Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Booko]

The outer shell does in fact have a charge that acts to repulse other neutrons as density increases.

Interesting. I suppose it's not so surprising, given the charge asymmetry of the quarks involved. It just goes to show that even if we do develop a theory of everything, we will always be finding something new in the universe.

Have you read any of Manuel's papers by the way?

Who? The press release mentioned a Dr. Miller...

Do you happen to have links to the peer-reveiwed article(s)? It would be very interesting to see how strong this electromagnetic force is compared to the strong force. My guess is that it is much weaker, considering that it took ~50 years longer to measure this force than it did to measure the residual strong.

If my conjecture is right, then the effects of the electromagnetic repulsion may only change the numbers by a few percent. Even the press release is wishy-washy about how big this discovery is, and it seems that serious physicists need to do some serious math. As it stands, estimates for the limit of a neutron star are no larger than 3.2 solar masses, which is not a very big margin.

I understand and agree with your assessment, but only to a point. The actual structure of the neutron also comes into play at the highest densities. They may not play a dominant role until the density begins to pack them to a point that the outer layers begin to repulse one another.

See, but when they're packed in so closely, is electromagnetism or gravity dominant? Gravity is a much longer-range effect than any effect due to the structure of the neutron, which means that for every particle you add, the tendency of collapse gets greater ~linearly, but you get diminishing returns from any repulsive forces.

The highest entropic state considering only gravity is for everything to collapse together, and the highest entropic state for electromagnetism is for all the positive and negative charges to neutralize, then for those clumps to spread evenly.

If you consider only gravity and electromagnetism (in an environment where the particles are not already moving at escape velocity, like a star) then gravity wins every time, thanks to the second law. If you want to show that black holes cannot exist, then you have to attack them on different grounds.

Color, like charge, cancels, so you also won't find any help there. I don't immediately recall how flavor works -- there may be some interesting effects at very small scales. Alternatively, you might consider whether the very nature of spacetime could prevent a black hole, but then you'd be getting paid to work on quantum gravity, not posting in a religion forum.

Personally, I'm not convinced that black holes actually exist either. However, I'm not going to run around proclaiming science is wrong until I either do the math or get someone to do the math for me.

 

[Booko]

I'm not expecting "instant" change, but after five years of one epic failure after another, you'd think they'd at least *start* the process of moving themselves toward plasma physics.

Michael, five years is "instant" change in science.

It takes a while to get sufficient repeatable results and five years is barely getting started to look at a subject. It could take a few years just to get some grants approved so you even have funding to test some hypothesis, come to think of it. And before all that there is still time needed to lay groundwork.

Heck, I'm old enough to remember when some scientists thought Gell-Mann's quarks were more a joke and accused him of being too enamored of religious stuff like Buddhism and wished he would stick with...actual science. Oh, the comments about "charm" and "weirdness" and the like.

Well, look where things stand now. It sure took more than five years for particle physics to develop beyond that confusing particle zoo. And the only way that happened is because people took some time to do the science to support the idea that quarks exist. It certainly was more than five years.

Good Heavens, how long did it take for physics to shift from the classical model, for that matter? And in the process many heated arguments were made and many jokes were made about the "other" side. Some changes span a few generations. Five years is nothing.

Science is by its nature a very conservative endeavor.

I'm okay with that, since the alternative is a field of endeavor that is constantly running after the latest fad. Not that science doesn't seem faddish occasionally, but compared to other human forms of gaining knowledge it's pretty calm.

 

[Booko]

Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies

Oh thanks, I think in a previous reply today I asked you for a link but now I have it. Hopefully I can shunt aside some of the more mundane tasks in the next few days and make some time to read it.

Sorry if my replies are very slow. Normally I'm only on the World Religions subforum here.

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry if my replies are very slow. Normally I'm only on the World Religions subforum here.

Hey, do stick around these parts! We can never have enough physicists!

 

[Jamin4422]

if we do develop a theory of everything,

We do have a theory of everything. It's called God said it so that settles it.

