Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, rrober49 said:

 

 why cant you use this electricity  that is right over us ?

 

 

... AND A TROLL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A moment of doubt and honesty …


https://www.wired.com/story/for-dark-matter-hunters-out-there-theories-are-catching-on/

 

Quote

 

DARK MATTER HUNTERS PIVOT AFTER YEARS OF FAILED SEARCHES


PHYSICISTS ARE REMARKABLY frank: they don’t know what dark matter is made of.


“We’re all scratching our heads,” says physicist Reina Maruyama of Yale University.


“The gut feeling is that 80 percent of it is one thing, and 20 percent of it is something else,” says physicist Gray Rybka of the University of Washington. Why does he think this? It’s not because of science. “It’s a folk wisdom,” he says.


… snip …


We’re at a point where our best theories seem to be breaking,” says astrophysicist Jamie Farnes of Oxford University. “We clearly need some kind of new idea. There’s something key we’re missing about how the universe is working.”

 


LOL!   Now, if they’d only LISTEN …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 2:19 AM, rrober49 said:
On 12/17/2018 at 9:51 PM, BeAChooser said:

These currents carry up to 1 TW of electric power to the upper atmosphere – about 30 times the energy consumed in New York during a heatwave.

 

 why cant you use this electricity  that is right over us ?

 

Share this post


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

why cant you use this electricity  that is right over us ?

 

I'm unclear as to the purpose of your question, TROLL?

 

Are you trying to suggest there aren't currents carrying up to a TW in the upper atmosphere?

 

You don't believe an article from the  European Space Agency?

Share this post


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

I'm unclear as to the purpose of your question, TROLL?

 

Are you trying to suggest there aren't currents carrying up to a TW in the upper atmosphere?

 

You don't believe an article from the  European Space Agency?

I know its up there and I know you cant figure out a way to get it 

 

Share this post


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

I know its up there and I know you cant figure out a way to get it 

 

And this has what to do with proving the existence of dark matter?  

 

You *know* it's all around you ... right? ...  but you and the mainstream's best scientists can't even figure out a way to identify what it is ... just saying.

 

By the way, TROLL, you should do a little more reading ...

 

 

 

 

 

https://ionpowergroup.com/how-it-works-on-earth/

 

https://ionpowergroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NASA-iTech-Selects-Top-25-Semifinalists-in-Energy-Competition-_-NASA-1.pdf

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130093261A1/en

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5440613/Incredible-device-generates-electricity-air.html

 

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/13-year-old-creates-free-energy-and-it-works

 

 

Share this post


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

I know both reasons why your electricity can not be connected to the whole universe as you suggest

 

And they are?

Share this post


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

And they are?

you have yet to generate a strong enough electric current to connect galaxies 

 

you have yet shown how plasma could carry the current week electricity we have recorded that far

 

 I dont have many issues with the EU after that , connected with plasma sure, Z pinch ok sure yet to be proven but looks good

 

 all connected by one strand of electricity ? highly unlikely . even if so I dont think you will ever escape their view on gravity as the primary force for energy

 

 you and I could not agree more, then anyone else on this thread

 

wouldn't matter if the sun was electric you still need the unrecorded magnetic force for the electricity to over come the plasma

 

 I am on the way out of the electric universe not coming in

 

 I did not learn about Z pinches to argue with you i learned about them for myself to answer my own questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electricity is a flow of electrons. Electrons can flow across a vacuum. The problem with doing this over a long range is that you need a force to get the electrons to travel across the vacuum

Share this post


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

you have yet to generate a strong enough electric current to connect galaxies 

 

you have yet shown how plasma could carry the current week electricity we have recorded that far

 

 I dont have many issues with the EU after that , connected with plasma sure, Z pinch ok sure yet to be proven but looks good

 

 all connected by one strand of electricity ? highly unlikely . even if so I dont think you will ever escape their view on gravity as the primary force for energy

 

 you and I could not agree more, then anyone else on this thread

 

wouldn't matter if the sun was electric you still need the unrecorded magnetic force for the electricity to over come the plasma

 

 I am on the way out of the electric universe not coming in

 

 I did not learn about Z pinches to argue with you i learned about them for myself to answer my own questions

 

The above post only proves how little you know and with, obviously, no desire to learn more.  

 

Most of what you said above is either wrong or shows you misinterpreting what plasma cosmologists have proposed ...

 

... and even what I've posted in this thread about the topic (which you obviously have not read).   

 

As for you leaving the "electric universe", let me assure you that your exit will not be a loss.

 

Because for all your bluster, you still offered no explanation for all those helically would plasma filaments that mainstream telescopes show out there.

 

That's TELLING.

 

And you still can't point to ANY proof of the existence of the gnomes mainstream cosmology is built on.

 

Meanwhile, as I showed above, some of the best physicists in the mainstream are now scratching their collective heads and saying ...

 

"There’s something key we’re missing about how the universe is working.”

 

Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming up on the end of the year so it’s time for a new dark matter gnome …


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/pulsars-could-convert-dark-matter-into-something-we-could-see/

 

Quote

Pulsars could convert dark matter into something we could see

 

Actually, this is a gnome built on a gnome built on a gnome built on a gnome!   That’s sort of logic is called desperation.


You see, there’s something funny about pulsars.   They might not be what the mainstream assumes.    Now all of this I’ve discussed before … to the sound of crickets from mainstream believers like rrober49.   But let’s talk about the puzzling observations related to pulsars again ... just for old times sake.  

 

Do you know that with so many stars in the core of our galaxy, astronomers (like astrophysicist Joseph Bramante of Notre Dame University) estimated there should be hundreds of pulsars. But when they looked they only found a single pulsar at the galactic center. They were expecting to find FIFTY in that area.  Imagine their surprise.   Their explanation for this ( https://journals.aps.org/prl/accepted/0a07dY0eFac1d54f11d319f9cbd2e87f5339f1eb3 ) was eventually … of course … to blame it on dark matter.  (That dark matter sure is useful. It can fix almost ANY Big Bang problem. :rolleyes:


Of course to make their explanation work, they had to posit a new kind of dark matter … asymmetric dark matter.  So one gnome suddenly became THREE.  And of course none of the gnomes has ever been actually observed to confirm it's what they claim.
 

The sad thing is there's an alternative.   Back in 1995, two physicists (Healy and Peratt) came up with an explanation for pulsars that didn’t involve any magical objects.   Here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap%26SS.227..229H . They concluded, “Our results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission.   In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar.  A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice.  Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes to explain compact sources of radiation."  Now you'd think that a discovery like that would merit some attention.  But no, the Big Bang community simply IGNORED the paper.  COMPLETELY. 
 

And what about those pulsar jets? 
 

Here is an image of the Vela Pulsar:
 

vela_pulsar_jet.jpg


Mainstream scientists (believers in magic gnomes) claim the jets result from magnetic reconnection physics (that’s yet another magic gnome, if you haven’t already guessed).  Plasma cosmologists say the jet is produced by the same phenomena created in what's called a focus fusion device here on earth.  In a focus fusion device a plasmoid forms and stores energy. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away.   The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies. Here is a diagram of such a device with the plasma discharge on the right:
 

lasma_focus.gif
 

They've actually built such devices in the lab.   Now not only do the "bow-like" arcs observed in the Vela Pulsar have the same shape as the discharge from this device but the plasma filaments that form in a focus fusion device look a lot like the circuit diagram envisioned by Hannes Alfven to explain what is going on in and around stars and galaxies.   

 

Plasma cosmologists note ( http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920pulsar.htm ) that "astronomers expected that the 'rotation' (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate.  But then they observed a significant 'glitch' in the pulse rate, an event that 'released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar wind.'  Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved.   Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded 'bows' seen along the polar jet ... snip ... . Astronomers initially called these 'windbow shocks', a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures ... snip ... made clear that the 'bows' were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms."
 

And this is not the only pulsar example where plasma cosmologists seem to have a better explanation of the observations than Big Bang proponents (i.e., no gnomes required).    Consider the Crab Nebula pulsar.  Here’s a photo of that object:
 

sol01_07.jpg
 

The shape is consistent with a homopolar motor ... the electrical circuit concept that plasma cosmologists (like Alfven) use to explain stars and galaxies.   And the concept as envisioned by Alfven included double layers along the axis of rotation of the object with the known property of producing jets.  And some plasma theorists also speculate that a plasmoid forms at the center of such an object.  The bottom line is that known physics can produce what is seen.   Neutron stars aren't needed.   
 

Furthermore, there are problems with the neutron star model, just as there are problems with the black hole model.  Did you know they’ve had to introduce "quark stars"  (another gnome) to explain some of the neutron star observations?  It seems that every time one turns around, Big Bang supporting astronomers and astrophysicists are adding yet another deduced, untestable, magic gnome to their celestial zoo to explain observations that might otherwise be explained with normal objects and normal physics ... if they spent a fraction as much money and time investigating them as they have these gnomes.    Just saying that's not good science.  That's religion.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Most of what you said above is either wrong or shows you misinterpreting what plasma cosmologists have proposed ...

  seriously ? proposed ? show it or wait in line

 

 you do not have one unified theory across all 20 pages. Never ending stream of they are wrong

 

 another way you can tell these Folks do not know much about electricity, is by all the satellites not  getting their electrical system fried 

 

 I have crap to build I cant build with gnomes or electricity that everywhere but not in my hand

 

you do understand the difference between beliefs and theory's right ?and why a theory is something not  proven ?

 

 Troll? lol  monkey knows how to treat theory

 

 

 

 

 

 Related image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

seriously ? proposed ? show it or wait in line

 

 you do not have one unified theory across all 20 pages. Never ending stream of they are wrong

 

 another way you can tell these Folks do not know much about electricity, is by all the satellites not  getting their electrical system fried 

 

 I have crap to build I cant build with gnomes or electricity that everywhere but not in my hand

 

you do understand the difference between beliefs and theory's right ?and why a theory is something not  proven ?

 

 Troll? lol  monkey knows how to treat theory

 

Gee ... this is twice now you've claimed you were done with this thread.    

 

And yet here you are again.   Can't help yourself, can you, TROLL?  

 

And no, I'm not going to feed your TROLLish behavior.   If this ^^^^ is going to be the quality of your posts, it's a waste of MY time.    

 

Not when you clearly refuse to read the thread before posting your garbage.   

 

Like I said, you show no interest in learning anything beyond what you *think* you know ... in what you've been fed by the headlines in the mainstream media.

 

So I just don't feel like having to repost what I've posted over the years yet again to feed you, TROLL.  


Not when you've repeatedly refused to address the content of the posts I've made with anything but throw away lines.

 

Not when you've repeatedly refused to answer a question you're *supposedly*  "unified theory" should be able to answer.

 

You know, the one about how the physics (gnomes) you believe in make all the helically wound plasma filaments that we see out there in space with your telescopes?

 

So you can either begin a real discussion by trying to answer THAT question or you can go on posting nonsense like your last half dozen posts.

 

I'm fine with either.

 

Because if you keep making posts like the one above, you will be the one who proves you don't know ANYTHING about electricity.

 

Even your statement that satellites should be fried (if there are currents in space) shows how little you know.

 

Because, after all, concern about that is a big issue ... and you'd know this if you'd paid ANY attention to the news.

 

For example  ...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-storm-effects-electronics-energy-grid-2016-3

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141006133422.htm

 

Now I don't mind if you resort to desperation to try and debunk what all that this thread contains regarding the inadequacies of the mainstream *theory*.

 

Or you can even tell us a third time that you're leaving this thread and the electric universe.

 

After all, you're a gravity only guy ... right?

 

:lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyways now that its just us eu'rs  here is my best example of the  Electric universe that you have continued to ignore

 

Sadly you have old electric universe Ideas, Kinda why I call you a flat lander. 

 

Thunderbolts fails to rule out its own failed theories > they exclude a lot of science in the electric universe while they dictate theirs

 

 the vast majority of science on the subject was never generated to prove thunderdolts ideas right 

 

 here is my  supporting concept  of formations of not just cosmic Galaxies gas clusters  and everything in between but to the micro formation as well

 

and you think I cant read after I agreed with you you kept calling a gnome lover

 

 You do fine trolling yourself

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear …


https://www.sciencenews.org/article/electron-shape-round-standard-model-physics

 

Quote

 

What the electron’s near-perfect roundness means for new physics


Electrons are still almost perfectly round, a new measurement shows. A more squished shape could hint at the presence of never-before-seen subatomic particles, so the result stymies the search for new physics.


The electron gets its shape from the way that positive and negative charges are distributed inside the particle. The best theory for how particles behave, called the standard model of particle physics, holds that the electron should keep its rotund figure almost perfectly.


But some theories suggest that an entourage of hypothetical subatomic particles outside the electron could create a slight separation between the positive and negative charges, giving the electron a pear shape. That charge separation is called an electric dipole moment, or EDM. Searching for an electron EDM can reveal if particles that don’t exist in the standard model are hanging around the electron undetected.


Now, the Advanced Cold Molecule Electron Electric Dipole Moment, or ACME, search, based at Harvard University, has probed the electron’s EDM with the most precision ever — and still found no sign of smooshing, the team reports online October 17 in Nature.


The finding improves the team’s last best measurement (SN Online: 12/19/13) by a factor of 10 to find an EDM of 10-29 electron charge centimeters. That’s as round as if the electron were a sphere the size of the Earth, and you shaved less than two nanometers off the North Pole and pasted it onto the South Pole, says Yale University physicist David DeMille, a member of the ACME team.


That result could make it harder for the Large Hadron Collider, located at the laboratory CERN near Geneva, to find signs of new physics beyond the standard model. The LHC slams particles such as protons together at high speeds to create new particles and probe their properties. Physicists want to find signs of particles that aren’t in the standard model because that theory can’t explain some crucial features of the universe, like why there is more matter than antimatter. But so far, the LHC has come up empty (SN: 10/1/16, p. 12).


The new measurement suggests that any extra particles that exist may be permanently beyond the LHC’s reach.

 


You mean LHC was a bust?


Or does this mean the big bang, etc crowd are about to come begging for more money.   


A whole bunch more money (remember, the LHC has cost over $50 billion, so far).


What’s the next one going to cost?   $100 billion?   $200 billion?  $500 billion?


And to find what?

 

Dark matter?

 

LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that it ! they tossed all the data in the trash and wanna build a bigger one

 

I always felt them not being accelerate a partical faster then light hurt the Electric universe more then not Given there is no limit to speed in the electric universe

 

Hype aside I though they found a lot 

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/11/five-years-after-the-higgs-what-else-has-the-lhc-found/#4b35af5d552c

 

 

Not found: Supersymmetry. Extra dimensions. Direct creation of dark matter. These were the big theoretical hopes that many had for the LHC, and not only have direct detection efforts not panned out at the LHC, but many (or even most) of the models that were designed to solve some of the biggest problems (like the hierarchy problem) in physics have been ruled out. Nature still might have supersymmetric particles, extra dimensions, or particle-based dark matter, but the most promising versions of these extensions to theory have failed to show up at the LHC. They still might, of course, but there's not even indirect evidence suggesting that further data will reveal them at the LHC's energies.

 

 does not give me the idea they want or need dark mater to be anymore real then you do 

 

What has the Electric universe not found ? that rules out it's ideas to get a better version ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

revelation slammed me in the face the other day as i was munkin around with my electric guitar

 

 

 

 

 

 I myself like the dual magnetic effect over the single 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have holding part of the Electric universe theory  in my hands 

 

here is a closer look at the lead solo in leper messiah, This guys sweep is so clean

If i had plasma strings I could sweep pick that fast and well , too

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Electric Universe defines its strategic word plasma as:

"plasma... a gaseous substance consisting of free charged particles, such as electrons, protons and other ions... Plasmas are the most common PHASE of matter."

Clearly, plasma is not a standalone, physical object. Plasma is a CONCEPT. Specifically, it is a dynamic concept. The word plasma refers to a gas that has been ionizED (i.e., “charged particles”). That’s the ‘phase’ that the electricians are referring to. In the religion of the Electric Universe, ionization is the same phenomenon as in the religion of Quantum Mechanics. Ergo: the Electric Universe is nothing but a splinter group of Quantum Mechanics.

main-qimg-d57a24c4aa3b2822b28ae344d68a37cb

The religion of Quantum Mechanics explains that ionization is a PROCESS. Therefore, any way we look at it the word plasma means something happenED or is happenING to a gas. Plasma is a gas UNDERGOING the PROCESS of ionization. You cannot take a picture of plasma because whatever comes out (according to both the religions of the Electric Universe and of Quantum Mechanics) will be gas molecules with tiny electron beads and charged protons floating between them. This is not plasma. This is a gas-atom-proton-and-electron soup. In order for it to be plasma we have to watch a MOVIE. We have to see recombination of an electron bead with a starving atom and an opulent atom releasing an electron bead. Plasma is a ‘jumping kangaroo’. Plasma is a ‘running boy’. Plasma is a gas that is DOING something called ionization. You cannot move what is already conceptually in motion. You can fly the flying fly on an airplane, but does this make it a flying flying-fly?

 

 

 thunderbolts is a cult

Share this post


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

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/11/five-years-after-the-higgs-what-else-has-the-lhc-found/#4b35af5d552c

 

 

Not found: Supersymmetry. Extra dimensions. Direct creation of dark matter. These were the big theoretical hopes that many had for the LHC, and not only have direct detection efforts not panned out at the LHC, but many (or even most) of the models that were designed to solve some of the biggest problems (like the hierarchy problem) in physics have been ruled out. Nature still might have supersymmetric particles, extra dimensions, or particle-based dark matter, but the most promising versions of these extensions to theory have failed to show up at the LHC. They still might, of course, but there's not even indirect evidence suggesting that further data will reveal them at the LHC's energies.

 

In its ten years of operation, the LHC made ONE major discovery … the Higgs boson, predicted by the Standard Model.   Everything else it was supposed to find has turned out to be a bust.  They thought they’d find particles that would comprise dark matter, more siblings or cousins of the Higgs boson, signs of extra dimensions, leptoquarks, supersymmetry particles, and on and on.    But they found NOTHING to support ANY of those gnomes.   NOT A DAMN THING.   Proving, if nothing else, that “math” is NOT king.  

 

Now the LHC’s immense cost might not be wasted if mainstream physicists would only learn something from this failure.   But they won’t.   They’ll go on dreaming up more mathematical gnomes, ask for more billions to build even *bigger/better* colliders and experiments, and end up wasting more money (and opportunity).  All while ignoring the elephant in the room.     In fact, here’s what planned ( https://www.sciencealert.com/work-is-already-beginning-on-the-large-hadron-collider-s-replacement ) ... a collider (called the XLHC) that’s will be about 100 km in circumference (compared to the LHC’s 27):

 

lhc-new-site.jpg

 

They say it might be 20 years before it comes on line (or more likely more if the HLC, which took 30 years to complete, is any guide).    

 

All that time and money dreaming of gnomes they will find.  

 

All that time spent publishing papers on those gnomes.  

 

Just like they did with the LHC … thousands and thousands of gnome filled papers …

 

... all of which you could burn without impacting a single human life here on earth.


Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...