Gibber Posted September 29, 2012 Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 Misinterpretation and outright lies is a poor approach and besides we have Gibber here to supply that already. I only questioned what that video was showing. You claim it was the solid surface of the sun (presumably in the visible spectrum). Where is this video from (namely who took it, not who is hosting it on the internet) and what do they say it is of? If you can't answer that then it is you who is lying by ommission. What is the attraction in this. Is it that there are a lot less hard sums than in real physics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/bridgman.pdf http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REPLY.pdf /thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/bridgman.pdf http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REPLY.pdf /thread Do explain why this is /thread (although since purpose of thread was to banter with other Shetlanders who are interested in maths, etc, the /thread doesn't make sense) Did you just choose yet another person who disagrees with relativity and post it without thought or did you read through that 29 page paper understanding everything in it and conclude it was right? It's way over my head so why don't you summarize it for everyone here. Crothers may be right, but how many reading this will be able to understand fully his argument? If I go select a random GR paper and post it ending with /thread, how is that any different from what you did... Edit: Still looking forward to hearing what the glaringly obvious problems you posted about in the other thread are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 don't worry Brian, I've got this one. Luckily I can understand this type of thing. Just the most cursory glances reveals that I've found 2 glaringly obvious errors already of The Black Hole Catastrophe that invalidates the author's whole argument. P4, obviously where it says '(11b) becomes', the author has used sin squared instead of cubed. As well as being mathematically wrong this implies (in very roundabout ways, and I'm willing to be corrected) that gravity is a variable not a constant! On page 7 at the bottom he's used greater or equal to where it should be just greater than. P11, he mistakenly says "r = 0, Ï = ro" What?! As such this brings everything else he says subsequently into error. In fact it proves the opposite. I dread to think what other errors are involved but as it stands the maths in this paper (which I fully understand remember) are actually a great proof of the opposite of what he is trying to say. He has actually provided more evidence for a traditional view of the subject currently held by the mainstream scientific community. Unless someone who understands hard sums as good as what I do can prove the opposite? And we still haven't got any ideas where that video comes from or what it is of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panther Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 This debate amounts to nothing more than philosophy. You can talk yourself round in circles and get no closer to a solution without some relevant data to work with. What you've got to remember about science is that nobody really knows what's going on at a fundamental level. What we have currently is the best description of how things work that we've come up with so far. Mathematics is the best language we've got in terms of being able to describe the things we observe and it is constantly being evolved to try and fit the physical world. When you talk of theories, they are not absolutes. What theories do is help us to comprehend the mechanics of what we see. Nobody actually knows what electricity, gravity, or magnetism actually are, and don't even get started on the abstract nature of time, but these theories help us to describe the effects of these things at a level we can get our heads round. If you can come up with a better theory to describe what happens then you really have to start from scratch and you may need something better than maths to help describe it. But starting at the beginning again seems a bit daunting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Mathematics is the best language we've got in terms of being able to describe the things we observe and it is constantly being evolved to try and fit the physical world. Not really useful if the theory the maths is used to reinforce; was wrong to begin with. The maths now only seem to evolve ever more insane ideas, in order to fit observations that would otherwise falsify the ruling paradigm. Big bang, expansion, dark energy, dark matter, strange matter, neutron stars, black holes, dark flow, and many, many more, never observed entities. Blowing warp bubbles, down wormholes. Did you think the dark matter describe what you "observed" or did the mathematics lead you to believe this was the only solution to such a hugh galactic, gravitational, anomaly between the sums and the Suns... the actual observation. It's twisting facts to suit theories; not theories to suit facts. Do you really believe that if they already had radio telescopes and plasma physics and knew that the Universe was 99.99% plasma; on the day Einstein turned in his relativity paper; that it would ever have passed muster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 http://news.discovery.com/earth/ball-lightning-121012.html MYSTERY OF BALL LIGHTNING SOLVED? A team of Australian scientists believe they have uncovered the cause of one of nature's most bizarre phenomenon - ball lightning. Like a plasma ball, ball lightning may be nothing more than glowing gas formed by an electric field. Silly me and here's me been calling it a plasmoid; a word which means plasma-magnetic entity. tsk! And this solves the EU sun killing astronauts problem how..? And this solves the plasma ball killing bugs inside a cockpit window problem how..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 What are you actually trying to show here. "And this solves the plasma ball killing bugs inside a cockpit window problem how..?" Is an utterly irrelevant reply that means nothing. What I think you're trying to do (with the carrington event post) is show that electric sun is right since we can occasionally get massive solar flares that can damages things. What Bridgman showed is that things get damaged/killed on a normal day, no super flares needed. See the difference? What are the glaringly obvious errors you earlier posted about. Summarize those papers you posted and explain why it's a /thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panther Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Not really useful if the theory the maths is used to reinforce; was wrong to begin with. The maths now only seem to evolve ever more insane ideas, in order to fit observations that would otherwise falsify the ruling paradigm. It's twisting facts to suit theories; not theories to suit facts. I think you're missing the point here a bit. If your insane idea that you've evolved contradicts everything that has gone before then your theory may well fall apart, but if it is just an evolution of a theory all it does is refine the model and make it more accurate. There are no absolutes in a scientific theory, so the words that you use to describe it aren't terribly important. I think you may be taking things a little too literally. A lot of scientists are a bit fed up with things like 'time' confusing things when you try to model the real world, but it's a really difficult thing to get rid of until we have something better to replace it with and nobody seems to have come up with anything yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 You don't know the first thing about the Electric Universe idea; that much is crystal clear.Try your hand calling it insane on the thunderbolts project boards; where they will politely show you for the ignorant numpty you are.You have not been exposed to it because you are not supposed to be. God help you if you ever think you can attempt to decode this universe by trying to understand how we are electrically connected to it. They trained you stupid and they did an excellent job. Have you seen all the intergalactic filaments of dark matter? Did you never wonder if anything else could be filamentary? astronomy is stuck in the gas-light era, unable to see that stars are simply electric lights strung along invisible cosmic power lines Filamentation is a normal behavior for currents in a plasma but dark matter? Oh come on!!! What about this ball lightning thing that Brian seems so keen to avoid?Lets check out your schools ideas first: http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/49822-ball-lightning-could-be-hallucination-say-physicists Ball lightning could be hallucination, say physicists or Kendl’s hypothesis that in fact the majority of ball lightning observations are phosphenes is strongly supported by its simplicity: "Contrary to other theories describing floating fire balls, no new and other suppositions are necessary," he says. Me; I've been here a few years now saying, ball lightning, UFO's crop circles and whatnot are plasma phenomena but well done to the mainstream; even if it took them till this month to get closer to the truth with this little gem...Like a plasma ball, ball lightning may be nothing more than glowing gas formed by an electric field.Could you please point out, how when I said it; which part was insane? compared to this new published claim about this crazy electric field idea? Patronizing in the extreme are you, with your "There are no absolutes in a scientific theory" Read the boards before you attempt any more obfuscation.Note... I was the one that pointed out that "all models are wrong"What is terribly important, is that the Electric Universe ideas are just better at explaining what can be seen on a cosmic scale.Oh! and they can clearly show the relationships between plasma formations in space and plasma formations drawn on ancient stone and plasma formations in the lab.Plus, it just makes a lot more sense. While you had your head stuck up your black holes; thinking..."nobody seems to have come up with anything yet". Perhaps you have missed the growth of the electric universe on all boards and every comments page on every other latest NASA news release; as more and more eyes open to the obvious truth denied to them so long about our electromagnetic universe.Scientists, electrical engineers, mathematicians and many more, join in ever greater numbers to the multi disciplinary movement. You can twiddle with your hypercubes until you make Graham's number bleed but you cant hide the plasma interactions out there, for much longer.Brian's one claim throughout; has been that you must believe what they calculate is out there, using only their maths based theory. That the universe is impossible to understand, if you don't understand the higher maths and the Plasma out there has frig all effect on the larger scales, as it only makes up 99.99% of the universe. People on the whole are gutless and stupid and would rather go with the flow than ever question, let alone challenge what television given truths are out there. It's not my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panther Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Not really useful if the theory the maths is used to reinforce; was wrong to begin with. The maths now only seem to evolve ever more 'INSANE' ideas, in order to fit observations that would otherwise falsify the ruling paradigm. You're quite funny when you get going You used the word insane and I was just quoting you, I was generalising about how a mathematical model is put together. I didn't say that any particular theory was right or wrong. If a theory emerges that gives greater level of accuracy than the current one then it should be adopted. It would be foolish for anyone to think that they understood what was going on at a fundamental level but being able to describe the nature of things more accurately gives us a chance of being able to theorise about what is possible. If the electric universe idea proves to give a better picture of how things work then it may well push us in new directions, but if it doesn't then it's back to the drawing board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 You used the word insane and I was just quoting you. Oh! right! (ahem) Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 What about this ball lightning thing that Brian seems so keen to avoid?Lets check out your schools ideas first: Not avoiding, I just don't see how it's relevant. Explain how it's relevant. All you've done is post about it without saying why it's important. You never avoid things right? What are those glaringly obvious errors you talked about? What is terribly important, is that the Electric Universe ideas are just better at explaining what can be seen on a cosmic scale. No it's not! There is no electric universe model, all the folk involved have differing theories. The only thing you have is 'Electricity plays a bigger part than mainstream expect'. You use Peratts galaxy model which has been falsified, you claim electric comets despite using incredibly biased stats (only show CME-comet vids, ignore the thousands of other ones) you post about electric sun which uses unobserved drift electrons and would bring down satellites daily. Why is it better... Brian's one claim throughout; has been that you must believe what they calculate is out there, using only their maths based theory. That the universe is impossible to understand, if you don't understand the higher maths and the Plasma out there has frig all effect on the larger scales, as it only makes up 99.99% of the universe. And where did I say this... People on the whole are gutless and stupid and would rather go with the flow than ever question, let alone challenge what television given truths are out there. It's not my problem. Yeah and you're different right? Critical thinker? Above others? You've risen beyond the shackles of scientific oppression. Have you ever read a book on electrodynamics? They form the basis of electric universe theory. If not, then all you're doing is reposting others stuff. Every time you say 'EU explains it better' you have no idea why it actually does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panther Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Oh! right! (ahem) Sorry. It's OK. Getting on to the flaws in conventional scientific theory as you would see it, lets take one example: 'The sun is too round' It really depends on the data you have to go on, which isn't much really. Due to the lack of centripetal forces in conventional physics and going by the speed that the surface appears to be spinning the sun should be a bit fatter in the middle, like the Earth. But if you can devise an experiment to go inside the sun and have a look at what's really going on in there then you might find the answer to the problem. Until someone comes up with a way of doing that, all we can do is sit and look at it from a distance and speculate. The poles don't seem to be going that fast compared to the middle, so what's to say that the core is spinning at all? We can assume that it is also spinning at a similar rate, but it's not an easy one to prove. The flaws in conventional theories are really just areas where we can't really think of a way of determining things absolutely through experiment, or it's bits of the model that need a bit of work, but until someone can show a model that better fits the physical problem then it's our best guess at the current time. There's no point in kicking against mainstream theories just because they are mainstream until there is a real viable alternative that can be proved through experiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Yeah and you're different right? Critical thinker? Above others? You've risen beyond the shackles of scientific oppression. Oh yeah; this was your only other and also main line...Anyone who is not as academically advanced as you are, with ideas outside of textbook cosmology, is a snot nosed punk just wanting to be different. This has been repeated throughout your time here and it's why I don't give a s*it about anything you say. It's none of your business if I'm 12, with an IQ to match. I don't care what you think you know and will describe my universe as I see fit. There is no electric universe model, all the folk involved have differing theories. Arguing semantics, but if you insist; the main ideas are there, with a growing consensus involving some of these. They offer no description of a beginning or end in time or space. It can and does sound crazy to many (unlike dark energy which can expand from nothing to keep up with the imagined expanding universe and lose no power while doing so) who have been brought up on a theory, where until recently, almost every info source said...the science is settled and relativity is proven true many times over. It's not! Electric universe is not considered in any university class and Brian bloody Cox sure as hell wont tell you that it's a viable hypothesis. Yes people involved have a range of theories. Although it's been around a lot longer in one form or another than relativity; it has been much suppressed since and only now are people reclaiming it in numbers.It's coming along a bundle and yes just like any mainstream science there are differing theories.It's like I always say...(ahem)...Understanding this mysterious world of plasma is not easy. With its complex rules of motion, the study of plasmas is rife with minute details to be teased out.Understanding the mechanics behind all these events requires collating and categorizing an entire zoo of waves and processes. Anyones work may be but one piece of a larger puzzle, but together, teasing out the motions of plasmas will help scientists describe the laws of motion that govern the entire universe. Have you ever read a book on electrodynamics? They form the basis of electric universe theory. If not, then all you're doing is reposting others stuff. Well I'm learning more, as fast as I can.I only figured out Einstein was wrong myself; the whole electric universe thing thing just kinda shined out there and soon became the most viable alternative.Reposting stuff is a great way to inform others, who may not otherwise see such things; a first glimpse if you will.Even youtube Brian. Of course, many will laugh at the idea that any true facts can be presented on an open, visual and audio media channel.Some however, may give it some attention or interest and some may find something to take with them. Every time you say 'EU explains it better' you have no idea why it actually does! Well; check em! The Crab Nebula pulses 30 times per second, or 30 hertz. That means the star is theoretically rotating 30 times per second. There are pulsars with frequencies as high as 716 hertz, as well. The regular frequency is not mechanically generated, however. Instead, it is the capacitive, resistive, and inductive electrical environment around the star that generates an oscillation. Compacted matter and extreme rotation are not necessary. Electricity traveling through circuits provides a coherent explanation that is consistent with commonly accepted electromagnetic theories, as well as with laboratory experiments. What is observed are intense magnetic fields pulsing at times in fractions of a second. It is a well-established fact that magnetic fields are induced by electric currents. Therefore, there must be an electric current generating the intense fields in a pulsar. It is also indisputable that the feeder current must be part of a circuit, since persistent electric current must flow in a completed circuit. The oscillations in pulsars are caused by resonant effects in electric circuits. The sudden release of stored electrical energy in a “double layer†is responsible for their energetic outbursts. Pulsars do not shine with visible light alone; sometimes X-rays and gamma rays are seen. The outbursts begin with a sudden peak of energy, and then gradually decline, like a stroke of lightning. I don't have to know how to change a light bulb, to know a description that makes much clearer sense over your mad spinning star idea and this was one of now countless better descriptions being offered. Your black holes are no more than distant radio sources but your descriptions suck more than jesus walking on the water. I just like to share and I'm just here to share this new information and the idea of our electric Universe. How about that ball lightning Brian? do I get at least 1 point for saying it was likely some kinda plasma; instead of the hallucination theory, proposed by physicists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.