Moved from Creation Evolution - Astronomy

[lesliedellow]

Of course they are mad proposing particles that do not react electromagnetically. of course now they want dark matter to be a particle that reacts barely because their mad scientists claims all fell out the window. We agree those that propose Dark Matter are not scientists.

Oh dear. I defy you to find a physicist on the face of the planet who doesn't say that the electromagnetic force is not what keeps electrons attached to the nucleus of an atom.

So then why are you attempting to sledgehammer gravitational theory to a universe you know is 99% plasma, considering no physics but Plasma Physics is used to describe plasma behavior in any single laboratory anywhere????????

Please idiot, the particles which constitute an atom remain subject to the gravitational force, no matter what state they are in.

You got nothing but Fairie Dust in your world because you refuse to apply the proper physics to the proper states of matter. You might as well start applying gas physics to water and then add that 96% Fairie Dust because you used the wrong physics, because that's exactly what you are doing.

As Loudmouth said, spouting "fairies dust" all the time is just a way of trying to cover up your complete and utter ignorance of even the most elementary science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh dear. I defy you to find a physicist on the face of the planet who doesn't say that the electromagnetic force is not what keeps electrons attached to the nucleus of an atom.

Oh dear - you really do use a View-Master even when reading posts, don't you.

What is up with that strawman lesliedellow????? Who was discussing atoms that every person in their right mind understands is controlled by the electromagnetic forces?????? You apparently did not read anything - so I will re-post it highlighting the relavent portions so you can't throw in another strawman...

"Of course they are mad proposing particles that do not react electromagnetically. of course now they want dark matter to be a particle that reacts barely because their mad scientists claims all fell out the window. We agree those that propose Dark Matter are not scientists."

Please idiot, the particles which constitute an atom remain subject to the gravitational force, no matter what state they are in.

Only one warning - next time you get reported.

Then show me one plasma experiment in one single plasma laboratory that is treated with the gravitational laws instead of the electromagnetic force laws.

That's what I thought - look in the mirror before you start using names.

You should know better to make such an unsupported claim.

Go lock yourself into a room for about a year - maybe you'll figure it out then.

That erroneous belief about what happens in micro-gravity (the condition prevailing throughout all of space - except on the surface of a planet) is what led them to believe the experiment would not work in space. Instead it opened up a whole new horizon for those that chose not to blind themselves with the Fairie Dust you preach.

As Loudmouth said, spouting "fairies dust" all the time is just a way of trying to cover up your complete and utter ignorance of even the most elementary science.

And as he has failed to do - so will you.

Present one single plasma experiment in which the gravitational force laws were used to describe it's behavior in one single plasma laboratory???

Come on - I've been waiting over two years now - can't one of you find even one, what with 200+ years of laboratory experimentation with plasma????

And so what in your right mind makes you think it's ok for cosmologists and astronomers (not Plasma Physicists) to treat plasma the same way they treat solids, liquids and gasses that way in space, when no one does so in the lab?????? Like you all always say, if you are sick you go to a doctor. If you want to understand how plasma behaves - you go to a plasma physicist. Not pseudo-scientists like cosmologists and astronomers who refuse to treat it like plasma.

Only one that is ignoring science is you, that's why you'll never present that one single experiment because it does not exist.

And then you wonder why they need 96% Fairie Dust because they treated plasma like the 1% of solids, liquids and gasses. Just admit the truth: all you have is pseudo-science. Let's spell it out class.

Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory.

 

[lesliedellow]

Oh dear - you really do use a View-Master even when reading posts, don't you.

Oh dear, and let me quote you:

"After 100 years of complete and abject failure they still can not take the electrical force out of the atom."

Wiccan Child didn't seem able to believe what he was reading either.

Then show me one plasma experiment in one single plasma laboratory that is treated with the gravitational laws instead of the electromagnetic force laws.

Completely irrelevant. The electromagnetic force acts between charged particles over a short distance, but it is the gravitational force which dominates (overwhelmingly) on cosmic scales - and that is because of the size of the masses involved. Not to mention the fact that plasma (ionised gas) is electrically neutral.

"Ooh you can't say it is electrically neutral. It contains free charge carriers."

Again, that is irrelevant. Positive and negative charges are present in equal amounts, and so it is electrically neutral. If you applied an electric field to it, those charge carriers could be persuaded to move in opposite directions - so what? For the brief time they were in motion a magnetic field would exist - so what? Until you remove the electric field an electrical dipole will exist - so what?

None of that has anything to do with the fact that it is gravity which acts on a cosmic scale.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh dear, and let me quote you:

"After 100 years of complete and abject failure they still can not take the electrical force out of the atom."

Wiccan Child didn't seem able to believe what he was reading either.

And you tried with your Fairie Dust dark matter and your "claimed" neutral neutrons. Then you tried to disguise the electrical charge on a quark as color...... not to be confused "with color" they assure you - they mean electrical charge - but just didn't want to say it.

Completely irrelevant. The electromagnetic force acts between charged particles over a short distance, but it is the gravitational force which dominates (overwhelmingly) on cosmic scales - and that is because of the size of the masses involved. Not to mention the fact that plasma (ionised gas) is electrically neutral.

Lab experiments in space say your Fairie Dust is completely irrelevant.

Say you don't understand plasma physics at all, it's ok to admit lack of knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

"When the charges move, they generate electric currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields. This governs their collective behavior with many degrees of freedom."

If those "bow shocks" like we were discussing "water" instead of charged particles isn't movement, I don't know what is? If those clouds of plasma in the galaxy and that entire cloud surrounding it isn't moving, I don't know what is????????

Yes - in the lab, enclosed in a little glass jar - plasma eventually settles into the neutral state being it's motion is confined and no new plasma is added.

The second you are in free-fall - the gravitational force is negligible. And those generated currents and magnetic fields overpower it by 39 orders of magnitude - just like it does also at the scale of the atom.

Plasma interactions (electromagnetic) are scaleable to an almost infinite order of magnitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_scaling

What neutrality anywhere?????

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20110420.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

At least NASA is finally admitting they are just getting around to actually studying it - after ignoring it for 100 years.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025

But you already know about all these falsifying discoveries - so why you preaching Fairie Dust????

"Ooh you can't say it is electrically neutral. It contains free charge carriers."

That's your strawman. I say you observe particle movement in that plasma every single nanosecond - and then ignore the science.

"When the charges move, they generate electric currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields. This governs their collective behavior with many degrees of freedom."

Again, that is irrelevant. Positive and negative charges are present in equal amounts, and so it is electrically neutral. If you applied an electric field to it, those charge carriers could be persuaded to move in opposite directions - so what? For the brief time they were in motion a magnetic field would exist - so what? Until you remove the electric field an electrical dipole will exist - so what?

None of that has anything to do with the fact that it is gravity which acts on a cosmic scale.

EDIT:
{And tell us all - what particle is motionless in space??? Cosmic scale? It's microgravity just a few miles from the earth and the sun. It's pull so inconsequential mere walking speed would take you out of the solar system.}

And if those particles were not moving - you would have a chance of not being totally wrong.

Yes - so much for that neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet

So much energy in your electrically neutral universe you had to add 96% more because you ignore how 99% of it behaves.

Of course it's irrelevant to you that no one in the lab treats it any other way but electromagnetically. Laboratory evidence means nothing to you - that's why dark matter has failed all 12 laboratory experiments - and it's just "constrained".

Even though it only took 4 null results to falsify aether theories instead of "constrain" them. Yes, we all understand that direct empirical evidence is trumped by pure theory in your mind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem is you couldn't even be bothered to watch a 4:55 experiment with plasma in space - or you would have known how those particles behaved in "Zero-G" the condition prevailing throughout all of space.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Zero+G

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness

"Weightlessness, or an absence of 'weight', is an absence of stress and strain resulting from externally applied mechanical contact-forces, typically normal forces from floors, seats, beds, scales, and the like. Counterintuitively, a uniform gravitational field does not by itself cause stress or strain, and a body in free fall in such an environment experiences no g-force acceleration and feels weightless. This is also termed "zero-g" where the term is more correctly understood as meaning "zero g-force.""

