The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

quote:

---

Following your arguement, you should be rejecting Newtons law's of physics as well. After all, he believed in creationism, and (appearently) if someone is making non of what he is saying is true, right?

---

WRONG. The errors I put forward relate directly to the author's understanding of mainstream cosmology. In the first he misunderstands a quite clear statement, in the second he either invents a claim that was never made or incorrectly beleives that such a claim was made.

quote:

---

You keep on hammering this one small side issue. You refuse to eat the burger, because a fly sat on a single chip?

---

I hammered on at it because you didn't answer it. Not because I had no other points to raise.

quote:

---

It makes me think you didn't read anything else. Maybe Wheeler said it during a lecture the author attended, who knows. If mainstream cosmologists react in the same way as you do, I am not at all suprised at the authors contempt towards them.

---

Oh so in your opinion it is right to be contemptuous of anyone who doesn't uncritically agree with anything you say.

quote:

---

Hmm. Forgive me, but I can simply not believe that you watched that image link I placed. You are perfectly free to believe in the impossible coincidence that this formation was formed by a liquid and impacts. Just don't expext me to mindlessly accept that as well.

---

What "coincidence" are you talking about ?

quote:

---

Hey, don't shoot the mesenger. I'm only telling you what it says,
since you have obviously no interest to read it yourself.

---

And I criticised what it said. AFTER checking the pages you referenced. THat is neither "shooting the messenger" nor does it show any unwillingness to actually read the site.

quote:

---

Solar Wind is charged particles, right? Well that is what we call "plasma". Plasma is one of the best conductors we know, and it is everywhere.

---

Which argues AGAINST the formation of large static charges.

quote:

---

Many of the observed "mysterious phenomena" can be explained by the plasma model. Time and time again, the plasma model is proven correct through observation. If observation proofs the theory, then the "how" is not an excuse to dismiss it.

---

Rubbish - the "how" has to be part of it. We can't ignore inconsistencies just because they are convenient

quote:

---

Him being able to explain it, and not NASA, is reason enough for me. Besides. The evidence has grown to such a point that even NASA can not deny electrical activity on Io.

---

NASA DID explain it.

quote:

---

It's on that website, and it is not "my" claims.

---

So it's SOMEWHERE on that website. Where's the full NASA report (you don't think that the quoted bit was it, do you ?)

quote:

---

If only you bothered to read it. I am biased towards a convincing arguement. So far, the author is winning you 10/0

---

You mean you are convinced by claims that happen to fit with your prejudices. You are the one who argued that we should accept this guy as an authority on cosmology because he happens to be an electricial engineer. YOu even argued that we should accept his assertions because he made unsubstantiated attacks on mainstream scientists. And then you argue that it doesn't matter if what he says is true or not ! I am very glad that my arguments are NOT of that "quality"

Just a quicky. This is the crittisism on the neutrino findings :
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

A rather uninformed criticism. Really just looking for excuses to dismiss the results. Certainly he offers no viable explanation himself. Unfortunately for him, later results have confirmed the initial findings.http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/results_04_02/

Paul

quote:

---

In the New Scientist of 31 May, p.18, there is a news item, "Planet's tail
of the unexpected", which, un-noticed, provides direct confirmation of
electric currents flowing between a planet and its surroundings. The
"stringy things" detected near the Earth and causing such puzzlement can
only be "Birkeland currents" which alone are capable of maintaining narrow
plasma filaments over vast distances.

---

Cambridge Conference CorrespondenceYou, see, the author wasn't lying about the "stringy things", he actually DOES have sources.I'm not going to entertain your idea that the author is fabricating quotes any longer: Integrety is not a feature limited to mainstream scientists. If you want to find any more sources of quotations, kindly do so yourself. Within 20 minutes of googling, you could've found this one yourself.

I did not say that the author was lying - only that there were no references to check on the complete story - and that's still the case. Your reference changes nothing.As for the rest of your post I have to say that preteending that I challenged a quote that you can provide some very limited support for (we still don't even have the context or the original quote !) gives you no grounds to conclude that other claims that you cannot support are true. Obviously you want an excuse to pretend that Wheeler really did claim to find a naked singularity - even though the only person who seems to have noticed such a revolutionary claim is the author of a crank website who doesn't even seem to understand the quote from Wheeler he DOES offer !Aod since you are runnign away from discussion lets point out what has already been revealed:1) You don't know enough about mainstream cosmology to evaluate the "Electric Universe"2) You don't know enough about electricity to evaluate that side either (not even basic high school stuff)3) You are either unwilling or unable to even critically read the website (since you didn't notice the conflict between Wheeler saying that naked singularities almost certainly could not form and the claim that Wheeler said that he had discovered one)4) You don't even care if the claims made on the website are true.5) Nonetheless you are prpeared to claim that it presents the truth and get very upset if it is questioned.If you are not prepared to put your opinions up for citical examination it was a big mistake to post here on this site. You were bound to get your feelings hurt. And I have no sympathy whatsoever.

Hi Hanno2,First replying to Message 88: I, too, have a serious problem with the Wheeler quote. It appears to indicate that the author of the website, Donald E. Scott, doesn't understand what Wheeler is saying. Here's the relevant section from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm: The problem is that Scott mistakenly believes that a naked singularity and a black hole are the same thing, and they're not. He thus thinks that Wheeler is saying that he doubts a black hole can be formed, though he can't prove it. What Wheeler is actually saying is that he doubts a naked singularity can be formed, though he can't prove it. A naked singularity differs from a black hole in that it has no event horizon, and thus is visible to the rest of the universe.Scott is also wrong to say that Wheeler is the "originator of the concept of black holes." That distinction belongs to John Mitchell back in 1783 (Black hole - Wikipedia).Naturally, two such fundamental errors in such a short space raises questions about Mr. Scott's competence to be writing on these matters, and by attacking the subject as someone with an axe to grind against cosmologists rather than as a dispassionate researcher he signals that his material should be approached with some degree of skepticism. Here's the picture:
Click for larger imageNo one would mistake these for impact craters. First, they're not cirular. Second, they have no raised rim. This is clear because in this picture the light is coming in low from a little above the left, so you can see the shadow on the upper left of the craters. But, there is no shadow on the lower right of the craters, thus there is no raised rim.Nasa seems to believe that such things are grabens (depressions similar to sink holes) caused by collapses near fault lines. Here are some similar pictures, along with links to pages at Arizona State University with some explanatory commentary: 
Click on images for larger versions (see http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20021101a.html and http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20020625a.html for descriptive commentary)Moving on: Here's a spectacular image of the Pillan volcano erupting on Io from Catalog Page for PIA01081 - definitely click on this to view it at full size. Note the gas and dust from the volcano that has been blown out into space:
Click for larger imageMoving on: I agree that the term "stringy things" seems a bit casual as a technical term, but I tried to track down the source of this Nasa quote, and a search of the Internet for "stringy things" venus nasa only returns sites advocating an electric universe.At some points you seem to be writing as you believe the scientific establishment rejects the possibility of charged gases in space, and if you think this then you are incorrect. The presence of ionized gases (plasmas) in space is well known. In star nurseries, which I mentioned in my previous post, the clouds of hydrogen in the nebula are ionized by the strong electromagnetic radiation from the young stars. This ionization is easily detectable through spectrographic analysis of nebular emissions.Moving on to Message 90: We're wandering further afield now, so I'll be brief. Though Newton accepted the Biblical story of creation, you couldn't call him a Creationist in the modern sense of the word. As a scientist Newton would have based his views upon evidence, and were modern evidence available to him he likely would have rejected the Biblical creation story. To this point I don't think I've seen mentioned any observations that point in any unambiguous way toward your theory. I'm not sure there's an actual dispute here, because I don't believe Nasa denies the possibility of electrical activity on Io, or anywhere for that matter. But Nasa *does* believe Pillan is an erupting volcano, and they have the images to support this view. I haven't seen any Nasa statements regarding electrical activity around Pillan, but the presence certainly wouldn't surprise me. I think if you search for "neutron stability" you'll get closer to the answers you seek. Just as in the absence of air all objects in the same gravitational field fall at the same rate, whether heavy or light, the same is true of the heavy proton and the light electron. Protons would not be preferentially attacted to the core of a neutron star. Gravity has an equal attaction on all parts of atoms, protons, electrons and neutrons.What actually is thought to happen in the formation of a neutron star is that gravity and shock waves create such pressure inside the exploded star's core that the atoms are crushed, and the protons and electrons are pushed together to form neutrons, leaving nothing but neutrons. The behavior of X-ray bursters, pulsars and magnetars are consistent with neutron stars. A supernova is a relatively rare event and probably could not explain the abundance of stars if it were the only source of new stars. We have observational evidence of supernova, most spectacularly and fairly recently, SN1987A in the Larger Magelanic Cloud, which is relatively nearby. The observational evidence is that a supernova is the end of a star's life. I also refer you to star nurseries, which have no evidence of supernova.You mentioned FG Sagittae, V605 Aguilae and V838 Mon as evidence for an electric universe, but though the behavior of these stars is not well understood, it isn't clear from your post how an electric universe provides an explanation for them. You go on to refernce J1808 with a roational period of 2.5 milliseconds. This is what is known as a millisecond pulsar. They are not unusual. According to Pulsar - Wikipedia, in 1982 a pulsar with a rotation period of 1.6 milliseconds was found, and J1808 is slower than this. So your website is incorrect to quote Wal Thornhill saying that J1808 "goes way beyond the red-line for a neutron star." You're referring to this from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm: I'm curious about the "several important questions remain to be answered about the method that was used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions." Scientists in this field seem to believe the SNO results are pretty solid. Those hoping for different results, for example, those hoping for the discovery of a new type of neutrino, were disappointed, but accepted the results. SNO used a detector sensitive to all three types of neutrinos, and I've been unable to find any questioning of their methods.So at this point in time the number of neutrinos found experimentally is consistent with nuclear fusion in the sun's core. The number of neutrinos is far to high to be accounted for by electric arcs.--Percy

quote:

---

I agree that the term "stringy things" seems a bit casual as a technical term, but I tried to track down the source of this Nasa quote, and a search of the Internet for "stringy things" venus nasa only returns sites advocating an electric universe.

---

To be fair the one page Hanno2 did list was NOT from a website advocating an Electric Universe. However the archived email in question was a repost from the Kronia list which IS definitely linked to supporters of the "Electric Universe". (Kronia is a publication which pushes the neo-Velikovskian "Saturn Hypothesis" which seems to be clearly linked to the "Electric Universe" claims).The quote is listed as coming from New Scientist and probably does come from a NASA press release aimed at a popular level. But this really does not tell us anything useful - we still have no evidence as to what they are or what the mainstream view is on their nature.

I wish I had more time to respond. I'll try and get back here tomorow.But, if you can explain how it is possible that all the stars in the tails of galaxies to move at the same velocity (which violates the law of gravity), without revering to non observable stuff, I'll admit that maybe, electrical forces do not play such a big role in the universe after all. The entire plasma universe theory builds on the believe that galaxies are powered and formed by currents running through plasma. Take away this power source, and the entire system collapse.PS. Paul, I respectfully disagree with you: We do not deny the existince of gravity, simply because we don't know what it is. If we observe electric activity in space, it would be stupid to deny the obvious, simple because we don't know what the source is. Just as we don't know what the source is of the Earths magnetic field. In fact, Magnetism is a tell tale sign of electricity. Why acknowledge the one, and not the other?

No one is arguing that electrical forces do not play a big role in the universe. What we're discussing is what role electrical forces *do* play. For example, can electric arcs be behind the power of the sun? Do electric arcs explain impact craters? Do static electrical forces help maintain the structure of spiral galaxies? Is the red shift actually due to recession velocity?The answers to these questions must be based upon evidence. If the sun were powered by electric arcs instead of fusion, what measurements could we make that would tell us this was so? If electric arcs are responsible for impact craters, how is this consistent with all the evidence for impact craters being caused by impacts? If static electrical forces rather than dark matter hold galaxies together, what observations would enable us to tell the difference? How can we tell the difference between a red shift caused by recession and a red shift caused by electrical forces?I believe that we already have sufficient evidence to answer these questions, and that airing the evidence should settle the issues fairly quickly. My biggest objection to the electric cosmos website is the amount of space he devotes to critisizing cosmologists. It feels to me like he is trying to focus attention away from careful consideration of the evidence by painting a picture of cosmologists as alternately scheming and dunderheaded maintainers of the status quo.--Percy

Let's see if this is true. The basic problem here is that the motions of stars in galaxies indicates that the masses involved are greater than what is visible. The motions make good sense if there is a large amount of dark matter in a halo around galaxies. This is what Hanno2 is referring to as "non observable" stuff.However, it is no longer quite as unobservable as it used to be, with improved observation instruments.Just this week, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory Center released this press release: Lost and Found: X-ray Telescope Locates Missing Matter. This is confirmation of predicted clouds of diffuse intergalactic gas, predicted on the basis of models for formation of galaxies and galactic clusters. This is not the "dark" matter needed to account for enhanced velocities of stars in galaxies, however; but I’m giving it as a straightforward demonstration that there is more in the universe than what can be "seen", and that sometimes we can see it when we look more closely. Not everything shines with light easily seen with a telescope.The one thing which dark matter is known to have is mass. A new technique to observe dark matter has been to use gravitational lensing. Photons curve around matter in a way that can be measured, and careful observation now allows this technique to be used to map the distributions of matter, whether it shines or not. This qualifies as observing, as far as I can see.Here is an example where gravitational lensing was combined with conventional observations to confirm a dark object in the galaxy. See First image and spectrum of a dark matter object, a press release from 2001. This is an example of a "MACHO" (massive compact object); a small cool star. This also confirms that there is more to the galaxy than what can be seen; though more detailed searches indicate that MACHOs alone cannot suffice to give the required mass.A much more significant work is deep space lensing observations, confirming a web of dark matter, which came out in 2000. See CFHT Gives First Glimpse of Dark Matter Distribution.Finally, see Hubble tracks down a galaxy cluster's dark matter, a 2003 press release, in which a detailed map of the dark matter halo around a distant galactic cluster was able to be formed. Here is a map of the dark matter distribution, imposed in blue, inferred from these observations: See also the APOD for August 14, 2003.Now of course, these observations don’t resolve all the questions... but they are observations of the predicted dark matter halos. The lensing observations confirm the dark matter halos and allow us to actually map their distribution.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 02-02-2005 17:33 AM

Well the big question is whether we DO observe the effects of electricity that are claimed. I don't see any reason to prefer electromagnetic forces to gravitational a priori. What I would like ot see is a clear and more detailed explanation of how it could work - and for someone whose knowledge of physics is better than mine to check the numbers. At present I see no reason to even believe that the necessary calculations have been done.However I must add that if space is really full of highly conductive plasma you can't expect to see much in the way of electrostatic forces and I would like to see evidence that there are electrical currents strong enough to account for the motion we see in terms of electromagnetism..

quote:

---

My biggest objection to the electric cosmos website is the amount of space he devotes to critisizing cosmologists. It feels to me like he is trying to focus attention away from careful consideration of the evidence by painting a picture of cosmologists as alternately scheming and dunderheaded maintainers of the status quo.

---

Very well, if that is the case, then I'd like awnsers on two major charges made by the author:

quote:

---

Why do conventional astronomers and cosmologists systematically exclude electric fields and currents from not only their consideration, but fromtheir curricula?

---

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htmIs this true that electric fields is not coverred in the cosmology curricula? If its true, how will cosmologists recognise an electric/plasma phenomena when they see it? How can they even consider it as a possible explaination if they do not have the knowledge? How will they then know to do the appropriate experimentation?

quote:

---

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all.

---

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htmThe Author claimed that Arp had an alternative explaination for red shift. I'm not so sure that youth is necesarily the correct explaination, but it might be that other, unknown factors are influencing red shift. He even formulated a formula to calculate this. On no other page did the author go into such detail. And then the charge: because Arp dared to make such a radical proposal, he is now refused access to all telescopes. He is denied the means to obtain the necesary proof, and without proof, no one will concider his theory. What is this all about? You need proof to get proof? Can someone from mainstream, who banned him, give their side of the story? Is there justification for this behaviour?Why is he denied access to telescope to either prove/disprove hypothesis? How is he supposed to gather evidence when he is denied access to instruments? If oposing theories do not have equal access to instruments, it is inevitable that the prevered theory will win.If these charges can not be awnsered to satisfaction, is his cynisism towards mainstream scientists unjustified? From what I've read, these are the two major burning issues in the authors mind. Can they be addressed?I haven't known about the electric universe for very long. NOW is the time to restore my faith in mainstream cosmology.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 02-03-2005 06:58 AMThis message has been edited by Hanno2, 02-03-2005 07:01 AM

Well lets reply with another question - what evidence is there that these charges are true ?Start with an easy one - what evidence is there that there is any formal "ban" on giving Arp telescope time or that his papers are unfairly rejected ? Bear in mind that time on the big telescopes is a limited resource and my understanding is that there is considerable competition for time on the major instruments. If Arp's work is poor - say because he is sticking with a pet theory past the point where it is really viable - then it is to be expected that he would find it difficult to get work published in the major journals or to get telescope time on major instruments.

So I'm left with one scientist's word against another? And a "ban" does not have to be formal to exist. Paul, from as far as I can remember, you were EXTREMELY prejudiced against this theory from the beginning. I hope I'm wrong, but I believe you've entered this debate with the believe that "they had to be wrong". If this assumption is made about every new theory, and this assumption is used to validate peoples access to telescopes, how are we suppose to progress?Anyway. I'm still awaiting an awnser to my first question, which should be a lot more straight forward.

This is a long-running canard, characteristic of those who unquestioningly swallow what they want to believe.Arp is employed at a premier physics and astrophysics institute (Max-Planck-Institut fr Astrophysik), gets plenty of telescope time, and continues to publish (see MPA Scientific Preprints issued in 2004 and MPA Scientific Preprints issued in 2003 and X-ray Emitting QSOs Ejected from Arp 220).See also Quasars and the Cosmic Distance Scale.