Electric Universe

[Anderas]

Yes, i couldn't resist when i was seeing the Crackpot index.

[Diggin]

i read the first page and thought it sounded pretty interesting. it somehow reminds me of Tolkien's Middle earth, which is made up of music made by the Ainur.
The last two pages were a good laugh,something must ve happened in those pages in between, but its too much reading

Is it possible to combine the EU theory with a gravity based theory?

[Gold Bearer]

Wow, looks like I've really struck a nerve.

Just be aware that Gold Bearer does not explain anything on here in a way that makes any sense, nor give references to anyone else that does it better. Beyond "certain things in space look similar to electrical effects", which may be true but not because the universe is based on electricity instead of gravity, it's pretty much just a weird conspiracy theory rather than radical science.

So it looks electrical but it's not? Well I'm convinced.

His arguments don't even follow a recognisable structure, they just jump around all over the place, I don't even know what that last list of attachments was meant to show.

Try actually reading the other posts before writing your own claiming that my arguments are unstructured. Of course they are if you only read some of them you fecking moron. Those pictures were in response to this:

4. And same choices once more, what force is responsible for organising stars that are in the process of forming into strings that are thousands of lightyears long?

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.

This was expressly predicted by the electric universe model and just like all its other predictions to date has now been verified.

Only inside your crackpot hypothesis has it been "verified".

I made a mistake there. The string are tens of lightyears long, not thousands. The galaxy is only 100, 000 lightyears in diameter.

Instead of pointing to papers and scientists the other side does not respect, do an experiment that could disprove the theory.

It's not that simple. There's no test that can rule out electricity in space. Normally when a theory can't be falsified like that it's worthless, but the EU isn't one theory. In it's right context the electric universe is an umbrella term used for a number of separate but related models that can be properly tested individually. Because they're related, every model that's shown to be correct strengthens the others and every one that's falsified weakens the others because the idea behind them is the same.

There is nothing, NOTHING behind the EU hypothesis (and that is a generous term).

You mean apart from all the observational evidence and predictions it's made that have turned out to be true?

What you are doing in endorsing it is the equivalent to Jenny McCarthy's idiotic antivax crap.

But we can all agree that this is not the place to discuss physics, right?

No.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

At least here you get not so much as there is no statement that you tried to prove.

What? I've backed up every statement I've made by explaining the models and the evidence suppirting them.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

Here we count 4 or 5 statements that already have been disproven - let's take 20 points

Name one statement I've made that's been disproven please.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

You did in several places. I don't count, ok

Where?

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

here you are. 10 sound points for you. You state repeatedly that the forces are working in a different strength order than stated by the repeatedly measured science and you present no evidence.

I've never said that they work in a different order of strength than they do. I haven't even metioned this. The strongest force is the strong nuclear force, then electromagetism, then the weak nulear force and gravity is by far the weakest. I think the number you need to multiply the strength of gravity by to reach the same strenght as electromagnetism is a 39 digit number.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

You did. It was the main reason I was entering the discussion, thinking "ok this is easy". You get 30 or 40 points here for using "Plasma" "Electrical Currents" and other terms in the wrong context and with wrong meaning - not once or twice but systematically to prove your theory.

I've never used the terms 'Plasma' or 'Electrical Currents' in the wrong context. Even if I had that's the not the same as inventing a new term.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

You repeatedly state that you won't post a link, won't calculate because you're not good at math, but you like to describe your theory in your own words. The ten points are sincerely and honestly earned.

I have never refused to post a link, I've never said I'm not good at maths and it's not my theory.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

Here you are. 10 Points for you.

I've done the exact opposite. Whenever I've mentioned what the word 'theory' means in the context of science it's been to point out that it's not the same as how it's more commonly used.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

Yes. You state in every second post that "Gravity can't explain that" Ten points earned.

This point is talking about people who claim to have a more fundermental theory because it explains why rather than how something works. I haven't done that.

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

They work both very well. It's just if the scope of Quantum Mechanics and gr/sr are overlapping, Quantum Mechanics is right. No reason to dismiss the rest. 10 Points for you.

The contradiction between quantum mechanics and gr is such a huge problem that solving it is refered to as the holy grail of science, and that's not the only thing that disproves gr.

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

Yes, 10 more.

Reading that again, I think it's means people who use that exact phraes. I've definitely said the same thing in other words though.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

At every second corner you stated Newton was proved wrong. Well, not really. In the scope he was able to measure, he's right. He still is, if you build mechanical machines, like, for example, cannons, or cranes. 20 Points for you.

I've repeatedly pointed out that Newton's equations are good approximations and gr's are even better.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

Bosnian Pyramids / Pyramids around the world connected by an invisible network. 20 Points for you.

I never claimed this as fact. I said it was an interesting idea that lacked evidence.

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

Yes. It is what everybody of us says all the time to you. You say something, post a photo, that's it. No explanation, no answer to questions. 20 points,

I haven't failed to answer a single question but have had mine repeatedly ignored. My last post before I filled in the crackpot index has been completely ignored.

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

No, but I like it.

me to.

+5 points for liking this phrase enough to possibly not be able to resist using in the future.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Not a single thing has been predicted and proven true. Some things have been "re-predicted" but a lot of theories do that. If you have the choice between 10 Theories "re-predicting" the same things, all in the same way, you decide for the most simple one. Relativity and Standard Model today. 50 points for you.

You must either have reading or comprehension problems, or both. I suspect both judging by your previous posts. The EU predicted no bow shock at the edge of the heliosphere in direct opposition to the standard model. There was no bow shock. It predicted stars and galaxies forming along strings of electrical current. It predicted the neutrino count for the sun would be much lower than the nulear fusion model predicts. It was less than 1%. There's a ton of these. I might make a full list at some point.

If you're going to follow el_twat's cue and argue dishonestly then you have to at least make some effort to hide it. Try pretending that there's only one right way to gain knowledge and that one institution and holds the monopoly on scientific truth so anyone who hasn't attended it can't possibly be right, deliberately misinterpret what others have said to try to support your position, use misdirection by ignoring arguments and not posting until others have so it's not as obvious that you're desperately trying to avoid points that you can't refute, that kind of thing. You're really bad at this.

Now do el_flesh. He should be known as el_crackpot after his score.

But I'm still really bummed about Newton being proved wrong. I foolishly invested my education and training in the area of Newtonian mechanics and when my employer finds out I'll be out of a job. Before long it'll be "Excuse me, Mr. KK, sir? Did you want fries with that?"

Now you're disagreeing with mainstream science. Any physicist will tell you that Newton's description of gravity hasn't been considered accurate for a very long time.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

And another 50, 000 here.

Orders of magnitude off.

It probably is higher but I wouldn't say it's many orders of magnitude out. I haven't counted up your score, it would take too long.

Not surprising, given it's a high-school DROP OUT.

Damn, you've uncovered my secret. No wait, I openly said I didn't finish high school because I know it's in no way anything to be ashamed of and doesn't have any effect on my ability to learn.

The last two pages were a good laugh,something must ve happened in those pages in between, but its too much reading

In the electric universe model the sun is a plasma arc discharge caused by an electric z-pinch rather than a nuclear fusion reactor. That's not as complicated as it sounds. Plasma has three modes, dark mode (real dark matter), glow mode (visible when a strong enough electrical current is moving through it) and arc move (when it's give off radiation including UV light and shorter wavelengths when an even stronger current is moving through it). When current passes through dense matter it creates a z-pinch. This just means a focusing of the energy as the width of the current stream is reduced. The overall voltage doesn't change but the voltage intensity in the area of the pinch is greatly increased. This is all established plasma physics and is part of mainstream science.

The idea is that there's electrical circuits on all scales and the galactic current stream enters and exists the sun through the poles and creates a z-pinch as it does and forcing the plasma from dark mode into glow mode. Virtually every aspect of the sun, from the super rotation of the equatorial region to the darkness of sunspots and the lack of convection support this model of the sun. There's also a circuit connecting the solar system which enters and exits a planets magnetosphere through the poles as well which can be seen on Earth as the northern and southern lights. This model of the solar system is supported by the recently discovered lack of a bow show at the edge of the suns heliosphere as well as the detection of large amounts of energetic neutral atoms amongst other things.

The galactic current flows into the galactic core and out through the galactic poles. This model of the galaxy is supported by the recently discovered nebulae aligned exactly as they should be with the current stream, stars seem forming in lines tens of lightyears long like beads on a string and the detection of faint jets emanating from our galaxy to name a few. This would explain why galaxies have shapes and structure that gravity is incapable of producing but that match exactly with the shape of plasmoids created in labs. There's also a universal current that connects the galaxies as supported by the large scale maps of the universe showing a filamentary structure almost indistinguishable from our brains.

There's also attempts to apply it in the other direction by using the same principles to explain gravity by looking at atomic and sub-atomic structure electrically. The idea is that electrons have the same structure as the atoms on a smaller scale and the lining up of electric dipole positive to negative (they're just little magnets) would produce an overall force that would be towards any concentration of matter (electrical dipoles effect neutral atoms as well as charged ones). Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity as well as being inaccurate models make no attempt to explain the underlying cause of gravity. This could be it. There's a long way to go though and I don't know how easy this idea of gravitation would be to test.

Not every idea within the huge umbrella of the electric universe model has enough to support it to claim it as the correct answer but the overall model is solid. Nobody with both a basic understanding of the topic and unbiased mind would claim that there's no electricity in space. It's everywhere.

Is it possible to combine the EU theory with a gravity based theory?

Yea, nothing about the EU contradicts gravity. It's seen as electricity vs gravity because in the standard model it's gravity that dominates the universe and in the EU it's electromagnetism, not because the EU in any way replaces gravity. There are people trying to come up with an electrical description of gravity but that's more of a side issue. Gravity is described by general relativity and I digressed from the EU by pointing out that it doesn't work. It was in response to one of el_flesh's many fundamental misunderstandings. He thought that the fact that the solar system would be unstable without an electrical current running through it was somehow answered by general relativity. It's predicted by it. Even though general relativity doesn't stand up to scrutiny and observations it's still the most accurate description of gravity there is and in most cases gives a description close enough to use, even closer than Newtonian gravity gives.

It did introduce the concept that gravity warped spacetime though, causing massive objects to move in straight lines through curved spacetime. You've got to love it for that. It went wrong when it tried to view this as physically different from massive objects moving on curved paths through flat spacetime when it's obviously just another way of looking at the same thing, massive objects following curved paths through spacetime. The exact opposite of anything is always also exactly the same, you just need to reverse everything and it's the same as changing nothing because all relationships are relative. It's caused spacetime because space and time are part of the same four dimensional structure. Light moves at the same speed relative to every inertial (non-accelerating) object. So if two rockets left Earth traveling in the same direction, one moving away at a quarter of the speed of light and one at half the speed of light and a light was shown from Earth the light beam would pass both rockets at the same speed from the perspective of each (the full speed of light). The reason this isn't a contradiction is because velocity is a measurement of a change of distance over time and both space and time are shortened from the perspective of an object that has accelerated so the light has a shorter distance to travel and does it in less time from the perspective of that object, keeping its measurement of the speed of light the same. This is special relativity.

An objects speed through spacetime is always the speed of light. If it's not moving through space relative to the observer then its moving at the same speed through time as the observer, the speed of light. In four dimensions an accelerating object's speed doesn't increase, it just creates a curved path and so moves through time slower than an inertial object. An object accelerating in a straight line in three dimensions is moving along a curved path in four dimensions. If it continues to accelerate at the same rate then the angle of the curve remains the same. If it increases its acceleration the angle becomes tighter and if it decreases its acceleration the angle becomes shallower. The higher its acceleration, the more of an increase in acceleration is required to tighten the angle by the same amount. To create an angle that would cause it to move in the opposite direction (backwards in time) would require infinite acceleration.

It can a bit trippy to think in four dimensions to start with because we perceive time so differently to space because we can only see in one direction of it, the past. You have to turn time into another special dimension. The easiest way until you get used to it is to think of a three dimensional object with an axis of rotation that changes the shape of the object.

I've linked to plenty of facts. There's more than enough to destroy the Eklektric U and more than I've mentioned. There's lots of links to them in my previous posts. Just denying them WITHOUT PROOF isn't a counter argument.

You're repeating exactly what I said. The difference is people can see that I have validated my points and all you've done is give links to articles that don't even address the points I've made.

You have to have demonstrable PROOF.

There's no such thing.

Just claiming what electricity does without equations and observational data to fit them - which, by the way your so-called "conspiracy" of modern Physics DOES - is either bullshit, if you know what you're talking about, or crackpottery, if you think you do but you don't.

Equations for electricity? Do you think the existence of the attributes of electricity themselves used in the EU are in dispute? There's lots of observational data that supports these claims. I've shown you images of them and given links to sources that actually have something to do with the issues under discussion. The difference here is that I've only provided them as reference and not relied on them to make my arguments for me.

I don't see any claims of yours to be a Physicist. In fact, while I have said that I had the basic Uni courses of Newtonian Mechanics, Waves and Optics, Electricity and Magnetism, (each being a 3 credit 30 hrs of lecture and 20 hrs of lab=1 credit course); I have heard nothing about your experience and credentials in this area. Being a bit more familiar than your average layman, but no specialist nor professional by any shakes, I referred and continue to refer you to those who have MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGE of Physics than I. Yes, they could be making a mistake, but the vast probability is that they know more than you.

I never even finished high school. You can't discredit a valid point by attacking the source of that point. It doesn't work like that.

If you haven't done at minimum advanced course work in Physics, then don't claim to understand fully what's going on.

As if a person can't possibly understand something unless they've got a certificate to say they do. The universe works the same way regardless of qualifications. It doesn't mystically reveal its secrets to people who learn it a certain way.

I have understood after derivation and explaining by the prof, GR equations. I had to answer them for my exams. I have every confidence in their applicability because the lab work demonstrated that.

I already said it's a good a good approximation. By that logic I can prove Newton's version of gravity right by measuring the position of the planets.

You have demonstrated nothing. Only posted pictures and made claims. In fact, you have linked far less info than I have.

Because I like to make my case in my own words. Those pictures are images showing that stars form along strings, that's hardly irrelevant.

You mean like the plasma in glow mode that we see entering the magnetosphere at the poles as the auroras?

No, I don't mean planetary magnetism interacting with ions of the solar wind; which happens every time there is a Mass Coronal Ejection aimed our way. I mean lightning bolt electricity, as was mentioned in one of those links, and I think, a more Physics experienced poster in here.

So you said plasma but what you meant was lightning? Are you under the impression that they're the same thing?

Gravitational Lensing by Galaxies is said to be exactly how GR predicts. I haven't gone into the actual figures or papers written on it, but I think I have MORE confidence in the reports of Phil Plait and other Astronomers than yourself. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/grav_lensing_history

Do you know what gravitational lensing is as described by GR? Why isn't it everywhere? It should happen whenever light passes close to a massive body and it doesn't. There's lots of mass at the centre of the galaxy but no lensing.

When you reduce this to conspiracy theory, you LOSE.

Because people in positions of authority are always such paragons of honesty and integrity.

...unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.

Once again, where is your experimental evidence disproving GR? Anecdotes of insistence don't cut it.

Mathematically: The ricci tensor has to be set to zero for the equations to work which can only describe a universe without mass and the definition of R in the equations isn't self consistent. Sometimes it's the radius of a 2-sphere, sometimes it's the Schwarzschild radius and other times it describes the radius of Newtons escape velocity.

Practically: Gravitational lensing should be far more common and the path of light isn't bent around the sun outside of the corona.

Theoretically: GR predictions black holes in which objects both can and can't cross its event horizon depending on the frame of reference of the observer.

(edit: and by the way, the planets don't get "perturbed" because they are already in gravitational RESONANCE. With the SUN. Which has far more GRAVITY than the planets. Combined.

Over 99% of it in fact, or 98%, can't remember. It doesn't matter, gravitational resonance (lower case, it's not a bloody acronym) doesn't negate the influence of weaker gravity.

While changes can and do occur on the scale of HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years, they aren't catastrophic.)

Which shows that there must be a stabilising influence that provides a force to counteract the gravitational interactions, or they would be catastrophic in less than a thousand years.

If I were backed into a corner with no way out, it would be because the position I advocate had been proven to be WRONG. As I said, any Scientist would then investigate and champion what has been proven right.

That's the most naive statement you've made. Scientists generally champion whatever they need to to pay their bills. Only the true scientists are willing to face persecution by their peers and attacks on their character for what they actually believe. There's not very many of those.

This is exactly what I do anytime I am proven wrong, and it has happened before. You, however, have FAILED to do so. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/nanoflares.html Now that one of your main proponents has been proven WRONG (again), you will continue to ignore it or else claim it's a conspiracy.

You've ignored far more points than I have. I'm glad you linked to that article. It provides a perfect example of the problem and why it's so hard for a competing idea to gain any real traction, as well as why so many of your attempted counter arguments aren't valid.

...But no direct evidence of the nanoflares existed until now.

Observations from the NASA-funded X-Ray Telescope (XRT) and Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer (EIS) instruments aboard Hinode reveal that ultra-hot plasma is widespread in solar active regions. The XRT measured plasma at 10 million degrees K, and the EIS measured plasma at 5 million degrees K. "These temperatures can only be produced by impulsive energy bursts,"says Klimchuk, who presented the findings on August 6 at the International Astronomical Union General Assembly meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

"These temperatures can only be produced by impulsive energy bursts." They're making the assumption that the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor and interpreting the data from that point of view. This isn't in any way evidence validating that assumption. If the only explanation you're willing to entertain is that temperatures that high can only be explained by using your preferred model then don't pretend that it's evidence that the model is correct. That's circular reasoning. Electricity is a far simpler explanation for the super heated atmosphere of the sun and it has the benefit of simultaneously explaining in one swoop lots of other aspects of the sun that are puzzling from the perspective of the standard model.

You sure wouldn't admit that you must have championed a WRONG idea but now you know better! That's another reason why you're a crackpot - counter evidence doesn't matter to you.

Of course it does and I would gladly admit that I was wrong if I thought I was, I only care about the truth of how it works. You haven't provided any counter evidence. You've barely been able to make a case.

And by the way, the caps are to draw attention to the key ideas. Not to out-shout you; for that is not proof.

It makes you look like a four year old. Try drawing attention to key ideas by making valid points and well reasoned arguments to support them.

In short, you're a crackpot NOT because I have been "backed into a corner", nor because you go against conventional Physics, but because you do it from the position of a non specialist, a conspiracy theorist (a big red flag right there), AND you have no equations that predict and can be verified with data. That is called CRACKPOT, and there is an index for this kind of thing.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Have fun racking up the high score.

What do you think you scored?

[el_flesh]

Maxwell tried to come up with an electrical description of gravity in the 1800's, uneducated dolt. He failed to do so. This is the level upon which you are failing. Only you aren't a genius of Physics; Maxwell was. Immanuel Velikovsky, however, was a crackpot. Like yourself.

The links I have made explain the Universe as it actually IS. That would be FACTS. That would be DISPROOF of your championed EU that has no predictions or facts listed to prove them, despite our demands for them. Pretty pics are not the FACTS we demand. Saying it LOOKS like an electrical effect to YOU is not a FACT. It's an hypothesis that you've yet to prove as a fact.

Yes, I think the existence of the attributes of electricity themselves used in the EU are in dispute. Electricity does NOT travel from Sun to Mercury, let alone to 2012Vp113, ~ twice the distance of where I said you are in orbit. And in other words, you have provided NOTHING of substance, merely claims.

I can indeed discredit an invalid point by attacking the source of that point. It does indeed work like that. If you haven't finished high school, it is safe to assume you haven't done the equivalent of BASIC courses in Physics at the University level. Such as Electricity and Magnetism. Waves and Optics. And the associated lab work, which uses DEMONSTRABLE FACTS to obtain self consistent correct RESULTS. Hard work. Not mystical revelation, like you erroneously claimed. In other words, you are the equivalent of JENNY McCARTHY, someone WITHOUT a medical degree claiming to KNOW MORE about vaccines than people WITH medical degrees. That's farging moronic. It simply wasn't entirely evident until you spoke more.

Are there high school dropouts who make amazing observations that are proven? Sure there are. A handful. You aren't specially among that group, that is crystal clear. The vast majority of people who have not done the work -or the math- to understand what they're talking about...DON'T understand what they're talking about. It's like some untrained Joe who never fought from off the street lecturing you on how to fight; something most of us come across eventually. 99.999% of them are full of *lemony goodness*. This is what you are doing. You evidently don't understand the math equations, and so you dispense with them and ignore them, asking instead for a personal precis and understanding of the material instead of link to maths you don't understand and cannot do. Seriously??

You can't prove Newton's version of gravity right by measuring the position of the planets. We have DEMONSTRABLE observational PROOF from centuries prior that it is incorrect when applied over centuries. That same data is what I had to use to answer my exams DEMONSTRABLY PROVING GR to be a far better approximation of reality ~correct.

No, I didn't say plasma meaning lightning. I said that PLASMA in the aurorae are electromagnetic, and due to CME ions, which are blown OUT of Sun's surface and sometimes hit Earth's magnetosphere after travelling through a distance of ~8 light minutes to get to Earth (at a much slower speed). I said that IF your hypothesis was correct, we would see actual LIGHTNING BOLTS going from the North and South poles to Sun. I am not surprised - the maths that PROVED this are beyond high school.

Gravitational lensing isn't everywhere because the light rays from one galaxy BEHIND a lense in direct line with Earth aren't everywhere. Only in some places do they align with us. That's where we see them. This is from University level Waves and Optics, a Physics course you would not have taken.

Most people in positions of authority have earned their place through competency. They need not be paragons of virtue and truth to hold those positions, but they cannot one and all therefore be outright liars and bovine waste emitters. You imply that if they are not 100% truthful they must be ~100% liars and therefore classical Physics is ALL WRONG! Wow. Are you farging retarded?
Seriously.
THIS is the result of dropping out of high school.
I hope young people reading this thread take note.
I hope bovine waste emission-bearer goes back to complete high school and then at least the BASIC University Physics. It should be a simple matter for him, then to demonstrate the falseness of the classic model once he knows it far clearer.

Gravitational lensing bends all frequencies equally. Atmosphere refraction causes lines depending on the composition of the gas. This is the basis for Mass Spectrometry, and the measuring device, the Mass Spectrometer was only encountered at the University level in.... Waves & Optics.
Really.
I'm getting tired of pointing out the obvious, here.
I'll leave the conclusion unsaid, for a change.

If you say there is no such thing as demonstrable proof, then you are simply an idiotic philosopher. You don't belong in any Science based discussion at all. Go smoke moar weed. That's the level of quality your discussion is coming from.

OK. Enough. It's easy for you to make unsubstantiated and unsupported claims, saying you "understand" everything yet proving none of it. Your statements are mostly patent bovine waste, which I have previously posted links to that explain why. It takes alot of learning and work for the casual layman reader to understand that linked material, (and bovinewaste bearer is, by admission, among the casual layman readers), so short, concise questions by those who actually want to know can be answered by more specialized posters than I. As for bovinewaste bearer, it is to be hoped he will drop the bovine waste and start educating himself using free online University auditable courses:
https://www.edx.org/
https://www.coursera.org/

[whitebeard]

But I'm still really bummed about Newton being proved wrong. I foolishly invested my education and training in the area of Newtonian mechanics and when my employer finds out I'll be out of a job. Before long it'll be "Excuse me, Mr. KK, sir? Did you want fries with that?"

Now you're disagreeing with mainstream science. Any physicist will tell you that Newton's description of gravity hasn't been considered accurate for a very long time.

No. Physicist still teach Newton's Laws and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. And when they do, they will tell you that it is highly accurate for many applications where relative speeds do not approach the speed of light. Gravity gradients used for stabilizing the first satellites (as well as many modern ones) can all be computed from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. To introduce higher order terms would be a complete waste of time and may even destroy the ability to examine these problems analytically (e.g. closed form for the periodic solution showing decaying amplitude). In the realm of what Newton was able to observe, his Law remains state of the art. And absolutely magnificent. When the least complicated model is shown to work, we still use it. This is why we are able to have automobiles, mobile phones, computers, and aircraft navigation despite not understanding every detail of the dynamics of the broader cosmos.

It's not that Newton was proved wrong. It is that modern observations indicate that there is MORE to the story, which is always very exciting. Any new physics MUST degenerate to Newton's Law of Gravitation with low relative speeds (among other conditions) because we have lots of these observations that say it is right. If you can't do this, then you're really not a good theory of anything. Where is the math that shows EU does this? I've heard that in EU, gravity is dependent on charge and we know this is wrong.

[Gold Bearer]

Maxwell tried to come up with an electrical description of gravity in the 1800's, uneducated dolt. He failed to do so. This is the level upon which you are failing. Only you aren't a genius of Physics; Maxwell was.

I've got a genius level IQ and I like using it to understand physics, that counts.

Immanuel Velikovsky, however, was a crackpot. Like yourself.

Einstein (+5 crackpot points for mentioning his name) spent most of his life trying to come up with a unified field theory. So by your logic scientists should give up on it despite that being the ultimate goal of physics. See how completely ridiculous most of your points are? I haven't touched on any of Velikovsky's work, that's a completely separate part of the EU that has nothing at all to do with anything I've mentioned.

The links I have made explain the Universe as it actually IS. That would be FACTS. That would be DISPROOF of your championed EU that has no predictions or facts listed to prove them, despite our demands for them. Pretty pics are not the FACTS we demand. Saying it LOOKS like an electrical effect to YOU is not a FACT. It's an hypothesis that you've yet to prove as a fact.

The links you've posted describe the model that's being challenged, which has no relevance at all on the question of whether or not the model itself is valid because it presupposes the mechanism and interprets the data according to that model. Posting pictures of stars forming along strings proves that stars form along strings. It looks electrical because electricity is the only one of the four forces capable of doing that. If it can't be any of the other three then it's fair to claim that it has to be electrical.

Yes, I think the existence of the attributes of electricity themselves used in the EU are in dispute. Electricity does NOT travel from Sun to Mercury, let alone to 2012Vp113, ~ twice the distance of where I said you are in orbit. And in other words, you have provided NOTHING of substance, merely claims.

When I say the attributes themselves I'm talking about stuff like charge separation, double layers, the conductivity of plasma, the way electricity behaves, not how it's applied in the EU model. Of course that's in dispute.

I can indeed discredit an invalid point by attacking the source of that point. It does indeed work like that.

You've dug yourself into a hell of a hole here. If you think that a valid argument can be in any way invalidated by a attack on the credibility of the source then there really is no hope for you.

If you haven't finished high school, it is safe to assume you haven't done the equivalent of BASIC courses in Physics at the University level. Such as Electricity and Magnetism. Waves and Optics. And the associated lab work, which uses DEMONSTRABLE FACTS to obtain self consistent correct RESULTS. Hard work. Not mystical revelation, like you erroneously claimed. In other words, you are the equivalent of JENNY McCARTHY, someone WITHOUT a medical degree claiming to KNOW MORE about vaccines than people WITH medical degrees. That's farging moronic. It simply wasn't entirely evident until you spoke more.

It suddenly became apparent from my posts at the exact same time that I posted that I didn't finish high school. That's suspiciously convenient.

Are there high school dropouts who make amazing observations that are proven? Sure there are. A handful. You aren't specially among that group, that is crystal clear. The vast majority of people who have not done the work -or the math- to understand what they're talking about...DON'T understand what they're talking about.

What makes you think that the only way do the work, mathematical or otherwise, is through the formal education system? That's really stupid.

It's like some untrained Joe who never fought from off the street lecturing you on how to fight; something most of us come across eventually.

Or like some total idiot online pretending to be a martial artist and giving me tips on how to do a knife hand block as if there was any chance at all that I'd never come across the most common method of doing that technique.

Martial arts and fighting aren't the same thing. Martial arts can't teach a person how to fight other than by practicing sparing, but even that isn't really anything like fighting. All it can do is give them a better tool set to use. They could have the best techniques in the world but if they don't know how to fight then they're no going to be able to use them in a fight unless they just through them out and get lucky. There's plenty of people who haven't had any formal training but know how to fight. You haven't had any experience at all in martial arts have you. Time to fess up.

99.999% of them are full of *lemony goodness*. This is what you are doing.

If what they were saying was right it would be right no matter how little training they had, because whether or not a statement is accurate can't change depending on the source of the statement. You can't invalidate correct information by discrediting the source.

You evidently don't understand the math equations, and so you dispense with them and ignore them, asking instead for a personal precis and understanding of the material instead of link to maths you don't understand and cannot do. Seriously??

But it's fine for you to champion models of which you have no mathematical understanding?

You can't prove Newton's version of gravity right by measuring the position of the planets.

Yes you can. Mercury is close enough to the sun for it's gravity to be strong enough to get different results for it's position than Newton's equations predict.

We have DEMONSTRABLE observational PROOF from centuries prior that it is incorrect when applied over centuries. That same data is what I had to use to answer my exams DEMONSTRABLY PROVING GR to be a far better approximation of reality ~correct.

You said...

I have understood after derivation and explaining by the prof, GR equations. I had to answer them for my exams. I have every confidence in their applicability because the lab work [u]demonstrated[/] that.

...in response to my argument that GR isn't a complete and accurate description of gravity, not any claim that it doesn't give accurate enough results be be useful or applicable on most situations. Please try to keep up. My point was that you can use the position of the planets to verify Newton's equations but that doesn't make it a complete description of gravity, so by saying you know GR is correct because of the results of lab tests is either completely missing the point, once again proving how dumb you are, or it's another example of an attempt at misdirection, hoping to avoid the reasons I've given for the invalidity of GR that you have no way to counter.

No, I didn't say plasma meaning lightning. I said that PLASMA in the aurorae are electromagnetic, and due to CME ions, which are blown OUT of Sun's surface and sometimes hit Earth's magnetosphere after travelling through a distance of ~8 light minutes to get to Earth (at a much slower speed). I said that IF your hypothesis was correct, we would see actual LIGHTNING BOLTS going from the North and South poles to Sun. I am not surprised - the maths that PROVED this are beyond high school.

But you said...

You continue to "ask questions" but do not put up the facts to answer them, and ignore the counter facts, such as an electric Earth would have PLASMA pouring through North and South pole, as mentioned elsewhere.

...which it does, and now you're saying something else entirely. Why would we see lightning bolts going from the north and south poles to the sun if the solar system were immersed in an electric field and why does the fact that we don't prove there's no electrical connection? In way we do see lightning bolts connecting the sun and the Earth, they're normally referred to as magnetic ropes but they carry a charge so that's proof of an electrical connection. I don't even think this is disputed by mainstream physics.

Gravitational lensing isn't everywhere because the light rays from one galaxy BEHIND a lense in direct line with Earth aren't everywhere. Only in some places do they align with us. That's where we see them. This is from University level Waves and Optics, a Physics course you would not have taken.

Yes, that's where we see them but we don't see them everywhere we should. There's normally no lensing in places where there should be, like at the centre of the galaxy.

Most people in positions of authority have earned their place through competency. They need not be paragons of virtue and truth to hold those positions, but they cannot one and all therefore be outright liars and bovine waste emitters. You imply that if they are not 100% truthful they must be ~100% liars and therefore classical Physics is ALL WRONG! Wow. Are you farging retarded?
Seriously.
THIS is the result of dropping out of high school.

I post...

Because people in positions of authority are always such paragons of honesty and integrity.

...and you twist that into I'm claiming that all of classical physics is wrong despite me posting descriptions of parts of it that I love, and then claim that it's because I didn't finish high school. Awesome.

I hope young people reading this thread take note.

So do I.

I hope bovine waste emission-bearer goes back to complete high school and then at least the BASIC University Physics. It should be a simple matter for him, then to demonstrate the falseness of the classic model once he knows it far clearer.

You mean like this?

Mathematically: The ricci tensor has to be set to zero for the equations to work which can only describe a universe without mass and the definition of R in the equations isn't self consistent. Sometimes it's the radius of a 2-sphere, sometimes it's the Schwarzschild radius and other times it describes the radius of Newtons escape velocity.

Practically: Gravitational lensing should be far more common and the path of light isn't bent around the sun outside of the corona.

Theoretically: GR predictions black holes in which objects both can and can't cross its event horizon depending on the frame of reference of the observer.

Gravitational lensing bends all frequencies equally. Atmosphere refraction causes lines depending on the composition of the gas. This is the basis for Mass Spectrometry, and the measuring device, the Mass Spectrometer was only encountered at the University level in.... Waves & Optics.
Really.
I'm getting tired of pointing out the obvious, here.
I'll leave the conclusion unsaid, for a change.

That was random. And just what exactly does this piece of googled information have to do with anything? Are you saying that if the light bending effect observed close to the sun were caused by atmospheric refraction then there would be missing wavelengths in the light? There are missing wavelengths, obviously, because it's star light that's being measured in the first place. If the light's path were bending due to gravitational lensing then it would of course be bent outside the sun's atmosphere and it isn't, so it can't be due to gravitational lensing.

If you say there is no such thing as demonstrable proof, then you are simply an idiotic philosopher. You don't belong in any Science based discussion at all.

One of the most fundamental principles of the scientific method is that it's impossible to prove a model right. All you can do is try to prove it wrong, normally by falsifying its predictions. If a model doesn't provide any way it can be falsified then its worthless. They way a model gains credibility and acceptance (at least in perfect world) is by standing up to tests designed to disprove it. That all it can do. If you don't even know this then you're in no position to have any kind of valid opinion on which model is correct unless you happen to guess the right one through blind luck.

Go smoke moar weed. That's the level of quality your discussion is coming from.

I've never even heard of moar weed, I'll have to see if I can get hold of some. Weed really helps with the ability to absorb information and have it stick. That's why so many students use it for revision.

OK. Enough. It's easy for you to make unsubstantiated and unsupported claims, saying you "understand" everything yet proving none of it. Your statements are mostly patent bovine waste, which I have previously posted links to that explain why. It takes alot of learning and work for the casual layman reader to understand that linked material, (and bovinewaste bearer is, by admission, among the casual layman readers), so short, concise questions by those who actually want to know can be answered by more specialized posters than I.

I've got some. Why do stars form along stings if there's no galactic current? Why do galaxies form along strings if there's no intergalactic current? Why is the solar system stable for billions of years when the gravitational interaction between the planets should cause chaos in a matter of centuries and why are the planets distances from the sun at perfectly regular intervals as if they're being attracted to evenly spaced charge separations at period distances from the sun if there's current flowing through the solar system as a whole? Why do so many star systems have massive planets so close to their parent stars where it's too hot for them to form if the standard model of star system formation is accurate, what force provides the huge amount of energy required to move these highly massive objects closer to their stars and what huge source of energy then stops them from falling into that star? Why is there no gravitational lensing outside the sun's atmosphere at at the centre of the milky way where there should be loads if GR is accurate? How much further into stupidity can this possibly go before mainstream science acknowledges the profound role of electricity at all scales of the universe?

As for bovinewaste bearer, it is to be hoped he will drop the bovine waste and start educating himself using free online University auditable courses:
https://www.edx.org/
https://www.coursera.org/

Why would I waste my time learning a prearranged set of data just to get a certificate that I'll never need to use for anything I plan on doing when I can learn what about interests me in my own time and without being told what I should and shouldn't look at?

No. Physicist still teach Newton's Laws and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. And when they do, they will tell you that it is highly accurate for many applications where relative speeds do not approach the speed of light. Gravity gradients used for stabilizing the first satellites (as well as many modern ones) can all be computed from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. To introduce higher order terms would be a complete waste of time and may even destroy the ability to examine these problems analytically (e.g. closed form for the periodic solution showing decaying amplitude). In the realm of what Newton was able to observe, his Law remains state of the art. And absolutely magnificent. When the least complicated model is shown to work, we still use it. This is why we are able to have automobiles, mobile phones, computers, and aircraft navigation despite not understanding every detail of the dynamics of the broader cosmos.

It's not just high relative velocities that through it out, high enough gravitation does it at relatively low speeds. I've said repeatedly that Newton's equations give useful results. The point is that they never give a completely accurate result. They can't suddenly become wrong at some speed and be correct before that, that wouldn't make any sense. They're always wrong, it's just usually so slight that it isn't measurable. They lose accuracy as velocity/acceleration increases at a faster and faster rate the higher the velocity/acceleration reaches, so that a change in velocity at low speeds won't be as noticeable as the same change in velocity at high speeds. It goes up at an every increasing rate because that curve in four dimensions I mentioned in my last post gets sharper as relative velocity increases and that's what throws Newton's equations out of alignment with how gravity actually behaves. It's because those equations are attempting to describe gravity three dimensionally, which is impossible.

It's not that Newton was proved wrong. It is that modern observations indicate that there is MORE to the story, which is always very exciting. Any new physics MUST degenerate to Newton's Law of Gravitation with low relative speeds (among other conditions) because we have lots of these observations that say it is right. If you can't do this, then you're really not a good theory of anything. Where is the math that shows EU does this? I've heard that in EU, gravity is dependent on charge and we know this is wrong.

I couldn't tell you. I haven't looked into their electrical description of gravity at all because I think by ignoring relativity their description is never going to work. It's because Steven Crothers has provided mathematical proof that GR can't describe the universe we live in because it can only describe a universe without mass, if that's even possible. He forwarded me an email conversation he was having with another physicist who's head of the GR department somewhere. It's hilarious. Crothers ties him in knots. They might figure out how to describe gravity electrically but their model will never give accurate predictions if they ignore relativistic effects. I've actually spoken to the main EU physicist about this and told him what a big mistake I think it is to assume that relativity can't describe gravity just because GR doesn't do it right. This doesn't have anything to do with any parts of the EU that I've mentioned. The cause of gravity is a seperate topic. Even GR doesn't deal with the actual mechanism behind gravity, only how it behaves.

[cynthialee]

For me the nail in the coffin are the various stellar bodies that look just like an electrical phenomena. Sure I am just a country girl with no degree beyond one in Massage Therapy and an incomplete History BA. But I do know that when you see a critter with tits you call it a mammal... and when you see what looks like an electric phenomena in action you call it electricity.
Also Mr. Defender of the Orthodoxy: There is nothing wrong or wrong minded in going against the status quo, or in taking up an opinion when that which is observed conforms to what you know. If it wasn't for folks challenging the status quo we would all be still banging rocks into spearheads. You attack the man who says that which you do not believe in and get down right petty about it. I reject your arguments due to their trollish nature.
As for the argument can be dismissed based on who it came from... that is absurd. Even a broke clock is right twice a day.

When the gravity theory explains what we see up in space, then I can see my way to entertaining the idea that the EU is wrong.

[clmckay]

I know I'm gonna regret this.......I've read this thread since it started. From day one I thought "Uh-Oh, here comes a blind clash of 'I'm right / you're wrong' that degenerates into stupid blather". I gotta say, I was surprised, repeatedly. It was a good back and forth, nice reasoned arguments, very intelligent. I've seen a lot of boards where the discussion would have gone south right from the outset. Usually with someone storming away from the board like my 4 year old, claiming they were ganged up on. That didn't happen here at the Inn. It's starting to get there though.

I just want to say one last thing: I've enjoyed the HQ contributions of both of you, I'd hate to see either of you get so mad and wrapped up in an argument that won't be won, that someone leaves in a storm, never to be heard from again (a la ChaoticPrime). Neither is going to convince the other they are wrong, neither is going to win believers to their side that weren't there prior. Now that the arguments have been laid and all that can be said, said - consider letting it go, there's nothing to be won.

[el_flesh]

Nope. I'm not allowing bovinewaste to pass. So sorry.
Cyn: It also LOOKS like heavier objects should fall faster than lighter ones, but they don't. What something LOOKS like doesn't necessarily mean it is. Is a dolphin a fish? Is a bat a bird? The bible "thinks" so.
I agree that there is nothing wrong or wrong minded in going against the status quo, when you have PROOF behind you. All we have is a high school dropout who never studied Physics beyond high school claiming that gosh gee, it sure LOOKS like the Universe is electrical despite having PROOF listed over and over that it isn't. Check the crackpot index on that. He's in his own little universe of ignoring facts, stating his 'facts' that are demonstrably false, and doing it blatantly. Claiming Sun's mass doesn't actually warp space and that therefore the measurements taken aren't actually correct; and claiming it is a conspiracy consciously hidden by those in the know - it's quite simply and quite plainly CRACKPOT. That means CRAZYTALK. That is what 'crackpot' means. Batshite crazy.
Why would I spend hours relearning and recalling my Uni coursework just because "someone on the INTERNET is wrong!" and carefully correcting each and every patently FALSE statement?

If you reject an argument because you don't like how the arguer is presenting it - that is very unwise.
How you feel about someone has ZERO bearing on the actual truth of something they say.

I don't believe anything at all. Belief does not require evidence or facts. (Neither does EU, just what it looks like.) But Science DOES require proven facts to be held as true. GR had to be proven to me before I accepted it as proven correct. Been there. Done that. Not going back to relearn it because a self-proclaimed "genius" who has made many demonstrable errors says otherwise.
He's not even worth answering at this point. He'll crow about having been proven right, but all I do is refuse to go around in circles with his bullshite questions that he already asked pages ago and ignored the counterproof to.
Understand that you are deciding to get dragged down into demonstrable false fantasy, because you aren't making the effort to learn why it's wrong. There are online links. Spend some time on them.

[Gold Bearer]

It also LOOKS like heavier objects should fall faster than lighter ones, but they don't.

No they don't. If objects fell at different rates depending on their weight then if you cut an object in half as it was falling it would slow down. Objects are made of smaller object joined together so they can't fall at different rates.

All we have is a high school dropout who never studied Physics beyond high school...

Again with this. You just can't fit it into your narrow little world view that it's entirely possible and common for people to have educated themselves outside of the system can you. Pointing out something again and again that I openly admit to doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it.

...claiming that gosh gee, it sure LOOKS like the Universe is electrical despite having PROOF listed over and over that it isn't.

You have provided no proof whatsoever. Nothing! All you can do is post links that completely miss the point and have no baring on the actual issue under discussion, keep claiming that there's no proof because you can't seem to understand that proof of a model is completely impossible and that's not how science works, keep on calling me crackpot and high school dropout as if saying it enough times will be enough to gloss over the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on because nothing you say is based on anything other than faith that what you've been told is an accurate description and ignore points altogether and then accuse me of the same when I haven't evaded a single argument you've tried to make. You can claim I'm doing the same all you want but it's right here for everyone to see. You've ignored my last post entirely.

Check the crackpot index on that.

You mean the same crackpot index that puts you at god knows how many points?

He's in his own little universe of ignoring facts, stating his 'facts' that are demonstrably false, and doing it blatantly. Claiming Sun's mass doesn't actually warp space and that therefore the measurements taken aren't actually correct; and claiming it is a conspiracy consciously hidden by those in the know - it's quite simply and quite plainly CRACKPOT. That means CRAZYTALK. That is what 'crackpot' means. Batshite crazy.

I didn't say that gravity doesn't curve spacetime, and I certainly didn't say it was a conspiracy. If you're going to outright lie like that (again) then why should anyone listen to you? What I actually said was there's no difference between objects following straight paths through curved spacetime and objects following curved paths through flat spacetime. It's very silly to claim there that is a difference when either way you get objects following curved paths through spacetime, making the two descriptions completely equivalent to each other.

If you reject an argument because you don't like how the arguer is presenting it - that is very unwise.

What argument. You've been unable to make one. You just keep on posting links, ignoring my points and calling me names. How is that an argument?

How you feel about someone has ZERO bearing on the actual truth of something they say.

Neither has their formal education history.

I don't believe anything at all. Belief does not require evidence or facts. (Neither does EU, just what it looks like.) But Science DOES require proven facts to be held as true. GR had to be proven to me before I accepted it as proven correct. Been there. Done that.

GR has never been proven to you, that's a complete impossibility. It's been shown to you that it can predict very well the effects of gravity under certain conditions. Nobody has created a source of gravity in a lab strong enough to prove to you that GR gives an accurate description in extreme gravity, like that around a black hole where GR fails. They've also never been able to demonstrate to you that gravitational lensing occurs around all massive objects, or explain the paradox that occurs in GR around a black hole. They've also never even been able to show you any equations that apply to our universe because GR can only work in a universe with the object it's describing in it and no other mass. Ask your physics teacher what the Ricci tensor represents and why it has to be at zero for the equations to work and see what they say. Ask them why R's definition in what are supposed to be self consistent equations keeps changing. Also ask them whether it's possible for an object to cross the event horizon of a black hole because either way I can give you a set of coordinates from GR that says the opposite. While you're at it ask them why the hell it's impossible to formulate a single coordinate system that covers the entire manifold, or to smoothly transition between two coordinate systems that do cover the whole manifold.

Not going back to relearn it because a self-proclaimed "genius" who has made many demonstrable errors says otherwise.

I do have a genius level IQ. That doesn't mean I'm right. The evidence that's right there for everyone to see means I'm right. You've continuously ignored these questions, amongst many others.

Why do stars form along stings if there's no galactic current? Why do galaxies form along strings if there's no intergalactic current? Why is the solar system stable for billions of years when the gravitational interaction between the planets should cause chaos in a matter of centuries and why are the planets distances from the sun at perfectly regular intervals as if they're being attracted to evenly spaced charge separations at period distances from the sun if there's current flowing through the solar system as a whole? Why do so many star systems have massive planets so close to their parent stars where it's too hot for them to form if the standard model of star system formation is accurate, what force provides the huge amount of energy required to move these highly massive objects closer to their stars and what huge source of energy then stops them from falling into that star? Why is there no gravitational lensing outside the sun's atmosphere at at the centre of the milky way where there should be loads if GR is accurate?

These are electrical. If you can't give an alternative explanation for them then what right do you have to try claiming that they're not?

He's not even worth answering at this point.

Claiming I'm not worth answering is a really lousy attempt at trying to disguise the fact that you can't refute my points.

He'll crow about having been proven right, but all I do is refuse to go around in circles with his bullshite questions that he already asked pages ago and ignored the counterproof to.

You have given no counter proof. Name it and I'll answer it.

Understand that you are deciding to get dragged down into demonstrable false fantasy, because you aren't making the effort to learn why it's wrong.

If it's demonstratively false then why have you been completely unable to demonstrate it?

There are online links. Spend some time on them.

Maybe if you were to post one of these supposed links instead of the ones you've been providing so far that don't support your position then you might get a bit more credibility.

771px-Red_Square_Nebula.jpg

This is the red square nebula, one of the best pieces of evidence for the presence of persistent electricity on space. What you're looking at is plasma in glow mode as it travels around an electric circuit. I can say that with confidence because there's only four known fundamental forces of nature (the others are pseudo forces that disappear in certain frames of reference whereas fundamental forces don't). I don't think anyone reading this would think that either of the nuclear forces is responsible for creating this. It's also definitely not caused by gravity. Gravity can't do straight lines and sharp angles, only curves. Therefore this can only be the result of electromagnetism, and there's no way magnetism could create that without an electrical current. This is the closest thing to proof that you can possibly get. The EU is correct because of so many examples of direct observational evidence (the strongest kind of evedence a model can hope to have) like this of processes that only electricity is capable of explaining. It's not simply that they look electrical. If you can't provide an alternative explanation for them then you're just trolling.