Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. 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.
  2. Figured. So you pretended to know? Copied that phrase from somewhere else? Which was it this time.
  3. "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?
  4. 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? No that's just what all alternate theorist say. 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..? 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). 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. 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!
  5. 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? 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... And where did I say this... 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Going out in 5 mins so no time to reply to everything. And this solves the EU sun killing astronauts problem how..? “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.†-Wallace Thornhill- Gravity driven theory has let us explore the solar system. No progress I guess. 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. Work in progress = no progress? Let's not even talk about EUs assumptions... Peratts galaxy model? drift electrons? Earth was a moon of Saturn!
  9. ok. So the sun was created because gas sucks itself which is how ball lightning is created. Interesting. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  10. 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? 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.
  11. Why don't you tell us what the glaringly obvious problems are? Why must red dwarf binary orbital period be constrained to the currently observed min value for SUN-LIKE hotter stars? Seems to be your phrase of the moment. See other thread Of course it depends what you mean by observe... If you mean, see in visible light then no, if you mean objects have been observed that are consistent with neutron stars then yeah they've been obsered. In either case neutron star theory seems to be doing better than EU theory which have yet to observe, measure or even mathematically show their galactic currents, drift electrons, etc... Except that the neutrons in the star are held together by gravity and not the strong force. So how should it flatten? Why not present a value of what the oblateness should be..? About this crust, specifically what theory are you supporting exactly or are just in the 'mainstream is bad' camp? There's a ton of theories out there that have the sun having a solid surface of some sort, which one are you latching onto? I imagine iron..? Further points in other thread.
  12. Ok so I thiiink I might be following you now but really I'd like to see some sort of full report or something to get an idea of what you're really proposing. Oh well good luck with it, I'll follow the thread if you plan to update it.
  13. Ok, so if I understand this right, you're basically proposing a wave power thing that operates using spring tides which have twice the velocity of neap tides. Since this is such a well known fact, why do companies not do this already? One thing I would like ask is that, although the power equation gives a nice result for spring tides, would larger and faster waves not have the potential to generate much more turbulence which would make things a bit more complicated than just the power equation lets on? Perhaps this won't really apply so much in deep water, or even effect the wave machine that much, but it's still something I'd like to ask. Do you have a prototype for this? If not have you approached anyone for funding?
  14. greenheatman can you maybe expand on what you post here, I'm guessing there was maybe another thread that explained more what you're doing. Are you using some maths thing to your advantage? Are you getting higher efficiency through some engineering work?
  15. Once more validating your status as the local village idiot/nutter. Of course I doubted relativity, everyone does when they first hear of it. I also doubted that the higgs exists, am veerrrrry skeptical about dark energy and think string/M theory are maths constructions. I have the ability to think critically and analyze what I read, you do not possess that. Are you really 30+ btw? You throw insults around like a 15 year old, oh well guess that's what years of pseudoscience does to you. EU - pseudoscience at it's best (or should that be worst...)
  • Create New...