Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

By the way snowflake, here’s a great debunking of the RationalWiki page on EU (at least as it was back in 2015) that I encountered at Thunderbolts.com ….


http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16030&sid=0cefcfad572a11b48a871ef0444c64d6&start=15#p109282

 

Quote

 

Instead of making a ludicrous futile attempt to commandeer a key propaganda mouthpiece of EU detractors, how about we write a point-by-point refutation of their rubbish? Here’s one I prepared earlier...


(Note: the below refutation is in respect to the RationalWiki Electric Universe article as it was on 13 November 2015).

 

Quote

“In an interdisciplinary science like the Electric Universe, you could say we have no peers, so peer review is not available.”
—Wallace Thornhill


Before the article even begins, RationalWiki make it clear that they aren’t even remotely interested in offering an objective critique of the Electric Universe. Thornhill’s comment was blunderiffic to be sure, but not because it provides any genuine insight into the EU paradigm’s credibility or lack thereof; rather, it is because the comment lends itself so readily to being taken out of context by dogmatic “rationalist” ideologues such as RationalWiki and Michael Shermer. 


What Thornhill was trying to say is that the standard mainstream academic notion of peer review is not presently compatible with the Electrical Universe. This is because the EU community:
*is small and under-resourced;
*is busy enough as it is defending itself from underhanded attacks by pseudosceptics; and
*prefers to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to investigating and understanding reality, as opposed to the narrow territorial compartmentalist approach which so completely dominates contemporary mainstream science.

 

Quote

"Electric Universe" (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmologicalideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone.


RationalWiki promptly erects a Straw-Man version of the Electric Universe in the first part of the first sentence of their article. They do this because: 1) it paves the way for all the other snide irrelevant criticisms which comprise the bulk of the article; and 2) because they are unable fault the actual key premise of EU (as stated in the second part of their opening sentence), and they want to distract you from this inconvenient state of affairs as much as they possibly can.

 

Quote

As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory…


No it’s not. The EU paradigm does not assume or rely on the existence of any sort of aether - not even the aether-in-relativistic-drag otherwise known as “space-time”.

 

Quote

…with numerous references to tall tales from Mythology.[2]


Now this is just downright sneaky. Not only does RationalWiki cite one solitary reference to substantiate its claim that the EU makes “numerous references” to mythology, but they structure the sentence in such a way as to mislead the reader into thinking that the same solitary reference verifies the fallacious claim that the EU is “usually touted as an aether-based theory”!


Furthermore, who are RationalWiki to say that ancient myths are “tall-tales”? By what criteria do they make such a breezy dismissal? What we have here is the article’s second Straw Man, which acts as a subsidiary Straw-Man to the primary Straw-Man that was erected in the very first sentence of the article. In other words, what we have here is a case of Straw Matryoshka Men! Credit where credit is due though: at least RationalWiki strive to be innovators when it comes to fallacious argumentation.

 

Quote

However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous…


No more ambiguous than this claim, or the claims of modern mainstream physics for that matter. 

 

Quote

…lack mathematical formalism


What the EU lacks is mathematical fetishism. 

 

Quote

…and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.


More of that trademark RationalWiki objectivity, this time in the form of a cheap ad-hominem! Evidently the pseudosceptics at RationalWiki don’t realize that variation of opinion within in a scientific field of study is actually a GOOD thing. If the fine folks at RationalWiki prefer it when everyone sings from the same hymn sheet, then I suggest they go join a church…

 

Quote

EU advocates can be roughly split into two groups: garden-variety physics cranks who are convinced that they have a legitimate revolutionary scientific theory…


Hey, they just used that ad-hominem a moment ago! I guess making those Straw Matryoshka Men depleted RationalWiki’s creative juices.

 

Quote

…and various woo-peddlers who use EU claims to prop up their main ideas (because mainstream physics would blow them apart).


Yep, they’re all puffed out, because now they’re rehashing the original Straw Man. What woo-peddlers would those be, exactly? Do they actually use EU claims to prop up their main ideas, or do they just use the EU community as a vehicle to promote ideas that have no scientific bearing on, or relation to EU whatsoever? By RationalWiki’s logic, mainstream physics deserves scorn and castigation for the woo-tastic claims of Deepak Chopra, Michio Kaku, and Dean Radin.

 

Quote

One subset of the latter comprises some of the more loony global warming deniers (such as Vault-Co), who try to use it to "prove" that climate change is being caused by some process outside human control.


Never heard of them, but then why would I have? After all I’m involved with the EU crowd, not the AGW denier crowd. It would seem that RationalWiki have rejuvenated their creative juices at this point, because they manage to seamlessly merge Straw Man with guilt by (questionable) association. The reality is that EU is no more related to AGW denial than Darwinian Evolution is to Eugenics.


That said, why is RationalWiki averse to the idea of climate change being caused by “some process outside human control”? Doesn’t the geological record provide an abundance of evidence that the global climate can be affected by non-anthropogenic factors?? In the last 20,000 years alone the world has experienced climate change by “some process outside human control” to an extent which far surpasses even the direst predictions of AGW proponents. If RationalWiki’s objection to non-AGW is based on political ideology rather than actual science, then they should have the decency to explicitly admit this.

 

Quote

Each year the Electric Universe holds their annual EU conference, where a seemingly endless parade of misguided fools take to the stage and discuss mythology, homeopathy, numerology, dipole gravity, and other equally absurd nonsense.


…and so we circle back to ad-hominem and guilt-by-association. It is true that a number of purveyors of highly questionable ideas have attached themselves to the EU like so many parasites to the body of an unfortunate host, but few if any of those ideas has any substantive scientific connection to, or implication for the EU. I wonder, does RationalWiki count Michael Shermer as part of that “endless parade of misguided fools” who discusses “absurd nonsense”? I mean, Michael Shermer *did* speak at the 2015 EU Conference, so by RationalWiki’s logic the EU is no less affiliated with Michael Shermer than it is with numerology and homeopathy.

 

Quote

The only common thread is the notion that a conspiracy is afoot to suppress their oddball beliefs.


Notice that RationalWiki provides no references for this claim. Who exactly is crying conspiracy, and when and where have they done so? They very fact of the existence of the Thunderbolts website and their Youtube channel proves that no such conspiracy exists! At any rate, it doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to see the mainstream physics community is beset by a number of serious cognitive and political dysfunctions.

 

Quote

The conferences are open to the public, provided you cough up the $395 price of admission.[3]


Or you can wait a little while and watch them on Youtube FOR FREE.

 

Quote

Immanuel Velikovsky was an enthusiastic early adopter of electric universe ideas…


More guilt-by-association, plus a failure to mention that Velikovsky a) actually did make a number of successful predictions that eluded the mainstream astronomy community and b) was taken seriously by supporters and detractors alike prior to his death. 

 

Quote

…seeing in them a possible mechanism to explain his scenario of planetary billiards…


I presume that RationalWiki is referring to different “planetary billiards” than those that mainstream astronomy and physics utterly relies on to ‘explain’ planetary and solar system formation? 

 

Quote

…cosmic thunderbolts, and the notion that Earth was previously a satellite of Saturn.


Since when has either of these notions been disproved? Mainstream astronomy’s version of the Solar System’s history is nothing but guesswork resting on a foundation of questionable assumptions.

 

Quote

Velikovsky’s influence still looms large and has become an integral part of the current Electric Universe orthodoxy.


“Electric Universe orthodoxy”?! A few sentences ago, RationalWiki was telling us that the details and claims of EU are “ambiguous” and “often vary from one delusional crank to the next”! So is the EU ambiguous and variable, or does it have an orthodoxy? You can’t have it both ways guys. Nevertheless the EU paradigm does not depend on the claims of Velikovsky; it just happens to be the case that there is some degree of compatibility between Velikovsky’s ideas and EU ideas.

 

Quote

EU figureheads Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are staunch supporters of Velikovsky’s mythological-based fairy tales and often pay tribute to the enormous influence he has had on shaping their own far-fetched theories.


“Figureheads”?? Don’t you have to have an organised hierarchy in order to have a figurehead? Here we see RationalWiki attempting to have it both ways (an ambiguous variable orthodox hierarchy!) while simultaneously piling on more guilt-by-association. It would seem that RationalWiki’s definition of “fairy tale” is something along the lines of “a speculation which is not (currently) endorsed by mainstream scientific institutions”. 

 

Quote

Claims
 Einstein's postulates are wrong.[4]


They are wrong. But I guess it’s hard to see that when you’re so preoccupied looking for non-existent gravitational waves and dark matter…

 

Quote

 The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near infinite velocity.[4]


This belief 1) is held by some members of the EU community, and 2) has not been disproven.

 

Quote

 Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.[5]


This is Wallace Thornhill’s pet theory. However if the RationalWiki editors ever actually bothered to find out what the wider EU community has to say about dipole gravity, then they would quickly realize that it is far from being an accepted or integral part of the EU paradigm. At the very least Thornhill’s dipole gravity idea is no less preposterous then having TWO mutually incompatible theories of gravity, one of which involves the magical distortion of a non-thing and the other of which proposes an exchange of never-observed subatomic particles that somehow ‘carry’ a pulling force!

 

Quote

 A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.[4]


As previously mentioned the EU paradigm does not require an all-pervasive aether, neutrino-based or otherwise. 

 

Quote

 Planets give birth to comets.[6]


And this is impossible because….?

 

Quote

 Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.[citation needed]


Correct, with the additional note that the EU does not rule out fusion taking place in the corona as a result of the star’s intense electrical activity. We are more than happy for someone to empirically demonstrate how nuclear fusion can be caused entirely or even primarily by gravitational collapse, but so far human attempts to emulate the sun’s (alleged) internal fusion processes have been utterly reliant on electromagnetic confinement of plasmas. Funny that.

 

Quote

 Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[7] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[8]


How is this any less plausible than the mainstream’s version of cosmic billiards? How many times have we actually witnessed so-called impact craters being created by impacts on other celestial bodies?

 

Quote

 The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged -- the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this isJames McCanney's particular erroneous belief.) 


That the Sun (and other stars) acts as an interstellar electrode in some way is widely agreed upon amongst the EU community. Whether stars are positively or negatively charged, or some combination of both, is still a matter of debate. 

 

Quote

 EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.[9][10]


After all the vilification and slander, we finally get to see Giffyguy’s Mad PR Skillz in action! This sentence should say that the Thunderbolts Project DID predict those things, but Giffyguy wanted to exercise utmost caution in his attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Unfortunately the placement of this sentence is as underwhelming as its wording, and these two drawbacks synergistically manage to make the EU community look like nothing more than a bunch of pathetic, desperate, delusional fools. The moral of the story here is that it does little good to put lipstick on a pig, particularly if the lipstick ends up going on the pig’s anus.

 

Quote

[edit]Evidence
Most Electric Universe proponents claim some kind of relation to the "plasma cosmology" of the Nobel Prize laureate Hannes Alfvén. Too bad his model was rendered obsolete by the missing observations of the radio emission predicted by his cosmology.[11]


At long last, we finally encounter something that vaguely resembles a substantive criticism! But why is RationalWiki so eager to move right along with nothing more than a reference? Where’s the discussion of *how* Alfven’s model was rendered obsolete and how exactly this is supposed to impact on the EU paradigm? Once again, RationalWiki is attempting to have it both ways: first they make a vague assertion about how EU proponents claim “some kind of” relation to plasma cosmology, and then they suggest that this “some kind of relation” invalidates the EU owing to the referenced paper (which, I presume, the “sceptics” at RationalWiki are not in any great hurry to critically analyse).

 

Quote

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 my favourite line in the article. Science ought to be done in a laboratory?? You mean, in an actual empirical setting?! Now that’s just cray-cray! 


RationalWiki raises a fatuous objection to attempting to “put a solar system or a galaxy in a laboratory”, yet they apparently have no problem with mainstream cosmologists ‘testing’ their theories by modelling the universe with computer simulations! Pray tell, how can you “throw away” gravity when no one even knows what gravity is in the first place?? RationalWiki fails to appreciate that “gravity” is as much a theoretical gap-filler as dark matter and dark energy. When Newtown devised his Law of Universal Gravitation, scientists weren’t even aware of the most basic principles of electromagnetism, let alone the existence of electromagnetic phenomena in space such as the solar “wind”, magnetospheres and Birkland currents. For RationalWiki’s information, the EU does not “throw away gravity from the very beginning”. What the EU says is that electromagnetism plays a much greater role in the cosmos than gravity, a contention which is very much consistent with the relative strengths of these forces.


Incidentally, although this line is (pathetically) one of the most germane criticisms of EU that RationalWiki offers, it used to occur much earlier in the article and was only moved down to the end very recently. Perhaps the folks at RationalWiki are torn between the desire to get rid of such an asinine anti-scientific objection, and the desire to have an article composed of something other than irrelevant bile.

 

Quote

[edit] SAFIRE Project 
The International Science Foundation, a group which claims to neither support nor oppose[12] the Electric Universe hypothesis, has provided $2,200,000 USD to fund an unprecedented laboratory experiment to test the Electric Universe claims regarding the nature of the sun.[13] The intent is to compare the results of this experiment to the results of NASA's Solar Probe Plus mission[14], and thereby demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality.[15]


Giffyguy works his PR magic once again, and this time it’s buried at the very bottom of the article ! This particular section also used to occur much earlier in the article until very recently. I wonder why that is? It’s not exactly a spirited defence of EU (“a group which claims to neither support nor oppose” the EU, “demonstrate whether the EU solar model has any grounding in reality”). Perhaps it’s buried at the bottom of the article because the totally objective and not-at-all-political folks at RationalWiki would rather not draw attention to the fact that a respected scientific organisation takes EU ideas seriously enough to consider them worthy of empirical testing?


In summary, RationalWiki’s article on the Electric Universe amounts to nothing more than a putrid pile of ad-hominem, Straw Man, guilt by association, double-standards, childish name calling, calculated misrepresentation, and worst of all blatant ideological bias. It is a piss-poor effort, even by RationalWiki’s sophomoric standards.

 


I’d say that and it's conclusion is SPOT ON and STILL spot on regarding the dishonest RatioinalWiki *article*.  

 

Just saying …

Share this post


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

I’d say that and it's conclusion is SPOT ON and STILL spot on regarding the dishonest RatioinalWiki *article*.  

 

Just saying …

id say conclusions have yet to make you right 

 

you are in for a dose of 20 pages of what you just posted

I would ignore me at this point

That is the outline I will follow to a tee

 

continue

 

 

Share this post


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

burden of proof is on you

 

Oh ...

 

So I have to prove that the mainstream's dark matter doesn't exist before you'll question it's existence?

 

So I have to prove that most comets are rock before you'll question whether most comets are rock?

 

And what else must I prove before you'll question the mainstream's astrophysics gnomes?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

39 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

Oh ...

 

So I have to prove that the mainstream's dark matter doesn't exist before you'll question it's existence?

 

So I have to prove that most comets are rock before you'll question whether most comets are rock?

 

And what else must I prove before you'll question the mainstream's astrophysics gnomes?

 

 

I do not know but I am guessing it will be less special then you find it to be

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a mainstream gnome I think I missed from 2018 !!!!!


https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/could-dark-matter-condense-into-solids-100-million-times-bigger-than-the-sun

 

Quote

 

Do massive dark matter "nuggets" lurk in our galaxy?


On the numbers, there's nothing to stop dark matter condensing into solids 100 million times bigger than the sun, a US astrophysicist suggests. Richard A Lovett reports.

 

 

DARK MATTER NUGGETS!!!!

 

il_fullxfull.921798004_e185.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

https://www.iflscience.com/space/new-evidence-strengthens-the-case-for-dark-matter-particles/

Quote

 

New Evidence Strengthens The Case For Dark Matter ParticlesThe Fornax dwarf galaxy.  One of the 16 used in the study.  ESS/digitized sky survey 2.

 

An international group of astronomers have conducted a series of observations on the dark matter distribution in dwarf galaxies, the diminutive companions of much larger galaxies like ours. What they discovered will likely start many discussions in astronomy. They found that the distribution of dark matter is dependent on the evolution of the stars in these galaxies.

This is a big deal. Dark matter is, as the name states, dark. It is only affected by gravity, and it influences the shape and structure of galaxies. But in this case, the “light” components affect it back. Galaxies with a lot of star formation have less dark matter in their cores. Galaxies that instead stopped forming stars a long time ago have denser dark matter cores. The findings are reported in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

-snip-

 

 

 

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mnras/sty3404/5265085

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty3404

 

 

Edited by bludog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 It was interesting

I ways felt for religion to move forward it would have to  adapt to science

 

 It is not hard to look back in history and see how mans first bibles are mostly the same story with the name changed and crossed into mythology as well

 

 like wise we can not go back in time and prove bibles right or wrong but assume what best fits we will

 

 this here thread is the best  assumable evidence science has left and the new Christians attempt to move into a new world with science , not apart from it 

 

 notice the underlying tone of "stop do not look further. here is the easy answer"

 

 casting out demons in the form of gnomes

 casting out dark mater

 casting out  black holes

 casting out the questions

 

The Ankh and the Eye of Horus are electrical/electromagnetic signatures. easily explained by the symbolism involved.

  

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bludog said:

 

So bludog, since you've decided to join this thread, perhaps you can do what rrober49 obviously can't ...

 

Explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments that we now see everywhere we look out there?  

 

Identify what dark matter actually is?    Don't just post articles about more proposed dark matter gnome ... show us what it is, because surely after 70 years you can do that.

 

Post that picture of a black hole that was promised us last year to show us?   

 

Find proof that comets are mostly ice like the mainstream claimed they would be?

 

Because you can post mainstream articles like those above till you're blue in the face without actually showing that you or mainstream *scientists* understand the universe.

 

Gnomes abound, but gnomes are still gnomes.    They aren't good science.

 

And you folks seem to have forgotten what good science is, bludog.

 

And I haven't even started asking you about the sun and solar system.

 

I could ask you many questions regarding the sun that continue to puzzle the mainstream.

 

Questions that don't puzzle the EU community.

 

Like this one ... explain the distribution of angular momentum in the solar system.

 

Do you know the mainstream can't do that?

 

But Alfven and his colleague Gustaf Arrhenius did, back in the 70s.

 

Now did the mainstream media and education system forget to tell you about THAT?

 

Maybe you should ask yourself WHY?

 

Just saying ...

 

 

:P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a little something about astrophysics.  You know a lot more (in this field), and take yourself seriously enough to be dangerous, given any power.  It is this cocksure attitude and adversarial nature this thread, I think, that makes many people uncomfortable with it.

 

You bring up several specific areas in which there is still much to be learned.

(In order except for the last)

-  Helically wound plasma filaments.

-  Dark matter

-  Proof that comets are mostly ice

-  Sun & Solar System ...  Distribution of angular momentum in the Solar System

 

-  Post pic of black hole

 

One out of five ain't bad;  And goes a long way to validate mainstream astrophysics.

 

While this is not an actual picture of a black hole;  It is very strong evidence of the presence of one.  The way our vision evolved here on Earth, (although fine for terrestrial observation), it does not allow us to directly observe many cosmic phenomena.  However, we have invented instruments like X-Ray telescopes and Radio Telescopes that extend our biological senses into areas invisible to our naked eyes.

 

As we all know, black holes capture light and cannot be photographed directly, using images captured in the visible spectrum.  However, object in high speed orbit around black holes emit detectable energy in the form of X-Rays.  In addition, the larger black holes emit plainly visible plasma jets.  In ways like these, the presence of black holes can be detected and the evidence continues to build.

 

We are in the very infancy of knowledge about the Cosmos.  It is only a little over 400 years since Galileo first looked at the sky through his new telescope.  You may be right or wrong in your suppositions.  The same can be said for others.  But, chances are, if astrophysical and quantum studies continue for another 400 years, astounding discoveries will be made.  And if they continue for another 10,000 years .....  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

ut Alfven and his colleague Gustaf Arrhenius did, back in the 70s.

 

  never felt this guy was not taken seriously

 

pick a religion does

 

 

Alfvén played a central role in the development of:

In 1939, Alfvén proposed the theory of magnetic storms and auroras and the theory of plasma dynamics in the earth's magnetosphere. This was the paper rejected by the U.S. journal Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity.

Applications of Alfvén's research in space science include:

Alfvén's views followed those of the founder of magnetospheric physics, Kristian Birkeland. At the end of the nineteenth century, Birkeland proposed (backed by extensive data) that electric currents flowing down along the Earth's magnetic fields into the atmosphere caused the aurora and polar magnetic disturbances.

Areas of technology benefiting from Alfvén's contributions include:

Contributions to astrophysics:

  • Galactic magnetic field (1937)
  • Identified nonthermal synchrotron radiation from astronomical sources (1950)

Alfvén waves (low frequency hydromagnetic plasma oscillations) are named in his honor. Many of his theories about the solar system were verified as late as the 1980s through external measurements of cometary and planetary magnetospheres. But Alfvén himself noted that astrophysical textbooks poorly represented known plasma phenomena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Explain what causes those helically wound plasma filaments that we now see everywhere we look out there?  

 

a fluorescent light would be the easy example    

 

 he is weaving a round tube to put gas into and exciting the gas

   

 light

 

explain the light he is looking at

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

 

-  Post pic of black hole

 

One out of five ain't bad;  And goes a long way to validate mainstream astrophysics.

 

LOL!

 

There is no actual image of a black hole in that video.  

 

You’re either way too gullible or desperately dishonest.

 

And amazingly enough you even admit, after claiming that satisfies my request, that it’s “NOT an actual picture of a black hole”.

 

In other words, you are STILL ZERO for FIVE, bludog, and only making yourself look silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a new year … time to enlarge some gnomes …


https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1067597/black-hole-milky-way-space-news-large-magellanic-cloud-andromeda

 

Quote

 

Black hole in middle of Milky Way could grow TENFOLD, scientists predict HUGE space crash


A BLACK hole at the centre of the Milky Way is likely to wake up and swell ten times its current size to devour all surrounding matter, scientists have warned.

 

 

But seriously, is learning this (assuming its even true) worth the expense of finding it out, folks?  

 

Should a limited resource like astrophysicists and their computers be wasting their time on gnomes like this?  

 

After all, this is *predicted* to happen 8 BILLION years from now.   It’s not a crisis.  


But we do have a crisis in solar physics.    

 

Maybe the mainstream should be focussing on better understanding the sun … which could kill us or at least cripple our civilization in the near future, rather than worrying about a hypothetical black hole eating more matter 8 billion years from now?    Here’s an article that with far more relevance to each of us …


https://www.newsweek.com/solar-minimum-sun-activity-solar-flare-baffling-scientists-661695
 

Quote

 

MASSIVE SUNSPOTS AND SOLAR FLARES: THE SUN HAS GONE WRONG AND SCIENTISTS DON’T KNOW WHY

 


You got the last part?   “SCIENTISTS DON’T KNOW WHY”.  

 

And maybe that’s because they don’t really understand the sun.  

 

And perhaps they don’t understand the sun because they’ve been modeling it wrong.  

 

Maybe the other possible model is where funding for investigations like the one noted in the OP should really be going?   


This is a very serious issue.  

 

Do you folks know that in 1859 there was a solar flare (the Carrington Event) that imparted so much energy to the Earth’s atmosphere that telegraph lines literally fried.  

 

Telegraph paper literally caught on fire as a result.  

 

This was an extreme ELECTROMAGNETIC EVENT.  

 

A similar event today could cause widespread power outages and disrupt most communications.    

 

And yet the mainstream clearly does not understand their cause and refuses to consider the Electric Universe theories as to what might causes them.


This is a very serious issue.   In fact, there was a coronal mass ejection (CME) … a huge plasma cloud … on July 23, 2012 ( https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm ) that was comparable to the Carrington event.  Fortunately, the sun was turned away from us at the time.   Had it occured a week earlier, a wall of charged particles would have come barreling down on earth, perhaps destroying our communication networks, GPS and reconnoissance satellites and the electrical grid.    And we know about this because fortunately we had a solar observatory (STEREO-A) in position to record it.  Here’s an image and video from that satellite of the CME ….


flare.png&w=1484


VIDEO:    https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/152a9a74-1331-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906


Now according to https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm, physicist Pete Riley published a paper that put the probability of a solar event as strong as the Carrington Event at 12% in the next 10 years.   One that would blanket he earth with it's effects.   So this is VERY important … far more important than worrying about galaxies colliding 8 billion years from now.    And maybe the Parker Solar Probe will give them some insight into the real physics … but ONLY if mainstream scientists will open their minds to other possibilities than what they already *think* they know.    Because what they *think* they know is turning science into cultish beliefs.


 

Share this post


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

here are the best tubes of light man has to offer

 

 

 

What's the point of this post?   It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.   Is your goal now to just clutter the thread up with irrelevant posts?  

Share this post


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

What's the point of this post?   It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.   Is your goal now to just clutter the thread up with irrelevant posts?  

 

glad to see your reaction to filaments

Share this post


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

Now according to https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm, physicist Pete Riley published a paper that put the probability of a solar event as strong as the Carrington Event at 12% in the next 10 years.   One that would blanket he earth with it's effects.   So this is VERY important … far more important than worrying about galaxies colliding 8 billion years from now.    And maybe the Parker Solar Probe will give them some insight into the real physics … but ONLY if mainstream scientists will open their minds to other possibilities than what they already *think* they know.    Because what they *think* they know is turning science into cultish beliefs.


 

 

 the blinded fools surely they will suffer Gods wrath

 

Share this post


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

In other words, you are STILL ZERO for FIVE, bludog, and only making yourself look silly.

 

I think not.  And, to no one's surprise, you are still needlessly personalizing everything and  being your gratuitously ornery self.

 

Everyone knows, that with present technology, it is not possible to photograph black holes.  But all the evidence leads to their existence.

 

I will repeat what you willfully ignored:

2 hours ago, bludog said:

While this is not an actual picture of a black hole;  It is very strong evidence of the presence of one.  The way our vision evolved here on Earth, (although fine for terrestrial observation), it does not allow us to directly observe many cosmic phenomena.  However, we have invented instruments like X-Ray telescopes and Radio Telescopes that extend our biological senses into areas invisible to our naked eyes.

 

As we all know, black holes capture light and cannot be photographed directly, using images captured in the visible spectrum.  However, object in high speed orbit around black holes emit detectable energy in the form of X-Rays.  In addition, the larger black holes emit plainly visible plasma jets.  In ways like these, the presence of black holes can be detected and the evidence continues to build. 

 

Share this post


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

 

glad to see your reaction to filaments

 

That's not a filament, you idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

Everyone knows, that with present technology, it is not possible to photograph black holes.

 

Everyone?  

 

Well you'd better tell that to all these people.  

 

https://earthsky.org/space/1st-direct-black-hole-2018-image-event-horizon-telescope "Scientists expect 1st direct black hole image soon"

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/black-hole-event-horizon-telescope-pictures-genius-science/ "After completing five nights of observations, today astronomers may finally have captured the first-ever image of the famous gravitational sinkhole known as a black hole."

 

https://now.northropgrumman.com/physics-photo-op-black-hole-images-may-soon-be-available/ "Physics Photo Op: Black Hole Images May Soon Be Available"

 

https://www.space.com/36360-black-hole-image-event-horizon-telescope.html "Photographing a Black Hole: Historic Campaign Now Underway"

 

Because they are spending a lot of money to photograph one.

 

And they first promised we'd get the photo in 2018.

 

So what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

However, object in high speed orbit around black holes emit detectable energy in the form of X-Rays.   In addition, the larger black holes emit plainly visible plasma jets. 

 

Do they?  Based on what physics, bludog?  A couple of additional gnomes?   Why yes indeed.    It's takes more gnomes for the black hole gnome to produce those jets.     And what YOU willfully ignore is the physics of PLASMOIDS ... which can be created in laboratories here on earth.  And guess what?   They produce x-rays and jets.   And come from helically wound, electric current carrying Birkeland currents in plasma.   So how do you know that's a black hole you see *evidence* of, and not a plasmoid?  YOU DON'T.  But Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.   And the simplest explanation is the one without gnomes.   The one we can reproduce in the lab ... and in computer models using ORDINARY, KNOWN, PROVEN, DEMONSTRABLE physics ... not hypothetical gnomes and hypothetical physics.    So once again, what has produced all those helically wound filaments astronomers are now finding out in space?   Many of them aren't connected to black holes.  So what additional gnomes do you now need to explain them?  And can you demonstrate any of them on earth?    Hmmmmmmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bludog said:

Everyone knows, that with present technology, it is not possible to photograph black holes.  But all the evidence leads to their existence.

 

19 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Everyone?  

 

Well you'd better tell that to all these people.  

 

This is NOT a photo of a black hole.  It IS a circle of black emptiness with no defining texture or features.   All the evidence for the existence of the black hole itself, comes from its surroundings.  And that evidence is compelling.

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bludog said:

This is NOT a photo of a black hole.

 

I'm glad you finally admit that.

 

5 hours ago, bludog said:

All the evidence for the existence of the black hole itself, comes from its surroundings.  And that evidence is compelling.

 

Compelling only to cultists who believe in a host of gnomes. 

 

Because the cultists can't explain what they see surrounding the black hole gnome without adding additional gnomes, none of which have been proven.

 

Whereas the EU community can point to plasmoids, which can be created in the lab and modeled using computer programs based on ordinary physics.

 

And those plasmoids create all the phenomena around black holes that you gnomists find so ... compelling.

 

Apply Occam's Razor, bludog.

Share this post


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

Apply Occam's Razor, bludog

 

Occam's Razor has been highly overrated.  It is a rough measure at best.  Often not applicable to real situations.  When faced with a dilemma, Occam's Razor should be considered.  But discarded if shown to be irrelevant.

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

×