Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,263 Year: 5,520/9,624 Month: 545/323 Week: 42/143 Day: 4/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 93 of 173 (700069)
05-29-2013 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2013 8:26 PM


Re: Predictive Power
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 Moons
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : link
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 8:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2013 5:19 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 05-30-2013 7:35 AM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 96 of 173 (700096)
05-30-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Admin
05-30-2013 7:35 AM


Re: Predictive Power
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 05-30-2013 7:35 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2013 1:43 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 98 of 173 (700155)
05-30-2013 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NoNukes
05-30-2013 1:43 PM


Re: Predictive Power
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2013 1:43 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2013 5:51 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2013 11:59 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 100 of 173 (700185)
05-30-2013 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2013 5:51 PM


Re: Predictive Power
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2013 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2013 4:03 AM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 101 of 173 (700190)
05-30-2013 10:08 PM


Experimental evidence
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.html
It 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Admin, posted 05-31-2013 8:51 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 103 of 173 (700214)
05-31-2013 8:50 AM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Son Goku, posted 05-31-2013 12:03 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 106 of 173 (700266)
05-31-2013 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by JonF
05-31-2013 1:33 PM


Re: What?
Yes, we know all about TB, who like you see the currents and measure them, but just don't think they do anything. So you put geysers on Saturns moon Enceladus (about 3 miles in diameter), yet it doesn't affect its orbit one little bit, whats stopping that? Why do the rings flatten out without observing gravitational effects? Gravity requires them to go up, then down, then back up and down, until the wave settles down, yet they settle almost instantly. We aren't complaining you mention them, but you just ignore any cause and effect after you mention them. Your entire comet theory has been destroyed, yet you still talk of dirty snowballs as if nothing is wrong. Have dust ejected off a comet from an impact at 1000's of mph, yet then it settles back to the exact same spot it came from, because the crater was so much smaller than you ever dreamed, even though the initial event was so much larger than you ever dreamed.
The suns convection currents are 1% of what your theory requires, yet you blithly forge on as if nothing has occurred, not once considering your intial premise might be in error. A premise based upon theory originally put forward by Sydney Chapman, who's theory about the earth environment was proved incorrect over 40 years ago and Birkeland proved correct. That same theory by Chapman that TB uses to calculate his forces. It's no wonder he can't come up with the correct answers, he uses theory proved wrong 40+ years ago.
Your theory about the outer solar system was just dashed to pieces by Voyager, but you again blithly forge on as if nothing has happened, still using theories devised before spacecraft even existed.
NASA Pseudo-skeptic Receives Rebuttal from Electric Universe Theorist
http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf
Although we have yet to figure out what EU theory has to do with creationsim.
And TT as well.
http://electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf
And yet despite all your claims all spacecraft and spacesuits are heavily shielded against radiation so those astronaughts don't get fried, funny how that works huh? And apparently TB isn't aware of tests done. When in space and storms errupt, astronauts head to specially shielded rooms. The Earth's magnetosphere blocks out about 99% of space radiation, and yet sit in the sun for a few hours, get's rather warm doesn't it, and you only get 1%.
http://science.nbcnews.com/...light-on-space-radiation-risks
NASA's Curiosity proves Mars trip would blast humans with radiation | Computerworld
http://www.musc.edu/cando/symp99/acrobat/rad.pdf
Health threat from cosmic rays - Wikipedia
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=radiation%20measur...
So apparently TB knows as much about space radiation as he does about plasma and electric fields, absoluetely nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by JonF, posted 05-31-2013 1:33 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 05-31-2013 7:47 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 06-02-2013 7:40 AM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 07-15-2013 6:06 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 109 of 173 (700287)
05-31-2013 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by JonF
05-31-2013 7:47 PM


Re: What?
I let your own experiments answer it, if you had bothered to read them.
TB's reliance on magnetic field lines drawn off paper shows the ignorance of anything electrical and magnetic. Magnetic fields in plasma have been studied in the lab for over 100 years. There exists no such thing as a magnetic monopole, despite your attempts to theorize magnetic fields behave that way. You can't block them or disconnect them, they are FIELDS, not lines drawn on paper to aid in describing the strength and direction of that FIELD.
Shielding Materials
Is there any material that can block a magnetic force? Specifically does lead block magnetic fields?
Said magnetic field being frozen in plasma at the temperature of the sun without an electric current causing it is absurd.
Not Found
Especially when we know of no other way magnetic fields are formed, except with electric currents.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node77.html
Although you would be better of starting from page one.
Unless you won the Nobel Prize for figuring out another way?????
Your entire theories on how magnetic fields behave is against 100 years of laboratory experiments. Only when an instability occurs and the Double Layer collapses which interrupts the electric current which causes the magnetic FIELD to collapse, is the energy of the entire circuit ejected, along with the plasma that made up the electrical transmission line. A CME. Just as in current laboratory experiments with plasma and electric currents.
You should really read some science based on laboratory experiments for 100 years in plasma, instead of what astrophysicists theorize what happens when none of them have taken a single course in plasma physics and electrical field physics.
They sure wnt to use Alfvens first theory about plasmas might be perfect conductors, then after further experiments he realized they weren't, but he then went ignored, even though it is his megnetohydrodynamic theory you use to explain everything. He tried to tell you plasma was much more complex than simple liquids and gasses, but you ignored him again. But that's standard, just as you ignored Einstein when he told you Black Holes were not a physical reality. I believe SR of which GR is a generalization of, was founded "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." The geometric interpretation thereof a violation of cause and effect, why up until the day he died he was never satisfied with the GR theory.
But that you can ignore 100 years of experimental evidence of magnetic fields and electric currents defies any comprehension. Read something where lab work has been done sometime, instead of stuff based entirely upon imagination of lesser men. E was brilliant, it's too bad you have twisted the entire meaning of his first paper.
I'm sorry I misstated facts, I said 99% of the radiation was blocked by the magnetosphere, Your scientists say 99.9% so I figured I better correct my wrong statement. So you get blisters from setting in the sun too long and only receive .1% on Earth. Nah, it wouldn't fry you without shielding, what was I thinking???...So much for TB's theory. EU predicts more than enough power flowing out to fry you, as a matter of fact we got a number for that, want it?
Solar luminosity - Wikipedia
quote:
"One solar luminosity is equal to the current accepted luminosity of the Sun, which is 3.8391026 W, or 3.8391033 erg/s. The value is slightly higher, 3.9391026 W (equivalent to 4.382109 kg/s or 1.910−16 M☉/d) if the solar neutrino radiation is included as well as electromagnetic radiation.
So if we add your nuclear theory we get a slightly larger number, which just should tell you how much your theory is adding to the equation. Which comes to .1x1026 W. Man that nuclear energy sure is pumping out the power isn't it, LoL. What powers the sun again? How's that theory go?
Here's some of that labwork you like to ignore.
The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Daily Mail Online
Which again, goes against magnetic facts and Lorentz theory you use in Relativity. Magnetic fields can do NO WORK on a particle, they can't force inject nothing, but electric fields can, they accelerate particles. Getting closer though, you'll catch up someday. The sad part is we have just started, while you claim to to be close to a theory of everything.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node72.html
Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets | New Scientist
Spinning objects and gravity, all you got to work with when you use the electric force to cause the effect, didn't see you spinning that test sample to test your theory, just use large electric energy to do it, and we know what electric fields do and charged particles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Po35g23fYI
let me help you with a quote from one of the above papers.
quote:
The exact mechanism is unclear,........The formation soon straightened into a jet because of a simple law of physics - currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other.
I think the mechanism is quite clear. Regardless of the statement that magnetic fields accelerate the particles. Do I need to post again the only known way to accelerate charged particles?
You should of jumped on the wagon from the start instead of fighting it, zt least you then could of used your controlled bomb to explain the electric field and just maybe kept a dying theory alive another 100 years. Doubtfull though, I give it 8 max, 12 for the few diehards.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : correction
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
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 107 by JonF, posted 05-31-2013 7:47 PM JonF has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 111 of 173 (700308)
06-01-2013 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dr Adequate
06-01-2013 4:03 AM


Re: Predictive Power
I posted it, read it many times, it proves my point, did you read it???? The 4 that you say are colliding are further apart from each other (over 39 million ly apart from one another) because of redshift. Yet the one 39 million ly from us that is apparently interacting with the others as the shock wave is clearly visible in all spectrum's not just visible. So 4 galaxies further apart from each other than 39 million ly are interacting while no one would ever dare to suggest that the one you say is closer to us then they are from each other could ever possibly interact with us. Contradictions and misrepresentations. Wave of the hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2013 4:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Panda, posted 06-01-2013 8:52 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 1:54 AM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 115 of 173 (700336)
06-02-2013 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by JonF
06-02-2013 7:40 AM


Re: What?
From those who can dismiss their own scientific results I expect nothing less than obfuscation.
Direct laboratory evidence that electric currents cause solar flares and solar and galactic jets - we'll just ignore them. Blame it on the magnetic fields, even though the only way you could even get the results was to use an electric current running through plasma. We have to use electric currents to cause the effect, but we'll just theorize that another force causes it. Lol, this is science???? To you maybe, but not to people that can actually think. Sheeple.
Mainstream has already ignored everything about comets they learned from Deep Impact. What was observed was just as the EU predicted, in opposition to everything mainstream predicted.
Still think it's a dirty snowball?
We have already seen the predictive power of mainstream theory. Zilch.
Outer solar system?
We have already seen the predictive power of mainstream theory. Zilch.
Sun?
We have already seen the predictive power of mainstream theory. Zilch.
3 strikes you're out.
But you are right, I am probably wrong, it must be that pesky Dark Matter they can't seem to find anywhere, that's it right??? Dark matter must be throwing everything off so we can safely ignore the facts.
I believe the whole purpose of Deep Impact was to study comets, so have you rewrote your theory yet? Or still claiming they are dirty snowballs left over from the formation of the solar system?
You see, the errors set in for the simple fact that astrophysicists only see magnetic fields. Until one actually goes there "in situ" to measure it, voltage cannot be detected. And even thern it's only relative to another voltage nearby in which to measure it in relation to.
Forbidden - Stack Exchange
Just as your theory was off by 99 orders of magnitude on the sun's convection flow. 1% of that required detected, but I don't expect that to affect your beliefs at all, as your science is based upon belief and not facts. Why let facts get in the way of a good story right?
They are attempting to twist what magnetic fields are in their attempt to salvage their theory, hoping the general public is ignorant of what magnetic fields are. And apparently they are. I expect you believe magnetic fields don't need electric currents to form, even though the heat of the sun would destroy any magnetic alignment of atoms unless electric current was being constantly supplied. The rub of it is, they wanted to use the convection to explain their magnetic field reconnection so they could explain the electric currents. Now it's back to square one. Well not quite, they still won't go back and look at the original theory again, just change some numbers. Basically your theory is silly putty they can change at will to fit any observation made (absolutely useless). I am waiting with anticipation to see what they come up with this time. Hmmmm, wonder how much Dark Matter we need to explain these facts away.
But everywhere we go we measure those currents. As a matter of fact we now have an estimate of 15GW leaving the southern pole of Saturn's moon Enceladus thanks to Cassini (an order of magnitude higher than your theorist predicted), although it's sensors weren't designed for it as it wasn't expected as the south pole was believed to be the coldest spot on that little ball of ice. (predictive power again).
Order of magnitude - Wikipedia
They haven't measured the Northern Poles Birkeland Current yet, but have detected its footprint near Saturn's North Pole. Magnetic fields can be detected from afar, and since only charged particles moving in relation to other charged particles (electric current) causes magnetic fields, and magnetic dipole moments when you get to micro, it's only natural that from the micro to the macro:
It's an Electric Universe!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 06-02-2013 7:40 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 10:03 AM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 117 of 173 (700367)
06-02-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Panda
06-02-2013 10:03 AM


Re: What?
You should of read earlier posts before you decided to jump in and throw in your two cents. I'm quite aware we have been there, are you???
You had better check the predictive power of both theories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4
quote:
Initial results were surprising as the material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material. In addition, the material was finer than expected; scientists compared it to talcum powder rather than sand. Other materials found while studying the impact included clays, carbonates, sodium, and crystalline silicates which were found by studying the spectroscopy of the impact.
Deep Impact | PhysicsCentral
quote:
Spectroscopic study of sunlight reflected from Tempel 1’s nucleus provided the first direct evidence for the presence of water ice on a comet. Regions whose spectra showed absorptions characteristic of ice correlated with small bright regions on the nucleus. These regions of ice are so smallonly about .5% of the surfacethat they cannot account for the large amounts of water observed in the coma, so presumably subsurface ice contributes to coma formation.
Yet the material ejected in Deep Impact contained virtully no water but a fine powdered silica.
Your 80% water only accounts for the coma, Not observed on the nucleus except as rare frost. All the material released from deep impact was silica. Not ice and water. The water occured 5 days later and was produced from electrical processes in the coma. The same process that made the water in Haley's coma.
H2O - The Mystery, Art, and Science of Water: The Chemistry of Water: Electrolysis
Deep Impact: Gallery: Images: Spitzer Ejecta Spectral Model
Your own scientific data disagrees with your statement. Your statement is from pre-impact theories, which Deep Impact disproved without doubt. The ejecta was almost pure silicate, not water ice.
Halley's Comet - Wikipedia
quote:
particularly Fred Whipple's "dirty snowball" model, which correctly predicted that Halley would be composed of a mixture of volatile ices — such as water, carbon dioxide and ammonia — and dust.
But your theory about that was disproved.
quote:
The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material
Make up your minds please.
Perhaps you should start at the beginning.
Water and its structure
Although I have yet to see how the data only rules out dirty snowballs, when the ejected material was everything but water ice.
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 116 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 10:03 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 4:27 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 119 of 173 (700385)
06-02-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Panda
06-02-2013 4:27 PM


Re: What?
quote:
The only models of cometary structure astronomers could positively rule out were the very porous models which had comets as loose aggregates of material
This is what your scientists say. Then you are going to tell me that the theory by Fred Whipple is correct when it is of a dirty snowball: a loose aggregates of material? You just disproved that model, and any data that pointed to it being a correct interpretation. This is your very own comet scientists telling you this, not me, not the EU, not Plasma Cosmology, but your very own scientists.
You need to update the books, they are old, you rely on data from pre Deep impact, the experiment that was going to tell you what the stuff of comets was made of. It did: rock.
I included it to show your theory about Halley is INCORRECT, it CAN NOT be an aggregates of material, it is ROCK. Just like every single asteroid in the asteroid belt, the only difference is charge imbalance due to time spent at the edges of the solar system.
Now be true scientists and accept that data for what it is and reconsider your initial assumptions of how comets are formed and what they are made of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 4:27 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 6:03 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 06-03-2013 9:05 AM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 121 of 173 (700422)
06-02-2013 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Panda
06-02-2013 6:03 PM


Re: What?
Irrelevant, Haley's comet was believed to be a loose aggregates of material, a dirty snowball. That theory has been disproved, so that data has been disproved that led to its interpretation as a dirty snowball. The asteroids are NOT loose aggregates of material, they are solid, just as Deep Impact showed Temple 1 to be. they are asteroids on highly elliptical orbits that causes them to become negatively charges in the time spent in the outer solar system, As they approach the sun charge imbalance occurs, and electrical machining of scarps, mesa walls and sharp edges occurs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBD435S9MOI&list=UUvHqXK_...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 6:03 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Panda, posted 06-03-2013 9:09 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 124 of 173 (700444)
06-03-2013 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate
06-03-2013 1:54 AM


Re: Predictive Power
unlike you where your own scientists are telling you something and you are ignoring them???? It's not like I said it, your own scientists say it, yet you disagree, funny how that works. Ahh, I see, data is only good when it seems to fit your theory, otherwise the data is wrong and not the theory, right? Hand waving, dismissal of evidence, makling up Fairy Dust, par for the course. Might not be so bad if every discovery in space since we launched spacecraft didn't come as a surprise to astronomers. So much for their predictive power.
Now I got someone trying to tell me that Fred Whipple was correct about Haley being a dirty snowball when your own scientists say it has been positively ruled out that it could be that. Double talk and misdirection, that is all standard theory has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 1:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 12:28 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 158 by Larni, posted 06-14-2013 7:49 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3287 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 126 of 173 (700446)
06-03-2013 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by JonF
06-03-2013 9:05 AM


Re: What?
Rock is NOT a "loose aggregate of materials" it is NOT a dirty snowball, what Whipple said Haley was and which all your theories said it was, and all your supposed evidence said it was.
But Deep Impact proved all those theories wrong. Apparently you do not understand what a "loose" aggregates material is. Only the EU predicted it would be solid rock, up until the Deep Impact mission you still believed they were dirty snowballs. Now you want to try to twist it. You were wrong and still are wrong. it is a meteor, an asterpoid, there is no difference between the two. One day soon you will realize this, as I said, I give it 8 years max. The theory on the sun has collapsed, the theory on the solar system has collapsed, the theory on comets has collapsed. You are running out of theories, you better get back to the books and start dreaming up some more fairy dust.
The kicker is you won't once reconsider your original theory that led to all these incorrect theories, just change some numbers, adjust the silly putty so the data seems to fit. And then in a few years you will need to do it all over again when that theory is disproved.
A negative result time after time is a falsification of theory. For 20 years every test for Dark matter or Gravitational waves has failed, came back negative. How many falsifications of theory do you need? it only took 6 for you to conclude ether theories were incorrect. How many is it going to take for gravitational waves and dark matter?? We are up to at least 10, now examining the background noise in an attempt to salvage things, but still no luck.
Grow up and be scientists and take it like a man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 06-03-2013 9:05 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Panda, posted 06-03-2013 10:00 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024