The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

quote:

---

I do not necesarily agree with EVERYTHING that website states.

---

So how did you decide which parts were correct and which parts were incorrect?

quote:

---

Since the outer stars all orbit the galaxy at the same speed, gravity can not be responsible for this.

---

Why can't gravity be responsible for this?Has anyone mentioned that most galaxies contain a massive black hole at their center?

quote:

---

I believe that electric forces play a great role in stabilizing orbits, because the changes of gravity creatings such perfect orbits on its own is quite remote.

---

Why couldn't it be done through the process of elimination. Let's say that 99% of orbits are unstable. The 1% that are stable become the planets and moons we see today. As planets form, the matter that is still unstable comes crashing down on the planets. Given the obvious signs of meteor scarring on every planet and moon this would seem to be the normal state of things.

quote:

---

So if there was a magnetic field strong enough to effect the motions of a body, say a body the size of the earth, what evidence would we see as to its existence?

---

Orbits would be affected by their magnetism, not their mass. So, metallic satellites would have orbits that would violate Newton's Laws of Gravity due to the fact that their magnetism (ie metal content) is greater than the earth's.

quote:

---

That sounds like a fairly major force. So if there was a magnet what could exert force on the iron core of the earth across a distance of 93,000,000 miles do you think we would be able to detect it?

---

I would think so. The iron core would be more strongly attracted to the source than the rest of the planet causing the iron center to be, well, out of center. If gravity is the real force, then every part of the planet is equally attracted to the gravity of the sun with equal force and so the center of the earth would be exactly where it is, in the center.

quote:

---

Do we see that? Or do we only build satellites from non-magnetic materials?

---

Yeah, I thought of that later as well. They are most likely made of aluminum, so not much of a magnetic pull. Of course this would have the opposite effect, the satellites would not feel the sun's pull (or the moon's for that matter) as they should.Another example is the probe we sent to the large asteroid. The probe was able to orbit this body with no problem. After they figured out that Ceres was actually a rubble pile instead of solid rock, they were able to orbit around the asteroid using Newton's laws of gravity. Magnetism is not a viable mechanism for establishing orbits.

quote:

---

How about the earth's magentic field? Would it align with this hypothetical magnet?

---

You would think so. Geology and cosmology aren't my strong suits, but I can't see how it wouldn't.

quote:

---

Yes, [comet Shoemaker-Levy 9] would've created a hole in the ground, but I'm not certain that it would resemble a crater.

---

Why not? Why should I go with "I'm not certain"? Craters are consitent with meteor impacts, including shocked quartz and tektites, not to mention the layer of irridium found world wide in the case of the meteor impact from 65 MYA.Also, some craters are up to 300 km in diameter. How can an electrical discharge create such a large crater? Why hypothesize eletricity when rocks large enough to do the job intersect earth's orbit even now?

quote:

---

I'm no chemical expert, but if you have an electrical discharge big enough to burn a hole that size, is there any chance that that would create iridium?

---

As JonF said, the answer is no. The formation of any element from other elements requires extremely high pressures like that found in stars. Iridium can be produced in supernovae, but not due to eletrical discharges.

quote:

---

In fact, according to the electric universe model, the lights observed on Io is electrical discharge, not volcanos.

---

And have we observed these eletrical forces causing craters?The site you linked to is full of bunk. For instance: The formation of the Grand Canyon was due to water erosion, and no geologist doubts this (except for a few creationist extremists). There is no controversy. How can this site be taken seriously when it spreads untruths like this?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-27-2005 14:17 AM