Electric Universe

[Gold Bearer]

That explains why there's so much dark matter and dark energy in the standard model.

I think maybe we need the same sensational sound byte, because make no mistake: BSbearer is an enemy of mankind, good intentions notwithstanding.

Concrete PROOF of Science denial. As I have said before, deny it at your own peril. That was wrong. Deny it at the peril of HUMANITY. Deny it at the peril of your own children's SURVIVAL.

You're insane, really!

I see we've moved well away from discussing the actual points and are now focussed on general issues that have no relevance to the points that were raised. That tends to happen when people don't have an answer for the actual points under discussion. What really pisses me off is when people base their beliefs not on any level of understanding but on the assumption that they can rely on a single source to give them an accurate and impartial picture and are even willing to argue their point despite their lack of understanding being self-evident and showing that they’re in no position to have a valid point of view unless it simply happens to be the right one by pure chance. I'll be away in the next few days so you'll be able to post all the deflective attacks you like that entirely avoid the points and I won't be posting back.

The idea that challenging existing paradigms in science is unhealthy for science is absurd. Science is built on the back of failed challenges to existing models. The bottom line is that if the EU models don't have merit then then the evidence will show it and support for the EU will wane. If the EU models are accurate it will continue to gain support and eventually become excepted science. This is how science works and is able to progress, through challenges to existing models. I personally believe it's gone well beyond the point that's reasonably required to show that the existing models aren't accurate and there's a much better explanation, and the standard model know only can only be supported by the perception that mainstream science can be trusted to be impartial and objective. That's an extremely naive assumption that's very far from the truth. It can only happen if the mainstream are pressurised into a position where denying it is no longer an option if it wished to maintain any credibility. That's not healthy for science.

The EU model is gaining support because evidence continues to pile up in its favour and it's made some incredible predictions, like predicting that there would be a build up of energetic neutral atoms at the edge of the solar system and now bow shock (why would charged particles keep on accelerating if there's no current?) being the best examples but there many others. If we look out into space we see galaxy shapes that can't form in the standard model but match exactly the shapes taken by plasma in the lab when a strong electrical current is passed through it. We see stars and galaxies arranged along strings. We see nebulae aligned with the galactic plane when looking closer to the centre of the galaxy where the supposed current is stronger. We see comets flaring up at distances from the sun that are too far away to be explained by solar warming. We see nebulae in totally inexplicable shapes if gravitation were the only influence. There are more but those are the ones that come to mind. This is why the EU continues to gain momentum, evidence.

Now back to the issue. Please explain to me how the fact that two objects moving free through space on parallel trajectories pass each other their paths must eventually cross over is nullified in the presence of the sun. If you need maths to explain it then you're handing over to something that although can't be refuted in what it describes, isn't necessarily describing anything real. To say that it's maths and not science so it can't be disputed presupposes that the equations used are an accurate representation of reality. Because they're moving through curved space won't cut it (it's spacetime anyway, you need time dilation as well as length contraction to create a curve, you can't have a curve in one dimension) because that doesn't explain how the attraction between two bodies moving passed each other can in any way be negated by the effect of orbiting a third body. The gravity of the sun creates the orbital path of the planets, it can in no way dynamically shift planets back into a stable orbit when the gravitation caused by the difference in their radial distance moves them out of that orbit.

The combination of time dilation and length contraction create an attraction towards the sun along the x axis. The inertia of the planets creates a path along the y axis. Together these create an orbital path around the sun. If the inertia and gravitation are exactly proportional to each other you have a stable orbit. When a planet passes another there's an attraction along the y axis so that the inner planet starts behind the outer one and the inertia of the inner planet in increased, moving it away from the sun and the inertia of the outer planet is reduced, moving it towards the sun. As they pass each other the effects are reversed. The inner planet is now in front of the outer one, causing it to move back towards the sun and the outer planet is now behind, causing it to move back towards the sun. In this way the balance is maintained and both orbits can remain stable. But, when two planets pass each other the gravitational attraction isn't just in the y axis, it's also in the x axis. The inner planet is pulled away from the sun on the x axis and the outer one is pulled towards the sun on the x axis. In the case of Mercury that only ever receives a gravitational attraction in one direct along the x axis from the other planets, how is it able to maintain a stable orbit? What is it that provides the necessary counterforce along the x axis to maintain its stable orbit and how is it able to exactly and dynamically match the gravitational attraction between the two and in exactly the right direction?

Wouldn't "active suppression of scientific research" be a ... conspiracy?

I think it only works one way, like nobody whose position supports established ideas according to mainstream science is applicable to the crackpot index, conspiracies that seek to supress mainstream science are perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

[cynthialee]

Science can not be harmed by the investigation of a dead end. Science can only benefit from these inquiries into dead ends.

I swear that our resident doom crier would have just as determinably defended Spontaneous Generation Theory or Phlogiston Theory had he lived back in the day.

[Anderas]

The combination of time dilation and length contraction create an attraction towards the sun along the x axis. The inertia of the planets creates a path along the y axis. Together these create an orbital path around the sun. If the inertia and gravitation are exactly proportional to each other you have a stable orbit. When a planet passes another there's an attraction along the y axis so that the inner planet starts behind the outer one and the inertia of the inner planet in increased, moving it away from the sun and the inertia of the outer planet is reduced, moving it towards the sun. As they pass each other the effects are reversed. The inner planet is now in front of the outer one, causing it to move back towards the sun and the outer planet is now behind, causing it to move back towards the sun. In this way the balance is maintained and both orbits can remain stable. But, when two planets pass each other the gravitational attraction isn't just in the y axis, it's also in the x axis. The inner planet is pulled away from the sun on the x axis and the outer one is pulled towards the sun on the x axis. In the case of Mercury that only ever receives a gravitational attraction in one direct along the x axis from the other planets, how is it able to maintain a stable orbit? What is it that provides the necessary counterforce along the x axis to maintain its stable orbit and how is it able to exactly and dynamically match the gravitational attraction between the two and in exactly the right direction?

I get it you didn't understand at all what i was writing?
Interestingly, you employ Newton mechanics in your explanation instead of relativity or EU. Would you do it right, it would make no difference in this case (Except EU which can't explain the behavior at all)

You don't shift a planet to an orbit farther outside by just tugging on it for some days away from the center of gravity. Instead of a straight line on a curved space, his course then leads upwards the gravity deformation. That is making him slower, turning his course backward down the bowl. The final result is, if you push it outwards, you deform his orbit from round to elliptical without really lifting it. If you really want to lift his orbit, you have to lift Mercury all around the sun. That, well, that takes a lot of pushing during a long time in the exactly right moments. Further, due to it's deformed orbit in relation to Venus' "straight" orbit, it is possible that he receives or gives away energy also in Y direction next year. Satellites are using this principle sometimes to get some energy from planets on their way. So - yes it is possible to "downtransfer" Energy from Venus to Mercury as well; this is not a one way road.



el flesh;
what the canadian government is employing, is regarded as "good communication" for enterprises; however, it is regarded as "bad habit" for governments. They suppress the publication of studies that would make it difficult to complete their projects or are contradictory to the official governmental communication line, and/or critical to the government.
The solution is, however, to get money not only from the government, but from private sponsors as well. Then you are not dependent on a single source, or you are depending on a free source, and you can publish what you want. However, i find it interesting that apparently Canada is financing the scientists but then dismisses the publication. Would they do it "right" they would stop their financing for certain projects right away.
Well the whole story is quite typical for governments half the way down to a dictatorship. It can happen to any democracy, sadly. Look a the Turkish republic. There is nothing to be done except hoping that the next government behaves better.

[whitebeard]

Now back to the issue. Please explain to me how the fact that two objects moving free through space on parallel trajectories pass each other their paths must eventually cross over is nullified in the presence of the sun. If you need maths to explain it then you're handing over to something that although can't be refuted in what it describes, isn't necessarily describing anything real. To say that it's maths and not science so it can't be disputed presupposes that the equations used are an accurate representation of reality. Because they're moving through curved space won't cut it (it's spacetime anyway, you need time dilation as well as length contraction to create a curve, you can't have a curve in one dimension) because that doesn't explain how the attraction between two bodies moving passed each other can in any way be negated by the effect of orbiting a third body. The gravity of the sun creates the orbital path of the planets, it can in no way dynamically shift planets back into a stable orbit when the gravitation caused by the difference in their radial distance moves them out of that orbit.

When I say this is a "Math problem" it is because we have both agreed to use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation as the model. You say that Gravity (forces between bodies all bodies in a system) cannot result in an apparently stable solar system of more than 2 bodies. And this statement is your launching point for EU and additional forces being required. This is fantastic, because I can teach you the math which you need to show you that your statement is false.

Forget about curved space, Newton did not use that. And visualizing the orbits as motions through a potential energy field (e.g. height in a bowl) is a powerful and helpful visualization, but you want to see it, not just be told. That's fair.

Please explain to me how the fact that two objects moving free through space on parallel trajectories pass each other their paths must eventually cross over is nullified in the presence of the sun.

One key difference between your parallel lines and the curved paths of the orbits is the "order of the response of the system". For example: If you have a fixed SUN and a moving EARTH (and nothing else) then the earth will orbit indefinitely at the same radius / ellipsoidal shape. Now at some random instant in time you instantaneously add a FIXED outer planet Jupiter (not orbiting but FIXED just like the sun but at Jupiter's radial distance to the sun). This outer planet pulls CONSTANTLY on the EARTH in the same direction. And yet the EARTH is only initially deformed in orbit and basically stays where it is. Agreed? Or do you suppose it does something different? You've only skewed the gravitational forces of the sun by a little bit. The earth finds a steady orbit immediately and goes nowhere beyond that. If you remove Jupiter at the "top" of the orbit and put it back in again at the bottom (of earths orbit) then you are adding energy to the system and can get Earth to move further away with each cycle of earth's orbit.

Now if you look at the forces applied to the parallel trajectories in space (Jupiter FIXED on a straight line path), Earth has an acceleration which accumulates over time to become a velocity… then you remove JUPITER and the EARTH will continue on it's collision course for where JUPITER would be. The model orbiting the sun will not do this. Once Jupiter is removed the orbit will stay the same for all time.

So the first system achieves a steady result for orbital distance under a constant force. While the second system steadily accelerates, increasing velocity, and increasing position…

This in no way explains stability. I only sought only to explain how the systems are DIFFERENT. Please read it again and keep this in mind. They are VERY much different.

[el_flesh]

Yes, Cynth, it's true that Science is not harmed by investigating alternate explanations. It is harmed by insisting they are correct when proven wrong. It is harmed when those "alternate explanations" are relied upon as real - such as the vaccine causing autism scare. People might not even hear the autism part, and start to distrust ALL vaccines.

You might want to mock and marginalize me as a "resident doom crier", but I'm hardly in a minority.

[Gold Bearer]

The combination of time dilation and length contraction create an attraction towards the sun along the x axis. The inertia of the planets creates a path along the y axis. Together these create an orbital path around the sun. If the inertia and gravitation are exactly proportional to each other you have a stable orbit. When a planet passes another there's an attraction along the y axis so that the inner planet starts behind the outer one and the inertia of the inner planet in increased, moving it away from the sun and the inertia of the outer planet is reduced, moving it towards the sun. As they pass each other the effects are reversed. The inner planet is now in front of the outer one, causing it to move back towards the sun and the outer planet is now behind, causing it to move back towards the sun. In this way the balance is maintained and both orbits can remain stable. But, when two planets pass each other the gravitational attraction isn't just in the y axis, it's also in the x axis. The inner planet is pulled away from the sun on the x axis and the outer one is pulled towards the sun on the x axis. In the case of Mercury that only ever receives a gravitational attraction in one direct along the x axis from the other planets, how is it able to maintain a stable orbit? What is it that provides the necessary counterforce along the x axis to maintain its stable orbit and how is it able to exactly and dynamically match the gravitational attraction between the two and in exactly the right direction?

I get it you didn't understand at all what i was writing?

Yes I did understand what you wrote and you haven't answered the question. You described the gravitational interactions between Mercury and Venus as if they were only able to speed up or slow their orbits in response to each other’s gravitation and completely ignored the radial force tugging them along the x axis.

Interestingly, you employ Newton mechanics in your explanation instead of relativity or EU.

What? That makes no sense! What are you talking about? Electricity and gravity are completely different forces. What do you mean I don't use EU?

Would you do it right, it would make no difference in this case (Except EU which can't explain the behavior at all)

But you claimed that Mercury's stable orbit is explained by the fact that it's moving through curved space(time) rather than flat.

You don't shift a planet to an orbit farther outside by just tugging on it for some days away from the center of gravity. Instead of a straight line on a curved space, his course then leads upwards the gravity deformation. That is making him slower, turning his course backward down the bowl. The final result is, if you push it outwards, you deform his orbit from round to elliptical without really lifting it. If you really want to lift his orbit, you have to lift Mercury all around the sun. That, well, that takes a lot of pushing during a long time in the exactly right moments. Further, due to it's deformed orbit in relation to Venus' "straight" orbit, it is possible that he receives or gives away energy also in Y direction next year. Satellites are using this principle sometimes to get some energy from planets on their way. So - yes it is possible to "downtransfer" Energy from Venus to Mercury as well; this is not a one way road.

That's better, now you're actually talking about the attraction along the x axis. Your point that to pull Mercury into a wider orbit would require an outwards force at all points of its orbit is nonsense. It makes no difference at which point in its orbit the outwards force is applied, it only matters that it is applied. How is the outwards x axis force applied to Mercury that should be increasing its radial distance from the sun counteracted by gravity when it can only apply a constant force in force in one direction?

Now back to the issue. Please explain to me how the fact that two objects moving free through space on parallel trajectories pass each other their paths must eventually cross over is nullified in the presence of the sun. If you need maths to explain it then you're handing over to something that although can't be refuted in what it describes, isn't necessarily describing anything real. To say that it's maths and not science so it can't be disputed presupposes that the equations used are an accurate representation of reality. Because they're moving through curved space won't cut it (it's spacetime anyway, you need time dilation as well as length contraction to create a curve, you can't have a curve in one dimension) because that doesn't explain how the attraction between two bodies moving passed each other can in any way be negated by the effect of orbiting a third body. The gravity of the sun creates the orbital path of the planets, it can in no way dynamically shift planets back into a stable orbit when the gravitation caused by the difference in their radial distance moves them out of that orbit.

When I say this is a "Math problem" it is because we have both agreed to use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation as the model. You say that Gravity (forces between bodies all bodies in a system) cannot result in an apparently stable solar system of more than 2 bodies. And this statement is your launching point for EU and additional forces being required. This is fantastic, because I can teach you the math which you need to show you that your statement is false.

The reason I'm focussing on this is because you claimed that gravitation alone can explain the solar system's stability. To show that there's electrical current flowing through it the build-up of energetic neutral atoms and the lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system would have to be explained, but it still wouldn't have the credibility as the electrical interpretation because it would be an ad hoc explanation to describe something that was unexpected whereas the EU model actually predicted it. There's also many other reasons to think the solar system is electrical.

Forget about curved space, Newton did not use that. And visualizing the orbits as motions through a potential energy field (e.g. height in a bowl) is a powerful and helpful visualization, but you want to see it, not just be told. That's fair.

I’m using length contraction time dilation because people with no understanding of the concept of curved spacetime were claiming that this is what causes the solar system to be stable, not because it makes any difference for this. The bowl and curved piece of fabric analogies are annoying because most people also don't understand that one of those dimensions represents time and think that the curved orbit paths followed by the planets is the same curvature described by GR and don't realise that at any given point of an orbit there's a one dimensional spatially shortening between the orbiting body and the centre of gravity and a one dimensional temporal shortening over the equivalent distance in time, and it's the two together that cause gravitation, which combined with inertia create a curved orbital path.

Please explain how the fact that two objects moving free through space on parallel trajectories pass each other their paths must eventually cross over is nullified in the presence of the sun.

Please explain to me how the fact that two objects moving free through space on parallel trajectories pass each other their paths must eventually cross over is nullified in the presence of the sun.

One key difference between your parallel lines and the curved paths of the orbits is the "order of the response of the system". For example: If you have a fixed SUN and a moving EARTH (and nothing else) then the earth will orbit indefinitely at the same radius / ellipsoidal shape. Now at some random instant in time you instantaneously add a FIXED outer planet Jupiter (not orbiting but FIXED just like the sun but at Jupiter's radial distance to the sun). This outer planet pulls CONSTANTLY on the EARTH in the same direction. And yet the EARTH is only initially deformed in orbit and basically stays where it is. Agreed?

Nope.

Or do you suppose it does something different?

Yep. I take it in this example Jupiter has been fitted with engines so that it can maintain its distance from the sun rather than falling into it. Jupiter would be constantly pulling on the Earth and causing its orbit to gradually destabilise until it either escapes from the system or falls into the sun. Now if you were to also give Earth a push at the same time that Jupiter magically appears and if that push reduced Earth's inertia by exactly the right amount then it could compensate for the force being applied radially outwards from the sun by Jupiter.

I can see a three (or more) body system being stable if each body has their inertia altered in exactly the right way from the start so that the radial gravitation between the bodies is compensated for but there's no way for this to happen. I'm using the standard model of planetary formation where everything starts off as dust orbiting a centre of gravity. This is stable because all the matter is evenly distributed throughout the system but it becomes unbalanced as soon as the matter starts to clump up.

If you want to go deeper then the same force that initially causes the dust to clump up (the shock wave from a supernova in the standard model) is absorbed by the system and it's that exact same force that eventually leads to the an unstable system. There's no way for gravity to dynamically alter the inertia of all the matter in system in a way that would stabilise it. Gravity isn't magic, it's just a constant force causing objects to be directly attracted to each other.

You've only skewed the gravitational forces of the sun by a little bit. The earth finds a steady orbit immediately and goes nowhere beyond that. If you remove Jupiter at the "top" of the orbit and put it back in again at the bottom (of earths orbit) then you are adding energy to the system and can get Earth to move further away with each cycle of earth's orbit.

Now if you look at the forces applied to the parallel trajectories in space (Jupiter FIXED on a straight line path), Earth has an acceleration which accumulates over time to become a velocity… then you remove JUPITER and the EARTH will continue on it's collision course for where JUPITER would be. The model orbiting the sun will not do this. Once Jupiter is removed the orbit will stay the same for all time.

So the first system achieves a steady result for orbital distance under a constant force. While the second system steadily accelerates, increasing velocity, and increasing position…

This in no way explains stability. I only sought only to explain how the systems are DIFFERENT. Please read it again and keep this in mind. They are VERY much different.

Yes, they are very different but I still don't understand how radial influence between the planets (the coming together of the parallel lines in the example) is nullified by the fact that they're orbiting a centre of gravity.

Yes, Cynth, it's true that Science is not harmed by investigating alternate explanations. It is harmed by insisting they are correct when proven wrong.

They haven't been proven wrong. You keep claiming that but haven't once been able to show it. But you on the other hand do use models that are provably wrong.

You might want to mock and marginalize me as a "resident doom crier", but I'm hardly in a minority.

You are in the minority because you're erratic to the point of being unstable, irrational, spiteful, very dishonest, and you have zero understanding of what you argue for or against.

[el_flesh]

aaaannnnnddd once again, the crackpot insists that proof is not proof. In the tradition of Jenny McCarthy, he insists that the proofs of specialists in the field are lying instead of him, that the entire Science community is "proven" wrong by simple geometry since Relativity "isn't true" and can therefore be ignored, and that University educated people who don't "understand" his off the wall entirely WRONG illustrations have "zero understanding of what you argue for or against".

I'll let the other guys disprove you now in their fashion. But I will say BSbearer is merely bearing BS. Planets form by GRAVITATIONAL accretion. Not by "birth" from "electrical" stars.
edit: Here's MOAR DISPROOF about your EU BS on star corona being hotter than it "should" be: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/29/the_sun_s_corona_nanoflares_responsible_for_solar_heating.html
Here's MOAR DISPROOF about your EU BS on Black Holes not existing:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/14/g2_new_observations_show_it_survived_a_black_hole_encounter.html
http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1512/eso1512a.pdf (A Science paper might be beyond a high school dropout's ability to comprehend.)

Go smoke MOAR WEED!! You post like you're a pot head; knowing all reality!

[whitebeard]

GB: You and I are only talking about gravity (Newton) and stability so please stay on topic.

Please confirm: Jupiter FIXED (not orbiting, hand of god holding it where it is, e.g. equipped with rockets so that it stays in exactly the same spot... X=r_jupiter. Y =0 for all time) will pull the EARTH forever towards it and destabilize the orbit?

The correct answer is that earth will immediately move from the initial circle orbit to a very slight ellipse and stay there for all time.

[Anderas]

El Flesh, your "bad astronomer" link is interesting.
Whitebeard, i let you handle this.

[el_flesh]

You don't have to count on WB for the links, Anderas, unless you mean BWB's "thought experiment" that WB is quickly tearing to shreds? Those links are self explanatory, and they destroy the EU claims of BWB.
The only way he can get out of that is 1) claiming they are lying 2) ignoring them 3) putting up a wall of confusing BS that entirely obfiscates his utter lack of knowledge
Watch all three things happen at once.

One thing I will admit I don't understand: if EU claims gravity doesn't exist, why does BSB claim Jupiter is tugging on Earth then? Is this another NEW hypothesis: the EU according to BSB?

That be some powerful wacky tabaccky he smokin.