BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
With statements like this, you only demonstrate that you fundamentally do not understand electric current ... among other things.
Dark matter and Dark energy
- Thread starter DanishDynamite
- Start date
With statements like this, you only demonstrate that you fundamentally do not understand electric current ... among other things.
No kidding. I hoped it was viewed as dumb. Which it was. And it added nothing to the discussion.
I do read about everything, and even though I don't understand a lot of it, it is still interesting. This dark matter is very interesting.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
What you have to understand Keith is that there are a lot of alternative theories being proposed to explain what is observed ... to fill in the holes that mainstream theory has clearly not successfully explained. And not everyone in the alternative cosmology/astrophysics/solarphysics communities believes or promotes every theory. You have to understand that there are even different factions within the electric sun community. I've made no effort to try and reduce them to a single theory ... I've simply thrown out a lot of material to garner some interest ... so that's part of the reason the explanations are so scattered and perhaps inconsistent.
So don't throw out the notion that electromagnetic phenomena are more likely an explanation for rotation curves, jets and other phenomena just because you think an electric sun is a wacky idea. They aren't necessarily connected. And the electric sun model may be right ... or may not. We don't really know at this point ... regardless of what Ziggurat claims. (Keep in mind that Ziggurat also authoritatively told everyone that most of the ordinary matter in the universe is not plasma and that plasma could only exist at high temperatures inside stars or right after the Big Bang.) Ziggurat is trying to discredit all the alternative ideas based on a single number that might be wrong in a single one of those theories. On a calculation using a model of the sun's charge that might be wrong. On an incomplete understanding of how charge behaves in the sun. On an incomplete understanding of electromagnetism.
And also keep in mind that when mainstream proponents and theorists have historically claimed that there is no reason to think electric currents explain solar and interplanetary phenomena, they have been proven wrong again and again. Be it auroras, the phenomena around Jupiter and Saturn, or what we can see happening on and above the sun. The truth is that we don't know what is going on inside the sun and mainstream theorists are having a great deal of trouble explaining in any consistent manner what is going on at the surface and above the sun. Maybe it's time that we listened to the folks that have gotten predictions right over and over rather than the folks that are continually "surprised"?
I suggest you go read some of those EU sites I've linked, read Donald Scott's book "Electric Sky", and look back over some previous threads where I've tried to summarize some of the electric star theories and other EU/PC notions. Do that, and I think you'll find they have a very self-consistent explanation for a wide spectrum of observed phenomena on and above the sun ... and throughout the solar system ... as well as a clear explanation for other types of stars and various other stellar phenomena (such as jets) ... provided there is current moving from deep space towards the sun ... or provided stars behave like homopolar motors (and electric circuits) instead of the way the mainstream theorizes using MHD models and physics that even the inventor of MHD said were bogus.
Maybe we should actually do an experiment to see what currents exist in space and whether the sun is charged ... rather than take Ziggurat's word that they don't? The fact that the mainstream won't even consider proven to exist physics such as Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers, and z-pinches when looking at the cause of astronomical phenomena that clearly have the characteristics of those phenomena should be a red flag. The fact that they instead rely on such bogus physics as open field lines, magnetic reconnection and frozen-in magnetic fields should be a red flag. The fact that they ignore any observation or calculation which challenges their claim that redshift always equals distance (on which much of their cosmological theories rest) should be a red flag. The fact that they require mystical beasts such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy and perhaps even dark forces to exist in such a ubiquitous manner should be a red flag. Those things should make you a little suspicious that perhaps the mainstream theory isn't quite as solid as is claimed in the press and by it's well-funded proponents. Perhaps a more careful look at some of the alternatives is in order ... instead of single mindedly pursuing mainstream notions to the exclusion of everything else. What reasonable folks like these: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ , are asking is not unreasonable in light of the above situation.
And if the alternatives are as false as Ziggurat and his peers claim, let's see them produce some peer reviewed scientific articles that SPECIFICALLY rule out a charged sun, electric currents flowing from interstellar space, Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers, homo-polar motors and z-pinches as explanations for observed phenomena. Let's see some peer reviewed scientific papers for once that SPECIFICALLY challenge the observations and calculations of scientists like Arp regarding high redshift objects. Instead of continuing the status quo of ignoring all of the above and continuing a march down a road that may in the end be a dead end.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
So then you don't believe in the magnetic reconnection gnome. Please tell The Man that.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
But the situation under discussion is two neutrons hitting one another head on, not neutrons hitting atoms or even the nuclei of atoms.
Regardless, I'm done discussing this particular issue since I no longer even have an idea where it fits into the overall debate.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
You really are tiresome, David. Here is a link that answers the question you asked: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm . That link was provided on threads several times where you were posting but I guess you never got around to actually looking at it. Which isn't a first.
Now here is a repeat of my question which comes from information at that link. Let's see if YOU can provide an explanation or a link to an explanation as I just did for your question.
Regarding V838 Monocertis, NASA's Picture of the Day announced "Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly-luminous, cool supergiant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles."
Those two types of stars are in completely different areas of the HR diagram. Given that under mainstream theory stars on the HR diagram are supposed to "evolve" from one location to another over perhaps millions of years, how do you explain what happened to that star? As noted above, NASA didn't have an answer. But the link I supplied to you does. And if you can't answer this question, David, given that the link I supplied does indeed address yours, who is the "arm waving", "childish" "troll" here?
Belz...
Fiend God
Stop trying to attack me and get to the damn points. I'll handle my schedule, thank you very much. The fact is that the link didn't work for me. Period.
"Far too long" cannot be a fact. It can only be an opinion because "too long" is not a number. It's not even an approximation. It's an emotional response.
No, that's because I'm a layman. Besides, Ziggurat seems to be handling you quite well on his own in that department.
That's right. _I_ haven't. Why do you keep trying to make this a "you vs me" thing ?
And how about the pistol thingy ?
But they still can't get rid of the damn thing, can they ?
How do you infer that from this:
Belz... said:
???
Sorry, but I think it is entirely fair to suggest that all you've done is create a dark universe with no clear origin to explain away the origin of the universe we can actually see.
Science isn't trying to satisfy you, Chooser. It's trying to understand the mechanics behind what we see. It doesn't care whether you like the answer or not.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I really liked the stuff about dark posting as well, I wonder if we could find lensing of distant posts from dark posts?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Hi BAC,
Your link does not answer the question at all, in fact it makes a bogus assertion from the start of the red giant discussion:
So to make it plain, you did not answer the question, as usual, you pointed to something else and claimed it was the answer and still didn't answer the question:
How does the electric sun model explain the red giant?
You linked to something about one star in your quote about the Monoceros star (which is great) but you still did not answer the question about the electric sun model explaining red giants.
More arm waving, spinning and distraction.
This points out again the big area where the electric sun model is very blind, nucleosynthesis.
A red giant star is considered to be older than a yellow star (like our sun) for what reason, the larger amount of the heavier element especially He.
So if the mainstream model accounts for the transition from a star like the sun to a red giant by the core collapse and the fusing of he, what does the electric sun model have to account for the higher percentage of He in red giant stars, it says that they are not older and it is not as though they occur in areas of higher He concentration.
Also
This gets even worse BAC, in the mainstream model a star can transform very quickly from the main sequence to one of the other pockets on the HR diagram, the transition itself can be very quick. the buildup of He can take billions of years but the transition to red giant is not that slow. It can certainly happen in a human lifetime and in some cases a matter of weeks.
You do know that the mainstream model can explain many variable stars, I can imagine the hash that the electric sun model would make of that, especially the flaring companion dwarf stars.
then there is the whole issue of the stars they choose to refute the fusion stars model, gosh they just ignore what they don't like again and misrepresent the rest.
How you coming on the magnetic field strength needed for the Perrat model to move the sun?
Where do the elements past iron come from in the electric sun model BAC/
How to account for the relative proportion of H, He and Li?
The list of questions you will refuse to answer will continue to grow, I bet that the red giant He ratio will join the list.
Your link does not answer the question at all, in fact it makes a bogus assertion from the start of the red giant discussion:
So to make it plain, you did not answer the question, as usual, you pointed to something else and claimed it was the answer and still didn't answer the question:
How does the electric sun model explain the red giant?
You linked to something about one star in your quote about the Monoceros star (which is great) but you still did not answer the question about the electric sun model explaining red giants.
More arm waving, spinning and distraction.
that is answered if you wish to know, which you don't.
How then does this model account for the difference of the elements heavier than hydrogen in a red giant?
This points out again the big area where the electric sun model is very blind, nucleosynthesis.
A red giant star is considered to be older than a yellow star (like our sun) for what reason, the larger amount of the heavier element especially He.
So if the mainstream model accounts for the transition from a star like the sun to a red giant by the core collapse and the fusing of he, what does the electric sun model have to account for the higher percentage of He in red giant stars, it says that they are not older and it is not as though they occur in areas of higher He concentration.
Also
This gets even worse BAC, in the mainstream model a star can transform very quickly from the main sequence to one of the other pockets on the HR diagram, the transition itself can be very quick. the buildup of He can take billions of years but the transition to red giant is not that slow. It can certainly happen in a human lifetime and in some cases a matter of weeks.
You do know that the mainstream model can explain many variable stars, I can imagine the hash that the electric sun model would make of that, especially the flaring companion dwarf stars.
then there is the whole issue of the stars they choose to refute the fusion stars model, gosh they just ignore what they don't like again and misrepresent the rest.
How you coming on the magnetic field strength needed for the Perrat model to move the sun?
Where do the elements past iron come from in the electric sun model BAC/
How to account for the relative proportion of H, He and Li?
The list of questions you will refuse to answer will continue to grow, I bet that the red giant He ratio will join the list.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,748
After having relied upon link after link discussing what happens in neutron-nuclei collisions, not neutron-neutron collisions, you want to back out now because you realize you don't know what you're talking about? Oh, that's just too funny.
Regardless, I'm done discussing this particular issue since I no longer even have an idea where it fits into the overall debate.
You never did to begin with. You just thought you had an opening to show I was wrong about something, but were merely ignorant and confused yourself.
OK now I am going to stop being funny for a minute. OK, I am going to TRY and stop being funny. In this and the EU topics, I really enjoy both sides of the debate. In a strange way the main combatants are in opposite camps, but in the same boat, sort of. Electric U supporters are going with observation and what they know, trying to explain things that are difficult for most of us to imagine, much less calculate out. No, not you, you are really smart and can do the maths, I mean us, the regular people who tend to nod our heads and go "uh huh" while our eyes glaze over. DM supporters are doing the same thing, except they have a tougher road, because DM doesn't have any earth bound examples, or any way to experiment at all. I think.
But all sides, I think, are trying to understand, to explain, the vast and powerful and wondrous nature of our shared Universe, which anybody who has really looked at knows, is really really big, and very energetic. Not only beautiful, but mysterious, and every time we think we might actually have a good idea of what in the hell is going on, something new is observed, and we have to scratch our heads, reminding us of our monkey ancestors, faced with something like fire, just going, "oooh, look at that!", or something.
Meanwhile Ook goes "It is alive!", and Mook says, "No! It is from the Gods!", and Ook smashes Mook with a stick, and the scientific debate is on.
Most of us sit on the sidelines eating some grubs hoping the smart monkeys will figure it out, without getting an eye poked out.
Like this topic, which probably has very few readers left, and about zero Moderation, because it is the die hards, the true believers, the people interested left, going at it, tooth and nail, and new stuff keeps coming up, and it is all fascinating in a way, because it is a mystery, and mysteries are interesting, to some of us.
I mean, here we are, still posting away, while most people are busy flirting in chat, talking about their oh so important lives in Forum Community, or getting riled up over politics, or something, I don't read those threads.
I like to think at some point everybody just sits down and has a good laugh, then everybody goes back to their corner and prepares for the next round. Because we are the lucky ones, that we are even able to sit on a computer and be passionate about Dark Matters, or Electricity, or Gravity, Space, Time, the immense unknowns and complicated theories, and all that stuff.
Most people just DGAS, and you can't even talk to them about it.
But all sides, I think, are trying to understand, to explain, the vast and powerful and wondrous nature of our shared Universe, which anybody who has really looked at knows, is really really big, and very energetic. Not only beautiful, but mysterious, and every time we think we might actually have a good idea of what in the hell is going on, something new is observed, and we have to scratch our heads, reminding us of our monkey ancestors, faced with something like fire, just going, "oooh, look at that!", or something.
Meanwhile Ook goes "It is alive!", and Mook says, "No! It is from the Gods!", and Ook smashes Mook with a stick, and the scientific debate is on.
Most of us sit on the sidelines eating some grubs hoping the smart monkeys will figure it out, without getting an eye poked out.
Like this topic, which probably has very few readers left, and about zero Moderation, because it is the die hards, the true believers, the people interested left, going at it, tooth and nail, and new stuff keeps coming up, and it is all fascinating in a way, because it is a mystery, and mysteries are interesting, to some of us.
I mean, here we are, still posting away, while most people are busy flirting in chat, talking about their oh so important lives in Forum Community, or getting riled up over politics, or something, I don't read those threads.
I like to think at some point everybody just sits down and has a good laugh, then everybody goes back to their corner and prepares for the next round. Because we are the lucky ones, that we are even able to sit on a computer and be passionate about Dark Matters, or Electricity, or Gravity, Space, Time, the immense unknowns and complicated theories, and all that stuff.
Most people just DGAS, and you can't even talk to them about it.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,748
The only model you've ever put forward is wrong. Catastrophically wrong. It posits a physically impossible charge on the sun which cannot be confined by any method. Any of the alternative "models" do not even deserve the term, because they are nothing more than hand-waving. They do not make the kind of quantitative predictions required to deserve that name, and that lack of prediction is the only thing that keeps them from being similarly disproven. Because hey, if you can't predict something, you can't be wrong either, can you?
The incomplete understanding is yours. My calculation was a lower bound for the repulsion that model produces. Starting from the only hard number you've ever produced, no amount of tweaking of charge distributions, no amount of double layers and Birkeland currents, can possibly do anything except increase that number.
Everything? No, we probably don't. I think it's pretty damned clear that fusion is going on inside the sun, though.
I believe it was Zeusss, a fellow believer of yours in EU models, who linked to a peer reviewed paper which talks about the charge on the sun. I already brought that up before, more than once. It discusses a limit on that charge (I do not claim that the limit is zero). For our sun, it's on the order of 100 Coulombs. Not much energy available there, and the mechanism discussed that leads to it cannot produce power. But you've ignored it.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,748
Did you forget the original statement in question? It appears so. In post 433, I said that the electric sun model relies upon having a large net charge on the sun. Your own links, with frequent references to the sun as an anode, seem to support that, in one case explicitly so. Do any of your links indicate that only a small charge is needed for an electric sun model? I have seen no such assertion made. And you certainly haven't produced such an assertion from any of your sources. Instead of just throwing more links, why don't you find a quote from one of your sources to that affect?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,748
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
Well said!
Belz...
Fiend God
This brings up a very important point: how does the electric star model explain the existence of heavy elements in the universe ?
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
I'm glad, but for some of us it's actually pretty frustrating. It's not a real debate, because the EU stuff is total gibberish. There's no theory, no numbers, no calculations - because the moment you put in any numbers, you realize how utterly impossible it is. That's obvious from the start to a physicist who has spent years thinking and working on electricity and magnetism (as every physicist has), but not to a layperson, and apparently not to a few fanatical posters here who have repeatedly demonstrated their ignorance of the most basic fundamentals of physics (specifically electromagnetism).
Just as an example: there are four fundamental equations describing E&M, called Maxwell's equations. The first one is known as Gauss' law. Most people learn (and probably quickly forget) about it in high school physics when they're 16 or 17, and if they go on in physics it figures in nearly every course after, including in a major part of the first year intro course, a semester or year as a junior in college, a semester or year as a Ph.D. student, plus it's mentioned and used often in nearly every other physics course. It's absolutely basic. And yet, BAC didn't know what it was, and didn't know it was one of Maxwell's equations (I can dig up the posts if necessary). That proves that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about - zero. It's like arguing over Chomsky's contributions to linguistics without knowing what a word is.
The EU side of the "debate" consists of a series of out-of-context quotes mined from various popular sources. No information is being exchanged, and no progress has been made - and won't be, because it's clear that the EU side is motivated by psychology rather than physics. There is no point in carrying on such a "dialog".
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I am wondering if we can't use inferometry on multiple browsers to detect dark postings?