Electric Universe

[el_flesh]

It's probably akin to a cognitive dissonance effect, Anderas: you were able to understand the basic electrical concepts here on Earth, but you totally misunderstand them in regards to something different; out....there....there in ....spaze! It's different in the eclectrikal Univerze. Different, but repeating itself on any scale you choose.

Man. How mankind managed to use electricity on a wide scale since ~1880's despite having no clue about it; I'll never understand! Because I have been just a YES man to my University profs also; merely regurgitating without even understanding! We're so lucky we have a visionary among us now!

[whitebeard]

I agree with this:

The only thing that has an effect on its validity is whether or not it agrees with reality. This can only be determined through experimentation. It simply isn't possible to validate an idea using equations or to refute one by doing the same unless those equations are used to test predictions or are shown to not be mathmatically self consistant. (sic.)

This is how Einstein disproved Newton.

Did you really say that?

The scientific community as a whole knew for a VERY long time that Newton's observations did not apply in extreme cases such as light speed. Please see Michelson–Morley 1887. Do not credit Einstein with things which he did not do. Einstein (and the mathematicians who first proposed the new kinematics) fought the mainstream theory of "Ether" (no references from me here). Newtonian mechanics is understood to be a very good model under the conditions within which it has been validated. Sure, as a Grand Universal Theory, it is "disproved". Einstein's theory correctly predicted the "distorted" observation of a star when line of sight was near the sun (no references here either).

Like the Newtonian model back in Einstein's time, everyone knows the "standard model" is not quite right in all regions of observation. The scientific community is searching for whatever is missing (either in the observations or in the theory). We all hope that whatever feature is missing from the theory results in an elegant extension / reformulation of the current theory to cover these.

As a thread about a scientific topic, I find number of times people say "believe" disturbing. There is no belief in science. Science either does or does not support your conclusion. Create a scientific test and show the community they are wrong. We already know our understanding is not 100% perfect (but certainly good enough for all terestrial applications) , and we eagerly await the next big idea.

[Gold Bearer]

1) http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... solarwind/
EXPLAINED. P.S.: You don't get to command what the explanations can be.

You really need to stop doing that. If you can't put up an augment of your own then just say so. Stop relying on external sources to make your points for you. How do you explain a force overpowering the gravitation pull of the sun and accelerating the solar wind away from it?

2) Timespace being warped by massive objects. Like Einstein PROVED, and has NOT been *disproven*, but, in fact, UPHELD: Weinberg, Steven (1972). Gravitation and cosmology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 194.
EXPLAINED. P.S.: Your declaration of it being disproven without reference = bullshit. Also, why would such objects need "correction"? Don't you know what inertia means?

All general relativy has ever been able to prove is that it gives a slightly more accurate description of gravity than Newton did. I find it hilarious that you're so against the concept of space being able to carry a charge but have no problem at all with it being bendable. General relativity has been disproved by the measurements of the position of light from stars that pass close to the sun but outside of it's atmosphere, by the gravitational singularities it predicts that can't exist because it would mean that objects both can and can't escape from a black hole depending on your frame of reference and by the demonstration that the way it's formulated isn't mathematically self consistent.

Anyway, none of this in any way addresses the question. You've completely evaded the point. Even putting anything resembling common sense aside and assuming general relativity is an accurate description of gravity (it is almost completely accurate at the scale of the solar system anyway), what force is responsible for correcting the gravitational influences of the planets and moons in the solar system on all the other planets and moons in the solar system and keeping the system stabilised in what would others be a system that only lasts a matter of centuries?

3) The force that I KNOW shapes Galaxies: "gas molecules can collide, and do it all the time. These collisions can transfer energy and angular momentum. The energy can be turned into other kinds of energy, which can escape, through radiation, galactic winds etc., and as energy escapes, the gas cools and settles down into a lower energy configuration. The gas' angular momentum, however, is harder to transfer out of the galaxy, so this is more or less conserved. The result - a collisional system with low energy but a relatively high angular momentum - is the typical thin disk of a spiral galaxy. (Something similar, but not perfectly analogous, happens in the formation of protoplanetary disks) ...But the large majority of stars are formed in the gas after it has settled into the disk, and so the large majority of stars will be found in the same disk. - Thriveth, PhD student, astronomy.

Again, a complete evasion of the question. I already said that gravity can create sheriods, it's obvious. It's the only shape gravity can create. That only explains the disk shape. That's not the issue. What force do you believe is responsible for organising the matter inside a galactic disk into the barbed, spiral armed galaxies that we observe? This is one of the shapes that plasma adopts when an electrical current is passes through it:

Galaxy-simulation-600x225.jpg

That's from a computer simulation. And then there's the shape of nebulae like these:

Red-Square-Nebula.jpg

771px-Red_Square_Nebula.jpg

Gravity can't do that!

4) You mean the Jeans instability that also forms in raindrops? The behavior of self gravitating clumps of gas?

No I'm not talking about accretion. I'm talking about the way stars form in strings (Birkeland currents) that are tens of lightyears in length.

Herschel-links-star-forma-022.jpg

apex-star-forming-filament-taurus.jpg

5) Might be #4 answer as well. If you have PROOF otherwise, please put it up. If you don't, your claim is nothing more than an ASSertion.

Your wit dazzles me. Bizarre Alignment of Planetary Nebulae. ESO, Garching, Germany. Published: September 4, 2013 http://www.eso.org/public/archives/rele ... o1338a.pdf

6) Because of magnetohydrodynamic waves measured by ROSA : Nature Communications, 2012, Richard Morto / Also photosphere derived plasma: De Pontieu, B. et al. Science 331, 55-58 (2011)

That's not an answer! What causes the corona to be millions of degrees C hotter than the 6000C surface if the sun is heated internally?

7) It's called "Neutrino Oscillation" and it's been put forward after 2002 - so I see why you would not know of it. Arthur B. McDonald, Joshua R. Klein and David L. Wark, 'Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem', Scientific American, vol. 288, no. 4 (April 2003), pp. 40–49 P.S. : It has ~ nothing to do with electricity.

I know what the official explanation is. There's an official explanation for most of the failures of the standard model. There has to be. When there's something unexplained scientists try to explain it, obviously. The question is which explanation is more plausible. The neutrino count is so low because the nuclear fusion is so low or the ad hoc explanation of neutrinos that conveniently oscillate so that we can't detect them? What causes them to oscillate?

8) Tangled magnetic fields as the equator spins faster than the poles. You mean you never read that? I read it in my youth. Before High School. The explanation hasn't changed in decades.

Which brings up the questions of what cause the equatorial super rotation and how can there even be a sustained magnetic field in the absence of an electrical current? Anyway tangled magnetic fields explain the sunspots themselves but once again you've completely avoided the actual question. What causes the sunspots to show that the interior of the sun is cooler than the exterior if it's powered from within? Convection isn't present in the only place we can check so what causes this lack of convection and why is it assumed that heat radiates way from the core if we know that doesn't happen in the only places that we can see deeper into the sun?

9) Educate yourself: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/ibe ... M3E2tXF_-k

Every time you do that you're just hand waving and admitting that you don't know. You're relying on people not having the time or motivation to read the links and just assume that you've answered the issue. That's not going to fly. Provide a reference to support what you're saying by all means but at least try to say something first. The fact is the Ibex mission confirmed predictions made the electrical model of the solar system that the standard model has no explanation for and mainstream science has been forced to admit that there ideas about how the interface between the solar system and interstellar space work were completely wrong. The is no bow shock. This was expressly predicted by the electrical model and an even more impressive prediction was the accumulation of energetic neutral atoms outside the heliosphere.

10) BECAUSE AT 1M BETWEEN SINGLE PARTICLES, THERE'S NOTHING...NOTHING.... TO CARRY A CHARGE! D'uh.

There's less than 1M between single particles in the vicinity of Birkeland currents because plasma is highly magnetic and gets attracted to a charge which allows for a stronger current, which then produced a stronger magnetic field and attracts even more plasma allowing for an even stronger current which then attracts more plasma and so on. Treble d'uh, no backsies.

EU fails. If it were so damn correct; it shouldn't fail so much, at such a grand scale so often. NO EXPERIMENTS that I EVER was required to do gave a hint of the fundamental electricalicity of the Uuuuuuniverse.
Go account for that with actual, uh, SCIENCE instead of claims Scientists are acting like religious cover-up liars.

There's nothing to account for. You haven't been able to demonstrate either that the EU model is flawed or that the standard model holds up. If the EU fails then why have you been unable to point out a single genuine failure? Every experiment you've ever been asked to perform is a testament to the fundamental role of electricity in the universe because it wouldn't be possible to perform an experiment without it. It's electromagnetism that holds objects together and makes them appear solid.

You've managed to completely misunderstand virtually every point. All of your arguments are based on misconceptions because you don't have a clue about how electricity works.

