Reply to "Professor" Dave...

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarise questions that have yet to be answered.
tholden
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:02 am

Reply to "Professor" Dave...

Unread post by tholden » Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:19 pm


User avatar
spark
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Reply to "Professor" Dave...

Unread post by spark » Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:45 pm

Electric/Plasma Universe models will be accepted as being self-evident if everyone who is able to experiment, tried to create fractal galaxies and stars inside a vacuum chamber filled with various gases and metal vapors, and uploaded many videos about it on YouTube.

We need "Electric Galaxy in a Jar" videos similar to "Sonoluminescence/Star in a Jar" videos on YouTube.

Physicist Winston Bostick who first created galaxies inside vacuum chamber, would be awesome to see Winston Bostick's experiment replicated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtYVTGlHGAk

Also electrical engineer Eric Dollard who created galaxy and stars inside a burned-out lightbulb that acted as vacuum chamber with vaporized gases and metal vapors, he used multiple Tesla Coils out of phase and pointed at burned-out lightbulb: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... f=11&t=195

Not even "Professor" Dave can reject Electric/Plasma Universe models then. Well, if he still rejected it, then he is no different than a flat earther rejecting all evidence of earth being a globe.

User avatar
spark
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Reply to "Professor" Dave...

Unread post by spark » Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:10 pm

Also fractal solar system experiment: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... f=11&t=726

BuckeyeFrank
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:24 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Reply to "Professor" Dave...

Unread post by BuckeyeFrank » Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:37 am

spark wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:45 pm
Not even "Professor" Dave can reject Electric/Plasma Universe models then. Well, if he still rejected it, then he is no different than a flat earther rejecting all evidence of earth being a globe.
Right, or an Expanding Earther, or a Hollow Earther, or a Neon universer.

Let's just line everybody up to slap the FE guy in the front row... :(

If a Social Etiquette is needed see a clip of the movie Airplane; https://youtu.be/FNkpIDBtC2c?t=37

I take only minor offense, O fellow comrade poster. 8-)

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Reply to "Professor" Dave...

Unread post by jackokie » Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:58 pm

@BuckeyeFrank LOL "Social Etiquette", vigorously applied.

I think you and spark have highlighted an extremely important aspect of doing "science". There is an enormous difference between "refuting" and "rejecting". Dr. Eric Lerner has engaged in the comments sections of Herr Doktor Professor Brian Keating's related videos to specifically and calmly, point by point, refute Keating's assertions about Lerner's IAI article and videos. When Keating asserted there are no other models that predict the observed phenomena, I replied with the Electric Universe model. And got this response from Keating:
Lol. The Electric Universe is more unreliable than electric power in California. Just curious are you or Eric even able to derive the basic formulas of electromagnetic plasma physics? If so, please demonstrate here. And with respect to the standard model please cite one formula that predicts galaxy sizes for JWST images in either the Big Bang or Lerner’s tired light nonsense.
I offer this as an example of "rejecting", in that he makes the claim that the model is "unreliable" without a single example of a failed prediction. It's pretty obvious he has not bothered to investigate it. The other parts of his response are similarly deflection to wave away the galaxy size issue and imply those offering the tired light hypothesis are promoting "nonsense". As far as a flat earth is concerned, my impression is that its proponents have to stretch pretty far to support their hypothesis, and I wonder at their motivations, but just rejecting it out of hand because it's "weird" is wrong; refuting it with counter-arguments is science.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Reply to "Professor" Dave...

Unread post by nick c » Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:13 pm

Forum member Michael Mozina posted this a couple of years ago:
Reply to Prof Dave Farina

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest