Symbols of an Alien Sky

Symbols of an Alien Sky

2009, Mystery  -   188 Comments
Ratings: 7.54/10 from 217 users.

As a modern society, we stand in awe as we gaze upon the colossal monuments and mysterious cultures of ancient times. These civilizations were vastly different from our own; so different, in fact, that our perspectives on the world as it exists today often place a barrier to our comprehension of ancient beliefs and customs.

This documentary titled Symbols of an Alien Sky seeks to rectify this. With vivid insight and enlightening exploration, the film allows us to fully grasp and appreciate the customs of our ancient ancestors through their observations and interpretations of celestial events.

Celestial activities and planetary movements are the subjects of exhaustive research today, and can generally be predicted with great degrees of accuracy. But ancient civilizations approached the canvas of our skies with great fear and reverence, often imbuing its activities with profound mythological connotations.

For them, the chaotic events of their times were written and reflected in the skies. The movements of planets were once thought by our earliest astronomers to represent the presence of omniscient gods. These gods were the subject of much worship and trembling wonder as evidenced by the ceremonies, monuments and artifacts of the time. In fact, reverence for the gods overwhelmingly defined every aspect of these ancient cultures.

While most modern scientists generally regard these beliefs as symptomatic of a naive civilization, Symbols of an Ancient Sky poses several intriguing theories which challenge this assumption. For example, the prominence of various beliefs, symbols and archetypes are strikingly common across every ancient culture.

This commonality is apparent in centuries-old recounts of the dragon, an unexplained mythological phenomenon whose existence was insisted upon by every culture of ancient times. Could this creature, in addition to the other widely accepted archetypes of the day, have really existed in some form?

Symbols of an Ancient Sky opens our minds to the infinite possibilities of our ancient world. This noble journey is unlike any other, and could forever alter our perceptions of the planet we once inhabited and the one in which we exist today.

More great documentaries

188 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Pseudoscientific claptrap, dreamed up by unqualified mythologists. Scientifically impossible nonsense.

    1. Only the most intelligent people of our era will understand the impontance of this documentary aswell as the electric universe theory. There will be many who opose it, frightened and locked inside their own belief in flawed science that they know so little about...

  2. To the initial hour of this program, NONE of the mass of commentary applies.
    Electrical [and/or] Gravitational concepts of our universe do not enter here.
    This first program posits that says - for some extensive period of ancient times, Saturn shone brightly enough to be celebrated as a sun in earth's night skies - and the covering of it by both Venus and Mars created ancient astronomical depictions explicable in no other way.
    Opposing positions in the comments section cannot birth from this first episode as no mentions arise here of any universe theory - gravitational or electrical.
    I know it costs money, but I would have deeply enjoyed diagrams: a from the top view of the ancient earth - saturn - mars - venus relationship at that time

    This documentary [at least its first hour] must be seen by everyone seeking a door into ancient symbology. True- False? Add to your knowledge! Decide!

  3. Would like to see ufo and ancient aliens from the history channel.

  4. Would like to see ufo movies,documentarys,anceint aliens,from history channel.

  5. Refreshing take on theories and some forgone conclusions, a must see documentary.

  6. I hate this, I'm an ispector documentary and I have experience, I really now about this, and this is pure crash.

  7. Try exploring the very real Elongated Skulls of Paracas, Peru as well as other parts of the world to explain the ancient conical headdresses.

  8. Wow this has been a very intellectually entertaining thread. Thank you all! You are all obviously very very educated in your fields and I learned a great deal reading both sides of the fence. Thank you.

  9. Awareness of the nature of our Electric Universe is an epochal paradigm shift in Cosmology. This key documentary re-examines the history of our solar system, starting from the ancient depictions of the same shapes found to be the same all over the world: great plasma exchanges in their skies, in the typical shapes we see in laboratories for this scalable phenomenon. Go to Thunderbolts. info for more and seek out their YouTube channel with updates and predictions on the scientific missions being carried out by the various space agencies and videos of the fascinating lectures from the annual conferences. Highly recommended is also the work of the Suspicious0bservers team and its Sun Series also on YouTube. Electricity flows through the universe aligning nebulae over billions of light years, it is the fuel of life, of every orb as of every living cell. Leave all unnecessary baggage behind and enjoy this both exhilarating and sobering conceptual journey revealing another layer of the onion of the world we thought we knew. Eyes open, no fear, enjoy the ride! ;-)

    1. Prove your affirmations with measures of these giant magnetic fields that align nebulae. Such strong magnetic fields should be a joke to measure, you need serious energy to align galaxies... You can't declare it's an epochal paradigm shift before it actually happens. A scientific paradigm shift occurs when a majority of scientists agree on a new model and make it the ruling theory.

    2. that is the point! we routinely measure magnetic fields and electrical activity far surpassing the expectations of the standard model- this is clearly documented in nearly every peer reviewed article- the conjectures of the EU come directly from the data- not theorizing or abstractions of mathematics which are adjusted to fit data-

    3. Where are the routine measures? Who makes them?
      If there is data that clearly proves the standard model wrong, I definitely want to know which scientists published it and where I can read these peer reviewed papers.

    4. virtually every mainstream paper from measurements taken by spacecraft and radio astronomy shows greater than expected electromagnetic activity- one of the most important examples was the recent encounter of Voyager 1 at the Heliopause - which confirmed the Alfven model

    5. Who published the scientific paper that proves the data from Voyager 1 confirms the Alfven model? I only need the name of one of the scientists to find the paper.

      Greater than expected doesn't mean strong enough to align galaxies and move planets across the solar system. I found an article that says the electron flux at the heliopause is 100 million times smaller than needed in Dr. Donald Scott's EU model. That is extremely smaller than expected!

      The Electric Sun model predicts the Sun should not produce neutrinos. The model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. The Sun has been imaged via its neutrinos.

      If the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. The Sun indeed has a continuous spectrum of light.

      The power of simple analogies, like how electric arcs can produce structures resembling canyons and craters, is that they make complex phenomena seem simple and instantaneous. It explains why many alternative science supporters focus on videos and visual slides rather than peer reviewed research papers.

    6. You are incorrect that Electric Sun model predicts the sun shouldn't produce neutrinos. Where'd you get that? Same place you got the electron flux at the heliopause data?

      The electric sun model says that nuclear fusion occurs at the surface of the sun, and produces neutrinos. The fact that solar flares influence neutrino emissions would seem to confirm that model.

      If the standard model were true, one would expect the temperature of the sun should be hotter as one gets closer to the nuclear furnace at the core. Instead, the opposite is true -- temperatures go down as one gets closer to the core. That evidence alone strongly supports an externally powered sun and casts serious doubt on the nuclear fusion core model.

    7. The sun core is calculated to be 15.7 million K and the surface is 5800 Kelvin. I have no idea where you got your measures of the core being less than 5800 K.

      You can read the paper titled "Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun" published in Nature on 27 August 2014. How could they detect these Neutrinos if there is no fusion in the core??? The Borexino detector is providing real data not derived from an hypothetical model.

  10. As the daughter of an engineer, when other kids were watching TV, I was reading encyclopedias. I made A's in every science class I ever took, except chemistry. Science and Technology have been my hobby and interest since I picked up a science book from a school trash heap and my mom (a school secretary who had to take care of me at work that day) tells me I spent hours and hours trying teach myself to read.

    Why? Because I was fascinated with space. Always have been.

    So, when I was first introduced to the EUT, I came to it as a very well read scientifically educated Electronics repair tech with some electrical engineering training. I knew the Standard Model view of the Cosmos intimately, was a die hard fan of Hawking and Einstein, and while I knew that were some controversial spots still where multiple theories were still up in the air, they were just details, and we were sure the basics were all answered.

    I am stressing this point to tell you that when I came to EUT, I was ready to have a good laugh checking out yet another "New Age" theory.

    But if there is one thing I am all about, it is following where the evidence leads, not trying to make it lead to somewhere I've already decided to go. This is something a lot of people don't want to believe. I cannot tell you how many times I have run across some "well intentioned" individual who's thought "she's just not familiar with the 'truth'" and who start by trying to give me a basic education in the standard model.

    I know the standard model. I know the evidence supporting that model... but I've also examined the evidence that doesn't support that model. The unanswered questions, the questions that kept popping up with every new headline about "astronomer's baffled" with some new anomaly that had showed up in the latest observations.

    Any model that fails to predict is a model that has failed, period. I knew standard model had failed, but I kept clinging to that dream that sooner or later, we'd figure it all out, that we'd find that missing piece that would suddenly make sense out of everything. I knew there was something so simple that we were going to facepalm when we finally saw it.

    That facepalm turned into a wrecking ball the size of Saturn.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right? EUT doesn't have "extraordinary evidence". Extraordinary is far too weak a word for the evidence that electricity, and not gravity, is the prime mover and shaper of the cosmos. It has models that actually can predict what we are likely to find that have been verified repeatedly. It explains mystery after mystery with simple clear, and logical explanations with references to observed laboratory experiments with plasma.

    It's the missing piece. That element x that suddenly made it all fit together. That electricity, interacting throughout space as well as gravity, together build the vastly complex structure we see. And it eliminates the need for ad hoc solutions, like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and all of the other mathematical creations that we can only claim exist by inference, i.e. "they have to exist or the math won't work"

    So, if you are someone like me. a True Believer in "Evidence Based Science" who isn't afraid to challenge their models, this documentary is your first step into a world of evidence, evidence, and more evidence, that never once will ask you to have "faith" in any thing that "cannot be seen, because it doesn't interact with normal matter."

    Can you handle the truth?

    1. Science has no need for belief, the measures should be evident. If you need belief to trust a theory, it's not science. Provide me with measures of the magnetic fields that replace gravity and I will agree it's true.

    2. I don't BELIEVE anything Fabian. And if you'd actually bothered to read what I said, you'd know that.

      Prove you're not just a bag of wind and go examine the evidence.

