Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, rrober49 said:

To me it seems far easier to prove plasma is not in the majority of what is outside a galaxy then dark mater

 

Well, good luck with that.  

 

Because 70 years of trying (and billions and billions of *research* dollars) hasn't succeeded in actually doing that.

 

All they've done is create a bunch of gnomes ... that for some reason they just can't seem to find actual proof they exist.

 

They tell us they exist ... but that's not proof.

 

Which reminds me ...

 

At the beginning of the year, we were told with great fanfare that this year they would image a black hole.

 

They'd be able to show us an actual picture (not an artist's representation) of a black hole.

 

I was sooooo excited.  :rolleyes:

 

Yet, here it is almost December and all I hear is {crickets}.

 

Wonder why ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to know why wonder physicists are so ill prepared to understand the universe?


https://scienceblogs.com/usasciencefestival/2011/05/06/how-come-the-study-of-plasmas

 

Quote

 

Meet physicist Andrew Zwicker who is working to raise the status of plasmas in science education. A plasma physicist by training, Andrew is Head of Science Education at Princeton University's Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) where he spends much of his time introducing high school students, undergraduates and K-12 teachers to the glowing, ionized gases that make up plasmas, and to the important role plasmas play in science.


"Plasmas are hot gases containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, and are common in nature," says Andrew, "as exemplified by lightning, the solar core and the aurora borealis." Plasmas also make up such man-made devices as fluorescent light bulbs, fusion reactors, and plasma televisions, he adds. But while 99 percent of the visible universe is in the plasma state, Andrew says, "many schools still teach that there are three states of matter--solid, liquid, and gas-- ignoring plasmas entirely."


Because of the predominance of plasma in the universe, Andrew likes to say, "It's not the fourth state of matter, it's the first state." But textbooks and state and national education standards, for the most part, don't mention plasmas, so many high school teachers don't teach them, says Andrew, who is also a lecturer in Princeton's Writing Program.

 


Just saying ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 10:41 PM, BeAChooser said:

Just saying ...

 been working on the 4th state far far longer then dark matter . In high school we spent plenty of time talking out the state of ice , and I am not talking about frozen liquids or gas but just ice

 

 not sure what idea you are even suggesting anymore 

 

1 dark mater research is far from over funded, we fund everything else to look for it . Very little goes to just looking for dark matter 

 

2 main steam science as whole does not expect find dark matter in the universe. its the new kid on the block everyone is talking about, thats all

 

3 to suggest the study of plasma is some dark horse of the universe, while we spend more money on the power to freeze plasma and heat it, then we ever have on dark matter. That it is some bared idea kept from us ? I don not get this part at all


4 It seems like you let news tell you where science is , and that seems like a belief in science. You need a lot of news sources to support your Ideas . I think you need to learn more about plasma then dark matter

 

 I know nothing is hard to understand but from the small to the large nothing is in the majority over everything out there. Now you cant have plasma without energy first and 70% of everything has no energy. Energy does have a signature even plasma has a signature  and there are no signatures of any sort coming off 70% of nothing we see. Dark matter is the word we pick for nothing for zero for empty or dark X Y Z TWWER pick a letter and move on get hip call it dark mater G, g being for gnome.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rrober49 said:

not sure what idea you are even suggesting anymore 

 

Gee, I don't know why.  

 

After 18 pages, I think I've made my thoughts clear a time or two.

 

But maybe you can help. 

 

Go ahead ... tell us ...

 

Where's the dark matter?

 

What's the dark matter?

 

And where's that photo of a black hole they promised us this year?   tick tick tick ...

 

And why don't you tell folks the amount of money spent researching the influence of electromagnetic phenomena on cosmic plasmas compared to gravity and dark matter.

 

You see ... THAT is the problem.

 

As I've said over and over and over on this thread.

 

Apparently to deaf ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

And why don't you tell folks the amount of money spent researching the influence of electromagnetic phenomena on cosmic plasmas compared to gravity and dark matter.

 cant even resolve electromagnetism from the single model to the duel model and you want money to tell us about how it interacts with plasma on the cosmic level

 

  I even post a video that goes over magnetism and plasma: again not sure how you think this is a dark horse

 

 I do not disagree with every place you prove plasma is

 

I make no claims for black holes and i do not care if 12 people on a island said they would send you cosmo porn pics  so they could get 12 more hours on the community scope

 

 I even agree about the 4th state even though not yet fully proven

 

  you cant place plasma outside a galaxy and you do not want us to look for any other idea ? just accept that plasma is king. Sounds like a flat world to me

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rrober49 said:

 cant even resolve electromagnetism from the single model to the duel model and you want money to tell us about how it interacts with plasma on the cosmic level

 

  I even post a video that goes over magnetism and plasma: again not sure how you think this is a dark horse

 

 I do not disagree with every place you prove plasma is

 

I make no claims for black holes and i do not care if 12 people on a island said they would send you cosmo porn pics  so they could get 12 more hours on the community scope

 

 I even agree about the 4th state even though not yet fully proven

 

  you cant place plasma outside a galaxy and you do not want us to look for any other idea ? just accept that plasma is king. Sounds like a flat world to me

 

The flat world is the one you're supporting ... a world of gnomes that are eating up research dollars right and left and crippling progress in understanding the REAL universe.

 

And you're going to have to explain what you mean by a "duel" model.

 

You're also wrong that *I* can't place plasma outside a galaxy.    Obviously, you didn't actually read this thread before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

----------/The flat world is the one you're supporting ... a world of gnomes that are eating up research dollars right and left and crippling progress in understanding the REAL universe.

 

And you're going to have to explain what you mean by a "duel" model.

 

You're also wrong that *I* can't place plasma outside a galaxy.    Obviously, you didn't actually read this thread before posting.

 look I 100% agree with your base ideas about plasma and electromagnetism 100%

 

 you seem to think the science isn't progressing fast enough, I disagree. And I dont think making dark matter scientists out to be idiots makes plasma more right. I agree with that even less

 

 as far as cosmos goes I think there is far to much work to be  on earth with  electromagnetism to put much time into space study. All the information gained on behalf of dark matter is information that can be used to later support plasma flow on a cosmic level, and resolving the placement of electromagnetism in the universe will account for galaxy spin  , and when that working model gets agreed upon then the cosmos part can open up more

 

 I agree with you... mostly. I do not have issues with the way the science moves forward. I do not find plasma at a loss when we look for dark matter and do not find any.I find it helpful

 

 You never needed black holes, dark matter,  or anything else to make a strong case for for electromagnetism and plasma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rrober49, I can't help but notice that you didn't actually respond to my post.

 

10 hours ago, rrober49 said:

you seem to think the science isn't progressing fast enough, I disagree.

 

Well that's nice.  

 

So I take it you have no problem with astrophysics being stuck in a black hole the last 80 (almost 90) years?  

 

But tell us ... what actual progress in astrophysics can you point to the last 80 years or so?

 

That isn't a gnome.

 

And you realize that their insistence on these gnomes has affected other fields too.

 

Like particle physics.

 

Don't get me started on the Large Hadron Collider and all that it has NOT found.

 

Quote

And I dont think making dark matter scientists out to be idiots makes plasma more right. I agree with that even less

 

Well, how much longer must we wait for them to prove the existence of their many gnomes?

 

How many more billions will they need?

 

And when are they finally going to start talking about plasma and electromagnetism in an honest and logical way?

 

Quote

as far as cosmos goes I think there is far to much work to be  on earth with  electromagnetism to put much time into space study.

 

By the same logic, there's far too much work to be done on earth to waste more time and money with black holes and dark matter.  

 

If you are going to try and explain the universe, you need to explain it ... even if that means looking into the REAL ROLE of plasmas and electromagnetism.  

 

Even if it means you have to heed what people like Alfven had to say.

 

Quote

All the information gained on behalf of dark matter is information that can be used to later support plasma flow on a cosmic level

 

That's just handwaving to justify spending more billions on what are STILL gnomes.    

 

 And by the way, I'd still like to know what you meant by a "duel" model.  

 

If you meant one that incorporates dark matter and the roll of plasmas/electromagnetism, then you need to make the mainstream community look at the latter.

 

And you need some proof the former actually exists. 

 

Right now they can't even bring themselves to use the word plasma in most of their papers ... much less consider phenomena like Birkeland currents.

 

Quote

I do not have issues with the way the science moves forward.

 

 

I do, because what we have now is not science ... it's a cult.   And you'll find posts in this thread explaining that if you look.

 

Quote

I do not find plasma at a loss when we look for dark matter and do not find any.

 

Tell that to the plasma astrophysicists that have been literally begging ... for 80 years ... to have research dollars devoted to their ideas.

 

Quote

You never needed black holes, dark matter,  or anything else to make a strong case for for electromagnetism and plasma

 

Huh?  Of course I don't need black holes, dark matter and the other gnomes to make my case.  

 

But I do need those who believe in those gnomes to stop controlling how the research dollars are spent.  

 

To stop treating the existence of black holes and dark matter as if they are "settled science".  

 

They are no more settled than the silly AGWmeme promoted by the equally useless mainstream community.    

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, rrober49, this pretty much describes the state of modern astrophysics and particle physics …


http://nautil.us/blog/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in-the-foundations-of-physics-is-not-normal


As poster Zyxzevn wrote at the Thunderbolts forum (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17196&sid=71a3730f90314fcfd1cb335157fc96cd ) …

 

Quote

 

The problem is that theoretical physics has introduced theories that can not be disproven, and have no direct connection with reality. 

 

That is due to the focus on maths over basic sense.
Scientists have stepped away from observable and practical reality and stepped into 
mathematical science-fiction.


They have removed space and time and almost every other simple measurable quantity, because it was more mathematically more convenient.

They even pretend that it is OK that everything just spontaneously came out of nothing.
Or that it is OK that imaginary magnetic field lines bump into each other.
Or to have physics based fully on randomness.

 

And after the older scientists lost their minds, the students took over
fighting to get the best grades in repeating the nonsense.

 


Michael Mozina then responded with this …

 

Quote

 

That about sums it up alright. The mathematical myth making is the most damaging IMO. It's one thing to attach math to a concept like gravity, or EM fields and then "test" such mathematical models over time, because we know from direct human experience that these things actually exist in nature, so empirically testing various mathematical models in controlled experiments is actually pretty straight forward.

 

When however they started simply "making up" things like exotic matter, and exotic energy, space expansion and inflation, there is no logical way to ever *falsify* such cause/effect claims. That is because they are simply affirming the consequent fallacies to start with in terms of the original cause/effect claim, and they simply "tweak" their myth-math anyway they wish while ignoring all the negative results of their "experiments". It's a pure affirming the consequent cause/effect claim that's sustains the mathematical memes with pure denial of any and all negative results. Outright falsification of the cause/effect claim is therefore impossible. 

 

I do think that the college grading system, severe publication biases, and job limitations also play a major role in the stagnation process. Anything or anyone that doesn't fit or doesn't parrot the standard dogma is automatically discounted by the teachers, the editors, and those who get to hire new employees. Anyone that doesn't toe the party line is given bad grades, they are blocked from the major publication channels, and they are automatically passed over for any decent job opportunities. This creates a closed loop "group think" process that makes it virtually impossible for real change to occur. 

 

It still blows my mind that Kristian Birkeland not only "explained" the sun's sustained full sphere hot corona, he simulated it in the lab as well. Yet even to this very day the mainstream continues to ignore his successful lab results in favor of "pseudoscience" that cannot and never will produce a sustained, full sphere hot corona in the lab. 

 

 

 

Not only did Birkeland's solar experiments *work* in the lab, they empirically reproduce all the important observations that we see in satellite images of solar atmospheric activity. Instead of embracing positive empirical lab results that enjoy a century of laboratory success, they discount positive lab results in favor of an entirely bogus claim about magnetic fields that doesn't work in the lab to produce a sustained full sphere hot corona, or a sustained planetary aurora. Magnetic reconnection is a total fail in terms of reproducing anything remotely like a full sphere, sustained hot corona in a lab experiment. Virtually all of the experiments on "magnetic reconnection" are also driven by electric current to start with! 

 

The mainstream is simply lost in their own ego. They can't and won't accept the possibility that they're on the wrong track, so every single time their experiments fail, they simply ignore the negative results, and they build a more 'sensitive' version of the same experiment. They throw good money after bad so they don't have to admit their mistakes. 

 

Just look at all the failed exotic matter tests over the last decade. They've now spent billions and billions of dollars on exotic matter claims. They've flunked every single 'test" of their claim, and they have found absolutely nothing. Instead of acknowledging that their ideas are fundamentally flawed, they simply build another even more expensive experiment and then they repeat the same denial based process over and over and over again. They have a *serious* case of confirmation bias. Only positive results will be accepted. Negative results only act to "constrain" their bogus claims.

 

 

And I agree with the above.   The mainstream isn't doing science.   It's a cult preaching a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I again agree with the science. but this is how process of elimination works even when wrong it rules itself out. That always makes me confident that science is  working as intended . I do understand how frustrating that can seem. but many doors open from it. when I can accept the idea of dark mater something by all right should never be found. plasma and everything real becomes easy. Dark mater is the dream and the electric universe will be born from it . I am ok with it 

 

 I do not expect people  led to study look or find mater or black holes , to have a insightful outlook into a field they did not pick to study. I do not not expect reporters to end their  conclusion in the manner "well it looks like  electromagnetism and plasma are right again folks " it seems to be a high expectation of the messengers  to me personally  and a feeling I get as I read through your posts 

 

 I apologize  for criticizing  your approach to the subject. I do not not look to challenge you on the level on intelligence or depth of knowledge. I suggest a way to better reach your target

 

   

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rrober49 said:

I again agree with the science.

 

A platitude that does't actually say anything.   That ignores what I noted about mainstream astrophysics being a cult and not practicing "science".

 

7 hours ago, rrober49 said:

I do understand how frustrating that can seem. but many doors open from it.

 

As post after post in this thread shows, the only doors being opened by mainstream astrophysicists and particle physicists are more gnomes.   One after another.

 

7 hours ago, rrober49 said:

Dark mater is the dream and the electric universe will be born from it . I am ok with it 

 

Yeah.  Right.   :rolleyes:

 

7 hours ago, rrober49 said:

 I do not expect people  led to study look or find mater or black holes , to have a insightful outlook into a field they did not pick to study.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say.   The truth is that physics split a few decades back with the gnomers (those who *believe* in dark matter, black holes, inflation, and ... frankly ... mysticism) going one way and the folks who understand plasma, electromagnetism and real science going the other.   Unfortunately, the gnomers got control of the funding, school curriculums, major *scientific* journals and the ear of *science* journalists ... so the rest is history.   Decades wasted.  Billions of dollars wasted.   And NOTHING accomplished.   

 

7 hours ago, rrober49 said:

I do not not expect reporters to end their  conclusion in the manner "well it looks like  electromagnetism and plasma are right again folks "

 

But you think it's ok for them to start each article with "the existence of dark matter and black holes is proven" when it is NOT?  

 

And end with "just give our brave scientists more money and time, and they'll undoubtedly find them and see them soon."

 

Without ever mentioning plasma and electromagnetism in between?

 

Is there no critical thinking in journalism school any longer?

 

Perhaps that's why they follow AGWalarmists around like puppy dogs too?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most EU proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén (see also Nobel disease). Too bad his model was debunked by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[19]

A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory.

 

  your guys seem to think gravity is a gnome too

 

 

"The International Science Foundation (a front group of EU supporters who falsely claim to neither support nor oppose[20] the Electric Universe hypothesis) says that they provided $2,200,000 USD to fund a laboratory experiment to test the EU claims regarding the nature of the Sun.[21] There is no independent analysis of their work and no publications about SAFIRE found on Google Scholar. The SAFIRE Project is housed in Mississauga, Ontario, and is documented in videos [22] from the EU2016 conference. They say that their intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission[23], and thereby demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality."

 

 is this true ?  do you not welcome  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I cant do this 

 

 look I have a GPS system in my hand a satellite in the sky a rover placed on mars and a way to adjust time.  as gravity predicted it could

 

  what working ideas can you show me from the EU , discredit all you want, but give us something we can use please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 here is a fundamental area where your ideas loose traction for connecting the universe through one electric strand

 

 you have some problems showing how you connect distant bodies light years way with electricity . your magnetic fields seem to be to small to generate enough current to connect bodies that far apart

 

https://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/09/death-by-electric-universe-iv-z-pinch.html

 

 

 sorta looks like you guys dodge math at a lot of corners 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I’ve been away for a few days.   But I’ll get right to it …

 

On 12/6/2018 at 7:46 AM, rrober49 said:

Most EU proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén (see also Nobel disease). Too bad his model was debunked by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[19]

 

Ah yes, the many criticisms of Tom Bridgman.  Your problem is that Bridgman appears to be a guy who has willfully misrepresented EU on multiple occasions.   As Michael Mozina has proven ( http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15939&hilit=Bridgman ), Bridgman has been lying about Birkeland’s solar model for years.   And all efforts to get him to correct his misrepresentations have failed.   Bridgman's understanding of current flow in the Electric Sun model is deeply flawed.  He doesn’t even seem to understand that the model is a glow discharge model, where electrons drift rather than move at light speed.   But worst of all, Bridgman seems to thinks EU is related to creationism (just look at his website: https://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/03/donald-scott-of-electric-sky-presents.html ).   It is not at it's core.     If anything is related to creationism, it is Big Bang cosmology that’s related to creationism.   Just saying ...

 

And if you ask me, it is Bridgman who has been debunked.   Here is D.E. Scott’s rebuttal of the paper from Bridgman that you linked: http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf .  In it, Scott demolishes one claim after another by Bridgman.   Take this claim by Bridgman, for example … "This loss of interest was very possibly the result of the all-sky microwave maps of COBE and later WMAP, which exhibited no evidence of radio emission from these galaxy- forming currents."   That is an an outright lie.   As D.E. Scott points out.  There are in fact radio emissions from galaxy forming currents.   In fact, as pointed out, “there is compelling evidence from radio telescopes for supercluster-sized Birkeland currents.”   Scientific papers on these observations are in fact cited in this thread, which I still don't think you've read.

 

Here’s another article on Bridgman by one of his critics:  http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Bridgman.html .   It demonstrates not only instances where Bridgman is wrong about what he claims but shows further examples of how he dishonestly and vindictively he responds to critics.   And if you follow the link in that, you’ll find that Bridgman is really just an ARTIST who apparently makes a living drawing pictures of GNOMES.   He calls them “visualizations”.   In other words, his job appears to be to draw artist renditions of the gnomes that mainstream astrophysics have so far failed to prove exist or photograph … so that people think they exist and will continue funding the gnome research.

 

Statements like this by Bridgman

 

Quote

In summation, the EU paradigm rests almost entirely on the edifice of Velikovskian mythological catastrophism and the large-scale historical revisionism that it promotes. 


are why I don’t put much faith in his statements.   They are downright untrue and very offensive.  And the harmful effect of Bridgman's website and misleading statements is to cause ordinary people to refuse to ask fundamental questions about mainstream astrophysics … to instead just *believe* in the gnomes.   It's the same tactic that been used by leftists to influence people’s opinions about global warming / climate issues.   That makes Bridgman dangerous TO HIS READERS.   Because he's deliberately dumbing them down.   

 

And let me add that if every detail of EU/PU hasn’t been nailed down in your or Bridgman’s mind, *perhaps* that’s because nearly ALL of the funding that might have been used to do that was been eaten up over the past half dozen decades looking, unsuccessfully, for the MANY gnomes of Mr Bridgman’s preferred cosmology.   Just saying …

 

On 12/6/2018 at 7:46 AM, rrober49 said:

A common motif is the insistence that all science should be done in a laboratory — an attempt to throw away gravity from the very beginning, because one can't put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory.

 

This is total garbage.   EU does not throw away gravity.   It includes gravity.   But not gravity emanating from gnomes (dark matter and black holes).    

 

Now I'm glad you mentioned solar systems because because that brings to mind two huge problem facing mainstream astrophysicists.    You see, as a cloud of rotating plasma (gas and dust, the mainstream would say) begins to coalesce into a star and planets (and that is the mainstream model), there is a problem that the mainstream’s gravity-only astrophysicists seem to simply ignore (correct me if I’m wrong).  A slowly rotating cloud may tend to collapse under gravity but there is a point where the outward rotational force will counteract further collapse. Stars can’t form without doing something with this excess rotational energy (angular momentum).  It must be dissipated to enable the cloud to collapse further … but the mainstream model, as far as I can tell, has no believable way to do this. So it just ignores it.   Furthermore, a star, as the most collapsed object, should be spinning the fastest.  But if you observe our own solar system, the Sun spins slowly.  Almost the entire angular momentum in the solar system (99%) is to be found in the orbiting planets.   And this appears to be typical of star systems in general.  And the mainstream's approach to this difficulty has been to  … well … ignore it, too.  To this day, even after all the money spent by the mainstream astrophysicists, they still don't have a good model for how star systems actually form.   What they have is a lot of handwaving.

 

But plasma universe people do have a model.    It’s a model based on ordinary physics.  It's a VERY detailed model that was proposed by Hannes Alfven and his colleague Gustaf Arrhenius back in the 70s ( https://books.google.com/books?id=pvrtCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=alfven++solar+system+superprominences&source=bl&ots=ty1dPRq0NI&sig=r4VJghktj0RKekUxPQt2JVRtxxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBWoVChMIrIOa8oC5yAIVDNNjCh2gjQec#v=onepage&q=alfven solar system superprominences&f=false ; see pages 138-143, in particular).    Now sadly, their model has been essentially ignored by mainstream *physicists* ever since, but isn’t that par for the course when dealing with the current crop of mainstream *physicists*/priests?   Just saying ...

 

Alfven and Arrhenius theorized that because the inner part of the charged protostellar plasma cloud would spin faster than the outer part, an electric current would be generated, "flowing out along the solar magnetic field lines, through the cloud and back to the sun at its equator" . The interaction of the currents and magnetic fields would cause the inner cloud to slow down, and the outer cloud to speed up, transferring angular momentum outward, and allowing further collapse. They theorized that force free plasma filaments, they called them “superprominences”, could transfer the angular momentum from the sun to the plasma from which the planets formed ... and because the filaments pinch the plasmas together in the process, they would also help speed up planet condensation.  Here’s a graphic of this process:

 

superprom.jpg

 

They noted that there would be what they termed “jet streams” forming from the matter in the system along the equatorial axis (in the disk) where atoms in the plasma state would coexist with neutral grains of matter. They said these jet streams would be of decisive importance as an intermediate stage in the accretion of planets and satellites from grains. Inside the jet streams, the grains would accrete to larger bodies and eventually to planets and satellites.
 

 

Now I'd like to point out to you an observation.   You may have heard of the AU Microscopi.  Astronomers discovered “clumps” of matter moving outward from the star at high velocity in the equatorial plane.   Here are some images:

 

image_3318_2e-AU-Microscopii.jpg

 

AU_Mic_600.jpg

 

And the velocities seem to increase the farther the clump is from the star.   This is contrary to the idea that the “clumps” are the result of flare activity (a mainstream claim).   Furthermore, the clumps are moving very fast (up to 10 km per second).   This seems to preclude the notion that the motions are due to forming planets.   And three of the clumps even appear to have reached escape velocity for the system.   It’s all a big puzzle to astrophysicists … who think only in terms of gas, gravity and wind.  I suggest to you that what we are seeing in the AU Microscopii observations are these grain/plasma jet streams and their interaction with the large electromagnetic fields and currents during the formation of a new solar system. Fields and currents not unlike those we are finding in our own solar system everywhere we look.   Care to comment?

 

On 12/6/2018 at 7:46 AM, rrober49 said:

your guys seem to think gravity is a gnome too

 

 

False.  But some of the things you claim produce gravity are still gnomes ... after decades and decades of searching ... and billions of dollars wasted.

 

On 12/6/2018 at 7:46 AM, rrober49 said:

"The International Science Foundation (a front group of EU supporters who falsely claim to neither support nor oppose[20] the Electric Universe hypothesis) says that they provided $2,200,000 USD to fund a laboratory experiment to test the EU claims regarding the nature of the Sun.[21] There is no independent analysis of their work and no publications about SAFIRE found on Google Scholar. The SAFIRE Project is housed in Mississauga, Ontario, and is documented in videos [22] from the EU2016 conference. They say that their intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission[23], and thereby demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality."

 

 is this true ?

 

What?   Are you incapable of using your browser to look for material on SAFIRE's results so far?   Do you even know what the SAFIRE experiment is?   Here, maybe you should watch this before you post any more garbage:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IAiMpmGx-M .    One of the results of their work so far is to reproduce the corona.   That temperature increases as you move away from the modeled sun.   They, unlike mainstream astrophysicists, have just demonstrated observed solar phenomena in the lab.   Just saying ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regardless what concepts you and I agree on the math was always right before we found it . Main stream science seems to get that better then anyone else as a whole.

 

 the reason EU gets little money from main stream science is mainly due to not letting the math lead the concept. it looks for math to fit observation and math does not need observation to work EVER

 

 main stream science job is to prove you are wrong without a shadow of doubt and right now big bang is the best idea to make it to the top to prove wrong . Right now it is ruling out the idea of why 9+1 might not be the right answer for 10

 

  

again its not lost on me why EU concept does not move forward based upon observation and easy to understand concept art.... it left the world flat for a long time

 

 

 and you tell me what concept it isnt ? , you are just trying to sell math a old tired gnome: eathir = space time , plasma = ionized gas, vortex = black hole

 

   math does not care what you call it, it will exclude them all. I trust it can 

 

 

 still my money is going to earth : reaching absolute zero to freeze any concept we might conceive  down and looking closer, and reaching sun like kelvin to create fusion . And I know those two things can do more to point us where to look then not.

 

 one thing I am certain on. short cant not define just how short the time line is for man trying to connect it all. To think we could solve that idea in under a million years ? luck be a lady tonight and the gnomes can wait. till you and I both score some

 

  took man kind 15 years to figure who the 4 band members of Kiss might be as a whole. And the band members had to come out and tell us at that ... Dig in it could be a long wait

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rrober49 said:

regardless what concepts you and I agree on the math was always right before we found it . Main stream science seems to get that better then anyone else as a whole.

 

LOL!   Hey, maybe that explains it, folks? 

 

All these gnomes that mainstream scientists claim exist, BUT CAN'T FIND, are just imaginary numbers.  :rolleyes:

 

Quote

the reason EU gets little money from main stream science is mainly due to not letting the math lead the concept. it looks for math to fit observation and math does not need observation to work EVER

 

LOL!   Well there you have it, folks.  

 

THE GRAND EXCUSE.  

 

Just like in AGWalarmism ... all you need are mathematical models ... no matter how bizarre the math on which they are based.   

 

And then you can ignore the observations.

 

What can possibly go wrong?  :rolleyes:

 

The problem is ... the math keeps changing.

 

Because it's just one *surprise* observation after another that forces revisions of the *math*.

 

Maybe the problem is thinking math is a substitute for observation?

 

Maybe the problem is substituting math (and belief) as the god of science, rather than observation?

 

It's the same problem that AGWalarmists have encountered.   

 

 Plus, the gnomes (the math) are based on LOTS of assumptions, which are looking more and more suspect.   

 

But rrober49 asks us to bow to the god of math and ignore the observations ... a little longer.

 

That’s what the mainstream in both the astrophysics and AGWalarmist communities are demanding we do.  

 

Oh such faith.

 

Tell you what I think. 

 

I think modern astrophysics is standing on a house of cards … next to a cliff.   

 

And when that house of cards collapses, astronomy and astrophysics are going to go over the cliff and be set back by decades ...

 

... if for no other reason than the public saying no more money for these incompetent liars.    

 

Just like they are starting to do in the Global Warming/Climate Change arena.

 

A decade ago they were ABSOLUTELY certain of dark matter, inflation, black holes, etc. etc. etc.

 

So certain that they published article after article after article claiming not just evidence of it … but PROOF of these things.   

 

But the last decade hasn’t been good for them.   

 

Not at all.  

 

Remember their announcement (with great fanfare, of course) of direct evidence of inflation ( http://blog.vixra.org/2014/03/17/first-direct-evidence-of-cosmic-inflation/, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/ , http://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic-log/smoking-gun-reveals-how-inflationary-big-bang-happened-n54686 ), proving that the Big Bang happened?  Except that newer observations (NOT MATH) showed their proof was nothing of the sort: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2933137/A-dusty-mistake-groundbreaking-Bicep2-Big-Bang-signal-just-interstellar-debris-galaxy-scientists-reveal.html , http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmic-inflation-bicep2-results.html , http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/02/bicep2-discovery-gravitational-waves/#.Vd1flc4-Ci4 , http://www.vox.com/2015/1/30/7951371/gravitational-waves-big-bang ).   But has this caused them to rethink inflation?  No.  The math was just too beautiful to discard.   They still believe in Big Bang and without inflation there’s a real problem.  But that's not really a problem.   More money gets spent.   The meme is king.  The religion lives. 
 

They have found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support ANY of their theories about dark matter (which keep changing daily and make dark matter look crazier and crazier).   Meanwhile, the mainstreams mass estimates, so crucial to their theories have been proven totally wrong.   In fact, REAL dark matter, the baryonic kind keeps being discovered in ever growing amounts.    Discovered right where the non-baryonic dark matter (which they can’t seem to find) was claimed to lay in order to explain the observations.  Imagine that.
 

Hate to tell you, rrober49.

 

The dictionary defines “science” as “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

 

What mainstream astrophysicists are doing isn't science.

 

Well, the high priests of the Big Bang religion have given up on the observation part.

 

Their experiments are all designed to confirm their biases, their bizarre maths, ... and keep them employed.

 

But science is dead.  

 

Just saying ...

 

B)

 

Quote

... snip ...

 

As for the rest of what you wrote.   Hmmmmmmmm ... :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

Just like in AGWalarmism ... all you need are mathematical models ... no matter how bizarre the math on which they are based.   

 

And then you can ignore the observations.

 

No, the math told you and I, we would see a star behind hind the sun and we observed a star together, but the math supported the observation before looking. If you can do the same ill support you more.

 

  best of luck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rrober49 said:

No, the math told you and I, we would see a star behind hind the sun and we observed a star together, but the math supported the observation before looking. If you can do the same ill support you more.

 

It wasn't long ago ... 10 years, tops ... that the mainstream astrophysics community ... and its supporters, like you ... were arguing that there were no currents in space ... that filaments were few and far between.   But the leaders of the plasma universe community ... and it's adherents ... were predicting that the universe was filled with currents and filaments.   And guess what the observations eventually showed?  Ubiquitous filaments (often helically wound) and magnetic fields (indicating electric currents).     I don't need luck.   :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 I don't need luck.   :P

 

A misunderstood visionary.  An enlightened rebel battling to uphold the cause of junk science.  A know-it-all who might someday be recognized as the grandiose poseur he actually is.  Which is doubtful since few know him now and no one will remember him.

 

Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Meghnad Saha or J. Allen Hynek ...  They can't compare to this fantasy astrophysicist ...  A legend in his own mind.  Watch this "enlightened rebel" attack any critic as an ignoramus, who can't compare with his illustrious intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, bludog said:

A misunderstood visionary.  An enlightened rebel battling to uphold the cause of junk science.  A know-it-all who might someday be recognized as the grandiose poseur he actually is.  Which is doubtful since few know him now and no one will remember him.

 

Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Meghnad Saha or J. Allen Hynek ...  They can't compare to this fantasy astrophysicist ...  A legend in his own mind.  Watch this "enlightened rebel" attack any critic as an ignoramus, who can't compare with his illustrious intellect.

 

Since you obviously want to get involved in this discussion, bludog, why don't you and rrober49 get together and tell everyone how the helically wound filaments that we see everywhere we look out in space are produced with just gravity, wind and turbulence?    Hmmmmmmm?   Because I'll tell you a secret.   Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Meghnad Saha and J. Allen Hynek didn't and don't know.    Neither do any the rest of the mainstream astrophysicists you can name.   But plasma cosmologists do ... and they've known for half a century.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, bludog ... while you and rrober49 try to respond to my question, here's the latest news ...


https://www.livescience.com/64258-dark-matter-search-failed.html

 

Quote

Physicists Keep Trying — and Failing — to Find Dark Matter in Dark Places

 

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/12/where-is-dark-matter-another-experiment-fails-to-find-a-signal/

 

Quote

Where Is Dark Matter? Another Experiment Fails to Find a Signal

 

https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/3067887/cosine-100-experiment-challenges-previous-claims-about-detection-of-non-luminous-dark-matter

 

Quote

COSINE-100 experiment challenges previous claims about detection of non-luminous dark matter

 

And meanwhile, the gnomes to replace the missing dark matter keep getting stranger and stranger.

 

I present to you a

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-theory-percent-cosmos.html

 

Quote

'dark fluid' with negative mass

 

:rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×