Ok.
In that case i should call my employer and tell him that he should call back all the aircraft which incorporated the short circuit protection and lightning strike protection changes which i was developing in my time as electrical aircraft system architect.

The rest, i will read later.

That is a ridiculous point to try to make. For one thing you don't need any understanding of how something works in order to know how to make use of it, and even if you hadn't demonstrated that you have absolutely no understanding of the physical processes governing the behaviour of electricity the fact of the matter is that because your total lack of understanding you've managed to misunderstand practically every single argument made, which you'll see when you read the rest of the previous post.

It's probably akin to a cognitive dissonance effect, Anderas: you were able to understand the basic electrical concepts here on Earth, but you totally misunderstand them in regards to something different; out....there....there in ....spaze! It's different in the eclectrikal Univerze. Different, but repeating itself on any scale you choose.

No it works the same way on all scales.

Man. How mankind managed to use electricity on a wide scale since ~1880's despite having no clue about it; I'll never understand!

Because of Nikola Tesla, who did understand electricity.

Because I have been just a YES man to my University profs also; merely regurgitating without even understanding! We're so lucky we have a visionary among us now!

El_flesh, you need to learn how to communicate like a grown up because you're making a real twat of yourself. Not so much with what you're saying (although that as well) but mainly with how you're saying it.

We are very lucky to have had visionaries among us. Pioneers like Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfvén, Ralph Juergens and Nikola Telsa. Telsa is by far the most genius and influential person to have ever lived. His accomplishments outstrip Einstien's, Edison's and Newton's combined. He invented alternating current, bringing electricity into our lives, as well as wireless communication technology including radio, the electric motor, laser technology, radar technology, X-ray technology, neon lights, robotic technology, remote control, cellular technology and technology for the star wars program in the hope that in would prevent wars. All he ever wanted to do was to improve the quality of life for everyone by providing limitless free energy. He demonstrated that this could be done by providing power for the whole town where he lived. When J. P. Morgan found out what he was up to all of his funding was stopped and he was blackballed. When he died they took his work and destroyed all of his research.

His name should be the most famous in human history but it's suppressed by people who don't want you to know his name and what he managed to achieve. "The most probable medium filling the space is one consisting of independent carriers immersed in an insulating fluid." Plasma! His last words: "I'll let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs. The future, for which I have really worked, is mine."

I agree with this:

The only thing that has an effect on its validity is whether or not it agrees with reality. This can only be determined through experimentation. It simply isn't possible to validate an idea using equations or to refute one by doing the same unless those equations are used to test predictions or are shown to not be mathmatically self consistant. (sic.)

This is how Einstein disproved Newton.

Did you really say that?

Yes he did.

[Gold Bearer]

Like the Newtonian model back in Einstein's time, everyone knows the "standard model" is not quite right in all regions of observation. The scientific community is searching for whatever is missing (either in the observations or in the theory). We all hope that whatever feature is missing from the theory results in an elegant extension / reformulation of the current theory to cover these.

Actually it didn't. What caused the distortion was refraction of the star light when it passed through the sun's atmosphere. When the light follows a path further away from the sun but where general relativity still predicts measurable bending of the light path there's little to no actual bending. General relativity is a failed model.

As a thread about a scientific topic, I find number of times people say "believe" disturbing. There is no belief in science. Science either does or does not support your conclusion.

I couldn't disagree more with this. I think it's that attitude that sets science so far down the wrong path. Science is all about belief, nothing is certain. You can test an idea but the results of an experiment are always just an interpretation of the data and are always seen through the belief of other assumptions that dictate what the data is showing. It's believing that beliefs are facts that's the biggest problem with mainstream science. I'd love to hear the word belief much more often in science.

Create a scientific test and show the community they are wrong. We already know our understanding is not 100% perfect (but certainly good enough for all terestrial applications) , and we eagerly await the next big idea.

There is a test being designed that will apparently be able to measure the current flowing through the sun. I don't know much about it and it's being funded without any mainstream help obviously so it might take a while.

r834402_7721995.jpg

The large scale structure of the universe. What could account for the filamentation if not electrical currents? Those are Birkeland currents! I believe those are Birkeland currents. There's no other plausible explanation.

[cynthialee]

looks like brain pathways

[whitebeard]

Gold Bearer: You miss the larger point. I really don't care about EU or General Relativity. I do however use Newtonian mechanics everyday. Newton's model is a good model, it predicts everything I need it for (e.g. vehicle dynamics). In the limits it breaks down. Analogously, General Relativity does not predict everything correctly either (quantum or celestial), but it is a HUGE step forward. GR is absolutely a required factor in GPS systems and without it they would be completely wrong. When GR was initially formulated this application could not have been imagined, but there it is, the correct result! Please look this up (GPS and General relativity). These are the real calculations, no BS. GR predicted this and gives the proper solution for a working design. GR passes a great many practical tests here on earth, so anything that replaces it needs to do this at the least. I have no opinion of EU.

You simply cannot bad mouth GR (same goes for Newton). When you say it is not a good model, you need to be very specific because it has a perfect track record for everyday applications.

[Gold Bearer]

looks like brain pathways

Yea, they're exactly the same. If it can think then it's opperating on a much, MUCH slower time scale than us because it takes millions of years for light (all signals) to travel between galaxies. In the same way that a tiny but of space from the perspective of that thing would seem huge to us, a tiny bit of time from its perspective would also look huge to us.

Gold Bearer: You miss the larger point. I really don't care about EU or General Relativity. I do however use Newtonian mechanics everyday. Newton's model is a good model, it predicts everything I need it for (e.g. vehicle dynamics). In the limits it breaks down. Analogously, General Relativity does not predict everything correctly either (quantum or celestial), but it is a HUGE step forward. GR is absolutely a required factor in GPS systems and without it they would be completely wrong. When GR was initially formulated this application could not have been imagined, but there it is, the correct result! Please look this up (GPS and General relativity). These are the real calculations, no BS. GR predicted this and gives the proper solution for a working design. GR passes a great many practical tests here on earth, so anything that replaces it needs to do this at the least. I have no opinion of EU.

You simply cannot bad mouth GR (same goes for Newton). When you say it is not a good model, you need to be very specific because it has a perfect track record for everyday applications.

Yea I know about gps. I mentioned earlier in the topic that Newtonian equations for gravity are still used because they're accurate in almost all practicle situations, and general relativity gives even more accuracy. The problem I have with it is that general relativity is almost always presented as the truth of how gravity works instead of the aproximation it really is.

You need a new avatar Brownbeard.

[whitebeard]

The problem I have with it is that general relativity is almost always presented as the truth of how gravity works instead of the aproximation it really is.

When I learned it, the title was "theory" and you really don't have to qualify anything after that. In the domains where it has been tested and validated in application, it is (like Newton and Darwin) effectively fact. I personally don't like the addition of dark matter which is required to make GR match certain celestial observations and I like to think that this model will go away as a more clear understanding is available (or we are actually able to "see" the missing mass just as we are able to find eco-planets today). But I do not really study or follow physics.

I'd love to hear the word belief much more often in science.

If your theory has merit, then you are doing it a great diservice by invoking belief. You sound like an acolyte not a scientist.

If you want something to "believe" then believe this. There are thousands of researchers in physics (grad students, post-docs, professors, et.) who's deepest desire is to show how the older generation got it wrong AND be among the first to associate their names with the theory that dominates for the next 100 years. If ANY new theory has an ounce of potential, then there are already many researchers looking into it and if correct, it will prevail.

You have made EU sound just like the failed autism-vaccination linkage (which constantly cites a single discredited research paper) that has compromised our herd immunity and brought back measles from virtual eradication. You cannot be reasoned with, only talked past. Die hard believers, dangerous stuff. Can you not see this?

You need a new avatar Brownbeard.

A dwarf from clan Whitebeard may or may not actually have a white beard. Perhaps they are survivors, long lived, and thus tend to have lots of "white beards" in their ranks? I hesitated to paint him that way because the heroes in HQ do not begin as veterans. Also as my first painted mini in over 20 years, he does not look so great. So maybe I should repaint him.

[Gold Bearer]

The problem I have with it is that general relativity is almost always presented as the truth of how gravity works instead of the aproximation it really is.

When I learned it, the title was "theory" and you really don't have to qualify anything after that.

That's not what the word theory means in scientific terms. General relativity is nearly always presented as a factual representation of how gravity works, not just as a useful approximation.

In the domains where it has been tested and validated in application, it is (like Newton and Darwin) effectively fact.

Only in a limited set of conditions. That is not fact! It wouldn't be fact even if it applied to all conditions that we could test, it would be a working theory.

I personally don't like the addition of dark matter which is required to make GR match certain celestial observations and I like to think that this model will go away as a more clear understanding is available (or we are actually able to "see" the missing mass just as we are able to find eco-planets today). But I do not really study or follow physics.

If it doesn't emit or reflect light then we can never see it. It's very convenient.

I'd love to hear the word belief much more often in science.

If your theory has merit, then you are doing it a great diservice by invoking belief. You sound like an acolyte not a scientist.

Every model in science is a belief! You can perform an experiment and say these are the results, that's fact. The moment the implications of the results are interpreted into evidence of the validity of a model, that's a belief. You can't prove a model right. Believing that a model is fact is what has lead to a situation where anything that refutes the model is automatically assumed to be flawed. All you can do is look at the evidence and evaluate it according to each model to see which one holds up the best. The EU model has so much more evidence supporting it than the standard model that it's become a joke that there's anyone left that still believes in it. It keeps on failing and obscure ad hoc alterations keep getting added to it. The EU model hasn't failed, although to be fair it's far less specific than the standard model so far more difficult to refute.

If you want something to "believe" then believe this. There are thousands of researchers in physics (grad students, post-docs, professors, et.) who's deepest desire is to show how the older generation got it wrong AND be among the first to associate their names with the theory that dominates for the next 100 years. If ANY new theory has an ounce of potential, then there are already many researchers looking into it and if correct, it will prevail.

True enough but I think you're underestimating just how hard it is to establish a new idea and how long that takes.

You have made EU sound just like the failed autism-vaccination linkage (which constantly cites a single discredited research paper) that has compromised our herd immunity and brought back measles from virtual eradication. You cannot be reasoned with, only talked past.

That's utter bullshit! I've responded to every point in a reasonable way and haven't evaded a single argument. Give me one example of an instance when I was "talked past" and didn't address the actual point! I can give you over a dozen examples of other others in this topic doing it. My arguments are based on a huge range of evidence, not a single research paper, and certainly not a discredited one.

Die hard believers, dangerous stuff. Can you not see this?

No, I see a dogmatic cult of institutionalised mainstream science with far too much undeserved credibility in which belief has become doctrine, I see people who are either unwilling or unable to apply critical thinking skills to the crap that comes from it and just take what they're told by them on faith and work backwards from that assumption, I see a few of those people having enough confidence in their unfounded faith in this system to put up nonsensical arguments for it and attempt to refute arguments against without any real understanding of either model but believing their safe in the assumption that the information they've been giving is reliable and not realising how these theories came to be considered as factual, I see a standard model that can't account for countless new observations in which evidence refuting it is ignored or marginalised, I see an alternative electrical model that's finally gaining some momentum despite all attempts to suppress and will eventually replace the standard model and I see a lot of people who are going to feel very stupid once it has. If that's not what you see then you need glasses. I also see I see the words whitebeard right under a picture of a dwarf with a brown beard.

You need a new avatar Brownbeard.

A dwarf from clan Whitebeard may or may not actually have a white beard. Perhaps they are survivors, long lived, and thus tend to have lots of "white beards" in their ranks? I hesitated to paint him that way because the heroes in HQ do not begin as veterans. Also as my first painted mini in over 20 years, he does not look so great. So maybe I should repaint him.

I like the avatar, it just bugs me that whitebeard is written right underneath. It's not white, it's brown.

[whitebeard]

If you want something to "believe" then believe this. There are thousands of researchers in physics (grad students, post-docs, professors, et.) who's deepest desire is to show how the older generation got it wrong AND be among the first to associate their names with the theory that dominates for the next 100 years. If ANY new theory has an ounce of potential, then there are already many researchers looking into it and if correct, it will prevail.

True enough but I think you're underestimating just how hard it is to establish a new idea and how long that takes.

And I think you underestimate the intelligence and ambition of each generation's best and brightest.

So we will just have to agree to disagree and be done with it.


More importantly:

You need a new avatar Brownbeard.

A dwarf from clan Whitebeard may or may not actually have a white beard. Perhaps they are survivors, long lived, and thus tend to have lots of "white beards" in their ranks? I hesitated to paint him that way because the heroes in HQ do not begin as veterans. Also as my first painted mini in over 20 years, he does not look so great. So maybe I should repaint him.

I like the avatar, it just bugs me that whitebeard is written right underneath. It's not white, it's brown.

I happen to enjoy the juxtaposition. I imagine frequent snickers when he gives he full name and being exceptionally dour (even for a dwarf) because of it!

GB: "You mean Brownbeard <snicker>"
WB: "GRRRR." <snarls with jaw locked, knuckles on hand holding axe turn white>
GB: "Pardon, Mr. Whitebeard, sir!"