The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Neutron stars is a nice invention. Untill recently, I, as a lay person, did not even realise that this concept violates nuclear physics. If you add a neutron to a neucleus, you must add protons to the same ratio, otherwise the material becomes radio active, and decay. NEUTROS CAN NOT EXIST ON THEIR OWN, THEY WILL DECAY INTO A PROTON! If, by some miricle, a Neutron star pops into existance, the star will literally disintigrate du to nuclear forces!The nuclear model for stars do not explain how the solar wind ACCELERATE as it moves away from the sun. It does not explain why the surface of the sun is only 6000 'c, while the cronona is millions of celsius degrees. It does not explain why depresions in the sun (sunspots) are actually COOLER than the rest of the sun. We do not observe nearly the amount of nutrino's predicted by the nuclear theory. It does not explain how more than three stars suddenly changed their magnitude and temprature CONTRARY to the theory of steller evolution. (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm) It is unable to explain sun spots. Main stream cosmologists speaks of "reconnecting magnetic fields", a scientific herecy. The Neuclear model dictates a minimum size for stars. This simply doesn't happen this way. All these phenomina (and much more) is easily explained by the electric universe model. You see, in this universe, the properties of a star is determinded by only two things: the size of the body, and the density of the electrical field.It explains why stars are dead at it's core: As gravity pulls heavier matter down to the core, (protons are a lot heavier than electrons) the sun becomes positively charged. The positive charge of the sun keeps its dencity in check. If fact, the electrical modal even dictates that, if a body becomes too large, the violence of the electrical discharge will rip the star in two. (even or non-even) This event is what we observe as a nova. This was the unknown check I was talking about earlier that PREVENTS black holes from forming.I can't explain it as well as they do. But their arguement is terribly convincing, and it fills all the holes in mainstream cosmology.Ofcause, this theory, If I understand it correctly, has one major advantage. Since plasma phenonena is scalable, One should be able to recreate a "sun" in a lab, using a metal sphere in a plasma current. Right now, the electric hypothesis is a better hypothesis than main stream science, and that is good enough for me. Too often cosmologists gets away with explaining "mysterious" phenomena with "strange" matter and/or energies.

Sorry. I wasn't aware that there was a communication gap. Hopefully, now that we've establieshed what my REAL interest is in this website, we could have a more meaningfull discussion

PaulK.I don't know where that quite of Wheeler comes from, and frankly, I couldn't care less. The arguement here is whether you want to believe in an explainable universe, or in a "mysterious" one with "strange" phenomena. So the author poked a little fun at a main stream scientist. Big Deal. I'm much more interested in the plasma theories of the autor, than his opinion of main stream astronomers. As far as I can see, that is your only objection to the entire website.Some more points:
They say a picture is worth a thousand picture. Well, check this out:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/mars1.jpg. If this picture do not at least make you have second thoughts on the impact crater theory, you are condemned to never be able to understand this feature.NASA recently directed the Galileo space probe to pass very close to one of the "volcanos" (electric arc discharges) on Io - with the following result (New Scientist October 30, 1999):
"On October 10 Galileo passed within 611 kilometers of Io, using its solid state imager to reveal features as small as 9 meters across near the volcano Pillan. But radiation took its toll, zapping a critical bit in Galileo's computer memory and blurring many images."BZZZT! Ooops. Pity they didn't have a "plasma-universe" cosmologist to warn them that what they're seeing is not ACTUALLY a volcano."Recently NASA astronomers have discovered what they call "stringy things" in the long plasma tail of Venus. Such twisted ("stringy") shapes are exactly the paths Birkeland currents take in plasmas. Apparently Venus is discharging an electrical current. "NASA can call them "stringy things" if they like. Personally, I favour the "Birkeland currents"http://www.electric-cosmos.org/planets.htmPercy. I'll have a look at your post after 5 this afternoon (South African Time).

Paul

quote:

---

So when you wrote the title of this thread you didn't know whether the webpage told the "The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment" - and you don't even care. But the fact is that either the author does not know what he is talking about or he is outright lying. Yet you ask us to trust him simply because he is opposed to mainstream science ?"

---

Following your arguement, you should be rejecting Newtons law's of physics as well. After all, he believed in creationism, and (appearently) if someone is making one false statement, non of what he is saying is true, right? Your defence of mainstream cosmology is laughable. You keep on hammering this one small side issue. You refuse to eat the burger, because a fly sat on a single chip? It makes me think you didn't read anything else. Maybe Wheeler said it during a lecture the author attended, who knows. If mainstream cosmologists react in the same way as you do, I am not at all suprised at the authors contempt towards them.

quote:

---

And quite frankly I find the impact explanation a more plausible explanation of the craters. We don't know if the "experiment" would scale up (an argument you are happy to use against mainstream explanations but somehow are unable to think of when it workd against the claims you are promoting).

---

Hmm. Forgive me, but I can simply not believe that you watched that image link I placed. You are perfectly free to believe in the impossible coincidence that this formation was formed by a liquid and impacts. Just don't expext me to mindlessly accept that as well.

quote:

---

Worse, we don't see any plausible explanation of how the massive static charge required could build up (in a universe that is electrically conductive everywhere ?) or how it was delivered to the required point. Again and again ? Why should we prefer this to the impact theory when we know impacts can and do happen ?

---

Hey, don't shoot the mesenger. I'm only telling you what it says, since you have obviously no interest to read it yourself. Solar Wind is charged particles, right? Well that is what we call "plasma". Plasma is one of the best conductors we know, and it is everywhere. Many of the observed "mysterious phenomena" can be explained by the plasma model. Time and time again, the plasma model is proven correct through observation. If observation proofs the theory, then the "how" is not an excuse to dismiss it. In his day, scientists didn't like Newtons explaination of gravity, because it required unexplainable forces. This, despite observations that vindicated his theory.

quote:

---

As for the Galileo probe the author offers no reasons to prefer his explanation at all.

---

Him being able to explain it, and not NASA, is reason enough for me. Besides. The evidence has grown to such a point that even NASA can not deny electrical activity on Io.

quote:

---

And given your own bias I'm certainly not going to trust you over your claims about Venus for which you offer no reference at all.

---

It's on that website, and it is not "my" claims. If only you bothered to read it. I am biased towards a convincing arguement. So far, the author is winning you 10/0Percy. Thanks for putting an effort in this. I appreciate your posts the most.

quote:

---

Neuron stars are hypothetical configurations composed entirely of neutrons. Ordinarily, a free neutron (one not bound in an atomic nucleus) survives only about 15 minutes before decaying into a proton and an electron. Under extremely high pressures, howeer, a neutron is stable. Suppose, somehow, that all the electrons in a star could be forced, under tremendous pressure, into the atomic nuclei. Since stars are electrically neutral there are just as many electrons as there are protons in the nuclei. Thus all the matter would become neutrons.

---

I've done a quick search in google with the words "stable" Neutron" and "presure". All the results I could find (it was a QUICK search) refered to neutron stars. The reference abouve is also from an ASTRONOMY handbook. If a nuclear physisist can confirm this claim for me, by pointing to actual experimentation, then I will be more willing to believe Neutrons can be stable under presure. I want evidence UNRELATED to neutron stars. Also, the assumption is made that electrons and protons will be uniformly compressed under extreme gravity. As I pointed out before, due to the enourmous difference in weight between electrons and protons, I strongly believe that atoms would instead become positively charged ions, which would keep the object size and dencity in check.

quote:

---

The discovery of pulsars in 1967 provided the first evidence of the existence of neutron stars...There is also evidence that certain binary X-ray sources, such as Hercules X-1, contain neutron stars. Cosmic objects of this kind appear to emit X-rays by compression of material from companion stars accreted onto their surfaces.
Most investigators believe that neutron stars are formed by supernova explosions in which the collapse of the central core of the supernova is halted by rising neutron pressure as the core density increases to about 1015 grams per cubic centimetre. If the collapsing core is more massive than about two solar masses, however, a neutron star cannot be formed, and the core would presumably become a black hole.

---

What we have here, is a conflict of paradigms. Mainstream astronomy assumes Super Nova is the death of a star, while in the plasma universe, it is the birth. (The ripping apart of a big star to form smaller ones) Ofcause the following examples proofed mainstream ideas on stellar evolution wrong:

quote:

---

The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime. [CCD Astronomy, Summer 1996, p.40.]

​

V 605 Aquilae, studied by Knut Lundmark in the 1920's was a similar sort of beast, though it is now very faint And the latest recruit is V 4334 Sagittarii, better known as Sakurai's object, for its 1994 discoverer. It, too, changed both spectral type and surface composition very rapidly, and is now hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich, and well on its way to becoming the century's third new R CrB star.

​

"V838 Mon was discovered to be in outburst in January of this year. Initially thought to be a familiar type of classical nova, astronomers quickly realized that instead, V838 Mon may be a totally new addition to the astronomical zoo. Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles. A most notable feature of V838 Mon is the "expanding" nebula which now appears to surround it."

---

Read more: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htmThese contraversial changes are quite easily explained by the plasma universe model. Also, pulsars are asumed to be very dence objects, spinnig extremely fast. It needs to be dence, in order to stop from ripping apart by its own rotation. Untill they found a pulsar that is pulsing so rappidly, that even a Neutron star fails to explain it :

quote:

---

"The discovery now of an x-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4-3658 (J1808 for short), located in the constellation of Sagittarius, that flashes every 2.5 thousandths of a second (that is 24,000 RPM!) goes way beyond the red-line even for a neutron star. So another ad hoc requirement is added to the already long list - this pulsar must be composed of something even more dense than packed neutrons - strange matter! ...When not associated with protons in a nucleus, neutrons decay into protons and electrons in a few minutes. Atomic nuclei with too many neutrons are unstable. If it were possible to form a neutron star, why should it be stable?"

---

Read more : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htmNo. Pulsars are nothing more than rythmic discharges betwee two stars. It is explained in the link above.

quote:

---

The last one about neutrinos was a puzzle for many years, but a couple years ago it was discovered that a significant proportion of neutrinos change from one type that is easily detectable to another type that is much less easily detectable on their journey from the Sun to the earth. Once we built detectors for both types of neutrinos, it was found that there was no neutrino deficiency.

---

Sorry, this site remains one step ahead of you: Unfortunatly, I ran out of time, but just yesterday, I read critisim on this very finding on this web page.I'll try to get to the rest tomorrowWhat we have here, is two theories so radically different, the disagreement can not be settled by debate alone. I propose that a duel is held: NASA is planning to send probes to a comet. Mainstream scientists should predict what they expect to find, so too the plasma cosmologists. Who ever is more correct, is correct. I'll put my money with the plasma cosmologist, in order to prevent nasty "suprises".

Just a quicky. This is the crittisism on the neutrino findings :
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

Paul

quote:

---

In the New Scientist of 31 May, p.18, there is a news item, "Planet's tail
of the unexpected", which, un-noticed, provides direct confirmation of
electric currents flowing between a planet and its surroundings. The
"stringy things" detected near the Earth and causing such puzzlement can
only be "Birkeland currents" which alone are capable of maintaining narrow
plasma filaments over vast distances.

---

Cambridge Conference CorrespondenceYou, see, the author wasn't lying about the "stringy things", he actually DOES have sources.I'm not going to entertain your idea that the author is fabricating quotes any longer: Integrety is not a feature limited to mainstream scientists. If you want to find any more sources of quotations, kindly do so yourself. Within 20 minutes of googling, you could've found this one yourself.

I wish I had more time to respond. I'll try and get back here tomorow.But, if you can explain how it is possible that all the stars in the tails of galaxies to move at the same velocity (which violates the law of gravity), without revering to non observable stuff, I'll admit that maybe, electrical forces do not play such a big role in the universe after all. The entire plasma universe theory builds on the believe that galaxies are powered and formed by currents running through plasma. Take away this power source, and the entire system collapse.PS. Paul, I respectfully disagree with you: We do not deny the existince of gravity, simply because we don't know what it is. If we observe electric activity in space, it would be stupid to deny the obvious, simple because we don't know what the source is. Just as we don't know what the source is of the Earths magnetic field. In fact, Magnetism is a tell tale sign of electricity. Why acknowledge the one, and not the other?

quote:

---

My biggest objection to the electric cosmos website is the amount of space he devotes to critisizing cosmologists. It feels to me like he is trying to focus attention away from careful consideration of the evidence by painting a picture of cosmologists as alternately scheming and dunderheaded maintainers of the status quo.

---

Very well, if that is the case, then I'd like awnsers on two major charges made by the author:

quote:

---

Why do conventional astronomers and cosmologists systematically exclude electric fields and currents from not only their consideration, but fromtheir curricula?

---

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htmIs this true that electric fields is not coverred in the cosmology curricula? If its true, how will cosmologists recognise an electric/plasma phenomena when they see it? How can they even consider it as a possible explaination if they do not have the knowledge? How will they then know to do the appropriate experimentation?

quote:

---

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all.

---

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htmThe Author claimed that Arp had an alternative explaination for red shift. I'm not so sure that youth is necesarily the correct explaination, but it might be that other, unknown factors are influencing red shift. He even formulated a formula to calculate this. On no other page did the author go into such detail. And then the charge: because Arp dared to make such a radical proposal, he is now refused access to all telescopes. He is denied the means to obtain the necesary proof, and without proof, no one will concider his theory. What is this all about? You need proof to get proof? Can someone from mainstream, who banned him, give their side of the story? Is there justification for this behaviour?Why is he denied access to telescope to either prove/disprove hypothesis? How is he supposed to gather evidence when he is denied access to instruments? If oposing theories do not have equal access to instruments, it is inevitable that the prevered theory will win.If these charges can not be awnsered to satisfaction, is his cynisism towards mainstream scientists unjustified? From what I've read, these are the two major burning issues in the authors mind. Can they be addressed?I haven't known about the electric universe for very long. NOW is the time to restore my faith in mainstream cosmology.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 02-03-2005 06:58 AMThis message has been edited by Hanno2, 02-03-2005 07:01 AM

So I'm left with one scientist's word against another? And a "ban" does not have to be formal to exist. Paul, from as far as I can remember, you were EXTREMELY prejudiced against this theory from the beginning. I hope I'm wrong, but I believe you've entered this debate with the believe that "they had to be wrong". If this assumption is made about every new theory, and this assumption is used to validate peoples access to telescopes, how are we suppose to progress?Anyway. I'm still awaiting an awnser to my first question, which should be a lot more straight forward.

Well, that awnsers one question... though it is unfortunate that he had to leave the US in order to continue his work.But I'm still very curious about the first question.

Unless I know that mainstream cosmologists share all the knowledge of electric universe advocates in connection with electric fields and plasma, I can not possibly trust their opinion of the theory. You yourself shead very little light on any of the objections raised against main stream theory (other than doubting quotes and sources). People who live in glass houses shouldn't through stones.

Lets take the statement : "Solar 'wind' is accelarating as it moves away from the sun. the electric model explains this, mainstream is at a loss."You could've:a) Refute that solar wind is accelarating.
b) Provide the mainstream explaination
c) refute the electric explaination
d) Accept they've got a point.Instead you dwelled on a single quote, which you yourself admitted that it is not mentioned anywhere in the piece again, and therefore has no inpact on the theory what so ever.

Paul. I take it you are a scientist, right? Well, I made no secret that I am a lay person. I found a theory that made me doubt mainstream cosmology. If you are a scientist, you should've set the record straight, and explain to me why they are wrong and you are right. Instead, you've been avoiding the arguements raised with questions, making me do the scientist job. Scientists must explain to lay people, not the other way around.Percy, on the other had, did a real great job. (Thanks Percy, I appreciate your effort.) Though I'm not quite convinced yet, I'm also going to do more reading about it. I need to find the awnsers. I'm on a knife's edge, and might go either way. Percy's approach, not Paul's, will be the deciding factor on which way I go.

Granted.I must admit I felt a bit adventurous with my first post.This message has been edited by Hanno2, 02-03-2005 10:32 AM

Thanks, I believe that awnsers my question. In other words, cosmologists can refute the electric cosmos model based on electrical knowledge and observations alone?