Electrically charged rocks?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Marcus,
There's a lot of mainstream uniformitarian stuff in your post so expect a good kicking

[Lloyd]

[Most?] Sand is made of silica compounds, which are created by extreme heating. The initial heat of course was provided by the ignition of our sun, but subsequent heating is made by the compression of our core. - Marcus

* Well, Marcus, you seem fairly oblivious to the main body of evidence of this website and the EU theory based on that evidence. Do you not read the TPODs? Your excerpt that I quoted is about as far as I bothered to read of your post.
* Anyway, the Earth has likely never been significantly heated by the sun at all, since the Earth, Mars, Venus and the present Saturn system and possibly the Jupiter system and maybe others were likely part of a separate system outside the solar system until about 10,000 years ago or later. This extra-solar system was captured by the sun at that time. The surfaces of the planets and moons have been greatly heated and eroded by electrical forces about 5,000 years ago, so most surface features were heated, cooled and formed about that time. The Great Flood also occurred about then and that also had a major effect on surface conditions. So you have a lot to catch up on around here.

[MarcusDrake]

Grey Cloud,

I never post under the assumption that no one will try to give me a good thrashing. I look forward to the challenge, that is, when people bother to actually read what I have to say.


Lloyd, if you haven't read the entire post then you shouldn't bother replying to it! You can't refute or even discuss something you haven't read!


I participate in these forums not only to diversify and extend my knowledge base, but also to do the same for others. We may not always agree on the details, and certainly some people (and they are everywhere, not just here) have completely lost touch with reality, but the primary purpose here is to discuss how mainstream science and the hypothetical views of some extraordinary thinkers can be combined to come up with real explanations for the mysteries of the universe.

All I ask is that we keep the discussions real and grounded in real scientific method. I don't have to subscribe to anyone's notions about the age of the universe or how the universe was created in order to enjoy an intellectual discussion.

I must say that usually I am the one out in left field proposing ideas that are ludicrous to everyone else. This is the first site I've found where I am the more conservative of those participating, and it is quite refreshing to play the other side for a change.

Now, back to Lloyd. Lloyd, it is quite obvious that there are a great number of people here, yourself included, that have come to the conclusion that the Earth and solar system are quite young for some reason. I'm curious to know if the idea of a young earth came before or after the discovery of the EU, and what gave you the idea of a young Earth to begin with.

Secondly, I'd like to know why those who believe in a young Earth continue to do so despite an overwhelming amount of proof otherwise, not even including radiometric dating. While I can understand how one may find substantial errors in the scientific community, I don't see how that warrants dismissing the scietific method altogether. After all, EU has just as much credence as any other theory, including my own.

You see, I don't simply quote science books. In fact, I almost never do, because I do real research and come to my own conclusions based on my own observations and having no predetermined agenda or bias towards the results. I don't care if everything I've been taught is wrong as long as the answers I get make sense. Many long standing scientific answers don't make sense, and quite frankly, some of this EU stuff doesn't make sense. BUT, when I look at EU with an artists eye and compare it with traditional theories I can see a pattern emerging. Somewhere between the two extremes the truth is to be found.

So, as I was saying before, silica is created when minerals are superheated. This is fact. Silica is a form of glass and there is only one way to make glass: Lots and lots of heat. One may create the heat with friction or pressure or nuclear fusion or electricity, but it's still created by heat.

Now, Lloyd go back and read the REST of my other post and we'll continue the discussion.

[davesmith_au]

Please allow my interjection to correct a misconception.

Lloyd, it is quite obvious that there are a great number of people here, yourself included, that have come to the conclusion that the Earth and solar system are quite young for some reason. I'm curious to know if the idea of a young earth came before or after the discovery of the EU, and what gave you the idea of a young Earth to begin with.

As far as I am aware Marcus, there are no serious proponents of EU theory who will even try to estimate the age of the Earth or the solar system. There is NOTHING in EU theory which even hints at a young Earth.