 

[Tiberius]

We do have a theory of everything. It's called God said it so that settles it.

God, I hope that's sarcasm...

 

[Michael]

Oh thanks, I think in a previous reply today I asked you for a link but now I have it. Hopefully I can shunt aside some of the more mundane tasks in the next few days and make some time to read it.

Sorry if my replies are very slow. Normally I'm only on the World Religions subforum here.

I see you found the link. No sweat in terms of timing. Take your time, and welcome to the conversation. I look forward to your input.

 

[Michael]

Michael, five years is "instant" change in science.

It's been something like 14 years since "dark energy" was stuffed into BB theory. So far nobody can name a source or a control mechanism for dark energy, nor explain why they left every plasma redshift mechanism out of Lambda-CDM theory. That doesn't prevent them from patting themselves on the back, and awarding Nobel prizes for "dark energy". It's just goofy.

It takes a while to get sufficient repeatable results and five years is barely getting started to look at a subject. It could take a few years just to get some grants approved so you even have funding to test some hypothesis, come to think of it. And before all that there is still time needed to lay groundwork.

Plasma redshift has been well documented in various forms for decades, starting with Compton redshift, the Wolf effect, Stark redshift and most recently what Chen et all called 'plasma redshift'. All these known causes of photon redshift in plasma have been *consistently* left out of Lambda-magic theory. Why? If they knowingly leave out known features of plasma physics, is it any wonder why they need a placeholder term for human ignorance as it relates to photon redshift?

Heck, I'm old enough to remember when some scientists thought Gell-Mann's quarks were more a joke and accused him of being too enamored of religious stuff like Buddhism and wished he would stick with...actual science. Oh, the comments about "charm" and "weirdness" and the like.

Well, look where things stand now. It sure took more than five years for particle physics to develop beyond that confusing particle zoo. And the only way that happened is because people took some time to do the science to support the idea that quarks exist. It certainly was more than five years.

Good Heavens, how long did it take for physics to shift from the classical model, for that matter? And in the process many heated arguments were made and many jokes were made about the "other" side. Some changes span a few generations. Five years is nothing.

Science is by its nature a very conservative endeavor.

I'm okay with that, since the alternative is a field of endeavor that is constantly running after the latest fad. Not that science doesn't seem faddish occasionally, but compared to other human forms of gaining knowledge it's pretty calm.

I'll concede that you're probably right in terms of expecting much change over a 5 year time span, but in terms of ignoring the laws of plasma physics, and specifically plasma redshift, it's been going on for decades. Alfven called reconnect theory pseudoscience over a half dozen times in a room full of plasma physicists back in 1987 right before presenting his famous double layer paper that made "reconnection" theory obsolete. The mainstream never noticed! That's been 25 years and counting.

The phenomenon of plasma redshift has been going on for decades in the lab, and there are now four uniquely identified forms of plasma redshift including the Wolf effect, Compton redshift, Stark redshift and what Chen called "plasma redshift", yet the mainstream refuses to incorporate *any* of these known empirical causes of redshift into the calculations.

That glaring and obvious lack of addressing *any* of the known plasma redshift processes in plasma is *exactly* what results in the mainstream's need for placeholder terms for what amounts to human ignorance like "dark energy". Had they spent any time incorporating plasma redshift mechanisms into their mathematical models, they would have no need for placeholder terms. Since they refuse to embrace plasma physics, "dark energy did it".

Oy Vey!

 

[Michael]

Hey, do stick around these parts! We can never have enough physicists!

I second that request.

 

[mzungu]

I second that request.

Perhaps you should post your ideas here and we shall see how they will be received: Beyond the Standard Model Forum

 

[Jamin4422]

God, I hope that's sarcasm...

of course

 

[Tiberius]

And I hope that's NOT sarcasm!

 

[Michael]

Perhaps you should post your ideas here and we shall see how they will be received: Beyond the Standard Model Forum

Someone wishes me to be silent

Already been there, and done that. They burned the witch without so much as an actual debate.

