Thunderbolts of the Gods

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Rock and frickin' roll, dude!

And all in your own words! An actual contribution. I can't see it killing the beast, but it has certainly been put in its place.

You do understand that you just back-slapped an assertion sans evidence.

 

[robinson]

A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.
http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

There is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are 'coincidentally aligned'.

New direct-imaging data are presented for the disturbed spiral galaxy NGC 4319 (z = 0.005) and the apparently connected quasar-like object Markarian 205 (z = 0.072). Image processing of this CCD data reveals (1) an almost continuous luminous connection extending from Mrk 205 into the nucleus of the spiral galaxy; (2) a corresponding feature on the opposite side of the disk, appearing to link a bright UV knot with the nucleus; and (3) extensive morphological peculiarities in NGC 4319 that are consistent with hypothesized explosive nuclear activity. These data support the conclusion that NGC 4319 is an active spiral galaxy that recently ejected Mrk 205 from its nucleus.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...319..687S

Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319

and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space.​

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2002/23/image/a/

For twenty years, the author has contested the ‘establishment’ view of quasars as the most distant objects in the universe. In this book, Arp presents the original observations and fundamental data on quasars and galaxies, and explains why he has concluded that: far from being the most distant objects in the universe, quasars are associated in space with relatively nearby galaxies; quasars’ enormous redshifts do not arise from the expansion of the universe, but rather are intrinsic properties of the quasars themselves; many galaxies show redshift anomalies related to quasars’ redshifts; quasars and galaxies have an origin far different from that assumed in the ‘standard’ big-bang model of the universe; many astronomers, despite the accumulation of compelling evidence, defend what Arp believes is a fundamentally incorrect assumption about cosmic objects.

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521363144​

 

[Corsair 115]

The only Thunderbolts really worth discussing are the P-47 and the A-10.

 

[robinson]

Even a quick look at the data shows that there is indeed dispute over what is going on out there. 80 million light years away. Maybe.

I find it hilarious that people are emotionally upset over their theories, about stuff that is 100 million light years away. At least.

In fact, the farther away stuff seems to be, the more intense the fight over how far away it is.

100 million light years. I don't see this mentioned much, but what that really means, is that what we are looking at happened a hundred million years ago. It doesn't even look like that anymore. If you happen to be there that is.



I guess when funding is an issue, being right is really important. If somebody proves your theory is wrong, you lose not only funding, but all that really important social importance and stuff.

 

[robinson]

The only Thunderbolts really worth discussing are the P-47 and the A-10.

Why do these Thunderbolt dudes have to use the term "...of the Gods"?

It doesn't help at all, if they are trying to put forth new theories and such.

 

[Dancing David]

No. You see. Im not an idiot. Reading through his spam I'm seeing contradictions that doesn't make a dam bit of sense. For example:

I'll leave you to try and figure out why this doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense, the question is more one of the meaning. If you are a large object travelling a a medium velocity the impact energy is probably going to be much higher than the electrical discharge energy. There are features in geology that some beleive were caused purely by the electrical discharge.

 

[Dancing David]

No engineering doesn't entirely explain how the universe works as a whole. It's generally a really gross simplification.
PS. Five minutes through that crap and I can't stand it anymore. They used the term electric discharge machining. He's another Max Photon.
Space is a vacuum where are we getting all these ions from???

Much of what BAC is saying is foolish,

However i don't suppose that the 'solar wind' is ions in the vacum of space, is it?

Not that this demonstrates the 'large scale currents' which BAC is beloved of.

 

[Dancing David]

No. Im not. Im getting this weird impression that it's variation of the creationism debate.

I

More a varaiation of the steady state theory.

 

[Dancing David]

They use the tactics similar as creationists, such as declaring it a debate when there is no debate at all.

The plasma cosmology does not generate the debate that BAC might wish and in fact that is one of the complaints 'we aren't getting money or press', however Halton Arp gets a whole lot of discussion. Despite BAC's contention that they are shut out.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm somewhat shocked by how much credulity there is in the responses here. Not much of a skeptic's forum after all?

This stuff is utter and complete nonsense. There is no scientific debate over it, period (unless you use the creationists' definition of scientific debate). Any competent physicist can immediately rule out these ideas on multiple grounds.

If you're not a physicist, that may be more difficult. (But far from impossible - it would just take some thought and reading. I suggest you start with estimating how much current you'd need to power the sun, how much of a magnetic field that would generate, and then look up how strong the magnetic fields around the sun actually are.) But even if you don't want to think about physics, ask yourself this - does it really make sense that none of the thousands of bright astrophysics Ph.D. students that graduate every year, who are competing desperately for recognition and jobs, and who are actually experts in their subject (unlike the promoters of this theory) would work on this?

Scientists are constantly searching for cracks in the prevailing model. If you can find one single thing wrong with it you become famous. So how credible is it that some (or maybe one?) electrical engineer(s), working in a field way outside their (his) area of expertise, have identified a whole set of serious problems with standard cosmology, but no one will listen?

And haven't you noticed how many such crackpot theories appear... and then disappear? Have a look at the null physics thread, for example - and there have probably been tens or hundreds of such threads on these forums.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm somewhat shocked by how much credulity there is in the responses here. Not much of a skeptic's forum after all?

Excuse me, intelligent debate does not revolve around pure dismissal.

take your high horse to some dogma fest will you.

This stuff is utter and complete nonsense. There is no scientific debate over it, period (unless you use the creationists' definition of scientific debate).

And that is where you are wrong, scientists look at what Arp says and then show the evidence to support of deny.

Your mere dismissive hand wave is not sufficient.

Any competent physicist can immediately rule out these ideas on multiple grounds.

If you're not a physicist, that may be more difficult. (But far from impossible - it would just take some thought and reading. I suggest you start with estimating how much current you'd need to power the sun, how much of a magnetic field that would generate, and then look up how strong the magnetic fields around the sun actually are.)

Now that is a more cogent form of argument, welcome to the fray.

But even if you don't want to think about physics, ask yourself this - does it really make sense that none of the thousands of bright astrophysics Ph.D. students that graduate every year, who are competing desperately for recognition and jobs, and who are actually experts in their subject (unlike the promoters of this theory) would work on this?

Your appeal to authority has as much merit as BAC's.
Look up Halton Arp.

Scientists are constantly searching for cracks in the prevailing model. If you can find one single thing wrong with it you become famous. So how credible is it that some (or maybe one?) electrical engineer(s), working in a field way outside their (his) area of expertise, have identified a whole set of serious problems with standard cosmology, but no one will listen?

A better argument than your prior name calling.

And haven't you noticed how many such crackpot theories appear... and then disappear? Have a look at the null physics thread, for example - and there have probably been tens or hundreds of such threads on these forums.

 

[sol invictus]

Excuse me, intelligent debate does not revolve around pure dismissal.

Some ideas are not worthy of debate. There is a finite amount of time available to all of us.

And that is where you are wrong, scientists look at what Arp says and then show the evidence to support of deny.

Are scientists obligated to thoroughly debunk every crackpot that comes along? Life is short, and they are many.

Your mere dismissive hand wave is not sufficient.

Sufficient for what?

Look up Halton Arp.

What about him? He's known as a supporter of some silly steady state theory, which (while definitely crackpotty) is far less so that this stuff.

There are always a few, until they all die off. In the case of steady state universe proponents that isn't going to take much longer.

 

[robinson]

Part 13 - Problems Explaining Observations On Io, One Of Jupiter's Moons

Before the Galileo probe, NASA claimed that the plumes the earlier Voyager probe had observed rising from Jupiter's moon Io were volcanoes...
Well it turns out that measurements now show that Thornhill was right. Io and Jupiter are connected by a 'flux tube' that contains a gigantic electric current. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/hst6.html "The new Hubble observations simultaneously show warped oval rings at the north and south poles (offset from Jupiter's spin axis by 10-15 degrees), as well as an auroral "footprint" created by a river of electrical current of about one million amperes flowing between Jupiter and the volcanic moon Io."
...

Meanwhile, mainstream astrophysicists are still scratching their heads.

This appears to be based on evidence, and looking at the photos and data is pretty damn cool.

The new Hubble observations simultaneously show warped oval rings at the north and south poles (offset from Jupiter's spin axis by 10-15 degrees), as well as an auroral "footprint" created by a river of electrical current of about one million amperes flowing between Jupiter and the volcanic moon Io.

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/hst6.html

I guess they don't know that current can't flow in a vacuum...

 

[robinson]

Part 4 - The Electric Sun Alternative As An Explanation Of Supernova And Other Stellar Phenomena

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Like I thought, the heavy hand of the rules has deleted much of what was posted. Can you link to the website(s) that the deleted material came from?

Or has BeAChooser been suspended or something already?

 

[sol invictus]

I guess they don't know that current can't flow in a vacuum...

Off topic, but actually it can, because the "vacuum" is never really empty. It always contains short-lived electron-positron pairs due to quantum fluctuations, and in a sufficiently strong or extended electric field it's energetically favorable for those pairs to separate and fly off in opposite directions, thus creating a current.

 

[Cuddles]

Like I thought, the heavy hand of the rules has deleted much of what was posted. Can you link to the website(s) that the deleted material came from?

If you don't like copyright laws, go and complain to the government, there's nothing we can do about them here. The links were, and still are, in the posts. I'm sure if you took some time off from whining you'd be able to find them.

 

[Dancing David]

Some ideas are not worthy of debate. There is a finite amount of time available to all of us.



Are scientists obligated to thoroughly debunk every crackpot that comes along? Life is short, and they are many.



Sufficient for what?



What about him? He's known as a supporter of some silly steady state theory, which (while definitely crackpotty) is far less so that this stuff.

There are always a few, until they all die off. In the case of steady state universe proponents that isn't going to take much longer.

Excuse me but this is the JREF, your credentials or lack of them are not the issue.
The ability to make critical thinking apparent is.

Your argument of 'nonsense' is no good, it is an appeal to your personal authority and not much of an argument.

I am not a steady stater, but the fact that I feel it is a bad theory is not critical thinking. Unless one can explain why it is not a good theory then the JREF would be pointless. Appeals to authority are without merit.

 

[Dancing David]

Hiya BAC


http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4w5l7l06280863r/

this is the Peratt reference from the original thread. It was printed in 1995.

A similar reference from 1990
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6904506

And here is the paper from 1990, I guess.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/Perattpdf/PerattEvidenceCosmic.pdf

But here is the issue BAC, the paper suggests that such currents do exist but it set parameters for where, when and how often

So what is the big deal, this does not support the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis. It says that there may be Birkeland currents that exist on a galactic scale, it does not say that they dominate the universe.

certainly they may have had a role in the formation of galactic structures.

What would be the big deal there.

It has nothing to do with "dark matter', so could you point out where this paper or others show that the speed of stars around the galaxies is effected.
It isn't in this paper.

You keep saying that there is data that suggests the rotational anomoly is explained, please show us where?

meanwhile I will continue to mine what you presented before.

 

[sol invictus]

Excuse me but this is the JREF, your credentials or lack of them are not the issue.
The ability to make critical thinking apparent is.

Your argument of 'nonsense' is no good, it is an appeal to your personal authority and not much of an argument.

I am not a steady stater, but the fact that I feel it is a bad theory is not critical thinking. Unless one can explain why it is not a good theory then the JREF would be pointless. Appeals to authority are without merit.

OK then. Carry on.

 

[robinson]

Electromagnetism is not stronger than gravity.

Wrong. Don't be dumb. Any physics text will educate you on this.

The links were, and still are, in the posts.

Thanks, I did not know that.

Some ideas are not worthy of debate. There is a finite amount of time available to all of us.

Based on the behavior of some manic JREF members, I don't believe it.

Some people seem to have an infinite amount of time, and debate everything, even stuff that isn't even debatable.

For example. trying to argue you can't measure which is longer, a piece of wood or a piece of string. See?

So something like electromagnetism and the Universe is wide open for discussion. I think some people confuse the word "theory" with "fact".