Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,656 Year: 4,913/9,624 Month: 261/427 Week: 7/64 Day: 3/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 61 of 173 (699829)
05-25-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Panda
05-08-2013 2:23 PM


Couldn't of said it better myself, but trying to show them by their very own books why they cant see it when it stares them in the face....
And yes, know you are trying to be factitious, since you have no facts to back up one thing you have said, even though I have only used your books, have not even begun pointing you to the articles the plasma physicists use, as I doubt you would understand it anyways.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Panda, posted 05-08-2013 2:23 PM Panda has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 63 of 173 (699832)
05-26-2013 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 10:40 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
Sigh, maybe some music will help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyVTvtgm11o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rasp88nbsRw
Everything is electrical, from the atom to the earth, to the sun and the galaxy. The entire universe. Don't believe me, believe NASA. They are finally startng to figure it out. It's taken them 100 years, but better late than never.
NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus
You've avoided it in space for 100 years, but finally we get to see you've got no choice but study it, the future of satellite navigation, GPS, communications, all relies on us understanding it, why NASA is doing what it needs to do.
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
Electrical forces are everywhere.
NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind
Everywhere we look now that we have the technology to see it. Open your eyes.
Enceladus Plume is a New Kind of Plasma Laboratory | NASA
Getting closer.
Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to the Sun | Science Mission Directorate
Now lets call them by their real name.
Birkeland current - Wikipedia
Still having a bit of trouble now and then, but at least you are mentioning the electric currents now.
Newsroom | UCLA
But still surprised, and still ignoring those same electrical forces you ignored 100 years ago.
Oh, but that's right, there is no electricity in space, I keep forgetting that, my bad. Since you are so correct in that, everything else you are telling me must also be correct. What was I thinking????
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 10:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 05-26-2013 6:10 AM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2013 2:20 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 65 of 173 (699846)
05-26-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by DevilsAdvocate
05-26-2013 6:10 AM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
I thought I was quite clear what it meant.
Stop ignoring the electric force!
A force 10^39 powers stronger than what we call gravity. They don't know what gravity is, haven't the slightest clue, but they can guarantee it isn't electrical in nature. Lol, that's the funniest conclusion I ever heard.
And stop twisting what I say. I never once said Relativity was wrong, I agree with it completely, E=mc^2. I just agree with Einstein that the GRT is not a satisfactory solution to his SRT theory. I simply agree with the man who attempted to start GRT and in the end found it unworkable.
I just also happen to agree with Einstein on the theoretical possibilities that singularities might exist physically as well.
http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/...files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf
None whatsoever.
And those same people that measure the electric force everywhere, then ignore it in every description of cause and effect. Oh sure, they measure it, but it just doesn't DO anything, Lol. Electric currents between Saturn and its moons, no effect. Electrical currents between Jupiter and its moons, no effect. Electrical currents between the Earth and Sun, no effect. Then you go and mention those currents, but are still surprised and still can't figure out what causes the sub-storms. Well drrrr, quit ignoring what you measure.
But NASA is hamstrung. It knows the Electric and Plasma Universe theories are correct, but because mainstream science resists those ideas, they have to work it in slowly so they don't get caught up in your stupid battles trying to keep it hidden away from the public, as if it doesn't exist. They already banned Halton Arp from access to any telescope in the US for daring to take pictures of high red-shift galaxies in relation to low redshift galaxies, and then refusing to drop the entire matter and forget about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_EWnXCu2w
All to preserve a theory a century old that has nothing to do with SRT, the Big Bang. Any data that challenges your pre-conceived notions is ignored, swept under the rug, or forcibly attempted to cover it up. Their pets ridicule anyone that dares mention electric currents in space on all the forums, even here. Yessum, master, we do as we told. Slaves to a theory that ignores everything that contradicts its worldview. I got more respect for someone who believes in god, at least they admit the only possible solution to a beginning is miraculous.
You call it the Big Bang, but even the man that invented SRT didn't believe in singularities, except as a mathematical abstract. All GRT was, was an attempt to better understand the gravitational force, which Einstein admitted didn't meet his standards. So this leaves us with SRT, the "physical" measurements of the force we call gravity. Which Einstein equated with energy. Now, did you attempt to say spacetime was composed of an ether which was bent by the force of gravity, one might be able to buy into that, but you exclude any possibility of such. Instead, leaving one with no choice but to accept spacetime is composed of nothing and is then bent by something, and that nothing in turn tells somethings how to move. Sounds logical to me, what about you? But then I don't "believe" in all the other nothings either, like dark matter, black holes, neutron stars, gravity waves, etc, etc.
But you people just keep spending all those billions of tax dollars on your search for nothing, while you continue to ignore a force that is everywhere, transmitted through a substance that is everywhere, and keep postulating your Fairie Dust as the cause, while complaining your taxes are too high.
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-dark-intergalactic-space.html
You still can't see past your Fairie Dust dark matter, but we do appreciate your mapping out all the interconnected Birkeland Currents for us through the plasma filled universe. We always appreciate it when they accidentally find our evidence for us, since they never go out to look for it, just stumble upon it by accident. It's clumping because that is what electrical z-pinches do, attract plasma by the Lorentz force along the Birkeland Current filaments. These filaments stretch from galaxy to galaxy, star to star, pulling plasma in from the surrounding space and compressing it. You are seeing the visible affect of those transmission lines through space that connect every galaxy to one another.
Z-pinch - Wikipedia
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia
The EU and Plasma cosmologies never asked you to accept them without investigation, no true scientist would ask that, but how about at least investigating the issue before you discount all possibilities of it first? Can we not even get that much???? Apparently not.
Page not found | UCL Department of Space and Climate Physics - UCL — University College London
You still believe plasma is noting more than a hot gas, even though every laboratory experiment ever done shows it is electrically active. Even though you require it to be the first matter in existence after your Big Bang. Hey, it's not my theory. So fine, if that's the way you want it then how is the first state of matter the fourth state of matter? One would think if it was the first state of matter all other matter came from it, not the reverse. But let's just ignore any logical assumptions and instead pretend that its nothing more than matter with electrons stripped off by heat, even though your own theory requires it be the first state of matter, that is matter without the bonding of electrons, which only occurred later. What you see 14 billions years later (according to you) is almost completely still separated, with the electrons still predominately free. Its still beginning to form those electrical bonds, not loose them.
So you just continue to refuse to give any consideration to the EU/Plasma cosmology, and you'll be left behind, just as NASA is starting to leave you behind right now because they know they got no choice. The entire future of our communications, GPS and satellite safety relies on us understanding how plasma really behaves in space. E=mc^2 -- mc^2=E, it's all the same.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : gave link to full video with subtitles
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 05-26-2013 6:10 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Iblis, posted 05-26-2013 2:32 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 68 of 173 (699850)
05-26-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
05-26-2013 2:20 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
As I said, facts staring you right in the face but you sweep em under the rug. Electrical connections everywhere, but you still can't see them. Blinded by your own religious belief that the universe was created from a 0 volume point mass. Nevermind that the man who invented Relativity, which I support, but you claim I don't, didn't believe in them one little bit except as abstract mathematical concepts. What, suddenly the man was wrong because you NEED them to explain your theory? Hmmmm, then what else was he wrong about??? Nothing according to you, just this one thing. Everything else is as he said, except for his thoughts on his own GRT theory that he didn't think worked, so ok, the man was wrong about two things, but that's it, really it is. Just two things, nothing else, we swear. Funny how both the things you claim he was wrong about, is required by you, but if he said something you could apply to your theory he was absolutely correct. Don't you just love science.
You've spent billions of dollars trying to pretty up a house built on rotten foundations, hoping that it will stand up anyways. Hoping someone, some day, in the far, far future might find some Fairy Dust. But the wolf is huffing and puffing right now. Quantum Mechanics, the heralded solution to uniting the macro and micro. A dismal failure. Requires Black Holes, but it's own math of the evolution of matter for entropy forbids them. Even though with the Fairie Dust there still is no quantum theory of gravity. The only force known to bind the atom of which all matter is made is the electrical force. How might I ask you, can you not even consider the idea that gravity may be electromagnetic? Especially when all atomic tests show it is only when atoms bind does the electrical force become balanced.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm
It is this balanced effect of the electric and magnetic fields that causes this force you call gravity, as all transforms in relativity prove, being that they exist only because of the Lorentz Force.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node72.html
Being that Relativity rests upon the fact that light travels at c, which is purely an electromagnetic effect.
Funny how that bent space time causes tidal effects from the moon, even though its not a force you say, just geometry.
Tide - Wikipedia
Funny how I can use a gravimeter to measure the force of gravity, but its not a force you say, just geometry.
Gravimetry - Wikipedia
The future has arrived, you missed the plane, but there's still time to catch a later flight, not much tho, the meeting is about to start. We don't want to leave you out, you are just leaving us no choice but to go around you, since you wont even give us consideration, even though I couldn't list all the space stories in the last 20 years that shows electrical activity in space, there's not enough room to list em all. Let alone all the experiments that directly disprove your theories about the Sun and solar system.
You continually try to convince people I disagree with Relativity, just showing you haven't read a thing I've said. Why should I answer you, you don't answer me, then don't bother to cite one reference that supports what you claim you say they say. I can say science says anything, but am always careful to make sure it does just that. You just spout out the first thing that comes to mind. Usually derogatory because you can't think of any valid argument. I know you are limited by your own theory, but that's only because its based upon assumption after assumption, with no facts to back it up.
Dark Matter/Dark Energy 96% of the universe, even tho we can't see or detect it. Why? because they can't support their theory without it. Observations don't match their theory without the inclusion of Fairie Dust.
Black holes in the center of every galaxy. Why? Because they can't explain the ejection of plasma at close to the speed of light from there centers without it. I couldn't either if I ignored electric fields, the only known way to accelerate charged particles. Once again, observations didn't match theory, so they just morphed the theory instead of examining the ideas these theories were originally based upon.
We still use Sydney Chapman's theory to this day to explain the Earth's environment, even though the theory that Kristian Birkeland postulated was the one shown to be correct when the first probe was launched into space. Chapman's theory remains in place to this day, even though he was proved incorrect over 40 years ago. This is the science you rely on to explain things to you? It's no wonder you can't separate yourself from the past beliefs, you still use theories proved utterly false. I rather resent that, that you still use a falsified theory instead of the one proved correct. Why bother to experiment at all, or gaze into the cosmos, you got it all figured out already. What did Steven Hawking once say? We were 15 years or so away from a theory of everything. Such hubris, such grandiose claims of omnipotence. The very idea that science has nothing important left to discover, is beyond comprehension. They still don't know what gravity is, even though its been debated since before Newton. Sure, we have a few theories that are close enough within our solar system, but outside in galactic scales of rotation curves they fail miserably. But don't worry, we got it all figured out, a touch of Dark Matter, a dallop of Dark Energy, a Black Hole in the center of the galaxy and wholla, see it fits!!!!! Well ok, that one requires a binary Black Hole, but hey, why stop at one? Just sickening the state science has degraded to.
Better clarify that, the state astronomical science has degraded to.
And by the way, I have no hope of ever changing your mind, it is closed, that much is clear. I only persist so that those that can actually think for themselves can see the avoidance of anything electrical, even though their own instruments detect it everywhere. So those that actually want to look into it can read for themselves what plasma is and how it behaves. So please, keep arguing, I have pages more of experiments yet to bring up.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2013 2:20 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 69 of 173 (699856)
05-26-2013 5:52 PM


Here, gonna give you some actual stuff you might be able to use against me, but doubt it. Gonna show to you that the possibility of a being not like us is scientifically possible. This mainly to the OP, and those that have questions about such a possibility and weather it is or isn't scientifically possible.
First we need to find out what makes us, us, and I do not mean your body, that's just atoms (bound by the electrical force). What makes you, well, you?
How Your Brain Works | HowStuffWorks
So if we are at all scientific about the matter, we find that electric currents transmitted across the neurons of your brain make thought possible. Without an electric current, no thought. No heartbeat. No movement. Nothing....
Now, Christians say we are the image of god, certainly they aren't implying our physical bodies, even they would agree to that. It must be something more. To the best of our knowledge what makes you, you, is your brain, and the brain uses electric currents to make it all possible. God is energy, it was breathed or put into us. A self-thinking being capable of harnessing the electrical force to make consciousness possible. Our bodies nothing but a vessel to carry this force.
Now we see electrical forces everywhere in the universe, from moon to planet, from planet to sun, from star to star, to galaxy to galaxy. Electric currents no different than that which enables you to think, except on a universal (macro) scale.
Proof god exists? Not in the least. I make no claims either way, but certainly a scientific possibility, given what we know about how the human brain works.
Let us compare this with the theory of neutron stars, totally believed to be a valid theory.
Neutron star - Wikipedia
quote:
Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously.
Well there goes the Big Bang theory, since all was in a 0 volume point mass singularity.
quote:
Neutron stars rotate extremely rapidly after their creation due to the conservation of angular momentum; like spinning ice skaters pulling in their arms, the slow rotation of the original star's core speeds up as it shrinks. A newborn neutron star can rotate several times a second; sometimes, the neutron star absorbs orbiting matter from a companion star, increasing the rotation to several hundred times per second, reshaping the neutron star into an oblate spheroid.
But, but, gravitational waves have shown you just how perfectly round they are.
No Elephants In My Carpet - More LIES from LIGO
quote:
The analysis revealed no signs of gravitational waves -- a result the scientists say is important because it provides information about the pulsar and its structure. They say a perfectly smooth neutron star will not generate gravitational waves as it spins, and that LIGO would have been able to detect gravitational waves from a star whose shape was deformed by only a few meters.
A star picked because you thought it gave you the best chances of finding those little wavy guys, so your theory said it should be distorted, but alas, once again experiment disproves theory. Spinning thousands of times per second, yet no deformity at all, when you were looking for deformity in our own sun because it spins once in about 35 days.
Mystery continues: Why is the sun 'too round'? - CSMonitor.com
You can't even stick to one theory, change it for every instance you encounter, forgetting you need it elsewhere in your efforts to defend that Fairie Dust.
So, a theory that violates everything known about atomic decay and neutrons thrives, because they can't explain a pulse occurring thousands of times per second without spin, even though we do it all the time with electric currents in the lab. And the theory needs neutronium, a completely imaginary substance to make it work. Even my spell checker doesn't know what it is.
So what makes more sense scientifically? A big Bang that is excluded from their very own principles they rely on to explain other things they can't explain, or that electric currents observed throughout the universe are similar to those in your brain that works by those same very electric currents?????

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 70 of 173 (699864)
05-26-2013 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Iblis
05-26-2013 2:32 PM


Re: wasted effort.
Not according to all the other posters, they are trying to tell me, and you by the way, that there is no chance the force is electromagnetic. Modern science can't even admit to the possibility of electrical activity in space. They are still following Sydney Chapman's beliefs, even though he was proved incorrect over 40 years ago.
Sydney Chapman (mathematician) - Wikipedia
quote:
Chapman is also recognized as one of the pioneers of solar-terrestrial physics. This interest stemmed from his early work on the kinetic theory of gases. Chapman studied magnetic storms and aurorae, developing theories to explain their relation to the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with the solar wind. Chapman and his first graduate student, V. C. A. Ferraro, predicted the presence of the magnetosphere in the early 1930s. They also predicted characteristics of the magnetosphere that were confirmed 30 years later by the Explorer 12 satellite
Now lets contrast that with the facts we know
Kristian Birkeland - Wikipedia
quote:
Birkeland's vision of what are now known as Birkeland currents became the source of a controversy that continued for over half a century, because their existence could not be confirmed from ground-based measurements alone. His theory was disputed and ridiculed at the time as a fringe theory by mainstream scientists, most notoriously by the eminent British geophysicist and mathematician Sydney Chapman who argued the mainstream view that currents could not cross the vacuum of space and therefore the currents had to be generated by the Earth. Birkeland's theory of the aurora continued to be dismissed by mainstream astrophysicists after his death in 1917. It was notably championed by the Swedish plasma scientist Hannes Alfvn, but Alfvn's work in turn was also disputed by Chapman.
Proof of Birkeland's theory of the aurora only came in 1967 after a probe was sent into space. The crucial results were obtained from U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C, launched in 1963 and carrying a magnetometer above the ionosphere. Magnetic disturbances were observed on nearly every pass over the high-latitude regions of the Earth. These were originally interpreted as hydromagnetic waves, but on later analysis it was realized that they were due to field-aligned or Birkeland currents...Birkeland's theory of the aurora was eventually confirmed, a classic example of a fringe theory, ridiculed by scientists supporting the then mainstream, that has come to be accepted as a mainstream theory.
They ridiculed the man, refused to even consider his ideas. Then when he was proved correct they still stuck with Chapman's theory, even though it is quite obvious if Birkeland's theory of the aurora was correct, that Chapman " who argued the mainstream view that currents could not cross the vacuum of space and therefore the currents had to be generated by the Earth" must of been totally wrong. So how about we at least go back and revise those theories of the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with the solar wind? have we?
Apparently not.
Newsroom | UCLA
quote:
We all have thought for our entire careers I learned it as a graduate student that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field,....Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong,
Of course its wrong, your basing the entire theory on one proved incorrect 40 years ago, still taught in all the schools. Double-talk. Admit they are wrong, just don't change anything.
quote:
Lyons and Kim were planning to study something unrelated when they made the discovery.
Of course they were, they never go looking for the electric and magnetic fields, or any electrical cause, just stumble upon it by accident, because people actually believe what Chapman proposed (no electricity in space), even when proved wrong. Its just a pure disgrace what astronomical science has become, and the defenders of it only make it worse, by defending theories they know to be wrong. How many people here knew about Birkeland Currents before it was brought up? How many people here believe electrical currents could exist in space before told the truth?
How much longer are you gonna continue to lie to everyone about it??????
So your reliance that EU/Plasma theories are fringe theories doesn't stand you very good does it. Keep ridiculing it, it will only show how wrong you really are, and have been for over 100 years.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Iblis, posted 05-26-2013 2:32 PM Iblis has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 72 of 173 (699866)
05-27-2013 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by NoNukes
05-27-2013 12:49 AM


Re: Pearls in the sty again?
quote:
For example, he believes the strong interaction to be completely an electrical phenomenon. It seem likely that he believes that there is no fusion in the sun, and that the sun is powered by huge electrical currents flowing undetected through space.
You bet I do. And i wouldn't quite use the term undetected, since I just showed you several NASA stories where those exact same currents have been detected by NASA themselves. Quit misleading people, don't lie to try to prove your point. So lets discuss the Strong Force shall we?
quote:
"Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons."
As we delve deeper we find this:
Gluon - Wikipedia
quote:
"Gluons ( /ˈɡluːɒnz/; from English glue) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Since quarks make up the baryons and the mesons, and the strong interaction takes place between baryons and mesons, one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force that extends beyond the baryons, for example when protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus."
So " one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction," and to be considered a fundemental force " In particle physics,
quote:
fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions."
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia
Its was first wrongly asserted that the protons and nuetrons were fundamental particles and governed by the strong force, then when Color Charge was found, the strong force became a sub-filed of this force. In effect the strong force can know be described in terms of the Color Charge, so it no longer can claim fundamental force status. Yet they to this day call it a fundemental force, when inreality it is the color charge of the fundemental particles that governs the atom.
Now you are free to continue to believe the strong force is a fundemental force although it is now known it is caused by another force.
As for Color charge we read:
quote:
Since gluons carry colour charge, two gluons can also interact. A typical interaction vertex (called the three gluon vertex) for gluons involves g+g→g. This is shown here, along with its colour line representation. The colour-line diagrams can be restated in terms of conservation laws of colour; however, as noted before, this is not a gauge invariant language. Note that in a typical non-Abelian gauge theory the gauge boson carries the charge of the theory, and hence has interactions of this kind; for example, the W boson in the electroweak theory. In the electroweak theory, the W also carries electric charge, and hence interacts with a photon.
In particle physics, colour charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Colour charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences. The "colour" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of colour.[1] Rather, it is a name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. The term colour was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colours of red, green, and blue.[2] By comparison, the electromagnetic charge has a single aspect, which takes the values positive or negative.
Question, quarks have 3 aspects of charge disguised as color. It is then claimed EM has only one. So which is it, is space positive or negative? It can be no other. Or maybe there is a third state after all, a balance of forces called as is the termed, neutral. So charge can exist in any of the three configurations and we begin to see why the term color was added to misdirect.
So if indeed charge can be only two configurations of one force is the space around us overall negative or overall positive since it can be only one of those two?
Strong interaction - Wikipedia
Still a fundamental force, even though it is but a subset of the color charge force, when if one reads one will find is nothing more than the interaction of charged particles, electric current.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2013 12:49 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2013 11:33 AM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 73 of 173 (699873)
05-27-2013 9:10 AM


Black Holes & Jets, lol
Now, you claim all these jets coming from galaxies are from the accretion disk of Black Holes. Then alas, you started looking with better instruments and found stars also have jets. Hmmm. These jets in both galactic and solar have knotted or twisted appearances. Most claim they get that way through collisions, but thankfully we have actual plasma physicists doing some research instead of just theorists sitting behind desks imagining what they see.
Stellar Jets are Born Knotted - Universe Today
Scientists replicate the physics of a stellar jet in laboratory | ZDNET
All the events you see in space performed in a lab with plasma. Isn't it funny how that works every single time we learn something about plasma? Those ejections are following the Birkeland Currents, we but see the visible portion thereof, where the charge density is high enough to bring the plasma into glow mode.
Of course even though it required your firing a high energy pulse (can we say electricity), you of course will discount any such occurring in space, which will again leave you without an explanation for the cause, or do stars suddenly have black holes in them too? The charge redistribution on the test aluminum then formed what you like to call a magnetic bubble (can we say double layer - Double layer (plasma physics) - Wikipedia ), which exploded, releasing the confined plasma (can we say CME). The plasma spiraled in the magnetic field (can we say charged particle in a magnetic field). I mean come on people, you are running out of excuses very quickly in your attempt to explain the universe non-electrically.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node73.html
Why the hell do you think EVERYTHING spirals? What do you think causes the radiation emitted from galaxy centers?
Synchrotron radiation - Wikipedia
But alas, there is only one known proven way of accelerating charged particles, guess what that is?
Particle accelerator - Wikipedia
Edited by justatruthseeker, : spelling

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 75 of 173 (699880)
05-27-2013 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2013 11:33 AM


Re: Pearls in the sty again?
quote:
Once again I am in awe of the sheer breadth and scope of the things you don't know about. It must have taken a lot of not-studying to become ignorant of so many subjects.
Yet you say nothing to show where I am wrong except a blanket denial. Why is this? What, your own sources not backing you up because perhaps I am using your very own sources? Man it sucks when someone shows you by your own theories how wrong you are doesn't it. Please, feel free to educate me and those following this thread, we would be delighted to hear your 100 year old theories that are built upon epicycles after epicycles. I had thought we did away with that form of science a 1000 years ago, so much for modern science, it has now reverted back to epicycles to explain things.
Galactic rotation curves a prime example. Not enough mass to explain them by Newton's Laws or Relativity (need twice as much, but only in specific places, so it must be caused by Fairie Dust (Dark Matter - can't see it, measure it), but yet not once have you tried to use the electromagnetic formulas, even though everything in existence emits the electromagnetic spectrum. So, we now need DM in just the mid to outer reaches of the galaxy, but oops, DM makes your expansion not expand. So lo and behold, you hypothesize (add another epicycle) of another never detected entity called Dark Energy, to counteract the force of DM. But oops, you forgot to include the DM and DE in your calculations of light element abundance. Easy fix, we just make DM and DE non-baryonic matter so it can't be seen or detected. man you are dang good illusionists, you should get paid for that show. Oh, that's right, we already paid for their symposium on DM/DE so you could pat everyone on the back while giving the wonderful news that once again, absolutely nothing was found. See, we found it because we are actually looking for nothing.
A Neverending Story - Cosmologists Find The Nothing!!
Scientists Waste Our Money - Supercomputers Come Up With Nothing - Again!
Taxpayers Duped by Einstein - LIGO still peddling LIES*
I mean they had to be joking right? Lauding success while finding absolutely nothing? It's a joke right? I just didn't get it right?
I am in awe of the sheer breadth and scope of how you say nothing factual and somehow figure that's enough to refute the facts. It's no wonder your scientists are constantly surprised every time they look at something. With such a narrow minded outlook, one is always going to be surprised when one actually peers beyond the wall in front of him that blinds him to what is beyond. The sad part, the wall was built by their own hands.
Just noticed the pearls in the sky reference, although it's actually pearls on a string btw. Exactly, how did you guess? Let's see what DM and DE theories say since apparently you'll believe anything they say about it, it's only too bad you can't replace it with plasma and electric currents, instead of Fairie Dust.
Visualization Services - ENZO
Pearls on a string, quite an apt picture of it huh?
Oh, and where is all that expansion at????? Shouldn't there be a velocity component in there somewhere? Ahhh, couldn't get it to match observations if you put expansion in could you.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2013 11:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2013 9:04 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 77 of 173 (699887)
05-27-2013 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2013 9:04 PM


Re: Pearls in the sty again?
Which is probably why your theorists struggle in vain huh? Which is why every theory they ever had about the sun has been disproved, why they no longer have a working model of the outer solar system.
Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected – Watts Up With That?
100 times slower, do you have any idea what that means? It means there is virtually no heat transfer from the center of the sun to the surface, oops. So much for that nuclear core. The thing is if you bothered to read up on it, you would find that z-pinches release neutrinos. So there is undoubtedly a small amount of fusion taking place on the sun's surface amongst the tuffs. Just enough to be detectable, but also why you have never been able to detect it in the quantities needed for your theory.
Why don't you take the time to explain to everyone why the sun has a corona? Need help?
Science
Won't help much, they are still throwing out wild guesses. Keep changing it, can't settle on one for very long.
Did NASA's Voyager 1 Spacecraft Just Exit the Solar System? | Live Science
quote:
"All theoretical models have been found wanting."
All but one that is, but you've yet to consider it.
Nothing went as you predicted, but observations confirmed the electric sun hypothesis that predicted just such a stagnation zone. You thought it would veer sideways.
Lol, I think most reading this agree you look like the idiot, considering your best defense seems to be snide remarks with not one shred of evidence. You called me bad names, I think I'll cry. Grow up, what are you 12?
Nemo me impune lacessit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2013 9:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2013 11:04 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 79 of 173 (699895)
05-28-2013 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by divermike1974
02-09-2013 4:16 AM


So you see OP (original poster), when it comes right down to it they have no answers, just epicycles built upon epicycles.
Deferent and epicycle - Wikipedia
When presented with evidence they can't deny logically they resort to name calling, as they actually believe that makes them right. I see by your original post you just wanted some reasonable explanations, but I am afraid you won't get any of those from mainstream cosmology. I know, I used to be one of those that tried to defend those same theories. So when people asked questions I would look up the answers (unlike some), and after years went by began to realize the answers didn't fit the observations. Until like them, I was left with no answers to the questions. But unlike them I didn't become sheeple and jump off the cliff because everyone else was. instead I kept looking for answers, and still am to this day. Because every theory has something worthwhile, and every theory has errors. There is no perfect cosmology, just some more right than others that fit what we can observe and test. 20 years of searching, and not one geranium, I mean germanium has ever had its bell rung, as they like to say.
Since the space age and space based telescopes we have observed stars move halfway across the HR diagram in a matter of months, a process supposed to take thousands of years just from one class to the next. Pulsars were first thought to rotate because the pulse occurred every few minutes, but again, when we developed the technology we found those in the millisecond range, spinning as fast as a dentists drill, or so they say. Of course a star couldn't withstand that, so along came neutronium. because their theory of stars is flawed from the start, so Fairie Dust was their only solution.
Hubble tried to tell them they were on the wrong track. Half the stuff they attribute to him had nothing to do with him, they just rely on his name to add credibility.
Georges Lematre - Wikipedia
quote:
He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lematre also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.
Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia
quote:
Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."
They use the same tactics now that they used against Halton Arp. When presented with direct visual evidence that might contradict their theory, they demanded he change his research. He refused and was banned from using any telescope in the USA. So you see why astronomers tend not to directly mention things, but are forced to go about it the long way, casually mentioning the electric currents, but unable to use them yet.
Halton Arp's official website
You see, with 99% of the universe plasma, one might think they would look into it.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401420v3.pdf
Especially when backed by laboratory experiment.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
But do we have any laboratory evidence for DM? I guess that depends on ones definition of a null result and what a null result actually means to a theory.
They claim Black Holes are supported by Relativity, yet the man who invented relativity disagrees with them.
http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/...files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf
They attach Schwarzschild's name to a formula that isn't even his, again to try to add legitimacy.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf
As you can see, his formula contains no mass equations, because Ric=0, meaning there exists no mass in the universe, because in Einsteins field equations each mass must be described by it's own energy momentum tensor. Instead they use the erroneous version by Hilbert where he inserts mass, without first describing it by an energy momentum tensor, something strictly forbidden in relativity. They assume everyone is illiterate and doesn't understand these things, so that you'll believe whatever they tell you. But when confronted by someone that isn't, they are left with no options but to resort to ad hominem attacks, as they have nothing left.
Instead of participating in scientific debate, they resort to personal attacks, as they have no way to attack the facts. Don't let em fool you, they require you to believe in a miracle just one that goes against the very math they claim supports it, that fails at it's doorstep, they have no answers to your question, but the same one you already know. "in the beginning..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by divermike1974, posted 02-09-2013 4:16 AM divermike1974 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2013 2:38 AM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 83 by AdminPhat, posted 05-28-2013 11:27 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 81 of 173 (699917)
05-28-2013 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
05-28-2013 2:38 AM


It's quite relevant. You can't even explain the sun or solar system correctly, and you want the OP to believe you can explain the universe? Lol, that's a good one.
You want to know what the difference is?
Religion: "and God said let there be light."
Modern cosmology: "and man said let there be light."
Both miraculous events.
Even Einstein believed god was the universe, which he equated with mass and energy.
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia
quote:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it...Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).
Spinozism - Wikipedia
quote:
Spinozism (also spelt Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.
Matter E=mc^2, thought=energy.
Einstein said:
quote:
Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.
Because the human mind is what makes us unique, the electric currents that surge along the neural pathways are no different that the electric currents that surge through the universe, just of a different magnitude.
He further said:
quote:
You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that some of our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility.
and:
quote:
a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be...
and:
quote:
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So please, quit making the man angry by saying he supported your atheist views. The man was a true scientist, his mind was open to all possibilities and knew that there must be more than the puny mind of man could comprehend because of the order of the universe. He simply believed that if God did exist, it was not separate from nature, but merely an extension of it. For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension.
Extension (metaphysics) - Wikipedia
quote:
In metaphysics, extension is, roughly speaking, the property of "taking up space". Ren Descartes defines extension as the property of existing in more than one dimension. For Descartes, the primary characteristic of matter is extension, just as the primary characteristic of mind is consciousness. This can be contrasted with current conceptions in quantum physics, where the Planck length, an almost unimaginably tiny quantity, represents reaching that distance scale where, it has been theorized, all measurement seemingly breaks down to that which can be subsumed at this scale, as distance only, or extension.
Thought - Wikipedia
quote:
Thought generally refers to any mental or intellectual activity involving an individual's subjective consciousness. It can refer either to the act of thinking or the resulting ideas or arrangements of ideas. Similar concepts include cognition, sentience, consciousness, and imagination. Because thought underlies almost all human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins, processes, and effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including, among others, biology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology.
Thinking allows beings to make sense of or model the world in different ways, and to represent or interpret it in ways that are significant to them, or which accord with their needs, attachments, objectives, plans, commitments, ends and desires.
So Einstein believed that thought (the mind) and extension (physical reality - mass) combined were the best explanation of a divine being, that he did not feel man could ever fully explain as we were nothing but children. Seeing the wonder of it all, able to sense the underlying principles of the universe, but not able to grasp its full design. "I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." Because he did not believe his GRT in the end met his standards, but hoped someone, someday, would be able to better explain how the universe worked. Einstein was not a man to throw Fairie Dust into the equation, just because he had no answer to what he observed.
So the simple answer is you nor I, nor anyone has a valid answer to the OP. Matter can not exceed the speed of light, so instead you say it is spacetime that is expanding faster than light. What is spacetime? Absolutely nothing, since only nothing can exceed the speed of light. Your entire misconception of redshift has led you down a path you can no longer defend. Your theories are falling one by one, even though you lie and deceive to cover up this fact, and forcibly attempt to stop any facts from surfacing that goes against your personal belief system, for that is what the Big Bang is, a personal belief. This erroneous belief that redshift = distance has led you to insert Fairie Dust to explain quasars, applying a metaphysical process to explain their energy, as that error leaves you no choice but to believe they are at the furthest reaches of the universe and therefore the most energetic thing known to exist. While if you place them at their "observed" distance, they become normal, dim, and no metaphysical processes need be invoked to explain them. Every single quasar lies in the galactic plane of an active galaxy, or within a 20 degree arc of the galactic polar plane, without exception!
Origins of Quasars and Galaxy Clusters - Halton Arp's official website
http://www.haltonarp.com/...ifts_in_quasars_and_galaxies.pdf
That the two are linked is indisputable
Google search for "markarian 205".
You can clearly see the bridge of plasma in the pictures, except of course the one NASA used to say there was no link, because they used an underexposed slide. But every other photograph of it clearly shows this link.
Don't believe a word they say, they are not even scientists any more, simply close-minded fools that will not even consider any other theory but their own, and any person that contradicts it is banned from telescope time, ridiculed, and forced outside their little click. They prevent the papers from entering the peer review process, simply rejecting them, will not publish any other theory, or even give it due consideration. Plasma scientists with peer reviewed articles in plasma in the IEEE (a worldwide association for publication for electrical engineers and plasma scientists) can't even get mainstream cosmologists to look at their papers, even when peer reviewed by the plasma experts, the same ones they rely on in the search for the elusive contained nuclear fusion. Hypocrites, charlatans, they are nothing more than a sect practicing pseudoscience, claiming to speak for science while ignoring and confining those same scientists to only research that goes along with their belief system. It's a sad, sad state science has devolved into, back to the days of epicycles to support their limited view of the universe.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2013 2:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2013 11:56 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 85 of 173 (699967)
05-28-2013 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
05-28-2013 11:18 AM


quote:
You still haven't explained to me what it is saying when you write that 99% of the universe is plasma, or that the universe is 99% plasma. Do you even understand the statement, yourself? Why won't you explain it?
I already have, in almost every post of mine. But since you must not of read any of them I'll repeat. A galaxy is composed primarily of plasma, which obeys predominantly the electromagnetic rules, not gravitational.
99.999% plasma | Plasma-Universe.com
Plasma | Plasma-Universe.com
The galaxy is acting as a homopolar generator which causes it to rotate as if it was a rigid body. This is exactly why the outer stars rotate at the same speed as all but the very innermost stars, seemingly in direct opposition to both Newtonian gravity and Relativity. It isn't, as the innermost stars reveal as they seem to obey those laws. It is when the plasma density drops that the electromagnetic force dominates, not enough bound matter for what you call gravity to count in the equations.
http://electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm
Page not found – Plasma-Universe.com
http://electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm
Galaxy formation | Plasma-Universe.com
When complex molecules begin to form the electromagnetic force is muted, balanced.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm
quote:
"Atoms like to have a balanced electrical charge."
So in the innermost parts of the galaxy where the plasma density is at its highest, gravity seems to act normally (there are more atoms in close proximity - the electric and magnetic fields are in balance), but as the plasma density decreases, the distance between atoms lessen, they align less often and the electromagnetic force begins to control the interactions.
There is no need to modify Newton's laws, no need to posit some form of matter that can't be seen or detected because its composed of something never observed anywhere in the entire universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002126
My comments in {}
quote:
The evidence for the existence of dark matter in the universe is reviewed. A general picture emerges, where both baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter is needed to explain current observations {galaxy rotation curves for example}. In particular, a wealth of observational information points to the existence of a non-baryonic component, contributing between around 20 and 40 percent of the critical mass density needed to make the universe geometrically flat on large scales {the CMB shows filimentation, large clumping, not what the Big Bang predicts - so it's got to be}. In addition, an even larger contribution from vacuum energy (or cosmological constant) is indicated by recent observations. To the theoretically favoured particle candidates for non-baryonic dark matter belong axions, supersymmetric particles, and of less importance, massive neutrinos. The theoretical foundation and experimental situation for each of these is reviewed. Direct and indirect methods for detection of supersymmetric dark matter are described in some detail. Present experiments are just reaching the required sensitivity to discover or rule out some of these candidates, and major improvements are planned over the coming years.
But I don't think I need to post again the results, do I?
quote:
During the past few years, remarkable progress has been made in cosmology, both observational and theoretical. One of the outcomes of these rapid developments is the increased confidence that most of the energy density of the observable universe is of an unusual form, i.e., not made up of the ordinary matter (baryons and electrons) that we see around us in our everyday world.
A partially true statement, because what we see around us in the everyday world is in non-plasma form.
quote:
For example, big bang nucleosynthesis can be used to determine the baryon fraction of the matter density in the universe quite accurately, and combined with analyses of galaxy cluster dynamics, supernova data and the cosmic microwave background radiation this gives convincing arguments for the existence of a large amount of non-luminous, i.e., dark, matter. The matter content of the universe seems to be at least a factor of 5 higher than the maximum amount of baryonic matter implied by big bang nucleosynthesis. This dark matter is thus highly likely to be exotic, i.e, non-baryonic.
First you tell me that " big bang nucleosynthesis can be used to determine the baryon fraction of the matter density in the universe quite accurately," then tell me that " The matter content of the universe seems to be at least a factor of 5 higher than the maximum amount of baryonic matter implied by big bang nucleosynthesis." So observations seem to imply that this theory is incorrect, that there is more matter than your theory predicts, simply because you can't explain things without it. Do you look for another cause in reality, not fantasyland? No, you without hesitation insist it must point to the addition of this undetectable substance. So all the evidence points to your theory being incorrect, unless of course you imagine a never before detected substance, put in just the right places, it isn't needed everywhere. A substance that doesn't react to the electromagnetic force, stays on the outskirts of galaxies, even though gravity should have caused it to condense inwards. You claim to be able to detect it gravitationally, yet it just doesn't want to obey those laws either. And what is meant when you say detected gravitationally, is that galaxies don't seem to obey the gravitational laws, so it has to exists. Or, maybe you should look into the electromagnetic force laws, since 99% of a galaxy is plasma that obeys those laws.
quote:
Although the existence of non-baryonic dark matter is now generally accepted by most of the astrophysical community, the nature of the dark matter is one of the outstanding questions in standard cosmology. In fact, since 1998 there is for the first time strong evidence for the existence of non-baryonic dark matter in the universe, in the form of massive neutrinos. This is due to the discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations in the Super-Kamiokande experiment. However, the natural neutrino mass scale of around 0.1 eV which is implied by the neutrino oscillation data is not large enough to influence cosmology in a dramatic way (although this type of non-baryonic dark matter would contribute about as much to the total mass density of the universe as do the visible stars).
Even if the mass of one of the neutrinos is higher (up to, say, 5eV which would be possible if neutrinos are nearly degenerate in mass or if there exist a fourth, sterile neutrino), the mass density would not be large enough to explain the matter fraction of the cosmic average density. There are also arguments from galactic structure against an all-neutrino dark matter population. Therefore, it is natural to ask which other fundamental particles could be good dark matter candidates.
They thought they would throw that in, so you would think they have possible proof, even though they then tell you it wouldn't matter one bit if the value was imagined to be higher, or even if they postulated another imaginary form. Isn't it just as likely that it is natural to ask if dark matter really exists, and that another force we are now observing everywhere in space might have some cause? So even if you pretend that neutrinos oscillation was 5eV instead of the 0.1eV detected it wouldn't matter anyway in the calculations. So the missing mass is still missing.
quote:
There are also indications, although still somewhat preliminary, of the existence of vacuum energy, corresponding to the famous cosmological constant that Einstein introduced but later rejected (although without very good reasons) in his theory of general relativity.
Cosmological constant - Wikipedia
quote:
Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.[1] However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann, working on the Einstein equations of general-relatvity. Einstein later referred to his failure to accept the validaton of his equations; when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift, as the "biggest blunder" of his life
So we in reality find that the cosmological constant was added by him to make a static universe work, which he took out because it was started to theorize that redshift = distance meant expansion. So Einstein took it out to make his theory match expansion, but the author of the paper implies he took it out for no good reason, yet now you want to use the cosmological constant to explain expansion and dark Energy. Well, which is it?
quote:
A problem arises with inclusion of the cosmological constant in the standard model: i.e., the appearance of solutions with regions of discontinuities (see classification of discontinuities at typical matter density). Discontinuity also affects the past sign of the pressure of the cosmological constant, changing from the current negative pressure to attractive, with lookback towards the early Universe. Another investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation for the standard model when the cosmological term is included. This is a key requirement for a complete interpretation of astronomical observations, particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and the cosmological constant. All of these findings should be considered major shortcomings of the standard model, but only when the cosmological constant term is included.
So when you include it, you have problems with dark Energy, but the author wants to include it to explain Dark Energy and expansion, yet Einstein added it to explain a static universe, not expanding. He only took it out because you all insisted it was required he take it out to explain an expanding universe. So by wanting to add it back, you again show Einstein was correct to include it the first time which explains a static universe. I am not sure the author understood why it was removed. It was removed to fit the then formulated theory of expansion, yet he argues it was removed for no apparent reason) Double-talk once again.
quote:
No, spacetime is something. The bending of it is what "tells mass how to move".
So you think all of mainstream is wrong then? If it is composed of something then it is an aether. Are you claiming all the tests for an aether were wrong? I might agree with you on that, although it would have to remain an unsupported theory right now. I might agree because Einstein himself had thoughts of such.
Aether theories - Wikipedia
quote:
Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support.
We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Yet all the tests ever done were performed only with looking for aether as a moving medium.
quote:
Since the development of special relativity, theories using a substantial aether are not used any more in modern physics, and are replaced by more abstract models.
Michelson—Morley experiment - Wikipedia
So several negative results are enough to disprove the aether, but 20 years of negative results searching for dark Matter isn't???????
So make up your minds please, is there an aether or is there not? All the tests done say there isn't, so spacetime can be composed of nothing, which according to E is unthinkable, because without it Relativity fails. Now if there is an aether, then one must consider those theories once again. Especially the Lorentz Ether theory which matches every test performed to prove Relativity, with a much simpler explanation and more consistency.
Ronald R. Hatch - Clock Behavior and The Search For An Underlying Mechanism For Relativistic Phenomena | PDF | Speed Of Light | Luminiferous Aether
quote:
The force that makes the ball move in the analogy is Earth's gravity, but I understand that the analogy is hard to get because it employs the very thing that it is explaining.
You probably actually believe that don't you? In the geometrical interpretation there is no gravitational force, what part of that don't you understand? Objects only follow geometric field lines, they have no force acting upon them at all. The Earth doesn't emit a gravitational field, bodies moving toward it merely follow warped field lines. Therefore a stationary object on this depression, would not move at all, there is no force acting upon it. But you still can't stop thinking of it as a force, so naturally the ball begins to roll downhill because of your preconceived notion of a force acting beneath the rubber sheet. A force that does not exist in the geometric interpretation. This is why you think it works, because you can't divorce the force of gravity from your explanation (you feel it every day), even when the experts insist there is no force. So with no force, there is no cause for the ball to begin moving in the first place.
In reality, there is only one explanation for the force of gravity, experimentally proven for over 100 years.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node73.html
Which is why ALL bodies orbit close to the ecliptic plane, where the electric forces converge and the magnetic field is directly perpendicular. Not just in our solar system, but everywhere we look in the universe. But you require gravity which pulls equally from all directions to somehow cause spin as matter is condensed. You aren't sure how yet, but by god it's got to be that way because we observe them spinning. How about using a force where such is a natural consequence of electromagnetic fields, which everything emits???
Error Loading Site | 502 Bad Gateway
But gravity is equal in all directions, there should be no reason for any objects to be squashed in the ecliptic plane, the matter was condensed from all directions, or was it???? Now if it was condensed from plasma along Birkeland Currents to the z-pinch, then it would be pulled into the pinch from two directions, meeting in the center and expanding outwards from centrifugal force, exactly what we observe. The particles spiraling in the magnetic field the currents produce. Such spiraling again a natural consequence of electric and magnetic fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2013 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 1:30 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-29-2013 8:38 AM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 88 of 173 (699997)
05-29-2013 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by New Cat's Eye
05-29-2013 8:38 AM


quote:
How do you know the electromagnetic forces are predominant? How much more of an effect do they have than the gravitational ones? How much of their electromagnetic effects are overruled by gravity?
Are we talking 55% electromagnetic forces and 45% gravity, or are you more along the lines of 99% EM and 1% gravity?
If you were to present your position along the lines of: Cosmologists are under-appreciating the electromagnetic forces that effect the behavior of galaxies, then I think people would be more open to seeing your evidence.
We have been trying that since Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven were proved correct in 1967 or 1968, would have to look it up again to get the date right. But you have ignored it for the past 40 years. Frankly we are tired of mainstream ignoring it, so we have chosen to simply bypass them. Well, we know modern cosmology loves computer games, it's the only thing you have to support your DM theory, so I think since you rely on computer simulation predominantly today, you might try it yourself.
Galaxy formation | Plasma-Universe.com
The entire galaxy matched the galactic rotation curves we observe in space. Furthermore, as the timeline was allowed to ellapse, everything from quasars to barred spiral galaxies, eliptical and spiral were formed.
We never onced asked mainstream to accept our conclussions, all we ever asked was that they look into it. Instead they refused to even consider the idea, they had their DM.
They are predominate in the outer reaches because the electrical force is 10^36 times stronger: thats 10 billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger. Strong enough to more than compensate for your missing mass. It isn't that it's missing, it is simply that gravitational forces are overwhelmed in the depths of space where matter is not concentrated in sufficient quantities to balance the electrical force, make it what you call neutral. But even as tests with neutrons are showing, there still remains a slight imbalance, enogh to cause a electric dipole movement within the neutron.
Neutron - Wikipedia
quote:
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.[22] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments.
So even your own theory says a neutron is not really neutral. We are limited by the same technology you are.
Do you want me to lie to you and throw some numbers out there, when we have never once been there to measure the electric fields? We only just measured the current impinging upon Enceladus (15 nuclear reactors worth of energy) and this just in our solar system, where the EM force is predominantly balanced. Shall we discuss how many watts the sun puts out? The evidence is there, we have asked mainstream for 40+ years to look into it, instead they never look, just admit astonishment when those currents are found and then dismiss them out of hand as having any effects, all the while tying to find a force to explain what they can't explain. Quite frankly we are tired of being ignored and ridiculed when you detect those same electric currents we asked you to look for in the first place. Most discovers have occurred in the last 20 years, because only then have we had the technology to peer deep into space and actually send probes out to measure it. It's measured, they admit the currents are there, but then promptly ignore them and go on with the search for DM, without once looking into the possibility that those electric currents are trying to tell you something. Do we need to continue to ask for another 40 years before you decide to get around to exploring the issue?
But you didn't answer my questions, is there an aether or is there not?
And if the neutron is not really neutral, then what makes you think plasma in space is neutral, when everywhere we look electric currents exist? All it takes is a small seperation of charge between two different parts of a plasma, and as plasma experiments show this seperation of current sheets can be incredibly small compared to the overall volume of the plasma.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-29-2013 8:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-29-2013 10:04 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3259 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 91 of 173 (700061)
05-29-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2013 2:17 PM


Re: Predictive Power
Since you are so concerned with predictive power, let's both look at something we can actually send probes to and measure. Good enough for starters? But I already included this once, but we both know you never watched or read anything posted, as that might mean you might actually start to have to question what your theories are really telling you.
The problem is that some have implied we are against Relativity, and we are not in the very least. Just about the unsubstantiated theories that are then claimed are supported by Relativity. For example, if current comet theory was found to be incorrect, it wouldn't affect Relativity one bit. If Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Neutron Stars and redshift = distance were thrown out, it wouldn't affect relativity one bit. As a matter of fact if you threw out redshift = recessional velocity as the only cause of redshift, it would actually fit better with relativity.
Shall we start with comet predictions from both theories and see which matches the observations and tests better? Let's discuss these results shall we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4
Edited by justatruthseeker, : broken link fixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 2:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 8:26 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024