Some of the features ON the Earth (and indeed on some of the other bodies in the solar system) are indeed thought to have been created in relatively recent epochs, but EU says nothing at all about the age of the solar system or of the Earth itself. Indeed, uniformitarians and mainstream science seem to have settled on a whole universe only 13.somethingorother billion years old. EU on the other hand does not subscribe to the Big Bang or necessarily to an expanding universe, so the age thereof is simply not ascertainable, and to the theory, quite unimportant. Suffice to say, I don't know of any EU theorist who thinks the Earth is only maybe 6000 years old, or 10,000 years old, or even 4.5 billion years old.

Cheers, Dave.

[mharratsc]

The following quotes are from Marcus:

The initial heat of course was provided by the ignition of our sun, but subsequent heating is made by the compression of our core.

a. Many EU/PC proponents are firm believers that Earth, Venus, and Mars were originally planets in orbit around the brown dwarf Saturn, before it was captured by the Sun and de-energized into a gas planet. If so- the Earth was never signifigantly heated by the Sun whatsoever- it may have been hot when it was ejected from Saturn, however. This Saturnian belief is grounded in Comparative Mythology vs plasma science, however the notion is easily within the bounds of physical possibility.
b. 'Compression of the (supposed) planetary core' is pure conjecture. There is probably more evidence that the Earth is built like a geode than there is regarding a vast molten ball of metal. The Earth is a semiconductor in a vast electrical circuit, and heats up the same way as the CPU in the computer you are using.

So soil provides an easy way for electric currents to flow and prevents a build up of extreme voltaic potentials.

Mainstream physics would have us believe that charge equalization is the normal condition for the universe. The discovery that 99.9% of the Universe is plasma displays that the opposite is true- charge separation is the norm, and equalization is an event, not a condition. Without knowing how charge separation exists in plasmas, anyone attempting to study the nature of the Universe- or anything in it- is seeing only one small perspective of things.

A Carbon-14 atom always has a half-life of around 5600 years. We can rather accurately date materials based on not only Carbon-14 measurements, but also using other isotopes that exist in rock.

I would suggest you read this thread for some eye-opening information regarding the 'accuracy' of carbon dating:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ilit=decay

We've found tons of impact material at the bottoms of craters and a great deal of other evidence to confirm that celestial bodies have fallen to earth and made these holes.

Fragments, shocked material, and fulgurites do not make evidence of a meteor strike. 'A great deal of evidence' exists that demonstrates only the slowest of meteors will ever hit the earth with much bulk left to it. As far as I know- none of the 'great' impact craters had anything other than particulates found in it (Arizona's famous meteor crater, for example). Additionally, Wal Thornhill especially has shown that the morphology of "impact" craters show more characteristics of electrical machining than ballistic impact, citing numerous qualifying observations to back up the claims.

There is some speculation ( and some very convincing information) that a comet exploding over the Great Lakes brought an end to almost all life in North America (and possibly an end to Atlantis) 13,000 years ago.

Oddly, EU proponents state that almost all high velocity meteors end up doing exactly this- blowing up well above the surface... yet mainstream doesn't see the correlation. If a meteor were to blow up due to a charge equalization event, it would put out copious synchotron radiation that would probably indeed cause a great deal of biological damage to exposed flora & fauna. No doubt mainstream believes that a "shockwave" is the culprit. They like that word- "shockwave"! It has a nice ring to it! "Shockwave"....

Anyhow, Marcus- these are the major points of difference I see between your 'semi-mainstream' perspective and that of the EU/PC proponents. In the spirit of questing for greater knowledge, I offer all the above counterpoints without malice or ill-will, and I hope you realize I mean no offense by my offering different perspectives and explanations to the points you raised.

I came here much as you did- having mostly mainstream explanations for our Universe, and was completely taken-aback by the information and opinions that I found here at Thunderbolts and the related EU/PC sites (most especially regarding the disputed history of the human race). However, the more I read, the more I learned... let's just say that the ideas proposed here ,with the evidence they provide, is most convincing!

Mike H.

[MarcusDrake]

Mike, I appreciate your input!

As to the facts regarding impact craters, the famous Barringer crater in Arizona yielded a meteorite which was 50 meters across, far from mere particles. Calculations estimate the meteor was traveling anywhere between 45,000 and 28,000 miles per hour. It's also well-documented that once impact craters were identified as such, and that the meteorites within were rich in metal ore, prospectors were quick to begin mining craters for the ore. Many meteorites have been found in ice and snow after surviving the fiery descent through our atmosphere and so we know that they could not have been created by fusion of minerals at the impact sites.

I've known for quite some time that Carbon-14 dating is not the most accurate, but there are other means to date some things that are often used to verify C-14 dating methods, such as correlation to known events. For example, we know the age of the pyramids by tracing written historical records that survive from the time and subsequent c-14 dating can be compared with that knowledge and used as a calibration. Tree ring data is frequently used as a baseline for c-14 levels, as well. This doesn't prove that all c-14 dating is accurate, simply that other dating methods can be used to verify some of the dating that is done using radiocarbon dating. There are other elements which exist in rocks that can used for radioactive dating as well.

As for bombardment of carbon atoms in living things by cosmic rays and the like, that is highly unlikely. Almost all of the cosmic rays and other high-energy particles present in space are deflected or absorbed by the atmosphere and ionosphere. What little radiation does penetrate is what creates the c-14 in the first place. If cosmic radiation were to bombard a creature enough to change c-14 levels chances are likely that 1) it would die of radiation poisoning and 2)the increased c-14 levels would give an inaccurate measurement toward a lower number. In other words, an irradiated mummy would appear to be from 1000 BCE as opposed to 2000 BCE, for example.

These methods are not perfect, but are close enough to give rough estimates. Many factors affect every experiment and they all can't be compensated for.


I know that EU in and of itself does not subscribe to a young earth theory, but when dates of 11,000 BCE are mentioned and individuals claim those dates are pure fantasy, it makes one wonder where they got this idea to begin with.

Now as far as the earth's core and mantle are concerned, I find this argument very very shaky. The mathematics just don't add up. I really don't know where to begin on this on, there's so much to contend with. First, the Earth's crust is not strong enough to support itself. Any large cavity inside the planet would quickly collapse under the weight of kilometers of crust. Any small crack in the surface would allow the oceans to drain. In fact, any liquid under the surface would quickly seek it's lowest level and there would be no water nor magma nor volcanoes. Plate tectonics would not exist. Secondly, even if the earth were hollow and it could support itself it would have only a fraction of the gravitational pull that it actually does. Third, without a liquid mantle and solid core it would have no magnetic field and the atmosphere along with the oceans would evaporate, just as they did on Mars.

Temperatures increase dramatically as you descend deeper into the crust, eventually reaching higher than the melting point of rock. The fact we have hot liquid rock underneath us is proof enough that there is something keeping that liquid near the surface. The conjecture is more in the geode theory, IMO.

My CPU gets hot because silicon provides resistance to the flow of electricity and that resistance bleeds off electrical potential in the form of heat, if there was that much electricity flowing through the earth from the sun and other planets, it wouldn't just heat it's core it would also melt the surface and everything on it.

As to the brown dwarf hypothesis, what could possibly de-energize Jupiter and steal the planets away from orbiting it? In every simulation I've ever seen of system interactions such as you refer to, the original system is displaced entirely or the original system, intact (although disturbed) enters orbit around the new parent. If you want to discuss brown dwarf ideas, I have one for you: there are some who think that there is a brown dwarf orbiting the outskirts of our solar system, far beyond Pluto, with a few planets in tow.



Now, to the Plasma. Yes, there is a great deal of ionized gas in our universe. It's not surprising at all to see it everywhere since the very foundation of our universe is electromagnetic. Scientists have puzzled over why the universe is so orderly and stuck together when they don't seem to be able to find enough matter to create sufficient gravity to hold it all together. That's because they haven't considered static cling. Huge clouds of ionized gases are not just attracted by gravity but by electrostatic charge as well.

Charge equalization is normal because the universe is always seeking balance. Every element wants to be a noble gas. Anything that has excess electrons or positrons wants to get rid of them as soon as possible. In space there is plenty of insulation so charges remain separated for a long time. I'm curious to know if there is lightning in nebulae and what that might look like.


Back to the meteors, I don't see how synchrotronic radiation would play a role in a meteor explosion as there would be very little of that going on. Synchrotron radiation is produced by charged particles traveling in a curved path, such as in a particle accelerator. The path a meteor streaking toward Earth takes is much more gradual a curve, it wouldn't produce much synchrotron radiation at all, if any. If charge equalization occurred between ground and an incoming meteor sufficient enough to detonate it, wouldn't the bolt of lightning produced have some sort of physical effect on the ground? After the Tunguska blast of 1908 no crater of any kind was ever found, but I've seen the earth blown open by a normal lightning bolt. Also, limbs were stripped from trees under the blast, but the trunks were intact, as opposed to trees split wide by lightning strikes.


I surely love this forum and the new ideas I've been exposed to, but I think there is still quite a bit to learn for all of us, myself included. Because we do not agree with traditional science on all fronts, we must be all that much more determined to study science and understand where the established theories come from better to understand where we can take it ourselves with a clear vision unobstructed by paradigm and traditionalism. We must not fall into the pit of fitting our science to our ideas, but the other way around. Do not look for proof of your hypothesis, simply find the truth.

[mharratsc]

Umm Marcus...

Everything that you stated in your post above is pretty mainstream. That means it's been hashed & thrashed on every mainstream (read 'almost every single') related science website on the planet.

We're aware of what mainstream thinks. No really, we are. We just happen to not agree with the mainstream.


That's why we're here, after all...

My suggestion is that you maybe check out the related links to electric-cosmos, holoscience, and plasma-universe. Scroll through the many, many TPOD's in the archive, and consider what you can take away from your visits here, vs. what you can leave behind.

It's not as though we stepped off the turnip truck with absolutely no exposure to the 'Truth as Mathematicians Know It'...

VR,

Mike H.

[MarcusDrake]

Maybe you can direct me to specific posts to read, there is really far too much to simply start reading it all and I would like to see where these ideas come from.

While you may say I am coming from a mainstream position, I'm really coming from a common sense position. I've found the more SELF-educated I've become the MORE my ideas have varied from mainstream, but we still have to depend on things like mathematics. No matter what, 1 + 1 = 2. Every major debate I've had with people concerning my ideas has either been with fundamentalist religious types or educated scientists. Either way, these people suffered from a lack of knowledge and understanding, mostly due to belief dictating the course of education. I don't care if you are a geologist, chances are likely your geology degree didn't include coursework on ancient mythology or astrobiology. Narrowly focused education results in a narrowly focused eye. IE, you can't see the big picture.
The biggest mistake people make is to look for proof of what they already know instead of willing to change what they know to seek truth.

I am more than willing to listen, but you have to put up with my skepticism and rebut my comments in a logic way that makes sense logically and scientifically. Mainstream or not, I'm here to learn, but I hope that maybe some of you can perhaps learn something from me as well.

Your "mainstream" comments remind me of my ex-father-in-law who, being a die-hard republican, would hear me say something about politics, reply "that sounds like a bleeding heart liberal idea" and that was end of discussion. Who cares? The point is discussion and debate, not dismissal because the idea disagrees with your own.

So, Mike I encourage you, and everyone else to participate with me in this discussion so that we all might grow. Don't simply send me off to read your ideas, I want a conversation!

[GaryN]

'Umm Marcus...'

Now as far as the earth's core and mantle are concerned, I find this argument very very shaky. The mathematics just don't add up. I really don't know where to begin on this on, there's so much to contend with. First, the Earth's crust is not strong enough to support itself. Any large cavity inside the planet would quickly collapse under the weight of kilometers of crust.

Might I respectfully suggest, if you wish to continue your self taught education, a MUST, imho, is to read Buckminster Fuller. There is a lot of his information on the 'net, but I picked one that may be a good starting point.

Now here is the real statement of things as they are visible or invisible, soundful or silent, tangible or intangible, etc. ALL MATTER visible or invisible is naturally a perfect sphere or spheroidal in shape.

http://members.cruzio.com/~devarco/energy.htm

[MarcusDrake]

While that was an interesting read Gary, I don't see how it applies to what I stated concerning the geode nature of the Earth. Our planet is indeed a sphere, but I don't see any indication whatsoever that it is a hollow sphere.

