Time Dilation and the Speed of Light

[sjastro]

Cosmological redshift has nothing to do with expansion or acceleration. It is the effect of light interacting with plasma.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Still peddling this nonsense even after when it was pointed out to you in another thread the article explicitly states that hydrogen gas "causes" redshift not plasma.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of the garbage you have posted in this thread.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The accumulation of charge on a spacecraft is quite different from the net charge of a body of plasma.

Hmm, let's have a look at the abstract: "This field is a consequence of the tendency of light electrons to segregate from heavier protons in the solar gravitational field"

And now what I said: "large plasma aggregations, such as the sun, have a relatively tiny net charge (due to more electrons than protons being lost in the solar wind).

I said the net charge is 'relatively tiny' in the context of its attractive effects compared to the sun's gravity.

I notice you have a tendency to ignore context when trying to find statements to counter or criticize. It's a bad habit - taking quotes out of context is a form of Straw Man fallacy. Just sayin'.

Except their is no quantum theory of gravity........ Since we are discussing atomic interactions (protons and electrons - and ions) we are discussing electromagnetic effects, not gravitational. I notice you ignore this. Just saying....

Apparently you are not aware of what charge separation entails.

Electric Field Intensity

And your theory doesnt hold up to actual measurements. The slow solar wind is the densest and most abundant and consists primarily or ions and protons - positive particles, not negative. Your confused because you believe higher electron temperatures than ion temperature (therefore easier to measure) means more electrons. Not to mention you conveniently left out all the positive ions and elements detected in the solar wind which all together vastly outnumber the electrons. But you don't want to talk about ions and elements in the solar wind, do you, just protons. Typical binocular vision.... Not to mention all your models are of a static nature....

Solar wind - Wikipedia

"The slow solar wind is twice as dense and more variable in nature than the fast solar wind."

http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/3909/2009/angeo-27-3909-2009.pdf

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/196/meta

Not to mention without an electric field you have no plausible explanation for the solar wind continuing to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter. But that's because actual tests falsified your convection models.

https://phys.org/news/2012-07-unexpectedly-motions-sun-surface.html

Your only answer is pseudoscience.

Solar wind - Wikipedia

"While early models of the solar wind relied primarily on thermal energy to accelerate the material, by the 1960s it was clear that thermal acceleration alone cannot account for the high speed of solar wind. An additional unknown acceleration mechanism is required and likely relates to magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere."

Except magnetic fields do not accelerate charged particles. They merely change a particles direction, which is why all particle accelerators use electric fields to accelerate particles, and magnetic fields to guide the particles.

The Lorentz Force

"However, this angle is always

for the force exerted by a magnetic field on a charged particle, since the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the particle's instantaneous direction of motion. It follows that a magnetic field is unable to do work on a charged particle. In other words, a charged particle can never gain or lose energy due to interaction with a magnetic field. On the other hand, a charged particle can certainly gain or lose energy due to interaction with an electric field. Thus, magnetic fields are often used in particle accelerators to guide charged particle motion (e.g., in a circle), but the actual acceleration is always performed by electric fields. "

Pseudoscience is really all you people have, since none of your models actually work...

And need I remind you that every single heliospheric model was falsified as that same solar wind came to an inexplicable halt at the heliosphere. But since you ignore those double layers and electric fields, you of course are left with nothing but falsified models.....

Heliosphere - Wikipedia

""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."

So your convection models are flawed, none of your heliospheric models were correct, and you use pseudoscience to explain the acceleration, even if tyhe physics says its wrong..... Frankly I wouldnt trust those people to explain anything, unless you like pseudoscience and incorrect models.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still peddling this nonsense even after when it was pointed out to you in another thread the article explicitly states that hydrogen gas "causes" redshift not plasma.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of the garbage you have posted in this thread.

And just how do you think they detect this highly charged hydrogen gas radiating at high enough energies to be detectable from 100's of thousands of light years away?

Hydrogen - Wikipedia

"Non-remnant stars are mainly composed of hydrogen in the plasma state."

"1H is the most common hydrogen isotope with an abundance of more than 99.98%. Because the nucleus of this isotope consists of only a single proton, it is given the descriptive but rarely used formal name protium."

"Throughout the universe, hydrogen is mostly found in the atomic and plasma states, with properties quite different from those of molecular hydrogen. As a plasma, hydrogen's electron and proton are not bound together, resulting in very high electrical conductivity and high emissivity (producing the light from the Sun and other stars). The charged particles are highly influenced by magnetic and electric fields."

Learn your physics before you comment.

And as was pointed out to you then, you were wrong, but still peddling the same mistakes as always. You should have learned better by now. I think your ice berg just flipped on you.....

 

[sjastro]

And just how do you think they detect this highly charged hydrogen gas radiating at high enough energies to be detectable from 100's of thousands of light years away?

Hydrogen - Wikipedia

"Non-remnant stars are mainly composed of hydrogen in the plasma state."

"1H is the most common hydrogen isotope with an abundance of more than 99.98%. Because the nucleus of this isotope consists of only a single proton, it is given the descriptive but rarely used formal name protium."

One Proton - i.e. an ion - plasma......

"Throughout the universe, hydrogen is mostly found in the atomic and plasma states, with properties quite different from those of molecular hydrogen. As a plasma, hydrogen's electron and proton are not bound together, resulting in very high electrical conductivity and high emissivity (producing the light from the Sun and other stars). The charged particles are highly influenced by magnetic and electric fields."

Learn your physics before you comment.

And as was pointed out to you then, you were wrong, but still peddling the same mistakes as always.
You should have learned better by now. I think your ice berg just flipped on you.....

What an absolute joke.
Why don't you try defending the very article you are supporting instead of engaging in this blatant diversion.
The fact is the author is not referring to scattering by plasma full stop.

This is what he states in the abstract.

A careful study of the mechanism for the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gaseous atoms and molecules shows that an electron is always momentarily accelerated as a consequence of the momentum transfer imparted by a photon. Such an acceleration of an electric charge produces bremsstrahlung.

Fact: Gaseous atoms are not plasma.
Fact: Molecules are not plasma.

Here is another fact the author using the scattering cross section of atomic hydrogen, why isn't he using the scattering cross section of a proton for his calculations instead if plasma is involved.

The sheer irony this article is so comprehensively wrong and have you completely misunderstood it.
Unfortunately two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except their is no quantum theory of gravity........ Since we are discussing atomic interactions (protons and electrons - and ions) we are discussing electromagnetic effects, not gravitational. I notice you ignore this. Just saying....

Surprisingly, there is a quantum theory of gravity, and it works very well in 'normal' regimes - unfortunately it breaks down in extreme regimes, where it would actually be useful. Early days...

I was discussing the relative influence of electromagnetic force compared with gravity, to explain why gravity is the dominant force at large scales.

If you just want to discuss electric/plasma universe theory, I suggest doing it with Michael, I'm not really that interested.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Surprisingly, there is a quantum theory of gravity, and it works very well in 'normal' regimes - unfortunately it breaks down in extreme regimes, where it would actually be useful. Early days...

I was discussing the relative influence of electromagnetic force compared with gravity, to explain why gravity is the dominant force at large scales.

If you just want to discuss electric/plasma universe theory, I suggest doing it with Michael, I'm not really that interested.

I beg to differ, it doesnt work anywhere.

Quantum gravity - Wikipedia

"The problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions."

But it isnt the dominate force at large scales. It's only the dominant force with non ionized matter, .1% of the universe, planetary systems. We already know its been tested to a 99% accuracy without all that Fairie Dust. So you are telling me you believe a theory 99% accurate needs 96% gap filler to be ummm, accurate?

In the vast reaches of space it is those electromagnetic forces between particles that dominate, not an r/2 force from light years away, but an r/2 force 10^39 powers stronger from centimeters away.

You were already made aware you need to stop treating those single charged particles like clumps of particles. Yet you continue to do so.

Moondust in the Wind | Science Mission Directorate

"We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

"Small positively charged dust grains (grains with a deficiency of electrons) lose electrons (charge more positively) upon bombardment with an electron beam. Large positively charged grains gain electrons (discharge) to some constant charge (called equilibrium charge)."

"Both small and large negatively charged dust grains (grains with extra electrons) eject electrons (and therefore take on a less negative charge) upon bombardment."

 

[SelfSim]

So Justatruthseeker has turned this thread into a 'Please can someone explain what I'm reading?' thread again, eh?

So you are telling me you believe a theory 99% accurate needs 96% gap filler to be ummm, accurate?

Just as what anyone 'believes', when it comes to practising science is irrelevant, so too is your question.

 

[Radrook]

So Justatruthseeker has turned this thread into a 'Please can someone explain what I'm reading?' thread again, eh?

Just as what anyone 'believes', when it comes to practising science is irrelevant, so too is your question.

Please note that the only reason that I posted my understanding of what Justatruthseeker wrote was not as an indication that he was being vague.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh and you forgot this part when you quoted from the paper, accidentally I know......

"The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity and compensates for a half of the gravity, when it acts on an electron or proton, respectively."

Of course being 918 times stronger his belief in half doesn't quite fit.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

First, thanks for responding to this thread/ But I think there is something that needs clarification lest it be misunderstood.

Please note that the only reason that I posted my understanding of what Justatruthseeker wrote was to make sure that I was understanding the concepts right and not as an indication that he was being vague.

Sometimes things are difficult to understand because we lack the necessary scientific familiarity with the concepts to fully comprehend them. For example, to me the Plasma Universe concept is totally new. True, I had seen some videos where the theory was explained briefly. However, many of the fine nuances that are coming into play in this debate beween Justatruthseeker and Frumiousbandersnatch weren't included.

So in an effort to ascertain that I am following the jist of the debate reasonable well, I sometimes write my understanding of it so that if I am wrong then I can be corrected.

There was nothing wrong with your wording, I understood what you meant quite clearly.

You just dared to question the status quo and not take their Fairie Dust on faith, so came under personal attack. They understood you clearly too, that's why you were personally attacked. You are not to question, but accept as truth everything they tell you. You are not entitled to your own reasoning and opinions in the dictatorship of modern cosmology. Why else attack you for asking a simple clarifying question, besides they have no logical answers.

Edit: notice the make nice post after this since I posted this. Wolves in sheeps......

And they still avoided answering your question......

 

[SelfSim]

First, thanks for responding to this thread/ But I think there is something that needs clarification lest it be misunderstood.

Please note that the only reason that I posted my understanding of what Justatruthseeker wrote was to make sure that I was understanding the concepts right and not as an indication that he was being vague.

Sometimes things are difficult to understand because we lack the necessary scientific familiarity with the concepts to fully comprehend them. For example, to me the Plasma Universe concept is totally new. True, I had seen some videos where the theory was explained briefly. However, many of the fine nuances that are coming into play in this debate beween Justatruthseeker and Frumiousbandersnatch weren't included.

So in an effort to ascertain that I am following the jist of the debate reasonable well, I sometimes write my understanding of it so that if I am wrong then I can be corrected.

Hi Radrook .. The only issues in this thread have been posted by Justatruthseeker. Namely, he continually posts claims of deliberate misinformation when it comes to the correct interpretation of mainstream science's theories. His 'clarifications' to his own posts on mainstream science are confused, even to him. (Feel free to explore this phenomenon for yourself).

'Plasma Universe theories' is a misnomer as there is no single agreed position amongst the Electric Universe (EU)/Plasma Universe acolytes. The reason for this is that these stories are completely inconsistent and do not unify the ideas they attempt to pursue. The EU ideas simply never stand up to what is already known about Physics and when this is demonstrated, we see gobbledegook and a smokescreens of deflection miraculously appearing.

Time dilation is not a topic for which any amateur scientist can reasonably expect accurate clarifications from a poster such as Justatruthseeker (or 'Michael').

We are all students in our attempts to interpret what the mainstream science position actually is. More often than not, the counter-intuitivity of how we explain the Universe's behaviors makes this a significant challenge for most of us. Misinformation makes it almost impossible. Inquisitiveness and the drive to understand actual mainstream positions hopefully, will get us through all the smokescreens (I hope).

Cheers

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What an absolute joke.
Why don't you try defending the very article you are supporting instead of engaging in this blatant diversion.
The fact is the author is not referring to scattering by plasma full stop.

This is what he states in the abstract.


Fact: Gaseous atoms are not plasma.
Fact: Molecules are not plasma.

Fact: except it is plasma.

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."

But then you incorrectly call those plasma halos surrounding the galaxy "gas", despite it radiating at 2 million degrees. So that you and other astronomers use the term gas doesn't mean that much except to show you don't understand plasma.

Here is another fact the author using the scattering cross section of atomic hydrogen, why isn't he using the scattering cross section of a proton for his calculations instead if plasma is involved.

Because you are still confused as to what makes plasma plasma. Ions are plasma, not just protons or electrons. Any charged particle (versus non ionized matter) is a plasma.

The sheer irony this article is so comprehensively wrong and have you completely misunderstood it.
Unfortunately two wrongs don't make a right.

And yet you can't prove a single thing wrong except to just make the standard claims that it's wrong.... and since astrophysicists call plasma radiating at 2 million degrees "gas" I am not sure you will ever understand.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi Radrook .. The only issues in this thread have been posted by Justatruthseeker. Namely, he continually posts claims of deliberate misinformation when it comes to the correct interpretation of mainstream science's theories. His 'clarifications' to his own posts on mainstream science are confused, even to him. (Feel free to explore this phenomenon for yourself).

'Plasma Universe theories' is a misnomer as there is no single agreed position amongst the Electric Universe (EU)/Plasma Universe acolytes. The reason for this is that these stories are completely inconsistent and do not unify the ideas they attempt to pursue. The EU ideas simply never stand up to what is already known about Physics and when this is demonstrated, we see gobbledegook and a smokescreens of deflection miraculously appearing.

Time dilation is not a topic for which any amateur scientist can reasonably expect accurate clarifications from a poster such as Justatruthseeker (or 'Michael').

We are all students in our attempts to interpret what the mainstream science position actually is. More often than not, the counter-intuitivity of how we explain the Universe's behaviors makes this a significant challenge for most of us. Misinformation makes it almost impossible. Inquisitiveness and the drive to understand actual mainstream positions hopefully, will get us through all the smokescreens (I hope).

Cheers

Except again the only one that was mistaking the facts was you. You want increased recessional velocities without acceleration.

You call plasma radiating at 2 million degrees 'gas"

As posted here you convienently left out the charge is 918 times stronger than the gravitational force. Somehow that's only half the force, but hey....

Time Dilation and the Speed of Light

You got a theory that's 99% accurate describing non ionized matter, planetary systems, .1% of the universe, then find no contradiction to adding 96% Fairie Dust to a theory tested to 99% accuracy to make it accurate....

I am sure he can indeed see the contradictions being he isn't indoctrinated yet, and will see they all stem from your side.

But of course you can give a reasonable explanation of time dilation, even when you are required to use time dilation corrections in every explanation, just not when it comes to the age of the earth, but only the age of twins, right?

 

[sjastro]

Fact: except it is plasma.

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."

But then you incorrectly call those plasma halos surrounding the galaxy "gas", despite it radiating at 2 million degrees. So that you and other astronomers use the term gas doesn't mean that much except to show you don't understand plasma.


Because you are still confused as to what makes plasma plasma. Ions are plasma, not just protons or electrons. Any charged particle (versus non ionized matter) is a plasma.


And yet you can't prove a single thing wrong except to just make the standard claims that it's wrong.... and since astrophysicists call plasma radiating at 2 million degrees "gas" I am not sure you will ever understand.

Who are you trying to kid.

You have been comprehensively caught out for being wilfully ignorant.
The fact is Marmet’s paper has absolutely nothing to do with the scattering of plasma and your scratching around on the Internet isn’t going to change that.
Anywhere in the Universe where gas exists in the atomic or molecular state is not plasma, get over it.

Apart from having zero comprehension of Marmet’s paper, you are blissfully unaware of accusing Marmat for not knowing the difference between gas or plasma either, in which case using his paper to defend your own ideas is the height of idiocy

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you just want to discuss electric/plasma universe theory, I suggest doing it with Michael, I'm not really that interested.

Likewise, if you just want to ignore 99.9% of the universe, I'm really not that interested either in discussing Fairie Dust because you ignored 99.9% of the universe.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who are you trying to kid.

You have been comprehensively caught out for being wilfully ignorant.
The fact is Marmet’s paper has absolutely nothing to do with the scattering of plasma and your scratching around on the Internet isn’t going to change that.
Anywhere in the Universe where gas exists in the atomic or molecular state is not plasma, get over it.

Apart from having zero comprehension of Marmet’s paper, you are blissfully unaware of accusing Marmat for not knowing the difference between gas or plasma either, in which case using his paper to defend your own ideas is the height of idiocy

Except your own astrophysicists admit that 99% of the universe is plasma, so we can discount your tirade for what it is, willfully ignoring 99.9% of the universe.

But what you forget is that Marmet is taking the temperature into account, so in reality he is treating it as a plasma, even if you have willingly blinded yourself to 99.9% of the universe in your pitiful attempt to defend your pseudoscience.

Don't you have at least one scientific fact to back up your claims? Oh that's right, my bad, 96% of your belief has never been seen or detected in any laboratory. Sorry about that, I certainly respect your right to freedom of religion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey, but don't worry, now we don't even need redshift, because apparently that isn't reliable. Now we can tell a galaxies distance by simply splitting the spectrum into its individual colors (even if they have all been shifted to the red end of the spectrum), cough, cough.

Most distant galaxy: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record

Something has been broken alright.

"However, the discovery also raises many new questions as the existence of such a bright and large galaxy is not predicted by theory. "

Theory turns out to be a flop once again. Time after time after time theory is wrong, yet you all never question the theory..... or the starting point which led to the theory being wrong in the first place.

And then they blithely go on to talk about black holes, without bothering to mention that black holes take longer to form than galaxies, because first you need the buildup of enough mass to form a black hole let alone a galaxy.... theory flops again.....

For experts they sure seem surprised every article released and nothing ever matches theory.

 

[sjastro]

Except your own astrophysicists admit that 99% of the universe is plasma, so we can discount your tirade for what it is, willfully ignoring 99.9% of the universe.

But what you forget is that Marmet is taking the temperature into account, so in reality he is treating it as a plasma, even if you have willingly blinded yourself to 99.9% of the universe in your pitiful attempt to defend your pseudoscience.

Don't you have at least one scientific fact to back up your claims? Oh that's right, my bad, 96% of your belief has never been seen or detected in any laboratory. Sorry about that, I certainly respect your right to freedom of religion.

It's one thing spreading misinformation about mainstream as Selfsim has mentioned, now you are spreading misinformation about a paper that "supports" you own ideas.
While you lack the comprehension and technical skills in understanding Marmet's paper, he still makes it very clear in plain English that scattering is not caused by plasma.

By all means continue with the diversions, spin doctoring and straight out lying, you are doing a sterling job in showing why no one should take you seriously.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's one thing spreading misinformation about mainstream as Selfsim has mentioned, now you are spreading misinformation about a paper that "supports" you own ideas.
While you lack the comprehension and technical skills in understanding Marmet's paper, he still makes it very clear in plain English that scattering is not caused by plasma.

By all means continue with the diversions, spin doctoring and straight out lying, you are doing a sterling job in showing why no one should take you seriously.

Says those who call the halos surrounding our galaxy radiating at 2 million degrees "gas" and then if you look hard enough will call it by its true name, plasma.

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas

So that you can't understand the difference does not surprise me, nor your ability to comprehend the difference. They should know better to call it gas, which conveys the wrong impression, as you have clearly displayed.

Galactic halo - Wikipedia

You got no argument, except to ignore 99.9% of the universe and treat it with the wrong physics which leads to requiring 96% Fairie Dust. You know this too, that's why you only engage in personal attacks without presenting any science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And you all have yet to answer Radook's question. If you can't do so just say so.