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

To: Moonman62
As I recall faster moving jets are colliding with slower moving jets that were ejected previously.

Gravity cosmology cannot explain the jets, cannot explain how it holds together, nor can they explain the bilateral symmetry. They cannot explain any of the features seen inside what they refer to as "hot gases," why they are hot, or explain why it radiates in the x-Ray ranges. They cannot explain why they are everywhere they look in the sky. If they were what they claim, they'd be very rare. They are not. They are common. They fly in the face of standard gravity laws and Boyle's Law of how gases act when uncontained. They are at a complete loss to explain any of it. The use ad hoc claims that do not hold up to examination. They cannot even begin to explain any of it.

31 posted on 05/28/2015 8:31:24 PM PDT by Swordmaker ( This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users contnue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker

I will no longer respond to you directly on your nutty idea. Please stop making Conservatives look like ignorant weirdos.


32 posted on 05/28/2015 8:36:30 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: Swordmaker
Gravity cosmology cannot explain the jets...

I'm surethat there's plenty of things that gravity cosmology can't explain at the moment.

But that doesn't mean that the "Electric Universe" cosmology is correct.

There are just too many things that the "Electric Universe" cosmology has serious problems explaining away.

Stars as fusion furnaces, for example. The gravitational model, despite whatever inadequacies it may have, seems to be supported more by the preponderance of scientific evidence.

I'm sure some of the electrical phenomena are perfectly real in some cases, but it doesn't mean that the "Electric Universe" is the more correct cosmology.

The fact is, the scientific paradigm is overwhelmingly in favor of gravitational cosmology, in a way that is much more compelling and convincing than, say, Climate Change science is.

Could the huge majority of scientists be absolutely wrong about that? Yes. But is it likely at this point, given what we understand about the universe? Not likely.

I've read enough scientific comparisons between the two models to convince me that the "Electric Universe" is not sufficient to explain the bulk of phenomena we observe in the universe.

Hey, maybe MOND is correct, and there's really no such thing as Dark Matter. But it looks like Dark Matter is being more and more experimentally validated.

There's a web site which I found useful in learning about all sorts of issues relating to physics. Ah, here it is:

Brian K Oberlein's Web Site

I've found it very informative.

39 posted on 05/28/2015 10:27:22 PM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

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