Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Justa said:Cosmological redshift has nothing to do with expansion or acceleration. It is the effect of light interacting with plasma.
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
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'.
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."
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.....
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.
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...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 said:So you are telling me you believe a theory 99% accurate needs 96% gap filler to be ummm, accurate?
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.
There was nothing wrong with your wording, I understood what you meant quite clearly.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).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.
Fact: except it is plasma.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.
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.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.
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.The sheer irony this article is so comprehensively wrong and have you completely misunderstood it.
Unfortunately two wrongs don't make a right.
Except again the only one that was mistaking the facts was you. You want increased recessional velocities without acceleration.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
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.
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.....If you just want to discuss electric/plasma universe theory, I suggest doing it with Michael, I'm not really that interested.
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.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?