The Colorado river aqueduct takes river water to Metropolitan water District sc

You did, Reese.

Have you seen how round almost all of the craters are? Do you conclude that everything comes down in radial directions?

@yvilletom if that's the case then why aren't there thousands of craters formed every day?...because there are 10's of thousands of lightning strikes every day...and using your challenge that almost all craters are "round"...how could one deduce that "electric Lightning strikes" cause "round" craters...i watched the video and there is absolutely nothing in it that would convince me that the present science is wrong...or that this Electric Universe Theory has any validity whatsoever. Sorry ole chap...not trying to insult you and not trying to get personal...just saying that the theory doesn't hold water. Speaking of water...have you ever skipped stones inna pond?...the stones hit the water at an angle...how does the water react?...RINGS...so yes the craters will be round from the impacts...the discovery of the Chixalub crater was based on the 100's of sinkholes on that portion of the Yucatan Peninsula that were mapped out by the Petroleum Companies and from Satellite Images...coupled up with the density of the K-T Boundary in that area is some pretty tough evidence to try an topple with a vague theory of lightning strikes?...the Great Lakes were formed after the Glaciers receded as were the Fjords. Rocket triggered Lightning experiments have been routinely conducted in NM and when the lightning strikes...it does not form a crater...not to mention it fuses the silicon in the sand into glass and leaves a telltale trail underground. This "Electric Universe Theory" is way too left field in my opinion...but thanks for the video...it was ... Entertaining.

@phoenixone1 Where are those tens of thousands of strikes and how many of them are powerful enough?

@yvilletom .all over the planet. Show me 1 example of a Lightning Strike that was NOT caused by Weather or a Volcano exploding(which is still weather related because of the rapid temperature change in the atmosphere)

We have you.

More than I have available.

If you have any numbers on how much the nearby universe has available, produce them.

Do you believe LeMaitre’s primeval atom had any available?

@yvilletom But it's not enough to talk of the energy of the 'nearby universe', unless you also have a presentable explanation for that energy being transfered to the Earth and then somehow act to accelerate a trillion metric tonnes of limestone in a specific direction.

And there are other problems. Isaac Newton's 3rd law of motion declares that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So for sufficient upward force to be applied to accellerate a trillion tones of limestone to escape velocity there must have been the same downward force being applied somewhere - now I'm no geologist, but I would suspect the 'equal and opposite' force to the one accellerating a trillion tonnes of rock into space would put MASSIVE stress on the Earth's crust, and would likely result in ruptures of the crust and absolutely catestrophic volcanic activity that would be VERY obvious indeed - and I am unaware of any such evidence in the vacinity of the grand canyon.

So sorry. Nice try, but this just doesn't make any sense.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, there's always a problem with stuff like this.

Around the world there are thousands, indeed millions, of exceptionally bright, gifted young men and women with intensive training in physics who would LOVE to have the opportunity to 'make their name' - to publish the ground-breaking paper that will set them apart in history.

So why have NONE of them picked up this idea, gathered the evidence, written the scholarly paper on the subject, been applauded by the scientific world, and become a household name? Why do we only hear this 'theory' wafting around the internet, without the backing of evidence and with massive holes in it's logic?

Is it because every one of of those bright, young, ambitious people is a fool? Because every one of them is part of a massive, secret 'plot' to withhold the truth for some unexplained reason?

Or is it just because it's bollocks?

@ToakReon as to the 3rd law, when you stand on the floor as you pick something up, the 3rd law is relevant.

As a lightning bolt picks up rock, where is the bolt’s other end? Think critically.

While you are thinking critically about the 3rd law, explain the forces that begin and end the Bang’s inflationary period.

As to all those bright young people who want money so they can make their names, NASA ,gets billions in research money from taxpayers and refuses to share.

Or don’t do any of that and continue crowing with MiddleWay.

@yvilletom Oh please!

Action and reaction being equal and opposite is not a 'sometimes', it is an ALWAYS - that's the nature of physical laws.

When a lightning bolt strikes, and flings something upwards, HOW DOES THAT WORK? What is the MECHANICAL MEANS by which the electrical energy of the lightning bolt is converted into kinetic energy of a moving object?

