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

Skip to comments.

Dark Matter is Real. “Dark Matter” is a Terrible Name for It
Discover Magazine ^ | 4/1/19 | Corey S. Powell

Posted on 04/03/2019 3:25:28 PM PDT by LibWhacker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: MHGinTN

I think Wiki covers it pretty well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

If somebody is claiming to have a device that generates usable energy from ZPE I think it’s a scam.


41 posted on 04/04/2019 11:00:17 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: aquila48; Swordmaker
From NASA's website:
It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

42 posted on 04/04/2019 7:42:41 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

That’s the latest iteration of their magical incantation to make their latest equations work. Still fudge packed in. Still can’t find either one of them. . . nor can they use their theories to predict a single thing in advance that has been discovered in the last thirty years while the Electric Uniiverse Cosmologists have.

43 posted on 04/04/2019 7:53:50 PM PDT by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Can you get a degree in it from a reputable university? Can you find even one peer reviewed paper that’s been published in a top scientific journal?


44 posted on 04/04/2019 9:27:54 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; Swordmaker

Dark matter may be just the latest in a long list of discredited substances...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discredited_substances

It smacks of a huge fudge factor to make existing theories explain what is being observed.


45 posted on 04/04/2019 10:11:52 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Can you get a degree in it from a reputable university? Can you find even one peer reviewed paper that’s been published in a top scientific journal?

Peer review is overrated. . . Major peer reviewed journals have been caught publishing hoax papers written to demonstrate the worthlessness of such peer review.

How three MIT students fooled the world of scientific journals
By Adams Connor-Simons
MIT NEWS, April 14, 2015

A decade later, CSAIL alumni reflect on their paper generator and reveal a new fake-conference project.

In recent years, the field of academic publishing has ballooned to an estimated 30,000 peer-reviewed journals churning out some 2 million articles per year. While this growth has led to more scientific scholarship, critics argue that it has also spurred increasing numbers of low-quality “predatory publishers” who spam researchers with weekly “calls for papers” and charge steep fees for articles that they often don’t even read before accepting.

Ten years ago, a few students at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) had noticed such unscrupulous practices, and set out to have some mischievous fun with it. Jeremy Stribling MS ’05 PhD ’09, Dan Aguayo ’01 MEng ’02 and Max Krohn PhD ’08 spent a week or two between class projects to develop “SCIgen,” a program that randomly generates nonsensical computer-science papers, complete with realistic-looking graphs, figures, and citations.

SCIgen emerged out of Krohn’s previous work as co-founder of the online study guide SparkNotes, which included a generator of high-school essays that was based on “context-free grammar.” SCIgen works like an academic “Mad Libs” of sorts, arbitrarily slotting in computer-science buzzwords like “distributed hash tables” and “Byzantine fault tolerance.”. . .

Peer review is the echo chamber of the orthodox view and does nothing but support the status quo.

Many of the tenets of the Electric Universe are currently being "rediscovered" by and are being renamed as something else by mainstream astronomers which Electric Universe proponents find quite humorous. . . but the GU Cosmologist still miss the larger picture forest for the trees they find.

For example, Solar astrophysicists are finally willing to discuss "charged plasmas that connect the chromosphere with the corona" but they are not willing to use the time honored term "Birkeland Currents" which can be demonstrated in a plasma laboratory doing exactly the same thing and insist on talking about non-existent "magnetic connections and disconnections" without current flowing which creates the magnetic fields they need for their "connections/reconnections" of imaginary "magnetic lines" they see on diagrams. Until these GU Cosmologists stop refusing to accept that electricity freely flows through the perfect conductors of Plasmas, and indeed flows through space, they will never grasp the reason for the huge chromosphere/corona temperature differential which in the EU Cosmology is completely explicable and the why the power curve observed follows the identical power curve of a power amplifier transistor circuit and how the sun operates in a similar way.

The orthodox cosmologists still can’t make any successful predictions based on their hypotheses while the EU cosmologists are making detailed successful prediction after successful prediction about what will be encountered. Yet the orthodox cosmologists are continually shocked, surprised, stunned, upset at what they find when their predictions are not validated, while the EU cosmologists nod a say we told you that would be what you’d see, find, and discover.

The tests for any hypothesis are can it be falsified and can it predict future discoveries without putting one’s thumb on the scale of the data (fudge the data or the math). On any objective score, the Electric Universe hypothesis fits the observed reality far better than the Gravity Universe hypothesis.


Herbig-Haro objects HH30, HH34, HH47


Butterfly Nebula


Clear Example of a Birkeland Current with
a "Z" Pinch Symmetrical Plasmids
seen in Hubble Telescope View of the Twin Jet Nebula in Ophiuchus

Until the Gravity Universe cosmologists can rationally provide an explicable gravitational mechanism driving deep space structures such as the hundreds of multiple lightyear-spanning, spiraling Herbig-Haro Objects, or how universally globular gravity creates and drives hundreds of symetrical objects such as the Butterfly and Twin Jet Nebula, or how a mere ~6,000 Kelvin Solar chromosphere (surface) can be transferred to a coronal (upper Solar atmosphere) of ~2,000,000 Kelvin by mere convection transmission against gravity, or why every single "dirty snowball" comet which orthodoxy has predicted they’d find copious amounts of water only to discover they’re as dry as bone and indistinguishable from all other solid rock asteroids, the Gravity driven Universe Cosmologists have serious problems with their models regardless of peer reviewed journals and orthodox classes and degrees.

46 posted on 04/05/2019 12:41:18 PM PDT by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Sorry, Swordmaker. EU is pure garbage. Lemme see... What garbage do I want to study today?... EU or astrology?... Hmm... Neither!

EU doesn't rely on mathematics. Why? BECAUSE IT'S GARBAGE!

Don't be a sucker, Swordmaker. You're smarter than that.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe

"Electric universe" theory is at odds with everything modern science has determined about the universe. Yet something about it sparks fervor in the hearts of believers.

|
Feb 18 2016, 6:30am

Image: Che Saitta-Zelterman

They call themselves The Thunderbolts Project.

They subscribe to an idea called "electric universe," and sometimes describe themselves as "getting EU eyes." Like slipping on rose-colored glasses, the conversion changes their perception of the entire universe. The objects and events remain the same. But they're tinged with truth. And in EU theory, the truth is that electricity rules.

Electric currents that flow along plasma filaments shape and power galaxies. The currents stream into stars, powering them like fluorescent bulbs. They induce the births of planets. Craters on those planets come from electrical arcs, like lightning bolts, that sear the surfaces.

Also, black holes don't exist, and neither does dark matter. Nor dark energy.

The Big Bang? Never happened.

Einstein's two relativities are laughable fiction.

Electricity can explain away all that stuff.

"The story of the cosmos that you see in the media now is virtual reality," said Wallace Thornhill, one of the founders of EU.

⚡⚡⚡

The electric universe concept does not meet the National Academy of Sciences' definition of a "theory," which is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" and "can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

In physics, theories need math. That's how you predict, gather evidence, verify, disprove, and support. But EU theory isn't big on math. In fact, "Mathematics is not physics," Thornhill said. While that equation aversion makes the theory pretty much a nonstarter for "mainstream" astronomers, it is the exact thing that appeals to many adherents.

"They don't blind you with science," said Rasjid Smith, who learned EU theory from YouTube. "It is understandable to a capable schoolchild."

The idea that outsiders ("the people") will revolutionize physics, in a way that those outsiders understand, is powerful.

"What doesn't seem to vary is the dissident psychology behind the involvement."

"Science is returned to the people—the garage tinkerer, the practical engineer, and the natural philosopher," Thornhill told Motherboard.

"People say to me that it has changed their lives because it makes sense for them," he said. "And because it is a real cosmology, there is something for everyone, be they scholar, artist, engineer, or the 'man on the street.'"

EU is completely at odds, however, with everything modern science has determined about the universe.

"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem; it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."

Yet something about it sparks fervor in the hearts of people-on-the-street, more fervor than casual believers in the Big Bang have. Despite the gaps, logical fallacies, and evidence to its contrary, EU appeals deeply to adherents, lighting a fire not unlike a tent revival does. The question is, what is it about EU that grabs people?

Thornhill began his obsessive study of cosmic electricity in high school, when he read Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, published in 1950.

Velikovsky was an author known mostly for his controversial "comparative mythology" books, which recast and reinterpreted ancient history. In Worlds in Collision, he said that Jupiter ejected to Venus around 1500 BCE. From there, the newborn planet flew close to Earth, causing all sorts of catastrophes. When Venus came back around a half-century later, it stopped Earth's spin (briefly), making for a long night.

The resulting disasters, Velikovsky claimed, showed up in mythology around the world. Astrophysicists pointed out that this Jupiter-born Venus idea violated theories about orbits and gravity. But Velikovsky had gone rogue: He suggested gravity didn't cause orbits. Electricity did.