Of course I didn't have SDO data back then, and I'm not sure how many of the papers I've been involved in had been published before they virtually crucified me.

The mainstream does not tolerate the promotion of any form of PC/EU theory on their websites, nor the open criticism of their beliefs. They get rather upset and down right hostile in fact.

 

[mzungu]

Someone wishes me to be silent

Already been there, and done that. They burned the witch without so much as an actual debate.

Of course I didn't have SDO data back then, and I'm not sure how many of the papers I've been involved in had been published before they virtually crucified me.

The mainstream does not tolerate the promotion of any form of PC/EU theory on their websites, nor the open criticism of their beliefs. They get rather upset and down right hostile in fact.

I am not surprised at the treatment they gave you in PHYSORG. You have to understand that when it comes to science it is like going to court; You better have evidence and a good argument else you may find yourself being thrown out.

You have the tendency of dismissing mainstream science in a very arrogant and dismissive way without hard evidence.

I also post there and although I have posted some very non mainstream hypotheses, I have yet to meet with the same treatment you received.

Perhaps your people skills need polishing or your science is just bad!

 

[Michael]

I am not surprised at the treatment they gave you in PHYSORG.

I was shocked actually. I thought that science forums were more open minded and appreciated honest debate. Typically, perceived errors in an argument are allowed to be worked out in a dabate. I was *soooo* naive about astronomers. They don't seem to take real kindly to alternative ideas.

You have to understand that when it comes to science it is like going to court; You better have evidence and a good argument else you may find yourself being thrown out.

Right. If that were the case, and it was applied fairly and consistently, "dark" claims would have been tossed out a long time ago.

Could you explain how the concepts of "evidence" and "good argument" are supposed to be presented and work properly when the thread is *closed* immediately and the conversation is never allowed to get started? It's tough to present much evidence, or address anyone's complaints if they shut down the thread immediately, and they aren't even the worst offenders!

CosmoQuest is even worse. In fact, it's the single most draconian website I've ever seen on the internet. They have a whole different rule system for mainstream ideas vs. non mainstream ideas. It's not even *close* to the same rule system. They blatantly glorify the witch hunt in their rules. Non mainstream ideas may not be discussed freely and openly, in fact they are shut down after 90 days and all conversations on that topic must then terminate, *or else*! On the other hand, mainstream ideas can be discussed there freely and openly *as long as you aren't criticizing* those beliefs! CosmoQuest operates exactly like a cult, with empirical physics playing the role of their satan figure. They even glorify and codify the burning of the heretic in the rule system.

You have the tendency of dismissing mainstream science in a very arrogant and dismissive way without hard evidence.

Me? I've never banned anyone over their beliefs, nor closed any threads I didn't like, or anything of the sort. I'm only dismissive of things that I do not need. I don't need dark energy or inflation for instance to explain cosmological/plasma redshift. I already have hard tangible empirical evidence from the lab of several forms of plasma redshift. which is why I don't have any need for dark energy or inflation. Furthermore, I wasn't even discussing those issues at the website in question!

I also post there and although I have posted some very non mainstream hypotheses, I have yet to meet with the same treatment you received.

Evidently they are not particularly afraid of you. I highly suspect that you were not promoting PC/EU theory.

Perhaps your people skills need polishing or your science is just bad!

Well, anything is possible. Then again, I've been self employed for over 20 years and I've been married for over 22 years. I seem to get along just fine with my customers and my family. I would say that my people skills are generally pretty good. I tend to get along with almost everyone, physicists (specifically EU haters) being the primary exception.

I will admit that I don't have much love of metaphysical dogma, and I don't tend to turn the other cheek forever and ever. Eventually I will respond. If I have a complaint however, I pick on *ideas*, not people, which is far more than I can say for the mainstream.

 

[mzungu]

I was shocked actually. I thought that science forums were more open minded and appreciated honest debate. Typically, perceived errors in an argument are allowed to be worked out in a dabate. I was *soooo* naive about astronomers. They don't seem to take real kindly to alternative ideas.



