Fairie Dust

[Justatruthseeker]

I am just curious as to how long we are supposed to wait for mainstream astronomers (and their sycophants) to quit talking about space as if it was an electrically neutral environment and to add the electrical force into their calculations and theories???

Space Charge - NASA Science

1. Conducting surfaces whose electrical potential is highly negative with respect to the plasma undergo arcing. Such arcing not only damages the material but also results in current disruptions, significant electro-magnetic interference, and large discontinuous changes in the array potential. Further, inbound ions, accelerated by the high fields, will cause sputtering from surfaces with which they impact.
2. Solar arrays or other surfaces whose charge is biased positively with respect to the plasma collect electrons from the plasma, resulting in a parasitic loss to the power system...
3. Currents collected by biased surfaces also significantly affect the potentials at which different parts of the spacecraft will "float."

Arcing, Ion sputtering of the negatively charge object, just like you observe on comets.


Even NASA realizes it is no longer wise to pretend space is electrically neutral, regardless of what mainstream astronomers want. Unlike the theorists in their walled boxes, NASA must work in space and deal with the effects on satellites and spacecraft, and the astronauts. They can't afford to ignore it any longer.

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

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

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

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

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

http://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric12.pdf


NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

Magnetism is the key to understanding the Sun. Magnetic fields are produced in the Sun by the flow of electrically charged ions and electrons.

I do beg to differ, the flow of electrically charged ions and electrons (charged particles) which produced the magnetic field is the key to understanding the Sun. The good news is that by at least studying the magnetic fields we will slowly gain knowledge of how those charged particles behave.
How much longer do we have to ignore what 99% of the universe is?

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

NASA - Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

So really, just how long must we continue to pretend space is an electrically neutral environment to keep dead theories of Fairie Dust alive?

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. Fairie Dust.

 

[CabVet]

I knew your gibberish was familiar... Do you have any relation with this website:

Electric Cosmos

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I knew your gibberish was familiar... Do you have any relation with this website:

Electric Cosmos

Not as familiar as your gibberish. Ad homien remarks don't work here, we are discussing the religion you choose to call science. That you choose to follow a theory that requires more Fairie Dust than my religion, is not my problem, but yours.

I understand you are handicapped by a lack of supporting evidence and what evidence we have falsifies your beliefs. I understand this is why you can do nothing but participate in meaningless remarks not directed to the subject of the post. Because you have no facts to present, and all you are left with is snide remarks that you actually believe makes you look intelligent. But then you have shown to be excellent at ignoring facts, which makes you look anything but.


Nemo me impune lacessit

 

[HitchSlap]

Fairy Dust - Glitter, Bath and Beauty Gifts for Girls, Teens and Tweens

 

[HitchSlap]

Not as familiar as your gibberish. Ad homien remarks don't work here, we are discussing the religion you choose to call science. That you choose to follow a theory that requires more Fairie Dust than my religion, is not my problem, but yours.

I understand you are handicapped by a lack of supporting evidence and what evidence we have falsifies your beliefs. I understand this is why you can do nothing but participate in meaningless remarks not directed to the subject of the post. Because you have no facts to present, and all you are left with is snide remarks that you actually believe makes you look intelligent. But then you have shown to be excellent at ignoring facts, which makes you look anything but.


Nemo me impune lacessit

Hold on, hold on... now where'd I put my Iron-o-Meter? Ah, there it is, here, just let me blow it off and plug it in.

 

[CabVet]

Not as familiar as your gibberish. Ad homien remarks don't work here, we are discussing the religion you choose to call science. That you choose to follow a theory that requires more Fairie Dust than my religion, is not my problem, but yours.

I understand you are handicapped by a lack of supporting evidence and what evidence we have falsifies your beliefs. I understand this is why you can do nothing but participate in meaningless remarks not directed to the subject of the post. Because you have no facts to present, and all you are left with is snide remarks that you actually believe makes you look intelligent. But then you have shown to be excellent at ignoring facts, which makes you look anything but.

Nemo me impune lacessit

Ad hominem? Really? Do you know the meaning of the word "gibberish"? Here, I will help you out:

gib·ber·ish (j

b

r-

sh)
n.
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
2.a. Highly technical or esoteric language.
2.b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

You didn't answer my question though, are you affiliated with that website? A lot of your stuff is directly copied and pasted from there.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hold on, hold on... now where'd I put my Iron-o-Meter? Ah, there it is, here, just let me blow it off and plug it in.

Someone wants to have a reasonable discussion, fine, but try to stick me in a pit with a lion and I'm gonna try to kill it, and then go after the one that threw me in the pit. Those who choose personal attacks instead of debate got another thing coming if they think I won't call an idiot an idiot. Jesus said I was to turn the other cheek, not bend over and take it up the....

Yes, it should of set the iron-o-meter off, or the sarcasim-meter off.

Sorry, but I got no problem fighting fire with fire. Sometimes you gotta cut off the head of the snake so it quits trying to bite, while whispering seductive words to you about never dying and being like gods if we deny him.

 

[CabVet]

Someone wants to have a reasonable discussion, fine, but try to stick me in a pit with a lion and I'm gonna try to kill it, and then go after the one that threw me in the pit. Those who choose personal attacks instead of debate got another thing coming if they think I won't call an idiot an idiot. Jesus said I was to turn the other cheek, not bend over and take it up the....

Yes, it should of set the iron-o-meter off, or the sarcasim-meter off.

Sorry, but I got no problem fighting fire with fire. Sometimes you gotta cut off the head of the snake so it quits trying to bite, while whispering seductive words to you about never dying and being like gods if we deny him.

I am still waiting for the fire, you haven't sent any my way yet.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ad hominem? Really? Do you know the meaning of the word "gibberish"? Here, I will help you out:

gib·ber·ish (j

b

r-

sh)
n.
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
2.a. Highly technical or esoteric language.
2.b. Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.

You didn't answer my question though, are you affiliated with that website? A lot of your stuff is directly copied and pasted from there.

Here, let me help you with ad homien:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

Which is what your personal attacks are *irrelevent.*


Here, let me help with the meaning of that word too.

Synonyms: extraneous, foreign, garbage, immaterial, impertinent, inapplicable, inapposite, inappropriate, inappurtenant, inapropos, inapt, inconsequent, inconsequential, insignificant, not connected with, not germane, not pertaining to, off the point, off the topic, out of order, out of place, outside, pointless, remote, trivial, unapt, unconnected, unimportant, unnecessary, unrelated, without reference.

 

[CabVet]

Here, let me help you with ad homien:

Which is what your personal attacks are *irrelevent.*

The word is "irrelevant", and saying that your post was unintelligible (which it was, since I am not going to follow all of those links) is not a personal attack.

Here, let me help with the meaning of that word too.

Yeah, next time try to spell it correctly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fairy Dust - Glitter, Bath and Beauty Gifts for Girls, Teens and Tweens

Yes, rather like all thier other Fairie Dust entities. Online is the only place you are ever going to find them.

The Particle Zoo: Subatomic Particle plushies

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The word is "irrelevant", and saying that your post was unintelligible (which it was, since I am not going to follow all of those links) is not a personal attack.

That's the problem, you refuse to read anything that can't be condensed into two sentences. It is why you are so misinformed about what the universe really is. The name of the links says it all, it is an Electric Universe, not an electrical neutral universe full of Fairie Dust, what you call dark matter, black holes, expanding space, neutron stars. For some reason all these people that claim to follow scientific methods never seem to want to discuss science, just personal religious beliefs. If you can't get rid of your Fairie Dust in your science, just how are you ever going to convince anyone to think anything you got to say about evolution is based upon anything more factual than your views of the universe?

Sure, GR in a very limited context describes pretty well the solar system and center of galaxies where matter is in close confines. But lets face it, it fails utterly to describe the other 99% of the universe. It is strictly limited in its application. And because of this limit astronomers had to postulate Fairie Dust to prop up the theory. Even though E told you it was the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, you failed to listen. That E=mc^2, of which you have ignored the energy content of matter since it was first discovered.

Let's discuss this science you claim to follow. I say in the end it shows as nothing more than a religion all it's own, in direct contradiction to all the data since we launched the very first probe into space.

 

[quatona]

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. Fairie Dust.

Yeah, funny.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. Fairie Dust.

This "Fairie Dust" lie about dark matter and dark energy has popped yet up again so I will address it here.
26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: How "Fairie Dust" is an abysmally bad lie.
Fabricated is almost a lie. It was the evidence that the universe presented that convinces scientists that dark matter and dark energy existed and had to be added to existing models.
Ad-hoc is a lie. Dark matter and dark energy have to have specific properties.
Inventions is a lie. Dark matter and dark energy have string empirical evidence.
Repeated Invoked is true - there is a large body of scientific literature on dark matter and dark energy.
Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories is an abysmally bad lie. Newtonian gravitation, Newtonian mechanics and general relativity are some of the best tested theories we have. Calling them "untenable" is close to insane given over 300 years of passed tests.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sure, GR in a very limited context describes pretty well the solar system and center of galaxies where matter is in close confines.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance that GR "describes pretty well the solar system and center of galaxies" when it describes the entire universe very well!
Big Bang
Tests of general relativity (including the recent detection of gravitational waves).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Sure, GR in a very limited context describes pretty well the solar system and center of galaxies where matter is in close confines. But lets face it, it fails utterly to describe the other 99% of the universe.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: A GR "fails utterly to describe the other 99% of the universe" lie
GR contains all of the mass and energy in the system being described. When this is the universe, GR describes 100% of the mass and energy in the universe.
GR does not state what that mass is because it is not nuclear physics (quarks, protons, electrons, etc.) ! GR has always had a cosmological constant which is the best explanation for dark energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Even though E told you it was the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, you failed to listen. That E=mc^2, of which you have ignored the energy content of matter since it was first discovered.

26 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: An ignorant derail into special relativity and a "ignored the energy content of matter" lie.
Einstein's paper on special relativity was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". The equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc^2) has been used for 113 years !
General relativity includes mass and thus its equivalent energy within the stress–energy tensor.

 

[sjastro]

Note how "Fairie Dust" is replaced by Magic Plasma.

 

[tas8831]

A lot of your stuff is directly copied and pasted from there.

So we can add "plagiarist" to the creationist's long list of unsavory attributes?

 

[tas8831]

I am just curious as to how long we are supposed to wait for mainstream astronomers (and their sycophants)...

So now you are an expert physicist/astronomer, too? Wow..

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. Fairie Dust.

it is weird - whenever I ask a creationist for them to explain and provides examples of the mechanisms they propose for their claims, I usually get bible verses or some vague reference to God. That seems an awful lot like Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. I guess you are just pontificating and projecting, as usual.