Electric universe theories here.

[edd]

That is rather wild speculation from the point of view of a skeptic. Got even a single gram of non baryonic matter that we can actually inspect in controlled conditions?

I will concede there's no direct detection as yet. Requiring grams of the stuff is laughable though (I'm not aware that anyone has a gram of neutrinos you can inspect in controlled conditions and the same can be said about many other things. Including some elements sitting comfortably on the periodic table.)

The evidence that's already been done to death here certainly does give CDM large amounts of support. I would be surprised if I turned out to be wrong and some MOND variant turned out to be right, but even in the latter case it looks likely that you will still need a large mass fraction in the form of neutrinos to get cluster observations to fit, and so sol is probably still wrong if CDM turns out to be wrong.

In contrast, the chance that you are right is way down at the other end of the scale, close to zero.

 

[Vermonter]

I don't see why dark matter is such a controversial topic. It doesn't emit (or react to) electromagnetic radiation. So? I'm not seeing the big deal. We just haven't found a way to directly observe it. Unless I'm missing something important. Am I?

 

[Dancing David]

Nope, nutrinos are in the same category.

 

[Vermonter]

Thanks, that's what I figured.

 

[tusenfem]

Why batteries? why not capacitors?

Charge them in our magnetosphere, push of to say Jupiter magnetosphere use the kinetis energy to recharge the capacitors while slowing the craft down ready to "pushed" of again!

Simple, brilliant and easy, so why not???

What is the difference between a battery and a capacitor in this frame?

And then please read my summary of the conclusions of the tether satellite.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't see why dark matter is such a controversial topic. It doesn't emit (or react to) electromagnetic radiation. So? I'm not seeing the big deal. We just haven't found a way to directly observe it. Unless I'm missing something important. Am I?

Why do we need to postulate invisible matter and invisible forces? Where does "dark matter" even come from? Where is it? Why can't your whole industry produce even a single gram of the stuff if it's actually 5 - 10 times more plentiful than the dirt in my backyard?

Whereas controlled experimentation led us to postulate the need for a neutrino (or a law of physics was being violated), no known controlled experiment requires or suggests the need for a new form of matter. Not a single SUSY particle has ever been found and SUSY theory itself is a form of "non standard" particle physics theory.

The part that gets really over the top is why you folks publish papers about finding "proof" of 'dark matter' (rather than "missing mass") based on some distant and completely uncontrolled observation. Such statements should never pass a peer review process, but you folks don't even understand what a real "experiment" with a real "control mechanism" actually is. In the lingo of your industry any uncontrolled observation is somehow a "test" of mythical mathical make-believe entity, physically indistinguishable (in a lab) from magic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I will concede there's no direct detection as yet. Requiring grams of the stuff is laughable though (I'm not aware that anyone has a gram of neutrinos you can inspect in controlled conditions and the same can be said about many other things. Including some elements sitting comfortably on the periodic table.)

The key difference however is that the postulation of a neutrino was brought about due to active experimentation with real control mechanisms. In such 'experiments' related to particle decay reactions of identified particles, some amount of mass/energy was not accounted for. These ideas were born of *EXPERIMENTATION* and active control mechanisms. Furthermore their origin and approximate energy state was identified and physical experiments could then be created to test for their presence. At no time was anyone reliant upon anything other than controlled experimentation to postulate their existence. In a mere few decades, neutrino experiments were created and their presence was also verified by active "experimentation" with actual control mechanisms.

Compare and contrast that with non baryonic forms of "dark matter" that have no specific identified origin, have never been seen in a lab, may not exist at all, etc, etc, etc.

What makes "dark matter" claims so 'incredible' (as in lacking credibility) is when you folks attempt to build a federal case about the abundance numbers of exotic matter because you grossly underestimated the mass of a galaxy. What makes you think your mass estimation techniques are right in the first place?

In contrast, the chance that you are right is way down at the other end of the scale, close to zero.

Peratt's work on galaxy formation models demonstrates that you're dead wrong. Even if the odds are low, the physics is based upon real forces of nature. The odds of you being right about even the mere existence of any form of "dark matter", is itself low beyond belief. The odds that such a form of matter would even last a single millisecond in existence before converting so something less exotic is even lower than finding it at all. The odds any of it exists in space and has the effect you claim it has is therefore infinitesimally small. I'll take my chances with known and identified forces of nature before I run off on a wildly speculative concept about new invisible forms of matter.

Don't you think it's odd that your entire industry can't produce a single SUSY particle in an experiment, not a single gram of 'dark matter', not a single thing to demonstrate it's not a figment of your collective imagination?

I must say that MOND theory isn't particularly attractive to me either, but then I have no faith that suns are mostly hydrogen and helium. I therefore have no confidence in your industry's abilities to accurately estimate the mass of a galaxy in the first place. If you have found any "missing mass" (certainly not any new forms of exotic matter) in lensing data, you'll probably find it located in the mostly nickel and iron suns that you believe to be made of light elements. I definitely see no need to invent invisible matter based on your primitive mass estimation techniques.

 

[Skamandros]

OK, Mr. Mozina:

"When that universe was young, law of 3 what injected by the three fold three off feat in with physics of the situation and enlightended by cosmic radiation, then we see three."
Gligor Makedonska

If you study remembar this elecric universe comes true if power of 3 is forced to come out of magnetick fields like in radiation of the 3 great galaxys.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have an opinion that it definitely is due to an electrical discharge. Why?

Because it is the one force of nature that has been observed to create all the observations in question. It's the one force of nature that has been shown to:

A) heat plasma to millions of degrees naturally in an atmosphere.
B) pinch free neutrons from plasma (observe in Rhessi images and in the lab)
C) sustain high plasma temperatures for hours on end.
D) sustain "loops" in an atmosphere of a terella in a vacuum
E) create jets from a terella in a vacuum.
F) create "flying electrons and electric ions of all kinds"
G) release gamma rays in the atmosphere of bodies in the solar system.
H) release x-rays in the atmosphere of multiple bodies in the solar system.\
I) create filamentary shapes in plasma.
J) create huge energy releases in plasma in explosive double layer events.
K) accelerate charged particles to high speeds.

How long of a list would you like? Electrical energy sure fits all the evidence.

I (and others) have explained the RD animation many times. The fact that your delustional state does not allow you to accpt the explanation is your problem not ours.

The only "delusion" here is that you "explained' anything. You never mentioned a single cause/effect relationship, not a single observed phenomenon with your single exception about the flying stuff coming from the CME. You did get that right. You also correctly identified the coronal loops and coronal material as the source of the original images, but you incorrectly claimed there were *NO* light sources in RD image and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the movement of the surface between images will generate lots of important features in the image, like the shadowing, etc. If you can't identify any real cause/effect relationships, you didn't *EXPLAIN* anything. If you don't focus on a specific observation, by frame, location, etc, it is absolutely irrational to believe you "explained" any detail of the image.

A child for example can see that the various directions of the "shadows" (actually records of temperature change) means that the objects "casting" them do not actually exist.

Anyone who's put a RD image together also know that it is a false statement to claim there are no light sources. All the light, all the light in both images comes from the sun and is a result of a process on the sun. That is also true of every pattern we observe in a RD image. You folks have missed far too many of the mechanical aspects of what a RD image is to even take you seriously at this point. A child can also see the flying stuff in the image, the peeling along the right, the angular features in the image. A child can't explain them of course, but neither can you.

 

[GeeMack]

Michael, you missed this one...

Michael, is Dr. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL stupider than you? And if he is, who is smarter than you? Whose word would you take if they were to say, "Michael, you're wrong. Running difference images do not show any kind of surface features at all. They can't. That's not what running difference images do?"

And why is it that after several years of your bitching and moaning, not a single solitary physics professional on the face of the Earth agrees with your insane fantasy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, is Dr. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL stupider than you?

No, and I'm sure he's a lot smarter than you when it comes to RD imaging and what it shows us. I'm sure he'd never have claimed that the technique itself creates rigid patterns in the image, or that there no light source in the image, or that there's no flying plasma observed in the image.

If he has any actual "explanations" to offer us related to persistent patterns in the image, related to the peeling effects we observe, the flying plasma we observe, etc, why doesn't he just come over here and tell us all how to "correctly interpret' the details in the images?

All the appeals to authority you might come up with are really very meaningless to me unless you (or they) can also provide a real analysis of this image, and I don't mean "flying stuff? what flying stuff?".

You are not a real scientist, and you have made at least three critically false statements related to the RD imaging process. I know one thing for sure. You're no Dr. Hurlburt.

If and when he feels like coming over here and explaining some of the actual details in the image, including cause effect relationships, frame numbers, specific observations, etc, you let me know. At the moment I have no logical reason to believe that you or he can offer us a valid explanation of these images based on gas model solar theory. I've been dogging your whole industry for the better part of 4 and a half years to explain this image, and the best you all seem to be able to come up with is "flying stuff? what flying stuff"? Sheesh.

 

[GeeMack]

No, and I'm sure he's a lot smarter than you when it comes to RD imaging and what it shows us.

Good, then I'm sure you'll agree with him that a running difference image doesn't show any surface of any sort, and that what you mistakenly believe is a surface is just an optical illusion that comes about from the process of creating the output image.

And where's that detailed quantitative explanation of every single pixel in the image, Michael? Or were you lying again when you said you'd provide one? You know your lying is quite tedious and you would waste a lot less time if you'd actually get to your point rather than crying about all these good people finding fault with your idiotic delusion.

Oh, and why is it that after so many years of your whining and complaining, not a single solitary physics professional on the face of the Earth agrees with your insane fantasy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Good, then I'm sure you'll agree with him that a running difference image doesn't show any surface of any sort,

I'm not sure. We would need to discuss that statement in some detail.

and that what you mistakenly believe is a surface is just an optical illusion that comes about from the process of creating the output image.

To know if such a thing were true, I would have to hear his full "explanation" of this image, frame by frame in some cases, certainly observation by observation in some detail. I'm sure that a real analysis would lead to some areas of agreement, perhaps a few areas of disagreement. I'll never know if all I heard over the last nearly five years is "Flying stuff? What flying stuff".

And where's that detailed quantitative explanation of every single pixel in the image, Michael?

I think I'll work on that over next bit of time and post you a link when I'm ready. I guarantee you that it will take time to put a full analysis together for review, and it won't suffer from any of the three bush league mistakes that you have already made.

Or were you lying again when you said you'd provide one?

I guess when one's expectations are as low as yours, ("flying stuff"?) a "full analysis" in your mind takes something on the order of about ten milliseconds or so. In the real world of actual physical "science", it's not nearly that easy. I see no need to continue to duplicate these discussion around the internet ad nausea, so I'll just post you a link when I'm done. It won't be today, maybe not even this week. I'd like to include a lot of detail and make it substantive and put it all together properly. I've got parts of it done already, but I'd like to spend some time going through it and adding specifically highlighted parts of specific frames. Don't worry, I'll be happy to give you a link, and I promise you it will be a lot more professional than anything I've seen from you, or from your side of the aisle in more than four years.

You know your lying is quite tedious and you would waste a lot less time if you'd actually get to your point rather than crying about all these good people finding fault with your idiotic delusion.

You really are the single biggest sleaze on the internet when it comes to fair debate. You don't even know how to make a single post without relying upon personal insult. That is due of course to your incapability of being able to address any actual detail (by frame, by observation in the frame) in these images. All you have are pitiful insults and ad homs to rely upon. You're a scientific wash out of epic proportions, starting with the "Flying stuff? What flying stuff" comment. All you have left now are childish, inane personal insults and personal attacks. I guess you figure that nobody is going to notice that your conversation style is simply unethical and less than professional?

 

[GeeMack]

You really are the single biggest sleaze on the internet when it comes to fair debate. You don't even know how to make a single post without relying upon personal insult. That is due of course to your incapability of being able to address any actual detail (by frame, by observation in the frame) in these images. All you have are pitiful insults and ad homs to rely upon. You're a scientific wash out of epic proportions, starting with the "Flying stuff? What flying stuff" comment. All you have left now are childish, inane personal insults and personal attacks. I guess you figure that nobody is going to notice that your conversation style is simply unethical and less than professional?

No, it would be an ad hominem if I said you're wrong because you're an ignorant liar. I'm saying you're wrong, too.

Now why do you think it is that nobody, not a single person on Earth, working in the field of solar sciences or astrophysics thinks your insane solid surface Sun notion has any merit?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comments on Dark Matter

Peratt's work on galaxy formation models demonstrates that you're dead wrong. Even if the odds are low, the physics is based upon real forces of nature.

Really, this is just too rich to pass up. First, as already demonstrated by others, Peratt's work on galaxy formation is in fact dead wrong, since it is seriously contradicted by observations of galaxy structure. But really, the big deal here is this: "the physics is based upon real forces of nature". Now, the last time I checked, gravity certainly counts as a "real force of nature" in any practical sense (setting aside literal interpretations of general relativity & etc.). The appeal to dark matter is nothing more or less than the direct appeal to gravity. It's the simplest and most obvious solution to the problem of reconciling known physics with observations. This does not guarantee that it is right. But ignoring the serious possibility of dark matter would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do.

What makes you think your mass estimation techniques are right in the first place?

I might ask: What makes you think they're wrong? Gravity is certainly a known force of nature, so why is it so bizarre to use gravity to estimate the mass of a galaxy? Indeed it is not an easy thing to do and there are not all that many galaxies where we can estimate mass in the most efficient manner, by dynamics. But Fritz Zwicky's original idea for estimating the gravitational mass of a galaxy cluster (Zwicky, 1933; Zwicky, 1937) has certainly stood the test of time and is just as valid today as it was then (with some modifications perhaps in assessing the mass - luminosity relationship).

Really, you are on the warpath against an idea that is so simple & so obvious that it is simply astonishing to me that anyone can stretch their reliance on pure & unadulterated prejudice to such extremes. So what if we don't see it in a "controlled laboratory experiment"? Who cares? That has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific validity of the assumption of dark matter. Your view of what "science" should be is far too naive to do you any good.

 

[edd]

Why do we need to postulate invisible matter and invisible forces? Where does "dark matter" even come from? Where is it? Why can't your whole industry produce even a single gram of the stuff if it's actually 5 - 10 times more plentiful than the dirt in my backyard?

Well... it just might have something to do with the interaction cross-sections of dark matter and a myriad other factors that would be plainly obvious to anyone with the slightest clue what they were talking about.

If I could give you a gram of dark matter in a jar it would practically by definition be no good for the job it needs to do in astrophysics.

That your argument is so plainly flawed but you put it forward seriously is a pretty damning indictment on your understanding of the relevant arguments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it would be an ad hominem if I said you're wrong because you're an ignorant liar. I'm saying you're wrong, too.

Yawn. That wouldn't sound so utterly pathetic if you had not said "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" not to mention all the other ridiculously false statements you made about RD imaging.

Now why do you think it is that nobody, not a single person on Earth, working in the field of solar sciences or astrophysics thinks your insane solid surface Sun notion has any merit?

The only insane individual around here is the one that believes he has already "explained" every single pixel of every frame of that image. Hell, you never even mentioned a single cause/effect relationship related to that image. You never cited a single frame or a single specific observations of any frame of the actual image set, and you blew three important statements related to RD imaging!

Since you are so convinced of their infallibility, why don't you get one of your so god-like buddies at LMSAL to come over here and actually explain a few of the *SPECIFIC* details of the image so we can know whether they agree with any of your BS about "What flying stuff?" and how the RD process is responsible for persistent features in the image, or that there are no light sources in a RD image? You've stuck you foot in your mouth so many times now GM, you have "negative credibility" with me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well... it just might have something to do with the interaction cross-sections of dark matter and a myriad other factors that would be plainly obvious to anyone with the slightest clue what they were talking about.

Come on edd, I'm really not asking for the moon here. I'm simply asking for some solid empirical evidence that new and exotic forms of matter exist in nature. Pointing at the sky, claiming your mass guestimates of galaxies are entirely accurate and therefore you have found "proof" of DM isn't going to cut it. A single physical experiment in *controlled* conditions would do the trick however. Got one? It's a simple and logical request.

If I could give you a gram of dark matter in a jar it would practically by definition be no good for the job it needs to do in astrophysics.

If you could hand me some to play with in any form, at least I'd know you didn't just make it up in your collective head. As it stands, you guys have this stuff doing magic tricks, you've assigned it "special properties" that prevent you from finding even a single gram, and yet you expect me to simply buy this argument that it's way more plentiful that normal matter based on an obviously lame mass estimation technique and a wee bit of lensing data from distant galaxies?

That your argument is so plainly flawed but you put it forward seriously is a pretty damning indictment on your understanding of the relevant arguments.

The problem here edd is that you've conveniently made up the rules as you've gone. (well, it wasn't you personally of course, just astronomers as a whole). Whereas Birkeland physically demonstrated the merits of his statements and beliefs in a lab, and made predictions based upon what he learned from these controlled experiments, you are basing your whole faith in DM in your "faith" that your galaxy mass estimation techniques are valid and useful. IMO if they were valid and useful you wouldn't require 80% gap filler!

 

[Vermonter]

Why do we need to postulate invisible matter and invisible forces? Where does "dark matter" even come from? Where is it? Why can't your whole industry produce even a single gram of the stuff if it's actually 5 - 10 times more plentiful than the dirt in my backyard?

Whereas controlled experimentation led us to postulate the need for a neutrino (or a law of physics was being violated), no known controlled experiment requires or suggests the need for a new form of matter. Not a single SUSY particle has ever been found and SUSY theory itself is a form of "non standard" particle physics theory.

The part that gets really over the top is why you folks publish papers about finding "proof" of 'dark matter' (rather than "missing mass") based on some distant and completely uncontrolled observation. Such statements should never pass a peer review process, but you folks don't even understand what a real "experiment" with a real "control mechanism" actually is. In the lingo of your industry any uncontrolled observation is somehow a "test" of mythical mathical make-believe entity, physically indistinguishable (in a lab) from magic.

Alright, enough of this. You keep blabbering on about real experiments in controlled environments like it's the best since since sliced bread. We get the point. It's not a valid complaint. Have you even performed an observation outside of the lab? You keep repeating yourself louder and louder like it'll mean something. Well, it doesn't.

Papers pass the peer review process because they are well-written and well thought-out, not because the "industry" (which doesn't make sense because you don't make a lot of money doing this...) likes patting itself on the back.

We understand what experiments are. We've done them in labs. I did them frequently as an undergrad, and I'm sure the others who have taken any college classes at all have done it too. So kindly knock it off. We know how to do experiments. You must have a very hard time accepting that.

 

[edd]

Come on edd, I'm really not asking for the moon here.

You're not asking for the moon, but you are asking for something challenging. Practically by definition dark matter is hard to directly detect. We're trying very hard to give you the evidence you want, but it is a long way from trivial to give it to you. This does not mean that dark matter does not exist. And we are all keen to get the direct detections everyone wants - but don't expect your ludicrous requests of grams of the stuff to be given to you on a plate.

There's good reason to think we will find it, far better reason to think that than to think that any of this electric universe nonsense holds water.

Give it more time before ruling it out, which is how it sounds like you're treating it right now.

I'll preempt you by pointing out that I'm not giving EU ideas the same time and I'm dismissing them out of hand. All I'd want there is good predictions that are competitive. I've not seen the slightest sign of them yet.