The Deep

[RealityCheck]

Well all you need do is fulfill the request I've asked for for months. Show one correct prediction by mainstream cosmological theory where probes have been sent to take measurements?

Shouldn't be too difficult should it?

Gravity probe B.

Predicted: gravitational lensing of space-time due to earth mass according to General Relativity.

Gravity Probe B: launched to measure this effect

Result: Measurements taken matched predictions.

Boom.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Gravity probe B.

Predicted: gravitational lensing of space-time due to earth mass according to General Relativity.

Gravity Probe B: launched to measure this effect

Result: Measurements taken matched predictions.

Boom.

Which proves what? That GR works inside the solar system that we have known for 80 years but fails everywhere else because of that pseudo-tensor?

How does that concern any of your cosmological Fairie Dust theories about the sun, dark energy, dark matter, expanding space, etc, etc, etc??????

GR requires NONE of your Fairie Dust inside the solar system, we already knew that. It works just fine. It is when you attempt to apply it to another frame but that of the solar system that it fails miserably, by 95% as a matter of fact.

I've said many times I have no problem with GR, it works quite well for the frame it was made to work in, the solar system. it is just everywhere else it doesn't work.

Yet this same theory that works so good in the solar system without any need for Fairie Dust, you then claim supports your Fairie Dust outside the solar system, where of course probes have never been.

But it is nice to know they confirmed the electrostatic torque that affects gyroscopes. And brings us one step closer to unifying the EM and gravitational forces.

Did you forget to tell the public that almost all torque that a gyroscope encounters is due to electrostatic and EM forces????

http://iopscience.iop.org/0305-4470/36/23/314

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/papers/SilbergleitAS_2003_73.pdf

Again, all you have done is show another effect of the EM forces (Maxwell's laws). That you then try to imply is due only to gravity.

Phys. Rev. 89, 400 (1953) - Spin and Angular Momentum in General Relativity

"in addition to the canonical stress-energy, a "contravariant" stress-energy which contains the usual symmetric Dirac and Maxwell terms and also asymmetric, purely gravitational terms."

In other words, another pseudo-tensor.

Contravariant Tensor -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Tensors, Contravariant and Covariant

But we already know how those variable pseudo-tensors work (or don't work depending on the frame) don't we.

Pseudotensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And why is it that the only theory you can find that has a correct prediction is GR, never any of the theories you claim GR supports?????? Perhaps because GR in reality supports none of them, being a theory of gravity, not a theory of how the universe began, or what stars are, or comets, or the heliosphere, etc, etc, etc????

 

[RealityCheck]

Which proves what? That GR works inside the solar system that we have known for 80 years but fails everywhere else because of that pseudo-tensor?

How does that concern any of your cosmological Fairie Dust theories about the sun, dark energy, dark matter, expanding space, etc, etc, etc??????

GR requires NONE of your Fairie Dust inside the solar system, we already knew that. It works just fine. It is when you attempt to apply it to another frame but that of the solar system that it fails miserably, by 95% as a matter of fact.

I've said many times I have no problem with GR, it works quite well for the frame it was made to work in, the solar system. it is just everywhere else it doesn't work.

Yet this same theory that works so good in the solar system without any need for Fairie Dust, you then claim supports your Fairie Dust outside the solar system, where of course probes have never been.

But it is nice to know they confirmed the electrostatic torque that affects gyroscopes. And brings us one step closer to unifying the EM and gravitational forces.

Did you forget to tell the public that almost all torque that a gyroscope encounters is due to electrostatic and EM forces????

Coulomb torque—a general theory for electrostatic forces in many-body systems - Abstract - Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General - IOPscience

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/sci_papers/papers/SilbergleitAS_2003_73.pdf

Again, all you have done is show another effect of the EM forces (Maxwell's laws). That you then try to imply is due only to gravity.

Phys. Rev. 89, 400 (1953) - Spin and Angular Momentum in General Relativity

"in addition to the canonical stress-energy, a "contravariant" stress-energy which contains the usual symmetric Dirac and Maxwell terms and also asymmetric, purely gravitational terms."

In other words, another pseudo-tensor.

Contravariant Tensor -- from Wolfram MathWorld

Tensors, Contravariant and Covariant

But we already know how those variable pseudo-tensors work (or don't work depending on the frame) don't we.

Pseudotensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And why is it that the only theory you can find that has a correct prediction is GR, never any of the theories you claim GR supports?????? Perhaps because GR in reality supports none of them, being a theory of gravity, not a theory of how the universe began, or what stars are, or comets, or the heliosphere, etc, etc, etc????

Wow. I meet your criteria and you go off on a rant where you don't get one thing right.

You're not a truth-seeker.... you're just a dad knock-off.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wow. I meet your criteria and you go off on a rant where you don't get one thing right.

You're not a truth-seeker.... you're just a dad knock-off.

It's your scientists own words, you didn't read any of those sources, being you answered in less than 3 minutes. Did you?

APOD: 2011 May 10 - Gravity Probe B Confirms the Existence of Gravitomagnetism

"Explanation: Does gravity have a magnetic counterpart? Spin any electric charge and you get a magnetic field. Spin any mass and, according to Einstein, you should get a very slight effect that acts something like magnetism."

Well duh, that's because every mass is composed of electric charges. Not all of us are ignorant of real physics. It doesn't act like magnetism, it was magnetism and the electrostatic forces that cause spin and torque. I thought you were science minded, so why ignore all the science?

Next you will be telling me we detected polarized light from gravitational waves. Oh wait, they already tried that and are busy now trying to salvage their reputations as they find it was just "dust".

Or maybe you will be assuring me dark matter exists, despite 7 or 8 laboratory falsifications of the theory.

Or maybe next you will tell me how galaxies aren't really receding at above c, that's it's just space-time expanding above c. Which might be right since we know that nothing can exceed the speed of c, and space-time is after all, bent nothing.

It's not my fault you are gullible and accept everything mainstream tells you as fact.

It's "your" scientists now attempting to claim that gravity also produces magnetic effects, even though we have 200+ years of laboratory evidence that electrical forces and electrical forces alone causes it.

Take your Fairie Dust elsewhere. Real scientists know what the cause is, cosmologists and theorists on the other hand apparently still haven't a clue.

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

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wake up:

Frame-dragging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"More generally, the subject of effects caused by mass–energy currents is known as gravitomagnetism, in analogy with classical electromagnetism."

in anaology, yah right, try saying is exactly like.


Gravitoelectromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation; specifically: between Maxwell's field equations and an approximation, valid under certain conditions, to the Einstein field equations for general relativity"

Valid under certain conditions, i.e. where one chooses the specific coordinates for that pseudo-tensor. It's not analogous, it is those same exact formula just converted into the language of relativity. Such conversion requiring a pseudo-tensor and the picking of coordinates that allowed the answer sought, but will not transform to any other frame and still be applicable.

 

[RealityCheck]

Your own reading comprehension is rather selective. You either ignored or completely misunderstood the part that says mass may produce an effect LIKE magnetism. NOT that mass spin produce actual magnetic force identical to that produced by electric spin.

You are now blatantly misinterpreting the stuff you quote. Why should I bother with you?

 

[MikeCarra]

Is there a basic function that determines the probability that any given science thread on here will ultimately divert over to "electric universe" stuff?

This started off like a nice, pleasant hydrous minerals discussion. You know, the friendliest of sciences: mineralogy and geochemistry!

Now look at the place! All cluttered up with the stench of Electric Universe.

Why? Why?

Have you no humanity?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is there a basic function that determines the probability that any given science thread on here will ultimately divert over to "electric universe" stuff?/quote]


Yes there is actually, the point where you actually start discussing science instead of Fairie Dust is when you start considering the electromagnetic effects observed throughout space.

Electromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electrons are bound by electromagnetic wave mechanics into orbitals around atomic nuclei to form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms, which are in turn determined by the interaction between electromagnetic force and the momentum of the electrons.

The theoretical implications of electromagnetism, in particular the establishment of the speed of light based on properties of the "medium" of propagation (permeability and permittivity), led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905....

The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life above the nuclear scale, with the exception of gravity."


When can one NOT consider it unless one discusses Fairie Dust?????????????

 

[RickG]

Yes there is actually, the point where you actually start discussing science instead of Fairie Dust is when you start considering the electromagnetic effects observed throughout space.

Justatruthseeker, nothing you have posted in this thread even comes close to relating to the topic of the thread. You have done nothing but post numerous off topic links which are nothing more than spam. If you do not wish to contribute to this threads topic, please stop derailing this one and start your own thread. Thank you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker, nothing you have posted in this thread even comes close to relating to the topic of the thread. You have done nothing but post numerous off topic links which are nothing more than spam. If you do not wish to contribute to this threads topic, please stop derailing this one and start your own thread. Thank you.

Ummm, sorry, I did start one, this thread. If you don't like it you know where the close window button is. Just because you can't support your Fairie Dust scientifically because you don't know any science is not my fault.

If you knew any real science you would be attacking the science you claim is wrong, not the poster themselves. That you can't attack the science, just goes to show you lack any real science to begin with.

 

[MikeCarra]

Yes there is actually, the point where you actually start discussing science instead of Fairie Dust is when you start considering the electromagnetic effects observed throughout space.

And this has exactly what to do with hydrous ringwoodite in the mantle???

When can one NOT consider it unless one discusses Fairie Dust?????????????

Either that or YOU cannot discuss anything without veering off into this fringe hypothesis?

Because that seems more likely. There are a few posters on here who can take literally any topic and the minute they show up it becomes an "electric universe" thread.

 

[RealityCheck]

Ummm, sorry, I did start one, this thread. If you don't like it you know where the close window button is. Just because you can't support your Fairie Dust scientifically because you don't know any science is not my fault.

If you knew any real science you would be attacking the science you claim is wrong, not the poster themselves. That you can't attack the science, just goes to show you lack any real science to begin with.

Sorry, are you claiming that electrons and atoms and electromagnetic forces are fairy dust?

 

[RickG]

Ummm, sorry, I did start one, this thread. If you don't like it you know where the close window button is. Just because you can't support your Fairie Dust scientifically because you don't know any science is not my fault.

Yes, you started this thread which you supposedly wanted to discuss the following news article:

Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core - environment - 12 June 2014 - New Scientist

In stead you have hijacked your own thread going in the opposite direction of cosmology and assorted other off thread topics.[/quote]

If you knew any real science you would be attacking the science you claim is wrong, not the poster themselves. That you can't attack the science, just goes to show you lack any real science to begin with.

That is exactly what I have been doing with respect to the topic of this thread, not the off topic cosmology rubbish. I'll be more than happy to exchange credentials with you anytime you wish.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, you started this thread which you supposedly wanted to discuss the following news article:

Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core - environment - 12 June 2014 - New Scientist

In stead you have hijacked your own thread going in the opposite direction of cosmology and assorted other off thread topics.

That is exactly what I have been doing with respect to the topic of this thread, not the off topic cosmology rubbish. I'll be more than happy to exchange credentials with you anytime you wish.

Because you want me to believe that this water is down there because?? Isn't it hotter down there? Wouldn't it be hotter water and wanting to rush to the surface? yet there it sits, occasionally seeping out. You have no idea if the core is actually hotter to be honest. It could be those secondary currents that exist within the crustal layers (just as on the sun), that's causing that heating. general overall with specific hotspots. Those are Telluric Currents if you are insterested.

Telluric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not that we know too much about them, being that electrical interactions is a rather forbidden topic in today's scientific view. I mean you can mention them, as long as they are then not the cause of anything observed.

But still, you got to love those Geomagnetically induced currents.

Geomagnetically induced current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But shhhh, we are not supposed to link the two together, not to then link that to those magnetic ropes connecting to the sun.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

So why again does that hot water just sit there and seep out occasionally? I mean, how'd those volcanoes get there, and those underground magma chambers and not affect that water? I got an explanation, do you?

 

[RealityCheck]

Lemme guess.... your explanation "boils down" to ....


goddidit

 

[MikeCarra]

You have no idea if the core is actually hotter to be honest.

Not to be nitpicky and introduce NON-ELECTRIC UNIVERSE stuff but we know a great deal about the core, inner and outer. Mainly by the fact that SHEAR WAVES (s seismic waves) don't pass through the outer core (hence it is liquid) and the way the p-waves DIFFRACT through the core components tells us about the DENSITY. These things together along with an understanding of general pressure/temperature PHASE RELATIONSHIPS of various materials let us know a LOT about the nature of the core.

I know it doesn't contain electric universe plasma physics topics, and I'm sure we're all the poorer for that.

It could be those secondary currents that exist within the crustal layers (just as on the sun)

So how do seismic waves refract through plasma or solar type materials? Does it behave the way normal solids do?

So why again does that hot water just sit there and seep out occasionally? I mean, how'd those volcanoes get there, and those underground magma chambers and not affect that water? I got an explanation, do you?

There really isn't that much particularly shocking about the idea of water trapped deeply. First off many minerals are HYDROUS and secondly if water is down there in some sort of small pockets or interstitially to the rocks that's not that shocking either. Subducting tectonic plates carry down a goodly bit of water into the upper mantle as well. So it's not like water simply cannot exist there.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not to be nitpicky and introduce NON-ELECTRIC UNIVERSE stuff but we know a great deal about the core, inner and outer. Mainly by the fact that SHEAR WAVES (s seismic waves) don't pass through the outer core (hence it is liquid) and the way the p-waves DIFFRACT through the core components tells us about the DENSITY. These things together along with an understanding of general pressure/temperature PHASE RELATIONSHIPS of various materials let us know a LOT about the nature of the core.

I know it doesn't contain electric universe plasma physics topics, and I'm sure we're all the poorer for that.

Actually the latest tests predict a solid inner core of crystalline iron structure.

You mean we know so much about it we just happened to overlook a vast ocean of water comparable to all the oceans on its surface? This just under Asia for now until we test more places? Apparently we didn't know as much as we thought we did.

Apparently our so excellent detection methods that tell you everything about our core missed this tiny (oceanic) little fluid area during all their theorizing.

Apparently all those seismic waves that told us all about the core didn't tell us anything at all about a vast ocean, in which the waves would have propegated in a different manner and should have been blatantly obvious if it was so incredibly accurate as you are attempting to imply.

So how do seismic waves refract through plasma or solar type materials? Does it behave the way normal solids do?

Nope, that's why it's called Alfven waves in a plasma.

Alfvén wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There really isn't that much particularly shocking about the idea of water trapped deeply. First off many minerals are HYDROUS and secondly if water is down there in some sort of small pockets or interstitially to the rocks that's not that shocking either. Subducting tectonic plates carry down a goodly bit of water into the upper mantle as well. So it's not like water simply cannot exist there.

Except according to you it should be hot there, and this water should be under extreme pressure. Then your scientists say it simply oozes out to replenish the oceans. I don't think your theories tell us anything useful at all and actually avoid the science of what really occurs with water under high pressure and high heat.

And where is this pressure heating at? The bottom of the oceans are under extreme high pressure, and cold. The deeper and more pressure there is, the colder the water becomes.

But, if we remove pressure, water will boil at room temperature and then eventually freeze.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK_BCS0CuLc

Hot water under pressure is explosive.

MythBusters: Exploding Water Heater : Video : Discovery Channel

But, but, it's just ooozing out, or so say the theorists.

 

[Mainframes]

The water detected under the crust is NOT fluid! It is part of chemical complexes with minerals and elements in the rock.

 

[MikeCarra]

Actually the latest tests predict a solid inner core of crystalline iron structure.

LOL! The inner core is solid (it has been known to be solid for decades) and the OUTER CORE is liquid.

Please, I understand that this has nothing to do with electric universe, so learn some OTHER science as a hobby or side-light!

You mean we know so much about it we just happened to overlook a vast ocean of water

It isn't like there's one giant pool of water down there. A LOT of water is tied up in hydrous minerals (part of the crystal structure), but from what I could figure from these articles is that there may be some "free water" in small bits spread throughout part of the mantle as it dewaters the ringwoodite.

The Mantle is HUGE. So, there isn't a vast ocean of water in one place.

Oh yeah, and remember: this was discovered by understanding the seismic wave refractions.

Nope, that's why it's called Alfven waves in a plasma.

Alfvén wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if the earth's interior were a PLASMA I'd care!

Except according to you it should be hot there, and this water should be under extreme pressure.

Yes. Little bits of water spread throughout the GIGANTIC MANTLE are very hot. And under pressure.

Then your scientists say it simply oozes out to replenish the oceans. I don't think your theories tell us anything useful at all and actually avoid the science of what really occurs with water under high pressure and high heat.

If the mantle were an plastic 2L bottle of coke in a hot car I'd care.

And where is this pressure heating at? The bottom of the oceans are under extreme high pressure, and cold. The deeper and more pressure there is, the colder the water becomes.

There are currents in the ocean which move water (warm and cold) up and down. So?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL! The inner core is solid (it has been known to be solid for decades) and the OUTER CORE is liquid.

Please, I understand that this has nothing to do with electric universe, so learn some OTHER science as a hobby or side-light!

I agree, the inner core is solid, and perhaps the outer nothing but porous material impregnated by liquid, as we are now finding to be quite common it seems.

It isn't like there's one giant pool of water down there. A LOT of water is tied up in hydrous minerals (part of the crystal structure), but from what I could figure from these articles is that there may be some "free water" in small bits spread throughout part of the mantle as it dewaters the ringwoodite.

"Some" free water in the mantle where we find Telluric currents and lava pools, A LOT as you agree below that, tied up in ringwoodite (porous material, which supplied that mantle. And below that we believe the outer core is liquid (molten material) and then solid core.

The Mantle is HUGE. So, there isn't a vast ocean of water in one place.

Yet here you are, finding vast oceans in one place in the mantle area...

Huge Ocean of Water Discovered Deep Below Earth's Surface : Science : Design & Trend

"Jacobsen's findings only support the idea that there is a large amount of water beneath the United States. He would like to find out if it extends around the entire planet."

Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core - environment - 12 June 2014 - New Scientist

"A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth's surface. The finding could help explain where Earth's seas came from."

Yah, you are right, there is just a little bit there, what was I thinking.

Oh yeah, and remember: this was discovered by understanding the seismic wave refractions.

And if the earth's interior were a PLASMA I'd care!

You should, 99% of the universe is. And besides which it was geologists that believed that water came from comets in agreement with astronomers. They are now no longer thinking this since comet theory has been falsified.

Not EU comet theory (which provides for water production) in their comas, and even for here on earth. How'd did your water get here again?

Yes. Little bits of water spread throughout the GIGANTIC MANTLE are very hot. And under pressure.

Yes, little bits with three times the volume of all the ocean's on the earth combined. An earth that is 98% water on it's surface.

If the mantle were an plastic 2L bottle of coke in a hot car I'd care.

But according to you the water (coke) IS in a plastic bottle (the mantle) inside of a hot car (the earth), so you should care.

If it was electrically neutral I'd care what your geologists thought. I'd have spinning perpetual motion machines spinning at it's core for 4+ billion years because by ignoring that plasma in space they also ignored those Birkeland currents connecting earth to sun. Everything observed a natural consequence, not a contrived glued together theory.

There are currents in the ocean which move water (warm and cold) up and down. So?

And the surface ones are warm, and the deeper ones under more pressure and closer to the core are cold. This helps your heated core magical dynamo theory how?

Not that I argue against a dynamo per se, we are simply debating it's true source of energy or whether it is a perpetual machine spinning against friction for 4+ billion years as geologists claim (now).

According to mainstream geologists that vast reservoir of water of three times the volume of all the earth's oceans combined, is coke in a bottle in a car, and worse the car and bottle are adding to it's pressure and heat state. You should be concerned about the state of science indeed!

But......

If you didn't ignore 99% of the universe (of which the earth is but a speck therein) you could explain all those anomalies easily.