Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anything Goes — Science advances through irrational methods.
Thunderbolts.info ^ | Nov 18, 2014 | Stephen Smith

Posted on 11/21/2014 1:16:47 AM PST by Swordmaker

“I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way.” — Thomas Jefferson


“Dissention” by Cory Ench

It is a common perception that “we stand on the shoulders of giants”: that is, new ideas are based on those inherited from older investigations. If that is the case, then there is a serious hinderance inherent in the approach.

The title of this article is borrowed from Paul Feyerabend, a self-described “epistemological anarchist”, who promulgated an irreverent view of science. It is necessary, in his opinion, to promote inconsistency in the scientific method. By demanding conformity to older theories, those older theories are protected from change, thus inhibiting amended thought. That dogmatic stipulation is familiar to Electric Universe advocates when they attempt to introduce the idea that electricity governs the cosmos and not gravity, alone. The “old guard” immediately mans their guns, aiming to blow apart any intruders attempting to storm their institutionalized walls.

As Cervantes put in the mouth of Don Quijote de la Mancha: “Facts are the enemy of truth”. “Facts” are those data points born from observations that trusted in past theories. Those observations become the “rules” under which all new research is governed. They are the “laws of physics”, for example, that must not be violated lest “thought criminal” be branded on the forehead of the transgressor. The “hallowed halls” of science become the home of sanctified knowledge that brooks no denial.

It is forgotten that the worshipful dictum is an assumption. It is assumed that the charge on the electron does not vary. It is assumed that a kilogram is a kilogram no matter where or when it is measured. It is assumed that the fine structure constant is a constant throughout the Universe. However, it is demonstrated time and again that those assumptions could be wrong. The gravitational constant seems to change every time it is measured. The speed of light—considered to be one of the most inviolate cosmological statutes—has been exceeded in some laboratory experiments. If those facts are obviated by new observations, then laws become mere suggestions.

Skepticism has been lost in modern science. To be a “skeptic” today means to attack new ideas; to marginalize the opposition with a coordinated offensive designed to eliminate competitive viewpoints. It is usually couched in a variety of logical fallacies: appeal to authority; denigration of personality; arguing adverse consequences; or demanding adherence to tradition. As the old gospel song fervently asserts, “If it was good for Paul and Silas, it’s good enough for me”.

Without an inner context, observations can be invisible. That inner context is called a theory. It can be shown that the theories that changed the models science uses to comprehend observations were often based on unsubstantiated particulars. The Electric Universe promotes theories of reality that await confirmation. In conventional conclaves, those theories are nothing but “pseudoscience”, meaning “not genuine”; not “authentic”. So-called “authentic science” is, in reality, the established dogma against which leading-edge visualization should be opposed.

Philosopher Thomas Kuhn wrote: “Examining the record of past research from the vantage of contemporary historiography, the historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places.”

Those new paradigms do not come about because research builds on top of research stone-by-stone. Rather, those “paradigm shifts” usually come about by force. The fall of the Berlin Wall is an equivalent phenomenon. When the decision is made, nothing can withstand it, and that decision can arise suddenly.


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: globalwarminghoax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: Stepan12
The church had a point with Galileo when it said that Galileo did not prove his case that the earth revolved around the sun. That wasn’t proven until Isaac Newton and mechanics.

And yet he was right, and he was still punished for it repeatedly by the irrational and authoritarian church.

41 posted on 11/22/2014 4:31:23 PM PST by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

You missed the point of the entire article.

...

I get the point of the article exactly. It’s to distract people from the fact that the Electric Universe is a bad theory by attacking real science with philosophical jibber jabber.


42 posted on 11/22/2014 4:58:28 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

(remember that Bohr and Einstein regarded themselves as outsiders).

...

Say what you will about Einstein the man, but his work was mainstream. His theories were solidly based on competent astronomical observations and experimental results. He also improved upon the previously published theories of other competent scientists. Einstein’s work was published, scrutinized by other scientists and eventually verified by more astronomical observations and experiments.

There’s no comparison to what goes on with the Electric Universe.


43 posted on 11/22/2014 6:46:22 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; Fred Nerks
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein

Physics New Suit

“Relativity is one of the most well tested theories in science!” And perhaps that is a true statement, but does it reflect the accuracy and usefulness of those tests? Does repeating the same wrong test over and over count? What about the interpretation of the tests, does everyone agree? A little known fact is that Relativity is the only pillar of science still hotly contested in scientific circles even after 100 years of supposed acceptance. While other widely accepted ideas such as Evolution may still be contested, it is always in association with religious beliefs. Relativity’s dissenters share no common religious background or reasoning. Their contentions are purely scientific in nature. Most people’s first thought is, “Surely the people who do not agree are the same group of people insisting congress is populated by aliens”. However, I’d like to introduce you to some of the scientists and inventors who fall in with the dissenters.

How can so many Nobel laureates, inventors and great contributors to society go to their grave believing relativity was false? How could anyone not be convinced all the way into the 50s and 60s? Wasn’t it proven over and over and widely accepted by that time? Isn’t that what we are taught? History is written more by popularity than by fact and unfortunately science occasionally follows suit. There are logical reasons why these great men of science never accepted relativity. There exists very significant experimental evidence against it. Unfortunately, there are far too few people willing to challenge the safety and security afforded them by belief systems. Only those exceedingly strong in mind and of the greatest humility can stand to see that which they held in the highest regard, those things they trusted as universal truth, utterly fail. Only those with the greatest mental fortitude and confidence can become one of the few willing to withstand the onslaught of ridicule and not be swayed by the popularity of popular belief. You have been given the opportunity to examine doubt, while not free from scorn, in very good company. Like the story of 'The Emporer's New Suit', will you be the child that says aloud, “The Emperor is Naked!”? — Source
Of course, all of the above is the "appeal to authority" fallacy, however, it demonstrates that there were in the past scientists who did not fall into lockstep, marching with the orthodox herd shouting "me too," as they all fall off the cliff like the mythical lemmings.

There are still such physicists and cosmologists today who challenge the paradigm such as Physicist Dr. Ed Dowdye who asks why the light bends around the Sun's gravity field only when it passes through where the Sun's plasma atmosphere exists, but does not where the plasma atmosphere is absent but there is still a strong gravity field?


The gravitational deflection of light and microwaves propagate along a least timeor minimum energy path
only at the plasma-rim of the sun exposed to the gravitational gradient field of the sun.


Solar light bending as function of the impact parameter R {at solar plasma limb}, 2R, 3R, 4R, etc
"The Observations"
explainable with least-time or minimum-energy waves in
a plasma exposed to solar gravitational gradient field
versus
"General Relativity"
an assumption of space-time effects or curvature of space
to explain gravitational light bending

Relativity Theory states that it should always be distorted because of the gravity field yet all of our empirical data observations show it does not, except where there is a plasma atmosphere. If there is no plasma atmosphere, the light travels on its way, unimpeded, undistorted by gravity. Why? How? The Relativity confirmation data came from the observations that went through the plasma atmosphere. . .

Remarkably as it may seem, however, historically the solar light bending effect has been observed only at the solar rim, the refractive plasma atmosphere of the sun. This is strongly confirmed by a large number of very-long-baseline-interferometer (VLBI) measurements on the gravitational deflection of microwaves from radio pulsar sources that were deflected at the thin plasma rim of the sun at precisely the angle of 1.75 arcsec.

The observed solar grazing effect of rays of star light at the thin plasma limb (a thickness that is greatly exaggerated here) is depicted in the following animated illustration:


Where are the thousands of Einstein Rings that should be observed?Animated Image is taken from Nasa — Science News
It is interesting to note that the focal length F of the sun of radius R is determined to be roughly 550 astronomical units (AU's), nearly 14 times the mean orbital radius of Pluto, according to the equation

The focal length F and the radius R of the sun are expressed in the same units. As depicted in Figure 7, the light rays from a distant star will come to a focus at a distance of roughly 550 AU's, assuming a convergence angle of 1.75 arcsec. It has been a long desire of many astrophysicists, to include SETI study groups and the International Academy of Astronautics, to send spacecrafts loaded with observational instruments 550 AU's out to the focal point of the solar plasma lens.

If light were to bend around a star's gravitational field forming a gravity lens, then every far field star behind that star would be lensed in front of it in a blurry ring, not a point source because gravity attenuates with distance from the source and the light bends less as you get farther away from the source. . . in other words, the stellar lens is imperfect and will never form a perfect image. The best a gravity lens can produce would be a cloudy ring image around the gravity source forming the lensing. There should be thousands if not millions of Einstein Rings in where ever we look in space, but they are so rare we've found only a handful, if that is what we are seeing at all. In fact, with the sheer number of stars and galaxies in our sky, every star should vice an Einstein Ring, however faint of those objects behind it. However, what lensing is seen is used to explain away high red-shift point source objects that seem to be too close for their velocities. . . and being point sources, they are certainly not Einstein Rings, and could not therefore be artifacts of gravity lenses. So, which is it? Are they impossibly close, or are they impossible gravity lenses forming images that are inexplicable point sources instead of the rings theory predicts?


What we SHOULD be seeing at Sagittarius A circling a massive gravity source, if Gravitational Lensing was occurring.


What we are actually observing at Sagittarius A, circling a massive gravity source: Undistorted time resolved images of
stellar objects orbiting about Sagittarius A — recorded processed images collected from 1992 to 2006
Note there are no gravity lensing artifacting at all.

If there ever was a location where we should be seeing Einstein Rings Sagittarius A is it. But there are none at all. Zip, Nada, Zero. Why not? Where are they? Why are observations not comporting to theory. . . or perhaps it should be the other way around?

44 posted on 11/22/2014 10:11:33 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

I don’t find your short posts worthwhile. Why would I read all that?


45 posted on 11/22/2014 10:43:53 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
from your collection of gems:

There are still such physicists and cosmologists today who challenge the paradigm such as Physicist Dr. Ed Dowdye who asks why the light bends around the Sun's gravity field only when it passes through where the Sun's plasma atmosphere exists, but does not where the plasma atmosphere is absent but there is still a strong gravity field?

Now that is a question I like. I wonder what the answer might be?

46 posted on 11/23/2014 2:11:18 AM PST by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

That's kind of cool. Why does there appear to be plot points and error bars on one of the paths?

47 posted on 11/23/2014 12:44:02 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
That's kind of cool. Why does there appear to be plot points and error bars on one of the paths?

Good question, Moonman, I don't know. Those came from NASA and were Hubble plots. Probably have to do with when the plots were taken. Telescope times and schedules are sporadic so probably have to do with when that star was looked at and plotted. Since it seems to be the larges blip on the plot, it also may be a binary and that is showing the orbital extent of the two stars in their orbits.

By-the-way, thanks for looking.

48 posted on 11/23/2014 12:55:35 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; ForGod'sSake; Fred Nerks
You want publication, Moonman, try this one on.

The orthodoxy is starting to wake up, although they've got it backwards, thinking magnetic fields cause electrical currents, rather than the other way around, but they're starting to get it, even if they're only doing computer simulations. They seem to think that counter to all evidence strong magnetic fields exist absent the flow of electric current.

A current filamentation mechanism for breaking magnetic field lines during reconnection

H. Che, J. F. Drake & M. Swisdak

Nature 06/01/2011 — Summary of the above entitled peer-reviewed paper

(Emphasis is mine— Swordmaker)

During magnetic reconnection, the field lines must break and reconnect to release the energy that drives solar and stellar flares1, 2 and other explosive events in space3 and in the laboratory4. Exactly how this happens has been unclear, because dissipation is needed to break magnetic field lines and classical collisions are typically weak. Ion–electron drag arising from turbulence5, dubbed ‘anomalous resistivity’, and thermal momentum transport6 are two mechanisms that have been widely invoked. Measurements of enhanced turbulence near reconnection sites in space7, 8 and in the laboratory9, 10 support the anomalous resistivity idea but there has been no demonstration from measurements that this turbulence produces the necessary enhanced drag11. Here we report computer simulations that show that neither of the two previously favoured mechanisms controls how magnetic field lines reconnect in the plasmas of greatest interest, those in which the magnetic field dominates the energy budget. Rather, we find that when the current layers that form during magnetic reconnection become too intense, they disintegrate and spread into a complex web of filaments that causes the rate of reconnection to increase abruptly. This filamentary web can be explored in the laboratory or in space with satellites that can measure the resulting electromagnetic turbulence.

(These guys need to rediscover the difference between a real hands-on laboratory working with real plasma and a computer simulation lab. . . Where they can actually see these double layers behave in the plasma microcosm exactly the same way. . . and then they might understand that an electrical current is running through the plasma and WHY the double layers collapse catastrophically when they reconnect when too much current flows through with too little plasma to support the flow. — Swordmaker)

References (to the article)

  1. Tsuneta, S. Heating and acceleration processes in hot thermal and impulsive solar flares. Astrophys. J. 290, 353–358 (1985)

  2. Priest, E. R. & Forbes, T. G. Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

  3. Baker, D. N., Pulkkinen, T. I., Angelopoulos, V., Baumjohann, W. & McPherron, R. L. Neutral line model of substorms: past results and present view. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 12975–13010 (1996)

  4. Yamada, M. et al. Investigation of magnetic reconnection during a sawtooth crash in a high-temperature tokamak plasma. Phys. Plasmas 1, 3269–3276 (1994)

  5. Galeev, A. A. & Sagdeev, R. Z. in Basic Plasma Physics (eds Galeev, A. A. & Sudan, R. N.) Vol. 1, 677–731 (North Holland Publishing Company, 1983)

  6. Hesse, M., Kuznetsova, M. & Hoshino, M. The structure of the dissipation region for component reconnection: particle simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 1563 doi:10.1029/2001GL014714 (2002)

  7. Matsumoto, H., Deng, X. H., Kojima, H. & Anderson, R. R. Observation of electrostatic solitary waves associated with reconnection on the dayside magnetopause boundary. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 1326 doi:10.1029/2002GL016319 (2003)

  8. Cattell, C. et al. Cluster observations of electron holes in association with magnetotail reconnection and comparison to simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A01211 (2005)

  9. Ji, H. et al. Electromagnetic fluctuations during fast reconnection in a laboratory plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 115001 (2004)

  10. Fox, W. et al. Laboratory observation of electron phase-space holes during magnetic reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 255003 (2008)

  11. Eastwood, J., Phan, T. D., Bale, S. D. & Tjulin, A. Observations of turbulence generated by magnetic reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 035001 (2009)

  12. Vasyliunas, V. M. Theoretical models of magnetic field line merging. 1. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 13, 303–336 (1975)

  13. Drake, J. F. et al. Formation of electron holes and particle energization during magnetic reconnection. Science 299, 873–877 (2003)

  14. Che, H., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M. & Yoon, P. H. Electron holes and heating in the reconnection dissipation region. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37 L11105 doi:10.1029/2010GL043608 (2010)

  15. Kaw, P. K., Valeo, E. J. & Rutherford, P. H. Tearing modes in a plasma with magnetic braiding. Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1398–1401 (1979)

  16. Drake, J. F., Kleva, R. G. & Mandt, M. E. Structure of thin current layers: implications for magnetic reconnection. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 1251–1254 (1994)

  17. Lazarian, A. & Vishniac, E. Reconnection in a weakly stochastic field. Astrophys. J. 517 700 doi:10.1086/307233 (1999)

  18. Kowal, G., Lazarian, A., Vishniac, E. & Otmianowska-Mazur, K. Reconnection in a weakly stochastic magnetic field. Astrophys. J. 700, 63–85 (2009)

  19. Openheim, M. M., Vetoulis, G., Newman, D. L. & Goldman, M. V. Evolution of electron phase-space holes in 3-D. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1891–1894 (2001)

  20. Omura, Y., Matsumoto, H., Miyake, T. & Kojima, H. Electron beam instabilities as a generation mechanism of electrostatic solitary waves in the magnetotail. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 2685–2697 (1996)

  21. McMillan, B. F. & Cairns, I. H. Lower hybrid turbulence driven by parallel currents and associated electron energization. Phys. Plasmas 13 052104 doi:10.1063/1.2198212 (2006)

  22. Goldman, M. V., Newman, D. L. & Pritchett, P. Vlasov simulations of electron holes driven by particle distribution from PIC reconnection simulations with a guide field. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 L22109 doi:10.1029/2008GL035608 (2008)

  23. Che, H., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M. & Yoon, P. H. Nonlinear development of streaming instabilities in strongly magnetized plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 145004 (2009)

  24. Kingsep, A. S. Chukbar, K. V. & Yan’kov, Y. Y. in Reviews of Plasma Physics (ed. Kadomtsev, B. B.) Vol. 16, 243–288 (Consultants Bureau, 1990)

  25. Ferraro, N. M. & Rogers, B. N. Turbulence in low-β reconnection. Phys. Plasmas 11, 4382–4389 (2004)

  26. Ricci, P. Brackbill, J. U., Daughton, W. & Lapenta, G. Collisionless magnetic reconnection in the prescence of a guide field. Phys. Plasmas 11, 4102–4114 (2004)

  27. Zeiler, A. et al. Three-dimensional particle simulations of collisionless magnetic reconnection. J. Geophys. Res. 107 1230 doi:10.1029/2001JA000287 (2002)

  28. Pritchett, P. & Coroniti, F. V. Three-dimensional collisionless magnetic reconnection in the presence of a guide field. J. Geophys. Res. 109 A01220 doi:10.1029/2003JA009999 (2004)

    Author information

    Affiliations

    Center For Integrated Plasma Studies, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
    H. Che

    Department of Physics and Institute for Physical Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
    J. F. Drake

    Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
    M. Swisdak


49 posted on 11/24/2014 3:28:31 AM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

So a computer model possibly discovers a new physical process that wasn’t expected. I think we can assume that the model was based on standard quantum electrodynamics, not some alternate theory popular on a small number of internet chat forums and blogs.


50 posted on 11/25/2014 11:15:36 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
So a computer model possibly discovers a new physical process that wasn’t expected. I think we can assume that the model was based on standard quantum electrodynamics, not some alternate theory popular on a small number of internet chat forums and blogs.

So you want to "Assume" something not in evidence. OK. They specifically state: "Here we report computer simulations that show that neither of the two previously favoured mechanisms controls how magnetic field lines reconnect in the plasmas of greatest interest, those in which the magnetic field dominates the energy budget." Those are the models that are based on the standard quantum electrodynamics. Sorry. Again, in a laboratory, it can be demonstrated how this DOES work. Astrophysicists insist on using mathematical models rather than real world experiments. The MAP is not the territory. Math should not be assumed to reflect reality. Models are not reality. If they were, we'd be burning up in a Global Warming Climate.

51 posted on 11/25/2014 5:04:49 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Well stated!


52 posted on 11/25/2014 5:08:01 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
To quote Robert Heinlein:

From the short story “Lifeline:”

“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method, the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are to be junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority

53 posted on 11/25/2014 5:13:50 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
“There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method, the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are to be junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority”

Thank you, Ed. I have always considered Heinlein to be my philosophical mentor. I had forgotten that passage, but it lies at the heart of my own philosophy.

54 posted on 11/25/2014 5:18:12 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Wow! Just wow!


55 posted on 11/25/2014 5:33:56 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; editor-surveyor; ForGod'sSake
Wow! Just wow!

I am still waiting for your purely gravity explanation of this Butterfly Nebula:

But you keep avoiding saying anything about it. This Planetary (a misnomer because of when it was found) Nebula M2-9 is over a light year across. . . Please, please, tell me what function of gravity can keep its shape over a LIGHT YEAR and symmetrical on both sides, and in fact pinch it down smaller, farther away from the primary causal star???

Face it, Moonman62, gravity simply cannot make an object such as Planetary Nebula M2-9. Orthodox Cosmologists have no explanations for how it holds together.

Here is the Orthodox Cosmologists' gravity theoretical explanation from on of NASA's Astronomical Pictures of the Day:

"Explanation: Are stars better appreciated for their art after they die? Actually, stars usually create their most artistic displays as they die. In the case of low-mass stars like our Sun and M2-9 pictured above, the stars transform themselves from normal stars to white dwarfs by casting off their outer gaseous envelopes. The expended gas frequently forms an impressive display called a planetary nebula that fades gradually over thousand of years. M2-9, a butterfly planetary nebula 2100 light-years away shown in representative colors, has wings that tell a strange but incomplete tale. In the center, two stars orbit inside a gaseous disk 10 times the orbit of Pluto. The expelled envelope of the dying star breaks out from the disk creating the bipolar appearance. Much remains unknown about the physical processes that cause planetary nebulae.

No mention of the two obvious plasmoids on either side of the star. References to "gas." What disk? Do you see one? I certainly don't. No mention of the 200,000 K measured temperatures of those "gases" in the nebulae on either side. . . which by definition makes them a plasma, the fourth state of matter that is NOT gas. In other words, they don't know. They have no clue.

Oh, this exact high energy z-pinch formation can easily be created in a plasma laboratory in the microcosm and the effects are scalable by just adding more power.

56 posted on 11/25/2014 6:23:56 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

I’m not the only one who thinks the Electric Universe is a crackpot theory.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=electric+universe+crackpot


57 posted on 11/25/2014 6:35:55 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; editor-surveyor
I’m not the only one who thinks the Electric Universe is a crackpot theory.

You should check your search results. . . just because it has the word "crackpot" in the results does not mean it is proof of your search. Thanks.

58 posted on 11/25/2014 8:12:15 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; editor-surveyor
Oh, and still waiting for you to address that photo. . . and the reality of that object just 2,100 light years away from us.

"Eppur si muove"— Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). You are willfully blind.

59 posted on 11/25/2014 8:21:35 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe

The “Electric Universe” (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electromagnetism than by gravity. The exact claims are diverse and vary from crank to crank (author to author). A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can’t put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory. Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the “plasma cosmology” of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[2] EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory, and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart).


60 posted on 11/25/2014 8:30:07 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson