Laura said:
SeekinTruth said:
I've wondered and had some problems with the celestial mechanics concerning the planets' orbits moving around the way they describe, but to be honest, I just don't have the knowledge to dispute that competently. I don't even know how close or off the mark the mainstream ideas of celestial mechanics are when taking some of the points Thornhill makes about electricity vs. gravity.
Well, if you consider the fact that the usual laws of celestial mechanics/gravity are used to "slingshot" space probes and thus save fuel, then it seems that they are fairly accurate and useful. They have good predictive power within certain parameters.
Well, definitely, if we take everything from the mainstream at face value, they have been using these laws to great effect in the space age/space programs. But another question comes up: can we take everything claimed in the mainstream at face value? Knowing what we know about the corruption of science in general and how much NASA particularly hides and explains away. You see what I'm getting at? There's really no way for independent researchers with very small budgets to verify everything themselves of just how the celestial mechanics work.
What about the electrical forces that are ignored? Under what circumstances would those override the gravitational/tidal forces, etc. No one really seems to know much about any of this, much less me. If, as we suspect from the evidence, vast amounts of knowledge are kept secret from the public domain, how do we know what's known and what's not? I'm just asking what I hope are valid questions.
The major problem, again, with the Thunderbolts guys seems to be that they've ignored the evidence of the giant comet(s) coming into the inner solar system, breaking up over a period of time as Clube et al have shown very convincingly (even retro-calculated the orbits from the surviving streams and shown that those were originally part of the same body) and the evidence you've highlighted about the names given to those cometary bodies later being transferred to the planet names we know today. The question here is, why have they ignored all that? That, to me, is pretty strong additional evidence that their claims of planetary musical chairs DOES present real problems in terms of celestial mechanics, and they too have probably fallen into the problem of having tunnel vision and blind spots at the very least. And, after all, the work of Clube, Napier, et al DOES use those laws of celestial mechanics to go backward and recreate the original cometary body or bodies, right?
But the same problem exists all around, that ALL of this is INDIRECT evidence. Too much is out of reach for honest and competent scientists to verify DIRECTLY. I'm not a scientist nor mathematician. I think I understand vaguely the overall problems involved from the different points of view. But if mainstream "science" WASN'T so corrupt, engineers and theoretical scientists and astronomers, etc. could work together to test many of these things experimentally, besides observationally and mathematically. And then you add in the evidential data from yet other disciplines, and it should be possible to come very close to the truth about the relatively recent history of our solar system.
I mean, it seems to me that if the very-strong-evidence aspects of Electric Universe/Plasma cosmology theories were taken and reconciled with the gravitational models honestly and competently, we should be at least much closer to the oh so elusive "Unified Field Theory"/theory of everything. Rather than chasing "string theories" and other such pursuits for decades. But, somehow, there's always this mysterious missing link (or links) for each approach and each compartmentalized discipline, quite probably by DESIGN.
Laura said:
thinker said:
There's an interesting interview with Dwardu Cardona (link below). He's an author of books that describe ancient sky as seen by our ancestors. According to his theory (based on Velikovsky) over 10000 years ago Earth was part of Saturnian star system which was then captured by Sun. What's even more interesting he's saying that Earth was originally residing in Sagittarius galaxy which recently crashed with Milky Way and that's what caused all of those perturbations (which are still ongoing).
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3824&sid=b8b9abc2beb9369fa3246d65afcda0e6
Again, I think that the evidence collected by Victor Clube is more compelling. If earth was originally part of a Saturnian star system in another galaxy that crashed with our own, considering what is known about celestial mechanics, it would be likely that all life on earth would have perished in the collision and its ramifications.
This is the problem when science goes off the rails and does not do its job of using its own declared methods to explore and explain the order of the universe to the best of its ability. There is a huge gap of knowledge and there are plenty of half-baked ideas that get dumped into that gap and plenty of con-artists just waiting to take advantage of the deliberately induced ignorance of the masses. Mainstream science is corrupt and degraded, no doubt about it, but the scientific method, as formulated (but ignored nowadays by most scientists) is still the best approach to understanding our world that we have.
THAT'S the crux of the matter. It has all become more absurd than organized religion. The backbone of science IS the scientific method. That is the most valuable thing at least for understanding the material universe. And with a few adjustments it can be extended to the exploration of the non-material universe, so to speak, such as pure information. All that is needed is to apply the working hypothesis that in those areas we may not have the technology to measure and quantify things in the same way (or in the case of certain legitimate but "elusive" phenomena, it may not be possible to expect strict repeatability) but that there ARE real phenomena that CAN be studied using the essence of the scientific method. But all the enforced dogmas and thought policing and processes of "excommunication" by the institutions of science have made it possible to completely obfuscate the minimum standards to meet the scientific methodology.
There's absolutely no scientifically valid reason to forbid research into many of the subjects using the scientific method that are currently forbidden by using the claim that any such research IS by default "unscientific." No, the capricious forbidding of applying the scientific method to research is what's really unscientific, I think.
Anyway, I can go on and on, but I'm "preaching to the choir." It all comes down to the failings of organized religion and organized science - both corrupted to the max - that you've been pointing out in your work for so long. And the supreme irony of both enforcing a dumbed-down, oversimplified materialistic and mechanistic uniformatarianist dogma. Our ignorance is systematically enforced by the funding process of current "science" to retain the "legitimacy" and control of the Powers That Be, and nothing else. And the threat to our planet and species from this situation is thus kept tightly under wraps. For all their supposed opposition, the organized religions and official science are basically upholding the status quo by playing "good cop, bad cop" games with humanity.
