Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 76 of 132 (181363)
01-28-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
01-27-2005 8:34 PM


quote:
You didn't actually answer the question you were addressing. Some kind of evidential support for crater formation through electrical discharge, either through experiment or through examination and analysis of existing craters, is important if you want the idea seriously considered. More than just a red flag, the absence of evidence is an indicator of bad science, of putting the theory cart before the evidence horse.
You guys are not easy to please, and I sure you will find fault with the experiment displayed in the holoscience link I've provided, but at least it is more substancial than my previous post.
quote:
It's probably beyond the scope of this discussion to consider ideas not too dissimilar from those of Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken. Interpretation of ancient texts and drawings vary widely. If we limit ourselves to the scientifically available evidence, what leads you to believe there have been any dramatic changes in planetary alignments?
Though I must agree with you that the detail of the interpretation these people give of ancient mythology is very liberal/shaky or whatever, past experience have shown us that mythology is hardly ever the result of fantacy. Most mythologies is based on real live events. From what I can tell, the anciets did see SOMETHING out there, but I agree that one must be very careful to apply absolute meaning to the myths.
quote:
Addressing the second point first, black holes do not require the extreme compression of matter, though it helps. The less matter involved, the more densely it must be compressed to form a black hole. The more matter involved, the less compression is required, which means that blacks holes can be formed from a large mass that isn't particularly dense. The possibility of black holes does not require highly compressed matter. Furthermore, there is no indication that the physical laws we know break down simply because matter is highly compressed.
Begging your pardon, but as I understand the theory, Compression ALWAYS play a part in black hole formasion. The theory goes that when a super masive star explodes in a super nova, it sheds most of its matter, and leave a super dense core behind: A neutron star, pulsar or black hole. (PS, isn't these object BY DEFINITION extremely dense?) In other words, the star was MORE MASSIVE BEFORE THE SUPER NOVE, BECAUSE MOST OF THE MATTER WAS EJECTED. This means that the black hole HAS TO BE FORMED during the Super Nova. If it existed BEFORE the super nova, the gravitational pull should've sucked in the entire star, and prevent it from exploding. The star should've died a silent death.
Anyway, on micro level, interpartical forces are much stronger than gravity. The assumption is made that gravity has no upper limit, and that it can overcome even the strongest subatomic forces. For instance, it is said that gravity "melted" (out of lack for a better word) electrons and Protons into Neutrons in a Neutron star. Is this really possible? Has this ever been done? It is also said that all physical laws break down in a black hole, so it is not too far fetched to question whether they can actually exist. We simply don't know how matter will react. The mathematical models we have discribe matter under known conditions. It is possible that other factors come into play at such extreme curcumstances. If such factors exist, the mathematical model would fail. That is why, unless a mathematical model was physically proven, (like the atomic bomb), the possiblity of error exist. By not blindly trusting the maths, but by testing it with actual observation, Neptune was discovered. The further math takes us from observed truths, the greated the chance of error. I'm not ignoring the value of math to make important discoveries, I'm saying that it is important to distinguish between the mathematical model and reality. The model is built on our current understanding of the universe (which is not 100%) and therefore only that which has be confirmed by observation, can be regarded as fact. Mathematical models are build on the assumption that we know all the variables. There is nothing wrong with this, but as it takes us deeper into the exotic (like String theory), this must always be kept in mind.
This might be second nature to you scientists, I don't know. But you must appreciate that this is not the case for the average person. So when you come forward with things like string theory, the public accept it as fact, unless you explicity tell them about your underlying assumptions. (Like knowing all the variables)
quote:
This is false. I can see you're trying to draw a dichotomy between the testable and the untestable, but a hypothesis is not untestable. Theories begin as untested hypotheses, so your conjecture cannot possibly be true.
Let me rephrase. The moment a hypotheses is sucessfully tested, it cease to be a hypotheses, and becomes a theory. Right?
quote:
suggest using the word evidence in place of proof.
Point taken.
quote:
In science nothing is ever proved
Hopefully, it requires prove beyond reasonable doubt, right?
quote:
Dark matter has its strong advocates, but I doubt many believe it's an established fact. Until there's sufficient evidence the popularity of various theories will ebb and flow. That dark matter is all the rave now should not be mistaken as meaning that cosmologists believe the issue settled.
It would help if scientists where more willing to use the phrase "we simply don't know, but one possiblity is..." when expressing their hypothesis to the public. We really won't think any less of you.
quote:
Nebular emissions themselves provide the clues to the origin of the emissions. What can you tell us about the analysis of these emissions as far as an electric plasma origin?
There are three distinctly different steady state modes in which a plasma can operate:
Dark Current Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) within the plasma is very low. The plasma does not glow. It is essentially invisible. We would not know a plasma was there at all unless we measured its electrical activity with sensitive instruments. The present day magnetospheres of the planets are examples of plasmas operating in the dark current mode.
Normal Glow Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) is significant. The entire plasma glows. The brightness of the glow depends on the intensity of the current in the plasma. Examples: Any neon sign. Emission nebulae. The Sun's corona.
Arc Mode - The strength of the electrical current in the plasma is very high. The plasma radiates brilliantly over a wide spectrum. Current tends to form twisting filaments. Examples of this mode of operation are: An electric arc welding machine. Lightning. The Sun's photosphere.
Credit : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm
I suggest (This is my conclusion, I didn't read it from their websites) that the same magnetic fields in the nebulea plasma (which is a conductor) cause electrical fields, which in turn cause its own magnetic fields. Where the electric field is strong enough, it light up the nebulae.
quote:
The stars thought to illuminate nebula are the stars in or near the nebula. When looking down from an airplane upon a foggy city at night you can see how the city lights illuminate the fog. That's because the lights are located within the fog. But those same city lights are incapable of producing the same bright glow on a distant fog, say one out to sea some distance.
Remember, we're dealing with lightyears. If the stars were specs of dust, they would've been miles apart. The "city lights illuminate the fog" effect can not explain the ellumination that spread for light years, just as a fire fly can not eluminate a cloud.
---Aha, thank goodness. My reply is saved. Like I said. I tried to open the link, with some nasty results. I'll try at a later date--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 01-27-2005 8:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 3:07 PM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 77 of 132 (181365)
01-28-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by compmage
01-28-2005 11:57 AM


Hanno2 writes:
You just went out to find the first thing you disagreed with. You have not followed the arguement at all! Is there a single place in this topic that I actually AGREE with their interpretation of ancient mythology?
But in an earlier post you claimed that the planetary alignments had gone through dramatic change, and when I asked about your source you pointed to an "electric universe" webpage whose sources were ancient texts and mythology. As I said before, the interpretation of such sources varies widely, and when trying to establish scientific principles through the assessment of valid evidence, all such sources fall short.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by compmage, posted 01-28-2005 11:57 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by compmage, posted 01-31-2005 9:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 78 of 132 (181371)
01-28-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by compmage
01-28-2005 11:57 AM


Iridium Fusion???
Also, I do not think it far fetched that an Electrical discharge on this scale can cause nuclear reactions. This is not your average lighning storm. Note that they've actually did the experiment in the lab.
I am SUPER curious to find out how you think plasma or electricity can produce fusion only known to occur during a supernovae. A force small enough to create a relativly minor crater but large enough to mimic the internal chemistry of a star exploding is a wonderous thing indeed.
While you are at it, help us understand why it would only create the iridium and not any other elements of higher order.

Now is the winter of your discontent!
-- Stewie Griffin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by compmage, posted 01-28-2005 11:57 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by compmage, posted 01-31-2005 9:48 AM Jazzns has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 79 of 132 (182027)
01-31-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
01-28-2005 12:05 PM


Percy, if you recalled, I did mention that there are some things I do not agree with. You asked me how I decided which to believe in and which not. Then I mentioned the "ancient Saturnian system", which I said I DID NOT BELIEVE IN, due to lack of evidence. I believe I added by saying I do not see how the solar system could have undergone such a masive change without whipping off all life from the earth.
It is also this "theory" I refered to when I said not to through out the baby with the bath water.
I only believe (more firmly everyday) in the electric universe, not to mythological interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-28-2005 12:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 10:11 AM compmage has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 80 of 132 (182028)
01-31-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jazzns
01-28-2005 12:29 PM


Re: Iridium Fusion???
It's called the z-pinch effect. It is the ability of plasma, when an electrical current runs through it, to compress matter between the double layer. Even non charged matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jazzns, posted 01-28-2005 12:29 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Jazzns, posted 01-31-2005 10:51 AM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 81 of 132 (182032)
01-31-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by compmage
01-31-2005 9:46 AM


Hanno2 writes:
Percy, if you recalled, I did mention that there are some things I do not agree with. You asked me how I decided which to believe in and which not. Then I mentioned the "ancient Saturnian system", which I said I DID NOT BELIEVE IN, due to lack of evidence.
First, the only time you mention of Saturn is when mention its moon, Mimas, so I can't figure out what you're on about there. Second, this is the actual text of your answer from Message 49:
"So how did you decide which parts were correct and which parts were incorrect?"
If you've read the section I've mentioned, you would understand. No explaination is given of how such a drastic change in the planetary alignment could've happend, without whiping off all live from the earth.
I now understand the meaning you intended, but you never said whether your example was of something you thought correct or incorrect. I thought you were deeming scientific views incorrect for not explaining how the planets could have realigned without wiping out all life on earth, and I responded that I didn't think mythology a good source. When I asked about it you responded with a bare link in Message 65 and no accompanying clarification of your views.
Did you get a chance to read that PDF document about impact crater formation? Here's a link to the PDF and here's a link to an HTML equivalent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by compmage, posted 01-31-2005 9:46 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by compmage, posted 01-31-2005 10:25 AM Percy has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 82 of 132 (182034)
01-31-2005 10:22 AM


More unsolved "mysteries"
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 9:46 PM compmage has not replied
 Message 132 by gnojek, posted 03-22-2005 7:47 PM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 83 of 132 (182035)
01-31-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
01-31-2005 10:11 AM


Percy
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 10:11 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2005 10:42 AM compmage has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 84 of 132 (182038)
01-31-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by compmage
01-31-2005 10:25 AM


Re: Percy
Well you still haven't really addressed my questions.
How do you know that the bits you find interesting are any better than the bits you reject ?
So far your only argument was to repeat one of the author's attacks on mainstream astronomy. But as I've pointed out the attack on Wheeler appears to be highly inaccurate (involving an obvious misreading of a quoted statement and the assertion that a Wheeler should be derieded for a claim - that so far as anyone here can tell - Wheeler never made). Unless you can give some evidence that I am wrong on these points we have to conclude that the author does not understand the science he is attacking. And if that is true we certainly can't assume that he is correct on other points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by compmage, posted 01-31-2005 10:25 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by compmage, posted 02-01-2005 1:39 AM PaulK has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 85 of 132 (182040)
01-31-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by compmage
01-31-2005 9:48 AM


Re: Iridium Fusion???
It's called the z-pinch effect. It is the ability of plasma, when an electrical current runs through it, to compress matter between the double layer. Even non charged matter.
With the same amount of force of compression as a super-nova? Evidence?
You also didn't answer my question of why only iridium would be produced an not any of the other higher order elements.

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by compmage, posted 01-31-2005 9:48 AM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 86 of 132 (182086)
01-31-2005 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by compmage
01-28-2005 12:01 PM


Hanno2 writes:
quote:
You didn't actually answer the question you were addressing. Some kind of evidential support for crater formation through electrical discharge, either through experiment or through examination and analysis of existing craters, is important if you want the idea seriously considered. More than just a red flag, the absence of evidence is an indicator of bad science, of putting the theory cart before the evidence horse.
You guys are not easy to please, and I sure you will find fault with the experiment displayed in the holoscience link I've provided, but at least it is more substancial than my previous post.
When refer to a link, could I ask you the favor of including the link itself, instead of just mentioning that you posted one somewhere, especially since you've posted so many. I think you're referring to Water on Mars? – holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE, but I could be wrong. And when the page is very long like this one is, could you provide a hint as to what portion is relevant to your discussion? I think I found it near the end, but again, I can't be sure.
The webpage provided these pictures with some commentary:
An arc striking a moist clay anode. The clay has become quite wet surrounding the arc scar.
Although the giant channels on Mars were not carved by water, there is better evidence, apart from the small seepage channels, that Mars had more water in the past. It comes from the peculiar appearance of some Martian craters, where mud seems to have flowed away from the crater’s rim. It is not the sort of thing that can be explained by an explosive impact. However, it is expected from an electric arc impinging on a moist anode surface. In the experiment shown here, an arc from a suspended cathode has struck a moist clay anode, representing the Martian surface. Unlike the jumping cathode arc, the anode arc sticks to the spot and rotates to form a circular scar, while water comes to the clay surface and flows gently away from the rim of the scar.
Here is an example from Mars. The larger, unnamed crater is 10 km across. Notice the rotary terracing effects of the spinning arc in the crater floor and the tendency in large craters to leave a central peak relatively untouched. An impact cannot explain these features, nor the lack of damage caused by one crater to the other. Ballistic emplacement of the ejecta has been ruled out by geologists. These rampart craters are widely distributed on Mars, which indicates a former moist environment over the entire planet.
You are correct, this isn't very convincing. Nothing of detail can made out in the arc photo. The commentary about the Martian craters makes some questionable statements, such as that large craters do not have central peaks, or that geologists have ruled out "ballistic emplacement of the ejecta", although the meaning of that last is sufficiently ambiguous to defy rebuttal. If you read the link I provided for you about impact craters you'll see that this article is an inaccurate portrayal of our current understanding.
Though I must agree with you that the detail of the interpretation these people give of ancient mythology is very liberal/shaky or whatever, past experience have shown us that mythology is hardly ever the result of fantacy. Most mythologies is based on real live events.
Really? Should we start a thread discussing Greek mythology?
Begging your pardon, but as I understand the theory, Compression ALWAYS play a part in black hole formasion...etc...
I was addressing the possibility of black holes, which you rejected, not the manner in which stars are thought to form black holes. You're correct that we believe black holes form from the collapse of stars, but your original point was that you doubt the existence of black holes because we can't be sure of the way compressed matter behaves, and I responded that black holes do not require compressed matter. All you need is sufficient matter to create a black hole.
Let me clarify. If you had matter equal to a hundred suns, then you need to compress that matter much greater than the sun is now in order to create a black hole. But if you have far more matter than that, say equal to a million suns, then you can create a black hole without compressing the matter. You do not need to trust our understanding of the behavior of compressed matter in order to accept the possibility of black holes. Once you have enough matter so that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light (c), then you have a black hole. The reason black holes do not form from non-dense matter is because it's impossible to keep gravity from drawing together this much mass into a very compressed object, but if matter could somehow resist the pull of gravity and remain uncompressed then black holes could still happen.
It is also said that all physical laws break down in a black hole, so it is not too far fetched to question whether they can actually exist. We simply don't know how matter will react. The mathematical models we have discribe matter under known conditions. It is possible that other factors come into play at such extreme curcumstances.
There's a lot of debate about what actually goes on inside a black hole, but the behavior of matter within a black hole is a separate issue from whether you can collect sufficient matter to have an escape velocity greater than c.
That is why, unless a mathematical model was physically proven, (like the atomic bomb), the possiblity of error exist.
The possibility of error always exists. That's why scientific theories are considered tentative, not facts. More on this later.
So when you come forward with things like string theory, the public accept it as fact, unless you explicity tell them about your underlying assumptions.
Even its strongest advocates do not accept string theory as fact, so I don't think the public should accept it as fact. It might be a useful exercise for you to look up string theory on the web to see how you picked up the impression that string theory has already replaced the standard model (currently the most widely accepted theory). Even the most optimistic presentation of string theory I could find on the net calls it only a "leading candidate" to unify the four forces of nature.
Let me rephrase. The moment a hypotheses is sucessfully tested, it cease to be a hypotheses, and becomes a theory. Right?
Ideally, sure. In reality it can be a slow or sudden process. Relativity was accepted relatively quickly, as was an accelerating universe. Plate tectonics caught on at a relatively slow pace. In general what happens is that as the evidence supporting a theory mounts, the theory becomes more and more widely accepted by the community of scientists in the relevant fields. All theories are held tentatively, and at no point is a theory considered proven. A theory isn't either true or false. Rather, the strength of a theory is a measure of it's ability to explain and make sense of data, as well as to make predictions about what we'll find as research continues.
Remember, we're dealing with lightyears. If the stars were specs of dust, they would've been miles apart. The "city lights illuminate the fog" effect can not explain the ellumination that spread for light years, just as a fire fly can not eluminate a cloud.
There's no such thing as a perfect analogy, so don't assume that the stars in a star nursery are precisely the same as lightbulbs in a fog. The fact of the matter is that spectrographic analysis of nebular emissions reveals that they are illuminated by the stars within them. The glow of the Milky Way is due to the same causes. Here's a picture of a Star Nursey from National Geographic:
The caption says in part:
Ten times hotter and one million times brighter than our sun, these new stars will eventually cool down and resemble the older stars near the center.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by compmage, posted 01-28-2005 12:01 PM compmage has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 87 of 132 (182167)
01-31-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by compmage
01-31-2005 10:22 AM


Re: More unsolved "mysteries"
Hanno2 writes:
Neutron stars is a nice invention. Untill recently, I, as a lay person, did not even realise that this concept violates nuclear physics.
The physics of neutron stars has been understood for a long, long time. This is what we knew about neutron stars 35 years ago from my college astronomy textbook, Exploration of the Universe, 2nd Edition by George Abell, 1969:
Neutron 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.
...
However, we do not know that they do, in fact, exist at all; there is no observational evidence - at least in late-1968 - for a single neutron star.
By 1986 we knew a bit more. This is from that year's Encyclopedia Britannica:
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.
Now let's march forward to today and see what we know. This is from Wikipedia:
Neutron stars are the first major astronomical object whose existence was first predicted from theory (1933) and later (1968) found to exist, at first as radio pulsars.

Some neutron stars that can be observed

  • X-ray burster - a neutron star with a low mass binary companion from which matter is accreted resulting in irregular bursts of energy from the surface of the neutron star.
  • Pulsar - general term for neutron stars that emit directed pulses of radiation towards us at regular intervals due to their strong magnetic fields.
  • Magnetar - a type of Soft gamma repeater that has a very, very strong magnetic field
Moving on:
Hanno2 writes:
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.
Except for the last one, I'm not familiar with these objections, but I suspect they're all as spurious as your neutron star objections. 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.
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.
The electric universe webpages that you're citing are long on criticisms of modern cosmology and short on evidence. They also contain numerous errors, at least two in your most recent post alone (neutron stars and sun neutrinos). Have you read the impact crater material yet? I think you'll find it helpful in assessing the validity of the electric universe website concerning an electric arc origin for craters.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by compmage, posted 01-31-2005 10:22 AM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 88 of 132 (182188)
02-01-2005 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by PaulK
01-31-2005 10:42 AM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2005 10:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2005 2:37 AM compmage has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 89 of 132 (182197)
02-01-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by compmage
02-01-2005 1:39 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by compmage, posted 02-01-2005 1:39 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by compmage, posted 02-01-2005 11:12 AM PaulK has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 90 of 132 (182300)
02-01-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
02-01-2005 2:37 AM


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 10/0
Percy. 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.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:
"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.htm
No. 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 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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2005 2:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2005 11:43 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 02-02-2005 12:13 PM compmage has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024