    3. I read the text and expanded on your idea, take it easy.

    4. Science fact- There is only one thing that produces magnetic fields and that is electricity. The electromagnet fields do not replace gravity they work with it but are much stronger and so, are the major influence in the universe. Gravity is -10^39 or 1000, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the electromagnetic force.

    5. Yes and if there are incredibly powerful magnetic fields controling the universe, they should be extremely easy to measure. Why is noone providing me with scientific papers instead of stating the obvious about the weak and strong forces???

    6. I tried. 3 times. every link supplied was moderated out. You want hard Data? It exists. Go to Thunderbolts dot info and look at the Essential Guide to the EU.

      But don't blame us for the moderators preventing the posting of links to the data you want.

    7. Give me the name of the scientists and I will Google their papers.
      I mean real scientists in the field, not psychiatrists like Velikovsky that reinvented the solar system to suit his dreams of old testament accuracy.

      Links aren't allowed because Mods would need to read all the sites with nonsense people post on here and there aren't 500 mods avaliable to do that.

    8. Wal Thornhill, Donald Scott, Halton Arp, Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Stephen J. Crothers, C.J. Ransom.

      Those are just off the top of my head. The first 3 have been involved for years, the others are somewhat newer I believe.

    9. Wal Thornhill : Are you aware his model predicts magnetic fields for the surface of the Sun and at the orbit of the Earth, 1000 to 1,000,000 times larger than measured?

      Donald Scott : Did you know that the data from Voyager 1 shows
      the measured electron flux falls short of the value needed in his model by a factor of 100 million?

      Halton Arp : Many of his arguments about quasars have been refuted with improved observing equipments.

      Pierre-Marie Robitaille : A radiologist that claims satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans! One really needs to have quite a fertile imagination to believe distant satellites pointing at space could detect a glow coming from the oceans.

      Stephen J. Crothers : An amateur scientist that as been labelled by Nobel laureate Dr. Gerard 't Hooft as promoting strange misconceptions and nonsense and Dr. Roy Kerr, famous mathematician, labelled his work as rubbish.

    10. It's really easy to search. I did put a link up to make it simple for you but Disqus don't like outside links and didn't allow it to be published. So I suggest you simply go to the NASA website where they explain when they first measured them and how they continually measure them with their kit, like with the Hubble Space Telescope.

    11. I sincerely doubt NASA has a page that explains how magnetic fields and/or plasma moved Venus, Mercury, Jupiter or Saturn near the Earth a few thousand years ago.

    12. You asked about magnetic fields in space and so got the appropriate answer. So you seriously need to go to night school and learn how to read properly and get your mind in order. Take extra lessons in real rational and critical thinking as this will help you to mature in life. It is obviously not worth carrying on this conversation until you do.

    13. You seriously think I was asking if there are magnetic fields in space? What kind of silly question would that be since everybody know that heavenly bodies and dust emit magnetic fields. My question obviously pertained to the documentary which is why there is a discussion board here.

      Show me something that proves there are magnetic fields strong enough to do what is claimed in the documentary and structure all matter in the universe. Just show me how NASA needs to calculate the effects of these giant magnetic fields when they send probes to MARS for example. If they exist, they need to build their probes and satellites to resist these incredibly strong magnetic fields, no? If they are so powerful, show me the effect they have on their instruments.

      We are talking about magnetic fields that align galaxies and move planets around the solar system! They would have stupendous effects on flimsy things like electronic scientific instruments made of metal as far as I understand physics and magnetism.

    14. Hi Phil. good point to raise, except you must add that 'at the size of an atom', electromagnetism is 10-39 times more powerful than gravitation. Electromagnetism is a whimper at the event horizon of a black hole. Take care, and best wishes Phil.

    15. Black holes, dark mater etc were invented because Einstein made the mistake of not using the electromagnetic force in his imaginings, which is as you say 10^39 or 1000, billion, billion, billion, billion time more powerful than gravity but at any size. Did you know the equation for a black hole can be summed up by- ‘n/0 = ∞’ or in other words, 'anything divided by nothing equals for ever without end'. Plus did you know that there are four types of black hole, not just sizes but actual types. This is not only what the 'n' in the equation stands for but also in case any other type needs to invented at a later date in case the different math from the first four still doesn't fit observation and measurement. When we don't bother with the guesswork and return to a proper scientific method of Observation, Measurement, Lab Experimentation & Prediction That Proves Correct as used by those in the Electric Universe community and is based on the very real science of Plasma Cosmology and Electrical Engineering, you will see that contorted mathematical guesswork isn't at all needed and is in fact a very bad distraction from proper science.

    16. You should know that Einstein spent the remainder of his life trying to unify gravitation, and electromagnetism, (grand unification theory) and only disregarded the strong, and weak nuclear forces. To state that Einstein did not use imagination regarding electromagnetism is just plain wrong considering it was his work that solved the incongruities of Newton, (gravity) and James Clarke Maxwell (electromagnetism) with the creation of special and general relativity.
      Yes, I am aware of the different types of black holes. While I respect your confidence, and open mindedness regarding exploration of newer theories, ( a good thing) your contempt for those who preceded it is obvious in your declarations that their work was a bad distraction from proper science. (Nothing we understand or know today is the result of mathematical guesswork, nor is mathematics the end all of proper science) 2000 years ago, Ptolemy could mathematically predict the position of any planet (past or future) using epicycles, but he was still wrong, which is the same problem that exists today with string theory. (the 'theory of everything' was solved in the mid 1990's mathematically, but will likely never proven considering the infinitesimal size of the elements involved) Either way, I appreciate your position/enthusiasm, and only suggest that you consider a more pragmatic approach regarding what you think you know. It is very likely that aspects of what you are stating will be necessary to further science, but in combination with other scientific theories, and well grounded fundamental understandings that got us where we are today. Take care, and best wishes Phil.

    17. Hiya Awful (as you for some reason refuse to give your real name I can’t call you anything else, sorry).

      Yes I know Einstein tried to correct his mistake and include the EM Force after his many correspondences with and then after, afternoon teas with Mr. & Mrs Velikovsky.

      But because he had built a career on gravity and the speed of light being constant with light being the fastest speed in the universe, which we know on all counts they are not, the numbers have to be continually fudged.

      Obviously scientism doesn’t like the word fudge as it implies that they are not in any way scientific, so instead prefers to call it ‘intellectual faze locking’ as admitted by the head of metrology in London.

      Because Einstein wasn’t able to come to terms with being wrong and so would have to admit it to the world, he tried in vain to come up with another creation but of course he also failed with that too, as it had nothing to do with real world, or the rest of the universe come to that.

      Without doubt gravity exists and can be used when objects are moving through the æther on relatively stable orbits, but as the recent closely examined comets have shown in graphic detail, gravity is just a by product of the electromagnetic force and not at all understood by mathematical guesswork, with this eventually leading people to think that comets were just 'grubby snowballs', because scientism only used gravity to calculate a comet's composition.

      But as is being continually proved by real science, it's not only mass that equates to the gravity of matter, but also the electrical field in which it is travelling through.

      When scientism measures comets at a great distance from the Sun they find that they don't have not much gravity compared to their size and so think that they are just light weight ice and dust. But when a comet gets nearer to the Sun in it's orbit, it will start to enter an increase in the electrical field and so not only arc, but also increase the gravitational pull of the comet and show it to be what it actually is, silicate.

      So it is not surprising but actually a predictable effect that any probe around an object such as comet or indeed a planet will start to have to deal with not only it's electronics being affected as it gets closer to the object but also the amount of gravity it encounters.

      Scientism call this drag but clearly they still haven't a clue why it is actually happening because they stubbornly stick to the pseudo religion of scientism’s doctrine and tenet that says that Einstein was some sort of genius.

      One day soon everyone will know that the nails are now quickly being driven into the coffin of scientism, with a ‘Electric Cosmology’ doing the hammering and that is not because of any contorted mathematical gibberish, but because it uses the very real science of Plasma Physics and Electrical Engineering or as it is commonly termed, the Electric Universe theory.

      I am sorry if this is a bit of a shock (electric of course) to your system but I only deal with real science. Thanx for you nice wishes and I do hope you have a nice weekend too ¦:¬)

    18. Even though we disagree, at least we are both pleasant about it. That in itself is refreshing enough for me.
      P.S: Only time will tell who is correct, but one thing is for certain; we won't be around to confirm it.

    19. In the EUT community we have almost a complete cosmology from the atom through to clusters of galaxies with fully collated work and proof from many scientists and researchers. For your own convenience I suggest you have a look at this years Thunderbolts Project's conference 25th-29th June and which should be broadcast live on the net to see just where are at. Personally I have been teaching the cosmology through my blog, the FB Page I set up at the end of last year and in open discussion groups in universities in both London and Oxford and which I have now been ask back to give updates, so this is actually happening now. This means that the tipping-point will be a lot quicker than you might think. Just one more point, there is no such thing as time as what we call time is only a rough construct based on the need to organise our lives and is based on the movement of the earth through the three dimension and nothing more.

