Summations Only

For those with some interest in reality, Tom Bridgman has written extensively and somewhat technically on this piffle:

Electric Sun
Electric Universe

Short version: all claims of failures of mainstream astronomy are incorrect, all claims of electric this-and-that have been falsified.

Plasma cosmology people just want you to accept plasma for what it is considering 99% of the universe is made of plasma. The paradigm was started by plasma experts and electrical engineers, simply because modern astronomy refuses to even consider plasma studies done in laboratories for over a century. WHY? If 99% of the universe is plasma, why are you completely ignoring it?

Magnetic fields are impossible without electric currents, get your very own science right before you claim others have it wrong. Shall we do a search on magnetic fields and see what your very own science says about it? Take that challenge, I'll accept any mainstream textbook you present because it is going to tell you magnetic fields are formed from electric currents.

As a matter of fact let's see what NASA says:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html

Don't read this if you don't want the truth.

And if your solar theory and cosmological theory is correct, why does everything surprise you? Every result since the space age has come as a surprise to you, why? Does not your theories predict anything correctly?
http://www.space.com/...surprised-stars-born-black-hole.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/...rs-at-milky-ways-center-1.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=20071028&id...
http://www.floridatoday.com/...-universe-s-largest-structure
http://beforeitsnews.com/...tronomers-surprised-2398338.html
http://news.oneindia.in/...rprised-by-suns-constantsize.html
http://www.icr.org/article/4764/
http://wiki.answers.com/..._a_pulsar_with_a_planetary_system
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?...
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/...ssummary/news_17-4-2013-17-3-5
Shall I list 2 or 3 thousand more?
You calim to be correct, then why is every observation a surprise???? If your theory was correct you would not be surprised by every single discovery since the space age. We are not talking one or two small things, but everytime you actually look into the universe, observations do not match your theory.

And yet you are going to claim that a paradigm that has predicted every discovery about the sun and solar system and galaxies is wrong.

i suggest you look at your own theory again since none of the observations seem to want to fit your theory. Oh well, back to the drawing board, as long as we don't have to accpt plasma for what it really is.

And trying to pretend it's different just shows you are practicing pseudoscience. They believe thier ideas are correct even when confronted by evidence to the contrary.

Do we need to look at every article published about space since 1980? Becayuse I guarantee the word surprised, mysterious, unexplainable or left us without a working theory is in every single one but maybe 10 or so. Shall we? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Tom Bridgman? Hah, that's a good one. Why don't you include that link to his paper so everyone can read it, instead of you telling it what it says??

Her's our reply, I am not scared to present it, present yours, let's look at them both.
http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

Then explain how a quote "neutral" unquote neutron is attracted to both negative and positive charges if it is neutral?

Its not attracted to both.

You are totally confused as to what neutral means when discussing electric charges. It means there are equal amounts of both negative and positive charges, not that no charge exists at all.

Apparently you are the one who's confused. Earlier you wrote this:

quote:

---

Since electric currents exist everywhere {snip} it is impossible for the universe to be electrically neutral.

---

Let me know when you figure out how you want to be wrong.

So the neutron by attracting the positive protons to its negative charge prevent them from flying apart

No, the neutron is neutral, not negatively charged. This is, like, 4th grade stuff here.

being you know nothing about charge

Why would you think that you could lie to me about myself?

considering 99% of the universe is made of plasma

You still haven't explained what that means. Obviously, you don't even know and can only drop bare links that have been spoonfed to you.

Last time I asked you what it means, you talked about the ramifications of it being true. But you still can't explain, in your own words without bare links, what that statement is actually saying.

http://www.space.com/...surprised-stars-born-black-hole.html http://www.dailygalaxy.com/...rs-at-milky-ways-center-1.html http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=20071028&id... http://www.floridatoday.com/...-universe-s-largest-structure http://beforeitsnews.com/...tronomers-surprised-2398338.html http://news.oneindia.in/...rprised-by-suns-constantsize.html http://www.icr.org/article/4764/ http://wiki.answers.com/..._a_pulsar_with_a_planetary_system http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?... http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/...ssummary/news_17-4-2013-17-3-5 Shall I list 2 or 3 thousand more?

No, you shouldn't. I realize you're a little slow, but for the nth time: we don't debate bare links here.

Tom Bridgman? Hah, that's a good one. Why don't you include that link to his paper so everyone can read it, instead of you telling it what it says??

I did.

Her's our reply, I am not scared to present it, present yours, let's look at them both.

I see there's no math in that link. Just a bunch of assertions. His comparison of the Grand Canyon to a Lichtenberg pattern is especially amusing. E.g. he says the Colorado river has no delta. It has one. Man is diverting pretty much all the water before it gets there, but the that's only in the last hundred years or so.

Posts on Scott, especially Death by Electric Universe. III. EU Excuses.

Note especially the reliance on math and measurements. When you've got some of them get back to us.

And if your solar theory and cosmological theory is correct, why does everything surprise you? Every result since the space age has come as a surprise to you, why? Does not your theories predict anything correctly? http://www.space.com/...surprised-stars-born-black-hole.html http://www.dailygalaxy.com/...rs-at-milky-ways-center-1.html http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=20071028&id... http://www.floridatoday.com/...-universe-s-largest-structure http://beforeitsnews.com/...tronomers-surprised-2398338.html http://news.oneindia.in/...rprised-by-suns-constantsize.html http://www.icr.org/article/4764/ http://wiki.answers.com/..._a_pulsar_with_a_planetary_system http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?... http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/...ssummary/news_17-4-2013-17-3-5 Shall I list 2 or 3 thousand more?

No, you've made your point. Now show us ten corresponding links where each of these observations was predicted, before it was made, by your quaint little sect of cranks.

No?

OK, then all these things came as a surprise to you too.

And yet you are going to claim that a paradigm that has predicted every discovery about the sun and solar system and galaxies is wrong.

Only for some reason you are unable to find any of these predictions you boast of, what a shame.

justatruthseeker writes: 1 + 1 + 2 does not sum to 0....

1 + (-1) sums to 0.

When water evaporates, heat energy is converted to gravitational potential energy. When rain fails, gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Evaporation and rain are in opposite directions, hence opposite signs. ( in case the smart people take this too literally.)

justatruthseeker writes: If you have 5 sources of energy 1 volt each in a universe devoid of any other charge, the universe still sums to 5.

But we don't have that. We have other charges which counterbalance and yield a sum of zero.

Plasma is currently the source of the scientific search for a sustained nuclear fusion. You don't mind studying it in the lab in your fruitless search for sustained nuclear fusion, as long as when we talk about the sun you can then ignore it.

There are only two possible results:

1) You in reality have no idea what plasma is because astrophysicists who have never taken a course in plasma physics or eletcromagnetic field theory don't understand it either; or

2) You know what it is and are lying to everyones face.

We have over 100 years of laboratory experiments with plasma. So lets see which of the above two it is. You and anyone else keeps evading the very simple question: What is plasma?
Do any of you NOT believe in the Big Bang?

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

justatruthseeker writes: You and anyone else keeps evading the very simple question: What is plasma?

That isn't the question in this thread. The question is: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? Have your objections been sufficiently addressed?

justatruthseeker writes: Do any of you NOT believe in the Big Bang?

I don't "believe" in the Big Bang any more than I "believe" in aerodynamics. I accept that pilots know something about aerodynamics and I accept that physicists know something about the Big Bang. Since both are based on observation, I naturally don't deny their existence.

quote:

---

That isn't the question in this thread. The question is: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? Have your objections been sufficiently addressed?

---

But that IS the question. If you can't tell me or the OP what 99% of the universe is, then how can you even attempt to answer the OP's post? This would be like trying to tell you what diamonds are, while ignoring carbon in the answer. Completely and utterly worthless.

Then since you accept the BB hypothesis, then perhaps you can explain why plasma is not important when that very own theory says that plasma was the very first form of matter? Not just one of 4 fundemental states, but THE fundemental state of all matter, out of which all other matter such as liquids, solids and gasses condensed. Shall we show why such makes charge seperation in space a foregone conclussion? How the silly idea that plasma cant exsist in space because there is not enough energy in the universe to seperate one electron from each grain of salt in a teaspoon? Since you therefore accept the BB you must therefpre accept that plasma is THE fundemental state of all matter from which all other matter is formed, and that charge seperation MUST have existed from the very beginning. It is not important how much energy it takes to seperate atomic bonds, but how much energy it takes to form them that is.

So what was that again about plasma not being important in astrophysics??? Without energy your BB would never have banged, and since energy can not be destroyed according to science, it must still exist. E=mc^2, there is no such thing as no energy.

Have you given up on Dark Energy and an expanding universe that is accelerating? Supposedly this Dark Energy and Dark Matter make up 96% of the universe, about the same amount coincidently that you want to ignore.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

If you can't tell me or the OP what 99% of the universe is, then how can you even attempt to answer the OP's post?

But even you can't tell us what it means that 99% of the universe is plasma...

This would be like trying to tell you what diamonds are, while ignoring carbon in the answer. Completely and utterly worthless.

Is there anything that you can't be wrong about?

Here's how a jeweler would tell you what your diamond is, and they don't mention carbon once:

quote:

---

GIA Diamond Grading Report

The Gemological Institute of America is the most highly regarded and internationally recognized gemological laboratory. GIA diamond grading reports always include the date of issue, report number and laser registry if the diamond has been laser inscribed.

Shape and Cutting Style
The diamond's shape as seen from above (round, oval, heart, pear, square, etc.) and the cutting style, or facet arrangement, (brilliant, modified brilliant, emerald cut, etc.). Refer to our Diamond Learning Center for more information on Diamond Shapes and Diamond Cut.

Measurements
Reports measurements of the diamond's dimensions in millimeters. For round diamonds, measurements are listed as 'smallest diameter – largest diameter x depth'.

Carat Weight
Lists the weight of the diamond in carats. One carat equals 1/5 gram. Please refer to our page on Carat Weight for further information.

Color Grade
Evaluates absence of color in the diamond when compared to a master colorless stone. A Color Scale is provided for reference on all reports. Visit our Learning Center for more information on Diamond Color and color grading.

Clarity Grade
Evaluates the absence of inclusions and blemishes. Inclusions are internal characteristics while blemishes are external characteristics. This grade is determined by examining the diamond under 10x magnification. A Clarity Scale is provided for reference on all reports. Learn more about Diamond Clarity.

Cut Grade
Evaluates quality and craftsmanship of the diamond cut. Diamonds are examined face-up. Cut grade will only appear on round brilliant diamonds from reports issued after January 1, 2006. A Cut Scale is provided for reference on all reports.

Finish Grades the polish of the diamond's surface and symmetry of the facet placement.

Polish Evaluates smoothness of the diamond's surface on a scale of excellent to poor.

Symmetry Evaluates a diamond's outline, shape, and facet alignment on a scale of excellent to poor.

Fluorescence
Evaluates the glow of a diamond when examined under long wave ultra violet rays. Ranges from none to very strong. Low fluorescence is typically desirable, as high fluorescence is associated with lower quality and lower value stones.

Comments
Lists any other relevant characteristics not mentioned elsewhere.

Plotting Diagram
An approximated illustration of the shape and cutting style of the diamond as seen from above and below. Symbols representing clarity characteristics (inclusions and blemishes) are plotted according to their size, type and relative location. Symbols can be identified using the Key to Symbols.

Proportions Diagram
An illustrated profile representing the diamond's actual proportions.

---

Reports like these can be worth quite a bit.

justatruthseeker writes: If you can't tell me or the OP what 99% of the universe is, then how can you even attempt to answer the OP's post?

I'm not attempting to answer the OP. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in your posts - such as the claim that flow disproves neutrality when flow is, in fact, caused by the tendency toward neutrality.

justatruthseeker writes: Since you therefore accept the BB you must therefpre accept that plasma is THE fundemental state of all matter from which all other matter is formed, and that charge seperation MUST have existed from the very beginning.

So what? To use the water cycle analogy again, you're claiming that a height differential must have existed from the very beginning. I agree - but that in no way prevents the energy sum from being zero.

Edited by ringo, : Spellin. Wonky laptop keyboard - yeah, that's it.

quote:

---

I'm not attempting to answer the OP. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in your posts - such as the claim that flow disproves neutrality when flow is, in fact, caused by the tendency toward neutrality.

---

yet one must have non-neutrality for the term neutrality to have any meaning at all. One must have higher density for a substance to move towards lower density.

No one disputes the universe's natural tendency to balance forces. But since 99% of the universe is still plasma, apparently it isnt aware yet that you require it to be finished balancing. Since the BB is the cause of all the energy in existence, according to you, and energy can not be destroyed, then how could it ever sum to 0, when relativity demands that even the smallest speck of dust must contain it? E=mc^2, not one single spck of dust can be without it. And to use your anaology, the original height was 100%, it has dropped to 99%, it still has quite a long way to go to reach 0%. So in 14 billion years or so, 1% of plasma has been converted to normal matter, and this normal matter is what you base all your calculations on??????? no wonder it sums to 0 in your world, its a representation taken from 1% of the universe.

I'm wrong about many things, just not plasma, being I have actually studied it and read about it, not just taken what I was told and ran with it as it seems 99% of people do.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

justatruthseeker writes: Since the BB is the cause of all the energy in existence, according to you, and energy can not be destroyed, then how could it ever sum to 0, when relativity demands that even the smallest speck of dust must contain it? E=mc^2, not one single spck of dust can be without it.

As I said, positive and negative can sum to zero.

justatruthseeker writes: And to use your anaology, the original height was 100%, it has dropped to 99%, it still has quite a long way to go to reach 0%.

In my anaolgy, zero height is sea level. There's the same amount of water going up as there is coming down, so the sum of the flows is zero.

justatruhseeker writes: So in 14 billion years or so, 1% of plasma has been converted to normal matter, and this normal matter is what you base all your calculations on???????

How is that plasma converted to "normal matter"?