Thunderbolts of the Gods

Part 5 - A Little More Concerning Magnetic Reconnection ... That Bulwark Of Mainstream Astrophysics

As I mentioned in Part 2, the mainstream uses *magnetic reconnection* as an explanation of Solar Corona temperatures. Some claim that lab experiments have proven magnetic reconnection of the type envisioned in extraterrestrial phenomena is real. Not true.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/380.pdf "Introduction to Plasma Physics: ... snip ... The Sweet-Parker reconnection ansatz is undoubtedly correct. It has been simulated numerically innumerable times, and was recently confirmed experimentally in the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) operated by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. 37 The problem is that Sweet-Parker reconnection takes place far too slowly to account for many reconnection processes which are thought to take place in the solar system. For instance, in solar flares S ? 10^^8, VA ? 100 kms^^?1, and L ? 10^^4 km. According to the Sweet-Parker model, magnetic energy is released to the plasma via reconnection on a typical time-scale of a few tens of days. In reality, the energy is released in a few minutes to an hour. Clearly, we can only hope to account for solar flares using a reconnection mechanism which operates far faster than the Sweet-Parker mechanism. One, admittedly rather controversial, resolution of this problem was suggested by Petschek. ... snip ... It must be pointed out that the Petschek model is very controversial. Many physicists think that it is completely wrong, and that the maximum rate of magnetic reconnection allowed by MHD is that predicted by the Sweet-Parker model. In particular, Biskamp wrote an influential and widely quoted paper reporting the results of a numerical experiment which appeared to disprove the Petschek model. ... snip ... Probably the most powerful argument against the validity of the Petschek model is the fact that, more than 30 years after it was first proposed, nobody has ever managed to simulate Petschek reconnection numerically (except by artificially increasing the resistivity in the reconnecting region—which is not a legitimate approach)."

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 6 - Problems With Big Bang's Explanation For the Jets From Ordinary Stars And Stellar Formation In General

Next, what do Big Bang supporting astronomers claim in order to explain ordinary jetted stars such as the one below?



Here are just a few word bites from a recent 200+ page collection of articles on the subject by a variety of mainstream astrophysicists:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Xl...fAKft&sig=zd-KYGaWnjY4wU46HrT_ICPbWPE#PPA3,M1 "Jets in Young Stellar Objects: Theory and Observations" edited by Fernandes, Lima, and Garcia, 2004. "Jets indeed are believed to play a key role in the overall star formation process, as they could be responsible, for example, for the removal of excess angular momentum from accreted matter, and for the dispersal of the residual formation envelope. ... snip ... Magneto-centrifugal launching models have been developed by several groups, the most widely known being the 'disk wind' model and the 'X-wind' model, (see Konigl and Pudritz, 2000; Shu et al, 2000). What renders these models particularly attractive is the fact that the outflow extracts angular momentum from the protostar plus disk system, thereby allowing the central object to accrete matter up to its final mass. ... snip ... The evolution of a stellar, initially dipole type magnetosphere interactins with an accretion disk is investigated using numerical ideal MHD simulations. ... snip ... Our model prescribes a Keplerian disk around a rotating star as a fixed boundary condition. The initial magnetic field distribution remains frozen into the star and the disk. ... snip ... In general, magnetic fields are thought to play the leading role for jet acceleration and collimation (Blandford and Payne, 1982; Camenzind, 1990; Shu et al, 1994, Fendt et al, 1995). ... snip ... We choose the initial field distribution of a force-free, current-free stellar magnetic dipole ... snip ... The magnetocentrifugal mechanism (Blandford and Payne, 1982) is a leading candidate for producing jets and outflows observed around young stellar objects. Fluid elements are lifted off and accelerated centrifugally along rapidly rotating field lines firmly anchored on an accretion disk. ... snip ... We treat the Keplerian disk as a lower boundary, where an [open magnetic field is anchored[/b]"

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 7 - Plasma Cosmology's Model For Galaxies

And what about galaxies? What do plasma cosmologists say about them as compared to mainstream astrophysicists?

As has been pointed out earlier on this thread, Alfven's model for galaxies is similar to the one he has for the sun. It's a homopolar motor, also called a unipolar inductor. Here a depiction of it along side the radio emissions from Cygnus A, a powerful radio galaxy.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 8 - Alternative RedShift Explanations ... Yes, There Are Several

Now if all the above suggests that quasars are not at the distance Big Bang cosmologists claim redshifts indicate, how do alternative cosmologists explain the redshift?

Well, first, they seem to agree that there is a local expansion because the distance to the closer objects can be more directly measured than merely assuming redshift = distance. Hannes Alfven and Oskar Klein proposed a model consistent with the observations that many galaxies appear to be moving away from us .... but one where the expansion is a local one, not a universe wide one. In their model, there are regions of matter and antimatter throughout the universe. When these regions come in contact, a titanic explosion occurs, scattering everything in the region, and giving the appearance, if you are in one of those regions, that the whole universe is expanding.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 9 - More Alternative Redshift Explanations

There are other alternative explanations for redshift that need to be considered. One is that redshift is due, at least in part, to something in interstellar/intergalactic space, or something basic to space itself. The term "tired light" was coined in the early 1930s to describe this possibility. Many respected scientists still support the notion of tired light as an explanation of redshift ... Dr. Grote Reber of the University of Tasmania and Dr. Paul Marmet of the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Ottawa come to mind. I think the verdict is still out.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 10 - What About The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?

Let's consider another major claim by Big Bang's proponents ... namely, that Big Bang theorists successfully predicted the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. Joseph Silk referred to the results as “the cornerstone of Big Bang cosmology” in 1992. They claim this temperature was predicted by Gamow before Penzias and Wilson detected and measured it. But that's completely false. According to multiple sources (such as http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html ), Gamow actually predicted a series of temperatures, none of which actually came close to the measured value. He started with an estimate of 5K in 1948, raised it to 10K in the 1950's, and then in 1961 revised it upwards again to 50K. In doing so, he even ignored observations by astronomer Andrew Kellar who in 1941 announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules. Yet in textbook after textbook, he gets credit for "predicting" the background temperature of 2.7K.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 11 - Problems With Large Structures And The Age Of The Universe

The size of certain structures at cosmological distances and some inconsistencies regarding the age of the universe under various Big Bang models assumptions pose some serious problems for Big Bang. Of course, plasma cosmology makes no claim about the age of the universe so it faces none of these problems.

The following is abbreviated from a summary of the structure problem by Eric Lerner at http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm :

First, even calculations by Big Bang advocates show that the large structures we observe in the universe would take about 5 times as long to form as the hypothetical time since the Big Bang (the Hubble time), even with the help of dark matter. Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These voids typically have diameters around 140 to 170 Mpc (taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity. These are merely the largest structures commonly observed in present-day surveys of galaxies. Still larger structures may exist, but are few in number for the simple reason that they are comparable in size with the scope of the surveys themselves. The observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume.

Measurements of the large scale bulk streaming velocities of galaxies indicate average velocities around 200 to 250 km/sec. Let's look at results of large scale structure formation obtained by those who support the Big Bang, and whose calculations assume that the Big Bang happened. For a cold dark matter Big Bang model, the time T in years, of formation of a void R cm in diameter in matter with density n/cm3 and final, present-day, velocity V cm/s is [ J.J. Levin et al, Astrophys J. vol 389, p464]: T=1.03*n^^-1/4*V^^-1/2*R^^1/2 . For V=220 Km/sec, R=85 Mpc and n =2.4x10-7 /cm3 (assuming the ratio of baryons to photons, h=6.14x 10^^-10), T= 158 Gy. This is more than 11 times as long as the Hubble time. Even if we increase n to reflect current assumptions about dark matter being some 6 times as abundant as ordinary matter, we still get 100 Gy, over 7 times the Hubble time.

Detailed computer simulations, which also include the hypothesized "cosmological constant" (Lambda) run into the same contradictions in that they produce voids that are far too small. Simulations with a variety of assumptions can produce voids as large typically as about 35 Mpc, a factor of 5 smaller than those actually observed on the largest scales. In addition, such simulated voids have bulk flow velocities that are typically 10% of the Hubble flow velocities which mean that voids larger than 60 Mpc, even if they could be produced in Big Bang simulations, would generate final velocities in excess of those observed, and voids as large as 170 Mpc would generate velocities of over 600 km/s, nearly 3 times the observed velocities. Thus even with dark mater AND a cosmological constant, it is impossible for the Big Bang theory to produce voids as large as those observed today with galactic velocities as small as those today. As was true in 1991, the large-scale structures are too big for the Big Bang. They in fact must be far older than the "Big Bang".
Click to expand...

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 12 - Problems With The Mainstream's Model Of Comets

How about comets? You'd think that if the mainstream astrophysics community has a handle on things at the very edge of the universe, explaining comets in our backyard should be a cinch. Mainstream scientists think comets are just "dirty snowballs" and that space isn't full of electricity. They think that radiant heat from the sun turns the ice of the comet directly into vapor and that where the heat penetrates the surface, jets form. Have mainstream astronomers been *predictive* where they are concerned? Hardly. It's been one surprise after another for mainstream astrophysicists.

The plasma community, in constrast, has done MUCH better. Here is an excellent summary (from 2006) of how plasma/electric universe advocates see comets: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf . It starts with a detailed discussion of the differences between the mainstream model and the electric comet model. It then explores some of the observations from various comets (Hale-Bopp, Wild 2) that show the electric model makes far more sense than the mainstream model. It lists the predictions that were made by the electric model theorists for the Deep Impact mission to Comet Temple 1 and shows how well they were matched by the observations (more on that below). It asks the question "where is the water" and shows how that same question can be asked in comet after comet (the mainstream model says there should be water but it's missing). It discusses the discovery of materials in comets supposedly formed in deep (cold) space that require extreme heat to form (an observation which prevailing mainstream theories of the solar system's formation cannot explain). It explains the x-rays that have been observed coming from comets (an observation that was also a surprise to the mainstream). It takes a look at the break up of comets at immense distances from the sun which have mystified mainstream modelers but which electric comet proponents have no problem explaining. It suggests a reason why CMEs seem to be correlated with the sun's close encounters with comets.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 13 - Problems Explaining Observations On Io, One Of Jupiter's Moons

Before the Galileo probe, NASA claimed that the plumes the earlier Voyager probe had observed rising from Jupiter's moon Io were volcanoes. But as early as 1979 some in the plasma cosmology community speculated that the eruptions on Io were driven by electrical phenomena. Indeed, Electric Universe proponent Wal Thornhill disputed NASA's claim and made three predictions. First, that the vents of the "volcanic" plumes would be much hotter than lava. Second, that the plumes would turn out to be the jets of cathode arcs, and that they would not explode from a volcanic vent but move around and erode the periphery of dark areas (called "lava lakes" by the mainstream astronomers). Third, that the "lava lakes" themselves would be merely the solid surface of Io etched electrically by cathode arcs and exposed from beneath the sulfur dioxide "snow" (and that the lakes would be cold, not hot like a lava lake).

Well it turns out that measurements now show that Thornhill was right. Io and Jupiter are connected by a 'flux tube' that contains a gigantic electric current. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/hst6.html "The new Hubble observations simultaneously show warped oval rings at the north and south poles (offset from Jupiter's spin axis by 10-15 degrees), as well as an auroral "footprint" created by a river of electrical current of about one million amperes flowing between Jupiter and the volcanic moon Io."

NASA claimed the plumes were so hot that they overloaded Galileo's sensors, producing whiteouts on the image. NASA colored the whiteouts to make them red and yellow to mimic lave spouts. The whiteouts were all located at the edges of the so-called "lava lakes," as predicted by Thornhill, and the dark floors of the supposed lava lakes were cold, as also predicted. And, as predicted, no volcanic vent could be found. Additionally, it was discovered that the plumes emitted ultraviolet light, a signature of electric discharge. It was discovered that the plume of the "volcano" Prometheus had moved 80 kilometers since imaging by Voyager--the very thing one would expect of an electric arc, and the last thing expected of a volcano.

Meanwhile, mainstream astrophysicists are still scratching their heads.
 
Part 14 - Explaining Pioneer Spacecraft Motions

The motions of the Pioneer Spacecraft have been puzzling to mainstream astronomers. I use http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html as my source.

"Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph filed this report: Mysterious force holds back NASA probe in deep space, A SPACE probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of physics. Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature. Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: “We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.” “If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation,” said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California.
Click to expand...

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 15 - Explaining Voyager Spacecraft Data

In December 2004, as the Voyager 1 spacecraft reached a distance of about 94 AU from the Sun, it experienced a dramatic decrease in velocity. Mainstream astrophysicists interpreted this to mean the spacecraft was entering a turbulent region, called the termination shock (depicted below), where supersonic solar "wind" meets a subsonic interstellar "wind" and the environment becomes denser and hotter. The increased density leads to higher magnetic fields (approximately twice as high according to Voyager 1 instruments).

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 16 - A Wrap Up

I hope you enjoyed this stroll through the problems currently faced by Big Bang Cosmology's and the astrophysics that its proponents espouse. I hope you now see there is a viable alternative ... plasma cosmology/astronomy ... that can resolve each of those problems in a logical, consistent and experimentally/observationally based manner. No magic gnomes.

Let's just summarize a few important points about plasmas so next time you see mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists using the word "gas", you can put on your skeptic hat.

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051031plasma.htm

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rats said:
I'm not going to waste a precious hour watching the video, ... snip ... Apparently the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion in its core but because it is "connected to the electric circuitry of the galaxy," as 'proven' (in Thunderbolts' view) by the fact sunspots are cooler in their centre than outside
Click to expand...

Well, it's good to see you have an open mind and are fully versed in the facts. :rolleyes:

rats said:
For comparison with reality (i.e. theories that are supported by experiment), here's a nice starting point. Let me know if you need detailed arguments.
Click to expand...

Ok. Care to point us to some of the experiments? For example,

Which experiment has duplicated the physics in the corona and modeled the energy transfer that produces the observed temperatures? None you say?

You did notice that the website you link says " Magnetic fields on the Sun seem to play an important part in heating the gas to such a high temperature. However, the exact way that this happens is not well understood." That's an understatement.

Now, in contrast, Electric Sun theorists seem able to explain what is observed using physics tested every day in a fluorescent light.

Which experiment (or theory) has proven the existance of fast reconnection as seen in solar flares and claimed for transporting energy to the corona? Or was Alfven right and fast reconnection is a chimera?

Which experiment (or theory) has explained the extreme variations in x-ray output observed in the 1990s by the Yohkoh satellite? Or neutrino output?

Which experiment (or theory) explains the succession of the solar wind for 3 days back in 1999 (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm )? Did the fusion reaction at the heart of the sun just stop for 3 days?

Which experiment (or theory) explains the rapid changes in the granular behavior at the surface of the sun. If they are due to variations in the energy percolating up from below (a journey that takes hundreds of thousands of years or more), wouldn't theory predict much less variation given the process takes so long with so much mixing taking place during that time?

Which experiment (or theory) explains why the solar wind increases in velocity as it moves farther and farther out? What force is acting on it? Which experiment explains the motions of pioneer?

And comets? Tell us again how they work and conform to observations.

What are sunspots? Not what do they look like ... what are they? What causes them? Surely NASA knows after so much research. No? Well the Electric Sun proponents can explain them. And quite easily.

See, I'm eager to hear the details from someone so knowledgeable.
 
e-sabbath said:
This shreds the general Electric Universe theory pretty well. It's cute, but... basically, it goes 'given the current information from the sun' and then waves its hands frantically.
Click to expand...

Really? You think that? Well let's discuss it here on this thread. I provided 14 posts summarizing the major arguments against mainstream thinking and what the Electric Universe proponents suggest instead. Care to take one of them and show where what I've written is "hand waving". :)
 
NobbyNobbs said:
I like the bit about electromagnetic forces being stronger than gravity. No mention whatsoever of distances involved.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Imagine a vast cloud of plasma. Now which force do you think has a larger effect on that cloud. Gravity or electromagnetic force?

If it's gravity, what creates these?
Do not hotlink.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T-Diddy said:
Incidentally, can anybody speak to the credentials of the Thunderbolt Team? ... snip ... I have a feeling most are quacks,
Click to expand...

You might be interested to learn that The American Institute of Physics has just recently announced that they will officially recognize the Plasma Universe as an official field of study in physics! Just a bunch of quacks?

Perhaps you are not aware that a split has taken place in the research community. Magic gnome believing astronomers and astrophysicists are on one side while electrical engineers and renowned experts in plasma (such as Dr Anthony Peralt) are on the other. They are moving in different directions. One towards more gnomes and the other towards a rational examination of the data. The later community has begun to hold their own IEEE sponsored conventions and publish papers in their own IEEE journals ... because they've essentially given up on the other community dealing with the subject in a scientific and fair manner. And I don't blame them.

Of course you are invited to focus your intellect on the 14 posts I just made explaining in some detail the defects in the mainstream model and what the Electric Universe community offers instead. Any specific comments?
 
Schneibster said:
Oh, and as far as the physics goes, well, don't go there. Just don't.
Click to expand...

No, let's do. Let's see you try to take apart the 14 posts I offered on various defects in the mainstream (Big Bang) model and what the Electric Universe theorists propose. Pick one and begin ... if you dare.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Electromagnetism is way more powerful than gravity....at short range. Over the long haul, gravity reigns. Which is why Newton's Laws, rather than Maxwell's equations, explain why the moon is in orbit.
Click to expand...

Define short range. A good case can be made that electromagnetism is seen to affect the shape of structures in space that are a million light years in size. Dr Peralt has demonstrated with state of the art PIC codes at LANL that electromagnetic effects affect the formation and motions of entire galaxies. And explain how gravity led to a solar system with most of the angular momentum in the planets and not the sun. Explain how gravity caused alone caused the planets (and moon) to form. Because right now NASA can't. See?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060328_gas_giant.html "Death Spiral: Why Theorists Can't Make Solar Systems, Ker Than, 8 March 2006 ... snip ... ccording to the standard model of planet formation, called "core accretion," planets form over millions of years as enormous blocks of rock and ice smash together to form planetary embryos, called "protoplanets," and eventually full-fledged planets. Most scientists agree that core accretion is how terrestrial planets such as Earth and Mars were created, but the model can't convincingly explain how gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn came to be. One major problem is that developing gas giants through core accretion takes too long. According to the best current models, the process requires several million years-longer than the typical observed lifetime of the stellar gas disks from which planets are born. The other main difficulty is the so-called "migration" problem. Protoplanets are not sitting stationary in the gas disks as they bulk up. Due to gravitational interactions with the disks, the protoplanets swirl rapidly inwards toward their central stars in what scientists call "Type 1" migration. Models predict that this death spiral can take as little as 100,000 years. This so-called "migration" problem is the toughest challenge facing theorists trying to explain gas giant formation through core accretion, said Alan Boss, a planet formation expert at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "The migration problem is scary," Boss told SPACE.com. "[The models] are off by a factor of 10 or 100, so you really have to wonder if there's going to be a solution here."
 
Davidlpf said:
Over at BAUT this group has been there for a while trying to push the E;ectric Universe or Plasma Universe stuff. They in general do not what they talking about.
Click to expand...

You should understand that there are many different proposals within the alternative Electric Universe/Plasma Universe community. Some are quacks. Even I once thought the electric star notion was nonsense (before I carefully looked it over). And why shouldn't there be various ideas since so little money (in comparison to mainstream cosmology and astrophysics) has been spent in the area. The fact remains that there are many problems with mainstream claims (as evidenced by my 14 posts) and the alternative ideas I cited do seem to be defensible. I'm willing to try.

You are welcome to try and show I don't know what I'm talking about. :D
 
Dancing David said:
Gravity does have an effect at very long ranges, but it is in cosmology
Click to expand...

A good case can be made that so does electromagnetism. In fact, a Nobel prize winning physicist in the area of plasma made that case. Especially if there's lots of time.

Dancing David said:
and the dark matter theory
Click to expand...

Dark matter is a gnome. It was invented to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. But experts in plasma physics and electromagnetism have proven that you don't need dark matter to explain those rotation curves. You just have to include electromagnetism in the model of galaxies ... which mainstream astrophysicists simply refuse to do. And after more than 30 years, one would think there would be at least some experimental evidence here on earth that dark matter actually exists. But there isn't. Mainstream researchers are no closer to knowing what dark matter is than they were 30 years ago.

Perhaps because it doesn't exist.

Dancing David said:
This led Hubble to theorise that the universe is expanding.
Click to expand...

This not true. Hubble said that he didn't know if the universe was expanding or not. He said "If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." (E. Hubble, Roy. Astron. Soc. M. N., 17, 506, 1937)

Dancing David said:
And plasma cosmology can not explain this effect.
Click to expand...

This is not true either, as anyone who reads Parts 8 and 9 of my posts will see. They do offer explanations for the redshift which have not been ruled out by observations or experiments here on earth. Tell me David, why do you assume all the matter in the universe was created in the Big Bang when there is another solution to Einstein's General Relativity that says otherwise?

Dancing David said:
Hypothesis: the EM forces of a galaxy are sufficient to create this rotational speed.
(I have not seen this explained well yet, just a lot of handwaving.)
Click to expand...

I posted links to peer reviewed articles by Dr Anthony Peralt and others on this topic. Read those sources and you'll find the theory is explained well and proven with large scale computer calculations on validated computer codes at LANL. "handwaving" is not at all a fair description of the material I have offered on this matter in the past or in this thread. On the contrary, your unsupported dismissal of Peralt's work and your defense of dark matter (which is what?) as the cause of the rotation curve flatness is what I'd call a bad case of "hand waving". :)

Dancing David said:
Halton Arp looked at galaxies that appear to have been disrupted in some way, usually through collision.
Click to expand...

Not true. Many if not most of the objects that Arp has looked at over time are not the result of a collision ... although the source galaxies may be disrupted due to internal energy release. I've posted a fair representation of the data in Post #1.
 
Davidlpf said:
Here is an article that explains at least on of your cases BeAChooser.
http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/NGC3079text.html
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the 21 quasars around NGC 3079 result from gravitationally lensing 1 quasar? No, your source is only saying that 2 apparent quasars are the result of lensing 1 quasar. In fact, your source points out that only a few dozen such lensed quasars have been found in all the sky. And even some of those that are claimed as such (like the Einstein Cross) are clearly debatable ... as I think I showed in Part 1.
 
I am still deciding whether to mark reposting of material from an existing web site in this forum as spam. The moderators may pre-empt me. If they do not, and I do not, you may expect a point-by-point response as I have time to make one.
 
Last edited:
Hiya BAC!

I am glad you are back to the fray, once I have DSl access i will respond to as many of your posts as I can, I hope you will be more gracious than the last time.

Please take the time to address where specifics are mentioned. I spent a great deal of time on your last set of posts and actually read a lot and looked at a lot.

You were rather rude and ignored the vast majority of anything that i posted that did not fit your model.

I hope to engage in discussion again.


BeAChooser said:
A good case can be made that so does electromagnetism. In fact, a Nobel prize winning physicist in the area of plasma made that case. Especially if there's lots of time.
Click to expand...
See here you are again, 'a physcists made the case', presnt the case then, not your spamming of the forum with your preprepared mateial.

What is the case and how is it made, What is the data.

Oh, I know go through your fourteen posts.

Okay, but try to respond this time when I do.

:)
Dark matter is a gnome. It was invented to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. But experts in plasma physics and electromagnetism have proven that you don't need dark matter to explain those rotation curves. You just have to include electromagnetism in the model of galaxies ... which mainstream astrophysicists simply refuse to do. And after more than 30 years, one would think there would be at least some experimental evidence here on earth that dark matter actually exists. But there isn't. Mainstream researchers are no closer to knowing what dark matter is than they were 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Duh, I suppose we can discuss neutrinos and Gell-mann again when it comes to gnomes in the garden.

there are plenty.
Perhaps because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
perhaps it doesn't (duh), but your assertion that the EM forces acount for the ffects were unsubstantiated last time, but please elaborate again.

Specific responses to specific questions and points.
This not true. Hubble said that he didn't know if the universe was expanding or not. He said "If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." (E. Hubble, Roy. Astron. Soc. M. N., 17, 506, 1937)
Click to expand...
Do you really want to fight over the sue of the word theorise, whatever.
This is not true either, as anyone who reads Parts 8 and 9 of my posts will see. They do offer explanations for the redshift which have not been ruled out by observations or experiments here on earth. Tell me David, why do you assume all the matter in the universe was created in the Big Bang when there is another solution to Einstein's General Relativity that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
I will see what you have this time, you are the one who rules stuff out of hand, please don't place your really bad attitude upon me, just further proof that you didn't read much of what i wrote.

Further rudeness, so soon?

I suppose you are waving your arms already to excuse the fact that you didn't actually read what I post.

pathetic.
I posted links to peer reviewed articles by Dr Anthony Peralt and others on this topic. Read those sources and you'll find the theory is explained well and proven with large scale computer calculations on validated computer codes at LANL. "handwaving" is not at all a fair description of the material I have offered on this matter in the past or in this thread. On the contrary, your unsupported dismissal of Peralt's work and your defense of dark matter (which is what?) as the cause of the rotation curve flatness is what I'd call a bad case of "hand waving". :)
Click to expand...
It would be funny if you actaully read what i post.

But that is your problem, i open minded, but please continue to play the trool.

Prove yourself a better person this time.

You just don't care to repond to what i actually post.

hey dude, get off your wagan, i did not make an 'unsupported dismissal', you are just throw straw.

Do you actuallu know how to talk without all the pathetic porr ass debate tactics/

Jeesh dude, i take the time to read what you post, extend me the same courtesy.
Not true. Many if not most of the objects that Arp has looked at over time are not the result of a collision ... although the source galaxies may be disrupted due to internal energy release. I've posted a fair representation of the data in Post #1.
Click to expand...

Many of the Arp objects and the more spectacular ones are the result of gravitational collision, but if you feel I mischaracterised it i am sorry for that.


Already with the whining.

i will try again but your poor manners are so hard to work around.

try something other than Dick Chaney and Karl Rove as role models , please.
 
BeAChooser, I would like to formally object to your use of the term "Gnome" to describe non existent things. I am Da' Gnome an most certainly do exist!;)

Thanks very much for this information. You have presented it in a very logical and easily understood manner for laymen. I would suggest that you also try your ideas at Skeptic Friends Network; they have had many talks concerning this topic.
 
Just in case the heavy hand of censorship falls here, what website is this information published on?
 
BeAChooser said:
You are welcome to try and show I don't know what I'm talking about. :D
Click to expand...

Not being that smart on these matters, I'm more likely to ask a bunch of questions. You covered a lot of material here. TEGO occured about post 4.

Be patient.
 
BeAChooser said:
You might be interested to learn that The American Institute of Physics has just recently announced that they will officially recognize the Plasma Universe as an official field of study in physics! Just a bunch of quacks?

Perhaps you are not aware that a split has taken place in the research community. Magic gnome believing astronomers and astrophysicists are on one side while electrical engineers and renowned experts in plasma (such as Dr Anthony Peralt) are on the other. They are moving in different directions. One towards more gnomes and the other towards a rational examination of the data. The later community has begun to hold their own IEEE sponsored conventions and publish papers in their own IEEE journals ... because they've essentially given up on the other community dealing with the subject in a scientific and fair manner. And I don't blame them.
Click to expand...
Im pretty sure your just hijacking some legitimate research. Either that or it is a complete and utter fraud. I may be going to college for electrical engineering but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the universe as a whole. It's an argument from authority. Your also lying. There is no IEEE journal dedicated for this crap.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
I may be going to college for electrical engineering but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the universe as a whole.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding?

Electricity has nothing to do with the universe as a whole?

One does not have to understand or subscribe to these theories to understand that your statement is foolish.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Electricity has nothing to do with the universe as a whole?
Click to expand...
No engineering doesn't entirely explain how the universe works as a whole. It's generally a really gross simplification.
PS. Five minutes through that crap and I can't stand it anymore. They used the term electric discharge machining. He's another Max Photon.
Now, NASA's terminology in describing this phenomena is more suitable to supersonic aircraft in an electrically neutral atmosphere than a spacecraft in an ionized and magnetized solar environment. And some observations just don't seem to fit the expectations and models of NASA.
Click to expand...
Space is a vacuum where are we getting all these ions from???
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
PS. Five minutes through that crap and I can't stand it anymore. They used the term electric discharge machining. He's another Max Photon.
Space is a vacuum where are we getting all these ions from???
Click to expand...

As long as you are admitting that you are dismissing the ideas without examining the information.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
As long as you are admitting that you are dismissing the ideas without examining the information.
Click to expand...
No. You see. Im not an idiot. Reading through his spam I'm seeing contradictions that doesn't make a dam bit of sense. For example:
In the electric/plasma model, a double flash was expected because the impactor and comet would have different charges. A potential difference -a voltage- exists between them. When the impactor gets close to the surface, an electrical discharge -lightning- flashes between impactor and nucleus. If the impactor is not torn apart by the discharge, it will produce a second flash when it impacts moments later.
Click to expand...
I'll leave you to try and figure out why this doesn't make any sense.
 
technoextreme said:
Im pretty sure your just hijacking some legitimate research. Either that or it is a complete and utter fraud. I may be going to college for electrical engineering but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the universe as a whole. It's an argument from authority. Your also lying. There is no IEEE journal dedicated for this crap.
Click to expand...

Typical emotional response. Illogical conclusions, claims made with no evidence or even reasons.

Claiming somebody is lying is insulting. Are you a troll?


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf&arnumber=4287093
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom