Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 8:11 PM
37 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Tanypteryx (3 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,560 Year: 3,597/19,786 Month: 592/1,087 Week: 182/212 Day: 24/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 76 of 173 (699885)
05-27-2013 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by justatruthseeker
05-27-2013 3:27 PM


Re: Pearls in the sty again?
Yet you say nothing to show where I am wrong except a blanket denial. Why is this?

Because you would obviously be incapable of understanding it. Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens. However, it may be possible to communicate to you the simple fact that you are incompetent, even if it is not possible to correct this deficit; at which point you could abandon your hobby of looking like an idiot in public.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 3:27 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1247 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.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/...tists-had-previously-projected

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?
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/...nce/mysteries_l1/corona.html

Won't help much, they are still throwing out wild guesses. Keep changing it, can't settle on one for very long.

http://www.livescience.com/...r-spacecraft-solar-system.html

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 responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 78 of 173 (699888)
05-27-2013 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by justatruthseeker
05-27-2013 10:36 PM


Re: Pearls in the sty again?
You really can't be helped until you admit that you have a problem.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-27-2013 10:36 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1247 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycle

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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

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. Lemaître 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'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

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.
http://www.haltonarp.com/

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 yet responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 80 of 173 (699897)
05-28-2013 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by justatruthseeker
05-28-2013 1:37 AM


You do realize, don't you, that this stupid shit isn't an answer to the OP, right? So why are you addressing it to the person who made the OP?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 1:37 AM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 10:52 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1247 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eligious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

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).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_%28metaphysics%29

quote:
In metaphysics, extension is, roughly speaking, the property of "taking up space". René 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

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!
http://www.haltonarp.com/...s_of_quasars_and_galaxy_clusters
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 responded

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

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 173 (699922)
05-28-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by justatruthseeker
05-24-2013 6:03 PM


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?

Spacetime, composed of nothing, but bent by mass and then nothing tells mass how to move.

No, spacetime is something. The bending of it is what "tells mass how to move".

So, let's test your theory. We imagine a ball placed in the center of a flexible rubber sheet. We place a large ball in the center, it depresses the sheet (which is made of something by-the-way), so far so good. We now set a stationary ball at the top of the indent. What happens?

The ball rolls down towards the one at the center.

In theory where gravity is only a bending of spacetime and not a force, the ball moves nowhere.
Yet we observe in real life an attraction. The ball would never roll down the hill without the preconceived notion of a force beneath the sheet pulling it downwards.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 6:03 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 8:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1907
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 83 of 173 (699924)
05-28-2013 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by justatruthseeker
05-28-2013 1:37 AM


A Lesson In Critical Thinking
justatruthseeker--This is a science forum and being such, it is inappropriate to attempt to assert motives or agendas of certain groups of scientists against other groups of scientists without evidence. Evidence based on critical thinking is the standard that must be used on this section of the forum. Beliefs simply carry no weight here. Im giving you six hours...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 1:37 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 84 of 173 (699926)
05-28-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by justatruthseeker
05-28-2013 10:52 AM


Modern cosmology: "and man said let there be light."

What a peculiar lie.

So the simple answer is you nor I, nor anyone has a valid answer to the OP.

Speak for yourself.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 10:52 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1247 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.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma

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
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Homopolar_generator
http://electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...chelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
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.
http://www.scribd.com/...echanism-for-Relativistic-Phenomena

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???
http://www.spaceanswers.com/...omy/1795/why-do-galaxies-spin
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 responded

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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 86 of 173 (699972)
05-29-2013 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by justatruthseeker
05-28-2013 8:26 PM


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.

Just to check, does your nonsense about plasma actually predict that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies, or is it just something you think you can explain post facto by waving your hands and shouting "plasmadunnit"?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 8:26 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 87 of 173 (699987)
05-29-2013 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by justatruthseeker
05-28-2013 8:26 PM


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.

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. But when you present it as "everything you think you know is wrong" then you just come off as a crank.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-28-2013 8:26 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 9:30 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1247 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.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

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 responded

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

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 173 (700001)
05-29-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by justatruthseeker
05-29-2013 9:30 AM


You would have been much more concise if you had just wrote: "I don't know".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 9:30 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 90 of 173 (700021)
05-29-2013 2:17 PM


Predictive Power
Curiously, when I merely call justatruthseeker an idiot, he's quick to respond to me, complaining that "you called me bad names". When I ask him serious questions about his hypothesis and its predictive power, he says nothing.

Maybe this is because his gibberish has no predictive power, and so he has nothing to say, whereas I really did call him "bad names".

C'mon, justatruthseeker, you have finally piqued my interest. Amongst all the rest of your rubbish, you have suggested that this plasma universe thingy implies that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies. Now, finally, I am interested. Does your plasma thingy really predict that galaxies will rotate as though they are rigid bodies? Finally we are getting on to the predictive power of your thesis, rather than your halfwitted lies about the history of science. Does your hypothesis about cosmology actually predict that galaxies should rotate as though they were rigid bodies? Yes or no?


Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-29-2013 6:43 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019