Proto Saturn - and our origins, perhaps?

[lcam88]

I must thank a member here, hughe, who gave genesis to me, on a new line of reasoning about planetary, stellar, and galactic bodies and events as viewed by a cosmological and physics model that rivals the standard model that most modern scientists seemed to religiously preach.

In the following video Wallace Thronhill introduces a possible version planetary origin that seems worthy of contemplations, especially in line with historic scenarios that Elen has been sharing.

Some questions that are implicitly raised by materials she has shared seem at least teased with an answer. How where such large objects moved? Giants? and even a hint about transmutation of elements? Those issues are teased with implications that catches my attention.

Answers are given to questions that standard model buffs ignore.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNaVb7b-tg

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kff_ytg0-8w


And if you savvy a scientific presentation that explains astronomical "red-shift" succinctly... In my non-scientific view, the implications of the information presented below puts any believers of the standard model firmly into the category of religious.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM


My intention is that this tread by be used to touch on any astronomical or physics issue as related to by reasonings derived from a universe in accordance to the Electrical or Plasma models.

Enjoy.

[Elen]

This is very informative and easy to follow, lcam88. Thank you for putting up as a thread. I'll have to make time to listen to all the videos.

Elen

[lcam88]

Continuation of this rational, Electric model used to explain scaring and geological history of Mars with much scientific zeal and precision.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV1e5_tB6Y


This will likely compellingly challenge ideas of cosmic war as a reason for the current state of Mars.

[scibuster]

I listen only to the last video of Haltan Arp.
-------------------------------------------------

Negating the redshift measurement by Haltan Arp is not accepted by standard cosmologists:

The redshift of quasars is not in conjunction with the distance to our galaxie.
It's not allowed to use the redshift of a quasar and calculate his distance with the Hubble constant.
So greater redshift becomes not greater distance.
Quasars are not used in daily astronomy to calulate the distance of a quasar.
Daily astronomers use another method.
The redshift distribution is done with standard galaxies where they found supernova 1A type
explosions inside this galaxie and then reverse calculate their distance.
Then they brought together the distance of this galaxie with their redshift much more precisely
as Hubble has done this in 1929. Every 10 years the Hubble constant is recalculated with more and better measurement of scanning
thousends and thousends of supernova 1A types in normal galaxies.




But negating the Big Bang is another story.

Then you have to fight against the Planck satellite data high resolution cosmic background radiation
which leads us back to 300 000 years after the big bang.





But negating the Big Bang inflation is another story.

This theory was invented by Alan Guth approcs. 1981 and many many others agreed and continued.
This will lead to 10 power minus 30 seconds after the big bang.
From this moment we have no measurement data availabe.
It's a theorie.
That's the reason why they plan this large gravitation-wave detector eLISA and build other gw-detectors.

[lcam88]

scibuster:

I don't understand what you wrote; maybe I am have trouble reading between the lines. Grammar aside, everything you wrote is ambiguous and/or nonsensical to me; I think you presume we share a similar reference context or knowledge base from which we may communicate ideas clearly.

Clearly, we don't.

To start with, red shift is an aspect of Big Bang theory that elaborates how light emitted from a receding object will shift slightly to the red due to a doppler type effect on light waves. It is interpreted by scientists to indicate that the universe as a whole is expanding as per the big bang model.

If you are suggesting that some red-shifted objects should be ignored, that goes beyond the scope I wish to examine the issue. If scientists proponent to standard astronomical interpretations require the privilege of cherry picking their observations, that should say enough in and of itself.

Haltan Arp is showing that the standard interpretation is flawed; his position is that red-shifted light is more an indicator of the age of a stellar body (quasars or companion galaxies). And while he does admit that some component of red-shifted light may be related to object movement as the aforementioned theorists wants to presume, his position is that red-shift due to object movement is actually very minimal. The implication is, of course, that Big Bang theory as hereto understood, along with the black holes, dark matter and dark energy kludges meant to fix the theory, should be debunked.

The presentation shows many cases where his interpretation of red-shift, hereto largely ignored, holds much more merit as a scientific theory than the conventional alternative.

It is interesting in this thread only because of how complementary this new interpretation is to an Electric model in astronomy.

[scibuster]

The redshift measurement for many galaxies is done 1927 by Edwin Hubble.
He found: fainter galaxies have greater redshift.
So the older astronomers for a while take the redshift for distance measurement.
The Hubble constant is corrected so often.
The first detected quasars had big redshift, so older astronomers put they in a big distance.
Then supernova 1A measurement take place.
The new astronomers scanned thousend and thousend of galaxies searching for supernova 1A typed as standard candles and recalculated their distance.
They also readjusted the Hubble constant often.
With this data they print out those filaments, emtpy voids, clusters and supercluster galaxies in a 3D manner complete universe.

But not every object which has a big redshift has a big distance from the milky-way-galaxie.

When somone tries to ignore the big bang, like Halton Arp he has to beat at the data of the Planck satellite not the redshift.

[lcam88]

Here is a neat series that attempts to reconstruct the event of a Proto-Saturn sun joining the solar system. Examination of ancient archetypes and symbols is made against what is projected to have been the experience of the event.

Not all mythological data can be expected to be perfect; it is known that historians are generous about the amount of flexibility they permit in their interpretations in an effort to uphold modern views.

The videos are a production of ThunderboltProjects.

I think it is worth examination and look forward to comments.

I'll start posting from the second video as I think the first had me moving the mouse over to the little "X" button.

If the video above, regarding the scarring of Mars has stimulated curiosity about how lightening of such magnitude could have been made, those answers may indeed be answered in the sequence.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Z5xG1WFa4


this video visits some interesting archetypes...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPoQbzIkI5Y

[lcam88]

The redshift measurement for many galaxies is done 1927 by Edwin Hubble.
He found: fainter galaxies have greater redshift.
So the older astronomers for a while take the redshift for distance measurement.
The Hubble constant is corrected so often.
The first detected quasars had big redshift, so older astronomers put they in a big distance.
Then supernova 1A measurement take place.
The new astronomers scanned thousend and thousend of galaxies searching for supernova 1A typed as standard candles and recalculated their distance.
They also readjusted the Hubble constant often.
With this data they print out those filaments, emtpy voids, clusters and supercluster galaxies in a 3D manner complete universe.

But not every object which has a big redshift has a big distance from the milky-way-galaxie.

When somone tries to ignore the big bang, like Halton Arp he has to beat at the data of the Planck satellite not the redshift.

That is much better, thanks.

Indeed some of the points you make are the very points Halton had set about to reinterpret. The point that an object has red-shift and is faint, does not require it to be so far away. It could be the case, simply, that it is a small object.

He doesn't need to "beat" any data, IMO; that is equivalent to asking him to present his theory instead of them reexamining their theory. There is nothing in the scientific method that requires a new theory to be put forth to debunk an older one. Observation alone that presents substantial contrary evidence could be enough, as long as people are willing to look.

Unfortunately, Halton Arp has passed away, anyone interested in having him interpret specific datasets from some satellite will have to appeal to their own good judgement.

Have you searched google for Electric model interpretations of the Planck satellite data?

[scibuster]

Discourses on an Alien Sky:

I have not jumped into the electric universe.

But this movie is funny.
Our -5000 or -20.000 or -200.000 year old ancestors have seen such a big Jupiter or Saturn same size of the Moon ?
This remind me of some Perry Rhodan booklets I read in 1963 or so.
I have a Skywatcher Dobson 8-Zoll upstairs.
My Jupiter is in the range of a pin head 2-3 mm.
But I can see his moons very clear.
Same with Saturn and his ring.
But the Cassini-Teilung is not sharp (mud) because the seeing mode is not in 1-2 of worst 10.
Today it is a bit cold upstairs but good seeing.

[lcam88]

The Discourse seems to be all about linking mythological and ancient symbols to a period of earth history where the previous sun and its planets where much closer to each other.

The system would have entered the solar system and settled in orbit around a new sun, the one we know as our sun today.

That period would have been a very active period in terms of planetary dynamics as they shifted from the orbit of one star to another much more energetic; the thesis of the Electric model is that planets are defined by strong electric properties and the period of finding new electric equilibrium would involve thunderbolts from one planet to another. Huge bolts that would make our thunderstorm lightening bolts that destroy trees to be a small flicker.

For context, perhaps this theory would explain the creation of the Grand Canyon in the United States as a geological formation created electrically with huge thunderbolts... That is lightening of un unimaginable force. Anyway, that theory seems at least just as plausible as the Colorado River eroding the landscape over hundreds of thousands of years.

For even more context, Dinosaurs are known to have roamed the Earth in prehistoric times. It is known that animals of that size would not easily be able to stand or be mobilized, under todays earthly conditions even without the human presence. And yet there is evidence of dinosaurs. The electric model theory would place the dinosaurs on earth easily at a time when the sun was proto-saturn. And when perhaps the earth circled within the limits of proto-saturns plasma glow... where the force of gravity would have been much much lower due to a very different electrical environment.

The extent that the electric model theory answers question that modern science and explanations leave unjoined is phenomenal. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to think the time the dinosaurs went extinct is actually much much less than 65 million years ago, that the electrical differences in the environment causes the decay rate of C14 to vary...

[scibuster]

That is "starker Tobak" would Immanuel Kant say.

And JSB would compose this song:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkgKdVzexsI



What is the US Translation for "starker Tobak" ?

[bsbray]

What is the US Translation for "starker Tobak" ?

Google suggests "heavy stuff" or "hard to swallow" though I see that the literal translation is stronger tobacco. I think "heavy stuff" sums up the discussion here pretty well. A lot of technical considerations but I think that's a good thing to bring to the table.

[Aragorn]

That is "starker Tobak" would Immanuel Kant say.

[...]

What is the US Translation for "starker Tobak" ?

Google suggests "heavy stuff" or "hard to swallow" though I see that the literal translation is stronger tobacco. I think "heavy stuff" sums up the discussion here pretty well. A lot of technical considerations but I think that's a good thing to bring to the table.

It is an expression in regionally dialectic Flemish as well — "straffe toebak" — and it does indeed mean "heavy stuff".

[lcam88]

Heavy stuff? Well thanks for the complement.

So this morning, I have the feeling that this idea of brown-dwarf interaction with the solar system could be improved a bit.

Considering that Proto-Saturn idea has validity: Today we know Saturn to be a gas giant, 1 of 4 and second largest. And so how did the other gas giant planets join the planetary party?

There would have had to have been a Proto-Jupiter sun perhaps with similar characteristics to Proto-Saturn, with a life cradle planet like earth, and one or more "electric dampener" planet like mars.

Would it make better sense to suppose Venus was more likely to be the life cradle planet of Proto-Jupiter?

In the same way that mars took huge electrical shocks and was scared with huge craters and that enormous scar during a peak period of electrical "rebalancing", the Proto-Jupiter mars would have been subject to a similar only more intense (as Jupter is more massive) interplanetary electric storm. Perhaps as Jupiter came in, being more massive and larger, it completely obliterated its "electric dampener" planet in much the same way as a coronal mass ejection from the sun may obliterate a comet electrically.

So reminants of that obliteration then gave rise to many comets, the asteroid belt and left Venus (then possibly life bearing) exposed to the rest of the full electrical discharge of Proto-Jupiter entering planetary state. Without need to say more, that would have rendered Venus lifeless.

Does that seem slightly more plausible than Venus being a Proto-Saturn satellite?

There may have been other small planets that came in with Earth, Mars and Proto-Saturn. Titan for example may have been closest to the star and perhaps very sheltered. But other bodies may have participated in a way that mythology and our theorists in the videos are confusing with Venus. A planetary body that got destroyed during entry and gives rise to spectacular multi faceted lightening as it ends...

And while we are establishing patterns, mercury is likely a satellite from the first brown-dwarf to enter the system, Neptune. It probably burned up its "electrical dampener" planet, likely much smaller. I think Neptune is the oldest because it has the weakest ring structure about the planetary body.

Uranus has that odd rotational axis; likely it came in at a different angle and pluto was the result with it's odd orbit slightly off the elliptical plain. In its case because of the odd approach angle, and it being much smaller, it's satellite ended with a larger orbit than the proto-planet. Because of it's predominant ring structure, perhaps it is the 3rd of the proto-stars to join our system, Jupiter being the second with its faint and fading ring structure...

Am I making a mistake somewhere?

[hughe]

@lcam88

You are right on the track. I think we need time and more people will need to work together to reconstruct sounding model that can explain solar system's past, probably would be able to predict future events.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdNaYFpjtQk