|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.htm Percy. I'll have a look at your post after 5 this afternoon (South African Time).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Paul
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 10/0 Percy. Thanks for putting an effort in this. I appreciate your posts the most.
quote: 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: 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:Read more: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm These 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:Read more : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm No. Pulsars are nothing more than rythmic discharges betwee two stars. It is explained in the link above.
quote: 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 tomorrow What 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Just a quicky. This is the crittisism on the neutrino findings :
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Paul
quote:Cambridge Conference Correspondence You, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: Very well, if that is the case, then I'd like awnsers on two major charges made by the author:
quote:http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm Is 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:http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm The 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 AM This message has been edited by Hanno2, 02-03-2005 07:01 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Thanks, I believe that awnsers my question. In other words, cosmologists can refute the electric cosmos model based on electrical knowledge and observations alone?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024