Pioneers for a better future

[KickLaBuka]

Arp, Manuel, Alfvien, Birkeland, Thornhill, Perratt, MGmirkin, Scott, Ratcliffe, Friberg, Vukcevic, Girart, Svalgaard, Jeurgens, Marmet, Hoyle, Kuroda, Pettengill. These are your pioneers. Please add names.

[D_Archer]

Nikolai Tesla
Xavier Borg
JL Naudin
David Talbott
Rens van der Sluijs

[starbiter]

Dr. Velikovsky, Mel and Amy Acheson, Dr. CJ Ransom, Michael Armstrong, Steve Smith

[Tzunamii]

Ben Franklin
Captain Kirk

[starbiter]

Livio C Stecchini, Alfred de Grazia [the Velikovsky Affair]

[Grey Cloud]

Who are these guys? The saints of the Church of the EU? Can we expect a list of their holy days? Get real.

[Osmosis]

Come on, GC, read up and pay attention

[Anaconda]

Hi KickLaBuka:

You need to give justification for Svalgaard.

I've had my turn with Svalgaard who is the resident helio-astrophysicist over at Watts Up With That?. Svalgaard is adamantly opposed to all things Electric Universe, Although, when Svalgaard was confronted with the NASA findings of electric currents in space, he did reluctantly acknowledged 'electric currents' do exist as Birkeland currents from the magneto tail to the Earth and as direct Birkeland currents from the Sun to the Earth as the result of coronal mass ejections (CME), but other than that (and that was reluctant and only after linking multiple NASA press releases confirming electric currents) Svalgaard was quick to hold Plasma Cosmology in contempt and tried to smear Dr. Anthony Peratt, until I linked Peratt's educational & professional vitae.

Svalgaard holds to "magnetic reconnection" and "frozen in" magnetic lines fields in plasma.

Svalgaard specifically holds to Dr. Eugene N. Parker's, "no electric currents in space" (magnetic fields cause electric currents). I have complete disagreement with Svalgaard on that issue and stated as such to Svalgaard directly over at Watts Up With That?.

KickLaBurka, you really need to explain yourself, HERE, and offer justification for your mention of Svalgaard, and, also, I might add for yourself, for many of the forum readers, including myself, want to read your ideas, HERE, and not "chase you down" with an e-mail.

You come across ideomatic, bubbling with ideas and confidence, but fail to communicate ideas (e-mail me for my ideas is not impressive, with all due respect): Where's the 'beef'?

Tell thunderbolts' forum readers, HERE!

And don't forget explaining your inclusion of Svalgaard -- from my interaction with him over at Watts Up With That?, Svalgaard is the worst of reactionaries and deserves no credit, whatsoever.

Maybe, you don't either, unless you come clean on this forum

[Grey Cloud]

Come on, GC, read up and pay attention

Read up and pay attention to what?

[Osmosis]

Hi, GC-You know what I'm asking you to do. Read the publications, available on the EU and pay attention to what they say about the universe. Oh, you probably have done so-

[Osmosis]

By the way, happy 4TH of July

[KickLaBuka]

Anaconda,

I am most urgent to respond: First, I included both Svalgaard and Girart because of reading of them on this forum—both weeks after offering my paper to the masses. I included both of them for the sole purpose of including others in the discovery, but it seems that attempt was misleading. Since then, my paper has not only been made available at my website, but also I have removed any inkling of request for an email address. That request was specifically suited for Google Analytics ONLY, and I am more interested in sharing the idea than I am in knowing which country the readers have come from.

That aside and even for the same reason, your question of my own credibility is warranted. My confidence does not accompany arrogance. I have quite humbly worked many long lonely nights with the “Faraday” approach to the Universe. But I’ll be quite clear on this, what I have done by offering up my paper in such a way, and by watching the reaction; I have not only purged the system of their most valued information—not only vindicated those who stand against it—but I have also trademarked the idea without actually publishing in a scientific journal. I expect that this is a new approach, but I will fight anyone who tries to steal it because I have plenty of documented, warranted, and notarized proof. I do apologize for forcing the issue in this way, but it was all I could think of.


If you would like me to share a few insights from my book which is now extremely public and available (with no strings) at my website, I will—but only a few of them. I do so only because you have asked, and I would much prefer people to read my book in its organized form because I feel it does a better job than by arguing on forums. It does force my opinion without argument; but I have also been writing it since September and it flows.

I claim to have expanded the Bohr Model to understand elements beyond Lithium. I claim to have also combined the cosmological curve with Manuel’s cradle of the nuclides. By doing so, I will kindly take credit for my “re-work” of the atom, by removing the strong force and the weak force.

I claim to have figured out the entire purpose of spinning in the first place. It has nothing to do with accretion disks, btw.

I claim to have reworked the EU models of magnetic field lines with respect to Birkeland currents and also to describe the center of our own galaxy. In the same token, I claim to have rationalized MASS as a requirement for such a disturbance. By doing so, I have justified the release of supermassiveness, the big bang, and acceleration of the Universe. I claim to have connected the turbulence of tropical storms to the pictorial observation of syfert galaxies. I claim to have likened Halton Arp’s observations with an electrical inductor. I claim to have revamped the lifecycle of a star; however, I have not read Talbott’s and Thornhill’s Electric Universe or Thunderbolts—and they may have implied it first.

I claim to have first offered the equation for emission, the insight for the line integral of the electromagnetic spectrum received.

By purging the system and forcing these issues to light, I have pissed off about fifty people who were exposed to the idea backwards as noted in my feedback. They have confirmed the electromass constant (and I only know that because I watched the purging via the internet). To them I am sorry for tricking them into both their reaction and by thwarting their efforts to describe the electromass constant first. Well, they still can offer up their 465 page book, but it must now include my name, Sandburg.


-Justin http://www.electromass.com

[KickLaBuka]

I would like justification for Rens van der Sluijs. A brief glance shows mythology of dragons. Please advise. I have a 7/6/09 updated report ready for upload. Neither the good Captain Kirk, nor Captain Morgan will be noted; however important.

-Justin

[D_Archer]

I would like justification for Rens van der Sluijs. A brief glance shows mythology of dragons. Please advise. I have a 7/6/09 updated report ready for upload. Neither the good Captain Kirk, nor Captain Morgan will be noted; however important.

-Justin

See:
> http://www.mythopedia.info
> http://www.mythopedia.info/tpods.html
> http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 080217.php

As a comparitive mythologist his work on the 'Axis mundi' as a construct of high energy plasma that was recorded in its various forms of appearance by ancient humans is most notable.
His work is of great value because of his methodical approach to resources for his claims. He is really pushing plasma mythology; a discipline still in its infancy, that is why he is a pioneer.

Regards,
Daniel

[KickLaBuka]

Kicklabuka - I claim to have connected the turbulence of tropical storms to the pictorial observation of syfert* galaxies

*Correction - strike syfert.

Kicklabuka - I claim to have combined* the cosmological curve with Manuel’s cradle of the nuclides

*Correction - change combined to "corellated."

With regard to Sluijs

His work is of great value because of his methodical approach to resources for his claims

His work seems Anthropological, interesting, and relevant. My exclusion of him and a few others (at this early stage of my credit investigation) may not seat well, but I will read more on his work. Hopefully, he will do the same with my work. I don't want to leave anybody out, but I also have been accused of including the wrong people as well, which I am most apologetic. Anyone who describes magnetic "reconnection" is a mistake to the cause, and I'll never forget Svalgaard now. Looking back, Anaconda himself was who mentioned Svalgaard, but I can see now that it wasn't in a positive tone.