The lightning bolt heats air, or strikes water causing it to spontaneously boil, or something similar. This causes a dramatic and sudden (explosive) increase in pressure - which pushes whatever is accellerated upwards, but also PRESSESS DOWN ON THE GROUND BENEATH.

Action and reaction are ALWAYS equal and opposite, and the fact that you display any doubt about that indicates a lack of understanding.

And yes, it seems you assume everyone in the world who actually UNDERSTANDS physics is somehow conspiring in a mega-plot to hide a truth that only people such as yourself - apparently unversed in the physics of 1667 - can understand.

@ToakReon Thanks for the reply, but it seems to say:

1. a cloud-to-earth lightning bolt pushes down on the earth as it pulls anything up from the earth, and
2. the force pushing down is equal to the force pulling up.
   Are there two reference frames here?

If I’m seated and I bend down to pick someting up, there are equal and opposite forces.
Is there one reference frame here?

Btw, I’m not a conspiracy theorist but my law dictiionary defines the word “conspiracy”.

@yvilletom

Correct - if a 'cloud to earth' lightning bolt DOES 'raise anything upwards' (actually not a characteristic lightning bolts are known for - but let's set that aside for the moment) then there must be a mechanism by which that force is applied. If there is no such mechanism there can be no such force.

If a force is applied to the object being raised, then Newton's Third Law of Motion tells us there must be an 'equal and opposite reaction' to that 'action' - this is not a 'maybe', this is not a 'possibly', this is not an 'only if it's convenient', it's a LAW OF NATURE, and it applies EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

If your understanding of the mechanism behind the 'raising' does not also explain the necessary equal and opposite reaction, then this indicates that your understanding of that mechanism is at best not complete, and at worst complete bullshit. Newton's laws of motion state that EVERY action has an equal and opposite reaction. Every one. Bar none.

Your second point is not, in fact, a second point - just an emphasis on a different word. An EQUAL and opposite reaction is EQUAL. So yes, if electricity lifted something off the earth, there must be an EQUAL and opposite force that pressed downwards. Is that force 'applied to the ground'? Well, seeing as there is only the ground and the atmosphere above it, that force must be applied to one or the other - and even if it is (by some unspecified means) applied to the atmosphere (difficult to see how, but heck, let's run with it), it will serve to compress the atmoshphere, increasing the ground level air pressure and, guess what? The ground will be pressed downwards.

Newton's third law is NOT OPTIONAL. Not EVER.

Back to your comment - if you're seated and you bend down to pick something up, are there equal and opposite forces? Of COURSE there are - I repeat, Newton's third law is not optional.

You sit, and then you bend down. You are moving your centre if gravity. 'A body remains in it's state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless a resultant, external force acts upon it' (that's Newton's FIRST law) so to move your center of gravity you have to disturb it from it's 'state of rest' which means you must apply an external force - you use your muscles!

If you move your centre of gravity forwards as you bend, then you must apply a forward force to your centre of gravity to accelerate it, and then a backwards force to decellerate it once the bend is complete.

These forward and backward forces will have equal and opposite reactions - likely delivered through your ass to the chair you're sitting on. If that chair were standing on a sheet of friction free ice, then the chair might well slip backwards a few inches as you lean forwards.

As for reference frames I would suggest reading 'Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathmatica' by Isaac Newton (first published 1667), or if you'd rather not delve into hard-core mathematics written in latin, almost any elementary, children's textbook on physics will serve. This really is basics for 12-year-olds.

@ToakReon When I’m seated and bend over to pick something up, there are equal and opposite VERTICAL forces. Center of gravity is not relevant.

When a lightning bolt strikes the ground, the bolt itself cannot push downward or pull upward. Rather than using a CAPITALIZED DOGMATIC STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT MAY HAPPEN, I prefer using a testable ihypothesis about where the forces may be acting.

@yvilletom Ok - so when a lightning bolt strikes the ground what does 'push up' if it is not the lightning bolt? I suggested explosive expansion of air and/or explosive vapourisation of water - what are you suggesting, and how does your theory meet the necessities as specified in Newton's Laws of Motion?

What is the mechanism whereby the electrical energy of the bolt is converted into kinetic energy? How is that energy applied in accelerating something upwards?

And of course when you move your centre of gravity that is relevant, because to move your centre of gravity requires the application of forces, to accelerate it and to decellerate it. Forces are relevant to our discussion, because you are apparently basing your 'theory' about the electric universe on forces that do not obey the most basic laws of physics and motion.

If you have evidence that Newton's Laws of Motion are invalid, then rest assured - if you can present evidence of that, publish it, and get your publication peer-reviewed you will be receiving the Nobel prize for Physics.

And my apologies if my use of capitals annoys you. Rest assured, a man who should know better claiming that Newton's Third Law of Motion can be simply ignored when it does not conveniently fit into a nonsense theory that he wishes to promote annoys me too - so we both have issues here.

Gravity obeys the inverse square law, and so:
1 ) In our solar system, where matter is plentiful, gravity and electricity compete.
2 ) In the galaxy, where matter is scarce, gravity is vastly weaker than electricity.
My thinking is sometimes shallow and I do laundry.

@TheMiddleWay You.missed the point; I’m comparing where matter is plentiful with where it’s scarce. Catholicism fucked up your mind the way it did mine, but I used physics to repair mine.

@TheMiddleWay.

If you need equations, data or physics to understand that gravity is stronger inside our solar system than outside it in galactic space, your mind is really fucked up.

.

Not real silly, Anne.

About three decades before America’s capitalism pushed the Soviet Union’s communism into bankruptcy, the Soviets — having trash-canned the Big Bang — put a man into earth orbit. America’s leaders knew the Soviets could use the same vehicle to put a weapon into orbit and rightly started spending taxpayer money

One year later, In 1962; I was in graduate school studying physics and math. I heard of the Bang and doubted that evidence would ever be found. Many claims of evidence have been made, but It still hasn’t been found.

The Bang’s real purpose has long been to get as much taxpayer money as possible. For six years it paid me a nice salary.

@yvilletom ummmm, what has this to do with your original post, or are you walking it back, maybe? Because yes it is silly!

@AnneWimsey Making damn fine pies while standing under waterfalls would be silly.

@yvilletom and oh, what about the gooey wet crust clogging the downstream? Gee, better get out the giant generator & zap it away.....

@AnneWimsey What’s silly now?

@yvilletom me, dammit!

@AnneWimsey

You were kind enough to say “...yes it is silly,” I was kind enough to ask “What’s silly...?” i hope unkindness doesn’t attract you.

But then you would have a Huge downstream dam & lake....water doesn't work like that, which is why beavers are always busy plugging leaks.

Not piled up. Spread out.

I’ve read of this flood. An ice dam in what is now northern Montana and Canada broke.

Andrea identified the dating process but spoke its name so quickly that I replayed her words several times and still can’t say its name.

@yvilletom These ice dams (there were actually hundreds) were formed both in Idaho and Montana.

As usual, the best reasoning Mofo can do.

@yvilletom nope, just the best explanation for stupid crap that basically belongs in the anus of history but still being kept moribund like a warm heap of shit by imbeciles like you.

@Mofo1953 More of your best.

@yvilletom As a response to more of your bullshit

Can others repeat the test and come to similar conclusions. If not, it’s scifi.

Are you saying a delta from the canyon would have spread out to the area of the surface of what is now the Sea of Cortez?

@yvilletom Or beyond of course, certainly some of the sediment from every river finds its way to the furthest corners of the world, depending on its boyancy of course. But the Sea Of Cortez was the area quoted by the article so I went with that. It is perfectly possible of course that if there was a suitable channel in the seas, seabed that nearly all of the sediment would be flushed out of the Sea of Cortez, but that I think would be unlikely.

@DenoPenno How many millions of comets of all sizes are “in the sky” somewhere?

The European Space Agency, unlike NASA, no longer says they are dusty snow or ice balls

@yvilletom I doubt that they came from our Earth or that they are snow or ice balls.

Actually I have almost no imagination. I’ve tried to write short fiction and after maybe two sentences my imagination has expired.

@yvilletom Keep trying !!