This may be old news to everyone here, but EU theory fits nicely with hollow earth theory. Heres the link: https://youtu.be/CvfFJiUWuDk
Thats part 2 of 3 parts. He has a link for part 1 and 3.
What do you think of his gravity theory?
@thewaxter , thanks for posting this . It is necessary to understand this important linkage between these two theories , as also how Newton and Einstein's understanding of gravity is incorrect (sacrilegous for the high priests of science , isn't it ?) , if we as a group EVER hope to prevail over the mainstream science view of a solid Earth :))
The "deep" moon quakes occuring at a depth of hundreds of Km below the moon's surface are as much of a mystery to mainstream seismology , as such similar "deep" earthquakes , are on Earth . The simplest and most logical explanation for this ringing is - the moon is hollow :)) Jan Lamprecht had explained this very well in his book on Hollow Earth .
When the 2004 Tsunami occurred off the coast of Indonesia with a magnitude 9.2 under sea quake in the Indian Ocean , "the Earth rang like a bell" , for several days thereafter . There is absolutely nothing in the solid earth model , that could explain that "ringing" of the Earth after the 2004 Tsunami !
Earth 'still ringing' from tsunami quake
Thu 19 May 2005 19.10 EDT First published on Thu 19 May 2005 19.10 EDT
The Indian Ocean earthquake that triggered the great Boxing Day tsunami literally shook the world and triggered a swarm of minor earthquakes 11,000 kilometres away in Alaska.
It set new records - the longest fault rupture ever seen; the longest duration and the most energetic swarm of aftershocks ever observed.
The calamity began with a sudden shift on average of more than 16.5ft (5 metres) along an 800 mile fault line deep below the ocean. Just off Banda Aceh in northern Sumatra, the ocean floor suddenly moved north-eastward, pushing as much as 20 metres under the Burma tectonic plate.
It raised the tip of the Burma plate several metres, and it lifted the ocean itself, setting up a tsunami that slammed into the coasts of Sumatra, Malaysia, India and Sri Lanka, killing 300,000 people.
The earthquake was so catastrophic that its effects could be measured from space, according to scientists reporting today in the US journal Science. It rearranged the Earth's surface and caused measurable deformation almost 2,800 miles away.
"The Earth is still ringing like a bell today," said Roland Bürgmann of the University of California, Berkeley. "We have never been able to study earthquakes of this magnitude before, where a sizable portion of the Earth was distorted. Normally, we see deformation of the surface a few hundred kms away. But here we see deformation 4,500 kms away, and five or six times the deformation we have seen in previous quakes."
Seismologists now believe that the 9.15 magnitude earthquake was probably twice as powerful as previously estimated. The violence was also was more enduring: much of the movement along the fault line happened half an hour after the initial shock and continued for up to three hours.
Readings from 41 GPS stations were used to reconstruct the biggest shock in 40 years. At one site, 45,000 kms from the epicentre, the surface shifted by just a millimetre. It shifted two cms in southern India.
The shock waves caused the ground to rise and fall 9 cms in Sri Lanka. It moved massive slabs of rock 20 metres, along a 1,300km section of the fault. And it set the Earth ringing.
"Just like thumping a watermelon to hear if it is ripe, after a big earthquake thumps our planet we measure the natural tones from seismograms to detect properties of the Earth's deep mantle and core," said Jeffrey Park of Yale University. "The Sumatran-Andaman earthquake produced the best documentation of the Earth's free oscillations ever recorded."
Previous comparable earthquakes all occurred at least 40 years ago: in Kamchatka in Russia in 1952; the Aleutian islands in 1957; southern Chile in 1960 and Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1964.
"This really is a watershed event. We've never had such comprehensive data for a great earthquake, because we didn't have the instrumentation to gather it 40 years ago. And then the sheer size of the event is so awesome.
"It is nature at its most formidable, and it has been humbling to all of us who have studied it, " said Thorne Lay of the University of California, Santa Cruz. "Even among seismologists, we call this a monster earthquake."
Regards
Yes, it seems that way to me also. What "depth" are moon quakes at? Deepest earth quake?
What do you think of how EU says gravity occurs?
Ive looked into seismology data processing. Its interestimg to me that its empirically set up to fit the data to a solid earth model, and even after that they found it necessary to have a region where waves dont travel through (hollow cavity?).
Id like to see a study on how matter is accumulated in the Z-pinch regions of Birkland currents. Or, how do those regions look in terms of magnetic field lines? Does it resemble a torroid i wonder?
Ive been getting into EU theory pretty heavily, and was rather pleased to see that it fits nicely with hollow earth theory.
@thewaxter , I believe the deepest Earthquake ever recorded was at an incredible depth of 735.8 km , below the Earth's surface . Even the deepest moonquakes have happened at similar depths below the moon's surface .
Now this makes no sense in the solid earth/moon model because in that model we have only "molten lava" at those depths - so how can an earthquake happen in a liquid medium ?? Deep quakes pose the most formidable challenge to mainstream seismology and they have no logical way yet to explain that phenomena .
As for the Z-pinch region of Birkeland currents , I personally think the choke ring concept in Primer field theory might explain it...the choke ring itself does have a toroidal "ring" shape .
The ultimate manifestation of a choke ring or Z-pinch region is the so called "black hole" . Of course , mainstream science ignores the Electric Universe view and theorises that these so called "black holes" are caused by runaway gravitational collapse - that too in regions of space occupied by highly diffused electrical plasma !
Regards
1 Like
@thewaxter I've been doing a lot of "gravity" study lately and hopefully will have more to say soon. Life has been kinda nuts and so I've not been able to do much online lately in this regard, but I would like to discuss gravity much, much more fully because (obviously) mainstream physics has gotten us (really) nowhere over the last 130 years even though folks generally seem to have a misunderstanding about this and the progression of science.
(See this for a very objective and well-researched primer (you don't have to believe or even buy into all of the Reich portions, the history alone is GOLD): Important Book: The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science)
1 Like
@thewaxter , @Soretna , specific to the point about Z pinch and how they are misinterpreted as the so called "black holes" , here is a very good discussion thread I found on the Thunderbolts forum . It goes right to the crux of the matter :-
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=67792&sid=aaf54770730adcc5f310990f2b673661
Thunderbolts Forum (v2.0)
For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology. The ideas and opinions expressed on this forum do not necessarily reflect those of T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts Project(TM)
here's how to tell a z-pinch from a black hole
First unread post • 5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
here's how to tell a z-pinch from a black hole
Unread post by celeste » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:47 am
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131704.htm
If a star is spiraling along some Birkeland current, and enters the z-pinch, the star looks like it is orbiting a black hole. The tighter the z-pinch, the more mass we have to attribute to the black hole. But also, we have to attribute more mass to the star,in order to explain the motion by gravitational means. But if the star is more massive, we expect more luminosity. No wonder the problem they observed in the article above. They are seeing a star near a Z-pinch!
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Re: here's how to tell a z-pinch from a black hole
Unread post by celeste » Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:27 pm
Pardon in advance my rambling in the next few posts, but I think this is important . If you are like me, you don't believe the mainstream theory of black holes. You know that what they see as black holes, can best be described by EU theory. But that is not good enough. Remember, the mainstream deserves kudos here. FIRST, they predicted the existence of black holes by mathematical theory alone, THEN they "saw" those black holes. If we merely explain all the observations that they can explain, why should they switch to the EU model? To them, WE are the ones coming up with the "ad hoc" model. We must not only explain every nuance that they can, we must explain more. Where they see "black holes behaving badly", and send their theorists scrambling to describe the behavior, we would like to be able to say,"That was exactly what we predicted in the EU model". With this spirit in mind, I will continue the next few posts.
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England
Contact:
Re: here's how to tell a z-pinch from a black hole
Unread post by neilwilkes » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:46 am
celeste wrote:Pardon in advance my rambling in the next few posts, but I think this is important . If you are like me, you don't believe the mainstream theory of black holes. You know that what they see as black holes, can best be described by EU theory. But that is not good enough. Remember, the mainstream deserves kudos here. FIRST, they predicted the existence of black holes by mathematical theory alone, THEN they "saw" those black holes. If we merely explain all the observations that they can explain, why should they switch to the EU model? To them, WE are the ones coming up with the "ad hoc" model. We must not only explain every nuance that they can, we must explain more. Where they see "black holes behaving badly", and send their theorists scrambling to describe the behavior, we would like to be able to say,"That was exactly what we predicted in the EU model". With this spirit in mind, I will continue the next few posts.
I admire your confidence - yet we have already seen that even though Thornhill accurately predicted what would happen with DEEP IMPACT, the result was sticking their heads in the sand - there's a very relevant quote in "The Electric Sky" about this where so-called "comet expert" and professor of astrophysics at Sheffield University here in England said "It's complete cobblers. Absolute Balderdash. Electricity on the surface of a comet? Forget about it - it's not a contender". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hugh ... ronomer%29
Interestingly enough, I see he is a Ph.D - that's philosophy, isn't it? Does this not make him a professional guesser?
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Re: here's how to tell a z-pinch from a black hole
Unread post by celeste » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:22 pm
neilwilkes, Still, each time EU theorists add a piece to the puzzle,support for EU theory grows. I'll try to add another piece.
If a star is spiraling through space in some Birkeland current, that motion may difficult to detect. But as a star moves toward z-pinch, it becomes obvious that something is up. The star appears to be spiraling around some point in space, yet there is nothing there. The mainstream sees no problem, they think they have just discovered a black hole. The tighter the z-pinch, the more mass they have to add to the black hole. The nice thing about their black holes is that they can postulate as much mass as they need. Their problem is that to match the motion they see, they must add mass to the visible star too. But then they have to explain why such a massive star has such low luminosity. That is what is happening in the article in my first post. They are so sure of their gravitational model for the stars mass, that they are trying to solve the star's luminosity problem. We know that it's the star's luminosity we should trust, and that they are failing to account for the electromagnetic forces on the star.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Re: here's how to tell a z-pinch from a black hole
Unread post by celeste » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:25 pm
For any of you with a copy of "The Electric Sky", read pages 157-159 on fissioning, and look at figure 44. We are about to help Donald Scott explain why "onion-skin" fissioning occurs when it does. Specifically, that onion skin fissioning should occur as a star nears z-pinch, with the "skin" drawn to the inside of the Birkeland current. This is also going to explain the mainstreams "observation" that gas is drawn off a star into the black hole.
Here is what happens: If a star is sitting alone in space,the ions tend towards a fairly uniform distribution across the star. But as a star orbits more tightly in a magnetic field towards z-pinch, we start to have sorting. Remember, the mass of each particle tends to keep it moving in a straight line, the charge keeps it circling the magnetic field. Ions with the highest charge to mass ratio move across the star towards the inside of the stars orbit, neutral atoms move towards the outside. It is going to look just like the middle figure in figure 44, with the center of the Birkeland current being to the right side of this illustration. Finally,the point is reached where the star is split.
1 Like
@thewaxter have you read Jan Lamprecht's Hollow Planets: A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds?
You are exactly right about what you're saying and it is severely flawed... and thus why I'm asking if you read this book as there's some really solid discussion in this area.
I'm struggling a little with EU work right now as I don't feel the physics are solid enough in terms of actual empirical actionable info (while I agree they're doing a good job of marketing it). This is one reason I'm so highly interested in Distinti's work at present since he has put a very fine tipped pencil to the topics at hand, although he's not approached hollow planet concepts, so that has me a little worried.
1 Like
I am reading the book you recommended. Its really interesting. I always doubted the aether being disproven. Looks like i dont understand EM radiation either. Ive read Hollow Planets, but it was very early on in my getting into these subjects. Maybe i should re-read it? Id still like to hear members thoughts on grabity. As far as EU theory, i think its lacking right now, but maybe thatll come with time. I think its closer than conventional astrophysics.
@thewaxter , I agree . You may also find this interesting :-
https://www.everythingselectric.com/earths-global-electric-circuit/
Earth Electric Universe evidence? Electric Universe theory
Earth’s Global Electric Circuit in an Electric Universe
Earth's Global Electric Circuit fits in with the theory and idea of an Electric Universe.
We live inside Earth's global electric circuit , sharing our atmosphere with sprites, elves, blue jets, and other electric phenomena. Scientists have been studying the planet's electrical environment for a century or so--from the charged particles at the top of the atmosphere, to electrical storms in clouds, to lightning that sometimes reaches the ground. But we haven't had a way to study all of it, as a system, until now.
The Global Electric Circuit project is building a virtual representation of Earth's electric environment in one computer model. The model will allow scientists throughout the world to experiment with the system and advance our knowledge about the electricity in our atmosphere - a central component of the world we live in.
Earth's Global Electric Circuit | National Science Foundation
Earth's Global Electric Circuit
Not only does it fit in but it would be expected and is essential that there are circuits and connections between planetary bodies, their stars, their solar system and in the scalability of plasma physics that this should include an electric circuit between solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters and the entire universe.
The Earth's Global Electric Circuit includes the Global Electric Weather Circuit. With an electrical circuit energy will flow both ways. There have been some stunning recent discoveries showing how connected the Earth is to the Sun and the Solar system.
What will we discover in the future, especially from deep within or from the earth center?
Are we connected to the Moon and other planets?
And our Solar system to the external universe? We should be in an Electric Universe.
Electrical Earth environment external links:
- Earth's global electric circuit
- Earth’s Global Electric Circuit - Precursor for the onset of Blizzard?
- The global electrical circuit: A review (free pdf)
- The Global Atmospheric Electric Circuit (free pdf)
* Flux Transfer Events (FTE's)
-
Earths auroras (triggered by spacequakes and/or space tornadoes?)
-
Upwards lightning and upper atmospheric lightning(red sprites, blue jets, ELVES)
-
Space tornado (Birkeland currents?)
For a free pdf on the Earths Electrical Weather system read The Earth's Electrical Environment from the National Academies.
Everything Is Electric article links: