The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

You can pretty much count on anything that projects itself into 3D spacing dropping off by the square of the distance. The equation of gravitation attraction reflects this: --Percy

I wouldn't have responded except that Jacen seems skeptical. I agree with this. When I read it I noticed the same misinterpretation.--Percy

You're correct that gravity is a very weak force, the weakest of the four forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravity). Moving an iron nail a few inches away from a magnet reduces the attractive force to a negligible level, while moving the nail a few more inches away from earth produces no discernable difference.The reason is that the center of earth's mass isn't really at ground level, it's 4000 miles away. When you increase the distance of the nail from the magnet from 1 inch to 4 inches, you're increasing the distance by 300%. When you increase the distance of the nail above the ground from 1 inch to 4 inches, you're actually increasing it from 4000 miles to 4000 miles plus a few more inches, a negligible amount.If you increase the distance of the nail from the earth by same proportion as for the magnet, which for 300% would be 12000 miles above the earth's surface, you would find the gravity had decreased by the same proportion as when you moved the nail 3 more inches from the magnet.--Percy

A solid sphere is another example. The net gravity at the earth's center is 0.--Ted

"What are they afraid of?" is a good question. Perhaps they're afraid they won't have a good speech prepared when they accept the Nobel Prize. Why strike off in new directions and become famous when you can support the current views and remain anonymous? Why explore exciting new possibilities when you can stick with the mundane?In other words, I don't believe that astronmers see their jobs as just maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat. Like most fields within science there is much competition for grant money, and proposals that don't seek to expand our knowledge will lose out to those that do.Without more information I'm not prepared to conclude that Halton Arp has been unfairly stigmatized and ostracized. The website you linked to is long on accusations and short on evidence. I don't place a lot of faith in Internet appeals claiming unfair treatment. If Halton Arp has published his findings in the technical literature and others have not been able to replicate his findings or agree with his conclusions, then that's just the way science works.From the little I've read it appears that Arp claims that statistical analysis of the occurence rate of visually adjacent galaxies with different red shifts occur too often to be due to chance, and that therefore the galaxies must actually be adjacent and red shift as an indicator of distance is wrong. The photographs at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm don't really say anything to me on the issue, and if Arp has published these photos in the technical literature then I assume astronomers and cosmologists examining them did not believe they supported Arp's conclusions.--Percy

I couldn't find the section you're referring to. Could you describe the drastic change to the planetary alignment you're talking about? Astronomers believe black holes exist in the center of many galaxies based upon observations. Stars near the centers of such galaxies are observed orbitting the galactic centers at such a high rate that there must be a very large mass involved, and a black hole accounts for this much mass. A star or group of stars of such mass would be visible through the electromagnetic radiation such bodies emit.In addition, though nearby galaxies (in other words, old galaxies) do not give much indication of black holes in the center, this is believed to be because the black holes in these old galaxies have had sufficient time to sweep up most matter in the galactic core. But as they view galaxies further and further away (in other words, younger galaxies) the galactic cores are found to give off radiation consistent with matter falling into black holes. And at the furthest reaches of our vision we see quasars, which are thought to be very young galaxies still in the throes of birth with massive amounts of matter falling into a black hole at the center. You're correct if you mean that black holes have not been directly observed. But their existence is not in question. As soon as the mass of an object reaches the point where its escape velocity exceeds that of light, light can no longer escape from the object and it becomes a black hole. Though I wouldn't express it this way, I think this is true of all scientific theories. Theories are tentative. As we learn more about galactic centers our theories will be modified, and if what we learn contradicts current theories then they'll have to be discarded. What we can do here is examine the evidence for those views whose evidence you think inadequate. I'm not sure how well the idea you're responding to corresponds to contemporary ideas about the origin of the solar system. I haven't explored this topic in quite a while, but I think we have more questions than answers at this time. I think a form of the nebular hypothesis still holds sway, and I'm sure a fair amount has been worked out, but I'm also sure that there are a huge number of unanswered questions. It's likes reconstructing the history of an immense pool table that began with billions of tiny billiard balls that aggregated to form a much lesser number of smaller billiard balls over billions of years. If the electric/plasma people have some solid proposals then I'm sure the astronomical community would love to hear them. I think this statement probably needs some evidential support. Astronomers believe they have the evidence that this crater was caused by an impact. This is from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bitesize Astronomy : Craters would be elliptical were they formed from the momentum of the impact object, but they're not. When a meteorite strikes an object like a planet at high velocity, say 10 miles/sec, the object and the part of the planet it strikes instantly vaporizes. Any momentum effects from non-dead-on strikes are comletely overwhelmed by the massive vaporization explosion. Actually, I think they'd be glad for any suggestions they can get that are accompanied by evidence.--Percy

Magnetic field strengths and gravity both decline by the square of the distance.--Percy

Hanno might be including magnetic forces, too, but in what I've read so far I've only seen mention of electrostatic forces.While gravity is invariably described as a very weak force, it isn't as weak as some descriptions make it seem. The typical comparison to a common magnet that can overcome the attraction of the entire earth invariably fails to note that the center of earth's mass is 4000 miles away, while the magnet is immediately adjacent to the object. If you had a magnet strong enough to equal earth's gravity from a distance of 4000 miles that would be so powerful a magnet that I don't think I'd want to get anywhere near it.A magnet capable of supporting a 1 pound weight from a distance of 4000 miles away would exert a pull on the same object of 16 million pounds at a distance of 1 mile. Have we ever observed magnetic fields strengths of this magnitude anywhere in the universe? I don't know myself.--Percy

Yeah, I know, but I'm not sure Hanno is accurately capturing what the website he's in love with is saying. It seems to be advocating electrical plasma as the alternative explanation for many cosmological phenomena, see http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm. In what I've read there so far I haven't noticed any advocacy of magnetism, and the introductory page (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/index.htm) hints that magnetism is part of the mainstream view it is rejecting: Moving on: The contributions of all magnetic fields are summed at each point in space. Hence, when we measure magnetic field direction here on earth with a compass we are measuring the sum of all magnetic fields in the universe. Because of our proximity to the earth, its magnetic field by far outweighs the sum of all other magnetic fields in the universe, and so the compass points toward the earth's magnetic north.The earth contains a great deal of magnetically sensitive metals, and so of course will respond to outside magnetic fields, such as the Sun's. I don't know whether the net force is negligible or not. Permanent magnets can be remagnetized in different directions by a sufficiently strong magnetic field, but the earth's magnetic field is not thought to be due to permanent magnets. It's thought to be due to convection currents in the earth's liquid outer core, composed of nickel/iron, combined with the earth's rotation. A strong enough magnetic field would not only overwhelm the earth's relatively weak magnetic field, but also cause its own current flows producing a sympathetic magnetic field.--Percy

As long as you keep tossing out creampuffs there will always be a long line to hit them out of the ballpark! That there are a large number of comets, asteroids and meteors in the solar system makes collisions with planets and moons a common event, as evidenced by the large number of craters on the surface of planets and moons. That such collisions happen is further confirmed by the aforementioned collision of the Shoemaker-Levy comet with Jupiter. The earth experiences meteor showers several times a year, like the Perseid and Leonid meteor showers (fortunately mostly the size of a grain of sand), further confirming that collisions are a common occurrence. Meteors, asteroids and comets are observed all the time, but judging by the number of sightings lightning in space must be pretty rare.More evidence that impact craters are caused by impacts comes from detailed examination and analysis of suspected impact craters here on earth, on the moon and, to a lesser degree, on Mars. These studies have revealed the evidence of the type of shock waves and resulting vaporization caused by high velocity impacts and in many cases of the original impacting body itself. A detailed discussion of how impact craters form can be found at Formation of Impact Craters.If you believe some impact craters are actually created by electrical discharge then you need evidence to support this view. For example, when examining supposed impact craters, what should we be looking for if they were caused by electrical discharge instead of impacts? How would a crater caused by electrical discharge differ from one caused by an impact? You're no nuclear expert, either. Chemical reactions cannot transmute one element into another. As someone else has already indicated, if your electrical discharge were great enough to cause temperatures and pressures sufficient for fusion then the creation of higher elements such as iridium is possible, but in that case the evidence of a fusion reaction would be abundantly clear in the presence of fusion byproducts. The validity of your last statement seems tenuous at best. There is much evidence that impact craters are caused by impacts, and no evidence at this point in time that they're caused by electrical discharge.You didn't actually answer the question you were addressing. Some kind of evidential support for crater formation through electrical discharge, either through experiment or through examination and analysis of existing craters, is important if you want the idea seriously considered. More than just a red flag, the absence of evidence is an indicator of bad science, of putting the theory cart before the evidence horse. It's probably beyond the scope of this discussion to consider ideas not too dissimilar from those of Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. Interpretation of ancient texts and drawings vary widely. If we limit ourselves to the scientifically available evidence, what leads you to believe there have been any dramatic changes in planetary alignments? Addressing the second point first, black holes do not require the extreme compression of matter, though it helps. The less matter involved, the more densely it must be compressed to form a black hole. The more matter involved, the less compression is required, which means that blacks holes can be formed from a large mass that isn't particularly dense. The possibility of black holes does not require highly compressed matter. Furthermore, there is no indication that the physical laws we know break down simply because matter is highly compressed.Concerning your first point, what you're really saying is that the evidence for black holes is indirect. That's hardly a criticism. The easily visible and detectable stuff was found by science long ago. Much of modern science concerns phenomena only indirectly detectable. In order to rebut the existence of black holes you must directly address the evidence supporting their existence and propose better explanations for the evidence. This is false. I can see you're trying to draw a dichotomy between the testable and the untestable, but a hypothesis is not untestable. Theories begin as untested hypotheses, so your conjecture cannot possibly be true.What you probably meant to say is that a hypothesis is theory that hasn't been successfully tested yet. And if the hypothesis never passes any tests then it will remain a hypothesis. I suggest using the word evidence in place of proof. In science nothing is ever proved, only supported by evidence. We have evidence which is explained by dark matter, but dark matter is not the only possibility. While dark matter is probably accepted as a viable possibility by more cosmologists than not, probably few believe the evidence so compelling as to think the issue is settled. Dark matter has its strong advocates, but I doubt many believe it's an established fact. Until there's sufficient evidence the popularity of various theories will ebb and flow. That dark matter is all the rave now should not be mistaken as meaning that cosmologists believe the issue settled. Nebular emissions themselves provide the clues to the origin of the emissions. What can you tell us about the analysis of these emissions as far as an electric plasma origin? The stars thought to illuminate nebula are the stars in or near the nebula. When looking down from an airplane upon a foggy city at night you can see how the city lights illuminate the fog. That's because the lights are located within the fog. But those same city lights are incapable of producing the same bright glow on a distant fog, say one out to sea some distance. The problem is that you're using knowledge of everyday events to think about things with which there is no day-to-day experience. A bullet weighs little and travels at perhaps a half mile/sec, while an impacting cosmic object capable of creating a crater would weigh much, much more and travels at around 10 miles/sec and above. The kinetic energy is correspondingly much greater.Gradually scale your example up and you'll get a feel for the consequences of a large meteor strike. Imagine the bullet striking rock instead of sand. You wouldn't want to be too close to that, the fragments would be dangerous. Now imagine the bullet traveling 20 times faster at 10 miles/sec and imagine it striking the rock. It would probably be enough to cause a small explosion. Now imagine the bullet is actually a boulder the size of a house and imagine it striking the ground. Everything for miles around would be devastated. Take a look at that link I mentioned above (Formation of Impact Craters). It explains it all pretty well.--Percy

The link is to a PDF file, which browsers display using Acrobat Reader. If you don't have Acrobat Reader on your machine, it's a free download off the Internet. If you prefer not to use Acrobat Reader, here's a link to an HTML equivalent at Google.--Percy

But in an earlier post you claimed that the planetary alignments had gone through dramatic change, and when I asked about your source you pointed to an "electric universe" webpage whose sources were ancient texts and mythology. As I said before, the interpretation of such sources varies widely, and when trying to establish scientific principles through the assessment of valid evidence, all such sources fall short.--Percy

First, the only time you mention of Saturn is when mention its moon, Mimas, so I can't figure out what you're on about there. Second, this is the actual text of your answer from Message 49: I now understand the meaning you intended, but you never said whether your example was of something you thought correct or incorrect. I thought you were deeming scientific views incorrect for not explaining how the planets could have realigned without wiping out all life on earth, and I responded that I didn't think mythology a good source. When I asked about it you responded with a bare link in Message 65 and no accompanying clarification of your views.Did you get a chance to read that PDF document about impact crater formation? Here's a link to the PDF and here's a link to an HTML equivalent.--Percy

When refer to a link, could I ask you the favor of including the link itself, instead of just mentioning that you posted one somewhere, especially since you've posted so many. I think you're referring to Water on Mars? – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE, but I could be wrong. And when the page is very long like this one is, could you provide a hint as to what portion is relevant to your discussion? I think I found it near the end, but again, I can't be sure.The webpage provided these pictures with some commentary: You are correct, this isn't very convincing. Nothing of detail can made out in the arc photo. The commentary about the Martian craters makes some questionable statements, such as that large craters do not have central peaks, or that geologists have ruled out "ballistic emplacement of the ejecta", although the meaning of that last is sufficiently ambiguous to defy rebuttal. If you read the link I provided for you about impact craters you'll see that this article is an inaccurate portrayal of our current understanding. Really? Should we start a thread discussing Greek mythology? I was addressing the possibility of black holes, which you rejected, not the manner in which stars are thought to form black holes. You're correct that we believe black holes form from the collapse of stars, but your original point was that you doubt the existence of black holes because we can't be sure of the way compressed matter behaves, and I responded that black holes do not require compressed matter. All you need is sufficient matter to create a black hole.Let me clarify. If you had matter equal to a hundred suns, then you need to compress that matter much greater than the sun is now in order to create a black hole. But if you have far more matter than that, say equal to a million suns, then you can create a black hole without compressing the matter. You do not need to trust our understanding of the behavior of compressed matter in order to accept the possibility of black holes. Once you have enough matter so that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light (c), then you have a black hole. The reason black holes do not form from non-dense matter is because it's impossible to keep gravity from drawing together this much mass into a very compressed object, but if matter could somehow resist the pull of gravity and remain uncompressed then black holes could still happen. There's a lot of debate about what actually goes on inside a black hole, but the behavior of matter within a black hole is a separate issue from whether you can collect sufficient matter to have an escape velocity greater than c. The possibility of error always exists. That's why scientific theories are considered tentative, not facts. More on this later. Even its strongest advocates do not accept string theory as fact, so I don't think the public should accept it as fact. It might be a useful exercise for you to look up string theory on the web to see how you picked up the impression that string theory has already replaced the standard model (currently the most widely accepted theory). Even the most optimistic presentation of string theory I could find on the net calls it only a "leading candidate" to unify the four forces of nature. Ideally, sure. In reality it can be a slow or sudden process. Relativity was accepted relatively quickly, as was an accelerating universe. Plate tectonics caught on at a relatively slow pace. In general what happens is that as the evidence supporting a theory mounts, the theory becomes more and more widely accepted by the community of scientists in the relevant fields. All theories are held tentatively, and at no point is a theory considered proven. A theory isn't either true or false. Rather, the strength of a theory is a measure of it's ability to explain and make sense of data, as well as to make predictions about what we'll find as research continues. There's no such thing as a perfect analogy, so don't assume that the stars in a star nursery are precisely the same as lightbulbs in a fog. The fact of the matter is that spectrographic analysis of nebular emissions reveals that they are illuminated by the stars within them. The glow of the Milky Way is due to the same causes. Here's a picture of a Star Nursey from National Geographic:The caption says in part: --Percy

The physics of neutron stars has been understood for a long, long time. This is what we knew about neutron stars 35 years ago from my college astronomy textbook, Exploration of the Universe, 2nd Edition by George Abell, 1969: By 1986 we knew a bit more. This is from that year's Encyclopedia Britannica: Now let's march forward to today and see what we know. This is from Wikipedia: Moving on: Except for the last one, I'm not familiar with these objections, but I suspect they're all as spurious as your neutron star objections. The last one about neutrinos was a puzzle for many years, but a couple years ago it was discovered that a significant proportion of neutrinos change from one type that is easily detectable to another type that is much less easily detectable on their journey from the Sun to the earth. Once we built detectors for both types of neutrinos, it was found that there was no neutrino deficiency. The electric universe webpages that you're citing are long on criticisms of modern cosmology and short on evidence. They also contain numerous errors, at least two in your most recent post alone (neutron stars and sun neutrinos). Have you read the impact crater material yet? I think you'll find it helpful in assessing the validity of the electric universe website concerning an electric arc origin for craters.--Percy