BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
With statements like this, you only demonstrate that you fundamentally do not understand electric current ... among other things.
Dark matter and Dark energy
- Thread starter DanishDynamite
- Start date
With statements like this, you only demonstrate that you fundamentally do not understand electric current ... among other things.
No kidding. I hoped it was viewed as dumb. Which it was. And it added nothing to the discussion.
I do read about everything, and even though I don't understand a lot of it, it is still interesting. This dark matter is very interesting.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
What you have to understand Keith is that there are a lot of alternative theories being proposed to explain what is observed ... to fill in the holes that mainstream theory has clearly not successfully explained. And not everyone in the alternative cosmology/astrophysics/solarphysics communities believes or promotes every theory. You have to understand that there are even different factions within the electric sun community. I've made no effort to try and reduce them to a single theory ... I've simply thrown out a lot of material to garner some interest ... so that's part of the reason the explanations are so scattered and perhaps inconsistent.
So don't throw out the notion that electromagnetic phenomena are more likely an explanation for rotation curves, jets and other phenomena just because you think an electric sun is a wacky idea. They aren't necessarily connected. And the electric sun model may be right ... or may not. We don't really know at this point ... regardless of what Ziggurat claims. (Keep in mind that Ziggurat also authoritatively told everyone that most of the ordinary matter in the universe is not plasma and that plasma could only exist at high temperatures inside stars or right after the Big Bang.) Ziggurat is trying to discredit all the alternative ideas based on a single number that might be wrong in a single one of those theories. On a calculation using a model of the sun's charge that might be wrong. On an incomplete understanding of how charge behaves in the sun. On an incomplete understanding of electromagnetism.
And also keep in mind that when mainstream proponents and theorists have historically claimed that there is no reason to think electric currents explain solar and interplanetary phenomena, they have been proven wrong again and again. Be it auroras, the phenomena around Jupiter and Saturn, or what we can see happening on and above the sun. The truth is that we don't know what is going on inside the sun and mainstream theorists are having a great deal of trouble explaining in any consistent manner what is going on at the surface and above the sun. Maybe it's time that we listened to the folks that have gotten predictions right over and over rather than the folks that are continually "surprised"?
I suggest you go read some of those EU sites I've linked, read Donald Scott's book "Electric Sky", and look back over some previous threads where I've tried to summarize some of the electric star theories and other EU/PC notions. Do that, and I think you'll find they have a very self-consistent explanation for a wide spectrum of observed phenomena on and above the sun ... and throughout the solar system ... as well as a clear explanation for other types of stars and various other stellar phenomena (such as jets) ... provided there is current moving from deep space towards the sun ... or provided stars behave like homopolar motors (and electric circuits) instead of the way the mainstream theorizes using MHD models and physics that even the inventor of MHD said were bogus.
Maybe we should actually do an experiment to see what currents exist in space and whether the sun is charged ... rather than take Ziggurat's word that they don't? The fact that the mainstream won't even consider proven to exist physics such as Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers, and z-pinches when looking at the cause of astronomical phenomena that clearly have the characteristics of those phenomena should be a red flag. The fact that they instead rely on such bogus physics as open field lines, magnetic reconnection and frozen-in magnetic fields should be a red flag. The fact that they ignore any observation or calculation which challenges their claim that redshift always equals distance (on which much of their cosmological theories rest) should be a red flag. The fact that they require mystical beasts such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy and perhaps even dark forces to exist in such a ubiquitous manner should be a red flag. Those things should make you a little suspicious that perhaps the mainstream theory isn't quite as solid as is claimed in the press and by it's well-funded proponents. Perhaps a more careful look at some of the alternatives is in order ... instead of single mindedly pursuing mainstream notions to the exclusion of everything else. What reasonable folks like these: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ , are asking is not unreasonable in light of the above situation.
And if the alternatives are as false as Ziggurat and his peers claim, let's see them produce some peer reviewed scientific articles that SPECIFICALLY rule out a charged sun, electric currents flowing from interstellar space, Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers, homo-polar motors and z-pinches as explanations for observed phenomena. Let's see some peer reviewed scientific papers for once that SPECIFICALLY challenge the observations and calculations of scientists like Arp regarding high redshift objects. Instead of continuing the status quo of ignoring all of the above and continuing a march down a road that may in the end be a dead end.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
So then you don't believe in the magnetic reconnection gnome. Please tell The Man that.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
But the situation under discussion is two neutrons hitting one another head on, not neutrons hitting atoms or even the nuclei of atoms.
Regardless, I'm done discussing this particular issue since I no longer even have an idea where it fits into the overall debate.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
You really are tiresome, David. Here is a link that answers the question you asked: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm . That link was provided on threads several times where you were posting but I guess you never got around to actually looking at it. Which isn't a first.
Now here is a repeat of my question which comes from information at that link. Let's see if YOU can provide an explanation or a link to an explanation as I just did for your question.
Regarding V838 Monocertis, NASA's Picture of the Day announced "Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles."
Those two types of stars are in completely different areas of the HR diagram. Given that under mainstream theory stars on the HR diagram are supposed to "evolve" from one location to another over perhaps millions of years, how do you explain what happened to that star? As noted above, NASA didn't have an answer. But the link I supplied to you does. And if you can't answer this question, David, given that the link I supplied does indeed address yours, who is the "arm waving", "childish" "troll" here?
Belz...
Fiend God
Stop trying to attack me and get to the damn points. I'll handle my schedule, thank you very much. The fact is that the link didn't work for me. Period.
"Far too long" cannot be a fact. It can only be an opinion because "too long" is not a number. It's not even an approximation. It's an emotional response.
No, that's because I'm a layman. Besides, Ziggurat seems to be handling you quite well on his own in that department.
That's right. _I_ haven't. Why do you keep trying to make this a "you vs me" thing ?
And how about the pistol thingy ?
But they still can't get rid of the damn thing, can they ?
How do you infer that from this:
Belz... said:
???
Sorry, but I think it is entirely fair to suggest that all you've done is create a dark universe with no clear origin to explain away the origin of the universe we can actually see.
Science isn't trying to satisfy you, Chooser. It's trying to understand the mechanics behind what we see. It doesn't care whether you like the answer or not.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I really liked the stuff about dark posting as well, I wonder if we could find lensing of distant posts from dark posts?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Hi BAC,
Your link does not answer the question at all, in fact it makes a bogus assertion from the start of the red giant discussion:
So to make it plain, you did not answer the question, as usual, you pointed to something else and claimed it was the answer and still didn't answer the question:
How does the electric sun model explain the red giant?
You linked to something about one star in your quote about the Monoceros star (which is great) but you still did not answer the question about the electric sun model explaining red giants.
More arm waving, spinning and distraction.
This points out again the big area where the electric sun model is very blind, nucleosynthesis.
A red giant star is considered to be older than a yellow star (like our sun) for what reason, the larger amount of the heavier element especially He.
So if the mainstream model accounts for the transition from a star like the sun to a red giant by the core collapse and the fusing of he, what does the electric sun model have to account for the higher percentage of He in red giant stars, it says that they are not older and it is not as though they occur in areas of higher He concentration.
Also
This gets even worse BAC, in the mainstream model a star can transform very quickly from the main sequence to one of the other pockets on the HR diagram, the transition itself can be very quick. the buildup of He can take billions of years but the transition to red giant is not that slow. It can certainly happen in a human lifetime and in some cases a matter of weeks.
You do know that the mainstream model can explain many variable stars, I can imagine the hash that the electric sun model would make of that, especially the flaring companion dwarf stars.
then there is the whole issue of the stars they choose to refute the fusion stars model, gosh they just ignore what they don't like again and misrepresent the rest.
How you coming on the magnetic field strength needed for the Perrat model to move the sun?
Where do the elements past iron come from in the electric sun model BAC/
How to account for the relative proportion of H, He and Li?
The list of questions you will refuse to answer will continue to grow, I bet that the red giant He ratio will join the list.
Your link does not answer the question at all, in fact it makes a bogus assertion from the start of the red giant discussion:
So to make it plain, you did not answer the question, as usual, you pointed to something else and claimed it was the answer and still didn't answer the question:
How does the electric sun model explain the red giant?
You linked to something about one star in your quote about the Monoceros star (which is great) but you still did not answer the question about the electric sun model explaining red giants.
More arm waving, spinning and distraction.
that is answered if you wish to know, which you don't.
How then does this model account for the difference of the elements heavier than hydrogen in a red giant?
This points out again the big area where the electric sun model is very blind, nucleosynthesis.
A red giant star is considered to be older than a yellow star (like our sun) for what reason, the larger amount of the heavier element especially He.
So if the mainstream model accounts for the transition from a star like the sun to a red giant by the core collapse and the fusing of he, what does the electric sun model have to account for the higher percentage of He in red giant stars, it says that they are not older and it is not as though they occur in areas of higher He concentration.
