The cosmic conspiracy.

Couldn't of said it better myself, but trying to show them by their very own books why they cant see it when it stares them in the face....And yes, know you are trying to be factitious, since you have no facts to back up one thing you have said, even though I have only used your books, have not even begun pointing you to the articles the plasma physicists use, as I doubt you would understand it anyways.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

sigh. It is unclear which theory "it" refers to. But Special Relativity is the subset and the subsumed theory. More importantly though, Special Relativity is a subset that says absolutely nothing about gravity.

quote:

---

General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.

---

Special Relativity is not a theory of gravity and does not contain one. It is as simple as that. I suppose given your unfamiliarity with the subject and with that well known fact, I ought to at least cite Wikipedia:General relativity - Wikipedia

quote:

---

General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein's equations, which describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy—momentum contained in that spacetime

---

quote:

---

Soon after publishing the special theory of relativity in 1905, Einstein started thinking about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework.

---

quote:

---

Special relativity is defined in the absence of gravity, so for practical applications, it is a suitable model whenever gravity can be neglected.

---

Back to your look at special relativity: The paper was a successful attempt at a bit more than that.On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1920 edition) - Wikisource, the free online library(1920_edition)From the link we can see that the paper is divided into two parts. Kinematic and Electrodynamics. There is no discussion of either accelerated frames of motion or gravity. It turns out that gravity is completely unexplained by special relativity. Your reference actually says that Einstein did not find a theory that fully satisfied Mach's Principle and does not suggest that Einstein found his formulation of General Relativity to be lacking. Do you know what Mach's principle is? Do you understand that not completely satisfying Mach's principle is not an indictment of Einstein's theory?Mach's principle - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidencethat there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here". A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."[2]

​

This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. Einstein realized that the overall distribution of matter would determine the metric tensor, which tells you which frame is rotationally stationary. Frame dragging and conservation of gravitational angular momentum makes this into a true statement in the general theory in certain solutions. But because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sigh, maybe some music will help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyVTvtgm11o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rasp88nbsRwEverything is electrical, from the atom to the earth, to the sun and the galaxy. The entire universe. Don't believe me, believe NASA. They are finally startng to figure it out. It's taken them 100 years, but better late than never.NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus You've avoided it in space for 100 years, but finally we get to see you've got no choice but study it, the future of satellite navigation, GPS, communications, all relies on us understanding it, why NASA is doing what it needs to do.
NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science TargetElectrical forces are everywhere.
NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind Everywhere we look now that we have the technology to see it. Open your eyes.
Enceladus Plume is a New Kind of Plasma Laboratory | NASAGetting closer.
Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to the Sun | Science Mission DirectorateNow lets call them by their real name.
Birkeland current - WikipediaStill having a bit of trouble now and then, but at least you are mentioning the electric currents now.
Newsroom | UCLABut still surprised, and still ignoring those same electrical forces you ignored 100 years ago.Oh, but that's right, there is no electricity in space, I keep forgetting that, my bad. Since you are so correct in that, everything else you are telling me must also be correct. What was I thinking????Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

What does that mean?? You mean that electrons are present throughout the universe and electrons flow through these currents? However, does that mean that electric currents flow through every position in space, no. In interstellar and even more so, intergalactic space, atoms are spread very far apart and electric currents become less and less prevalent. When you say words like 'electrical' and 'everywhere' it makes you sound scientifically illiterate. Do you understand that anywhere where there are atoms close enough together, that you are going to have some amount of electric current (electrons flowing from one atom to the next) depending on the types of bonds atoms have with each other: covalent, metallic or ionic. Your blatant attempt to look down on your nose on the very science that allows you event to make such a claim is ironic. You would not even be able to make your claims if scientists had not done the research and evaluations based on this gathered data in the first place.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I thought I was quite clear what it meant.Stop ignoring the electric force!A force 10^39 powers stronger than what we call gravity. They don't know what gravity is, haven't the slightest clue, but they can guarantee it isn't electrical in nature. Lol, that's the funniest conclusion I ever heard.And stop twisting what I say. I never once said Relativity was wrong, I agree with it completely, E=mc^2. I just agree with Einstein that the GRT is not a satisfactory solution to his SRT theory. I simply agree with the man who attempted to start GRT and in the end found it unworkable.I just also happen to agree with Einstein on the theoretical possibilities that singularities might exist physically as well.
http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/...files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdfNone whatsoever.And those same people that measure the electric force everywhere, then ignore it in every description of cause and effect. Oh sure, they measure it, but it just doesn't DO anything, Lol. Electric currents between Saturn and its moons, no effect. Electrical currents between Jupiter and its moons, no effect. Electrical currents between the Earth and Sun, no effect. Then you go and mention those currents, but are still surprised and still can't figure out what causes the sub-storms. Well drrrr, quit ignoring what you measure.But NASA is hamstrung. It knows the Electric and Plasma Universe theories are correct, but because mainstream science resists those ideas, they have to work it in slowly so they don't get caught up in your stupid battles trying to keep it hidden away from the public, as if it doesn't exist. They already banned Halton Arp from access to any telescope in the US for daring to take pictures of high red-shift galaxies in relation to low redshift galaxies, and then refusing to drop the entire matter and forget about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_EWnXCu2wAll to preserve a theory a century old that has nothing to do with SRT, the Big Bang. Any data that challenges your pre-conceived notions is ignored, swept under the rug, or forcibly attempted to cover it up. Their pets ridicule anyone that dares mention electric currents in space on all the forums, even here. Yessum, master, we do as we told. Slaves to a theory that ignores everything that contradicts its worldview. I got more respect for someone who believes in god, at least they admit the only possible solution to a beginning is miraculous.You call it the Big Bang, but even the man that invented SRT didn't believe in singularities, except as a mathematical abstract. All GRT was, was an attempt to better understand the gravitational force, which Einstein admitted didn't meet his standards. So this leaves us with SRT, the "physical" measurements of the force we call gravity. Which Einstein equated with energy. Now, did you attempt to say spacetime was composed of an ether which was bent by the force of gravity, one might be able to buy into that, but you exclude any possibility of such. Instead, leaving one with no choice but to accept spacetime is composed of nothing and is then bent by something, and that nothing in turn tells somethings how to move. Sounds logical to me, what about you? But then I don't "believe" in all the other nothings either, like dark matter, black holes, neutron stars, gravity waves, etc, etc.But you people just keep spending all those billions of tax dollars on your search for nothing, while you continue to ignore a force that is everywhere, transmitted through a substance that is everywhere, and keep postulating your Fairie Dust as the cause, while complaining your taxes are too high.
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-dark-intergalactic-space.htmlYou still can't see past your Fairie Dust dark matter, but we do appreciate your mapping out all the interconnected Birkeland Currents for us through the plasma filled universe. We always appreciate it when they accidentally find our evidence for us, since they never go out to look for it, just stumble upon it by accident. It's clumping because that is what electrical z-pinches do, attract plasma by the Lorentz force along the Birkeland Current filaments. These filaments stretch from galaxy to galaxy, star to star, pulling plasma in from the surrounding space and compressing it. You are seeing the visible affect of those transmission lines through space that connect every galaxy to one another.
Z-pinch - Wikipedia
Pinch (plasma physics) - WikipediaThe EU and Plasma cosmologies never asked you to accept them without investigation, no true scientist would ask that, but how about at least investigating the issue before you discount all possibilities of it first? Can we not even get that much???? Apparently not.Page not found | UCL Department of Space and Climate Physics - UCL — University College London
You still believe plasma is noting more than a hot gas, even though every laboratory experiment ever done shows it is electrically active. Even though you require it to be the first matter in existence after your Big Bang. Hey, it's not my theory. So fine, if that's the way you want it then how is the first state of matter the fourth state of matter? One would think if it was the first state of matter all other matter came from it, not the reverse. But let's just ignore any logical assumptions and instead pretend that its nothing more than matter with electrons stripped off by heat, even though your own theory requires it be the first state of matter, that is matter without the bonding of electrons, which only occurred later. What you see 14 billions years later (according to you) is almost completely still separated, with the electrons still predominately free. Its still beginning to form those electrical bonds, not loose them.So you just continue to refuse to give any consideration to the EU/Plasma cosmology, and you'll be left behind, just as NASA is starting to leave you behind right now because they know they got no choice. The entire future of our communications, GPS and satellite safety relies on us understanding how plasma really behaves in space. E=mc^2 -- mc^2=E, it's all the same.Edited by justatruthseeker, : gave link to full video with subtitlesEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

I note that nothing in your post is in any way responsive to my post. You've simply returned to posting the standard crank conspiracy stuff you know best.

I believe, after reading your posts, that when you say "electric" you mean something other than the mechanical force generated by the flow of electrons. You appear to mean something about the fields underlying both the electron and the photon, which allow them to turn back and forth into one another.A more comprehensible way of saying this in normal scientific terms would be "electromagnetic."Yes, electromagnetism is one of the 4 fundamental forces in quantum physics. Yes, perturbation theory shows it to be functionally equivalent to ("normalizable with) two of the other forces, the weak and the strong. The only force that has NOT yet been reconciled in this way is in fact gravity.So if you are saying that a successful theory-of-everything will demonstrate gravitation to be the same Kind of thing as electromagnetism, wellNo Shit SherlockEdited by Iblis, : the blind idiot god Azathoth, Lord of All Things, encircled by his flopping horde of mindless and amorphous dancers, and lulled by the thin monotonous piping of a demonic flute held in nameless paws.

As I said, facts staring you right in the face but you sweep em under the rug. Electrical connections everywhere, but you still can't see them. Blinded by your own religious belief that the universe was created from a 0 volume point mass. Nevermind that the man who invented Relativity, which I support, but you claim I don't, didn't believe in them one little bit except as abstract mathematical concepts. What, suddenly the man was wrong because you NEED them to explain your theory? Hmmmm, then what else was he wrong about??? Nothing according to you, just this one thing. Everything else is as he said, except for his thoughts on his own GRT theory that he didn't think worked, so ok, the man was wrong about two things, but that's it, really it is. Just two things, nothing else, we swear. Funny how both the things you claim he was wrong about, is required by you, but if he said something you could apply to your theory he was absolutely correct. Don't you just love science.You've spent billions of dollars trying to pretty up a house built on rotten foundations, hoping that it will stand up anyways. Hoping someone, some day, in the far, far future might find some Fairy Dust. But the wolf is huffing and puffing right now. Quantum Mechanics, the heralded solution to uniting the macro and micro. A dismal failure. Requires Black Holes, but it's own math of the evolution of matter for entropy forbids them. Even though with the Fairie Dust there still is no quantum theory of gravity. The only force known to bind the atom of which all matter is made is the electrical force. How might I ask you, can you not even consider the idea that gravity may be electromagnetic? Especially when all atomic tests show it is only when atoms bind does the electrical force become balanced.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htmIt is this balanced effect of the electric and magnetic fields that causes this force you call gravity, as all transforms in relativity prove, being that they exist only because of the Lorentz Force.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node72.html
Being that Relativity rests upon the fact that light travels at c, which is purely an electromagnetic effect.Funny how that bent space time causes tidal effects from the moon, even though its not a force you say, just geometry.
Tide - Wikipedia
Funny how I can use a gravimeter to measure the force of gravity, but its not a force you say, just geometry.
Gravimetry - WikipediaThe future has arrived, you missed the plane, but there's still time to catch a later flight, not much tho, the meeting is about to start. We don't want to leave you out, you are just leaving us no choice but to go around you, since you wont even give us consideration, even though I couldn't list all the space stories in the last 20 years that shows electrical activity in space, there's not enough room to list em all. Let alone all the experiments that directly disprove your theories about the Sun and solar system.You continually try to convince people I disagree with Relativity, just showing you haven't read a thing I've said. Why should I answer you, you don't answer me, then don't bother to cite one reference that supports what you claim you say they say. I can say science says anything, but am always careful to make sure it does just that. You just spout out the first thing that comes to mind. Usually derogatory because you can't think of any valid argument. I know you are limited by your own theory, but that's only because its based upon assumption after assumption, with no facts to back it up.Dark Matter/Dark Energy 96% of the universe, even tho we can't see or detect it. Why? because they can't support their theory without it. Observations don't match their theory without the inclusion of Fairie Dust.Black holes in the center of every galaxy. Why? Because they can't explain the ejection of plasma at close to the speed of light from there centers without it. I couldn't either if I ignored electric fields, the only known way to accelerate charged particles. Once again, observations didn't match theory, so they just morphed the theory instead of examining the ideas these theories were originally based upon.We still use Sydney Chapman's theory to this day to explain the Earth's environment, even though the theory that Kristian Birkeland postulated was the one shown to be correct when the first probe was launched into space. Chapman's theory remains in place to this day, even though he was proved incorrect over 40 years ago. This is the science you rely on to explain things to you? It's no wonder you can't separate yourself from the past beliefs, you still use theories proved utterly false. I rather resent that, that you still use a falsified theory instead of the one proved correct. Why bother to experiment at all, or gaze into the cosmos, you got it all figured out already. What did Steven Hawking once say? We were 15 years or so away from a theory of everything. Such hubris, such grandiose claims of omnipotence. The very idea that science has nothing important left to discover, is beyond comprehension. They still don't know what gravity is, even though its been debated since before Newton. Sure, we have a few theories that are close enough within our solar system, but outside in galactic scales of rotation curves they fail miserably. But don't worry, we got it all figured out, a touch of Dark Matter, a dallop of Dark Energy, a Black Hole in the center of the galaxy and wholla, see it fits!!!!! Well ok, that one requires a binary Black Hole, but hey, why stop at one? Just sickening the state science has degraded to.Better clarify that, the state astronomical science has degraded to.And by the way, I have no hope of ever changing your mind, it is closed, that much is clear. I only persist so that those that can actually think for themselves can see the avoidance of anything electrical, even though their own instruments detect it everywhere. So those that actually want to look into it can read for themselves what plasma is and how it behaves. So please, keep arguing, I have pages more of experiments yet to bring up.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Here, gonna give you some actual stuff you might be able to use against me, but doubt it. Gonna show to you that the possibility of a being not like us is scientifically possible. This mainly to the OP, and those that have questions about such a possibility and weather it is or isn't scientifically possible.First we need to find out what makes us, us, and I do not mean your body, that's just atoms (bound by the electrical force). What makes you, well, you?
How Your Brain Works | HowStuffWorksSo if we are at all scientific about the matter, we find that electric currents transmitted across the neurons of your brain make thought possible. Without an electric current, no thought. No heartbeat. No movement. Nothing....Now, Christians say we are the image of god, certainly they aren't implying our physical bodies, even they would agree to that. It must be something more. To the best of our knowledge what makes you, you, is your brain, and the brain uses electric currents to make it all possible. God is energy, it was breathed or put into us. A self-thinking being capable of harnessing the electrical force to make consciousness possible. Our bodies nothing but a vessel to carry this force.Now we see electrical forces everywhere in the universe, from moon to planet, from planet to sun, from star to star, to galaxy to galaxy. Electric currents no different than that which enables you to think, except on a universal (macro) scale.
Proof god exists? Not in the least. I make no claims either way, but certainly a scientific possibility, given what we know about how the human brain works.
Let us compare this with the theory of neutron stars, totally believed to be a valid theory.
Neutron star - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously.

---

Well there goes the Big Bang theory, since all was in a 0 volume point mass singularity.

quote:

---

Neutron stars rotate extremely rapidly after their creation due to the conservation of angular momentum; like spinning ice skaters pulling in their arms, the slow rotation of the original star's core speeds up as it shrinks. A newborn neutron star can rotate several times a second; sometimes, the neutron star absorbs orbiting matter from a companion star, increasing the rotation to several hundred times per second, reshaping the neutron star into an oblate spheroid.

---

But, but, gravitational waves have shown you just how perfectly round they are.
No Elephants In My Carpet - More LIES from LIGO

quote:

---

The analysis revealed no signs of gravitational waves -- a result the scientists say is important because it provides information about the pulsar and its structure. They say a perfectly smooth neutron star will not generate gravitational waves as it spins, and that LIGO would have been able to detect gravitational waves from a star whose shape was deformed by only a few meters.

---

A star picked because you thought it gave you the best chances of finding those little wavy guys, so your theory said it should be distorted, but alas, once again experiment disproves theory. Spinning thousands of times per second, yet no deformity at all, when you were looking for deformity in our own sun because it spins once in about 35 days.
Mystery continues: Why is the sun 'too round'? - CSMonitor.comYou can't even stick to one theory, change it for every instance you encounter, forgetting you need it elsewhere in your efforts to defend that Fairie Dust.
So, a theory that violates everything known about atomic decay and neutrons thrives, because they can't explain a pulse occurring thousands of times per second without spin, even though we do it all the time with electric currents in the lab. And the theory needs neutronium, a completely imaginary substance to make it work. Even my spell checker doesn't know what it is.
So what makes more sense scientifically? A big Bang that is excluded from their very own principles they rely on to explain other things they can't explain, or that electric currents observed throughout the universe are similar to those in your brain that works by those same very electric currents?????

Not according to all the other posters, they are trying to tell me, and you by the way, that there is no chance the force is electromagnetic. Modern science can't even admit to the possibility of electrical activity in space. They are still following Sydney Chapman's beliefs, even though he was proved incorrect over 40 years ago.Sydney Chapman (mathematician) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Chapman is also recognized as one of the pioneers of solar-terrestrial physics. This interest stemmed from his early work on the kinetic theory of gases. Chapman studied magnetic storms and aurorae, developing theories to explain their relation to the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with the solar wind. Chapman and his first graduate student, V. C. A. Ferraro, predicted the presence of the magnetosphere in the early 1930s. They also predicted characteristics of the magnetosphere that were confirmed 30 years later by the Explorer 12 satellite

---

Now lets contrast that with the facts we know
Kristian Birkeland - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Birkeland's vision of what are now known as Birkeland currents became the source of a controversy that continued for over half a century, because their existence could not be confirmed from ground-based measurements alone. His theory was disputed and ridiculed at the time as a fringe theory by mainstream scientists, most notoriously by the eminent British geophysicist and mathematician Sydney Chapman who argued the mainstream view that currents could not cross the vacuum of space and therefore the currents had to be generated by the Earth. Birkeland's theory of the aurora continued to be dismissed by mainstream astrophysicists after his death in 1917. It was notably championed by the Swedish plasma scientist Hannes Alfvn, but Alfvn's work in turn was also disputed by Chapman.

​

Proof of Birkeland's theory of the aurora only came in 1967 after a probe was sent into space. The crucial results were obtained from U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C, launched in 1963 and carrying a magnetometer above the ionosphere. Magnetic disturbances were observed on nearly every pass over the high-latitude regions of the Earth. These were originally interpreted as hydromagnetic waves, but on later analysis it was realized that they were due to field-aligned or Birkeland currents...Birkeland's theory of the aurora was eventually confirmed, a classic example of a fringe theory, ridiculed by scientists supporting the then mainstream, that has come to be accepted as a mainstream theory.

---

They ridiculed the man, refused to even consider his ideas. Then when he was proved correct they still stuck with Chapman's theory, even though it is quite obvious if Birkeland's theory of the aurora was correct, that Chapman " who argued the mainstream view that currents could not cross the vacuum of space and therefore the currents had to be generated by the Earth" must of been totally wrong. So how about we at least go back and revise those theories of the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with the solar wind? have we?Apparently not.
Newsroom | UCLA

quote:

---

We all have thought for our entire careers I learned it as a graduate student that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field,....Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong,

---

Of course its wrong, your basing the entire theory on one proved incorrect 40 years ago, still taught in all the schools. Double-talk. Admit they are wrong, just don't change anything.

quote:

---

Lyons and Kim were planning to study something unrelated when they made the discovery.

---

Of course they were, they never go looking for the electric and magnetic fields, or any electrical cause, just stumble upon it by accident, because people actually believe what Chapman proposed (no electricity in space), even when proved wrong. Its just a pure disgrace what astronomical science has become, and the defenders of it only make it worse, by defending theories they know to be wrong. How many people here knew about Birkeland Currents before it was brought up? How many people here believe electrical currents could exist in space before told the truth?How much longer are you gonna continue to lie to everyone about it??????So your reliance that EU/Plasma theories are fringe theories doesn't stand you very good does it. Keep ridiculing it, it will only show how wrong you really are, and have been for over 100 years.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

The kind of force unification you describe here is not the same thing that justatruthseeker is ranting about. Under unification theory, the four forces split off at different times/energy level during the evolution of the universe and all currently behave quite distinctly.On the other hand, Justa believes that modern physics attributes too many phenomena to the strong force and gravity that are rightly electromagnetic. For example, he believes the strong interaction to be completely an electrical phenomenon. It seem likely that he believes that there is no fusion in the sun, and that the sun is powered by huge electrical currents flowing undetected through space. I'm sure your remarks will encourage Mr. Seeker further. He misinterprets everything.At this point he is promoting conspiracy theories of his own with absolutely no pretense at discussing the conspiracy that actually is on topic, however inane the original topic is or was. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

For example, he believes the strong interaction to be completely an electrical phenomenon. It seem likely that he believes that there is no fusion in the sun, and that the sun is powered by huge electrical currents flowing undetected through space.

---

You bet I do. And i wouldn't quite use the term undetected, since I just showed you several NASA stories where those exact same currents have been detected by NASA themselves. Quit misleading people, don't lie to try to prove your point. So lets discuss the Strong Force shall we?

quote:

---

"Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.

​

A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.

​

It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons."

---

As we delve deeper we find this:Gluon - Wikipedia

quote:

---

"Gluons ( /ˈɡluːɒnz/; from English glue) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Since quarks make up the baryons and the mesons, and the strong interaction takes place between baryons and mesons, one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force that extends beyond the baryons, for example when protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus."

---

So " one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction," and to be considered a fundemental force " In particle physics,

quote:

---

fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions."

---

Fundamental interaction - WikipediaIts was first wrongly asserted that the protons and nuetrons were fundamental particles and governed by the strong force, then when Color Charge was found, the strong force became a sub-filed of this force. In effect the strong force can know be described in terms of the Color Charge, so it no longer can claim fundamental force status. Yet they to this day call it a fundemental force, when inreality it is the color charge of the fundemental particles that governs the atom.Now you are free to continue to believe the strong force is a fundemental force although it is now known it is caused by another force.As for Color charge we read:

quote:

---

Since gluons carry colour charge, two gluons can also interact. A typical interaction vertex (called the three gluon vertex) for gluons involves g+g→g. This is shown here, along with its colour line representation. The colour-line diagrams can be restated in terms of conservation laws of colour; however, as noted before, this is not a gauge invariant language. Note that in a typical non-Abelian gauge theory the gauge boson carries the charge of the theory, and hence has interactions of this kind; for example, the W boson in the electroweak theory. In the electroweak theory, the W also carries electric charge, and hence interacts with a photon.
In particle physics, colour charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Colour charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences. The "colour" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of colour.[1] Rather, it is a name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. The term colour was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colours of red, green, and blue.[2] By comparison, the electromagnetic charge has a single aspect, which takes the values positive or negative.

---

Question, quarks have 3 aspects of charge disguised as color. It is then claimed EM has only one. So which is it, is space positive or negative? It can be no other. Or maybe there is a third state after all, a balance of forces called as is the termed, neutral. So charge can exist in any of the three configurations and we begin to see why the term color was added to misdirect.So if indeed charge can be only two configurations of one force is the space around us overall negative or overall positive since it can be only one of those two?Strong interaction - Wikipedia
Still a fundamental force, even though it is but a subset of the color charge force, when if one reads one will find is nothing more than the interaction of charged particles, electric current.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Now, you claim all these jets coming from galaxies are from the accretion disk of Black Holes. Then alas, you started looking with better instruments and found stars also have jets. Hmmm. These jets in both galactic and solar have knotted or twisted appearances. Most claim they get that way through collisions, but thankfully we have actual plasma physicists doing some research instead of just theorists sitting behind desks imagining what they see.Stellar Jets are Born Knotted - Universe Today
Scientists replicate the physics of a stellar jet in laboratory | ZDNETAll the events you see in space performed in a lab with plasma. Isn't it funny how that works every single time we learn something about plasma? Those ejections are following the Birkeland Currents, we but see the visible portion thereof, where the charge density is high enough to bring the plasma into glow mode.Of course even though it required your firing a high energy pulse (can we say electricity), you of course will discount any such occurring in space, which will again leave you without an explanation for the cause, or do stars suddenly have black holes in them too? The charge redistribution on the test aluminum then formed what you like to call a magnetic bubble (can we say double layer - Double layer (plasma physics) - Wikipedia ), which exploded, releasing the confined plasma (can we say CME). The plasma spiraled in the magnetic field (can we say charged particle in a magnetic field). I mean come on people, you are running out of excuses very quickly in your attempt to explain the universe non-electrically.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node73.html
Why the hell do you think EVERYTHING spirals? What do you think causes the radiation emitted from galaxy centers?
Synchrotron radiation - Wikipedia
But alas, there is only one known proven way of accelerating charged particles, guess what that is?
Particle accelerator - WikipediaEdited by justatruthseeker, : spelling

Once again I am in awe of the sheer breadth and scope of the things you don't know about. It must have taken a lot of not-studying to become ignorant of so many subjects.

quote:

---

Once again I am in awe of the sheer breadth and scope of the things you don't know about. It must have taken a lot of not-studying to become ignorant of so many subjects.

---

Yet you say nothing to show where I am wrong except a blanket denial. Why is this? What, your own sources not backing you up because perhaps I am using your very own sources? Man it sucks when someone shows you by your own theories how wrong you are doesn't it. Please, feel free to educate me and those following this thread, we would be delighted to hear your 100 year old theories that are built upon epicycles after epicycles. I had thought we did away with that form of science a 1000 years ago, so much for modern science, it has now reverted back to epicycles to explain things.Galactic rotation curves a prime example. Not enough mass to explain them by Newton's Laws or Relativity (need twice as much, but only in specific places, so it must be caused by Fairie Dust (Dark Matter - can't see it, measure it), but yet not once have you tried to use the electromagnetic formulas, even though everything in existence emits the electromagnetic spectrum. So, we now need DM in just the mid to outer reaches of the galaxy, but oops, DM makes your expansion not expand. So lo and behold, you hypothesize (add another epicycle) of another never detected entity called Dark Energy, to counteract the force of DM. But oops, you forgot to include the DM and DE in your calculations of light element abundance. Easy fix, we just make DM and DE non-baryonic matter so it can't be seen or detected. man you are dang good illusionists, you should get paid for that show. Oh, that's right, we already paid for their symposium on DM/DE so you could pat everyone on the back while giving the wonderful news that once again, absolutely nothing was found. See, we found it because we are actually looking for nothing.
A Neverending Story - Cosmologists Find The Nothing!!
Scientists Waste Our Money - Supercomputers Come Up With Nothing - Again!
Taxpayers Duped by Einstein - LIGO still peddling LIES* I mean they had to be joking right? Lauding success while finding absolutely nothing? It's a joke right? I just didn't get it right?I am in awe of the sheer breadth and scope of how you say nothing factual and somehow figure that's enough to refute the facts. It's no wonder your scientists are constantly surprised every time they look at something. With such a narrow minded outlook, one is always going to be surprised when one actually peers beyond the wall in front of him that blinds him to what is beyond. The sad part, the wall was built by their own hands.Just noticed the pearls in the sky reference, although it's actually pearls on a string btw. Exactly, how did you guess? Let's see what DM and DE theories say since apparently you'll believe anything they say about it, it's only too bad you can't replace it with plasma and electric currents, instead of Fairie Dust.
Visualization Services - ENZO
Pearls on a string, quite an apt picture of it huh?
Oh, and where is all that expansion at????? Shouldn't there be a velocity component in there somewhere? Ahhh, couldn't get it to match observations if you put expansion in could you.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.