Because it is so negligible that maneuvering thrusts could get the shuttle completely out of the solar system.

 

[lesliedellow]

And you tried with your Fairie Dust dark matter and your "claimed" neutral neutrons. Then you tried to disguise the electrical charge on a quark as color...... not to be confused "with color" they assure you - they mean electrical charge - but just didn't want to say it.

Sorry sunshine, neutrons are neutral. One up quark and two down quarks makes it neutral.

Say you don't understand plasma physics at all, it's ok to admit lack of knowledge.

You don't understand physics at all. Your "text book" consists solely of little understood articles plucked from Wikipedia. Did you ever manage to pass even a high school level exam in physics? There is no need to answer that, because the answer is obvious.

"When the charges move, they generate electric currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields. This governs their collective behavior with many degrees of freedom."

And so what. The movement of charged particles is (sort of) the definition of an electric current, and so they "generate" an electric current. However, if their movement is to be anything other than random, with the overall effect being no nett current flowing, they must be in the presence of an electric field.

If those "bow shocks" like we were discussing "water" instead of charged particles isn't movement, I don't know what is? If those clouds of plasma in the galaxy and that entire cloud surrounding it isn't moving, I don't know what is????????

If a cloud is moving, it will be doing so by virtue of an applied force, and in space gravity is the only candidate force. What happens when a stream of charged particles hits a magnetosphere has nothing to do with anything.

Yes - in the lab, enclosed in a little glass jar - plasma eventually settles into the neutral state being it's motion is confined and no new plasma is added.

My dear boy, the definition of neutral is that charges are present in equal amounts, with no resulting nett charge. Whether or not a cloud of plasma is in motion has nothing to do with it.

The second you are in free-fall - the gravitational force is negligible. And those generated currents and magnetic fields overpower it by 39 orders of magnitude - just like it does also at the scale of the atom.

Absolute nonsense. The gravitational field will continue to accelerate my fall until air resistance steps in to provide an equal and opposite force. Well done, you have misunderstood one of the underlying ideas behind General Relativity yet again.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry sunshine, neutrons are neutral. One up quark and two down quarks makes it neutral.

Nope - you just can't measure it is all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

"The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.[51] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments."

It is "Dark" to you is all - because you can't see it yet like you couldn't see that plasma a few years ago at 2 million K.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html

I mean come on - just 4 years ago you couldn't even see the brightest thing in the sky by 2 orders of magnitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

"Initial data from Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), launched in October 2008, revealed a previously unpredicted "very narrow ribbon that is two to three times brighter than anything else in the sky."​

Composed of those very "neutral" neutrons - oh my bad, just energetic neutral neutrons.

"No one knows what is creating the ENA (energetic neutral atoms) ribbon, ..."​

If you say so, if you say so. But then it's not all my theories that were falsified.

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."​

You don't understand physics at all. Your "text book" consists solely of little understood articles plucked from Wikipedia. Did you ever manage to pass even a high school level exam in physics? There is no need to answer that, because the answer is obvious.

Did you manage to find that one experiment yet????

So basically your going to waste both our times talking about imaginary Fairie Dust?????

And so what. The movement of charged particles is (sort of) the definition of an electric current, and so they "generate" an electric current. However, if their movement is to be anything other than random, with the overall effect being no nett current flowing, they must be in the presence of an electric field.

Where isn't there one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

"It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction."

Even if you count them as stationary there is one.

"The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents);"

If a cloud is moving, it will be doing so by virtue of an applied force, and in space gravity is the only candidate force. What happens when a stream of charged particles hits a magnetosphere has nothing to do with anything.

That's why galactic jets accelerate away from black holes right? Gravity??? That's why the solar wind accelerates out past the orbit of Jupiter? Gravity???? I believe the only experimentally known way you know of to accelerate charged particles is the way every particle accelerator does so in every lab - electromagnetic fields.

Oh I keep forgetting - laboratory data means nothing to you.

Now you can claim what you like way-out-thataway... Sure, we can close our eyes and imagine......

My dear boy, the definition of neutral is that charges are present in equal amounts, with no resulting nett charge. Whether or not a cloud of plasma is in motion has nothing to do with it.

Except those moving charges are the exact definition of an electric current and as we know when charges in plasma move - they generate electric currents and magnetic fields. And hence you are able to measure the magnetic fields. But voltage - electric fields - can only be measured with respect to another object. But not understanding anything about electromagnetics - of course you wouldn't know that.

EDIT:
{Of course only in the mind is it black holes. In the lab it's plasma and electromagnetic fields and currents.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7623-plasma-experiment-recreates-astrophysical-jets/

"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."}

Known for forever.

Absolute nonsense. The gravitational field will continue to accelerate my fall until air resistance steps in to provide an equal and opposite force. Well done, you have misunderstood one of the underlying ideas behind General Relativity yet again.

Hmmm, and yet a rocket in orbit that gives a small maneuvering thrust leaves LEO and with just a tiny small burn begins it's journey to the moon, or any other planet within the solar system - coasting all the way without that gravity stopping them at all.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nope - you just can't measure it is all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

"The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.[51] The predicted value is, however, well below the current sensitivity of experiments."

Same old crap. He still thinks that the presence of an electric dipole means that a neutron is not neutral. Absolute nonsense, of course. Apparently he didn't even manage to read the very first sentence in his own link.

Composed of those very "neutral" neutrons - oh my bad, just energetic neutral neutrons.

It goes from bad to worse, if that is even possible. Now he doesn't know the difference between a neutron and a neutral atom.

​

Where isn't there one?

Just about everywhere. Of course, here in the Uk I am in the presence of the electromagnetic field being generated by Mr Smith's washing machine in California, not to mention Mrs Jones's electric kettle in Australia. Neither of them, however, would be detectable with even the most sensitive instruments, and neither of them would have the slightest effect upon any charged particles in my lounge.

"It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction."

See above. Even he seems to have heard of the inverse square law, but apparently it does not to enter into his little brain to apply it.

I believe the only experimentally known way you know of to accelerate charged particles is the way every particle accelerator does so in every lab - electromagnetic fields.

Try launching the collection of charged particles known as Justatruthseeker off the top of a cliff, and see how gravity defying they are. Purely in the name of science, of course.

Except those moving charges are the exact definition of an electric current and as we know when charges in plasma move - they generate electric currents and magnetic fields.

Not at a macroscopic level they don't. Try getting a light bulb to light without applying an electric field to the free electrons in the copper wire.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7623-plasma-experiment-recreates-astrophysical-jets/

"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."

Oh, the mainstream can get something right then?

Hmmm, and yet a rocket in orbit that gives a small maneuvering thrust leaves LEO and with just a tiny small burn begins it's journey to the moon, or any other planet within the solar system - coasting all the way without that gravity stopping them at all.

You escape the Earth's gravitational field by reaching the escape velocity, unless you are heading for the Moon, and you can get the Moon's gravity to lend you a hand - which is what the Apollo spacecraft did.

​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Same old crap. He still thinks that the presence of an electric dipole means that a neutron is not neutral. Absolute nonsense, of course. Apparently he didn't even manage to read the very first sentence in his own link.

Apparently you do not understand what is meant by a separation of positive and negative charge and so will thereby miss the entire point as it fly's over your head and beyond your comprehension.

It goes from bad to worse, if that is even possible. Now he doesn't know the difference between a neutron and a neutral atom.

Oh I quite understand the difference. Do you?

So a "neutral" atom is the most energetic thing in the sky by two to three times - yet you still call it neutral? Funny how that works. So at what point do you ever admit that a particle is no longer neutral - when it radiates enough energy to be say 4 times brighter than anything else in the sky instead of 2 to 3 times brighter? I'd say those neutrons are about as neitral as those neutral atoms. Excuse me "energetic" neutral atoms.

Just about everywhere. Of course, here in the Uk I am in the presence of the electromagnetic field being generated by Mr Smith's washing machine in California, not to mention Mrs Jones's electric kettle in Australia. Neither of them, however, would be detectable with even the most sensitive instruments, and neither of them would have the slightest effect upon any charged particles in my lounge.

And yet one post ago you tried the strawman there were no electric fields in space.

Of course, here in the US I am in the presence of the gravitational field being generated by Mr Smith's washing machine in the UK, not to mention Mrs Jones's house in Australia producing a gravitational field. Neither of them, however, would be detectable with even the most sensitive instruments, and neither of them would have the slightest effect upon any particles in my lounge.

Was that the best strawman you could think of??????

See above. Even he seems to have heard of the inverse square law, but apparently it does not to enter into his little brain to apply it.

See above.

What, that same inverse square law that Gravity operates by that does not to enter into your little brain to apply it?????? But only attempt the strawman of implying it applies only to electric fields????

Try launching the collection of charged particles known as Justatruthseeker off the top of a cliff, and see how gravity defying they are. Purely in the name of science, of course.

Let's try.

Depending on the amount of charge - Justatruthseeker would slow, stop, and begin to rise. Just as he rises above all your strawmen each and every time. The laws of physics demands it.

Not at a macroscopic level they don't. Try getting a light bulb to light without applying an electric field to the free electrons in the copper wire.

Try getting gravity to light it.

As soon as you hook up the circuit an electric field exists and those charges move and the light bulb lights.

Oh, the mainstream can get something right then?

Except they didn't really - because they still blame it on Fairie Dust.

"Theorists believe they arise when material falls onto a massive spinning object from a surrounding disc, before being funnelled outwards from the object’s poles by magnetic fields generated by the object and disc. The exact mechanism is unclear, but a couple of research groups in the world are using magnetic fields to build small-scale jets in the laboratory."

Except there was no spinning massive object - just plasma and a simple law of physics: currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other.

They then began to theorize about Fairie Dust in space - instead of applying those simple laws of physics. That's where they went wrong.

You escape the Earth's gravitational field by reaching the escape velocity, unless you are heading for the Moon, and you can get the Moon's gravity to lend you a hand - which is what the Apollo spacecraft did.

And the viking craft which are heading out of the solar system, they using other stars gravity to help them now that they are beyond the orbits of the planets???? Such strawmen lesliedellow, certainly you can do better can you not???? I was hoping for an intellectual challenge - instead all I get is low brow Fairie Dust that even a 6 year old could defeat.

 

[lesliedellow]

Apparently you do not understand what is meant by a separation of positive and negative charge and so will thereby miss the entire point as it fly's over your head and beyond your comprehension.

Iunderstand that every atom in my body is electrically neutral, and the fact that the electron shells are (relatively speaking) miles away from the positively charged nucleus does not make them anything other than neutral. The neutron is likewise neutral, and for the same very basic, completely elementary, third year schoolboy, reason.

So a "neutral" atom is the most energetic thing in the sky by two to three times - yet you still call it neutral?

That's because it is neutral. Being electrically neutral has everything to do with nett charge, and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with velocity.

[Funny how that works. So at what point do you ever admit that a particle is no longer neutral

Since a charged elementary particle cannot be deprived of its charge, if it has one, and it cannot be endowed with a charge, if it hasn't one, I will call it charged when it is charged and neutral when it is neutral.

And yet one post ago you tried the strawman there were no electric fields in space.

There seems to be something wrong with your English comprehension. There are no electrical fields in space, except for when you are within spitting distance of a charged body. Like I said, the inverse square law applies.

Of course, here in the US I am in the presence of the gravitational field being generated by Mr Smith's washing machine in the UK, not to mention Mrs Jones's house in Australia producing a gravitational field. Neither of them, however, would be detectable with even the most sensitive instruments, and neither of them would have the slightest effect upon any particles in my lounge.

Glad to see you take the point, except for reasons best known to yourself you substituted "gravitational field" for "electric field".

What, that same inverse square law that Gravity operates by that does not to enter into your little brain to apply it?????? But only attempt the strawman of implying it applies only to electric fields????

Yes, the very same inverse square law, which is why I am no greatly bothered by the gravitational field of Jupiter. Of course, I might be more greatly bothered if my mass was such that it compensated for my distance from Jupiter.

Let's try.

Depending on the amount of charge - Justatruthseeker would slow, stop, and begin to rise. Just as he rises above all your strawmen each and every time. The laws of physics demands it.

Not that again. I don't know what you think it proves, but it proves nothing.

Try getting gravity to light it.

As soon as you hook up the circuit an electric field exists and those charges move and the light bulb lights.

Exactly my point sunshine. No electric field - no current, and charged particles randomly whizzing round in a plasma will not produce one.

Except they didn't really - because they still blame it on Fairie Dust.

Um no, it is known as like (magnetic) poles repel. Schoolboy level stuff again.

"Theorists believe they arise when material falls onto a massive spinning object from a surrounding disc, before being funnelled outwards from the object’s poles by magnetic fields generated by the object and disc. The exact mechanism is unclear, but a couple of research groups in the world are using magnetic fields to build small-scale jets in the laboratory."

Except there was no spinning massive object

Stars, planets, black holes, galaxies?

And the viking craft which are heading out of the solar system, they using other stars gravity to help them now that they are beyond the orbits of the planets???? Such strawmen lesliedellow, certainly you can do better can you not???? I was hoping for an intellectual challenge - instead all I get is low brow Fairie Dust that even a 6 year old could defeat.

No, it utilised the gravitational fields of planets in the Solar System to generate a gravitational slingshot effect.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Iunderstand that every atom in my body is electrically neutral, and the fact that the electron shells are (relatively speaking) miles away from the positively charged nucleus does not make them anything other than neutral. The neutron is likewise neutral, and for the same very basic, completely elementary, third year schoolboy, reason.

There is nothing “neutral” about your body. Stop ignoring 99% of the data. Do research before you make unsupported claims, like a boy with no schooling does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_capacitance

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/01/body-electricity-grounding.aspx


Without electricity – you wouldn’t be here making absurd claims.


http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/human-body-make-electricity.htm

That's because it is neutral. Being electrically neutral has everything to do with nett charge, and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with velocity.

Nothing is neutral – that’s why all your theories fail. Not even the human body or the rock beneath your feet or the air around you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_weather_condition

http://physics.oregonstate.edu/~mcintyre/COURSES/ph431_F12/examples/EarthCharge.pdf


You should now by now for every Fairie Dust belief you present – science will defeat it. I spent 30 years ignoring the truth just like you – I know every argument you are going to make before you make it. I too was delusional, blinded by that glitter they preach.

Accept the data – not false claims of neutrality.

Since a charged elementary particle cannot be deprived of its charge, if it has one, and it cannot be endowed with a charge, if it hasn't one, I will call it charged when it is charged and neutral when it is neutral.

Except those elementary particles can have their charge increased.

Shown experimentally – but sorry, I keep forgetting experimental data means nothing to you.

There seems to be something wrong with your English comprehension. There are no electrical fields in space, except for when you are within spitting distance of a charged body. Like I said, the inverse square law applies.

We agree someone’s comprehension is flawed. So you also agree “there are no gravitational fields in space, except for when you are within spitting distance of a gravitational body. Like I (you) said, the inverse square law applies.”

Glad to see you take the point, except for reasons best known to yourself you substituted "gravitational field" for "electric field".

Glad to see you take the point – except to apply that same inverse square law that is 10 ^36 powers of magnitude weaker to begin with…… For reason best known to yourself you refuse to substitute “gravitational field” for “electric field”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

“Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena.”

Yes, the very same inverse square law, which is why I am no greatly bothered by the gravitational field of Jupiter. Of course, I might be more greatly bothered if my mass was such that it compensated for my distance from Jupiter.

You should be more concerned with it’s electric and magnetic fields – since it is they that cause you to begin that spiraling path inwards to begin with – before the gravity is strong enough to apply.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

Not that again. I don't know what you think it proves, but it proves nothing.

It proves you call everything neutral when nothing is. That’s why those “neutral” atoms were 2 to 3 times brighter than anything else in the sky electromagnetically – because they were neutral, right?????? It proves an electron can have charge added, despite your claims it can't.

Exactly my point sunshine. No electric field - no current, and charged particles randomly whizzing round in a plasma will not produce one.

Except they do so in every single laboratory experiment – that’s why you can’t find one by a plasma physicist to cite that supports your Fairie Dust beliefs. They aint whizzing around – they are bound in a vibrating crystalline matrix – but then you didn’t watch that experiment like you were supposed to – so of course your claims again fail against the science, because you didn't even know the science.

Um no, it is known as like (magnetic) poles repel. Schoolboy level stuff again.

Tell that to MIT maybe they’ll listen. Nope, they’ll laugh at you too.

Stars, planets, black holes, galaxies?

No, it utilised the gravitational fields of planets in the Solar System to generate a gravitational slingshot effect.

So the solar wind uses the sun and planets for gravitational slingshot maneuvers???? You should write a paper on that – in this Fairie Dust world it might just win a Nobel. So then at the heliosphere does it come to an almost complete stop due to those gravitational slingshot maneuvers too?

Another practitioner of the ostrich Theory:

 

[lesliedellow]

There is nothing “neutral” about your body. Stop ignoring 99% of the data. Do research before you make unsupported claims, like a boy with no schooling does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_capacitance

Wouldn't it be nice if you had even the remotest idea what you are talking about. Of course my body has a capacitance. Everything has a capacitance, becauser everything can in principle have a static electrical charge sitting on it. But things in this world are made up of atoms, and those atoms are electrically neutral.

I really have not got the patience to plough through any more of your incoherent nonsense. You have apparently never had even an elementary education in science, and yet you have the sheer gall to come on here and tell all the world's scientists that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wouldn't it be nice....

If you actually addressed the science instead of pitiful avoidance tactics?

And so the ad-hominem attacks begin anew since once again they lack the data to counter with in their Fairie dust world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.'

Because you can't attack it directly - because every one of your Fairie Dust strawmen was shot down where they stood. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

But again - I do not hold this against you personally - I understand that glitter of Fairie Dust is bright and shiny and hard to give up.

Not having patience? Is that how you are going to justify in your own mind not having any science to back your claims?????

Come one - where is that one single neutral spot in the universe???? Wasn't man - that strawman fell with 10 seconds of research - which you should of did first mind you. Nor the earth - nor the air around us - nor the space around us.

In Fact - ALL of space is full of energy. Because those electromagnetic fields are everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity
"The physical constant ε0, commonly called the vacuum permittivity, permittivity of free space or electric constant, is an ideal, (baseline) physical constant, which is the value of the absolute dielectric permittivity of classical vacuum. Its value is ε0 = 8.854 187 817... × 10−12 F/m (farads per metre).
It is the capability of the vacuum to permit electric field lines. This constant relates the units for electric charge to mechanical quantities such as length and force. For example, the force between two separated electric charges (in the vacuum of classical electromagnetism) is given by Coulomb's law:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
"The physical constant μ0, commonly called the vacuum permeability, permeability of free space, permeativity of free space, permeability of vacuum or magnetic constant is an ideal, (baseline) physical constant, which is the value of magnetic permeability in a classical vacuum. Vacuum permeability is derived from production of a magnetic field by an electric current or by a moving electric charge and in all other formulas for magnetic-field production in a vacuum. In the reference medium of classical vacuum, µ0 has an exact defined value: µ0 = 4π×10−7 N / A2 ≈ 1.2566370614...×10−6 H / m or T·m / A or Wb / (A·m) or V·s / (A·m)

No, you got a long ways to go before you can stop ignoring the science - since all of science is based upon EM forces.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you actually addressed the science instead of pitiful avoidance tactics?

And so the ad-hominem attacks begin anew since once again they lack the data to counter with in their Fairie dust world.

You self evidently have no scientific education, and you reveal that with every sentence you utter. That is not an ad-hominem attack; it is a simple statement of fact.

Go to Amazon, buy some real text books, and come back in about three years, when you have had time to read, learn and inwardly digest. Only you are not going to do that - either because you lack the ability, or because you are too intellectually lazy.

And you had better start with what, in the UK, would be called GCSE level physics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You self evidently have no scientific education, and you reveal that with every sentence you utter. That is not an ad-hominem attack; it is a simple statement of fact.

Go to Amazon, buy some real text books, and come back in about three years, when you have had time to read, learn and inwardly digest. Only you are not going to do that - either because you lack the ability, or because you are too intellectually lazy.

And you had better start with what, in the UK, would be called GCSE level physics.

You can't even keep up with me - so what's that say about your education??/


How many strawmen are you going to try this week? All your others were shown to be the Fairie Dust they are - care to attempt more Fairie Dust so your lack of education can continue to shine through?

You know your Fairie Dust belief of neutrality failed - but you should of known that was going to happen when they asked you to accept 96% Fairie Dust to explain all the energy they observe in their neutral universe.

The fact that they are wrong and promote Fairie Dust is understandable - they have careers to protect. You just promote Fairie Dust out of ignorance - because actually learning anything about electricity or plasma physics would require you to actually read something besides the blog sites where you get all your so-called scientific beliefs. What - they run out of pre-made responses at your favorite site? So early in the game too.

 

[lesliedellow]

You can't even keep up with me - so what's that say about your education??/


How many strawmen are you going to try this week? All your others were shown to be the Fairie Dust they are - care to attempt more Fairie Dust so your lack of education can continue to shine through?

You know your Fairie Dust belief of neutrality failed - but you should of known that was going to happen when they asked you to accept 96% Fairie Dust to explain all the energy they observe in their neutral universe.

The fact that they are wrong and promote Fairie Dust is understandable - they have careers to protect. You just promote Fairie Dust out of ignorance - because actually learning anything about electricity or plasma physics would require you to actually read something besides the blog sites where you get all your so-called scientific beliefs. What - they run out of pre-made responses at your favorite site? So early in the game too.

More bunkum. Have you bought yourself those text books yet?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

More bunkum. Have you bought yourself those text books yet?

If that's what makes you feel better about yourself in your own mind.....

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Creation/Evolution as per SOP for this forum.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Justatruthseeker]

More bunkum. Have you bought yourself those text books yet?

What textbooks are those?

The ones that will tell me all about "hidden ices" in comets even if the data falsifies that entire theory?

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html

"The hypothesis that tiny stardust grains would dominate comet dust came from the knowledge that comets formed in the coldest, most distant region of the young solar system....

...When we started pulling these particles out and examining them in electron microscopes and other instruments, we found even more surprises. First of all we found evidence that the standard astronomical predictions for the origin of dust in comets, or at least the ones in this comet, appear to be incorrect....

...The comet samples collected by Stardust contain abundant crystalline minerals and in most cases it is clear that they did not form by the predicted mild heating of interstellar dust. Many are too large, and have complex mineralogical and chemical compositions that could not have formed by this process. Instead of the mild heating that astronomers envisioned the comet samples were heated during their formation to severe temperatures, temperatures high enough to melt or vaporize them."

http://www.space.com/24422-solar-wind-makes-water-star-dust.html

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-lunar-soil-solar-result-comet.html

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~phayne/diviner/cwatkins/Moses_watersource_Icarus_1999.pdf


Which textbooks are those?

The ones that will tell us all about dark matter while not telling us anything of those giant plasma halos right where the dark matter is supposed to be?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html

"Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy.

If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the "missing baryon" problem for the galaxy."

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/15/full/

"Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than previously measured. The dark, nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our own Milky Way galaxy."


No seriously, which textbooks are those?

The ones that will tell us about an electrically neutral universe, while ignoring that electrical activity we observe everywhere?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20110420.html

http://radiojove.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/sci_briefs/decametric.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/30mar_moonfountains/

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/building-planets-in-plastic-bags/


But which textbooks are those?

The ones that will tell us all about the earth's heliosphere and all about those theoretical models of what they believed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

Indeed, why don't you tell me what textbooks I should purchase?

I suggest you purchase a plasma physics textbook - since 99% of the universe is plasma. Maybe if you did and actually read one, we wouldn't need to keep hearing all about your Fairie Dust.

But I notice your idea of falsification is to present no evidence at all - but merely dismiss the evidence right in front of your eyes - thinking ironically that this makes you correct. It instead just puts you in the same category as those that refused to even look into Galileo's telescope for fear that they might be shown to be wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

What textbooks are those?

You could always start with Newtonian Mechanics, and move on from there.