When a young Thornhill read Velikovsky's book, he recognized a kindred spirit. Here, he thought, was a true scientist, not afraid to be a heretic. After studying physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, Thornhill briefly did upper-atmosphere research at IBM, but he, too, identified as a heretic. It wasn't long before he left the establishment.

He never forgot about Velikovsky, though. And in the early 1970s, he heard about a magazine called Pulsate: 10 issues, all devoted to his scientific hero. The publication was written by brothers Steven and David Talbott. He soon met these two, along with Velikovsky himself, at a conference called "Velikovsky and the Recent History of the Solar System." Five years later, he found himself in Velikovsky's home in Princeton, New Jersey. There, Velikovsky "planted the seed of an idea that gravity is related to the electrical structure of neutral matter," Thornhill told me.

Talbott. Image: Che Saitta-Zelterman

That seed would eventually grow into a framework called "electric universe" theory, which Thornhill and David Talbott would later develop together and which would gain a fervent worldwide following.

Thornhill and Talbott began their official EU collaboration at another conference, years later. "Since my university days, I had been prepared to assist those leading the fray in any way I could," Thornhill said. "But at that 1994 conference, I realized that the leaders were gone and it was up to me."

In preparation for that meeting, which was called "Planetary Violence in Human History," Thornhill spent a month sleeping on his friend's office floor. He wanted to convince Talbott that the ancient images he'd been studying—petroglyphs that look like the cartoon Suns in the top-right corners of kindergarten art—bore witness to catastrophic plasma events. Plasma, the idea went, pervades the universe in filaments. Those filaments carry electric current, and that current controls the cosmos. "Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear forces are all different manifestations of the electric force at vastly different scales," Thornhill said of the basis of the theory.

Thornhill called his conference talk, "The Electric Universe."

⚡⚡⚡

Today, it's not just Thornhill and Talbott. EU also has the backing of a fervent community, those in The Thunderbolts Project. Since Thornhill and Talbott founded this movement, the internet has spread it.

The Thunderbolts website has 1,800 forum participants, with about 130 online simultaneously at peak traffic. The Thunderbolts Facebook page has around 10,000 followers.

One hundred seventy-five people donate $1,905 per month to the Thunderbolts Project Patreon campaign for video production. On its YouTube page, six feature-length documentaries have anywhere between 300,000 and a million views. The group holds annual conferences. This year's is at the Sheraton in Mesa, Arizona.

Reddit user NeeAnderTall, an EU follower and Thunderbolt subreddit peruser, began life wanting to be an astronaut. NeeAnderTall, who didn't want to use his real name, consumed science fiction like fuel. But as the years supposedly depicted in Space 1999 and 2001: A Space Odyssey approached without measuring up, he grew frustrated.

"Everything I wanted to experience was always 20 years away," he said.

So he decided to reverse-engineer a UFO (something he no longer believes in). In the classifieds at the back of Popular Science magazine, he found an ad for High-Energy Electrostatics Research, a tome that deals with "anti-gravity." Soon, he enrolled in college astronomy and geology classes. He gave status-quo answers to get good grades, but he didn't buy into all of it, especially dark matter.

While browsing Reddit one day, he came across Thornhill and Talbott's video Thunderbolts of the Gods, an EU primer. He watched YouTube video after YouTube video, hooked. He likens EU to "a hipster teenager [rebelling] against parental restrictions and taboos."

That reaction against convention also led Marc Royal, a 47-year-old music producer in Alberta, Canada, to the electric universe. In his early twenties, he felt constrained by the corporate demands of his intended career in graphic design. His true passions were making music and reading physics books from Foyles Bookstore in London. When he considered going back to school to formally learn more about the universe, he met with a professor to investigate his options.

"I want you to put all the books down because I want to teach you from scratch," the professor said, of his auto-didacticism.

"I thought, 'Oh, that's indoctrination,'" said Royal. Which he was not into.

He opted to continue his solo studies. Soon, he concluded that gravity holds physics back from a grand theory that could explain everything. He evolved the germ of his own unified theory: that "most things could already be explained by electricity alone." He didn't find the Thunderbolts, or the official electric universe, until later.

Royal still lurks on the Thunderbolts forum, but the negativity now keeps him silent. A typical comments section is full of ad hominem attacks and invective toward mainstream astronomy and EU doubters. He doesn't think the Thunderbolts have it all figured out.

"They need to work the maths out and get their papers peer-tested," he said.

