PersianPaladin

This is for mesocyclone.... You will be FASCINATED with this:- EDIT - The documentary "Thunderbolts Of The Gods" (concerning plasma cosmology/electric universe) will be shown on the UK's Showcase Channel (Sky Channel 201, Freesat Channel 403) this Saturday.

What a profoundly arrogant and ignorant statement.

They have. Plasma cosmology is recognised by the IEE (Institute of Electrical Engineers). It doesn't fit the current portfolio of conventional cosmology; but that may perhaps be because plasma cosmology diverged from mainstream cosmology after Hannes Alfven gave a warning about a "crisis in cosmology" (you can google it) and over-dependence on certain theoretical areas of physics. This page features a paper by Dr.Don Scott:- http://members.cox.n...cott3/index.htm Have you watched his talk yet? I don't think you have. I think I'm wasting my time here posting stuff (which I find personally interesting) that simply gets dismissed and ignored. Probably best to just keep information to myself. I'm clearly not as knowledgable in the areas of pure math as you are, in all my intellectual feebleness. EDIT - Sorry, I said I was done here.

Ok, I'm done here. People can read\watch the resources I posted in the first post of this thread, and reach their own conclusions.

But "string theory" is entirely speculative and exists merely as a mathematical hypothetical in order to attempt to explain/support something that is unexplained within the main gravity-oriented model. Hence they created it (and things like dark matter, dark energy) in order to balance the equations. In plasma cosmology, the filamentary structure of the universe is explained in the form of Birkeland currents. In the Goddard presentation, Don Scott explains the fact that charge-separation has been observed in space regardless of dismissive claims to the contrary.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla "Such theories are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them!†- Hannes Alfven "It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical." - Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

*sigh* Am I saying that the experiments are not described mathematically? Nope.

Read the article. Experiments and empiricism are the emphasis. I do not see maths as un-important.

Maths should be the servant, not the master. https://www.thunderb.../soupdragon.htm And please DON'T use ad hominem's against me concerning the issue of Peak Oil. I had an article published in The Journal newspaper and another one featured on the US ASPO institute. I'm also a member of a Transition group. I may only be a citizen journalist (although currently I have received a job offer from a Turkish news-agency in London), but I do try and stick to what I deem credible.

Since when was the majority-view always correct? Group-think comes to mind. You talk of quantum mechanics in a dismissive and somewhat presumptuous tone. I already addressed the issues of domain and what we can measure and where different things can be observed. I like this quote from Wal Thornhill:- At the other extreme of scale is quantum theory, which describes the behavior of subatomic particles. But the theories of gravity and quantum behavior are incompatible. "String theory" was supposed to provide a theory of everything by unifying the incompatible theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The problem is that there is not just one string theory, there are many. Now the push is on to develop "M Theory," which means the "Mother of all Theories!" This endeavor would be comical if it weren't so costly and misguided. The ill effects of such nonsense have spread throughout western science and culture over the last century. The problem seems to have sprung from the worship of Einstein, who was the first to discard verifiable physical laws altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df Don't assume that the scientists of the recent past got support from the majority of the day, or required approval from the peer-review of the majority, etc. They encountered a lot of skepticism before their ideas were eventually shown to be correct. Sadly, there is a lot of institutional inertia and vested interests that don't want their entire house-of-cards coming down by the inconvenience of contrary facts. Better to just ignore them or sideline them, rather than be shown to be false, forced to learn something new and get a real job.

Not talking about what is "theoretically possible". Just what we know from laboratory observations (Birkeland, Alfven, Langmuir, Peratt et al). Mind you, we do not have a complete explanation for all phenonema. Although, it is more intellectually satisfying than the hypothetical inventions of dark-matter, dark-energy, string-theory, black holes, etc of the mainstream model (which brings up such exotic hypotheticals to try and explain what electromagnetic plasma phenonema already addresses). http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QhyHCj_cVKk Also, take one example. Our sun. The electric model explains things like sunspots (and their migration, penumbra, cycles, their darkness, etc), the solar atmosphere (and the temperature disparity of the corona from the photosphere), the accelerating solar wind, equatorial plasma torus, solar density, etc.

The strength of the electric current (low current-density) within the dark-mode plasma in the Earth's ionosphere is extremely low. We can measure it's electrical activity, however, with sensitive radio instruments. So, without massive-scale equipment to somehow beam down this electricity; we will not be able to properly harness it. Mind you; we only know so much about how electromagnetic plasmas behave.

Here are two interesting quotes from Don Scott's book "The Electric Sky":- I think I'll go with plasma cosmology rather than "dark matter", "dark energy" and other hypothetical fairy dust.

Have a watch of Dr.Scott's full talk, before jumping to conclusions. Just a suggestion.

He was a guest speaker. http://ecolloq.gsfc....unce.scott.html And he's not talking about the mythological-theory of EU.

Oh really? Did you bother watching the NASA Goddard presentation too? This is cutting-edge stuff, and is not part of the group-think of the existing cosmological mainstream.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#summer_ice "A recent study suggests that 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had substantially less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time." And what of the apparent feedback mechanisms that existed at that time? Were they as sensitive as current models say they will be from such a scenario? I doubt it. You mean the AMO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg

This admission from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:- "A recent study suggests that 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had substantially less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time." http://nsidc.org/arc...html#summer_ice We've already passed peak oil now (occuring in 2006 according to the 2010 report from the IEA) so overall % growth in CO2 levels will be heading downwards from now on. They could drastically plummet if exports from oil-producing nations are significantly reduced or if war breaks out in the middle-east.

Most of the ice-caps are below the surface of the ocean anyway......

Thanks for that. I'll definetly check it out. I take it you've also heard of David Talbott and his documentary "Symbols of An Alien Sky"? A preview of it is here:-

I would like to present to you - a tutorial segment from a very interesting documentary titled "Thunderbolts Of The Gods". http://www.youtube.c...h?v=P4zixnWeE8A NASA Goddard presentation by Dr. Donald E. Scott on plasma cosmology (electric cosmology) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=wOI-X215A8Y Plasma cosmology does have a firm foundation in the nobel-prize winning scientist Hannes Alfven. Regardless, this cosmology was marginalised by people who delved in assumptions of a "big bang" (albeit things like string-theory don't even need a big-bang). For me, plasma cosmology seems to make more sense to me than conventional cosmology. Mostly in the sense of the inter-connectedness of all things as well as the mysterious repeated-nature of certain patterns (the filaments, dendrites, etc seen in the human body and then in the planet and then in the universe). Fractal geometry is also mysterious in the sense that fairly simple mathematical formulae essentially describe a large variety of complex patterns. In the midst of this - certain themes seem to repeat themselves from the microcosm and the macrocosm. The idea that planets and stars are isolated bodies - and depend their existence on some purely hypothetical "big bang" - just seems more speculative to me. Currents of energy flowing through the universe, connecting stars, connecting galaxies (and even seemingly at a microscale - connecting human-cells) - just seem to be all part of the unity of creation. Unity that still allows for a great amount of variation in the detail and general theme. And if empirical plasma experiments can demonstrate this; then why do we need to believe in increasingly unwieldy, exotic mathematical hypotheticals such as dark matter, black holes, etc? Here are some peer-reviewed papers on plasma cosmology:- http://sites.google....reviewed-papers Another challenge to the "big bang theory" was developed at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Bare in mind, that the author of the study is not a plasma cosmologist. I just posted this to show that plasma cosmology is not the only model/theory that challenges the "big bang" (and "cosmic background radiation" as bb proof) theory:- http://www.physorg.c...s199591806.html

Are you hoping for a ?

Keep GM foods in the laboratory where they belong. If any start growing near here, I will burn them.

Only partially. If you add the actions of the leverage-fraudsters in the neoliberal agricultural system, as well as energy-shortages... you have the full explanation for the food and commodity price surges. I invite you to listen to the Nafeez Ahmed talk I posted earlier.

We outsourced our filthy ways to places like India and China. And GM food is part of the old centralised fossil-fuel system. A system that insists on infinite-growth and continuing energy-security in the middle-east. It also depends on chemical fertilisers (from fossil-fuels), pesticides (from fossil-fuels), and combustion-engines that plant, harvest, process, distribute, etc across large areas. It also lies controlled by a terrible corporate neo-liberal economic system. Monsanto (a large GM company) own 60% of the seeds on this planet. They have not been a positive force at all in our global industrial food system. The soil is basically dead without the fossil-fuel dependent system. For example, world potash supplies are under strain - and if they become low in supply, this can cause disaster for many areas that rely on industrial agriculture. Also, if we keep ploughing it, it will be gone in a few decades. We need to transition away from it to permaculture programs in a de-centralised way of community organisation. An important talk by Dr.Nafeez Ahmed on the food crisis and peak oil (as well as the negatives of the neo-liberal agricultural market system):- http://www.indymedia.../11/413658.html An example of the Transition Towns movement:- http://ourworld.unu....energy-descent/ Greening the middle-east with permascience:- http://vimeo.com/7658282