Also
This gets even worse BAC, in the mainstream model a star can transform very quickly from the main sequence to one of the other pockets on the HR diagram, the transition itself can be very quick. the buildup of He can take billions of years but the transition to red giant is not that slow. It can certainly happen in a human lifetime and in some cases a matter of weeks.
You do know that the mainstream model can explain many variable stars, I can imagine the hash that the electric sun model would make of that, especially the flaring companion dwarf stars.
then there is the whole issue of the stars they choose to refute the fusion stars model, gosh they just ignore what they don't like again and misrepresent the rest.
How you coming on the magnetic field strength needed for the Perrat model to move the sun?
Where do the elements past iron come from in the electric sun model BAC/
How to account for the relative proportion of H, He and Li?
The list of questions you will refuse to answer will continue to grow, I bet that the red giant He ratio will join the list.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,215
After having relied upon link after link discussing what happens in neutron-nuclei collisions, not neutron-neutron collisions, you want to back out now because you realize you don't know what you're talking about? Oh, that's just too funny.
Regardless, I'm done discussing this particular issue since I no longer even have an idea where it fits into the overall debate.
You never did to begin with. You just thought you had an opening to show I was wrong about something, but were merely ignorant and confused yourself.
OK now I am going to stop being funny for a minute. OK, I am going to TRY and stop being funny. In this and the EU topics, I really enjoy both sides of the debate. In a strange way the main combatants are in opposite camps, but in the same boat, sort of. Electric U supporters are going with observation and what they know, trying to explain things that are difficult for most of us to imagine, much less calculate out. No, not you, you are really smart and can do the maths, I mean us, the regular people who tend to nod our heads and go "uh huh" while our eyes glaze over. DM supporters are doing the same thing, except they have a tougher road, because DM doesn't have any earth bound examples, or any way to experiment at all. I think.
But all sides, I think, are trying to understand, to explain, the vast and powerful and wondrous nature of our shared Universe, which anybody who has really looked at knows, is really really big, and very energetic. Not only beautiful, but mysterious, and every time we think we might actually have a good idea of what in the hell is going on, something new is observed, and we have to scratch our heads, reminding us of our monkey ancestors, faced with something like fire, just going, "oooh, look at that!", or something.
Meanwhile Ook goes "It is alive!", and Mook says, "No! It is from the Gods!", and Ook smashes Mook with a stick, and the scientific debate is on.
Most of us sit on the sidelines eating some grubs hoping the smart monkeys will figure it out, without getting an eye poked out.
Like this topic, which probably has very few readers left, and about zero Moderation, because it is the die hards, the true believers, the people interested left, going at it, tooth and nail, and new stuff keeps coming up, and it is all fascinating in a way, because it is a mystery, and mysteries are interesting, to some of us.
I mean, here we are, still posting away, while most people are busy flirting in chat, talking about their oh so important lives in Forum Community, or getting riled up over politics, or something, I don't read those threads.
I like to think at some point everybody just sits down and has a good laugh, then everybody goes back to their corner and prepares for the next round. Because we are the lucky ones, that we are even able to sit on a computer and be passionate about Dark Matters, or Electricity, or Gravity, Space, Time, the immense unknowns and complicated theories, and all that stuff.
Most people just DGAS, and you can't even talk to them about it.
But all sides, I think, are trying to understand, to explain, the vast and powerful and wondrous nature of our shared Universe, which anybody who has really looked at knows, is really really big, and very energetic. Not only beautiful, but mysterious, and every time we think we might actually have a good idea of what in the hell is going on, something new is observed, and we have to scratch our heads, reminding us of our monkey ancestors, faced with something like fire, just going, "oooh, look at that!", or something.
Meanwhile Ook goes "It is alive!", and Mook says, "No! It is from the Gods!", and Ook smashes Mook with a stick, and the scientific debate is on.
Most of us sit on the sidelines eating some grubs hoping the smart monkeys will figure it out, without getting an eye poked out.
Like this topic, which probably has very few readers left, and about zero Moderation, because it is the die hards, the true believers, the people interested left, going at it, tooth and nail, and new stuff keeps coming up, and it is all fascinating in a way, because it is a mystery, and mysteries are interesting, to some of us.
I mean, here we are, still posting away, while most people are busy flirting in chat, talking about their oh so important lives in Forum Community, or getting riled up over politics, or something, I don't read those threads.
I like to think at some point everybody just sits down and has a good laugh, then everybody goes back to their corner and prepares for the next round. Because we are the lucky ones, that we are even able to sit on a computer and be passionate about Dark Matters, or Electricity, or Gravity, Space, Time, the immense unknowns and complicated theories, and all that stuff.
Most people just DGAS, and you can't even talk to them about it.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,215
The only model you've ever put forward is wrong. Catastrophically wrong. It posits a physically impossible charge on the sun which cannot be confined by any method. Any of the alternative "models" do not even deserve the term, because they are nothing more than hand-waving. They do not make the kind of quantitative predictions required to deserve that name, and that lack of prediction is the only thing that keeps them from being similarly disproven. Because hey, if you can't predict something, you can't be wrong either, can you?
The incomplete understanding is yours. My calculation was a lower bound for the repulsion that model produces. Starting from the only hard number you've ever produced, no amount of tweaking of charge distributions, no amount of double layers and Birkeland currents, can possibly do anything except increase that number.
Everything? No, we probably don't. I think it's pretty damned clear that fusion is going on inside the sun, though.
I believe it was Zeusss, a fellow believer of yours in EU models, who linked to a peer reviewed paper which talks about the charge on the sun. I already brought that up before, more than once. It discusses a limit on that charge (I do not claim that the limit is zero). For our sun, it's on the order of 100 Coulombs. Not much energy available there, and the mechanism discussed that leads to it cannot produce power. But you've ignored it.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,215
Did you forget the original statement in question? It appears so. In post 433, I said that the electric sun model relies upon having a large net charge on the sun. Your own links, with frequent references to the sun as an anode, seem to support that, in one case explicitly so. Do any of your links indicate that only a small charge is needed for an electric sun model? I have seen no such assertion made. And you certainly haven't produced such an assertion from any of your sources. Instead of just throwing more links, why don't you find a quote from one of your sources to that affect?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,215
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
Well said!
Belz...
Fiend God
This brings up a very important point: how does the electric star model explain the existence of heavy elements in the universe ?
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
I'm glad, but for some of us it's actually pretty frustrating. It's not a real debate, because the EU stuff is total gibberish. There's no theory, no numbers, no calculations - because the moment you put in any numbers, you realize how utterly impossible it is. That's obvious from the start to a physicist who has spent years thinking and working on electricity and magnetism (as every physicist has), but not to a layperson, and apparently not to a few fanatical posters here who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the most basic fundamentals of physics (specifically electromagnetism).
Just as an example: there are four fundamental equations describing E&M, called Maxwell's equations. The first one is known as Gauss' law. Most people learn (and probably quickly forget) about it in high school physics when they're 16 or 17, and if they go on in physics it figures in nearly every course after, including in a major part of the first year intro course, a semester or year as a junior in college, a semester or year as a Ph.D. student, plus it's mentioned and used often in nearly every other physics course. It's absolutely basic. And yet, BAC didn't know what it was, and didn't know it was one of Maxwell's equations (I can dig up the posts if necessary). That proves that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about - zero. It's like arguing over Chomsky's contributions to linguistics without knowing what a word is.
The EU side of the "debate" consists of a series of out-of-context quotes mined from various popular sources. No information is being exchanged, and no progress has been made - and won't be, because it's clear that the EU side is motivated by psychology rather than physics. There is no point in carrying on such a "dialog".
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I am wondering if we can't use inferometry on multiple browsers to detect dark postings?
That's one of the reasons I stopped replying to BAC months ago. It was impossible to convince him of anything with scientific arguments because he didn't know the first thing about plasma physics himself. Trying to respond to his kilometric posts took a lot of time, and it was time wasted.
The other reason was that he kept using as references sites that not only propose the electrical universe, but also 'prove' quantum mechanics and even special relativity are wrong. If we can't even agree on SR, I don't know what we are doing discussing cosmology.
Yes and BAC along with the other EU groupies here have pretty much admitted that their views are unfalsafiable. That isn't science, it's religion.
We better stop. This levity does not sit well with dark matters.
That is the sort of unscientific rhetoric that simply doesn't do anything, except maybe make you feel better.
The predictions about Deep Impact, the predictions about magnetic lines connecting the earth with the sun, the explanation of solar particle acceleration, the theory about coronal heating, x-rays in comet tails, there are a lot of interesting things the EU people bring up.
Granted the sun being powered by electricity is far fetched, but it isn't ALL gibberish.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Zig, help me out here:
If they attract each other, M & DM, they accelerate toward one another (force is mass times acceleration) and when arriving at one another's location, these two clumps of whatever do what?
1 Accelerate through one another. Is the mutual acceleration enough to slingshot them past one another, and thus beyond effective gravitational attraction range, these aggregations of matter and dark matter?
Or
2. Due to imperfect aiming (or other gravitational effects from third sources) do these masses get into one another's gravitation fields and orbit one another? I get the idea that like neutrinos, a collision course results in something other than a matter versus matter collision, and they can go through one another, but they are still, then, attracting one another via gravitational means, and are bound to come back for another go, unless the mid point is a spot they both approach without "colliding" with one another.
Trying mightily to understand the mechanics here. Not doing so hot.
DR
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,215
Well, it's a many-body problem, so there's no way to analytically solve what happens to the whole agregate mass. But we can look at what happens with any two bodies and consider what occurs. There are two categories we can consider in a 2-body interaction: those with positive energies and those with negative energies.
Positive energy means there's enough energy for the particles to escape each other. If they only interact via gravity, that's exactly what they'll do: they'll escape each other. They may pass each other obliquely and deflect to the side as they pass, they may pass straight through each other, but they will escape.
In a negative energy case, they are bound together, and always have been. This could mean that they orbit each other, it could mean that they oscillate back and forth, passing through each other each cycle, but they'll keep doing it forever.
In a many-body case, the negative energy category isn't a definitive categorization, because formerly bound pairs can be thrown apart by the effects of third bodies, and unbound pairs can also become bound for a while.
Much of this applies to ordinary matter interacting under gravity as well, but with a few important differences. One is that ordinary matter can collide with itself and stick together, giving off energy in the process (usually in the form of light). This is no small thing, and it's only a result of non-gravitational forces. It can also collide with itself in inelastic collisions which let off energy but don't necessarily result in sticking together. But this too is important, because it can turn formerly "unbound" particles into "bound" particles (in the sense that they no longer have the kinetic energy to overcome their gravitational potential, even if they orbit at a distance)
Think in terms of energy: the energy they gain by accelerating is the same as the energy they lose by decelerating. If they start from rest with respect to each other, they cannot escape each other. If they start out moving fast enough, it doesn't matter how close they get, they will escape each other.
They can only orbit one another if their kinetic energy is smaller in magnitude than the gravitational energy (remembering that gravitational energy is negative at finite distances and zero at infinite separation).
Neutrinos travel at close to c. So they are traveling above the escape velocity for almost everything except black holes - they will not be bound to come back to anything.
Dark matter might be bound to come back - but most of it may not be "bound" to anything smaller than an entire gallaxy. If it's moving fast enough when it starts heading towards something like a star, it'll accelerate towards it, pass through it, slow down on the other side, but still keep going.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
There are no such predictions - simply vague, non-quantitative statements. It's impossible to make a prediction without a self-consistent and specific theory, and no such theory exists.
DE is much more poorly understood than DM. The evidence for it comes from various independent measurements, the clearest of which is the supernova redshift/distance relation.
DE is most probably a small positive cosmological constant - certainly that is the explanation for the data which involves the fewest new parameters - but if so no one understands why it's so small or why we're noticing it now. That second issue is called the coincidence problem - why is the energy density in dark energy of order the energy density of matter during our epoch?
BenHad
Student
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2008
- Messages
- 36
Science News Article
I just finished an article in the Feb. 2, 2008 Vol. 173 of SCIENCE NEWS titled "EMBRACING THE DARK SIDE". It has a good discussion about this topic. It uses 74% Dark Energy, 22% Dark Matter and 4% Atoms as the composition of the Universe, making it in close agreement with the OP. Also discussed are three upcoming missions in NASA's Beyond Einstein series designed to gather more information about DE and DM. It will be some time before results are available!
I just finished an article in the Feb. 2, 2008 Vol. 173 of SCIENCE NEWS titled "EMBRACING THE DARK SIDE". It has a good discussion about this topic. It uses 74% Dark Energy, 22% Dark Matter and 4% Atoms as the composition of the Universe, making it in close agreement with the OP. Also discussed are three upcoming missions in NASA's Beyond Einstein series designed to gather more information about DE and DM. It will be some time before results are available!
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
With you so far.
OK, I had originally asked about an oscillation, but edited it out. Glad I was at least on the right track.
Some of which are all grav, some of which are non grav. With you so far.
My takeaway: gravity can contribute to the interaction, but the energy released is all sourced in Non gravity forces: EM, strong, weak.
I think I got that.
Got it, per your first point.
Lost me there at the very end, but that's something I can look up easily. Not a fact I had at the tip of my tongue.
Got it.
Aye, and I will ask: is this what gives us the lensing lensing effect being discussed before Plasma 'R Us began again?
I just realized what Ron Brown died from. A plasma attack over Dubrovnik.
Acceleration and deceleration had nothing to do with it. Sorry, I really shouldn't have.
DR
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
With statements like this, you only demonstrate that you fundamentally do not understand electric current ... among other things.
This is your retort, let’s do some calculations, current is measured in charge per second passing a given point. If we have one coulomb of positive charge +1Q passing a point in direction X in one second (or + one ampere) and one coulomb of negative charge –1Q passing the same point in the same direction in the same amount of time (or – one ampere) there is no net current flow. Or if we add +1Q and –1Q in that direction we have no net flow of charge in that direction. I would be more then happy to continue this discussion on the thunderbolts of the gods thread, if you are willing, freeing this thread to its intended purpose.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
So am I. Yet I've had no trouble finding and linking to peer reviewed papers supporting the view that galactic rotation curves are the result of electromagnetic effects. No trouble linking to peer reviewed papers concluding that certain high redshift objects are no farther away than nearby low redshift objects. No trouble finding peer reviewed work suggesting that Birkeland currents, z-pinches and double layers are responsible for many of the phenomena observed in space. So I really don't see why you can't find some that specifically challenge those assertions.
Wangler
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,228
Yeah, what about DM and DE
Perhaps the reason that dark matter and dark energy are not being discussed in this dark matter and dark energy thread is because both sides have no idea what either of these things are.
The non-electric universe folks have their WIMPs. MACHOs, and micro-lensing magic marbles.
Oh, and the greatest mistake that Einstein ever made in the cosmological constant.
The EU folks have their currents and pinches and stuff.
Does anyone lend any creedence to MOND?
Keith
Perhaps the reason that dark matter and dark energy are not being discussed in this dark matter and dark energy thread is because both sides have no idea what either of these things are.
The non-electric universe folks have their WIMPs. MACHOs, and micro-lensing magic marbles.
Oh, and the greatest mistake that Einstein ever made in the cosmological constant.
The EU folks have their currents and pinches and stuff.
Does anyone lend any creedence to MOND?
Keith
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
It was a mildly interesting idea before the bullet cluster observations killed it.
Wangler
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,228
Not so fast:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702146
The Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows Modified Gravity in the absence of Dark Matter
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702146
The Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 evidence shows Modified Gravity in the absence of Dark Matter
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Moffat's a crackpot. He's just about the only one that still clings to MOND despite what is now overwhelming evidence against it. I'm not going to waste my time reading that paper, but another one I looked at claimed MOND could survive the bullet cluster if there is ALSO dark matter (which is ridiculous). This is probably similar.
Bad scientific theories never really die until all their adherents do.
Seriously, the only thing that made MOND at all interesting was that it was relatively simple and could explain rotation curves and Tully-Fisher. Of course it couldn't handle gravitational lensing since it wasn't relativistic (and the proposed relativistic version was absolutely horrendous) and it had major theoretical issues, but hey - it worked for something. But it totally fails on the bullet cluster. Yeah, if you twist and turn and push every parameter as far as you can in the right direction you might wiggle out temporarily, but that's destroying the only feature (simplicity) that made it worth considering in the first place.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Woah. First things first, mate. Exactly how far do you think electromagnetic effects can reach ?
And why are you so hung up on EM and against gravity-related theories ? Where does that come from ?
It's called burden of proof. I'm just watching the show and commenting. I'm letting the more qualified people look up your links. So far they seem unimpressed.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Sure it does, David. I'm surprised you can't see that.
Ironically, you even quote the section on Red Giants which tells you how electric star proponents explain them. They sit in a region on their modified HR diagram (where current density is the x axis) where there are low values of current density. As a result, they will be relatively cool stars under an electric star model. But they are very luminous so they must either be very large stars (which we know some are) or have a very large radiating corona. In any case, they are not necessarily older stars (contrary to the mainstream explanation).
Is that so difficult to understand?
Again, have you actually read anything I've posted or linked, David? I'll give you a hint. z-pinch. It's been mentioned many times during the course of these exchanges.
This might be a z-pinch on the surface of our own sun:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/MDI_T171_000317_11.gif
You can see filaments all coalescing into or emanating from a single point.
This might be one in what the mainstream claims is a pulsar:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/objects/heapow/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.jpg
The shape of the discharge matches that of a z-pinch and there is a synchrotron jet just like a z-pinch can produce.
This might be one at a supernova site (SN 1987A):
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/sn87a/sn87a_xray_opt.jpg
In this case one can again see the filaments that a z-pinch produces. In fact, one can see filaments (the bright beads) in exactly the numbers data indicates z-pinches will produce. Here, David, another source you can not read: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars".
And here's a post supernova nebula with characteristics that suggest a z-pinch source:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/redsquare.jpg
You can see the Birkeland filaments, renamed 'combs' by the mainstream because they don't really understand what they are looking at and the word "electricity" never crosses their mind. And the bipolar hourglass shape is also a characteristic of z-pinch phenomena.
Now I've posted all about this previously ... so you know what I'm referencing. Or at least you should, David.
First of all, the electric sun theorists state that a red star is not NECESSARILY older. Second, a star's spectrum says nothing about the composition inside the star. It only tells you what's at the surface or in the photosphere of the star. Third, the mainstream assumes that except for the ratios of hydrogen and helium in ordinary stars, the composition doesn't change. In other words, it assumes that the heavier elements in the sun came from past generations of stars which presumably exploded producing those metals.
But a z-pinch near the solar surface can produce metals and other elements and alter the ratio of hydrogen and helium in the near surface atmosphere. In an electric star, heavy element abundances would not be fixed but would be created in the outer layers by the high-energy discharges. Red giants could simply be stars that once were subject to higher electric current density (producing lots of metals and converting H to He) which are now, for whatever reason, traveling through a region with lower current density.
Not that quickly, David. Standard model advocates claim all stars starts out above and to the right of their main sequence position. They move into position on the main sequence when fusion begins. The star then remains at that location until its hydrogen is nearly exhausted. Then the star moves away from the main sequence.
Prior to its eruption in 2002, V838 Monocerotis was considered an F-type dwarf star on the mainsequence. According to http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/1202.shtml "there was no known indication of any movement of the star off the main sequence". And although you are suggesting that it quickly evolved from a main sequence to a red supergiant, that source notes that "Most of the time this takes hundreds or thousands of years, not months!" Wikipedia states that the "lightcurve produced by the eruption is unlike anything previously seen." It is so strange, in fact, that some mainstream astronomers are now claiming V838 Monocerotis is "the first known" L-type supergiant. And guess what? They've suddenly discovered that the star also has a B-type supergiant main sequence companion that they never noticed before.
Now electric theorists have no problem explaining what has happened in a consistent and logical manner. They theorize that the star fissioned (broke into two stars) due to the electrical stress caused by a sudden increase in the current density of the surrounding medium. Mainstream astrophysicists, on the other hand, must admit the cause "is still uncertain". They have half a dozen theories now, none of which seem to fit the observations.
The Hubble website in 2003 (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2003/10 ) said "V838 Monocerotis did not expel its outer layers. Instead, it grew enormously in size. Its surface temperature dropped to temperatures that were not much hotter than a light bulb. This behavior of ballooning to an enormous size, but not losing its outer layers, is very unusual and completely unlike an ordinary nova explosion." But they refuse to give up on seeing this as a case of evolution. Instead, they say "the outburst may represent a transitory stage in a star's evolution that is rarely seen." In late 2006, the Hubble site still had to admit that the star "continues to puzzle astronomers" and that "the reason for the eruption is still unclear". And it's so rare it's a first.
Even Tim Thompson, a mainstream theory supporter and noted electric star critic, has had to admit http://www.tim-thompson.com/v838mon.html "the light curve & spectrum are not typical of any known class of object; it's not a nova, nor is it a "born again" helium flash star ... snip ... It appears, therefore, to be unique, the only known member of whatever class of objects it represents. ... snip ... But everyone seems to agree that classical novae, and helium flash objects, do not produce spectra that look like V838 Mon. So, for the time being, the question of what happened out there in the Galaxy, remains unanswered."
So don't try to pull the wool over everyone's head, David, by trying to suggest there's nothing remarkable about this star or that it fits neatly into the mainstream model ... especially your theory. That would simply be dishonest. This is more the actual state of their explanations: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_16_170/ai_n16864846 . And note that not once do they mention the electric star hypothesis. Ignoring it again.
And that's not the only example, David. The link I provided notes that the star FG Sagittae has rather suddenly changed from a blue (BO) to a yellow (K) star ... while still remaining on the main sequence. It quotes a mainstream reference saying "Around 1900 FG Sge was an inconspicuous hot star (T = 50,000 K) of magnitude 13. During the next 60 years it cooled to about 8000 K and brightened in the visual region to magnitude 9, as its radiation shifted from the far-UV to the visual region. Around 1970 a whole new bunch of spectral lines appeared due to elements such as Sr, Y, Zr, Ba and rare earths. .... The star cooled further in the 1970s and 80s and then all of a sudden in 1992 its magnitude dropped to 14. Further drops occurred from 1992 to 1996 with a very deep minimum near magnitude 16 in June of 1996." As the link notes, FG Sagittae has changed from a "normal hot giant to a 'late spectral type' (cool) star with marked changes in its surface chemical composition" over a single human lifetime.
So do you really want to claim that it "evolved" over a single human lifetime into an entirely different type of star on the main sequence? In fact, after the evolution, the mainstream suddenly discovered that this star is also a binary (see a trend here folks?). The electric star theorists again suggest that what happened is it fissioned due to extreme electrical stress. The mainstream on the other hand claims it just happened to burn the last bit of He (the aforementioned helium flash) and then changed into a R CrB variable type star ... and oh yes ... "we much have just missed the presence of that binary companion all those years".
And apparently V 605 Aquilae and V 4334 Sagittarii did something similar. They also "changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly" ... into R CrB type stars according to the mainstream. Even more remarkable ... all three of these stars supposedly changed to R CrB stars in the last 100 years. That's remarkable because as of 2005 this class of star still only numbers about 50 (including R CrB candidates) in the part of the Milky Way we can survey. Don't you think it's a little unlikely that we'd just happen to see 6 percent of that type star created in just the last 100 years ... if they are truly that rare a type star? How long do R CrB stars last, David? No one seems to know the answer but the star that type of star is named after has been one for at least 200 years. So if 3 on average are created every century in this region of the galaxy and R CrB is typical of that type star, shouldn't there now be AT LEAST 600, not just 50?
Why must you imagine, David ... when the sources I've linked you to have indicated how electric star theorists explain them?
And speaking of variable stars I found a recent peer reviewed paper that actually considers the type of unipolar inductor model first developed by Alfven. And here's what it says ...
"ULTRACAM Photometry of the ultracompact binaries V407Vul and HM Cnc" by S.C.C. Barros, T.R. Marsh, V. S. Dhillon, P. J. Groot, S. Littlefair, G. Nelemans, G. Roelofs, D. Steeghs and P. J. Wheatley, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0611117.pdf , 3 Nov 2006, "It has proved hard to decide which, if any, of the models is correct. Compared to typical accreting systems, HM Cnc has a weak optical line emission, while V407 Vul has none at all. This favours the unipolar inductor model which is the only one without accretion. The unipolar inductor model, along with the IP model, is also favoured by the observed decrease in pulsation periods (Strohmayer 2002, 2004; Hakala et al. 2003; Strohmayer 2003; Hakala et al. 2004) although recently accreting models with long-lasting spin-up phases have been developed (D’Antona et al. 2006; Deloye & Taam 2006). The shapes and phases of the X-ray light curves on the other hand count against the unipolar inductor model (Barros et al. 2005) which can only accommodate the high X-ray luminosity of V407 Vul with a white dwarf that spins faster than its orbit (Marsh & Nelemans 2005; Dall’Osso et al. 2006a,b). The accreting double-degenerate models on the other hand lead to high accretion rates and strong heating of the white dwarf, particularly in the case of HM Cnc, which is required to be at a distance of 4 to 20 kpc, and well out of the Galactic plane (Bildsten et al. 2006; D’Antona et al. 2006). At the moment therefore, there is no clear winner, or even leading contender amongst the models and better observational constraints are a priority."
I don't care what the answer is as long as the mainstream directly and honestly confronts the EU/PC theories. I hope this is an indication that the times they are finally a changing.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
So true. But we still have to take time for American Idol!
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Tell us, sol ... do you believe in magnetic reconnection? I asked that question of Ziggurat after he mentioned Gauss' law and he ignored me. How about you? You going to just ignore me too, even after I posted a wikipedia link that states Gauss' law forbids open magnetic field lines? Magnetic reconnection assumes open magnetic field lines ... or how else could they "reconnect". So how about it, sol ... do you believe in magnetic reconnection?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
How about you, Yllanes? Do you believe in magnetic reconnection? Of course you do, since you tried to defend it back when we were still conversing. In fact, you once claimed that Maxwell's equations covered the reconnecting magnetic field assertion of mainstream astrophysicists. But doesn't magnetic reconnection require that magnetic field lines be able to open? Afterall, if they didn't, how could they "reconnect". So explain to us this wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."