Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

[Michael]

Indeed, in light of your equivocation.

Wow! All I can say is wow. Is this a "Poe" like behavior or what? First you claimed that electrical discharges weren't "electromagnetic" events. Now you completely and totally ignore all the *direct physical* effects of EM fields in everything from lightning to simple magnetic fields on humans. It's an absolutely *unbelievable* denial thing that you have going at this point. It's hard to believe that you can even make these claims, and actually "believe" them IMO.

Don't make this about others. Your claims must stand or fall on their own merit.

You're making this discussion about yourself! You aren't asking me to demonstrate *my* claim at all. Here's what I *actually* said:

"An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans"

I had not even ascribed *awareness* to that "electric universe" yet! What does *panentheism* have to do with anything that *I* said? You're utterly ignoring everything a purely "electric universe" might produce that has a direct effect on humans, from sunlight, to electrical discharges, to powerful magnetic fields.

A *documented influence* that you lack. No one sticks their head into a solar flare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
SHIELD Act to protect from solar catastrophes, electromagnetic pulses | Fox News

That's hardly a requirement for electromagnetic influence from solar flares.

More equivocation. The subject was your "electric universe" and "EM fields", and you are moving to lightning and electrocution. I have called you on that already.

You called "me" on that one? Wow! I've seen denial before, but you're taking it to extremes. I showed you a whole class of equations related to electromagnetism that you said you agreed with. Now you're trying to ignore the fact that humans have associated "God" with electrical discharges since the dawn of recorded human civilization, and/or such events have a direct effect on human beings. Amazing! You're also the one that is guilty of equivocation from the moment you tried to dumb down electromagnetism to "magnetism"

No, do not put words in my mouth.

What I doubt is the existence of a magnetic field produced by your 'electric universe' that might have an effect on the human brain that would produce, at the very least, effects such as those seen with the god helmet.

"An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans"

Irony meter overload. Those two sentences together are quite a riot all things considered. *You're* the one sticking words in *my* mouth. You're the one trying to separate magnetism from it's source which I *never* tried to do. You're the one trying to ignore both electric and magnetic influence on humans by EM fields *have been documented* in *numerous* ways. Your entire "game" seems to be a combination of twisting *my* words, and *inserting your own *very personal* requirements* into the discussion.

In light of your equivocations, you can retract that.

The only one pulling an equivocation fallacy is you and only you, starting with your additional requirement of demonstrating something *specific* related to the "God helmet". I simply used it as *one* example of *a way* that EM fields have been demonstrated to have a direct physical effect on humans.

Enough with the equivocation. We are not talking about lightning,

Yes, *we* are. You're not because you can't. The moment you include electrically charged particles in *electromagnetism*, is the moment your denial-go-round comes to a full stop. Since you *cannot* go there, you've imposed *your own personal restrictions* upon *electromagnetism*, effectively cutting it off from it's *source* and attempting to "dumb it down" to pure a pure disembodied (from it's source) form of "mythical magnetism". Nothing even remotely like that kind of 'magnetism" even exists in nature!

No, that your "electric universe" is conscious *another* thing that is debatable, given the absence of evidence for it.

Apparently we'll never get that far because you're stuck on a denial-go-round.

Do not insult my intelligence. You call that "lab results"? Are we done here?

I'm afraid you're insulting your own intelligence for all the world to see. Yes, *I* do consider EM field effects on humans to be well documented, in everything from lightning strikes, to magnetic field effects, to shock therapy. The insult of intelligence comes when you try to separate the source of magnetism (charged particles) from *electromagnetism*.

You said "An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans", in the context of the effects seen by the god helmet. "Definitely", by the dictionary, would be "without doubt". That implies robust, scientific, experimental support.

Emphasis mine. The part I highlighted is *your own interpretation* of what I *actually* said. I simply used the God helmet experiments as *an* (as in one) example where EM fields have been shown to have an effect on humans. It's just a *single example*. Nothing *more* is necessary to demonstrate that an electric universe *can definitely* have an empirical EM effect on humans.

You want *more* evidence that the universe produces something *exactly like* the God Helmet EM fields, which is *way* outside of the scope of my original claim!

Now, if you would like to retract that context, and say that all you meant was "death by lightning", go for it.

No, what I would like is for you to stop trying to *dumb down* electromagnetism to something like "magic magnetism" without even a *source* of such magnetism defined. Sorry, I'm not going there with you to magical la-la land. In the *real* universe we live in, *electro*magnetism *includes* (does no exclude) electrical current.

The bottom line: Are we talking about a mechanism that would lead to support for pantheism, or "electricity would definitely be able to electrocute humans"?

I had not even *mentioned* panentheism in the sentence you went ballistic over. My *actual* sentence was actually more like your last example: "Electricity would definitely be able to have a direct empirical effect on humans.

I even explained the whole thing clearly to you in my last post when I noted that I *could not* make a similar claim related to "dark energy", "curvatons", "inflation" or exotic forms of matter because these things have never been shown to A) actually exist in nature, or B) have any effect at all on human beings.

You refuse to even accept basic physics at this point. How can we even communicate?

 

[Michael]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-94/#post63288807

Go back and reread that post Davian. Until you can (and do) accept the *empirical physical difference* between the *documented* effect of EM fields on real things in real experiments with actual control mechanisms, and the complete lack thereof as it relates to mainstream claims, there isn't much for us to discuss.

The whole *attraction* of EU/PC theory (with or without panetheistic overtones) is the fact that EM fields are *known* to exist in nature, whereas dark energy, curvatons, inflation, etc, are *hypothetical* entities. There is in fact a key empirical difference between a *hypothetical* entity, and one that has been documented to have an effect on everything from charged particles to human beings. Get off the denial-go-round already.

