KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 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. http://oi47.tinypic.com/al2how.jpg http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089 Observations of plasma redshift in the lab, tend to be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 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. No I'd just like you to be able to back up what you say without doing the whole copy paste thing. You spent several years in the other thread waffling away on how everything mainstream is wrong, posting anything that involved the word 'scientists were surprised', never really justifying anything... How about trying to learn things beyond a press release or youtube video? Describe your universe as you see fit = reject evidence in favour of what seems interesting in your head. I have no where near enough knowledge to be able to fully discuss cosmology, electricity and plasma, yet I've tried to read various papers from various sources to better my understanding of it. You keep posting things from every area of physics, from black holes to quasars to ball lightning to galactic dynamics and everything else in between. You seem so convinced that the EU explanations are right and have bashed mainstream in almost every post yet you seem unable to discuss things beyond the copy paste. You act like you understand the universe better than the millions of people around the world who dedicate their lives to it. Your goal is pretty clear KOY, it's not to learn and discover how the universe works, but just to constantly attack mainstream for no real reason. All I ask is that you can back something up, or at least be able to understand and discuss what you post, otherwise all that's happening is you are posting about things you do not understand, to someone who also does not fully understand them. Then what's the point, most people in, or outside the thread learns anything. I offered to discuss I think Io earlier, given the massive currents there should be a good case for EU right? Instead you replied with some nonsense like 'I can say whatever I want' and never really responded to it. Productive. Why are you convinced about comet CMEs when statistically there's an expected number of CME comet interactions that should occur? Why are you convinced by electric sun when it relies on undetected drift electrons? What is the mistake Bridgeman made in his analyses I posted earlier? it has been much suppressed No that's just what all alternate theorist say. 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. HOW! Explain how you realized Einstein was wrong and why EU was right. You made it clear many a times that you figured out Einstein was wrong. Does this just mean you just sat down one day and though 'lol wut black holes?!? Something's wrong here', or does it mean you read through general relativity and found errors, or that you don't think it reflects reality. Regardless of what you sarcastically type, it has been proved right time and time again. It can still be proved wrong, but why so much hate for a theory that done pretty well so far..? 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. I think between this thread and the other one people have seen enough first glimpse stuff tho. Isn't it about time some of it was actually analyzed..? The problem with the youtube vids is that they generally present a 'looks like' picture proof which is usually useless. Using picture proofs you could say that a lungs blood vessels is the same as a coral, or that a tree is the same as an electrical tree. Hence lungs are made from coral and trees are made from electrical discharges (wouldn't be surprised if EU has this one already). 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. Then explain to me why it makes more sense. Science does not work on 'it makes more sense' without being able to justify why. Can you quantify anything? Regardless of how low you hold maths, EU must be able to quantify things at some point. Such as something simple like the radiation environment in space, something mainstream knows well enough to send a ton of spacecraft up around the solar system without them frying. You can't just guess this stuff, it all comes down to the solar model. 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? You weren't the first... There was a good thread on physics forums about ball lightning (and other stuff), can't remember it's name tho and it was on a forum section that's now gone so I dunno if it can be found. It was in the skeptics and debunking forum under a thread about valid stuff. It had tons of potential explanations, most of them electrical or plasma in nature probably. I think the dark matter, black hole solutions were basically dismissed by anyone who wasn't the authors of the paper. Hell even wiki has a plasma solution. Have a point. Have 2 if you can explain why it's relevant. Have 100 if you can explain those glaringly obvious errors you posted about earlier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 ^Didn't read, lol. Anyway; No!!! Now can anyone explain why laser induced plasma redshift, is not relevent data when considering the expansion model against an electrical explanation? If redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature. Here's some youtube, while you think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089 Observations of plasma redshift in the lab, tend to be ignored. "Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas" Could you explain why this laser-induced plasma redshift effect is applicable to cosmological plasma redshift, which I think it normally called tired light. If you think it explains plasma redshift on a cosmological scale, does this solve the blurring problem associated with tired light? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Anyway; No!!! Figured. So you pretended to know? Copied that phrase from somewhere else? Which was it this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Could you explain why this laser-induced plasma redshift effect is applicable to cosmological plasma redshift, which I think it normally called tired light. Redshift is induced by plasma and there's a lot of it about. http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 Will read properly tomorrow. Things I noticed, the density of the plasma was tens of orders of magnitudes greater than interstellar space, no mention of blurring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 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. I only figured out Einstein was wrong myself.. Look out Darwin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 I'm not 100% sure on what EU says about Io -that is different- to the mainstream but it seems to be that the volcanic discharges are plasma/electricity based Mainstream view uses tidal theory to explain a lot of Ios features.Any tidal explanation will, of course, be nonsense to you NASA Baffled Over Why Volcanoes on Jupiter's Moon Io are in the Wrong Place http://oi40.tinypic.com/f21ses.jpg Jupiter's moon, Io, is one of the most volcanically actively worlds in the Solar System. Massive shoots of lava explode up to 250 miles high into its atmosphere. As impressive as that is, though, researchers have found that the volcanoes simply aren't in the right place on the moon. Concentrations of volcanic activity are significantly displaced from where they should be based on models that predict how the moon's interior is heated.They tested a range of interior models by comparing observed locations of volcanic activity to predicted tidal heating patterns.They found that, surprisingly, the volcanoes weren't where they should be.The positions couldn't even be reconciled with existing solid body tidal heating models. http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6044/20130405/nasa-baffled-over-why-volcanoes-jupiters-moon-io-wrong-place.htm 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.