. I mean, its not only a chain with one less link, youre cutting it where it changes the whole thing. If I supposed the Creator is uncreated, I wouldnt find any good reason in discarding my beliefs just because of it.
Uhm, why don't you just speak, rather than writting it out? If I wanted to read for 10 minutes, I'd visit a website.
Hannodb1961 1 week ago
All the pseudoscientists love Nikola Tesla.
No one listen to this person. He/she doesn't know squat about the forces.
aqouby 1 month ago
2:17 "EM forces are also longer ranged than gravitational forces in most instances..."
Are we talking about the same universe here?
finlarg 1 month ago
such a great video until the hatred... . move past this douche and put out a video without him... that would be awesome....
GEOmagnets 3 months ago
music helps the medicine go down, thanks.
AmazedCactus 3 months ago
the site that linked me here has done plenty of science surf a bit you weill have your answers
Lake387 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
( aliens )
in india ,tamilnadu ,human souls are taken under earth ,under rocks ,even to several thousnds kilometers under rocks and given different shapes .in sevrages and made aliens .please save ..taking under earth and beating and burning .please save .to every one .every molecules .and request to bring all the souls ,creatures from under earth to on earth .please save from pains ,sufferings .please save
bgupta2001 6 months ago
Comment removed
chylerreckeaolgodhul 7 months ago
Yes, we do live in an Electric Universe, not a gravitational universe. Black holes, neutron stars, gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy and all this other conjured up stuff do not exist. We need to stop wasting money searching for new particles and forces invented by mathematicians. A good measure of a theory is its ability to predict the outcome of new observations or explain them without introducing additional tailor-made concepts.
vlatin1 8 months ago
@vlatin1 nice1
Lake387 6 months ago
every magnets and dipoles (magnets and batteries are dipoles) is receiving energy from space, as we speak. :) think about that!
valllhalla 9 months ago
I am brand new to this Plasma Cosmology thing. This video makes it seem like a fringe science or even a cult, and that's a bit disturbing.
Can anyone describe what unanswered questions in "mainstream cosmology" this competing theory has resolved, and how that's been verified with observation or experiment?
terrymorse 11 months ago
@terrymorse in an electrical universe, there is no need for black holes or dark matter. Scientists cannot find either of them. They only theorize where they might be,no proof. There is too much, way too much, way, way too much missing matter for the universe to be held together by gravity. Gravity is too weak, too, too weak. Now electricity...that's easily able to power the universe. Scientist's are captives of politics and religion...especially in this age of needing grants to survive.
KJVWordofGod 10 months ago
There is a really good forum on thunderbolts.info where ideas can be bantied about without having to take pot shots from the nay sayers. I finally got tired of arguing with them. One even threatened to burn my house down! Let's face it; this sort of thing is so patently obvious that it is an embarassment to professional astronomers who didn't figure it out in the first place. Would we expect any different treatment?
genogeno1234 1 year ago
Almost makes you wonder if the plasma within the universe is pulsing back and forth in an oscillatory fashion for perhaps trillions of trillions of years, perhaps forever, and we are now on the upward trend of a sine wave and hence accelerating. Sounds much more plausible than Star Trek concepts of dark energy and dark matter to account for discrepancies in the gravity model.
genogeno1234 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 You don't understand DM. In the 80s, we had 1 reason for predicting DM: the motions of stars in galaxies. That prediction has now been confirmed by multiple types of observation and lines of reasoning. e.g. the matter distribution in the post-collision Bullet Cluster & grav lensing measurements of Abel 1689. The existence of the matter is fact. Only its identity is at issue. DE is a separate topic. See:
youtube . com / watch?v=SwyTaSt0XxE
35:00 Is the most directly relevant bit.
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans the problem is that I have been studying this since the 1970s. Too many new problems keep emerging. The CERN will likely confirm what most of us have believed all along, and that is that there is no "god particle", and therefore, there is no dark matter. Only time will tell
genogeno1234 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 What problems are you referring to? Clearly, DM was a bold prediction made by the consensus model in the 80s which has now been experimentally confirmed by independent methods. DE & Inflation (which I mention together because they are likely related) are interesting. Though the question with DE is not its existence, but its low magnitude. Why look to a hypothesis like PC, which has nearly zero explanatory power over the data set, and zero predictive power? (cont'd)
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans sorry bergmans. It hasn't been confirmed. Dark matter, dark energy, and black holes are just theories. There are more rational explanations for the galaxy rotation problem and the current acceleration problem without having to resort to these concepts. I will give you the recent Crab Nebula flare up and dimming as case in point for an example of a classic relaxation oscillator as opposed to the hypothetical neutron star. The consensus model is slowly falling apart.
genogeno1234 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 (cont'd) What PC boils down to is that the Universe at certain scales looks a little bit like a plasma party-lamp. Despite fancy marketing videos... that's about it. It has no explanation for the CMB or its overall structure, the abundance of light elements, the formation and motions of galaxies and clusters. It explains essentially nothing, while basing what it does claim on extrapolation of laboratory plasma observations over scales from a billion to a million billion trillion.
72bergmans 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 And BTW, what in the world do you think finding Higgs or not has to do with DM? (Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about?) Have you completely missed how the observations of galaxy rotations, galaxy and cluster formation, studies of cluster collisions, including the actual measurement and mapping of the DM with grav lensing, and WMAP data all dovetail, confirming the existence of the extra matter via multiple types of observation and lines of reasoning?
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans yes, bergmans, I know about the rotation problem. Check out the electric model and you will find out why that occurs without dark matter. Go to thunderbolts.info and check the forums. There are some interesting topics there. As far as the CERN experiments, they are definitely trying to prove the existence of dark matter. So far, it hasn't happened. 40 years from now, we will look back and laugh at our gullibility.
genogeno1234 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 Galaxy rotation curves are not a "problem". The galaxies and clusters studied match up very well with the measurements of mass distribution taken by gravitational lensing. The mass is there. The question is exactly what it is. This is true regardless of an LHC results. You seem to live in 1991. Or, based on this lack of understanding, your Higgs gaffe, and other things you've let slip, I it doesn't seem that you've studied much cosmology or Astrophysics. Bus let's take a look at...
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans I have reported you to youtube and would appreciate no more contact. Any more contact will be considered stalking. Thank you.
genogeno1234 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 "I have reported you to youtube and..."
LOL! Reported me? For what? Presenting a coherent logical argument on YouTube? Good luck! Sounds like you don't actually have any answers to my subset list of criticisms of Plasma Cosmology, and got frustrated. Which is fine. I didn't think you would have answers. And I've allocated more time to this thread, already, than it deserves.
72bergmans 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 ... PC's many, many problems. Listing these may take a few posts. PC:
1.Presumes without evidence that laboratory plasma can be accurately extrapolated out to million billion trillion scale.
2. Has an embarrassing "missing antimatter" problem.
3. Has no quantitative explanation for the motions of galaxies.
4. Has no quantitative explanation for galaxy and cluster formation.
5. Has no quantitative explanation for Hubble expansion.
Continued...
72bergmans 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 cont'd...
6. Has no quantitative explanation for the abundance of light elements.
7. Has no explanation at all for the existence of the CMB. Let alone its temperature and anisotropy structure.
8. Has no explanation for the why overall structure in the Universe matches CMB anisotropies.
9. Suffers from an embarrassing lack of observational evidence for the hypothesized Birkeland currents.
Cont'd...
72bergmans 1 year ago
@genogeno1234 cont'd...
10. Has not made any testable predictions, inconsistent with the consensus model, which have survived experiment. (How could it, when it mostly makes only vague qualitative assertions, without backing much of anything up with detailed qualitative explanations, or quantitative models?)
I'm amazed that you can say (with a straight face) that the rigorous consensus model is "falling apart" and then champion a so-called "cosmology" which is positively stillborn.
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans ...which explains why the Plasma Universe model is officially recognized as an actual area of study by the American Institute of Physics, correct? I will admit the people here on Youtube are not the best people to argue with on plasma cosmology, as many here only follow it based on a distrust of the mainstream system. There is logic to the theory, however. Don't let a few uneducated individuals fool you. It is good to be skeptical, but be a skeptic, not a pseudo-skeptic.
chylerreckeaolgodhul 10 months ago
@genogeno1234 BTW. I don't want to give the impression that the listed items are the only serious problems that I see in PC. I just figured I'd start you off with 10.
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans Dude, I'm glad you did this so I don't have to. My condolences for the bit of life you had to waste debunking this crap; those are minutes you'll never get back.
mindgrapes 8 months ago
@mindgrapes Hey Duuuude, he didn't debunk anything. And dude, I love spending MY time correcting misinformed imbeciles about this so called crap. So, bring it on!
vlatin1 8 months ago
@genogeno1234 (Continued) BTW, we know a great deal about DM. We know it has mass, and (from WMAP) that it travels at relatively low speeds (is CDM). We know it acts only via gravity, and possibly the nuclear Weak Force. We know that is is distributed smoothly, as a "halo", but has multi-scale structure reflective of the CBR's own structure. We know (from the BC data) that it does not interact even with other DM. We know (from BC) that MOND is unlikely to fit the DM-relevant observations.
72bergmans 1 year ago
@ttheobald2007 Indeed. I've had my eye on this channel for a while, and have noticed that as long as posters keep their criticism of the (rather ridiculous) Plasma "Cosmology" general enough, they just get a flip response from soupdragon42. But if the criticisms are detailed and factual, he just deletes the comment. I've also gone to the trouble of confirming that he often blocks the poster from the channel.
72bergmans 1 year ago
The only "cosmology" which is in crisis, here, is the Plasma "Cosmology", which can't even accommodate basic observational data like the existence and character of the CBR and the relative abundances of light elements.
It seems to me that "The Cult of Lerner" is forever nitpicking WRT the consensus cosmology, while totally ignoring the gaping holes in PC. In fact, PC seems, to me, more "gaping hole" than actual actual explanation for anything at all. Why does *anyone* give it any credence?
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans Because, it's a competing theory that takes into account electromagnetism's role in the Universe. Besides, it's not like 'Big Bangers' are not guilty of some religious acts. If 'Big Bangers' were real scientists, they wouldn't have banished Halton Arp. Just as Carl Sagan said, the banning of unpopular ideas may be common in religion and in politics; but it has no place in Science. The Big Bang theory is as much a religious doctrine as you claim PC is.
EltonJThe 10 months ago
If u want to find out more about the electric universe theory check out a docu. called ' Thunderbolts of the gods ' it sets out the electric theory with facts to back it up
CRIMBOMAN666 1 year ago
Honnestly, dude, this video is pathetic. I wanted to learn more about the electric universe model, all This video showed me was "how bad" mainstream science is. Why don't you just present the evidence, and let me be the judge? Also, this is YOUTUBE! If I wanted to read, I could visit a website. Is it such a mission to just simply SAY what you want to, rather than write text with distracting music?
Hannodb1961 1 year ago
I appreciate your addressing these issues, but I have to say your video making techniques could be easily improved.
It is really REALLY distracting to have you present scientific ideas for deep thought and consideration in a written form ... while at the same time you have music with words expressing some meta-point you're making about plasma cosmologists being unjustly ridiculed.
Trying to read the words on the slide while listening to music with words is distracting in a bad way.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
@fermista I see a lot of talk about magnestism. A form of magic magnetism, in fact, that occurs in the absence of electricity. I ask again. Just one specific example, please.
"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven, Nobel Laureate.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
Any theoretical astronomical model which incorporates Maxwell's equations hasn't treated electricity and magnetism in isolation, because Maxwell's equations couple the magnetic and electric fields.
fermista 1 year ago 2
@fermista Can you give me a specific example of Maxwell's equations being applied in space? Just one. Anyone will do.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@ttheobald2007 Only to the low IQS.
yahshuah29 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies are doing everything they can to stop these
information. If you want a Free energy machine , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
rebelliouseoagj 1 year ago
How can gravity dominate over EM force?! That's symmetry stupid! The Universe is neutral. The number of negative charges is equal the number of positive ones.
rcamargofreitas 1 year ago
@rcamargofreitas Have you counted them? How do you know that?
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42 In fact, they have been counted. The CBR measurements by COBE and WMAP set the charge ratio of matter in the Universe at 1:1, with practically no allowed variance beyond that of quantum uncertainty.
I know you guys don't like to talk about the CBR, since it confirms so much about reality, and trashes your ridiculous "Plasma Cosmology" pseudoscience. You have no good answers for it. But that's life. The theory with makes good predictions, and explains the data, carries the day.
72bergmans 1 year ago
@72bergmans I read a paper that challenges CBR as "Cosmic." The paper reported that much of the CBR is microwave radiation from our own oceans.
EltonJThe 10 months ago
@soupdragon42 we wouldnt have to count because we know that without an equality universe wouldnt stabilize
ProttoyEinstein 11 months ago
@rcamargofreitas just like the amount of anti-matter and matter... but there is an inballance (thank f*ck)
Typho0n86 9 months ago
@rcamargofreitas This standard assumption was proved false long ago. Wake up and smell the coffee.
soupdragon42 9 months ago
@ttheobald2007 You should get out there and read a little more...
mbunds 1 year ago
great video but that song scares me =*(
yourboycal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
current astronomy needs a blank start, i've read few comments, you're all reffering to the outdated understanding of how universe works. If you guys want to discuss this topic, forget all the outdated knowledge you've learned, act like you've never heard of gravity before, only like that you can come up with pretty interesting theories.
Look at how alchemy evolved into modern chemistry; van Hoenheim told his scholars to forget all what they've learned so far and start from blank. Cheers!!
HateRTP 1 year ago
current astronomy needs a blank start, i've read few comments, you're all reffering to the outdated understanding of how universe works. If you guys want to discuss this topic, forget all the outdated knowledge you've learned, act like you've never heard of gravity before, only like that you can come up with pretty interesting theories.
Look at how alchemy evolved into modern chemistry; van Hoenheim told his scholars to forget all what they've learned so far and start from blank. Cheers!
HateRTP 1 year ago
@HateRTP Couldn't agree more. It's time to start over.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@HateRTP Sagan tried to turn cosmology into a religion and thats one of the reasons why these sacred cows of cosmological theory are rarely challenged or even questioned. Look what happened to those who dare even mentioned Q redshift as an alternative possibility. Yes, we need an overhaul just like what has happened in biology in recent years.
benthemiester 1 year ago 20
@benthemiester What happened in biology? I don't remember.
chylerreckeaolgodhul 7 months ago
@chylerreckeaolgodhul The ENCODE project has changed a large percentage of what we thought we knew about biology and the genome. There is now a split on the standard neo Darwinian structural DNA gene centered paradigm and the new epigenetic models that are now challenging the modern synthesis with overwhelming data. In some fields people are having to relearn all over again.
Evolutionary development biology/ evo devo
The extended synthesis Key words "The revolution in biology"
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester I still don't yet see exactly what changed. What should I look up?
chylerreckeaolgodhul 7 months ago
@chylerreckeaolgodhul What has changed is that even evolutionary developement biologist are now challenging starting to challenge the neo modern evolutionary synthesis. If you want to learn more about revolutionary thinking in biology google "revolution in biology" and you can research many of the new revolutionary concepts in biology yourself.
benthemiester 7 months ago
@HateRTP
Modern Chemistry is still not complete, that's where all the anomilies in physics sprung from , the atomic model and or atomic theory...
pepicanable 1 year ago
@HateRTP
...followed by quantum theory.
pepicanable 1 year ago
More to do? Time to start over more like!
soupdragon42 1 year ago
This does not make the cosmologists wrong. What has been predicted has been seen. It just means that there is more to do, which no-one denies.
housefan95 1 year ago
@housefan95 Standard EM is almost certainly a by product of gravity and, yes, gravity is almost certainly the product of some form of near instantaneous dipolar alignment of the particles that make up atoms and molecules.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42
All I am saying is that new information does not put a whole sector of science in jeopardy, it merely causes cosmologists to rethink. The equations that we see working in life still work.
housefan95 1 year ago
@soupdragon42
Electromagnetism is a by-product of gravity? Huh?
Gravity is almost certainly the product of some form of near instantaneous dipolar alignment of ...
So your theory of what keeps the Earth pulling my body down as my body is oriented in different ways is the particles in my body "that make up atoms and molecules" constantly re-orient themselves in alignment with the Earth as I ... play football, for example, and get spun following a tackle?
Can you provide some evidence?
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
watched this and you make a valid point about electromagnitism (EM) being vastly more powerfull than Gravity (G). However the difference is that EM has a very small sphere of influence (SoI) while G has a very large SoI. Simple experiment: take a magnet to your fridge and hold it a few centemeters away and let go. EM will overpower G and the magnet will stick to the fridge. Now backup a foot and drop it the magnet will drop because over distance the SoI of the EM will be smaller than of G
jyanixbach 1 year ago
@jyanixbach I am sick of hearing this nonsense. For one thing we do not know what gravity is. We can only describe it mathematcially. For another, how can you compare the power of a tiny magnet with the gravity of a huge planet? Imagine a magnet the size of a planet, and consider the planets for what they really are - huge electro-magnets, and with a complex varity of EM behaviours. relative perspective is all important.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
The problem with that argument is that by the magnet actually sticking to the fridge it is ignoring the G from the earth. Thank god that the EM force of earth is not as far reaching as that of G or we would all be crushed under our own weight. Keep in mind the largest object in the Solar system is Jupiter's magnetic field and that does not even extend all the way to Saturn. Magnetic fields do react with the universe around it, just not very far. My point is valid distances matter.
jyanixbach 1 year ago
@jyanixbach
Thank you for injecting some common sense BASED ON EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION back into this discussion.
Yes, EM is more powerful than G. Yes, it operates at much shorter distances. This sort of relationship is seen repeatedly in physics, like the strong nuclear force.
I am 100% willing to concede plasma physics needs to be considered more in cosmology and astrophysics. But I am not convinced of soupdragon42's grasp of the standard model which he criticizes.
ChristophDollis 1 year ago
why does this vid stop at 5:50 seconds???????????
blackie3740 1 year ago
@blackie3740 It doesn't!
soupdragon42 1 year ago
Electric Universe point has some merit, but the music is useless just like trying to create a spaceship using gravitational propulsion ( jet engines) , electromagnetic powered spacecraft can far more efficiently control speed and direction of flight. What seems as antigravity would in fact be engine using EM properties for ambient environment.
Kawagi1 1 year ago
I hate to say it, but as much as I love the idea of exploring the universe and while it's all incredibly interesting to me, takeyourpillz has a point. We're spending a shameful amount of money to send probes to mars and other planets here in our solar system. I'm not saying I don't agree with us exploring, but when there's so many people suffering and dying every day right here, maybe we should just keep studying that stuff from Earth for now and spend a billion dollars solving some real issues.
Sicknessdoa 1 year ago
I will be extremely thankful and continue to vote and follow you for as long as I continue to remember it, if you provide me the name of that soundtrack you use in this clip, and possible, it's origins.
Truly, thankfully. 5 stars.
YourClipSuckz 1 year ago
So EM is key to solving the puzzle - why so much objection on this then?
florencelovme 1 year ago
@florencelovme Because EM forces are very difficult to model mathematically and all existing models would have to be scrapped, no "tweaking".
To those debating about evidence it is important to understand the context of that evidence - most of the evidence for BB theory is mathematical whereas most or almost all of the evidence for EU/PC theory is observational.
So which has more of an evidential basis depends on whether you think math or reality are better systems to judge the theories by.
Masta420 1 year ago
@Masta420 To clarify - evidence is a fickle thing in regards to BB theory as an equation can easily be created when you already believe you have the answer to start with, developing theories that make accurate predictions of future observations is what should be considered "evidence". To my knowledge BB theory hasn't made a single accurate prediction that didn't involve cherry picking the observations to back it or "tweaking" the equations in ad hoc fashion.
EU has made many good predictions.
Masta420 1 year ago
@Masta420 Thats right! what bothers me though, is that most hardcore supporters of science (evolutionists) that believe in "scientific evidence" to prove the non-existence of a Higher Being (creationists) are in fact contradicting themselves because all the answers that they are looking for are to do with quantum reality which is like you mentioned nothing but guess after guess after guess. Im not taking sides, just stating a fact. :)
florencelovme 1 year ago
@Masta420 Yeah thats correct - I dont know why I didnt think of it before. In QM terms, by performing the same experiment several times you always end up getting different results, right? THAT would be so complicated to establish a solid theory, I think.
Thanks!
florencelovme 1 year ago
@florencelovme One thing I've always wondered about BB theory is how it can be science. In science you start with evidence and then develop a theory based on that evidence, in BB theory you start with the theory and then develop abstract equations to fit observed phenomena within the context of that theory. If you start with a theory that isn't based in reality where do you end up?
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated."-Dr. Stephen Rorke
Masta420 1 year ago
Such annoying choice of music.
erdethernavntaget 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no offence but none of you are right, and none of you are wrong. neither side can prove a damn thing and more to the point it wouldnt matter if you could. who gives a shit about what the universe is doin or how it works, it does what it does and theres not a damn thing you can do to change any of it, so try spending the millions of dollars you burn on sendin shit to mars and everywhere else and try solvin some of the problems on earth. you know, 1s that actually have some relevance to us. peace
takeyourpillz 1 year ago
@takeyourpillz Sooner or later we will have to head for the stars. It is always important tto think ahead, and our lives have improved so much as a result of trying to understand how things work.
soupdragon42 1 year ago 3
When it is all boiled down, good (diligently searching for a unified and consistent explanation which applies to all of Reality and not settling for what is convenient to your hypothesis) is versus evil (accepting the flawed, circumstantial, and partial explanations of humanity as absolute.) Kierkegaard put it right when he said "the beginning of knowledge is understanding that we cannot know," to which I attach this caveat: the knowing he spoke of regards human deduction.
nomre2me 1 year ago
"The peer review system is satisfactory during quiescent times, but not during a revolution in a discipline such as astrophysics, when the establishment seeks to preserve the status quo," -Hannes Alfven (the guy that invented this theory)
Oh, a revolution in astrophysics like, I don't know, RELATIVITY?? Relativity was resisted, but ultimately the peer review system PROVED it despite the resistance, as is true for ALL revolutionary scientific theories.
entyrion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Would you, soupdragon, be kind enough to tell us WTH the Electric/Plasma Universe Theory is? I'm not going to watch Part 2 if all you have to offer is 10 minutes of people attacking you. Why the heck didn't you talk about the basics of the EU Theory in this vid?
big1buddy 1 year ago
Would you, soupdragon, be kind enough to tell us WTH the Electric/Plasma Universe Theory is? I'm not going to watch Part 2 if all you have to offer is 10 minutes of people attacking you. Why the heck didn't you talk about the basics of the EU Theory in this vid?
big1buddy 1 year ago
@big1buddy Do your own research. Try plasmacosology-net and thunderbolts-info just for starters. 10 min vids are just an introduction to a huge and growing subject matter.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
Well this video seems to make good points, but has equally less evidence for what it's preaching as the current cosmology theories. Why should we believe what this video is telling us when a cosmology expert couldpossibly answer some of the questions and riddles. It's easy to be persuaded, much harder to question the persuasion, yet if you want the truth, question everything.
OTSTRETFORD 1 year ago
@OTSTRETFORD I can only get so much into a ten min video. I merely hope to inspire people to dig further. I agree that you should qustion everything.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
The experts only know what they've been taught, and if what they were taught was wrong, well, U get the picture.
onimotoko 1 year ago
kool vid,also Great Soundtrack!!!!!!!!
manfaeglasgow 1 year ago
The soundtrack to this video completely undermines the subject. My interest in this video is inversely related to the obscurity of the soundtrack.
Makszi 1 year ago
Do you not have a volume button?
soupdragon42 1 year ago
yeah he shouldve used organs
creapah 1 year ago
Maybe someone here can help me. We use the speed of light as a tool to measure the distances of ojects in the universe from Earth assuming that all of space is a perfect vacuum and that the light that we see from these objects has been traveling at a steady speed of 186 thousand miles per second. My question is how do pervasive magnetic fields in deep space affect the speed of light and therefore the distances of said objects.
Sicknessdoa 2 years ago
Einstein demonstrated that light is curved by a gravitational field, so its speed must be there accelerated, much as air passing over the top surface of a wing accelerates. I haven't studied since high school, but it seems obvious to me that light speed fluctuates.
nomre2me 1 year ago
light speed can move slower, but never faster than within a vacuum.
You can even slow it down using water or glass.
Diamond slows it down most though, and even then only by a fifth at most.
So even if the light had travelled through a perfect path of diamond, it would still only throw off our results by a few billion years.
Of course, we can actually see what we're looking at, and we use parallaxes to determine the distance of an object, meaning you'd need (by chance) a sphere of glass in space
SamdeSquirell 1 year ago
to obscure results successfully.
Gravity does bend light, but this is also accounted for by taking parallaxes.
I dare say scientists have other methods for double, triple and quadruple checking the safety of their theories.
SamdeSquirell 1 year ago
You are giving Plait too much credit and too much power. He has at best a very cursory understanding of both gravity (general relativity) and electromagnetism - he's just a run-of-the-mill PhD without much real talent for anything but running his mouth. By attacking him, you make him look important. He's just a lot of web noise. Forget about him and your message will come across better.
antimatterXXXIII 2 years ago
Fair point, but hopefully if anyone searchs for Plait they will also stumble upon my video. Tx. Soup
soupdragon42 2 years ago
LOL good call.
ChrisFreely78 2 years ago
I would remove the "Take me Away" insults. Let those people do the insulting.
antimatterXXXIII 2 years ago
I am having a gentle dig back, minus the vitriol. The music delivers the message; I do not resort to ad hominems in any literal sense.
soupdragon42 2 years ago
It's very nice to see this video on You Tube, peoples eyes need to be opened. The EM force is 39 orders of magnitude greater than this mythical force we call gravity. We've never seen a graviton directly or indirectly. Personally I think NASA knows how much electricity is flowing over our heads every second and either chooses not to or cannot tell us for reasons I dont care to understand. Think about what would happen if electricity was so plentiful is was free....
Arkili 2 years ago
@Arkili It's not either/or - GR is right in its realm, gravity and EM are equally long-range with gravity dominating when matter is neutral.
antimatterXXXIII 2 years ago
@Arkili
wow. I'm almost speechless. Dude, denying gravity is like denying that the earth is round. It takes all kinds I guess. You say we haven't directly seen a graviton, when the EU hypothesis has yet to make a testable prediction that either
a) accurately reflects observed cosmology, or
b) is not better/more accurately explained by more standard/mainstream cosmological theories.
This is utter silliness.
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion We do not know what gravity is. We can only describe the force mathematically, but not what it is. Claiming that is results from spacetime curvature merely replaces a mathematcial description with an abstract mathematical description. In reality this get us no where. Deal with it.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
U said it! Electricity in space!!! super omega MAHOOO! Praise God for making such an interesting place 2 live in!
onimotoko 1 year ago
It is a very good video I am going to look at part two!!
nickharvey7 2 years ago
I love your video. How neat and outstanding.
beatriXkibo 2 years ago
5 senses?
a sense 6th sense has to record those 5 into perception; a 7 to understand perception. QUANTUM PHYSICS (MATH) IS A JOKE. holographic universe is a mistranslation of an occult idea; that all will return to the "unknown(able)"; the unknowable being the only unknowable to a constant state and not subject to dissolution.
holographic universe dogma an ignorant dogma. just google stephen crothers
phicromnoj 2 years ago
Stephen J Crothers is mentioned in a few of my videos. Look up my 'Numbers Game' vid. Best. Soup
soupdragon42 2 years ago
nomre2me
Lay off the shrooms
magnuslerbrekk 2 years ago
lol I think he's refering to summin like what's called the Holographic Universe mate.
/watch?v=oocyxI8MH-c&feature=related
29Gixxer 2 years ago
With the Hologaphic universe theory, everythiing is believed to be an illusion including matter.
Quantum Physics also suggests this.
As in how do we know the 5 senses we have are all there is?
The universe to a mole is alot different than what it is to us so maybe it's the same regarding us?
Whatever the case, if you look at that link i posted it looks like there's going to be some made virtual reality games in the future :)
29Gixxer 2 years ago
Think about it. If all our senses are simply electrical signals (which they are) then these signals can be overrided. In other words if you were to connect our brain to a PC and feed it these elecrical signals then even the sense of touch can be replicated. Your brain would think it's reality. The plight humans are in is they are limited to just the 5 senses so we will never be able to undertand the meaning/reality of the universe if it turns out there are more senses.
Buddismn understood this.
29Gixxer 2 years ago
Comments from Prometheus4096 removed. Claiming that Plasma Cosmology is creationism in disguise is nonsensical. No such claims can possibly be justified.
soupdragon42 2 years ago
hmm so let me get it straight you removed comments because you didn't agree with the arguments someone else made???
kogolz 2 years ago
They failed to qualify as arguments and clearly constituted abuse and misrepresentation.
soupdragon42 2 years ago
Good vid, thanks for sharing.
Keruaran 2 years ago
Matter is an illusion. All is energy and electricity. People see you as you project, and things as they have been schooled. You can change your Reality with your mind by adjusting your attitude. Thought is self-directed energy, and God is self-creating, self-directed energy. Atoms are varied forms of energy rotating gravitationally. There is nothing else in the physical, mental, or spiritual universes.
nomre2me 2 years ago
Gravity is a trivial force at all levels.
soupdragon42 2 years ago
I agree. That's why the physical universe is so unstable.
nomre2me 2 years ago
Yeah can't touch anything without the place going up in flames..geez.
ChrisFreely78 2 years ago
anyone know the first song in this video?
derangius 2 years ago
It's in the more info
soupdragon42 2 years ago
yeah i saw it a second after i commented making me feel like a big ol fat goof tits hahaha. thanks though man
derangius 2 years ago
Pliatt is horribly constipated as is the rest of mainstream science. We see this over and over in many disciplines. What gives??
legion3721 2 years ago
read the bible and forget this nonsense. after billions upon billions of years of investigation they will come to notice that the bible is right
AristYdes 2 years ago
Right about what exactly? Is it your intention to promote a creationist viewpoint, or are you simply suggesting that there is evidence of Intelligent Design behind the Universe? The latter is a philosophical matter outside the realm of science and religion, anyway. Please try to be more specific. Best. Soup
soupdragon42 2 years ago
An intelligent design implies a creator, and a creator implies an intelligent design (assuming that god isnt a retarded). Both things are the same. And philosophy is the base of science, but religion is the base of philosophy. So religion is the base of science.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Yes, Intelligent Design implies a creative force. However, religion is not the base of philosophy. Philosophy means the love of knowledge, and it has three main pillars - Epistemology (knowing), Ontology (doing), and Ethics.
soupdragon42 2 years ago
You may analyze the constitution of philosophy as much as you can, but in the search of principles you will come to God sooner or later.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Who created the creator, and if no-one then why can't the universe simply be created by no-one? The creator must be more complex than the created, don't forget.
Individualism101 2 years ago
The Creator was created by Himself. The Creator can create Himself because He has the power to create and is capable of understanding Himself. I would say that the Creator can´t be less complex than His creation.
AristYdes 2 years ago
This doesn't make any sense. If the creator can 'create itself' -- whatever that means then so can the universe. There is no need for a creator.
Individualism101 2 years ago
Yes, if you are wrong then i am right. Your logic amazes me, really.
AristYdes 2 years ago
No. You are using circular reasoning -- which is a fallacy. And I am merely demonstrating that the same fallacy can be equally applied to the universe itself. If the creator doesn't need to have been created then neither does the universe.
By your own incorrect [logical] standard your theory is inconsistent.
Individualism101 2 years ago
If its a fallacy then its not valid when applied to the universe either. And my theory should be inconsistent by a correct logical standard. If my logical standard is incorrect then what does it matter what is consistent or inconsistent by it?
AristYdes 2 years ago
Anyway, you misunderstand me. I believe that the Creator needs to have been created. And He created Himself. You can conceive that Self Creation as many times as you want. Check the rules of our classical logic. The first one and more important of them is A=A.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Self creation violates causality. Your argument is based on causality. Your argument is in contradiction with its own premise.
Individualism101 2 years ago
Causality implies that there must be a cause for everything. So the cause of anything cant be nothing. But if the cause of something is that same thing then it isnt nothing but something and there is a cause for it. I believe that the only Being that has the privilege of being His own Creator is God, because its there that the chain of causes and consequences in the universe has its beginning.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Something cannot be it's own cause. Causality is about the relationship of events through time. For some event to cause another event to occur, the first event necessarily must happen first.
Saying something is its own cause is the same as saying it has no cause.
Individualism101 2 years ago
But God created Himself before creating the universe. There was no time nor space there. So causality was a completely different thing that only followed the rules of logic.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Anyway, the consequence cannot be first, but i wouldnt be so sure that the cause must be first. Any piece of matter is composed of particles that keep themselves together through forces bla bla bla. You explain how it is in one inapprehensible instant. And why is it that that piece of matter keeps being the same through time? Isnt it being selfcreated each instant as small as you like it?
AristYdes 2 years ago
A wave [past] is the cause of itself [present], if you want to put it like that. But a wave [present] can't be the cause of itself [present].
Causality requires a sequence of events. Something cannot be its own cause in the sense you are advocating.
Individualism101 2 years ago
OK. I admit what you write about what has been created, that is, the universe. But if we talk about God as Creator, we assume He existed before the universe (cause and consequence in the common sense, right?). Time and space and the kind of causality you mention are real in the universe. But if God was real before the universe, why did it have to be space and time there?
AristYdes 2 years ago
Couldnt instant zero have lasted an eternity in no-any-where? If zero, there is no need for one. Logic was necessary because intelligence and design were needed, but logic, and language, dont need time nor space. Remember, "in the beginning was the Word". Its all in the bible.
AristYdes 2 years ago
What is instant zero?
The bible is a compilation of stylized historical records and fictional stories. It is not a scientific paper, it has no rational argument behind it. It is a religious document. Its contents are accepted on faith and faith alone.
You should realize there is no evidence to support the existence of god and that your church (and government) is nothing more than an authoritarian institution designed to control and farm you like livestock.
Individualism101 2 years ago
Instant zero is the "time" before time, thats why its "time" and not time (time didnt create itself).
The bible has more than historical records and fictional stories. It has many great intuitions about the cosmos. All scientific theories start like that, and the proves come always after. You cant blame those guys for not having experimented nor rationalized three thousand years ago. If you take those intuitions in the context of their time you can develop real science in the context of ours.
AristYdes 2 years ago
There is no evidence to support the existence of God. Is there any evidence against it? You see, science has gone through many views of the world. This same video is discussing the current one. So, it may be probable that tomorrow god is proved and what science believes discarded. Im sure we havent understood God completely yet. Im not saying the bible is wrong with this. Im saying we need to develop our interpretation.
AristYdes 2 years ago
It might happen that in the future religion and science fuse in only one knowledge. Remember that the early church rejected ancient science because it was linked to paganism. And that early modern science was fought because it meant a threat to the earthly power of the church. Scientists became atheists only because of what church had made of religion. All this has nothing to do with real knowledge.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Im sure my church (and government) is nothing more than an authoritarian institution designed to control and farm me like livestock (this happens to be true by chance, because you know nothing about where I live). But I´m a free man and God, if real as I believe, doesnt care about what humans institutions make of Him on earth.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Really?
Isn't the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
"Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of your God"
You realize of course that if you are to be a real Christian you must be a complete altruist and give up all your possessions to spread the word.
Individualism101 2 years ago
In all this discussion ive stated that I believe in God and only Him. Is science a god?
"Wrongful use". That doesnt define "wrongful" and "rightful" and I do my best to make a rightful use according to my conscience.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Youre wrong with the last thing you say. If you give up all your possessions you are a perfect christian, you are like Jesus and Jesus was God Himself. We are humans. I mean, do you have to perfectly obey the law to be a "real" citizen? You wouldnt be human either. Nevertheless, that has nothing to do with this discussion.
AristYdes 2 years ago
21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. There is still one thing you havent done, he told him. Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. 22 At this the mans face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!
Individualism101 2 years ago
21 jesus told him: "IF YOU WANT TO BE PERFECT, go, sell what youve got and give it to the poor..."
AristYdes 2 years ago
In verse 26, shortly after, it says "to men thats impossible, but for God everything is possible" when disciples ask him who could be saved when its clear that nobody can have nothing. That means you can be good in the eyes of God even if you dont give up everything material, which the apostles did although they were human (but one of them was a traitor, another denied him and they were only twelve people and there cant be more).
AristYdes 2 years ago
Verse 26 is just the standard religious kick-in-the-balls. You are asked to adhere to an impossible standard, which you will never fulfill by its very definition. This is again what altruism is.
Jesus is saying "you must be an altruist"
and his followers protest that this is impossible by definition, and Jesus just blows them off by telling them "nothing is impossible with god."
Hey man it's your crazy religion, I didn't write it.
Individualism101 2 years ago
So all the geometry and arithmetics and mathematics in which science is based is crazy. Have you ever seen a real circle? I mean, a perfect one. All our language is to be thrown away then. It puts limits to reality and what falls inside those limits is certain thing. Why? Have you ever seen that limit? What are you talking about when you talk about "man"? This one, that one, some man that is everyone at the same time? Where is that man?
AristYdes 2 years ago
I show you a circle and tell you that is a group of points which maximum distance to some point is the same. Then you could say: "but that cant happen in the MATERIAL world". And I could blow you off by telling you "nothing is impossible to intelligence, to imagination, to the mind" which is equal to God in the sense that perfection is there. But does that imply that it isnt useful to consider many things as circles? Havent that worked in human history? Doesnt that work for you in everyday life?
AristYdes 2 years ago
Anyway, when he says "to men thats impossible, for God everything is possible" I believe he means "men cant save themselves, only God can save them", which is, after all, the result of the fact that we are human beings, mortal, imperfect, and only God is perfect.
AristYdes 2 years ago
Comment removed
MyOtherBeaver 2 years ago
Comment removed
MyOtherBeaver 2 years ago
The Big Bang also violates causality!
soupdragon42 2 years ago
He was trying to prove that im wrong through my own principles.
AristYdes 2 years ago
But, suppose the Creator was created by no-one, there would still be Him and His creation and it doesnt make sense a creation without a creator. I mean, its not only a chain with one less link, youre cutting it where it changes the whole thing. If I supposed the Creator is uncreated, I wouldnt find any good reason in discarding my beliefs just because of it.
AristYdes 2 years ago