 

[davidbilby]

This is a particularly nice demonstration of what Michael doesn't understand, which is why I assume he didn't respond. The phrase

"It's still not good enough so we try with:
g(x)=1+x+(x^2)/2"

is the point he hops in and says "you've just added a supernatural construct to your religion!! Your mythological "x(x^2)/2" has a qualification problem, how can you prove that it did anything?".

He genuinely doesn't get how gradually improving a model is the bedrock of physics for...well - pretty much the entire existence of the field of physics or anything resembling it....

I think I can present a possible explanation of how I perceive it.

Say that the real model would be equivalent to the function:
f(x)=e^x
(And that's what our observations will mimic)

We inspect the function loosely in a broad spectrum.
This indicates that we don't observe any periodicity within our observation span.

We have knowledge about functions in the shape of x^n, for integers n>=0.

We observe carefully around x=0 and find that we have a bunch of values around 1, and thus produce the hypothetical function:
g(x)=1

We continue to observe in order to try to validate or falsify the hypothesis.
We observe the interval (-0.5,0.5) and it doesn't look good:

We try with:
g(x)=1+x

and get:

It's still not good enough so we try with:
g(x)=1+x+(x^2)/2

and get:

Now we're talking. So lets try to expand our search, to about (-1,1). That sounds good.

We get:

Ok. So it wasn't as good as we thought.

Lets try:
g(x)=1+x+(x^2)/2+(x^3)/6

we get:

now this is some really good stuff.

Someone wants us to try:
g(x)=2^x

Ok, lets see:

I'm sorry, the current one contains less errors. You'll have to try again.


How many hypotheses/theories were falsified?
Which one will ultimately be closer?
Which one is closer given the information we have now?
Do you think any of those six are spot on?


Edit:

Also, awesome that you'll tone it down it was becoming quite the annoyance. Thanks!

 

[davidbilby]

I must admit david that I'm actually blown away to hear an intelligent guy supporting a *forth* supernatural construct. I'm really curious to know if there is any actual limit on how many 'leaps of faith' that you're willing to take in unseen particles/energy before you'll just call it quits? We're up to four already! If uncontrolled observation cannot be used to ever actually falsify the inflation hypothesis, what possibly can?

Fourth, for crying out loud. Forth is not the next thing after third.

The entire inflation hypothesis? Let's ask a question. What do YOU think would falsify the entire inflation hypothesis. Or, actually - since you claim that PLANCK already has - please point to the data and show your statistical working. Since you know the subject back to front, I'd think you'd have little trouble suggesting an observation that would be entirely inconsistent with every inflationary theory ever proposed.

Remember we're talking the entire inflation hypothesis, the lot - not any one bit of it, nor "a bunch of it", we're talking everything. So "hemispherical anomaly" isn't good enough, as you well know. Your claim, you back it up.

I've noticed you've now shut up about the HLQG (not many "that four billion light year structure falsifies your theory mwahahahahaha" posts since a clear rebuttal, despite your sweeping claims prior about it dooming the cosmological principle and by extension (?) the entirety of mainstream physics - that's good. I was expecting the usual wait a few days then lather rinse and repeat....

The whole field of inflation, without any possible recourse or explanation (this is what falsification is), is about to be falsified by Michael, in the first ever Nobel-prize winning post to an internet forum.

Drum roll........

(PS...since you're such an expert on this subject, I'm surprised you've not brought up the obvious extension to GR, that is still pretty much entirely consistent with observational data, and that doesn't require dark energy or matter (or at least, not much dark matter)....but I'm guessing you don't actually know what it is, or any of its unique problems. Sigh. Any guesses?)

 

[Michael]

I think I can present a possible explanation of how I perceive it.

I think you're missing the key point related to falsification. I can't 'falsify' a hypothetical entity like inflation in controlled experimentation since there is no defined source, no defined control mechanism, and no experiment in the history of mankind that involves inflation. Ditto for curvatons, dark energy, and exotic stable matter. I can't play with these hypothetical entities in any lab to determine their properties, and none of them have ever shown up in a lab. There is no laboratory falsification mechanism for any of them.

All of these hypothetical entities were created specifically to explain *uncontrolled observation*, not human experimentation.

Therefore, the *only possible falsification mechanism* that I can apply to a hypothetical entity, is to compare how closely observation actually jives with it's predictions. The last time a "core prediction" of BB theory failed to match observational data, BB theory wasn't 'falsified' by that data. Instead we got an *additional* hypothetical entity out of the supernova data set called "dark energy". Now it turns out that Lambda-CDM fails to match it's core prediction set in the Plank data sets, and again, david is not simply "falsifying" his beliefs based upon that data, rather he's handwaving in yet *another* hypothetical entity!

What we have here is a complete and total failure to provide any real type of falsification mechanism. Each time their theory has failed to match it's actually predictions, an additional hypothetical entity is simply added into the mix and away they go........

Lambda-CDM *cannot* be consider a form of 'science' without a valid falsification mechanism. It's a "pure act of faith" on the part of the believer, faith in the unseen (in the lab). Less than five percent of the theory is actually based upon *known* physics. The rest is simply 'made up' in a highly subjective way. We're now outside of the realm of falsifiable physics, and well into the realm of pure 'religion' (aka faith in the unseen).

If there is no way to falsify the belief system, it's not actually a form of "science". Can you tell me how I might falsify inflation theory *outright* if they can simply add new hypothetical entities as they see fit, and they can modify the various properties of each of these hypothetical as they see fit?

As a skeptic, individually you *might* get me to simply "lack belief" (weak atheism) in any single one of them. Collectively however, the (now apparently) four of them sound absolutely ridiculous to me. I can't *help* but be a *strong atheists* toward them as group. None of them are even necessary as far as I know because no really exhaustive studies have really been done on inelastic scattering in plasma and dust to see what the *actual* effects (not mathematical speculation) might be.

Why should anyone want to waste anymore money creating new hypothetical entities *before* spending our money on testing various inelastic scattering processes individually and collectively in a *wide* variety of conditions in plasma?

Sorry Elendur, but my "weak" lack of belief toward inflation pretty much went up in smoke with the introduction of "dark energy" as an ad hoc gap filler in BB theory. I can't even "lack belief" in any sort of "neutral" way toward curvatons. The whole thing sounds completely contrived in an ad hoc manner in some feeble effort to save inflation claims from outright falsification.

PC/EU theory doesn't require *any* of that nonsense. It's based upon pure empirical physics, and it allows for active experimentation, starting with those inelastic scattering experiments that *should have* been done a long time ago. Swicky in 1929 certainly wasn't the "final authority" on inelastic scattering. Unfortunately however that is who everyone ultimately seems to point to when discussing the relevance of inelastic scattering in terms of astronomy. Holy cow! It's time to get to work in the lab again and forget the hypothetical entities.

 

[Michael]

Inelastic scattering has been linked to photon redshift, in photons of various wavelengths, in real experiments with real control mechanisms. Furthermore the movement of real objects will also produce photon redshift in controlled experimentation. We already have *many* physical explanations for photon redshift to consider and try out. We haven't.

The following four hypothetical entities have never been shown to have any effect whatsoever on any photon, at any wavelength, in active experiments with actual control mechanisms:

inflation
dark energy
hypothetical forms of matter
curvatons

I have absolutely no desire under the sun to chase my tail around in circles looking for metaphysical constructs related to *one* and only one cosmology theory. I'd *much* rather stick with empirical lab tested physics when trying to explain photon redshift. I have no logical reason to accept 6 lines of handwavy math as 'evidence' against any combination of movement of objects and inelastic scattering, let alone *all* combinations of known causes of photon redshift.

If my only real choices are entertaining the idea that we live inside of an electric universe where inelastic scattering happens, or believe that the sky is utterly loaded with evidence of as many hypothetical entities as we decide to dream up, I'll stick with electric universe theory.

 

[Michael]

The entire inflation hypothesis? Let's ask a question. What do YOU think would falsify the entire inflation hypothesis.

Me? Absolutely nothing! Inflation is an unfalsifiable "meme" IMO. More importantly it's not just "one" hypothetical concept, it's a whole family of metaphysically kludged concepts with an almost unlimited number of variations on the same supernatural theme, including "solid' inflation, hairy inflation, two field inflation, yada, yada yada. IMO it's simply not possible to falsify anything related to inflation claims since the ad hoc entities, and metaphysical variations just keep multiplying.

It's quite clear from your willingness to simply 'make up' new ad hoc entities on the fly that you're emotionally, professionally and probably financially invested in the concept of inflation till death do you part.

Or, actually - since you claim that PLANCK already has - please point to the data and show your statistical working.

I already showed you data that inflation theory did not actually *predict*, and failed to actually predict in advance. Even your so called *fix* was an ad hoc *postdicted* fit to *observed data that otherwise falsified your claims*.

Since you know the subject back to front, I'd think you'd have little trouble suggesting an observation that would be entirely inconsistent with every inflationary theory ever proposed.

Every single one? When you're just making stuff up as you go, and there are so many hypothetical brands to choose from, including relatively new ones, with new hypothetical sidekicks, how could *any* observation in space falsify *every* inflation concept?

I lack believe that inflation *can* be falsified, which is why it's not actually form of "science" IMO!

 

[Michael]

(PS...since you're such an expert on this subject, I'm surprised you've not brought up the obvious extension to GR, that is still pretty much entirely consistent with observational data, and that doesn't require dark energy or matter (or at least, not much dark matter)....but I'm guessing you don't actually know what it is, or any of its unique problems. Sigh. Any guesses?)

The Cosmic Void: Could we be in the Middle of it?

All we'd have to do is give up the Copernican principle, and viola, problem solved for at least 70 percent of your metaphysics. Not my favorite "solution" to photon redshift frankly.

 

[Michael]

FYI david...

I have no idea why you're so emotionally attached to curvatons by the way.

[1306.4160] Anisotropy in solid inflation

With all the metaphysical brands of inflation to choose from, why in the world did you pick one that requires yet *another* supernatural/hypothetical entity?

 

[Michael]

This is a particularly nice demonstration of what Michael doesn't understand, which is why I assume he didn't respond.

You really do spend an inordinate amount of time discussing the *individual*. What's worse however is that you simply bear false witness in pretty much every single posts.

What you failed to notice is that I *did* respond, and explained why your new invisible sky buddy is of no interest to me whatsoever. Your problem isn't *quantification*, it's *qualification*!

The phrase

"It's still not good enough so we try with:
g(x)=1+x+(x^2)/2"

is the point he hops in and says "you've just added a supernatural construct to your religion!!

Er, no. I did that when you first added inflation. g(x)=1+x+(blue hairy inflation)

Now we are up to g(x)=1+x+(blue hairy inflation) + (dark energy deities) + (hungry curvaton elves) + magic matter fairies

He genuinely doesn't get how gradually improving a model is the bedrock of physics for...well - pretty much the entire existence of the field of physics or anything resembling it....

No, I get the fact that models need to be improved just as EU/PC theory needs to be improved. What I also get is that you're not actually 'improving' anything, you're dreaming up ad hoc invisible entities every decade or two and then pointing the sky and claiming your gang of invisible ad hoc entities did it. You can't name a source or a control mechanism for any of them, and therefore you didn't really 'explain' anything!

 

[Davian]

I do find it intellectually dishonest when you edit my posts to alter their intent, then effectively rant at a straw man version of what I am trying to get across.

Do you think that your god/Jesus/Zeus would be impressed with your use of such a transparent tactic?

Yes or no?

Wow! All I can say is wow. <snip>

What are you on about?

I said, as you deleted from my post, show me a coroner's report that details how a golfer was "influenced" by lightning while on that golf course in Florida.

You're making this discussion about yourself! You aren't asking me to demonstrate *my* claim at all. Here's what I *actually* said:

"An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans"

I had not even ascribed *awareness* to that "electric universe" yet! What does *panentheism* have to do with anything that *I* said? You're utterly ignoring everything a purely "electric universe" might produce that has a direct effect on humans, from sunlight, to electrical discharges, to powerful magnetic fields.

The subject was your "electric universe" influencing humans, not the Sun causing sunburn or electrocution by local weather.

URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859[/URL]
SHIELD Act to protect from solar catastrophes, electromagnetic pulses | Fox News

That's hardly a requirement for electromagnetic influence from solar flares.

The subject was your "electric universe" influencing humans, not the fallout from damage to infrastructure by solar storms. Did you ever read those pages you link to?

You called "me" on that one? Wow! I've seen denial before, but you're taking it to extremes. I showed you a whole class of equations related to electromagnetism that you said you agreed with. Now you're trying to ignore the fact that humans have associated "God" with electrical discharges since the dawn of recorded human civilization, and/or such events have a direct effect on human beings. Amazing! You're also the one that is guilty of equivocation from the moment you tried to dumb down electromagnetism to "magnetism"

Now you don't even get your nomenclature right. I specifically stated that I meant electromagnetic fields, while you equivocated with electromagnetic forces, which contradicted with your use of "influence", which is, I think, why you had to edit that bit out of the top of my post. You don't get "influenced" by lightning any more than you get "influenced" by a good whack on the head with a hammer.

"An electric universe would definitely be able to have an EM influence on humans"

Irony meter overload. Those two sentences together are quite a riot all things considered. *You're* the one sticking words in *my* mouth. You're the one trying to separate magnetism from it's source which I *never* tried to do. You're the one trying to ignore both electric and magnetic influence on humans by EM fields *have been documented* in *numerous* ways. Your entire "game" seems to be a combination of twisting *my* words, and *inserting your own *very personal* requirements* into the discussion.

Separate magnetism from it's source? What does that even mean?

You bring up the subject of the god helmet as a supporting example, then object to it being used as a standard of evidence?

The only one pulling an equivocation fallacy is you and only you, starting with your additional requirement of demonstrating something *specific* related to the "God helmet". I simply used it as *one* example of *a way* that EM fields have been demonstrated to have a direct physical effect on humans.

You said "The universe does strike humans dead". That is not "influence", lol.

Yes, *we* are. You're not because you can't. The moment you include electrically charged particles in *electromagnetism*, is the moment your denial-go-round comes to a full stop. Since you *cannot* go there, you've imposed *your own personal restrictions* upon *electromagnetism*, effectively cutting it off from it's *source* and attempting to "dumb it down" to pure a pure disembodied (from it's source) form of "mythical magnetism". Nothing even remotely like that kind of 'magnetism" even exists in nature!

I am not sure what you are talking about, but *you* brought in the god helmet.

The source is irrelevant, it is, as per the wiki page, the strength, proximity, and complexity. You are conceding that nothing like the god helmet exists in nature?

Apparently we'll never get that far because you're stuck on a denial-go-round.

I'm afraid you're insulting your own intelligence for all the world to see. Yes, *I* do consider EM field effects on humans to be well documented, in everything from lightning strikes, to magnetic field effects, to shock therapy. The insult of intelligence comes when you try to separate the source of magnetism (charged particles) from *electromagnetism*.

No, the insult was your implying that "labs results" made up in your head should even be brought up in this discussion.

So do you retract the god helmet as a positive example of what you mean?

Emphasis mine. The part I highlighted is *your own interpretation* of what I *actually* said. I simply used the God helmet experiments as *an* (as in one) example where EM fields have been shown to have an effect on humans. It's just a *single example*. Nothing *more* is necessary to demonstrate that an electric universe *can definitely* have an empirical EM effect on humans.

You want *more* evidence that the universe produces something *exactly like* the God Helmet EM fields, which is *way* outside of the scope of my original claim!

So why then did you bring in the god helmet?

No, what I would like is for you to stop trying to *dumb down* electromagnetism to something like "magic magnetism" without even a *source* of such magnetism defined. Sorry, I'm not going there with you to magical la-la land. In the *real* universe we live in, *electro*magnetism *includes* (does no exclude) electrical current.

Does the god helmet run current through the subject's brain, or not?

I had not even *mentioned* panentheism in the sentence you went ballistic over. My *actual* sentence was actually more like your last example: "Electricity would definitely be able to have a direct empirical effect on humans.

Making it a claim that no one would care that you made. I accept that as a retraction.

So much for panentheism then.

<snip rant>

You refuse to even accept basic physics at this point.

In light of your equivocations, and of the edits you made to my post in your reply, you can retract that.

How can we even communicate?

Not well, if you cannot be trusted to address my posts as I have written them.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7701787-94/#post63288807

Go back and reread that post Davian. Until you can (and do) accept the *empirical physical difference* between the *documented* effect of EM fields on real things in real experiments with actual control mechanisms, and the complete lack thereof as it relates to mainstream claims, there isn't much for us to discuss.

The whole *attraction* of EU/PC theory (with or without panetheistic overtones) is the fact that EM fields are *known* to exist in nature, <snip rant>

If you have retracted and changed your statement to "Electricity would definitely be able to have a direct empirical effect on humans", then I agree, there is nothing of significance to discuss.

But be sure to respond, if only to do some more mad, irrelevant ranting at your strawman of the standard model.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You really do spend an inordinate amount of time discussing the *individual*. What's worse however is that you simply bear false witness in pretty much every single posts.

What you failed to notice is that I *did* respond, and explained why your new invisible sky buddy is of no interest to me whatsoever. Your problem isn't *quantification*, it's *qualification*!

Er, no. I did that when you first added inflation. g(x)=1+x+(blue hairy inflation)

Now we are up to g(x)=1+x+(blue hairy inflation) + (dark energy deities) + (hungry curvaton elves) + magic matter fairies

No, I get the fact that models need to be improved just as EU/PC theory needs to be improved. What I also get is that you're not actually 'improving' anything, you're dreaming up ad hoc invisible entities every decade or two and then pointing the sky and claiming your gang of invisible ad hoc entities did it. You can't name a source or a control mechanism for any of them, and therefore you didn't really 'explain' anything!

Hello Michael,

They can't even get comets correct, so I wouldn't worry too much about their Fairie Dust.

Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet - YouTube
The Electric Comet Pt 1: When Planets Gave Birth to Comets - YouTube
The Electric Comet Pt 2: Elenin and the Mystery of Exploding Comets - YouTube


I don't know offhand one single thing that ISN'T controlled by the electric force, does anyone?

Atomic Bonding

Atoms like to have a balanced electrical charge.

This is why galaxies do not rotate like the solar system does. The majority of the plasma is not in close confines, like in our solar system. The EM force is not balanced in the vast spaces of the galaxy, and hence galactic rotation curves follow Maxwell's equations, not Newton's.

Of course they like to explain CME's as if the magnetic field was frozen in, but if you understand magnetism you know this is impossible without a constant electric current producing that field.
Temperature effects on magnets

The highest is cobalt at 1400K, yet the surface of the sun is 5800K, the corona 2-3 million K, and (supposedly) the core at 15 million K. There is no way any magnetic field could even form at those temperatures, without a constant electric current keeping the plasma aligned.
Curie temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I say the evidence is there, they are just misinterpreting it.
Our Sun -- It&#39;s Electric! | N.P.A. Conference 2012 - YouTube


What will indeed happen when we can reproduce these events in the laboratory electrically? Will our theories about the Sun and space change, or will we remain blind to their true cause? We invite you to join their own scientists to find out, we only ask you keep an open mind as to their true cause.


The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online


Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist


In spite that they claim only magnetic fields are doing this, contrary to everything we know about magnets and magnetic fields. Magnetic fields have never been observed to accelerate any particle, ever.


Origin of Permanent Magnetism
Particle accelerator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notice they could only get these experimental results in the above experiments by the application of large electrical currents to cause these events, yet they claim to not understand what causes them.

The exact mechanism is unclear.....

yet then tell us that:

....The formation soon straightened into a jet because of a simple law of physics - currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other.

But personally I think the exact mechanism is quite clear. They know the answer but can't see it because they are blinded by preconceived notions to the electrical forces in the universe. At the time Mainstream conceived of how the Universe operated, the Milky-Way was believed to be the entire universe. It was also believed electric currents could not cross the vast distances in space, and that plasma was exceedingly rare. I still remember the teaspoon of salt lecture given in science classes to explain their belief of why plasma was so rare in space. They claim it all came about by the Big Bang, which requires plasma to be the first matter in existence, yet they describe it as if it was merely matter having its electrons stripped off, a hot gas. If the BB is valid, then it was the first state of matter that all other matter formed from, not the fourth state of matter. And, after 14 billion years (supposedly) only <.01% has formed into what you would call normal matter - gas, liquid or solid. Yet at <.01% perhaps we should call it "strange matter," not normal matter.

 

[Davian]

Hello Michael,

They can't even get comets correct, so I wouldn't worry too much about their Fairie Dust.
...

Tell Michael what "Fairie Dust" is an acronym for, in case he missed it.

 

[Michael]

I do find it intellectually dishonest when you edit my posts to alter their intent,

When did I "edit" anything that you said? I cut posts apart into various thoughts so I can respond to them individually, but I'm not 'editing' your text in any way (that I'm aware of anyway). I often "whack out' text that is either redundant or irrelevant too, but I'm not "editing" anything that you said.

then effectively rant at a straw man version of what I am trying to get across.

I'm afraid that burning strawmen are your specialty, not mine. I didn't even discuss panentheism in the sentence you blew up over, or the God helmet. I also discussed *electro*magnetism, not a dumbed down magnetic field.

Do you think that your god/Jesus/Zeus would be impressed with your use of such a transparent tactic?

Yes or no?

Yes, I think God would be fine with me pointing out your strawmen and your equivocation fallacies.

What are you on about?

I said, as you deleted from my post, show me a coroner's report that details how a golfer was "influenced" by lightning while on that golf course in Florida.

What are you even prattling on about? Why would I even bother to do such a thing? Are you in denial of the fact that humans are struck dead by lightning every year, or in denial of the fact that lightning is an *electro*magnetic process? Which is it?

The subject was your "electric universe" influencing humans, not the Sun causing sunburn or electrocution by local weather.

You don't seem to grasp the obvious, and you aren't listening to anything that I've said. An electric universe would include: Electric suns, electric aurora, electrical interactions with the magnetosphere, sprites, sunlight, you name it! They would *all* tend to influence human life on Earth, right down to the sunlight you feel on your face.

The subject was your "electric universe" influencing humans, not the fallout from damage to infrastructure by solar storms. Did you ever read those pages you link to?

Yes, I do, but apparently you don't. A solar flare can influence humans in a variety of ways.

Now you don't even get your nomenclature right. I specifically stated that I meant electromagnetic fields, while you equivocated with electromagnetic forces,

You're the one building a strawman now. I did NOT dumb down electromagnism to magnetism alone, you did that. Likewise I didn't even mention the God helmet other than as a single *example* of EM field influences on humans. You're the one doing the equivocating and the one that is that is trying to change the nature of my argument.

which contradicted with your use of "influence", which is, I think, why you had to edit that bit out of the top of my post. You don't get "influenced" by lightning any more than you get "influenced" by a good whack on the head with a hammer.

Oy Vey. Unlike "dark energy" or inflation, a hammer (or a discharge) can have a direct physical effect on your body!

Separate magnetism from it's source? What does that even mean?

It means that magnetic fields are *caused/created by* charged particles. You can't separate magnetic fields from charged particles except in your strawman universe apparently.

You bring up the subject of the god helmet as a supporting example, then object to it being used as a standard of evidence?

Huh? I reject you *ignoring* that data, much like I reject you *ignoring* the effect of electrical discharges on humans.

You said "The universe does strike humans dead". That is not "influence", lol.

Yes, it is.

I am not sure what you are talking about, but *you* brought in the god helmet.

Yes, as *one* (of many) examples of EM field influence on humans. I mentioned shock therapy too which you utterly ignored. Why?

The source is irrelevant, it is, as per the wiki page, the strength, proximity, and complexity.

What are you talking about? The source *is* relevant to *physics*, even if you're not interested.

You are conceding that nothing like the god helmet exists in nature?

No, why would I "concede" anything of the sort? Nature produces *all kinds* of magnetic fields, both larger and smaller than those used in such experiments.

No, the insult was your implying that "labs results" made up in your head should even be brought up in this discussion.

Oy Vey. You're not even making sense at this point. The "lab results" related to shock therapy are on the internet anytime you'd like to read about them. The lab results related to magnetic field effects on tangible objects, including humans, are also on the internet for you to read about anytime you like.

So do you retract the god helmet as a positive example of what you mean?

No, I reject your denial process.

So why then did you bring in the god helmet?

It's *an* (one) example of a real effect on humans from a real EM field. Shock therapy is another (one) example of the "effects* caused by EM fields on humans. Why do you keep ignoring the shock therapy aspect entirely? Why are you fixated on one thing, and excluding the other?

Does the god helmet run current through the subject's brain, or not?

Even if it did, that too would be part of *electro*magnetism! Wow!

Making it a claim that no one would care that you made. I accept that as a retraction.

You're living in pure denial if you expect any retraction from me over my *original* (not your kludged strawman version) statement. My statement was completely true.

So much for panentheism then.

No, just so much for your strawman rendition of my *actual* statement that made no reference to panentheism in the first place!

In light of your equivocations, and of the edits you made to my post in your reply, you can retract that.

In light of your dumbed down (and incorrect) understanding of *electro*magnetism, and in light of your outrageous equivocations, you can climb down off you high horse now before you hurt yourself. You're just making yourself look silly at this point.

Not well, if you cannot be trusted to address my posts as I have written them.

Irony overload. You completely kludged my statements as written, and you created your own *dumbed down* version of what I said, along with a host of *personal requirements* related to "God helmet" experiments that aren't even related to the core part of my statement. The GH was just *one* example of a *documented effect* on humans that is caused by EM fields.

If you have retracted and changed your statement to "Electricity would definitely be able to have a direct empirical effect on humans", then I agree, there is nothing of significance to discuss.

There never was anything of significance to discuss, other than perhaps you *misunderstandings* related to *electro*magnetism, and the fact that electrical discharges *are* electromagnetic events despite your claim to the contrary.

But be sure to respond, if only to do some more mad, irrelevant ranting at your strawman of the standard model.

The only relevant aspect of this entire conversation is your denial of basic physics. Electrical discharges *are* examples of *electro*magnetism. Shock therapy is an *electromagnetic* process. Even those God Helmet experiments used *current* to generate the magnetic fields that had a direct effect on human thought.

Get real already.

 

[Michael]

But personally I think the exact mechanism is quite clear. They know the answer but can't see it because they are blinded by preconceived notions to the electrical forces in the universe.

I wholeheartedly agree. Even Hannes Alfven himself called their claims about 'reconnection' theory pure "pseudoscience". They 'pseudo' understand what they are talking about, but not really. They don't understand the *current* that actually 'reconnects', and they don't want to understand it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I wholeheartedly agree. Even Hannes Alfven himself called their claims about 'reconnection' theory pure "pseudoscience". They 'pseudo' understand what they are talking about, but not really. They don't understand the *current* that actually 'reconnects', and they don't want to understand it.

The saddest part is E tried to tell them "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" E=mc^2. So, what do they do? They transform a moving frame into a stationary frame, and lo and behold, see, no electric current! He told them, it's moving bodies, moving charged particles in relation to other moving charged particles. Electric current. They can't measure the electric current until they go there, only magnetic fields can be detected externally.

basic - Why should a circuit be grounded? - Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange

The term "ground" can mean different things. When a circuit is looked at locally, ground is simply the one net someone picked to call 0V so that all other voltages are understood to be relative to it. Voltage is after all a relative concept. There is no such thing as 20V absolute, only 20V here with respect to there.

But.....wherever we have been, we discover electric currents, from the atom to the solar system.


NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind


Jupiter&#8217;s poles crackle with volcano-induced auroras | Astro Bob


Icy Moon Zaps Saturn with Electron Beams


NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

"Stringy things," magnetic ropes, let's at least call them by their real name, Birkeland Currents.

Birkeland current - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

What they got is (Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories) - Fairie Dust.

It's time to break out the View Master:

TOM WILSON: Believing is Not Seeing | EU 2013 - YouTube

Whatever it takes to ignore electricity as the cause of anything.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Any science whiz here want to discuss comets or Enceladus, Io, the Sun, or whatever that we have actually measured instead of Fairie Dust that can't be measured or detected?

I am really tired of throwing hard earned tax dollars away on the search for nothing. And paying for symposiums so they can slap each other on the back in celebration for finding absolutely NOTHING. And then ask for more money. Duh, sure, you've found the nothing, we must keep looking as we found nothing.

A Neverending Story - Cosmologists Find The Nothing!!

&#8220;With our new result we are leapfrogging the competition,&#8221; said Blas Cabrera of Stanford University, co-spokesperson of the CDMS experiment, for which the Department of Energy&#8217;s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory hosts the project management..... Our experiment is now sensitive enough to hear WIMPs even if they ring the &#8216;bells&#8217; of our crystal germanium detector only twice a year. So far, we have heard nothing.&#8221; (emphasis added)

No Elephants In My Carpet - More LIES from LIGO

The nondetection of a signal from GRB070201 is an important step toward a very productive synergy between gravitational-wave and other astronomical communities that will contribute to our understanding of the most energetic events in the cosmos.

I mean, what else can we do but joke about it I guess till they put down the View Master. I mean not even background noise where they could possibly expect to find something, so they found two nothings, which somehow is a test of the equipments power. As Dave said it better than I could:

I'd say their results expose the theoretical models as being unworkable, unfalsifiable, imaginative tripe! They've found nothing, not even 'background' with the most sensitive tests in the world. And by the end of the year, they'll have found three times the nothing.

Math is good though:

Time for some heavy math - we know theoretical physicists and cosmologists understand math, so let's exercise the grey matter. I hope it's not too stressing, most cosmological equations I see have lots of ones and zeros in them, and this one starts with a double-digit number.

25 x 0 = um, ... er, ... nothing!! zero, zilch, naught, nil, nada, zip, sweet Fanny Adams, diddly-squat,jack, NOTHING!! Sure hope I didn't confuse anyone with so many interpretations of the answer to that one. Math can be so complicated.

But do they even once consider that it is their starting theories that are incorrect? Nope, just add a touch of Dark Matter, a tad of Dark Energy, throw in a black hole (need the cat) and Abra-cadabra! See, it works!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is quite evident electric currents are driving everything, from the orbits of planets and galaxies to atmospheric effects. It is the "stringy things and magnetic ropes" (Birkeland Currents) connecting the planets to the sun that drive them.
Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field
The heat given off of the electrical interaction is what powers the planets core.
Electromagnetic Induction
the same process we use every day.
Induction cooking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is not some magical spinning core at the center of our planet that defies all the known laws of physics. A perpetual motion dynamo, spinning happily away for 4.7 billion years despite friction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

Perpetual motion describes "motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy; impossible in practice because of friction.

This is a term you should get used to, Marklund Convection.
Marklund convection - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)
Twinkle, twinkle electric star | holoscience.com | The Electric Universe
The further away from the Sun the planets are, the higher their sustained winds, forming bands. The turbulence caused by heat breaks up those bands on Earth, because it's heat input is only slightly greater than its electrical input. But the further from the Sun the less heat is transmitted, so the planets electrical input is now greater, and the winds form bands in excess of the planets rotational speed, increasing the further out.
Venus on the other hand has a greater electrical input, why we can detect its plasma sheath, and see the visible evidence of these currents driving these wind bands despite the heat from the Sun.
Venus' Mysterious South Polar Cyclone | Space News - YouTube
VENUS' TAIL OF THE UNEXPECTED
The same process we observe on the pole of Enceladus and on Io.
Saturn's Electric Moon Enceladus, Part One | Space News - YouTube
Saturn's Electric Moon Enceladus, Part Two | Space News - YouTube
The Electrical "Volcanoes" of Jupiter's Moon Io | Space News - YouTube
That causes large electrical sub storms in our upper atmosphere. If they could just imagine the electric currents they measure as doing something, they might not be surprised and have to unlearn everything they were taught.
Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere / UCLA Newsroom

[FONT=&quot]"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger."

However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere. This region is where communications spacecraft operate and where the energy releases in space known as substorms wreak havoc on satellites, power grids and communications systems.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The rate at which the solar wind transfers energy to the magnetosphere can vary widely, but what determines the rate of energy transfer is unclear.[/FONT]

No it isn't, it's quite clear, it's those electric currents the moving charged particles cause, which forms the magnetic field. How it is transferred is obvious, from those same stringy things that connect Earth to Sun.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found an answer:
"The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."

Partly correct. in order for current to flow it must flow in a circuit. As charged particles move in relation to one another in the electric field they produce, the magnetic field forms around them, confining them into filamentary pathways. The magnetic rope is the effect of the electric currents created by the moving charged particles. This same current that connects galaxy to galaxy you want to call Dark Matter, but hey, Plasma - Dark Matter, what's in a name. A Birkeland Current is a Birkeland Current, whether it be stringy things or well, pearls on a string - "filaments," another word you should get used to.
Visualization Services - ENZO
Entwined Birkeland Currents, just slide aside the View Master.
Star formation and structure formation in galaxy collisions - INSPIRE-HEP
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0804/ngc2207_hst_big.jpg
Sometimes entwining tightly
http://i.space.com/images/i/000/009/932/i02/wise-telescope-galaxies-group.jpg
And sometimes separating
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0807/ngc5426_gemini_big.jpg
All depending on current direction and angles between the outer surfaces.
MIT Physics Demo -- Forces on a Current-Carrying Wire - YouTube

 

[Michael]

It is quite evident electric currents are driving everything, from the orbits of planets and galaxies to atmospheric effects. It is the "stringy things and magnetic ropes" (Birkeland Currents) connecting the planets to the sun that drive them.

Well, it's evident to anyone *outside* of the astronomy community, but the astronomy community is apparently intent on living in the dark ages of cosmology for all time. In fact they actively seem to *hate* any discussion of EU/PC theory with a passion. It's one of those "against the mainstream" topics of astronomy that nobody can even discuss over at Cosmoquest. I still think "Bad Astronomy" was a more appropriate name for that forum.

When the mainstream talks about electromagnetism in space to reporters, they always "dumb it down" to "magnetic fields", and "magnetic reconnection", and "magnetic yada yada yada". They almost never use terms like "electromagnetic" fields, or electrical discharges in relationship to coronal loops for instance. It's like they go out of their way to *avoid any discussion* of the electrical current that creates those powerful magnetic fields.

Even when the author of MHD theory Hannes Alfven told them that "magnetic reconnection" theory was "pseudoscience", and he presented his double layer paper made that theory obsolete and irrelevant, they ignored him. They still cling to their magnetic pseudoscience to this very day.

I don't believe that astronomers today are even fully free to discuss electricity in space, even though many of them are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. David's attitude is a stereotypical example of the treatment that one can expect *within* the astronomy community for daring to 'question the dogma' of mainstream theory. The abuse is personal and intense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, it's evident to anyone *outside* of the astronomy community, but the astronomy community is apparently intent on living in the dark ages of cosmology for all time. In fact they actively seem to *hate* any discussion of EU/PC theory with a passion. It's one of those "against the mainstream" topics of astronomy that nobody can even discuss over at Cosmoquest. I still think "Bad Astronomy" was a more appropriate name for that forum.

When the mainstream talks about electromagnetism in space to reporters, they always "dumb it down" to "magnetic fields", and "magnetic reconnection", and "magnetic yada yada yada". They almost never use terms like "electromagnetic" fields, or electrical discharges in relationship to coronal loops for instance. It's like they go out of their way to *avoid any discussion* of the electrical current that creates those powerful magnetic fields.

Even when the author of MHD theory Hannes Alfven told them that "magnetic reconnection" theory was "pseudoscience", and he presented his double layer paper made that theory obsolete and irrelevant, they ignored him. They still cling to their magnetic pseudoscience to this very day.

I don't believe that astronomers today are even fully free to discuss electricity in space, even though many of them are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. David's attitude is a stereotypical example of the treatment that one can expect *within* the astronomy community for daring to 'question the dogma' of mainstream theory. The abuse is personal and intense.

Yes, they have quite the phobea to it, but I believe that is because it scares them. Not just because it means they've been wrong since they first said electric currents could not exist in space, but for deeper reasons as well. Reasons I wont get into on this forum, it has it's own.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7752006/

Just like with Halton Arp, even though he never mentioned electricity as a possible cause back then, they still took away all his telescope time because he wouldn't stop taking pictures of quasars connected to local galaxies. An yes, Hannes Alfven told them during his acceptance speach for the Nobel prize for MHD they were basically idiots and traveling in the wrong direction.

That's the one thing I like about this forum, it actually lets people speak their minds as long as they don't get too disrespectfull, unlike most mainstream forums that when you mention the word electricity they ban you in order to stop people from hearing about it.

That we detect it everywhere we go does not seem to matter, even when they argued it couldn't be there in the first place. Then we found it everywhere we sent a probe, so now it just doesn't DO anything.

They wanted to use the convection in the Sun to explain the magnetic fields to explain the electric currents they measure. But their convection theory was shattered, which now leaves nothing but the electric currents as the cause, as their cause for the magnetic fields just fell flat.
Unexpectedly slow motions below the Sun's surface
From the Cover: Anomalously weak solar convection
Anomalously Weak Solar Convection - INSPIRE-HEP

Granted they are preliminary results and I fully expect the values to be adjusted with further study. Perhaps it will change to 5%, or perhaps .5% instead of the 1% they measure now. Just like when we started measuring light, the values changed slowly as equipment advanced, but none were ever off by 99 orders of magnitude.

No, they are not free to discuss electric currents. They can mention them since they detect them, but are not allowed to posit them in any hypothesis. They are slowly geting the general public used to hearing about electric currents, so one day they can switch without looking like the idiots they were for arguing against it for over 100 years. Unlike the psychophants that follow mainstream theory, the scientists no longer argue against electric currents in space, they can't, they detected them. All they can do is ignore them for now.