The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

Hi Hanno2,First replying to Message 88: I, too, have a serious problem with the Wheeler quote. It appears to indicate that the author of the website, Donald E. Scott, doesn't understand what Wheeler is saying. Here's the relevant section from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm: The problem is that Scott mistakenly believes that a naked singularity and a black hole are the same thing, and they're not. He thus thinks that Wheeler is saying that he doubts a black hole can be formed, though he can't prove it. What Wheeler is actually saying is that he doubts a naked singularity can be formed, though he can't prove it. A naked singularity differs from a black hole in that it has no event horizon, and thus is visible to the rest of the universe.Scott is also wrong to say that Wheeler is the "originator of the concept of black holes." That distinction belongs to John Mitchell back in 1783 (Black hole - Wikipedia).Naturally, two such fundamental errors in such a short space raises questions about Mr. Scott's competence to be writing on these matters, and by attacking the subject as someone with an axe to grind against cosmologists rather than as a dispassionate researcher he signals that his material should be approached with some degree of skepticism. Here's the picture:
Click for larger imageNo one would mistake these for impact craters. First, they're not cirular. Second, they have no raised rim. This is clear because in this picture the light is coming in low from a little above the left, so you can see the shadow on the upper left of the craters. But, there is no shadow on the lower right of the craters, thus there is no raised rim.Nasa seems to believe that such things are grabens (depressions similar to sink holes) caused by collapses near fault lines. Here are some similar pictures, along with links to pages at Arizona State University with some explanatory commentary: 
Click on images for larger versions (see http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20021101a.html and http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20020625a.html for descriptive commentary)Moving on: Here's a spectacular image of the Pillan volcano erupting on Io from Catalog Page for PIA01081 - definitely click on this to view it at full size. Note the gas and dust from the volcano that has been blown out into space:
Click for larger imageMoving on: I agree that the term "stringy things" seems a bit casual as a technical term, but I tried to track down the source of this Nasa quote, and a search of the Internet for "stringy things" venus nasa only returns sites advocating an electric universe.At some points you seem to be writing as you believe the scientific establishment rejects the possibility of charged gases in space, and if you think this then you are incorrect. The presence of ionized gases (plasmas) in space is well known. In star nurseries, which I mentioned in my previous post, the clouds of hydrogen in the nebula are ionized by the strong electromagnetic radiation from the young stars. This ionization is easily detectable through spectrographic analysis of nebular emissions.Moving on to Message 90: We're wandering further afield now, so I'll be brief. Though Newton accepted the Biblical story of creation, you couldn't call him a Creationist in the modern sense of the word. As a scientist Newton would have based his views upon evidence, and were modern evidence available to him he likely would have rejected the Biblical creation story. To this point I don't think I've seen mentioned any observations that point in any unambiguous way toward your theory. I'm not sure there's an actual dispute here, because I don't believe Nasa denies the possibility of electrical activity on Io, or anywhere for that matter. But Nasa *does* believe Pillan is an erupting volcano, and they have the images to support this view. I haven't seen any Nasa statements regarding electrical activity around Pillan, but the presence certainly wouldn't surprise me. I think if you search for "neutron stability" you'll get closer to the answers you seek. Just as in the absence of air all objects in the same gravitational field fall at the same rate, whether heavy or light, the same is true of the heavy proton and the light electron. Protons would not be preferentially attacted to the core of a neutron star. Gravity has an equal attaction on all parts of atoms, protons, electrons and neutrons.What actually is thought to happen in the formation of a neutron star is that gravity and shock waves create such pressure inside the exploded star's core that the atoms are crushed, and the protons and electrons are pushed together to form neutrons, leaving nothing but neutrons. The behavior of X-ray bursters, pulsars and magnetars are consistent with neutron stars. A supernova is a relatively rare event and probably could not explain the abundance of stars if it were the only source of new stars. We have observational evidence of supernova, most spectacularly and fairly recently, SN1987A in the Larger Magelanic Cloud, which is relatively nearby. The observational evidence is that a supernova is the end of a star's life. I also refer you to star nurseries, which have no evidence of supernova.You mentioned FG Sagittae, V605 Aguilae and V838 Mon as evidence for an electric universe, but though the behavior of these stars is not well understood, it isn't clear from your post how an electric universe provides an explanation for them. You go on to refernce J1808 with a roational period of 2.5 milliseconds. This is what is known as a millisecond pulsar. They are not unusual. According to Pulsar - Wikipedia, in 1982 a pulsar with a rotation period of 1.6 milliseconds was found, and J1808 is slower than this. So your website is incorrect to quote Wal Thornhill saying that J1808 "goes way beyond the red-line for a neutron star." You're referring to this from http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm: I'm curious about the "several important questions remain to be answered about the method that was used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions." Scientists in this field seem to believe the SNO results are pretty solid. Those hoping for different results, for example, those hoping for the discovery of a new type of neutrino, were disappointed, but accepted the results. SNO used a detector sensitive to all three types of neutrinos, and I've been unable to find any questioning of their methods.So at this point in time the number of neutrinos found experimentally is consistent with nuclear fusion in the sun's core. The number of neutrinos is far to high to be accounted for by electric arcs.--Percy

No one is arguing that electrical forces do not play a big role in the universe. What we're discussing is what role electrical forces *do* play. For example, can electric arcs be behind the power of the sun? Do electric arcs explain impact craters? Do static electrical forces help maintain the structure of spiral galaxies? Is the red shift actually due to recession velocity?The answers to these questions must be based upon evidence. If the sun were powered by electric arcs instead of fusion, what measurements could we make that would tell us this was so? If electric arcs are responsible for impact craters, how is this consistent with all the evidence for impact craters being caused by impacts? If static electrical forces rather than dark matter hold galaxies together, what observations would enable us to tell the difference? How can we tell the difference between a red shift caused by recession and a red shift caused by electrical forces?I believe that we already have sufficient evidence to answer these questions, and that airing the evidence should settle the issues fairly quickly. 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.--Percy

Hi Hanno2,Addressing Message 102 first: What evidence has Mr. Scott provided that this is true? If you pick up any elementary astronmy book it will tell you about plasmas. And a simple search of the Internet indicates that plasmas, electric fields and currents are not ignored by astronomers and cosmologists. For example, here are links to a technical paper about electric discharges and to an article about space instruments that includes a section describing a plasma measuring device:

• Electric Discharges in the Protoplanetary Nebula as a Source of Impulse Magnetic Fields to Promote Dust Aggregation
  ​
• Miniature Energetic Ion Composition Instrument (page 616)

So when you ask the question, "Is this true that electric fields is not coverred in the cosmology curricula?" the answer is no, it is not true. Mr. Scott is correct that his theories about electric discharges being responsible for impact craters, the power of the sun, pulsars and so forth, are not currently accepted by the scientific community, but his assertion that electric fields and currents are excluded from consideration within the field appears to be contradicted by the evidence. There is no central authority assigning time on large telescopes. If Halton Arp is unable to get telescope time then it is because his applications to all the different large telescopes have all been turned down. If he's truly applied to all the large telescopes then that represents many individual decisions by different grant committees.Poking around the Internet for definitive information about Arp's banning wasn't very enlightening. You can find article after article saying that he'd been banned, but there are no details about who banned him. Most articles just say he was banned, though some say it was just from the large American telescopes, and one says he went to Germany to continue his research.Arp's photographs don't appear at all persuasive to me, but if you think otherwise then start a thread to discuss them.Moving on to Message 104: Paul isn't the only one prejudiced from the outset against the ideas from the electric cosmos website. There are lots of ideas out there, and to be a good scientist you have to have a good nonsense filter. The electric cosmos website follows a specific formula that is very familiar, we all see it all the time. The car industry is colluding with the oil industry to keep 100 mpg cars off the market. Free energy is ours, except the government is keeping it all under wraps because of the economic impact. The military is keeping secret the crash of an alien spacecraft in Area 51 a half century ago. The secret of aging has been solved, but the benefits are being made available to only a few in order to prevent a population explosion.The impression that the electric cosmos website tries to give of an entire field hindering research in potentially productive areas places it firmly in the conspiracy theory genre. Because most discussions here are based upon evidence, we don't usually spend much time on these. Most of our focus is on the science side of topics that can be supported by evidence and reasoned argument.--Percy

Sylas in Message 114 provided the most detailed information about Arp. There is apparently a minority of cosmologists who believe that some significantly red shifted objects are not distant. Although it is fairly long, I found this link provided by Sylas to be riveting reading: The Redshift Controversy: Exposing the Boundaries of Acceptable Research. It's full of details about the Arp red shift controversy, including the manner in which Arp's research efforts were curtailed, and on the dim view the scientific community takes of someone who insists on bringing scientific controversies to the public.One detail of this controversy seemed very familiar to me. When Arp could not be persuaded that his statistical methods were flawed, the debate shifted to other arenas. Other scientists expressed puzzlement at Arp's inability to comprehend how he had gone wrong, and since Arp continued to push his agenda anyway they felt forced to confront his views on other grounds.Something like this happens here all the time. For example, there's a thread begun by someone who believes he's invented a perpetual motion machine. He had some equations, and when it was pointed out that he had the units wrong we discovered that this point carried no weight with him - he didn't seem to understand it was a fatal flaw. And so the discussion was forced into other areas, though we kept pushing this point, too.There was another member who didn't understand conversion between measuring systems, in this case between English and metric. He had measurements for the Great Pyramid in a unit called pyramid inches. We challenged his measurements by taking measurements in metres or feet off the Internet and converting them to his inches. He thought this completely invalid, and so the discussion was forced to shift to other aspects of his pyramid claim, though some little progress was ultimately made concerning measurements.Halton Arp appeared to frustrate the cosmological community by doing the same thing. Unable to understand or concede on the primary point about statistical methods, other scientists were forced to confront him on more secondary points, thus extending the controversy far longer than necessary and acting as a distraction from other research efforts. Everyone's in favor of fairness and due diligence in the examination of claims, but most people understand that groups cannot argue at the fork in the road forver. At some point a decision must be made, and if one of the roads turns out to be a dead end it will be discovered sooner by picking one than by arguing endlessly. Arp's road was the one not chosen, and whether or not the decision was right or wrong, he has certainly made them pay.By the way, be sure to view the Hubble photo Sylas provided of the controversial celestial objects: NGC4319 and Markarian 205. There's obviously no link between them, and Arp's decades long argument that there was a link is now clearly shown to be just what astronmers originally suspected: it's an artifact of lower resolution images.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-03-2005 20:09 AMAdmin Sylas has corrected the title of the link.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-03-2005 21:23 AMThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-04-2005 15:19 AM

Hi Sylas, link fixed, thanks for noticing!I'm glad you mentioned that the electric-cosmos pages have much that Arp wouldn't agree with. It helps people to assess the website if they know that it's a pastiche of views not necessarily consistent with one another.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-03-2005 20:14 AM