Silence
02-16-2011, 09:25 AM
Hello Richard,
I had read a few interesting articles by a guy named James McCanney quite a while back before finding your Bible Wheel site which claimed that gravity is not the only force behind the movements of objects in space and that electrical forces are the dominant factor. Since I am fairly ignorant about science I just thought "that's interesting" and subsequently forgot about him. Recently I came across a link to his website, and thought I would ask you what you think of some of his claims. He seems to think that most of mainstream science is subtly put under the thumb of a false paradigm through the pressure of a select few that want to maintain the flawed status quo which resulted from accepting false assumptions years ago, and it is not acceptable to mess with it since so much of what we "know" is based upon it.
For example, he brings up one point that I don't know how to evaluate. Jupiter has several icy moons that, according to him should be raging comets, if evaporating ice and water are really the reason comets have a "tail". Is that true? Or is there another reason these icy moons don't look like comets? (protection by Jupiter's magnetic field? {if it even has one? See how unqualified myself and the average person are to evaluate claims like this}) I'm interested to hear what you think of his science.
Chris
I had read a few interesting articles by a guy named James McCanney quite a while back before finding your Bible Wheel site which claimed that gravity is not the only force behind the movements of objects in space and that electrical forces are the dominant factor. Since I am fairly ignorant about science I just thought "that's interesting" and subsequently forgot about him. Recently I came across a link to his website, and thought I would ask you what you think of some of his claims. He seems to think that most of mainstream science is subtly put under the thumb of a false paradigm through the pressure of a select few that want to maintain the flawed status quo which resulted from accepting false assumptions years ago, and it is not acceptable to mess with it since so much of what we "know" is based upon it.
For example, he brings up one point that I don't know how to evaluate. Jupiter has several icy moons that, according to him should be raging comets, if evaporating ice and water are really the reason comets have a "tail". Is that true? Or is there another reason these icy moons don't look like comets? (protection by Jupiter's magnetic field? {if it even has one? See how unqualified myself and the average person are to evaluate claims like this}) I'm interested to hear what you think of his science.
Chris