What degrees does Wal Thornhill have ?

[WhiteLight]

I've been looking around but I can't readily find out , again , what degrees does Wal Thornhill have , I'm sure I read somewhere that he has a PhD in physics , is this correct ? Where from ? Does he have any other degrees ?

[Total Science]

I've been looking around but I can't readily find out , again , what degrees does Wal Thornhill have , I'm sure I read somewhere that he has a PhD in physics , is this correct ? Where from ? Does he have any other degrees ?

You must not've looked very hard. Ever heard of this thing called Google? It's pretty amazing what modern technology can do.

Also, a good place to start when looking for biographical information is to actually read the books of the author you are supposedly interested in.

So, for example, if you were to read Wal's book "The Electric Universe" (which I'm assuming you haven't) you might learn that Wal has a Bachelor of Science from Melbourne University where he majored in physics and electronics.

http://thunderboltsfilm.com/PAGES/thornhill.html

Wallace Thornhill earned a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies. Before entering university he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky’s best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. However, the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia.

[WhiteLight]

What's the deal with your sarcastic attitude TS ? I asked a simple couple of questions because I couldn't find the answers after trying to as you put it "Ever heard of this thing called Google?" my answer to your question to my question is

1) Yes i have heard of it

2) didn't get the answer I was looking for

3) Didn't your parents teach you it's rude to answer a question with a question ? lol

[Tina]

You must not've looked very hard. Ever heard of this thing called Google? It's pretty amazing what modern technology can do.

Also, a good place to start when looking for biographical information is to actually read the books of the author you are supposedly interested in.

So, for example, if you were to read Wal's book "The Electric Universe" (which I'm assuming you haven't) you might learn that Wal has a Bachelor of Science from Melbourne University where he majored in physics and electronics.

Yeah Total Science your response comes across as very abrasive its what I would expect from Physics Forum - but not here. Why make 'value judgments' about the question - just be helpful if you can help out - what's so wrong with that?

[Osmosis]

Everyone put the sandpaper away. A reminder that Mikamar publishing has loads of books on our favorite subjects. The costs of the books is quite reasonable-look them up.

[Brigit Bara]

Since White Light has expressed an interest in discussing EU on other forums and has asked about the mathematical underpinnings of EU on another thread, it might be time to go ahead and get one of the books. The bios are discussed so he can kill two birds with one stone.

The person I have had trouble finding anything about is Ralph Juergens. (He developed the electric sun hypothesis.) I finally found this entry about him.

http://www.velikovsky.info/Ralph_Juergens

Good day, BB

[Total Science]

White Light,

I apologize for the abrasiveness. It's just that it's absolutely irrelevant what degrees Wal has because truth is truth regardless of academic credentials. I assumed it was for the purpose of ad hominem attack.

[Total Science]

Yeah Total Science your response comes across as very abrasive its what I would expect from Physics Forum - but not here. Why make 'value judgments' about the question - just be helpful if you can help out - what's so wrong with that?

Sorry Tina. Must've been in a bad mood when I wrote that...

The person I have had trouble finding anything about is Ralph Juergens. (He developed the electric sun hypothesis.) I finally found this entry about him.

http://www.velikovsky.info/Ralph_Juergens

Good day, BB

Juergens, R.E., Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism, Kronia, 1972

Juergens, R.E., Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?, Kronos, Volume 4, Number 4, 1979

Juergens, R.E., The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun?, Kronos, Volume 4, Number 4, 1979

Juergens, J.E., Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy, Kronos, Volume 8, Number 1, 1982

Juergens, R.E., Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part 2), Kronos, Volume 8, Number 2, 1983

[Tina]

Must've been in a bad mood when I wrote that...

It's OK Total Science - I think you learned a lesson here

[Brigit Bara]

Thank you.

I had "The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun?" and found it very helpful while reading about the sun's granular photosphere in Chapter 3 of The Electric Universe. Others might too. It is really terrific complimentary reading.

Juergens makes an excellent case that

...it becomes increasingly obvious that photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. Surely the cellular structure is not to be expected.

Also,

"If one calculates the Rayleigh number appropriate to the bottom of the solar photosphere, one finds that it exceeds the critical value by five powers of ten and therefore the solar granulation should on this basis be an entirely random phenomenon. The fact that the observed granules have a pronounced cellular structure and a bright-dark asymmetry has not yet been explained by theory.''(18)

That is more than just a little sticking point for the nuclear model of the sun which blames the granular forms on convection.

The Electric Universe then goes on to explain that these forms can be explained because plasma tends to "tuft."

Happy EU reading to all :)

[WhiteLight]

White Light,

I apologize for the abrasiveness. It's just that it's absolutely irrelevant what degrees Wal has because truth is truth regardless of academic credentials. I assumed it was for the purpose of ad hominem attack.

No need to apologize , I was a bit snappy as well because of close minded people on other forums , we are all on the same side here but that doesn't necessarily make for good debate . I'm for ever asking people to join Thunderbolts Forum as a lot of people here are very knowledgable about EU/PC and i'm just a keen lay follower of the model and members here would be far better at converting the skeptics than myself as in truth my science knowledge is often not up to the task. I believed the Gravitationalists for decades even though the theory was slowly but surely becoming more absurd and I was beginning to feel a large amount of skepticism about the Gravity model and EU/PC was a breath of fresh air .

I asked about Wals qualifications as I was sick of skeptics making claims like for instance the one on the thread I started about the mathematics behind EU/PC and others totally denigrating the science. I've been insulted , had my intelligence questioned , been called a creationist etc etc and in truth it's very frustrating dealing with such arrogance from know all know nothings and close-minded a**holes.

[Tina]

.... I've been insulted , had my intelligence questioned , been called a creationist etc etc and in truth it's very frustrating dealing with such arrogance from know all know nothings and close-minded a**holes.

I got some good advice recently from Steve Smith (TPOD) - basically that "debates" are just banging your head on brick wall and a waste of time - so spend time on EU (or anything for that matter) in a positive creative way - debating doesn't convince anyone of anything!

So don't roll around in the mud with these foolish people they are hateful and never receptive to EU ideas or the truth...

[davesmith_au]

As a wise man (SS) once said to me:

Don't wrestle with a pig. You'll both get covered in crap but the pig will enjoy it...

Cheers, Dave.

[Anaconda]

I can't agree with the asertion that debate is a worthless exercise.

It depends on the interlocutors participating and whether they are in fact exercising good faith.

(I'll acknowledge, it's hard to tell, almost everybody wants to be seen as acting in good faith, but generally this mental state can be found out by a few strategic questions.)

Also, debate is usually, not to convince the other side, but to persuade members of the audience watching the debate that the point at issue is an "open question" that deserves more study and thought -- this is the minimum objective, of course, you would like to "run the table" and have audience members come away convinced of your point of view.

There is nothing wrong with a persuasive monologue. It can be a powerful exhibition. But if nobody reads it besides the "amen corner" it's not achieving as much as it could in terms of persuasion.

Debate means taking your arguments and points of view to a neutral audience (or maybe not neutral, but at least willing to consider the ideas and see how they play out).

Debate is not easy, and if botched can hurt your case, but it's a necessary tool in the arsenal of persuasion.

Those that disdain debate probably aren't any good at it.

Let each put their shoulder to the grind stone in the way that they are best at.

Debate should be encouraged not scoffed at.

PS

When one comes across a debate in progress on internet comment boards, don't hesitate to jump in and help out. Numbers matter, sadly, where perception counts, such as internet comment boards, it helps to have as high a number as possible willing to put their oar in the water and pull with all the rest on your side, and it's never too late in a discussion to "put a shoulder" into the debate.

[mharratsc]

I find that if I put forth that I am a layman and that I have heard both arguments but I find that I find the EU argument more compelling, most times I receive a little bit more courtesy. I imagine it's because they harbor some hope that they might win me over to their point of view...

Not!

Mike H.