Pfhoenix wrote:What would really be interesting, and of actual useful discussion value, would be looking at the internal plasma process by which a gas giant or star would build up a plasma body ejecta without ejecting it externally.
Pfhoenix wrote:Another interesting topic would be - assuming that life on Earth did start inside a gas giant, what do you think the effect on societal development would have been on mankind if Earth had stayed there? Look at the diversity of life, the sheer numbers of species, in prehistory, and look at the numbers now. Mass extinctions have happened over relatively very short spans of time. The history of such events can be counted on one hand, and the life that rebounds is *always* less numerous. Perhaps the radiation that leads to evolutionary changes in a species was more prevalent in the past. What would the effects of being in such a space environment (inside a gas giant) have on space travel development? There'd be no moon to go after, after all. What about the development of plasma technology? Would the ambient electrical environment on Earth be so significantly different as to hinder or help the discoveries of electricity and magnetism?
Pfhoenix wrote:The neighborhood was already on its way to going, which is why I spoke up - to hopefully open people's eyes to the pit they're already half in.
Ego is not the problem here. I do not pretend to know everything; I do not pretend that I am infallible. I do not, conversely, say something without thinking it through.
The real problem lays in your claim of "intolerance of difference". It's not as if you claimed that apples are great and I disagree. We're not talking about some simple difference of personal opinion here. We're talking about Science - something based on cold logic and reason; observation of reality and induction of rules there from. If you think my disagreeing with you is due to intolerance on my part, then you have completely failed to understand what it was I was saying. Just because you think that anything can be possible doesn't make it so. My not having an "open enough mind" in your eyes does not negate the facts and evidence that speak volumes against what flights of fancy you hold.
If the best you can do to aid the public awareness of the EU model is by pushing tolerance of different models, then you have equally failed to understand the EU model, why it is so important, and what sets it apart from the other models being pushed. It will be people like you that will ultimately undermine any effort by serious minded people to bring the EU model to a more widely recognized position as a model of authenticity.
redeye wrote:Who are you calling a crackpot!
Oh.......me......fair enough.
Pfhoenix wrote:
"We did not have reason. Not until about 700 bc or so." By looking at some of the posts in this forum, a hard case to make about even now.
Pfhoenix wrote:While I'm at it, I also would like the EU model to be separated from the Saturnian Theory. The philosophical foundation (some mystical racial memory of a lost eden) is not solid, and while I recognize the electric processes at work that create craters and valleys like Valle Marinaris on Mars, that says nothing about the purely speculative nature of a reconstructed history of the solar system. The Saturnian Theory needs to be kept out of the cosmological model that is the EU model, and properly place strictly in a historical theory framework.
Pfhoenix wrote:I completely agree - studying classic fields (like chemistry, though perhaps a poor example as it hasn't, to my knowledge, suffered the blindsight that cosmology and astronomy has) with a new electric perspective can only be enlightening.
That being said, accepting the Saturnian Theory as a core part of the EU model will only provide a barrier to people otherwise interested in learning more about the EU model.
(snip)
On the flip side, mythology can be studied without the EU model in place. That you can take myths and squeeze out an EU explanation doesn't support the EU model as much as you want it to - I could come up with any fanciful explanation that covers the "facts" of the myths that, to the outside person, would seem just as reliable. You're dealing with myths that have been rewritten and reinterpreted thousands upon thousands of times by different people at different times; accepting any current version as the actual basis is the hugest leap of faith of them all. The subject matter is one that started *and ended* millenia prior. It is this reason alone that I don't care for the mythological study that goes on, and I prefer to stick with analyzing the planets we can see right now, with data we're obtaining right now, along side experiments made and verified right now.
arc-us wrote:what ramifications would a change of magnetic (not geographical) polarity of the Earth have for biological systems?
Arc-us
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: kmcook and 2 guests