Right. If that were the case, and it was applied fairly and consistently, "dark" claims would have been tossed out a long time ago.

Could you explain how the concepts of "evidence" and "good argument" are supposed to be presented and work properly when the thread is *closed* immediately and the conversation is never allowed to get started? It's tough to present much evidence, or address anyone's complaints if they shut down the thread immediately, and they aren't even the worst offenders!

CosmoQuest is even worse. In fact, it's the single most draconian website I've ever seen on the internet. They have a whole different rule system for mainstream ideas vs. non mainstream ideas. It's not even *close* to the same rule system. They blatantly glorify the witch hunt in their rules. Non mainstream ideas may not be discussed freely and openly, in fact they are shut down after 90 days and all conversations on that topic must then terminate, *or else*! On the other hand, mainstream ideas can be discussed there freely and openly *as long as you aren't criticizing* those beliefs! CosmoQuest operates exactly like a cult, with empirical physics playing the role of their satan figure. They even glorify and codify the burning of the heretic in the rule system.



Me? I've never banned anyone over their beliefs, nor closed any threads I didn't like, or anything of the sort. I'm only dismissive of things that I do not need. I don't need dark energy or inflation for instance to explain cosmological/plasma redshift. I already have hard tangible empirical evidence from the lab of several forms of plasma redshift. which is why I don't have any need for dark energy or inflation. Furthermore, I wasn't even discussing those issues at the website in question!



Evidently they are not particularly afraid of you. I highly suspect that you were not promoting PC/EU theory.



Well, anything is possible. Then again, I've been self employed for over 20 years and I've been married for over 22 years. I seem to get along just fine with my customers and my family. I would say that my people skills are generally pretty good. I tend to get along with almost everyone, physicists (specifically EU haters) being the primary exception.

I will admit that I don't have much love of metaphysical dogma, and I don't tend to turn the other cheek forever and ever. Eventually I will respond. If I have a complaint however, I pick on *ideas*, not people, which is far more than I can say for the mainstream.

Usually if one is to introduce new ideas, then the best way to do so is to ask about the pertaining one first; Like "Is it possible that instead of black holes, some galaxies have neutron stars at their centre?".

The mainstream will say "no" but someone will (usually moderators) answer other than a "no". This is where it starts to get interesting.

 

[Michael]

Usually if one is to introduce new ideas, then the best way to do so is to ask about the pertaining one first; Like "Is it possible that instead of black holes, some galaxies have neutron stars at their centre?".

The mainstream will say "no" but someone will (usually moderators) answer other than a "no". This is where it starts to get interesting.

The problem is that they typically "expect" such an individual to "accept" their claim of "no" for an answer.

 

[mzungu]

The problem is that they typically "expect" such an individual to "accept" their claim of "no" for an answer.

Arguments are won by the ones who know how to put forth their arguments in a manner that will convince and not insult or threaten or ridicule.

I could try to post in favour of your SSU and I am sure I will not receive the same treatment.

 

[Michael]

Arguments are won by the ones who know how to put forth their arguments in a manner that will convince and not insult or threaten or ridicule.

True. It's been a learning experience for me, and apparently I've burned a few bridges along the way. Even still, I doubt the whole problem was related to my presentation as much as it was related to my persistence.

I could try to post in favour of your SSU and I am sure I will not receive the same treatment.

Right, you'll go over there and start with insisting that they all believe "talking dark matter snakes" and make a lot of new friends, right?

I'm afraid you're a tad naive if you believe that the whole problem was related to my presentation.

There are in fact "evangelical skeptics" that visit various religious and scientific websites. They aren't easily 'swayed' into conforming to the "party line dogma" of that website. Every website deals with such evangelical types in their own way. This websites separates "Christians" from atheists for instance in terms of the forums each may participate on.

