Jump to content

Brian86

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brian86

  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...)
  16. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/ask_brian_greene_and_lawrence_krauss_cerns_higgs_announcement Welcome to the Aether We've been expecting you. Straight up copy paste here, didn't check, didn't read further, internet forum user. "The luminiferous ether was discarded because it violated special relativity. It presupposed a fixed reference frame of the ether against which everything moved. In special relativity there exists no absolute frame of reference, and special relativity has been vindicated many times experimentally. The Higgs field, as also the vacuum sea in general, comes from quantum field theory formulations of the interactions of elementary particles. All quantum field theories are consistent with special relativity , and thus the Higgs field is also consistent with special relativity. It therefore cannot play the role of the luminiferous ether, and also the same holds for the vacuum sea, which is seething with virtual pairs of particle/antiparticle." Not quite. I figured out you lot were wrong all by myself. I was quite surprised and a little bit miffed once I found out others had got there before me. I'm sure you did. Read plenty from both sides, did some analytical work, weighted up both cases, came to a conclusion about the state of the universe and modern physics. If you really did then you should have the knowledge to argue your position without the endless streams of quotes and youtube videos. If you think something is relevant, post a link and say what it says and why it is relevant. Don't just post 'oh but look at this...' -wallls of teeext- 'Guess the elephant in the room is a strawman walking by the emperors clothes right! As -someone- said -irrelvant quote-. That's literally how your posts go. I offered to discuss Io with you, we could have gone into detail about both sides but for some reason you have yet to answer my points with any rational answer. Sure you can say anything you want, but how on earth is that of any use in any situation. It's clear you disagree with the gravity, if it's wrong, how can you talk about highly elliptical orbits for comets when we only know that their orbits are elliptical by applying gravitational laws to observations! You accept gravity to use in EU comet theory but reject it in mainstream explanations. Which is it? Edit: As a note about if I weighed up evidence from both sides. The answer is yes! Although it was more of a 'is mainstream wrong' rather than 'is this other theory right'. As an example. I took a relativity class when I was doing my masters and myself, along with nearly everyone else in there, came into the class to learn what it was about since no one thought it was valid. Every class I would go up the lecturer and say 'but how does this works, this makes no sense etc...' I in no way thought it was correct when I first took the class but after several months of learning and seeing real world examples I came to accept it. I remember the muon life time thing for me was a bit of a bubble burster. At that point I thought maybe relativity wasn't just a load of maths nonsense and started to properly look at evidence either way. The evidence for was just to great, even though at that point I was anti-relativity. No one thinks relativity is true when they first learn about it, it just sounds too weird. Down now where I am now we have a weekly meeting where we go over mainstream papers and pick holes in them, as I was told on the first day to question everything about the mainstream and that's what done down here and all over the country.
  17. Edit: actually, forget it. You simply prance around here posting anything that's anti mainstream despite never actually analysing anything yourself or probably even reading the mainstream explanation beyond a title. You're just a modern e-scientist with a masters in youtube and PhD in google, watch a few vids, read a few titles and suddenly you know more than the 10000s of folk who have dedicated their lives to study. I doubt you would even be able to tell me what an electron volt is if asked without the internet at hand. I certainly came here to learn since if I hadn't I would have dismissed your posts as crank and nonsense right off, instead I asked questions and read papers (more than you, I guarantee it). Clearly if I wanted to learn I should have asked elsewhere since you lack the ability to answer any questions that you aren't immediately able to google and copy paste (likely without even reading the content). However having read both sides of the theory, EU pro and mainstream pro, EU has more holes than a colander. Same questions have been asked for 30 years and not once has anyone even created a model or done a quantitative analysis. Mainstream folk have done ones to show why EU is wrong and never has anyone pointed out any errors. There's no other alternative theory that has gone so long without a model. I stated at the start I was skeptical about dark matter so that should be enough to show I am willing to try other theories. I also (not stated earlier) didn't think the Higgs boson would be found, am verrry skeptical of dark energy and think string/M theory are likely maths constructions. I am willing to read all sides of the story, something you are not (if it's anti mainstream, you go for it). I imagine you're just a bit upset about the dark matter super structures and Higgs boson find in the recent days. EU position is basically that it's all made up so I imagine you'll take that position. I seem to remember one of the EU higher ups said that if the Higgs was found that would invalidate EU, of course now he's changed his tune to say they mainstream don't know what they are doing and so even if they find the Higgs it means nothing. If it is the Higgs, EU is invalid.
  18. Ah another quote/youtube post, they sure are great. How about you just address this... This whole comet-CME thing arose through folk viewing videos of comets being around during CMEs and concluded that there was a connection. It can be shown that there are no more CMEs happening around comets than expected by random chance and that these people simply picked and chose comet-CME videos while ignoring all other comet-no CME cases and CME-no comet cases. Their argument has no basis, at all. They essentially use utterly biased statistics ('it appears there is a connection, see vid1, vid2', etc...) to prove their argument. If I show you 50 videos of a regular coin landing heads up, would you conclude that coins mostly land heads up? Or would you say 'oh hey wait a minute you've also got 50 videos of the coin landing tails up, nothing strange going on here'. That's what's happening with the comet-CME thing, except you believe that coins mostly land heads up. Edit: I'm still interested on what you think about gravity being approximated locally by Newtons law of gravitation. I'm sure you're aware that if you think it's wrong, or that gravity pushes, you can say nothing about comets since we fit their orbits using good old Newton... Edit2: "I'd read this and that and seen the points made about its last Sun, Earth alignment being on the same day as the Japan Tsunami" How many degrees out does something have to be before it is not aligned. Edit3: And I'm still interested to know what the dielectric is.
  19. Wouldn't we be able to detect large amounts of gamma rays from the Sun's surface if this was the case? Yeah I think so, but this isn't really my area so I can't say too much. fusion can occur in things like solar flares and in the corona, but no where near enough to account for observed neutrino flux for one thing. (haven't read the below papers, just reference to fusion in flares) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974ApJ...193..729R http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993AstL...19...65T Note from the abstract in the second paper it says that 3 tons of deuterium (related to fusion) were produced during the whole flare event whereas from observations we know that 620 million tons of hydrogen are fused per second! Clearly the surface/corona/flare/etc fusion events are not enough. Edit: Let's also keep this on topic of comets for now though.
  20. I thought one of your central claims was that the Sun isn't undergoing nuclear fusion? EU claims that fusion is taking place only on the surface of the sun. However I don't think the temperatures are high enough for the pp or cno chain to actually take place (but I dont know much about this area outside what I read on wiki)
  21. Late so post will be short. Turned out not to be so short... Well you'll need to explain what the dielectric is then, since I can't see it. Yeah but I'm not sure how this has anything to do with EU theory? This all falls into mainstream theory. Solar wind can only explain so much water, and of course, the type of water (if this is the right way to put it) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18178-water-found-in-lunar-impact-probably-came-from-comets.html Summary: More water found than can be formed by solar wind alone (5.5%, http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/videoqnatrans.htm found, solar wind can generate perhaps 1%). Water contained volatiles (methane in particular) which would not have appeared if formed from solar wind alone. (from wiki regarding volatiles "volatiles are that group of chemical elements and chemical compounds with low boiling points that are associated with a planet's or moon's crust and/or atmosphere. Examples include nitrogen, water, carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen, and methane, all compounds of C, H, O and/or N, as well as sulfur dioxide") Note that your second link talks about heavier quantities of water being found in crater essentially what you posted above supports mainstream. Conclusions: 3am so will have to re-read tomorrow.
  22. After more probing... I think what you might be referring to here is electrical discharge machining (EDM). This term regularly shows up in EU references to comets. I'm not sure if you are though since you'd need to explain how that produces the results I linked to, I think EDM is used to explain jets as opposed to water in comet tails. If you mean something else than you'll need to clarify. In any case, To quote wiki "Electric discharge machining (EDM), sometimes colloquially also referred to as spark machining, spark eroding, burning, die sinking or wire erosion,[1] is a manufacturing process whereby a desired shape is obtained using electrical discharges (sparks).[2] Material is removed from the workpiece by a series of rapidly recurring current discharges between two electrodes, separated by a dielectric liquid and subject to an electric voltage" So the obvious point to make here is, what is the dielectric liquid in the comet case? A dielectric is essentially an insulator. There is no obvious candidate as far as I can tell. In the EU theory, one of the electrodes would obviously be the comet, I guess the other one is the solar wind? But there is no dielectric liquid present. Edit: Also, as far as I'm aware (could be wrong on this, probably am), the other place we see these types of jets is on that great big ball of ice Enceladus, surely giving weight to the mainstream explanation of comets.
  23. Could do what? If this really was true then none of the anomalies you, EU, etc, people talk about would exist as evidence of them would not have been released. Edit: misread this a bit but same idea, data is data. Well this still does not address what I posted. If comets can be responsible for CMEs, there should be a statistical significant amount of comet/CME interactions, but there simply isn't. This alone should be enough to debunk the proposed CME/comet interaction theory. Also, what's electrical fissioning, I can't find a reference that explains what it is.
  24. Get back to me when you find one with anything like the amount of ice needed for any kind of cometary behavior. So you can't comment on what I posted? Let me just hop into my spaceship and go check out a comet then I'll report back, that's much easier than commenting on some basic statistics... What about Halley? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/232/4757/1523.abstract EDIT: Let's, for discussions sake, say that the mainstream view of comets is WRONG! You are still required to show that there is a link between CMEs and comets, so your previous post is utterly pointless and basically just a way to avoid addressing what I posted.
  25. How does this process happen? I read some more on it here http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse16.htm and if you like we can open the electric star book again... EU seems to pride itself on using observational evidence instead of abstract mathematical object but the whole idea behind electric stars is based on something we have not yet detected - enough incoming electrons to power a star. Drift electrons have been proposed as a solution but there is zero observational evidence of this. Surely electric sun therefore has to sit back and rethink the original idea. I have no idea how the rest of your post is related to anything. Can you address the comet issue. I find it odd that you are ignoring it. Electric comets being wrong does falsify EU theory. Edit: I cannot find any reference explaining what electrical fissioning is.
×
×
  • Create New...