Jump to content

Mathematicians, Physicists, etc come in fur a spik


Brian86
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not really

 

 

There are no surface features visible; like was clear in the previous clip I provided.

Magical magnetics is the favourite get out of jail card; no electric fields needed (never mind what Maxwell says)

No such thing as double layers needed when you got Magnetic reconnection to explain things away (or does it?)

 

"Magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science" Hannes Alfven

 

Still waiting to hear why the sun's so round. Either they got what it's made of wrong or they got gravity wrong but a lot more than likely; is that they got both wrong.

 

Maybe some super string will help, or perhaps some dark energy can be drafted in.

Dark Energy is some pretty magic stuff as well; filling space at a density of 10-10 joules per cubic metre, it can shove the stars apart in an already expanding space. Despite the universe expanding; dark energy just keeps on going at 10-10 joules per cubic metre. Does it have to worry about the law of conservation of energy being violated? HELL NO!!! it runs on the negative work of all that other nothingness, outside the universe because in a closed system, no energy is lost to the empty space being created within said closed system...simples. It's all a bit wibbley wobbley, spacey and probably quantum and not to be considered if you don't understand the maths behind the curtain.

 

Pseudo science is a term more relative to relativity methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too round?

 

 

Looks just fine to me. :wink:

 

Vid is verging on propeganda. I think I finally understand why EUers talk so much rubbish. They keep refering to this 'gravity-only' model as a way to disprove mainstream but this model doesn't actually exist! A stars oblateness is not only deteremined by centrifugal forces, unlike what's claimed in the vid. Differential rotation, magnetic fields, everything else plays a part. Gravity tells us the sun would be round, everything else conttibutes to how round. Yet somehow it is claimed that this means EM forces are the dominant effect here? Does the EU model even explain how a star becomes spherical? Z-pinches form cylinders don't they..?

 

The Gravity-only model doesn't exist. Gravity dominant one does. In the gravity only one, I imagine nothing works, which is why EU falsely claim mainstream uses it. The gravity dominant one incorporates EM forces, plasma, etc and understand these to a very high level.

 

 

So you're getting info from here as well. What do you think of the 'the sun has a neutron star at its centre' theory that the owner of that site follows? If you don't agree with him, perhaps state why..?

 

 

Anyway, back to the solid surface star... I'll assume you're supporting the iron sun theory since that's mostly what EUers support and hence these following questions will be based on that, ignore anything not applicable. Hollow or solid? How does the iron not melt? How does the star not collapse (if you're in the hollow camp). How deep is the crust?

 

 

Magical magnetics is the favourite get out of jail card; no electric fields needed (never mind what Maxwell says)

 

"Magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science" Hannes Alfven

 

Magnetic reconnection also arises from Maxwells laws so I guess that's ok too.

 

 

 

I've never actually posted any mainstream stuff really in this thread so how about Mars Curiosity? Anyone following it will know how exact the flight there was, they could skip corrective maneuvers and hit a tiny target from many many million miles away. How could they do this without a great understanding of the space environment and orbital dynamics?

 

How did they know how to shield the spacecraft from radiation? How thick do EU theorists think the sheilding should be? Without this piece of info the mission would have been a disaster as the ship would have been wrecked before it got 5 mins from Earth!

 

And of course the orbit is based on the famous equation thought up so many centuries ago, Newtons law of gravitational motion. All orbit propagators have started at this equation and eventually incorporated relativity to make it more accurate plus a number of other things. How would you have planned the orbit KOY? Since you think theories of gravity are wrong you'll need to think of another way...

 

The things that were required to be known to high accuracy so that Mars Curiosity would survive the trip would make a fairly long list...

 

I'd advise reading chapter 8 from Vallados Fundementals of Astrodynamics and Application for a small selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really

 

 

There are no surface features visible; like was clear in the previous clip I provided.

 

They look pretty similar. On the one hand you are saying one is surface features on the other the people who actually took the video are saying it is the magnetic field. If the people who took the 1st video say what it is I would take that into account as a matter of importance. You should do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unlike what's claimed in the vid. Differential rotation, magnetic fields, everything else plays a part.

 

They could try going for a black hole being at the center of a star again.

That was a good one.

 

Does the EU model even explain how a star becomes spherical? Z-pinches form cylinders don't they..?

 

Don't know! might just be a good shape to go for when it's hot and gooey in whatever fields are kicked up in star formation. It's not less silly than saying gas sucks itself and forms balls like a...like a?...I dunno; BALL LIGHTNING!

 

The Gravity-only model doesn't exist.

 

Don't feel bad; it doesn't have to... It's just all this charged up stuff flying about the whole place.

^(Don't copy that bit. I'm using it in my next paper)

 

I'll assume you're supporting the iron sun theory since that's mostly what EUers support and hence these following questions will be based on that, ignore anything not applicable. Hollow or solid? How does the iron not melt?

 

Assume what you like mate. I wouldn't know what the crust or owt else about it is made of if that's what is. Rocks, metals, minerals; you know, stuff. Like a great big over charged planet. Not a big bubble of gas so much.

EUers bicker and argue all this and everything else about an electric Sun among themselves constantly but the basic idea and the pointers pointing to it, just make a lot more sense than all the crazy s*it relativity drags around with it.

 

Magnetic reconnection also arises from Maxwells laws

 

Definitely not by his hand. It was just so 'them lot' can get away with more nonsense.

 

Again; Ball Lightning? How do you magnetically reconnect that.

If you ever had a plasma globe? did you ever call it a magnetic flux tube ball?

 

Mars Curiosity? Anyone following it will know how exact the flight there was

 

Yeah, we'd be hoping they could do their job by now but I was more interested in investigating evidence surrounding the hugh electrical interaction it has suffered in the past.

 

 

And of course the orbit is based on the famous equation thought up so many centuries ago, Newtons law of gravitational motion.

 

Newton gave a rough sketch of how the bodies move in relation to each other; not what moved them. And well done him. For his time, an outstanding job.

 

The moon isn't where Newtons law says it should be and I presume NASA already figured this and made adjustments but the labels they put over them are a different matter and I Wouldn't hop on one of their inter-galactic cruisers just yet. What with their sums being 70% out on the galactic scale and something like 95% out on the rest of the universe they think they see when they look through their maths jotters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They look pretty similar. On the one hand you are saying one is surface features on the other the people who actually took the video are saying it is the magnetic field. If the people who took the 1st video say what it is I would take that into account as a matter of importance. You should do that.

 

Yes Gibber! I am aware they disagree with me about the solidity of the surface of the Sun; instead using the long standing gas ball description and therefore, they don't incorporate solid surface features in their descriptions; because they don't entertain the idea, that the Sun could have anything like a solid surface.

I doubt they were ever told; that just maybe, it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the video is of the magnetic field, that in itself isn't enough to proove its magnetic activity on a solid surface.

 

Where is this video accounted for from the people that made it? What do they say it is specifically depicting, namely are they using instruments to film a representation of the magnetic field? If they are not then what is it they have filmed and their explanation for it?

 

'A video from the internet' can be the modern equivalent of 'some guy in the pub' if it's without any attached provenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could try going for a black hole being at the center of a star again.

That was a good one.

 

ok.

 

Don't know! might just be a good shape to go for when it's hot and gooey in whatever fields are kicked up in star formation. It's not less silly than saying gas sucks itself and forms balls like a...like a?...I dunno; BALL LIGHTNING!

 

So the sun was created because gas sucks itself which is how ball lightning is created. Interesting.

 

Don't feel bad; it doesn't have to... It's just all this charged up stuff flying about the whole place.

^(Don't copy that bit. I'm using it in my next paper)

 

Course it doesn't, so why do the EUers constantly talk about the gravity only model? Is it to try and make their theory seem better? Stack their theory against one that they falsely claim mainstream uses? Seems legit.

 

Assume what you like mate. I wouldn't know what the crust or owt else about it is made of if that's what is. Rocks, metals, minerals; you know, stuff. Like a great big over charged planet. Not a big bubble of gas so much.

EUers bicker and argue all this and everything else about an electric Sun among themselves constantly but the basic idea and the pointers pointing to it, just make a lot more sense than all the crazy s*it relativity drags around with it.

 

See this is what confuses me. This coupled with the 'Don't know' from above means you are saying that the alternative theory, which you say you know pretty much nothing about, makes more sense than the mainstream. I.e. you're latching onto any theory just because it's not mainstream. In order for one theory to make more sense than the other, it's expected for you to have some knowledge of both...

 

Relativity only drags frames around with it, something that was measured by Gravity Probe B although I can't accept the result yet since the error bars were too large, will take even more high precision measurements before the error bars are small enough to accept. The geodesic result was fine tho. Another test of relativity done.

 

Again; Ball Lightning? How do you magnetically reconnect that.

If you ever had a plasma globe? did you ever call it a magnetic flux tube ball?

 

You seem to know more about ball lightning than I, gas sucking itself right? I don't really see why it's relevant anyway, current EU tactic - anything to do with electricity or magnetism confirms EU.

 

Yeah, we'd be hoping they could do their job by now but I was more interested in investigating evidence surrounding the hugh electrical interaction it has suffered in the past.

 

Seems contradictory. They talk about the difference in the northern and southern hemisphere, yet explain the difference using basically the same event? Still 0 evidence of these giant electrical arcs btw.

 

Newton gave a rough sketch of how the bodies move in relation to each other; not what moved them. And well done him. For his time, an outstanding job.

 

The moon isn't where Newtons law says it should be and I presume NASA already figured this and made adjustments but the labels they put over them are a different matter and I Wouldn't hop on one of their inter-galactic cruisers just yet. What with their sums being 70% out on the galactic scale and something like 95% out on the rest of the universe they think they see when they look through their maths jotters.

 

So you agree that Newtons laws provide a good approximation of gravity at local scales, as I posted earlier. It says nothing about what exactly gravity is, only that it's related to distance and mass. Certainly can't be an EM effect since we can shield against that and things still fall at the same rate.

 

Moons orbit is predicted pretty well, Newtons law is of course a 'first order approximation', no one is claiming a 2-body approximation will accurately model every orbit perfectly, I'm sure that plenty of anti-mainstreamers will probably claim that mainstream claim that? Nearly ever object in the solar system follows it to surprisingly good accuracy, go test it in an integrator for measured against observed positions and see what comes out by setting a planet on a Keplerian orbit. Relativity takes care of some of the extra bits like precession etc... Tidal forces contribute (suppose that's just gravity too), perturbations from other planets (still gravity, just not included in the simple 2-body approximation), etc contribute as well, solar radiation, etc...

 

Still waiting to see how the PC/EU crowd explain orbits, I think they've got as far as saying it's electricity. Tho they've been saying that for years. I might start my own anti-mainstream group, the strong force group, after all, it's 2 magnitudes stronger than EM forces hence should dominate! All that talk of it only being an effect at short range is just a cover up by the big bang religion right?

 

 

 

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/death-by-electric-universe-ii-solar.html

 

In short - electric sun would kill people and destroy satellites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/death-by-electric-universe-ii-solar.html

 

Kinda ironic that Tom Bridgman calls his blog "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy" when there is nothing more creationist than the Big Bang myth in science.

Believers are the ultimate cosmic creationists.

The electric universe model is inherently non creationist.

 

http://www.mikamar.biz/sc-sk/scientism-1.htm

 

electric sun would kill people and destroy satellites.

 

"In September of 1859, the

entire Earth was engulfed in a gigantic cloud of

seething gas, and a blood-red aurora erupted across

the planet from the poles to the tropics. Around the

world, telegraph systems crashed, machines burst into

flames, and electric shocks rendered operators

unconscious. Compasses and other sensitive instruments

reeled as if struck by a massive magnetic fist. For

the first time, people began to suspect that the Earth

was not isolated from the rest of the universe.

However, nobody knew what could have released such

strange forces upon the Earth--nobody, that is, except

the amateur English astronomer Richard Carrington.

 

So the sun was created because gas sucks itself which is how ball lightning is created.

 

Don't be daft; the ball lightning is more pointing to the truth of the matter. It is your Sun that sucks.

 

why do the EUers constantly talk about the gravity only model? Is it to try and make their theory seem better? Stack their theory against one that they falsely claim mainstream uses?

 

“Today, nothing is more important to the future and credibility of science than liberation from the gravity-driven universe of prior theory. A mistaken supposition has not only prevented intelligent and sincere investigators from seeing what would otherwise be obvious, it has bred indifference to possibilities that could have inspired the sciences for decades.â€

 

-Wallace Thornhill-

 

This coupled with the 'Don't know' from above means you are saying that the alternative theory, which you say you know pretty much nothing about, makes more sense than the mainstream. I.e. you're latching onto any theory just because it's not mainstream.

 

I get the theory. I said I wasn't guessing the composition of the material that makes up the Sun's crust, until I have data.

Misinterpretation and outright lies is a poor approach and besides we have Gibber here to supply that already.

 

Back to Mars...

 

They talk about the difference in the northern and southern hemisphere, yet explain the difference using basically the same event? Still 0 evidence of these giant electrical arcs btw.

 

Lol bloody wut?

 

 

Still waiting to see how the PC/EU crowd explain orbits, I think they've got as far as saying it's electricity. Tho they've been saying that for years.

 

They don't just want to draw a magic picture full of half assed assumptions, built atop other half assed assumptions; like your much loved lot do.

They want this proven using provable methods and yes it is still a work very much in progress.

 

The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has made me often think upon the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity, and so introducing the former into the group, the chain of which, including also magnetism, chemical force and heat, binds so many and such varied exhibitions of force together by common relations.

 

In searching for some principle on which an experimental inquiry after the identification or relation of the two forces could be founded, it seemed that if such a relation existed, there must be something in gravity which would correspond to the dual or antithetical nature of the forms of force in electricity and magnetism. To my mind it appeared possible that the ceding to the force or the approach of gravitating bodies on the one hand, and the effectual reversion of the force or separation of the bodies on the other, might present the points of correspondence; quiescence (as to motion) being the neutral condition. The final unchangeability of gravity did not seem affected by such an assumption; for the acting bodies when at rest would ever have the same relation to each other, and it would only be at the times of motion to and fro that any results related to electricity could be expected. Such results, if possible, could only be exceedingly small; but, if possible, i.e. if true, no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is one hilarious thing I've always learned from conspiracy theorists, it's that YouTube videos count as academic evidence.

 

In this case, where such ideas are never before heard of; it gives a quick, broad, overview.

 

I assure you there is much more meat in the pudding, than the youtube shorts from the thunderbolts project.

 

You think Brian Cox on BBC1 is any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how you define conspiracy theory here?

Any view point outside of published academia.

Tsk! Shetlink!...Always ready to take a step backward into the future; one small mind at a time.

I get your point though. There are less constrained sites with some remaining moral authority and interest in interesting things available on the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going out in 5 mins so no time to reply to everything.

 

"In September of 1859, the

entire Earth was engulfed in a gigantic cloud of

seething gas, and a blood-red aurora erupted across

the planet from the poles to the tropics. Around the

world, telegraph systems crashed, machines burst into

flames, and electric shocks rendered operators

unconscious. Compasses and other sensitive instruments

reeled as if struck by a massive magnetic fist. For

the first time, people began to suspect that the Earth

was not isolated from the rest of the universe.

However, nobody knew what could have released such

strange forces upon the Earth--nobody, that is, except

the amateur English astronomer Richard Carrington.

 

And this solves the EU sun killing astronauts problem how..?

 

why do the EUers constantly talk about the gravity only model? Is it to try and make their theory seem better? Stack their theory against one that they falsely claim mainstream uses?

 

“Today, nothing is more important to the future and credibility of science than liberation from the gravity-driven universe of prior theory. A mistaken supposition has not only prevented intelligent and sincere investigators from seeing what would otherwise be obvious, it has bred indifference to possibilities that could have inspired the sciences for decades.â€

 

-Wallace Thornhill-

 

Gravity driven theory has let us explore the solar system. No progress I guess.

 

Failure of gravity-only cosmology

 

 

I get the theory. I said I wasn't guessing the composition of the material that makes up the Sun's crust, until I have data.

Misinterpretation and outright lies is a poor approach and besides we have Gibber here to supply that already.

 

I doubt you 'get' the theory. Edit: and by that I mean it's been discussed countless times by many people on many places and the model is so vague and handwavy at this moment there isn't really a solid model to get!

 

EU is all misinterpretation and lies.

 

They don't just want to draw a magic picture full of half assed assumptions, built atop other half assed assumptions; like your much loved lot do.

They want this proven using provable methods and yes it is still a work very much in progress.

 

Work in progress = no progress?

 

Let's not even talk about EUs assumptions...

 

Peratts galaxy model? drift electrons? Earth was a moon of Saturn!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...