[GaryN]

Hi Marcus,
What I was alluding to was your statement about a shell earth not being able to support itself. How strong is a pinpong ball, or an egg when you try to squeeze it, why are many deep sea probes spherical? A thin shelled geodesic half sphere has a snow load capability of about 5 miles. The shell of a theoretical hollow earth need not be very thick at all.

[redeye]

Our planet is indeed a sphere, but I don't see any indication whatsoever that it is a hollow sphere.

There is no evidence of the Earth's core. The liquid core is inferred from an absence of data.

The layering of Earth has been inferred indirectly using the time of travel of refracted and reflected seismic waves created by earthquakes. The core does not allow shear waves to pass through it, while the speed of travel (seismic velocity) is different in the other layers. The changes in the seismic velocity between the different layers causes refraction owing to Snell's law. Reflections are caused by a large increase in seismic velocity and are similar to light reflecting from a mirror.

"Hollow earth", at first, sounds a little like "flat Earth" and is guaranteed to get people rolling their eyes and looking for reasons to end the conversation. But if you reduce the Earth's internal structure down to what we actually know you get a solid, homogenous, hollow sphere. If we are going to start inferring data then we should look at other planets. In our Solar system the larger a planet is, the less mass it has, proportionally. Jupiter is the least massy planet, relative to it's size, and Mercury is the most massy. I think this is strongly suggestive that Planets are hollow. The Sun is the most hollow of all. Sunspots allow us to see inside.

BTW, I noticed a great picture of rippled sand in a post earlier and not only does it remind one of magnetic flux lines, but it also resembles something everyone has right at their fingertips: Finger prints.

That is brilliant!

p.s. is it okay to make the quote a link to the source or should I state the source?...cos it's from wiki...as usual.

Cheers!

[bboyer]

This has been referenced/referred to before in some thread or other, but perhaps may prove useful here as well.

Hollow Planet Seismology Vs Solid Earth Seismology
http://www.hollowplanets.com/journal/seismic01.asp

[allynh]

Hi, Marcus,

You might want to read through all of the TPODs and the related links. Watch a few of the videos, read some of the books. It took me two months, spending two or three hours a day, to get up to speed on the basics, and that's when the scary stuff finally started making sense.

Give yourself the chance to get caught up on the EU stuff rather than spin your wheels trying to convince people about stuff that has been dismissed as mainstream dogma.

If you haven't read The Electric Sky by Donald Scott, read this old version that is online to get started.

You are in for the shock of your life.

[mharratsc]

I greatly appreciate your perspective, Marcus. Mine is very,very similar. I want to get to the bottom of things, and my understanding cannot have an "Employees Only Beyond This Point" sign on it

The difficulty lies in your request, which is a reflection of your complaint: There IS too much information on this subject for it to just be reiterated in a Forum. Certain points perhaps, but overall it would be too much for containment :\

Trust me- there is a beginning to all this. There's a synopsis, and categories that branch out from that from the micro of physics, to the macro, and even new mythological interpretations based upon the wholly different perspective imparted by an understanding of plasma physics.

The tricky part is getting that understanding of plasma physics going...

You see- electricity and resultant plasma (or vice versa depending on how you look at it!) are so much more pervasive than we've been led to believe in our understanding of the Universe, that we don't consider it's behavior and effects from the 'common sense' perspective. We see the effects of gravity getting out of bed in the morning, but do we see the effects of differences in charge moving air around our room, or the bahavior of the water in the sink? Nope. Nevertheless, it's there and it's making stuff happen!

My initial suggestion is go to http://www.holoscience.com and scan through the synopsis there. Also, http://www.electric-cosmos.org would be very enlightening. For the mythohistorical perspective (if you're into that also), check out http://www.mythopedia.info for some stuff that you will probably not immediately believe... until you hear how the Universe is really getting it's power, and then you will find yourself hard-pressed not to believe it!

Best of luck on the learning! It is more interesting than I think you imagine!

Mike H.