Thunderbolts of the Gods
7.19
Ratings: 7.19/10 from 70 users.
This film introduces you to the key themes of the Thunderbolts theory and includes interviews with a number of the principal figures in Electric Universe research.
Thunderbolts is designed to prepare the viewer for the work of David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill now being presented in a monograph series of which THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS is the first, the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE the second. The film also includes contributions from other members of the ‘THUNDERBOLTS PROJECT’ group.
The Thunderbolts promises the viewer, in 64 minutes, a clear understanding of the major elements of the theory being explored by Talbott, Thornhill and their associates.
This is bogus. They don't actually examine the evidence, just make up stuff that sounds impressive in a video.
All my life MSS main stream science has been fullnof theories posing as laws. This story makes sense on so many levels. After a few weeks of patient research this theory holds more water than all the forgone conclusions proposed by our scholarly teachers have taught in 50 years. This goes back a long time but the punishments for this at least to Galileo Galilee.
(ahem) ... also interesting about the book "The World is Sound - Nada Brahma" is how the Major and Minor musical 'scales' inform or relate to the mathematics and proportions of the physical universe. For instance in all biological systems (plant/animals/insects etc) .. ie 'living organisms' the *major* scale is revealed in the gender *male* forms while the *minor* scale is revealed by the female forms.
In non-living forms like minerals and so forth it's only the *major* scale that informs their geometry and proportion.
This applies all the way out to solar systems and most certainly beyond as well as down into the atomic and subatomic levels. In fact one of the 17th or 18th century astronomers (Kepler?) used this 'music of the spheres' idea to postulate where one of the great planets would be found and indeed it was eventually discovered right where it should be according to *major scale* mathematics.
fascinating stuff .... God is GOOD!!!
I didn't mean to leave out the magnetic forces music unleashes through it's 'dancing' whirls and swirls of rotational vortexual (sorry I had to add it to my dictionary too!) attractive/distractive IN/OUT breaths of spinning interactivities of all kinds
addendumitis ... and so it's certainly clear (to me at least, and really as He reveals to us in scripture) that GOD by act of creative WILL by His all powerful divine mind through action of His VOICE/sound/music/vibration/resonance/amplification/pebble-in-the-pond-rippling-infinitely-OUT not only causes 'stuff' into existence through the *organizing* principles of mathematically exquisite sound/vibration but all that motion-in-motion then works further in ways we will spend the rest of eternity studying (and or playing with) on said 'stuff' creating thermo/dynamic/"electrical" forces of all kinds bringing all that we now see into existence
sorry to wax so 'poetic' but this IS .. GOD .. we're (or at least *I'm*) talking about and there's only SO far the human mind can (or will EVER be able to) go before we return over and over and over to, and are overwhelmed by, pure AWE STRUCKEDNESS, CELEBRATION, WORSHIP, and REVERENCE ... in the midst of all that SWEET {{{SWEET}}} music ... there'll BE MUSIC (simply) EVERYWHERE .... ALL AROUND THE "WORLD"(s)
a couple other thoughts of note (sorry!) re music .... and the 'power' thereof
once you allow things to go 'there' ... you get into such things as 'amplification' and 'resonance' ... music is totally 'self organizing' ... it 'suggests' things .. has movement ... tangents ... discussions ... argument ... entwines itself in exquisite 'relational story lines' .. 'songs' ... which along with the inside/inside innate structure of the sound/vibration that, say, a 'pure note' has in and of itself ... that 'makes' that particular note 'a note' giving it it's being and shape ... it's 'sound'.
And then along with that, each note strung together 'creatively' then makes the 'song' already mentioned that brings or suggests and then creates such things as 'bridges' and other *structural components* that just goes on from there ... no end in sight ... the dance of life eternal.
I see fractal imagery as the bride or groom of sound/music ... *definitely* a marriage. And definitely NOT one of mere *convenience* ... hahaha ... but literally the primordial "love match made in heaven" ... ;) ... what was the first thing that God created with His VOICE (his song?) ... LIGHT ... and so there WAS!!
"The World Is Sound: Nada Brahma: Music and the Landscape of Consciousness"
by Joachim-Ernst Berendt
A truly fascinating book I read years and years ago exploring (and revealing) many of the exceptional qualities, aspects, and powers of sound ... particularly organized, mathematically beautiful, sound .. ie 'music' ... that now as a Christian who actually believes the bible, taking it at it's 'Word' sees it's opening description of God's creation of *everything* in a whole new light in which God not only literally 'speaks/sings' His creation into existence but maintains it by that ... *creative* art.
Although the book ranges far and wide in scope, after reading it it becomes clear we, and all that is, are literally bathed in ... no ... *encoded by* ... MUSIC ... sweet sweet music ... there'll be music everywhere .... in such unusual ways nobody seems to think or certainly talk much about except musicians and those who love music
And God said .... "let there be ... "
In all my years, I've repeatedly observed a human condition that seems undeniable; that some people chose to trust their indoctrinators, buying into what they were first taught, rather than simply viewing it as information which "may" have merit under certain conditions, until something better comes along. Not entirely their fault since some indoctrinators like to think they are correct and "the way it is" rather than telling the lads and lassies they are merely espousing a theory. So why do some seem to get so irritated at additional information? Because what they bought into, their world view is being challenged. Because they might be wrong and they don't like to be wrong. No scientist is perfect. Not the fellows in this docu and certainly not those who find absolutely no merit in anything they said.
Einstein was not the only one dissatisfied with his theories. Tesla chuckled at the speed of light being an upper limit to speed since experimentation proved otherwise, such as instantaneous actions at a distance. He mentioned the name of another scientist who determined the rotation of electrons? to be about 1.24 times the speed of light (if I recall the number correctly). I refer to Tesla because he did a lot of experimentation and made things that worked rather than postulating and then trying to find some math to prove it. His theory was that items smaller than electrons were responsible for current flow in a metal. That the electrons were the things causing heat build up due to being in the way of the other particles.
Then there are scientists who believe that gravity isn't what you have been led to believe at all. They think it a PUSH instead of a pull. An everywhere force that pushes from all sides. The force gets blocked or partially so, on one side, by an object in the way, such as the earth blocking that side of that force from you. So you are pushed to the ground by the unblocked side of that force. Scientists have claimed that there is a tremendously huge amount of energy in a cubic centimeter of space or air around you. Accessing this field of energy or aether is the problem. They speak of plucking like a guitar string.
Eric Dollard mentioned that someone asked him to investigate the sun (not sure who or why) but he determined that it was more of a porthole through which the light radiates rather than a burning ball.
Wish I could refer folks to some neat videos by a physicist who seemed to replicate the look of galaxies in his lab with plasma. Then used medium sized magnetic bowls with holes at their center to describe how things work at the atomic level are the same at the galaxy level.
I am glad they are working on an electric theory of the universe, even if may only be part of the picture. It sure helps confirm a number of doubts I had about what the indoctrinators have been saying for too long.
If we consider all the existing theories which tie together to be, what we can call, M theory, then yes there are holes. Modern science admits that, which is why it continues to build upon and strengthen our existing knowledge. The beauty of modern science is that it acknowledges its short comings.
The Electric Universe/Plasma Theory doesn't acknowledge shortcomings. And, in fact, directly ignores contradicting evidence. There's a reason most of the world's brilliant minds discount this work. And no, it's not because of a conspiracy or ignorance. The 'theory' just doesn't stack up to what we know and can prove.
I came into this video open minded. About half way I was losing interest. About 45 minutes in I was convinced it was absolute hogwash.
I just finished Immanuel Velikovsky's 1950 book 'World's in Collision.' I hear his basic 'catastrophic' ideas drawn from mythology and his electric predictions throughout this presentation, but never heard him mentioned or credited. The interdisciplinary approach works against the pet-interests of specialists. The evidence is well synthesized. Well worth watching for my bit.
A one sided presentation indeed with no one from accepted science fields to either corroborate or present contrary views.
It is quite possible that these fellas drank too much water near Sedona..
"All truth passes through three stages; First it is ridiculed, second it's violently opposed, third it is accepted as self evident." Nearly every one of the great paradigm shifts in science has at first been ridiculed, marginalized or openly dismissed until it was then proven true.
its fake sadly, they talk about comets and show a picture of a Ragnarok painting, lame.
Fascinating video. Plasma Cosmology offers a sensible alternative to the prevailing math based dogmas. The trouble is, while these new electric theories are evidential, cosmology today is dominated by mathematicians and not real scientists. It is almost impossible to model plasmas mathematically, so unless we can change a lot of the personnel...
I studied and worked with plasma in the laboratory for a few years. So, as a research scientist I subscribe for every word of these outstanding people who DARED TO OPEN our eyes to the reality. GREAT STUFF! WELL DONE!!
Having watched this presentation again after several years, the proposed model still makes a lot of sense to my simplistic mind. So much so that i am convinced that it might take quite a while before it will be allowed to become standard lore to academia.
Very interesting i left this docu with a lot of questions,i then searched the facts on Google Scholar and to my amazement found most of the information to be fact.I was not taught any of this theory and most of this theory stands up to subjection. 10/10
I dont understand all the hate towards this documentary. Dont people understand how science is done? It all starts with an idea, hypothesis, testing and then results. I cant say ive watched the whole thing because the youtube link is broken which sent me here and now the video is private for some reason.
It doesnt seem all that farfetched. Gravity IS a weak force when put in perspective. And seeing as how all matter is purely energy condensed to a slow vibration, it seems as though an electric universe is pretty convincing. Just look at the way the sun behaves, the earths own magnetism. Im not saying that gravity doesnt play a part, but NO ONE KNOWS WHAT GRAVITY IS. Einsteins theory of relativity has recently fallen on its face since light is not a constant, weve been able to slow it down. And there is unconfirmed talks of particles traveling faster than light, again unconfirmed.
Now i would like to see all of your credentials that say you know half as much about what your talking about than these guys, WHO GET PAID TO DO THIS S*IT FOR A LIVING
Interesting theory and have a gut feeling they are correct which explains postulations and binds ancient knowledge with the present. In reality because the universe is so diverse a combination of these theories must be correct.
It seems like the cruxt of this concept is:
5-10 thousand years ago, the planets were much closer together. So close, in fact, that planetary surface features and even the rings of Saturn were visible to the naked eye. Perhaps this interesting idea was only brushed upon here because it has less to do with plasma-cosmology and everything to do with mythology.
I've always wondered how the ancient star-worshiping cultures had such detailed knowledge of the planet's appearances.
Too bad I can't find any other reference material on this subject.
being an old engineer i appreciate the attention to the world i was part of and
occasionally witnessed such phenoms.
This documentary focuses way to much on interpretation and very little on evidence. Its interesting, but its not likely to be true. If it is true, theres no reason someone should believe what they're saying after watching this documentary.
This doc is a cool one to watch for a second time or a third.
Afterwards i watched The myths of Science conference by Chuck Missler on youtube. Although he brings forth ideas about the bible (2 or 3 times) which may not be in line with most people interested in science, i thought his conference was very interesting in explaining the ways of science. Give it a try for 30 minutes , you may be tempted to watch the rest.
az
...and when it comes down to brass tacks, nobody "really knows" what the universe is made of. Except Frank Zappa, Frank knew.
BTW. That was @ jcgrant... 7 down.
what a scam, smells like moneymaking to me
Super nice photos & electronic animations!
At one time, one of the scientist in there said that creating a small lab bench plasma has been done a little while back and that its morphological behavior was the same as one that can see viewed in outer space!
Isn't that fantastic? I spent the rest of docu waiting to see that.
You know what? They never shown it.
Next one...
Pierre.
actually belizean i think its 97% of the universes mass is considered to be dark mater while the other 2.999987% is mass found in stars and the rest being rocky planets such as earth, those numbers are from a few of the episodes of the universe serious. I have a little.. more trust in that over wikipedia..
Sunspots are not dark. Alone, they would blind you. They appear dark compared with the rest of the star.
Also, we cannot duplicate the solar fusion process in the lab, because we lack the pressures found in the core of the sun.
This sounds like religion to me, invoking ancient myths as fact, and all.
At around the 15 minute mark, they lose me, and they should lose everyone when its stated, "99.9% of the universe is made of plasma."
OK quick question to anybody....The current understanding says that stars are nuc. and the fusion of hydrogen into other elements happens there....So if these guys were right how do they explain that portion....also what if a nuc, fusion reaction just happens to be an electric dynamo????? There is alot of movement of atoms in there...lots of friction lots of static elec..??? even the core of earth prod. mag. field so this dosent just answer everything...Maybe some of it needs to be factored in but I dont think it is a stand alone theory...
It takes a few viewings to grasp this film
No thank. It ain't my cup of tea.
Pierre.
These guys remind me of the Expanding Earth crowd.
absolutely facilitation
Ok, so how in the world do they explain the rotations in the solar system, with this electric crap they call science again? ?
How does ''Magnetic Field'' explain, the orbit of the different planets and any other body in just our solar system ? If they can explain? ''only'' that, nothing else, with accurate science, then I could maybe start to pay attention to all this nonsense.
How on earth can Einstein's General Relativity, theory completely base on gravity, describe with unimaginable accuracy the orbit of every single body in our solar system, if gravity was not the cause of that body's orbit and movement ?
Do they really think it's perhaps some sort of coincidence ? I mean? how damn naive can this get? ??!
If you want to question Don Scott or wallace thornhill search the links in thunderboltsinfo. Or holoscience site its posted afterthe film or google around once or twice if you are not afraid of loosing old beliefs. Men eventually stumble up the truth but carry on as if nothing happened W. Churchil
I am not an Astrophysicist, but my best friend at the University is. I forced myself to watch the whole thing, despite it having more holes than Lorraine Swiss cheese in the first 5 minutes. I am going to force him to watch it, so I can register his disgust on video. Don't hit me with that being stuck in the "Standard Model" thing either...They don't have a model. At best they have an assertion, and a very uninformed one at that. Once someone starts tying Immanuel Velikovsky into their conversation, let alone their science, as more than a joke, they lose all 100% of that thing called credibility, and become part of the tinhat end of the spectrum.
Where are their papers, reviewing their experimental proofs to be submitted for peer review, and verified independent experimental proofs to back this up? Where are the letter submitted to Scientific Journals with their new discovery? Why don't they have this? Because this isn't even pseudo-science. This is a "yeah that sounds about right" approach to Astrophysics. One, out of all of them had Physicist as his title. Another was an electrical engineer...wrong again Bob, nowhere near his field. The maths aren't even the same, and for a good reason. They don't have anything to do with each other anymore than being a dentist and a veterinarian. The main guy's first listed occupation was Mythologist. That about sums it up,all that was missing was a plumber and a psychic.
This hits top documentary just after a huge discovery was made about Dark matter just this last week. Pretty hilarious timing.
Seriously, please listen to Feynman, Gell-Mann and/or Leonard Suskind's lectures. They are in entirety on YouTube, and in short order you will see how ridiculous this is. Physics equations have to be accurate to 6 decimal points. Nowhere else in science or anything else is that accuracy required. That is a seemingly ridiculous requirement, but that is what it takes to cut the physics mustard. Where was just one equation from these guys? To me they seemed long on critique of other theories, but very shy on proofs of their own. I could make a video with a bunch of crackpots, with a half assed, discovery channel knowledge of things, and produce a hack theory that would seem plausible to a given amount of people, but why?
Good Lord, is Ron going to laugh, and be really upset that this is being accepted by anyone.
I tell ya what. When these guys win the Nobel Prize, have an Element named after them, or even appear on CNN, or the cover of Scientific American for their amazing discovery of the Universal Theory of Everything, which flies in the face of years of proven science. Laws as well as very fleshed out theories. When that day comes, call me, and I will eat my hat on YouTube, but I feel confident I do not need to leave my number.
I wish i could say it was enjoyable just for cheese value, but science is far too important for total hacks to sound formal enough in their near-alchemical understanding, to convince a fair amount of people that they know what they're even talking about. At the very least, rent Cosmos and watch it....these guys made at least 20 statements that are demonstrably wrong. They probably actually believe this, much as the fake moon mission guys, but conviction doesn't make you right. Years and years of dull work, hoping for one big Eureka moment is how science is advanced. Its painfully dull at times, but the moments of discovery make up for all the drudgery. These guys in the video didn't submit their ideas to such a rigorous inquiry, they decided they were correct, case closed. A good scientist is a skeptic, most especially of his/her own work.
Your "belief" is strong. Too bad we aren't talking about religion here. Electric fields and magnetic fields are intertwined. You tried to point out that their logic is flawed because one can exist without the other. That is true, as long as there is zero motion. If the electric charge moves, it creates a magnetic field, and vice versa. In none of the instances this addresses are the charges/fields stationary. So, permanent magnets and capacitors need not be addressed in conjunction with this.
Einstein did say that he was not satisfied with his theory. He said that it did not explain everything properly. It was everyone else that started taking it as fact. This currently proposed theory isn't even addressing the quantum level. It is addressing the stellar, interstellar, intergalactic, and interuniversal levels.
In essence, this new theory based on electro-magnetism would be very easy to dismiss if it didn't perfectly explain, with predictable evidence, repeatedly all the workings that the current, widely accepted model fails to explain. You can either choose to believe in your "religion" of the current universal model, or rejoin the scientific community and look at the evidence to make your conclusions. The current model fails too severely in too many ways. If you supplement what we currently have with this new information, suddenly, everything is working as expected and we no longer have to use magic and create new mysterious forces/substances to patch the holes in the theory.
Of all the theories I have seen and delved into, this makes the most sense of the how and why about everything so far to date. Einstein always said he was missing something but never could pin point what it was. Looks like Tesla's concepts applied to interstellar interactions too. People seem to keep forgetting that ALL of the natural forces apply in EVERY situation. This does not dismiss any of the gravitational effects, What it does it is put electro-magnetism back in its proper place alongside of gravity. Too bad everyone always thinks on such a limited scale. We probably cold have figured this out a long time ago if it wasn't for that.
Wait a second. I can pull a ball bearing off of a magnet, that means I'm stronger than magnetism and gravity combined, therefore I must have created the universe. For all the people here stating that this is a good documentary I have one question. Atlantis, true or false?
This is a great documentary. I have watched at least 6 times now. It radically changes the current gravity based view of the standard universe theory to the electro-magnetic model which makes much more sense.
Tesla discovered his research that eletro-magnetic energy surrounded the earth and filled the vacuum of space. Electricity in its form was gaseous (his words) which today might be explained better as plasma.
From the current observations of uniformly spinning galaxies, to a better understanding of pulsar stars, to how are sun might actually be working an electro-magnetic universe makes infinitely more sense.
I look forward to more scientific research along the lines of the electro-magnetic universe as the the building blocks of all matter is electro-magnetism.
Thank you for adding this great documentary!
Arnold Vinette
Ottawa, Canada
Not familiar with this theory. I will have to check into it some more. The electrified particle theory between galaxies sure makes a lot more sense than dark matter and dark energy and it more readily explains why everything isn’t clumped together; look how a magnet organizes iron filings into patterns… Im still processing this information, very interesting. Another good document!
Martin, thanks much for the references.
I only hold a BA in math, and only minored in physics, and I know nothing about electrical engineering, so I lack the wherewithal to comment on the efficacy of the rather vague ideas put forth in this documentary. I do know, however, that gravity can be completely ignored in calculations involving problems dealing primarily with electromagnetism.
If a galaxy were viewed as a rotating disk of plasma sweeping along normal matter within the dynamics of its rotation, then the need to postulate dark energy and dark matter would fall by the wayside. This, alone, leads me to be interested in just what it is these guys might be, sort of, kind of, maybe, trying to say.
That's what's wrong with this doc: that these men are actually even presenting an hypothesis must itself be viewed as an hypothesis! And that's a pity, because ANYTHING that gets rid of 'dark-stuff' is worth a look at.
Anybody here know where one might turn to find out exactly what it is these men might be trying to say?
Current theories about the nature of stars like our sun are inconsistent with several observations and it has therefore been long known that they aren't complete. They have, however, represented the best match with experiments and therefore been our best working model.
This article simply notes that recent evidence supports a different model (completely unrelated to the thunderbolts theory). This happens all the time and is the strength of the scientific process.
If at all related to the documentary above, it goes to show that the current consensus is by no means protected as dogma and that accepted paradigms can change ... provided that they offer a better explanation of empirical evidence.
The Freeman
'I notice more than one erroneous statement on this video. The statement was made that “only an electric current produces an electromagnetic field.”. This is demonstrably false, as both a flow of water (a fluid) in a pipe and a flow of air (a fluid) in a duct, can produce a measurable EMF. An electric current can be picked up from this flow by wrapping a conductor around the conduit.'
Electric current is defined as the rate at which charge flows through a surface. In your example isn't the charge already flowing before you wrap the conductor around the conduit? Your use of the term "picked up" itself implies the current is either detected or induced from it's existing flow.
Not saying there weren't erroneous statements made. I just think this wasn't one of them.
damon yerg,
well done! Lucky me you don't charge for your lectures. I think I followed your exposition, despite dizzy spells.
My take is that 'the Universe' is unitary, which rules out the existence of a supplementary, external, "I" or consciousness of same. The unity subsumes all, finis.
But we can accept a universe as a continuum of existence, of some kind? If consciousness/knowledge necessarily arise (not a bizarre accident), equally, subjective & objective are necessary phases of that, giving knowledge/consciousness of an incomplete but expanding nature.
Yet how else? Perfect knowledge implies the stasis of completion, which cannot exist, if the universe as existence is a continuum.
Of course, all that falls if knowledge can be a state outside space-time. Over to you, quantum mechanics, or Vatican, I'm dizzy again. OGT
I surely don't claim to be an expert OGT but I think the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) is more in the realms of philosophy than cosmology (though I concede the 2 disciplines are inextricably linked).
There are 2 main versions of SAP floating around. One by Carter "the Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est."
The Latin tag ("I think, therefore the world is such [as it is]") makes it clear that "must" indicates a deduction from the fact of our existence; the statement is thus a truism, i.e. self-evident.
The other version is from Barrow and Tipler "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:
(1) "There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'"
This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
(2) "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his participatory universe and Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP). However, the argument leads to a chicken-and-egg problem, for those observers must exist in some universe of their own in order to act (unless the observer(s) is self-existent, which returns to the prior possibility)[citation needed].
(3) "An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
By contrast, Carter merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.
My own view is consistent with Carter's SAP: The laws of physics are indeed such as to allow life to exist, or I would not be here to write this. However it is not clear that we can deduce anything about our own significance, nor even the significance of life in general, from that. I'm a believer that if a tree falls in the forest it makes a noise, regardless whether anyone or anything is there to hear it or not.
So back to the Paul Davies interpretation vis a vis the "dismal possibility ....." Certainly sounds pessimistic and something Creationists might latch onto.
Let's consider how much we've already been able to nut out in the tiny fraction of a second (in the cosmological timeframe) we've been in existence as a species. And think of the great leaps forward we're making in terms of computing power and AI which will undoubtedly facilitate a greater understanding.
Maybe it's true we'll never know everything there is to know, but heck what a ride we have in front of us in the quest to get there!
Some very good comments above; thanks chaps. Me, I'm as impartial as only the physics-ignorant can be.
Correct me if wrong, but from memory, I think it was Paul Davies who wrote about the 'strong anthropic principle'. This was the dismal possibility that we can never u/stand the universe fully. Our brains/minds are too intimately involved with it to allow an outside, objective perspective.
If so, there will always be "something missing" from our theories. What the experts think? OGT