The Electric Universe
As can be seen under the title "So What?" at www.holoscience.com , several of the main conclusions of The Electric Universe Model fit The Geocentricity Model of the Bible like a glove. Notice:
A) The Biblical Model forbids The Big Bang Model now controlling Astronomy and Physics and NASAís evolution-premised "Origins Program".
B) The Electric Universe Model likewise rejects Big Bangism. "There was no Big Bang...."(1)
A) The Biblical Model repudiates the wholly misleading billions of light-year distances hawked regularly in all the media.
B) The Electric Universe Model declares that "The visible universe...is much smaller than we thought.... We have no idea of the extent of the universe".(2)
"We have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human life time."(3)
A) The Biblical Model contradicts all secular science about the age of the universe, dating its creation along with all else that exists in it during six 24 hour "evening and morning" days some 6000 years ago.
B) The Electric Universe Model concludes that "We donít know the age of stars, since the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them....We have no idea of the age...of the universe."(4)
(Some amplification of these dramatic conclusions is given furtheralong....)
This is not to say that this happy confluence of cosmological essentials which The Electric Universe Model shares with the Biblical Model is recognized (yet!) by EUM (Electric Universe Model) advocates. I have seen no indication in what Iíve read that these EUM folks are connecting their discoveries with anything Biblical. On the contrary, one can see that the exobiological evolution mind-set is well entrenched in statements such as this: "Life is most likely to form inside a brown dwarf star", and "Our search for intelligent life shall therefore focus on the faintest close stars [the L type Brown Dwarfs] in the sky."(5) But, a big break with standard Big Bang cosmology is evident in the word "static" in this quote: "The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought".(6)
Still, somewhere along the line--sooner than later, I expect--that agreement between the Bible and the EUM on some very basic cosmological essentials will ultimately become plain in all its implications for these folks; no doubt to the consternation of some and the joy of others. Nevertheless, welcomed or not, EUM discoveries contain the scientific rationale for dissolving not only the most nagging quasi-obstacle to a geocentric universe, viz., the alleged ever-increasing distances of stars that must revolve around the earth daily, but also threatens to scale down the age of the universe (and hence, Earth) so dramatically that there will be no time left for evolution to occur.
As to those alleged distances to galaxies, another able EUM advocate reminds us that the establishment idea that "...galactic distances can be determined by redshift is an assumption [and the] only basis of the further extrapolation that the universe is expanding andthe only reason for believing that there ever was a big bang."(7)
That same writer goes on to explain that even Hubble himself made it clear in his 1937 book (The Observational Approach To Cosmology) that he wasvery uncomfortable with the "recession factor" being attributed to him as "The Hubble Expansion". If one just sticks to the observed facts, Hubble concluded, "There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time scale, no trace of spatial curvature...."(8)
So the point to be heavily underscored here is that the ever-increasing confirmations of the impossibilities of the thermonuclear-furnace concept for our sun and other stars, coupled with the immediately intelligible concept of an electrical grid... arcing power from one ball of lightening (the sun, a star) to another through a highly conductive plasma, is a concept that is not only capable of sending modern-manís "knowledge" of the universe based on Big Bangism to that overflowing ash-bin of discarded "scientific" hypotheses, but is, at the same time, opening wide the door to re-thinking and ultimately confirming the Biblical Model of the universe with our non-moving Earth at the center of it all.
Those who have begun to grasp the mega-importance of the Geocentrism Revolution now brewing--a revolution that will enlist true science in returning to the Biblical Geocentrism Model of the universe(HERE)--will have no difficulty in recognizing the other false science dominos that must fall when the heliocentric deception that made possible the Big Bang deception is toppled.
Just as the physical sciences were beguiled by Copernicanism and spurred on to bring about a steady deterioration of Bible credibility in the all-important Truths about the origins and nature of the universe, just so did that deterioration pave the way for the beguiling of the life sciences to embrace the Darwinian mythology. Thenceforth, the regression of modern manís "knowledge" that has resulted because of the rejection of these two pillars of Biblical Credibility (ex nihilo creation of the universe with a stationary earth, and the creation of all life forms on the earth), is a regression that demonstrably gave birth to various shades of Marxism, Freudianism, Saganian extraterrestrialism, and, to a thoroughly confused and Bibleless Churchianity...merrily blown about by "every wind of doctrine" that comes its way.
So deeply imbedded in modern manís psyche have these regressive phenomena become that historians in recent years have been labeling these times as the "Post-Christian, Post-Biblical Era", foolishly believing (as I once did!) with atheist Nietzsche that: "God is dead. We have killed him with our science." By contrast, the Bible (which limits no true science), gives this caveat: "...avoid oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred (made mistakes) concerning the faith." (I Timothy 6:20,21).
The heliocentricity deception is the lynchpin, the keystone, the raison díÍtre of all these deceptions. Itís exposure will lay bare these "wiles of the Devil" that have come to rule modern manís "knowledge"(HERE) while submerging the Absolute Truths of Godís Word. The Electric Sun Model--intentionally or unintentionally--is coming forth as yet another slayer of false scienceís mythical Big Bang counterfeit of Godís Creation, bringing with it a revelation which will quickly turn the telescope around and point back to its Copernican beginnings.