    20. Hi Phil. Several things to note.
      To begin with, space/time is merely a moment stretched out for us to exist, and experience. Space/time is as real a dimension, as the other 3 you are willing to accept. (4 dimensional manifold) While you may only accept 3, Chuck Missler (a proponent of the electric universe theory) accepts 4 as well. (along with the other 6 to 7 microcosm dimensions that are beyond our comprehension - religious views not withstanding )
      Secondly, Gravitation is not a bi-product of electromagnetism, but the opposite. Gravitation is a bi-product of mass. The electromagnet sphere of earth exists because we have a moon 1/4 the size of the planet moving perpendicular to it. The iron/nickel core of the planet remains liquid and moving because of gravitational tides from the moon, which produces the electromagnet sphere. This is precisely why Mars no longer has one, because it's 2 tiny moons were irrelevant, so when the planet cooled, so did it's core. This also explains why Mars volcanos are so much larger, and localized to a singular area of the planet.
      As I stated previously, certain aspects of the electric universe theory are absolutely correct, and will no doubt further science in the future. (in conjunction with relativity, and quantum mechanics) The reason I don't believe we will be around to see it confirmed is because the dogmatic view of the scientific community is very entrenched, and will be very slow to appreciate what it has to offer. (anything that threatens funding, tenure, and of course legacy after death)
      Your contempt/disrespect for Einstein and his intelligence is disappointing, and misdirected. It is a bi-product of your enthusiasm for the electric universe theory, and I suggest you educate yourself regarding his life, (get to know the man) and his work. When you learn about the resistance he encountered from the entrenched scientific/political community to further physics, then you will understand that you are attaching attributes of the scientific community to him personally, in essence 'shooting the messenger'.
      P.S: No one has 'fudged the mathematics of special, or general relativity, and they remain as bedrock as the day he completed them. It is quite apparent that your education regarding special, and general relativity is very limited, or you would realize that they are not in conflict with the electric universe theory. Take care Phil.

    21. Hiya Awful,

      In order to accept statements I obviously do need proof of such claims like that space/time is ‘a moment stretched out’. Even though Mr. Missler (sorry I don’t know him and have never come across him in the Electric Universe community) might accept time as a dimension, I and plenty of others don’t and see it and as previously stated, just an invention to order our lives as it can’t be measured by any devices apart from those which were invented to be based roughly on the rotation of the earth.

      What has been proved though over the years since our probes have got to visit comets and asteroids is that gravity is a product of electromagnetism. Wal Thornhill will this year at the Electric Universe 2015 conference go into more detail on this. “In the theoretical sciences, it is commonly assumed that the role of gravity is settled. But as Richard Feynman observed, “There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.” The problem is that mathematics will not account for the essential force in question. And yet, when theorists speculate about the big bang one conjecture is followed by another all building on the supposed supremacy of gravity as the driving force of cosmic evolution. In his first talk, Wal Thornhill will take us on a forty-year personal journey to understand the role of gravity in the electric universe. Drawing on his own experience, he identifies many findings in space with the power to inspire a new generation.” So on this question and probably the others too, we can continue after the Conference which is only just over a month away.

      To correct you, Mars does have a magnet field albeit not like the earths as it is much weaker and only appears in patches. Also you will find that the planet Mercury also has a magnetic field but it doesn’t have a moon so the guess (sorry but I have to say guess because I have never seen any proper scientific method of Observation, Measurement, Lab Experimentation, & Prediction That Proves Correct) that the earth’s magnetic field is produced by an internal process caused by an outside body orbiting it and so is clearly wrong.

      From Wiki- “Mercury's magnetic field is approximately a magnetic dipole (meaning the field has only two magnetic poles)[7] that is significant, and apparently global,[8] on planet Mercury.[9] Data from Mariner 10 led to its discovery in 1974; the spacecraft measured the field's strength as 1.1% that of Earth's magnetic field.”

      Trying to explain Mars’, Mercury or any of the other magnetic fields by now using other dreamed up processes don’t wash I am afraid, planetary magnetic fields are either driven by a moon or not, you can’t have both ways or come to that hundreds of different ways. In the end and which is a scientific fact, there is only one thing that produces magnetic fields and that is electricity.

      With Einstein I do know the man but here I am just looking at his work and which was just his imagination working because he didn’t use any scientific method with his thinking. I am sure he would have done very well with a modern I.Q. test, but that obviously brings into question how we actually measure what it means to be clever or intelligent. Personally I would also include common sense and emotional intelligence and upto now see very little relevance without it.

      Sure the establishment doesn’t like to be questioned with what they believe to be true and Einstein, as did Wegener experience this but that seriously puts into question how the establishment is run and by whom.

      Why do you automatically assume I don’t know of the two relativities (two because one didn’t work). Obviously there is a massive chasm between the Electric Universe Theory which uses a proper scientific method as described above and mathematical speculation, so I really don’t see how you can lump them together.

      Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear before but I didn’t mean that the relativities were fudged but the results from measuring of the speed of light and that of gravity, plus a whole host of so called constants and has in fact been admitted to.

      It’s been nice chatting to you and we can carry on after the EU15 conference when even more proof is presented. I am personally really looking forward to this one as I have with all the past conferences. Maybe one day I will be able to afford to get over there in person but until then I will have to contend with seeing it through the web.

    22. I figured I should leave you with a thought Phil. You stated that Mercury has a electromagnet sphere, without having a moon, which makes my comments regarding the Earth, and Mars invalid. Don't take this wrong, but your thought process is simplistic in nature. You have not considered the differences in orbit, distance from the sun, mass, temperature, density, composition, etc. There are many more factors involved, far beyond a sesame street mindset of, 'one of these things is not like the other'. when trying to understand planetary conditions.
      I am not one who believes that science already has all the answers, and has no room for advancement. (patience, it will happen) I am however well grounded in taking everything into consideration before drawing conclusions. Jumping to conclusions is the quickest way to contradicting oneself. Perhaps you may wish to consider using Einstein's method of 'thought experiments'. Not only will it give you insight into what he had to offer, (respect for your elders) it will hone your 'logic skills', a necessary key ingredient for that solid 'scientific method' you are seeking!
      P.S: Enjoy the conference Phil.

    23. >the scientific method relies on self-correction- and that has been stifled for over a century by the 20th century Military Industrial Complex and their locking up institutional science by allowing a small group of like-minded men control all the journals and university dept head positions- now anything that challenges the consensus flounders in the shadows- student dissenters are prevented from obtaining their degrees- professional critics are discredited as cranks and imbeciles- nothing new can break through- we are stuck-

    24. And here we go, a conspiracy against science. I felt that was coming yet science has made incredible strides forward in the past century based on the accepted physics model.

    25. name one example of progress from mainstream theories of gravity/solar system formation - you only have a growing myth about a Big bang and a 200 year old story about solar systems coalescing from dust- the actual progress in technology has all come from early Electric Universe proponets - Tesla / Steinmetz/ Edison/ Morse/ Hertz/ Alexanderson/ the Quantum Physics of Planck / etc- the people who built global electronic civilization- even the standard model of Particle Physics that brought the nuclear technology was only possible through the breakthroughs in aether theory by Dirac- this is where the concept of anti-matter symmetry that underlies all modern partical physics comes from- [but without Dirac's Superfluid Aether the SM has devolved into a quagmire of fictional fields and false claims of their gauge bosons]-

      one of the strange things that anyone can appreciate- is why does our culture celebrate Einstein as the greatest scientist- when his work in gravity and photons affects no one- yet the scientists like Tesla or Steinmetz who where vastly more intelligent than Einstein and who built our electronic civilization BY HAND- are ignored and forgotten-

    26. GPS clocks need to account relativity to give accurate positions.

      The GPS satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away. As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. If, for you, that is not practical proof of Einstein's theory of relativity and gravity, I don't know what would qualify and convince you of his merit.

      You label these famous scientists as proponents of the Electric Universe theory yet they all worked within standard physics and never promoted an Electric Universe or denied the standard model. Tesla is not forgotten by scientists, even by the general public, never heard of Tesla Motors?

    27. again- you look foolish when you don't do your homework- there is a wealth of material by leading scientists and engineers in GPS that debunk the claim that the adjustments to clocks are based on or confirm Relativity- it's a myth- propaganda in fact- Google : Ron Hatch - Relativity in the light of GPS-

    28. Ron Hatch never built a GPS clock in his life. You always forward me to people that support the EU theory when there is ton of evidence even on the GPS. gov website that relativity is accounted for by the clocks in GPS. You can look for the calculcations by Dr Neil Ashby on there.

      Neil Ashby's work was the basis of general relativistic correction being properly included in the Global Positioning System. You are as dishonest as can be not even looking into the real life work of physicists.

      Here is info he published on the matter if someday you care to look for information outside your EU websites :

      Introduction to Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System
      N. Ashby, J.J. Spilker, Jr., Ch. 18 in The Global Positioning
      System—Theory and Application, Eds B.W. Parkinson, J.J. Spilker, Jr.,
      American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, (1995).

      Here is the conclusion of his paper you probably won't read :

      Relativistic effect in the GPS are far too large to ignore.

      Back during the GPS development, the contention over the reality of relativistic effects was so severe, a frequency synthesizer was installed on the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite to alter the system clock frequency to the relativistically-corrected value, just in case. Neil Ashby described how the required clock synchronization could not be achieved until the corrected synthesizer was turned on in a document titled "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System & NTS-2 GPS Flying Clocks".

      Roger Easton, the father of GPS, experimentally verified Einstein's theory of relativity. A relativistic offset correction that he applied is still in use by every satellite in the GPS constellation.

      You might also want to read on the Gravity Probe B experiment launched by Nasa/Stanford University that support general relativity if you care for more proof. The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. The findings were published in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters.

      It is a peer reviewed paper published in a highly reputable journal, not some fringe organization journal that will publish anything proposed.

    29. In 100 years, no one has found any evidence (no lack of trying) that general, and special relativity are flawed. Atomic clocks have proven time and again that special relativity (regarding relative motion) is irrefutable.
      P.S: GPS adjustments are necessary for space/time (4 dimensional) accuracy. If you still believe in absolute time, please provide a mathematical explanation to reconcile relative motion. (good luck)

    30. Actually, 'special relativity', which is travelling in a straight line at a constant velocity (relative motion) has far more impact on time dilation than 'general relativity'. General relativity deals with gravitation (acceleration) via the 'equivalence principle'. Thus, velocity has far more impact on time dilation than acceleration. (twin paradox)
      Note: GPS adjustments must calculate for both effects.

    31. While I appreciate your position, and agree with much of what you said, it is folly to believe that Einstein had less impact than Tesla, or is far less intelligent. One may be far better hands on, (inventions) but cannot hold a candle to what Einstein set in motion to even allow the scientific advancement we enjoy today. Take care, and best wishes Tim.

    32. It should be noted Fabien that funding by government for any Science that has no corporate benefit has been utterly slashed. This is factual, not conspiratorial. Also, the very nature of conflict that promotes scientific advancements, and understanding is a double edge sword. It would be short-sighted for any of us to only embrace the positive aspects while ignoring the inherent reality of the economics, and the vanity of those of high prominence who would be impacted by any discovery that could destroy a lifetime of work, or impact tenure. In this sense, human nature rules the day! Take care, and best wishes Fabien.

    33. Yet 2400 scientists work in fundamental physics at CERN who has 21 member states and the Large Hadron Collider has just been upgraded at a cost of 105 000 000$. I wouldn't call it research that has immediate corporate benefits. Using Any is the mistake here, you might have chosen much or most so it sounded more realistic. If you care to google the AAAS Historical trends in Federal R&D, you will also see that the Non-Defense Federal agencies budget has been pretty much stable in constant 2014 dollars in the last decade and several billions higher than during the 90s.

      As for the previous post by Tim Gross, "a small group of like-minded men control all the journals and university dept head positions" is conspirational, "anything that challenges the consensus flounders in the shadows" is not real by any sense. There are many proposed alternatives to the Big Bang theory such as the cyclic universe theory, M-theory or the multiverse theory. If his affirmation was real, neither of us would know about any of these.

    34. Regardless of the words I chose, I do believe you understood the intent of my comment Fabien. ( your word choice of many, or most, is better than 'any') As I stated previously, there is 'positive' aspects, as well as exceptions to the rule that make it easy to dismiss 'the down side' of humanity's nature. My statements are not a defense of Tim's position, merely acknowledging 'a truth' that exists whether we want to see it, or not.
      P.S: In my opinion, the future of scientific advancement will flourish from a combination of several different theories. (general relativity is not wrong because quantum mechanics is right) While on the surface, some may appear invalid, certain aspects of them may be necessary to resolve key issues that exist today. (theories are merely relative to perception - Ed Witten resolving the different versions of string theory)

    35. Alright, I will try this without any links to further information, since it seems the mods here do not like links.

      So, to begin, very true, Science has no need for belief, which is a point I was very careful to make in my statements above. In fact the only time I even used the word believe was in the last section in which I stated "So, if you are someone like me. a True Believer in "Evidence Based Science" who isn't afraid to challenge their models, this documentary is your first step into a world of evidence, evidence, and more evidence, that never once will ask you to have "faith" in any thing that "cannot be seen, because it doesn't interact with normal matter."

      Now, if you had actually comprehended this statement, you would have realized that I agreed with you heartily. Science is not, and cannot ever be about belief. It must be about the evidence. That is the difference between EUT and the "Mainstream" which demands that I believe in "Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Flow, Black Holes, and Extra Dimensions" that cannot be observed, cannot be directly studied, and can only be inferred to exist because without them, Gravity Theory falls apart, because OBSERVATIONS DO NOT MATCH THE PREDICTIONS.

      EUT doesn't require belief in anything. It is based entirely on reproducible experimentation in the lab with plasma that creates the exact same effects observed in space.

      So, that answers your first statement, now allow me to point out that your second statement, which I assume was intended to be a intelligent request, only further illustrates your lack of knowledge in astrophysics and electrical plasmas, because those magnetic fields you are inquiring about have been known and acknowledged in astrophysics for decades, as well as having been thoroughly mapped by radio astronomy. Their EXISTENCE is not in dispute. The difference is that the mainstream simply claims that these fields exist without anything producing them, using such terms as "frozen in", or they talk about "shockwaves" when discussing the impact of a ionized gas on the magnetosphere of a planet. They know full well that these fields exist, but they refuse to acknowledge one simple fact that any electronics tech can tell you.

      You cannot have a field without a current. Nor can you have a current without a field.

      A stream of ionized gases is by definition an electric current. it produces magnetic fields. those fields in turn organize the ionized gases into filaments that can more efficiently carry current. And those electrical currents are 37 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, and fall in strength with the square of the distance, not the inverse square, which means that they not only are far stronger than gravity, but that they have a much longer reach than gravity.

      Every question which gravity only theory has answered with "Dark Matter" or other mathematical fictions can be far more easily answered with electrical forces. Forces that can be examined in the lab, and which can be scaled from the sub atomic to the cosmic.

      So, to be blunt, I am afraid all your post revealed was how little you really understood either my post, or the subject of which you inquired. But please, do feel free to ask further questions, if you truly desire answers.

    36. Science doesn't demand that you believe in Dark Matter or Dark Energy. It's only a proposition that is not even accepted by most physicists.

      The problem with your measures is that a measure of a plasma in a lab IS NOT a measure of a plasma in space. How they came to the conclusion that somehow a plasma in the lab will behave exactly as a plasma in space is a mystery.

      You seem to think magnetic fields have the exact same effect on everything as gravity does and I don't think that is correct.

    37. Hun.... I very STRONGLY recommend you read up on plasma science.

    38. And I recommend you read on the effect of gravity on anything with mass compared to the effect of electromagnetic fields with matter.

    39. I have, which is WHY I recommend you read up on plasma science. Because all you are demonstrating is how little you obviously know about the subject.

    40. I know what plasma is and how it's conductive. You'll need to explain, along with magnetic fields, how it can move planets around the solar system like presented in that joke of a documentary for me to give creedence to what was presented in that video.

    41. Which, if you really did know about plasma, you wouldn't need to ask. Therefore, all your question is revealing is how little you actually do know, and that you are only pretending to know what you are talking about.

      So, again. Learn something about plasma and how it works. I highly recommend any textbook on plasma physics.

      I also highly recommend looking up the term Harbig-Haro Object. Which is an example of how the fields in question are presently arranging STARS in the same configuration.

      But until then, I believe I have shown you more than sufficient patience, so, adieu.

    42. stop asking others to do your thinking and homework- we all had to study this ourselves before we expressed an opinion- no one else can show it to you- between Thunderbolts/ Holoscience/ Suspicious Observers/ The Plasma Universe/ and the Cosmology Quest documentaries on Halton Arp- you have more than enough information- now get to work or be silent-

    43. Documentaries are not peer reviewed scientific papers and no I will not be silent. Anyone can make a documentary on youtube, I want to see the science behind their affirmations that accepted physics are wrong.

    44. Holoscience and the Plasma Universe sites are not a documentaries- clearly like all other defenders of the failing paradigm of modern cosmology- you won't even LOOK at the evidence or the arguments- you skim and assume - Plasma Universe has a huge list of peer reviewed papers from several cited journals- it's all there waiting for anyone who is honest-

    45. Sure, you can provide decades old papers by Hannes Alfvén and Anthony Peratt but post publication observations do not support their theories and models. The COBE, WMAP and the Planck satellite observations do not support the Plasma Universe. Galaxy-forming currents should produce radio emissions that aren't dectected.

      Then you have blatantly wrong proposals by the likes of Donald Scott that are totally discredited by observations that directly contradict their models.

      Yes, I have looked at the "evidence" and it certainly doesn't prove in any sense that the standard model is failing and I am very honest in my opinion.

      I've spent enough time reading all the nonsense proposed by EU supporters. You will have to try to convince someone else than me to adhere to your plasma cosmology nonsense.


    46. I dont feel worthy of even leaving a comment on this thread , however I am gonna go out on a limb and say this . L'amour seems to be hung up on the ....and I quote " I want to see the science behind their affirmations that accepted physics are wrong." . Why is that so hard to imagine as being a possibility ? I would think it to be text book to accept that you / we us / everyone in the world does not know everything there is to know and to be arrogant like that is to disgrace science itself contradicting what science is all about
      Wouldn't the gap between the "accepted physics" and quantum mechanics be enough to call into question "accepted physics " theories without the need to demand to see some papers that were published and cling to closed minded attitudes ? With overwhelming evidence that wont go away and challenges us to re-write what we think we know bout nature of reality . Like I said I am just a seeker of the truth and open to going wherever it leads and discarding everything else along the way strictly amateur wanna be wish I was a real scientist ,as informed as some of the commentators on this thread I aspire to be .lol

    47. Val this is a fruitless effort with Fabian. Fabian plasma is scalable to the galactic level. Research by the likes of Hannes Alfven and Anthony Peratt, (who I might add was the worlds leading authority on plasma physics working at Los Alamos laboratories when he made the discovery of plasma instabilities and their correlation to ancient rock glyphs discovered around the globe) has shown the scalable nature of plasma in laboratory experiments. Your reluctance to examine that which is opposition to your beliefs is a clear indication of cognitive dissonance or worse, an intentional attempt to obfuscate an overwhelming body of evidence for these claims that are readily apparent and available for any willing to take the time to understand and comprehend them. It will be lonely on your Island of incredulity in the near future.

    48. it's clear that Fabien has no intention of learning or understanding- just gainsaying based on his beliefs- so many mainstream apologists have lied to themselves and convinced themselves that their beliefs are not beliefs but rational deduction-

    49. Gravity is not a belief, it is demonstrated. Electromagnetism is well studied, you come up with a theory of the universe that shuffled around planets in close proximity of each other and caused cataclysm a few thousand years ago yet observations contradict that theory and almost all physicists declare it wrong. How can you declare current physics as belief without providing proof of the assertions of the theory you are backing?

    50. I have not enjoyed reading comments about anything anywhere ...ever . I didn't go get a degree in any particular scientific discipline after high school , but have been a science dork my whole life . While others my age are raising kids, going to their 9-5 jobs ,or just being waste's of space I seem to be alone in my own only real interest I have in life . with the internet , you tube , documentaries websites I find my true pleasure in life . starting with first I get my mind right and prepared for intergalactic travel (getting high ) and spend that time thinking ,reflecting and pondering whatever I watch during my quest to understand everything I can. constantly striving for the truth or at least the facts to my make up my own mind about the matter ....Anyways I just wanted to chime in w my two cents and say there are some impressive commentators on this thread . ..

    51. let's test your understanding of the standard model- at what speed does gravity propagate in Einstein's Equations? c or infinity?

    52. plasma phenomena are well know to scale indefinitely- which is why it is considered by many in the field to be a fractal plenum-

    53. And how does it shuffle planets around the solar system along with magnetic fields to come with close proximity with the earth so humans observed these planets a few milleniums ago? You can explain plasmas all year long, I want a description of the physics that explain how the events displayed in the documentary we are discussing here happened, if you care to get back to topic.

    54. I'm so impressed with you

  11. This is just one in a series of documentaries and a ton of other smaller videos that covers most of the whole theory that is the Electric Universe. The next one to watch is 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' as it give a great overall presentation of the cosmology. As opposed to the 'standard model' which is derived from contorted mathematical speculation, the Electric Universe Theory uses the true scientific method of Observation, Measurement, Lab Experimentation & Prediction That Proves Correct and takes its basis from the true science of Plasma Physics and Electrical Engineering.

  12. not enough is explained regarding the physics of the Polar Configuration- anyone that has any education in gravitation immediately would reject the claim- HOWEVER the configuration was not a stable structure- it was TEMPORARY- and caused by the interaction of the Solar and Saturn systems- for at least several years the normal orbits of earth/venus/mars around the star saturn were perturbed by it's fall toward the sun- stringing the planets out along the poles- as we OBSERVE when an asteroid breaks up and collides with a large celestial mass- a gravitationally bound system will string out into a line of bodies-

  13. it took me over a year to deal with and accept the Saturnian cosmology-the overwhelming astrophysical / laboratory / archaeological evidence that earth/mars/venus were originally planets of the brown dwarf star we now call Saturn- and that just a few tens of thousands of years ago- the Saturn system encountered the Solar System and for years earth/venus/mars were strung along behind saturn like a string of pearls from the gravitational/electromagnetic interaction while it plunged toward the sun - the Polar Configuration- which resulted in Saturn being extinguished- planetary alignments - and catastrophes as venus became a planetary sized comet from it's electrical interaction with the sun- destroying the northern hemisphere of mars- and causing havoc on earth- including creating many of the mountains on earth we falsely believe are millions of years old- and raining oil saturated dolemite and shale into these rapidly accreted mountains-

    the Saturnian Cosmology is very hard to accept- it just seems so crazily different than the story from the scientific orthodoxy- which is the two hundred year old Nebular Theory formulated by Kant- the reason it seems so outlandish is because of all the details- crackpot ideas often have a lot of arbitrary detail like that - but what you discover very quickly is that the Saturn Cosmology's details are ALL supported by huge amounts of confirmatory evidence- hard multidisciplinary evidence- that immediately makes ALL ancient art and religion SIMPLE to understand - belief is unnecessary- once you know the code everything automatically explains itself in every obscure ancient glyph and text- you cannot turn it back off- I don't "believe" it- it just always works as the truth-

    1. Your theory doesn't explain how life survived and adapted the transition from a brown dwarf to our current sun in a few tens of thousand years. It is in complete opposition with evolution. How could plant life have evolved with such diversity to harness the change in the light spectrum in such a short span of time? Brown dwarves emit mostly in the near infrared spectrum, how can you sustain life as we know it under these conditions?

      You can only accept these configurations if you overlook the complete absence of relevant evidence such as fossils adapted to survive in a different light spectrum and
      orbit or altogether outside the current solar system.

      Ancient glyphs and ancient symbols are not proof of cosmological and physical phenomenons. Extracting knowledge about the universe from ancient carvings and drawings is not a valid scientific method that explains physics and cosmology.

      You are correct on one point, no theory lasts forever and in view of these facts, the Saturn Cosmology theory should vanish soon.

  14. For those who believe this configuration could not happen and would use physics as a backdrop to underscore that claim, I would invite you to thoroughly examine the work of Kurt Gödel and his incompleteness theorems. We as a species are still laboring under the delusion of a gravity alone driven cosmos. That gravity alone accounts for all motions of orbiting bodies, while discounting the role of electromagnetism in the universe. If you think that bodies cannot align axially then Google Herbig-Haro objects and you will see that is a common occurrence. One of the great failures of modern cosmology and much of modern science is the discounting of the anomalies that do not conform to established theory, so contempt prior to investigation is thrown as a defense mechanism. If you don't know anything about the history of science, please do read the famous tome by Thomas Kuhn "The structure of scientific revolutions", which in incredibly clear perspicuity examines the history of science in painstaking detail. It is a history wrought with resistance and suppression of new ideas. it seems there is an arc to the progress of science, and it follows a pendulum swing of sorts. A pervading theory rules for a period of time until evidence that does not conform to that model begins to build, until eventually the theory reaches a state of "crisis". Then the paradigm turns. We owe our modern usage of the word "Paradigm" to Thomas Kuhn. Remember no theory is forever, it is model based upon observation, induction, deduction and "theoretical speculation". Sadly in astrophysics and cosmology, "theory" has run amok. REMEMBER! Just because a theory can offer an explanation for an observation, does not mean that the observation has proven the theory. To truly understand the reconstruction being put forward here, you must understand the methodology that was used to arrive at that conclusion.

    1. Your theory doesn't explain how life survived and adapted the transition from a brown dwarf to our current sun in a few tens of thousand years. It is in complete opposition with evolution. How could plant life have evolved with such diversity to harness the change in the light spectrum in such a short span of time? Brown dwarves emit mostly in the near infrared spectrum, how can you sustain life as we know it under these conditions?

      You can only accept these configurations if you overlook the complete absence of relevant evidence such as fossils adapted to survive in a different light spectrum and orbit or altogether outside the current solar system.

      Ancient glyphs and ancient symbols are not proof of cosmological and physical phenomenons. Extracting knowledge about the universe from ancient carvings and drawings is not a valid scientific method that explains physics and cosmology.

      You are correct on one point, no theory lasts forever and in view of these facts, the Saturn Cosmology theory should vanish soon.

  15. I have no doubt in my mind that sky could have looked different to the ancients than to us. i am 48 and until the last few years i could not see the northern lights from my back yard like i can now. never seen a comet till i was in my 30s now ive seen 4 some thru filters showing the electrical connection to all other bodies near .i have no evidence of such but its my belief at this point in time that the electric connection of our sun to the planets has more to do with global warming than any gas present in our atmosphere

    1. I definitely agree with you that atmospheric changes to our planet are a direct result of the sun. What changes the sun is foregoing is still up for debate!

  16. Fascinating. And despite some of the bah humbug a comments below, I say why not? Way back when, when no artificial light was on earth (unless you had a fire going) during the night. In the complete darkness at night, you can see a spectacular array of stars and planets at night. The fact that all over the earth way back then, these heavenly scenes are recorded all around the world. Apparently. So again, who's to say, so, again, 'why not'?

    1. Why not? Physics.

    2. if you are operating with incorrect physics- you cannot speak about nature-

    3. I would need to reject gravity to accept the configuration of planets presented in that documentary. Objects with the mass presented cannot be in such close proximity without colliding and it doesn't explain how the moon didn't get ejected from orbit in an event that is supposed to have happened only a few thousand years ago. That documentary is science-fiction.

    4. gravity is a weak force that only acts in the absence of active electromagnetic activity- this is the answer to the past of the solar system and to a MOND solution for galactic rotation- not dark matter-

    5. Gravity operates until an electromagnetic force stronger counteracts it. You can prove it everyday with a simple magnet and any piece of metal. There is no unmeasurable magnetic field keeping the piece of metal on the ground.

      The atmosphere isn't kept around the planet by some mysterious magnetic field that attracts gases to the earth. If it was, the atmosphere would be much thicker at the poles and it isn't.

    6. that is a frequently used EU argument! the point is that there is measured magnetic forces between the planets and stars which far exceed gravity- these are not caused by the so-called magnetic reconnection- the electromagnetism in the plasma structure of galaxies renders the gravity as MOOT-

    7. You wrote gravity only acts in the absence of active electromagnetic activity. That is not correct, there is gravity on earth even though the planet as an active magnetic field produced by the iron core.

    8. acts- but does not dominate- I said moot- not zero- the law of gravity works the same everywhere- but electromagnetism is so many orders of magnitude stronger - that even though gravity falls off at inverse square and electromagnetism at inverse cube- em still dominates for many light years before they are equivalent and the gravity is stronger- but this is micro minuscule levels that is less than background noise- the error is the assumption of no em force in the vacuum- so gravity only has meaningful effects where em is effectively neutralized or equilibrated- if there was an instability in the earth's field- we would all effortlessly be ripped into space by the difference in potential-

      and-the earth has no iron core- BTW- it's a plasmoid- the EU reaches into EVERY aspect of our physical understanding- you cannot use ANY of the mainstream models from astrophysics to geology to biology-

    9. Ok, there is no discussion to have if you reject all the valid proven science that exists in the field of astrophysics, geology and biology in favor of an unproven theory, take care.

    10. Fabian, you seem to discount or disregard the history of scientific progression. Through the history of science you see clearly that Schopenhauer's statement about the nature of revelation is quite true. "All truth passes through three stages; First it is ridiculed, second it's violently opposed, third it is accepted as self evident." Nearly ever one of the great paradigm shifts in science has at first been ridiculed, marginalized or openly dismissed until it was then proven true. There is a difficult pill to consider swallowing through coming to understand the enormity of the EU perspective, that nearly everything we think we know about the uniformitarian progression of cosmic/ earth history is false. Consider the nature of electricity and EM force at all levels of structural organization, from biological to molecular, atomic to atmospheric. Does it not make sense that it is also a pervasive force in the Universe? Though, it's abundantly clear to me that any discussion with you is moot. Unfortunate.

    11. Does it make sense in a general context, sure, electromagnetism exists. Does it move planets around the solar system as mentioned in that documentary and is the main force governing the universe and creation of galaxies and stars, well, you'll have to convince thousands of scientist with much more solid evidence. You will also need to disprove standard cosmology and physics before it's proven true.

      Until then, it's perfectly scientific to be strongly skeptical with a complete paradigm shift which is not proven in any way. Statistically speaking, there are much more chances it's nonsense than the new model of physics. Until all the hard questions have been answered and rebuttals have been explained as wrong, it is not a paradigm shift despite your unshakable optimism and support.

      It would also help to get rid of the crazies that are trying to support the EU theory with ancient deities and symbols from greeks, romans and egyptians if you want to get attention from logical people. When a new theory proponents can't debunk their own crazy people unscientific arguments, how can they propose to debunk accepted scientific theories as wrong. As they say, start with cleaning your own backyard before complaining about your neighbours.

    12. You are wrong about the need to disprove existing ideas before new models are adopted. It is only necessary to demonstrate that the new ideas are more useful, fruitful, sound, simpler, or otherwise superior.

      If by "standard cosmology" you mean the Big Bang conjecture, there isn't a single major prediction it has made which has been verified by observation. Indeed, every major observation has refuted it. The model is always modified to accommodate observations, post hoc. In other words, it has been disproven over and over again, but its proponents keep propping it up with inventions like dark matter, dark energy, etc. Even the cosmic microwave radiation failed to help it, as the original prediction was off by an order of magnitude!

      At least the EU guys are making predictions which are subsequently being verified by observation (e.g. all the satellite missions to comets, Voyager's measurements at the heliopause, etc.) …while the gravity guys are left scratching their heads, and claiming “this upsets everything we thought we knew!"

      Even the gravity guys are starting to talk about planetary realignments, asserting that Jupiter used to be inside Mercury's orbit, but was pulled back by Saturn! (An assertion i would not choose to defend, but find interesting nonetheless, because it comes from mainstream scientists.)

      It's ironic that people who blindly accept the inventions of dark matter and dark energy, for which there is absolutely no observational evidence, and which exist solely to prop up a failing model, turn around and criticize Talbott's assertion of planetary realignment, for which there is a large body of evidence.

      I'm not saying Talbott has proved his case, but it's far more plausible than asserting that dark matter and dark energy exist.

    13. we are advocating a rational evidence based science that IS "proven" by actual experiment and observation- not mathematical legerdemain and false claims of facts from vague data- this is why every press release from mainstream science announces surprises- just last month geologists announced they discovered a new interior layer of the earth - even though everyone here will clearly remember that the model they were taught in school was presented as established and unchanging fact- the actual fact is that we know very little about the planet- the sun- life- consciousness- everything- but what we do know suggests a fractal network structured electric universe where all bodies from particles to planets to stars to galactic nuclei are plasmoids connected by birkeland currents-

    14. Thanks for your suggestion. I'll wait for more solid evidence that everything is not as has been observed since science has been making observations of nature, despite your affirmations on Disqus. I tend to give more credentials to CERN than websites when it comes to fundamental physics.

    15. The problem with an electric universe is that the COBE data and WMAP data exhibited no evidence of radio emission from the galaxy-forming currents that are supposed to propagate for enormous distances.

    16. not enough is explained regarding the physics of the Polar Configuration- anyone that has any education in gravitation immediately would reject the claim- HOWEVER the configuration was not a stable structure- it was TEMPORARY- and caused by the interaction of the Solar and Saturn systems- for at least several years the normal orbits of earth/venus/mars around the star saturn were perturbed by it's fall toward the sun- stringing the planets out along the poles- as we OBSERVE when an asteroid breaks up and collides with a large celestial mass- a gravitationally bound system will string out into a line of bodies-

    17. Yup - look at the way comet shoemaker levy broke apart and aligned itself after it entered Jupiter's field before it impacted - take the same principle and up-scale it to Saturn and company traveling through the Sun's field. It seems to signify that the Saturn system was in *motion* ... and the alignment broke apart when that *motion* stopped - aka, encountering Jupiter near inner solar system/asteroid belt.

    18. You can't upscale an event with objects with such different masses. That's like comparing the effect of bunch of fruit flies colliding with a truck and a car colliding with the same truck.

    19. physics is scale invariant- basic philosophy of science-

    20. yet, you stated just below physics are incorrect. Is it the basic philosophy or science is wrong?

    21. real physics based on the empirical and theoretical work of Natural Philosophers- what you call physics is not- it's a cult of mathematical platonists calling their abstractions physics-

    22. Yet much technology functions based on physics laws, they must have something right after all, no? You want to replace them with a guy that sees the past in symbols?

  17. I too found 2 ancient symbols on my keyboard !

    0 and O.

    I profoundly analyzed these 2 ancient drawn symbols and I came to the conclusion they perfectly describe planets. The first one was elongated in its vertical axis by a magnetic field produced by the second one.

    1. the Saturn Cosmology is supported by ALL the record - not just selected forms- and by multiple lines of data- no correlations are cherry-picked- there is no selection bias here- the "anything can be forced to make a correlation" argument does not hold- believe me- I spent months trying to find a real flaw to falsify the SC- my acceptance came after great resistance- and I am trained in physics and mathematics-

    2. Show me the plasma and the measures of the magnetic fields that generate the force to keep things in orbit or move planets around. If they have ALL the records and data it should be easy to prove. I am not one to believe just because you say so, show me the mathematics and physics. A few peer reviewed scientific papers must be available somewhere for sure.

    3. FTR I provided several links to the history of scholarly work in the Saturn Theory- but the mod does not allow links- apparently- a good selection can be found at Velikovsky dot info under Saturn Theory

    4. Velikovsky's plan was to explain the catastrophe in the bible with astronomical events, I would hardly qualify him as a credible scientist. More like a religious fantasist, Velikovsky (a psychiatrist and passionate Zionist) tried to rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends.

    5. again- learn before responding to avoid looking foolish- the Saturn Theory page is on a Velikovsky site- but it is not Velikovsky's work- The EU's Saturn Cosmology is of course a related offspring of his basic DISCOVERY of recent Solar System Catastrophe- and the discovery that Venus was in fact a comet - but the bulk of his own ideas and hypotheses about these discoveries in the human record were wrong- the current model is still in it's infancy- but is the work of several dozen physicists / astronomers/ engineers/ archeologists/ and historians- and is based on the astrophysical data / laboratory experiments/ and the forensic analyses of history-

    6. What the heck are we discussing if you admit Velikovsky was wrong? Most of the documentary is about his nonsense!

    7. No, the video merely acknowledges that Velikovsky had a similar idea. The video isn't about Velikovsky's theories nor ideas. Talbott doesn't allege that Velikovsky was correct. He does say he was inspired by Velikovsky, though.

    8. "Originally inspired by Velikovsky, Talbott envisioned a congregation of
      planets physically close to the earth in ancient times in which "the
      five planets Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars and the Earth orbited the Sun
      as a single linear unit, which rotated about a point close to Saturn,
      before its break-up at the end of the Golden Age". He claims that the violent evolution of this "Polar Configuration" provoked the myth-making epoch of human history. Professor of Social Theory Alfred de Grazia, noted that Talbott was one
      of several scholars who had "entered the full stream" of Velikovsky's

      Just a variation on Velikovsky's non scientific nonsense.

    9. There is only one thing in the universe that makes magnetic fields and that is electricity, that is a true scientific fact and not idle speculation.

    10. Sure, have the Thundebolt project send probes in space to measure the magnetic fields and they will get the Nobel prize for physics. They sure won't get it with a theory based on ancient symbols without any scientific measures.

    11. "What matters deafness of the ear when the mind can hear? The only true deafness, the only incurable one, is deafness of the mind."~Victor Hugo
      Fabian magnetic fields in space is a well established aspect of astrophysics and cosmology. Begin at the NASA website, or google magnetic fields in space. Your unshakable faith in science and peer-review reminds me of the epistemic handshaking of the Ptolemeans defending the epicycles.

    12. lol what is the alternative to the scientific method for you, just believe something cause it's said on a website? If the theory that gravity is wrong and does not keep the universe in it's current state, the scientific method allows anyone to prove it wrong with measures.

      Of course there is electromagnetism everywhere, the question is does it really do all the weird things the Thunderbolts Project propose and where are the scientific measures that prove it without a doubt?

      Show me the undisputable evidence and I will say you are right, it's not been forthcoming from anyone except for sending me to the Thunderbolt' website. I would like something a bit more independant in term of scientific proof. If it's real, people not involved with the project should have already done experiments that prove it right. The peer reviewing system worked for Einstein's publications, why would it be no longer relevant for Velikovsky?

      Where is the science supporting planets moving around over milleniums to congress around the earth and then fly away to their current positions???

    13. Dark matter was invented because gravity couldn't account for observations of visible matter. It's purely fictional, and there isn't a shred of physical evidence to support it. That's a pretty good indication that the gravity-only model is wrong.

      Be that as it may, even the gravity guys are starting to talk about planetary realignments, asserting that Jupiter was once within Mercury's orbit.

  18. Tl;dr: Any and all symbols can be interpret as planetary movements (that science tells us never happened).

  19. I completely believe everything in this because things that look like other things are usually related.

    1. not just the squatterman on rocks being replicated in the lab; not just plasma forms that look like tridents, menorah's, or hexagon storms on saturn that look like occult or religious symbols; its more then just the widespread ancient symbols;

      they have replicated the surface features of moons and asteroids, and mars, using electrical arcing and welding... there are both designs in sand, rock and the fractal design of riverbeds and streams in general that match lightning discharges in all forms.

      everything is scalable....

    2. Where is the scientific evidence that backs your affirmation that everything is scalable?

  20. The physics of gravitation and mass and motion are completely ignored in this documentary. Cannot take this doc seriously. It could have heuristic value, but that is about all.

    1. the actual physics of gravity and astrophysical electromagnetism are revealed- as OBSERVED- rather than the sermons of gravity based solely on adjusted mathematics and fudged data- you have to look at the actual EVIDENCE- not preconceptions of evidence

    2. they still are using mass and matter interchangably, ignoring charge, then wondering why comets have such crazy "densities" thus proving the "water/ice" when its actually just them missing the "charge" all the way around...

    3. When Einstein decided to not include the electromagnetic force in his view of how reality worked, with the 'bending of light by mass on a flat bit of cloth' (his idea of gravity is) being the only thing only worth considering, he was wrong.

      When we consider that gravity compared to the electromagnetic force is -10^39 or in layman's terms 1000, billion, billion, billion,billion times weaker than gravity we get to see just how wrong his fantasy was.

      This guesswork by Einstein eventually led to people thinking for instance that comets were just 'grubby snowballs' because they only use gravity to calculate their composition.

      But It's not only mass that equates to the gravity of matter but the electrical field it is travelling through as well and this is where conventional guesswork gets it wrong with comets and think that they are just 'grubby snowballs'.

      When they measure comets at a great distance from the Sun they find that they don't have not much gravity compared to their size and so think that they are just light weight ice and dust. But when a comet gets nearer to the Sun in it's orbit, it will start to enter an increase in the electrical field and so increase the gravitational pull of the comet and show it to be what it actually is, solid rock.

      Because a planet has a near circular orbit it will be travelling through a field that doesn't change much and so have a gravitational pull that is pretty stable but with a comet, it's orbit is elongated and so travels through a field with less charge when it is a distance from the Sun, but when it approaches the Sun the electrical field massively increases and so, does it not only form a coma and tail as it discharges but also increase it's gravitational pull.

      So it is not surprising but actually a predictable effect that any probe around an object such as comet or indeed a planet will start to have to deal with not only it's electronics being affected as it gets closer but also the amount of gravity it encounters. The main stream call this drag but clearly they haven't a clue why it is actually happening because they now little or nothing of the real science of plasma physics and electrical engineering.

  21. Pseudoscience. ? Enjoyed this as a "factual fantasy"/"What if"/"WTF" type documentary .Was intrigued by the correlation of plasma discharge to rock art across the world..cannot however in my mind correlate planets being closer and or nearer to earth than they are now?? That said I honestly thought I would not watch another documentary by the Thunderbolt project. But my boredom took me to a sequel on YouTube.I think its just called episode 2. This has possible and I say possible explanations to the great Marineris Valley on Mars and Olympus Mons as possible yes again possible plasma and/or electric arc discharge sites. How and when and if it ever happened I would like to know. if it did happen I am doubtful that it ever did in the time frame of any humanoid existence. But I did find the second one I watched more interesting than the first.
    edit... Watching deeper into episode 2 and find myself being questioned at every end of my reasonable being.. I would like to believe and or think deeper into different explanations for what science proclaims, but I find myself sliding back toward what and how I was taught. Just because you think it doesn't make it so.. The producer of this film can think it but until its proven through the scientific method my skepticism returns.he claims high-energy arcing between the surface of Mars and a ????. Asteroid, moon planet or aliens? what type of body could produce a cathode and anode effect that would gouge and or raise Mountains?

    1. the interactions were between earth and mars primarily, which is why we find martian meteroites all over earth's surface..... you return to how you are taught because it is safe and normal there..... "just because you think it, doesn't make it so".... needs to be applied to both lines of thought...not just the one that differs to how you were taught. just because it has been taught a certain way for a few hundred years, doesn't mean that it is proven... we have been building oh theories and assuming they are fact this entire time, hence the nonsensical babble of black holes, dark matter, dark energy..

      the addition of electrical charge to celestial interactions is what allows the planets to shift orbits within human memory, and has been left out of science. in a stable system, as ours is in the present, gravity is untouched by the overpowering EM charges of displaced and moving planets as their plasmaspheres of different charge interact, and runs as predicted.

  22. the gods=fallen angels, myth ? they is alonged skull all around the world and giants Gen 6:4

  23. Three minutes in I detected the unmistakeable aroma of BS. If there is anything to this, I will wait for the article in a journal.

    1. check in newspapers and journals of 1920's

    2. They wrote about that documentary in the 1920s???

    3. no about finding bones of giants and other species other than human !

    4. You lost me there, they don't mention bones of giants in the documentary.

    5. I know that ! I m saying that they did say in certain old papers and in magasines before coorporations and shadow government bought ALL mainstream news, and also alot of history is based on lies . Perharps you should invistigate

    6. Ok, you might have the wrong forum. As far as I know, we are supposed to comment about the documentary, not unrelated conspiracies about the government taking over the news and hiding information about the bones of giants.

    7. Yes i m wrong sometimes like ALL humans ! ;)

    8. Well of course i lost you ! you watch documentaries being close minded, you ll never know the truth !

  24. Good thing all the High Priests of official science are here to protect the status quo from new ideas. And here I thought that science and the search for new ideas didn't need protection.

    1. I have no problem with new ideas as long as they are in accordance with the observed facts, are explained in detail and verified by multiple repeatable experiments. They have yet to explain to me how planets could possibly have changed orbit so drastically and come in such close proximity without colliding and the moon not being ejected from earth's orbit.

      We have solid evidence that these ancient civilisations observed the moon. There is no way Saturn, Venus and Mars can appear that close to earth without the moon being ejected from the earth's orbit. The moon is still there so that scenario NEVER happened, end of story.

    2. The only repeatable experimentation I've heard of in the last 40 years is that the large Hadron collider and such. BTW, I really like some of the Primer Fields stuff. However, it looks like it may support an electric universe thesis, but I've heard that many ignore it because he hasn't done the math. Well, simple question: which is more convincing: 1) repeatable experimental physics? or 2) mathematical modeling?.

      The old ideas never go quietly, to paraphrase Planck,I guess we have to wait until all the gray beards die before science can advance with new ideas. I would implore you that there is no need to get angry and defensive unless you are truly threatened. (And no one is!)

    3. I never felt threatened, only noticed the total absence of science and proof in the documentary.

    4. just to point out that we are stuck in a science paradigm that is unable to accept new and testable explanations. We need to do the tests first instead of relying on tired old ideas that are accepted as dogma. As mentioned below by awful_truth, regarding Ptolemy's model, perhaps we need epicycles to keep this dogma boat afloat. I am thankful that those old guard scientists can't burn Prof. W. Thornhill or the makers of the film at the stake. Rest assured that things will change with or without our permission.

    5. Please point to me the repeatable physics experiments in that documentary. All I saw was an association of slightly similar symbols and patterns with the supposed presence of planets in the vicinity of our planet a few thousand years ago.

      With that type of logic, in a few thousand years, a pseudoscientist could find cartoon pages of Superman and pretend men from the planet Krypton could fly back in the 20th century.

      As in that documentary, no need for proof other than it was drawn and he could find drawings of it in several past cultures all over the world.

      The evidence would be even more solid than what was presented in that documentary because the images wouldn't be patterns but drawings of the exact same super being from the planet Krypton.

    6. But black holes, dark matter and dark energy you accept without a shred of evidence, right?

    7. There is evidence for the effects of black holes with stars orbiting a point at velocities that can't be explained otherwise. Dark energy and dark matter are speculative and I don't accept them without further evidence.

    8. "There is evidence for the effects of black holes with stars orbiting a point at velocities that can't be explained otherwise. "

      No. It has been observed that stars move in an orbital way around the center of a galaxy. Some mathmagicians have argued that there are black holes in that same area. Explain how the observations prove the math.

      There are other explanations possible. Tornados and hurricanes spin without a black hole at the center..... At the center the spin velocity is higher than it is at the edge.

      One word: electricity.

    9. I could ask you to prove the spin of stars around a fixed point in space with electricity but I can't be bothered anymore to argue for gravity. Believe what you wish.

    10. There is a lot of evidence for a period before the moon. The moon doesn't show up in ancient depictions until a later point in history. It was probably a former moon of Jupiter, knocked loose during the planetary chaos and captured by Earth as the "gods" were departing for distant realms.

    11. Knocked loose by what, you are adding layers of nonsense to an already very shaky hypothesis. How did the earth "capture" that moon if you don't believe in gravity? Where are the measures of the magnetic field holding the moon in place?

      Magnetic fields are very easy to measure, you can do it on earth with a simple compass. Show me there are magnetic fields on the moon strong enough to keep it in orbit and what is generating them.

    12. Anyone who has a reputation and future funding to uphold will always need protection. (it is all about money and reputation)The same cannot be said for those who wish to bring new ideas to the table. Can anyone say 'open season'!
      P.S: The grief Einstein went through prior to his relativity theory's acceptance was grim.

  25. a pity that they didn't jump to the conclusion as in r.scotts 'promtheus'!?.....entertaining nonetheless!

  26. i really like this fiction.

    1. That was a very erudite observation. Not really.

      By the way, a sentence starts with a capital letter.

    2. so,you tend to shoot down the messenger than the message?(i also do not
      use capitals no matter which language i converse in,a habit i have from
      my anarcho-syndicate years;idealism...if you will)

  27. I find it odd how people can still believe this nonsense, or religion, or UFO's, or cryptozoology or the rest of the woo in 2014. You would think that mankind would have made some progress by now.

    1. Obviously you haven't even watched this documentary, since it is neither about UFOs, nor 'cryptozoology', nor religion. As for "nonsense", conventional cosmology has never proven the "dark matter" concept they have to use to hold their gravitational theory together.
      This documentary offers an intriguing alternative, well worth exploring.

    2. if anything, this disproves the mainstream religion, by giving us exact explanations for why our ancestors came up with the stories they did, and instituted such rites and rituals upon themselves.

  28. Fascinating documentary, an eye-opener and well done. Its compilation of comparative mythology provides an intriguing synthesis of the amazingly similar art forms & myths found the world over. And it clicks! Changed my world view actually.

    Exploring the “Electric Universe” theory is a lot of fun. I highly recommend checking it out. Interesting analysis of cosmic aspects that conventional physics has been unable to explain.

    1. Absolutely.

  29. Completely delusional document that ignores the rules of physics shuffling the planets around in the solar system as if they were rubber balls. Their premise : Mars magically appeared in front of Venus and Saturn a few thousand years ago.

    1. You need to do a lot more reading before you make such comments. Try Velikovsky and read more about the Thunderbolts Project and then you might be qualified to make such comments. 'Big Bang' is only a theory and does not match up to observation and experiment (Science) as does the Electric Universe theory.

    2. Enculturation leaves no room to explore anything that has not been given the nihil obstat or imprimatur by the cathedrals of higher learning. Exploration (even for simple curiosity) is not permitted. One must follow their rules or risk excommunication. A reading of Einstein's letters (particularly his last) to his friend Velikovsky will bring a chuckle as well as inform and enlighten.. There are about 15 of them and easily found on the net.

    3. What does the Big Bang theory have to do with the fact that planets don't change orbit every few thousand years and can't physically be in close proximity as presented in that video.

    4. " 'Big Bang' is only a theory and does not match up to observation and experiment (Science) as does the Electric Universe theory." The reason you can make such an inane comment is because you have read and believed that nonsense on the Thunderbolts Project website. I will fix your comment for you," 'Electric Universe' is only a theory and does not match up to observation and experiment (Science) as does the Big Bang theory." That's better.

    5. The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the documentary. I don't support the big bang theory either mainly due to the need for inflation for it to work. We are told nothing goes faster than light, yet inflation states that the universe expanded 100 trillion trillion times in 10-36 seconds. My opinion is our physical knowledge is entirely too limited to be speculating about the first second of creation (if there was a creation). Much less 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 second after the "Big Bang".

    6. Oh dear, my comment was a reply to someone advocating that inane website 'Thunderbolts Project'. I did receive a reply, 'Drivel', it was deleted.
      Yes, I'm well aware the doco isn't about BB theory and I don't care weather you support it or not.

    7. For the record Fabien, the big bang theory probably works fine, it is Alan Guth's inflation theory that does not. (reason by which you already mentioned - good job)
      I for one will withhold judgement on Velikovsky's theory only because it is possible other planetary bodies may have passed close by, and were misidentified by those who witnessed it at the time. Imagine what we would think had shoemaker-Levy 9 hit the moon instead of Jupiter. (solar system still under construction)
      P.S:You must admit, that scientists were willing to accept a single asteroid strike as the cause of an extinction event 65 million years ago. (now they hypothesize multiple strikes)

    8. Velikovsky wasn't doing science, he was looking to find a way to explain the jewish bible events with astronomic events. No matter what he came up with, his premise was wrong since most of what he tried to explain was never proven to have happened. (Noah's flood, Exodus, etc.)

    9. Interestingly, Einstein's last letter to Velikovsky stated that if he didn't make alterations to the Venus idea, that he would not be taken seriously, and it would be a shame since he felt Velikovsky had some great ideas that would never see the light of day.
      Note: I was unaware of Velikovsky's motivations. (thanks for the heads up) It should also be noted biblical history has not been disproven, when taken in context of the time. (there may have been a flood, and exodus, just not worldwide; that was the world to them at the time)
      I was of the understanding that the documentary was referencing old observations that didn't jive with modern astronomical observations. Many scientific views are now casting doubt on accepted dogma. Example: The pyramids and sphinx alignment with Orion and Leo would be 10,000, not 4,500 years old when it was accepted they were built. This is now coming under scientific scrutiny due to excavation beneath these builds questioning the accepted age of these constructs. (just saying)Take care Fabien.

    10. "The general thesis of Worlds in Collision is that the Earth underwent vast
      cataclysms in early historic times. The planet Venus is supposed to be only 3500 years
      old. It was expelled as a comet from Jupiter, creating the Great Red Spot as a sort of
      Caesarian scar, then repeatedly passed close to Earth, stopping its rotation, re-starting
      it, changing its axial tilt, causing the Plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, and
      other disasters chronicled in the world's mythologie."

      The evidence for magnetic
      fields capable of altering the motion of planets radically in a duration of time as expressed by Velikovsky is non-existent. It's not sufficient to declare magnetic fields played a game of billiard with the solar system, you need to demonstrate what created these gigantic magnetic fields which Mr Velikovsky and his contemporaries failed to do.

      Albert Einstein is telling him to stop spewing nonsense about Venus in a friendly way, nothing more.

    11. You may be right regarding Einstein's intentions towards Velikovsky. (especially regarding Venus) With that said, the electromagnetic field of Jupiter actually reaches out as far as Saturn, and considering it's strength compared to gravity, I will withhold judgement regarding it's potential impact. (much we don't know)
      I do have intellectual skepticism regarding 'what we think we know', and only time will tell if our support or condemnation is justified. (imagine the possibilities) Take care Fabien.

    12. I agree that Alan Guth's inflation theory doesn't work. It's interesting to read what Paul Steinhardt who helped develop the theory had to say about it in the New Scientist in September.

      "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the
      way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to
      quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up
      into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable
      properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make
      any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace"

      Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably
      simple universe. "So the last thing in the world you should be doing is
      introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple
      thing," he says. "I think it's telling us in the clearest possible terms
      that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it
      it's going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling.
      And we thought inflation was it – but it isn't."

      Looks like physicists need to come up with something else entirely or agree with an infinity of patches that leads to infinite possibilities.

    13. Sadly, that 'infinite' situation is not going to go away anytime soon, since it is also a property of quantum mechanics. Since physics has moved forward from 'probability', it is going to be very hard to go back to classical mechanics where certainty rules the day. (actually proving something) Too bad, since I am no more fond of inflation than I am of dark matter/energy, items that can never be proven. (modern day equivalent to Einstein's cosmological constant in the opposite direction)
      It would seem to me that scientists may just have to accept the fact the beauty of simplicity cannot be located where they are looking. (can't see the forest for the tress!)

    14. Well yes, (expanded) think of a balloon, everything was plasma no light -10^36 sec. Apparently still expanding faster then C. inflation. LIGHT are Photons with no resting mass, is itself IN the expansion.

    15. I can't link it but look for the "Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation!" article in The New Scientist. Unless further results contradict recent observations from the BICEP2 Telescope in Antarctica, which is predicted they won't, inflation is wrong.

      Without inflation, in theory, there actually ought to be even more variation today than there is in the universe. Looks like a big bang with or without cosmic inflation is wrong.

    16. You were talking about light, in quantum mechanics light is an illusion, the math makes more sense without any C equations in it. Light is a product of spacetime = Einstein. C is movement, re: time. Anyway, have to go to work, have no time-pun.

    17. No, I was talking about inflation and the incredible speed at which it is supposed to have happened which is incredibly superior to anything else that was ever observed.

      Check the article, without traces of the correct gravitational waves, the BICEP2 results actually rule out any reasonable form of inflationary theory.

    18. Have read the articles, very interesting, but it is still a work in progress, they are waiting next month for Planck data about the cosmic dust, if so, will throw this supposition out the window. There is no empirical evidence for what you are proposing.

    19. The results are out there in the Institute of Physics website :

      "If verified, the BICEP2 observation would be "smoking-gun" evidence for
      the rapid "inflation" of the early universe – the extremely rapid
      expansion that cosmologists believe the universe underwent a mere 10–35 s
      after the Big Bang. A new analysis of polarized dust emission in our
      galaxy, carried out by Planck earlier in September, showed that the part
      of the sky observed by BICEP2 has much more dust than originally
      anticipated, and while this did not completely rule out BICEP2's
      original claim, it established that the dust emission is nearly as big
      as the entire BICEP2 signal."

      I sense a problem when what was supposed to be proof of cosmic inflation turns out to be a cosmic dust signal.

      The burden of proof for inflation is on the shoulders of the proponents of that hypothesis. Without physical evidence, you can't declare it real, it's merely a proposition, a thought experiment.

    20. You do not have to tell me what "Burden of proof" means and what it all implies, if and when some Prima Facie evidence rolls in for "cosmic dust signal" I will sit up and take notice. And yes, everything you are posting have already read, Thanks

    21. We are straying away from the subject of the documentary but since it's a
      very interesting topic to puzzle, I encourage you to look for Paul
      Steinhardt's discussion on youtube titled "What has been learned from

    22. More on the absence of detection of gravitational waves :

      Despite earlier reports of a possible
      detection, a joint analysis of data from ESA's Planck satellite and the
      ground-based BICEP2 and Keck Array experiments has found no conclusive
      evidence of primordial gravitational waves.

      Planck ESA statement

    23. Why have you not replied to my post were the question put to you to hard or is it a fact that your knowledge only come from the mass media and you have very little knowledge of the subject hand in the first place.
      It's true what they say about a person with a little knowledge it would seem.

    24. G'day jack, I'm trying to find the post to sharp that you are referring to? The previous post to sharp was on a different thread 5 days, Down and Under. Maybe you could question sharp there, to make it easier to follow the conversation, not a criticism just an observation.

    25. The questions that I've referred to is are both on this thread and the above mentioned thread
      I will ask whom ever I'm questioning on any thread in which I have watched the particular documentary. If my question is relating to other threads as well it is my good fortune and there problem if they are not willing to answer questions put to them

    26. I believe that several physicists assisted in writing this doc. But they are in the minority.

    27. Which physicists?

    28. 2000 years ago, Ptolemy had the planets, and the sun doing epicycles, and although it was wrong, he could still predict past and future planetary positions. Perhaps this is why people at the time might accept such possibilities. (planets changing positions) Of course, this doesn't work with what we understand today, but I think the point of the documentary is about why cultures in the past spoke of such possibilities. Either way, intellectual skepticism is a good thing!