CosmoQuest's method of dealing with "evangelicals" is rather draconian, even compared to most religious websites. For instance, nobody forbids you to start a thread on this website on whatever topic you choose, so long as you pick the appropriate forum. The conversation and topic may proceed for as long as you wish to participate. The fact that particular topic has been 'covered' before by you, or by someone else is not relevant or important to the moderators. That's a "normal" and typical response to evangelical skeptical behavior on most websites in my experience. CosmoQuest however forbids "skeptics' or even "interested parties" from starting new threads on any 'topic' that they (the moderators of thought) have already "covered" in the past. It doesn't matter what "non mainstream" topic it might be, it's shut down in 90 days, the heretical witch is often burned at the stake, and then nobody can talk about that particular there ever again! Talk about zero tolerance for alternative ideas, and control freaks!

The worst part from a "skeptics" perspective, is that by bashing plasma physics, they are essentially claiming that empirical physics is a "crackpot" field of science. That's like YEC claiming that every proponent of evolutionary theory is an "evil crackpot spawn of satan" and nobody may even discuss evolutionary theory on this website ever "again"! Wow! Talk about irrational behaviors from folks that fancy themselves as "scientists".

But it goes from bad to worse when we actually peek into the dark recesses of their belief systems. Not only are their behaviors like that of a cult, their belief systems literally defy the laws of plasma physics. In the lab, plasma causes plasma redshift. Photons give up their momentum to the plasma, and the light is redshifted as a results. There are four known types of plasma redshift too. It is not like there is only one, or two of them to consider. There are now at least *four* types of plasma redshift, including Compton redshift, Stark redshift, the Wolf effect and what Chen called 'plasma redshift' that *absolutely must* have some effect on photons traveling through the plasmas of spacetime. For the plasma to have *no effect at all on any of the photons passing through it, would in fact defy the laws of physics.

The "smoking gun" is actually found in the mathematical formulas found in Lambda-CDM theory. It provides for *no* allowance for plasma redshift, not even a tiny little bit. In other words, they never updated their expansion models to address *any* of the four known causes of photon redshift in plasma. They are essentially 50 years "behind the times" in terms of embracing empirical laboratory physics in the area of plasma redshift. They are also 100 years behind the times as it relates to empirical testing of solar physical processes. Their entire solar model went up in smoke in SDO heliosiesmology data this year, and SUSY theories were actually falsified in the lab over past couple of years. It's been a *dismal* time for mainstream astronomy theory recently. Every new observation is "plasma, plasma, dust and plasma" as predicted by PC/EU theory. Their technology is catching up to their mythology.

I'm afraid it's not just my personal presentation that they resent. They are deathly afraid of the ramification of empirical physics and they don't want anyone discussing theses points publicly on *their* websites. It's frightening to them to let others "know about" alternative ideas because the moment others start to find out about these things publicly, the gig is up. They'll be sitting there trying to explain to an angry and skeptical public why in the world they're in pure denial of the laws of plasma physics. In the lab, plasma redshift happens. It's physically impossible for it not to occur in spacetime. They therefore do not just shut down *my* topics at CosmoQuest and other mainstream websites, they shut down *all* topics they wish to control, regardless of the author. That is particularly true of all PC/EU threads.

 

[mzungu]

True. It's been a learning experience for me, and apparently I've burned a few bridges along the way. Even still, I doubt the whole problem was related to my presentation as much as it was related to my persistence. .............

True but the best way to put forth your ideas that inadvertently conflict with the mainstream is to question the validity of certain points then move on to offer tangible alternatives. I agree that non mainstream hypotheses do have a hard time convincing but patience, perseverance, and valid points will get you much farther. Do not attack the mainstream but introduce your ideas as non threatening. The point is to get people to consider your ideas even if they outright dismiss them.
After all Science is the quest for knowledge. Sometimes what is valid here is not valid there. A good case in point is Quantum Mechanics vs General Relativity. They are totally incompatible until someone can unify them. Perhaps you have valid points that may seem to contradict BB but this does not mean they cannot at some point be considered.
Good luck!