It is necessary to understand that the central plank of the EUM is this: "Stars are electrical transformers, not thermonuclear devices."(9) Beyond the happy agreement with the Biblical Model in vital areas mentioned above that this central plank allows, these other agreements reveal that-- when a few ad hoc heliocentric parasites are fumigated off of EUM--it will be seen to be quite compatible with the Biblical Cosmos Model....
For example, the arbitrary speed limit that Einstein set on light immediately bites the dust in the EUM. "The speed of light is not a barrier," we are told(10). More Einstein-bashing is evident in these words of EUM physicist, Wal Thornhill: "Time travel is impossible"; "Space has no extra dimensions in which to warp or where parallel universes may exist"; " There are no neutron stars or Black Holes."(11)
As to "black holes", Thornhill gives his conclusions about Einstein and his devotees:
out by sucking on a pipe in an armchair is pure "Disneyesque" fantasy. Einsteinís theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable.
"It seems to me that Einstein made it fashionable for theoretical physicists to live in their heads and perform "thought experiments". It is one thing to frame hypotheses by day-dreaming but to think that experiments are carried
I believe a recent cartoon in Scientific American hasunwittingly shown us where black holes are to be found:
They exist inside the heads of theoretical astrophysicists!
And with their eyes wide shut and fingers in their ears,there they shall remain."(12)
I personally am glad to read such assessments of Big Al, because, as readers of The Earth Is Not Moving know, and as many have favorably commented, the historical record of Einstein given in two chapters and elsewhere in the book lead one to these same conclusions about "black holes" or any other product of his "thought experiments".
Sayonara Albert E... (A. E. was the choice of all Zionist controlled media to receive the honor of "Man of the 20th Century". From the Bible-bashing Talmud/Kabbala point of view, he disserved to be so crowned. After all, his Relativity, curved space, etherless, time-warping nonsense not only rescued Copernicanism from the nose-dive it was in after interferometer experiments repeatedly showed no movement of the earth, they also laid the necessary ground-work for the introduction and success of Big Bangism, which further made possible the whole Saganesque brand of evolution of "extraterrestrials" now about to be foisted on the world thru NASAís VR technology. HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE)
Newton--like Einstein, over-praised and under-criticized by secularists and Bible liberals alike because his work seemed to establish heliocentricity--is also seen to be a first cousin to Humpty Dumpty in the Electric Universe Model. In the EUM, "...electrically charged bodies embedded in a charged Plasma Gas accounts for "99.999% of the matter in the universe...." More: "Electromagnetic forces are infinitely more powerful than gravity and capable of simply explaining phenomena attributed to Black Holes. Electromagnetic ...forces can repel or attract. Gravity only attracts. [Plasma cosmology] is verifiable by experiment because of the enormous scalability of the phenomena."(13)
Newtonian "gravity" simply canít cut the mustard when it comes to explaining the phenomena in the universe that it has been called upon to explain.
"The mathematical shorthand that was developed for articulating the gravity view and for using the technologies based on it doesnít work for the plasma view....the definitions are different, the facts are different, the math is different, the theories are different...."(14)
"Gravity... `seesí fewer features and `seesí them as disparate events, each requiring a separate ad hoc explanation.... The generality of gravity is obscured with ad hoc inventions, and those inventions fail to account for details intrinsic in the plasma view. Gravity fails to account for entire new observations, extrapolating itself beyond reality and into denial."(15)
(My emph.: see note on TIDES at end....)
A summary quote about Newton:
"Newton was unaware of plasma.
Today his disciples spend years in training,
learning when and how to shut their eyes to it..
Itís not just the Big Bang, General Relativity,
and Quantum Mechanics that are in trouble,
but the foundation of all of them:
GRAVITY IS AN EXHAUSTED AND BANKRUPT CONCEPT."(16)
Further characteristics of the EUM as proposed by Juergens, Thornhill, Peratt, Lerner, Scott, the Achesons et al which enhance the Biblical Geocentrism Model will probably be included in future Monthly Bulletin Links on The Earth Is Not Moving web page. Look for them if the potential for the sensible features of this exciting new cosmological paradigm show the same remarkable alignment with the Bible Model that I am now seeing....
As something I personally view to be a near perfect example of the quotation above about Newtonian Gravitational Theory "extrapolating itself beyond reality"...I plan to take an eight page chapter from The Earth Is Not Moving entitled "TIDES" and link to it in the next Bulletin. If interested, look for it amongst the link titles after that date.
1 - http.//www.holoscience.com/eu/synopsis/12.so what.htlm, 1-14-01, p.1
2 - Ibid.
3 - THOTH, A Catastrophics Newsletter, Vol. 2 No.2, 1-31-01, Don Scott, p.9
4 - Holoscience, 12, so what?, p.1
5 - Holoscience, Philosopherís Corner, 1-21-01, p.5 (holoscience.com)
6 - Holoscience, so what?, p.1
7 - THOTH, 1-31-01, Amy Acheson, pp.13,14
8 - Ibid.
9 - Holoscience. so what?, p.1
12- THOTH, 1-31-01, pp.13,14
13-Wal Thornhill, "Definition", Net transmission, 1-14-01, p.
14- Mel Acheson, Ibid., p.2
16- Ibid (or with Thornhill), p.3