Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

Thunderblogs ^ | 8-22-08 | Wallace Thornhill

[Renfield]

Excellent article from one of my favorite cutting-edge scientific iconoclasts. Much more at the original article.

[ClearCase_guy]

Usually, I read an article like this and think, "I don't know enough. This is probably great stuff and the only reason this sounds like made-up gobbledy-gook is because I haven't studied this subject to the proper depth."

But as I read this particular article, I'm pretty sure that this is made-up gobbledy-gook.

[rosenfan]

Your favorite "cutting-edge scientific iconoclast" appears to be a proponent of Neo-Velikovskianism. In other words, a pseudoscientific crank.

http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/pseudoscience.html

Given the fact that, despite the neo-Velikovskians' claims to the contrary, the standard stellar model is so successful at explaining the observations while the Electric Star model is rife with problems and outright violations of basic physics, it is understandable why the former enjoys unanimous support in the scientific community, while the latter is considered a pseudoscience.

[Renfield]

That's just the point...the "standard stellar model" DOESN'T explain many observations sufficiently, as you will see if you read Thornhill's previous posts.

Did you read the entire article?

[GovernmentShrinker]

IMHO there’s a LOT going on on the other side of absolute zero that we (meaning current top quantum physics researchers, whose explanations the rest of us try to get the gist of) don’t know squat about. Science will eventually locate “God”, most likely on the other side of that absolute zero wall, or comfortably hanging out on both sides simultaneously.

[mc6809e]

Excellent article from one of my favorite cutting-edge scientific iconoclasts. Much more at the original article.

Really? Do you think so? Every test of general relativity has delivered results that support the theory. Among the assumptions of theory is the assumption that gravity travels at the speed of light.

[xedude]

You don’t have to read much of it before some nauseating violation of basic science appears.

[xedude]

Um...huh?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.

Einstein's law of gravity does refer to time. Einstein's law of gravity is called "General Relativity". In experiments designed to detect differences between Newtonian and relativistic predictions Dr. Einstein has yet to lose.

[vbmoneyspender]

Thanks for posting that.

[rosenfan]

I did not read the entire article. When a Scientologist asserts that Xenu (dictator of the Galactic Confederacy) brought billions of his people to Earth 75 million years ago in DC-8-like spaceships, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs, there's no need to look more closely at their claims.

Likewise, when someone claims that stars aren't powered by nuclear fusion, that the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by erosion but rather in moments by a giant bolt of lightning which was created when another planet was passing nearby, and that the planet Venus was spit out of a planet called "Proto-Saturn", there's no need to look further.

He's a nut.

[starlifter]

This phenomenon is the basic operating principle of the flux capacitor.

[BillCompton]

Just to clarify, are you saying this “nut” is associated with Scientology?

[Renfield]

You should read this:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf

The man’s not a nut; he’s exposing flaws in current theory, and goring some sacred cattle in the process.

[Renfield]

Thornhill is in no way associated with Scientology. Rosenfan is engaging in a standard tactic of debunkers....red herring arguments and ad-hominem attacks.

[BillCompton]

"Thornhill is in no way associated with Scientology. Rosenfan is engaging in a standard tactic of debunkers....red herring arguments and ad-hominem attacks."

Geez. What is wrong with people? Instead of harming Thornhill's credibility, he has damaged his own (if you are in fact correct.) Thanks.

[rosenfan]

Just to clarify, are you saying this “nut” is associated with Scientology?

No, not at all. It was just the first example of weird beliefs that came to mind. It could just as easily been ESP, astrology, creationism, etc.

[xedude]

What does this theory predict and where is the experimental evidence to back it up?

[rosenfan]

Thornhill is in no way associated with Scientology

I never said he was. I was simply pointing the lack of credibility one has when one advocates crazy beliefs that fly in the face of reality. The "Electric Universe" of Thornhill is one such example. Scientology is another. Feel free to use any other nonsensical system of belief or pseudoscience such as astrology, creationism, Illuminati conspiracy theories, etc.

[rosenfan]

Geez. What is wrong with people? Instead of harming Thornhill's credibility, he has damaged his own (if you are in fact correct.) Thanks.

If I had said he was associated with Scientology, you'd be correct.

Since I didn't, you're not.