Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 8:46 PM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, RAZD (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,347 Year: 15,383/19,786 Month: 2,106/3,058 Week: 480/404 Day: 84/63 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 24 of 173 (698406)
05-06-2013 7:14 PM


First we should clear one thing up. The Big Bang IS creationism, just without mentioning a god. The difference is the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, science says a singularity did it, although no mention of how the singularity came to be, odd since science does not allow matter or energy to be created from nothing, or anything to exist for eternity, (laws of Thermodynamics).

The theory of the Big Bang arose after a priest, Georges Lemaître, offered a theory for the expansion of the universe. It had only just recently been observed that our galaxy was not the only one. Before then our galaxy was the only universe in existence according to scientists. A theory of expansion using redshft as distance usually applied in error to Hubble as his name attaches more weight. An interpretation Hubble did not agree fit his data best. Hubble believed his data was better explained because of an as yet undiscovered cause.

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."

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

I do believe in science wholeheartedly, just not the silly theories that have never been based upon anything but dreams such as Dark Matter, Black Holes, a contained nuclear reactor in the sun, etc., but the experimental data can tell us a lot about the universe.

I also know that 99.99% of the universe is plasma, and plasma is an electrified medium and THE fundamental state of all matter. What's all this have to do with anything you ask? Being that it is indisputable that electric currents control in the universe, could it be as simple as a mind of electric currents across the galaxies of the universe, just as your thought is nothing more than an electrical current across the neurons of your brain????? You are the image of god, and not because you are flesh, but because you had the breath of life (electricity - god is power - energy) given to you. You could not think, not move, not debate what is or isn't without that small electric current that is everywhere, in your brain, along your nerves to every muscle, everywhere we have ever looked in fact.

http://science.nasa.gov/...science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature09928
http://www.nasa.gov/...n_pages/juno/multimedia/pia03155.html

E=mc^2, I quite agree!

Edited by justatruthseeker, : Broken links fixed.


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 05-06-2013 7:29 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2013 7:35 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 10:19 AM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 11:01 AM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 27 of 173 (698414)
05-06-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rahvin
05-06-2013 7:35 PM


How can you trace it back in time, when there is no accelerating universe to trace it back too? Plasma redshift has been observed in the lab agreeing with Hubble's interpretation, yet never once have you ever considered there might be another explanation. Plasma is 99.99% of the universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

Of course a Black Hole doesn't mean another BB waiting to happen, there exist no such entities as black holes in the heart of galaxies except in a BB cosmology because they can no longer justify the power required to be given to objects because of the error in their redshift = distance belief.

The WMAP plot? This question cuts both ways. That is, since NASA knows that galaxies form in gigantic strings, there must be a filamentary structure to the cosmos (intergalactic space). If WMAP does not show any such filamentation, this calls the cosmological interpretation of that data into question. As it happens, recent radiotelescopic data reported by Gerrit Verschuur of the University of Memphis indicates filaments are present in HI observations.
hese HI clouds are almost certainly interstellar (inside our galaxy). Verschuur states:

quote:
“The high frequency continuum emission data were obtained by the WMAP whose purpose was to study structure in the early universe. If the continuum emission peaks are in fact cosmological in origin, there should be absolutely no relationship between those signals and the galactic HI structure. Instead, in the examples shown above, close associations between the two classes of structure are found.

If confirmed, this argues that the WMAP observations have a strong if not dominant component as a result of processes occurring in interstellar space.” So, is WMAP data just galactic noise generated within (or near to) the Milky Way?
There is evidence that this is the case.
We know of the existence of huge galaxy clusters. If the WMAP data actually comes from the farthest points in the universe why do we not see those huge strings of galaxy groupings silhouetted (back lighted) by that distant light continuum?
I repeat your evidence back at you:
“Where are the current streams?” that NASA knows must be there?

Verschuur, G.L. Interstellar Space and Possible Detection of Related Continuum Emission IEEE Trans on Plasma Sci. Vol 35, No. 4. Aug 2007, pp 759
- 766.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605599
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500

Edited by justatruthseeker, : provided link

Edited by justatruthseeker, : Adding Links

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2013 7:35 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 11:07 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 29 of 173 (698459)
05-07-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 10:19 AM


Please spare me the rants, don't take me for some scientific illiterate, that's your first mistake. Your second is never reading anything about your own theory, just what you have heard repeated over and over.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

quote:
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

So in reality you have NO math to base anything on as relativity completely fails at your imaginary event horizon. Since it seems everyones theory is as good as another's at this point I would say the fact that the math breaks down should give you a clue something is not right in wonderland.

I don't need to express the points in those links, your scientists did it for me quite clearly.
http://www.nasa.gov/...n_pages/juno/multimedia/pia03155.html

quote:
These emissions, produced by electric currents generated by the satellites, flow along Jupiter's magnetic field, bouncing in and out of the upper atmosphere. They are unlike anything seen on Earth.

99.99% plasma is common knowledge, except to those that deny those electric currents they see in space. Even NASA will tell you that.
http://www.nasa.gov/...es/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

So it might be just a tad bit important to learn a little about what plasma is and how it behaves, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 11:01 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 165 by kofh2u, posted 08-03-2013 4:36 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 34 of 173 (698566)
05-08-2013 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
05-07-2013 11:11 AM


Don't take my word for the 99% figure, but I hope you will give some consideration to NASA.

http://www.nasa.gov/...es/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

But I am sure NASA just must be wrong too.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 11:11 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 35 of 173 (698567)
05-08-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
05-07-2013 11:01 AM


Why explain the sun to someone that will ignore all the evidence anyways? Your very own books say the universe is 99% plasma and theyve ignored it for over 100 years. if you were actually curious I'd show you were to find the answers you seek, but you seek no answers, and this I know because you argue against 99% plasma when your own books proclaim it.

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_cr.html#plasma

Ok, granted, that ignores that 96% of an invisible fairy dust exists called dark matter, but then you would not need that fairy dust if you just considered plasma.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521364833&id=VcueZ...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN079235527X&id=ZSlJR...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9812381554&id=v99GV...

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN354065285X&id=4cHkd...

It's been known to be 99% plasma for over 100 years. Can give you a few hundred more links to mainstream books if you need them, by the very same people that then try to hide that fact. After all, they hid it from you. The've lied to you and told you it isn't, so ask yourself, what else are they lying about if they won't accept the very facts they say exist?

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : spelling

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 11:01 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 10:22 AM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 1:37 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 37 of 173 (698609)
05-08-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
05-08-2013 10:22 AM


quote:
So you can't back up your claims and you cannot rebut the refutations of your arguments.
All you can do is post accusations and drop bare links.

Good to know.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.


Yes, as I expected, ignore the facts to keep your fantasy alive, so let me help you out since you can't seem to read without having someone tell you what it says.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521364833&id=VcueZ...

quote:
It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN079235527X&id=ZSlJR...

quote:
Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state and plasma are found at temperatures and densities far exceeding those that will support matter in the first three states.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9812381554&id=v99GV...

quote:
It is estimated that as much as 99% of the universe is comprised of plasma

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN354065285X&id=4cHkd...

quote:
it is thought that more than 99% of matter in the universe is plasma

But actually I could care less what hardheaded people like you believe, I am debating for all the rational people that will read this and see your arguments for what they are. Ignorance and a refusal to accept the truth for what it is. By making such absurd claims against the very facts your theory teaches you only brings more people to my side, for which I thank you profusely! Great work, couldn't have planned that better myself!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 12:41 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 40 of 173 (698626)
05-08-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by New Cat's Eye
05-08-2013 12:41 PM


What it means that the universe is 99% plasma is that the universe operates mostly by the laws of electrodynamics, hence the title of Einsteins paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". That you ignore this law upon which all of relativity rests is why you have no valid explanation for galactic rotation curves, except to hypothesise the existence of imaginary matter never observed or detected. If you included this force that binds the very atom you would realize no fairy dust was required. The electrical force is 10^36 powers stronger than gravity, which is why in the vast open stretches of the universe and galaxies the electrical force dominates. Only in isolated pockets where enough matter has condensed in one spot (such as our solar system), does the force of gravity become stronger.

Although since no one knows what gravity is, or what causes it, it may indeed be electrical in nature.

Why don't you look up a gravitational map of the moon and a magnetic map of the moon (since we have mapped both extensively) and see if any corrolation between the two exists????? let me know the results of your study, even though I already know the answer, you might find it interesting.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 2:00 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-09-2013 10:02 AM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 42 of 173 (698633)
05-08-2013 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2013 2:00 PM


Thats the typical response of those studying pseudoscience, to attempt to attack the character of a person because one has no other reponse to give. So I forgive you!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 2:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 2:22 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 46 of 173 (699752)
05-24-2013 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
05-09-2013 10:02 AM


quote:
Its the effect you see from the bending of spacetime by some mass.
Don't even attempt that flat out false belief of geometric spacetime. Spacetime, composed of nothing, but bent by mass and then nothing tells mass how to move. Another theory of nothing, getting tired of nothing theories.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...0708_more_lies_from_ligo.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/..._au08/022708_neverending.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...08/021608_dark_inertia_1.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...08/022408_dark_inertia_2.htm

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?
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. Since the bending of spacetime is in a 3D space, all lines being bent equally in all directions there is no reason for the ball to begin movement in the first place. An intellectual exercise, but not consistent with real life. In real life the ball is acted upon by a force and begins to move from its stationary position. Since gravity in a geometrical interpretation of space is not a force, it cannot act upon the ball, there must be a preexisting force to make it move.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-09-2013 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2013 6:56 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2013 11:18 AM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 48 of 173 (699761)
05-24-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
05-24-2013 6:56 PM


quote:
By contrast distorting space-time can produce a trajectory that mimics completely a change that not only mimics the force of gravity as described by Newton's gravity in low velocity/low speed situation, but that also predicts deviations from results predicted by Newtonian law of gravitation that are then shown to match what we actually observe.

You know better than that, I said nothing about low velocity/low speed, I said stationary. Quit trying to misdirect, that is all you have, misdirection. A stationary ball would have no reason to begin to move in the first place, if no force is acting upon it.
For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. For the ball to begin moving, there must be a force acting upon it. I didn't say Relativity didn't give close enough answers for things already moving, but it can never explain how things begin moving in the first place. There is no cause for its effect. It violates everything known. This is why the geometrical interpretation is nothing more than an intellectual exercise. I am not against Relativity at all, you got me confused with someone else, I completely believe in E=mc^2, just not your attempts to twist what that actually means. It was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" not the force free movement of bodies. Why do you think you need so much Fairy Dust to explain galactic rotation curves? You need to go look up what the Lorentz Force is, what every transform in Relativity is actually about.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node72.html
maybe then you wont need to keep misdirecting people because you just might learn something. Maybe then we can get rid of all that fairy dust, 96% of the universe according to you all, lol. But what is to be expected when you ignore 99% of the universe, one can't expect anything else I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2013 6:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 12:14 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 51 of 173 (699775)
05-25-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Panda
05-25-2013 8:13 AM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
Oh on the contrary I believe Relativity is correct, I just believe you don't know what Relativity actually is. The paper that Einstein submitted was titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Not stationary, not force free, but "Electrodynamics." That you now exclude such forces in all your attempts to explain the universe is not Einstein's fault at all. Even Lorentz tried to tell you what it was all about, why the Lorentz force has no application but that of the electrodynamic interaction between bodies, the same transforms used in Relativity. What Maxwell tried to tell you upon which all of Relativity rests. What Ampere, Gauss and Weber tried to tell you.

But then what can one expect from people that tell you 99% of the universe is plasma, and then ignore that in every single attempt to explain the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

quote:
The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter.

So, why are you still trying to explain things in space of which 99% is plasma, by using the interaction of non-plasma matter? All Relativity does is explain the solar system, the planets composed almost entirely of non-plasma (solid, liquids, gasses). Outside the solar system where almost everything is plasma, it fails. Hence galactic rotation curves require you to put 96% of imaginary fairy dust called dark matter and energy and then a black hole or maybe even a binary one in the center of the galaxy just to get the numbers to fudge correctly?
Its quite funny how the plasma experts in nuclear physics who are attempting to use plasma in a z-pinch to compress it to sustain nuclear fusion know plasma obeys the electrodynamic laws, but astrophysicists still ignore it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

quote:
The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma.

Learn your physics. There is not one thing that does not depend on the electromagnetic force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

quote:
The word electromagnetism is a compound form of two Greek terms, ἢλεκτρον, ēlektron, "amber", and μαγνήτης, magnētēs, "magnet". The science of electromagnetic phenomena is defined in terms of the electromagnetic force, sometimes called the Lorentz force, which includes both electricity and magnetism as elements of one phenomenon.

The electromagnetic force is the interaction responsible for almost all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electrons are bound by electromagnetic wave mechanics into orbitals around atomic nuclei to form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms, which are in turn determined by the interaction between electromagnetic force and the momentum of the electrons.


And since we do not yet know what gravity is, but we do know the electromagnetic force both attracts and repels, and is responsible for every other interaction, it is quite reasonable to assume gravity is another aspect of the electromagnetic force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

quote:
Gravitation, or gravity, is the natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them...The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations including calculations as critical as spacecraft trajectory.

So Relativity isn't really needed, unless you try to transform the electrodynamic properties of moving bodies into frames separated by time and distance. That you then decide to ignore the basics upon which Relativity rests in your attempt to ignore those electrodynamic interactions, can't be blamed on Einstein, nor does his theory support such interpretation, being that all his formulas rest upon the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Stationary bodies react quite differently, because stationary charges contain no magnetic fields.

Hence in reality Einstein showed that gravity is nothing more than an electrodynamic interaction of moving bodies, where the electric and magnetic fields balance. Yet you exclude this in every discussion about relativity, as if the entire theory was not based upon that very electrodynamic interaction.

But its ok, someday astrophysicists may actually listen to the plasma experts about how plasma behaves, and stop using fairy dust in their explanations. Maybe if they actually took a course in plasma physics or electrodynamic theory (since 99% of the universe is plasma and electrodynamics is the basis of Relativity) they might actually have something useful to say. But you go right ahead and keep trying to explain the universe as being composed of 96% fairy dust and ignore those electrodynamic forces. You are stuck 100 years in the past. Technology has shown how incorrect you are, that electrodynamic forces permeate the universe, of which light, the defining aspect of Relativity is but a part. Light belongs to the electrodynamic spectrum, from gamma rays to x-rays and visible in between. Relativity is based upon the speed of light, an electrodynamic property.
http://www.space.com/...er-spacecraft-solar-system-edge.html

quote:
"This region was not anticipated, was not predicted."

http://www.nbcnews.com/...ystem/%23.UZqEVZzgyF8#.UaDhY5zgyF8
quote:
All theoretical models have been found wanting."

But some people did predict just that and their theoretical models predicted it. Why are not their models included?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...onfirms-electric-heliosphere

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Panda, posted 05-25-2013 8:13 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 1:17 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 53 of 173 (699785)
05-25-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 12:17 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
Apparently you didnt read anything. Told you from the start Relativity is correct, it's your interpretation of it that is flawed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

quote:
For example, in the framework of special relativity the Maxwell equations have the same form in all inertial frames of reference. In the framework of general relativity the Maxwell equations or the Einstein field equations have the same form in arbitrary frames of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

quote:
The term "Maxwell's equations" is often used for other forms of Maxwell's equations. For example, space-time formulations are commonly used in high energy and gravitational physics. These formulations defined on space-time, rather than space and time separately are manifestly[note 1] compatible with special and general relativity. In quantum mechanics, versions of Maxwell's equations based on the electric and magnetic potentials are preferred.

Even thermodynamics relies on them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_relations

quote:
Maxwell's relations are a set of equations in thermodynamics which are derivable from the definitions of the thermodynamic potentials.

Everything is electrodynamic interactions. E-mc^2

Get your physics right and you can stop practicing pseudoscience. You wont need black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy. You wont need all that Fairie Dust [Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/...ccessfully_finds_nothing.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/...ves/davesmith_au08/liars.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...smith_au08/011008_liars2.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...vesmith_au08/090822_ligo.htm

This is you
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...u08/101022_pseudoskeptic.htm

At least I give references, NEVER seen a single reference from any of you backing up anything you claim it says. You say it says this and that, but lack any references to back you claims, so in reality it is just your opinion against what science actually says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 12:17 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 1:46 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 56 of 173 (699795)
05-25-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 1:46 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
And yet every source cited shows all of Relativity and Thermodynamics to be seated in the Electrodynamic force, you then ignore it in every explanation. Just why is it that galactic rotation curves don't match any theory of gravity??? Not Newton's, not Relativity.

Could it possibly be because galaxies do not obey those laws, but instead obey the electromagnetic force laws which are 10^39 powers stronger than the gravitational force? If you included that stronger force in your calculations, you would not need Fairie Dust to explain galactic rotations. Since 99% of the universe is plasma, not bound in close proximity as in our solar system, one might think you would be inclined to do some research on just what plasma is. But apparently you prefer to ignore 99% of the universe so you can continue to postulate imaginary entities to be the cause. Then want me to believe that even though you ignore 99% of the universe, you can explain it. Apparently you can't, else we would not need 96% of Fairie Dust with a black hole or two thrown in for good measure to explain that 99% you just ignored.

Next you will want me to explain what diamonds are without using carbon in the answer. Any answer given completely and utterly worthless. Yet you do the same thing in astrophysics, You ignore 99% of the universe, and then attempt to tell me what it is. Time after time you have been proved wrong. Time after time you find not what you seek, but electric currents and mysteries. Mysteries only because you ignore what 99% of the universe actually is.

Here, try to learn something of what you speak before you do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTGbXN4qm_I&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Agr63aMWE&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS0Vv3yS6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia3_VsEAvk8&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98GdebTOIak&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8shxpZJ30Q&list=UUvHqXK_H...

Time we started using real science again instead of Fairie Dust.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 1:46 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 4:47 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 58 of 173 (699810)
05-25-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 4:47 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
quote:
I've already pointed out that none of your references cite an electrical or electromagnetic origin for gravity. For that you are forced to revert to double talk and denying what your own references actual present.

Well here, let me post them again since you didn't read them the first time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

quote:
The term "Maxwell's equations" is often used for other forms of Maxwell's equations. For example, space-time formulations are commonly used in high energy and gravitational physics. These formulations defined on space-time, rather than space and time separately are manifestly[note 1] compatible with special and general relativity. In quantum mechanics, versions of Maxwell's equations based on the electric and magnetic potentials are preferred.

So you want to use electromagnetic formulas to postulate your ideas of what gravity is, even though you admit you don't know what it is, and then exclude any possibility that gravity is electromagnetic???????? Ok, fine, then why are you using the electromagnetic formulas to do it????? Let's talk about Double-talk, shall we?

And let's not forget:

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

quote:
The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).

Similar to the way that electromagnetic fields are determined using charges and currents via Maxwell's equations,....Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to each other and to the electric charges and currents. Often, the charges and currents are themselves dependent on the electric and magnetic fields via the Lorentz force equation and the constitutive relations. These all form a set of coupled partial differential equations, which are often very difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions of these equations encompass all the diverse phenomena in the entire field of classical electromagnetism. A thorough discussion is far beyond the scope of the article, but some general notes follow.


...
quote:
Exact solutions for the EFE can only be found under simplifying assumptions such as symmetry. Special classes of exact solutions are most often studied as they model many gravitational phenomena, such as rotating black holes and the expanding universe. Further simplification is achieved in approximating the actual spacetime as flat spacetime with a small deviation, leading to the linearised EFE. These equations are used to study phenomena such as gravitational waves.

so back to Fairie Dust we go....Aren't you tired of looking for nothing yet?

Edited by justatruthseeker, : new link

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 4:47 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 7:58 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1401 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 60 of 173 (699828)
05-25-2013 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 7:58 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
First of all you need to stop misleading people.

General Relativity is nothing but a generalization of Special Relativity, it is but a subset thereof.

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

quote:
General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.

So, for GRT to apply, it cannot violate SRT

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

quote:
Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in an inertial frame of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

As I said, I have no problem With his paper in the least, it was a physical attempt to explain the electromagnetic properties of space. Even though every action must have an equal and opposite reaction, he then tried to do a force free interpretation. And as interview after interview with the man said, he was never satisfied with his GRT theory.

http://www.pitt.edu/...general_relativity_pathway/index.html

quote:
By his own later judgment, Einstein did not, in the end, find a theory that fully satisfied Mach's Principle. The immediate benefit of his new principle of equivalence, however, was that it let Einstein learn a lot about gravitation. For the principle delivered to Einstein one special case of a gravitational field that, he believed, conformed with relativity theory and in which all bodies truly fell alike. Einstein's program of research on gravity in the five years following 1907 was simply to examine the properties of this one special case and to try to generalize them to recover a full theory. His early hope was that the generalization of the principle of relativity would somehow emerge in the course of those investigations.

In the end, he was never satisfied that GRT met this principle of Mach's, but hoped someday it would emerge. A theory has emerged in the course of those investigations, one that does not call for Fairie Dust, but relies on the very force that all of relativity is based upon, the speed of light, the electromagnetic phenomenon. The cause of the very force that binds the atom.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm

The very force left out in today's twisted interpretation of the underlying force of which SRT was based. This is why you are unable to unite the micro and macro theories, even though you have been trying for over 100 years to do so. Because in one (Micro) the atomic theory you include the electrical force, and in the other (macro) galactic you ignore it, except in your transforms, and then promptly ignore it again. You admit the universe is 99% plasma, then ignore it in every explanation. You measure vast magnetic fields in space then promptly ignore every laboratory experiment ever conducted in magnetic research.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node69.html

Nevermind that magnetic fields could ever exist in a material without a constant electric current at the temperatures of the sun.

http://www.mceproducts.com/...e-base/article/article-dtl.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 7:58 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 10:40 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019