The cosmic conspiracy.

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-4Edited by justatruthseeker, : broken link fixed

I asked: It's a yes or no question. I appreciate that you prefer to spew out vast tracts of vacuous irrelevant garbage, but could you take some time out from your busy schedule to post a monosyllable?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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?

---

I will post them again for you, as like I said, you didn't read them the first time. And the answer is a DEFINITE YES!!!! That is the rotation speed will be the same for the outer stars as for all but except the very inner stars as the density increases. Gravitation only requires the outer stars to rotate slower the further away from the center of mass, as is observed in our solar system. So maybe rigid body is the wrong word, but that the outer stars rotate at the same speed as almost all stars except the center.
Galaxy formation | Plasma-Universe.com
Page not found – Plasma-Universe.com
http://electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm
http://electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm
Plenty of peer reviewed papers in the first link and about any other plasma research you want to look up. Not that I expect YOu will, but some on here sound as if they might be open to real science instead of Fairie Dust. Yah, I come off a bit rough (hey, nobodies perfect ) But when some people can only call others names instead of have a scientific discussion, one tends to come off rough. Biting fleas tend to irritate you.This is what your gravity only model predicts. We don't want to stop gravity, just add the electromagnetic force into the equations instead of farie Dust'
The Planets (plus the Dwarf Planet Pluto) - Enchanted Learning
Notice that regardless of their mass, the further away from the center of gravity, the Sun, the slower they rotate.
As do moons.
Jupiter's MoonsEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : linkEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

That would actually be a no.

Hi JustATruthSeeker,It might help the discussion move along if you could describe in your own words how plasma theory explains the rotation of galaxies. EvC Forum actually has a rule in the Forum Guidelines covering the use of links:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Gravity only theory requires a galaxy to act as if its mass was concentrated at it's center, just as we observe in our solar system from planets to moons, even the rings of Saturn. But we do not observe this with galaxies. The stars actually orbit faster as they receede from the center, and then flatten out. Yet the explanation for Einstein's Cross relies on this assumption of center of mass, in direct contradiction to how every galaxy does indeed rotate. Clearly if a galaxy acted as if its mass was concentrated in its center the stars further out would rotate slower, as observed with the planets and moons, not increase speed the further from this center then average out. By your own theories you've had to admit they do not act as if the mass is concentrated in the center, hence your search for Dark Matter.
Yet you explain Einsteins cross in exact opposition to the observational evidence as not one single galaxy rotates as if its mass was concentrated in its center.
So I will be happy to explain galaxy rotation, and while I am writing this up perhaps you can explain to me how Einstein's Cross exists when clearly no galaxy ever observed (and we have observed billions) rotates as if it's mass was concentrated in a center point source, required by gravitational lensing? If the gravitational lensing theory is correct, then why do not the galaxies rotate as this theory requires them too? And assuming you are correct (for the sake of argument) and that Dark Matter exists in the outer reaches to explain rotation curves, then how is this mass acting like it is concentrated in the center to explain Einstien's cross when clearly you need its mass to act in the mid to outer reaches to explain galactic rotation? Even the inner stars do not act according to gravitational theory, they increase in speed as their distance from the center increases. So I ask again, what is your explanation for Einstein's cross?

The questions and your doubts regarding dark matter are not really relevant to the discussion of the Einstein's cross.The answer to the question for how the Einstein's cross can result is simple to understand. In this or other cases cases involving lensing, the distances between the objects, the earth, and the lens are generally so great compared to the dimensions of the lens, that the actual distribution of matter in the galaxy is completely irrelevant. As an example, all of the planets in the solar system are of appreciable size, yet for the purpose of computing the motions and positions of the planets, we can model all of the objects, including the suns, as point masses.Einstein Cross - Wikipedia

quote:

---

According to current interpretations of redshift, the quasar is located about 8 billion light years from Earth, while the lensing galaxy is located at a distance of 400 million light years.[1] The apparent dimension of this galaxy is 0.87x0.34 arcminutes, while the apparent dimension of the cross in its center accounts for only 1.6x1.6 arcseconds.

---

So the distances separated the objects are on the order of a billion light years. But based on the apparent major dimension of the galaxy, the separation between earth and the galaxy is more than 4000 times the width of the galaxy.So regardless of the mass distribution within a galaxy, the galaxy can, to a good degree of accuracy, be treated as a point mass for the purpose of assessing the lensing effect. Any affects due to being wrong about the distribution of mass would have minor visual effects.

You need to do your research and not pretend you know the answer, Einstein when discussing gravitational lensing used our Sun and other stars, because as we know the Sun acts as a point source, that is, the gravitational attraction of our solar system is located at a point near the Sun, exactly why the planets orbit as they do. Even so the odds of observing such are astronomical, yet such is a quite frequent explanation regarding quasars, as it was needed to explain them using erroneous redshift as a distance indicator.
http://www.einstein-online.info/...ghts/grav_lensing_history
The Einstein Cross
Even your mass calculations to explain the effect fail with the Einstein's Cross. The extremely dim galaxy you claim is the cause does not contain the mass needed to do what you want, let alone the arcs are not circular, but all converge towrds the center, and have been observed to overlapp.
http://www.astro.umd.edu/...r/teaching/astr422/lecture13.pdf

quote:

---

Fundamentally, therefore, gravitational lensing just acts like classical geometric optics. Curved spacetime causes light bundles to deflect, and also to shear and expand. The result is that a background light source can have its apparent position, shape, and flux changed by a foreground gravitational lens. Keep in mind, though, that the surface brightness of a lensed object is not changed, because the light goes from flat spacetime to flat spacetime after going through the lens, and as we discussed earlier the surface brightness is altered only by redshifts. Also note that light is neither created nor destroyed by lensing, just redistributed.

---

yet all 4 are of different brightness.
try again.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

That's the dumbest thing I've read all day --- in the face of very stiff competition.However, instead of whining about the real physics that you don't understand, how about you try to explain the observed phenomena in terms of your plasma gobbledegook? Good luck with that.

Oh, we have just started on quasars. Don't be impatient, it's how astronomers make mistakes by jumping to conclusions to explain what they see.
Another Fogged Image of Stephan‘s Quintet
What goes "Unremarked is the fact that the differences in redshift of the background galaxies place them (under consensus belief) farther from each other than the foreground galaxy is from the Milky Way."
Stephan's Quintet - Wikipedia

quote:

---

These galaxies are of interest because of their violent collisions.... Also of interest, NGC 7320 (to the lower left in both photos) indicates a small redshift (790 km/s) while the other four exhibit large redshifts (near 6600 km/s). Since galactic redshift is proportional to distance, NGC 7320 is only a foreground projection and is ~39 million ly from Earth versus the 210-340 million ly of the other five

---

So the foreground galaxy is closer to us than the other 4 are to each other, yet they are interacting, colliding? If I were to claim two galaxies 39 million light years apart were colliding, you would call me a well, idiot, but claim yourself galaxies separated by even vaster distances are, because obviously they are. Even though their individual redshifts tell you that is impossible, but that fact is almost never mentioned.
Yet you have those 4 galaxies interacting, despite your belief redshift = recessional velocity and distance. So when too obvious to claim distance separation, you just gloss over that little fact, that your redshift theory does not allow them to be close enough to interact.
see first link"

quote:

---

Another fact that’s consistently overlooked is that the bright HII (ionized hydrogen) regions in the background galaxies are about the same size as those in the foreground galaxy. Since it’s also believed (consensually) that HII regions tend to be of similar size, the consensus has simply ignored the fact. Perhaps the dark matter in the foreground galaxy is positioned exactly right to magnify the HII regions beyond through gravitational lensing.

---

Yes, that must be it, it's Dark Matter right? But better pictures show interaction even with the foreground galaxy.
Stephan‘s Quintet Rekindles Controversy
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...image06/Stephan_sQuintet.jpg
The shockwave in the composite picture (visible, x-ray and UV) at the top of the page in the above link, clearly shows interaction between all 5. Frequencies now available show the errors in using theory obtained only from the days when we could just see in the visible spectrum.
Not to mention other foreground quasars. That should be billions of light years behind the galaxies, and even the possibility of quasar candidates that were once assumed to be within galaxies.
Stephan's Quintet
The Picture that Won‘t Go Away
Many active galaxies have quasars in front of them. Active galaxies are known for their opaqueness. The stars behind them not visible, but one billions of light years distant is, just because it's a quasar and you have to say its further because of the wrong belief about redshift, which then goes against your statment of background stars not being visible through highly active galaxies. Redshift just happens to have been observed in laboratories with plasma at high energies.
This is one of the Big Bangers most hated topics to discuss, because it involves the even more hated topic of redshift which we will shortly get to. But we got plenty of posts yet, no hurry.

But in reality how galaxies form, Dark Matter, Quasars, Neutron Stars - all this is only theory built upon assumptions, even in a EU/Plasma Cosmology. So really we should be starting with what we can observe and test, where our probes have gone to directly measure the environments, not with things millions and billions of ly away we will never get to test. Take for example comet theory, which you quickly tried to divert from when you yourself asked about the predictive power of theories. We can theorize about them all we want, but we have actually measured them, sent probes to them. Related to the same mechanism that causes comet erosion is Enceladus, a moon of Saturn. Been there, observed it, have taken direct measurement. Want to discuss volcanoes there? Old school view, new school view is the plasma that matters.
Enceladus Plume is a New Kind of Plasma Laboratory | NASA
Underground gysers the only explanation by consensus astronomers, because they lack the electric force.
Saturn's geyser moon Enceladus provides a new kind of plasma laboratory - Science Daily | (e) Science News
Although it's not looking good.
Jets on Saturn's moon Enceladus not geysers from underground ocean, says study | (e) Science News
But we do know of an electrical connection, that is always bypassed as a possible explanation for the southern poles hot spots and geysers.
Beams of electrons link Saturn with its moon Enceladus | (e) Science News
But I don't recall any ideas considered that might link the two do you, even though you claim no current theory can yet explain it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS0Vv3yS6U&list=UUvHqXK_...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia3_VsEAvk8
And I say it can. I say it predicts comets, which direct evidence contradicts mainstreams view of how they are formed and what they are made of, which leads back to theory on the solar system and galaxies.
Now you want Dark Matter to cause the synchrotron radiation emissions you just detected from our own galactic center.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-03lh_tHMJ0
How is that variable magnetic field formed again?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node77.html
There is no such thing as a magnetic monopole, only electric monopoles. Only when two or more charged particles begin to move in relation to one another (electric current), is a magnetic field created. Then magnetic fields induce further currents by confining those moving particles in Birkeland Current filaments, what is termed magnetic induction.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node87.htmlIt all fits together when you look at the big picture.Dare I mention that these plumes are decelerated by interaction with other charged particles, exactly like we observed the solar wind stop to a virtual standstill? And again, we know what causes charged particles to accelerate and decelerate. And again, most of the galaxy is thought to be made up of dusty plasma, that of course the instruments were not designed to measure properly, because they didn't expect it????Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Really. Because the article you cite says nothing of the mass of the lensing galaxy in the Einstein cross being insufficient.But since you know better, what mass would be required and how does the mass of the dim galaxy QSO 2237+0305 G compare with that value? You seem to be arguing my point and not yours.You next quote material including the following.

quote:

---

Also note that light is neither created nor destroyed by lensing, just redistributed.

---

A perfectly co-linear alignment of earth, the lens, and the distant object would produce a ring of uniform brilliance. Apparently the alignment is not perfect and we get four images of non-uniform brightness.Again, you aren't even trying to rebut my explanation. You are citing factual information, but even taking that material as true does not lead to the conclusions you offer.And quite frankly, given your stated position of not having problems with general relativity, why are you wasting time on a phenomena that involves extremely small deflections of light anyway? I understand why the relativity haters do it, but you claim not to be one of them. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So tell me, I have always wondered this. With all the electrical activity in space our probes are measuring, why is mainstream so terrified to admit to electrical acivity in space? I can only assume its fear, being that we observe these electrical connections everywhere, then you pretend they don't exist, why? I would really like to understand this phobea about electrical activity. I am not being faciteous, I am really curious as to why we detect it everywhere, yet you can't admit it, it's mind boggling and I just would like to know why?

Nobody has a phobia of electrical phenomena. We detect electromagnetic currents in space and they behave exactly as Maxwell's equations would predict.They don't however cause gravity.

The electrical currents and activity that we observe in space is well documented, studied, and published. Tom Bridgman has a useful list of references and links at Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists'. You might want to check out Electric fields in the solar atmosphere - A review and Ionization in stellar atmosphere (from 1922: boy, them scientists sure have been ignoring plasma for a long time, from even before the term "plasma" was coined).You can find gobs and gobs of data at Heliophysics Data Portal. E.g. "Helios 1 E6 (Kunow) Hourly Particle Fluxes":

quote:

---

Data set records contain fluxes of protons in 5 energy ranges (4-13, 13-27, 27-37, 37-51, >51 MeV), alpha particles in 6 energy ranges (2-4, 4-13, 13-27, 27-37, 37-48, >48 MeV/n), and electrons in 2 ranges (0.3-0.8, 0.8-2.0 MeV). The fluxes are averaged over intervals of approximately one hour. Each "data record" (having ending CR and/or LF) spans 4-5 hours and has 10 time-overlapping segments. Each segment has averaging start and stop times plus words for 13 fluxes and words for the statistical uncertainties in the 13 fluxes. However, most words in a given segment have fill values, such that good values for a given flux (species and energy range) and its uncertainty appear only in a minority of the segments. No spacecraft position information is included. Data are from the E6 experiment on Helios 1.

---

Or "IMP 8 GME 30-min energetic particle rates and fluxes":

quote:

---

This CDAWeb-accessible data set contains 30-minute, spin-averaged count rates and fluxes, and their statistical uncertainties, of energetic particles from the IMP8 GME experiment. Included are fluxes of: protons in 30 energy bins from 0.88-1.15 to 327-485 MeV; alpha particles in 21 energy bins from 1.14-1.36 to 63.3-81.0 MeV/n; and 0.3-18 MeV electrons. Also included are count rates for each of 7 sensors and for 11 multi-sensor coincidence modes. Proton and alpha particle fluxes, for every other energy bin, are given at the FTPBrowser and MSSP interfaces identified below.

---

So there's just loads of mainstream scientists using many different instruments to investigate charged particles and currens and plasmas in space. The answer to your question, "why is mainstream so terrified to admit to electrical acivity in space?", is that nobody's terrified.Now here's a question for you to answer: what is the charged particle flux at Earth's orbit in Electric Sun models? Are Tom Bridgman's calculations wrong at Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I and Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II, in which he shows that the Solar Capacitor model predicts fatal ionizing radiation that would fry any astronaut?