Aha! Terrifel did it in What’s the deal with the “collossal squid”?
That’s all fine and dandy, you can interpret it however you choose. You can interpret the economy through the stock market if you wish, but that won’t stop the economy from crashing horribly and the currency we keep in our pockets from failing. It didn’t stop Moses and the Israelites and all those good guys from talking to God through the Ark of the Covenant.
I started off this topic focused on the Electric Sun, I gave many examples why we should believe in the electromagnetic nature of our Sun and the solar wind, from how our magnetic poles glow to the vortices on the surface of the Sun to all sorts of other things but you snubbed it. I tried to get interdisciplinary with it and move on to the nature of our souls and how this relates to many things we read about in our ancient religions. There’s all sorts of crap you can find all over the world talking about ancient technology that matches our own. You snubbed that, as well.
Oh well. Anything I say can’t be more convincing than anything our ancestors said or what we can observe in our Universe or what we see happening in our world around us. With that, I’ll leave you with some updated lyrics from John Lennon:
had all the people living in the world agreed, there would have been an answer had it been.
for though we had been parted there was still a chance we could have seen,
there would have been an answer had it been.
Not anymore, though. Our chance came and went.
You’ve never shown why your interpretation is correct, or more explanatory than the conventional one.
By the way. Replacing my quoted words with “blah blah blah” is not only rude, it is a violation of SDMB.
Moses also spoke to G-d without the Ark. So did all the prophets who came before him.
Because your examples are better explained by accepted models.
Again current models already explain things.
When and why?
DocCathode, thank you for expressing far more succinctly what I was attempting to say, but failing miserably (to the extent that I wrote about three posts and deleting them all before posting!).
Falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.
Do not mangle other posters quotes. If you need to remove text, simply use ellipses.
[ /Moderating ]
Not always, but everything I say goes in one ear and out the other. You can’t be told what the Matrix is Doc, you gotta see it for yourself. Jeez. :smack:
No. Accepted scientific method is that if you want to show that an established model is incorrect, your new theory must firstly be able to explain what is already known, and secondly, it must make predictions that can be verified experimentally. If a new model that you propose can’t do both of those things, then it will be questioned, and it will not be taken seriously. Simply asserting that your pet theory is correct, and all of established science is wrong, without real proof (pretty pictures do not count as real proof, you can make a pretty picture show anything), and without making any new and verifiable predictions you will get absolutely nowhere, and will lead to the reception that you have had here.
Anyway, Fonz, how about that double helix galaxy that turned out to be anything but? Any thoughts you wish to share?
Read the squid thread. Terrifel did it.
So far, your cites have been largely pictures which show things easily explained by accpeted models.
Pictures of ‘filaments’ on sunspots? Hot gas doing what hot gas does.
Tornadoes surrounding sunspots? I don’t see any.
The soul is electrical? Why hasn’t any ICU noticed?
Hurricane Katrina’s path? Not remotely unusual.
The asteroid belt being a destroyed planet? Wasn’t that theory the prevailing one until disproven a century or so ago?
Jesus having electrical powers? Holy things in devotional art glow.
The Ark being an electrical device? Basic math and electrical laws show it doesn’t work.
It’s you who dismisses any explanation that doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas.
The Matrix has you. Not a matrix built by machines, but from bad neurochemistry. You’ve already admitted that your beliefs are indistinguishable from the delusions of schizophrenics. What then, is the difference between you and a schizophrenic? Really ask yourself that question. A therapist can help you. An antipsychotic or other pill (it may be red, it may be blue) can restore you to reality. Once back, you can apply your inteligence to a worthwhile goal and accomplish actual good for your fellow man.
Yeah. Before thanking my mom, Jesus, and everyone involved in this project, I’ll say that it’s a giant electrified gas cloud that’s under the same forces as our DNA and Birkeland currents. Just much much bigger than those in labs, but much smaller than a galaxy. Big whoop.
Really? Because the mainstream scientists do… Hot gas does what got gas does for a reason. It just doesn’t up and decide to start spinning in tornadoes and create sunspots… aaaahhhh, suddenly your world became so much clearer to me. I apologize Doc, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to help you understand the Electric Universe…
To be fair, Fonz is probably referring to plasma hurricanes (not tornadoes), which are indeed associated with sunspots. However, these are local to the Sun and don’t occur on planets. They’re also not any indication that the Sun is driven by electric power as opposed to fusion.
In the images you linked to? Or in general?
What does this mean?
Well, it is a big whoop because you cited it’s existence as a galaxy to lend support to your thesis. If, in your electric universe, galaxies are indistinguishable from gas clouds, you should have stated so up front. Not a minor detail, really.
It makes it look as if you are simply linking to “evidence” that you do not understand. That being the case, how can you expect us to?
Sorry, but that’s what space.com called it so that’s what I called it too.
Cite?
That’s funny. The first dozen references to it that I found on space.com refer to it as a nebula. Do you have an actual citation to a space.com page calling it a galaxy?
Now you’ve gone too far. 
You butcher the lyrics to Let It Be and attribute the original to John Lennon? Sheesh. You just lost all of your credibility, dude.
And Cervaise, thanks for that link. Very funny!!
After reading this very long thread, I have some questions for you, TheFonz:
-
What were you hoping to acheive in this thread? The fact that you stand alone must have become obvious about 150 posts ago, yet you continue on.
-
Why do you feel that anyone should believe your theory? Do you feel that you’ve offered a good enough reason for people to change their minds about the nature of the universe? Do you think it’s right for anyone to believe in this theory based on what you’ve presented?
-
When did you start believing this theory? What do you intend to do, based on this belief?
As for everyone else…
…you all seem to really enjoy all being right, together, a little too much. Can’t you find a better sense of pride than outarguing someone who has no real argument? I could spend an evening down at the cafe with some friends, jeering at a local alien conspiracy believer, but it seems a little childish and unnecessary, eh?
Stupidity deserves abuse.