But most in the astronomy "establishment" or "NASA," which seems to be the blanket EU term for a conglomeration of mainstream astronomers, would say EU doesn't deserve refutation.

"We know stars generate energy through nuclear fusion, not plasma discharge; we know craters are formed from asteroid and comet impacts, not huge electric arcs; we absolutely know that special and general relativity work, despite some EU proponents' claims," said Plait, who has tangled with EU commenters a time or two. "From what I've seen, most EU claims are on the cranky end of [the] scale. That's why most astronomers ignore it: No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically."

EU makes few predictions. It doesn't have a unified framework, or mathematical laws underpinning it. The underlying physics doesn't go far beyond, "It's electric." Data doesn't support or disprove specific hypotheses. And where are all these electrical arcs in space? And what could their power source possibly be?

It's hard to point out the holes in EU hole by hole because, well, there are a lot. (Here are some others' attempts to poke holes.) Proponents also cherry-pick individual phenomena to explain: individual entries on how stars shine, how craters form, why galaxies have their shapes, and what causes planets and craters. They don't give a whole-universe overview detailed enough to unify those phenomena and also apply to phenomena they haven't yet described.

Thunderbolts hate the question-mark terms that modern astronomers use—"dark energy," "dark matter"—to describe observations they can't explain yet. They call these concepts "patches."

The gaps in electric universe theory do drive followers from the fold. David, a former enthusiast who now calls EU an "anti-science cult" and wished to use only his first name, was undone when someone asked about Thornhill's latest electric explanation of gravity.

"When I looked into it, I was literally flabbergasted at how stupid it was," he said. "I really was ashamed that I had ever listened to a word Thornhill said."

Now he tries to de-convert others in the Thunderbolts forum, a process that he calls his "work."

"Why, just now I finally made someone see the light," he said, and sends me a link to two recent posts (the before and the after). "Deprogramming someone is kind of like the thrill of catching a large fish," he said.

⚡⚡⚡

Astrophysics has left many behind. Its concepts, almost by definition, are abstract. None of us, no matter what happened in Interstellar, will feel the tug of a black hole. We'll never be in the cosmic delivery room when a planet comes barreling around its orbit for the first time. Aside from solar-system samples, all we get from space are pictures and plots—evidence that immaterial photons hit some telescope's detector. The math that predicts and explains the cosmos is far outside common knowledge.

EU proponents hate the question-mark terms that modern astronomers use to describe observations they can't explain yet. What astronomers call dark matter and dark energy, doubters call "patches." Their nebulosity bothers Thunderbolts.

"The language of modern physics is largely meaningless: space-time, spooky action-at-a-distance, non-locality, dark energy, dark matter, black hole," Thornhill said.

Without evidence or explanations they can make sense of, EU followers feel like scientists are saying, "Just trust us." The classic dissident's response to that is, "I don't." And Susan Schirott, the CEO/President of T-Bolts Group, Inc., and also the group's Conference Director, Communication Director, and Volunteer Coordinator (all volunteer positions), says that while different members of the community are different, "what doesn't seem to vary is the dissident psychology behind the involvement." Among them, there's a general distrust of authority and a particular type of disappointment in scientists, the kind you felt when you realized your dad was just a dude.

"As a kid you grow up thinking scientists are these great minds, extremely intelligent, and very respectable people who do not get befuddled by their own biases, always ready and willing to accept that they might be wrong, and would be happily corrected in the pursuit of truth," said a Thunderbolt who wished to remain anonymous. "Then you grow up and realize that, just like everyone else, hardly anyone lives up to that standard."

So, the dissident says, why should we trust their traditional story of the cosmos?

Image: Che Saitta-Zelterman

"I believe history has showed us again and again that many novel ideas which were initially met with skepticism or angry rejection eventually gain more adherents and momentum until they end up as part of the orthodox corpus of scientific knowledge," said Miguel, who encountered EU in his work as a contributor to the website The Daily Grail, which explores "the fringes of science and history."

And, to some extent, he's right. The idea that Earth goes around the Sun, and not the other way around, was once considered heretical. Before revolutionary ideas become revolutionary, they simply sound fringe.

But the problem is that most fringe ideas don't turn out to be revolutionary. They just turn out to be wrong. And equating pseudoscience, or even just bad science, with solid science isn't just unorthodox. It can be dangerous.

Climate change denial slows the cleanup of the planet. Anti-vaccination movements give kids measles. GMO hysteria makes it harder for starving kids to get nutrient-rich rice. The Electric Universe theory doesn't seem to be hurting anyone at the moment, but wouldn't it be better for the Thunderbolts to expend their energy understanding good science? Or at least be as suspicious of EU as they are of "the astronomy establishment."

Every person I interviewed for this story was thoughtful, curious, and skeptical. They spend their free time learning. They don't want to accept; they want to investigate. I get that. I happen to love dark energy, and also data. But when a scientist says, "Just trust me," it's the job of any other scientist (or science writer) to say, "I don't," and to go digging for more, like the Thunderbolts do.

People want to figure the universe out themselves. Observatories receive regular letters from writers who say they have disproven Einstein's theories, debunked the Big Bang, or dined with extraterrestrials. The book No One May Ever Have This Knowledge Again is a collection of such letters written to Mount Wilson Observatory in Pasadena, California, during the early 20th century. It takes its title from one Alice May Williams of Auckland, New Zealand, who wrote, "I believe I have some knowledge which you gentlemen should have. If I die my knowledge may die with me & no one may ever have the same knowledge again."

It's my universe, too, Williams, the other letter-writers, and the Thunderbolts group seem to say. And I also want to make sense of it.

When Thornhill speaks to their souls in a YouTube video that claims to explain what NASA hasn't, using only the force that runs their toaster, they gravitate toward it. They log on to Thunderbolts.info and watch the full hour of Thunderbolts of the Gods.

In this film, Thornhill proclaims, "Modern cosmology gives us a rather disconnected view of the universe. Therefore, we look upon ourselves as isolated and disconnected. The electric universe takes a different view." In that view—the view through EU eyes—Earth is still just some pale blue dot. But arcs of plasma link that blue dot to the wider cosmos, hooking our place in the universe up to other places. All those places we'll never go.

The arcs also connect Thunderbolt members to each other. Like many misguided converts, they want to touch others so that the current can flow from them and into others. The problem, though, is that no one is grounding them.


47 posted on 04/05/2019 3:29:55 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Don't be a sucker, Swordmaker. You're smarter than that.

Why thank you. I am that smart. I tutored in physics in college, before I switched my major to economics . . . and you are just not paying attention if you are swallowing the orthodox line.

Equating the Electric/Plasma Universe— where we KNOW that 99% of the matter we can see in the Universe IS in the form of PLASMA, yet standard, orthodox cosmologist totally ignore everything we know and have learned about the physics of Plasmas and refer to them merely as "hot gases"—to twaddle like astrology??? You show you know nothing about what you are talking about. The EU is based firmly in the science of plasma physics and Electrical physics. Equating that with astrology makes you the pseudo-scientist here, taking a position on something you know squat about. That’s like Carl Sagan writing a scathing review of Immanuel Velikovsky’s book "Worlds in Collision" without ever having even held a copy only using vague hearsay of what he wrote from others who also had not read it. . . Yet we know today that Velikovsky made specific predictions based on his hypotheses about what we would find on Venus, which Sagan specifically claimed were totally outrageously WRONG HEADED, but which we now know were right on the money. Velikovsky predicted we would find that Venus had an extremely hot (900°C ) surface temperature, an atmosphere made up of high CO2 At 90 Bar, etc. that’s what the Russian Venera probe found 19 years after Velikovsky made his predictions and Sagan contradicted him.

Your article claims the Electric Universe cosmologists "don’t make predictions" but that is a bald faced lie. I have told you of the predictions the EU Cosmologists have made. . . and ALL of them have been proved to be true. One of the biggest predictions that proved to be true was that comets were not dirty snowballs but were essentially indistinguishable from asteroids. Prior to the spacecraft rendezvous, Electric Universe Cosmologists made nineteen specific predictions about what would happen on the Deep Impact expedition to Comet Tempel 1, most of them completely contrary to the expectations of the orthodoxy, and ALL NINETEEN proved to be true, including extraordinary events not expected at all by mission planners!

Contrary to that ad hominem filled straw man rant critical article of Sarah Scoles, which I’ve read several times in the past, and in which I have yet to see a cogent argument on the tenets of what the EU actually proposes, instead she presents pointless and inaccurate innuendos against mostly unknown EU Internet proponents. She spends a lot of time seemingly denigrating the people she associates with EU sites, not the facts presented. The people, she implies are not qualified to hold an opinion. . . That must be left to their betters who have already made the conclusion based having ‘done the math’ and ‘knowing’ stuff they ‘know’ who aren’t to be challenged by the peasants. Why, they read the text books!

The fact is the EU proponents actually do rely on observable evidence, facts, and calculable math, Plasma math that doesn’t rely on adding fudge factors of "dark" matter and "dark" energy that no one can detect or find the source for required just to force their math to work. Math that can be taken into a laboratory and applied and tested.

I have the impression you did not bother to even read what I posted to you, especially the serious questions I asked you. . . about the sun, or click on any of the links, because you have already dismissed it all out-of-hand as "garbage, right? How closed minded of you. Everything is "settled science," isn’t it. . . Even when standard cosmology Solar scientists state they don’t know how something happens and "it’s a mystery" (that’s a quote, by the way).

The EU proponents can demonstrate what they are talking about in the laboratory, contrary to Standard cosmologists who can only point to their elegantly fudged math formulas THAT WITHOUT THEIR FUDGE FACTORED IN DON’T REFLECT THE REAL WORLD!

You can tell these critics are grasping at straws when they refer to Nicola Tesla and Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén as pseudoscience quacks who give EU proponents a bad aroma. Nicola Tesla? A pseudo scientist quack? Really?

Please explain the objects I challenged you to explicate purely in terms of gravity. What holds a Herbig-Haro object together over a span of 75 light years, LibWhacker? How do you explain the multi-lightyear long double lobed Twin Jet Nebula with plasmids that looks exactly like a two inch long Z-pinch Plasma with plasmids that can be easily created in a plasma laboratory and scaled larger merely by increasing power? Please explain how GRAVITY can create what we see in these bi-polar objects when, as far as we know, gravity does not have a bi-polar or even a linear directionality function, but works in a globular, unipolar modality only. Please explain how the "jets" ejected from neutron stars and supposed black holes can remain collimated for hundreds of light years without a force of some kind to prevent them from obeying Boyle-Mariotte’s Law and, for that matter just sheer entropy, the farther they get from the so-called jet’s nozzle?

I find it amusing that standard cosmologists are willing to use the argument of quantumized red shift as one of the arguments for the existence and even the necessity for "dark" matter and energy, but fail to recognize that Harlton ARP, the astronomer who discovered that inconvenient fact was a proponent of the Electric Universe. . . and was then prevented from getting telescope time as a heretic!

You seem to think there are no scientists involved in the EU cosmology proponents. . . and this snide article with its poor caricature drawing of Wallace Thornhill intended to show him in a bad light tries to show that. . . But there are physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists as well as Plasma physicists and electrical engineers involved who are working in their fields.

“Mathematics is not physics" is taking Thornhill out of context. . . but he is right when to get one’s math to work requires one to divorce oneself from what can be actually observe in the real world. When one has to fudge the math to make it fit by stuffing in non-observable or non-measured data to get your math to work, one better re-examine one’s basic assumptions. Something is wrong. Mathematics can only be a way of describing what you observe. Computer models are NOT the real world. Put garbage in, you are going to get garbage out.

48 posted on 04/06/2019 2:48:31 AM PDT by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Great to see a fellow Electric Universe enthusiast, Swordy.

Electric discharge between Earth and another planetary-scale body whose plasma sheaths came into contact created the Great Lakes in 10,900 B.C. and wiped out all large flora and fauna in North America, including the Clovis Indian culture which spanned America. The atmosphere was ignited.

The catastrophe also caused a global cooling of about 18 degrees which lasted 1500 years and was responsible for killing off the large animal species in the rest of the Northern hemisphere (other than North America) over about a 500 year period.

This climatic period is known as the Younger Dryas. This was not an ice age despite the cooling. It probably resulted from dust orbiting in the stratosphere, which probably resulted in perpetual darkness. Human populations barely survived outside the tropics. The dust may have been cleared by another close passage such as a comet in about 9400 B.C.

Let there be light.


49 posted on 04/08/2019 9:23:39 PM PDT by Disestablishmentarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Okay, first, I sincerely apologize to you if I was rude. I’m really trying to reign in that unpleasant part of my personality. But I did mean it when I said I’m not going to spend any time studying EU, astrology, etc.

So you are correct in saying I didn’t read all your comments in your last post. Nor have I read all these comments. Until EU aficionados recognize the importance of peer review and the stupendous contributions of physicists and mathematicians to our cumulative understanding of the world, and demonstrate a little more reluctance to toss out those methods, it’s hard for me to take very seriously.

So, best of luck to you, Swordmaker, and I sincerely hope you guys are able someday to make an astounding discovery that knocks my socks off and makes me realize the error of my ways. Lord knows, there is plenty of error in my ways. What’s the difference between a mathematician and non-mathematician? A mathematician, or aspiring mathematician, has made more mistakes than almost any other human on earth. (And I don’t blame you if you haven’t read this far!)


50 posted on 04/09/2019 5:32:14 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
A mathematician, or aspiring mathematician, has made more mistakes than almost any other human on earth. (And I don’t blame you if you haven’t read this far!)

I have read all this way. . .

Thank you for opening your mind. EU proponents are not averse to peer review. It’s the refusal of those peer reviewed journals to even LOOK at their evidence despite the now mountain of their OWN evidence showing charge separation in space AND that the EU’s previously submitted papers which were rejected out-of-hand without even being read by the journal editors, much less submitted to any peers for peer review, having PREDICTED (including the prerequisite math) the exact findings now being observed, measured, accounted for, etc, that is so surprising the orthodox astrophysicists.

The problem is that standard Universe Astrophysicists still believe what they were taught in their moribund Astronomy textbooks, just as I was, about gases with "frozen’ magnetic fields in space, another one of those things that no one has EVER shown to be real. They don’t stop to think about WHY there is a magnetic field in a gas in the first place or how could it have ever been "frozen" and in what media freezes anything like that? Is this gas iron? Nickel-cobalt alloy? No.

Magnetic fields arise every time electric currents flow, and huge magnetic field arise when opposite separated current flows near each other, conditions that are easily demonstrated to occur naturally as functions when plasmas form. Plasma is the most common form of matter in the Universe, accounting for 99.999% of all mass. Plasma is essentially defined as matter so energetic the electrons have been stripped away and are freely moving. . . Moving electrons are electric currents. It doesn’t matter how far apart each atom in a plasma is, what matters is the motion, Double layers form naturally in a plasma and are scalable from the microcosm to the macrocosm and electromagnetism is 39 orders STRONGER than gravity and equally infinite in reach. Every where we look in space we see plasmas in glow discharge form, entertwined braids of Birkeland Currents. Even standard Cosmologists are starting to measure and report the huge voltages and amperages they are seeing on these chains.

The Strongest Electrical Current in the Universe Spotted, 2 Billion Light Years From Here
PopSci.com: By Clay Dillow June 22, 2011


GALAXY 3C303, KEEPING CURRENT
Generated from a Very Large Array image, this image shows the huge jet of current stretching for 150,000 light years across galaxy 3C303. Philipp P. Kronberg, Richard V.E. Lovelace, Giovanni Lapenta, Stirling A. Colgate via arXiv


Looking for a source of renewable electricity? Researchers at the University of Toronto have found some serious current emanating from a huge cosmic jet 2 billion light years from Earth. At 1018 amps, the current is the strongest current ever seen, equalling something like a trillion bolts of lightning.

The awesome current was found around the galaxy 3C303, whose core is the origin of a massive matter jet. While measuring the alignment of radio waves around 3C303, the researchers noticed a swift and sudden shift in the alignment of those radio waves, the telltale sign of an electrical current.

Why exactly this is happening is unclear, but the researchers speculate that the black hole at the galaxy's heart plays a role, its magnetic fields generating this current that is so strong that it lights up the matter jet and helps to drive it outward. Way outward. The jet reaches out some 150,000 light years into interstellar space--farther than the estimated diameter of the Milky Way.


False Color X-Ray image of Galaxy 3C303 showing the
150,000 light year long Herbig-Haro object.

See that 150,000 light year jet is holding together, violating Boyle’s Law of gases which would require it to expand outward in a ball, not in a colimated spike. . . But how? Gravity can’t do it, Gravity is, as far as we know is a spherical from center force.

But a braided, twisted electromagnetic double layer Birkeland current flowing with 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Amperes (as measured) could certainly keep it cohesive across that distance barring an equally powerful force to disrupt it.

That was EIGHT YEARS AGO, yet standard Cosmologist are still glued to the Gravity driven model and the oxymoron that there is "no electricity in space" canard.

I suggest you start looking into it and start following the implications of what it means.

51 posted on 04/09/2019 9:05:10 PM PDT by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

PS I wouldn’t spend any time studying astrology, either.

PPS. what’ sign were you born under? Mine said “Delivery Room”. LOL!


52 posted on 04/09/2019 9:13:47 PM PDT by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I believe they were #4’s.

Did not here that numbers all day. #4 was pretty boring.


53 posted on 04/09/2019 9:27:02 PM PDT by patriotfury ((May the fleas of a thousand camels occupy mo' ham mads tents!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

The Michelson-Morley experiment was only done on earth.

IF the matter forming the planets was swept together by vortexes of aether, one could reasonably expect that over a billion years or so the rotating mass and the swirling aether would drag each other to the same velocity.

Any attempt to measure the speed of light relative to that differential velocity (between the moving surface of the earth and the static frame of an immovable aether) would fail as the moving mass and the aether would have long since equilibrated to the same velocity.

Same argument for the earth’s motion about the sun, and the sun’s motion relative to the center of the galaxy. We’re all being swept along with the flow of the aether.

Einstein envisioned space as being warped into gravitational wells. These are always drawn as if they are simple depressions in a perfect grid of graph paper.

Suppose those wells are not simple dimples, but are swirling vortexes of aether. Like a whirlpool on the surface of water, they’d tend to accumulate any matter floating on the surface, and that matter would tend to acquire the same spin as the surface of the whirlpool.

Easy enough to test. Do the the Michelson-Morley experiment on a cubesat or deep space probe cutting across the flow of the aether...


54 posted on 04/10/2019 5:27:27 AM PDT by null and void (If socialism is so grand, why are Guatemalans coming here instead of going to Venezuela?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; Swordmaker

I would be honored if both of you would comment on my post #54.


55 posted on 04/10/2019 5:40:58 AM PDT by null and void (If socialism is so grand, why are Guatemalans coming here instead of going to Venezuela?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Einstein envisioned space as being warped into gravitational wells. These are always drawn as if they are simple depressions in a perfect grid of graph paper.

That has always been a representation I have had a severe problem visualizing. I keep trying to fit that into a 3D idea and it doesn't really work with me. Lack of intelligence or imagination on my part, I am sure!
56 posted on 04/10/2019 7:33:37 AM PDT by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

You and me both, brudder!

My head hurts when I try.


57 posted on 04/10/2019 7:53:54 AM PDT by null and void (If socialism is so grand, why are Guatemalans coming here instead of going to Venezuela?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: wbarmy

Even worse when I try to visualize it as a spinning three dimensional vortex rather than as a simple depression or concentration of space. Where’s my Aleve?


58 posted on 04/10/2019 8:00:17 AM PDT by null and void (If socialism is so grand, why are Guatemalans coming here instead of going to Venezuela?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: null and void; LibWhacker
IF the matter forming the planets was swept together by vortexes of aether, one could reasonably expect that over a billion years or so the rotating mass and the swirling aether would drag each other to the same velocity.

One of the serious problems with measuring the speed of light is that it really isn’t the constant we all claim it to be as we know that light is altered by the medium through which it travels, otherwise lenses wouldn’t work, light would bend on entering water, red shift shouldn’t occur, etc. We think that the speed of light is ~186,282.25 miles per sec in a vacuum everywhere but we really have only tested here in our backwater province which, for all we may know is a school zone with a speed limit sign. In other words, we are making unwarranted assumptions that local conditions are universal. There is no legitimate reason to accept those assumptions.

One of the biggest ones is the use of G as a constant in many universal equations. That’s "Big G" as in the force of Gravity, which assumes G is a constant. In general, for most things, it works fine. Many people even here on earth use G as 1G, but G measures slightly differently everywhere it’s measured accurately on earth. It also varies with time. It certainly is not the same big G everywhere in the solar system. . . and one of the shocking things predicted by the EU, which is being found to be true in visits to comets, G may not be related to mass, and mass may ultimately be related to charge differential.

Incidentally, no model of the accretion disk star and planet formation has ever been shown to actually come to cause the creation of a star or planet. Instead, they tend to fall apart, not coalesce. The tendency to all orbiting gases and solid particles to orbit at the same velocity and orbits is part of the problem. The lack of high enough differential velocities at micro-gravities show that collisions tend to just bounce apart at such low velocity and not adhere. The bounce may result in a mutual orbit around a shared center of gravity, but only rarely would two masses join. Some force stronger than gravity is required to form planets and stars.

59 posted on 04/10/2019 9:00:09 AM PDT by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Some force stronger than gravity is required to form planets and stars.

Eh? What force is stronger than gravity?

oh wait...

60 posted on 04/10/2019 9:28:27 AM PDT by null and void (If socialism is so grand, why are Guatemalans coming here instead of going to Venezuela?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 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