Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Reality Check said:
Now plug the numbers in.
Click to expand...

Which numbers? The mainstream have never taking any notice of the role electricity plays in the cosmos(though they do know ALL about magnetic fields) so I posit any numbers that need to be plugged in may or may not be correct?

I mean shall we look at the paper on idealized non rotating stars for some numbers? Or shall we use the calculations on dark matter?

The data set is not complete, because those that collect it our blind in one eye?

I mean how hard could it be to send 10's, 100's or even 1000's of very small probes only armed with a magnetometer a gigercounter and a radio, thru out our solar system?

Like a big Chrysanthemum shell

images


One very expensive probe flying thru the solar system would see chit, but tether two small cheap probes together, like above and I predict we would find out a damn lot more than we know now!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Which numbers?
Click to expand...

Whatever numbers you think are correct.

The mainstream have never taking any notice of the role electricity plays in the cosmos(though they do know ALL about magnetic fields) so I posit any numbers that need to be plugged in may or may not be correct?
Click to expand...

One would think that a model which posits large charges on the sun would have some way of estimating what those charges might be. Hell, pick an upper bound if you don't think you can get an accurate estimate.

I mean shall we look at the paper on idealized non rotating stars for some numbers?
Click to expand...

Why would rotation matter? The centripetal acceleration at the equator of the sun is very small compared to gravitational acceleration, so it's rather safe to ignore rotation for such calculations. We're not talking differences of a few percent in our answers, after all.

Or shall we use the calculations on dark matter?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

I mean how hard could it be to send 10's, 100's or even 1000's of very small probes only armed with a magnetometer a gigercounter and a radio, thru out our solar system?
Click to expand...

It's actually quite expensive to do so. Launch costs are huge even for cheap payloads.
 
Sol88 said:
So the break up of a comet/asteroid would always produce nearly the same size fragments all flying in tight formation perpendicular into the ground? Sounds like a stretch to me?
Click to expand...

Leave out the word "perpendicular" and yes, that's quite precisely what is expected to happen.

You know, Sol, you keep citing your personal intuition for what "sounds like a stretch" and what does not. Your intuition seems to be singularly unreliable. You should consider relying on something else.
 
Sol88 said:
Did you read the paper in question?

electrostatics on idealized star?

How 'bout we go for electrodynamics on a real star, our Sun?
Click to expand...

You response is a simplistic non sequitur. What does that have to do with PC/EU cosmology and the fact that gravity overwhelms EM forces over galactic and cosmological distances?
 
ben m said:
Leave out the word "perpendicular" and yes, that's quite precisely what is expected to happen.

You know, Sol, you keep citing your personal intuition for what "sounds like a stretch" and what does not. Your intuition seems to be singularly unreliable. You should consider relying on something else.
Click to expand...

_41612188_hubble_fragment_203i.jpg.jpg


sl9hst.gif


In summary, some of the fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 disappeared before they reached Jupiter (J, M and P1), some impacts were generally difficult to detect (B, F, N, P2, Q2, T, U, and V), some fragments created dark impact sites that measured about half of an Earth-diameter across (A, C, D, E, H, Q1, R, S, and W) and others created impact sites that were at least an Earth-diameter across (G, K, and L). Clearly not all of the fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 were the same. The size of fragment A is thought to have been about 1 km across and the diameter of fragment G is thought to have been about 3 km.
Click to expand...
LINK

That causes even sized regular straight line craters? Have we ever observed an asteroid break up?


My statement stands! BS :bs:
 
Sol88 said:
Which numbers? The mainstream have never taking any notice of the role electricity plays in the cosmos(though they do know ALL about magnetic fields) so I posit any numbers that need to be plugged in may or may not be correct?
Click to expand...
The numbers that show that the EM force on the Sun is 10-22 times that of the gravitational force on the Sun.
Obviously you are not smart enough to click on links so I have quoted the calculation below.

Now add to this the fact that the Eot-Wash experiments do not detect any non-gravitational force on the Sun towards the center of the Milky Way.

The conclusion by anyone with two brain cells is that EM is dominated by gravity at galactic scales. And if we scale this up (as recommended by you and other PC proponents):
EM is dominated by gravity at cosmological scales and can be ignored in cosmology.

This is Ziggurat's calculation using the magnetic field strength as given by a paper by a certain Anthony L. Peraat:

Ziggurat said:
Oh, the irony. There's only one reference to an actual magnetic field strength in either of those PDF's (page 10 of your first PDF), and it isn't in connection with the simulations. They never state what fields were used or calculated in those simulations, so there's no way to compare those simulations to anything real. But let's take a look at it in more detail, shall we? They suggest a field of 10-9 to -10 Tesla. OK, fine. How much force would this field apply to the sun? Well, we need a charge on our sun. Your predictions for the charge have always been absurd. So let's find a real estimate:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html
"The net positive charge has to be smaller than 10−36 qA Coulombs, where q is elementary electric charge (charge of proton) and A is number of baryons in the star."
That works out to be on the order of 100 Coulombs for the sun (which has ~1057 baryons).

So what's an upper bound on the force on the sun from this large a magnetic field? qv x B. Our solar system is moving at about 220 km/s ~ 2x105 m/s. So 100 C x 2x105 m/s x 10-9 T = 2x10-2 N. What acceleration does this provide? a=F/m = 2x10-2 N/2x1030 kg = 10-32 m/s2.

Now, what's our actual acceleration about the galactic core? Well, it's 2pi*v/t, where v is our velocity and t is the period. Our period is about 8x1015 seconds, so 1.4x106/8x1015 ~ 1.7x10-10 m/s2.

So magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 1022 of our acceleration. Same basic calculations will apply for other stars. So either you need to drastically increase the magnetic field for your model or you need to find some way of containing many orders of magnitude more charge on your sun in order for the difference to even register against the error bars, let alone describe the discrepency between visible mass gravity and observed acceleration. But there's about a 20 orders of magnitude gap to close, and it cannot be done. I've already demonstrated how unfeasible cranking up the charge on the sun is, and you have never responded.
Click to expand...

Note that this uses physics that an undergraduate (or high school) student knows.
 
Sol88 said:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41612000/jpg/_41612188_hubble_fragment_203i.jpg.jpg

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/gif/sl9hst.gif

LINK

That causes even sized regular straight line craters? Have we ever observed an asteroid break up?

My statement stands!
Click to expand...
Shoemaker-Levy 9 caused a line of impact sites. These were not even sized or regular. They were in a straight line. You would know this if you took steps to lessen your ignorance.
Some break ups cause "even sized regular straight line craters". Some do not. It depends on how the object breaks up.

We have never observed an asteroid break up as far as I know. But we have detected them: Recent Asteroid Breakup Event Detected In Main Belt
It is unlikely that we will ever observe an asteroid break up as it impacts a body. They are rather hard to spot at the best of time.

Meteorites have been observed to break up in the Earth's atmosphere - Google meteorite break up observation.
Thus the crater chains on Mars are probably from meteorite break up in its atmosphere.

Your statement falls :D
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The numbers that show that the EM force on the Sun is 10-22 times that of the gravitational force on the Sun.
Obviously you are not smart enough to click on links so I have quoted the calculation below.

Now add to this the fact that the Eot-Wash experiments do not detect any non-gravitational force on the Sun towards the center of the Milky Way.

The conclusion by anyone with two brain cells is that EM is dominated by gravity at galactic scales. And if we scale this up (as recommended by you and other PC proponents):
EM is dominated by gravity at cosmological scales and can be ignored in cosmology.

This is Ziggurat's calculation using the magnetic field strength as given by a paper by a certain Anthony L. Peraat:

...

Note that this uses physics that an undergraduate (or high school) student knows.
Click to expand...

So Mr. 88, it appears you have four choices:

(1) respond to this point with some valid science
(2) admit you're wrong
(3) continue delivering non sequitur responses
(4) ignore the question

Which will it be?
 
Perpetual Student said:
So Mr. 88, it appears you have four choices:

(1) respond to this point with some valid science
(2) admit you're wrong
(3) continue delivering non sequitur responses
(4) ignore the question

Which will it be?
Click to expand...

Eot-Wash experiments have been falsified by the pioneer effect!

Black Holes are a mathematical construct.

Dark matter is a hypothetical mathematical construct.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy.

What about Dark Energy and Dark Matter?

375px-DarkMatterPie.jpg
LINK

We’re also not sure what the universe is made of: eotwash group

96% new particles and fields that mediate forces we may be able to measure in the laboratory

LINK

And you keep bang'n on that this is irrefutable proof against Plasma cosmology :boggled:

But 99.999% plasma

The Universe is 99.999% plasma

* "Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."[4]
* "It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."[5]
* "..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"[6]
* "plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"[7]
* "It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"[8]
* "Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."[9]
* "The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"[10]
* "It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"[11]
* "It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"[12]
* "about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"[13]
* "99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center" [14]
* "How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."[15]

[edit]
The Solar System is 99.998% plasma

The Sun's mass makes up over 99.998% of the Solar System.[1] , and since it is nearly all in the plasma state,[2] over 99.98% of the mass of the Solar System is in the plasma state
[edit]
The interplanetary medium is a near-100% plasma

The tenuous matter between the Sun and the planets is a fully ionized (100%) plasma.[16]. While the interplanetary plasma is very thin, it carries both a magnetic field and electric currents estimated at 3×109 amperes (see the heliospheric current sheet).
[edit]
The interstellar medium is a plasma

The more tenuous matter between stars, the interstellar medium, includes regions of neutral hydrogen gas, dust and plasma such as the "Warm Ionized Medium", H II regions, and "hot ionized medium". As a significantly ionized gas, the medium behaves as a plasma, and carries a magnetic field,[17], and electric currents.[18]. (See also dusty plasmas)
[edit]
The intergalactic medium is a near-100% plasma

The space between galaxies, the intergalactic medium, is a very tenuous, fully ionized plasma. [19], that carries magnetic field and electric currents.[20]
Click to expand...

400px-99-999%25.png
 
Last edited:
The MAJOR problem here is we have no idea what gravity IS?

ELECTRIC GRAVITY!

Wal Thornhill has a stab at what it is that makes more sense than a rubber sheet and warped space-time!

Electric%20gravity.jpg


The best thing gravity has going for it is:
‘Instantaneous’ gravity

A significant fact, usually overlooked, is that Newton's law of gravity does not involve time. This raises problems for any conventional application of electromagnetic theory to the gravitational force between two bodies in space, since electromagnetic signals are restricted to the speed of light. Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the Earth. If gravity operated at the speed of light all planets would experience a torque that would sling them out of the solar system in a few thousand years. Clearly, that doesn't happen. This supports the view that the electric force operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, as it must inside the electron.[23] It is a significant simplification of all of the tortuous theorizing that has gone into the nature of gravity and mass. Einstein’s postulates are wrong. Matter has no effect on empty space. Space is three-dimensional—something our senses tell us. There is a universal clock so time travel and variable aging is impossible—something that commonsense has always told us. But most important—the universe is connected and coherent.
Click to expand...

and

Slow%20light.jpg


If I can use a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can you wave nothing?
Click to expand...

Food for thought for the vaunted Eot-Wash group!
 
Sol88 said:
Shall we talk about how many probes have been lost at Mars? Or maybe the Pioneer anomaly or Galileo or Ulysses?

Some unknown "dark" force is causing them to accelerate toward the sun!

Could it be

So I call BS! It is very well explained without invoking new physics or trying to modify gravities magical pixy snot., or you have your gravitational understanding cocked up!
By the probe being charged, the Suns electric field and that the Universe is electric!

What's so hard to understand about that? :boggled:

And it would be easy to test!
Click to expand...

So what's going on with those probes? Why all the orbital entry accidents at Mars?

Could it be Gravity is not understood?
 
Sol88 said:
The MAJOR problem here is we have no idea what gravity IS?

ELECTRIC GRAVITY!

Wal Thornhill has a stab at what it is that makes more sense than a rubber sheet and warped space-time!

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric gravity.jpg

The best thing gravity has going for it is:

and

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Slow light.jpg



Food for thought for the vaunted Eot-Wash group!
Click to expand...
Quoting an obvious crackpot is not making you seem very smart.

But you may be just a troll rather than someone with 2 braincells.
 
Reality Check said:
The numbers that show that the EM force on the Sun is 10-22 times that of the gravitational force on the Sun.
Obviously you are not smart enough to click on links so I have quoted the calculation below.

Now add to this the fact that the Eot-Wash experiments do not detect any non-gravitational force on the Sun towards the center of the Milky Way.

The conclusion by anyone with two brain cells is that EM is dominated by gravity at galactic scales. And if we scale this up (as recommended by you and other PC proponents):
EM is dominated by gravity at cosmological scales and can be ignored in cosmology.

This is Ziggurat's calculation using the magnetic field strength as given by a paper by a certain Anthony L. Peraat:



Note that this uses physics that an undergraduate (or high school) student knows.
Click to expand...

The paper you linked to HERE by L. Neslusan in post 2166 his paper? or another paper by Anthony L. Peraat:?

'cos with Anthony L. Peratt's simulation these phenomena were observed:

Simulation characteristics

Peratt further notes that:[3] "When scaled to cosmic dimensions the simulations show:

1. a burst of synchrotron radiation of luminosity ~1037 W lasting 107-108 years as the interaction began;
2. isophotal topologies of double radio galaxies and quasars, including juxtapositioned "hot spots" in the radio lobes (cross sections of the interacting Birkeland currents);
3. the formation of "dust lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix);
4. a spatially varying power law along the major axis of the simulated double radio galaxies in agreement with observations;
5. alternating beams of betatron-pumped synchrotron-emitting electrons on either side of the elliptical center (these have the morphologies (i.e., "knots" or vortices) and polarization properties of jets); and
6. a "superluminosity" and fading of jets as the betatron-induced acceleration field sweeps over and ignites previously confined plasma."

Peratt continues: "The simulation time frame of this investigation lasted some 108-109 years. The lifetime and evolution of quasars and double radio sources, the so-called end problem of double radio galaxies, was addressed in this paper (Paper II) by continuing the simulation run ~1-5 x 109 years farther in time. This extension of the simulation showed:

1. the transition of double radio galaxies to radioquasars to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert galaxies, finally ending in spiral galaxies;
2. the formation of irregular and dust lane galaxies, as well as more flattened E and S0 galaxies within the magnetic separatrix;
3. barred and normal spiral galaxies resulting from the inflow of plasma from the outer Birkeland currents onto the the elliptical galactic center; the characteristic rotational velocities of spiral galaxies including the fine-detail vortex cotangent structure on the "flat" portions of the spiral-arm velocity components;
4. replications of the morphologies of multiple interacting galaxies;
5. "horseshoe" like regions of nearly neutral Hi gas in spiral galaxies resulting from the convection and neutralization of plasma into regions of strong galactic magnetic fields; and
6. toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as 10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). These results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy"
Click to expand...


Galaxy formation

Further

5. alternating beams of betatron-pumped synchrotron-emitting electrons on either side of the elliptical center (these have the morphologies (i.e., "knots" or vortices) and polarization properties of jets); and
6. a "superluminosity" and fading of jets as the betatron-induced acceleration field sweeps over and ignites previously confined plasma."
Click to expand...

400px-M87-marshall.jpg


Seems a lot tighter than Eot-Wash malarky :jaw-dropp

No hypothetical carry on, no new physics and simulation matches observations! :eek: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Eot-Wash experiments have been falsified by the pioneer effect!
Click to expand...
Unless you have a citation to a paper that proves that the pioneer effect is due to a gravitational force then you are just spouting nonsense.

Sol88 said:
Black Holes are a mathematical construct.
Click to expand...
The stupidity gets worse.

Sol88 said:
Dark matter is a hypothetical mathematical construct.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to learn to read the posts in this thread - Dark matter is an observed fact.

Sol88 said:
Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy.
Click to expand...
Dark matter is a label for the cause of an actual observation.

Sol88 said:
What about Dark Energy and Dark Matter?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/DarkMatterPie.jpg/375px-DarkMatterPie.jpg LINK
Click to expand...
What about them?

Sol88 said:
We’re also not sure what the universe is made of: eotwash group

96% new particles and fields that mediate forces we may be able to measure in the laboratory

LINK
Click to expand...
That is right - the physical observations that scientists have made show that 96% of the universe is made out of things that we have not mesured in the laboratory.

So what?
That is an OK definition of science: The measurement of the areas of our ignorance and reducing those areas.

Sol88 said:
And you keep
bang'n on that this is irrefutable proof against Plasma cosmology :boggled:
Click to expand...
No we do not.

A simple calcuation that high school students can make shows that EM forces have no effect on on the motion of stars in galaxies. They are 22 orders of magniture smaller than the effect of gravity.

That is irrefutable evidence against Plasma cosmology.

The Eot-Wash group results are confimation of this.

Sol88 said:
But 99.999% plasma

http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/thumb/9/99/99-999%.png/400px-99-999%.png
Click to expand...
So now you say that the only justification for PC is "a crackpot web site stating "Universe is 99.999% plasma" and so plasma dominates?

Well they and you are wrong: 99.999% of the visible matter in the observable universe is plasma (assuming that all ionized gas is plasma).

Here is your logic but about gravity: 100% of the matter in the universe is matter. Therefore gravity dominates.

You do understand that 100% is greater than 99.999%?
You do understand that 100% is lots greater than 99.999% of 4%?

Scientists know about electromagnetism. They know about what happens in a plasma. They know how gravity works. They know that EM effects in plasma are by definition small scale because they can be shileded. They know that separated charges in a plasma quickly join togrther to become neutral unless there is an extrernal power source.

What really disproves plasma cosmology is that it is not a scientific theory. It does not match existing data. It makes no testable, falsifiable predictions.
 
RC wrote
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
And you keep
bang'n on that this is irrefutable proof against Plasma cosmology
Click to expand...

No we do not.

A simple calcuation that high school students can make shows that EM forces have no effect on on the motion of stars in galaxies. They are 22 orders of magniture smaller than the effect of gravity.

That is irrefutable evidence against Plasma cosmology

The Eot-Wash group results are confimation of this.
Click to expand...

WTF!!!

Please re read your post :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It makes no testable, falsifiable predictions.
Click to expand...

And standard cosmology does????

No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.

And you, like many others, are BLIND to see that! you base your whole cosmology on some 300 odd year old mathematical model.

That's your problem, it's so passe!
 
Sol88 said:
No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the silly idea that gravity is so mysterious? We understand it just as well as we understand electricity and magnetism.
 
Sol88 said:
So what's going on with those probes? Why all the orbital entry accidents at Mars?

Could it be Gravity is not understood?
Click to expand...

Two simple words ‘human error’

Apparently we just don’t understand..

That we should convert English to metric when one is used during constriction and the other for operation.

That it is not a good idea when braking thruster fail a certification test to simply change the conditions of the test so they can be certified.

That flight operators should send the correct memory addresses when updating a spacecrafts software parameters.
 
Sol88 said:
And standard cosmology does????

No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.

And you, like many others, are BLIND to see that! you base your whole cosmology on some 300 odd year old mathematical model.

That's your problem, it's so passe!
Click to expand...

Well if a pixy snot theory made accurate and falsifiable predictions then pixy snot it would be. That is until some better elf dandruff theory comes along that can make better and more accurate falsifiable predictions, perhaps even explaining why the pixies have so much snot in the first place. Don’t happen to have any of those do you, I mean an actual theory and falsifiable predictions, with or without pixy snot and elf dandruff?
 
Sol88 said:
The MAJOR problem here is we have no idea what gravity IS?

ELECTRIC GRAVITY!

Wal Thornhill has a stab at what it is that makes more sense than a rubber sheet and warped space-time!

[qimg]http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric%20gravity.jpg[/qimg]

The best thing gravity has going for it is:

and

[qimg]http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Slow%20light.jpg[/qimg]



Food for thought for the vaunted Eot-Wash group!
Click to expand...

Brilliant! Sol88 wants to do away with the last 104 years of scientific progress.
 
With the Pioneer anomaly being so small, I think that we better check the orders of magnitude differences between the ideas of EU and the observed mainstream physics.

As usual, Sol88 cannot "win" the discussion (e.g. the motion of the star around the centre of the galaxy) and then starts to come up with LOADS of other stuff (pioneer anomaly, breaking up of comets, cratering, etc. etc. etc.) instead of REALLY trying to answer questions and to show some real EU calculations to prove mainstream wrong. But as it is, Sol88 is incapable of doing any math whatsoever, so we should not expect anything from this troll. I think I have been more that generous showing numerical stuff. Now, I would like to see some real EU/PU numberical stuff. So Sol88 (yeah right!), Zeuzzz, Michael Mozina, Brantc, etc. etc. show us the money!!

Just one of these guys must be able to some calculations to show PU is superior to mainstream.
 
Sol88 said:
No body I repeate NO one knows what gravity is, there for YOUR model will always be some ad hoced made up pixy snot variables to bang that square peg into that round hole.
Click to expand...

Acutally, no body, I repeat NO one knows what electromagnetic forces are!

You do realize this, Sol88, EM forces are just as unknown as gravity.

1. Why do masses attract eachoter?
2. Why do opposite charges attract eachother?

There is no why, there is only they do.
 
tusenfem said:
Acutally, no body, I repeat NO one knows what electromagnetic forces are!

You do realize this, Sol88, EM forces are just as unknown as gravity.

1. Why do masses attract eachoter?
2. Why do opposite charges attract eachother?

There is no why, there is only they do.
Click to expand...

Yes they do, read the electric gravity link!

We've smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc

But gravity is all about mass and unless you find your holy grail, the Higgs Boson, in your 6 billion dollar toy (the LHC) then your Farked!

Easy to work out when you consider the orbits of electron around a nucleus, that's why electric gravity makes alot more sense than it just attracts!

There are parallels between electric gravity and why ferromagnetisim does what it does, .i.e. all the electron moving in lock step with each other!
 
The Man said:
Two simple words ‘human error’

Apparently we just don’t understand..

That we should convert English to metric when one is used during constriction and the other for operation.

That it is not a good idea when braking thruster fail a certification test to simply change the conditions of the test so they can be certified.

That flight operators should send the correct memory addresses when updating a spacecrafts software parameters.
Click to expand...

Ok I concede that maybe part of the cause, but you'd think they'd work that chit out!

Metric or imperial to do you maths, LOL. :rolleyes:

Bloody yanks and poms! get with the program you mob!
 
tusenfem said:
With the Pioneer anomaly being so small, I think that we better check the orders of magnitude differences between the ideas of EU and the observed mainstream physics.

As usual, Sol88 cannot "win" the discussion (e.g. the motion of the star around the centre of the galaxy) and then starts to come up with LOADS of other stuff (pioneer anomaly, breaking up of comets, cratering, etc. etc. etc.) instead of REALLY trying to answer questions and to show some real EU calculations to prove mainstream wrong. But as it is, Sol88 is incapable of doing any math whatsoever, so we should not expect anything from this troll. I think I have been more that generous showing numerical stuff. Now, I would like to see some real EU/PU numberical stuff. So Sol88 (yeah right!), Zeuzzz, Michael Mozina, Brantc, etc. etc. show us the money!!

Just one of these guys must be able to some calculations to show PU is superior to mainstream.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to "win" here, and no amount of maths is going to prove the point!

Case in hand SR and GR!! :confused: :rolleyes: :blush:

But observation will!!

How many times are you going to ad hoc something before re examining the under lying assumption, namely the Universe is NOT electrically neutral!! It's a fully charged environment :)
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
How many times are you going to ad hoc something before re examining the under lying assumption, namely the Universe is NOT electrically neutral!! It's a fully charged environment
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to present platitudes? When are you going to present anything substantial? I guess never.
 
Sol88 said:
Yes they do, read the electric gravity link!

We've smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc
Click to expand...

We've smashed enough elementary particles together to know that statements like:

If I can use a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can you wave nothing?
Click to expand...

are ridiculous. Do you think these multi-billion dollar experiments would work if SR was just "metaphysics". Clueless.
 
Sol88 said:
Yes they do, read the electric gravity link!
Click to expand...

No, the same question remains, why do charges attract or repel? The answer is virtual photons that are exchanged between the two. Have you seen virtual photons?

Sol88 said:
We've smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc
Click to expand...

Doesn't say a thing, we have observed enough planetary systems, falling stones, to know a lot about that that is all there is about gravity and mass. Just knowing the pieces does not make you a watchmaker.

Sol88 said:
But gravity is all about mass and unless you find your holy grail, the Higgs Boson, in your 6 billion dollar toy (the LHC) then your Farked!
Click to expand...

Ah Higgs, Schmiggs, have you seen any virtual photons lately?

Sol88 said:
Easy to work out when you consider the orbits of electron around a nucleus, that's why electric gravity makes alot more sense than it just attracts!
Click to expand...

From (I guess) Sansbury's "theory":
The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared.
Click to expand...

I don't think I understand what the bolded part means. Could you please explain, Sol88?

The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies.
Click to expand...

This would mean that all dipoles inside a body all have to be aligned. Is there any evidence for this? Would this not mean that all bodies are also magnetic then? I would think so.

But then he says:
The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.
Click to expand...

Ehhhhh wait! say that again?
Gravity is weak because the distortion of the subatomic particles is minute in a gravitational field?

But, in this theory it is the distortion of the subatomic particles, the so called dipoles, that create gravity. Talking about a snake biting itself in its tail.

BUNK!!!!!!!!
 
Sol88 - I cannot believe you'd seriously suggest that electric gravity idea, one which is falsifiable in an experiment by a competent school student.

Anyway,

Sol88 said:
The best thing gravity has going for it is:
‘Instantaneous’ gravity

A significant fact, usually overlooked, is that Newton's law of gravity does not involve time. This raises problems for any conventional application of electromagnetic theory to the gravitational force between two bodies in space, since electromagnetic signals are restricted to the speed of light. Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the Earth.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Actually there's a relativistic effect that largely corrects for this - the Earth is attracted in the direction of where the Sun actually is rather than where it appears - there's a similar effect in electromagnetism too.

Also, the speed of gravity has been constrained and is very close to c, if not exactly c.

The rest of what you quoted is unbelievably ill-informed bunkum.
 
Sol88 said:
Please explain then the Pioneer effect with WRT the Eot-Wash findings?

And that is on topic, shirley?
Click to expand...


BTW, how large is the Pioneer effect?

Care to actually state how large an effect it is in the general motion of the probe?

And just to let you lnow, you most likely won't be banned here. Your behavior is well within the MA.

But instead of changing the topic, you could try talking about PC.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Yes they do, read the electric gravity link!

We've smashed enough elementary particles together to know about spin, charge etc etc

But gravity is all about mass and unless you find your holy grail, the Higgs Boson, in your 6 billion dollar toy (the LHC) then your Farked!

Easy to work out when you consider the orbits of electron around a nucleus, that's why electric gravity makes alot more sense than it just attracts!
Click to expand...
Small point of clarification!

You do know that electron do not orbit the nucelus?

It is more that they exist in a quantum state of probability in the arae of the nucleus.

Orbital is an old term which has a new meaning.

Do planets actual do the quantum appearance thing?

http://www.orbitals.com/orb/index.html
There are parallels between electric gravity and why ferromagnetisim does what it does, .i.e. all the electron moving in lock step with each other!
Click to expand...


You are getting pretty far out there!

Do you lnow what an 'approximate model' is?

Do you know the difference between the gravity model and the EM model?
 
Dancing David said:
Small point of clarification!

You do know that electron do not orbit the nucelus?

It is more that they exist in a quantum state of probability in the arae of the nucleus.

Orbital is an old term which has a new meaning.

Do planets actual do the quantum appearance thing?

http://www.orbitals.com/orb/index.html



You are getting pretty far out there!

Do you lnow what an 'approximate model' is?

Do you know the difference between the gravity model and the EM model?
Click to expand...

sorry my bad,
the electrons are most likely to be found within a sphere around the nucleus of an atom
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Interesting shapes there DD!

The blue color indicates a positive phase, while the orange color indicates a negative phase, with the phase taken as defined by Condon and Shortlle
Click to expand...

2p0.gif


Is that a dipole I see?

From Holoscience

The%20atom.jpg


This model satisfies Einstein's view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects. It is ironic that such a model requires the electric force between the charges to operate incomparably faster than the speed of light in order that the electron remain a coherent particle. It means that Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that prohibits signalling faster than light, must be repealed. A recent experiment verifies this.

Electromagnetic waves are far too slow to be the only means of signalling in an immense universe. Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8 minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.
Click to expand...

Electric%20gravity.jpg


And an image from orbitals.com

3p0.gif


Mmmm....
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
BTW, how large is the Pioneer effect?

Care to actually state how large an effect it is in the general motion of the probe?

And just to let you lnow, you most likely won't be banned here. Your behavior is well within the MA.

But instead of changing the topic, you could try talking about PC.
Click to expand...

It was in the link, did you have a squiz at it?

The pioneer anomaly

It appears to cause a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft. If the positions of the spacecraft are predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they are actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year.It appears to cause a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft. If the positions of the spacecraft are predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they are actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year.
Click to expand...

The effect is very small, but so is the spacecraft compared to the Sun!
 
edd said:
Sol88 - I cannot believe you'd seriously suggest that electric gravity idea, one which is falsifiable in an experiment by a competent school student.

Anyway,


Actually there's a relativistic effect that largely corrects for this - the Earth is attracted in the direction of where the Sun actually is rather than where it appears - there's a similar effect in electromagnetism too.

Also, the speed of gravity has been constrained and is very close to c, if not exactly c.

The rest of what you quoted is unbelievably ill-informed bunkum.
Click to expand...


Please explain
I cannot believe you'd seriously suggest that electric gravity idea, one which is falsifiable in an experiment by a competent school student.
Click to expand...
.

What experiment would that be?
 
Commenting on the some-days-old post of Z's may seem out of order - I said I'd look at Anaconda's (electromagnetic) acceleration of charged particles talking point next - but it may be related; let's see how ...

Zeuzzz said:
Yes, In solids, liquids and gasses charges do cancel out. In plasma however they separate in a variety of highly complex an non linear ways. And yes, EM is amazingly more powerful than gravity.

In an earlier post I pointed out that even the Earth is charged up millions of coulombs, and the atmosphere contains a voltage of over 300,000 volts (as the atmosphere is a very poor conductor). Such reasons for how charge separates to create the lightning are unknown. But if magnitudes of charge separation that large, and that close to home, are still largely without an adequate reason for how they occur, the occurence of MUCH larger charge separation and huge EM effects is possible in space. The detailed work of Alfven and others on charge separation and plasma scalability could answer many of these questions, and is still being applied to this day.
Click to expand...
There is an inescapable consequence of large charge separations and the ubiquity of free electrons in space (a consequence of overall charge neutrality, ionisation, and ordinary matter being composed of electrons plus protons and neutrons) - acceleration of those electrons.

And there is then another inescapable consequence, when you add the ubiquity of magnetic fields: synchrotron radiation ... which surely qualifies for Z's "huge EM effects [...] in space"!

So we arrive, in a fairly straight-forward way, at observations of synchrotron radiation as - potentially - excellent tests of these "the occurence of MUCH larger charge separation [...] in space" ideas.

Now presumably all "EU theorists" know this well, as would all proponents of PC ... which leads to the curious question of why Z hasn't cited dozens (or more) of papers (published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) establishing at least the plausibility of these ideas (per the cornucopia of astronomical observations).

Care to comment, Z?

A bit of evidence of large EM influences and charge separation that springs to mind is that spiral galaxies tend to spiral more in one direction than another, possibly implying a large scale magnetic field in region some 350 Mpc across. The alignment of the spins seems to point in direction close to that defined by anisotropies in the CBR. Also, theres an asymmetry in the Hubble expansion some 600 Mpc or more across, the Hubble constant is about 10% lower in some directions than in others, implying either an asymmetry in the process that creates the Hubble redshift, or velocities for galaxies of up to 3,000 km/sec.

Is the Cosmic "Axis of Evil" due to a Large-Scale Magnetic Field?
Authors: Michael J. Longo
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694v2
Click to expand...
Dated March 2007, but not apparently submitted to any journal yet ... I wonder why?

Does the Universe Have a Handedness?
Authors: Michael J. Longo
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703325v2
Click to expand...
Some good work ... and as he notes, there have been other studies of the extent to which 'handedness' can be detected in the observations of spiral galaxies. The results are mixed; for example, one the Galaxy Zoo papers (Galaxy Zoo: the large-scale spin statistics of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey) finds any "violation of large-scale statistical isotropy in the distribution of projected spin vectors of spiral galaxies" to be marginal at best (and that there is indeed a bias ... in human observers' assignment of handedness, based on images!).

Anisotropy in the Hubble constant as observed in the HST Extragalactic Distance Scale Key Project results
Authors: M. L. McClure, C. C. Dyer
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703556v1

(An)isotropy of the Hubble diagram: comparing hemispheres
Authors: Dominik J. Schwarz, Bastian Weinhorst
arXiv:0706.0165v1 [astro-ph]
Click to expand...
The possibility of the local universe - out to many hundreds of Mpc - being anisotropic is fascinating! It is an area that is likely to get a lot of attention in the coming decade or three.

It's rather too soon to characterise this anisotropy - if indeed it exists - so it's also much too soon to say what it might mean, cosmologically speaking.

However, I think you'll have to do a bit more work, Z, to show that there might be a connection between large-scale charge separation, or very large-scale, coherent magnetic fields, and any observed anisotropy in spiral galaxy spins or H0.
 
Sol88 said:
[qimg]http://www.orbitals.com/orb/orb/2p0.gif[/qimg]

Is that a dipole I see?
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! No, it is not.

I see we can now add quantum mechanics to the list of things you've demonstrated that you don't understand. That's not a dipole. It's an electron orbital, so both lobes are negatively charged. The color difference indicates a change in sign of the complex phase of the wave function, not its charge. But that is clearly too difficult an idea for you to understand. If you actually calculate the expectation value for the dipole moment for that wave function, you will (not surprisingly) find that it is zero.
 
Ziggurat said:
Bwahahahahaha! No, it is not.

I see we can now add quantum mechanics to the list of things you've demonstrated that you don't understand. That's not a dipole. It's an electron orbital, so both lobes are negatively charged. The color difference indicates a change in sign of the complex phase of the wave function, not its charge. But that is clearly too difficult an idea for you to understand. If you actually calculate the expectation value for the dipole moment for that wave function, you will (not surprisingly) find that it is zero.
Click to expand...
But he clearly does like pretty pictures! :D

Seems to be a rather common feature of posts by EU/PC proponents, doesn't it? I mean an apparent heavy reliance on pretty pictures to make their case ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom