Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

davidbilby

Newbie
Oct 10, 2012
688
11
✟15,912.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's actually amazing to me when you look back at history and see how many ideas are attributed to the brilliance of Einstein's GR theory, and Alfven's MHD theory, yet the mainstream pretty much ignored them both in terms of infinite density "black holes", and electric universe concepts.

Again - in the many ways that Einstein was right, he was wrong about black holes (or Schwarzchild singularities) as well as the uncertainty principle, large portions of quantum mechanics (such as entanglement)...etc. etc. etc.

There are numerous solutions to the field equations that lead to singularities that are absolutely no problem with GR - Kerr, Kerr-Newman, just for starters...

For my own reference, do you happen to have a link to something by Einstein that addresses his concerns about electromagnetic interactions?

I know you asked him, but to answer from my perspective, I'm not aware he had concerns about "electromagnetic interactions", and his paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies is SR, not GR, as this guy seems to think...

Also as to the prior post, "justatruthseeker" seems to imply that gravity is electromagnetic, which it isn't.....and he implies that the atom is held together by electromagnetism, which is only partly true (the strong force feels left out!!). His knowledge seems pretty lacking....

The mainstream even treats million mile per hour solar wind as "neutral", when it fact those high speed charged particles slam into the magnetic fields of the Earth where they are separated into 'current' in various circuits according to Alfven.

The solar wind - as observed from space and not the Earth's magnetosphere - doesn't contain pretty much the same amount of positively and negatively charged particles? I'm unaware of an experiment suggesting anything other than that, but it's not my field and not something I'm immensely interested in.

I'm not sure quite why your positively charged electric sun - thus supposedly an anode - wouldn't just attract all the negatively charged particles to it from the solar wind, and thus the solar wind would hardly be expected to contain electrically negative components.....as it clearly does?

But as I say, I'm not hugely interested. Doesn't seem to make much sense though...

It's really annoying that the mainstream also continues to 'dumb down' magnetic fields in space to "magnetism", when it fact the events being discussed are typically examples of *electromagnetism* that include *huge* amounts of current, particularly as it relates to solar physics.

Yeah. I'm tuned out at this point. I'm not aware of many of one's colleagues being as stupid as you seem to claim them to be, and not aware of anybody who thinks magnetism is a separate subject to electromagnetism, but whatever.

Sooner or later I'm sure they'll get around to figuring this electricity stuff out, but in the meantime it's rather annoying that the mainstream keeps trying to erroneously ride the coattails of Einstein and Alfven when these men both disagreed with the mainstream's claims in *key* and critical areas of astronomy and physics.

Einstein thought (erroneously) that the uncertainty principle was wrong. Are you going to say that's wrong too? Just because something was said by Einstein doesn't make it de facto true, although he's batting at a pretty high average, he did swing and miss at some pretty big topics.

I will deal with the other topic we were discussing but I'm trying to figure out how. Multipoles are not easily explained in layman terms, and it's probably going to have to be a notch above that, but I'll try and make it super clear. Bear with me.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Again - in the many ways that Einstein was right, he was wrong about black holes (or Schwarzchild singularities) as well as the uncertainty principle, large portions of quantum mechanics (such as entanglement)...etc. etc. etc.

There are numerous solutions to the field equations that lead to singularities that are absolutely no problem with GR - Kerr, Kerr-Newman, just for starters...



I know you asked him, but to answer from my perspective, I'm not aware he had concerns about "electromagnetic interactions", and his paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies is SR, not GR, as this guy seems to think...

Also as to the prior post, "justatruthseeker" seems to imply that gravity is electromagnetic, which it isn't.....and he implies that the atom is held together by electromagnetism, which is only partly true (the strong force feels left out!!). His knowledge seems pretty lacking....



The solar wind - as observed from space and not the Earth's magnetosphere - doesn't contain pretty much the same amount of positively and negatively charged particles? I'm unaware of an experiment suggesting anything other than that, but it's not my field and not something I'm immensely interested in.

I'm not sure quite why your positively charged electric sun - thus supposedly an anode - wouldn't just attract all the negatively charged particles to it from the solar wind, and thus the solar wind would hardly be expected to contain electrically negative components.....as it clearly does?

But as I say, I'm not hugely interested. Doesn't seem to make much sense though...



Yeah. I'm tuned out at this point. I'm not aware of many of one's colleagues being as stupid as you seem to claim them to be, and not aware of anybody who thinks magnetism is a separate subject to electromagnetism, but whatever.



Einstein thought (erroneously) that the uncertainty principle was wrong. Are you going to say that's wrong too? Just because something was said by Einstein doesn't make it de facto true, although he's batting at a pretty high average, he did swing and miss at some pretty big topics.

I will deal with the other topic we were discussing but I'm trying to figure out how. Multipoles are not easily explained in layman terms, and it's probably going to have to be a notch above that, but I'll try and make it super clear. Bear with me.

Michio Kaku has some common sense explanations available on you tube etc., as to where Einstein was wrong in some areas.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Again - in the many ways that Einstein was right, he was wrong about black holes (or Schwarzchild singularities) as well as the uncertainty principle, large portions of quantum mechanics (such as entanglement)...etc. etc. etc.

There are numerous solutions to the field equations that lead to singularities that are absolutely no problem with GR - Kerr, Kerr-Newman, just for starters...



I know you asked him, but to answer from my perspective, I'm not aware he had concerns about "electromagnetic interactions", and his paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies is SR, not GR, as this guy seems to think...
General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime."

Being a "generalization" of Special Relativity it must in no way violate SR. This is why E said Black Holes were not real.

Also as to the prior post, "justatruthseeker" seems to imply that gravity is electromagnetic, which it isn't.....and he implies that the atom is held together by electromagnetism, which is only partly true (the strong force feels left out!!). His knowledge seems pretty lacking....
I would say yours is if you still think the Strong Force is a Fundamental Force. It was once believed that protons and nuetrons were fundamental particles and a force was needed to explain how positive protons could stay together and not fly apart, so the strong force was postulated as this force. It was discovered in later years that they were not fundamental particles, but were composed of quarks controlled by the Color Charge force. The strong force was then considered a sub-field of the Color Charge field.

Strong interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons."
As we delve deeper we find this:

Gluon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
( /ˈɡluːɒnz/; from English glue) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Since quarks make up the baryons and the mesons, and the strong interaction takes place between baryons and mesons, one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force that extends beyond the baryons, for example when protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus."
So " one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction," and to be considered a fundamental force " In particle physics,
fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions."
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its was first wrongly asserted that the protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and governed by the strong force, then when Color Charge was found, the strong force became a sub-field of this force. In effect the strong force can know be described in terms of the Color Charge, so it no longer can claim fundamental force status. Yet they to this day call it a fundamental force, when in reality it is the color charge of the fundamental particles that governs the atom.

Now you are free to continue to believe the strong force is a fundamental force although it is now known it is caused by another force.

As for Color charge we read:
Since gluons carry colour charge, two gluons can also interact. A typical interaction vertex (called the three gluon vertex) for gluons involves g+g→g. This is shown here, along with its colour line representation. The colour-line diagrams can be restated in terms of conservation laws of colour; however, as noted before, this is not a gauge invariant language. Note that in a typical non-Abelian gauge theory the gauge boson carries the charge of the theory, and hence has interactions of this kind; for example, the W boson in the electroweak theory. In the electroweak theory, the W also carries electric charge, and hence interacts with a photon.
In particle physics, colour charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Colour charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences. The "colour" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of colour. Rather, it is a name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. The term colour was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colours of red, green, and blue. By comparison, the electromagnetic charge has a single aspect, which takes the values positive or negative.
Question, quarks have 3 aspects of charge disguised as color. It is then claimed EM has only one. So which is it, is space positive or negative? It can be no other. Or maybe there is a third state after all, a balance of forces called as is the term, neutral. So charge can exist in any of the three configurations and we begin to see why the term color was added to misdirect.

So if indeed charge can be only two configurations of one force is the space around us overall negative or overall positive since it can be only one of those two?

The solar wind - as observed from space and not the Earth's magnetosphere - doesn't contain pretty much the same amount of positively and negatively charged particles? I'm unaware of an experiment suggesting anything other than that, but it's not my field and not something I'm immensely interested in.

I'm not sure quite why your positively charged electric sun - thus supposedly an anode - wouldn't just attract all the negatively charged particles to it from the solar wind, and thus the solar wind would hardly be expected to contain electrically negative components.....as it clearly does?

But as I say, I'm not hugely interested. Doesn't seem to make much sense though...
http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Accel.pdf
Electric fields accelerate both positive and negative particles. Current requires the interaction of negative particles with positive particles. Current is neither negative nor positive.
http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An electric current is a flow of electric charge. Electric charge flows when there is voltage present across a conductor.
In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma... Electric currents cause many effects, notably heating, but also induce magnetic fields, which are widely used for motors, inductors and generators.
A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention for the direction of current which is independent of the type of charge carriers is needed. The direction of conventional current is defined arbitrarily to be the direction of the flow of positive charges.
In metals, which make up the wires and other conductors in most electrical circuits, the positive charges are immobile, and the charge carriers are electrons. Because the electron carries negative charge, the electron motion in a metal conductor is in the direction opposite to that of conventional (or electric) current.
Reference direction

When analyzing electrical circuits, the actual direction of current through a specific circuit element is usually unknown. Consequently, each circuit element is assigned a current variable with an arbitrarily chosen reference direction. This is usually indicated on the circuit diagram with an arrow next to the current variable. When the circuit is solved, the circuit element currents may have positive or negative values. A negative value means that the actual direction of current through that circuit element is opposite that of the chosen reference direction. In electronic circuits, the reference current directions are often chosen so that all currents are toward ground. This often matches conventional current direction, because in many circuits the power supply voltage is positive with respect to ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier
In a plasma, an electrically charged gas which is found in electric arcs through air, neon signs, and the sun and stars, the electrons and cations of ionized gas act as charge carriers.
Or E was right about SR and right about GR since he didn't think GR satisfied Mach's principle, and he was right about Black Holes. Those that follow BH theory claim it is Schwarzschild's formula when it isn't. They use his name to attach respectability to it. It is a corrupted version by David Hilbert which arbitrarily adds mass without first describing it with an energy momentum tensor, which just happens to be set at 0. In Schwarzschild's formula the singularity is the only mass in existence in a universe devoid of all other matter. This is what led to acceptance of the possibility of the Big Bang, that it could be mathematically possible for one to have started it all. But to date no one has ever solved E's equation for two or more such masses to exist together. Nor can one just arbitrarily throw in mass without first describing it with an energy momentum tensor as is done with Newton's Laws.

So in order to get BH's they must disregard relativity and insert mass arbitrarily without describing it first by an energy momentum tensor, which in all formulas is set to 0, proclaiming there is no other mass but that of the BH. They did this because they could not explain the huge eruptions of energy coming from the center of galaxies, because they discard the electromagnetic force, and only used magnetism, fluid flow and attraction. The electro of the electrodynamics of moving bodies was discarded as a possible cause.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
This is because man was too smart for his own good. We once studied gas discharges in plasma, our TV's and radios ran by these devices, the Geiger counter the only device that still requires it. But then we invented solid state circuitry, and this field of study became a novelty ball ornament. It was lost in all branches of science except for plasma physics and the search for contained nuclear fusion. Cosmologists did not know they needed to know about this field of study, because at this time it was believed plasma made up less than 1% of the universe. So theories were developed that in time were found to ignore 99.99% of the universe, plasma. So instead of re-examining their basic concepts, they violated relativity and added mass arbitrarily and the BH was formed. But sadly, even the tremendous power of the largest theorized source of gravity was not enough, more was needed to explain what they saw by excluding 99.99% of the universe. So Dark Matter sprang into existence, placed in just the right places, not everywhere, just here and there where they couldn't explain what they saw by ignoring the electrodynamic interactions.

This is why Dark Matter and Dark Energy make up 96% of the universe, because they exclude the electrodynamic interactions in plasma which makes up 99.99% of the universe. And then when red shift was discovered in the laboratory as occurring naturally in plasma, it was again ignored.

Even your own BH's are not behaving like they should:
Giant Black Hole's Dust Oddity Surprises Scientists | Space.com
It isn't dust, it's plasma, it isn't a Black Hole, it's a Z-Pinch. A laboratory reproduced event occurring naturally in plasma. Responsible for the radiation observed.
Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma.
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pinches are created in the laboratory in equipment related to nuclear fusion, such as the Z-pinch machine, and high-energy physics, such as the dense plasma focus. Pinches may also become unstable, and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rays and gamma rays, and also neutrons and synchrotron radiation.
Everything we observe from the center of galaxies, without requiring the violation of relativity. And as we now know, 99.99% of a galaxy is plasma, not dust. Occam's Razor.

By the way, what is gravity since you claim it is not electrodynamic? Mindful you must follow the science definition: Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. It is most commonly experienced as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. So what is this natural phenomenon, this agent that does this? Energy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
The question "what is energy?" is difficult to answer in a simple, intuitive way, although energy can be rigorously defined in theoretical physics. In the words of Richard Feynman, "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."
I would say that if you think you know what gravity or energy is you are fooling yourself.


Regardless of theory needed to explain a neutral neutron that isn't even neutral:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.... Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero because it is a composite particle containing three charged quarks.
Remember that EM force that can be only positive or negative? So, if one is negative and one is positive, then what is the third? Take your pick, either way it's an imbalance of charge and is therefore not neutral. So no mystical force need be invoked to explain how (so called) neutral particles interact with protons, just standard electrodynamic theory from Ampere, Weber, Gauss, Lorentz, Faraday, and Maxwell.

And I'll tell you myself what I believe, no one needs to do it for me. It is you that relies on GR even when E said he didn't think it was valid in the end. It is you that wants to believe GR is somehow able to violate the laws of Relativity when it is nothing but an attempt to generalize it (apply it to every observance). SR is the governing application; for that every observance must include the special case as well, from which the generalization is derived. It is you that is confused as to what GR in reality is, and from whence it was derived, and to which it must meet in all cases. It is you that believes in BH's when E said hogwash, that such would violate SR. Because BH's can only exist in E's field equations if it is the only matter in existence in a universe devoid of all other matter. A singular-ity!

If you want to know what I believe, don't ask others to give words to me. Michael does just fine on his own with his own words, but if you actually read what he and I said, you'll find they agree, but may differ when discussing fascinating theories like the center of the universe. After all, when discussing the Fairie dust of main stream, how can one ever remain consistent within that framework? But what can be expected of those that believe a particle with a permanent electric dipole moment and a magnetic moment is a neutral particle and treat it in their math as such, when facts show it isn't?

And just for fun, am still waiting on that distance calculation for telescopes that fits with the Inverse Square Law of Light that allows the Hubble Telescope to see 13 billion ly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

davidbilby

Newbie
Oct 10, 2012
688
11
✟15,912.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is because man was too smart for his own good. We once studied gas discharges in plasma, our TV's and radios ran by these devices, the Geiger counter the only device that still requires it. But then we invented solid state circuitry, and this field of study became a novelty ball ornament. It was lost in all branches of science except for plasma physics and the search for contained nuclear fusion.

So, say, plasma isn't used in studying and manufacturing semiconductors? Methinks you know nothing about what you speak.

Cosmologists did not know they needed to know about this field of study, because at this time it was believed plasma made up less than 1% of the universe.

Where the heck are you getting your numbers?

So theories were developed that in time were found to ignore 99.99% of the universe, plasma.

I'd love for you to show me the expected CMB power spectrum from a 99.99% plasma universe, or if you think the universe is static, explain the blackbody spectrum of the CMB in the first place.....

So instead of re-examining their basic concepts, they violated relativity and added mass arbitrarily and the BH was formed.

Yeah - um. Dark mass and energy do not violate relativity - SR or GR. Unless you'd care to post solutions to the field equations that you think demonstrate that, with clear working and reasoning for your choices of coordinates?

But sadly, even the tremendous power of the largest theorized source of gravity was not enough, more was needed to explain what they saw by excluding 99.99% of the universe. So Dark Matter sprang into existence, placed in just the right places, not everywhere, just here and there where they couldn't explain what they saw by ignoring the electrodynamic interactions.

Yeah. Um. No electrodynamic interactions have been ignored, because then you could point to the data and say - look, you ignored that! And it'd be kind of obvious.....

This is why Dark Matter and Dark Energy make up 96% of the universe, because they exclude the electrodynamic interactions in plasma which makes up 99.99% of the universe. And then when red shift was discovered in the laboratory as occurring naturally in plasma, it was again ignored.

Firstly, the one paper that seems to have got all the PC proponents knickers in a twist is actually about the AC Stark effect, spectral line broadening. A component of that could be thought of as redshift but then you'd have to ignore the blueshift also going on. The effect is wavelength dependent, so there's no way you can say "it's the cosmological redshift!". Even more problematically, the effect wasn't actually in a plasma at all, per se, but in carbon nanotubes where the free electrons can be interpreted quasi-plasma like; at best this can be said to be far from actual.

No other effect in plasma has been demonstrated that can't be shown to be dispersive (eg. Compton scattering) or induced by very fanciful conditions for outer space (perpetually aligned phonons, for example). So...once again, saying "redshift occurs naturally in plasma" is kind of a meaningless statement. There are processes that may have a wavelength dependent redshift that can be demonstrated in plasma, but nothing close to the cosmological redshift has even been demonstrated....

It isn't dust, it's plasma, it isn't a Black Hole, it's a Z-Pinch. A laboratory reproduced event occurring naturally in plasma. Responsible for the radiation observed.

That's just bizarre.

Everything we observe from the center of galaxies, without requiring the violation of relativity. And as we now know, 99.99% of a galaxy is plasma, not dust. Occam's Razor.

Your source on this very curious number?

By the way, what is gravity since you claim it is not electrodynamic?

It is the observation the matter in motion follows the geodesic space-time curvature caused by the action of the stress-energy-momentum tensor. It is not electrodynamic.

Mindful you must follow the science definition: Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. It is most commonly experienced as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped.

That's the playschool version, not the "science definition". If you think Einstein's theory of GR is correct please let me know how you think it shows gravity is electrodynamic (since GR is a theory of gravitation). If you don't think it's correct, then you clearly aren't into empirical physics, given GR is extremely well-tested.

So what is this natural phenomenon, this agent that does this? Energy?

No, the curvature of the space-time geodesic....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
I would say that if you think you know what gravity or energy is you are fooling yourself.

We have a pretty accurate idea of how it works, very well-tested empirically over quite a number of decades, and it's not electrodynamic.

Regardless of theory needed to explain a neutral neutron that isn't even neutral:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
Remember that EM force that can be only positive or negative? So, if one is negative and one is positive, then what is the third? Take your pick, either way it's an imbalance of charge and is therefore not neutral. So no mystical force need be invoked to explain how (so called) neutral particles interact with protons, just standard electrodynamic theory from Ampere, Weber, Gauss, Lorentz, Faraday, and Maxwell.

And I'll tell you myself what I believe, no one needs to do it for me. It is you that relies on GR even when E said he didn't think it was valid in the end. It is you that wants to believe GR is somehow able to violate the laws of Relativity when it is nothing but an attempt to generalize it (apply it to every observance). SR is the governing application; for that every observance must include the special case as well, from which the generalization is derived. It is you that is confused as to what GR in reality is, and from whence it was derived, and to which it must meet in all cases. It is you that believes in BH's when E said hogwash, that such would violate SR. Because BH's can only exist in E's field equations if it is the only matter in existence in a universe devoid of all other matter. A singular-ity!

If you want to know what I believe, don't ask others to give words to me. Michael does just fine on his own with his own words, but if you actually read what he and I said, you'll find they agree, but may differ when discussing fascinating theories like the center of the universe. After all, when discussing the Fairie dust of main stream, how can one ever remain consistent within that framework? But what can be expected of those that believe a particle with a permanent electric dipole moment and a magnetic moment is a neutral particle and treat it in their math as such, when facts show it isn't?

And just for fun, am still waiting on that distance calculation for telescopes that fits with the Inverse Square Law of Light that allows the Hubble Telescope to see 13 billion ly.

Theoretically any telescope can "see" to the edge of the observable universe. It is other factors that limit the resolution at which an image can be taken. Hubble is an extremely high resolution telescope, and it is not hindered by our atmosphere, so extremely long exposures can resolve extremely distant objects.

I am confused as to why you think the inverse square law as applied to light puts any obstacle in the way of photons travelling null geodesics.

The rest of this post is just bizarre. Science-like phrases strung together do not make science. Most of what you wrote makes no sense.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
So, say, plasma isn't used in studying and manufacturing semiconductors? Methinks you know nothing about what you speak.

Methinks you know not what you speak, tis but a recent advancement:
Solid-state (electronics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The expression became prevalent in the 1950s and the 1960s, during the transition from vacuum tube technology to semiconductor diodes and transistors. More recently, the integrated circuit (IC), the light-emitting diode (LED), and the liquid-crystal display (LCD) have evolved as further examples of solid-state devices.
Solid state circuitry first invented in about 1947. But gas discharge in tubes only began around 1884. Still in its infancy. And excuse me for not mentioning every modern scientific process that uses plasma, except for the one field that ignores it, the so-called cosmological sciences.
Vacuum tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Your source on this very curious number?
Here, let's use YOUR sources, how about that? Even though I notice oddly you never supply your own sources, but demand it of others, why is that?

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma.
NASA good enough for you? Here's some more. Where do you get your numbers?? As a matter of fact show me one that doesn't say 99% plasma. Might have to go all the way back to the early 1900's to find that one.
Space Weather Center
We're used to a world composed of solids, liquids and gases, but most of the visible universe – 99% of it – is made of plasma.
And here, all the peer review and textbook references you want at the bottom. What, you think we hide them like mainstream does because they ignore it and don't want people to see the truth?
99.999% plasma - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)
Here's my math, exactly what relativity is based upon. Although you really should start at the beginning since you admit you don't really understand electrical processes.
Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field
This is where you would be better off starting at though:
lectures

Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma.
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pinches are created in the laboratory in equipment related to nuclear fusion, such as the Z-pinch machine, and high-energy physics, such as the dense plasma focus. Pinches may also become unstable, and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rays and gamma rays, and also neutrons and synchrotron radiation.
You see, if all the plasma was just flowing negative charge, then there would only be one wire, not "many". This is why Plasma Physicists and Electrical Engineers use terms such as:
Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An electric current is a flow of electric charge. Electric charge flows when there is voltage present across a conductor.
Electric charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when close to other electrically charged matter. There are two types of electric charges, called positive and negative.
Indeed, it is what we call gravity, this physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when near another particle. Which as we know all matter is electrically charged, just more or less than its surroundings.

Voltage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Voltage, electrical potential difference, or an electric tension (denoted ∆V and measured in units of electric potential: volts, or joules per coulomb) is the electric potential difference between two points, or the difference in electric potential energy of a unit test charge transported between two points.
One could describe it in the analogy of a rubber sheet if one wanted such a crude approximation of 3D space. The facts are there, the data is there, just waiting on narrow-minded people claiming to be experts to stop playing with Fairie Dust. Hopefully they'll play with plasma instead, since it makes up 99.99% of the universe. Occam's Razor.
It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Instead, cosmologists are working to complicate the hypothesis by adding Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Neutron Stars, WIMP's, Gravitational Waves: None of which to date has ever been detected or studied in the laboratory. But..... we do know plasma makes up 99.99% of the universe, that it is an electrified medium composed of electrically charged matter, and this charged matter can both attract and repel one another, only depending on current flow and angles between multiple charges. Just as the angles between charges in the atom is crucial to understanding the makeup of chemistry.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Here is the true power of the EM force at work, where gravity only theory contradicts (once again) what we see in the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS0Vv3yS6U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia3_VsEAvk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTGbXN4qm_I

It is the Birkeland Currents that connect everything, the "stringy things" and "magnetic ropes" that THEMIS detected connecting Earth to Sun. Jupiter to Io, Saturn to Enceladus, to everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NenomdAZ11M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7w1rGeqXBg
Occam's Razor.

But put the View Master Back on so you can ignore what you see and instead see what you believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eojmYTbumZ8

Sure you don't want to discuss comets? You can't get theory right on simple stuff, and I should trust them on complex gigo?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOtCpsYle9oVLaDbYNM_GBkodI-T2I3riDMhcr4KVB-9I2GSZG4A
And no theoretical poo, you asked for math, I provided it. I'm asking for math, show me by the numbers that the Hubble telescope with its diameter and focal length can see anything at 13 billion light years. Anything at that distance would have to have been unbelievably bright, destroying your CMB theory and theory of galaxy formation. But observation already has.

Here's how your math is working out:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/15jun_nustar/


What, I thought you had it all figured out by the way you talk? You can't even program a video game and make it work, and they are all your numbers, so what's your excuse for failure after failure for decades? Must be something wrong with the entire theory since the numbers by the theory don't work at all.

You tell me why I shouldn't think the Inverse Square Law of Light affects EVERYTHING?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
The divergence of a vector field which is the resultant of radial inverse-square law fields with respect to one or more sources is everywhere proportional to the strength of the local sources, and hence zero outside sources. Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena.
Hmmm, was anything left out of that description of what it effects? I think that pretty well covers every phenomenon that is emitted.



So let me see if I got this right. Mass bends spacetime, and this bent spacetime tells mass how to move? But in order to explain the fact that Newton's Laws has gravity as instantaneous, spacetime is actually just frozen in place around an object of mass? Yet as the earth revolves around the Sun, this frozen in spacetime must be bent and then unbend as the Earth moves on in it's orbt. Then since red shift = distance and velocity, this frozen in spactime is now actuall expanding between galaxies, and so is not frozen in it at all, else galaxies would never know when the other moved.


So frozen in spacetime is in reality not frozen in as it is expanding? But it's frozen in around bodies of mass the lines of force connecting body to body update how when the mass moves? Are you sure this is your consistent explanation? Since the Sun rotates at a different velocity around the center than the Earth in its orbit, how does that frozen in field line connecting Earth to Sun remain the same field line when the differences in rotation would not allow the same line to remain connected to the centers?


This your explanation, frozen in field lines that cannot be frozen in?


No different than quasar's. No matter which direction one looks, quasar's are accelerating AWAY from the Earth, one is gazing backwards in time to observe them. Supposedly this is what allows you to trace them backwards to the Big Bang. But it is this directional movement that allows every single one to be accelerating away from the Earth leaves the Sun as the only possible center. Since tracing back the movement of all galaxies away from the Sun would point to the Sun as the center.

These are your explanations for spacetime and red shift??????


And people got the nerve to claim I don't make sense. I'd say your theories are nothing but fantasy and conflicting idea upon conflicting idea. Frozen in, but expanding, frozen in but requiring constant update to keep the same lines of force connecting centers, else it wouldn't be frozen in, all quasar's accelerating away from the Sun, yet pointing to a center 14 billion light years distant, even though at our 360 degree sphere of vision of 14 billion light years all are accelerating away from our center point. Yah right, I guess they are correct: a sucker is born every minute.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Yeah - um. Dark mass and energy do not violate relativity - SR or GR. Unless you'd care to post solutions to the field equations that you think demonstrate that, with clear working and reasoning for your choices of coordinates?

Imagine me claiming to you that invisible magical matter and magical forms of energy do not violate relativity - SR or GR, and I challenged you to falsify my claim? That's pretty much what you're asking for from a skeptics perspective.

FYI, in case may have missed this post in the previous thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-100/#post63317676
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Imagine me claiming to you that invisible magical matter and magical forms of energy do not violate relativity - SR or GR, and I challenged you to falsify my claim? That's pretty much what you're asking for from a skeptics perspective.

FYI, in case may have missed this post in the previous thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-100/#post63317676


I got gnomes in my garden that always turn invisible when I look for them too, that certainly doesn't violate SR or GR, Doubt it? Show me the gnomes aren't there within the confines of that theory. This is basically what they are asking us to do, prove invisible undetectable Fairie Dust isn't real.

So ok, I will, How many null results did it take to disprove an ether? 5? Shall we go count the null results in their search for Dark Matter? They are up to what 10 or so null results? Am being generous in the numbers, I expect it is twice that many experiments in reality. Just children trying to play word games because they don't have one scientific fact to back it up.

So like when it comes time to submit their justification to continue funding for the search for gravitational waves, they issue press releases and tell a gullible public how fantastic it is that they have found absolutely nothing, that a non-detection of a signal actually tells you something about the object. And indeed it might, had they ever detected a single gravitational wave in what, 12 years now? The only thing a non-detection tells one when none have ever been detected is that the theory is flawed. These object were the prime candidates for finding them, and zip. Not even "background" noise to search through. But they can now tell us how smooth a neutron star is because of this non-detection, even though theory said they should have detected them from a neutron star. In reality it just disproves two theories, gravitational waves and neutron stars, since neither matched theory.

$365 million thrown down the tubes wasn't enough, from 2002 till 2010 not a single wave, well waved. Now more down the drain.
In February 2007, GRB 070201, a short gamma-ray burst, arrived at Earth from the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, a nearby galaxy. The prevailing explanation of most short gamma-ray bursts is the merger of a neutron star with either a neutron star or black hole. LIGO reported a non-detection for GRB 070201, ruling out a merger at the distance of Andromeda with high confidence. Such a constraint is predicated on LIGO eventually demonstrating a direct detection of gravitational waves.
So there goes gamma ray burst theory, Neutron Star theory and black hole theory, since a merger was ruled out with high confidence. And I guarantee every study of BH's, Gamma Ray Bursts, Neutron Stars, all of that Fairie Dust will rule out them all with high confidence with every new test.

But wait, LIGO did provide one useful result for that $365 million:
In August 2010 a radio pulsar was discovered through analysis of data from radio telescopes by the LIGO collaboration. The detection was made using the "Einstein@home" personal computer collaboration through LIGO and BOINC.
Ahh dang, no, not even one useful discovery, sorry:
Although significant, discovery of this radio pulsar was not a detection of gravitational waves nor did it involve the LIGO interferometers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

davidbilby

Newbie
Oct 10, 2012
688
11
✟15,912.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Imagine me claiming to you that invisible magical matter and magical forms of energy do not violate relativity - SR or GR, and I challenged you to falsify my claim? That's pretty much what you're asking for from a skeptics perspective.

Er - no. The only truth claim is from him - he said that dark matter and energy - call them whatever you will - actually do violate relativity. He didn't back this up with any reasoning, it was just a flat statement - they violate relativity. This is not true.

There is nothing in any dark matter or energy theory that violates relativity. Dark matter does not violate relativity for the simple reason that nobody says it does - there's no suggestion that it doesn't behave relativistically like all other matter!

It's like saying "dark matter violates Chicago's gun ban law" and asking me to show that dark matter doesn't own a gun in Chicago, and then complaining when I ask you to show that dark matter somehow owns a gun in Chicago. The whole objection is pointless - saying that dark matter violates SR and GR is silly. The theory doesn't even suggest that it does!

Now - if you want to say that the superluminal expansion of space-time violates SR, then that would be a common misconception, because people are taught "C" is sort of a cosmic speed limit without realising what velocity is and how interwoven it is with the concept of distance....

When we look at GR we realise that C is not violated even if space-time expands superluminally - because you need to realise the distinction between comoving distances and proper distances. Even in SR in non-inertial coordinate frames such as Rindler the notion of superluminal travel does not violate C.

FYI, in case may have missed this post in the previous thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-100/#post63317676

May have done - I'll look.
 
Upvote 0

davidbilby

Newbie
Oct 10, 2012
688
11
✟15,912.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I got gnomes in my garden that always turn invisible when I look for them too, that certainly doesn't violate SR or GR, Doubt it?

I'm sure they don't violate SR or GR. You don't claim that they do! Thus it would be wrong of me to claim that you do claim that.

So, my objecting to your gnomes by saying they violate SR or GR would be silly. However, the burden of proof to show that the gnomes exist would still be on you. You might, for example, since the gnomes are invisible - look for secondary evidence of their existence. Footprints they leave, for example.

Assuming you could rule out any other animal having a footprint such as a gnomes, and then assuming you could rule out any tampering with the evidence - then you might have convincing evidence of the existence of invisible gnomes without being able to see them. Because invisible simply means our eyes cannot see them, but our eyes cannot see everything! Nor does everything that exists in the universe necessarily exist right here on Earth. Michael keeps asking when we might see dark energy in a lab without noticing that labs are made of bricks and mortar - matter.......and not realising the obvious implication of that requirement (for our very survival, or for the existence of test equipment!).

Thus - ever so crude the analogy you use, but eh - we are able to infer the existence of things we cannot directly observe and most of the physics of the 20th century and beyond was about that.

We cannot directly observe the curvature of space-time, but we can observe the attraction matter has to other matter, for example, and calculate a model that very clearly shows that the curvature of space-time is the likely culprit.

We cannot directly observe the Higgs scalar field but the mathematics of it fits exceptionally well with our observations of mass, such that we can now say with quite some confidence that the Higgs field endows W and Z bosons with mass. We've not actually ever directly seen it, but we know it is there. Thus, things that are out of the small band of the electromagnetic spectrum we see with our eyes, out of the auditory spectrum, out of the range of things we can directly feel - their existence can be inferred.


Show me the gnomes aren't there within the confines of that theory. This is basically what they are asking us to do, prove invisible undetectable Fairie Dust isn't real.

No - we're asking you for a plausible alternative explanation to the actual observations (a wavelength and specially independent cosmological redshift that is Doppler-like), something that Michael, and now you have repeatedly failed to do. The metric expansion of space-time itself - irrespective of how much you like the concept or not - would produce the observed results. Dark matter WOULD solve the problems of galaxy rotation curves. Those who want to suggest alternatives that actually add up (eg. some variants of MOND) get to do so and are carefully listened to.

Those who merely go "waaaaah I don't like that idea" are ignored. It's called a meritocracy.

So ok, I will, How many null results did it take to disprove an ether? 5?

Michelson-Morley - like experiments continue to be done to this day. The preponderance of evidence is what matters. If you want to be technically accurate - aether was not disproved, just shown to be HIGHLY unlikely. Quantum gravity theorists are still testing the idea to see if there are lorentz violations at the smallest scales, but the range is down to a pretty tiny number.

Shall we go count the null results in their search for Dark Matter? They are up to what 10 or so null results?

The nature of our location in the galaxy precludes there being a great deal of dark matter in our vicinity, thus our likelihood of directly detecting such a particle is very small. This is not where the evidence of dark matter comes from mind you, nor does any theory say that we should be able to find large quantities of it in the immediate vicinity of Earth......

Am being generous in the numbers, I expect it is twice that many experiments in reality. Just children trying to play word games because they don't have one scientific fact to back it up.

Your condescension and remarkable inability to construct coherent sentences with a subject and a verb is noticed.

So like when it comes time to submit their justification to continue funding for the search for gravitational waves, they issue press releases and tell a gullible public how fantastic it is that they have found absolutely nothing

For those theorists that favored theories that predict gravitational waves - chaotic models generally - yeah, that result didn't help. For those that favored models that actually predict no gravitational waves should have been observed, it is a fantastic thing that we found no gravitational waves. Finding a null result is equally informative as a positive result, it just depends on your point of view - as you so beautifully demonstrated by citing Michelson Morley. Null does not mean failure, especially to variants of theories that predict null results to an experiment....

that a non-detection of a signal actually tells you something about the object.

It tells you that particular signal is not being emitted by that object, which is information, yes....the fact that we see light being lensed by matter which is not emitting electromagnetic radiation tells us something about that matter, for example.

And indeed it might, had they ever detected a single gravitational wave in what, 12 years now? The only thing a non-detection tells one when none have ever been detected is that the theory is flawed.

Yes - chaotic inflationary theories seemed to be flawed. Slow roll inflation - which does not predict long wavelength gravitational waves - not so much, by the gravitational wave data anyhow!

These object were the prime candidates for finding them, and zip.

Only in chaotic inflationary theories (generally).

Not even "background" noise to search through.

Well, actually, the background noise was exactly where people were looking, that's kind of the point of the CMB.........
 
Upvote 0

davidbilby

Newbie
Oct 10, 2012
688
11
✟15,912.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No different than quasar's. No matter which direction one looks, quasar's are accelerating AWAY from the Earth, one is gazing backwards in time to observe them. Supposedly this is what allows you to trace them backwards to the Big Bang. But it is this directional movement that allows every single one to be accelerating away from the Earth leaves the Sun as the only possible center. Since tracing back the movement of all galaxies away from the Sun would point to the Sun as the center.

Quite why redshift observed from the Earth implies heliocentricity and not geocentricity in your misconception I'm not sure. But either way it's wrong.

This is one of the greatest public misconceptions about the concept of expanding space time. Once you can get over that, then you'd be half on your way to understanding what mainstream theory actually says. Any observer in an expanding space-time could quite rationally claim they were at the center point of the universe, and just a little rational thought about what expanding a four-dimensional space-time actually does for each observer shows that to be true.....in fact, obvious.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

davidbilby

Newbie
Oct 10, 2012
688
11
✟15,912.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And excuse me for not mentioning every modern scientific process that uses plasma, except for the one field that ignores it, the so-called cosmological sciences.
Vacuum tube - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah - um, what you claimed was:

"It was lost in all branches of science except for plasma physics and the search for contained nuclear fusion."

So, clearly, you were wrong, because you claimed "all" when actually you admit...that you missed some branches of science that use plasma a great deal. I guess accuracy is unimportant to you.

Here, let's use YOUR sources, how about that? Even though I notice oddly you never supply your own sources, but demand it of others, why is that?

Those who actually know something about physics - and have a degree in the subject - don't need to google everything to pretend to be conversant in a subject in which they are not. Hence why I can answer simple questions such as these without actually needing to cite other websites. The only reason you do that it seems is you cannot express the answers in your own words, so you have to use other peoples'....


I love how non-scientists think NASA is some sort of deity to the physics community....no, a NASA press release written by some overworked and underpaid science writer is not good enough. These things are written for the popular press and dumbed down to suit the audience that will read them and who couldn't care less about arxiv.

Here's some more. Where do you get your numbers??

As regards this, the raw PLANCK data from the Caltech server. Good enough for you?

As a matter of fact show me one that doesn't say 99% plasma.

Only an exceptionally silly quoteminer would claim that mainstream theorists believe that the universe - the entire universe - is 99.9% plasma, and then at the same time claim that we also believe that 96% of the universe is dark matter/dark energy (and thus clearly not plasma). You can't even get it straight what we theorize!

99.99% of the visible universe is plasma. BIG difference when you add that crucial word in (a word that that science writer omitted, which is a shame, because it gave fodder to fools who don't understand the subject).

That is a percentage of the baryonic matter in the universe - which makes up about 4.82% of the total mass/energy of the universe according to the best fit we have of the TT power spectrum from the PLANCK data. (And yes, once I get a few minutes to really lay out an explanation (I kind of need to draw a couple of diagrams) I'll explain that, Michael.). Are there other models that fit the power spectrum? Not that I'm aware of to the same degree (the LCDM model fits the expansion to about 98.4% accuracy).

So any plasma website saying that "NASA says that 99.99% of the universe is plasma" and omitting the all crucial word "visible" would be willfully misrepresenting mainstream theory.

That is why relying on press releases written by science writers and not journal work is NOT scientific. Does that website from NASA say something technically incorrect? Yes. So what? Press releases are NOT science. NASA's website is also not the be all and end all of physics research.......


A website...ostensibly for children...is your idea of a source? I'm leaning towards troll again...you must be. Just must be.

And here, all the peer review and textbook references you want at the bottom.

Please cite a single "mainstream" arxiv paper that suggests that the universe - and not just the 4.82% baryonic matter, the entire universe - is 99.99% plasma - or admit that you missed out a key word - "visible" and that your entire point is ridiculous....

What, you think we hide them like mainstream does because they ignore it and don't want people to see the truth?

If you call the arxiv site, which is entirely open to the public, as "hiding the truth"....then I think most people would say we're doing a pretty lousy job of hiding it...


Actually, if you read carefully - it's pretty clear on that page about "visible". It's glossed over a little, like that word is unimportant....

The problem is that all the other evidence currently suggests that 99.999% is only 4.82% of the whole picture. If you want to propose an alternative you have to show how it matches with the TT power spectrum from PLANCK. Data available on the Caltech website...

Here's my math, exactly what relativity is based upon.

Hardly "your" math. I wouldn't flatter yourself. Relativity is hardly based on this...especially GR. Most people would point out that General Relativity is based on the idea that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and that c_rel is a constant...

Although you really should start at the beginning since you admit you don't really understand electrical processes.

Oh, yes - the degree in physics was a complete cinch to obtain without understanding anything about electrical processes...:confused::doh:

I'm curious as to where I made this "admission".

Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Neutron Stars, WIMP's, Gravitational Waves: None of which to date has ever been detected or studied in the laboratory.

I'd love to know at what date you think we're going to detect a neutron star....in a laboratory on Earth. I think health and safety might have something to say about that.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Er - no. The only truth claim is from him - he said that dark matter and energy - call them whatever you will - actually do violate relativity.

I'll give you that point. In science the onus of responsibility falls on the one making the claim.

Then again, you are claiming that these things/items *belong with/in* GR, and you have no evidence to support it. It's literally no better than me stuffing magic into GR. Since you cannot show that these things actually exist(ed), nor that they have any effect on objects with mass, you've never *qualified* your claims that these things even relate to GR.

Now - if you want to say that the superluminal expansion of space-time violates SR, then that would be a common misconception, because people are taught "C" is sort of a cosmic speed limit without realising what velocity is and how interwoven it is with the concept of distance....
It's pretty much a demonstrated fact at LHC (and other experiments) that C is the speed limit of matter.

When we look at GR we realise that C is not violated even if space-time expands superluminally - because you need to realise the distinction between comoving distances and proper distances. Even in SR in non-inertial coordinate frames such as Rindler the notion of superluminal travel does not violate C.
I'm not sure what exactly you're claiming. We might be able to shoot two objects *past* one another, both traveling at near C. From their point of view they might appear to experience a "superluminal" expansion process once they pass each other. Is that what you mean?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Assuming you could rule out any other animal having a footprint such as a gnomes, and then assuming you could rule out any tampering with the evidence - then you might have convincing evidence of the existence of invisible gnomes without being able to see them.

In this case your so called "gnomes" have no demonstrated effect on photons (no demonstrated footprints), whereas inelastic scattering and moving objects (small dogs and wolves) *do* have exactly such footprints and such effects on photons.

You're the one running around claiming that the tracks are too big to be a common canine track even though it looks exactly like a common canine track. You're claiming it's necessarily a gnome footprint instead of a common animal track, and you haven't even compared a lot of various canine tracks to be sure what the range of sizes of various canine prints might be. :(

The bottom line here is that you've shown no cause/effect evidence/justification of your claims on real photons in real labs. Furthermore you haven't conducted enough testing on inelastic scattering and moving objects to actually rule these things out. You just *assume* you can rule them out, based apparently on one published paper from 1929, from a guy peddling *his own* redshift theory who took pot shots at *a few* types of scattering, not all of them.

You really can't even cite a single exhaustive set of real life experimentation that rules out inelastic scattering and moving objects as the actual cause.

You apparently just *assume* that gnomes exist, dogs and wolves can't be responsible for those tracks based on a handwave that includes six lines of unpublished math, and therefore gnomes did it!
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Er - no. The only truth claim is from him - he said that dark matter and energy - call them whatever you will - actually do violate relativity. He didn't back this up with any reasoning, it was just a flat statement - they violate relativity. This is not true.

There is nothing in any dark matter or energy theory that violates relativity. Dark matter does not violate relativity for the simple reason that nobody says it does - there's no suggestion that it doesn't behave relativistically like all other matter!

It's like saying "dark matter violates Chicago's gun ban law" and asking me to show that dark matter doesn't own a gun in Chicago, and then complaining when I ask you to show that dark matter somehow owns a gun in Chicago. The whole objection is pointless - saying that dark matter violates SR and GR is silly. The theory doesn't even suggest that it does!

Now - if you want to say that the superluminal expansion of space-time violates SR, then that would be a common misconception, because people are taught "C" is sort of a cosmic speed limit without realising what velocity is and how interwoven it is with the concept of distance....

When we look at GR we realise that C is not violated even if space-time expands superluminally - because you need to realise the distinction between comoving distances and proper distances. Even in SR in non-inertial coordinate frames such as Rindler the notion of superluminal travel does not violate C.



May have done - I'll look.

You are incorrect, all of you. I never once said DM or DE violated relativity, I did indeed say Black Holes do though, and I stand by that claim.

Concerning DM & DE I said:
This is why Dark Matter and Dark Energy make up 96% of the universe, because they exclude the electrodynamic interactions in plasma which makes up 99.99% of the universe.

I said the only reason you need DM & DE is becaue you ignore 99.99% of the universe and the electrodynamic interactions in plasma. If you didn't you wouldn't need all that Fairie Dust. Get my claims correct first before you try to argue against them, that sometimes helps.


There is no superluminal expansion of imaginary spacetime. There is only the simple fact that clocks tick slower as they near a gravitational source (nearness to an electrodynamic source - increase in energy) and also with acceleration as it increases energy. The atom is controlled by the EM force, and it is this that causes the atom to occilate faster or slower only depending on this same force that controls the atom. Just how much Fairie Dust do you need to explain things?????

Your mistake is your unsupported assumptions. In space at 1G acceleration my clock would tick at the same speed it does on Earth's equator at 1G. Yet my speed increases at 9.8 m/s per second, yet my clock does not continue to slow as it only experiences 1G of thrust. If I increased it to 2G then it would again slow. Yet as soon as all thrust is stopped, the clock will return to its normal occilation rate, and c will once again be c. What you fail to realize is that both the clock and measuring rod have changed, but not the actual distance in space. So two objects A & B 1 ly apart at 1/2 of c would tell you they are over 1 ly apart, since your measuring rod is now shorter. You convienently leave this part out and continue to talk about it as if the spaceship sees A & B 1 ly apart. IMPOSSIBLE since your measuring rod is now shorter. The ship sees A & B as over 1 ly apart, while an outside observer sees them 1 ly apart by his measuring rod. The ship must actually travel 1 1/2 ly by its own calculations, because it's measuring rod has shrunk, and it's clock has slowed. So it will indeed agree that the same time has passed to travel 1 1/2 ly as it would to travel 1 ly from the outside observers position.

but anyone that claims a shortened meter stick would give the same distance as a longer one is deluding themselves. A & B remain the same distance apart, but your meter stick will claim otherwise. Stop trying to claim that A & B appear one ly apart to two observers, because it does not, the accelerating ship will have no choice but to say A & B are over 1 ly apart since its meter stick has shrunk. You can't even agree with your own theory on shrinking meter sticks. You got them shrinking, but still measuring the same distance as before they shrunk. Yah right, sounds logical to me - NOT!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
In this case your so called "gnomes" have no demonstrated effect on photons (no demonstrated footprints), whereas inelastic scattering and moving objects (small dogs and wolves) *do* have exactly such footprints and such effects on photons.

You're the one running around claiming that the tracks are too big to be a common canine track even though it looks exactly like a common canine track. You're claiming it's necessarily a gnome footprint instead of a common animal track, and you haven't even compared a lot of various canine tracks to be sure what the range of sizes of various canine prints might be. :(

The bottom line here is that you've shown no cause/effect evidence/justification of your claims on real photons in real labs. Furthermore you haven't conducted enough testing on inelastic scattering and moving objects to actually rule these things out. You just *assume* you can rule them out, based apparently on one published paper from 1929, from a guy peddling *his own* redshift theory who took pot shots at *a few* types of scattering, not all of them.

You really can't even cite a single exhaustive set of real life experimentation that rules out inelastic scattering and moving objects as the actual cause.

You apparently just *assume* that gnomes exist, dogs and wolves can't be responsible for those tracks based on a handwave that includes six lines of unpublished math, and therefore gnomes did it!



No, I am claiming it is the electrodynamic actions in plasma, 99.99% of the universe that causes what you see, not imaginary Fairie Dust. See post above. Stop putting words in my mouth and claiming things of me I never said in your attempt to divert the subject.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.